U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528 Homeland Security March 29, 2019 SENT VIA EMAIL TO: weiserw@brennan.law.nyu.edu Wendy Weiser Brennan Center for Justice, Director 120 Broadway, Suite 1750 New York, NY 10271 Re: 17-cv-06335 (2018-HQFO-00465) Brennan Center for Justice and the Protect Democracy Project v. DOJ, et al. Fifth Interim Release Dear Ms. Weiser: This is our fifth interim response to your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), dated January 8, 2018. For this production, DHS reviewed 6,873 pages of which 636 pages are released in full, 79 pages are withheld in full, and 255 pages are withheld in part pursuant to FOIA exemptions (b)(5), (b)(6), (b)(7)(a), (b)(7)(c), and (b)(7)(e). 5,787 pages are duplicates or non-responsive. DHS has also located and sent 116 pages to other agencies for consultation. The 970 pages for release are bates stamped DHS-001-6335-000271 to DHS-001-6335-001240. In addition, for your awareness, we have identified an additional 509 pages to be reviewed and processed and we plan to produce any non-exempt records to you early next week. If you have any questions regarding this release, please contact Assistant U.S. Attorney Casey Lee, United States Attorney’s Office, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, by email at Casey.Lee@usdoj.gov. Sincerely, Bradley E. White FOIA Program Specialist Enclosure: 970 pages From: I Corbin, Susan lb)(6) lb)l6) I I To: r )(6) FW: Res onse Requested: l(b)(S) Subject: (b)(5) I I Date: 2018/01/05 15:51:14 Priority: Normal Type: Note This is simply to show you an example of how emails matter ... and litigation is involved in so much of what we do. Please don't forward. Susan Corbin Senior Advisor OHS Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office l; Hoffman, Jonathan ¥b)(6) ~; Lapan, David ) ______ Corbin, Susan assidy, Ben ~..,_(b..)(:. ,,_6"- __.h Cc~b)(6) F . . . . . . . . . .___;:===============::!--------------------. OGC LCD Litigation ; Hoffman, Jonathan (b)(6) b)(6) Lapan, David ..------'--~~~~~---------' Cassidy, Ben < (b)(6) Cc: Corbin, Susan b)(6) OGC LCD Litigation b)(6) '-----;====================-------------------. Subject: Response Requested: (b)(S) Good afternoon, (b)(5) Thank you, l(b)(6) I ~b)(6) Attorney-Advisor (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security (b)(6) Office) I( l . _(Mobile) ........... )(...... 6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __. E-mail:l(b DHS-001-6335-000272 This communica 1 any attachments, may contain confidenti privileged information. If the reader of this message recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distributi ymg of this message is stnc . If you have received ease reply to the sender and delete this message. Sender: Recipient: I Corbin Susan rb )(6) (b)(6) (b)(6) Sent Date: 2018/01/05 15:51: 13 Delivered Date: 2018/01/05 15:51: 14 DHS-001-6335-000273 1) In testimony on April 5, 2017 you assured me that you would "absolutely" provide the Committee with a copy of the requests made by Border Patrol sector chiefs regarding where additional infrastructure and technology should be deployed along the Southwest border as soon as you received the requests. A month later, in a May 5 letter, I again requested "full copies of the prioritized operational requirements for border barrier that the Border Patrol has identified." According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 Congressional Justification, the very same document I requested and you assured me you would provide the Committee - the Southwest Border Capability Roadmap - was completed by U.S. Border Patrol in April 201 7. According to CBP, the roadmap "identifies updated operational requirements needed to achieve operational control of the southern border" and was used to inform DHS's decision to spend $2.6 billion on 74 miles of border barrier along the Southwest border in addition to high-priority tactical infrastructure and border security technology improvements in FY 2018. Is CBP's Congressional Justification accurate? Was the Southwest Border Capability Roadmap completed in April 2017? If so, when will you provide the Committee with a copy of the Southwest Border Capability Roadmap? 2) As it relates to land at issue in the placement of new border wall identified in the FY 2018 budget, how many parcels of unacquired land have been identified? Have the affected property owners been contacted and, if so, how? 3) In March, an internal CBP memo regarding the hire of an additional 5,000 Border Patrol Agents referenced plans for staff distribution that were either "Threat & Need Based" or for the "Southwest Border Only." While I understand that most new Border Patrol Agents begin their careers at the southern border for training purposes, I am concerned that this memo contemplates a scenario where no additional new or existing agents are deployed to the northern border. Has CBP selected either the "Threat & Need Based" or "Southwest Border Only" staffing option? Given an additional 5,000 Border Patrol Agents as called for in Executive Order 13767, how many additional Agents will Border Patrol assign to the northern border? 4) On March 2, 2017, I requested all reports generated by Executive Orders 13767, "Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,'' 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," and 13769, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States" as soon as they are finalized. These reports include but are not limited to 90-day progress reports to the President regarding implementation of Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, both of which were due no later than April 25, 2017. To date, no reports required by the executive orders have been provided to the Committee. You stated in a letter dated June 9, 2017 that no reports have been generated under Executive Order 13769. You explained in your testimony that the ongoing litigation over Executive Order 13769 prevented the Department from completing these reports. DHS-001-6335-000274 With regard to Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, you stated that "DHS will work with the Committee to exchange information in a timely and appropriate manner." Has DHS generated any reports, including but not limited to the 90-day progress reports that were required by Executive Orders 13767 and 13768? If so, for each report that has been generated in adherence with Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, please provide the date on which the reports were transmitted to the President. Will you commit to providing the Committee with copies of all reports that have already been generated under Executive Orders 13767 and 13768, and will you commit to providing the Committee with copies of all future reports required by Executive Orders 13767 and 13768 when they are transmitted to the President? 5) On April 12, 2017, The Washington Post published an article citing a draft version of the 90day progress report required under Executive Order 13767. The draft report described CBP's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) progress in updating operational programs, deploying additional detention facilities, hiring 15,000 Border Patrol agents and immigration officers, entering into 287(g) agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, and responding to requests for asylum. Regarding CBP's progress in implementing Executive Order 13767, I ask for: A description of the initiatives CBP is implementing in order to expedite the hiring of additional personnel; A description of CBP's plans for hiring additional CBP officers at our nation's ports of entry, given the statement in the draft progress report that "improving border security to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking, and acts of terror, also necessitates the hiring of additional CBP Officers"; and The CBP-wide agency plan to expand the 287(g) program and enhance border security efforts with state and local law enforcement agencies. 6) On April 12, 2017, The Washing ton Post published an article citing a draft version of the 90day progress report required under Executive Order 13767. The draft report described CBP's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) progress in updating operational programs, deploying additional detention facilities, hiring 15,000 Border Patrol agents and immigration officers, entering into 287(g) agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, and responding to requests for asylum. Regarding ICE's progress in implementing Executive Order 13767, I ask for: DHS-001-6335-000275 The field guidance ICE issued to each of its operational programs on February 21, 2017; A list of each detention facility where capacity has been added since January 25, 2017, the number of detention beds that have been added at each facility, and the name of each entity that operates each detention facility; A list of the 27 potential locations capable of providing 21,000 additional bed spaces that ICE has identified; 7) On April 12, 2017, The Washington Post published an article citing a draft version of the 90day progress report required under Executive Order 13767. The draft report described CBP's, Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE's), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS's) progress in updating operational programs, deploying additional detention facilities, hiring 15,000 Border Patrol agents and immigration officers, entering into 287(g) agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, and responding to requests for asylum. Regarding USCIS's progress in implementing Executive Order 13767, I ask for: The revised - and unrevised - instructions on the proper application of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA); The report on the "vulnerabilities in the asylum program and steps to be taken to mitigate/eliminate such vulnerabilities" that was referenced in the draft progress report. 8) The President's FY 2018 budget request would increase DHS's overall net discretionary budget authority by $2.8 billion - or 6.8 percent - compared to annualized levels contained in the FY 2017 Continuing Resolution (CR) while significantly reducing staffing and spending at the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The President requested a reduction of $3.2 million - or 2.3 percent - for the OIG compared to the FY 2017 CR. Compared to spending levels contained in the FY 2017 omnibus spending bill Congress approved in May, the President's request would reduce funding for the OIG by $17 million - or 9. 7 percent. Do you support the President's request to reduce funding for the OIG in FY 2018? Why or why not? Do you believe that when the overall budget authority at DHS increases, the budget for the OIG should grow proportionally? 9) The President's budget request would reduce funding by more than $500 million for DHS programs intended to build state and local resilience to terrorist attacks. The proposed cuts include $156.1 million to the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), $117.6 million to the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), $70. 7 million to the Emergency Management Performance DHS-001-6335-000276 Grant (EMPG) program, $52.2 million to the Port Security Grant Program (PSGP), $52.2 million to the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP), $45 million to the Law Enforcement Officer Reimbursement Program, $43 million for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams, $39 million for the Complex Coordinated Terrorist Attacks (CCTA) program, and $10 million for the Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) grant program. Given the number and magnitude of threats facing our country, do you support the President's request to reduce funding for these counterterrorism programs in FY 2018? Why or why not? 10) The President's FY 2018 budget request would reduce funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program by $41.1 million. This is a program that supports various initiatives aimed at mitigating against natural disasters before they occur, such as retrofitting public buildings against hurricane-force winds or seismic damage, acquiring and relocating properties out of flood-prone areas, elevating structures that lie within a floodplain, flood-proofing public buildings, managing vegetation to mitigate against wildfires, and constructing or converting public spaces into safe rooms in tornado-prone areas. Discretionary funding for the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP's) Flood Hazard Mapping and Risk Analysis Program (Risk MAP) would also be reduced by $189.6 million. Based on FEMA's map inventory, 98.8% of the U.S. population is covered by an existing flood map; however, many of the maps do not account for recent population growth and development and were produced using outdated technology. Do you support the President's request to reduce funding for the PDM grant program and Risk MAP in FY 2018? Why or why not? 11) To which countries has the Federal Air Marshal Service provided training to develop or enhance their own Air Marshal program? Please list the countries that have participated in the last year and the countries that will participate through 2018 and describe the training. 12) On June 12, 2017, Governor Eric Greitens signed legislation aimed at bringing the state of Missouri into compliance with the REAL ID Act of 2005. As DHS Secretary, you have the authority, once an extension is requested, to grant extensions to non-compliant states that have taken legislative action to come into compliance with the provisions of the REAL ID Act. Have you or other DHS officials reviewed the legislation that Governor Greitens signed into law on June 12, 2017? Do you intend to grant an extension to the state of Missouri once a request is made? 13). Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach was quoted in The Kansas City Star on May 11, 2017 as saying that the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, created by DHS-001-6335-000277 Executive Order 13799, would have full-time staff from the Office of the Vice President and the Department of Homeland Security. Are you aware of any plans to staff the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with DHS employees? If so, what office within DHS will staff the Commission, how many DHS employees will staff the Commission, and what is DHS's anticipated annual budget for the Commission? 14) Under Section 543 of Division F of the FY 2017 omnibus spending legislation, you were given the authority, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor and upon determining that there are not American workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform nonagricultural labor, to raise the annual cap on H-2B visas by an amount not exceeding the number of "returning workers" who were exempted from the H-2B cap in any previous fiscal year. Have you determined whether you will raise the H-2B visa cap for the remainder of FY 2017? If so, how many additional H-2B visas will be available for the remainder of the fiscal year? 15) The U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) complex mission to provide security, facilitate operations, and manage 328 ports of entry (POEs) throughout the country in partnership with the General Services Administration (GSA). In both 2010 and 2014, CBP provided the House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security with a report, National Land Border Ports of Entry Assessment, which lists current POE infrastructure and explains their various needs. Please provide an updated report if it is available. Please provide the below information if it is not provided in the updated report: A list of all land POEs that includes: Modes of access (truck or rail crossings) and current infrastructure (number of lanes or rail lines) Annual commercial traffic volume by mode (truck and rail) Average traffic crossing wait time (truck and rail) Ownership structure (CBP, GSA, state or local government, private partnership) A prioritized list of land POE commercial traffic infrastructure needs that includes: Estimated costs for completion Age of infrastructure since last refurbishment Ongoing infrastructure projects Land POE commercial traffic funding in the last 10 years, including: Spending at CBP and GSA sites Appropriations for CBP and GSA sites. DHS-001-6335-000278 16) Please provide a list of all electronic device search software that the Department has purchased from 2007 through the present. State the contract number for each purchase, the date of the purchase, and the name of the developer and seller of the software. For all electronic device search software that DHS has purchased from 2007 to the present, please provide a detailed explanation of the Department's intended purpose in using the software, as well as any policies and guidelines that govern the potential use of the software. 17) Secretary Kelly, do you agree that a wall to secure the southern border of the United States may consist of fences, drones, towers, personnel, and/or hardware and software technologies to prevent illegal immigration, drug and human trafficking and acts of terrorism? How will $1 .59 billion investment in a physical wall advance this definition? 18) $197.2 million is proposed to provide southwest border technology, which is approximately 12% of $1.59 billion budget for a physical wall. According to your assessment, is this sufficient to provide the technological surveillance necessary to achieve a virtual wall that will more effectively secure our border? 19) There are 18,000 Border Patrol agents. Last month, there were 12,000 apprehensions. That is less than 1 apprehension per agent over the entire month. With the number of apprehensions dropping, do we need an additional 5,000 Border Patrol agents rather than use those resources elsewhere to prevent the entry of manufactured narcotics? With an increase in CBP officers, has there been an increase in effectiveness in preventing manufactured heroin from crossing the border and ports of entry? 20) In fiscal year 2016, $750 million was appropriated to address root causes to deter and prevent children and families in the Northern Triangle from illegally immigrating to the U.S. Although a budget was drafted, there is no public data as to the effectiveness of the program and how the fund was allocated. How will the $7.94 billion budget request for immigration and customs enforcement address the issue of unaccompanied minors in the United States? 21) Our greatest collective frustration has been the lack of any direction from this administration or the lack on how we should be deterring our adversaries in cyberspace. With $971.3 million being budgeted for cyber activities, how could an overly strict interpretation of sovereignty limit or impair the Department of Defense's ability to plan or employ offensive cyber capabilities? 22) Additional $42.3 million is allocated to allow the National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) to protect private sector entities through the Enhanced Cybersecurity Services program. What is the intersection between the civilian hub, National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC), Federal entities, and non-Federal entities, including the private sector? DHS-001-6335-000279 23) The President's budget states that Science and Technology Directorate assesses that capabilities at the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) can be replicated at other faci lities. IfNBACC is closed as proposed in the President's budget, which specific agencies or organizations will assume responsibility for supporting the threat characterization currently conducted by NBACC? Has DHS coordinated with these entities? Were similar determinations and plans made for the Chemical Security Analysis Center (CSAC)? 24) I understand NBACC has already received notification that the organization should begin developing a closure plan. Given the dependency of any such closing on Congressional action, what steps are you planning to take, if any, regarding the closure of NBACC following the completion of the closure plan and prior to the completion of the Congressional authorization and appropriations process for FY2018? 25) At the hearing you stated that the Coast Guard plans to buy six icebreakers, three heavy and three medium. Does the current acquisition plan of record for the Polar Icebreaker Program reflect this intention? The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-120), Section 207, POLAR ICEBREAKERS, states: "(a) INCREMENTAL FUNDING AUTHORIZED FOR POLAR ICEBREAKERS - In fiscal year 2016 and each fiscal year thereafter, the Commandant of the Coast Guard may enter into a contract or contracts for the acquisition of Polar Icebreakers and associated equipment using incremental funding."(§207(a)) This authorization provides the Coast Guard with the ability to enter into a contract or contracts to acquire as many new Polar Icebreakers as are required - as long as the Coast Guard uses the incremental funding acquisition process. I understand that the current Polar Icebreaker acquisition process now being executed by the Coast Guard does not take advantage of this authorization. What evaluation process occurred prior to the Coast Guard decision not to enter into a contract or contracts to acquire as many Polar Icebreakers as are required using the incremental acquisition process? Was a formal cost-evaluation completed to compare the existing Polar Icebreaker acquisition process and a block buy incremental acquisition process? If not, why not? 26) I understand that FEMA is conducting a review of the risk methodology used to determine Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) allocations. What is the schedule for that review and what is the plan to incorporate Congressional and stakeholder input? 27) For the last several years, I have been a strong advocate for the Department of Homeland Security's Headquarters Consolidation at St Elizabeths. I firmly believe that finishing the DHS headquarters would improve our national security, increase morale and productivity at the Department, and save money for the taxpayers. DHS-001-6335-000280 The President's budget proposes $135 million for GSA's portion of DHS Consolidation at St Elizabeths but does not include DHS funding for new development at the site. As you know, GSA is largely responsible for infrastructure investments at the site, while DHS is responsible for tenant renovations and improvements. Can you please share your vision for Headquarters consolidation? Is the current funding request enough to keep the project on schedule? Have other Administration infrastructure priorities for DHS, such as building a border wall, shifted resources away from DHS Headquarters consolidation at St. Es? 28) Cybersecurity breaches, such as the "WannaCry" ransomware attack last month, are becoming more common and increasingly rely not on expensive or sophisticated technology, but on a combination of common software bugs and user error. It is important that the Department have the resources it needs-including qualified cybersecurity professionals-to help work with private sector partners and federal agencies to detect, mitigate, and respond to such attacks. Please provide an update on the Department's progress in hiring and training qualified cybersecurity professionals. What portion of the increased cybersecurity funding will go to building up DHS's cyber workforce? 29) Last year in the wake of the attacks on the airport in Brussels, the Senate voted 91 to 5 for an amendment to double the number ofTSA Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response, or VIPR teams. These teams patrol our airports and public transit spaces in order to deter and respond to terrorist attacks. The provision, which I worked on with a number of my colleagues including Senator Heinrich, was ultimately signed into law. Instead of funding the doubled teams, the President's FY2018 budget request cuts the number of VIPR teams to eight. Please explain how this proposed cut is justified in light of increased attacks on soft targets. 30) Senator Harris and I sent a letter to DHS last month asking a number of questions about ICE' s use of private, for-profit detention facilities. As you know, an outside panel last year reviewed these facilities and found that these facilities are generally less safe than publicly run facilities, and made a number of recommendations for their improvement. DHS-001-6335-000281 I believe we requested a reply to that letter by next week (June 121h). I have not a question for you but a request. Can you please commit to reviewing our letter carefully and providing a thorough response to our questions? DHS-001-6335-000282 Page 013 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000283 Page 014 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000284 Page 015 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000285 Page 016 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000286 Page 017 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000287 Page 018 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000288 Page 019 Withheld pursuant to exemption (b )(5) of the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000289 From: Baroukh, Nader <"'-"a' llJ(b)(6) I "Busch, Philip B dlb )(6) T I I llb)(6) ~· "Svmons Craia M < lfh)ti:;) I ~b)(6) I "Maher, Joseph CC: I J1b)(6) llb)(6) I 'Shah, Dimple ~h )fi:;) I (fb)(6) I Subject: RE: Voter Integrity - Sample SAVE MOU regarding voter rolls Date: 2018/01/09 13:05:25 Priority: Normal Type: Note Thanks! Nader Baroukh Associate General Counsel, Immigration Department of Homeland Security, Office of the General Counsel Office Jb)(G) Cell: lb)(6) I email: ..... Eb_)(_G)_ _ _ _ _ _ _____. I This commumc · , "th any attachments, is covered by federal and st mg e ectronic communications and may contain lega y · · e reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are · at any disseminatto , · · · use or copying of this r. · · · y prohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply imme 1ate From: Busch, Philip B Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2018 1:01 PM To: Baroukh, Nader wrote: Off the record, this was announced two days ago and I'm not able to get into the details. It's brand new. I think the background statement from DHS official answers your question. from:l(b)(6) I Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 3:00:20 PM To: Houlton, Tyler Subject: Re: Statement request So you will not comment on whether ICE is using the voter rolls? Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). On Jan 5, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Houlton, Tyler {b)(6) wrote: .___ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____. From my original statement that you can attribute to me. "Mr. Kobach is not advising the Department on this matter." Thanks DHS-001-6335-000297 From: .._kb__)(~6)....__ _ ___, Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 2:41:28 PM To: Houlton, Tyler Subject: Re: Statement request Mr. Kobach has repeatedly used the word "investigation" and has implied that he is in communication with DHS about this. If he's wrong, i think it's important that he reported in an attributable fashion. Is there anyone I can speak to in more depth about this? Do you have a comment on whether he is correct that ICE will use the voter rolls to compare them against their list of non citizens? Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). On Jan 5, 2018, at 2:1 8 PM, Houlton, Tyler wrote: r < tb)(6) You cannot say that attributed to DHS as stated below. It is for context only and not for attribution. I would note that his EO does not use the word investigation in it instead. I From: kb )(6) Sent: Friday, January 05, 2018 2: 10:53 PM To: Houlton, Tyler Subject: Re: Statement request TylerChecking in on this q about Kobach's claims DHS is specifically running the voter rolls against the list you maintain of non-citizens. He's repeatedly claimed this. I think it's important DHS weigh in on the truth of that. Also, I want to say in the piece that DHS did not interpret the president's request as a request to conduct an investigation. Who can I attribute that to? ~b)(6) Reporter, ProPublica Cell/Signal:fb)16) Office: ... llb""")l=6..:... ) _ __. DHS-001-6335-000298 ~b)(6) On 1/5/l8, 12:36 PM, fb)(6) 1:._b_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____.I wrote: But at this time you cannot confirm mr. Kobach's repeated claims you ' II run the voter rolls against the list DHS maintains of non citizens? Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). > On Jan 5, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Houlton, Tyler > Attributable to me: > > "At the President's direction, the Department continues to work in support of state governments who are responsible for administering elections, with efforts focused on securing elections against those who seek to undermine the election system or its integrity. Mr. Kobach is not advising the Department on this matter." > > On background not attributable to DHS and to give you context: > >The president asked the Department of Homeland Security to review the mission of the Executive Order and determine next courses of action. An investigation was not implied. > > On background from a senior DHS official: > > We are looking at the issue and how we can assist state and local jurisdictions and the Department of Justice. > > Tyler Q. Houlton > Press Secretary (Acting) > Department of Homeland Security >l(b)(s) I > > ~ F;~~r~b~(i)I M essage--T j(b)(6) > Sent: Frid.ay, Januam : 20 I8: 2 ·32 PM > To: Media Inquiry ~(6) ~ > Subject: Re: Statem.... en ~r e_ q_ ues _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___. f > > Checking in on these questions. > > Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). > » On Jan 4, 2018, at 5:30 PM, l(b)(6) ib)(6) I> wrote: >> DHS-001-6335-000299 >> Hello>> >> I'm a reporter with ProPublica. >> >> I recently saw your statement indicating that Sec Kobach would not to be advising department of homeland security on the new tasks it has been assigned related to election integrity. I have a couple of clarifying questions: >> >> I. Will the efforts that you undertake according to the president's statement on the dissolution of the commission be separate and distinct from your work regarding cyber security and the critical infrastructure designation? >> >> 2. Will you be using the voter rolls that were collected by the commission, and will you disclose the use of those rolls given your requirements under the privacy act? >> >> 3. Mr. Kobach has implied several times in the last 24 hours that you will be using the builder will nice to compare them against the list of noncitizens that your department maintains. Is this true? >> >> 4. Will Mr. Kobach be advising the commission at all, even informally? >> >> Thank you. My deadline is tomorrow at !Oam. >> >> Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). > Sender: b)(6) "Houlton Tyler Recipient: (b)(6) I U(b)(6) ~ I b)(6) Sent Date: 2018/01/05 15:05:49 Delivered Date: 2018/01/05 15:06:02 DHS-001-6335-000300 I From: (b)(6) "Houlton, Tyler On Jan 5, 2018, at 12:34 PM, Houlton, Tyler >Attributable to me: > >"At the President's direction, the Department continues to work in support of state governments who are responsible for administering elections, with efforts focused on securing elections against those who seek to undermine the election system or its integrity. Mr. Kobach is not advising the Department on this matter." > >On background not attributable to DHS and to give you context: > >The president asked the Department of Homeland Security to review the mission of the Executive Order and determine next courses of action. An investigation was not implied. > >On background from a senior DHS official: > >We are looking at the issue and how we can assist state and local jurisdictions and the Department of Justice. > >Tyler Q. Houlton >Press Secretary (Acting) DHS-001-6335-000303 >Department of Homeland Security > > >-----Original Message----l(b)(6) >From: J~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-' >Sent: Friday, January 5, 2018 12:32 PM >To: Media Inquiry < .._fb....:.)..:... (6..:.. ) ___ , ~cs------'~ >Subject: Re: Statement request > >Checking in on these questions. > >Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). > >>On Jan 4, 2018, at 5:30PM, 1..... '.b-)(_6_ ) --------------------' >> >>Hello>> >>I'm a reporter with ProPublica. >> >>I recently saw your statement indicating that Sec Kobach would not to be advising department of homeland security on the new tasks it has been assigned related to election integrity. I have a couple of clarifying questions: >> >> l. Will the efforts that you undertake according to the president's statement on the dissolution of the commission be separate and distinct from your work regarding cyber security and the critical infrastructure designation? >> >>2. Will you be using the voter rolls that were collected by the commission, and will you disclose the use of those rolls given your requirements under the privacy act? DHS-001-6335-000304 >> >>3. Mr. Kobach has implied several times in the last 24 hours that you will be using the bui lder will nice to compare them against the list of noncitizens that your department maintains. Ts this true? >> >>4. Will Mr. Kobach be advising the commission at al l, even informally? >> >>Thank you . My deadline is tomorrow at I Oam. >> >>Sent from my iPhone, apologies for brevity (and typos). > I Houlton, Tyler l(b)(6) Q(b)(6) "Waldman Katiellb)l6) Recipient: d(b)(6) Sender: 1 1 I Sent Date: 2018/01/05 14: 18:47 Delivered Date: 2018/01/05 14: 18:48 DHS-001-6335-000305 I<:;11lt;m lPnnifPr Jib)(6) From: (b)(6) I I "Shuchart, Scott ~(b )(6) G(b)(6) Subject: RE: Election fraud commission To: I I Date: 2018/01/07 18:37: 19 Priority: Normal Type: Note I read the very general piece on this in today's Post. j'.bX5) '.1>)(5) have the election fraud initiative on m list which is what this is about right? CbX6> '--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-' From: Shuchart, Scott Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2018 11:06:42 AM To: Sultan, Jennifer Subject: RE: Election fraud commission DHS-001-6335-000306 I I wonder - 1.... Cb_X5_>_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____.I could reach out personally to David Palmer to flag that we need to be looped in. From: Sultan, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 8:23 AM To: Shuchart, Scott lPnnifPr Sender: (b)(6) I J(b)(6) I I Kb)(6) Recipient: "Mo,.,;,. (b)(6) I nno 1irv < llh 'IC:' I I I Sent Date: 2018/01/05 13:52:22 Delivered Date: 2018/01/05 13:52:26 DHS-001-6335-000313 From: Wales, Brandon ~(b )(6) I llb)(6) To: ~b)(6) I (b)(6) - "Wolf Chad )(6) "Wolf, Chad l'hVn) (b)(6) "Neumann, Elizabeth llhVn) 11:i)(6) I I I I I I Sent Date: 2018/01/18 09:53:41 DHS-001-6335-000356 From: Wales, Brandori (b)(6) l h )lf; ) "Maher, Joseph To: (b)(6) ::.nan LJ1mo1e b)(6) CC: I "Wolf Chad )(6) '""Svmons "~' Craia M < lb)l6) "Ries Lora L kk .. Ut! POl!l'I"•" """' II.ONO PA\ Kf .. 11 JA.,._!:t:.Atllt'UHO (.)fUA•OM-' """lCl'IUA"' ,_.tJl(IAllHWOOOH"S5A'll P.AM&t A 0 •4R~ "tW~!'l>l United ~rates ~cnate IMI. CAI tf{~A (;HA!S OP> = January 2, 2018 (/) ("? ~ c_ The Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security 3801 Nebraska Avenue NW Washington, DC 20528 -· , :i::a. -< ..... w' r.;fT"J > -:i 2: :c .. co 0 , :;-. CJ...,. I c Dear Secretary Nielsen: .:no ......... (./) ("') \)~ < 1"'11 0 I write to request information about the interactions between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (Commission). Following public reports that the Commission would have full-time staff from the Department of Homeland Security, 1 I asked then-Secretary John Kelly for information on OHS ' role related the Commission.2 Specifically, I asked for details of any plans to staff the Commission with DHS employees.3 He responded that the executive order establishing the Commission established that General Services Administration (GSA), not DHS, would "provide support to the Commission, including any staff necessary to carry out its mission.',.. Recently·released documents indicate that DHS may have more involvement with the Commission than previously known. The Commission recently disclosed an index of documents withheld in litigation that suggest DHS may be providing technical assistance to the Commission. This index confirmed that the Commission's designated federal officer, Andrew Kossack, and Mr. Kobach himself had repeated email contact with DHS from June through late August 2017. One email recently disclosed that Kossack, Kobach, and the Office of the Vice President exchanged correspondence categorized as "Email chain about potential partnership 1 Civil Rights Groups Fume About Trump's Choice Of Kris Kobach For Voter Fraud Panel, Kansas City Star (May 11, 2017) (www.kansascity.com/news/politics· govemment/articlel 49910457.html). 2 Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Questions for the Record to Secretary John Kelly. Department of Homeland Security, Hearing on the Department ofHomeland Security Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request, I 15th Cong. (June 6, 2017). 3 Id. 4 Id. DHS-001-6335-000370 The Honorable Kirstjen Nielsen January 2, 2018 Page 2 opportunities with OHS.''5 Other emails authored by OHS officials indicate discussions included "potential future coordination I overlap between entities."6 To assist me in understanding the nature and level of support being provided by OHS to the Commission, I request that you provide the following infonnation and documents on or before January 23, 2018: 1. Please provide all internal and external communications of OHS personnel regarding the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. 2. On June 28, 20 I 7, the Commission sent requests to state election officials seeking an extensive set of state voter records. Please describe the role of OHS in this process and provide all related documents and records. 3. Please provide all data or information possessed by OHS that has been shared with the Commission and explain what steps has OHS taken to ensure its security. If you have any questions please contact Charles Shaw and Lucy Balcezak of my staff at (202) 224·2627. Please send any official correspondence related to this request to Lucy Balcezak at Lucy_Balcezak@hsgac.senate.gov. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, Claire McCaskill Ranking Member cc: Ron Johnson Chairman 5 Defendants' Vaughn Index at entry 383 (Sept. 29, 2017), Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity et al. , D.O.C. (No. J:17 CV 01354) (www.scribd.com/document/36051l302Naughn-lndex). 6 See, Defendants' Vaughn Index at entries 365, 384, 445, 472, 475, and 705 (Sept. 29, 2017), Lawyers ' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity et al., D.D.C. (No. I : 17 CV 01354) (www.scribd.com/document/3605 l 1302Naughn-Index). DHS-001-6335-000371 From: To: Wales, Brandon~ b)(6) .,.._,\It:\ "Krebs, Christopher < .,b)(6) "Hoffman, Jonathan "b)(6) "Houlton, Tyler <1(b) ~b)(6) I Wolt, Lnad wrote: Ok... thanks for checking for me. Keep me posted if the DHS does provide data for the Elections Commission. Best, fb)(6) On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 3 : 11 PM, Lapan, David <~.._b_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ ____.I wrote: l(b)(6) I sorry, I don't have any more on this topic right now. From: l(b)(6) ll(b)(6) Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 2:06 PM To: Lapan, David 4(b)(6) Subject: Re: Press inquiry: Trump elections commission I Was it a formal request? Was there a letter from the commission or something that you can send me? Was it regarding the DHS form on which a non-citizen can indicate he or she has been registered to vote? Or DHS non-citizen data more generally? On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 1:59 PM, Lapan, David 1._b_)(6_)_ _ _ _ _ _ Yes, they have reached out to us. DHS-001-6335-000408 _,f wrote: From: l(b)(6) lk.....b....... )(6.......) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____, Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 1:05 PM To: Lapan, David <.._kb....)(._6.._ ) _ _ _ _ _ ___. Subject: Re: Press inquiry: Trump elections commission Thanks David, I appreciate you're willingness to keep me in the loop. Can you confirm or deny whether the elections commission reached out seeking data or information about the data DHS keeps? On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Lapan, David <~b)(6) I Fwrote: l(b)(6) No OHS data has been provided at this point. We will provide an update when and if that changes. Regards, David Lapan Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Operations/Press Secretary Department of Homeland Security l(b)(G) From: l(b)(6) fb)(6) Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 9:25 AM ~:~~;t~i~r~s~~~~J.b;'. ;, 6 Uliip eietllOllS COlllllllSSIJ Good morning ffrom Talking Points Memo here. I am reaching out regarding the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity and its desire to obtain DHS data on noncitizens and information about DHS forms that include voter registration questions. At the commission's meeting two weeks ago, the commissioners said they would be looking into DHS forms where the person indicates as a non-citizen they were registered to vote as well as the larger question of accessing DHS non-citizen data. ~b)(6) 1) Has the commission reached out seeking that data or any other data sets maintained by the DHS? 2) Has the sought information on non-citizen data information being maintained by the DHS and if states can access it to check against their voter rolls? 3) If any data has been handed over to the commission, what data? were there any conditions in handing it over? what security precautions were taken? DHS-001-6335-000409 You can reach me at J....(b_)(_s_ ) _ _ ____, Thanks, l(b)(6) I kb)(6) Talkin Points Memo b)(6) l(b)(6) Talkin • Points Memo (b)(6) l(b)(6) I alkmg Pomts J emo rb)(6) I !(b)(6) Talking Points Memo r )(S) kb)(6) I I Talking Points Memo r )(6) DHS-001-6335-000410 Sender: Hamilton Gene " - CC: Subject: RE: WashTimes Date: 2017/07/05 14:36:25 Priority: Normal Type: Note Yep Christopher C. Krebs Department of Homeland Security l(b)(6) I From: Hamilton, Gene Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 2:33:21 PM To: ib)(6) I Lapan, David; Cassil, Susanne; Neumann, Elizabeth Cc: (b)(6) Krebs, Christopher Subject: RE: WashTimes I Adding Krebs Gene P. Hamilton Senior Counselor to the Secretary U.S. Department of Homeland Security I From:~b)(6) Sent: Wednesday, July OS, 2017 2:25:08 PM To: Lapan, David; Cassil, Susanne; Hamilton, Gene; Neumann, Elizabeth Cc: kb)(6) I DHS-001-6335-000426 Subject: RE: WashT imes Same here. From: Lapan, David Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2017 1:59 PM To: Cassil, Susanne; Hamilton, Gene; Neumann, Elizabeth Cc: ~b)(6) Subject: RE: WashTimes I Good here. David Lapan Deputy Assistant Secretary for Media Operations/Press Secretary t~l~:iartment of Homelanf Security From: Cassil, Susanne Sent: Wednesday, Ju ly 5, 2017 1:44 PM To: Lapan, David <"""l (b;..:.;)("""6") _ _ _ _ _ ___,I; Hamilton, Gene 1._b_)(_6)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Neumann, Elizabeth j (b)(6) Cc: J(b)(6) I l(b)(6) Subject: RE : WashTimes Would a 4:30PM call work for everyone? Susanne Cassil Confidential Assistant I Office of the Secretary Department of Homeland Security kb)(6) I From : Lapan, David Sent: W ednesday, Ju ly 5, 2017 12:46 PM Tlii:o:\.:~H,a_ m_i_ l t_ on _.,_G_e_n_e_<1 ...1.... bl.... l6....l _ __,__ _ _ ___JI; Neumann, El iza beth ~ fb)(6) Cc: (b)(6) l(b)(6) I; Cassil, Susanne By Rowan Scarborough - The Washington Times - Thursday, January 26, 2017 DHS-001-6335-000453 Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump's estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud. Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump's assertion. Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. SEE ALSO: Trump backs group examining voter fraud Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes. "Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton's margin? Yes," Mr. Richman wrote. "Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all." Still, the finding is significant because it means noncitizens may have helped Mrs. Clinton carry a state or finish better than she otherwise would have. SEE ALSO: Watchdog sees need for election fraud probe Mr. Trump's unverified accusation to congressional leaders this week, as reported by The Washington Post, has sent the issue skyward. He apparently was referring to all types of fraud, such as the "dead" voting or multiple votes from the same person. But the thrust of his estimate appears to be that illegal immigrants and noncitizens carried the popular vote. He returned to the issue Thursday in Philadelphia, where he spoke to congressional Republicans mapping this year's legislative calendar. "We also need to keep the ballot box safe from illegal voting," the president said. "And, believe me, you take a look at what's registering, folks. Take a look at what's registering. We are going to protect the integrity of the ballot box, and we are going to defend the votes of the American citizen, so important." The mainstream media reacted to Mr. Trump's assertion with derision. Liberal pundits said there is no evidence of fraud. CNN's Jake Tapper called it "a stunning allegation for which the White House is providing no evidence. And there is a reason they are providing no evidence - there is no evidence. It is not true." Esquire.com said, "The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump's presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won." DHS-001-6335-000454 But conservative activists say the liberal media are ignoring evidence - that noncitizen voting is illegal and, thus, fraud. They say the Justice Department in the Obama administration was more concerned with preventing states from cleansing rosters of dead and inactive voters than in mounting any investigation into fraud. "Most voters are never asked for voter ID, so it is dishonest to suggest that with the tens of millions of illegal and legal aliens here, there is no voter fraud," said Tom Fitton, who heads the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch. "If the key Old Dominion study results on the 2008 election are applied to 2016 - 1.41 million aliens may have voted illegally, with 1.13 million voting for Democrats." "A federal voter fraud investigation is long overdue," Mr. Fitton said. "It would be a simple matter of analyzing voter registration databases against federal databases of aliens and deceased individuals. Why is the left afraid to even ask the questions? The jig is up." There does not appear to be any concerted postelection effort by states to take on the daunting task of checking voter rolls and ballots to verify citizenship. In some states, no ID is required to register and vote. In the absence of detailed accounting, the only scientific way to make an estimate is by post-vote polling. Mr. Richman relies on a one-of-a-kind poll: the Cooperative Congressional Election Survey. Every two years, a consortium of 28 universities produces a detailed report on voters and their views based on polling by YouGov. Tucked inside the lengthy questionnaire is a question on citizenship status: A significant number of respondents anonymously acknowledged they were not citizens when they voted. Three professors at Old Dominion University - Mr. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha and David C. Earnest - took these answers, did further research and extrapolated that of a 19.4 million estimate of adult noncitizens, about 620,000 were illegally registered to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 2012 that there are 22 million noncitizens in the country. The group comprises illegal immigrants and people in the U.S. legally on a visa or permanent resident green card. Of this 22 million, 20 million were 18 or older, the U.S. voting age requirement. Conservatives have long suspected that Democrats are tacitly encouraging illegal immigrants to vote. Liberal leaders have created "sanctuary cities" across the nation that refuse to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities. President Obama was asked during the campaign last year if illegal immigrants had anything to fear from federal authorities if they voted in the presidential race. "Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens - and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country - are fearful of voting," he was asked on a Latino YouTube channel. '"So if I vote, will Immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?"' DHS-001-6335-000455 "Not true, and the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself," Mr. Obama said. "And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etc. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential." Some conservatives interpreted Mr. Obama's answer as a go-ahead signal, with his questionable assertion that voter rolls are off limits to federal investigators. The WikiLeaks dump of Clinton campaign manger John Podesta's emails contained one message on directing immigrants to vote. He said immigrants should obtain driver's licenses and then attest at a polling place that they are U.S. citizens. ~b)(6) Sender: (b)(6) Recipient: "carroll, Kevin I 11i-\ la \ (b)(6) DHS-001-6335-000456 b)(6) Sent Date: 2017/ 01/ 27 09:13:23 Delivered Date: 2017/ 01/ 27 09:13:30 DHS-001-6335-000457 From! b)(6) To: "carroll, Kevin kb )(6) b)(6) Subject: FW: Do Illegal Votes Decide Elections? Date: 2017/01/24 20: 15:37 Importance: High Priority: Urgent Type: Note They are giving Trump hell for even suggesting that there is voting by illegal immigrants ...... guess no one took the time to read this. You sent it to me on 12/1/16. Opinion Commentary Do Illegal Votes Decide Elections? There's no way to know. But the evidence suggests that significant numbers of noncitizens cast ballots. DHS-001-6335-000458 By Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund Nov. 30, 2016 7: 10 p.m. ET Donald Trump's claim that illegal voting may have cost him a popular-vote majority has touched off outrage. Widespread voter fraud, the media consensus suggests, isn't possible. But there is a real chance that significant numbers of noncitizens and others are indeed voting illegally, perhaps enough to make up the margin in some elections. There's no way of knowing for sure. The voter-registration process in almost all states runs on the honor system. The Obama administration has done everything it can to keep the status quo in place. The Obama Justice Department has refused to file a single lawsuit to enforce the requirement of the National Voter Registration Act that states maintain the accuracy of their voter-registration lists. This despite a 2012 study from the Pew Center on the States estimating that one out of every eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-ofdate or duplicate. About 2.8 million people are registered in more than one state, according to the study, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. In most places it's easy to vote under the names of such people with little risk of detection. An undercover video released in October by the citizen-journalist group Project Veritas shows a Democratic election commissioner in New York City saying at a party, "I think there is a lot of voter fraud." A second video shows two Democratic operatives mulling how it would be possible to get away with voter fraud. The Justice Department has opposed every effort by states-such as Kansas, Arizona, Alabama and Georgia-to verify the citizenship of those registering to vote. This despite evidence that noncitizens are indeed registering and casting ballots. In 2015 one Kansas county DHS-001-6335-000459 began offering voter registration at naturalization ceremonies. Election officials soon discovered about a dozen new Americans who were already registered-and who had voted as noncitizens in multiple elections. How common is this? If only we knew. Political correctness has squelched probes of noncitizen voting, so most cases are discovered accidentally instead of through a systematic review of election records. The danger looms large in states such as California, which provides driver's licenses to noncitizens, including those here illegally, and which also does nothing to verify citizenship during voter registration. In a 1996 House race, then-challenger Loretta Sanchez defeated incumbent Rep. Bob Dornan by under 1,000 votes. An investigation by a House committee found 624 invalid votes by noncitizens, nearly enough to overturn the result. How big is this problem nationally? One district-court administrator estimated in 2005 that up to 3 'Yo of the 30 ,000 people called for jury duty from voter-registration rolls over a two-year period were not U.S. citizens. A September report from the Public Interest Legal Foundation found more than 1,000 noncitizens who had been removed from the voter rolls in eight Virginia counties. Many of them had cast ballots in previous elections, but none was referred for possible prosecution. The lack of prosecutions is no surprise. In 2011. the Electoral Board in Fairfax County. Va .. sent the Justice Department. under thenAttorney General Eric Holder. information about 278 noncitizens registered to vote in Fairfax County. about half of whom had cast ballots in previous elections. There is no record that the Justice Department did anything. A 2014 study by three professors at Old Dominion University and George Mason University used extensive survey data to estimate that DHS-001-6335-000460 6.4 % of the nation's noncitizens voted in 2008 and that 2.2% voted in 2010. This study has been criticized by many academics who claim that voter fraud is vanishingly rare. Yet the Heritage Foundation maintains a list of more than 700 recent convictions for voter fraud. A postelection survey conducted by Americas Majority Foundation found that 2.1 'Yo of noncitizens voted in the Nov. 8 election. In the battleground states of Michigan and Ohio, 2.5'Yo and 2.l'Yo, respectively, of noncitizens reported voting. In 2013, pollster McLaughlin & Associates conducted an extensive survey of Hispanics on immigration issues. Its voter-profile tabulation shows that 13'Yo of noncitizens said they were registered to vote. That matches closely the Old Dominion/George Mason study, in which 15.6% of noncitizens said they were registered. Fixing this problem is very straightforward. The Trump administration should direct the Department of Homeland Security to cooperate with states that want to verify the citizenship of registered voters. Since this will only flag illegal immigrants who have been detained at some point and legal noncitizens, states should pass laws, similar to the one in Kansas, that require proof of citizenship when registering to vote. The Justice Department, instead of ignoring the issue, should again start prosecuting these cases. The bottom line is that the honor system doesn't work. There are people-like those caught voting illegally-who are willing to exploit these weaknesses that damage election integrity. Mr. von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Mr. Fund is the national affairs columnist for National Review. They are the authors of "Who's Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk" (Encounter, 2012). DHS-001-6335-000461 Sender: b)(6) Recipient: "carroll, Kevin l!b)(6) .~b )(6) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' Sent Date: 2017/01/24 20:15:29 Delivered Date: 2017/01/24 20:15:37 DHS-001-6335-000462 From: I Nielsen, Kirstjen Kb)(6) b)(6) To: Subject: FW: CK list Date: 2017/05/11 23 :18:07 Priority: Normal Type: Note Kobach and 90 day strategy parts for S l list From: Krebs, Christopher Sent: Thursday, May 11 , 2017 11: 13 PM To: Nielsen, Kirstjen )(6) From: I SentVia: "cassidy, Ben ~(b)(6) (b)(6) I I "Micone, Vincent i'.b)(6) (b)(6) To: (b)(6) I "OHS Legislative Affairs l Cc: (bile) b)(6 Su bject: loo) Ok. I will reach out to her today and let you know. Cheers, 51(5) From: Sent: Thursday, August 2017 12:38 PM To: I Ct: llblisl DHS-001-6335-000712 Su bject: libli? IMS) I Thanks -. It would be interesting to get the perspective on (bus) We) USCIS, Office of Chief Counsel in5) From: (Me) Sent: Thursday, August 17, 201? 12:36 PM (pie) Cc: Subject: IbeiiJ pup") 'blhii) lheven?t spoken to the AUSA but am happy to discuss this point to her. just wanted to get position or opinion before I did it. Best, From: Sent: Thursday, August 2017 12:19 PM HbiiB ii} Cc: (one) (bite) DHS-001-6335-000713 Su bject: Pam (bll5lilbllel USCIS, Office of Chief Counsel {We} From me; Sent: Thursday, August 17, 201? 12:05 PM Cc: Su lini} I Happy to discuss over the phone as well. Best rega rd, bilEl Attorney?Adviser (Privacy) DHS-001-6335-000714 Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel LLS. Department of Homeland Security (W5) munication, along with any attachments, may contain co privileged inform the reader of this mes intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disse tribution, use or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. ye received this in error, please the sender and delete this From: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 201? 10:11 AM Teams: bits) I Cc bilE) (W5) Su bject: too) Thank you {bits} 1 Adding ibiisi ho is graciously the ALD point of contact, at least for the time being. (bllE) From: '(byra) Sent: Thursday, August 10, 201? 8:42 AM To: ?10(6) Cc: Su bject: too) Thanks I. I will discuss this with Craig and get back to you. Chief, CALD USCIS Of?ce of Chief Counsel DHS-001-6335-000715 From: Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:39:23 AM To: Cc: Subject: Irmis?i Hbii?i Hi (bite) was focusing on the second bullet point of the (W5) Please let me what your thoughts are on this interpretation. Thanks hum From: W5) Sent: Wednesday, August 9, 2017 4:53 PM To: Waite} We) I Cc: Ii?b?ii?Ei bu bject limo) too) DHS-001-6335-000716 (B5) USCIS, Office of Chief Counsel (We) From: Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2017 3:46 PM To: Cc: Subject: We tea) Dear lam following up on my email from Friday. Does USCIS OCC have a POC that I can confer with bll?l W15) Thank you. We) Attorney?Adviser (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security Ilbllel I DHS-001-6335-000717 (1:005) is communication along with any attachments may contain confidential and le prient, you are copying of this message is strictly sender and delete this hereby notified that any dissemIrI prohibited. If you have received th message. From: lih?lf?i Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017' 3:39 PM To: Irhvsi Cc: {bll?l Subjectrb?i) pats) saw I have been in contact with DOJ regarding existing litigation. See attached complaintf?x?) Gilt") Please let me know me if you have any questions, comments, or concerns. Attorney?Advisor (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security DHS-001-6335-000718 here-v no Ie- - message is strictly prohibited. If you ha messa_e. Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 6:36 PM To we; Cc Subjectlliblliil HI I am happy to discuss the attached notice in more detail, and can be reached at the number below. Best, bliE?l W5) Trial Attorney, U.S. Department ofJustice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 (blis) Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: 201?}09105 12:39:43 Delivered Date: ZOIWDQIOS 12:39:44 DHS-001-6335-000719 From: To: CC: ?b Subject: Date: 2012f09l05 12:51:31 Priority: Normal Type: Note OK. Thanks. Much appreciated. From: Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 12:51 PM Cams) Subjectlib?i?) lfb?i) (ME) I will need to ?nd out the status of this. I was out last week. thus) Chief, CALD USCIS Of?ce of Chief Counsel (We) Sent: y, 201? 12:49:16 PM TO: Cc: Subject: I Hi (byte) GOES) Thank you. DHS-001-6335-000720 From: To: Subject: Date: 2012;09l21 11:23:22 Priority: Normal Type: Note Hi Any updates? Thanka W5) From: ?31(5) Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:37 AM Su bject: Fi?) Wt") I I will check. Thanks. WE) Chief, CALD USCIS Of?ce of Chief Counsel From Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 201? 11:30:45 AM I Subject: W5) ICin) I Hi Irbtretr Thanks, DHS-001-6335-000721 bile} From: (We) Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 12:26 PM To: liblisl Subject: (W5) CW5) Thanks. USCIS, Office of Chief Counsel {bile} From= Sent: ecu-nesay, eptember 06, 201? 12:18 PM TO: I We) Him "133(5) If I could be cc?ed on the final copy I would appreciate it. Thanks 1331(5) Fromdb?s} Sent: Wednesday, September 6, 2017 9:51 AM To: Su bject: Pee) W32 This is the draft message we are 1331(5) contemplating sending?bJo') I lead hiefCounsel DHS-001-6335-000722 Case Document 21-1 Filed 0911317 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMON CAUSE, Plaintiff, V. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, and US. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and US. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Defendants. Case No. 1:17-ev-01398 (RCL) NOTICE OF FILING OF AMENDED COMPLAINT Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Plaintiff Common Cause hereby noti?es the Court of the ?ling of the AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF with Defendants? written consent. This case is related to the following cases pending before Judge Kollar-Kotelly of this Court: Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Trump, et oi, American Civitr Liberties Union v. Trump, et oi, and Lowyers? Committeefor Civii Rights Under Low v. Presidential Advisory;" Commission on Eiection integrity, et at, (D.D.C.). DHS-001-6335-000723 Case Document 21-1 Filed 091317 Page 2 of 3 Dated: September 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted, is! She L. Perryman avier M. Guzman (DC. Bar No. 462679) Josephine Morse pro hac vice Skye L. Perryman D.C. Bar No. 984573 Karianne M. Jones pro hac vice Democracy Forward Foundation PO. Box 34553 Washington, DC. 20043 (202) 448-9090 jguzman@demoeracyforward . org jmorse@demoeracyforward.org sperryman@democraeyforward.org kjones@democracyforward.org 2 DHS-001-6335-000724 Case Document 21-1 Filed 091317 Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 13th day of September, 2017', I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk?s Of?ce using the CMIECF system, which will send a notice of ?ling to all counsel of record. {sf Skye L. Perryman L. PERRY MAN DHS-001-6335-000725 Case Document 7'9-2 Filed 12108.11? Page 1 01?44 EXHIBIT A DHS-001-6335-000726 Case Document 33-3 Filed IDQIGBIH Page 2 of 43 EXHIBIT 3 DHS-001-6335-000727 Case Document 33-3 Filed 1139199117 ACRONYMS Commission Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity or PACEI DFO DHS DOD DWHIT EEOB EFT EOP EPIC FACA FOIA GAI GAO GSA IT MOU NARA NASS 0MB OVP PRA SAFE SGE SSA TRO VP Designated Federal Officer Department of Homeland Security Department of Defense Department of Justice Director of White House Information Technology Eisenhower Executive Office Building Electronic Funds Transfer Executive Of?ce of the President Electronic Privacy Information Center Federal Advisory Committee Act Freedom of Information Act Government Accountability Institute Government Accountability Office General Services Administration Information Technology Memorandum of Understanding National Archives and Records Administration National Association of Secretaries of State Office of Management and Budget Office of the Vice President Presidential Records Act Safe Access File Exchange Special Governmental Employee Secretary of State Social Security Administration Temporary Restraining Order Vice President DHS-001-6335-000728 Page 3 of 43 Lawyers? Isory SEQ-3 Filed ommission on allegioanqg?grity?ilgleng l3l14?1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentisi?iategory Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10ib)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] 2 Public Documents Related to the Creation and Organization of the 3 Commission Members of the 4 Executive Order No. 13,?99, establishing the Commission The President Public 11?May?17 Yes Yes NA White House Press Release: President Announces Formation of Bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity {May 11, White House Press Members of the 5 2017} Secretary Public ll-May?lir Yes Yes NA Commission 5 Charter: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Commission Staff Members 23-Jun-17 Yes Yes NA Ti Public Documents Related to June 28 Organizational Call Commission 8 Agenda for June 28, 2017, Organizational Conference Call Commission Staff Members For June 23 call Yes Yes NA Commission discretionary 9 Email regarding June 28, 2017, initial organizational call Kossack Members For June 28 call No release NA Readout of the Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory White House Office of Members of the 10 Commission on Election Integrity the Vice President Public 28-Jun-17 Yes Yes NA 11 Public Documents Related to July 19 Meeting Commission For July 19 12 PACEI Bylaws {as adopted and as drafted} Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 13 List of Possible Topics for Commission to Address Kobach Members meeting Yes Yes NA Presentation delivered at an administrative session held before the July Commission 19 meeting discretionary 14 GSA briefing on FACA and Presidential Records Act GSA Members began No release NA DHS-001-61335-000729 sizslzolt Lawyers? 9lt45?1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Presentation delivered at an administrative session held before the July Commission 19 meeting discretionary 15 GSA briefing on Ethics Training for SGEs GSA Members began No release NA Heritage Foundation: Database entitled A sampling of Election Shared by von Commission For July 19 16 Fraud Cases From Across the Country Spakovsky Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report: Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Commission For July 19 1? Comprehensive Report {by U.S. Election Assistance Commission} Shared by McCormack Members meeting Yes Yes NA Opening Statement of J. Kenneth Blackwell {shared with other Commission ForJuly 19 13 members) Blackwell Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 19 PowerPoint presentation by Hans von Spakovsky {untitled} von Spakovksy Members meeting Yes Yes NA Yale Law at Policy Review Article: The Other Voting Right: Protecting Every Citizen's Vote by Safeguarding the Integrity of the Ballot Box, Commission For July 19 20 by J. Kenneth Blackwell 8t Kenneth A. Klukowski Shared by Blackwell Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission ForJuly 19 21 Video of the July 19 PACEI Meeting Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Remarks by President Trump and Vice President Pence at the White House Press Members of the 22 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity meeting Secretary Public 19-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA Remarks by Vice President Pence and Elected Officials at the First Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election White House Office of Members of the 23 Integrity the Vice President Public 19-Jul-1Tir Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 24 July 19, 2017 meeting agenda Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 25 Revised July 19, 2017ir meeting agenda Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Members of the 26 Federal Register Meeting Notice for July 19 meeting Commission Staff Public 5-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 2? Public Documents Related to September 12 Meeting White House Press Members of the 28 Announcement of September 12 Commission Meeting Secretary Public 24?Aug?11r Yes Yes NA 9/219;on Lawyers? ?3 Filed ommission on 17 Blv?nss ection ntegrity, et Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient(s) (if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description (if applicable) applicable) applicable) to 10(b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Members of the 29 Federal Register Meeting Notice for September 12, 2017 meeting Commission Staff Public 24-Aug-17 Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 30 Agenda for September 12, 201]i Commission Meeting Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Written statement by Donald Palmer, Panelist at Sept. 12 meeting, Donald Palmer Commission For Sept. 12 31 entitled "Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Andrew E. Smith, Panelist at Sept. 12 Andrew E. Smith Commission For Sept. 12 32 meeting, entitled "Turnout and Voter Trust" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by John R. Jott, Jr., Panelist at Sept. 12 John R. Lott, Jr. Commission For Sept. 12 33 meeting, entitled suggestion and some evidence" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Updated PowerPoint presentation by John R. Lott, Jr., Panelist at John R. Lott, Jr. Commission For Sept. 12 34 Sept. 12 meeting, entitled suggestion and some evidence" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Ronald L. Rivest, Panelist at September Ronald L. Rivest Commission For Sept. 12 35 12 meeting, entitled "Remarks on Election Integrity" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report by Government Accountability Institute: "America the Shared by von Commission For Sept. 12 36 Vulnerable: The Problem of Duplicate Voting" Spakovsky Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Hans von Spakovsky, PACEI Commission For Sept. 12 3? MemberfPanelist at Sept. 12 meeting (untitled) von Spakovksy Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Harri Hursti, Panelist at Sept. 12 Commission For Sept. 12 38 meeting, entitled "Threat models and the tools of the industry" Harri Hursti (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Ken Block, Panelist at Sept. 12 meeting, Commission For Sept. 12 39 entitled "Data Mining for Potential Voter Fraud" Ken Block (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Kimball Brace, panelist at Sept. 12 Kimball Brace Commission For Sept. 12 40 meeting, entitled "The Election Process From a Data Prospective" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Updated PowerPoint presentation by Kimball Brace, panelist at Sept. 12 meeting, entitled "The Election Process From a Data Kimball Brace Commission For Sept. 12 41 Prospective" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Letter from Shawn N. Jasper, Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, to New Hampshire Secretary of State and Commissioner of Department of Public Safety re: efforts to insure Shared by Secretary Commission For Sept. 12 42 the accuracy and validity of New Hampshire's voter checklists Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA 9/29/2012 Lawyers? Isory EELS-3 Filed ommission on EIPQIQQHT ection ntegrity, et Blv?nss (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientis) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 DocumentisL/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?ibl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} PowerPoint presentation by William Gardner, Commission Commission For Sept. 12 43 MemberfSept. 12 meeting host {untitled} Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Andrew W. Appel, Panelist at Sept. 12 Andrew W. Appel Commission For Sept. 12 44 meeting, entitled "Record and counting votes in a trustworthy way" [panelist] Members meeting Yes Yes NA Press release by N.H. Speaker Jasper re: response to inquiry of NH Commission For Sept. 12 45 Departments of State and Safety Shared by Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA Response to N.H. Speaker's request for information by N.H. Department of State and Department of Safety, re: voter Commission For Sept. 12 46 verification request Shared by Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA Written statement by Judge Alan L. King, PACEI Member, entitled Commission For Sept. 12 47 "Statement of Issues/Recommendations" King Members meeting Yes Yes NA Paper: "Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud have on Voter Participation Rates," by John R. Lott, John R. Lott, Jr. Commission For Sept. 12 48 Jr. [2007} (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report: "Garden State Gotcha" by Public Interest Legal Foundation Commission For Sept. 12 49 (Sept. 2017) Shared byAdams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 50 Belitto v. Sinipes, 221 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (SD. Fla. 2016) Shared by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 51 ACLU v. Martinez?Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 229 (SD. Fla. 201?} Shared by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Voter Integrity Project NC, Inc. v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. Commission For Sept. 12 52 5:16?cv?683?BR Feb. 21, 2012) Shared by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 53 Bates in the News: Nov. 11, 2016 - Voter Suppression {by Jay Burns) Shared by Dunlap Members meeting Yes Yes NA Written Statement by Robert D. Popper, Panelist at Sept. 12 Robert D. Popper Commission For Sept. 12 54 meeting, entitled "It is Time to Start Enforcing the National Voter [panelist] Members meeting Yes Yes NA Article: "It Appears That Uut-of?State Voters Changed The Outcome of the New Hampshire US Senate Race" [by Kris Kobach, published Commission For Sept. 12 55 on Breitbarti Kobach Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 56 List of panelists and biographies for Sept. 12 Meeting Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report: "Alien Invasion II: The Sequel to the Discovery and Cover? Up of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting in Virginia" {by Public Commission For Sept. 12 5? Interest Legal Foundation) Mentioned by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 58 Guare v. New Hamshire, No. 2014?5 (NH. 2015) Mentioned by Kobach Members meeting Yes Yes NA 9/219;on Lawvers? vis?drvs ?17 Page?? Blr?msaicmi ction ntegritv, et Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Commission For Sept. 12 59 New Hampshire Voter Registration Form Mentioned by Kobach Members meeting ves Yes NA 60 Public Documents Related to Request to States for Data/Views June 28, 201?, letter from Kobach to states, requesting views, recommendations, and publicallv available data (identical copies State Election 61 sent to election officials of the SD states and District of Columbia) Kobach Officials 28-Jun-17 Yes Yes NA Statement from Kobach, Kansas Secretaryr of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (related White House Press Members of the 52 to data collection} Secretary Public 5-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA July 26, 201?, letter from Kobach to state election officials, renewing June 28 informational request [identical copies sent to State Election 63 election officials of the states and the District of Columbia] Kobach Officials 26?Jul?1}r Yes Yes NA Michele Reagan, Arizona Secretarv of 64 Response to Data Request Letter State Kobach 3?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA John Merril, Alabama 65 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary of State Kobach S?Jul?lTrr Yes Yes NA Jesse White, Illinois 66 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary.r of State Kobach 5?Jul?17ir Yes Yes NA Ken Dreamer, Florida 57 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary of State Kobach 6-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA Paul Zirax, Secretarv of the Oklahoma State 58 Response to Data Request Letter Election Board Kobach E-Jul-l? Yes Yes NA Kenneth R. Menzel, General Counsel, Illinois State Board of 69 Response to Data Request Letter Elections Kobach Y?Jul?l? Yes Yes NA Shantel Krebs, South Dakota Secretarv of 70 Response to Data Request Letter State Kobach 1Ei?Jul?1Trr Yes Yes NA Frank Jung, General Counsel, Missouri 7'1 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary of State Kobach 10?Jul?13!r Yes Yes NA Lawyers? Isory EELS-3 Filed ommission on EIPQIQQHT Fag ection ntegrity, et Fug. Elr?nsq (cm Description Document Originator {if applicable) Document Recipientls) {if applicable} Date Document applica ble] Created andfor Commission Shared {if Views as Subject to l?lb)? Has Document Been Currently Disclosed? Rational for non- disclosure (see 3d Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 72 Response to Data Request Letter Mac Warner, West Virginia Secretary of State Kobach 11-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 1'3 Response to Data Request Letter Wayne W, Williams, Colorado Department of State Kobach 14-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 74 Response to Data Request Letter Ed Murray, Wyoming Secretary of State Kobach 14-Jul-1}r Yes Yes NA 75 Response to Data Request Letter Tre Hargett, Tennessee Secretary of State Kobach 14-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 76 Response to Data Request Letter Delbert Hosemann, Mississippi Secretary of State Kobach 19-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA Response to Data Request Letter James C. Condos, Vermont Secretary of State PACEI 19-Jul-1}r Yes Yes NA 78 Response to Data Request Letter John Husted, Ohio Secretary of State Commission Members 24-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 7'9 Response to Data Request Letter John Husted, Ohio Secretary of State PACEI 24?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 30 Response to Data Request Letter Paul D. Pate, Iowa Secretary of State Kobach 26?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 31 Response to Data Request Letter Scoti T, Nago, Chief Election Officer, Hawaii Kobach 2Y?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 82 Response to Data Request Letter Bryan A, Caskey, Director of Elections, Kansas Secretary of State Williams Yes Yes NA 33 Response to Data Request Letter John Conklin, Director of Public Information, NYS Board of Elections Kossack 2??Ju ?17 Yes Yes NA 34 Email re: point of contact for secure transfer of voting data Brandon Newell, Office of Secretary of State, Arkansas Williams Yes Yes NA DHS-001-66335-000734 9/219;on (Inseaee '??g?ttgy?g?gjigilif?lt(l? ans: Lawyers? Committedq'or lg ts er awy. resr entla ylsory ommission on ectionlntegrity,e Description Document Originator {if applicable) Document Recipientls) {if applicable} Date Docu ment Created a ndfor Sha red {if a pplica ble] Commission Views as Subject to l?lb)? Has Document Been Currently Disclosed? Rational for non- disclosure (see 3d Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 85 Response to Data Request Letter Wayne Thorley, Nevada Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Williams 28?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 86 Response to Data Request Letter Matthew Dunlap, Maine Secretary of State Kobach 31?Jul?1}r Yes Yes NA 37 Letter containing instructions to request information from Texas databases Lindsey Aston, General Counsel, Texas Secretary of State Kobach 31-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 83 Response to Data Request Letter Jerold A. Bonnet, General Counsel, Office of the Indiana Secretary of State Kobach 4-Aug-17 Yes Yes NA 89 Response to Data Request Letter Tom Schedler, Louisiana Secretary of State PACEI B-Aug-l? Yes Yes NA 90 Response to Data Request Letter Jade K. Fountain- Tanigawa, Office of the County Clerk, County of Kauai Kobach liir?Aug?lir Yes Yes NA 91 Response to Data Request Letter Bryon Mallott, Alaska Lt. Gov, Kobach 21-Aug-17 Yes Yes NA 92 Response to Data Request Letter Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State Kobach 22-Aug-1? Yes Yes NA 93 Response to Data Request Letter Elaine Manloye, Delaware State Election Commissioner Kobach 28?Aug?1? Yes Yes NA 94 Response to Data Request Letter Alyin A. Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State PACEI 5?Sep?17r Yes Yes NA 95 Response to Data Request Letter John A, Gale, Nebraska Secretary of State Kobach 19?Sep?17 Yes Yes NA 9/29f2D1? Lawyers? Egg misEilohnegn [Jamal-$354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentliqlr disclosure (see 3d Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] Kenneth Menzel, General Counsel, Illinois State Board of 96 Response to Data Request Letter Elections Kobach 19?Sep?1? Yes Yes NA 9? State Data Received -- Listed by State Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 98 Arkansas Yes No Kossack Decl. ?11 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 99 North Carolina Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to [blij?]. See 3d 100 Florida Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 101 Ohio Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 102 Colorado Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to [blij?]. See 3d 103 Washington Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 104 Nevada Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 105 New York Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [blij?]. See 3d 106 Kansas Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 107 Oklahoma Yes No Kossack Decl. ?11 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 103 Newlersey Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 51/29/201? Lawyers? Egbg misEibhnegn gg?%?i%zgritfeatg? Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentliir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] Exempt pursuant to See 3d 109 Hawaii (Kaua?i Countvi Yes No Kossack Decl.1i 11 Exempt pursuant to [bite]. See 3d 110 Montana Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 111 Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 112 West Virginia Yes No Kossack Decl.1i 11 Exempt pursuant to [bite]. See 3d 113 Alaska Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 114 Idaho Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 115 Oregon Yes No Kossack Decl.1i 11 Exempt pursuant to [bite]. See 3d 115 Missouri Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 11? Iowa Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 118 Other Public Documents Book: Who's Counting? Howr Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Shared bv Hans von Commission Shared after Julv 119 Vote at Risk, bv June Fund and Hans von Spakovskv Spakovskv Members 19 meeting Yes Yes NA Public Comments received from members of the public to the Members of the Commission 6129,!1? 120 Commission's email address and posted online Public Members Yes Yes we Accepted through the submission of the Public Comments received from members of the public to the Members of the Commission Commission's 121 Commission's regulationsgov website and posted online Public Members final report Yes Yes NA s/zsxzolr Lawvers? an?gegfolg?xigg??nadif Eli?3% Egg misEibl?negn gg?%?l%ggritfeatg? ills-319l-?354 Document Date Document Created a ndfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlv disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Public comments submitted to Commission, but not posted publiclv because comments are overlvr profane andfor contain threats, and Members of the Commission 122 contain nothing by way of substance Public Members Since June 201? No No The Vice President 123 Letter from Sen. Amv Klobuchar, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress and Kobach 6,!291201? Yes Yes NA The Vice President 124 Letter from Sen. Amv Klobuchar, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress and Kobach Yes Yes NA The Vice President 125 Letter from Sen. Tester and Gov. Bullock re: Commission activities Montana officials and Kobach 2/111201? Yes Yes NA Commission 126 Letter from Rep. Cummings, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress Members Yes Yes NA The Vice President 127 Letter from Rep. Eshoo, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress and Kobach 71/13/2017 Yes Yes NA Letter from Sens. Klobuchar and Wbitehouse re: Commission Sens. Klobuchar and Commission 128 activities Whitehouse Members Yes Yes NA Statement by Sen. Shaheen re: Sept 12 meeting re: Commission Commission 129 activities Sen. Shaheen Members 91121201? Yes Yes NA Emails Sent by Commission DFO to Commission Membership [To avoid repetitition, these documents are not also listed separately 130 under each Commissioner) Commission discretionary 131 Welcome and Initial Organizational Call Kossack Members 26-Jun-12 No release Commission 132 Email planner holding June 28, 2017 Organizational Call Kossack Members 23r'-Jun-1Tir No No lb] Commission 133 Email sending agenda for June 23, 2017 organizational call Kossack Members 22?Jun?11r No No Updated email planner sending dial-in information for June 28 Commission 134 organizational call Kossack Members 22?Jun?13r No No lb} Email containing dial?in information related to June 23 call as well as documents related to ethics standards for special government Commission 135 emplovees Kossack Members 22?Jun?12 No No [bi Email containing copyr of June 28 Kobach letter, to be sent to Commission 136 secretaries of state and chief state election officials Kossack Members 28-Jun-13r No No lb} 9/29f2?l? Lawyers? Ell?35% Egg misEilollnegn ?ll gestural? 353193391354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentls}/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable} to 10lb}? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email forwarding email sent from Commission to States, asking Commission 137 them to hold off sending data pending resolution of EPIC TRD Kossack Members 10-Jul-17 No No lb} Email regarding financial disclosure, EFT Enrollment form, and Commission 138 travel logistics for July 19 meeting Kossack Members 11-Jul-1Tir No No lb} Email regarding booking travel for July 19 meeting and reminder to Commission 139 submit 450 Financial Disclosure form Kossack Members 13?Jul?11I No No lb} Commission 140 Email containing agenda for July 19 meeting Kossack Members 14?Jul?17ir No No lb} Email forwarding email from GSA containing information on how to Commission 141 book travel; cover email reviews meeting location and schedule Kossack Members 14?Jul?1? No No lb} Email containing logistical information for attending July 19 meeting Commission 142 and ethics question related to financial disclosure Kossack Members lit-Jul-lir No No lb} Email containing draft Ely?Laws, revised agenda, and reminder Commission 143 about July 19 meeting logistics Kossack Members 18-Jul-17 No No lb} Commission 144 Email containing instructions for travel expense reimbursements Kossack Members 20?Jul?12 No No lb} Email containing copies of letters received from Colorado and Commission 145 Wyoming secretaries of state Kossack Members 21?Jul?13!r No No lb} Commission 146 Email containing letter from Ohio Secretary of State Kossack Members 25-Jul-17 No No lb} Email containing copy of July 26 letter from Kobach to states Commission 14? regarding data collection Kossack Members 26-Jul-11r No No lb} Email containing follow up communication from GSA regarding Commission 148 Hatch Act Kossack Members Z?Aug?l? No No lb} Email containing litigation holds {and attachments, Commission 149 Kossack Members 7?.4ug?1? No No lb} Commission 150 Email containing save-the-date for September 12 meeting Kossack Members 18-Aug-17 No No lb} Email containing travel and logistical information for September 12 Commission 151 meeting Kossack Members 24-Aug-17 No No lb} Email containing letter from Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials for September 12 meeting and reminder of Commission 152 litigation hold letter Kossack Members 30-Aug-17 No No lb} Email promising proposed agenda for September 12 meeting soon Commission 153 and asking members to submit any written materials by Sept. 7 Kossack Members 1-Sep-1? No No lb} 9/219;on Lawvers? Egg Pregig?fila'illgii?sto Egg misEibl?negn ggk%?i%ggritfeatg? abalgt-?BS-?i Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email containing reminder of ethics rules that govern teaching, Commission 154 speaking, and writing Kossack Members 5-Sep-17l No No Commission 155 Email containing agenda for September 12 meeting Kossack Members 5?Sep?11" No No Commission 156 Email containing revised agenda for September 12 meeting Kossack Members 6?Sep?17r No No lb} Commission 157 Email containing materials for September 12 meeting Kossack Members S-Sep?l? No No Email stating that materials prepared for September 12 meeting are Commission 158 posted online Kossack Members 8-Sep-1? No No Email containing logistical information for September 12 meeting Commission 159 and reminder about FACA open-meeting requirements Kossack Members 11-Sep-1? No No 160 Moteriois of Commission Member Christian Adams 161 Email forwarding news article Adams OVP Counsel 13-Mav-1? No No Email forwarding information about potential staff member for 162 Commission Adams Counsel 18?May?17 No No 163 Email forwarding news article Adams Counsel No No 164 Email forwarding news article Adams Counsel 31-May?17 N0 N0 165 Email addressing potential research opportunities for Commission Adams CNP Counsel 5-Jun?1? No No {fl Email addressing election integrity; suggesting potential outreach 166 options Adams Kossack S-Jul-1? No No if] Kossack, OVP 16? Email about potential participants in Commission Adams Counsel (S-Jul-lir No No lg} Kossack, Counsel, von 163 Email forwarding press release Adams Spakovsk?yr E-Jul-17 No No Email requesting Adam's preferred title for appointment 169 announcment Kossack Adams 11?Jul?13!r No No Email forwarding press release re: Adams' appointment to Kossack, OVP 170 Commission Adams Counsel 11?Jul?1? No No [hl Kossack, OVP Counsel, von Spakowskv, 171 Email forwarding link to television appearance Adams Blackwell 1T-Jul-17 No No Kossack, 1?2 Cover email forwarding material to be used for Julvr 19 meeting Adams Counsel 18?Jul?1? N0 N0 [cl 9/219;on Lawyers? Egg Egg misEiLhnegn Batman-7 '39th Jo?lgt-??d ectlon Integrity, Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] 123 Email requesting copy of photograph from lulur 19 meeting Adams OVP Counsel 20?Jul?11r No No personal 124 Email chain discussing potential data Adams Kossack 23-Jul-17 No No Kossack, Counsel, 1lion 175 Email exchange in response to press inquiry about Commission Adams Spakowsky ltl-i?lug-lir No No 126 Email asking about September 12 meeting location Adams Kossack 13?Aug?11r No No Email forwarding news article Adams Kossack 31-Aug-17 No No Email sending copy of materials to be used at September 12 Kossack, won 173 presentation Adams Spakowsk?yr 1-Sep-1? No No Email forwarding third-party individual's request for press 129 credentials for September 12 meeting Adams Kossack 1?Sep?17 No No Kossack, 180 Email responding to ethics reminder Adams Counsel, Williams 5?Sep?12 No No Kossack, Kobach, Cover email sending copy of materials to be used at September 12 OVP Counsel, 131 presentation Adams Williams 7-Sep-17 No No 182 Email forwarding link to article Adams Kossack 2?Sep?12 No No Kossack, OVP 133 Email forwarding link to article Adams Counsel 10?Sep?11r No No [hl Kossack, DVP 134 Email sending copsf of press release Adams Counsel 11-Sep-17 No No Kossack, DVP 135 Email sending link to news article Adams Counsel, Williams 13-Sep-17 No No Kossack, 135 Email about potential witnesses at a future Commission meeting Adams Counsel, Williams 15-Sep-13r No No if] Kossack, DVP 137 Email forwarding news article Adams Counsel, Williams 20-Sep-17 No No 183 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 139 ethics forms No No 190 Materials of Commission Member Kenneth Blackwell 191 Email re: scheduling time to speak DVP Counsel Blackwell 19-May?12 No No s/zsxzoli Lawvers? anmegfova?mggt??-ri?dgf on Ea?pre?i?t?iia?s?i?'z Fl'ed seamstress 3551993331354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 1 Documentls1/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 192 Email re: appointment documents and background information OVP Blackwell l9-lv?lav-17 No No counsel, 2f5f2017 - 193 Email chain sharing multiple news articles Blackwell WHO members 77612017 No No Mass email, received bv 194 Mass email sharing tweetslfacebook posts Blackwell Kossack 11?Jul?12 No No OVP and EDP staff 195 Email sharing link to news article Blackwell members 14?Jul?17!r No No [hi 196 Emails sending copv of opening remarks and law review article Blackwell Kossack 18-Jul-17 No No 19? Email re: Blackwell's media availabilitv Blackwell EOP staff member 18-Jul-17 No No 198 Four tweets posted on Julv 19, 201? Blackwell Twitter lEi?Jul?lir No Yes [hi Kossack, Kobach, von Spakovskv, 199 Email containing photo of commissioners Blackwell Adams No No personal 200 Email re: interview request News Producer Blackwell 10?.?iug?1ir No No Kossack, Kobach, 201 Email re: formation of a new interest group Blackwell 0UP Counsel 14?Aug?12 No No [hi 202 Email re: time to speak Kossack Blackwell 18-Aug-17 No No 203 Travel authorization documents for September 12 meeting Travel Agencv Blackwell 6?Sep?11r No No 204 Email chain re: time to speak Kossack Blackwell T?Sep-l? No No 205 Handwritten notes from September 12 meeting Blackwell WA 12?Sep?17r No No 206 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 20? ethics forms No No 208 Materials of Commission Member Matthew Dunlap Request for interview and email exchange with Dunlap staff 209 member regarding logistics Reporter Dunlap and staff 11-May-12 No No Office of California Members of the 210 Press Release Secretarv of State Press/Public ll-Mav-l? No No in} 211 Email forwarding public statement of Kentuckyr Secretarv of State NASS staffer Dunlap and staff 11?May?17 No No 212 Email forwarding press release Advocacv group Dunlap and staff 18-May-12 No No in) 9/29/5101? Lawyers? Ell??g Egbg misEilallnegn El 931% some as?? i??l?'?asq (cxx) Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Maine Secretary of State Communications 5/18112, 213 Emails regarding public record requests Director Dunlap and staff 5f19f17, 5f22f1? No No in} Email acknowledging National Association of Secretaries of State 214 (MASS) alert about Commission Dunlap NASS staffer 22-May?1? No No in) Cover email attaching letter from Kobach to Dunlap in his official capacity as Secretary of State requesting publicly available voter roll 215 information Commission Staff Dunlap 28?Jun?17 No No in} 216 Email forwarding media request Maine 505 Staff Dunlap and staff 28-Jun-12 No No 217 Email exchange regarding interview request and logistics Reporter Dunlap staff 29?Jun?12 No No Press Release regarding Commission's Request for publicly available Members of the 218 voter roll information Dunlap staff Press/Public 30-Jun-12 No No in] Maine Deputy 219 E-mail coordinating response to citizen calls about the Commission Secretary of State Dunlap and staff 30-Jun-12 No No in} E-mail from news organization to Dunlap's office requesting 220 comment Reporter Dunlap and staff 30?Jun?17 No No [jl 221 E?mail exchange regarding request for Maine's voter information Reporter Dunlap 30?Jun?17 No No in} 222 Email exchange about June 30 letter Reporter Dunlap No No Letter from Dunlap in official capacity as Secretary of State to 223 Kobach responding to June 28 letter requesting voter information Dunlap Kobach 3-Jul-17 No No in] Maine 505 Communications 224 Email regarding data request Dunlap Director 3-Jul-17 No No in} Maine Secretary of Press release regarding Dunlap's response to June 26 letter State Communications Members of the 225 requesting voter information Director Press/Public "Eu?Jul?lir No No in} Draft letter responding to June 26 letter requesting voter 226 information Dunlap Maine staff 3-Jul-12 No No in] 227 Email from advocacy group attaching legal memorandum Advocacy group Dunlap 2/4l12, No No 223 Email from from advocacy group to Dunlap Advocacy group Dunlap S-Jul-l? No No lo} Kobach, Dunlap, 229 Email with attachment about attempts to influence 2016 election Third party Lawson, Gardner 5-Jul-17 No No lo} 230 Email exchange forwarding July 6 email from advocacy group Dunlap staff Dunlap 6?Jul?17' No No {ml 231 Email exchange Dunlap Reporter 6-Jul-17 No No 9/29f2D13? Lawvers? Egg Egg misElbl?negn gg?%?i%ggritfeatg? Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlillr disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Maine Secretary' of State Communications 232 Email regarding press interest in July 19 meeting Director Dunlap 13?Jul?12 No No Maine Secretary of State Communications Members of the 233 Press Release regarding Dunlap's participation in July 19 meeting Director Press/Public 20-Jul-12 No No Email inviting Dunlap to attend Julv 23 meeting to discuss 234 Commission Advocacy group Dunlap 25-Jul-12r No No lj} 235 Email from advocacyr group about providing voter information Advocacv group Dunlap 28?Jul?17!r No No Letter from Dunlap in official capacity:r as Secretaryr of State to 236 Kobach responding to Julv 26 letter requesting voter information Dunlap Kobach 31?Jul?17!r No No in} 23}r Email requesting information Reporter Dunlap staff 1-Aug-1Trr No No Williams, Email chain confirming receipt of Dunlap's Julv 31, 2017 letter to Commission Staff 233 Kobach regarding request for voter information Dunlap Staff and Dunlap 1-Aug-17 No No in] Email inquiring about status of letter responding to July 26 request 239 for voter information Dunlap Staff Dunlap 1?Aug?17 No No in] Email forwarding Kossack's Aug 2 email about the Hatch Act to 240 Commission Members Dunlap Dunlap staff Z?Aug?l? No No [cl Email forwarding August 7' email from Kossack to Commission 241 Members regarding Litigation Hold Dunlap Dunlap staff 2-Aug-1? No No Maine Communications 242 Email chain re: Iocationidate for September 12 meeting Dunlap Director 24-Aug-12 No No Maine 505 Communications 81293?1? 243 Email exchange regarding request to attend September 12 meeting Director Kossack 8f3D/1? No No lc} 244 Email forwarding NASS handout for August 30 call Dunlap Kossack 1?Sep?11r No No 245 Email forwarding link to news article Dunlap Kossack 7-Sep-12 No No Sfll, 12, 15, Maine Secretary' of Eng, 22, State Communications 23, 25, 27, 29, 246 Email exchanges regarding media coordinationlinquiries Director Dunlap 30,?17; 7/6f17 No No [jl Handwritten notes?ogs of constituent phone calls to Dunlap's Members of the 247ir office Public Dunlap 5/201? - 812012 No No in} 9&9;on Lawyers? Cg1?gegfo?giv??iggt? ?nadgf Egg Egbg misEibl?negn 99,9811? Peath $9191?7-?354 ection Integrity, Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Emails, postcards, and letters from constituents, advocacy groups Members of the 248 regarding Commission Public Dunlap 6f2017 - 9f2017 No No 249 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No [cl Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 250 ethics forms No No [cl Miscellaneous emails forwarding proceduralflogistic emails from 251 Kossack to Maine Secretary of State staff No No 252 Materials of Commission Member David Dunn 253 Email requesting guidance on responding to press questions Dunn Kossack 5-Jul-1? No No 254 Email exchange confirming July 19 meeting Dunn Kossack 10?Jul?13!r No No 255 Typed Prepared Introductory Remarks forJuly 15 meeting Dunn 18-Jul-17 No No (I) 256 Email exchange re: update on pending litigation Dunn Kossack 23?Jul?12r No No 257 Email exchange re: scheduling September meeting Dunn Kossack 11-Aug-17 No No Email exchange re: confirming Dunn's e-mail address; forwarding August 30 e-mail from Kossack to Commission Members re: letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials 253 for the September 12th meeting Dunn Kossack 30-Aug-17 No No Commission 259 Statement by Senator Jeanne Shaheen Sens Shaheen Members 12?Sep?17 Yes Yes MIA 250 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 251 ethics forms No No 262 Materials of Commission Member Gardner Document containing various quotes on election administration 263 and turnout from academic articles and newspapers Gardner 22?Jun?16 No No Email forwarding article about Gardner's participation in NH Secretary of 264 Commission State's Office Gardner 22-l?vlay?1Tir No No [mi 265 Copy oflune 28 letter sent to Gardner's account Kobach Gardner 28-Jun-17 No No 265 Copy of July 26 letter sent to Gardner's account Kobach Gardner 28?Jun?12 No No in) Copy of July 10 request to hold off email sent to Gardner's 505 25? account Kossack Gardner llZi-Jul-lir No No in} Email including names of staff members for attendance at July 2/14f2012, 263 meeting [and associated email chain] Gardner [via staff] Kossack No No 269 Email re: Gardner's potential press availability DVP Staff member Gardner 12?Jul?12 No No 9/219;on Lawvers? gill?jig Egg misEilallnegn assesses 8919958354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient[s) [if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlv disclosure [see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable} to 10[b}? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 7/17f2012, 270 Email forwarding Juli;r 19 meeting materials Gardner NH SecState office No No 27'1 Handwritten notes made on Julv 19 handout Gardner WA 19?Jul?12 No No 272 Tvped draft remarks forJulv 19 meeting Gardner 19-Jul-17 No No 223 Copv of chart on voting turnout Gardner MIA 19?Jul?11r No No [ll 274 Email attaching filings in court case Gardner [via staff] Kossack 39-Aug-11r No No 275 Email attaching statistics, editorial Gardner [via staff} Kossack 51?Aug?11r No No 276 Email attaching copy of press release Gardner [via staff} Kossack 10-Aug-17 No No 27"? News article printed for personal research Gardner WA 10?Aug?12 No No Email requesting point of contact for data collection and 278 information on studv Gardner mentioned Williams Gardner 14-Aug-12 No No 229 Email attaching news article Gardner [via staff] Kossack 14?Aug?17 No No 280 Email about potential participation in meeting Potential panelist Gardner 14-Aug-17 No No 281 Article printed for personal research Gardner 14?Aug?12 No No 282 News article printed for personal research Gardner WA 14-Aug-12 No No [ml 283 Article printed for personal research Gardner 14?Aug?12 No No Email about uploading data; requesting contact information for NH SecState, 284 potential panelists Williams Gardner 8,?171?201? No No 285 Email attaching: news article, panelist bios Gardner [via staff} Kossack 15-Aug-17 No No 286 Email attaching book excerpt Gardner [via staff] Kossack 15?Aug?12 No No 28? Email re draft release announcing September meeting Kossack Gardner 17-Aug-17 No No 288 Email forwarding press release about Sept. 12 meeting Gardner St. Anselm 18?Aug?11r No No NH Deputy 289 Email forwarding press release about Sept. 12 meeting Gardner Secretarv of State 21?Aug?12 No No [cl NH Ssecretarv of State's office, 290 Email about uploading data Williams Gardner 21?Aug?11r No No 291 Email attaching link to news article Gardner [via staff} Kossack 21-Aug-17 No No Email from Gardner to Kossack [via admin], attaching link to news 292 article Gardner [via staff] Kossack 21?Aug?12 No No Email re: Contact information for potential September 12 meeting 293 panelists Williams Gardner 22?Aug?11r No No 294 Email forwarding press release Gardner NH SecState Office 23-Aug-12 No No 295 Email chain about press release for September 12 meeting Kossack Gardner, Kobach 24?Aug?12 No No [pi NH SecState, 296 Email from about uploading data Williams Gardner No No 9/219;on Lawyers? anmegfofEWXigg?gd?Ef gill??g Egg misEilal?negn agi%?l%3gritfeatg? Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Staffer in Schumer 297 Email re invitation to PACEI Sept. 12 meeting Gardner office 28-Aug-17 No No [mi Sens. Haasan, Shaheen, Schumer, Reps. Kuster, Shea- 298 Invitations to Congressional delegation Gardner Porter 29?Aug?12 No No [mi Email forwarding email from King-stating that he will be unable to 299 attend Sept. 12 meeting Kossack Gardner SCI?nug?lir No No [cl Email chain about draft agenda for September 12 meeting (inc. 300 attachment] Kossack Gardner 31-Aug?17 No No 301 Email from constituent requesting to attend Sept. 12 meeting Constituent Gardner 1?Sep?12 No No 302 Email from constituent about Commission Constituent Gardner 1-Sep-17r No No lo] 303 Email about public comment at September 12 meeting Constituent Gardner, Williams 2-Sep-1ir No No lo} 304 Email chain about draft agenda for September 12 meeting Kossack Gardner 5?Sep?11r No No [pl 305 Email re: agenda for September 12 meeting Gardner Reporter 0-Sep-17l No No [ji 306 Email chain re; time to speak Kossack Gardner 6?Sep?17 No No [cl NH Deputy 307 Email forwarding ethics reminder Gardner Secretary of State 0?Sep?17r No No 308 Marked up copy of panelist list for Sept. 12 meeting Commission Staff Gardner 12-Sep-17 No No 309 Statement bv Sen. Shaheen re; Sept 12 meeting Sen. Shaheen Gardner 12?Sep?1ir Yes Yes NA 310 Handwritten notes re: remarks for Sept 12 meeting Gardner NIA 12-Sep-12 No No 311 Statements for Sept 12 meeting Gardner MIA 12?Sep?17 No No (I) 312 Email chain after Sept. 12 meeting Panelist Gardner lti-Sep-lir No No [ri 313 Article printed for personal research Gardner WA undated No No [mi 314 Attendee lists for September 12 meeting (with handwritten notes) Commission Staff Gardner undated No No 315 NH State FDIA requests No No in] Postcards, letters, and other correspondence from members of the 316 public regarding Commission No No lo) 31? Miscellaneous mails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 318 ethics forms No No 319 Materials of Commission Member Alon King 320 Email chain where King accepts offer to join Commission King Kossack 30-Jun-17 No No 9/219;on Lawyers? Egg Egbg misEibl?negn El K313391354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) [if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure [see 3d 1 Description [if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 321 Email forwarding news article Third party King 30?Jun?17 No No 322 Email forwarding news article Third party King 30-Jun-17 No No lo} Email re: collecting research materials about Commission subject? King's staff 323 matter King member No No [ml King's staff 324 Email asking staff member to conduct research King member 3?JuI?1}r No No [mi 325 Email exchange about King's schedule King Kossack 20-Jul-17 No No 326 Email forwarding fundraising campaign Third party King 21?Jul?11r No No 327 Email forwarding news article Third party King S-Aug-17 No No 3213r Email exchange about King's role on Commission Third party King S?Aug?17 No No Email with third party forwarding news article [and marked-up copy 329 ofarticle) Third party King 14?Aug?11r No No [oi 330 Copy of news article [marked-up copy] Printed by King 14-Aug-17 No No [ml 331 Copy of article [marked?up copy) Printed by King 14?Aug?12 No No [ml 332 Copy of news article [marked-up copy] Printed by King 14-Aug-17 No No [ml Email exchange about unavailability for September 12 meeting and 333 future availability schedule King Kossack No No 334 Email about participation in Commission King Third party 25-Aug-17 No No 335 Email about Interstate Crosscheck program Third party King 1?Sep?11r No No 335 Copy of news article Printed by King 1-Sep-17 No No [ml 332 Email forwarding copy of news article Third party King 5?Sep?12 No No 338 Email forwarding news articles Third party King 8-Sep-12 No No 339 Email re how to respond to press inquiries King Kossack Ei?Sep?l?r No No 340 Email forwarding news article Third party King 12-Sep-17 No No lo} 9/12/2012. 341 Email forwarding news stories Third party King No No 342 Email forwarding magazine article Third party King 13?Sep?13r No No lo) 343 Email exchange re: sending materials for litigation index Kossack DOJ, King No No 344 Third party forwarding mass email by advocacy organization Third party King 15?Sep?11r No No [oi Reporter [forwarded by personal friend of 345 Email exchange re: reporter inquiry King King) 12-Sep-12 No No [jl 346 Email forwarding mass emails Third party King 12?Sep?11r No No [oi 34? Copy of online article about elections Printed by King No No [ml 348 Copy of National Confernece of State Legislatures report Printed by King No No [ml 349 Miscellaneous mails related to travel booking No No 9/219;on Lawyers? an?gegfol'gv?xiggt?? arr-gee v. enfilal nt Big-3 Filed 99638117 Page 303195.43 nder visorv ommissmn on ectlon Integrity, cur-1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) lif Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentls}fCategory Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable} to 10lb}? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 35-3 ethics forms No No 351 Materials of Commission Vice Chair Kris Koboch 352 Email forwarding news article on launch of Commission OVP Counsel Kobach Sill/?201? No No lf} 353 Email forwarding copy of Executive Order DVP Counsel Kobach No No lf] 354 Email forwarding research on voter fraud Third partsr Kobach 12-May-17 No No lm) OVP Counsel, (WP 355 Email chain re: press interviews Kobach staff 12-May-17 No No 356 Email forwarding article that had been forwarded by Adams DVP Counsel Kobach lB-Mav?l?z? No No lh} Kobach, Adams, OVP Counsel, OVP 357 Email exchange re; potential Commission member von Spakovsk?lf staff lS?Mav?l? No No lg} 5/151'2017, 353 Email exchange re: time to talk DVP Counsel Kobach 5,!161201? No No lc} 359 Email forwarding email exchange with reporter von Spakovskv Kobach No No Kobach, von Spakovskv, Adams, DVP 360 Email chain about introductorv phone call Kossack Counsel, DVP staff 13?Jun?1Tir No No lc} Kossack, Adams, Email from about potential Commission member {and chain von Spakovksv, 361 discussing that member and other potential individuals) OVP Counsel and Kossack 61?151201?2? No No lg} 362 Email re potential commission members Kossack Kobach 16-Jun-1? No No lg} 363 Email forwarding link to news article Adams Kobach 16?Jun?13" No No lb} 364 Emails about potential candidates for Commission Kobach Kossack No No lg} DHS official 6f19r?2017 365 Email about setting up call with DHS Kossack [Kobach copied} 6f20/201? No No lq} Email re potential commission members [with biographical 366 attachments} Kossack Kobach 20?Jun?13r No No lg} 6/21f201?, Kobach, von 6/22f201?, Email chain regarding letters to state officials re data collection Spakovskv, 6/23f201?, 36? {present and future} [including draft letter attachments] Kossack Adams, DVP staff 6,!271201? No No lp} 368 Email chain re: reporter inquiry on Commission Reporter Kobach 21?Jun?17 No No 369 Email re: potential Commission Member Kossack Kobach 22-Jun-1? No No lg} DHS-001-gii35-000749 9/219;on Lawyers? an?gegfofg?xi-ggt??nadgf Egg Pregtg?ffamg?sto Egg misEibl?negn gg?%?l%ggritfeatg? Igz-algt-??d Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlillr disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 370 Email re: mechanics of state data collection Kossack Kobach 23?Jun?17 No No 371 Email re: potential Commission member Kossack Kobach 26-Jun-17 No No lg} 37'2 Press inquiry DVP Press Secretaryr Kobach 23?Jun?13r No No [jl Kobach, von Spakovsky, Adams, DVP 3?3 Email exchange re: information requests Kossack Counsel 26-Jun-17 No No 374 Email re: potential Commission Member Kossack Kobach 26?Jun?17 No No Kossack, 33"5 Email re: news article; study author Kobach Counsel 27"?Jun?1ir No No Email chain re: draft agenda for June 23 organizational call [with 3?6 attachment] Kossack Kobach 2T-Jun-17 No No [pl 377' Email re: talking points for June 23 organizational call Kossack Kobach 27?Jun?17 No No Email chain requesting finalization ofletters to public officials re: 333 voter collection Kossack Kobach 27"?Jun?1?ir No No [pl Kobach, von Spakousky, OVP 37"9 Email chain re; potential members of the Commission Adams Counsel 28?Jun?1? No No lg} 380 Email chain re: content of public official letters Kossack Kobach 28-Jun-17 No No 331 Email re: phone number Kossack Kobach 23?Jun?13r No No [cl Email chain re: updated letter to state election officials {including 332 attachments) Kossack Kobach 28-Jun-17 No No [pl 383 Email chain about potential partnership opportunities with DHS Kossack Kobach, OVP Staff 28-Jun-17 No No {fl DHS official 334 Follow-up email with DHS official Kossack [Kobach copied} 23?Jun?17 No No Email chain forwarding examples of letters requesting voter Kobach, OVP 335 information Kossack Counsel 28?Jun?1? No No [pl 386 Email asking for call DVP Counsel Kobach 28-Jun-17 No No Kobach, won 337 Email forwarding WH press release DVP Counsel Spakouskyr 23?Jun?13!r No No Kossack, OVP 333 Email re: potential Commission staff Kobach Counsel 29?Jun?1? No No li) Kossack, DVP 339 Email re: potential Commission staff Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-13r No No Kossack, OVP 390 Email re: potential witness for future committee meeting Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-17 No No if] 9/219;on Lawyers? anmegfoni?mggt??-ri?dgr. Ell?3:8 wsory 0t sag-a Filed om on a Etils?leigmfee? (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlillr disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentls1/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Kossack, OVP 391 Email re: discussing public responses to information requests Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-17 No No ii} Email chain about draft statement from Kobach re: appointment of Kossack, DVP 392 von Spakouskv Kobach Counsel 29?Jun?1? No No Kossack, 393 Email re: potential witness at future Commission meeting Kobach Counsel 29?Jun?13!r No No if] Kossack, DVP 394 Email re: news article about and responses to June 28 letter Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-1? No No [hi White House Press 395 Email forwarding WH press release Office Kobach 2El-Jun-1Tir No No 396 Email attaching talking points to print {one attachment) Kobach Kobach 30-Jun-17 No No OVP Counsel, 39? Email chain forwarding Pew Study.r on Voter Registration Kobach Kossack 30?Jun?1? No No Kossack, Kobach, 398 Email about von Spakousky press availability DVP Counsel OVP Press 30?Jun?1? No No [jl Email chain re: discussing potential responses to questions raised Kobach, 0UP 399 by June 23 letter Kossack Counsel 30?Jun?13!r No No Kossack, DVP 400 Email chain discussing press interview Kobach Counsel 3D-Jun-1? No No 401 Email re: talking points for media interviews DVP Staff Kobach 30?Jun?17 No No Email forwarding Letter to Vice President from Members of 402 Congress 0UP Counsel Kobach 30?Jun?1? No No [cl OVP Counsel, OVP 403 Email re: media interviews Kobach staff 3D-Jun-1? No No Kobach {copying 404 Email forwarding Tweet OVP Staff OVP Counsel) 30I-Jun-1ir No No 405 Email forwarding talking points to print [two attachments] Kobach Kobach 30?Jun?1? No No Kossack, OVP Counsel, 406 Email forwarding link to news article Kobach Commission staff 30-Jun-1? No No 407r Email asking for call 0UP Counsel Kobach 1?Jul?1ir No No [cl 403 Email forwarding Luis Borunda's resignation email OVP Counsel Kobach 3-Jul-17 No No 409 Email fowarding tweet DVP Counsel Kobach 3?Jul?1T No No [cl Email chain re: article written by Kobach (incl. draft of article}; OVP Counsel, 7f3f2017, 410 follow-up email Kobach Kossack No No spa/zen Lawyers? Ell??g Egg misEilallnegn El glassware: @?l?asq (duo Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Kossack, DVP Email chain sharing link to newspaper article data Counsel, DVP 411 collection Kobach Press 4?Jul-12 No No 412 Email regarding logistics for a call DVP Counsel Kobach 4?Jul?1? No No OVP Counsel, 413 Email chain re: discussing follow?up letter to information requests Kobach Kossack 13?Jul?11r No No [pi Kossack, OVP Counsel, OVP 414 Email chain re: responding to press inquiry Kobach Press 5?Jul?lir No No 415 Email requesting con?rmation of access to email OVP Counsel Kobach 5-Jul-1Tir No No Kobach {copying 416 Email re: draft media statement DVP Staff OVP Counsel) 5?Jul?1? No No [ji 412 Email confirming wififemail access DVP Kobach 5-iul-12 No No Kobach, Kossack, 418 Email exchange re: information about data ayailability yon Spakovsky Adams ti-Jul-lir No No if] 419I Email forwarding draft data collection follow?up letter for review DVP Counsel Kobach E?Jul?l? No No {pl 420 Email forwarding draft follow up letter with comments DVP Counsel Kobach E-Jul-l? No No lo] Kossack (copying 421 Email about the availability of data from a third party yon Spakoysky Kobach} 05-Jul-17 No No if] 422 Email re: follow-up letter to states (plus attachment] Kossack, OVP counsel Kobach Nil/2017 No No Kossack, DVP 423 Email chain re: follow?up letter to states Kobach Counsel No No 424 Email exchange with person who offered to assist the Commission Member of the Public Kobach T?Jul?l'x' No No {wi Email chain re: draft statements regarding potential outcome of Kobach {copying 425 July 3? court hearing DVP Counsel OVP staff) T-Jul-l? No No OVP Counsel, CNP 426 Email re: how to reach Kobach via telephone Kobach staff T-Jul-l? No No 427 Email re: availability for call DVP Counsel Kobach 91?Jul?12 No No [cl 428 Email re: draft agenda for July 19 meeting Kossack Kobach 11-Jul-17 No No 429 Email re: litigation summary Kossack Kobach 11?Jul?17!r No No 430 Email forwarding information about Colorado's Motor Voter law Third party Kobach 12-Jul-17 No No 431 Email forwarding blank EFT form Kossack Kobach 13?Jul?1TiI No No [cl 432 Email re: edits to draft PACEI by-laws Kobach Kossack No No DHS-001-gia35-000752 9/29f2?l? Lawvers? an?gegfofgv?xigg??nadif Egg Pregtg?ffa'?gii?sto Egg misEliol?negn El delegates 303199391354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Tf17f2017 433 Email chain re: draft bv-laws {including attachments] Kossack Kobach No No Email re: draft of possible topics for Commission to address {plus 434 attachment] Kossack Kobach 18?Jul?1? No N0 in] Counsel, OVP 435 Email chain re: draft article written bv Kobach Kobach Press 18?Jul?17!r No No lj) Kobach, von 436 Email forwarding link to news article Reporter Spakovskv 18-Jul-17 No No Kossack, DVP Counsel, DVP 437 Email chain re: current status of state responses to data request Kobach Press 18-Jul-17 No No Kossack, DVP Counsel, DVP 433 Email re: update on number of states providing data Kobach Comms No No 439 Email chain re: Kobach opening statement for July 2017 meeting Kobach staff 7/19/17 No No Email re: Letter drafted by members of PA House of OVP Counsel, 44G Representatives Kobach Press, Kossacl: 19?Jul?1? No No White House Press Release of Remarks by President and Vice White House Press 441 President at Julv 19 meeting Office Kobach 19?Jul?17!r No No [cl 442 Email commenting on media interview OVP Counsel Kobach 19-Jul-17 No No Member, Email exchange about request for voter information and letter House of 443 member sent to Governor regarding request Representatives Kobach No No 444 Email inquiring if Kobach is available for a possible call Kossack Kobach No No tfzoj2017? 445 Email chain re: availability for call with DHS Kossack Kobach ?/241201? No No 446 Email chain about press statement DVP Counsel Kobach, Kossack 24?Jul?1? No No [jl Email re: draft follow up letter to states re: data collection {with 447 attachment] Kossack Kobach 24?Jul?17!r No No [pl Email re: updated draft follow up letter to states re: data collection 443 {with attachment] Kossack Kobach 24-Jul-1? No No T124317 449 Email exchange with reporter Reporter Kobach 7/25/13" No No [ji Email re: communication with Plaintiff's counsel in PACEI-related 450 litigation Kobach Kossack 25?Jul?17rr No No Email re: updated follow-up letter to states re: data collection and 451 litigation update Kossack Kobach 25?Jul?17!r No No [pl 9/29f2G1? Lawyers? (Sgt?fteegfol'gl?xiggt??nadgf Egg Pregtg?ffamg?sto Egbg misEibltnegn gg?%?i%zgritfeatg? Igz-Slgt-?BS-?i Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email chain regarding July 26th data collection follow?up letter {and Kobach, 0UP 452 draft attachments} Kossack Counsel, DVP staff 26-Jul-17 No No 453 Email re: contact information Kossack Kobach 26?Jul?1? No No 454 Email requesting telephone number for a scheduled telephone call Kossack Kobach No No [cl Email from Kobach's Secretary of State account to Kobach sending 455 back attached letter from Kobach to states Kobach Kossack No No in] Email chain re: September meeting dateflocation and Kansas 456 matching program Kobach Kossack 23r'-Jul-1Trr No No if] 457ir Email re: photographs from July 19 meeting Kossack Kobach ZF?Jul?li' No No personal 458 Email forwarding July 26, 2017, letter Kossack Kobach 2T-Jul-17 No No Email chain re: possible themesftopics for future meetings [and - 459 attachment] Kossack Kobach 7/2812017 No No 460 Email forwarding article yon Spakoysky Kobach 28-Jul-1ir No No 461 Email re: speaker request for Kobach Kossack Kobach 1?.4.ug?1IIr No No MIA (posted as Maine's response 462 Email re: letter from Dunlap about data collection Kossack Kobach l?Aug?l? Yes Yes letter, see above) 463 Email re: press article on litigation Kossack Kobach l-Aug-l? No No 464 Email re: data collection process Kobach OVP Staff No No if] 465 Email re: plan for September meeting [and attachment} Kossack Kobach 3-4ug?17 No No if] 466 Email about time to speak DVP Counsel Kobach, Williams 14-Aug-17 No No Email re: plan for September meeting [plus attachments related to 467 potential speakers} Kossack Kobach No No if] 463 Email regarding availability for a telephone call DVP Counsel Kobach 16-Aug-17 No No 469 Email re: draft announcement of September meeting Kossack Kobach 17?Aug?1? No No 470 Email chain re: getting additional staff support for Commission Kobach 0UP staff 20-Aug-13! No No OVP Counsel, 4?1 Email chain re: getting additional staff support for Commission Kobach Kossack 22-Aug-17 No No ii} OVPIDHS staff 472 Email chain re: phone call with Kobach, OVP, and DHS staff Kossack and Kobach 22-Aug-17 No No Kossack, and 4?3 Email chain re: data collection sources Kobach EDP staff No No ii} 4?4 Email re: press release about September meeting announcement Kossack Kobach Gardner 24?Aug?1? No No 9/214;on Lawyers? Egg nt Big-3 Filed 99428117 Peatgg 309191143 ylsory ommissmn on ectlon Integrity, cur-1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10fb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 4'15 Email re: phone number for DHS call Kossack Kobach 24?.4ug?1? No No Kobach, (3fo Email chain forwarding a press release announcing Secretary of Counsel, 476 State Gardner will host September 12 meeting Kossack Commission staff 24-i??wg-1ir No No Email forwarding draft letter re: meeting material deadline Kossack Kobach ZQ??ug?l? No No Emails re: draft letter instructing Commissioners about meeting - 4TB materials {and drafts) Kossack Kobach 31801201? No No [pl 479 Email forwarding draft statement for review Kossack Kobach 30-Aug-17 No No 430 Email re: draft statement DVP Counsel Kobach 3Cr?aug?17ir No No [pi Email from OVP counsel forwarding proposed press statement re: 431 August 30, 2017, Court order DVP Counsel Kobacn 30-Aug-17 No No 482 Email exchange regarding news article Third party Kobach 3CI?ii?iug?1Trr No No 433 Email re: draft agenda for September meeting [and attachment} Kossack Kobach Bil?aug?lir No No [pi 434 Email chain re NH voting study Kossack Kobacn 51/712016 No No if] 485 Email re: media availability Kobach OVP staff 7?Sep?17? No No [jl Kobach, Kossack, Commission Staff, 436 Email attaching materials for the September 12 meeting Adams OVP Counsel 2?Sep?12 No No Email forwarding August 16, 2017 letter from N.H. Speaker of the House to Secretary Gardner, and Secretary Gardner's September 6, Kobach, OVP 487ir 201?, response Kossack Counsel 2?Sep?17!r No No its} 488 Email forwarding news article OVP Counsel Kobach ?-Sep-17 No No Kobacn, copying 489 Email forwarding 2016 NH election results DVP Counsel Kossack 2?Sep?11r No No [cl Kobach {copying 490 Email forwarding article Kossack OVP Counsel) 2?Sep?17!r No No its} 9f7j2017? 491 Email re: press (and associated call scheduling emails] Kossack Kobach 9f81?201? No No Kobach, copying 492 Email chain re: scheduling a telephone call Kossack OVP Counsel 8-Sep-11r No No Kobach; Kobach 9l10/17 - 493 Email chain re: response to media inquiry DVP Staff staff Elfilfl? No No [jl 9/29f2?l? Lawyers? Egg Egg misEibltnegn gg?%?f%zgritfeatg? lgomlgt-??-?i Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email forwarding summary of presentations and member Kobach {copying 494 submissions for September 12 meeting Kossack Counsel) 11-Sep-17 No No Kobach, von Spakovsky, 495 Email forwarding link to news article Reporter Adams, 14-Sep-1? No No [jl Kobach, Blackwell, Email forwarding information about alleged voter fraud in New Adams, von 496 Hampshire Member ofthe Public Spakovsky 14?Sep?17 No No Kobach, UVP 9.31411? 497 Email chain re: media inquiry Reporter Counsel 5i15i1? No No lj) 498 Media inquiry Reporter Kobach 15?Sep?1ir No No [jl Kobach, 499 Press inquiry Reporter forwarded to 15?Sep?17 No No 500 Press inquiry Reporter Kobach 15-Sep-17 No No lj) Kossack, OVP 501 Email re: press inquiry [and chain] Kobach Counsel 18-Sep-17 No No [jl 502 Media inquiry Reporter Kobach 18?Sep?17r No No 503 Email re: submission of litigation document collection material Kossack Kobach Zl-Sep-l'i No No Litigation-related material based on Kobach's status as a defendant; covered by attorney work product doctrine andlor attorney?client 504 privilege No No Iv] 505 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 506 ethics forms No No 50? Handwritten notes made for or at Commission meetings No No 508 Text messages re: administrative topics like scheduling No No 509 Materials of Commission Member Connie Lawson 510 Letter making public records request Advocacy group Indiana 505 18?May?17 No No in] 511 Letter acknowledging state records request Indiana Advocacy group 19-May-17 No No In) 512 Letter acknowledging records request Indiana 505 Advocacy group 22-May?12 No No in] 513 June 28 Kobach letter, sent to Lawson in capacity as 505 Kobach Lawson 28-Jun-13" No No In) Email to Senate intelligence committee following June 21, 201? 514 testimony before Senate Intelligence Committee Deputy Indiana 505 Kossack 29-Jun-17 No No in] 9/29/2013? Lawyers? Egg Egbg misEiiol?negn 99,9811? Peath [goglgt-?BS-?l ectIc-n Integrity, Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Sent to Lawson by 515 Legal memorandum re: propriety of data collection letter Advocacy group email 4-Jul-17 No No [mi Sent to Lawson by 516 Copy of letter from advocacy group to OMB Advocacy group email 5?Jul?1? No No Copy of Kossack July 10 email requesting states hold off from 517ir sending data pending resolution of EPIC TRO Kossack Lawson {as No No In} 518 Opening statement by Lawson for July 19 meeting (marked up) Lawson WA 19-Jul-17 No No 519 Email correspondence re: responding to reporter question Indiana Kossack 2?Aug?1? No No U) 520 Email correspondence about Hatch Act Indiana Lawson 3-Aug-1? No No 521 Letter responding to June 28 Kobach letter (narrative responses) Lawson Kobach 4-Aug-17 No No In] Letter responding to June 28 Kobach letter (request for data, 522 including form for requesting information} Indiana GC Kobach 4-Aug?17 No No in] 523 Email acknowledging public records request and sharing responses Indiana Reporter 23?Aug?12 No No In} Indiana Interim Committee on 524 Lawson statement to Interim Committee on Elections Lawson Elections 30?Aug?17!r No No In} 525 Letter making public records request Advocacy group Indiana 505 II-3-1-Sep-1Tir No No In] 526 Email acknowledging public records request Indiana 505 constituent No No In} 527l Email acknowledging public records request Indiana 505 Advocacy group 2-Sep-17 No No In] Public comments received through Indiana website re: Members of the Ef23i17 - late 52.13r Commission Public Lawson July 201? No No 529 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 530 ethics forms No No 531 Materials of Former Commission Member Luis Borunda 5/30f2012; 532 Follow-up emails re: appointment Borunda OVP Staff 6f121201? No No lc} 6112f2017; 533 Email re: time to speak DVP Counsel Borunda 6/191201? No No Email with background information about role of Secreatary of 534 state in elections Borunda OVP Counsel 26-Jun-12 No No 535 Resignation email Borunda OVP Counsel 3?Jul?1ir No No lc} 536 Email re: setting up time to talk after resignation OVP Counsel Borunda 3-Jul-17 No No 537 Emails with personnel forms Borunda OVP Staff Misc No No [cl 9/29f2G1? Lawyers? Egg Egg misEilallnegn assesses af?l?ii'?asq (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 538 Materials of Commission Member Christy McCormick Email forwarding White House Press Release Announcing 539 Commission DVP Counsel McCormick ll?May?l? No No [cl 540 Email forwarding talking points McCormick unknown 11-May-17 No No 541 Email exchange re: Chicago Board of Election DDJ official McCormick 15-May?1? No No Email providing name and contact information for possible 542 Commission staff McCormick OVP Counsel 23-Jun-17 No No ii} Email exchange discussing potential sources of information and 543 topics the Commission should consider studying McCormick Kossack 26-Jun-17 No No {fl 544 Email exchange discussing voting issue with attachment DDJ official McCormick 7f6f17 No No MASS Resolution Reaffirming Commitment to Strengthening National Association 545 Elections of Secretaries of State MASS Members 10?Jul?1T No No 546 Email forwarding link to news article McCormick Kossack 13-Jul-17 No No 547ir handwritten notes taken on July 15 meeting handout McCormick McCormick 19?Jul?13r No No Handwritten notes prepared for introductory remarks at July 19 548 meeting McCormick McCormick 19-Jul-17 No No McCormick and 549 Email exchange about media appearance Blackwell producer 7721/17 No No 550 Email exchange discussing possible staff support for Commission McCormick Kossack 21-Jul?17 No No 551 Email attaching resolutions from NASS meeting McCormick Kossack 24-Jul-17 No No [hi Email requesting Commission's general email address and 552 discussing invitation to speak at a meeting. McCormick Kossack 26-Jul-17 No No Kossack and OVP 553 Email suggesting locations for future Commission meetings. McCormick Counsel 26?Jul?17 No No Email forwarding names of a potential staff person for the 554 Commission McCormick Kossack 30?Jul?1T No No ii) 555 Letter to Kobach from potential staff person Potential staff Kobach 15-Aug-17 No No 556 Email attaching resume, letter, and sample analysis Potential staff McCormick 15?i3iug?17ir No No 55? Sample analysis Potential staff McCormick 15-i1iug-1Tir No No 558 Potential staff resume Potential staff McCormick 15?.?iug?1ir No No 559 Email attaching resume, letter, and sample analysis Potential staff McCormick 16-Aug-17 No No 560 Email exchange regarding availability for callfmeeting Potential staff McCormick 16?Aug?1T No No 561 Email requesting call McCormick Kobach 18-Aug-17 No No Email forwarding potential staff person's resume, letter, and 562 sample analysis McCormick Kobach 19?Aug?17 No No ii} 553 Prepared Remarks to Election Center discussing Commission McCormick Election Center 21-Aug-17 No No 9/219;on Lawvers? ?CgmmIttegTo rZiv??di-Qts ?nadgf Ew? v. -23 Fahecl ommission on ii $319943 --cv 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10ib)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 564 E?mail forwarding link to news article DDJ official McCormick 5?Sep?11r No No [mi McCormick, DOJ 565 Email exchange discussing Chicago voting issue Third partv official SIGHT, No No [mi 556 Email exchange regarding certificate left at September 12 meeting McCormick Kossack 12-Sep-17 No No personal 56? Handwritten notes taken at September 12 meeting McCormick McCormick 12?Sep?17 No No Sing/17 - 568 Email exchange discussing completion of records search Kossack McCormick 9f20f1? No No [cl Adopted Summer MASS Resolution Calling for Federal Agency Assistance in 2012; Maintaining Accurate and Comprehensive State Voter Registration Secretaries of Reauthorized 569 Lists NASS State; McCormick Summer 2017 No No [mi Correspondence sent to McCormick at EAC from members of the Members of the 5?0 public Public McCormick 5/2017 912017 No No in] 5?1 Handwritten notes on Election Administration 8; lIioting Survevr McCormick McCormick undated No No {mi 572 Prepared Remarks discussing Commission McCormick unknown unknown No No [jl Members of the 5?3 Mail from Various Senders Public McCormick various dates No N0 5?4 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 575 ethics forms No No 5?6 Materials of Commission Member Hons von Spokovsky Email re: introductorv call von Spakovskv Kossack 13-Jun-11 No No Kobach, von Spakovskv, Adams, DVP 6114f17 578 Email chain about potential Commission members von Spakovskv Counsel, Kossack 6f15f17; 6f28f17 No No lg} Email exchange re: scheduling a meeting Kossack von Spakovskv 28?Jun?11r No No lc} Email forwarding link to best practices booklet on accurate voter 530 roles von Spakovskv Kossack 29-Jun-1? No No 581 Email forwarding link to 2005 GAO report on voter registration lists von Spakovskv Kossack 29-Jun-11 No No 532 Email forwarding news article von Spakovskv Kossack 29?Jun?11r No No [hi 583 Email exchange re: press availabilityr von Spakovskv Kossach 6f30f1T, 7/6/17" No No [jl 9/29f2G1? Lawvers? an?gegfofgv?xigg??nadih Egg Egbg misEilol?negn El assesses 335199.5?354 lcxx} Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 DocumentislfCategory Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10ib)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email exchange discussing media interviews and forwarding June 28 584 letter to the Iowa Secretarv of State von Spakovskv Kossack 30-Jun-17 No No [jl 535 Email containing statutorv citations von Spakovskv Kossack 30?Jun?1? No No [hl Email forwarding email from third party offering to work with the 535 Commission von Spakovskv Kossack 5-Jul-1? No No ii} 58? Email forwarding link to article and discussing upcoming interview von Spakovskv Kossack, Adams E-Jul-17 No No 5.9.13r Email exchange regarding call received about data availability von Spakovskv Kossack, Kobach E?Jul?l? No No ii} 539 Email forwarding Julv 8, 2017ir email about data availabilitvr von Spakovskv Commission Staff 10-Jul?11r No No 590 Email exchange regarding von Spakovskv interview von Spakovskv Kossack 10-Jul-17 No No [jl Email exchange confirming von Spakovskv's title and discussing 591 recent interviews Kossack von Spakovskv 11?Jul?1? No No [cl Email exchange regarding request for guests to attend July 19 592 meeting von Spakovskv Kossack No No [cl 593 Tvped remarks with handwritten notations for Julv 19 meeting von Spakovskv von Spakovskv 19-Jul-17 No No (I) 594 Email re update on von Spakovskv interview von Spakovskv Kossack 23?Jul?1? No No U) 595 Email forwarding link to von Spakovskv interview von Spakovskv Commission Staff 25?Jul?11r No No Email exchange regarding von Spakovskv's recommendation of an 596 expert von Spakovskv Kossack 28-Jul-1? No No ii} 59? Email forwarding op-ed von Spakovskv Commission Staff 3-Aug-1? No No von Spakovskv, 598 Email forwarding media inquiry Counsel Adams, Kossack No No ijl 599 Email exchange regarding scheduling call Commission Staff von Spakovskv 21-Aug-1? No No 600 Email forwarding link to news article von Spakovskv Kossack 27?Aug?1? No No 601 Email exchange about forwarding the materials for Sept 12, 201? Kossack von Spakovskv 8?Sep?11r No No lri Cover email attaching power point presentation for Sept. 12 602 meeting von Spakovskv Commission Staff S-Sep?l? No No lr) Email exchange regarding request for guests to attend September 603 12 meeting von Spakovskv Kossack 11-Sep-1? No No various dates Members of the between $7201? 604 Correspondence from members of the public Public von Spakovskv 9/2017 No No lo} 9/219;on Lawyers? Egg Pregtg?ffamg?sto Egg misEiLl?negn gg?%?f%ggritfeatg? lgo?lgt-?BS-?l Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 605 Miscellaneous mails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 606 ethics forms N0 N0 [cl 60? Materials of Commission Member Mark Rhodes 608 Email follow?up from news reporter Reporter Rhodes 22?Jun?11r No No 609 Email request for interview by reporter Reporter Rhodes 22-Jun-17 No No lj) 610 Email from WV 505 Office about appointment to PACEI (and drafts] WV 1505 Rhodes 22-Jun-17 No No 611 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 2?Jul?17ir No No U) 612 Email chain re request for interview Producer Rhodes 3-Jul-1Tir No No Lists of cancelled Wood County voters and related emails discussing data {in response to public records request about List Maintenance 613 policies} Third-party requestor Rhodes 7/281'17 No No in] 614 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 12?Jul?17!r No No U) 615 Email request for interview Producer Rhodes No No 616 Email request forinterview [and chain) Producer Rhodes 19?Jul?11r No No lj) 61? Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 19-Jul-17 No No [jl 618 Email request forinterview Reporter Rhodes 19?Jul?12 No No lj) Email from NASS to members; forwarded on to Rhodes, including 619 election?related news and disclosures [and attachments] WV Secretarv of State Rhodes 22?Jul?11r No No in} WV Secretaryr of State 620 Email forwarding editorial emplovee Rhodes 22-Jul-12 No No in] Email request for meeting with advocacy organization [and follow? 621 up} Advocacy organization Rhodes 26-Jul-1}r No No 622 Email correspondence about voting machines Third partv Rhodes lill?Rug?lir No No [mi 623 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 23-Aug-17 No No [jl 624 Email request forinterview Reporter Rhodes 25?Aug?12 No No lj) Email chain responding to State FOIA request for documents {and 625 copv of redacted documents] Rhodes reporter 28-Aug-12 No No in} 626 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 13?Sep?17 No No Email sharing link to Sept. 12 meeting and an attached request from 627 re document collection Kossack Rhodes 13?Sep?12 No No [cl Members of the 623 Materials from members of the public public Rhodes various dates No No lo} 629I Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No 9/219;on Lawyers? Page Esf?i??saicm ectlon Integrity, Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 630 ethics forms No No 631 Materials sent to or from September 12 meeting panelists 632 Email about scheduling time to speak Kossack Palmer 3-Aug-1? No No 3f7i?2017 - 8f3f2017; 633 Email about logistics for visit to EEDB Kossack Palmer 8/101201? No No 634 Email re: GAI report and request to set up time for discussion DVP Counsel Block $13,117; 8,115,117 No No Email re: recommendations for topics to present during September 635 12 meeting Williams Popper 16-Aug-17 No No Email about unpublished study {study was not shared with 3/16/17 - 636 Commission] Williams Popper le?l? No No 637 Email sharing contact information of a data analysis expert Palmer Kossack 17-Aug-17 No No li} - Emails re: coordinating publication of Popper's participation in Judicial Watch Public Williams, OVP Bligh?l; 638 panel Affairs Staff No No 639 Email with contact information Kossack Lott, Kossack 22?Aug?1? No No 640 Email about meeting participation Kossack Lott 22-Aug-17 No No lr) 641 Email re: potential participation in meeting Kossack Rivest 23?:4ug?1ir No No Introductory email chain seeking to discuss participation in 642 Commission meeting; referral from Secretary Gardner Kossack Appel 23?.4.ug?lir No No 643 Email about timing for panel Lott Kossack 3D-Aug-1? No No [r1 SIBWZOIT - 644 Email about reimbursement form Kossack Palmer $311201? No No 645 Email re: time to speak about September 12 meeting Kossack Rivest 1-Sep-1? No No 646 Email re: contact information Kossack Smith 1?Sep?1? No No Sill/201?; 647 Email about potential meeting participation and time for discussion Kossack Hursti 951201? No No Email sharing copy of public testimony {for release); requesting 9j4f201?, 643 additional information on agenda Appel Kossack 9f61'201? No No 649 Email re: reimbursements Kossack Hursti 5?Sep?1?? No No 650 Email re: meeting travel bookings Kossack Lott 5-Sep-17 No No Email re: meeting agenda and time to submit presentation 651 materials Kossack Rivest 5-Sep-17l No No 652 Email re: panel name and participants Kossack Hursti 6?Sep?17 No No lri DHS-001 @2135-000762 La wvers? (Ignanslge deZ?W?g? 6:156:66? Egdg misEilollnegn agi%?l%3gritfeatg? [goalgt-?BS-?l Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 653 Email about preferred presenter title Palmer Kossack 6?Sep?17 No No 654 Email with contact information Kossack Block 7-Sep-17 No No 655 Email with presentation and question re: logistics Block Kossack 7?Sep?1? No No 656 Email re: posting report to webpage Kossack Block 7-Sep-1? No No Cover email sending rough draft of presentation [final version is posted) and copv of research paper to be discussed at meeting 657 {paper is posted] Lott Kossack 7-Sep-17 No No Email re: draft meeting presentation, including link to newspaper 653 article Lott Kossack 9/8f1? No No SIUZDIT, 659I Email re: phvsical format of panel 8: presentation materials Rivest Kossack 9/912017 No No Email sharing presenter materials for Sept. 12 meeting (and follow- 660 up with link to public website posting] Kossack Panelists 8?Sep?1T No No Email with Popper's attached written statement [plus additional 661 draft with non-text changes] Popper Williams, Kossack 8-Sep-11r No No Judicial Watch Public 662 Emails re: event timing Affairs Lotter, Kossack 8-Sep-l? No No 663 Email re: draft slides Hursti assistant Kossack 8?Sep?1T No No 664 Email re: providing copy of slides [and follow-up email] Smith Kossack 8-Sep-17 No No {ri 665 Email about logistics for September 12 meeting Kossack Panelists 11?Sep?11r No No 666 Email about meeting logistics Hursti Kossack 11-Sep-11r No No [ri 667 Email with changes to presentation Block Kossack 11?Sep?13!r No No fr) 668 Email re: fixing typo in presentation Lott Kossack 11-Sep-17 No No [ri 669 Email re: presentation time Rivest Williamleossack 11?Sep?17 No No ETD Email re: bringing copv of presentation Smith Kossack 11-Sep-13r No No Forwarded to Judicial Watch Public Kossack, VP Press, 671 Press release about Popper participation in PACEI Affairs VP Counsel 11?Sep?1? No No [ri 6?2 Emails re: meeting logistics Kossack Lott, Kossack 9f121201? No No 673 Email re: link to September 12 video Lott Kossack 12-Sep-1? No No [ri 674 Email re: fixing a tvpo in slides Rivest Kossack 12?Sep?1T No No 6?5 Email re: reimbursement Appel Kossack 1?-Sep-l? No No ETE- Email re: lunch plans and reimbursements Kossack Lott 19?Sep?11r No No GSA (copying 677 Email re: reimbursement Lott Kossack] 20-Sep-17 No No 9/29f261? Lawyers? Eff?3% Egg misEibl?negn El 916% Algal? tel? 33319956354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10ib)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 6'18 Email including article about Lott Lott Kossack 22?Sep?13!r No No 6?9 Email re: posting of Sept. 12 video Rivest Kossack 23-Sep-17 No No lr) Communications between Commission/0UP Staff and Other 680 Government Entities Email chain from DHS requesting information about the scope of 681 the Commission's work DHS OVP Counsel 12-May?17 No No ix) 05(151?2011 632 Email chain re; scheduling a telephone call DHS OVP Counsel 05f161201? No No lo) Email chain with GSA about initial steps required to establish a 683 commission GSA staff OVP Counsel Bil-Marl? No No is) 634 Email chain about Commission by?laws Kossack GSA staff 6?Jun?17 No No is} 635 Email chain about IT issues Kossack GSA staff No No is) 686 Email exchange with GSA about personnel paperwork Kossack GSA staff 13?Jun?17 No No is) 637 Email about setting up time to speak Kossack DOJ official 15-Jun-1? No No 6/15/2011 688 Email chain about Charter review Kossack GSA staff 6f19/1? No No is) 6f19f201?, 689 Email about setting up time to talk about Commission Counsel to CIVP DHS, Kossack 6/2012017 No No 690 Email about websites that can accept public comments Kossack GSA staff 20-Jun-1? No No is} 6/20/2011 691 Email about Kossack's appointment as Designated Federal Officer GSA staff Kossack 6f26/201? No No is) 692 Email about role of Designated Federal Officer GSA staff Kossack 21?Jun?1? No No is) DHS personnel, 693 Planner for a call with DHS personnel Kossack OVP staff, Kobach 21?Jun?11r No No lo) 6]22f201?; 694 Email chain re: Budget GSA staff, OMB OVP, Kossack 6,!231201? No No is) Email chain about 15?day publication requirement and ethics and 695 FACA training GSA staff Kossack 26-Jun-17 No No is) 696 Email re: member names and logistics swearing in] [and chain] Kossack GSA staff 6.06/17 Nil/'1? No No is) 6f26f2011 697 Email chain about draft SGE appointment letters Kossack GSA staff 61?271?201? No No is) 698 Email chain about FACA and ethics briefing GSA staff Kossack 2?-Jun-17 No No is} 699 Email chain re: room reservation Kossack GSA staff 27"?Jun?1?ir No No is) 3?00 Email re: meeting notices and SF 50 forms Kossack GSA staff 28-Jun-19r No No is) 701 Follow up scheduling email with DHS personnel Kossack DHS staff 28?Jun?11r No No lo) DHS-001-gig35-000764 9/29f201? Lawvers? gill??g Egg misEilollnegn El E??i 13st,? as? [19191391354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 6/30/2011 702 Email re: publication of meeting notice Kossack GSA staff 18/2017 No No is) 7'03 Follow?up email re: getting response OHS Official Kossack 1?Jul?1T No No [oi Kossack, OVP staff, 7?04 Email re: meeting publication notices GSA counsel, (21?Jul?11r No No is) own staff, we 3?05 Email about potential future coordinationfoverlap between entities DHS counsel, Kossack E-Jul-l? No No ix) OVP Counsel, 706 Email re: setting up time to talk DHS Official Kossack G-Jul-lir No No 707' Email discussion re: FACA briefing GSA Kossack No No is) 3?03 Email re: travel Kossack GSA Staff Hui-1? No No is) 7?09 Email discussion re: travel requests GSA Kossack No No is) 7f7f2011 Tl10f2011 7"[12f2011 7'10 Email discussion re: interagencv agreement (mainly fortravel) GSA OA 71/131201? No No is) 3?11 Email discussion about time for meeting DVP Counsel DHS Official B-Jul?l? No No Arkansas 1'12 Email discussion about data submission Kossack Office Iii?Jul?lir No No Kossack, PA House State forwarded from 713 Communication about data request Government Staffer Kobach 10?Jul?11r No No [ul Chief of Public Affairs, U.S. Army Cuber - 7'14 Email chain re; press guidance Command OVP, DWHIT, DOD Tillfl? No No it) 3?15 Email re swearing in Kossack GSA staff 11-Jul-17 No No is) 716 Email re: Electronic Funds Transfer form Kossack GSA staff 11?Jul?11r No No is) 71? Email re: EFT form for members GSA Kossack 11-Jul-11r No No is) Email chain starting with talking points relating to SAFE site and 7?18 litigation DOD EOP Staff 11?Jul?1? No No it} ?/11f2011 Tl16f2011 719 Email re: draft FACA presentation and plan for Julvr 19 meeting GSA Kossack 7/1712017 No No is) 3?20 Email re: travel Kossack GSA staff 12-Jul-17 No No is) 1?21 Email re: transcriptionist Kossack GSA staff 12?Jul?1? No No is) 7'22 Email chain regarding: EFT forms Kossack GSA staff 12-Jul-17 No No is) 9,129,201? Lawyers CgmmIttegTo lE??lXi-Qts ?nadgf Ew? y. -3 .Filed on ii --cy 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient[s) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure [see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b]? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Kossack, OVP 723 Email re: collection of Arkansas data in SAFE site DOD 81 IT counsel 12-Jul-17 No No it] Email about an MOU among states participating in voter 724 registration data comparison program Indiana state official Kossack 12?Jul?17 No No 725 Email re: swearing in Kossack GSA staff 13-Jul-17 No No 726 Email chain regarding: member preauthorization for travel Kossack GSA staff 13?Jul?17 No No 727 Email about new FACA contact GSA Staff Kossack 13-Jul-17 No No is) 728 Email re: membership list Kossack GSA staff 17?Jul?17 No No 729 Communication about employees attending July 19 FACA training GSA staff Kossack 17?Jul?17r No No 730 Communication about slide deck for July 19 FACA presentation GSA staff Kossack 18-Jul-17 No No is} 731 Email re: presentation on FACA operations GSA staff Kossack, EOP 18?Jul?17 No No 732 Follow-up regarding FACA next steps GSA Staff Kossack 19-Jul-17 No No is) 733 Email discussion re: postingfmaking documents available Kossack GSA staff 20?Jul?17 No No 734 Communication about uploading comments to regulationsgovr GSA staff Kossack 25?Jul?11r No No DHS Official OVP 735 Scheduling call Kossack staff, OVP counsel 25?Jul?17r No No 736 Communication about Hatch Act GSA Kossack 27-Jul-17 No No 737 Communication about panelist reimbursement Kossack GSA staff 1?Aug?1IIr No No DHS Official and 733 Email chain and planner setting a time for call [related to litigation] Kossack Staff, DOJ 1-Aug?17 No No 739 Call about litigation Kossack DHS 1?Aug?17 No No Communication about updating FACA database 740 GSA staff Kossack 2?Aug?1?r No No 741 Email chain and planner setting a time for call [related to litigation] DHS Official Kossack, DHS, DDJ 2-Aug-17 No No 742 Email chain and planner setting a time for call [related to litigation] Kossack DHS Official 3-Aug-17 No No AZ Secretary of State's 743 Email chain re: disclosabilityr of state?provided data Office Kossack 51?Aug?17 No No 3f15l17 - 744 Email chain and planner setting a time for call Kossack DHS Official, OVP 371671? No No 745 Communication about Federal Register notice for Sept. 12 meeting GSA Kossack 17-Aug-17 No No is) 9/219;on Lawyers? Cgi?gegfofEWXiggt??-nadifgi?g Eg-g misEibl?negn gg?%?i%zgritfeatg? [?oglgt-?BS-?l Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Communication regarding process for procurement of third?party 746 vendors GSA Kossack 17-Aug-17 No No is) 747? Email contact with SSA re: 55A data SSA Official Kossack 1??Aug?17? No No is) 743 Email re: collecting data from non-state entities (chain) Kossack DOJ 22-Aug-17 No No DHS Official, 8f22f201?, 749 Email chain and planner about setting up a time to speak Kossack Kobach, 0UP 8/2412017 No No 3?50 Email about setting-up meeting DHS Kobach 24-Aug-17 No No Email re: presentations for 9f12 meeting and member updates in 751 FACA database GSA Kossack 5-Sep-17 No No is) OVP Counsel, 752 Email from NARA about PRA NARA NARA staff 18?Sep?17 No No is) Staff discussions with individual states about the mechanics of State Election T/25f201? - date 753 transferring data Commission Staff Officials of log No No [ul Categories ofMateriols i"internal" refers to communications 7?54 among Commisison staff, 0UP staff, andfor EOP staff]: 755 Internal discussions about media requests 84 media strategyr No No 3?56 Internal communications re: data collection process No No it} 7?5? Internal emails re: potential staff support person No No Internal discussions and documents re: potential Commission 7?58 members No No [el 3?59 Internal discussion and documents re: potential panelists No No lei, Internal research on critical infrastructure designation for election 1?60 systems No No 761 Internal briefing memos about Commission activities No No is) 3?62 Internal discussions about meeting logistics No No 3?53 Internal discussions about letterhead design No No id} 764 Internal discussions about June 28 call No No Internal discussion about OVP meetings with third-parties about 765 Commission No No [el Internal discussions about disclosure forms and Hatch Act 3?56 requirements No No id} Email discussions with or about DFO on President's Commission on 767 Drug Addiction and Opioid Crisis about managing a committee No No Internal discussions re: response to June 28 letter and Borunda 3?68 resignation No No [el Internal discussions about responding to inquiries from public 7?69 officials No No 9/29f2?1? Lawyers CgmmIttegTo lE?gXi-Qts ?gdquva. ogmislgilallnegn ge?%?i%3gritfatg? No. 4319943 ?or 1354 Date Document Document Created andiior Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentliir disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentls}/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 770 Internal discussions of July 19 meeting lagenda, remarks] No No lei 771 Internal discussions re vendorsiconsultants (emails, documents] No No lei 772 Internal discussions about posting public comments No No ldi 773 Internal discussions about website and email technical issues No No lti Commission staff research or suggesting ideas relating to substance 774 of Commission's work No No lei Commission staff discussion about potential topics for Commission 775 review No No lei 776 Internal discussions over press releases after litigation events No No lei 777 Internal emails re: records management No No lei Litigation documents and emails le,g., service copies, final versions, drafts, comments on drafts, discussion of legal strategy, updates, 778 etc} {internal and with No No [It] 779 Internal discussions about budget and finance issues No No lei 780 Internal discussions about subjects for potential Commission report No No lei 781 Internal emails re: discussing next steps for Commission No No lei Internal discussion about responding to records requests 782 No No lei 7/772017, 7/10/2017. 783 Email discussion re: interagency agreement between DVP and GSA OVP GA 7712/2017 No No lsi Internal emails discussing draft DOD talking points re: site and 784 sug_gesting changes EDP staff EOP Staff 11?Jul?17 No No lei Legal research conducted by staff/internal legal consultation 785 {documents and emails] No No lei Copies ofJune 28 letter; list of state election officials; list of 786 research from states No No le) 78? Internal discussions about draft Commission documents No No lei Commission member appointment documents le.g., physical 788 commission] No No ldi 789 Copies of bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order No No ldi 790 Hardcopies of GSA ethics rules and materials. No No ldi 791 Miscellaneous communications with third parties Sal/29721117 Lawvers CgmmIttegTo lE?gXi-Qts ?nadqefng. ogmislgilal?negn ge?%?l%3gritfatg? No. 4319943 --cv 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email to States requesting thev hold off on submitting data pending State Election 792 resolution of EPIC TRIO Kossack Officials 10-Jul-17 No No Unsolicited requests from third-parties to Commission staff to join 7?93 the Commission No No 7?94 Emails and proposals third?partv data analvsis entities No No {wl Emails from third parties to Commission staff about potential 3?95 collaboration No No 7?96 Third partv provided list of suggested witnesses No No 79? FOIAIFACA request for documents No No 793 Emails with potential panelist about participation {and declines) No No {rl 7'99 Emails from third parties about data sources No No ii) 800 Materials forwarded to Commission staff by MASS No No 301 Constituent letters to Vice President or Commission members No No lo) Reimbursement Funding documents regarding PACEI operations {Form Department of Treasury Financial 302 Management Service} No No 803 Unsolicited emails by individuals alleging voter fraud No No [vvl Discussions with third partv vendor about procuring and operating 304 live-stream of Sept. 12 meeting No No Emails between Commission staff and states about mechanics of 305 data sources No No (U) 806 Press inquiries to Commission staff No No Discussions with staff at September 12 meeting event site about 30? logistics including individuals on wait lists] No No 9/219;on IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMON CAUSE, at 653., Plaintiffs, v. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, er (3L, Defendants. Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-1398 (RCL) OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF 8? MOTION. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY DHS-001-6335-000770 Page 501 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000771 Page 502 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000772 Page 503 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000773 Page 504 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000774 Page 505 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000775 Page 506 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000776 Page 507 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000777 Page 508 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000778 Page 509 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000779 Page 510 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000780 Page 511 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000781 Page 512 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000782 Page 513 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000783 Page 514 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000784 Page 515 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000785 Page 516 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000786 Page 517 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000787 Page 518 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000788 Page 519 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000789 Page 520 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000790 Page 521 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000791 Page 522 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000792 Page 523 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000793 Page 524 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000794 Page 525 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000795 Page 526 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000796 Page 527 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000797 Page 528 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000798 Page 529 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000799 Page 530 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000800 Page 531 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000801 Page 532 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000802 Page 533 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000803 Case Document 30 Filed 11128117 Page 1 of 54 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMON CAUSE. e! mi, Plaimt?'s. v. PRESIDENTLAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, at at. Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-1398 (RCL) Oral Argument Requested OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 Javier M. Guzman (DC. Bar No. 462679) Skye L. Perryman (D.C. Bar No. 984573) Josephine Morse, pro hac vice* Democracy Forward Foundation 1333 H. Street NW Washington, DC. 20005 (202) 448-9090 jguzman@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org jmorse@democracyforwardorg Admitted in New York; practicing under the supervision of members of the DC. Bar while D.C. Bar application is pending. Counsel/or Plainfi??i' DHS-001-6335-000804 Case Document 30 Filed 11128fl7 Page 2 of 54 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ii Introduction I Background 3 I. The Right Of Individuals To Be Free From Governmental Intrusion In Their Private Lives And Associations 3 II. Plaintiffs? Allegations 6 A. The Commission?s Establishment and Unauthorized Investigation 6 B. The Injuries Caused to Plaintiffs by Defendants? Conduct 8 Argument 10 I. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded Standing A. The Individual Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded Injuries in Fact 13 B. Common Cause Has Adequately Pleaded Representational Standing 18 C. Common Cause Has Adequately Pleaded Organizational Standing 20 II. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded Legally Cognizable Claims 23 A. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded that the Commission Has Violated Subsection of the Privacy Act by Collecting Plaintiffs? First Amendment Data 24 l. The Commission Is an Agency Under the Privacy Act and the APA 24 a. The agency test looks beyond an entity?s authorizing documents to its actual functions. 25 b. The Commission exercises ?substantial independent authority? and does not solely ?advise and assist the President." 28 2. Plaintiffs May Obtain Injunctive Relief on Their Privacy Act Subsection Claim to Prevent the Commission from Collecting and Maintaining Their First Amendment Data 33 B. Plaintiff Kennedy Has Adequately Pleaded a Claim Against DHS Under Subsection of the Privacy Act 36 Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded An Ultra Vires Claim Against The Commission And Kobach 40 Conclusion 44 i DHS-001-6335-000805 Case Document 30 Filed 11128117 Page 3 of 54 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abigail All. for Better Access to Developmental Drugs Eseltenbaelt, 469 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 20 Aid Ass ?nfor Lutherans v. U. S. Postal Seru, 321 F.3d 1166 (DC. Cir. 2003) 41 Al-Auiaqi v. Obama, 7'27 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2010) 14 Al-Owhali v. 27?9 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2003) 12 Albrigltt v. United States, 631 F.2d 915 (D.C. Cir. 1980ofCosmetoiogy Sen. v. DeVos, F. Supp. 3d 2017' WL 2804886 (D.D.C. June 28, 2017') 18 Am. Fed?n of'Gov?t Emps. v. Howley, 543 F. Supp. 2d 44 (D.D.C. 2008) 20 12. Exec. O?ice of the President, 90 F.3d 553 (DC. Cir. 1996) possim Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (DC. Cir. 2015) 11, 12 Arruda Beaudoin, LLP 12. Astrue, N0. ll-cv-10254, 2013 WL 1309249 (D. Mass. Mar. 27?, 2013) 39 Ass ?n ofAm. Physicians Surgeons. Inc. v. Sebelius, 901 F. Supp. 2d 19 (BBC. 2012) 18 Attias v. Carefirst, Ina, 865 F.3d 620 (DC. Cir. 2017?) 12, 13, 16, 17 Baker 12. Runyon, NO. 96-2619, 1997 WL 232606 (ND. 111. May 2, 1997) 19 Cause ofAction Inst. 12. Eggleston, 224 F. Supp. 3d 63 (D.D.C. 2016) 43 Cell Assocs., Inc. v. NIH, 579 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1978) 19 ii DHS-001-6335-000806 Case Document 30 Filed 11t28717 Page 4 of 54 Cent. United Life, inc. 128 F. Supp. 3d 321 (D.D.C. 2015) 16 Chamber of Commerce 12. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322 (DC. Cir. 1996) 41 Citizens for Ethics in Wash. Ojj?ice ofAdmin., 566 F.3d 219 (DC. Cir. 2009) passitn City ofAriington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) 42 City of Chicago v. Sessions, N0. 17-cv-5720. 2017 WL 4081821 (ND. 111. Sept. 15, 2017) 41 iapper v. Amnesty LaternationaiI USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) 16 Common Course 12. Boiger, 512 F. Supp. 26 (D.D.C. 1980) 19 CREW v. O?iee ofAdntin., 559 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2008) 27, 28. 30, 31 Ctr. for Sitstat'nabie Econ. 12. Jeweii. 779 F.3d 588 (DC. Cir. 2015Veterans A ?a irs Data Theft Ling, N0. 06-mc-506, 2007 WL 7621261 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2007) 20 Dt?az-Bernai v. Myers, 758 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Conn. 2010) 39 Doe P. v. Goss, N0. 04-cv-2122. 2007 WL 106523 (D.D.C. Jan. 12. 2007) 39 Doe v. Chao, 435 F.3d 492 (4th Cir. 2006) 38 Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614 (2004Herman, N0. 97-cv-43, 1998 WL 34194937 (WD. Va. Mar. 18, 1998) 40 Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457 (DC. Cir. 1988) 36, 38 DHS-001-6335-000807 Case Document 30 Filed 11i28tl7 Page 5 of 54 Dunlap v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election integrity, No. l7-cv-236l (CKK) (D.D.C. filed Nov. 9, 2017) 44 El Badrawi v. Dep ?t of'Homeland Sec, 579 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Conn. 2008) 39 Elec. Privacy info. Ctr. v. Of?ce ofHomeland Sec, No. 02-cv-00620 (CKK) (D.D.C. Dec. 26, 2002) 26, 30 Energy Research Found. v. Def. Nuclear Facilities Safety Bd, 917 F.2d 581 (DC. Cir. 1990) possim EPIC v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election lntegritfv, N0. 2017 WL 3141907 (D.D.C. July 24, 2017) 32, 33 Equal Rights Ctr. v. Post Props, Inc, 633 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2011) 23 FAA v. Cooper, 566 US. 284 (2012) 37 Food Water Watch, Inc. v. Vilsaclc, 808 F.3d 905 (DC. Cir. 2015) 22, 23 Gri?itlt v. Fed. Labor Relations Amie, 842 F.2d 487 (DC. Cir. 1988) 42 Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) 3 Hoase v. Sessions, 893 F.2d 370 (DC. Cir. 1990) 34, 35 Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 US. 363 (1982) 20, 23 Humane Soc :v of'U.S. v. Babbitt, 46 F.3d 93 (DC. Cir. 1995) 14 Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) l2 Keepseagle v. Vilsack, No. 99-cv-3119, 2016 WL 9455764 (D.D.C. April 20, 2016) 19 Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Comm ?n on Election Integrity, N0. 17-cv-1354 (CKK) (D.D.C. filed Sept. 29, 2017) 15, 16 iv Case Document 30 Filed 11728717 Page 6 of 54 Leagne of Women Voters ofU.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1 (DC. Cir. 2016) 20 Learnennan v. Tarranr Cry. Narcotics Coordinarion Unit, 507 US. 163 (1993) 43 Levine v. Nat 712.12. Passenger Corp, 80 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2015) 14 Meyer Bush, 981 F.2d 1288 (DC. Cir. 1993) 27', 31 v. King, No. 93-1869, 1997 WL 911801 (D.D.C. 1997) 39 Miirieman v. U.S. Treasury, 7'73 F. Supp. 442 (D.D.C. 1991) 39 NAACP v. Aiabamo, 357 US 449 (1958) 3, 19 Nage! v. US. Dep of Heafrn. Educ. Weifare, 7'25 F.2d 1438 (DC. Cir. 1984) 34, 35 Nar?i Ass ?n ofLen?er Carriers, AFL-CIO v. USPS, 604 F. Supp. 2d 665 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) 19 Nos?! Fed ?n of Fed. Emps. v. Greenberg, 7'89 F. Supp. 430 (D.D.C. 1992) 19 Nar?i Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428 (DC. Cir. 1995) 22, 23 Nichols v. Club for Growrn Action, 235 F. Supp. 3d 289 (D.D.C. 2017) 25 Peacock v. Dist. ofColambia, 682 F.3d 77 (DC. Cir. 2012) 12 Pilon v. US. Den of'Jasi?ice, 7'3 F.3d 111] (DC. Cir. 1996) 36 Porter Warner Hoiding Co., 328 US 395 (1946) 34 Prof 7 Dog Breeders Advisory Council v. WoJff, N0. 09-cv-258, 2009 WL 2948527 (MD. Pa. Sept. 11, 2009) 19 DHS-001-6335-000809 Case Document 30 Filed 11128717 Page 7 of 54 Pub. Emps. for Envt?! Reaponsibfifty v. EPA, 926 F. Supp. 2d 48 (DDC. 2013) 19 Radack v. U.S. Dep ?t afJasrice, 402 F. Supp. 2d 99 (DDC. 2005) 39 Reid 12. Fed. Bareaa afPrisans, N0. 04-07-1845, 2005 WL 1699425 (DDC. July 20, 2005) 39 Rice 12. [71451801 Snares, 211 F.R.D. 10 (DDC. 2002) 19 Rashfarrh 12. Council ofEcon. Advisem, 762 F.2d 1038 (DC. Cir. 1985) 26, 27, 31 Ryan v. Dep ?r af'Jasrfce, 617 F.2d 78] (DC. Cir. 1980) 26, 32 Schaeaba'e Reno, 87 F. Supp. 2d 383 (DNJ. 2000) 39 Schware v. Bd. afBar Exam ?rs, 353 U.S. 232 (1967) 3 Scot! v. Conley, 937 F. Supp. 2d 60 (DDC. 2013) 35 Smith v. Nixon, 807 F.2d 197 (DC. Cir. 1986) 34 Saacfe 12. David, 448 F.2d 1067 (DC. Cir. 1971) 24, 26, 28, 31 Spakea, Inc. 12. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016) 13, 14 Sassman v. U.S. Marshals Sena, 494 F.3d 1106 (DC. Cir. 2007) 35, 37 Tao v. Fresh, 27 F.3d 635 (DC. Cir. 1994) 43 Ware v. U.S. Dep of Interior, NO. 05-3033, 2006 WL 1005091 (D Or. Apr. 14, 2006) 39 Wash. Research! Project, Inc. v. Dep afHeaIrh, Educ. Welfare, 504 F.2d 238 (DC. Cir. 1974) 26, 31 vi DHS-001-6335-000810 Case Document 30 Filed 11128117 Page 8 of 54 Weiborn v. IRS. 218 F. Supp. 3d 64 (D.D.C. 2016) 14, 39 Wesrco? v. MCHugh, 39 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2014) 39 Wilson v. McHugh. 842 F. Supp. 2d 310 2012) 39 Rules Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) 12. 15, 25 Statutes 5 USE. 551(1) 24 552(f)(1) 24 55221 passim 706(2) 38 5, 36 Other Authorities 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948 (July 9, 1975) 36 Exec. Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389 (May 11, 2017) passfm S. Rep. No. 93-1183 (1974) 4. 5 Vii DHS-001-6335-000811 Case Document 30 Filed 11i28fl7 Page 9 of 54 INTRODUCTION The Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity is an advisory committee in name only. Although the Commission was established to prepare a ?report? on ?voting processes," its actions go far beyond that?and far beyond what an advisory committee is permitted to do. Led by Vice Chair Kris W. Kobach, and acting in concert with the Department of Homeland Security, the Commission is pursuing an unlawful investigation of individual members of the voting public to uncover alleged voter fraud. In our system of government, advisory committees and their leaders cannot investigate the views, associations, and activities of American voters. Nor can federal agencies disclose individuals? personal information in furtherance of such an unauthorized investigation. But that is what is happening here: the Commission has aggregated the state voting data of millions of Americans?including First Amendment-protected data concerning voters? individual political associations?and has begun the process of crosschecking this data against data held by DHS and other federal agencies. The Commission?s avowed goal is to identify any voters it believes are improperly registered, and to target them for removal from the voter rolls and referral for potential enforcement. This conduct is not only highly irregular. It violates both the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and is ultra tires?without any legal authority. Resolving the merits of Plaintiffs? claims is not for today. Instead, the question before this Court is whether, taking Plaintiffs? well-pleaded factual allegations as true, Plaintiffs? claims are plausible on their face and legally cognizable. The answer here is demonstrably yes. As recounted below, in the operative complaint Plaintiffs have made extensive allegations concerning Defendants? unauthorized investigation of individual voters that are more than sufficient to state a legal claim. 1 DHS-001-6335-000812 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28fl7' Page 10 of 54 In response, Defendants do not dispute that the Commission is collecting information that is protected by the First Amendment or that disclosure to the Commission by DHS of individuals? information implicates the Privacy Act. More telling, Defendants do not offer any legal basis in support of the Commission?s investigative activities. Instead, Defendants seek to recast this suit as a mere challenge to ?research activities? that the Commission is undertaking to prepare a ?recommendatory report.? To be clear, Plaintiffs are not disputing the President?s ability to convene a properly functioning advisory committee; previous presidents have convened such commissions to study electoral processes within the bounds of the law. But Defendants cannot credibly maintain that this Commission is functioning only as that. The Commission has so grossly exceeded its mandate to ?research? and ?report? that it is acting as a self-appointed investigator of alleged incidents of voter fraud, voter by voter. Plaintiffs spell out these facts in detail. And so in seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs? suit, Defendants are forced to dispute the veracity of Plaintiffs? allegations, or to ignore them all together. Neither is permissible at the motion to dismiss stage. Defendants also seek to evade judicial review by claiming that Plaintiffs have failed to allege suf?cient injury in fact and that this Court lacks jurisdiction. But Plaintiffs? allegations, and the fundamental nature of the privacy interests at stake here, demonstrate otherwise. The Executive Branch?s inquiry into personal information detailing the views and associations of individual Americans, including the individual Plaintiffs, constitutes concrete harm. And although this invasion of Plaintiffs? fundamental privacy interests?which is ongoing?suffices for standing purposes, the tangible threat of further injury that Plaintiffs face from Defendants? continued maintenance and use of this data requires the Court to review the challenged conduct. 2 DHS-001-6335-000813 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28fl7' Page 11 of 54 Indeed, it has only become more clear since Plaintiffs ?led suit that the Court need not speculate at all to conclude that Defendants? conduct has injured Plaintiffs. As merely one example, even though Defendants have claimed, including at a hearing before this Court, that Plaintiffs? allegations of collaboration between the Commission and DHS are ?purely speculative,? Defendants have now disclosed at least 23 communications between the Commission and DHS, or among Commission and other staff concerning DHS. Plaintiffs? allegations stand on their own, but Defendants have now provided evidentiary support for them. Defendants? characterization of Plaintiffs? claims as conjectural cannot stand. For these reasons, as further explained below, Plaintiffs have amply stated an actionable claim, and Defendants? motion to dismiss should be denied. BACKGROUND I. THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BE FREE FROM GOVERNMENTAL INTRUSION IN THEIR PRIVATE LIVES AND ASSOCIATIONS This case implicates principles of individual privacy, freedom of association, and separation of powers?principles that are central to our system of democratic government and embedded in our laws. The Constitution guarantees protection against unwarranted governmental interference into one?s personal life, associations, and viewpoints. E. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 4?79, 484 (1965). Courts have long recOgnized this sphere of privacy and have set aside governmental action that threatens it, including in cases where the government sought to uncover lists of individuals who associated with a particular group, where it sought to punish individuals for their association with a particular political party, and where it sought to collect personal information on individuals without their consent.l I See, NAACP Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462-63 (1958) {striking down court order that required membership list to be published); Schware v. Bd. ofBar Exam ?rs, 353 U.S. 232, 24s (1967?) (striking down decision to prohibit professional licensure to members of the Communist 3 DHS-001-6335-000814 Case Document 30 Filed 11l2871? Page 12 of 54 Recognizing the core importance of these rights, Congress has enacted laws to protect them. Congress passed one such law?the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a?amidst Watergate-era concerns regarding the Executive Branch?s encroachment on individuals? privacy. As Senator Ervin, a sponsor of the Privacy Act, stated, the Act recognizes that despite our reverence for the constitutional principles of limited Government and freedom of the individual, Government is in danger oftilting the scales against those concepts by means of its information?gathering tactics and its technical capacity to store and distribute information. When this quite natural tendency of Government to acquire and keep and share information about citizens is enhanced by computer technology and when it is subjected to the unrestrained motives of countless political administrators, the resulting threat to individual privacy make it necessary for Congress to reaffirm the principle of limited, responsive Government on behalf of freedom. S. Rep. No. 93-1183 (1974) (the ?Senate Report?), reprinred in 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6916, 1974 WL 186915, The Privacy Act, thus, was designed to ?promote governmental respect for the privacy of citizens by requiring all departments and agencies of the executive branch and their employees to observe certain constitutional rules in the computerization, collection, management, use, and disclosure of personal information about individuals.? Id. at The Privacy Act prohibits the ?disclos[ure of] any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency,? unless certain exceptions apply. 5 U.S.C. 552a(b). The Act also provides that an agency shall ?maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.? Id. 552a(e)(7). Subsection was directed to the ?planning stage of any executive branch party); Aibright v. United States, 631 F.2d 915, 919 (DC. Cir. 1980) (?This penumbra of privacy can be invaded, under certain circumstances, by the mere inquiry of government into an individual?s exercise ofFirst Amendment rights?); see id. (collecting cases). 4 DHS-001-6335-000815 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 13 of 54 programs being designed for the principal purpose of identifying Americans who exercise their rights under the First Amendment and of taking note of how and when such activities are exercised.? Senate Report, 1974 WL 186915 at *54 (emphasis added). It is ?aimed particularly at preventing collection of protected information not immediately needed, about law-abiding Americans, on the off-chance that Government or the particular agency might possibly have to deal with them in the future.? Id. Overall, the Privacy Act is ?designed to prevent . . . illegal, unwise, overbroad, the likes of which the Act?s authors saw in the ?over-zealous investigators, and the curiosity of some government administrators," during the Watergate era. Id. at As such, the Act ?provides for various sorts of civil relief to individuals aggrieved by failures on the Government?s part to comply with [its] requirements." Doe v. Choc, 540 U.S. 614, 618 (2004); see 5 U.S.C. 552a(g). Most relevant here, the Act provides that ?[w]henever any agency . . . fails to comply with any? of the Act?s provisions ?in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual, the individual may bring a civil action against the agency? in federal court. 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(1)(D). In addition to enacting statutory protections against government intrusions on individuals? privacy and First Amendment interests, Congress has also long recognized the right of individuals to be free from arbitrary and unauthorized government action. The Administrative Procedure Act which was passed in 1946 to ensure proper checks on the Executive following the New Deal, empowers courts to ?hold unlawful and set aside agency action . . . found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.? 5 U.S.C. see id. 704. 5 DHS-001-6335-000816 Case Document 30 Filed 11/28i17 Page 14 of 54 II. ALLEGATIONS A. The Commission?s Establishment and Unauthorized Investigation The Commission was established by Executive Order on May 201?, following repeated vows by President Trump to launch a ?major investigation into VOTER Am. Comp]. ?11 37 (Sept. 13, 2017), ECF No. see id. 38-40; Exec. Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389 (May 201?) (the ?Executive Order?). According to the Executive Order, the Commission is supposed to be a ?solely advisory? body whose ?[rn]ission? is to study, ?consistent with applicable law,? the ?registration and voting processes used in Federal elections.? id. ?ii The Commission is charged with preparing a report that will identify ?laws, rules, policies, activities, strategies, and practices? that speak to the ?integrity of voting processes used in Federal elections" as well as ?vulnerabilities in voting systems and practices used for Federal elections." Executive Order 3. The Charter for the Commission provides for up to 15 Commission members; a dedicated, full-time staff; an annual budget of approximately $250,000 for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018; and administrative and support services to be furnished by the General Services Administration. Am. Comp]. 42, 44. The Commission acts by votes of its membership. Id. (II 47. Since its establishment, the now lZ-member Commission,2 led by Kobach, has ?undertaken multiple actions that . . . far outstrip [its] limited mission.? Id. at 3. As explained in the operative complaint and further detailed below, the Commission has commenced a ?sweeping, ?rst-of?its-kind investigation into alleged voting misconduct by individual American citizens.? Id. ?11 106(a). To fuel this effort, Kobach requested?and the Commission is now 2 In October 2017, Commission member David Dunn passed away unexpectedly. See John Wagner, Member of Trump ?3 Voting Commission Dies Daring Surgery, Wash. Post (Oct. 17, 2017), 6 DHS-001-6335-000817 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 15 of 54 maintaining?state voting data (including party affiliation and voting history) for millions of Americans as well as state-supplied ?evidence? of ?instances of voter fraud or registration fraud.? Id. (INT 80. Kobach has repeatedly stated?and a Commission spokesman has confirmed?that the Commission?s intention to ?crosscheck? this state voter data against other personal data housed within the federal government, including by DHS, ?to determine if there are alleged fraudulently registered voters on the rolls.? Id. 53-54. ?Repeated references? were made at a Commission meeting ?to referrals of individuals suspected of voter fraud to the [Department of Justice] for possible criminal prosecution.? Id. (ll 72. Kobach has written that ?every investigation? the Commission undertakes will use the voter roll data the Commission has amassed ?to ?con?rm? the identity of individual American voters alleged to have committed fraud.? Id. at 4, ?ll 55 (emphasis added). The Commission?s crosscheck is well underway. The Commission has already taken evidence and testimony ?claiming that multiple specific individuals have fraudulently registered or voted,? including, for example, materials urging ?8,471 cases of Iikeiy duplicate voting be investigated for possible wrongdoing by the Commission.? Id. Cli?il 97', 106(g) (emphasis added); see also id. 56, 61, 80, 94, 96. Pursuant to Kobach?s directive that Commission staff ??collect whatever data there is that?s already in the possession of the federal government? that ?might be helpful? to the Commission?s unauthorized voter fraud investigation,? DHS has disclosed, andior imminently will disclose, ?naturalized citizens? data to the Commission without consent124-126. The Commission believes its investigation is bearing fruit: Kobach has proclaimed that he has ?found ?proof?? within materials provided to the Commission? that ?individual voters in New Hampshire? had ?committed fraud.? Id. (II 56. 7 DHS-001-6335-000818 Case Document 30 Filed Page 16 of 54 The Commission?s conduct has gone so far beyond its mission that Matthew Dunlap? one of several Commissioners who was not told about ?the substance of the Commission?s activities,? id. ?ll IDS??has re?ised to provide data from citizens of his state (Maine) until there is clarity as to ?the Commission?s goal,?? id. ?11 7'8. Generally, the Commission has provided few details on its ongoing investigation, ?keeping the public and certain Commission members in the dark as to the work that is ongoing.? Id. ?11 7'9. B. The Injuries Caused to Plaintiffs by Defendants? Conduct Defendants? conduct has injured and is continuing to injure Plaintiffs. The Commission has collected and is maintaining personal data, including First Amendment-protected data, of Plaintiffs Cantler, Nakhnikian, and Kennedy, as well as that of Common Cause members. See id. 4, 6-9, 100-101; see also Nakhnikian Decl. 8 (attached as Ex. Cantler Dec]. 10-12 (attached as Ex. Kennedy Decl. ?ll 6 (attached as Ex. McClenaghan Decl. 6-10 (attached as Ex. Dec]. ?11 13 (attached as Ex. B). The Commission has sought to maintain the data of Plaintiff Gutierrez and will collect it absent continued court intervention in an unrelated state proceeding. Id. ?11 5; see Gutierrez Decl. ?ll 4 (attached as Ex. C). The inquiry into, collection, and maintenance of the data is an invasion of the individual Plaintiffs? personal privacy. Am. Comp]. 3-9; 99-102; see also Decl. 24-26; Nakhnikian Decl. 10-11. Although this data is maintained by state officials for election purposes, it had not been made available to the federal government prior to the commencement of the Commission?s investigation. Am. Comp]. ?ll 54. Thus, Defendants? characterization of this data as ?public,? see, Mem. in Supp. of Defs.? Mot. to Dismiss (?Defs.? Mot?) at 15 (Oct. 18, 2017'), ECF No. 27-1, is a misnomer. This is personal data; it reveals, for example, Plaintiffs? birthdates, residential addresses, voting history, party affiliation, and social security information. And much of this data is not openly available to the public, but rather is accessible 8 DHS-001-6335-000819 Case Document 30 Filed Page 17 of 54 only once a requester meets specified criteria. See, cg, Am. Comp]. if" 9, 82; Cantler Decl. ?il?II 7-12; McClenanghan Decl. ?11 11. Moreover, although some of the data may be obtained in certain circumstances by members of the public who take the requisite steps?with strings attached, concerning the purposes for which it can be used?that is wholly different from the federal government collecting the data an mosse and maintaining it for the purposes of an unauthorized investigation, without being transparent regarding data storage and security. See Am. Comp]. ?il?II 82-88; see also Cantler Decl. (H 7, 16; Nakhnikian Decl. (IFII 14-15; McClenanghan 11, 13; Kennedy Decl. ?ii 14; Gutierrez Decl. 10; Decl. (W 24-26. Defendants? collection and crosschecking of data revealing the individual Plaintiffs? views, expressions, and associations impedes their full participation in the political process. Am. Comp]. CHill 3-10; 99-102; see Cantler Decl. ii 11 have and continue to be injured by the Commission?s actions: they are an invasion of my personal privacy, they put my personal data at risk for theft, and they hinder my ability to fully participate in the political process without Nakhnikian Decl. ?11 10 (?It undermines my confidence in our electoral system and hinders my ability to participate in the political process without fear of the federal government cataloguing data regarding my First Amendment activities?); Gutierrez Decl. CH 9; Kennedy Decl. 5, 12; Decl. (W 21-26; McClenanghan Decl. 8. As a result of the Commission?s investigation, individual Plaintiffs are especially vulnerable to being falsely identified as ineligible to vote. Am. Comp]. ?ilfll 3-9; 50; 57; 69; see Cantler Decl. ?11 12, Nakhnikian Decl. ?ii 12; Kennedy Decl. 10 (?This risk is especially significant for naturalized citizens, like myself, whose data is already being disclosed and cross checked by the Commission . . . 1i 12 (?This is another effort to systemically suppress the voting capabilities of members of my community"); Gutierrez Decl. 1i 8 (?This is particularly a 9 DHS-001-6335-000820 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28!l? Page 18 of 54 risk for me and other voters with minority surnames, especially Latino surnames, that are often overrepresented in cross The tactics the Commission is using here have disenfranchised eligible voters. Am. Comp]. at 5 (IN 12, 50, 57', 69, 100; see also, (sag, ?il?ll 13- 16, 25-26; Kennedy Decl. Lll?ill 10-11; Gutierrez ?ll 9; Nakhnikian Decl. 12-14; McClenanghan Dec1.?ll l2; Cantler 15. In addition, the Commission?s maintenance of the individual Plaintiffs? voter data creates security risks that present a substantial threat to them. Am. Comp]. 87-88; sec Cantler Dec]. ?11 16; Nakhnikian Dec]. ?11 15; Kennedy Dec]. ?11 14; Gutierrez Decl. (II 10; McClenanghan Decl. ?11 13. Plaintiff Common Cause has also been injured as a result of the Commission?s actions. An organization dedicated to facilitating citizen engagement and participation in the political process, Common Cause has experienced substantial setbacks to its core programmatic activities by having to divert resources to combat the effects of Defendants? conduct. Am. Compl. 3-4, 101; Dec]. 13-20; McClenanghan Decl. 9-12; see also in?a at 18-23. In light of the scores of eligible voters that have deregistered in the wake of the Commission?s data collection and investigation, Common Cause has diverted resources from activities such as advocating for the adoption of voter registration technology, same day voter registration, and online engagement, in order to dissuade the general public, as well as specific individuals, from deregistering. Dec]. 13-20. ARGUMENT Plaintiffs? allegations concerning Defendants? unlawful invasion of their privacy and the Commission?s and Kobach?s unauthorized investigative actions more than adequately state a claim that is plausible on its face, which is all that is required at this stage of the case. Unable to justify their unprecedented and unlawful actions, Defendants primarily train their fire at two targets, arguing that this Court lacks jurisdiction, see Defs.? Mot. at 9-16, 35-37, and that the 10 DHS-001-6335-000821 Case Document 30 Filed Page 19 of 54 Commission is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act and APA, see id. at 16-35. They miss on both counts. Defendants? standing arguments are refuted by well-settled law in this Circuit, and their claim that the Commission is not an agency belies reality. Under this Circuit?s decisions, when a government body engages in actions that only federal agencies established by Congress are permitted to take, its unlawful activities are subject to review under the Privacy Act and the APA. Finally, regardless of whether the Court finds that the Commission is an agency, Defendants have not proffered any legal authority in support of the novel proposition that a Commission formed by Executive Order to write a report can conduct a wide-sweeping fraud investigation of individual voters. That is because no such legal authority exists, and the Commission?s actions are thus ultra vires?. Defendants? motion to dismiss, therefore, should be denied. I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ADEQUATELY PLEADED STANDING Contrary to Defendants? assettions, both the individual Plaintiffs and Common Cause have standing. See Defs.? Mot. at 14-16 (individual Plaintiffs); id. at 10-14 (Common Cause). The individual Plaintiffs? injuries are concrete and legally cognizable. Common Cause has representational standing to seek redress for its members? injuries, and organizational standing because Defendants? actions have impeded activities that lie at the core of its mission. To establish standing at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs must suf?ciently allege ?injury in fact, causation, and redressability.? Arpaio v. Obama, 797' F.3d 11, 19 (DC. Cir. 2015). Defendants concede causation and redressability, challenging only whether Plaintiffs have asserted an injury in fact. ?Injury in fact is the ?invasion of a legally protected interest which is concrete and particularized . . . and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.?? Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Lajon v. Def?nders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). 1] DHS-001-6335-000822 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 20 of 54 SEE [E]ach element [of standing] must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i. a, with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.?? Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Lujon, 504 U.S. at 561). Defendants, therefore, err when they claim (at 9) that Plaintiffs must ?af?rmatively? put acts demonstrating? their injuries ?in the record,? and cannot rely on ?averments in [their] pleadings? or reasonable ?infer[ences]? taken therefrom. Rather, ?because [Defendants] challenge[] the adequacy of [Plaintiffs?] complaint and declarations to support [their] standing? under Fed. R. Civ. P. this Court must ?accept the well?pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the [Plaintiffs?] favor,? just as the Court would ?do in reviewing [a Rule 12(b)(6) motion] for failure to state a claim.? Arpoio, 797 F.3d at 19. Plaintiffs? burden is ??not onerous,? Peacock v. Dist. of Columbia, 682 F.3d 77, 82 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Equal Rights Cir. 12. Post Props, Inc, 633 F.3d 1136, 1141 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 2011)), and general factual allegations of injury resulting from [Defendants?] conduct may suffice,? id. (quoting Logan, 504 US. at 561). Thus, in order for Plaintiffs to establish standing at this stage, the complaint must simply ?contain suf?cient factual matter, accepted as true, to ?state a claim [of standing] that is plausible on its face?? Arpoio, 797 F.3d at 19 (alteration in the original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqboi, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Plaintiffs easily clear this ?low bar.? See Attics v. Corc?rsi. Inc, 865 F.3d 620, 622 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Yet Plaintiffs have also attached declarations, see eas. and additional materials of which the Court can take judicial notice, see Ex. G, to further demonstrate that Defendants? challenge to this Court?s subject matterjurisdiction fails, which the Court may consider without converting Defendants? motion to one for summary judgment, sec Jerome 12 DHS-001-6335-000823 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 21 of 54 Stevens Phones Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (DC. Cir. v. Ashcroft, 279 F. Supp. 2d 13,21 (D.D.C. 2003). A. The Individual Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded Injuries in Fact In arguing that the individual Plaintiffs have failed to plead a sufficient injury in fact, Defendants misapprehend the nature of the alleged injury and ignore well-settled law. The injury in fact requirement ?serves to ensure that the plaintiff has a personal stake in the litigation.? Attics, 865 F.3d at 626 (citing Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehous, 134 S. Ct. 2334, 2341 (2014)). Here, the individual Plaintiffs allege?with more particularity than required at the complaint stage?that their privacy has been invaded, their freedom of association impinged, and that concrete and particularized threats have effected their confidence in, and ability to participate in, political processes. The individual Plaintiffs have experienced (among other things) invasions of privacy, fear and hesitancy toward participating in political processes, increased risks of being inappropriately identified as ineligible to vote, and increased risks that their data will be disclosed to third parties. Defendants argue (at 14-15) that these injuries are not legally cognizable because they are ?not concrete? but rather mere ?abstract emotional concern.? As an initial matter, Plaintiffs? alleged injuries are far from ?abstract": Defendants are quite concretely collecting Plaintiffs? First Amendment?protected data in violation of subsection of the Privacy Act. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court has recently observed, ?many? of its decisions stand for the proposition that ?intangible injuries can . . . be concrete" for purposes of Article standing. Spoken, Inc. v. Robots, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1549 (2016) (collecting cases). In determining whether an intangible injury is sufficient, Spokeo instructs courts to consider the ?history and the judgment of Congress," id. at 1549, as well as whether ?an alleged intangible harm has a close 13 DHS-001-6335-000824 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 22 of 54 relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts,? id. The D.C. Circuit has already provided answers to these questions?concerning. in turn. Congress and the courts. In Albrighr, the Circuit considered the Privacy Act?s legislative history, and observed Congress?s ?concern for unwarranted collection of information as a distinct harm in and ofit?sei?? 631 F.2d at 919 (emphasis added). The Court also surveyed caselaw and found that ?special and sensitive treatment" is provided for ?First Amendment rights." id. (collecting cases), including the right to privacy, see id. (citing Griswold, 381 U.S. at 483). Crucially, the Court held that that right ?can be invaded, under certain circumstances, by the mere inquiry of government into an individual?s exercise of First Amendment rights.? Id. (emphasis added) (collecting cases). That is precisely what Plaintiffs allege here. Accordingly, they ?need not allege any additional harm.? Spokeo. 136 S. Ct. at 1549 (emphasis omitted).3 Defendants further assert that Plaintiffs base their standing on ?future" uses of the data by Defendants, asserting that ?standing cannot lie based on the threat of future injury.? Defs.? Mot. at 15; see disc id. at 35-36 (arguing that PlaintiffKennedy?s allegations of injury in particular are speculative). Defendants are wrong for at least two reasons. 3 The cases Defendants cite (at 14-15) do not undermine this conclusion. They are inapposite and none concerns the privacy interests at issue here. Humane Soc 3) of US. v. Babbitt, 46 F.3d 93. 97-98 (DC. Cir. 1995) (dismissing organization?s claim of injury based on one member?s lost opportunity to study an exotic elephant at a zoo); Al-Auiaqi v. Obama, 727' F. Supp. 2d 1, 19-20 (D.D.C. 2010) (in a next-of-friend case standing allegations were inadequate to establish requisite inability of the principal individual affected to access the courts); Levine v. No: ?1 RR. Passenger Corp, 80 F. Supp. 3d 29, 39 (D.D.C. 2015) (?Merely observing luggage in various configurations around [plaintiff] is not enough to constitute an injury?); Welbom IRS, 218 F. Supp. 3d 64, 69 (D.D.C. 2016) (case not involving First Amendment data). Instead, these cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that, to establish standing, a plaintiff must allege injury to a legally protected interest. Plaintiffs have done so here. 14 DHS-001-6335-000825 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 23 of 54 First. the injuries suffered by the individual Plaintiffs are not conjectural; they have occurred and continue to occur. Plaintiffs have alleged that the Commission has collected data on millions of voters. including Plaintiffs Nakhnikian, Cantler, and Kennedy. The Commission has sought this information with respect to Mr. Gutierrez and will obtain it absent a court ruling to the contrary. That is, Defendants have already begun their investigation of individuals? voting records. tag, Am. Compl. at 3?4. 55?57, 70?72; obtained data from states for this purpose, 6.3., id. 81-83; commenced the process of crosschecking state data with other data, such as that housed at DHS, id. 11?" 6, 53, 54, 71, 102, 106(d). 124-25, 131; and identified at least one group of individuals (voters in New Hampshire) as a target of the investigation, id. ?il?li 91, 106(h). Defendants assert (at 36) that Plaintiff Kennedy ?offers no allegation that DHS will agree to share . . . data? with the Commission. That is simply incorrect: with ample support, Plaintiffs allege that Kobach has ?instructed Commission staff to obtain information that . . . DHS maintains on individuals including Plaintiff Kennedy,? and that in response, has [disclosed]?or imminently will . . . the Commission andfor Commission staff information about individuals including Plaintiff Kennedy contained in systems of records.? Id. ?1111 124-25; see, 9.3., id. (ll 43 (the Executive Order directs executive departments and agencies . . . to ?endeavor to cooperate with the Commission (quoting Executive Order id. 11 102 (alleging ?the unlaw?il disclosure by DHS of [Plaintiff Kennedy?s] individually identi?able data?). Notably, although they could have for purposes of Rule Defendants have not submitted any evidence to support their assertion that Plaintiffs? allegations are incorrect.4 Any 4 Information disclosed by Defendants after Plaintiffs filed suit reveals additional reasons why Plaintiff Kennedy?s allegation that DHS is cooperating with the Commission are not speculative. Pursuant to a court order in a related case, the Commission has disclosed the existence of at least 15 DHS-001-6335-000826 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 24 of 54 claim that the injuries Plaintiffs allege are based only on Defendants? ?sture conduct is without merit. And even if the Court were inclined to disagree, for the reasons stated in Plaintiffs? concurrently-filed motion, in the alternative, for jurisdictional discovery, dismissal still is not proper at this early stage. For this reason, Defendants? reliance (at 15) on Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), is misplaced. In Clapper, which involved a facial constitutional challenge to a surveillance statute, although ?the plaintiffs feared the interception of their overseas communications by the government,? the Court found ?that harm could only occur through the happening of a series ofcontingent events, none of which was alleged to have occurred by the time of the lawsuit.? Attias, 865 F.3d at 628 (distinguishing Clapper in a data security case where the third party had already obtained the data and injury was, thus, concrete). The Clapper Court emphasized the Speculative and contingent nature of the injuries alleged because in order for the plaintiffs? fears to materialize, independent actors would need to take a series of steps. 586 U.S. at 413-14; see also Cent. United Life, Inc. v. Barweil, 128 F. Supp. 3d 32], 326 (D.D.C. 2015) (Lamberth, 1.), 827 F.3d 70 (DC Cir. 2016) (?When courts discuss standing, they often use ?speculative? as a pejorative shorthand for ?theories that rest on speculation about the decisions of independent actors.? (emphasis omitted) (quoting Clapper, 586 U.S. at 414)). The Clapper plaintiffs were therefore unable to sufficiently allege that the government had captured or imminently would capture their data. 586 U.S. at 414. 23 communications between the Commission and DHS, or among the Commission and others concerning DHS, some of which Defendants have characterized as substantive and concerning the Commission?s attempt to gather information. See Defs.? Doc. Index at 8-9 (Sept. 29, 2017), Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Uita?er Law v. Presidential Advisory Comm ?n on Election Integrity No. 17-cv-1354 (CKK) (D.D.C. ?led Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 33?3 (attached as Ex. Third Decl. of Andrew J. Kossack ?11 120:), LC CR (D.D.C. ?led Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 33-] (attached as Ex. 0-1). 16 DHS-001-6335-000827 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28tl? Page 25 of 54 Here, by contrast, Kobach and the Commission have already collected the personal data, including First Amendment-protected data, of at least Plaintiffs Nakhnikian, Cantler, and Kennedy. The harm has occurred. Thus, unlike in the cases Defendants cite, long sequence of uncertain contingencies involving multiple independent actors has to occur before the plaintiffs in this case will suffer any harm.? Attics, 865 F.3d at 629. Second, and more fundamentally, Defendants are simply incorrect in asserting that ?standing cannot lie based on the threat of ?tture injury.? Defs.? Mot. at 15. To the contrary, as the DC. Circuit recently observed, it has ?frequently upheld claims of standing based on allegations of a substantial risk of ?tture injury.? Attics, 865 F.3d at 627' (collecting cases). In Attics, for example, the plaintiffs? personal data had been obtained by a third party without consent. Id. at 623. Over the objections of the defendants, who claimed that the plaintiffs? allegations of injury based on future threats of identity theft were speculative, the Court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged ?a substantial risk of identity fraud, even if their social security numbers were never exposed to the data thief." Id. at 628. Here, of course, the principal injury Plaintiffs have experienced is the inquiry into and collection of their First Amendment- protected data. This injury has already occurred, as have other injuries such as the imposition of fear and hesitation when it comes to participating in the political process. But to the extent that Plaintiffs allege injuries from the activities that Defendants are undertaking and will complete in the future, Defendants? own assertions are enough to confirm the plausibility of Plaintiffs? allegations of a ?substantial risk? of such injuries occurring. For example, Kobach has stated that ?for the ?rst time in the country?s history . . . [the federal government] will be gathering data from all 50 states" that will be ?bounced" off of ?federal government" databases. Am. Comp]. ?ll 54. To achieve this end, Kobach has ?directed 17 DHS-001-6335-000828 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28ll? Page 26 of 54 Commission staff to obtain ?whatever data? there is within the federal government . . . to assist the Commission in its investigation,? see id. at 3, [ll 73, and has specifically referenced Defendant DHS as a source of the data, id. ?ii 54. Both the complaint and the declarations of the individual Plaintiffs identify concrete harms?such as, for example, there being obstacles to their ability to vote, and suffering injuries associated with a data breach?that are at substantial risk of occun'ing in light of the acts Defendants have already taken to obtain data and investigate voters. In short, the individual Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that they have already suffered harm, that the harm is ongoing, and that there is a substantial risk of future harm. These allegations more than suffice at this stage, and the Court should reject Defendants? argument to the contrary. B. Common Cause Has Adequately Pleaded Representational Standing Among other things, an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when ??its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right.? Ctr. for Sasroirtobie Econ. 12. Jeweii, 779 F.3d 588, 596 (DC. Cir. 2015) (quoting Ham v. Wash. Store Apple Advert. Comm 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). Defendants argue (at 10-11) that Common Cause lacks representational standing because it has not identified any of its members with standing to sue. Here, too, they are wrong. A plaintiff asserting representational standing ?need not identify [its] affected members by name at the pleading stage," because at this stage, ?the Court presumes that general allegations encompass the speci?c facts necessary to support the claim.? Ass?n ofAm. Physicians (it Surgeons, Inc. v. Sebeiius, 901 F. Supp. 2d 19, 31 (D.D.C. 2012) (collecting cases), 746 F.3d 468 (DC Cir. 2014); see also Am. Ass ?n ofCosmetology Sch. v. Del/cs, F. Supp. 3d 2017 WL 2804886, at (D.D.C. June 28, 2017) (?Lower courts have found that, although an association must identify members, it need not identify members by name at the 18 DHS-001-6335-000829 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 27 of 54 pleading stage to ?Jlfill the ?rst prong of the test for associational standing.? (emphases omitted) (collecting cases)). Common Cause alleges that it ?has over one million members and supporters nationwide,? Am. Compl. ii 1; that its ?members have been and will be injured by the Defendants? activities, including the efforts to obtain personal and private information regarding voter af?liation, vote history, and other related details,? id. ?11 3; and that these unlawful actions will hamper ?its members? efforts to encourage voter registration and participation,? id. ?11 4. Common Cause has thereby plausibly alleged that it has members who have suffered injuries akin to those alleged by the individual Plaintiffs. For all the reasons described above, Common Cause?s allegations establish its Article standing. Nevertheless, although not required, Plaintiffs have submitted declarations from three Common Cause members (two of which are individual Plaintiffs) who have been injured as a result of Defendants? activities. See, Gutierrez Dec]. 1, 7-10; Cantler Decl. 3, 13-16; McClenaghan 1, 11-14; see also Decl. 21-26. On the basis of its allegations alone, and particularly when its allegations are considered alongside the supporting declarations, Common Cause has adequately pleaded its standing to sue on members? behalves.5 5 Notwithstanding Defendants? arguments to the contrary {at 31-32), Common Cause has standing to represent its members? interests under the Privacy Act. Common Cause?s members are ?individua1[s]? under the Act. 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(2). Here, ?Common Cause . . . stands in [their] shoes,? Common Cause v. Boiger, 512 F. Supp. 26, 30 (D.D.C. 1980), and ?it and its members are in every practical sense identical,? NAACP v. Alabama, 357' U.S. at 459. On this basis, courts have approved representational standing under the Privacy Act. See. Not?i Ass ?n of'Letrer Carriers, AFL-CIO v. USPS, 604- F. Supp. 2d 665, 672 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Prof?! Dog Breeders Advisory Commitl v. Wow; No. 09-cv-258, 2009 WL 2948527, at *5 (MD. Pa. Sept. 11, 2009); Not? Fed?n ofFed. Entps. v. Greenberg, 789 F. Supp. 430, 433 (D.D.C. 1992), rev?d on other grounds, 983 F.2d 286 (DC. Cir. 1993). In addition, class actions are also ?a form of representative litigation,? Keepseogie v. Viirock, No. 99-cv-3119, 2016 WL 9455764, at *6 (D.D.C. April 20, 2016), and courts routinely certify classes under the Privacy Act, see, Rice United States, 211 F.R.D. 10, 12 2002); Baker Runyon, No. 96-2619, 1997r WL 232606, at *4 (ND. [11. May 2, 1997'). Defendants? arguments are unavailing. Some of Defendants? cases do not discuss representational standing at all. Cell Assocs.. inc. v. NIH, l9 DHS-001-6335-000830 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28tl? Page 28 of 54 C. Common Cause Has Adequately Pleaded Organizational Standing Common Cause also has standing to sue on its own behalf. Defendants? arguments to the contrary (at 11-14) ignore Plaintiffs? allegations and disregard binding caselaw. Following Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 US. 363, 378-79 (1982), the DC. Circuit has recognized ?organizational standing in a wide range of circumstances,? Abigaii AH. for Better Access to Developmental Drags v. Eseitenbaeh, 469 F.3d 129, 133 (DC. Cir. 2006). When evaluating organizational standing, courts ?rst consider whether the ?actions taken by [the defendant] have ?perceptibly impaired? the [organization?s] programs,? League of Women Voters ofU.S. v. Newby, 838 F.3d 1, 8 (DC. Cir. 2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Fair Emp ?t Coancii afGreater Wash, Inc. v. BMC Mktg. Corp, 28 F.3d 1268, 1276 (DC. Cir. 1994)), asking simply whether the ?defendant?s conduct has made the organization?s activities more difficult,? id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Nat '11 Treasury Emps. Union v. United States, 101 F.3d 1423, 1430 (DC. Cir. 1996)). Courts then consider whether the defendants? actions ?directly conflict with the organization?s mission.? Id. Here, Defendants do not dispute that their activities directly con?ict with Common Cause?s mission. And they fail in their attempt to argue that, under the ?rst prong of the 579 F.2d 1155 (9th Cir. 1978); Fab. Emps._for Envt?i v. EPA, 926 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2013). Similarly, another concerns the standing of ?advocacy groups? generally, not membership organizations specifically. In re Dep ?t of Veterans A?airs Data Theft Litig, No. 06- mc?506, 2007 WL 7621261, at *2 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2007'). Likewise, that the Privacy Act?s legislative history indicates that the Act does not cover ?proprietorships, businesses and corporations,? Defs.? Mot. at 32, saying nothing about whether it permits an association to sue in its members? stead. In other cases Defendants reference, the issue was whether individual participation was necessary in light of the plaintiffs? damages claims, Am. Fed?n ofGov 't Emps. v. Hawiey, 543 F. Supp. 2d 44, 50 (D.D.C. 2008), an issue not presented here. Yet, in the event the Court finds that Common Cause cannot assert its members? interests under the Privacy Act, it undoubtedly can do so under the APA or, alternatively, through its nitra vires claim. 20 DHS-001-6335-000831 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28ll? Page 29 of 54 organizational standing test, Common Cause has not sufficiently alleged that Defendants? activities have perceptibly impaired its programs. Common Cause?s declaration buttresses the complaint?s factual allegations concerning its organizational standing. See Decl. CHill 13-20; Am. Comp]. LWill 1-4, 37-38, 40, 52-56, 60-62, 68, 70-73, 80, 93-97, 99, 101, 106; see also McClenaghan Decl. ?ll 10. Together, they establish that because of Defendants? actions, Common Cause has suffered concrete and specific injuries to its core activities that are more than adequate to establish standing at the motion to dismiss stage. First, Plaintiffs? allegations concerning Defendants? injurious activities are specific and comprehensive. In sum, under Kobac-h?s leadership, and with assistance from DHS, the Commission is undertaking a ?nationwide fact-finding effort focused on assessing ?evidence? of ?different forms of voter fraud,?? Am. Comp]. 37-38, 52, 60-62, 80 (data request to states); id. ?ll 73 (data request to federal agencies), with the aim of identifying individuals the Commission believes to be fraudulently registered to vote, see id. CH 68, 71-72. As a result of Defendants? investigation, ?thousands of voters have de-registered from the rolls, while others are gravely concerned about how their data will be used by the Commission, making them hesitant to fully participate in the political processn.60. Second, Plaintiffs? allegations concerning how Defendants? actions have harmed Common Cause are concrete. ?Since its founding in 197'0, Common Cause has been dedicated to the promotion and protection of the democratic process, such as the right of all citizens . . . to be registered for and vote in fair, open, and honest elections.? Id. ?li l; Dec]. ?11 3-6. In furtherance of its mission, Common Cause ?conducts signi?cant nonpartisan voter-protection, advocacy, education, and outreach activities to ensure that voters are registered to vote and have their ballots counted as cast.? Am. Compl. 2; Dec]. ?1111 3-6. The con?ict between 21 DHS-001-6335-000832 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 30 of 54 Defendants? actions and Common Cause?s activities is readily apparent. Defendants? actions have ?inhibit[ed] [Common Cause?s] daily operations? and have ?subject[ed] [Common Cause] to ?operational costs beyond those normally expended.? Food Water Watch, Inc. v. Vifsack, 808 F.3d 905, 919 (DC. Cir. 2015) (quoting Nat"!r Taxpayers Union, Inc. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1428, 1434 (DC. Cir. 1995)). To take but a few examples: - Over and above its typical activities, ?Common Cause has been engaged in direct counseling of individual voters seeking to deregister from voting as a result of the fear they have for what the Commission will do with their personal First Amendment information.? Am. Compl. 4; Dec]. 14-19 (discussing activities Common Cause has engaged in to dissuade individuals from deregistering from voting, including the counseling of individual voters). - Common Cause has directed specific educational and outreach activities to counteract the Commission?s effect of undermining the political process and the hesitation that many individuals are experiencing in light of Defendants? activities. Am. Comp]. ?il 4. Common Cause?s declaration elaborates that it has published materials dissuading individuals from deregistering to vote as the result of the Commission?s activities; and has dedicated digital and other media resources to these effons, diverting them away from its ongoing activities. Dec]. 15-20. I Common Cause is also increasing spending for voter registration efforts over and above its normal levels in order to counteract the wave of voter deregistration and general lack of con?dence in the political process that has resulted from the Commission?s activities. Dec]. 11?" 14, 18. Equally significant, Common Cause?s other activities?its efforts to facilitate same day voter registration, automatic voter registration, fair redistricting, and work to facilitate discussion, education, and engagement about the importance of a free press and transparent government ?have suffered because Common Cause has had to divert resources from those efforts in order to try to counteract the effects of the Commission?s investigation. Doe]. 18-20 (providing examples of speci?c programs from which resources have been diverted). Accordingly, Common Cause has established ?that discrete programmatic concerns are being directly and adversely affected by [Defendants?] Nat Taxpayers Union, 68 F.3d at 22 DHS-001-6335-000833 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28117 Page 31 of 54 1433, and that it ?undertook [specified] expenditures in response to. and to counteract, the effects of [Defendants? actions],? Equal Rights Cat, 633 F.3d at 1140. Once again ignoring Plaintiffs? well-pleaded injuries, Defendants assert that Common Cause?s alleged harms are ?abstract,? see Defs.? Mot. at 11, and ?not suf?ciently concrete and particularized,? id. at 13. But the decisions that Defendants cite (at 11-13) underscore the differences between this case and those cases where courts have denied organizational standing??between organizations that allege that their activities have been impeded [and] those that merely allege that their mission has been compromised.? Food Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 919 {quoting Eschenboch, 469 F.3d at 133). For example, unlike the plaintiff in National! Taxpayers Union, Common Cause has not relied on ?entirely speculative? allegations concerning impairment of ??Jture fundraising initiatives? for programs yet to be implemented. 68 F.3d at It: 1433. Nor has Common Cause failed to describe how Defendants conduct perceptibly impaired [its] ability to provide services,? or rested its claim to standing on its ?use of resources for litigation, investigation in anticipation of litigation, or advocacy.? Food Water Watch, 808 F.3d at 919. Rather, Common Cause has alleged in detail, supported by comprehensive declarations, how Defendants? activities have impaired its efforts and diverted its resources from discrete, critical programs. Because ?[s]uch concrete and demonstrable injury to [Common Cause?s] activities?with the consequent drain on [its] resources?constitutes far more than simply a setback to [its] abstract social interests,? Common Cause has established ?standing . . . in its own right.? Havens Realty, 455 U.S. at 379. II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ADEQUATELY PLEADED LEGALLY COGNIZABLE CLAIMS Defendants? arguments as to why Plaintiffs? claims should be dismissed under Rule l2(b)(6) fare no better. 23 DHS-001-6335-000834 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 32 of 54 A. Plaintiffs Have Adequately Pleaded that the Commission Has Violated Subsection of the Privacy Act by Collecting Plaintiffs? First Amendment Data Defendants do not dispute that state voter data ?describe[s] how . . . individual[s] exercise[] rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,? and that the Commission is ?maintain[ing]" it. 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7). They argue only that the Commission is not an ?agency" for purposes of the Privacy Act and that even if the Commission is violating 5 U.S.C. this Court is powerless to enjoin it from doing so. Defendants are incorrect on both counts. 1. The Commission Is an Agency Under the Privacy Act and the APA Under the Privacy Act, an ?agency,? ?as defined in [5 U.S.C. includes any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Of?ce of the President), or any independent regulatory agency." 5 U.S.C. 552(f)(l) (Freedom of Information Act); see 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(1) (Privacy Act) (incorporating the definition of ?agency" ?om the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. The statute?s ?reference to 551(1) is to the Administrative Procedure Act?s definition of ?agency??namely, ?each authority of the Government of the United States, whether or not it is within or subject to review by another agency,? except Congress, the judiciary and a few other select bodies? not relevant here. Energy Research Found. v. Def. Nuclear Safety 917' F.2d 581, 582 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting 5 U.S.C. 551(1)); see aiso id. at 584?85 (tracing the FOIA definition?s legislative history). While the ?definition of ?agency? is not entirely clear," Soaei'e v. David, 448 F.2d 106?, 1073 (DC. Cir. 1971), and while the DC. Circuit has articulated a number of definitional tests over time, see Cirizem ?Jr Responsibility Ethics in Wash. v. O??ice ofAdmin. 24 DHS-001-6335-000835 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28t17 Page 33 of 54 566 F.3d 219, 222-23 (DC. Cir. 2009), ?common to every case in which [the Circuit has] held that" a unit within the Executive Of?ce of the President ?is subject to and therefore quali?es as an agency under the Privacy Act, ?has been a finding that the entity in question '15? ?wielded substantial authority independently of the President, id. at 222 {quoting Sweeilund v. Waiters, 60 F.3d 852, 854 (DC. Cir. 1995)). If an ?entity?s soie function is to advise and assist the President,? id. {emphasis added), it does not qualify as an agency, see id. at 223-24. On the other hand, the DC. Circuit has repeatedly found mere ?[elvciiuotion plus advice? suf?cient to bestow agency status. Energy Research Found, 917 F.2d at 584 (emphasis added); see id. at 584?85 {surveying caselavv); v. Exec. O??ice ofthe President, 90 F.3d 553, 564?65 (DC. Cir. 1996) (?[Wle distinguish between advising and assisting the President on the one hand and exercising independent authority on the Defendants assert (at 23) that this is a ??Jnctional test,? and that the ?relevant inquiry is the function exercised, not [the] title? given the entity in question. Plaintiffs agree. But Defendants then proceed to entirely ignore the Commission?s actual functions. Properly considered, Plaintiffs? allegations regarding the Commission?s uctuoi functions?not just the Commission?s authorized functions?establish that it exercises substantial independent authority and is an agency subject to the Privacy Act and to the APA. a. The agency test iooics beyond an entity is authorizing documents to its octuoi functions. The DC. Circuit has made clear that agency status is a facts?and?circumstances determination, and thus particularly ill-suited to resolution under Rule See, e. g, Nichols v. Clubfor Growth Action, 235 F. Supp. 3d 289, 295 (BBC. 2017) (noting that ?fact- intensive? questions, in that case under the fair use doctrine, are ?not traditionally decided on a motion to dismiss?). When confronted ?with one of the myriad organizational arrangements for 25 DHS-001-6335-000836 Case Document 30 Filed 11/28i17 Page 34 of 54 getting the business of the government done," the ?unavoidable fact is that each new arrangement must be examined anew and in its own context.? Wash. Research Project, Inc. v. Dep ?t ofHettitit. Educ. Welfare, 504 F.2d 238, 246 (DC. Cir. 1924). Accordingly, ?the specific evidence bearing upon [the agency] question varies with the entity in question.? 90 F.3d at 558-59. Courts frequently look ?beyond public documents? to depositions, document discovery, letters, memoranda, and other statements by government of?cials, particularly where the ?language establishing the entity?s power [in the public documents] is broad and lacking in firm parameters.? Mem. Op. at 12 n.4, Eiec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. O?ice ofHomeiortd Sec. {?O??ice ofHomeiortd See?), No. 02-cv-00620 (CKK) (D.D.C. Dec. 26, 2002), ECF No. 11. Soucie, for example, involved a FOIA request to the Office of Science and Technology Policy for its report evaluating the government?s development of a supersonic transport aircraft. 448 F.2d at 1069, 1076. The DC Circuit, in reversing a Rule 12(b) dismissal, held the OSTP to be an ?agency" for FOIA purposes because it not only ?advise[d] and assist[ed] the President in achieving coordinated federal policies in science and technology," id. at 1073- 74, but also had ?the function of evaluating federal programs,? id. at 1075. As the DC. Circuit subsequently recognized, its analysis in Soacie hinged on the actual ?tnctions; for even though ?the report[] under consideration in Soacie wias] requested by the President precisely for advisory purposes,? the Circuit held that the OSTP was an agency ?because the Office had functions in addition to advising the President." Ryan v. Dep ?t 617 F.2d 781, 788 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (emphasis added); see disc Rusitforth v. Councii of Econ. Advisers, 762 F.2d 1038, 1041 (DC. Cir. 1985) it was the functional role of the agency on which turned"). 26 DHS-001-6335-000837 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28fl7' Page 35 of 54 In by contrast, the DC Circuit, this time reviewing a decision on summary judgment, concluded that the National Security Council was not an agency because it ?plays [no] substantive role apart from that of the President, as opposed to a coordinating role on behalf of the President.? 90 F.3d at 565. Yet in reaching that conclusion, the Circuit did not confine itself to reviewing the authorizing documents, but rather considered, among other evidentiary sources, the actual ?degree of the independence in discharging? its functions, id. at 559; the ?organizational lines of authority and responsibility within the in practice, id; a declaration from President Clinton?s National Security Adviser concerning the organizational structure, see id. at 559-60; deposition testimony of an NSC staff member about whether the President had authorized NSC staff to take certain actions, id. at 561; ?various presidential delegations to the id; and the report of an independent commission that ?examin[ed] possible involvement by NSC staff members in the Iran-Contra matter,? id. Likewise, and most recently, in CREW, the DC. Circuit held that the Office of Administration is not an agency because ?nothing in the record indicates that 0A performs or is authorized to perform tasks other than operational and administrative support for the President and his staff? 566 F.3d at 224. Importantly, that ?record? included facts adduced through deposition and document discovery, see id. at 221, that ?shed light on authority and operations, an understanding of which [was] critical,? the Circuit said, ?for determining whether DA is subject to id. at 225 (emphasis added); see otso Meyer v. Bush, 981 F.2d 1288, 1297 (DC. Cir. 1993) (looking to authority task force members ?were to exercise? and authority that they ?in fact? exercised); Rashforrh, 7'62 F.2d at 1043 8.: n7 (explaining that ?at bottom, [it is] function that determines an entity?s status for FOIA purposes? and no ?evidence [has] been brought forward to show that some other function in fact exists?). 27 DHS-001-6335-000838 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 36 of 54 Common to each of these cases?yet ignored by Defendants?is that in every instance the D.C. Circuit assessed both the authorized and actual functions of the entities in question. Thus, as one district court has put it, an entity?s ?function may be discerned from its charter documents as well as the responsibilities [it] actually undertakes, if they in fact extend beyond the responsibilities delineated in [its] charter documents.? CREW v. O?fice afAdmin., 559 F. Supp. 2d 9, 24 (D.D.C. 2008), 566 F.3d 219 (DC. Cir. 2009). This inquiry goes both ways, of course, underscoring that the test is functional and case-speci?c. For example, in even though an executive order permitted the NSC certain authority, because the NSC had never exercised it in practice, the Circuit disregarded it as a ?mere formality" and ?of no consequence.? 90 F.3d at 562. b. The Commission exercises ?sabstantiai independent authority? and does not solely "advise and assist the President. Brushing aside this precedent and their own description of the governing standard as a functional test, Defendants (at 21-23) urge the Court to declare the Commission is not an agency based only on its Charter and the Executive Order. These documents provide, for example, that the ?Commission shall, consistent with applicable law, study the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections,? and assert that the Commission ?shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President? on certain identified topics. Executive Order 3. But the chartering documents fail to account for what the Commission is actually doing. Plaintiffs have made speci?c, detailed allegations demonstrating that?far from merely studying ?voting processes??the Commission ?has undertaken a sweeping, ?rst-of?its-kind investigation into alleged voting misconduct by individual American citizens." Am. Comp]. 105, 106(a). And itself recognized that an entity in the federal government which cinvestigates, 28 DHS-001-6335-000839 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28717 Page 37 of 54 evaluates and recommends? is an Energy Research Found, 917 F.2d at 585 (quoting Soucfc, 448 F.2d at 1073 n.15, 1075). Plaintiffs allege statements by Kobach and Commission members confirming the Commission?s actions and intentions as regards its investigation and crosscheck: Kobaeh has stated ??the Commission?s ?goal is to, for the first time, have a nationwide fact? finding effort? focused on assessing ?evidence? of ?different forms of voter fraud across the country.? Am. Comp]. 1 52. Kobach ??has stated that the Commission intends to utilize databases ?om federal agencies in order to ?crosscheck? against the names of individual voters to determine if there are alleged fraudulently registered voters on the rolls.? Id. L11 53. spokesman for the Commission has confirmed that the Commission intends to run the voting data it receives on individuals through a number of different databases to check for alleged fraudulent voter registrations.? Id. (11 54. Kobach has written that ??every investigation? the Commission undertakes will require individuals? state voter roll data? so the Commission can ??use data it collects from the states to ?con?rm? the identity of individual American voters alleged to have committed fraud." Id. at 4, C11 55. Commission members have ?described the objective of the Commission?s investigation as ?deciding . . . how accurate . . . the voter rolls? are" and have discussed ??referrals of individuals suspected of voter fraud to the for possible criminal prosecution.? Id. 1111 70, 72. Plaintiffs also allege facts regarding evidence being collected by the Commission as part of the ongoing investigation and crosscheck: Kobach instructed Commission staff to trying to collect whatever data there is that?s already in the possession of the federal government? that ?might be helpful? to the Commission?s unauthorized voter fraud investigation.? Id. ?11 73; see id. ?11 124. The Commission has received multiple forms of evidence, including: state voting data (including political party affiliation and voting history) from millions of American voters, id. ?1111 6-9, 80; ??evidence or information . . . [from states] regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud,? id. 11 61; database hosted by the Heritage Foundation that purportedly ?documents 1,071 proven incidents of election fraud,? id. 11 94; life examples? of improper voter registration and voting by named non-citizens,? id. 11 96; ?8,471 cases of likely duplicate voting [to] be investigated for possible wrongdoing? by the Commission,? id. 29 DHS-001-6335-000840 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 38 of 54 ll 97; and ?information about individuals . . . contained in systems of records,? id. ?ll 125. Finally, Plaintiffs allege facts about the initial results of the Commission?s investigation. Id. (II 56 (Kobach has stated there is ?proof? of voter fraud by ?individual voters in New Hampshire? within the evidence already ?provided to the Commission?). These and other allegations confirm that this is a textbook situation where the Commission?s functions ?in fact extend beyond the responsibilities delineated in [its] charter documents,? such that its status as an ?agency? must be ?discerned from . . . the responsibilities [it] actually undertakes.? CREW, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 24.6 By commencing its investigation and crosscheck, the Commission has already undertaken actions that confirm its status as an agency for the purposes of the Privacy Act. In Energy Research Foundation, the DC. Circuit concluded that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board is an agency because, ?more than merely offerling] advice,? the Board ?conducts investigations, which ?has long been recognized as an incident of legislative power? delegated to agencies by Congress.? 91? F.2d at 584 (quoting Soucie, 448 F.2d at 1075 n.27). The Commission is likewise conducting an investigation, and what Plaintiffs allege of its activities to date points to the Commission?s attempt to exercise ?the full panoply of investigative powers commonly held by other agencies of government.? id.T ?5 If, despite taking Plaintiffs? well-pleaded allegations as true, the Court nevertheless ?nds these allegations insuf?cient to establish the Commission?s agency status at this juncture, Plaintiffs note that courts have ordered discovery on this threshold question prior to dismissal, and request that this Court do the same. Discovery into an entity?s authority and operations is ?at the very least[] helpful, ifnct required, in determining the status of an entity positioned within the Executive Of?ce of the President.? Of?ce of Homeland Sec. at 12 (emphasis added); see CREW, 566 F.3d at 225-26 (discovery that ?shed light on authority and operations? was ?critical? to determining whether entity was an ??agency?). 7 Defendants? contention (at 23 n2) that the Commission lacks these powers misunderstands both the extent of the Commission?s power and the scope of its investigation. For example, in at 30 DHS-001-6335-000841 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28t17 Page 39 of 54 In any event, even assuming that the Commission is not yet exercising all of the sweeping powers of an Executive Department, that is not required. In Soucte and Energy Research Foundation, among other cases, the DC. Circuit has found that evaluation plus advice is ?enough? for an entity to attain agency status. See Energy Research Found, 917 F.2d at 584-85 (collecting cases). The Commission is doing even more than evaluating and advising the President. For example, it is working to find evidence of individual incidents of fraudulent voting and to refer alleged perpetrators for potential enforcement. None of the DC. Circuit decisions that Defendants cite address these types of investigative functions.S At bottom, the Commission is no different than the OSTP in Soucte that had likewise been tasked with least one known instance, the Commission invoked New York?s freedom of information law to legally compel disclosure of that state?s voter roll data, after state officials re?ssed to provide it to the Commission. Am. Comp]. ?ll 82. At the federal level, the Executive Order directs that other federal agencies ?endeavor to cooperate with the Commission.? Am. Compl. 11 43 (quoting Executive Order This cooperation, moreover, extends both to the data ?already in the possession of the federal government" that the Commission has obtained or is obtaining ?to be helpful to the Commission?s unauthorized voter fraud investigation,? and to the ?referrals of individuals suspected of voter fraud to the [Department of Justice] for possible criminal prosecution.? Id. 72, 73. That the Commission has not compelled production of individuals? data in every instance does not change the fact that it is using the information it is collecting to investigate individuals for alleged voter fraud, which is a classic function of an agency endowed with enforcement powers. Id. 106. 3 CREW found the OA not to be an agency due to the ?operational and administrative [tasks]? it provided to support the President, see 566 F.3d at 224, which are different in kind from the Commission?s investigative functions. similarly did not involve an investigation of individuals, but rather found NSC not to be an agency because it was too indistinct from the President. 90 F.3d at 565. Meyer involved the application of ?Soucie to those who help the President supervise others in the Executive Branch,? 981 F.2d at 1293 (emphasis added), a question not implicated here. Finally, Defendants? analogy to the Council of Economic Advisers in Rusnfortn is inapt, for the DC. Circuit later pointed out that the CEA was found not to be an agency because, unlike here, its ?duties simply facilitate providing advice to the President.? Energy Research Found, 917'r F.2d at 584. Regardless, even if the Commission has functions that differ from other entities previously found to be agencies, or shares characteristics with entities deemed not to be, this would not be dispositive, given the case-by-case nature of the analysis. See 90 F.3d at 558-59; Wash. Research Project, 504 F.2d at 246. 3] DHS-001-6335-000842 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 40 of 54 generating a report ?requested by the President precisely for advisory purposes,? but aiso exercised ??mctions in addition" that drew it across the agency line. Ryan, 61'! F.2d at 788. Finally, Judge Kollar?Kotelly?s ?nding regarding the Commission?s agency status in EPIC v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Eieetion Integrity, No. 17-cv-1320, 2017 WL 3141907, at *1 (D.D.C. July 24, 2017'), appeaipending, No. 17-5171 (DC. Cir.), is of little value to Defendants. See Defs.? Mot. at 22. The plaintiff in that case is principally seeking an injunction to require the Commission to conduct a privacy impact assessment under the E- Government Act of 2002. In relying on EPIC, Defendants do not acknowledge that in denying, without prejudice, a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, Judge Kollar- Kotelly found that the ?record presently? before the court was ?insuf?cient to demonstrate that the Commission is an ?agency.?? id. at *11. This ruling, moreover, was issued in the Commission?s early days and on a much less developed record than even Plaintiffs? complaint alone presents. For example, Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote there was ?no evidence that [the Commission has] exercised any independent authority that is unrelated to its advisory mission," id. at *1 l?a ?nding that is plainly contradicted by Plaintiffs? detailed allegations, which were not before Judge concerning the Commission?s extra?legal investigation. Judge Kollar?Kotelly, moreover, acknowledged that the factual circumstances surrounding the Commission were fast moving and noted that the extent the factual circumstances change, however?for example, if the dejitre or defame powers of the Commission expand beyond those of a purely advisory body?this determination may need to be revisited." Id. at As set 32 DHS-001-6335-000843 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 41 of 54 forth above, the Commission?s de?tcio powers have indeed evolved significantly, and they demonstrate that the Commission is an ?agency" under the Privacy Act.? In sum, under the DC. Circuit?s functional approach to the question, Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts establishing that the Commission is an agency for purposes of the Privacy Act. 2. Plaintiffs May Obtain Injunctive Relief on Their Privacy Act Subsection Claim to Prevent the Commission from Collecting and Maintaining Their First Amendment Data Above, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the Commission is an agency. In their brief, Defendants do not dispute that, under the Privacy Act, the Commission is ?maintain[ing] . . . record[s] describing how [Plaintiffs] exercise[] rights guaranteed by the First Amendment,? 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7), ?in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual,? id. 552a(g)(1)(D). Contrary to Defendants? arguments (at 24-28), Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief to halt the Commission from violating subsection Defendants (at 26) acknowledge ?dicta suggesting? as much, but argue (at 25) that the ?Privacy Act authorizes injunctive relief in only two Speci?c circumstances: (1) to order an agency to amend inaccurate, incomplete, irrelevant, or untimely records, 5 U.S.C 552a(g)(l)(A), and (2) to order an agency to allow an individual access to his records, id. 552a(g)(1)(B), Otherwise, Defendants assert, only monetary damages are available. 9 Defendants are mistaken in suggesting (at 23) that Plaintiffs claim the Commission is an advisory committee. Rather, Plaintiffs allege that ?[a]lthough it was formed as a ?commission,? [the] Commission is an ?agency? for the purposes of the Privacy Act.? Am. Comp]. 11 26. As Plaintiffs have explained, although the Commission was established as an advisory committee, it remains one in name only because it is exercising investigative functions that transcend its advisory mission. See id. at 3. 33 DHS-001-6335-000844 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 42 of 54 The Act, however, also contains a catch-all provision that authorizes jurisdiction over claims that the government has ?fail[ed] to comply with? certain of its provisions, including subsection ?in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual.? 5 U.S.C. 552a(g)(l)(D). And it has long been established that when Congress thus authorizes jurisdiction, courts? ?inherent equitable powers . . . are available for the proper and complete exercise of that jurisdiction? and cannot ?be denied or limited in the absence of a clear and valid legislative command.? Porter v. Warner Hoiding Ca, 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946). No such command can be found in the Privacy Act. Indeed, upon reviewing the very provisions of the Act?s remedial scheme upon which Defendants rely, and in language that previews the present dispute, the DC. Circuit concluded that is not at all clear. . . that Congress intended to preclude broad equitable relief (injunctions) to prevent violations such as, for instance, a hypothetical agency?s secret compiling of records on Americans? legitimate political activities.? House v. Sessions, 893 F.2d 370, 374 11.6 (DC. Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the DC. Circuit stated that ?Congress presumably intended the district court to use its inherent equitable powers?at least to remedy violations of Id. (citing Porter, 328 U.S. at 398). And the DC. Circuit distinguished the decisions of other circuits that Defendants would have this Court follow, see Defs.? Mot. at 25-26 n.3, ?nding that none of them ?deal[] squarely with a situation??specitically, this situation?where ?a party charging an violation? seeks, under 552a(g)(1)(D), ?an injunction broader in scope than amendment or espungement to address the offending activity.? Home, 893 F.2d at 374 n.6. Even prior to Home, the DC. Circuit had recognized that damages are not the sole remedy for a Privacy Act claim. See Smith v. Nixon, 80? F.2d 197, 204 (DC. Cir. 1986); Nags! v. US. Dept ofHeairh, Educ. Weifare, 725 F.2d 1438, 1441 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Albrighi, 34 DHS-001-6335-000845 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 43 of 54 631 F.2d at 921. Notably, in Hausa, the government agreed with that view. There, it argued that an action seeking to enforce compliance with subsection ?should logically be construed as an action seeking the District Court?s exercise of its inherent equitable power to order the amendment or expungement of records as a means of vindicating statutory or constitutional rights.? Corrected Brief for Appellees at 17, Hausa, 893 F.2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (No. 88- 5303); see also id. at 10 action for injunctive relief to remedy an violation must be construed as one brought directly under the Constitution, inherent equitable principles, or perhaps the Administrative Procedure Act?). And following Haase, in a decision upon which Defendants (at 25, 27') perplexingly rely, the Circuit acknowledged its prior ?suggestion that the district court retains ?inherent equitable powers? to issue injunctions in 552a(g)(1)(D) cases predicated on violations of? Sassman v. US. Marshals Sena, 494 F.3d 1106, 1122 n. 10 (D.C. Cir. 2007'). This Court has likewise stated ?that injunctive relief for violations under would be available,? Scott Conley, 937 F. Supp. 2d 60, 82 (D.D.C. 2013) (Lamberth, .), and should apply this same role here to enjoin the Commission?s violation of subsection Concluding that injunctive relief is available respects Congress?s intent in enacting subsection Congress was ?well aware of the special and sensitive treatment accorded First Amendment rights under the interpretive case law? and exhibited a ?concern for unwarranted collection of information as a distinct harm in and of itself.? Albrighr, 631 F.2d at 919. Thus, in ?nding injunctive relief to be available on an claim in Nagel, the D.C. Circuit invoked the ?chilling effect? that ?ows from the ?mere compilation by the government of records describing the exercise of First Amendment freedoms.? 725 F.2d at 1441. The D.C. Circuit, moreover, has ?consistently turned back neat legal maneuver[s] . . . attempted by the 35 DHS-001-6335-000846 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i'17 Page 44 of 54 government that, while literally consistent with the Act?s temis, [are] not in keeping with the privacy?protection responsibilities that Congress intended to assign to agencies under the Act.? Pilon v. US. 't offastice, 7?3 F.3d 1111, 1118 (DC. Cir. 1996) (first alteration in original). This Court should likewise resist Defendants? maneuvering here: denying the injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled cannot be squared with Congress? specific and clear intent that the Privacy Act in general, and subsection in particular, broadly protect individuals? First Amendment interests. Finally, as described below, even if the Court were to conclude that injunctive relief to remedy Plaintiffs? claim is unavailable under the Privacy Act, the Court may issue such relief under the APA. Sec, Doe v. Choc, 540 U.S. at 619 n.1; Doe v. Stephens, 851 F.2d 1457, 1466 (DC. Cir. 1988). B. Plaintiff Kennedy Has Adequately Pleaded a Claim Against DHS Under Subsection of the Privacy Act Defendants do not dispute that DHS cannot, consistent with the Privacy Act, disclose Plaintiff Kennedy?s personal information to the Commission. They instead (at 35-36) revert back to challenging Mr. Kennedy?s standing, and then attempt to argue (at 36-37) that subsection of the Privacy Act does not provide for injunctive relief. Defendants? challenge to Plaintiff Kennedy?s standing fails for the reasons already discussed, and they again err concerning the availability of injunctive relief. The Court may award Plaintiff Kennedy the relief he seeks under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. (authorizing courts to hold unlawful and set aside agency actions that are, inter cilia, not in accordance with law). The availability of injunctive relief under the APA for Privacy Act- prohibited actions was recognized by the Office of Management and Budget over 40 years ago in its Privacy Act implementation guidelines for agencies. 40 Fed. Reg. 28,948, 28,968 (July 9, 36 DHS-001-6335-000847 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28!l? Page 45 of 54 1975) (stating that plaintiffs are not limited by the specific civil remedies provisions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552a(g) and ?may seek judicial review under other provisions of the As the agency charged by the Privacy Act to ?develop guidelines and regulations . . . and provide continuing assistance to and oversight of . . . implementation,? id. at 28,948, interpretation is entitled to deference. Summon, 494 F.3d at 1120 . . . give the OMB Guidelines ?the deference usually accorded interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with its administration?? (quoting Albrr?ghr, 631 F.2d at 920 And in reliance on this guidance, the Solicitor General has at least twice taken the position before the Supreme Court?contrary to the position that Defendants take here?that where a plaintiff does not have a damages claim under the Privacy Act?s ?independent remedial scheme,? that individual ?would be limited to pursuing injunctive relief under the to halt any ongoing agency violation of the Privacy Act." Brief for Respondent at 38 n.13, Doe v. Char), 540 U.S. 614 {2004) (No. 02?1377), 2003 WL 22489257; see Brief for Petitioners at 34-35 FAA 12. Cooper, 566 U.S. 284 (2012) (No. 10-1024), 2011 WL 3678806 (similar) The Supreme Court has likewise recognized in the context of a subsection claim that the APA provides an avenue to equitable relief. As the Court explained in Doe v. Choc, agreeing with the Solicitor General?s view at the time, he Privacy Act says nothing about standards of proof governing equitable relief that may be open to victims of adverse determinations or effects, although it may be that this inattention is explained by the general provisions for equitable relief within the Administrative Procedure Act.? 540 U.S. at 619 n.1 (citing 5 U.S.C. 706); see FAA v. Cooper, 566 U.S. at 303 n. 12 (noting the possibility of the Privacy Act ?allowing for injunctive relief under? the APA). The Doe Court then approvingly noted that the district court 37 DHS-001-6335-000848 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 46 of 54 had ?relied on the in determining that it had jurisdiction to award injunctive relief. 540 U.S. at 619 On remand from the Supreme Court to adjudicate attorney?s fees, the Fourth Circuit in Doe v. Choc reaf?rmed that the APA provides the predicate for seeking injunctive relief on a Privacy Act subsection claim. 435 F.3d 492, 493 (4th Cir. 2006). The Fourth Circuit explained that it did not read cases limiting injunctive relief under the Privacy Act to ?stand for the proposition that the Government may not be enjoined from violating the Privacy Act by disclosing personal records." Id. at 504 n.17. To the contrary. ?[o]ften . . . and as was the case in the instant action, injunctive relief for a Government?s violation of the Act will instead be appropriate and authorized by the Id. {citing 5 U.S.C. The DC. Circuit reached the same conclusion in Doe v. Stephens, holding that injunctive relief for a disclosure prohibited by the Privacy Act was authorized by the APA in circumstances strikingly similar to those here. 851 F.2d at 1466. Doc involved a claim that the Veterans Administration improperly disclosed private data?medical records released in response to a grand jury subpoena?in violation of the Privacy Act, which had been expressly incorporated into the Veterans Records Statute. Id. at 1460-61; see id. at 1463 (Doe ?premises his request for equitable relief . . . on the violation of the Privacy Act"). After ?nding that the ?Privacy Act [did] not by itself authorize the injunctive relief sought by Doe,? the Court went on to hold that such relief nevertheless was available under the APA because Doe?s ?clearly [was] a case of agency action ?not in accordance with law? within the meaning ofS U.S.C. 706(2) . . . [where] the disclosure of Doeis records violated the Veterans? Records Statute, as amended by the Privacy Act.? Id. at 1463, 1466. 38 DHS-001-6335-000849 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i'1? Page 47 of 54 More recently, in Radack v. United States Department ofJasn'ce, a court in this district held that it had authority under the APA to award injunctive and declaratory relief to redress a Section 552a(b) prohibited disclosure. 402 F. Supp. 2d 99, 103-04 (D.D.C. 2005). Explicitly rejecting the argument made by Defendants here (at 29?30) that by authorizing specific remedies for a disclosure of records, the Privacy Act supplies the exclusive remedy for such conduct, the court reasoned that because the plaintiff ?seeks declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to damages, the Privacy Act does not provide an ?adequate remedy? under the APA. Id. at 104. The Court then focused on the ?adequa[cy]? of the Privacy Act claim as an alternative to a suit under the APA, observing that the plaintiff's APA claim?which centered on the agency?s violation of its internal policies?did not ?duplicate" the Privacy Act improper disclosure claim. Id. Accordingly, the court permitted the plaintiff to proceed on an APA claim predicated on a disclosure alleged to have violated subsection of the Privacy Act. The district court cases cited by Defendants (at 29?30) are inapposite. They either did not involve Privacy Act claims at all,m considered claims arising under different sections of the Act,? or held that a plaintiff may not seek the some relief under the Privacy Act and the APA.12 Here, however, the relief Plaintiff Kennedy seeks under the APA?enjoining DHS from Dias-Berna! v. Myers, 758 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Conn. 2010); El Badmwi v. Dep ?t of Homeland See, 579 F. Supp. 2d 249 (D. Conn. 2008). Reid v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 04-cv-1845, 2005 WL 1699425 (D.D.C. July 20, 2005); Mitrieman v. King, No. 93-1869, 199'}r WL 911801 (D.D.C. 1997); Armda Beaador'n, LLP v. Astme, No. ll?cv-10254, 2013 WL 1309249 (D. Mass. Mar. 27, 2013); Westcott v. McHagh, 39 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2014); Wilson v. McHagh, 842 F. Supp. 2d 310 (D.D.C. 2012); Doc P. v. Goss, No. 04-cv-2122, 2007 WL 106523 (D.D.C. Jan. 12, 2007); Ware v. US. Dep ?t of'Inrerfor, No. 05-3033, 2006 WL 1005091 (D. Or. Apr. 14, 2006). ?3 Mi?ttleman v. US. Treasury, 773 F. Supp. 442 (D.D.C. 1991); Schaeable v. Reno, 87 F. Supp. 2d 383 (D.N.J. 2000). In Welborn v. IRS, the court dismissed the plaintiff?s APA claim for lack of jurisdiction and, unlike here, the plaintiff sought damages under the Privacy Act in addition to injunctive relief under the APA. 218 F. Supp. 3d 64, 81-82 (D.D.C. 2016). 39 DHS-001-6335-000850 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 48 of 54 disclosing to the Commission all Privacy Act-protected DHS data (including PlaintiffKennedy?s data), and directing the Commission to expunge any such data it has received from DHS, see Am. Comp]. ?il l33?is far broader in scope than the relief any one Privacy Act plaintiff could obtain. See 5 U.S.C. It is ?hard to imagine Congress envisioned such a roundabout resolution? as that advocated by Defendants, whereby individual victims of unlawful disclosures are required to bring damages suits until ?the costs of being held liable on enough occasions would convince the violating agency" to choose to halt its practices. Doe v. Herman, No. 97-cv- 43, 1998 WL 34194937, at *6 (WD. Va. Mar. 18, 1998). Rather, where the Privacy Act?s review mechanism is clearly inadequate, that void is filled by the APA. In sum, the government?s historic interpretation of the APA, both in agency guidelines and prior litigation, and Supreme Court and DC. Circuit decisions, allow a plaintiff to seek injunctive relief under the APA for a violation of subsection of the Privacy Act. Plaintiff Kennedy therefore has pleaded a legally cognizable claim against DHS. PLAINTIFFS HAVE ADEQUATELY PLEADED AN ULTRA VIRES CLAIM AGAINST THE COMMISSION AND KOBACH If the Court finds that Plaintiffs may not proceed to litigate their claims under either the Privacy Act or the APA, Plaintiffs? allegations concerning the Commission?s extraordinary ?3 Likewise, with respect to their subsection claim, Plaintiffs seek broadly to enjoin the Commission from maintaining, using andi?or disseminating the voter history and party affiliation data in violation of subsection and directing the Commission to expunge any such voter history and party af?liation data in their possession or that comes into their possession. Am. Comp]. ?ll 133; id. at 40 (Prayer for Relief (INT 4, 6). They also seek a court order that the Commission ?provide an accounting of all voter history and party affiliation data in their custody, possession, or control; all copies that have been made of that data; all persons and agencies with whom the Commission has shared that data; and all uses that have been made of that data.? Id. at 40 (Prayer for Relief (ll 5). Should the Court find Plaintiffs ineligible for injunctive relief on their subsection claim based on its inherent equitable powers under subsection the scope of the relief requested provides ?thher support for Plaintiffs? reliance on the APA as an alternative path to injunctive relief, as previously discussed. 4U DHS-001-6335-000851 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28tl? Page 49 of 54 conduct nevertheless compel the conclusion that its investigative actions?and the actions of Kobach in leading its investigative charge?are uitra vires, and may properly be enjoined on that basis. As Defendants recognize, a plaintiff may maintain a non-statutory cause of action against ultra vires government action where no suit can be ?predicated on either a specific or a general statutory review provision." Chamber ()fCammerce v. Reich, 74 F.3d 1322, 1327 (DC. Cir. 1996); cf. City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-cv-57?2U, 2017 WL 4081821, at *7 (ND. 111. Sept. 15, 2017) (enjoining Attorney General from imposing conditions on annually awarded federal grant based, in part, on uitra vires theory). And it is no ?matter . . . whether traditional APA review is foreclosed, because ?U]udicial review is favored when [government body] is charged with acting beyond its authority?? Aia? Ass ?afor Lutherans v. U.S. PostatI Seru, 321 F.3d 1166, 1172 (DC. Cir. 2003) {second alteration in original) (quoting Dart v. United States, 848 F.2d 217, 221 (DC. Cir. 1988)}. While apparently not contesting the allegations of uitra vires conduct by Kobaeh, Defendants miseonstrue Plaintiffs? allegations against the Commission and?impermissibly, on a motion to dismiss?quarrel with the underlying facts. Nor do they even attempt to identify any legal authority for the unprecedented investigation being conducted by the Commission and Kobach. For these reasons, the Court should decline Defendants? invitation to dismiss Plaintiffs? uitra wires claim. Plaintiffs? allegations are more than sufficient to state a plausible claim of uitra vires conduct by the Commission: The Commission has ?undertaken a sweeping, ?rst-of-its-kind investigation into alleged voting misconduct by individual American citizens,? Am. Compl. ?ll 106?for which it has acquired First Amendment-protected and other state data of millions of Americans, id. 61-62, 80?in order to ?crosscheck the voting data obtained from the states 4] DHS-001-6335-000852 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28i17 Page 50 of 54 against other private information on individuals maintained by agencies throughout the federal government . . . in order to identify individuals the Commission believes are fraudulently registered to vote,? id. 106(d). Although previously ?always prohibited? by the federal government, id. ?11 106(e), this conduct is well underway, with Commission staff instructed to ?collect whatever data there is that?s already in the possession of the federal government? that ?might be helpful? to the Commission, id. ?11 73. The Commission has already compiled ?materials claiming that multiple speci?c individuals have fraudulently registered or voted.? Id. ?ll 106(g). Plaintiffs claim that all of this has transpired without ?any authorization in the Constitution, federal law, or the Executive Order and related documents establishing the Commission.? Id. ?ll 106. Defendants present no substantial argument to the contrary. Rather, they misunderstand Plaintiffs? ultra vires claim, contending (at 2) that Plaintiffs have ?not alleged that the Commission lacks any authority to request the voluntary submission of publicly available information as part of its Presidential research charge.? But Plaintiffs are not disputing the President?s ability to convene a properly functioning advisory committee. Nor are Plaintiffs alleging merely a error[] of law or fact.? Gri??irh v. Fed. Labor Reiarions Amh, 842 F.2d 487', 493 (DC. Cir. 1988). Rather, Plaintiffs allege that, ?[n]otwithstanding the Commission?s authorization to be purely advisory,? Am. Comp]. 1] 106(a), it is engaged in a voter fraud investigation without ?any authorization,? id. (II 106, acting in a role reserved for agencies endowed by Congress with enforcement authority, id. ?ll 16; see in: ofAriingrorr v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 297 (2013) (?Both [agencies?] power to act and how they are to act is authoritatively prescribed by Congress, so that when they act improperly, no less than when they act beyond their jurisdiction, what they do is ultra Plaintiffs have thus adequately 42 DHS-001-6335-000853 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28t17 Page 51 of 54 alleged that the Commission?s investigation is ?clearly and completely outside of [its] authority.? Cause ofAction Inst. 12. Eggieston, 224 F. Supp. 3d 63, 76 (D.D.C. 2016). When Defendants do engage with Plaintiffs? allegations of ultra vires conduct, they do not proffer any legal authority under which the Commission and Kobach are proceeding, but rather question the veracity of Plaintiffs? allegations, offering competing interpretations of documents and disputing whether Plaintiffs ?establish that the Commission has investigated alleged voting misconduct.? Defs.? Mot. at 38 (emphasis added). But these arguments represent nothing more than Defendants? view that the merits of Plaintiffs? claim will not be borne out by the evidence, an impermissible argument on a motion to dismiss. See Leotizermon v. Torront Cty. Narcotics Coordination Unit, 507' US. 163, 164?68 (1993). Asking the Court to weigh the evidence in this manner is impermissible even at later stages of the litigation, such as summary judgment, see, e. 3, Too v. reels, 27' F.3d 635, 638 (D.C. Cir. 1994}, let alone now. Finally, Defendants apparently concede that Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim for ultra vires conduct against Kobach. The header to Defendants? response to Plaintiffs? ititro vires claim refers only to ?nitro vires action on the part of the Commission,? Defs.? Mot. at 37 (capitalization altered), and this section of Defendants? brief makes only stray mention of allegations pertaining to Kobach, see, id. at 38. Left unchallenged by Defendants are Plaintiffs? specific and detailed allegations that, on multiple occasions, Kobach acted ?alone? and without ?consult[ing] with the other members of the Commission,? many of whom have been ?kept in the dark about the substance of the Commission?s activities following the July 19 meeting,? Am. Comp]. 1H 77, 106(b), 106(c), 108, so much so that Commission member Matthew Dunlap ?has refused to provide data from citizens of his state (Maine) until there is 43 DHS-001-6335-000854 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28717 Page 52 of 54 clarity as to ?the Commission?s goal,? id. ?ll 78. As Plaintiffs have further alleged, these actions are contrary to the Commission?s bylaws requiring that the Commission act by vote of its membership, id. ?ll 47, and have no other legal basis, id. 106. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have adequately alleged that Kobach is acting uitro vires.l4 Try as they may, Defendants cannot recast what is happening here. Under the cloak of the charter of an ordinary advisory committee, the Commission and Kobach are exercising the kind of investigative powers that can only properly be delegated to federal enforcement agencies by Congress. There has been no such delegation here. Nor is there any other basis in the law for inquiring into the validity of millions of Americans? participation in the political process. Should the Court find that Plaintiffs may not proceed under the Privacy Act or the APA, this is that appropriate circumstance where judicial intervention is necessary to rein in ultra vires government action. The allegations in the complaint are more than sufficient to afford Plaintiffs their right to litigate these claims. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants? motion to dismiss. Dated: November 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, is! Skye L. Perryman Javier M. Guzman (DC. Bar No. 462679) Skye L. Perryman (D.C. Bar No. 984573) Josephine Morse, pro hat: vice?l? Democracy Forward Foundation 1333 H. Street NW Washington, DC. 20005 (202) 448-9090 jguzman@democracyforward.org jmorse@democracyforward.org ?4 Plaintiffs are not alone in arguing that Kobach and the Commission are not proceeding according to regular order. See, Dimiap v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, No. 17-cv-2361 (CKK) (D.D.C. filed Nov. 9, 2017). 44 DHS-001-6335-000855 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28il? Page 53 of 54 Admitted in New York; practicing under the supervision of members of the D.C. Bar while DC. Bar application is pending. Com/13m? PMit/Ihff?' 45 DHS-001-6335-000856 Case Document 30 Filed 11l28!l7 Page 54 of 54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 28, 2017', I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing. Notice of this ?ling will be sent via email to all parties by operation of the Court?s electronic ?ling system. Parties may access this ?ling through the Court?s CM-ECF system. {sf Skye L. Perrymon Skye L. Perryman 46 DHS-001-6335-000857 Case Document 32 Filed 11128fl7 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMON CAUSE, e! of, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:1T-cv-1398 (RCL) PRESIDENTLAL ADVISORY Oral Argument Requested COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, at at, Defendants. PLAINTIFF 5? MOTION. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY In their motion to dismiss, Defendants labor to portray the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity as a run-of-the-mill advisory committee, and to trivialize Plaintiffs? allegations regarding its activities?and the injuries they have caused Plaintiffs?as speculative. In attempting these feats, Defendants are forced to ignore and recast the factual allegations in Plaintiffs? complaint. Because this is improper at the pleadings stage, Defendants? efforts fail, as Plaintiffs? opposition to Defendants? motion to dismiss explains. Plaintiffs? injuries are real and concrete, and this Court has jurisdiction to remedy them. But should this Court have any doubt, Plaintiffs move, in the alternative, for limited jurisdictional discovery to confirm their allegations regarding the Commission?s and other Defendants? injurious activities. Given the specificity of Plaintiffs? factual allegations, the liberal standard for seeking jurisdictional discovery, and recent revelations about Defendants? activities, jurisdictional discovery is required before the case may be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.' Pursuant to counsel for Plaintiffs conferred with counsel for Defendants prior to filing this motion, and counsel indicated that Defendants would oppose it. DHS-001-6335-000858 Case Document 32 Filed 11128f17 Page 2 of 15 PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS ABOUT ONGOING ACTIVITIES The factual allegations in Plaintiffs? complaint?which must be presumed to be true at this stage?speak for themselves: The Commission, in concert with other Defendants, has ?amassed the politically sensitive voting data of millions of individual American citizens? so that it may ?conduct[] an unprecedented and sweemng investigation into alleged voting misconduct by individual American citizens.? Am. Comp]. at 2; sec, 2.53., id. 106(a). The President announced the Commission?s mission ?ve days after his inauguration, stating that he would ?be asking for a major investigation into voter fraud.? Id. ?ii 37 (capitalization altered); see id. 38 (similar). Defendant Kris Kobach, Vice Chair of the Commission, has confirmed the Commission?s aim, Uni explaining that its goal is to, for the ?rst time, have a nationwide fact-finding effort? focused on assessing ?evidence? of ?different forms of voter fraud across the country.? Id. ?11 52; see also id. ?li 7'0 (another ?Commission member described the objective of the Commission?s investigation as ?deciding . . . how accurate . . . the voter rolls? are?). It is unsurprising, then, that Kobach has written that ?every investigation? the Commission undertakes will require individuals? state voter roll data.? Id. at 4. Specifically, Kobach has stated that the Commission needs state voter data ?to, among other things, ?confirm? the identity and voting history of the individuals named.? Id. He has 66? announced that the Commission will crosscheck?? this data ?against other federal databases containing information on individuals (including databases maintained by Defendant [the Department of Homeland Security or and other federal agencies) in order to identify individuals whom the Commission believes to be fraudulently registered to vote(?Kobach has explained . . . that with the creation of the Commission, the government is 2 DHS-001-6335-000859 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28i17 Page 3 of 15 ?going to be able to run [federal] database[s] against one or two states and see how many people are known aliens residing in the United States and also on the voter rolls. (alterations in the original)); id. ii 54 (?Kobach has . . . stat[ed] that the Commission ?for the first time in our country?s history . . . [will] be gathering data from all 50 states? and using the ?federal government?s databases? to ?bounce[] the data on individual voters against the federal databases. . . . [And a] spokesman for the Commission has confirmed that the Commission intends to run the voting data it receives on individuals through a number of different databases to check for alleged fraudulent voter registrations.? (certain alterations in the original?; id. 1i 106(d) (?Kobach and the Commission intend to crosscheck the voting data obtained from the states against other private information on individuals maintained by agencies throughout the federal government (including databases maintained by . . . DHS) in order to identify individuals the Commission believes are ?audulently registered to The Commission?s work is well underway. First, the Commission began gathering individual voter data when Kobach, on June 28, 2017, ?requested the voting rolls (including individuals? party affiliation and voter history) from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.? Id. at 3; see id. ?1in 60-63, 106(b). Then, on July 26, 2017?, Kobach ?sen[t] a second data request to the states.? Id. at 3; see id. 7'6, 106(c). ?Numerous states have complied andfor have plans to comply with the Commission?s . . . request for data?including the request for party affiliation and voter history protected by the First Amendment(President Trump has 3 Precedent for the Commission?s crosscheck can be found in Defendant Kobach?s service as Kansas Secretary of State. ?At the Commission?s July 19, 2017 meeting, Defendant Kobach spoke openly of modelling the Commission?s investigation on the multi-state voting crosscheck program that he runs out of Kansas . . . that compares states[?] voting data to identify potential misconduct and target individuals for removal from state voter rolls, including by criminal prosecution.? Am. Comp]. at 3; see id. 51, 68-69. 3 DHS-001-6335-000860 Case Document 32 Filed 11i28fl7 Page 4 of 15 stated that data from all ?states ?will be forthcoming??); Defendants? Document Index (?Defs.? Doc. Index?) at 8-9 (Sept. 29, 2017), Lawyers Comm. for Civil Rights Under Law v. Presidential Advisory Comm ?n on Election Integrity No. 17-cv-1354 (CKK) (D.D.C. filed Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 33-3 (listing state data received).3 For example, ?[t]he Commission has obtained voter information regarding Florida-registered voters such as [Plaintiff Thomas] Kennedy," Am. Comp]. 6; see Defs.? Doc. Index at 8 (entry 100, listing data received from Florida); and ?regarding New York-registered voters such as [Plaintiff Ellen] Nakhnikian,? Am. Comp]. 7, and Plaintiff Jan Cantler, id. 8-9; see Defs.? Doc. Index at 8 (entry 105, listing data received from New York); see disc Am. Comp]. 1] 5 (?Texas?s Secretary of State has stated that he will be providing the Commission with voting information regarding Texas- registered voters such as [Plaintiff Anthony Second, the Commission has commenced its crosscheck of state voter data with federal data. At the Commission?s July 19, 2017 meeting, ?Kobach instructed Commission staff . . . to ?start trying to collect whatever data there is that?s already in the possession of the federal government? that ?might be help?Jl? to the Commission?s . . . investigation." Am. Comp]. 73. (H. In his Executive Order establishing the Commission, the President directed [r]elevant" executive departments and agencies? across his administration ?to ?endeavor to cooperate with the Commission.? Id. 43 (alteration in the original) (quoting Exec. Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22,389 (May 11, 2017)). Kobach and the Commission have identified data from DHS as key to the Commission?s endeavor. See id. 54, 7'1. Accordingly, plaintiffs have alleged that DHS ?has [disclosed] andior imminently will disclose . . . data" concerning Plaintiff Thomas 3 See also Ex. to Opp?n to Defs.? Mot. to Dismiss (Nov. 28, 2017), ECF Nos. 30, 31 (requesting judicial notice and attaching Defs.? Doc. Index as an exhibit). 4 DHS-001-6335-000861 Case Document 32 Filed 11i28il7 Page 5 of 15 Kennedy and ?other naturalized citizens[] . . . to the Commission(describing ?Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program?); id. 11 102 (alleging ?the unlawful disclosure by DHS of [Plaintiff Kennedy?s] individually identi?able data?); id. 1111 124-25 (?Kobach instructed Commission staff to obtain information that Defendant DHS maintains on individuals including Plaintiff Kennedy, such as files on the immigration status and citizenship applications of individuals including Plaintiff Kennedy,? and in response. has [disclosed]?or imminently will . . . disclose[?1to the Commission andior Commission staff information about individuals including Plaintiff Kennedy contained in systems of records?); id. 11 131 (alleging that DHS has udisclosied] Plaintiff Kennedy?s data? to the Commission). In light of the Commission?s documented activities, Defendants cannot credibly maintain that it is confining its efforts to ?.siudy[ing] the registration and voting processes used in Federal elections,? which is all that the Executive Order creating the Commission authorizes. Exec. Order No. 13.799 3. 82 Fed. Reg. 22.389, 22.389 (May 11. 2017) (emphasis added). Rather, the Commission is seeking evidence of voter fraud, individual voter by individual voter. and is planning to refer any specific alleged incidents of fraud to enforcement authorities. Kobach ?has discussed the need to call witnesses to testify before the Commission concerning specific individuois who allegedly voted fraudulently in elections.? Id. at 4 (emphasis added); see id. ?11 55. At the Commission?s July 19, 2017 meeting. there were ?[r1epeated references . . . to referrals of individuals suspected of voter fraud to the [Department of Justice] for possible criminal prosecution.? Id. (11 72. Indeed, Kobach has publicized certain results of the Commission?s investigation so far. For example, on the basis of ?information presented to the 5 DHS-001-6335-000862 Case Document 32 Filed 11i28il7 Page 6 of 15 Commission for its September 12 meeting,? ?Kobach publicly targeted and accused a group of voters in New Hampshire of voter fraud.? id. at 4; see id. 56, 91, 106(h). ARGUMENT As Plaintiffs have explained in their opposition to Defendants? motion to dismiss, and as is apparent from the above recitation, Plaintiffs? factual allegations about Defendants? activities are detailed, concrete, well-supported, and well-pleaded. As such, at this stage of this litigation, these allegations must be taken as true, including for purposes of establishing Plaintiffs? standing to sue. Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (DC. Cir. 2015). Defendants nonetheless claim that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that certain of Plaintiffs? alleged injuries? those purportedly concerning ?potential future uses of data by the Commission and federal agencies??are speculative. See Mem. in Supp. of Defs.? Mot. to Dismiss Mot?) at 15 (Oct. 18, 2017), ECF No. 27-1. Defendants go so far as to argue that ?concern[] over potential ?intre uses of data . . . is the only basis for [Plaintiff Kennedy?s] claim against id; see id. at 35-37 (arguing that Plaintiff Kennedy has not suf?ciently alleged that he has standing to sue DHS). In so arguing, Defendants mischaracterize Plaintiffs? allegations. But regardless, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction would not be appropriate until Plaintiffs are permitted limited jurisdictional discovery to confirm their allegations. 1. Contrary to Defendants? characterization, Plaintiffs have experienced and alleged injuries stemming from Defendants? past, present, and ongoing efforts. Speci?cally, as detailed above, Plaintiffs have alleged that the Commission is presently undertaking a voter fraud investigation, see, 9.3., Am. Comp]. at 4; id. LH 55, 60-63, 72, 7'6, that in order to do so, the Commission is in receipt of First Amendment-protected data from numerous states, see, id. at 4; id. 80, including (already) from two of the individual Plaintiffs? states, see id. 6 DHS-001-6335-000863 Case Document 32 Filed 11i28il7 Page 7 of 15 if" 5-9; and that the Commission has begun the process of crosschecking this state data against data from DHS, see, id. at 3; id. 111?? 6, 53, 54, 71, 102, 106(d), 124-25, 131. In attempting to argue that all of ?the individual [P]laintiffs lack standing," Defendants ignore these allegations, and they fail to specify which of Plaintiffs? alleged injuries, in their view, ?concern[] . . . potential future uses of data by the Commission.? See Defs.? Mot. at 15. That does not suffice. Defendants? efforts to downplay Plaintiff Kennedy?s allegations against DHS are particularly puzzling. See id. at 35-37. Defendants say that Plaintiff Kennedy only ?speculates that will share information with the Commission," id. at 35; that he merely ?posits? based on remarks from individual members?that the Commission will collect information from id.; that he ?offers no diiegdiion that DHS will agree to share such data,? id. at 36 (emphasis added); and that he ?has offered no diiegdtions or evidence that will violate the Privacy Act,? id. at 37 (emphasis added). To the contrary, Plaintiffs have plainly alleged that DHS ?has [disclosed] andior imminently will disclose . . . data" concerning Plaintiff Kennedy and ?other naturalized citizens[] . . . to the Commission.? Am. Comp]. 6; see id. 111?" 125, 131. In support of this allegation, Plaintiffs have described how Kobach and the Commission have singled out data that DHS maintains for use in the Commission?s crosscheck, see id. LH 54, 71, and how Kobach has ?instructed Commission staff to obtain information that Defendant DHS maintains on individuals including Plaintiff Kennedy,? id. ?ll 124. Defendants imply that DHS has not complied or will not comply with the Commission?s request, Defs.? Mot. at 36, even as they cite the ??presum[ption] that [public of?cers] have properly discharged their official 51'] duties, id. (second alteration in the original) (quoting United States v. 517 U.S. 456, 464 (1996)), and even though the President has directed his administration?including 7 DHS-001-6335-000864 Case Document 32 Filed 11i28il7 Page 8 of 15 investigate alleged voter fraud, see Am. Comp]. ?llfli 37-38, and to cooperate with the Commission?? in such efforts, id. 43 (quoting Exec. Order No. 13,799 More to the point: at this stage of the litigation, given Plaintiffs? well?pleaded allegation that DHS ?has [disclosed] andior imminently will disclose . . . data? concerning Plaintiff Kennedy and ?other naturalized citizens[] . . . to the Commission,? id. ?11 6, it is not enough?and indeed it is improper?for Defendants to ignore these allegations or to merely assert contrary facts in arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing and that this Court lacks jurisdiction. See Arpaio, 797' F.3d at 19. In challenging Plaintiff Kennedy?s standing, Defendants could, of course, have submitted evidence demonstrating that DHS has not complied and will not comply with any data requests by the Commission?an agency declaration, for example. See, e. 3, Jerome Stevens Pharm, Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (DC. Cir. 2005) (a court ?may consider materials outside the pleadings? in determining whether it has jurisdiction). That Defendants chose not to do so is telling. 2. For all of the above reasons, and those stated in Plaintiffs? opposition to Defendants? motion to dismiss, Defendants? attempts to cast doubt on the well-pleaded factual allegations underpinning Plaintiffs? standing are unavailing. Yet if the Court has any doubt, dismissal is not the proper course. Rather, the Court should order limited jurisdictional discovery to permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to gather evidence, uniquely in Defendants? possession, concerning Plaintiffs? allegations about Defendants? activities. ?There is no doubt that jurisdictional discovery is permissible in cases,? like this one, ?where the defendant[s] challenge[] the factual basis of the court?s subject-matter jurisdiction." v. Syrian Arab Republic, 225 F.R.D. l, 2 (D.D.C. 2004) (citing an. Consuiring v. Republic QfAngoia, 216 F.3d 36, 40 (DC. Cir. 2000)). In fact, ?[t]he DC Circuit has stated that 8 DHS-001-6335-000865 Case Document 32 Filed 11728717 Page 9 of 15 plaintiffs must ?be given an opportunity for discovery of facts necessary to establish jurisdiction prior to decision of a 12(b)(1) motion.? Briscoe v. United States, No. 16-cv-809, 2017 WL 3188954, at *8 (D.D.C. July 25, 2017) (emphasis added) (quoting Ignatiev v. United States, 238 F.3d 464, 467 (DC. Cir. 2001)). ?In this circuit, ?if a party demonstrates that it can supplement its jurisdictional allegations through discovery, then jurisdictional discovery is justified.? Jadiciai Watch, Inc. v. Tilierson, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2017 WL 5198161, at *11 (D.D.C. Nov. 9, 2017) (quoting GTE New Media SENT. Inc. v. BeltSoath Corp, 199 F.3d 1343, 1351 (DC. Cir. 2000)). This standard is ??quite liberal.? NBC-USA Hana, Inc. Twenty-Six v. Donovan, 741 F. Supp. 2d 55, 60 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Diamond Chem. Co. v. Ata?na Cheats, Inc, 268 F. Supp. 2d 1, 15 (D.D.C. 2003)); see Dnarte v. Noian, 190 F. Supp. 3d 8, 15 (D.D.C. 2016) (jurisdictional ?discovery ?is generally to be ?eely permitted? (quoting Urban Inst. v. FINCON Sens, 68] F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. Courts therefore allow jurisdictional discovery ??to verify allegations of speci?c facts,? Crist v. Republic ()fTarkey, 995 F. Supp. 5, 13 (D.D.C. 1998) (Lamberth, J.) (quoting Arriba Ltd. v. Petroieos Mexicanos, 962 F.2d 528, 534 (DC. Cir. 1992)), when a plaintiff has good faith belief that . . . discovery will enable it to show that the court? enjoys jurisdiction over the suit,? Jadiciai Watch, 2017 WL 519816], at *12 (quoting Caribbean Broad. Syn, Ltd. v. Cabte :52 Wireless PLC, 148 F.3d 1080, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 1998)), and ?make[s] a ?detailed showing of what discovery it wishes to conduct or what results it thinks such discovery would produce,? id. (quoting NBC-USA Hone, 774 F. Supp. 2d at 295). The speci?c facts that Plaintiffs have alleged, and about which Plaintiffs would seek limited discovery if necessary to assure the Court of its jurisdiction, are: I The Commission is presently undertaking an investigation of alleged voter fraud. See, e. 3., Am. Comp]. at 4; id. 55, 60-63, 72, 76, 106(a), 106(1)), 106(c). 9 DHS-001-6335-000866 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28717 Page 10 of 15 I In furtherance of its investigation, the Commission has requested data from DHS. See, id. CH 6, 54, 71,73, 124. I In furtherance of the Commission?s investigation, DHS ?has [disclosed] andior imminently will disclose . . . data? concerning Plaintiff Kennedy and ?other naturalized citizens[] . . . to the Commission.? id. (II 6; sec, id. if" 125, 131. a In furtherance of its investigation, the Commission has begun the process of crosschecking data it has received from states against data it has received from DHS. See, id. at 3; id. ?1qu 6, 53, 54, 71, 102, 106(d), 124-25, 131. Discovery of these facts would answer any question the Court might have about whether Plaintiffs? factual allegations consist of mere ?speculat[ion] about what DHS and the Commission might do in the future,? Defs.? Mot. at 15, and, in particular, mere speculation ?that the Commission will collect information from id. at 35, and that will agree to share such data,? id. at 36.4 Plaintiffs would propose to discover these facts through a minimal number of interrogatories and document requests to Defendant Commission and Defendant DHS, and short Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) depositions of the Commission and of DHS. In response, Defendants may try to double?down on their assertion that Plaintiffs? claims are speculative. See FC lav. Grp. LC v. IFX Ltd, 529 F.3d 1087, 1094 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (requests ?for jurisdictional discovery cannot be based on mere conjecture or speculation?). Any such argument would necessarily invite the Court to ignore the factual allegations in Plaintiffs? complaint, which, of course, the Court cannot do. If past is prologue, however, Defendants may protest in particular about Plaintiffs? allegation that the Commission has commenced the process of crosschecking state data against DHS data. At the August 1, 2017 hearing on Plaintiffs? 4 Plaintiffs? discovery requests are ?targeted to resolve the jurisdictional issue? that Defendants have attempted to raise. Sibley v. US. Supreme Court, 786 F. Supp. 2d 338, 347 (D.D.C. 201]). However, to the extent that any ?disputed jurisdictional facts . . . are inextricably intertwined with the merits,? the D.C. Circuit has instructed the Court to ?defer its jurisdictional decision until the merits are heard.? Herbert v. Na: 7 Acad. of Sciences, 974 F.2d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citing Land v. Doiiar, 330 US. 731, 731 (1947)). 10 DHS-001-6335-000867 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28717 Page 11 of 15 motion for a temporary restraining order, for example, in arguing that Plaintiffs? allegations were ?purely Speculative,? Defendants represented that at that time, ?the Commission [was] not receiving data from and had] not committed to any kind of data exchange.? 81? 1 Oral Arg. Tr. at 29. Crucially, Defendants further represented that, ?while the Commission may, in the future, explore the feasibility of exchanging data with they haven?t done so Id. However, in response to Judge Kollar-Kotelly?s August 30, 2017 Order in LCCR, ECF No. 28, on September 29, 2017, Defendants supplied that court with an ?index detailing what specific documents have been collected with respect to the Commission? for potential disclosure under section 10(b) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, id. at 1, where Defendants list at least 23 communications between the Commission and DHS, or among Commission and other staff concerning DHS, from May 12, 2017, to August 24, 2017, see Defs.? Doc. Index at 21-22, 25-26, 36-39 (entries 365, 383, 384, 445, 472, 475, 681, 682, 689, 693, 701, 703, 705, 706, 711, 735, 738, 739, 741, 742, 744, 749, 750). Some of these are email chains comprising an undisclosed number of messages, and Defendants have characterized two of these communications as Third Decl. of Andrew J. Kossack 12(x), LC CR (D.D.C. filed Sept. 29, 2017), ECF No. 33-1; see Defs.? Doc. Index at 36-37 (entries 681 and 705, marked to correspond to Third Decl. of Andrew J. Kossack (II 12(x) Indeed, the very first communication that Defendants list between ?CommissioniIOffice of the Vice President] Staff and Other Government Entities? is an ?[e]mail chain from DHS requesting information about the scope of the Commission?s work,? which Defendants characterize as See Defs.? Doc. Index at 36 (entry 681). Defendants have also acknowledged an ?email chain? among Commission staff and staff in the Of?ce of the Vice 1] DHS-001-6335-000868 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28i17 Page 12 of 15 President ?about potential partnership opportunities with id. at 22 (entry 383), and an email chain among Commission staff and the Department of Justice concerning ?collecting data from non-state entities,? id. at 39 (entry 748), such as DHS. Defendants list emails to arrange multiple phone calls between the Commission and DHS, see id. at 36-39 (entries 682, 689, 693, 706, 735, 738, 741, 742, 744, 749); emails to arrange meetings between the Commission and DHS, see id. at 36-37, 39 (entries 711, 750); and, perhaps most tellingly, an ?[e]mail about potential future coordinationioverlap between? the Commission and DHS, see id. at 37? (entry 705). That email, which Defendants characterize as was sent on July 6, 2017, see id., about three weeks before the August 1, 2017 hearing where Defendants argued that Plaintiffs? claims regarding DHS were ?purely speculative? and represented that the Commission and DHS had not even ?explore[d] the feasibility of exchanging data,? 8i1 Oral Arg. Tr. at 29.5 In their motion to dismiss, Defendants make no mention of the communications between the Commission and DHS that they have now disclosed, nor do they attempt to square these communications with Defendants? representations at the August 1, 2017' hearing. Those communications are fatal to any further argument by Defendants that Plaintiffs can only ?speculate? about collaboration and data sharing between the Commission and DHS. Because Plaintiffs have demonstrated their ?good faith belief? that discovery will enable them to confirm that their jurisdictional allegations are sound, Caribbean Broad. Sys., 148 F.3d at 1090, Plaintiffs? request comfortably within this Circuit?s caselaw approving jurisdictional discovery. In GTE New Media Services, for example, although the DC. Circuit rejected the 5 At the August 1, 2017' hearing, Defendants also characterized any claim that the Social Security Administration would share data with the Commission as ?purely speculative.? 8i1 Oral Arg. Tr. at 29. Yet just over two weeks later, the Commission in fact had ?[e]mail contact with SSA re: SSA data.? Defs.? Doc. Index at 39 (entry 747'). 12 DHS-001-6335-000869 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28fl7' Page 13 of 15 district court?s ?nding of personal jurisdiction, see 199 F.3d at 1345, and even went so far as to characterize the jurisdictional record ?as plainly inadequate,? id. at 1352, the Court did not order dismissal but rather remanded for jurisdictional discovery, see id. at 1351?52. The Court did so even though it ?[could not] tell whether jurisdictional discovery [would] assist [the plaintiff].? Id. at 1352. Here, by contrast, Plaintiffs have amply demonstrated how limited jurisdictional discovery would resolve any questions concerning whether Plaintiffs? allegations of defendants? activities are speculative. Similarly, in Ignatiev, even after observing that the ?statement of . . . facts? in the plaintiff" complaint was ?no doubt at the shorter and plainer end of the descriptive continuum,? the DC. Circuit nonetheless reversed the district court?s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and remanded for jurisdictional discovery, reaffirming that its caselaw ?require[s] that plaintiffs be given an opportunity for discovery of facts necessary to establish jurisdiction prior to decision of a l2(b)( 1) motion.? 238 F.3d at 467 (citing El-Fadl v. Cent. Bank afJordan, 75 F.3d 668, 676 (DC. Cir. 1996), abrogated an other grounds, Samarium" v. Youse? 560 U.S. 305 (2010)). And in El-Fadf, even though the DC. Circuit agreed that the plaintiff's ?jurisdictional allegations [were] insuf?cient,? it reversed the district court?s dismissal for lack ofpersonal jurisdiction and remanded for jurisdictional discovery because the plaintiff had ?sufficiently demonstrated that it [was] possible that he could supplement [his jurisdictional allegations] through discovery,? in that his allegations were ?not conclusory? and ?not implausible.? 75 F.3d at 616.6 If the D.C. Circuit concluded thatjurisdictional discovery was 5 See, Bn'scoe, 2017 WL 3188954, at *8 (upon ?nding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged subject matter jurisdiction, and even after observing that the ?plaintiffs [did] not appear to have any speci?c grounds to claim? that the court had subject matter jurisdiction, nonetheless denying the defendants? motion to dismiss and ordering jurisdictional discovery); Diamond Chem. Co., 268 F. Supp. 2d at 15 (following GTE New Media Services and ordering 13 DHS-001-6335-000870 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28fl7' Page 14 of 15 warranted in GTE New Media Services, Ignan?ev, and EI-Fadi, then to the extent this Court requires any assurance it is plainly warranted here, where Plaintiffs have demonstrated its utility with specificity and alleged facts sufficient to plausibly establish subject-matter jurisdiction. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs respectfully request that, if the Court has any doubt as to its subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court grant Plaintiffs? request for limited jurisdictional discovery. Dated: November 28, 2017 Respectfully submitted, is! Skye L. Perrvman Javier M. Guzman (DC. Bar No. 462679) Skye L. Perryman (DC. Bar No. 9845?3) Josephine Morse, pro hac vice* Democracy Forward Foundation 1333 H. Street NW Washington, DC. 20005 (202) 448-9090 jguzman@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org jmorse@democracyforwardorg Admitted in New York; practicing under the supervision of members of the DC. Bar while D.C. Bar application is pending. Counsel?ar Plainri?s jurisdictional discovery ?even though [the plaintiff had] not made out a prime facie case of jurisdiction?). 14 DHS-001-6335-000871 Case Document 32 Filed 11l28!17 Page 15 of 15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 28, 201?, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing. Notice of this ?ling will be sent via email to all parties by operation of the Court?s electronic ?ling system. Parties may access this ?ling through the Court?s CM-ECF system. {sf Skye L. Perryman Skye L. DHS-001-6335-000872 From: To: Subject: RE: DHS Election Integrity Task Force Date: 201?;12f15 09:19:55 Priority: Normal Type: Note Sure. Anytime. From: Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:19 AM To: Ilbll?l Subject: RE: DHS Election Integrity Task Force (bli?l My computer is now back online [upgraded to 10} so I?m going to start into this are you free to discuss? Attorney Advisor Office of the General Counsel Legal Counsel Division (bill-i} Work This communication a . . hments may contain confidential andfor sensitive attorne -- 0 vi eged information or attorney work product and/or law enforc- - - - - itive informationse, review, retransmission, dissemination, or use by anyone other than the intended rec r- tea notify the sender if this e-mail has been misdirected and immediately destroy all originals and copies, - ore, do not print, con - mit, disseminate, or otherwise use this information. Any disclosure of 'munication or its attachments must be approved - - the General Counsel, U.S. Depart I - - 'omeland Security. This document is for INTERNAL GOVERNMENT USE ONLY and may - - - -- - from n' - under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. (him. From? Sent: Thursday, December 14, 201? 9:27 PM Subject: FW: DHS Election Integrity Task Force DHS-001-6335-000873 (W5) and- could you both please start looking into this issue? Thanks. From: Quinn, Cameron Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:39:26 PM To: Sutherland, Daniel Cc: Palmer, David; Subject: FW: DHS Election Integrity Task Force Dan -this is really big to me, given my knowledge of the elections administrators howl know they?ll react. Are you aware of any work done in OGC already that would inform this issue? From: Quinn, Cameron Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 ?:37 PM To: Subiect: FW: DHS Election Integrity Task Force {bll5l From: Sultan, Jennifer Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:02 PM To: Quinn, Cameron 4rbirsi Cc: Venture, Veronica dram-n ?li?h?u'?i Shuchart, Scott libilSi Subject: DHS Election Integrity Task Force Cameron, lam flagging this for your attention given your background in election law and my discussion with Scott about the potential interest here for CRCL. NPPD recently stood up an Election Integrity Task Force. Apparently, Bob Kolasky, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for NPPD [who is concurrently serving as the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Infrastructure Protection within NPPD) is leading this effort. -spoke with an NPPD contact who reports that the organizational structure, goals, and agenda are still in development and the first meeting was held earlier this month. While we have very limited information at this point, -has offered to find out more if we would like her to do so. DHS-001-6335-000874 Potential interest for CRCL: We can imagine DHS election securitv efforts developing in ways that would benefit from CRCL [and likely PRIV) input and expertise. lbll5} If vou would like, we would be happy to try to find out more information to better determine whether CRCL might have equities and to offer CRCL support if so. We could also provide you with the appropriate higher level contacts if vou would prefer to reach out to someone at your level. Jen Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: 201791315 09:19:56 DHS-001-6335-000875 From: To: CC: Subject: RE: DHS Election Integrity Task Force Date: 201312315 14:14:23 Priority: Normal TYPE: Note (bile) I looked into this and spoke tolrb?if?i lrhirFil lat The short answer to Insure: ?331(5) Thank you and let me know, W5) Attorney Advisor Office of the General Counsel Legal Counsel Division (W5) DHS-001-6335-000876 From: To: Subject: RE: DHS Election Integrity Task Force Date: 201?]12114 21:30:23 Priority: Normal Type: Note Will do. From: Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017?r 2:27:27 AM To: Sub] ec Ion negrl ask Force _nd could you both please start looking into this issue? Thanks. From: Quinn, Cameron Sent: Thursday, December 14, 201? 7:39:26 PM To: Sutherland, Daniel Cc: Palmer, David; Subject: FW: DHS Election Integrity Task Force Dan this is really big to me, given my knowledge of the elections administrators 8L howl know they'll react. Are you aware of any work done in OGC already that would inform this issue? From: Quinn, Cameron Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 7:3? PM To: lbirsi Subject: FW: DHS Election Integrity Task Force IlbilEi {bll5i DHS-001-6335-000877 From: To: . mo) Subject. Date: 10:43:45 Priority: Normal Type: Note Thanks. Will ping him later today. From: We} Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 10:41 AM To: 1 We) Subjectlibxs) We had an internal OCC call yesterday. It was my understanding that -was going to reach out to VOUFDJESJ From:lbll5l Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 4:44 PM To: Subject: W3) I I am planning pinging USCIS OCC on this tomorrow as well. aid that he assigned this to you. There is an open question on Just a heads up. From Sent: Thursday, August 10, 201? 10:11 AM To: Cc: llbli?l I Thank you (bli?l Adding ho is graciously the ALD point of contact, at least for the time being. DHS-001-6335-000878 Case Document 5 Filed 07i18l17 Page 3 of 10 A0 440 (Rev. 06! 12] Summons in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District of Columbia Common Cause Piatnn?fs) . Presidential Advisoy Commission on Election Integrity. US. Department of Homeland Security, and U5. Social Security Agency Civil Action No. l7?cv?01398-CKK Defendan SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION U.S. Department of Homeland Security Of?ce of the General Counsel 245 Murray Lane, S.W. Washington. DC. 20528 To: (Defendant '3 name and address) A lawsuit has been ?led against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency. or an of?cer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure erTh?ansmwer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff?s attorney, whose name and address are. ocra cy Forward Foundation PD. Box 34553 Washington, DC. 20043 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must ?le your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT is! Simone Bledsoe Signature of (Tier-ii: or [)6qu Clerk Date: 071?18/2017 Case Document 1 Filed 07I14I17 Page 1 of 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COMMON CAUSE 805 15?" Street NW. Washington, D.C. 20005, Plaintiff; Case No. vs. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY The White House 1600 Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C. 20405, and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 245 Murray Lane, SW. Washington, DC. 20528, and U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 640] Security Boulevard Baltimore, MD 21235, Defendants. COMPLAINT FOR NCT IVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF Plaintiff, Common Cause, hereby sues Defendants, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity or the ?Commission?), the US. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Social Security Administration and alleges as follows. Introduction 1. This is an action under the Privacy Act of I974, U.S.C. 552a(e)(7), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), U.S.C. 706, to halt the unlawful collection, DHS-OO1-6335-000881 Case Document 1 Filed 07f14f17 Page 2 of 22 maintenance, use, and dissemination of the sensitive and personal voting data of millions of Americans by the Commission. 2. In the wake of the Watergate scandal and revelations that the White House had compiled information on individuals with opposing political viewpoints, Congress passed the Privacy Act to regulate the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of sensitive personal information by federal agencies. Among other safeguards, the Act proscribes the collection of information that ?describ[es] how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.? 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7). 3. After campaigning on unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud and rigged elections, President Donald J. Trump asserted that he ?won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.? Within days of his inauguration, President Trump called for ?a major investigation into VOTER 4. The Commission was created with the aim of examining this purported voter ?'aud and has opened a broad and unprecedented investigation into Americans? voting habits and political affiliations. The Commission?s ?rst project is to assemble a national voter ?le and compare this in formation to data sets maintained by other federal agencies (including the Department of Homeland Seourity and the Social Security Administration) in order to discover the names of individuals that it believes are ineligible to vote. To carry out this review, it initially gave all 50 states and the District of Columbia a deadline of July 14, 2017 to comply with a sweeping request for their residents? voting and other personal data, including information regarding the quintessentially First Amendment- protected activities of voting history and party af?liation. 2 I: ?nH.If-g -- :1 . - mgrDHS-OO1-6335-000884 Case Document 1 Filed Page 3 of 22 5. The Commission initially sought to have states upload the voting data to a Department of Defense website, Earn which the data would then be transfen'ed to White House computers. But after the Court in a separate lawsuit ?led against the Commission inquired of the Government if the Department of Defense should be joined as a defendant, the Commission abruptly shifted course to ?repurpos[e]? a computer system within the White House?s information Technology ?enterprise" to collect, maintain, and use the data. See Elect. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm on Election Integrity, No. 1:17-cv-l320 (C K) (D.D.C .) (EPIC lawsuit). And when asked by the Court to describe the involvement of other federal agencies in this enterprise, the Government stated that the ?mechanics" of it were ?something that may not be appropriate to say in a public setting.? See id. 6. The Privacy Act?s protections?designed to curb this very type of encroachment on citizens? First Amendment activities by an earlier White House?cannot be so circumvented. The Commission?s collection, maintenance, and use of this data in cooperation with DHS and SSA, among other federal agencies either within or outside the White House,1 violates both the Privacy Act and the APA. Plaintiff therefore seeks to enjoin Defendants from collecting. maintaining. using, or disseminating this data and to destroy or return any such data that has already been collected and is being maintained in violation of the law. 1 Plaintiff intends to seek discovery from the federal defendants and third-parties. if necessary, to determine whether additional agencies should be added as defendants based on their activities with regard to the electronic databases described herein. Bailey v. US. Marsha! Sent, 534 F. Supp. 2d 128, 134 (D.D.C. 2008) is generally proper to allow discovery to determine the identity of unknown defendants?). 3 Case Document 1 Filed 07114117 Page 4 Of 22 7. Plaintiff, Common Cause, is a nonpro?t corporation organized and existing under the laws of the District of Columbia. Common Cause is one of the nation?s leading democracy reform organizations and has over 900,000 members nationwide. Common Cause also has a strong presence in 30 states, with either staff or volunteer boards. Since its founding in 1970, Common Cause has been dedicated to the promotion and protection of the democratic process, such as the right of all citizens, including its eligible members, to be registered for and vote in ?tir, Open, and honest elections. Common Cause brings this action on behalf of itself and its members. 8. Common Cause conducts signi?cant nonpartisan voter-protection, advocacy, education, and outreach activities to ensure that voters are registered to vote and have their ballots counted as cast. Common Cause also advocates for policies, practices. and legislation such as automatic and same-day registration that facilitate voting for eligible voters and ensure against disen?anchisement. Common Cause opposes efforts that burden registration and/or voting, including restrictive voter identi?cation laws, partisan gerrymandering, and any other effort that could potentially chill citizens? rights to register or stay registered. Common Cause advocates the safeguarding of personal information, in keeping with the dictates of both state and federal law. 9. Common Cause and its members have been and will be injured by the Defendants? activities, including the efforts to obtain personal and private information regarding voter affiliation, vote history, and other related details. Common Cause has already expended staff time and resources to engage in non-litigation related outreach and communications efforts to oppose the impermissible collection of voter information as 4 Case Document 1 Filed 0711411? Page 5 of 22 sought by the Commission, diverting resources ?'om its core activities. These expenditures are aimed at counteracting the harm that the Commission?s impermissible attempt to collect voter information will cause to Common Cause's mission of encouraging and facilitating voter participation and engagement. 10. The Commission?s attempt to collect voter information will also harm Common Cause?s and its mem bers' efforts to encourage voter registration and participation. For voters and prospective voters facing political polarization, the threat that the federal government will monitor their electoral participation and even their party affiliations is deeply troubling and has deterred and will continue to deter the exercise of their First Amendment-protected rights to express their views through the ballot box. Further, the Commission?s effort to collect voter information may cause registrants and voters, including Common Cause members, to cancel their registration status (as has already occurred in Florida and Colorado) or forgo registering and voting altogether. Such actions would directly undo the work to which Common Cause has devoted itself over the past few decades and would limit voter engagement and participation in our democracy. ll. Defendant is a federal agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)( I) and 5 U.S.C. 551(1) that is headquartered in Washington, DC. 12. Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a federal agency within the meaning ofS U.S.C. 552a(a)(l) and 5 U.S.C. 551(1) that is headquartered in Washington, D.C. 5 Case Document 1 Filed 0711411? Page 6 of 22 I3. Defendant U.S. Social Security Administration is a federal agency within the meaning ofS U.S.C. 552a(a)(l) and 5 U.S.C. 551(1) that is headquartered in Baltimore, MD. Jurisdiction and Venue l4. This Court has subject over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, because this action arises under federal law, speci?cally the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(7), and the APA, 5 U.S.C. 70] 306. IS. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. l39l(e), because at least one of Defendants is headquartered in Washington, DC. and a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff?s claims occurred here. Factual Allegations Candidate Donaia' J. Trump '5 Regated, {insubstantiared Claims of Voter Fraud 16. Prior to his election, then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions ofvoter fraud. On October 10, 20l6, Candidate Trump tweeted that, ?Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day.? @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (Oct. 10, 2016, 8:33 AM), availabie a! 18. On October 17, 2016, candidate Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Wisconsin that ?voter fraud is very, very common,? including voting by ?people that have died 10 years ago? and ?illegal immigrants.? C-SPAN, Donald Trump Campaign vent in Green Bay, Wisconsin (Oct. 17, 20l6), avaiiabie a! ideoi??4l 7019-lfdonald-trum 6 Case Document 1 Filed 07114l17 Page 7 of 22 19. On November 8, 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected as the forty-?fth president of the United States. 20. On November 27, 2016, president-elect Trump Meeted that, ?In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.? @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (Nov. 27, 20 3:30 PM), available at 8029729445 32209664. 21. Three days later, Kansas Secretary of State Kris W. Kobaeh echoed the president- eleet?s assertion. telling reporters that, think the president-elect is absolutely correct when he says the number of illegal votes cast exceeds the popular vote margin between him and Hillary linton.? Hunter Woodall, Kris Kobaeh Agrees With Donald Trump That 'Millions Voted Illegally But O?'rs No Evidence, Kansas City Star (Nov. 30, 2016), available at articlell7957143.hu11l. 22. Asked in a televised interview on December 2, 2016 about president-elect Trump?s claim that ?millions of people voted illegally," Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway said that she has ?been receiving information about the irregularities and about the illegal votes, particularly ?-orn sources, of?cials like Kris Kobach.? Emily Shapiro, Kellyanne onway Dodges Question on '3 Claim That ?Millians? Voted Illegally, ABC News (Dec. 2, 2016), available at Creation alike Presidential Advisorv Commission on Election lnte 7 Case Document 1 Filed 07l14l17 Page 8 of 22 23. On January 20, 201?, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as President of the United States. 24. Five days later, President Trump tweeted on his of?cial Twitter account: will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and even, those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time). Depending on results, we will strengthen up voting procedures!? @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (Jan. 25, 2017, 7:10 AM and 7' :13 AM), available a: and 22876 822 72 74 08??lang=en . 25. In a televised interview on January 25, 2017, President Trump reiterated his claims that allegedly fraudulent votes were cast for his opponent: ?We?re gonna launch an investigation to ?nd out. And then the next time?and I will say this, of those votes cast, none of ?em come to me. None of ?em come to me. They would all be for the other side. None of ?em come to me. But when you look at the people that are registered: dead, illegal and two states and some cases maybe three states?we have a lot to look into.? He vowed to ?make sure it doesn?t happen again." TRANSCRIPT: ABC News anchor David Muir interviews President Trump, ABC News (Jan. 25, 2017), available at 26. That same day, CNN reported that according to a senior administration of?cial, ?President Donald Trump could sign an executive order or presidential memorandum initiating an investigation into voter fraud as early as Thursday 3? Dan Merica, Eric Bradner, and Jim Acosta, Trump considers executive order on varer?aad, CNN (Jan. 25, 8 Case Document 1 Filed 0711411? Page 9 of 22 2017), available at 710] The of?cial further in formed CNN that ?[t]he investigation would be carried out through the Department of Justice." Id. 27. On May 11, 2017, the White House issued Executive Order No. 13,799 establishing the Commission, which President Trump has described as a ?Voter Fraud Panel.? See Executive Order No. 13,799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22389 (May 2017); @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (July I, 2017, 9:07r AM) available at realdonaldtrump/statu 9'88 I 3707995 8241280. 28. The Commission?s stated ?mission? is studying, ?consistent with applicable law,? the ?registration and voting processes used in Federal elections." Id. 29. The Commission is chaired by Vice President Michael Pence and is to be composed of up to 15 additional members having knowledge and experience in ?elections, election management, election fraud detection and voter integrity efforts" or having ?knowledge or experience that the President determines to be of value to the Commission." Id. 30. On the same day that the Commission was established, Kansas Secretary of State Kobach was appointed as a member and Vice Chair. Kobach is the only Secretary of State in the nation with the power to prosecute voter fraud directly. See Interview ofKris W. Kabach an or News Channel (May 1 1, 2017), available a! 31. The Commission presently has ten additional members, consisting of a current member of the United States Elections Assistance Commission, present and former state 9 Case Document 1 Filed 07I14i17 Page 10 of 22 of?cials, and an employee of the Heritage Foundation. It will also have a staff of approximately three full-time equivalent employees. 32. The Executive Order directs ?relevant? executive departments and agencies to ?endeavor to cooperate with the Commission.? Executive Order No. 13799, 82 Fed. Reg. 22389 (May 1 l, 20 T). 33. The Commission?s estimated annual operating costs for Fiscal Years 2017 and 20] 8 are approximately $250,000. 34. Consistent with President Trump?s description of the Commission as a voter fraud panel, Kobach has described the Commission?s focus as "voter fraud more broadly, all forms of it,? see Gary Moore, Tucker orison: Kris Kobe-ch - Trump Executive Order Creates Voter Fraud Commission: 1/201 YouTube (May I l, 2017), available at U, and has explained that the Commission?s ?goal is to, for the first time, have a nationwide fact-?nding effort, to see what evidence there is of different forms of voter fraud across the country.? See Transcript of interview of Kris W. Kobach on New Day. CNN (May 15, 2017), avaiiabie a! 705/ 5/nday.06.html. 35. Asked how the Commission would prove President Trump?s unsubstantiated eiaims of widespread voter fraud, Kobach explained that, ?The federal government has a database of every known alien who has a greencard or a temporary visa. States have in the past asked, ?can we please run our voter rolls against that database, and see if any of those aliens are on our voter rolls?? The federal government has always said no. Well, now we?re going to be able to run that database against one or two states and see how many people are known aliens residing in the United States and also on the voter rolls.? 10 Case Document 1 Filed 07114117 Page 11 of 22 Gary Moore, Tucker Carlson: Kris Kobach - Trump Executive Order Creoles Voter Fraud Commission: 1/201 Tl, YouTube (May 1 l, available at Hm YSJ U. 36. Describing in further detail which other agencies? data the Commission would be working with on its voter fraud investigation, Kobach exp laincd that ?what we?ll be doing is for the ?rst time in our country?s history, we?ll be gathering data from all 50 states and we'll be using the federal govemment?s databases which can been very valuable. The Social Sec urity Administration has data on people when they pass away. The Department of Homeland Security knows of the millions of aliens who are in the United States legally and that data that's never been bounced against the state?s voter rolls to see whether these people are registered.? Kobacb talks goals of new voter?-aud commission, Fox News, Sunday Monting Futures (May 2017), available at 7/05! I The Commission ?5 Sweeping and Unprecedented Request for Personal and Voter Data 37. Despite the Executive Order?s directive that the Commission hold public meetings, it convened as a group for the ?rst time on June 28, 2017 without any prior public notice. A brief ?readout? of the meeting supplied by the White House later that day stated Kobach had informed the other commissioners that a letter would be sent to all 50 states and the District of Columbia requesting data item state voter rolls. See Press Release, The White House, Readout of the Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (June 28, 2017), available at Case Document 1 Filed 07/1411? Page 12 of 22 itehousegovlthe-press?o f?c e/20 ice-presidents-call- 38. On June 28, 2017, [(0th ?directed? that a letter be sent under his signature to the Secretaries of State or other election officials in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Declaration of Kris W. Kobach 1 4 (July 5, 2017). The other commissioners neither reviewed nor vetted the actual language of the letter before it was sent. Sam Levine, Trump Voter Fraud Commission Was Cautioned About Seeking Sensitive Voter information, Hu?ington Post (July 5, 2017), available at mission_us_595d51 lfe4b02e9bdb0a073d; Celeste Katz, Tramp election integriw commission member: ?We should have predicted the backlash, Mic (July 5, 2017), available at 39. Kobach?s letter ?invite[d]? state of?cials, among other things, to share ?evidence or information . . . you have regarding instances of voter fraud or registration fraud in your state" and asked how the Commission could ?support" state election of?cials ?with regard to information technology security and vulnerabilities.? Sec, Letter ??om Kris W. Kobach, Vice Chair, to the Honorable Matt Dunlap Secretary of State of Maine, at 1 (June 28, 2017). 40. The letter requested that the recipients provide by July 14, 2017 ?the publicly available voter roll data for [your state], including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the hill ?rst and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, voter history (elections voted in) from 2006 12 DHS-OO1-6335-000904 Case Document 1 Filed 07114l17 Page 13 of 22 onward, active! inactive status, cancelled status, information regarding any felony convictions, information regarding voter registration in another state, information regarding military status, and overseas citizen information.? Id. at 1-2. 41. The letter instructed recipients to ?submit your responses electronically to or by utilizing the Safe Access File Exchange which is a secure FTP site the federal government uses for transferring large data ?les. You can access the SAFE site at Welcomeaspx." 1d at 2. 42. The letter closed by warning that ?any documents that are submitted to the full Commission will also be made available to the public.? 1d. 43. Alter reports indicated that certain state of?cials might decline to provide sorne or all of the personal and voter data requested by Kobach, President Trump tweeted: ?Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?? @realDonaldTrump, Twitter {July 1, 20! 7, 9:07 AM) available at 881 13707995 8241280. 44. Kobach has stated that the purpose of his request is ?to have the best data possible" to support the Commission?s ?purpose . . . to quantify different forms of voter fraud and registration fraud and offer solutions.? Bryan Lowry, Kris Kobach Wants Every US. Voter ?5 Personal Information for Trump ?5 Commission, Kansas City Star (June 29, 2017), available at article] 58871959.html. l3 . . .- ?Jr-..-. .. .. . I . I u'l"Case Document 1 Filed 07t14t17 Page 14 of 22 45. The Vice President?s of?ce has con?rmed that the Commission intends to run the data it receives ?through a number of different databases? to check for potential fraudulent registration. Jessica Huseman, Election Experts See Flaws in Tramp Voter Commission ?s Plan to Smoke Out Fraud, ProPublica (J uly 6, 201?), available at plan-to-smoke-out?fraud. 46. The same day that Kobaeh sent his letter, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice sent its own letter to states requesting their procedures for complying with the statewide voter registration list maintenance provisions of the National Voter Registration Act. DOJ stated that under the NVRA states must make reasonable efforts to remove from voter rolls the names of voters who have become ineligible by reason of death or change of address. DOJ requested that states provide their policies for removing ineligible voters and identify the officials responsible for doing so. See, Letter from DOJ to Hon. Kim Westbrook Strach, Executive Director, NC State Bd. of Elections (June 28, 20l 7). The Commission Shi?s Its Plans to House the Personal and Ii?m?int.r Data 47- In a declaration ?led on July 5, 20] 7 in the EPIC lawsuit against the Commission for failure to cemply with federal privacy laws, Kobach stated that he ?intended? that only ?narrative responses" provided in response to the letter be sent to the eop.gov email address in the letter and that ?voter roll data? be uploaded onto the Safe Access File Exchange (SAFE), which he described as a ?tested and reliable method of secure ?le transfer used routinely by the military for large, unclassi?ed data sets? that ?al so supports by individual users." Declaration of Kris W. Kobach 1i 4. l4 Case Document 1 Filed 0711411? Page 15 of 22 48. The SAFE website is operated by the US. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center, a component within the us. Army. 49. After the Court in the EPIC lawsuit inquired at a July 7, 2017 hearing if the Department of Defense, by virtue of its role in collecting and maintaining the data on the SAFE website, should bejoined as a defendant the Commission changed course on its storage plans. In a subsequent declaration ?led on July 10, 2017, Kobach stated that order not to impact the ability of other customers to use? SAFE, the Director of White House Information Technology was ?repurposing an existing system" to collect the information ?within the White House Information Technology enterprise.? Third Declaration of Kris W. Kobach 1] l. 50. Asked by the Court at the same July 7 hearing what other federal agencies support the White House?s computer system, the Government stated that the ?mechanics" of the White House?s information technology program are ?something that may not be appropriate to say in a public setting.? Transcript, Temporary Restraining Order Hearing in Elect. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. Presidential Advisory Comm ?n on Election Integrigi, 1:17- cv-l320 (CKK) (D.D.C.) (July 7, 2017). Several States Ingend to Provide Voter Hisronr and Egg]: A?iifop?on Data 51. As of July 5, 2017, ?20 states have agreed to provide the publicly available information requested by the Commission and another 16 states are reviewing which information can be released under their state laws.? Press Release, The White House, Statement ?'om Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (July 5, 2017) ovoiiobie or IS DHS-OO1-6335-000909 case Document 1 Filed 07t14t1? Page 16 of 22 7/07t05lstatement-kris-kobach- 52. The State of Arkansas had provided the Commission voter history and party af?liation through the SAFE website. In light of the pending motion for a temporary restraining order in the EPIC lawsuit, the Commission advised the Court that the Arkansas data would not be downloaded to White House computers and would be deleted from the SAFE website. 53. Several states intend to provide the Commission with voter history and party affiliation data. This group includes Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. See, ?Arkansas to give partial voter information to Voter Integrity Commission,? 40/29 NEWS (July 5, 20l7), available at 10261303; ?News Release: Secretary Williams? Response to request for public voter ?les," COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE (June 29, 2017), available at ??Om Ken Detzner, Florida Secretary of State to Kris W. Kobach 6, 2017), available at 5bcf970e0001; Request Voter Registration Data, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS, BREVARD COUNTY available at registration-data; North Carolina: QM: Election Integrity Commission ?3 Data Request, NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS AND ETHICS ENFORCEMENT (July 10, 2017), available at Statement?om 16 Case Document 1 Filed 07114117 Page 1? of 22 Secretary Heated, OHIO SECRETARY OF STATE (June 30, 2017), available at Dana Branham, ?Ohio?s Jon Hosted to Trump election commission: We won?t turn over con?dential voter info," CINCINNATI.COM (June 30, 2017), available at .com [story/new s/ 20 est-voter-rol l-data-whi le-ohio- mulls-overl4424920011. 54. The Commission has directed states not to provide the requested voter data while the motion for a temporary restraining order is pending in the EPIC lawsuit. The a_c_'g Act 55. The Privacy Act of 1974 regulates the government?s collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of sensitive personal information. 56. Congress, which passed the Act following revelations during Watergate that the White House had collected information on its political adversaries, was ?concerned with Curbing the illegal surveillance and investigation of individuals by federal agencies that had been exposed during the Watergate scandal.? Department of Justice, Overview of the Privacy Act of 1974 (2015 edition), available at usticegoviopcl/policy? objectives. 57. Section 552a(e)(7) of the Act provides that an agency shall ?maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity." 58. As the DC. Circuit has explained: ?The legislative history of the Act reveals Congress? own special concern for the protection of First Amendment rights, as borne out 17 DHS-OO1-6335-000914 - ..-.-.I 441?npI'l? .4 'r - I. . iil?Case Document 1 Filed Page 18 of 22 by statements regarding ?the preferred status which the Committee intends managers of information technology to accord to information touching areas protected by the First Amendment ofthe Constitution.?" v. United States, 63 F.2d 915, 9 I 9 (D.C. Cir. [980) (citing 5. Rep. No. l83. 93d Cong. 2d Sess-, reprinted in (1974) US. Code Cong. Admin. News, pp. 69l6, 697 That same legislative history also ?reveals a concern for unwarranted collection of information as a distinct harm in and of itself.? Id. In particular. Congress directed Section 552a(e}(7) at ?inquiries made for research or statistical purposes which, even though they may be accompanied by sincere pledges of con?dentiality are, by the very fact that government make (sic) the inquiry, infringing on zones of personal privacy which should be exempted from unwarranted Federal inquiry." Id. (citing S. Rep. No. [83, (1974) US. Code Cong. 8: Admin. News at 6971-72)). 59. The initial implementation guidelines for the Act promulgated by the Of?ce of Management and Budget (OMB) underscore the special status accorded by the Act to records concerning individuals? First Amendment-protected activities. According to guidelines, Section 552a(e)(7) established a ?rigorous standard governing the maintenance of records regarding the exercise of First Amendment rights," including ?political beliefs? and ?freedom of assembly," and asked agencies to "apply the broadest reasonable interpretation" in determining whether a particular activity is protected by Section 552a(e)(7). OMB, Responsibilities for the Maintenance of Records About Individuals by Federal Agencies, 40 Fed. Reg. 28,943, 28,965 (July 9, I975). 60. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit has held that an agency ?may not so much as collect information about an individual's exercise of First Amendment rights except under very circumscribed conditions" and that Section 552a(e)(7) applies regardless 13 Case Document 1 Filed Will-ill? Page 19 of 22 whether a record is maintained in an agency?s system of records. 63] F.2d at 9 The Privacy Act inc0rporates the de?nition of ?agency? found in the Freedom of Information Act, id. 552a(a)(l), which in turn de?nes ?agency? as ?any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Of?ce of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.? Id. 5520). 62. The Commission is an agency. In cooperation with an as-yet-unknown number of other federal agencies, the Commission will function as a federal investigative body with a dedicated staff and budget to conduct a widescale and ?rst-of?its-kind investigation into alleged voter fraud. Presently, the Commission is amassing the personal and voting data of millions of American citizens and will cross-check this information against databases maintained by other federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration, to identify and ultimately have removed individuals whom it believes have fraudulently registered to vote. 63. The Commission?s functions and actions therefore go well beyond solely advising and assisting the President, and its structure shows that it is self?contained, is not operationally close to the President, and exercises substantial independent authority. Claims for Relief Count One (Violation of 5 U.S.C. 5523(e)(7)) 64. Plaintiff hereby realleges all allegations in the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. [9 Case Document 1 Filed 07114117 Page 20 of 22 65. Section 552a(e)(7) of the Privacy Act provides that an agency shall ?maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity." 66. The Privacy Act de?nes ?maintain" to include ?maintain, collect, use, or disseminate.? 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(3). 67. Through the collection, maintenance, use, and/or dissemination of data on individuals? voter history and party af?liation, activity that is protected by the First Amendment, Defendants have violated, and will violate, Section 552a(e)(7). 68. The collection, maintenance, use, andfor dissemination of these records was not within the scope of a valid law enforcement activity. 69. Defendants? violation has caused and continues to cause ongoing harm to Plaintiff. Count Two (Violation of APA Arbitrary and Capricious Action) 70. Plaintiff hereby realleges all allegations in the above paragraphs as if ?Jlly set forth herein. 71. In collecting, maintaining, using, andfor disseminating data on individuals? voter history and party affiliation, activity that is protected by the First Amendment, in violation of U.S.C. 552a(e)(7), Defendants have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, in excess of statutoryjurisdiction and authority, and otherwise contrary to law, in violation ofthe APA, 5 U.S.C. 706. 20 Case Document 1 Filed U7l14ll? Page 21 of 22 Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, plaintiff pray that this Court: I. Declare that Defendants? collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of voter history and party affiliation data violates the Privacy Act and the Enjoin Defendants from the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of voter history and party affiliation data; Order Defendants to provide an accounting of all voter history and party af?liation data in its custody, possession, or control; all copies that have been made of that data; all persons and agencies with whom Defendants have shared that data; and all uses that have been made of that data; Order Defendants to return to any supplying State all voter history and party af?liation data received from that state or otherwise securely delete such data; and Award Plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys? fees incurred in this action; and Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 2] Case Document 1 Filed Page 22 of 22 Dated: July 14. 201'? 22 Respectfully submitted, 51" Javier Guzman Javier M. Guzman (D.C. Bar No. 462679) Karianne M. Jones (pro hac vice motion to be?ied)? Democracy Forward Foundation P.O. Box 34553 Washington, DC. 20043 (202) 448-9090 jguzman@democracyfonvard.org kjones@democracyforward.org *Admitted in the State of Minnesota; practicing under the supervision of ?rm principals. I. I "1?It..-. . . - arrhum..-. . DHS-OO1-6335-000923 .3 c' I Case Document 1-1 Filed 07f14i'17 Page 1 of 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET 15.44 (Ev. or: I. i-LitiNm-?Fs Common Cause COUNTY 01" RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED IN U.5. DEFENDANTS Administration Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. U.S. of Homeland Security. and U.S. Social Security COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT CASES ONLY) Hora: IN LAND DDNDEMNATIUH Canes. use warlord or nus Tm or umu immu'm (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND NUMBER) Javier M. Guzman Democracy Forward Foundation P.0. Box 34553 Washington. 0.0. 20043 ATTORNEYS II. BASIS: OF JURISDICTION CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES AN it 1N ONE BOX FDR (PLACE. AN it ONE Box PLAINTIFF AND ONE Box FOR DEF err DH 0 1U.S.Govei'nment JFedeleueatiou Plai?li?' (U- Govmtm 3 Party} Citizen of?iis State 0 I I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 4 of Businesa in ?ii; Slate 2 us. Government 0 4 Diversity Citizen ofAnodier State 0 2 2 - 5 mm (mam-pot 0 ?1 Citizen or Subject of a 3 0 3 Foreign Country Foreign Nation 0 6 6 IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT [Place all in one sate-gin:1 that beat represent: mr Cause of Action and an: in a corresponding Nature of Suit} A. Antitrust B. Personal Injury! 0 C. Administrative Agency 0 D. Temporary ?aming Malpractice Review In 'unm'ou D310 Ail-lilac E151 MedinreAet 3'5 Product Liability . Any nature nl' Iult [Min any category 31' All-I"- Libel S's-def Balm may be aim for titt- anger} of Petimi Employer! Llablluy an an cane mignmt. El 340 Mm? 861 Black Lung 35 ?lulu, ?3 nmm' (405(1)) lieu A JSIMulanehlele 355 Motor Vehicle Product unitary :55 (MW an out: Penna! Injury 8?5933 at: Medical Malpractice 365 l! I93 Environmental Matters Cl Health sun?? (If Person] Injury Product $133?? Aw? Ashe-tau Pmitm Liabi?ty E. Genera! (Other) 0R 0 Pro Se General Em Elam Elam-unnum- 110 Laud Cnudemnalinu 422 Appeal USC 158 SW Tue: plaln?? or App?u?a? Elm Form" in Withdrawal :3 use 151 defendant] ?5 an ant, Lean a Ejectlueut IRS-Third Party 26 use 240 rot-u to 7?09 Runner In?uenced [3245 Tort Product when; :43: a Corrupt out-munO?ler Real Properly 550 Civil Riglta W515 Dru I Relaxed Selma: of Credlt 555 an El :mwc?gdmw 379 Other Fraud 560 Chill Detainee - Condition: 691} 0th" Elehan E371 Truth In Leading E: A fia- Elsumi-errumnm madlln?llull Damage h? Fake (.1an Am a ?re ire Procedure :13? I: '10 CopyrightLI-I ?a Pateut 3719(1)] Amt! Decline I: 335 Mm ?humid New ?in State Reapportionment El 950 Coll??l?nlu?ly of State ml Application [3 430 all?! a. Statutes ?a Trademark 450 ummeree?CC in Other Statutory Action Rateu?ete. (II nut agency 460 Depart-tint: review or Privacy Act] - I - . . -. . anunu..-.- . 'l . . I -.-.- .. -.. .. ..- . .--. I .- .uInn-nullItIm?l??nl wall l? DID3:13n?r-vv- v-u-anlI-I-I- - - w-h- v. -- A F?w- - --.- n?-m-u-n- ivolv-l-?CII In. JI?nn- 4.. -.-- - ..-. .-.. - .. . uno?"11DHS-OO1-6335-000925 :?ilu Case Document 1-1 Filed 07114117 Page 2 of 2 0 G. Hubert: Corpus/ 2255 Hebe? Corpm - General 510 biotin-Noelle Sentence I: ?3 Kobe? Corpll? Alien Detlhee H. Employ-rent Discrimination 441 Chill Elihu Employment (criteria: race. gentlemen, undo-ll discrimination. dlnb?ity, use. "Won. retellntiol] *?t'prn le. leleet thin lice-h)? E) I. POLL/Privacy Aer ?95 Freedom of lnl?ormntion Act an Otler Statutory Action (If Privacy Act} ?(ll are re, select this deelt]* J. Student Loan D152 Remyery of Delinlteti Student Lon {excluding vetennr) K. L. on" coir Rights M. Contract N. Three-Judge (non-employment} (non-employment) Court :1 lulruce D710 Fair L-im Standards Act Dill iron-?um Voting Right: Elmira-in 441 Civil Rights?Vain: MNWW MI) 130 Miller Act (?You-l lupin Am) [Alter ?nitely Act 443 HourlngiAccommodetlonii ?a 113an 111th 751 Fondly and Medical at Other Civil Right- 159 Ra?-very of Granny-ell Leave Act D445 Ale-rial: Enforcement of Either Lil-r Litigatio- Employment Judgment Ean Rut. inc. Security Act us Amer-Icons CI 153 Moi?, .r ova-[Mum Other If Veteun?l Bene?t! Educ-?o- til Stockholder? Slit: I: 190 Other Contact: El 195 Central Product Liability Fro-chine V. ORIGIN i Origin-l 0 2 Removed 0 3 Renunded 4 Reina-ted 5 Transferred 0 ii Matti-district 1' Anna] to a Matti-dinner Proceeding from State from or Reopened from ?other Lids-lion Judge Court Court diltriet (specify) from Meg. Iiireet File Judge VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (crrE THE U5. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH you ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT or 5 U.S.C. and 5 U.S.C. 7'06, suit to halt the unlawful collection of the personal voting data of Americans VII. REQUESTED 1N CHECK If ?its IS A CLASS DEMAND 5 Check YES only ifdemanded in complaint ?3 JURY DEMAND: YES NO RELATED Wm) YES ND Hyu, plelse complete related our: form IF ANY DATE: 073132017 SIGNATURE or ATTORNEY or RECORD Javier M- Guzman INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET Authority for Civil Cover Sheet The 13-44 civil cover rheet and the infonmtitm contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the ?lings and services of pleadings or other papers as required by Luv. except tut provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United State: in September [974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently. a civil cover sheet submitted to the Clerk of Coin-l for each civil conplaint ?led. Listed below Ire tips for completing the civil cover sheeL These tips coincide with the Numerals on the cover sheet. I. COW 0F RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED PLAINTIFFIDEFFINUANT County Us: I IDOI to indicate plaintiff if resident of Washington. DC. 38333 if plaintiffis resident ofUnited States but not Washington. DC. and 99999 if plaintiITis outside the United Silas. CITIZENSHIP 0F PRINCIPAL PARTIES: This section is completed only if diversity of citizenship was selected as the Burial of Jurisdiction under Section II. IV. CASE ASSIGNMENT AND NATURE OF SUIT: The assignment of a judge to your cut: will depend on the category you telect that best represents the close of action found in your complaint. You may Select only my; category. You mum alto select mg corresponding nature ofsilit found underdle category ofdle cine. VI. CAUSE OF ACTION: Cite the US. Civil Statute under which you are ?ling 1le write I brief of the primary cause. the Cluit'a Office. RELATED IF ANY: you indicated that there is a related case. who must complete a related cue form, which may be obtained from Because of the need for accurate and complete information. you should ensure Ihe accuracy of the information provided prior to signing the form. case Page 1 0f 2 FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NOTICE OF DESIGNATION OF RELATED CIVIL CASES PENDING IN THIS OR ANY OTHER UNITED STATES COURT Civil Action No. (To be supplied by the Clerk) Pursuant to Rule you are required to prepare and submit this form at the time of ?ling any civil action which is related to any pending cases or which involves the same parties and relates to the same subject matwr of any dismissed related cases. This form must be prepared in suf?cient quantity to provide one copy for the Clerk?s records, one copy for the Judge to whom the cases is assigned and one copy for each defendant. so that you must prepare 3 copies for a one defendant case, 4 copies for a two defendant case. etc. NOTI Rule of this Court requires that you serve upon the plaintiff and ?le with your ?rst responsive pleading or motion any objection you have to the related case designation. TI CO Rule of this Court requires that as soon as an attorney for a party becomes aware of the existence of a related ease or cases. such attorney shall immediately notify, in writing, the Judges on whose calendars the cases appear and shall serve such notice on counsel for all outer parties. The plaintiff . delimdant or counsel must complete the following: . I- A new case is deemed related to a case pending in this or another U.S. Cetu?t if the new case; [Check appropriate box(c*s) below] El relates to common property involves cotrtmon issues of fact [a grows out of the saute event or transaction involves the validity or infringement of the same patent is ?led by the same pro se litigant 2. I I A new case is deemed related to a case dismissed, with or Without prejudice, in this or any other US. Court, if the new case involves the m5 parties and same subject matter. Check hex if new case is related to a dismissed case: 3. NAME THE UNITED STATES COURT IN WHICH THE RELATED CASE IS FILED (IF OTHER THAN THIS COURT): 4. CAPTION AND CASE NUMBER OF RELATED IF MORE ROOM [8 NEED PLEASE USE OTHER SIDE. Elects-mic Privacy Information Center I C. A. No. 1T-1 320 trimmer? - DATE Si state of Plain fendant (or counsel) DHS-001-6335-000928 DHS-OO1-6335-000929 Case Document 1-2 Filed 07i14I17 PageZon Cum L?xmm Tvmep )qu 17-86(6ka L0. "5 melmk'?ea; EN (Nd ix?hffy MM) No. - PMLL 0; Wm Am? pg . DHS-OO1-6335-000931 E?h?fm'?b'mfli'. 1?01]. 'c?lulJIa Democmcv Forward Foundation I 1 1 I ll 1 DMD. US. Department of Homeland Secmity 050:: of Connie] 245 Mm Lane SW. Washington. DC 20528 UH) Ow D. 1? I: 3- rm- Elan-Mi $1 I 7011 2000 nun; 355a 7505 swun?t dud, ?ml/Mt!- WU Dc. was . ?amount-mud. unummhuubm ?umbilMothm umhh?lwm?u .S. 01.9 arfmurf or How: awn-1.2.uawnoonwh . I ofhu. 5+ i 1. mum?nu ?0 Mu. 1 cum uazmzu eta-wose-ssa =59 possaacud L?ma mod banana SBVO I dl'V Date: 201?}03108 15:46:46 Priority: Normal Type: Note 'l'hanks! From: OGC LCD Litigation Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017' 3:38 PM To: Palmer, David Wolf, Chad Hamilton, Genekb??) Hoffman, Jonathan 403W) Lapan, David Cassidy, Ben 403(5) Corbin, Susan Cc: I?hwm . .- mrsi OGC LCD Litigation (hire) Subject: 1035) Good afternoon, (E05) Thank you, Attomey?Advisor (Privacy) DHS-001-6335-000935 Legal Counsel Division, Of?ce of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security privileged inforina - . hereby noti?ed that any dissemina 1 'ution, use 0 strictly prohibited. If you have receive - or, this message. - -- uunication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and legally ue reader ofthis message is not the intended recthis message is to the sender and delete Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: 15:46:46 DHS-001-6335-000936 To: Subject: Date: Priority: Normal Type: Note Hi {bll?l I306) Thanks. and please let me know if you have any questions, comments. or concerns. Best, {bits Attorney?Adviser (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Of?ce ofthc General Counsel US. Department ofllomeland Seeuritv .. - I inication, along:Jr with any attachments, may contain confidential I a privileged informatlo . .- eader of this message is - nc ed recipient, you are hereby notified that any disseminati In use or copying ofthis message is strictly prohibitel avc received this in error, eas a ., I he sender and delete ssage. From: OGC LCD Litigation Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 3:38 PM To: Palmer, David Wolf, Chad Hamilton, Gene Hoffman, Jonathan <1tblt6l It}; Lapan, David . Cassidy, Ben {Ilbll?l f; Corbin, Susan {tints} Cc: Halts) DHS-001-6335-000937 403MB) looc LCD Litigation (bile) Subject: limo) (13(5) Good afternoon, W15) Thank you, (W5) Ilbll?l I Attorney-Adviser (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Of?ce of the General Counsel US. Department of Homeland Security (1331(5) umunication, along with any attachments, may contain con?dential and legally reader ofthis message is not the inten a .- you are - copying of this message is privileged inform' . hereby notified that any dissemina 1r .. -, . - to the sender and delete strictly prohibitedelved this in error, - - I - Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: ZUIWDSIUB 15:41:57 DHS-001-6335-000938 From: To: Subject: H5) Date: 2017f03f10 08:40:04 Priority: Normal Type: Note FYSA (decided not to attach anything From: (bite) Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2017 8:39 AM R?i I Subject: 0:05) Hi_ 00(5) Please let me what your thoughts are on this interpretation. Thanks, (W5) From: Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2017' 4:53 PM To: two: i Cc: DHS-001-6335-000939 Page 670 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000940 Page 671 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000941 Page 672 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000942 PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION Memorandum For: From: Subject: Recipient List Rene E. Browne rgf'nlrt' Grimm! Counsel US. Department of Homeland Security Washington. DC 205.23 33s Homeland Securlty August 3, 2017 Acting Associate General Counsel, Legal Counsel Division (W5) DHS-001-6335-000943 Page 674 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000944 Page 675 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000945 To: CC: Subject: Date: ZUIFIDBJUB 15:02:03 Priority: Normal Type: Note 'l?hanks, (W5) Here is the draft email to send (reminder make sure voting button is on}: ?331(5) Attorney?Adviser (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Of?ce ofthe General Counsel DHS-001-6335-000946 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (bits) 1s I - - I 'cation, along with any attachments, may contain confiden egally privileged informatlon. . ader of this message is ended recipient, you are hereby noti?ed that any dissemination on- use or copying ofthis message is strictly prohibited. If - - - ceived this in error. ea I the sender and delete this Ines From: Ilbll?i I Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 12:21 PM To: \IlbllEl (W6) Hi (bllEl here is the sample email I received from _and have been using to draft my own (see below). Note the subject line here too. From: Sent: on ay, une 2, 2017 4:38 PM To: ItbllEl Subject: Ful?l I The example transmittal email is below. I?m attaching the last Word version I have. I think this should match the that went out aside from the date. Ibll?l I Attorney Adviser. Litigation U.S. Department of Homeland Security Of?ce ofthe General Counsel (bills) I munieation, along with any attachments, is covered by fede - -: state law govermn- - ronic communications and is intende- I or the designated recipient(s). It may con . .irmation that' .. . eet to the attorney-client privilege, other legal privileges, or -- - a iality obligations. If you are not a designated recipient, 'o not review, copy, -- ate, or distribute this message or i ents. If you receive this message in error, a otify the sender i -- - ately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. DHS-001-6335-000947 From: OGC LCD Litigation Sent: Friday, May 12, 201? 3:49 PM To: Palmer, David itbite?i Havranek, John (bits) Exec Sec (bite) Cc: oer: LCD Litigation {Kblt?l Browne, Rene {one thus) Subject: new) Itbll?l Good afternoon, (W5) Thank you, (bile) (bite) Attomey Advisor, Litigation U.S. Department of Homeland Security Of?ce ofthe General Counsel (bile) This com along with any attachments, is ed by federal and state law governing electronic com a Intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain infor that is so ttorney-elient DHS-001-6335-000948 privilege, designated recipient, you In . message or its contents. If I. - e-mail and delete this message. Than a . immediate] . - - rivileges, or con?dentiality obligations. . - not a 1Viewmate, or distribute this 'n error, please notify the sender Sender: (bll?l Recipient: Sent Date: 1510210? Delivered Date: 15:02:03 DHS-001-6335-000949 Page 680 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000950 Page 681 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000951 Page 682 Withheld pursuant to exemption (W5) eftne Freedom of Information and Privacy Act DHS-001-6335-000952 From: To: Subject: RE: Common cause v. presidential advisory commission on Election Integrity et al. Date: 201?}03f03 14:59:02 Priority: Normal Type: Note Thanks?. I?ve already been in communication with DOJ on this. I?ll forward you the latest. From: Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2017 2:29 PM To: ?libil?i Subject: FW: Common cause v. presidential advisory commission on Election Integrity et al. Hi-, forwarding this to you for your awareness at this point. It?s a PA lawsuit relating to the Commission investigating voter fraud. Assistant General Counsel for Strategic Oversight Legal Counsel Division Office of the General Counsel US. Department of Homeland Security (W5) .. II ication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and le-all I - I information. If the reaI - I II -. sa_e is not the intend I. ,ou are hererby notified that any dissemination. distributionstrictly prohibited. If you have received - I ease reply to the sender and delete this message. From: Browne, Rene Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 201? 6:02 PM little} l' Cc: tore) l> Subject: RE: Common cause v. presidential advisory commission on Election Integrity et al. Thanks Adding ?since this is a Privacy Act lawsuit. let?s discuss tomorrow. Rene Rene E. Browne Acting Associate General Counsel, Legal Counsel Division DHS-001-6335-000953 Office of the General Counsel US. Department of Homeland Security 031(5) From: (biiEi) Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 9:26 AM To: Cc: Subject: FW: Common cause v. presidential advisory commission on Election Integrity et al. The mailroom received the attached summons and complaint regarding the election integrity commission. Looks like DHS is included because of public statements of officials saying that state provided info could be run against DHS databases. This is the suit: postcomflocalfpubl use-effort-to-block- trum d56bd5568db8 story.html?utm term=.28caaSef37f8 b?iiEi Deputy Chief of Staff/Managing Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Homeland Security (bli?l Warning AttornenyIient Privilege Attorney Work Product .tion and any attachments may contain confidential andfor sensitive attorneyjclient priv' - . - '_ive information. It is not for release, review, retr - -- an, dissemination, or use by anyone other than - I 5 been - -- i and immediately destroy all originals and copies. - . -- . ormation or attorney work product andfor law en orc- the intended recipient. Please notify the sen-er Furthermore, do not print, copy, re-transmit, disseminat- - - rwise I - - . ation. Any disclosure of this communication or its attachments must be approved by the - General Counsel, US. Department of Home . This document is for INTERNAL GOVERNMENT USE ONL - exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. ?g 5 'a - .: From: W5) Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 6:39 PM To: libiiEi?i Subject: Common cause v. presidential advisory commission on Election Integrity et al. Best regards, bli?i Legal Correspondence Specialist DHS-001-6335-000954 Of?ce of General Counsel Department of Homeland Security 3801 Nebraska Avenue Washington, DC. 20016-2705 Nebraska Avenue Complex (W5) Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: 2017f08f03 14:59:02 DHS-001-6335-000955 From: To: Subject: FW: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, et aI Date: 201?;03f02 12:10:19 Priority: Normal Type: Note Hifbll?l Jonathan C. suggested I reached out to you on this. DHS was sued, along the others, regarding the Electoral Integritv Commission's request for voter data see the complaint. (W5) 003(5) Thanks, (W5) Attorney?Advisor (Privacv) Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Securityr (bile) n' communication, along with any attachments, may contain confidenti. . - . privileged information. I . ssa_e is not the - - crpient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, us: a - IS urohibited. If you have received this the sender and delete this message. From: Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2017 12:04 PM DHS-001-6335-000956 To: (bll'B) Cc: {lbliel I Subject: RE: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, et al Sounds good. Thanks, Any idea who the DHS contact is? Cheers, (bli?l From: libli?l Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 201? 12:00 PM To: Cc: thus) Subject: RE: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, et al Hi. (blt5) Best, ib?liBi Trial Attorney, U.S. Department ofJustice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 {bliel From: yous; Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 201? 2:52 PM To: stairs: I Cc: libliB?i I libliel I Subject: RE: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, et al Thanks, for the update. Please let me know if you need anything from us. DHS-001-6335-000957 Cheers, ibllEl {bile} Attorney-Advisor (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security - munication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and Irlvileged informationnot the intended you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or copying oft .. . rohibited. If you have received this in error, please reply to th- - - . and delete this message. From: lbll?l Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 2:27 PM To: Cc: (bile) object: RE: Common Cause v. Presndential Advisory Commussnon on Electoral Integrity, et al Hi The hearing this morning went well and the Court denied the TRD. Our response to the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is currently due on or before Friday, August 4; however, We?ll keep you posted. In the meantime, please let us know if you have any questions. Best, From: (bye; Sent: "uesday, August 01, 2017' ISO AM To: Cc: Kbll?l I Subject: RE: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, et al Thanks DHS-001-6335-000958 - bli? IlbliEi Attorney-Adviser (Privacy) Legal Counsel Division, Office of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security (bile) a unication, along with any attachments, may contain confidential and l- - . 1e- information. If the reae I -- 2 -1- is not the inten - you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, use or cu a Is messag . m'ited. If you have received this in error 9 - . ot sender and delete this message. From: libii?i Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:57 PM To:l[bil5i (bile) Subject: RE: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisory Commission on Electoral Integrity, et al Thanks 1 Moving forward we will leave you off the e?mails. ibii5liibli5) Best, biib?) (bile) Trial Attorney, U.S. Department ofJustice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 (bile) Sent: Monday, July 31, 201? 1:00 PM DHS-001-6335-000959 Subject: RE: Common Cause v. Presidential Advisoryr Commission on Electoral Integrity, et al Hi My colleague here, will be the POC. Thanks, (We) Legal Counsel Division Of?ce of the General Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security (We) From: have: I Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 4:42:39 PM TO ?Whiter Subject: Common Cause v. Presidential advisoryr Commission on Electora Integrity, et al Thank you! bile} We) Trial Attorney, U.S. Department ofJustice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 DHS-001-6335-000960 Sender: Recipient: Sent Dane: 12:10:13 Delivered Date: 201?}?08l02 12:10:19 DHS-001-6335-000961 Case Document 39-2 Filed 011139118 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MATTHEW DUNLAP, Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-2361 (CKK) Plaintiff, v. PRESIDENTIAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON ELECTION INTEGRITY, er all, Defendants. SECOND DECLARATION OF CHARLES C. HERNDON I, Charles C. Hemdon, declare as follows: I . I am the Director of White House Information Technology and Deputy Assistant to the President. I am the senior of?cer responsible for the information resources and information systems provided to the President, Vice President and Executive Office of the President. I report to the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Assistant to the President for Operations, and through him to the Chief of Staff and the President. I am part of what is known as the White House Of?ce. This declaration is based on my personal knowledge and upon information provided to me in my of?cial capacity. 2. On January 3, 2018, the President signed an Executive Order terminating the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. 3. All of the state voter data provided to the Commission is and stored in a separate container within the domain Only four members of staff have had and continue to have access to the data. These staff members are not DHS-OO1-6335-000962 Case Document 39-2 Filed 011139118 Page 2 of 3 authorized to transfer or utilize this data. No Commission member was provided access to the state voter data prior to the Commission?s termination and none has access now. Aldrough my original declaration stated that the Commission would receive dedicated laptops on which it could access the data, that did not occur and no dedicated lapt0ps were issued. 4. The state voter data has never been transferred to, or accessed or utilized by, the Department of Homeland Security or any other agency. The state voter data will not be transferred to, or accessed or utilized by, DHS or any other agency, except to the National Archives and Records Administration pursuant to federal law, if the records are not otherwise destroyed. Pending resolution of outstanding litigation involving the Commission, and pending consultation with NARA, the White House intends to destroy all state voter data. Until such disposition, the data will continue to be maintained by the WHIT technical staff as Presidential Records. 5. The Commission did not create any preliminary ?ndings. In any event, no Commission records or data will be transferred to the DHS or another agency, except to NARA, if required, in accordance with federal law. Commission documents and records remain publicly accessible on the former Commission?s public webpage at Non- public Commission records will continue to be maintained as Presidential Records. 2 DHS-OO1-6335-000963 Case Document 39-2 Filed omens Page 3 of 3 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. um Executed this ith day ofJanuary 2013. aI'les C. Hemdon 3 DHS-001-6335-000964 (bite) From: "Lapan, Davidkbiij?i To: (bite) Subject: FW: Hu?Post inquiry Date: 201771070215:10:59 Priority: Normal Type: Note Dav (bits) 7 was going to refer this over to the commission, but wanted to flag for you first in case you wanted to say.( anything for the department more broadly. It doesn?t appear these communications were NPPD. Sent: Monday, October 2, 2017 10:50 AM Subject: HuffPost inquiry Hi I hope you had a nice weekend. I had a couple questions related to communication between DHS and the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity. On Friday, the commission released a log (attached) of all of its communications to date and there is repeated contact between DHS and the commission ((ltems 365, 383, 384, 472, 475, 681, 682, 689, 693, 701, 703, 705, 706, 711, 735, 739, 749}. Based on these communications, I wanted to ask what the relationship between the Department of Homeland Security and the commission is, Has DHS had any conversation with the commission about allow it to access DHS data? Thanks so much, lbil??l (bite) Associate Politics Editor HuffPost (bits) Sender: I "Lapan, David heirs} Recipient: DHS-001-6335-000965 Sent Date: 201?}10f02 15:10:53 Delivered Date: 201?}10f02 15:10:59 DHS-OO1-6335-000966 Case Document 33?3 Filed 09f29!17 Page 1 of 43 EXHIBIT 3 DHS-001-6335-000967 Case Document 33-3 Filed 09129flT ACRONYMS Commission Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity or PACEI DFO DHS DOD DWHIT EEOB EFT EOP EPIC FACA FOIA GAI GAO GSA IT MOU NARA NASS OMB OVP PRA SAFE SGE SSA TRO VP Designated Federal Officer Department of Homeland Security Department of Defense Department of Justice Director of White House Information Technology Eisenhower Executive Office Building Electronic Funds Transfer Executive Of?ce of the President Electronic Privacy Information Center Federal Advisory Committee Act Freedom of Information Act Government Accountability Institute Government Accountability Office General Services Administration Information Technology Memorandum of Understanding National Archives and Records Administration National Association of Secretaries of State Office of Management and Budget Office of the Vice President Presidential Records Act Safe Access File Exchange Special Governmental Employee Secretary of State Social Security Administration Temporary Restraining Order Vice President DHS-001-6335-000968 Page 2 of 43 17 Ca - Lawyers? Comm?teeior Civil EP 9l29l17 ection Integrity, et Paagl fang BEE-1354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] 2 Public Documents Related to the Creation and Organization of the 3 Commission Members of the 4 Executive Order No. 13,?99, establishing the Commission The President Public 11?May?17 Yes Yes NA White House Press Release: President Announces Formation of Bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election Integrity {May 11, White House Press Members of the 5 2017} Secretary Public ll?May?lir Yes Yes NA Commission 5 Charter: Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Commission Staff Members 23-Jun-17 Yes Yes NA if Public Documents Related to June 28 Organizational Cali Commission 8 Agenda for June 28, 2017, Organizational Conference Call Commission Staff Members For June 23 call Yes Yes NA Commission discretionary 9 Email regarding June 28, 2017, initial organizational call Kossack Members For June 28 call No release NA Readout of the Vice President's Call with the Presidential Advisory White House Office of Members of the 10 Commission on Election Integrity the Vice President Public 28-Jun-17 Yes Yes NA 11 Public Documents Related to July 19 Meeting Commission For July 19 12 PACEI Bylaws {as adopted and as drafted} Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 13 List of Possible Topics for Commission to Address Kobach Members meeting Yes Yes NA Presentation delivered at an administrative session held before the July Commission 19 meeting discretionary 14 GSA briefing on FACA and Presidential Records Act GSA Members began No release NA DHS-001-61335-000969 s/zsizolv 17 Ca - Lawyers? Comm?teeq'or Yg-lgsle?wgt?-r 929117 ection Integrity, at P33, fang-1. Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Presentation delivered at an administrative session held before the July Commission 19 meeting discretionary 15 GSA briefing on Ethics Training for SGEs GSA Members began No release NA Heritage Foundation: Database entitled A sampling of Election Shared by von Commission For July 19 16 Fraud Cases From Across the Country Spakovsky Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report: Election Administration and Voting Survey 2016 Commission For July 19 1? Comprehensive Report {by U.S. Election Assistance Commission} Shared by McCormack Members meeting Yes Yes NA Opening Statement of J. Kenneth Blackwell {shared with other Commission ForJuly 19 13 members) Blackwell Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 19 PowerPoint presentation by Hans von Spakovsky {untitled} von Spakovksy Members meeting Yes Yes NA Yale Law at Policy Review Article: The Other Voting Right: Protecting Every Citizen's Vote by Safeguarding the Integrity of the Ballot Box, Commission For July 19 20 by J. Kenneth Blackwell 8t Kenneth A. Klukowski Shared by Blackwell Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission ForJuly 19 21 Video of the July 19 PACEI Meeting Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Remarks by President Trump and Vice President Pence at the White House Press Members of the 22 Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity meeting Secretary Public 19-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA Remarks by Vice President Pence and Elected Officials at the First Meeting of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election White House Office of Members of the 23 Integrity the Vice President Public 19-Jul-1Tir Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 24 July 19, 2017 meeting agenda Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For July 19 25 Revised July 19, 2017ir meeting agenda Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Members of the 26 Federal Register Meeting Notice for July 19 meeting Commission Staff Public 5-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 2? Public Documents Related to September 12 Meeting White House Press Members of the 28 Announcement of September 12 Commission Meeting Secretary Public 24?Aug?11r Yes Yes NA 9/219;on Lawyers? Fihed 353-3 ommission on ection Integrity, at 99917 Page?? 8114:9435!) Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient(s) (if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description (if applicable) applicable) applicable) to 10(b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Members of the 29 Federal Register Meeting Notice for September 12, 2017 meeting Commission Staff Public 24-Aug-17 Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 30 Agenda for September 12, 201]i Commission Meeting Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Written statement by Donald Palmer, Panelist at Sept. 12 meeting, Donald Palmer Commission For Sept. 12 31 entitled "Election Integrity Issues Affecting Public Confidence" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Andrew E. Smith, Panelist at Sept. 12 Andrew E. Smith Commission For Sept. 12 32 meeting, entitled "Turnout and Voter Trust" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by John R. Jott, Jr., Panelist at Sept. 12 John R. Lott, Jr. Commission For Sept. 12 33 meeting, entitled suggestion and some evidence" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Updated PowerPoint presentation by John R. Lott, Jr., Panelist at John R. Lott, Jr. Commission For Sept. 12 34 Sept. 12 meeting, entitled suggestion and some evidence" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Ronald L. Rivest, Panelist at September Ronald L. Rivest Commission For Sept. 12 35 12 meeting, entitled "Remarks on Election Integrity" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report by Government Accountability Institute: "America the Shared by von Commission For Sept. 12 36 Vulnerable: The Problem of Duplicate Voting" Spakovsky Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Hans von Spakovsky, PACEI Commission For Sept. 12 3? MemberfPanelist at Sept. 12 meeting (untitled) von Spakovksy Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Harri Hursti, Panelist at Sept. 12 Commission For Sept. 12 38 meeting, entitled "Threat models and the tools of the industry" Harri Hursti (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Ken Block, Panelist at Sept. 12 meeting, Commission For Sept. 12 39 entitled "Data Mining for Potential Voter Fraud" Ken Block (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Kimball Brace, panelist at Sept. 12 Kimball Brace Commission For Sept. 12 40 meeting, entitled "The Election Process From a Data Prospective" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Updated PowerPoint presentation by Kimball Brace, panelist at Sept. 12 meeting, entitled "The Election Process From a Data Kimball Brace Commission For Sept. 12 41 Prospective" (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Letter from Shawn N. Jasper, Speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, to New Hampshire Secretary of State and Commissioner of Department of Public Safety re: efforts to insure Shared by Secretary Commission For Sept. 12 42 the accuracy and validity of New Hampshire's voter checklists Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA 9/29/2012 Lawyers? faucet ills-4311354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} PowerPoint presentation by William Gardner, Commission Commission For Sept. 12 43 MemberfSept. 12 meeting host {untitled} Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA PowerPoint presentation by Andrevir W. Appel, Panelist at Sept. 12 Andrew W. Appel Commission For Sept. 12 44 meeting, entitled "Record and counting votes in a trustworthy way" [panelist] Members meeting Yes Yes NA Press release by N.H. Speaker Jasper re: response to inquiry of NH Commission For Sept. 12 45 Departments of State and Safety Shared by Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA Response to N.H. Speaker's request for information by N.H. Department of State and Department of Safety, re: voter Commission For Sept. 12 46 verification request Shared by Gardner Members meeting Yes Yes NA Written statement by Judge Alan L. King, PACEI Member, entitled Commission For Sept. 12 47 "Statement of Issues/Recommendations" King Members meeting Yes Yes NA Paper: "Evidence of Voter Fraud and the Impact that Regulations to Reduce Fraud have on Voter Participation Rates," by John R. Lott, John R. Lott, Jr. Commission For Sept. 12 48 Jr. [2007} (Panelist) Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report: "Garden State Gotcha" by Public Interest Legal Foundation Commission For Sept. 12 49 (Sept. 2017) Shared byAdams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 50 Belitto v. Sinipes, 221 F. Supp. 3d 1354 (SD. Fla. 2016) Shared by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 51 ACLU v. Martinez?Rivera, 166 F. Supp. 3d 229 (SD. Fla. 201?} Shared by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Voter Integrity Project NC, Inc. v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Elections, No. Commission For Sept. 12 52 5:16?cv?683?BR Feb. 21, 2012) Shared by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 53 Bates in the News: Nov. 11, 2016 - Voter Suppression {by Jay Burns) Shared by Dunlap Members meeting Yes Yes NA Written Statement by Robert D. Popper, Panelist at Sept. 12 Robert D. Popper Commission For Sept. 12 54 meeting, entitled "It is Time to Start Enforcing the National Voter [panelist] Members meeting Yes Yes NA Article: "It Appears That Uut-of?State Voters Changed The Outcome of the New Hampshire US Senate Race" [by Kris Kobach, published Commission For Sept. 12 55 on Breitbarti Kobach Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 56 List of panelists and biographies for Sept. 12 Meeting Commission Staff Members meeting Yes Yes NA Report: "Alien Invasion II: The Sequel to the Discovery and Cover? Up of Non-Citizen Registration and Voting in Virginia" {by Public Commission For Sept. 12 5? Interest Legal Foundation) Mentioned by Adams Members meeting Yes Yes NA Commission For Sept. 12 58 Guare v. New Hamshire, No. 2014?5 (NH. 2015) Mentioned by Kobach Members meeting Yes Yes NA 9/219;on Lawvers? 91?29117 Pa ection Integrity, et Fug. BEE-1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been {'?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Commission For Sept. 12 59 New Hampshire Voter Registration Form Mentioned by Kobach Members meeting ves Yes NA 60 Public Documents Related to Request to States for Data/Views June 28, 201?, letter from Kobach to states, requesting views, recommendations, and publicallv available data (identical copies State Election 61 sent to election officials of the SD states and District of Columbia) Kobach Officials 28-Jun-17 Yes Yes NA Statement from Kobach, Kansas Secretaryr of State and Vice Chair of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity (related White House Press Members of the 52 to data collection} Secretary Public 5-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA July 26, 201?, letter from Kobach to state election officials, renewing June 28 informational request [identical copies sent to State Election 63 election officials of the states and the District of Columbia] Kobach Officials 26?Jul?1}r Yes Yes NA Michele Reagan, Arizona Secretarv of 64 Response to Data Request Letter State Kobach 3?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA John Merrll, Alabama 65 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary of State Kobach S?Jul?lir Yes Yes NA Jesse White, Illinois 66 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary.r of State Kobach S?Jul?lir Yes Yes NA Ken Drezner, Florida 57 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary of State Kobach 6-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA Paul Zirax, Secretarv of the Oklahoma State 58 Response to Data Request Letter Election Board Kobach E-Jul-l? Yes Yes NA Kenneth R. Menzel, General Counsel, Illinois State Board of 69 Response to Data Request Letter Elections Kobach Y?Jul?l? Yes Yes NA Shantel Krebs, South Dakota Secretarv of 70 Response to Data Request Letter State Kobach 1Ei?Jul?1Trr Yes Yes NA Frank Jung, General Counsel, Missouri 7'1 Response to Data Request Letter Secretary of State Kobach 10?Jul?13!r Yes Yes NA 17 Ca - Lawyers? Comm?teelor 0in re 5% Engilall Td? fslot is sli:oi Ilueo?l Pall]. ection Integrity, et faucet BEE-1354 (cm Description Document Originator {if applicable) Document Recipientls) {if applicable} Date Docu ment Created a nclfor Sha red {if a pplica ble] Commission Views as Subject to l?lb)? Has Document Been Currently Disclosed? Rational for non- disclosure (see 3d Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 72 Response to Data Request Letter Mac Warner, West Virginia Secretary of State Kobach 11-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 1'3 Response to Data Request Letter Wayne W, Williams, Colorado Department of State Kobach 14-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 74 Response to Data Request Letter Ed Murray, Wyoming Secretary of State Kobach 14-Jul-1}r Yes Yes NA 75 Response to Data Request Letter Tre Hargett, Tennessee Secretary of State Kobach 14-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 76 Response to Data Request Letter Delbert Hosemann, Mississippi Secretary of State Kobach 19-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA Response to Data Request Letter James C. Condos, Vermont Secretary of State PACEI 19-Jul-1}r Yes Yes NA 78 Response to Data Request Letter John Husted, Ohio Secretary of State Commission Members 24-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 7'9 Response to Data Request Letter John Husted, Ohio Secretary of State PACEI 24?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 30 Response to Data Request Letter Paul D. Pate, Iowa Secretary of State Kobach 26?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 31 Response to Data Request Letter Scoti T, Nago, Chief Election Officer, Hawaii Kobach 2Y?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 82 Response to Data Request Letter Bryan A, Caskey, Director of Elections, Kansas Secretary of State Williams Yes Yes NA 33 Response to Data Request Letter John Conklin, Director of Public Information, NYS Board of Elections Kossack 2??Ju ?17 Yes Yes NA 34 Email re: point of contact for secure transfer of voting data Brandon Newell, Office of Secretary of State, Arkansas Williams Yes Yes NA 9/219;on Lawyers? tugging-aloft 9" 29? 17 Page?? ection Integrity, et Description Document Originator {if applicable) Document Recipientls) {if applicable} Date Docu ment Created a ndfor Sha red {if a pplica ble] Commission Views as Subject to l?lb)? Has Document Been Currently Disclosed? Rational for non- disclosure (see 3d Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 85 Response to Data Request Letter Wayne Thorley, Nevada Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Williams 28?Jul?1? Yes Yes NA 86 Response to Data Request Letter Matthew Dunlap, Maine Secretary of State Kobach 31?Jul?1}r Yes Yes NA 37 Letter containing instructions to request information from Texas databases Lindsey Aston, General Counsel, Texas Secretary of State Kobach 31-Jul-17 Yes Yes NA 83 Response to Data Request Letter Jerold A. Bonnet, General Counsel, Office of the Indiana Secretary of State Kobach 4-Aug-17 Yes Yes NA 89 Response to Data Request Letter Tom Schedler, Louisiana Secretary of State PACEI Yes Yes NA 90 Response to Data Request Letter Jade K. Fountain- Tanigawa, Office of the County Clerk, County of Kauai Kobach liir?Aug?lir Yes Yes NA 91 Response to Data Request Letter Bryon Mallott, Alaska Lt. Gov, Kobach 21-Aug-17 Yes Yes NA 92 Response to Data Request Letter Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State Kobach 22-Aug-1? Yes Yes NA 93 Response to Data Request Letter Elaine Manloye, Delaware State Election Commissioner Kobach 28?Aug?1? Yes Yes NA 94 Response to Data Request Letter Alyin A. Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State PACEI 5?Sep?17r Yes Yes NA 95 Response to Data Request Letter John A, Gale, Nebraska Secretary of State Kobach 19?Sep?17 Yes Yes NA 9/29f2D1? Lawyers? gnsdi-rgl?f gdgmislii?negn Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] Kenneth Menzel, General Counsel, Illinois State Board of 96 Response to Data Request Letter Elections Kobach 19?Sep?1? Yes Yes NA 9? State Data Received -- Listed by State Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 98 Arkansas Yes No Kossack Decl. ?11 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 99 North Carolina Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to [bllj?]. See 3d 100 Florida Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 101 Ohio Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 102 Colorado Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to [bllj?]. See 3d 103 Washington Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 104 Nevada Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 105 New York Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bllj?]. See 3d 106 Kansas Yes No Kossack Decl. 11 11 Exempt pursuant to [bus]. See 3d 107 Oklahoma Yes No Kossack Decl. ?11 11 Exempt pursuant to See ad 103 Newlersey Yes No Kossack Decl.1l 11 9,129,201? Lawyers? 1:15 gnsdi-rgvl?? Pregdg?tlilamgvli?stog gogmislii?negn stodgy?$119354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient(s) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Documenti?sHCategorv Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 11 121 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 109 Hawaii (Kaua?i Countv) Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to [b1161. See 3d 110 Montana Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 111 Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 112 West Virginia Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to [b1161. See 3d 113 Alaska Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 114 Idaho Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 115 Oregon Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to [b1161. See 3d 115 Missouri Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 Exempt pursuant to See 3d 11? Iowa Yes No Kossack Decl.11 11 118 Other Public Documents Book: Who's Counting? Howr Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Shared bv Hans von Commission Shared after Julv 119 Vote at Risk, bv June Fund and Hans von Spakovskv Spakovskv Members 19 meeting Yes Yes NA Public Comments received from members of the public to the Members of the Commission 6129,1'1? 120 Commission's email address and posted online Public Members Yes Yes we Accepted through the submission of the Public Comments received from members of the public to the Members of the Commission Commission's 121 Commission's regulationsgov website and posted online Public Members final report Yes Yes NA DHs-oo1-eg35-000977 9,129,201? nder Law v. Presr entlal Lawvers? 95354-CKK 3g-3 9929,17 Pa vrsorv on lectIc-n Integrity, et 9E (cm Document Date Document Created a ndfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlv disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Public comments submitted to Commission, but not posted publiclv because comments are overlvr profane andfor contain threats, and Members of the Commission 122 contain nothing by way of substance Public Members Since June 201? No No The Vice President 123 Letter from Sen. Amv Klobuchar, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress and Kobach 6,!291201? Yes Yes NA The Vice President 124 Letter from Sen. Amv Klobuchar, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress and Kobach Yes Yes NA The Vice President 125 Letter from Sen. Tester and Gov. Bullock re: Commission activities Montana officials and Kobach 2/111201? Yes Yes NA Commission 126 Letter from Rep. Cummings, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress Members Yes Yes NA The Vice President 127 Letter from Rep. Eshoo, et al. re: Commission activities Members of Congress and Kobach 71/13/2017 Yes Yes NA Letter from Sens. Klobuchar and Wbitehouse re: Commission Sens. Klobuchar and Commission 128 activities Whitehouse Members Yes Yes NA Statement by Sen. Shaheen re: Sept 12 meeting re: Commission Commission 129 activities Sen. Shaheen Members 91121201? Yes Yes NA Emails Sent by Commission DFO to Commission Membership [To avoid repetitition, these documents are not also listed separately 130 under each Commissioner) Commission discretionary 131 Welcome and Initial Organizational Call Kossack Members 26-Jun-12 No release Commission 132 Email planner holding June 28, 2017 Organizational Call Kossack Members 23r'-Jun-1Tir No No lb] Commission 133 Email sending agenda for June 23, 2017 organizational call Kossack Members 22?Jun?11r No No Updated email planner sending dial-in information for June 28 Commission 134 organizational call Kossack Members 22?Jun?13r No No lb} Email containing dial?in information related to June 23 call as well as documents related to ethics standards for special government Commission 135 emplovees Kossack Members 22?Jun?12 No No [bi Email containing copyr of June 28 Kobach letter, to be sent to Commission 136 secretaries of state and chief state election officials Kossack Members 28-Jun-13r No No lb} 9/29f2?l? Lawyers? 1:15 3:15 dile-f gl? l5 g- 3 Fl lad ommissmn on 9. 9129? 17 Page [baffl?f?nsa ection Integrity, at Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentls}/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable} to 10lb}? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email forwarding email sent from Commission to States, asking Commission 137 them to hold off sending data pending resolution of EPIC TRD Kossack Members 10-Jul-17 No No lb} Email regarding financial disclosure, EFT Enrollment form, and Commission 138 travel logistics for July 19 meeting Kossack Members 11-Jul-11r No No lb} Email regarding booking travel for July 19 meeting and reminder to Commission 139 submit 450 Financial Disclosure form Kossack Members 13?Jul?1? No No lb} Commission 140 Email containing agenda for July 19 meeting Kossack Members 14?Jul?17ir No No lb} Email forwarding email from GSA containing information on how to Commission 141 book travel; cover email reviews meeting location and schedule Kossack Members 14?Jul?1? No No lb} Email containing logistical information for attending July 19 meeting Commission 142 and ethics question related to financial disclosure Kossack Members lit-Jul-lir No No lb} Email containing draft Ely?Laws, revised agenda, and reminder Commission 143 about July 19 meeting logistics Kossack Members 18-Jul-17 No No lb} Commission 144 Email containing instructions for travel expense reimbursements Kossack Members 20?Jul?12 No No lb} Email containing copies of letters received from Colorado and Commission 145 Wyoming secretaries of state Kossack Members 21?Jul?13!r No No lb} Commission 146 Email containing letter from Ohio Secretary of State Kossack Members 25-Jul-17 No No lb} Email containing copy of July 26 letter from Kobach to states Commission 14? regarding data collection Kossack Members 26-Jul-11r No No lb} Email containing follow up communication from GSA regarding Commission 148 Hatch Act Kossack Members Z?Aug?l? No No lb} Email containing litigation holds {and attachments, Commission 149 Kossack Members 7?.4ug?1? No No lb} Commission 150 Email containing save-the-date for September 12 meeting Kossack Members 18-Aug-17 No No lb} Email containing travel and logistical information for September 12 Commission 151 meeting Kossack Members 24-Aug-17 No No lb} Email containing letter from Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials for September 12 meeting and reminder of Commission 152 litigation hold letter Kossack Members 30-Aug-17 No No lb} Email promising proposed agenda for September 12 meeting soon Commission 153 and asking members to submit any written materials by Sept. 7 Kossack Members 1-Sep-1? No No lb} 9/219;on Lawvers? 1:555 3 g- 3 Filed visorv on assimilates util?lasasq (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email containing reminder of ethics rules that govern teaching, Commission 154 speaking, and writing Kossack Members 5-Sep-17l No No Commission 155 Email containing agenda for September 12 meeting Kossack Members 5?Sep?11" No No Commission 156 Email containing revised agenda for September 12 meeting Kossack Members 6?Sep?17r No No lb} Commission 157 Email containing materials for September 12 meeting Kossack Members S-Sep?l? No No Email stating that materials prepared for September 12 meeting are Commission 158 posted online Kossack Members 8-Sep-1? No No Email containing logistical information for September 12 meeting Commission 159 and reminder about FACA open-meeting requirements Kossack Members 11-Sep-1? No No 160 Materials of Commission Member I. Christian Adams 161 Email forwarding news article Adams OVP Counsel 13-Mav-1? No No Email forwarding information about potential staff member for 162 Commission Adams Counsel 18?May?17 No No 163 Email forwarding news article Adams Counsel No No 164 Email forwarding news article Adams Counsel 31-May?17 N0 N0 165 Email addressing potential research opportunities for Commission Adams Counsel 5-Jun?1? No No {fl Email addressing election integrity; suggesting potential outreach 166 options Adams Kossack S-Jul-li' No No if] Kossack, OVP 16? Email about potential participants in Commission Adams Counsel (S-Jul-lir No No lg} Kossack, Counsel, von 163 Email forwarding press release Adams Spakovsk?yr 15-Jul-17 No No Email requesting Adam's preferred title for appointment 169 announcment Kossack Adams 11?Jul?13!r No No Email forwarding press release re: Adams' appointment to Kossack, OVP 170 Commission Adams Counsel 11?Jul?1? No No [hl Kossack, OVP Counsel, von Spakowskv, 171 Email forwarding link to television appearance Adams Blackwell 1T-Jul-17 No No Kossack, 1?2 Cover email forwarding material to be used for Julvr 19 meeting Adams Counsel 18?Jul?1? N0 N0 [cl 9/219;on Lawyers? 3g-3 9 wsory on 9129/17 Pa lectlon Integrity, et gig: (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12] 123 Email requesting copy of photograph from lulur 19 meeting Adams OVP Counsel 20?Jul?11r No No personal 124 Email chain discussing potential data Adams Kossack 23-Jul-17 No No Kossack, Counsel, 1lion 175 Email exchange in response to press inquiry about Commission Adams Spakowsky ltl-i?lug-lir No No 126 Email asking about September 12 meeting location Adams Kossack 13?Aug?11r No No Email forwarding news article Adams Kossack 31-Aug-17 No No Email sending copy of materials to be used at September 12 Kossack, won 173 presentation Adams Spakowsk?yr 1-Sep-1? No No Email forwarding third-party individual's request for press 129 credentials for September 12 meeting Adams Kossack 1?Sep?17 No No Kossack, 180 Email responding to ethics reminder Adams Counsel, Williams 5?Sep?12 No No Kossack, Kobach, Cover email sending copy of materials to be used at September 12 OVP Counsel, 131 presentation Adams Williams 7-Sep-17 No No 182 Email forwarding link to article Adams Kossack 2?Sep?12 No No Kossack, OVP 133 Email forwarding link to article Adams Counsel 10?Sep?11r No No [hl Kossack, DVP 134 Email sending copsf of press release Adams Counsel 11-Sep-17 No No Kossack, DVP 135 Email sending link to news article Adams Counsel, Williams 13-Sep-17 No No Kossack, 135 Email about potential witnesses at a future Commission meeting Adams Counsel, Williams 15-Sep-13r No No if] Kossack, DVP 137 Email forwarding news article Adams Counsel, Williams 20-Sep-17 No No 183 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 139 ethics forms No No 190 Materials of Commission Member Kenneth Blackwell 191 Email re: scheduling time to speak DVP Counsel Blackwell 19-May?12 No No s/zsxzoli Lawvers? ??d?nle-fgl?f g-S Fl lECl Pa ection Integrity, et ommissmn on 90:: [xi-05193391354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 1 Documentls1/Category Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 192 Email re: appointment documents and background information OVP Blackwell l9-lv?lav-17 No No counsel, 2f5f2017 - 193 Email chain sharing multiple news articles Blackwell WHO members 77612017 No No Mass email, received bv 194 Mass email sharing tweetslfacebook posts Blackwell Kossack 11?Jul?12 No No OVP and EDP staff 195 Email sharing link to news article Blackwell members 14?Jul?17!r No No [hi 196 Emails sending copv of opening remarks and law review article Blackwell Kossack 18-Jul-17 No No 19? Email re: Blackwell's media availability Blackwell EOP staff member 18-Jul-17 No No 198 Four tweets posted on Julv 19, 201? Blackwell Twitter lEi?Jul?lir No Yes [hi Kossack, Kobach, von Spakovskv, 199 Email containing photo of commissioners Blackwell Adams No No personal 200 Email re: interview request News Producer Blackwell 10?r3lug?1TIr No No Kossack, Kobach, 201 Email re: formation of a new interest group Blackwell 0UP Counsel 14?Aug?12 No No [hi 202 Email re: time to speak Kossack Blackwell 18-Aug-17 No No 203 Travel authorization documents for September 12 meeting Travel Agencv Blackwell 6?Sep?11r No No 204 Email chain re: time to speak Kossack Blackwell T?Sep-l? No No 205 Handwritten notes from September 12 meeting Blackwell WA 12?Sep?17r No No 206 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 20}r ethics forms No No 208 Materials of Commission Member Matthew Dunlap Request for interview and email exchange with Dunlap staff 209 member regarding logistics Reporter Dunlap and staff 11-May-12 No No Office of California Members of the 210 Press Release Secretarv of State Press/Public ll-Mav-l? No No in} 211 Email forwarding public statement of Kentuckyr Secretarv of State NASS staffer Dunlap and staff 11?May?17 No No 212 Email forwarding press release Advocacv group Dunlap and staff 18-May-12 No No in) 9/29/5101? Lawyers? 1:15 3:15 dileommissmn on 9129l17 Pa ectIc-n Integrity, et gig: Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Maine Secretary of State Communications 5/18112, 213 Emails regarding public record requests Director Dunlap and staff 5f19f17, 5f22f1? No No in} Email acknowledging National Association of Secretaries of State 214 (MASS) alert about Commission Dunlap NASS staffer 22-May?1? No No in) Cover email attaching letter from Kobach to Dunlap in his official capacity as Secretary of State requesting publicly available voter roll 215 information Commission Staff Dunlap 28?Jun?17 No No in} 216 Email forwarding media request Maine 505 Staff Dunlap and staff 28-Jun-12 No No 217 Email exchange regarding interview request and logistics Reporter Dunlap staff 29?Jun?12 No No Press Release regarding Commission's Request for publicly available Members of the 218 voter roll information Dunlap staff Press/Public 30-Jun-12 No No in] Maine Deputy 219 E-mail coordinating response to citizen calls about the Commission Secretary of State Dunlap and staff 30-Jun-12 No No in} E-mail from news organization to Dunlap's office requesting 220 comment Reporter Dunlap and staff 30?Jun?17 No No [jl 221 E?mail exchange regarding request for Maine's voter information Reporter Dunlap 30?Jun?17 No No in} 222 Email exchange about June 30 letter Reporter Dunlap No No Letter from Dunlap in official capacity as Secretary of State to 223 Kobach responding to June 28 letter requesting voter information Dunlap Kobach 3-Jul-17 No No in] Maine 505 Communications 224 Email regarding data request Dunlap Director 3-Jul-17 No No in} Maine Secretary of Press release regarding Dunlap's response to June 26 letter State Communications Members of the 225 requesting voter information Director Press/Public "Eu?Jul?lir No No in} Draft letter responding to June 26 letter requesting voter 226 information Dunlap Maine staff 3-Jul-12 No No in] 227 Email from advocacy group attaching legal memorandum Advocacy group Dunlap 2/4l12, No No 223 Email from from advocacy group to Dunlap Advocacy group Dunlap S-Jul-l? No No lo} Kobach, Dunlap, 229 Email with attachment about attempts to influence 2016 election Third party Lawson, Gardner 5-Jul-17 No No lo} 230 Email exchange forwarding July 6 email from advocacy group Dunlap staff Dunlap 6?Jul?17' No No {ml 231 Email exchange Dunlap Reporter 6-Jul-17 No No 9/29f2D13? Lawvers? ELSE Pregdggillamgnt visorv JEiked on Balfo?iill'gmfag? ntfl?l?asq (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Maine Secretary' of State Communications 232 Email regarding press interest in July 19 meeting Director Dunlap 13?Jul?12 No No Maine Secretary of State Communications Members of the 233 Press Release regarding Dunlap's participation in July 19 meeting Director Press/Public 20-Jul-12 No No Email inviting Dunlap to attend July 23 meeting to discuss 234 Commission Advocacy group Dunlap 25-Jul-1ir No No lj} 235 Email from advocacyr group about providing voter information Advocacv group Dunlap 28?Jul?17!r No No Letter from Dunlap in official capacity:r as Secretaryr of State to 236 Kobach responding to Julv 26 letter requesting voter information Dunlap Kobach 31?Jul?17!r No No in} 23}r Email requesting information Reporter Dunlap staff 1-Aug-1ir No No Williams, Email chain confirming receipt of Dunlap's Julv 31, 2017 letter to Commission Staff 233 Kobach regarding request for voter information Dunlap Staff and Dunlap 1-Aug-17 No No in] Email inquiring about status of letter responding to July 26 request 239 for voter information Dunlap Staff Dunlap 1?Aug?17 No No in] Email forwarding Kossack's Aug 2 email about the Hatch Act to 240 Commission Members Dunlap Dunlap staff Z?Aug?l? No No [cl Email forwarding August 7' email from Kossack to Commission 241 Members regarding Litigation Hold Dunlap Dunlap staff 2-Aug-1? No No Maine Communications 242 Email chain re: Iocationidate for September 12 meeting Dunlap Director 24-Aug-12 No No Maine 505 Communications 81293?1? 243 Email exchange regarding request to attend September 12 meeting Director Kossack 8f3D/1? No No lc} 244 Email forwarding NASS handout for August 30 call Dunlap Kossack 1?Sep?12r No No 245 Email forwarding link to news article Dunlap Kossack 7-Sep-12 No No Sfll, 12, 15, Maine Secretary' of 16;?12; Eng, 22, State Communications 23, 25, 27, 29, 246 Email exchanges regarding media coordinationlinquiries Director Dunlap 30,?17; 7/6f17 No No [jl Handwritten notes?ogs of constituent phone calls to Dunlap's Members of the 24]r office Public Dunlap 5/201? - 812012 No No in} 9/29f2D1? on Lawyers' Cgmeinsigeg'fcgr'ZivEXi-g 3g-3 visory 9129(17 Pa gectlon Integrity, et gig: rile-91911331354 (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Emails, postcards, and letters from constituents, advocacy groups Members of the 248 regarding Commission Public Dunlap 6f2017 - 9(2017 No No 249 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No [cl Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 250 ethics forms No No [cl Miscellaneous emails forwarding proceduralflogistic emails from 251 Kossack to Maine Secretary of State staff No No 252 Materials of Commission Member David Dunn 253 Email requesting guidance on responding to press questions Dunn Kossack 5-Jul-12 No No 254 Email exchange confirming July 19 meeting Dunn Kossack 10?Jul?13!r No No 255 Typed Prepared Introductory Remarks forJuly 15 meeting Dunn 18-Jul-17 No No (I) 256 Email exchange re: update on pending litigation Dunn Kossack 23?Jul?12r No No 252 Email exchange re: scheduling September meeting Dunn Kossack 11-Aug-12 No No Email exchange re: confirming Dunn's e-mail address; forwarding August 30 e-mail from Kossack to Commission Members re: letter from Vice Chair Kobach regarding submission of meeting materials 258 for the September 12th meeting Dunn Kossack 30-Aug-17 No No Commission 259 Statement by Senator Jeanne Shaheen Sens Shaheen Members 12?Sep?17 Yes Yes MIA 260 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 251 ethics forms No No 262 Materials of Commission Member Gardner Document containing various quotes on election administration 263 and turnout from academic articles and newspapers Gardner 22?Jun?16 No No Email forwarding article about Gardner's participation in NH Secretary of 264 Commission State's Office Gardner No No [mi 265 Copy oflune 28 letter sent to Gardner's account Kobach Gardner 28-Jun-17 No No in] 266 Copy of July 26 letter sent to Gardner's account Kobach Gardner 28?Jun?12 No No in) Copy of July 10 request to hold off email sent to Gardner's 505 25? account Kossack Gardner 10-Jul-12 No No in) Email including names of staff members for attendance at July 2/14f2012, 263 meeting [and associated email chain] Gardner [via staff] Kossack 7f18l2017 No No 269 Email re: Gardner's potential press availability DVP Staff member Gardner 12?Jul?17 No No s/zsxzala Lawvers CgmmItetee lforZiviiXigt Js??dile-rgl?f :71th lg. 019943 --cv 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient[s) [if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlv disclosure [see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable} to 10[b}? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 270 Email forwarding Juli;r 19 meeting materials Gardner NH SecState office 2718/2017 No No 27'1 Handwritten notes made on Julv 19 handout Gardner WA 19?Jul?12 No No 272 Tvped draft remarks forJuliIr 19 meeting Gardner 19-Jul-17 No No 223 Copv of chart on voting turnout Gardner MIA 19?Jul?11r No No [ll 274 Email attaching filings in court case Gardner [via staff] Kossack No No 275 Email attaching statistics, editorial Gardner [via staff} Kossack 51?Aug?11r No No 276 Email attaching copy of press release Gardner [via staff} Kossack 10-Aug-17 No No 27"? News article printed for personal research Gardner WA 10?Aug?12 No No Email requesting point of contact for data collection and 278 information on studv Gardner mentioned Williams Gardner 14-Aug-12 No No 229 Email attaching news article Gardner [via staff] Kossack 14?Aug?17 No No 280 Email about potential participation in meeting Potential panelist Gardner 14-Aug-17 No No 281 Article printed for personal research Gardner 14?Aug?12 No No [mi 282 News article printed for personal research Gardner WA 14-Aug-12 No No [ml 283 Article printed for personal research Gardner 14?Aug?12 No No [mi Email about uploading data; requesting contact information for NH SecState, 284 potential panelists Williams Gardner 8,?171?201? No No 285 Email attaching: news article, panelist bios Gardner [via staff} Kossack 15-Aug-17 No No 286 Email attaching book excerpt Gardner [via staff] Kossack 15?Aug?12 No No 28? Email re draft release announcing September meeting Kossack Gardner 17-Aug-17 No No 288 Email forwarding press release about Sept. 12 meeting Gardner St. Anselm 18?Aug?11r No No NH Deputy 289 Email forwarding press release about Sept. 12 meeting Gardner Secretarv of State 21?Aug?12 No No [cl NH Ssecretarv of State's office, 290 Email about uploading data Williams Gardner 21?Aug?11r No No 291 Email attaching link to news article Gardner [via staff} Kossack 21-Aug-17 No No Email from Gardner to Kossack [via admin], attacning link to news 292 article Gardner [via staff] Kossack 21?Aug?12 No No Email re: Contact information for potential September 12 meeting 293 panelists Williams Gardner 22?Aug?11r No No 294 Email forwarding press release Gardner NH SecState Office 23-Aug-12 No No 295 Email chain about press release for September 12 meeting Kossack Gardner, Kobach 24?Aug?12 No No [pi NH SecState, 296 Email from about uploading data Williams Gardner No No 9/219;on Lawyers? 1:15 ?r15d?lla-f gl?lf g- 3 Fl lad 9291? Pa om missmn on gectlon Integrity, et gig: Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currenthir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Staffer in Schumer 297 Email re invitation to PACEI Sept. 12 meeting Gardner office 28-Aug-17 No No [mi Sens. Haasan, Shaheen, Schumer, Reps. Kuster, Shea- 298 Invitations to Congressional delegation Gardner Porter 29?Aug?12 No No [mi Email forwarding email from King-stating that he will be unable to 299 attend Sept. 12 meeting Kossack Gardner SCI?elug?lir No No [cl Email chain about draft agenda for September 12 meeting (inc. 300 attachment] Kossack Gardner 31-Aug?17 No No 301 Email from constituent requesting to attend Sept. 12 meeting Constituent Gardner 1?Sep?12 No No 302 Email from constituent about Commission Constituent Gardner 1-Sep-17r No No lo] 303 Email about public comment at September 12 meeting Constituent Gardner, Williams 2-Sep-1ir No No lo} 304 Email chain about draft agenda for September 12 meeting Kossack Gardner 5?Sep?11r No No [pl 305 Email re: agenda for September 12 meeting Gardner Reporter 0-Sep-17l No No [jl 306 Email chain re; time to speak Kossack Gardner 6?Sep?17 No No [cl NH Deputy 307 Email forwarding ethics reminder Gardner Secretary of State 0?Sep?17r No No 308 Marked up copy of panelist list for Sept. 12 meeting Commission Staff Gardner 12-Sep-17 No No 309 Statement bv Sen. Shaheen re; Sept 12 meeting Sen. Shaheen Gardner 12?Sep?1ir Yes Yes NA 310 Handwritten notes re: remarks for Sept 12 meeting Gardner NIA 12-Sep-12 No No 311 Statements for Sept 12 meeting Gardner MIA 12?Sep?17 No No (I) 312 Email chain after Sept. 12 meeting Panelist Gardner ltl-Sep-lir No No [ri 313 Article printed for personal research Gardner WA undated No No [mi 314 Attendee lists for September 12 meeting (with handwritten notes) Commission Staff Gardner undated No No 315 NH State FDIA requests No No in] Postcards, letters, and other correspondence from members of the 316 public regarding Commission No No lo) 317l Miscellaneous mails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 318 ethics forms No No 319 Materials of Commission Member Alon King 320 Email chain where King accepts offer to join Commission King Kossack 30-Jun-17 No No 9/219;on Lawyers? ELSE Pregdg?ffamgyl?i?sbr? gag misEiidfuegn 9 929,17 332199331354 ectIc-n Integrity, et Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 321 Email forwarding news article Third party King 30?Jun?17 No No 322 Email forwarding news article Third party King 30-Jun-17 No No lo} Email re: collecting research materials about Commission subject? King's staff 323 matter King member No No [ml King's staff 324 Email asking staff member to conduct research King member 3?JuI?1}r No No 325 Email exchange about King's schedule King Kossack 20-Jul-17 No No 326 Email forwarding fundraising campaign Third party King 21?Jul?1ir No No 327 Email forwarding news article Third party King S-Aug-17 No No lo] 3213r Email exchange about King's role on Commission Third party King S?Aug?17 No No Email with third party forwarding news article [and marked-up copy 329 ofarticle) Third party King 14?Aug?11r No No lo) 330 Copy of news article [marked-up copy] Printed by King 14-Aug-17 No No [ml 331 Copy of article {marked?up copy) Printed by King 14?Aug?12 No No [ml 332 Copy of news article (marked-up copy] Printed by King 14-Aug-17 No No [ml Email exchange about unavailability for September 12 meeting and 333 future availability schedule King Kossack 15?4ug?1}r No No 334 Email about participation in Commission King Third party 25-Aug-17 No No 335 Email about Interstate Crosscheck program Third party King 1?Sep?1Tr No No 335 Copy of news article Printed by King 1-Sep-17 No No [ml 332 Email forwarding copy of news article Third party King 5?Sep?12 No No 338 Email forwarding news articles Third party King 8-Sep-12 No No lo} 339 Email re how to respond to press inquiries King Kossack Ei?Sep?l?r No No 340 Email forwarding news article Third party King 12-Sep-17 No No lo} 9/12/2012. 341 Email forwarding news stories Third party King No No lo} 342 Email forwarding magazine article Third party King 13?Sep?13r No No lo) 343 Email exchange re: sending materials for litigation index Kossack DOJ, King 15-Sep-13:r No No 344 Third party forwarding mass email by advocacy organization Third party King 15?Sep?11r No No lo) Reporter [forwarded by personal friend of 345 Email exchange re: reporter inquiry King King) 12-Sep-12 No No 346 Email forwarding mass emails Third party King 12?Sep?11r No No lo) 34? Copy of online article about elections Printed by King No No [ml 348 Copy of National Confernece of State Legislatures report Printed by King No No [ml 349 Miscellaneous mails related to travel booking No No 9/219;on Lawyers? Cgmsii'isitgeg'fojr'Zivl'lXi?g 1:15 3 54-CKK DQCU 3%3 .F.i 8d 9912917 Pa 9i? nder Law v. entlal visorv on lectlon Integrity, et Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) lif Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable} to 10lb}? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 35-3 ethics forms No No 351 Materials of Commission Vice Chair Kris Koboch 352 Email forwarding news article on launch of Commission OVP Counsel Kobach Sill/?201? No No 353 Email forwarding copy of Executive Order DVP Counsel Kobach No No lf] 354 Email forwarding research on voter fraud Third partsr Kobach 12-May-17 No No OVP Counsel, (WP 355 Email chain re: press interviews Kobach staff 12-May-17 No No 356 Email forwarding article that had been forwarded by Adams DVP Counsel Kobach lB-Mav?l?z? No No lh} Kobach, Adams, OVP Counsel, OVP 357 Email exchange re; potential Commission member von staff lS?Mav?l? No No lg} 5/151'2017, 353 Email exchange re: time to talk DVP Counsel Kobach 5,!161201? No No lc} 359 Email forwarding email exchange with reporter von Spakovskv Kobach No No Kobach, von Spakovskv, Adams, DVP 360 Email chain about introductorv phone call Kossack Counsel, DVP staff 13?Jun?17!r No No lc} Kossack, Adams, Email from about potential Commission member {and chain von Spakovksv, 361 discussing that member and other potential individuals) OVP Counsel and Kossack 61?151201?2? No No lg} 362 Email re potential commission members Kossack Kobach 16-Jun-1? No No lg} 363 Email forwarding link to news article Adams Kobach 16?Jun?13" No No lb} 364 Emails about potential candidates for Commission Kobach Kossack No No lg} DHS official 6f19r?2017 365 Email about setting up call with DHS Kossack lKobach copied} 6f20/201? No No lq} Email re potential commission members [with biographical 366 attachments} Kossack Kobach 2Ei?Jun?1ir No No lg} 6/21f201?, Kobach, von 6/22f201?, Email chain regarding letters to state officials re data collection Spakovskv, 6/23f201?, 36? {present and future} [including draft letter attachments] Kossack Adams, DVP staff 6,!271201? No No lp} 368 Email chain re: reporter inquiry on Commission Reporter Kobach 21?Jun?17 No No 369 Email re: potential Commission Member Kossack Kobach 22-Jun-1? No No lg} 9/219;on om on 9 Lawyers? ELSE 3 g- 3 Filed wsory 929,17 PaElf-f 304199331354 ectlon Integrity, et Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 3'10 Email re: mechanics of state data collection Kossack Kobach 23?Jun?17 No No 371 Email re: potential Commission member Kossack Kobach 26-Jun-17 No No lg} 37'2 Press inquiry DVP Press Secretaryr Kobach 2i3?Jun?1Trr No No [jl Kobach, von Spakovsky, Adams, DVP 3?3 Email exchange re: information requests Kossack Counsel 26-Jun-17 No No 374 Email re: potential Commission Member Kossack Kobach 26?Jun?17 No No Kossack, 33"5 Email re: news article; study author Kobach Counsel 27i?Jun?1ir No No if] Email chain re: draft agenda for June 28 organizational call [with 3?6 attachment] Kossack Kobach 2T-Jun-17 No No [pl 377' Email re: talking points for June 23 organizational call Kossack Kobach 27?Jun?17 No No Email chain requesting finalization ofletters to public officials re: 3TB voter collection Kossack Kobach 27i?Jun?lir No No [pl Kobach, von Spakousky, OVP 37"9 Email chain re; potential members of the Commission Adams Counsel 28?Jun?1? No No lg} 380 Email chain re: content of public official letters Kossack Kobach 28-Jun-17 No No 331 Email re: phone number Kossack Kobach 28?Jun?13r No No [cl Email chain re: updated letter to state election officials {including 332 attachments) Kossack Kobach 28-Jun-17 No No [pl 383 Email chain about potential partnership opportunities with DHS Kossack Kobach, OVP Staff 28-Jun-17 No No {fl DHS official 384 Follow-up email with DHS official Kossack [Kobach copied} 28?Jun?17 No No Email chain forwarding examples of letters requesting voter Kobach, OVP 335 information Kossack Counsel 28?Jun?1? No No [pl 386 Email asking for call DVP Counsel Kobach 28-Jun-17 No No Kobach, von 38? Email forwarding WH press release DVP Counsel Spakousky 23?Jun?13!r No No Kossack, OVP 338 Email re: potential Commission staff Kobach Counsel 29?Jun?1? No No li) Kossack, DVP 389 Email re: potential Commission staff Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-13r No No Kossack, OVP 390 Email re: potential witness for future committee meeting Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-17 No No if] 9/219;on Lawyers? 1:153? die-f g5 if nt 3%3 Filed isory om missmn on 9 929,17 Fag? ection Integrity, at Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient(s) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlillr disclosure (see 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Kossack, OVP 391 Email re: discussing public responses to information requests Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-17 No No Email chain about draft statement from Kobach re: appointment of Kossack, DVP 392 von Spakouskv Kobach Counsel 29?Jun?1? No No Kossack, 393 Email re: potential witness at future Commission meeting Kobach Counsel 29?Jun?13!r No No if] Kossack, DVP 394 Email re: news article about and responses to June 28 letter Kobach Counsel 29-Jun-1? No No [hi White House Press 395 Email forwarding WH press release Office Kobach 29-Jun-11r No No 396 Email attaching talking points to print {one attachment) Kobach Kobach 30-Jun-17 No No OVP Counsel, 39? Email chain forwarding Pew Study.r on Voter Registration Kobach Kossack 30?Jun?1? No No Kossack, Kobach, 398 Email about von Spakousky press availability DVP Counsel OVP Press 30?Jun?1? No No [jl Email chain re: discussing potential responses to questions raised Kobach, 0UP 399 by June 23 letter Kossack Counsel 30?Jun?13!r No No Kossack, DVP 400 Email chain discussing press interview Kobach Counsel 3D-Jun-1? No No 401 Email re: talking points for media interviews DVP Staff Kobach 30?Jun?17 No No Email forwarding Letter to Vice President from Members of 402 Congress 0UP Counsel Kobach 30?Jun?1? No No [cl OVP Counsel, OVP 403 Email re: media interviews Kobach staff 3D-Jun-1? No No Kobach {copying 404 Email forwarding Tweet OVP Staff OVP Counsel) 30-Jun-11r No No 405 Email forwarding talking points to print [two attachments] Kobach Kobach 30?Jun?1? No No Kossack, OVP Counsel, 406 Email forwarding link to news article Kobach Commission staff 30-Jun-1? No No 407r Email asking for call 0UP Counsel Kobach 1?Jul?1IIr No No [cl 403 Email forwarding Luis Borunda's resignation email OVP Counsel Kobach 3-Jul-17 No No 409 Email fowarding tweet DVP Counsel Kobach 3?Jul?1T No No [cl Email chain re: article written by Kobach (incl. draft of article}; OVP Counsel, 7f3f2017, 410 follow-up email Kobach Kossack #41201? No No spa/zen Lawyers CgmmItetee lforZiyllXigt Js??dfle-rgl?f lection Integrity, Page lg. 6191;543 --cy 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Kossack, DVP Email chain sharing link to newspaper article data Counsel, DVP 411 collection Kobach Press 4?Jul-12 No No 412 Email regarding logistics for a call DVP Counsel Kobach 4?Jul?1? No No OVP Counsel, 413 Email chain re: discussing follow?up letter to information requests Kobach Kossack 13?Jul?11r No No [pl Kossack, OVP Counsel, OVP 414 Email chain re: responding to press inquiry Kobach Press 5?Jul?1TIr No No 415 Email requesting con?rmation of access to email OVP Counsel Kobach 5-Jul-1TIr No No Kobach {copying 416 Email re: draft media statement DVP Staff OVP Counsel) 5?Jul?1? No No [jl 412 Email confirming wififemail access DVP Kobach 5-]ul-12 No No Kobach, Kossack, 418 Email exchange re: information about data ayailability yon Spakovsky Adams ii-Jul-lir No No if] Email forwarding draft data collection follow?up letter for review DVP Counsel Kobach E?Jul?l? No No {pl 420 Email forwarding draft follow up letter with comments DVP Counsel Kobach E-Jul-l? No No {pl Kossack (copying 421 Email about the availability of data from a third party yon Spakoysky Kobach} E-Jul-17 No No if] 422 Email re: follow-up letter to states (plus attachment] Kossack, OVP counsel Kobach Nil/2017 No No Kossack, DVP 423 Email chain re: follow?up letter to states Kobach Counsel No No 424 Email exchange with person who offered to assist the Commission Member of the Public Kobach T?Jul?l'x' No No {wl Email chain re: draft statements regarding potential outcome of Kobach {copying 425 July 3? court hearing DVP Counsel OVP staff) T-Jul-l? No No OVP Counsel, CIVP 426 Email re: how to reach Kobach via telephone Kobach staff T-Jul-l? No No 427 Email re: availability for call DVP Counsel Kobach 91?Jul?12 No No [cl 428 Email re: draft agenda for July 19 meeting Kossack Kobach 11-Jul-17 No No 429 Email re: litigation summary Kossack Kobach 11?Jul?11r No No 430 Email forwarding information about Colorado's Motor Voter law Third party Kobach 12-Jul-17 No No 431 Email forwarding blank EFT form Kossack Kobach 13?Jul?11I No No [cl 432 Email re: edits to draft PACEI by-laws Kobach Kossack No No DHS-001-gia35-000992 9/214;on Lawvers? ELSE amgvlilstorg gorsn misEii:if1e odn 9 9429417 gong-$31354 ectlon Integrity, et Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Tf17f2017 433 Email chain re: draft bv-laws {including attachments] Kossack Kobach No No Email re: draft of possible topics for Commission to address {plus 434 attachment] Kossack Kobach 18?Jul?1? No N0 in] Counsel, OVP 435 Email chain re: draft article written bv Kobach Kobach Press 18?Jul?17!r No No lj) Kobach, von 436 Email forwarding link to news article Reporter Spakovskv 18-Jul-17 No No Kossack, DVP Counsel, DVP 437 Email chain re: current status of state responses to data request Kobach Press 18-Jul-17 No No if] Kossack, DVP Counsel, DVP 433 Email re: update on number of states providing data Kobach Comms 1/19/13" No No 439 Email chain re: Kobach opening statement for July 2017 meeting Kobach staff 7/19/17 No No Email re: Letter drafted by members of PA House of OVP Counsel, 44G Representatives Kobach Press, Kossacl: 19?Jul?1? No No White House Press Release of Remarks by President and Vice White House Press 441 President at Julv 19 meeting Office Kobach 19?Jul?17!r No No [cl 442 Email commenting on media interview OVP Counsel Kobach 19-Jul-17 No No Member, Email exchange about request for voter information and letter House of 443 member sent to Governor regarding request Representatives Kobach No No 444 Email inquiring if Kobach is available for a possible call Kossack Kobach No No tfzojzoli' 445 Email chain re: availability for call with DHS Kossack Kobach ?/241201? No No 446 Email chain about press statement DVP Counsel Kobach, Kossack 24?Jul?1? No No [jl Email re: draft follow up letter to states re: data collection {with 447 attachment] Kossack Kobach 24?Jul?17!r No No [pl Email re: updated draft follow up letter to states re: data collection 443 {with attachment] Kossack Kobach 24-Jul-1? No No T124317 449 Email exchange with reporter Reporter Kobach 7/25/13" No No [jl Email re: communication with Plaintiff's counsel in PACEI-related 450 litigation Kobach Kossack 25?Jul?1ir No No Email re: updated follow-up letter to states re: data collection and 451 litigation update Kossack Kobach 25?Jul?17!r No No [pl 9/214;on Lawyers? ELSE Pregdg?fllamgnt 3 g- 3 F'i wsory 9129(17 Pa om missmn on gectlon Integrity, et 9E 3031993931354 (crud Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email chain regarding July 26th data collection follow?up letter {and Kobach, 0UP 452 draft attachments} Kossack Counsel, DVP staff 26-Jul-17 No No 453 Email re: contact information Kossack Kobach 26?Jul?1? No No 454 Email requesting telephone number for a scheduled telephone call Kossack Kobach 26?Jul?17!r No No [cl Email from Kobach's Secretary of State account to Kobach sending 455 back attached letter from Kobach to states Kobach Kossack No No in] Email chain re: September meeting dateflocation and Kansas 456 matching program Kobach Kossack 23r'-Jul-1Trr No No if] 457 Email re: photographs from July 19 meeting Kossack Kobach ZF?Jul?li' No No personal 458 Email forwarding July 26, 2017, letter Kossack Kobach 2T-Jul-17 No No Email chain re: possible themesftopics for future meetings [and - 459 attachment] Kossack Kobach 7/2812017 No No 460 Email forwarding article Kobach 28-Jul-1ir No No 461 Email re: speaker request for Kobach Kossack Kobach 1?.4.ug?1IIr No No MIA (posted as Maine's response 462 Email re: letter from Dunlap about data collection Kossack Kobach l?Aug?l? Yes Yes letter, see above) 463 Email re: press article on litigation Kossack Kobach l-Aug-l? No No 464 Email re: data collection process Kobach OVP Staff No No if] 465 Email re: plan for September meeting [and attachment} Kossack Kobach 3-4ug?17 No No if] 466 Email about time to speak DVP Counsel Kobach, Williams 14-Aug-17 No No Email re: plan for September meeting [plus attachments related to 467 potential speakers} Kossack Kobach 15?4ug?1}r No No if] 463 Email regarding availability for a telephone call DVP Counsel Kobach 16-Aug-17 No No 469 Email re: draft announcement of September meeting Kossack Kobach 17?Aug?1? No No 470 Email chain re: getting additional staff support for Commission Kobach 0UP staff Elli?rillug?lir No No ii} OVP Counsel, 4?1 Email chain re: getting additional staff support for Commission Kobach Kossack 22-Aug-17 No No ii} OVPIDHS staff 472 Email chain re: phone call with Kobach, OVP, and DHS staff Kossack and Kobach 22-Aug-17 No No Kossack, and 4?3 Email chain re: data collection sources Kobach EDP staff No No ii} 4?4 Email re: press release about September meeting announcement Kossack Kobach Gardner 24?Aug?1? No No 9/214;on Lawyers? d. Ensa?ngl?? gorsnmis?idigegln Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 4'15 Email re: phone number for DHS call Kossack Kobach 24?.4ug?1? No No Kobach, Email chain forwarding a press release announcing Secretary of Counsel, 476 State Gardner will host September 12 meeting Kossack Commission staff 24-i??iug-1ir No No Email forwarding draft letter re: meeting material deadline Kossack Kobach ZQ??ug?l? No No Emails re: draft letter instructing Commissioners about meeting - 4TB materials {and drafts) Kossack Kobach 31801201? No No [pl 479 Email forwarding draft statement for review Kossack Kobach 30-Aug-17 No No 430 Email re: draft statement DVP Counsel Kobach No No [pl Email from OVP counsel forwarding proposed press statement re: 431 August 30, 2017, Court order DVP Counsel Kobacn 30-Aug-17 No No lj) 482 Email exchange regarding news article Third party Kobach 3CI?ii?iug?1Trr No No [ml 433 Email re: draft agenda for September meeting [and attachment} Kossack Kobach 31?4.ug?17ir No No [pl 434 Email chain re NH voting study Kossack Kobacn 51/712016 No No if] 485 Email re: media availability Kobach OVP staff 7?Sep?17? No No [jl Kobach, Kossack, Commission Staff, 436 Email attaching materials for the September 12 meeting Adams OVP Counsel 2?Sep?12 No No Email forwarding August 16, 2017 letter from N.H. Speaker of the House to Secretary Gardner, and Secretary Gardner's September 6, Kobach, OVP 487ir 201?, response Kossack Counsel 2?Sep?11r No No its} 488 Email forwarding news article OVP Counsel Kobach Til-Sep-l? No No Kobacn, copying 489 Email forwarding 2016 NH election results DVP Counsel Kossack 2?Sep?11r No No [cl Kobach {copying 490 Email forwarding article Kossack OVP Counsel) 2?Sep?11r No No its} 9f7j2017? 491 Email re: press (and associated call scheduling emails] Kossack Kobach 9f81?201? No No lj) Kobach, copying 492 Email chain re: scheduling a telephone call Kossack OVP Counsel 8-Sep-1}r No No Kobach; Kobach 9l10/17 - 493 Email chain re: response to media inquiry DVP Staff staff Elfilfl? No No [jl 9/29f2?l? Lawyers? 3g-3 visory 9i29l17 Pa om missmn on gectuon Integrity, et gig: 14169199331354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email forwarding summary of presentations and member Kobach {copying 494 submissions for September 12 meeting Kossack Counsel) 11-Sep-17 No No Kobach, von Spakovsky, 495 Email forwarding link to news article Reporter Adams, 14-Sep-1? No No [ji Kobach, Blackwell, Email forwarding information about alleged voter fraud in New Adams, yon 496 Hampshire Member ofthe Public Spakovsky 14?Sep?17 No No Kobach, UVP 9il4flT 497 Email chain re: media inquiry Reporter Counsel 5i15f1? No No Ij) 498 Media inquiry Reporter Kobach 15?Sep?1Tir No No [jl Kobach, 499 Press inquiry Reporter forwarded to 15?Sep?17 No No 500 Press inquiry Reporter Kobach 15-Sep-17 No No Ij) Kossack, OVP 501 Email re: press inquiry [and chain] Kobach Counsel 18-Sep-17 No No [ji 502 Media inquiry Reporter Kobach 18?Sep?17r No No 503 Email re: submission of litigation document collection material Kossack Kobach 21-5ep-17 No No Litigation-related material based on Kobach's status as a defendant; covered by attorney work product doctrine andlor attorney?client 504 privilege No No iv] 505 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 506 ethics forms No No 50? Handwritten notes made for or at Commission meetings No No 508 Text messages re: administrative topics like scheduling No No 509 Materials of Commission Member Connie Lawson 510 Letter making public records request Advocacy group Indiana 505 18?May?17 No No in] 511 Letter acknowledging state records request Indiana Advocacy group 19-May-17 No No In) 512 Letter acknowledging records request Indiana 505 Advocacy group 22-May?12 No No In] 513 June 28 Kobach letter, sent to Lawson in capacity as 505 Kobach Lawson 28-Jun-13" No No In) Email to Senate intelligence committee following June 21, 201? 514 testimony before Senate Intelligence Committee Deputy Indiana 505 Kossack 29-Jun-17 No No in] 9/29/2012! Lawyers? 1:15 if Pregdggiilamgnt 3g-3 9 visory on 9129(17 Pa lectIc-n Integrity, et 9E $219i??1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Sent to Lawson by 515 Legal memorandum re: propriety of data collection letter Advocacy group email 4-Jul-17 No No [ml Sent to Lawson by 516 Copy of letter from advocacy group to OMB Advocacy group email 5?Jul?1? No No [mi Copy of Kossack July 10 email requesting states hold off from 517 sending data pending resolution of EPIC TRO Kossack Lawson {as No No In} 518 Opening statement by Lawson for July 19 meeting (marked up) Lawson WA 19-Jul-17 No No 519 Email correspondence re: responding to reporter question Indiana Kossack 2?Aug?1? No No U) 520 Email correspondence about Hatch Act Indiana Lawson 3-Aug-1? No No 521 Letter responding to June 28 Kobach letter (narrative responses) Lawson Kobach 4-Aug-17 No No in] Letter responding to June 28 Kobach letter (request for data, 522 including form for requesting information} Indiana GC Kobach 4-Aug?17 No No In] 523 Email acknowledging public records request and sharing responses Indiana Reporter 23?Aug?12 No No In} Indiana Interim Committee on 524 Lawson statement to Interim Committee on Elections Lawson Elections 3I3r?I?lug?lir No No In} 525 Letter making public records request Advocacy group Indiana 505 II-3-1-3ep-1Tir No No In] 526 Email acknowledging public records request Indiana 505 constituent No No In} 527l Email acknowledging public records request Indiana 505 Advocacy group 2-Sep-17 No No in] Public comments received through Indiana website re: Members of the Ef23f17 - late 52.13r Commission Public Lawson July 201? No No 529 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 530 ethics forms No No 531 Materials of Former Commission Member Luis Borunda 5/30f2012; 532 Follow-up emails re: appointment Borunda OVP Staff 6f121201? No No lc} 6112,0017; 533 Email re: time to speak DVP Counsel Borunda 6/191201? No No Email with background information about role of Secreatary of 534 state in elections Borunda OVP Counsel 26-Jun-12 No No 535 Resignation email Borunda OVP Counsel 3?Jul?1ir No No lc} 536 Email re: setting up time to talk after resignation OVP Counsel Borunda 3-Jul-17 No No 537 Emails with personnel forms Borunda OVP Staff Misc No No [cl 9/219;ch Lawyers? 3:15 dile-f g5 l5 5.3% misEiLlneodn 9129l17 Pa ection Integrity, et gig: icxx} Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 538 Materials of Commission Member Christy McCormick Email forwarding White House Press Release Announcing 539 Commission DVP Counsel McCormick ll?May?l? No No [cl 540 Email forwarding talking points McCormick unknown 11-May-17 No No 541 Email exchange re: Chicago Board of Election DDJ official McCormick 15-May?1? No No [mi Email providing name and contact information for possible 542 Commission staff McCormick OVP Counsel 23-Jun-17 No No ii} Email exchange discussing potential sources of information and 543 topics the Commission should consider studying McCormick Kossack 26-Jun-17 No No {fl 544 Email exchange discussing voting issue with attachment DDJ official McCormick 7f6f17 No No [mi MASS Resolution Reaffirming Commitment to Strengthening National Association 545 Elections of Secretaries of State MASS Members 10?Jul?1T No No 546 Email forwarding link to news article McCormick Kossack 13-Jul-17 No No 547ir handwritten notes taken on July 15 meeting handout McCormick McCormick 19?Jul?11r No No Handwritten notes prepared for introductory remarks at July 19 548 meeting McCormick McCormick 19-Jul-17 No No McCormick and 549 Email exchange about media appearance Blackwell producer 7721/17 No No 550 Email exchange discussing possible staff support for Commission McCormick Kossack 21-Jul?17 No No 551 Email attaching resolutions from NASS meeting McCormick Kossack 24-Jul-17 No No Email requesting Commission's general email address and 552 discussing invitation to speak at a meeting. McCormick Kossack 26-Jul-17 No No Kossack and OVP 553 Email suggesting locations for future Commission meetings. McCormick Counsel 26?Jul?17 No No Email forwarding names of a potential staff person for the 554 Commission McCormick Kossack 30?Jul?1T No No ii) 555 Letter to Kobach from potential staff person Potential staff Kobach 15-Aug-17 No No 556 Email attaching resume, letter, and sample analysis Potential staff McCormick 15?i3iug?17ir No No 55? Sample analysis Potential staff McCormick 15-r1liug-1Tir No No 558 Potential staff resume Potential staff McCormick 15?.?iug?1ir No No 559 Email attaching resume, letter, and sample analysis Potential staff McCormick 16-Aug-17 No No 560 Email exchange regarding availability for callfmeeting Potential staff McCormick 16?Aug?1T No No 561 Email requesting call McCormick Kobach 18-Aug-17 No No Email forwarding potential staff person's resume, letter, and 562 sample analysis McCormick Kobach 19?Aug?17 No No ii} 553 Prepared Remarks to Election Center discussing Commission McCormick Election Center 21-Aug-17 No No 9/219;on Lawvers? Cgmsignsigeg'fojr'ZlvEXi-g $55 3 g- 3 Filed visorv on 9%l%%l%3gritfsg? @319351354 (cxx) Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 564 E?mail forwarding link to news article DDJ official McCormick 5?Sep?11r No No McCormick, DOJ 565 Email exchange discussing Chicago voting issue Third partv official SIGHT, No No [mi 556 Email exchange regarding certificate left at September 12 meeting McCormick Kossack 12-Sep-17 No No personal 55? Handwritten notes taken at September 12 meeting McCormick McCormick 12?Sep?17 No No Sing/17 - 568 Email exchange discussing completion of records search Kossack McCormick 9f20f1? No No [cl Adopted Summer MASS Resolution Calling for Federal Agency Assistance in 2012; Maintaining Accurate and Comprehensive State Voter Registration Secretaries of Reauthorized 569I Lists NASS State; McCormick Summer 2017 No No [ml Correspondence sent to McCormick at EAC from members of the Members of the 5?0 public Public McCormick 5/2017 912017 No No 5?1 Handwritten notes on Election Administration 8; lv'oting Survevr McCormick McCormick undated No No {mi 572 Prepared Remarks discussing Commission McCormick unknown unknown No No [jl Members of the 53 Mail from Various Senders Public McCormick various dates No N0 5?4 Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 575 ethics forms No No 5?6 Materials of Commission Member Hons von Spokovsky Email re: introductorv call von Spakovskv Kossack 13-Jun-13! No No Kobach, von Spakovskv, Adams, DVP 6114f17 578 Email chain about potential Commission members von Spakovskv Counsel, Kossack 6f15f17; 6f28f17 No No lg} Email exchange re: scheduling a meeting Kossack von Spakovskv 28?Jun?17!r No No lc} Email forwarding link to best practices booklet on accurate voter 530 roles von Spakovskv Kossack 29-Jun-1? No No 581 Email forwarding link to 2005 GAO report on voter registration lists von Spakovskv Kossack 29-Jun-13" No No 532 Email forwarding news article von Spakovskv Kossack 29?Jun?17!r No No [hi 583 Email exchange re: press availabilityr von Spakovskv Kossach CHOIR, 7/6/17" No No [jl 9/219;on Lawvers? ELSE gorsn misEilffueodn 9129(17 Pa ectlon Integrity, et 9E illsaFfl-?gssa (cxxl Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email exchange discussing media interviews and forwarding June 28 584 letter to the Iowa Secretarv of State von Spakovskv Kossack 30-Jun-17 No No [jl 535 Email containing statutorv citations von Spakovskv Kossack 30?Jun?12 No No [hl Email forwarding email from third party offering to work with the 535 Commission von Spakovskv Kossack 5-Jul-1? No No 58? Email forwarding link to article and discussing upcoming interview von Spakovskv Kossack, Adams E-Jul-17 No No 5.9.13r Email exchange regarding call received about data availability von Spakovskv Kossack, Kobach E?Jul?l? No No ii} 539 Email forwarding Julv 8, 2017 email about data availabilitvr von Spakovskv Commission Staff No No 590 Email exchange regarding von Spakovskv interview von Spakovskv Kossack 10-Jul-17 No No [jl Email exchange confirming von Spakovskv's title and discussing 591 recent interviews Kossack von Spakovskv 11?Jul?12 No No [cl Email exchange regarding request for guests to attend July 19 592 meeting von Spakovskv Kossack No No [cl 593 Tvped remarks with handwritten notations for Julv 19 meeting von Spakovskv von Spakovskv 19-Jul-17 No No (I) 594 Email re update on von Spakovskv interview von Spakovskv Kossack 23?Jul?12 No No U) 595 Email forwarding link to von Spakovskv interview von Spakovskv Commission Staff 25?Jul?17!r No No Email exchange regarding von Spakovskv's recommendation of an 596 expert von Spakovskv Kossack 28-Jul-12 No No ii} 597 Email forwarding op-ed von Spakovskv Commission Staff 3-Aug-1? No No von Spakovskv, 598 Email forwarding media inquiry Counsel Adams, Kossack lill?ri?iug?lir No No [jl 599 Email exchange regarding scheduling call Commission Staff von Spakovskv 21-Aug-12 No No 600 Email forwarding link to news article von Spakovskv Kossack 27?Aug?12 No No 601 Email exchange about forwarding the materials for Sept 12, 201? Kossack von Spakovskv 8?Sep?11r No No lri Cover email attaching power point presentation for Sept. 12 602 meeting von Spakovskv Commission Staff 8-Sep-12 No No lr) Email exchange regarding request for guests to attend September 603 12 meeting von Spakovskv Kossack 11-Sep-1? No No various dates Members of the between 604 Correspondence from members of the public Public von Spakovskv 9/2017 No No lo} 9/219;on Lawyers? ELSE 3 g- 3 Filed visorv on 65199391354 (crud Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 605 Miscellaneous mails related to travel booking No No Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 606 ethics forms N0 N0 [cl 60? Materials of Commission Member Mark Rhodes 608 Email follow?up from news reporter Reporter Rhodes 22?Jun?11r No No 609 Email request for interview by reporter Reporter Rhodes 22-Jun-17 No No lj) 610 Email from WV 505 Office about appointment to PACEI (and drafts] WV 1505 Rhodes 22-Jun-17 No No 611 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 2?Jul?lir No No U) 612 Email chain re request for interview Producer Rhodes 3-Jul-1ir No No Lists of cancelled Wood County voters and related emails discussing data {in response to public records request about List Maintenance 7111,02 613 policies} Third-party requestor Rhodes 7/281'17 No No in] 614 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 12?Jul?11r No No U) 615 Email request for interview Producer Rhodes 19-Jul-11r No No 616 Email request forinterview [and chain) Producer Rhodes 19?Jul?11r No No lj) 61? Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 19-Jul-17 No No [jl 618 Email request forinterview Reporter Rhodes 19?Jul?12 No No lj) Email from NASS to members; forwarded on to Rhodes, including 619 election?related news and disclosures [and attachments] WV Secretarv of State Rhodes 22?Jul?11r No No in} WV Secretaryr of State 620 Email forwarding editorial emplovee Rhodes 22-Jul-12 No No in] Email request for meeting with advocacy organization [and follow? 621 up} Advocacy organization Rhodes 26-Jul-11r No No 622 Email correspondence about voting machines Third partv Rhodes lill?Rug?lir No No [mi 623 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 23-Aug-17 No No [jl 624 Email request forinterview Reporter Rhodes 25?Aug?12 No No lj) Email chain responding to State FOIA request for documents {and 625 copv of redacted documents] Rhodes reporter 28-Aug-12 No No in} 626 Email request for interview Reporter Rhodes 13?Sep?17 No No Email sharing link to Sept. 12 meeting and an attached request from 627 00] re document collection Kossack Rhodes 13?Sep?12 No No [cl Members of the 623 Materials from members of the public public Rhodes various dates No No lo} 629I Miscellaneous emails related to travel booking No No 9/219;on on Lawyers? cgm?isllfedidbyl?i?dfg 3g-3 visory 9129(17 Pa gection Integrity, et gig: ifTJE-??l-?fissa (cm Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared (if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Miscellaneous emails related to the submission of financial disclosure and government ethics forms; copies of government 630 ethics forms No No 631 Materials sent to or from September 12 meeting panelists 632 Email about scheduling time to speak Kossack Palmer 3-Aug-1? No No 3f7f2017 - 8f3f2017; 633 Email about logistics for visit to EEDB Kossack Palmer 8/101201? No No 3111p? 634 Email re: GAI report and request to set up time for discussion DVP Counsel Block $13,117; 8,115,117 No No Email re: recommendations for topics to present during September 635 12 meeting Williams Popper 16-Aug-17 No No Email about unpublished study {study was not shared with 3/16/17 - 636 Commission] Williams Popper le?l? No No 637 Email sharing contact information of a data analysis expert Palmer Kossack 17-Aug-17 No No ii} - Emails re: coordinating publication of Popper's participation in Judicial Watch Public Williams, OVP Bligh?l; 638 panel Affairs Staff No No 639 Email with contact information Kossack Lott, Kossack No No 640 Email about meeting participation Kossack Lott 22-Aug-17 No No lr) 641 Email re: potential participation in meeting Kossack Rivest 23?:4ug?17rr No No Introductory email chain seeking to discuss participation in 642 Commission meeting; referral from Secretary Gardner Kossack Appel 23?i?iug?1ir No No 643 Email about timing for panel Lott Kossack 3D-Aug-1? No No [ri SIBWZOIT - 644 Email about reimbursement form Kossack Palmer $311201? No No 645 Email re: time to speak about September 12 meeting Kossack Rivest 1-Sep-12 No No 646 Email re: contact information Kossack Smith 1?Sep?12 No No Sill/201?; 647 Email about potential meeting participation and time for discussion Kossack Hursti 951201? No No Email sharing copy of public testimony {for release); requesting Eif4f2017", 643 additional information on agenda Appel Kossack 9f61'201? No No 649 Email re: reimbursements Kossack Hursti 5?Sep?11r No No 650 Email re: meeting travel bookings Kossack Lott 5-Sep-17 No No Email re: meeting agenda and time to submit presentation 651 materials Kossack Rivest 5-Sep-17l No No 652 Email re: panel name and participants Kossack Hursti 6?Sep?17 No No lri DHS-001 @1135-001 002 9,129,201? Lawvers? Cgm?sigeg'fojr'ZivllXi?g 63:15:16? gl?f ?6r3n misEildneodn $33.1 gl-?EBS-?l Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?fbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 653 Email about preferred presenter title Palmer Kossack 6?Sep?17 No No 654 Email with contact information Kossack Block 7-Sep-17 No No 655 Email with presentation and question re: logistics Block Kossack 7?Sep?1? No No 656 Email re: posting report to webpage Kossack Block 7-Sep-1? No No Cover email sending rough draft of presentation [final version is posted) and copv of research paper to be discussed at meeting 657 {paper is posted] Lott Kossack 7-Sep-17 No No Email re: draft meeting presentation, including link to newspaper 653 article Lott Kossack 9/8f1? No No SIUZDIT, 659I Email re: phvsical format of panel 8: presentation materials Rivest Kossack 9/912017 No No Email sharing presenter materials for Sept. 12 meeting (and follow- 660 up with link to public website posting] Kossack Panelists 8?Sep?1T No No Email with Popper's attached written statement [plus additional 661 draft with non-text changes] Popper Williams, Kossack 8-Sep-1}r No No Judicial Watch Public 662 Emails re: event timing Affairs Lotter, Kossack 8-Sep-l? No No 663 Email re: draft slides Hursti assistant Kossack 8?Sep?1T No No 664 Email re: providing copy of slides [and follow-up email] Smith Kossack 8-Sep-17 No No {ri 665 Email about logistics for September 12 meeting Kossack Panelists 11?Sep?11r No No 666 Email about meeting logistics Hursti Kossack 11-Sep-11r No No 667 Email with changes to presentation Block Kossack 11?Sep?13!r No No fr) 668 Email re: fixing typo in presentation Lott Kossack 11-Sep-17 No No [ri 669 Email re: presentation time Rivest Williamleossack 11?Sep?17 No No ETD Email re: bringing copv of presentation Smith Kossack 11-Sep-13r No No Forwarded to Judicial Watch Public Kossack, VP Press, 671 Press release about Popper participation in PACEI Affairs VP Counsel 11?Sep?1? No No [ri 6?2 Emails re: meeting logistics Kossack Lott, Kossack 9f121201? No No 673 Email re: link to September 12 video Lott Kossack 12-Sep-1? No No [ri 674 Email re: fixing a tvpo in slides Rivest Kossack 12?Sep?1T No No 6?5 Email re: reimbursement Appel Kossack 1?-Sep-l? No No ETE- Email re: lunch plans and reimbursements Kossack Lott 19?Sep?11r No No GSA (copying 677 Email re: reimbursement Lott Kossack] 20-Sep-17 No No 9/29g'261? Lawyers? ELSE Pregdg?fllamgvrilsbr? 6.3% misEilJbebjn 9129(17 Pa ection Integrity, et gig: 68199391354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been {L?urrentlilir disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 6'18 Email including article about Lott Lott Kossack 22?Sep?13!r No No 6?9 Email re: posting of Sept. 12 video Rivest Kossack 23-Sep-17 No No lr) Communications between Commission/0UP Staff and Other 680 Government Entities Email chain from DHS requesting information about the scope of 681 the Commission's work DHS OVP Counsel 12-May?17 No No 05(151?2011 632 Email chain re; scheduling a telephone call DHS OVP Counsel 05f161201? No No lo) Email chain with GSA about initial steps required to establish a 683 commission GSA staff OVP Counsel 30-Mav-l? No No 634 Email chain about Commission by?laws Kossack GSA staff 6?Jun?17 No No ls} 635 Email chain about IT issues Kossack GSA staff No No is) 686 Email exchange with GSA about personnel paperwork Kossack GSA staff 13?Jun?17 No No 637 Email about setting up time to speak Kossack DOJ official 15-Jun-1? No No 6/15/2011 688 Email chain about Charter review Kossack GSA staff 6f19/1? No No 6f19f201?, 689 Email about setting up time to talk about Commission Counsel to CIVP DHS, Kossack 6/2012017 No No 690 Email about websites that can accept public comments Kossack GSA staff 20-Jun-1? No No ls} 6/20/2011 691 Email about Kossack's appointment as Designated Federal Officer GSA staff Kossack 6f26/201? No No 692 Email about role of Designated Federal Officer GSA staff Kossack 21?Jun?1? No No is) DHS personnel, 693 Planner for a call with DHS personnel Kossack OVP staff, Kobach 21?Jun?11r No No lo) 6]22f201?; 694 Email chain re: Budget GSA staff, OMB OVP, Kossack 6,!231201? No No is) Email chain about 15?day publication requirement and ethics and 695 FACA training GSA staff Kossack 26-Jun-17 No No 696 Email re: member names and logistics swearing in] [and chain] Kossack GSA staff 6.06/17 Nil/'1? No No ls) 6f26f2011 697 Email chain about draft SGE appointment letters Kossack GSA staff 61?271?201? No No ls) 698 Email chain about FACA and ethics briefing GSA staff Kossack 2?-Jun-17 No No 699 Email chain re: room reservation Kossack GSA staff 27i?Jun?13ir No No ls) 3?00 Email re: meeting notices and SF 50 forms Kossack GSA staff 28-Jun-19r No No 701 Follow up scheduling email with DHS personnel Kossack DHS staff 28?Jun?11r No No [oi DHS-001-gig35-001004 9/219;on Lawyers CgmmItetee lforZivi'ingt Js??dfle-rgl?ilf Pection Integrity, I116. 9191?7-43ncv 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been CurrentlilIr disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to l?lbl? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 6/30/2011 702 Email re: publication of meeting notice Kossack GSA staff 18/2017 No No is) 7'03 Follow?up email re: getting response OHS Official Kossack 1?Jul?1T No No [oi Kossack, OVP staff, 7?04 Email re: meeting publication notices GSA counsel, (21?Jul?11r No No is) own staff, we 3?05 Email about potential future coordinationfoverlap between entities DHS counsel, Kossack E-Jul-l? No No ix) OVP Counsel, 706 Email re: setting up time to talk DHS Official Kossack G-Jul-lTIr No No 707' Email discussion re: FACA briefing GSA Kossack No No is) 3?03 Email re: travel Kossack GSA Staff Hui-1? No No is) 7?09 Email discussion re: travel requests GSA Kossack No No is) 7f7f2011 Tl10f2011 7"[12f2011 7'10 Email discussion re: interagencv agreement (mainlyI fortravel) GSA OA 1/131201? No No is) 3?11 Email discussion about time for meeting DVP Counsel DHS Official B-Jul?l? No No Arkansas 1'12 Email discussion about data submission Kossack Office lill?Jul?lir No No Kossack, PA House State forwarded from 713 Communication about data request Government Staffer Kobach 10?Jul?11r No No [ul Chief of Public Affairs, U.S. Army Cuber - 7'14 Email chain re; press guidance Command OVP, DWHIT, DOD 7f11f1? No No it) 3?15 Email re swearing in Kossack GSA staff 11-Jul-17 No No is) 716 Email re: Electronic Funds Transfer form Kossack GSA staff 11?Jul?11r No No is) 71? Email re: EFT form for members GSA Kossack 11-Jul-11r No No is) Email chain starting with talking points relating to SAFE site and 7?18 litigation DOD EOP Staff 11?Jul?1? No No it} ?/11f2011 Tl16f2011 719 Email re: draft FACA presentation and plan for Julvr 19 meeting GSA Kossack 7/1712017 No No is) 3?20 Email re: travel Kossack GSA staff 12-Jul-17 No No is) 1?21 Email re: transcriptionist Kossack GSA staff 12?Jul?1? No No is) 7'22 Email chain regarding: EFT forms Kossack GSA staff 12-Jul-17 No No is) 9,129,201? Lawyers lforZiyl'ingt 9. 9129(17 Pa e40 lectIc-n Integrity, at No. Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipient[s) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure [see 3d 1 Description [if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b]? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Kossack, OVP 723 Email re: collection of Arkansas data in SAFE site DOD 8t IT counsel 12-Jul-17 No No it] Email about an MOU among states participating in voter 724 registration data comparison program Indiana state official Kossack 12?Jul?17 No No 725 Email re: swearing in Kossack GSA staff 13-Jul-17 No No is] 726 Email chain regarding: member preauthorization for travel Kossack GSA staff 13?Jul?17 No No 727 Email about new FACA contact GSA Staff Kossack 13-Jul-17 No No is) 728 Email re: membership list Kossack GSA staff 17?Jul?17 No No 729 Communication about employees attending July 19 FACA training GSA staff Kossack 17?Jul?17r No No 730 Communication about slide deck for July 19 FACA presentation GSA staff Kossack 18-Jul-17 No No is} 731 Email re: presentation on FACA operations GSA staff Kossack, EOP 18?Jul?17 No No 732 Follow-up regarding FACA next steps GSA Staff Kossack 19-Jul-17 No No is) 733 Email discussion re: postingfmaking documents available Kossack GSA staff 20?Jul?17 No No is] 734 Communication about uploading comments to regulationsgovr GSA staff Kossack 25?Jul?11r No No is) DHS Official OVP 735 Scheduling call Kossack staff, OVP counsel 25?Jul?17r No No 736 Communication about Hatch Act GSA Kossack 27-Jul-17 No No is] 737 Communication about panelist reimbursement Kossack GSA staff 1?Aug?1IIr No No is) DHS Official and 733 Email chain and planner setting a time for call [related to litigation] Kossack Staff, DOJ 1-Aug?17 No No 739 Call about litigation Kossack DHS 1?Aug?17 No No Communication about updating FACA database 740 GSA staff Kossack 2?Aug?1?r No No is) 741 Email chain and planner setting a time for call [related to litigation] DHS Official Kossack, DHS, DDJ 2-Aug-17 No No 742 Email chain and planner setting a time for call [related to litigation] Kossack DHS Official 3-Aug-17 No No AZ Secretary of State's 743 Email chain re: disclosabilityr of state?provided data Office Kossack 51?Aug?17 No No 3f15l17 - 744 Email chain and planner setting a time for call Kossack DHS Official, OVP 371671? No No 745 Communication about Federal Register notice for Sept. 12 meeting GSA Kossack 17-Aug-17 No No is) S/29f2?17 Lawyers? Cgmmitetee lforZivl'iXigt etg l?ollgy?g --cv 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) lif Shared {if Views as Subject Been {'?urrentliir disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentlsiil'Category Description {if applicable) applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Communication regarding process for procurement of third?party 746 vendors GSA Kossack 17-Aug-17 No No 747? Email contact with SSA re: 55A data SSA Official Kossack 1??Aug?17? No No lxi 743 Email re: collecting data from non-state entities lchaini Kossack DOJ 22-Aug-17 No No lui DHS Official, 8/22f201?, 749 Email chain and planner about setting up a time to speak Kossack Kobach, 0UP 8/2412017 No No lq] 3?50 Email about setting-up meeting DHS Kobach 24-Aug-17 No No lqi Email re: presentations for 9f12 meeting and member updates in 751 FACA database GSA Kossack 5-Sep-17 No No OVP Counsel, 752 Email from NARA about PRA NARA NARA staff 18?Sep?17 No No lsi Staff discussions with individual states about the mechanics of State Election T/25f201? - date 753 transferring data Commission Staff Officials of log No No lui Cateoories ofMaten?ols i"internal" refers to communications 7?54 among Commisison staff, 0UP staff, andfor EOP staffi: 755 Internal discussions about media requests 84 media strategy No No lei 3?56 Internal communications re: data collection process No No lti 7?5? Internal emails re: potential staff support person No No lei Internal discussions and documents re: potential Commission 7?58 members No No lei 3?59 Internal discussion and documents re: potential panelists No No lei, lri Internal research on critical infrastructure designation for election 1?60 systems No No lei 761 Internal briefing memos about Commission activities No No lei 3?62 Internal discussions about meeting logistics No No lcl] 3?53 Internal discussions about letterhead design No No ldi 764 Internal discussions about June 28 call No No lei Internal discussion about OVP meetings with third-parties about 765 Commission No No lei Internal discussions about disclosure forms and Hatch Act 3?56 requirements No No ldi Email discussions with or about DFO on President's Commission on 767 Drug Addiction and Opioid Crisis about managing a committee No No Internal discussions re: response to June 28 letter and Borunda 3?68 resignation No No lei Internal discussions about responding to inquiries from public 7?69 officials No No ld] 9/29f2?1? Lawyers lforZivl'lXigt Ef?e-glqE-? ?our 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currentliir disclosure (see 3d 1 Documentishtategory Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10lb)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} 770 Internal discussions of July 19 meeting lagenda, remarks] No No lei 771 Internal discussions re vendorsiconsultants (emails, documents] No No lei 772 Internal discussions about posting public comments No No ldi 773 Internal discussions about website and email technical issues No No lti Commission staff research or suggesting ideas relating to substance 774 of Commission's work No No lei Commission staff discussion about potential topics for Commission 775 review No No lei 776 Internal discussions over press releases after litigation events No No lei 777 Internal emails re: records management No No lei Litigation documents and emails le,g., service copies, final versions, drafts, comments on drafts, discussion of legal strategy, updates, 778 etc} {internal and with No No l?ir?i 779 Internal discussions about budget and finance issues No No lei 780 Internal discussions about subjects for potential Commission report No No lei 781 Internal emails re: discussing next steps for Commission No No lei Internal discussion about responding to records requests 782 No No lei 7/772017, 7/10/2017, 783 Email discussion re: interagency agreement between DVP and GSA OVP GA 7712/2017 No No lsi Internal emails discussing draft DOD talking points re: site and 784 sug_gesting changes EDP staff EOP Staff 11?Jul?17 No No lei Legal research conducted by staff/internal legal consultation 785 {documents and emails] No No lei Copies ofJune 28 letter; list of state election officials; list of 786 research from states No No le) 78? Internal discussions about draft Commission documents No No lei Commission member appointment documents le.g., physical 788 commission] No No ldi 789 Copies of bylaws and Roberts Rules of Order No No ldi 790 Hardcopies of GSA ethics rules and materials. No No ldi 791 Miscellaneous communications with third parties Sal/29721117 Lawyers? CgmmItetee lforZivl'ingt Eliglqy?g --cv 1354 Date Document Document Created andfor Commission Has Document Rational for non- Document Originator Recipientls) {if Shared {if Views as Subject Been Currently disclosure (see 3d 1 Description {if applicable} applicable} applicable] to 10[b)? Disclosed? Kossack Decl. 1] 12} Email to States requesting they hold off on submitting data pending State Election 792 resolution of EPIC TRIO Kossack Officials 10-Jul-17 No No Unsolicited requests from third-parties to Commission staff to join 7'93 the Commission No No 7?94 Emails and proposals third?party data analysis entities No No {wl Emails from third parties to Commission staff about potential 3?95 collaboration No No 7?96 Third party provided list of suggested witnesses No No 797 FOIAIFACA request for documents No No 793 Emails with potential panelist about participation {and declines) No No {rl 7'99 Emails from third parties about data sources No No ii) 800 Materials forwarded to Commission staff by MASS No No 301 Constituent letters to Vice President or Commission members No No lo) Reimbursement Funding documents regarding PACEI operations {Form Department of Treasury Financial 302 Management Service} No No 803 Unsolicited emails by individuals alleging voter fraud No No [vvl Discussions with third party vendor about procuring and operating 304 livestream of Sept. 12 meeting No No Emails between Commission staff and states about mechanics of 305 data sources No No [ul 806 Press inquiries to Commission staff No No Discussions with staff at September 12 meeting event site about 307 logistics including individuals on wait lists} No No DHs-001-g3135-001009 CQ Congressional Transcripts Jan. 16. 2018 Jan. 16, 2018 Revised Final Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Homeland Security Department Oversight LIST OF PANEL MEMBERS AND WITNESSES GRASSLEY: Everybody in this room, welcome. But particularly to our new secretary of homeland security, Secretary Nielsen. We welcome you. Thank you for taking time from your busy schedule to be here for a very important part of Congress's responsibility to do congressional oversight. Your department is a very important part of the Executive Branch, plays a very central role in overseeing our lawful immigration system, besides protecting the country and our people. Oversight is a very important part of what we do here in Congress. Events like today's hearing provide an opportunity for the people's representatives to investigate and question the policies and actions of the executive branch. There are important issues in your department?s jurisdiction that are facing our country. One of those important issues is the continuing fate of at least 690,000 individuals enrolled in the DACA Program. Every member of this committee, especially this member, has an interest in ensuring that we ?nd a fair and equitable solution for that population. I hope my colleagues also share my concern about the continued integrity of our nation's lawful immigration system and the safety of those who call America home. It's imperative that we make sure that 20 years from now, we don?t just wind up right back where we are now, at the negotiation table on the same immigration issues. In order to do that, the simple fact is that any DACA solution has to answer issues like border security, interior enforcement, chain migration. So let me take a minute and explain what I mean by border security. Real robust border security is a puzzle and it has many pieces. One piece of this puzzle, but just one piece, is the need for technical and technological infrastructure. That includes a combination of wall where appropriate, fencing, drones, radar, everything in between. But another piece, and I believe you will agree, a very important piece, is the legal authority to apprehend, detain and remove people that illegally enter our country. DHS-OO1-6335-001010 GRASSLEY: Unfortunately, our current legal authorities are riddled with loopholes and don't allow us to effectively do that. Just ask any CBP of?cer about how effective our current authorities are. The answer you will hear is pretty clear; they aren't very effective. That's why border security provisions in any eventual DACA deal need to be -- include changes in authorities. In?astructure without legal authority changes is useless. But border security alone isn't enough. We also have to make changes to our interior enforcement to allow us to easily remove dangerous criminal aliens. Your department needs increased authority to remove human traf?ckers, sex offenders, criminal gang members, drunk drivers and terrorists. Public safety threats should not be given free rein to roam our country. We owe the American people a real solution to this problem and the only way to provide it is to address these other pieces as well, but DACA isn't the only issue your department is facing. American workers are increasingly at risk because the United States admits so many foreign workers, some of whom are permitted to stay for years or even decades. Many companies use cheap foreign labor, driving down salaries. Worse still, many of these employers commit terrible abuses. That's why I was pleased to see this administration take on the issues with its Buy America, Hire American executive order. However, it is unclear whether efforts, to date, have really moved the needle when it comes to protecting American workers and I hope you, Madam Secretary, can shed some light on that. This committee is also well aware that the department is facing larger structural problems. DHS still doesn't operate like a single agency. You may disagree, but thatoperates like a bunch of little agencies that don't always work well together. Time and again, I hear reports that the various components within the departments do not have adequate mechanisms for data collection and information sharing. This means that the right hand often doesn't know what the left is doing; a practice that causes inef?ciency. That criticism is particularly concerning with regard to DHS's founding mission, to protect the United States from terrorism. When the agency doesn't adequately share information, it's hard to see how the department will be well-equipped to foresee the next New York City attack or the next San Bernardino shooting. The threat from overseas continues to be real, but this country has also seen a rise in homegrown violent extremists. Collecting and sharing information within DHS and with other law- enforcement partners is critical to combating these threats. In 2017', the department was criticized by its own inspector general for the lack of uni?ed immigration strategy, for poor information sharing between sub agencies and for serious I.T. challenges. Regarding the immigration strategy, last November, DHS Office of Inspector General, criticized the agency for failing to unify the approach across agency subcomponents like ICE, CBP and USCIS. DHS-OO1-6335-001011 GRASSLEY: These sub-agencies enforce the same laws and they must -- just common sense, say they must be reading from the same page. Otherwise, you?ll continue to suffer from con?icting enforcement priorities. Regarding information sharing; for years, I've been raising concerns about this very real and serious problem which affects all U.S. government agencies. And your department is no exception. In October 2017', Special Inspector General for the Afghan Reconstruction reported a signi?cant problem with Afghan military of?cers in the U.S. for training often going AWOL. These AWOL Afghan soldiers are considered high-risk because of their military training and low-risk for detention. In fact, out of 150 AWOL Afghan trainees, the inspector general found 83 either ?ed the country or remain unaccounted for. Apart from the obvious national security concerns, this also negatively impacts operational readiness and wastes millions of taxpayers' dollars. In some of these cases, ICE failed to note -- notify other U.S. government agencies that the Afghan of?cials had gone AWOL. And I hope the department is working to implement the inspector general?s important recommendations. Another case that also happened under the Obama administration, ICE was investigating a DACA recipient accused of child exploitation. Because ICE failed to share information with the rest of the department, the man was issued an employment authorization document and was able to get a job at a summer camp, where he harmed several children before he was caught. And, of course, it's obvious that that's a tragedy. This kind of completely avoidable failure should never happen. But all of your department's OIG reports. the recent ones at least, suggest that DHS needs serious improvement when it comes to sharing information between components. The same is true of information technology. In 201?, every single department OIG report that touched on the LT. system had something critical to say. And, in some cases, like the CBP, your OIG said that the IT. systems are so old and ineffective that they're a risk to public safety and national security. This risk became real for hundreds of thousands of holiday travelers when CBP's system went down two weeks ago on January 2nd, stranding them at U.S. airports around our country. On top of that, the department still has not ful?lled its decades-old promise to create a working exitfentry system. Because DHS has never been able to complete this system, we don't know who has departed this country. And that means we also don't know who is still here. Statistics show that almost half of the aliens, unlawfully present in the United States, came here legally but overstayed their status when their status expired. If we knew they were still here, we could track them down and penalize the -- the people who overstay, but the department has not been able to build the LT. system necessary to make this possible. Despite all of these concerns, it's clear that under the current administration, DHS is making real progress to improve homeland security. In 2017', we saw real efforts to curb illegal immigration, close loopholes in legal immigration authorities, and protect the American people from international terrorism. For these and other reasons, I'm grateful for your service, as we ought to be for a lot of cabinet secretaries, but DHS-001-6335-001012 particularly, your big department you have to oversee. So I look forward to hearing more from you today as we explore ways to improve your agency and address our country?s needs. So I thank you, Secretary Nielsen, for your participation in this important hearing. And now I call on Senator einstein. FEINSTEIN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. And as you know, I agree with you about your strong feelings on oversight and -- excuse me. I?d like to take this opportunity to welcome you, Madam Secretary, to the committee. The Department of Homeland Security actually, more than any other agency, impacts the lives of tens of thousands of the residents of the largest state, California, on a daily basis. Through its policies affecting tourism, immigration, as well as efforts ?ghting wildfires and other national natural disasters and protecting our nation?s security, your agency, Madam Secretary, impacts my state in profound ways. Since the Trump administration assumed power in January of last year, Californians have watched with great concern as the department has implemented a series of concerning policy changes. This administration has systemically announced a series of changes targeted at immigrants and their families. They include the reckless and poorly drafted Muslim ban in the ?rst days of the administration; the decision to slash and cripple the refugee program; the rescission of DACA before a legislative solution was in place to protect these young people who trusted our government; the systematic deconstruction of the legal immigration system, including the cumbersome expansion of immigration application forms; and the termination of temporary protected status for Salvadorans, and shockingly, Haitians, meaning individuals will likely be deported to some areas with the highest rate of violent crime and poverty next year. These policies have had a ripple effect throughout communities and neighborhoods in my state. We have seen children afraid to go to school, parents afraid to go to work, distinguished professors denied visas, husbands and wives separated, and families torn apart. One case that really stood out for me is that of the Sanchez family from the Oakland area. The parents, Maria and Eusebio Sanchez, were deported late last year. They weren?t criminals. They owned a home, they paid their taxes, they lived in the United States for 23 years. The mother was an oncology nurse at Highland Hospital; the father, a truck driver. Their deportation meant that their children, one a United States citizen, and one a DACA recipient, ages 23, 21, respectively, have to be the caretakers for their two younger siblings, ages 16 and 12. FEINSTEIN: In fact, I personally pled -- pled with your predecessor to spare this family from deportation. However, my requests were rebuffed. Let me just share a few other examples from California. A teacher from Los Angeles writes, woke up this morning to the Trump administration?s decision DHS-OO1-6335-001013 to rescind the immigration status for Salvadorans. Tomorrow I have to face my high school students and try to reassure them that they will be OK, even though they will be facing tremendous uncertainty and possible deportation in the coming months." That's a quote. A young from Riverside wrote, and I quote, came to the United States in 2005, when I was only six years old. Ending DACA would mean that my dreams and opportunities to be successful will be destroyed. I would not have been able to reach and afford a higher education if it were not for end quote. So my of?ce has been inundated with hundreds of these stories, Madam Secretary. Since this administration assumed of?ce, my of?ce and I have met with Muslim Americans afraid that their families will be denied visitor VISA's because of their faith . We have met with DACA recipients who have told me personally that they've contemplated suicide for the potential exposure to ICE that may have -- be in?icted on the rest of their undocumented families. What's worse is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. I understand the administration is considering even more drastic policy changes. For instance, the press has reported that the administration is, once again, considering a generalized policy of separating small children from their parents at the southwest border. Candidly, woman to woman, I can't believe that and I hope you will clarify the department's position in your remarks. Because not only would such a systemic policy encroach upon the Constitutional rights of parents, it is callous and, quite frankly, stunningly un?American. The American Academy of Pediatrics called such a proposal, quote, "Inhumane and counterproductive" end quote, citing the potential for trauma and stress to cause permanent harm on the developing brains of children. The America I know does not rip small children from their parents. And I can?t imagine the fear that a small child must fear if this were to happen, and for what? Because the child had no choice in any of this, so please, I hope you will set that straight today. When I heard for the ?rst time that this policy was being considered, I wrote to your predecessor, Mr. Kelly, and asked him to soundly reject this cruel proposal. And I now hope that today you, here, will reject it as well, immediately and forcefully. Lastly, in light of the reports about the President's recent comments, I hope you're ready to speci?cally address one issue in particular and that?s the termination of Temporary Protected Status, known as TPS for Haitians. In light of the president's comments, I'm forced to question whether the decision to terminate protected status for Haitian nationals was in fact racially motivated. I hope not. I thank you, Madam Secretary, for appearing here today. I know that some of the decisions made by the the department came before your tenure in of?ce. However, given your proximity to General Kelly during many of them, I hope you're prepared to answer the questions that my colleagues and I have, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Before you give your opening statement I would like to have you be sworn. Would you please stand? Do you af?rm that the testimony that you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? DHS-OO1-6335-001014 NIELSEN: (OFF-MIKE) GRASSLEY: Yes. Please be seated. and you are welcome now to give your opening statement and when we go to questions we?ll have 10 round of questions. Let me say something, mostly for the bene?t of Senator Harris and Senator Booker. My practice on -- on questioning is, if there?s one second left and you haven?t -- you start your question before the time runs out, you can complete your question and we'll complete an answer. But at that point, I hope we don?t have give and take back and forth. And we're going to have to - - since we have 10 rounds, this is going to be a long meeting so I hope you will understand if I ask people to stay within the 10 minutes. FEINSTEIN: Ten rounds? GRASSLEY: Ten minutes. FEINSTEIN: 0h, 10 minutes. GRASSLEY: I?m sorry. I misspoke. FEINSTEIN: I didn't bring my dinner. (LAUGHTER) GRASSLEY: 0K, thank you. Yes. Secretary Nielson please proceed as you desire. NIELSON: Thank you, Chairman. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and members of the committee. thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. DHS-OO1-6335-001015 I have submitted my full written statement for the record and would like to take this opportunity to share a few thoughts with you. The men and women of the Department of Homeland Security are working tirelessly everyday to make our communities safer and our nation more secure. I am honored to be here today to speak on their behalf. I look forward to working with the committee, and each of you, to give these heroes the authorities and resources they need to do the job that you have asked of them. Today, DHS and the Department of Justice issued the initial so-called Section 11 Report, prescribed by Executive Order 13780, protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States. I will encourage you all to take time and read it and we'll be happy to work with your staff in the coming days to answer any questions you might have. But I?d like to, today, just take the opportunity to highlight some of the ?ndings. So much of what we do to protect our citizens from terrorist attack is classified, and as you know, must remain so. However, the idea behind the Section 11 Report is to allow us to be more transparent with the American people, giving them a glimpse of the gravity of our national security environment. The report includes truly chilling data, including information about how many foreign nationals have been convicted of international terrorism related offenses in Federal court since 91? 1 1, and how many known or suspected terrorists DHS have encountered in the past year. We are ready, as I say, to answer any specific questions you might have with the Department of Justice. According to the list maintained by the Department of Justice National Security Division, at least 549 individuals were convicted of international terrorism related charges in US. Federal Courts since September 11th, 2001 and ending December 31st, 2016. Of those 549 individuals, 402 were foreign born, that's 73 percent. Three out of four individuals convicted in this country of international terrorism related charges in the last 15 years were foreign born. NIELSON: This does not include those convicted of domestic terrorism or those convicted on separate charges, or those convicted in state courts, and it does not, of course, include those that law enforcement has yet to encounter. This report, unfortunately, is likely just the tip of the iceberg and we will continue to work with those in law enforcement to get the best data that we can so that we can all assess this situation. I?ll give you just one example; a national of Uzbekistan. He was admitted to the United States as a diversity visa lottery recipient in 2011. In 2015, he pleaded guilty to conspiring to support ISIS and in 2017, was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in prison. According to court documents, he posted a threat on a website to kill then-President Obama in an act of on behalf of ISIS. In subsequent interviews by federal agents, he stated his belief in ISIS's terrorist agenda, including the establishment, by force, of an Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria. The report also covers likely terrorists we prevented from entering the United States. In 2017 alone, DHS had 2,554 encounters with individuals on the terrorist watchlist who were attempting to travel to the United States. That equates to seven terrorists a day, 50 a week. The vast DHS-001-6335-001016 majority, 2,170, were attempting to enter by air, but 335 were attempting to cross a land border and 49 were attempting to enter by sea. That's just one year, and again, that's only those that we know about, the known known, if you will. This does not include illegal border crossers who may be known or suspected terrorists, but whom we did not interdict or have not yet encountered. These threats against our homeland drive our mission every day. That's why we're working to block known or suspected terrorists from entering the country and why we're focusing on combating terrorist radicalization and recruitment within our communities. Over the past year, we've implemented sweeping enhancements to keep terrorists from in?ltrating our country. The department and our interagency partners have put tough security protocols in place to intensify vetting of U.S.-bound travelers. This includes increased security across every route a terrorist could use to get to the United States. Whether as a tourist, a business visitor, an immigrant or a refugee. Through the global aviation security plan, we?ve made ?ights bound for the United States more secure against concealed explosives, insider threats, and potentially dangerous passengers. These new measures, both unseen and seen, represent some of the biggest aviation security enhancements since 9H 1. In cybersecurity, DHS has increased its coordination with industry and with state, local, tribal and territorial governments to protect vital networks as evidenced by our response to the Wannacry cyber attack. We have also renewed our focus on the rule of law, securing our borders and enforcing our nation's immigration laws. Apprehensions at the border reached a 45 year low in RY. 2017', a 45 percent decrease from the last year of the previous administration. Meanwhile, ICE and customs enforcement -- excuse me, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, arrests increased by 30 percent and interior removals increased by 27. But for all of our accomplishments over the past year, our work is far from done. Our continued success relies on the support and authorities only Congress can provide. This is especially true with respect to immigration. Even with our progress, we still apprehend 1,100 people a day who attempt to enter the country illegally. People unfortunately who are encouraged by our judicial and congressional loopholes. I urge Congress to ?x these loopholes so we can effectively execute the missions Congress entrusted to the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security. Thanks to the president?s efforts, we have consensus on four corners of an immigration deal; border security, ending the diversity visa extended family chain migration and ?nding a permanent solution for the current DACA recipients. I look forward to working with Congress to reach a legislative solution. Time is of the essence. I also encourage Congress to empower us to address emerging dangers. For example, we currently lack the authorities needed to counter threats from unmanned aircraft systems. We are concerned that UASs could be used as weapons, for surveillance, or to smuggle illicit goods into the homeland. Finally, I look forward to working with Congress to pass the DHS reauthorization bill. We can?t keep the United States and its citizens secure with authorities drafted for a different era (ph) to DHS-OO1-6335-001017 address the threats of the last decade. We need updated authorities, updated support and updated accountability for the world we live in today. Finally, I would, of course, be remiss if I didn't mention DHS's extensive disaster response efforts over this past year. We continue to be fully engaged in the recovery in Puerto Rico and other states and territories affected by this season's massive hurricanes. Additionally, I was recently in California visiting with wild?re victims and ?rst responders. And unfortunately, we have now seen how these survivors have had to confront mudslides. DHS and FEMA will continue to work with California state and local partners to help our fellow Americans. As always, I want to take a moment to thank the great men and women of DHS for their service, dedication and passion in day-to-day, performing the dif?cult and dangerous job on behalf of the American people. Again, it is on their behalf I am here today. I want to thank you for your leadership, your support of the department and for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering your questions. GRASSLEY: To clarify, we aren't having 10 rounds of questioning, we're having 10 minute timeslots, so I?ll start, and then Senator Feinstein. Again, for the new members, sometimes if you wonder why Senator Feinstein and Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch may get a little extra time, it's out of respect for them being Ranking Member or former Chairman. FEINSTEIN: Wow. Thank you. That's a ?rst. GRASSLEY: OK. I'll let -- I'll let the Democrats decide the order. Secretary Nielsen, as you are fully aware, Congress is currently debating what border security measures to team up with DACA. Clearly, infrastructure, including fencing, walls where appropriate and technology are key parts of border security, but infrastructure by itself is not suf?cient. This is a -- positions that Senator Perdue, Cotton and I made very clear last year, particularly the speedy deportation of dangerous criminal aliens. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues seem to believe that robust border security is achieved by infrastructure alone. As head of the department with front line responsibility of securing the border, I?m curious to hear your thoughts. My ?rst question I?m going to make as a statement, and unless you disagree, tell me, so I can get to more important things. Our conversations with people in your department make it very clear that construction of a border wall system alone is not suf?cient to provide operational control of the border. If you accept that, do you agree that legal loopholes in the current border enforcement authority have weakened your agency's ability to effectively secure the border? DHS-OO1-6335-001018 NIELSEN: Yes, (inaudible). Yes, sir, I couldn't agree more. GRASSLEY: OK. Are changes needed in -- to existing legal authorities to make it easier to apprehend, detain and deport danger criminal aliens, speci?cally, which authority which authority should Congress consider changing as part of the DACA deal?? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. We must look to address the loopholes that are created, both by the TVPRA, as well as the Flores Settlement. The men and women of DHS need the ability not just to apprehend, but to quickly remove those we apprehend. They have to go hand in hand. I cannot claim security if we can merely interdict, but not remove. GRASSLEY: No. If Congress provides amnesty for, potentially, millions of individuals, without changes to existing legal authorities, what impact will that have on your agency's ability to secure the border? NIELSEN: Unfortunately, we will be back here again. Without closing the loopholes, we will encourage those who attempt this dangerous journey to come here illegally, to do just that. We will end up with additional temporary populations, which are not fair to those undertaking the journey, are not fair to Americans, are not fair to our communities and to our workers. We must close the loopholes so we don't end up here again. GRASSLEY: I want to discuss, now, interior enforcement. I'm assuming you're familiar with stories like Kate Steinle and Sarah Root?s deaths at the hands of dangerous criminal aliens. And, if those aliens hadn't been here, it would have been entirely preventable. Sadly, Congress has long refused to pass enhanced penalties for dangerous criminal aliens, penalties that could have prevented these killers from being in our country. Many of my colleagues have long claimed that they support removing dangerous criminal aliens in this country, yet they?re refusing to consider interior enforcement measures as part of a DACA deal. My colleagues claim it?s unfair to have the whole weight of immigration reform on the backs of DACA kids, to harm their dreams with enhanced enforcement measures. DHS-001-6335-001019 But I think it?s pretty clear that state -- Kate Steinle and Sarah Root's -- have dreams as well. My question to you: I -- I'm sure you?d agree that they deserved to live in peace and harmony. Is it fair to their memories and legacies to continue allowing dangerous criminal aliens to remain at large in our country? NIELSEN: No, sir. GRASSLEY: What new authority does your department need to make it easier to detain, punish and speedily remove dangerous criminal aliens? Should such measures be a part of any potential DACA deal? NIELSEN: We need to re-look at the basis for which we can remove an alien. There are loopholes that prevent us, in various cases, from removing somebody from what we would all generally consider to be a serious crime. We also are limited, through court cases, for how long we can detain a criminal alien after we apprehend them. We need to address that. There's a deterrence issue there, just as there is in any other law enforcement context. We need the ability to remove, once we detain dangerous criminals. GRASSLEY: Yeah. I want to go to unaccompanied children. As you know, Customs and Border Protection has reported that a number of apprehensions at our southern border are down, including apprehensions for unaccompanied alien children. Obviously, good news. The journey from a minor?s home country can be perilous for children. For years, I?ve written about cases in which smugglers have exploited unaccompanied alien children and taken advantage of lenient detention systems. GRASSLEY: Most recently, I wrote about another incentive for vulnerable children to come here, to access our government-facilitated abortion services. I will ask you to answer this more fulsomely in your response to my letter. But has the department seen evidence of smugglers exploiting unaccompanied alien children by promising access to certain health services in custody? If so, what steps has the department taken, through Human Smuggling Cell or other directorates, to -- taken to detour smuggling or traf?cking of unaccompanied alien children? DHS-OO1-6335-001020 NIELSEN: Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. As you know, this month, we particularly look at human traf?cking at DHS and how to prevent it. It is, make no mistake, modem-day slavery. We all need to work together. I know that various members have bills on human traf?cking, and I look forward to work on that. But, with respect to your speci?c, broader question, the transnational criminal organizations, the coyotes and those who traf?c in people and illicit goods, do it as a business. So, yes, they exploit any reason in which somebody might have the opportunity to either receive a bene?t that they do not qualify for, or to be able to stay in this country in an illegal status. They have that information. They provide it to those, and encourage them to take that dangerous journey, in exchange for a false promise that they will not be captured and deported by the United States. GRASSLEY: Have you seen a decrease in the unaccompanied alien children asylum cases, since decision to an end the Central American Minor program? NELSEN: Sir, we have seen some decreases overall, but I would like to point out, unfortunately, we have a 30 percent increase in UACs from October through December. And we also have a 68 percent increase in family units during that same time period. GRASSLEY: As you know, Congress is currently considering a number of young men and women to provide legal status to in any potential deal on DACA. Some people, like this senator, believe that we should limit any status to the 690,000 individuals currently enrolled in DACA. These young men and women came out of the shadows and built their life around DACA. They were brought to this country through no fault of their own, and didn't make a conscious choice to break our nation's laws. I believe there is an equity issue that necessitates addressing their status. However, that equity issue isn't present for their parents. Those men and women did choose to violate our nation laws and did make a conscious choice to immigrate here without papers. We shouldn't reward that behavior. Reports suggest several of my colleagues are now considering providing legal work authorization to these individuals. To the best of your knowledge -- my ?rst question -- how many million of people would bene?t from an amnesty that provides work authorization to the parents of Dreamers? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001021 Sir, what I would say is I can tell you the number of DACA registers -- registered, which, as you said, is 690,000 -- 690,000 is the number that the Department of Homeland Security begins with in any discussion. There are a variety of bills that you know that then -- takes that population and expands it by either increasing the time period in which they could have first entered, increasing the age for which one is considered to be a so-called "Dreamer" andfor capturing family members and providing and some sort of status, as well. I would just say, though, that it is our position to ?nd a permanent solution. We are not interested in addressing this through piecemeal, through year-after-year renewals, through anything less than a permanent solution. GRASSLEY: What impact would such an amnesty have on our nation's border security? NIELSEN: It would it it's almost separate issues. It would take 690,000 and place them into a permanent status of some sort. Hopefully, that will indicate to others that that group is alone, that we are not having a larger discussion, that we have to balance what the folks that are here and the folks who watch what we do here and decide to undertake that journey. So, it will have the effect of addressing the population we're talking about, but I hope it does not have a negative effect of incentivizing others to come here in hopes of eventually receiving status. GRASSLEY: Senator Feinstein? FEINSTEIN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I wanted to ask you about this. A few weeks ago, it was reported that a one- year-old child was separated from his father when they presented themselves at the border. It appears, and I don't know whether it is, that this was not an isolated case and that the administration is considering a proposal that would separate children from their parents at the Southwest border. As I understand it, you have yet to sign off on this proposal, and your predecessor, John Kelly, rejected it. Is this policy still under consideration and what is your position? NIELSEN: Thank you, ma'am, for the question. I'm not familiar with the specific example that you provide, but I would just say under TVPRA, when an unaccompanied child or child presents itself at the DHS-OO1-6335-001022 border and we cannot con?rm that they are with a parent, we have to follow the protocols to assume there is a possibility they are traf?cked. So just to be clear, one is a policy, which I know is your question, I'll get to. But I just want to make sure that we also, of course, when you take care of the children who come here and make sure that they actually are with somebody who is a family member who can prevent -- who can take care of them. With respect to your question, we have not made any policy decisions. We are in a position where we are trying to be able to remove those we apprehend. What we ?nd at the border is, given a variety of court cases, we are forced, in conjunction with the HHS to let children, after 20 days, we can no longer detain them. So what that means is, that once we release the child, we then release their parents as well. So we?re looking at a variety of ways to enforce our laws to discourage parents from bringing their children here illegally, but no ma?am, no policy decision has been made on that. And I?d be happy to work with you and look at other alternatives. FEINSTEIN: Well, how big a problem this? NIELSEN: UACs is a big problem, as I said. We have seen a 30 percent increase in just the last few months and a 68 percent increase in so-called family units, which, in some cases, include very young children. FEINSTEIN: And what is the current policy as to how to handle this? Say the child is young, part of a family, what happens? NIELSEN: When we encounter the child, whether they're part of a family unit or not. We try to detain them, if you will, in a family unit, but in some cases, given a variety of court cases, they are treated as an unaccompanied child. In that situation, we turn them over to Health and Human Services after 72 hours. Health and Human services then looks for either a parent located in the United States or another sponsor who will come forward and care for that child. If we are not able to bring that child to court within 20 days, or otherwise adjust or determine their status, we must let them go. FEINSTEIN: How many did you bring to court within 20 days? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001023 Not enough. I don't have that ?gure. We can get back, but what we do find is that 90 percent of those released never show up for court, 90 percent. FEINSTEIN: They just disappear? NIELSEN: Yes, ma'am. FEINSTEIN: So, what do you think the solution is? NIELSEN: I think we have to look more broadly at all of the different rules and how they are put together. I think we need a comprehensive approach. There are quite a few loopholes. For example, it should be clear if you're unaccompanied or not. If you're with your parents, you should be treated as a child coming with your parents. If you're unaccompanied, perhaps we have different duties and we need to look at that child in a different way. They also should not, in my opinion, receive any additional bene?t. They need protection, but, for example, right now, they have not only two bites of the apple, in terms of our immigration process. They go through a regular process and the immigration courts, but they also have well over a year in which they can claim asylum. If you are an adult, you have a year in which you can claim asylum. FEINSTEIN: You said they can claim asylum? NIELSEN: The children. Yes, ma?am. FEINSTEIN: The children? NIELSEN: Yes. FEINSTEIN: DHS-OO1-6335-001024 How young can you be and claim asylum? NIELSEN: I I wonder that myself, but the point being that you can many be here many, many years as a so-called unaccompanied minor, and then claim asylum. So there's the it?s a problem because, unfortunately, the way that the coyotes and others have provided information to them, they realize that there?s a loophole. So they can wait many, many years before they make that claim. And, frankly, what that does is that just adds to our backlog. We have hundreds of thousands of cases in backlog. It's very important for us to be able to focus on those who, of course, truly need asylum. But they sometimes are buried within the larger numbers of those who perhaps do not need asylum. FEINSTEIN: How do you assess the size of this problem? Is it a major problem? Is it restricted just to some areas and some groups of people? NIELSEN: I I would say it's a growing problem because, unfortunately, what we find through interviews of those that we do apprehend at the border, they have the magic words, if you will, of credible fear. The standard is quite low, that's something else that we have asked as part of our discussions to work with Congress on. There are those who truly do fear for their lives. We need to be able to protect those. There are many other -- many others, unfortunately, that we ?nd who are trained by those who are traf?cking them to just use those words. And given the laws in court cases, we must immediately treat them as if they are seeking asylum and put them into the system. FEINSTEIN: How many children now do you have in custody in this situation? NIELSEN: I -- that I can get back to you, I don't know the number. FEINSTEIN: Would you? NIELSEN: Yes, ma'am. FEINSTEIN: DHS-OO1-6335-001025 Appreciate that. The administration?s decision to terminate temporary protected status for Haiti, Nicaragua, the Sudan and El Salvador looks like it's going to have a signi?cant economic and humanitarian consequence. TPS holders work in key industries, as you know, performing a lot of indispensable jobs and they?re important. Additionally, it looks like this is going to have an adverse affect on children. It's my understanding that around 273,000 US. citizen children have a parent who's a TPS holder. And it's my understanding that El Salvador requested that this designation for its nationals continue, expressing concern about whether they could manage the return of some 200,000 individuals. Can you just tell us some of the arguments that El Salvador made in support of TPS designation and why those were not persuasive?l NIELSEN: Yes, ma'am. I did have the opportunity to speak to a variety of government of?cials from El Salvador. In our discussions, they were very concerned about the time period in which it might take for them to be ready to bring back their citizens. We did not talk generally about the country conditions, and I want to be very clear on this. The law does not allow me to look at the country conditions of a country, writ large. It requires me to look very speci?cally as to whether the country conditions originating from the original designation continue to exist, in this case, the 2001 hurricanes in El Salvador. So we didn?t dispute the country conditions are dif?cult in El Salvador, but unfortunately, the law requires me, if I cannot say that the conditions emanating from the earthquakes still exist, regardless of other systemic conditions, I must terminate TPS. So the discussion was around the time period. The reason that we delayed it for 18 months was because they were persuasive. FEINSTEIN: Do you believe the law should be changed? Because NIELSEN: I believe FEINSTEIN: we should take a look at that and work with you. NIELSEN: I think we should take a look at it, absolutely. I think what we -- and I know there are some bills that have been proposed to do just that. This was meant to be a temporary status, as you know. The dif?culty with that is when people are here for 20 plus years, in the case of El Salvador, they have roots. They're contributing to the society. They are otherwise making our economy strong. So, yes, we do need to look at this and ?nd a better way to come up with a permanent solution. FEINSTEIN: DHS-OO1-6335-001026 Would you be willing to work with us in that regard? NIELSEN: Absolutely. FEINSTEIN: Good, thank you. I think I?ll end it there. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Senator Hatch? HATCH: Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I?d like to begin with R-l religious worker visas, which are a crucially important issue for my state. I had been scheduled to meet, last week, with USCIS personnel or Director Francis Cissna on the issue. But unfortunately. the meeting had to be canceled at the last minute. I'm hopeful it can be rescheduled soon. I?m planning to ask Director Cissna to consider revising the R?l regulation to allow a blanket petition for traditionally uncompensated missionaries in instances where the petitioning church is a frequent user of R?l visas, and has a strong record of compliance with R-l rules and regulations. Increased delays in R-l visa processing times have had a sharply negative effect in -- on R-l visa applications and applicants. and the important humanitarian an ecclesiastical work that that they do. Will you please follow-up with Director Cissna and ask him to give this request all possible consideration? NIELSEN: Absolutely. Yes, sir. HATCH: Thank you. This issue may not be a headline grabber but it's tremendously important to me and to my state. and I will be pushing on it. I?d like to turn now to H-1B visas. Reports indicate that the department is is preparing to rescind a 2015 rule allowing spouses of visa holders to obtain work authorizations work authorization if the H-1B visa holder is being sponsored for a green card. And I have to say that the that the 2015 rule. seemed to me to be a pretty sensible policy. It's the same policy re?ected in my bipartisan Immigration Innovation Act and in the Republican sponsored SKILLS Visa Act that was reported out of House Judiciary two Congresses ago. DHS-OO1-6335-001027 Can you explain why DHS is planning to rescind this policy? NIELSEN: Sir, we'd be happy to work with you on that. I think, broadly, we're looking at all of the visa categories, which are -- which, as you know, are numerous. I think, unfortunately, over the years, in general, we have gotten away from the intent of Congress with respect to some of the visa categories, so we need to look holistically. I will happy to get back to you speci?cally on that, what you just described. HATCH: Well, thank you so much. Now reports also indicate that the department is evaluating ways it can stop granting three-year extensions for H-IB visa holders who are being sponsored for green cards and who are subject to delays because of per-country green card limits. Now, I believe that Congress previously addressed this issue in 2000, and indicated its intent to allow such extensions. Can you tell me if the department is, in fact, considering ways to stop granting these three-year extensions? And, if so, why? And I'd also be interested in hearing the department's explanation of how ending these extensions squares with the 2000 law. NIELSEN: Thank you, sir. I'm not familiar with the very speci?c example on H- 1B, but I will get back to you immediately after this. HATCH: OK. I appreciate that. I?d like to turn now to the issue of cybersecurity. This is a critically important part of the department's mission and one that demands close attention. Last month, Jeanette Manfra, the Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity and Communications, announced that DHS is planning to signi?cantly expand its engagement with the private sector to combat threats like the 2017 WannaCry cyber attack, which was attributed to North Korea. Can you provide specific examples of how you expect DHS's cybersecurity collaboration with the private sector to change, following last month's announcement? NIELSEN: Sure. And, sir, I will keep it short because I?d be happy to talk about this all day and all the great things we are doing. In general, we're looking to do a couple of things. We have, as you know, an automated indicator sharing program. We're looking to make sure that, once we've identified threats, we can disseminate that in not only a way that?s actionable but a way that?s tailored to different companies in different sectors. We're also working with the private sector to understand what it is that's really critical. Traditionally, as you know, we have looked at 16 critical infrastructure sectors, but given the DHS-OO1-6335-001028 interconnectivity of the world today, we're moving towards a look at essential ?mctions which might cross sectors. So, what is the function that is truly critical? And how can we partner with the private sector to not only give them information on known threats, but to help them anticipate threats before they get there? In terms of network defenders, we need to continue to connect them. As we see, these threats propagate across the world as we saw with WannaCry the patching is extraordinarily important. I would say that the reason we did not have as many effects in the United States as we did in other places of the world was due to the good work of DHS and Jeanette Manfra?s folks, in terms of making sure that they communicated quickly with the private sector and that the appropriate patching was taken. So, it?s information sharing. It?s making sure we are sharing in the right way. It?s helping them with vulnerability assessments and, overall, it's agreeing together what is critical and what is the best way that we can protect it together. HATCH: OK. Continuing on this issue of cybersecurity, I'd like to ask about active defense which is sometimes inaccurately referred to as hacking back. Active defense is a term that captures a spectrum of proactive cybersecurity measures that fall somewhere between traditional passive defense and offense. Some commentators believe that active defense is inappropriate and that current legal restrictions on the practice are, therefore, warranted. Others believe that active defense should be more widely available to the private sector. Now, I have two questions for you, ?rst is, active defense a component of the department's current or planned cybersecurity assistance to the private sector? NIELSEN: It is. Yes, sir. But as you say, there is a wide disagreement with respect to what it means. What we mean is, we want to provide the tools and resources to the private sector to protect their systems, so if we can anticipate are we aware of a given threat, and as you know, we?ve gone to great links this year to work with the Intel community to also include otherwise classified information, with respect to malware, bot nets, other types of infections. We want to give that to the private sector, so that they can proactively defend themselves before they are, in fact, attacked. HATCH: OK. Second, do you believe that current law imposes any unnecessary constraints on the private sector?s ability to deploy active defense? NIELSEN: DHS-001-6335-001029 I would say that I would be happy to work with your staff. It is rather complicated, as you know. There's some limitations with respect to liability, there's other questions with respect to insurance and we do need to continue to work with the private sector to understand if there's any barriers that would prevent them from taking measures to protect themselves and the American people. HATCH: 0K. Turning to the department's counterterrorism efforts. A March 2017 report by the inspectors general of the DHS intelligence community and identi?ed a series of concerns that the report authors concluded, quote, "Have made the DHS intelligence enterprise less effective and valuable to the intelligence community than it could be," unquote. Can you provide an update regarding the department's implementation of the LG. report's specific recommendations and any other changes the department has made in the way it shares counterterrorism information? NIELSEN: Yes. I -- ?rst of all, I'd just like to say I think that the inspector general plays a vital role, especially at a department such as DHS, with such a broad scope. So, it's certainly my intent to continue to work with the I.G.'s office and to track all of their recommendations and to make sure that we implement them. With respect to this particular report and the intelligence apparatus at DHS writ large, what we're looking to do is make our Intel more requirement?driven. In other words, what is it do the men and women on the front lines need and then let us look at how to gather and work with our Intel partners on collection to provide that information. We're well past a point where we can be responsive and defensive, if you will, after something happens. We need to be able to gather that information to prevent, so it's moving towards a operational- based Intel posture that would be requirement-based on the threat. HATCH: 0K. Let me just say, for nearly 20 years, we've been talking about the population, we've been talking about border security for just as long. It's time we did something and there is a lot desire among my colleagues to find a path forward to make a deal, if you would. But to do that we need to be realistic to my Democratic friends and say, "It's time to stop pushing for a clean DREAM act." It's a matter of simple political reality, it's not going to happen. To my Republican friends, I say, we're not going to get the sun, moon and the stars, we should push for the best deal we can get, but we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so let's be realistic. And I say, I well, my time is up, but I actually think that we can get this done. I hope that you will be helpful in doing so. NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001030 Yes, sir. It not only is my great hope but I'd like to, again, reiterate I am happy to work with any member and every number who would like to work on this with the Department of Homeland Security. It is a very, very important issue. HATCH: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Leahy?il LEAHY: Thank you. Madam Secretary, welcome. I know seeing you here and again in Appropriations Committee. You mentioned a report you just issued, saying that foreign -- two individuals were convicted of terrorism since 9H 1, and that they were foreign-born. Now, most of them were convicted during Bush administration and the Obama administration, very few during this administration. How many of them does your report say how many of them came form countries subject to the travel ban and how long each of them had been in this country? NIELSEN: I don't have that information on hand, sir. But as you say, you?re right. It is over a 15 year period, that one particular LEAHY: Will you get to me how many of them, by the numbers, how many of them were foreign-born in a country subject to the travel ban and what was the amount of time they'd been here? NIELSEN: Yes, to the extent that information is available, yes. LEAHY: But it's all available. The number of convictions, you certainly should have number of where they were from and how long they have been here. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. But oftentimes, as you know, what we might have is where they came from because that would be what their visa would indicate DHS-OO1-6335-001031 LEAHY: I understand that NIELSEN: So, yes. Within the data that we have, absolutely LEAHY: I really would -- (inaudible) the convictions, when I was a prosecutor, they would have in the repolts how long they?ve been here and what they were doing. Now, last week at the Oval Of?ce, President Trump reportedly said the most vulgar and racist things I have ever heard a president of either party utter. In fact, I?ve never heard any president, Republican or Democrat, utter anything even similar. Now, he denies using the speci?c word and there has been some -- maybe he used a different word, maybe he didn't. Now, Madam Secretary, you were in the room, you're under oath. Did President Trump use this word, or a substantially similar word, to describe certain countries? NIELSEN: I did not hear that word used. No, sir. LEAHY: That's not the question. Did he use anything similar to that describing certain countries? NIELSEN: The conversation was very impassioned, I don?t dispute that the president was using tough language, others in the room were also using tough language. LEAHY: Was he NIELSEN: If I could, the concept and the context, I believe, in which this came up, was the concept that the president would like to move to a merit-based system. He would like to not and no longer look at quotas from countries LEAHY: And then, did he use what would be considered vulgar language referring to certain countries? DHS-OO1-6335-001032 NIELSEN: The president used tough language in general, as did other Congressmen in the room. Yes, sir. LEAHY: The others aren?t the president. You imply the president was articulating support for a merit? based immigration system like those in Australia or Canada. When he downgraded Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, a country where we are trying to have some ability to match China and others, in in?uence, he didn't say it was because we needed more students or skilled workers. He said, he wanted more people from Norway. Being from Norway is not a skill, and with the standard of living in Norway better than ours, you're not going to have too many people from there. What does he mean when he says he wants more immigrants from Norway? NIELSEN: I don't believe he said that speci?cally. What he was saying was, he was using Norway as an example of a country that is -- what he was speci?cally referring to is, the prime minister telling him that the people of Norway work very hard. And so, what he was referencing is, from a merit- based perspective, we?d like to have those with skills who can assimilate and contribute to the United States, moving away from country quotas and to an individual merit-based system. LEAHY: Norway is a predominantly white country, isn?t it? NIELSEN: I actually do not know that, sir, but I imagine that is the case. LEAHY: Now, the Obama administration focused its limited enforcement resources and everybody would have to admit -- enforcement -- the ability for enforcement is limited. You can?t hit every single thing. NIELSEN: That's correct. LEAHY: He -- the Obama administration focused on those who posed public safety threats. President Trump has expanded those. Now, he has those who could be charged with a crime are a priority. DHS-OO1-6335-001033 That means, millions of undocumented immigrants are subject to removal. They are a priority for removal. One of the things I learned as a prosecutor if everyone is a priority; nobody is a priority, because you can?t do them all. In Texas, border patrol agents detained a 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy on the way to a hospital for surgery; one hell of a threat she was. In Ohio, the father and sole caregiver of a six-year?old paraplegic boy is facing deportation. Just yesterday, in Michigan, a man brought to this country at the age of 10 was deported after living here for over 30 years torn away from his wife and children who are U.S. citizens. He has never committed a crime and he pays his taxes every year. Now, that?s how we?re using our limited?enforcement resources? Is it to strike fear in the hearts of everybody -- whether they've done something wrong or not, or they tell them they can be targeted at anytime? I'm sure that 10-year-old girl with cerebral palsy is scared. NIELSEN: Sir, first of all, I am not sure we would agree on the facts of that Texas case, but we're happy to meet with you LEAHY: Fine. Submit the facts. NIELSEN: I?m sorry'? LEAHY: Submit the facts under oath. NIELSEN: She was not detained. We actually helped her and escorted her to the hospital and then turned her over to HHS. But to your larger question, what we focus on in terms of enforcement priorities are those who have committed crimes and those with ?nal orders of removal. Our statistics show that that is, in fact, what we're doing. Last year, 92% of those that were arrested and taken into custody by ICE were criminals. So, I understand that there will always be exceptions. There's a lot of misunderstandings in the press. I?d be happy to work with you at any time if there is a case of concern to make sure that we understand. LEAHY: DHS-OO1-6335-001034 On that we do ask questions of your department and on occasion -- on occasion we've gotten answers. Let's try to get answers to all of them. Now, you know the president says he wants to build a big, beautiful wall, have Mexico pay for it. The president has promised Mexico would pay for it. Have we opened an account that Mexico can put the money in to pay for it? I'm sure the president wouldn?t make that promise and not tell the truth. What arrangements do we have with Mexico to pay for it? NIELSEN: Sir, as the Secretary of Homeland Security what I?m concerned about is getting the LEAHY: Do you know whether we have arrangements with Mexico to pay for it? NIELSEN: I know that we have arrangements with Mexico to secure our border. LEAHY: Do we have arrangements with them to pay for the wall, as President Trump promised the American people they would do? That?s an easy answer; yes or no. NIELSEN: I am not aware. I don't know what you mean by arrangement. We have a lot of agreements with them to increase border security. LEAHY: Are any of them to pay for a wall'? NIELSEN: How do you mean, pay, sir? Do you mean through fees? Do you mean through -- there's a variety of ways. LEAHY: Well, usually when something is paid for you pay for it with money. NIELSEN: I understand that. But I'm saying there are many ways to do that and collect that. LEAHY: DHS-OO1-6335-001035 Are they paying for a wall? Are they paying for a wall? NIELSEN: My priority is to increase border security and to build that wall, that will work. That's my priority, sir. That's what I'm focused on. LEAHY: Well, let's then talk about that. CBP estimates that building a wall will result in taking land from 900 ranchers and other landowners in two Texas counties alone that's just two counties. And I'll insert that letter, Chairman, if I might, in the record. GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. LEAHY: And what is your estimate of the number of eminent domain cases against ranchers and other American land owners that would be required in order to build a wall'? NIELSEN: Sir, the initial wall that we are building right now, as you know for this year, is replacement wall. I couldn't possibly give you how many people will decide in the future to have an issue with eminent domain. LEAHY: Well, if you build a wall on the U.S. side of the border you have to create a no man's land between the wall and the Rio Grande River. How many acres of American land do we have to cede to Mexico to do that? NIELSEN: What we'll have to do is look at the terrain, the traf?c, the accessibility -- and you're right, we have to tailor the solutions for each part of the border to make sure that we don't have to do anything that's unnecessary. Whether that's additional land LEAHY: If we don't have an agreement with Mexico many say, a wall is last century's technology, with that $18 billion, how many more CBP agents could you hire or TSA screeners to shorten lines at our airports which have become ridiculous in some places, or how many Coast Guard cutters could you build in order to rescue those at sea, interdict drugs and protect our ports? DHS-OO1-6335-001036 NIELSEN: Sir, all I can tell you is that walls work. We have examples of that. We have documented data. And I don?t know about anyone saying it?s last generation's technology. 2006, as you know, we had a bipartisan agreement in the Secure Fence Act which Senators Obama, Clinton and Schumer all voted for so, I disagree that it's last generation's, last century?s technology. LEAHY: And parts of that wall was built. NIELSEN: Parts of it were built. LEAHY: (Inaudible) to do it. We're talking about a wall the length of our country. NIELSEN: We?re not. The president has made that clear. LEAHY: I?m not going to play back a lot of his campaign speeches to you about a wall -- a great big, beautiful wall the length of our southern border, paid for by Mexico. I've heard a lot of promises in my decades here. I'm waiting to see this one fulfilled. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time. GRASSLEY: I think, since you were at the same meeting I was at Tuesday, the president said 700 miles of additional wall. NIELSEN: 722. Yes, sir. Initial down payment. GRASSLEY: Senator Cornyn? CORNYN: DHS-OO1-6335-001037 Thank you, Madam Secretary, for your willingness to take on what is probably one of the most dif?cult jobs in the United States government and that is the leadership of the Department of Homeland Security, but it's also one of the most important jobs in the US. government. CORNYN: I want to continue the line of questioning from my -- send from -- friend from Vermont about the border security. It's no surprise to you that I come from a state that has 1,200 miles of common border with Mexico, and what we're talking about is what measures are going to be put into place to provide that border security, which my constituents all want. They want security. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. CORNYN: And so I have been struck by your use of the phrase "wall system" and just want to explore with you a little bit what you mean by that. One of the people that I've taken advice from is Rio Grande Valley Border Sector Chief Manny Padilla, who I believe you were with recently, who has told me that, in his vast experience in -- with the Border Patrol, that border security's composed of three elements. He said in?astructure?s important. You can call it a secure fence, as we did in 2006. You can call it a wall, as the president does from time to time. But it includes not only that infrastructure, but also technology and, of course, the Border Patrol agents to be able to respond to sensors when they get -- when they go off, or radar and the like. Is that what you mean when you talk about a wall system, some con?guration of those three components -- infrastructure, technology and personnel? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. The president has asked us, as you know, to look at operational control of the border. The wall system, therefore, is infrastructure, as you describe, technology, personnel and, I would add, it?s also closing those loopholes so that we can remove those we interdict. But, in general, we look at four main mission sets. So we look at impedance and denial, which is partly granted through that infrastructure. We look at domain awareness, which are the sensors, the cameras, et cetera. We look at access and -- access and mobility, so that the Border Patrol agents can respond to threats. And then we look at mission readiness, which is having that personnel that we need to be able to do the job. CORNYN: Because of because of the impact to local communities in in Texas and elsewhere along the border, do you have any objection to consulting with local stakeholders as they try to come up with, perhaps, innovative solutions to deal with the border security challenge? DHS-OO1-6335-001038 NIELSEN: It's an open invitation. The only way that we will be able to protect the border is by working with both state and local of?cials, as well as those land owners in private sector, so absolutely. CORNYN: I was at the Rio Grande -- in the Rio Grande Valley on Friday and Saturday and Sunday, hunting the ever-elusive wild Texas quail. And I did happen to go over to the -- to a wildlife sanctuary on Friday, which is a unique tourist attraction, and one that's located within several hundred yards of the Texas border. What I?m told there is that the smugglers, the transnational criminal organizations you alluded to before, do see that as a vulnerability. And so obviously we need to meet that challenge. And I know that Chief Padilla and others are working hard to do that. But we also need to be sensitive to the concerns, I think, that the local community has about a huge economic element there, and something that -- we enteltain a lot of folks from up north they call, affectionately, snowbirds down there. When it's cold up north, they come down south, and they?re great. It's great for them. It's great for the economy. It's great for jobs. So that would be one example of a -- of a need to work collaboratively with the local community and local stakeholders, as well as state and local of?cials, to come up with the right solution. CORNYN: I remember, a few years back, in Hidalgo, Texas -- Hidalgo County, Texas, using that same local stakeholder input approach, we were able to come up with a win-win proposition. You're familiar with the levee wall. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. CORNYN: There was obviously a need to improve the levee system down there and protect property values and to make ?ood insurance affordable. But, in consultation -- I remember J.D. Salinas, who was the -- who was the county judge in Hidalgo, Texas -- they put a bond election on the -- on the ballot, and came up with a dual-use system, which actually provided that levee improvement, but also provided a wall in critical areas that the Border Patrol -- that they said they needed in order to slow down the ?ow of illegal immigration and drug traf?cking and the like. So that's just one example of what I consider a win-win proposition and where one size does not fit all. So I appreciate your willingness to work with all of us to come up with those kind of win? win situations, where possible. DHS-OO1-6335-001039 Chief Padilla told me that the majority of people who are coming across the border and who are detained in the Rio Grande Valley sector are from Central America. I can?t remember the exact percentage, but it?s a high percentage, as you know. And what these traf?ckers are doing is exploiting, as you point out, a vulnerability in our system. We passed the Traf?cking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act years ago, in order to protect children from human traf?cking. It?s a highly worthy cause. NIELSEN: Agree. CORNYN: But the traf?ckers have now ?gured out that -- since children who come from Central America are treated differently than other people who enter the country illegally, they have found a way to exploit it. And I believe you mentioned that 90 percent of them who were noti?ed of a future court hearing on their claim for asylum, for example, never show up. And that?s a real glitch. But I know there's been some attention paid not enough attention paid, in my view -- to the threat of criminal gangs that exploit this vulnerability, as well. I was told by Chief Padilla, again, that they?re -- they have gang members as young as 12 years old, and of course, from 12 to 17, you?d still qualify as a minor. And let me ask, if border patrol identi?es, by the tattoos or other signs on a -- on a -- somebody under 18, that they are likely a member of a criminal gang, are they permitted to detain them? Or are they required to treat them same way they would every other minor child, and place them with a sponsor, ultimately, and -- only to have them never show back up for their court hearing in the future? Are criminal gang members who happen to be minors treated any differently? NIELSEN: Unfortunately, no. We have to treat them the same. We do, if we have that information, provide it to HHS, when -- of course, they have them once we turn them over to HHS. But no, sir, it is a problem. We need to look at removability in general, to make sure that we can address this gang problem. We see gangs all the way up to New York recruiting illegal immigrants and children to come across the border for the purposes of joining MS-13. CORNYN: I know, when we talk about unaccompanied children, people think about very young NIELSEN: Small (CROSSTALK) CORNYN: DHS-OO1-6335-001040 children of tender age. They don't think about a 17-year-old member of a criminal gang like MS-13, which is exploiting this very same vulnerability. I have every con?dence that you and the Trump administration is going to do what you say you?re going to do, when it comes to border security. And it?s -- I believe it's our responsibility as members of Congress to provide you the resources and tools and to make the appropriate changes in the law so that you can do what needs to be done. I know there have been requirements for border assessments in the past, but do you have any objection to Congress, perhaps as part of this negotiated border security part of the DACA ?x so-called -- mandating that the department come up with a plan that would provide for 100 percent situational awareness and operational control of the border? NIELSEN: No, sir, I don't. I would encourage if you haven't had the opportunity to look at the border security investment plan that we recently provided, there's some detail in there. But, yes, on domain (ph) awareness, which is one of those four missions I mentioned, absolutely. CORNYN: Well, I think it would be important to put that in the law, because, of course, when administrations change, different administrations have different priorities in terms of border security and the like. And I?d like to make sure that the focus of this administration remains part of the congressional mandate and the law, and so would look forward to working with you on that. I know that there's been some discussion of the DACA population, and certainly I, together with my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, want to find a solution for these young adults who came here as minor children and, through no fault of their own, ?nd themselves in a dead end. I do know that there was a court decision which created some con?Jsion the other day, and it would -- it strikes me as wildly wrong to say that President Obama can create a program, and that President Trump cannot end it, because of -- certainly the executive authority would seem to be the same. But do you -- can you tell us about the plans of the administration to appeal that, or otherwise how you plan to address it? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. Of course, the -- as the Department of Homeland Security, we defer to the Department of Justice, who, as you know, are looking at a variety of ways in which to respond to that. What I can tell you is DHS is complying with the court order. We have begun to accept renewals for DACA. We are treating the program as pre-September of last year. So, if you are a current DACA recipient, you can currently reapply, while we?re pending this court action. DHS-001-6335-001041 GRASSLEY: Senator Durbin. DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ask questions of the secretary, I'd like to ask the indulgence of the committee to introduce two guests that I have brought here today. Alejandra Duran Arriola is a second-year student at Loyola University School of Medicine in Chicago. Alejandra, would you please stand? Alejandra grew up in Savannah, Georgia. In addition to medical school, she volunteers at a clinic, educating uninsured patients about disease prevention. Her dream is to become an working in underserved communities. She is protected by DACA. Thank you very much, Alejandra, for being here. Her future is in doubt. Without the protection of DACA, she does not have a legal permission to work in America. You cannot become a doctor without a residency. A residency is a job. If DACA is eliminated and her protection is eliminated and her right to work is eliminated, then her future as a doctor is in doubt. John Ma gdaleno, would you please stand? John came from Venezuela at the age of nine. In high school, he was the commander of the air honor society and Junior ROTC. He graduated from Georgia Tech, one of the best engineering schools in America, with a degree in chemical and biomolecular engineering with the highest honors. He now works as a chemical engineer. His dream is to serve in the United States military. John, thanks for being here. DURBTN: That's what this debate is all about. That's what DACA is all about. There's been a lot of talk about terrorists and threats to America. We stand as one; not as Democrats or Republican, but as one in saying, "Let's keep America safe," but, for goodness' sake, not at the expense of young people like the two I just introduced. That is what this conversation and debate is all about. Madam Secretary, I hope you remember me. We were together at two meetings last week. I would like to ask you about one of those meetings. It occurred about noon on January the 11th. You were a few minutes late, I know, and asked forgiveness, but you were called at the last minute to come and attend. Somethings were said at that meeting which I believe we have to address today. People across the United States and around the world want to know what this president believes should be our priorities when it comes to immigration. DHS-OO1-6335-001042 I?m going to ask you, as best you can, to recall what you heard the president say, when it came to those priorities. What do you remember the president saying about immigration from African countries to the United States? NIELSEN: What I heard him saying was that he?d like to move away from a country-based quota system to a merit-based system, so it shouldn't matter where you?re from, it should matter what you can contribute to the United States. DURBIN: How did he characterize those countries in Africa? NIELSEN: In -- I don't -- I don?t speci?cally remember a category -- categorization of countries in Africa. I think what he was saying is, as far as best I could tell, and as you know, there were about a dozen people in the room. There were a lot of cross conversations. There was a lot of rough talk by a lot of people in the room. But what I understood him to be saying is, let's move away from the countries and let's look at the individual and make sure that those we bring here can contribute to our society. DURBIN: Do you remember the president saying expressly, want more Europeans. Why can't we have more immigrants from Norway?" NIELSEN: I do remember what he -- I do remember him asking about the concept of underrepresented countries as a fix. This was in the conversation about removing the diversity lottery, and how we could reallocate that. And I do remember him asking if we do that, and we then assign those two countries that are unrepresented, aren't we just continuing non-merit based immigration? So from that perspective, I think he did ask, would that cover European countries, or by its nature, would that mean that we are further establishing immigration to purposefully exclude Europeans? DURBIN: What did the president say about immigrants from Norway? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001043 I heard him repeating what he had learned in a meeting before, that they are industrious, that they are a hard working country. They don't have much crime there. They don't have much debt. I think, in general, I just heard him giving compliments to Norway. DURBIN: You said on Fox News that the president used strong language. What was that strong language? NIELSEN: Let's see, strong language, there was I apologies, I don't remember a speci?c word. ?Nhat I was struck with, frankly, as I?m sure you were as well, was just the general profanity that was used in the room by almost everyone. DURBIN: Did you hear me use profanity? NIELSEN: No, sir. Neither did I. DURBIN: Did you hear Senator Graham use profanity? NIELSEN: I did hear tough language from Senator Graham. Yes, sir. DURBIN: What did he say? NIELSEN: He used tough language. He was impassioned. I think he was feeling very strongly about the issue, as was everyone in the room. And to underscore a point, I think he was using some strong language. DURBIN: Do you recall that the strong language he used repeated exactly what the president had said prior to that? NIELSEN: I remember specific cuss words being used by a variety of members. DHS-OO1-6335-001044 DURBIN: I?m not going to ask you to say those words here. But I will just say for the record, Senator Graham spoke up in a way that I respect very much, countering what the president had said about countries in Africa, reminding the president that his family did not come to America with great skills or wealth, but they came here as most families do; looking for a chance to prove themselves and make this a better nation. In the defense of Senator Graham, his strong words repeated exactly the words used by the president, which you cannot remember. Let me ask you another NIELSEN: If I just could, sir, I -- I do want to say that I greatly appreciate not only Senator Graham?s leadership, but yours as well. I know you're both very passionate about this. As you know, afterwards I approached you and asked that I'm happy to come talk to you anytime to try to work on this deal. I do think that Senator Graham very impassionately described what he believed America is about, and what we should move towards. Yes, I agree with that. DURBIN: Do you suppon a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and those who were in the DREAM Act? NIELSEN: I think we have to find a permanent solution, yes, sir. DURBIN: I hate that phrase, permanent solution. Do you support a path to citizenship? NIELSEN: I believe, that as part of the discussion, and to make sure that we don?t continue temporary populations that continue to exist, we should talk about that. I?m not here to get in front of the president or any ?nal decisions on that particular issue, but yes, I?m happy to discuss it. DURBIN: Do you recall the president saying that he wanted $20 billion now, and he would build this wall within one year? DHS-OO1-6335-001045 NIELSEN: I do remember him saying that. He was concerned that given the appropriations cycle, that any deal that we made now would be limited to this year's appropriation. I remember him asking, is there a way to authorize the full down payment of the wall, such that we could have assurances that we could in fact build it. DURBIN: So, let's take a look at what your department has done, when it comes to building walls. As of December 6th, 2017, less than 1 percent of the $341 million appropriated for 40 miles of replacement funding had been expended. Actual construction has yet to begin on money appropriated in the last ?scal year. So, is the president realistic when he says he wants $20 billion so he can build the wall in one year? NIELSEN: I think the president is encouraging us to go as quickly as we can. As you know, it's a very complicated issue, building the wall, for a whole variety of a whole variety of reasons. What we?re doing right now is we are testing and evaluating those prototypes, and will continue to determine that not only the design, but what's best per some of the other Senators' comments, for any particular part of the border, because it will be different. We need a full tool kit. DURBIN: Madam Secretary, the president made it clear in that meeting that one of the conditions for his assent, or agreement to protect DACA was $20 billion, so he could build this wall in one year. The fate of John and Alejandra lies in the balance here. The president is insisting on something that is physically, legally impossible as a condition for him to give them a chance to be here in the United States legally. Now, you?ve seen, because you commented on it on Fox News, the proposal, which Senator Graham and I, as well as four other Senators have made on a bipartisan basis. And you've rejected it. You said at one point, I believe, that -- let me see if I can quote here, "There's nothing in there that would prevent us from getting here again." Are you aware of the fact that included in this proposal is the entire request of the administration for border security in this ?scal year, $1.6 billion for walls and barriers and fences, and another billion dollars for technology, exactly what you asked for? If you don't believe this is going to solve the problem, which is what you said on Fox News, why did the administration request it in the first place? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001046 Well, sir, that's not all we requested, as you know. We also requested to close the loopholes that serve as the pull factors that continue to exacerbate the problem. I cannot apprehend if I cannot remove. That's not border security. DURBIN: Let me let me add: the ?rst meeting we had last week, we agreed, and the president agreed there would be two phases to this conversation. The ?rst, immediately, to deal with the DACA challenge and the three other elements the president NIELSEN: Including border security, sir. DURBIN: including border security, every penny that you asked for. And then the president said, phase 2 goes into comprehensive immigration reform; many of the issues which you described as must- haves. We understand that. To put the entire burden of immigration reform on the shoulders of these DACA recipients is fundamentally unfair, not practical, and jeopardizes their future and their lives. What we?re trying to do is an honest, bipartisan approach to deal with the ?rst phase of this and you have rejected it. NIELSEN: I thank you for your passion. I hope you understand mine. I cannot agree to a deal that does not give the tools and resources to the men and women of Department of Homeland Security to do the job you?ve asked them to do. DURBIN: We gave you every penny you asked for. NIELSEN: Sir, it's not the pennies. DURBIN: No NIELSEN: It's closing the loopholes. DHS-OO1-6335-001047 DURBIN: Then can we cut back on some of this money'? Because we could sure use it. NIELSEN: We need the wall too. The wall works, as you know. It's part of border security. DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator Tillis?? TILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I'm glad I missed that meeting the latter part of the week, but I really enjoyed and thought it was productive, the meeting we had, you were in the room with a couple of dozen of us, and I'm deeply disappointed that we can't get people to think reasonably about this and bridge the gap. I don't necessarily think it's that wide now, if we just sit down and lower the temperatures. What's the distance between the Paci?c Ocean and the Gulf Coast, the total miles of border? NIELSEN: DHS looked at over 2,000 miles for purposes of assessing where we need a wall. TILLIS: OK, but geographically it's even a bit more than NIELSEN: It is. Yes, sir. TILLIS: around 2,300? NIELSEN: Yes. DHS-OO1-6335-001048 TILLIS: When your full plan for the border security is implemented, how much of that will be in a wall, versus fences or other structures? NIELSEN: So, there's three different infrastructures we talk about. There?s a primary wall, there?s a secondary wall, and then, in some cases, there's infrastructure in the form of access roads or the mobility piece of the mission. But the current down payment request is 722 miles. So that's replacement and secondary and new wall. TILLIS: 0K. When this is fully built out, would you ever envision -- I think the president said in the meeting twice in front of the press, and then once or twice after the press left the room, that he's dispensed with the notion of this large, monolithic, one-size-fits?all wall, right? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. TILLIS: So, I don't know why people would go back to campaign discussions. You know, both parties tend to have a little bit of ?ourish when they're on the stump. But it seems to me, the president has came here, he's listened to the people who are down at the border, and has determined that the department has a good idea that involves people, technology and infrastructure. So it would be fair to say in the face of the direct comments and the data now from the department, it would just be disingenuous to suggest that anybody is proposing a large, monolithic wall? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. That would be disingenuous. TILLIS: Yes. Now let's talk about the pull factor. Because, I think, if you learn nothing else from the amnesty of 1986, you learn, if you don't address the pull factor, that all you've done with amnesty is invite a lot more people in, waiting for the next amnesty. ?That?s been your experience since we've started talking about DACA, in terms of border crossings over the past few months? NIELSEN: Well, in general, we have to reduce those pull factors, as you say. And some of those pull factors are of the loopholes. Again, I just cannot stress it DHS-OO1-6335-001049 TILLIS: Once they get here, it's hard for them to go. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. And even those that we interdict, apprehend, takes over two years to get them through the system when they have a removable offense to begin with. TILLIS: So what's our batting average, then, on actually removing when somebody gets into the system? It's got to be fairly low. NIELSEN: It's fairly low, yes, sir. I can get you an exact ?gure TILLIS: The -- in border security, do you all -- or this may be over in justice, take a look at how dangerous the the communities are as a result of the Senator Comyn mentioned gang members. Is it true, or is there data to suggest, that many of the dangerous people that cross the border, the majority aren?t? But the dangerous ones find themselves in the very Hispanic communities after they cross the border, making them less safe, than say, my community? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. And in fact, I think when I went to the Rio Grande Valley, which was the area that Senator Cornyn was reviewing, we were talking about the rip crews, if you will. So those are those that are part of a TCO that are raiding a house where they believe weapons or drugs are stashed, where they might have prepositioned them. TILLIS: I?ve been to one. NIELSEN: But on both sides of the border, so without that wall, the rip crews go back and forth, back and forth. It's a danger to the Mexican side, it's a danger to our side as well. TILLIS: We were in Laredo, Senator Comyn led a CODEL down to the border and we were in various places. Laredo was one that stuck in my mind, because a couple of weeks earlier, border patrol DHS-OO1-6335-001050 agents who were in a helicopter were shot at. They actually had the door with a hole in it in the brie?ng room. Would you characterize, I mean, a lot of people think the Rio Grande is wide and deep. It's actually relatively narrow and shallow. So much so that they've got low draft or no draft boats to get to many places because you can walk across it. So you're 40, 50 yards away. How would you characterize Nuevo Laredo in terms of safety and security? NIELSEN: I wouldn?t be able to tell you speci?cally Laredo compared to others, but what I can tell you is, very unfortunately, the occurrences of attacks and violence against my agents has increased 63 percent. I'm working very closely with the Department of Justice and the attorney general. We will prosecute. This has got to stop. I will not continue to put my folks in danger. TILLIS: It's very dangerous and it?s very porous. And crossings happen frequently when you go down the Rio Grande. You see the spotters out there, they know when border patrol's coming, they retreat and then they come back into it. It?s very dangerous. It seems odd to me that someone would not support providing you all the tools you need to keep our border patrol safe, but keep those communities safe. There are bad people crossing the border probably daily. And until we get serious about border security, we're going to continue to make this country less safe and the Hispanic communities less safe. I -- I wanted to ask a little bit about -- ?rst off, I also want to welcome Alejandra and John, thank you all for being here and standing up. I actually want a solution for DACA. I actually want people to start acting reasonable instead of creating ad hoc gains and trying to get something done that?s simply not going to get done. And I think at the root of it is the president is passionate about securing this nation, as he should be. And we need to get people in the room and actually solve the problem. The proposal that you were presented with that was rejected later in the week, tell me what the major de?ciencies were, in your mind, that particularly as compared to what we seemed to have the four pillars ironed out where we're going to negotiate those, where would the gaps between what you envisioned would occur as a result of that meeting and what you were presented with on Thursday? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. And just to be clear, I do not have any written proposal emanating from that meeting. So I received part of the brie?ng in that meeting, my staff has, in good faith, continued to work with staff over -- since that TILLIS: What were the major deficiencies though? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001051 The major de?ciencies were the concept that border security is, in and of itself, only the wall and only when you're funding of the wall. And I would add, through those staff conversations, what I've also learned is that that bill then goes further and removes my ability to actually build a wall because it prohibits the use of any current technology, whether that be the prototypes that we're looking at or whether that be current technology that we have on the border. That doesn't even make any sense. That means I can't build a TILLIS: So that's the authority that you have to have? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. TILLIS: And the other the other issue, when it's it's also not completely accurate to say that we've provided all the funding you wanted. I mean, they -- we have addressed the -- the administration's request for the budget for the next ?scal year. NIELSEN: For one year. Yes, sir. TILLIS: But we are not looking at what you need longer term, at least in terms of authorizations. And this ?ts into a whole raft of authorizations that you want, to immediately start securing the border, but also try to dampen the pull factors along the way. Those are authorities that you think are critically important to securing the border, is that correct? NIELSEN: Yes. Absolutely. TILLIS: On the people's side of things, the People Technology Infrastructure, PTI as they refer to in our brie?ngs down there, what do you really need for people? Because there are some people saying we got $1.8 billion, by the way, it is just a single appropriation is not recurring multiyear appropriation, so you can't go out and hire a lot of people and hope that you have the funding to pay them a year out. But what do you really need in terms of the people component? We haven't talked that much about it. We talked about the infrastructure and some billion dollars that you need for, I think, DHS-OO1-6335-001052 compliance or enforcement, but on the people side of things, what more and we going to get to either immediately or over the next three to ?ve years? NIELSEN: Yes, the president, in his executive order, indicated 10,000 agents 8000 border patrol. We need another thousand about lawyers. Of course, we need some additional immigration judges that we can process. We need to look at hiring and we're doing that at DHS. How can we more quickly hire, how can we retain, what additional authorities might we need, if any. We?re looking very carefully at that and I'd like to come back with you if there?s any that we need. TILLIS: And, on the technology front, one of the things that I was struck by in Laredo was the enormous number of successful crossings that included illicit drugs. I know there?s estimates from 10 to 25 percent in terms of seizing what's coming across the borders. So, that really means that there are millions of doses of poison, whether it is heroin heroin, methamphetamine, run down the list that's coming in this country every day across the legal ports of entry. Is that correct? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. TILLIS: And how much of your border plan is to increase and I know through technology they're talking about things that can increase throughput so that you can actually search more vehicles or have insights into what's in them. How much of the plan is really focused on accelerating that so we can try and get ahead of the narco-terrorism that comes across our border every day? NIELSEN: The plan itself addresses all the major threats. So that?s TCOs in general, if you will, which of course are not only, unfortunately, the illicit trafficking of drugs as you say, but also people. But it's also any other kind of threat that might come across. We talked about the numbers today from our report that show, unfortunately, we need to do more screening and vetting to ensure that terrorists also don't come into our country. TILLIS: We need to do a lot more. And I, for one, think that we have to have a balanced proposal, a compromise, that solves and addresses the DACA problem in a compassion sustainable way, but we also have to understand we need to be compassionate in terms of the threat to our community DHS-OO1-6335-001053 and to our homeland by not securing the border, to the threat to the people who come across the border who are dying. NIELSEN: That's right. TILLIS: Ten thousand over the last 20 years. Who knows how many thousands died trying? We need to end the exploitation, we need to end the human traf?cking, we need to end the narco-terrorism that?s coming across this border and you can only do that when people lower the temperatures and recognized that securing the border is an absolutely appropriate request as we?re solving the DACA problem. It?s balanced and it's going to make it less likely that we?re going to have an uncertain population 10 or 12 years from now, coming back and revisiting DACA when we get this right. Thank you for being here and thank you for your service. GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse? WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for being with us today. Cybersecurity is an area in which your department has very considerable responsibilities, correct? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. WHITEHOUSE: Do you believe that there is any effort required by Congress to address our cybersecurity gaps, at this point?' NIELSEN: As you know, we have a variety of conversations about reorganizing the NPPD, where cyber is. First is starting with the name. It really is WHITEHOUSE: I mean, something a little more signi?cant than changing the DHS-OO1-6335-001054 NIELSEN: Yes, but I just if I can pause on that really -- if I WHITEHOUSE: Is there anything else you think we should be doing other than changing names and bureaucratic structures? NIELSEN: It's not bureaucratic structure, sir. Nobody knows what they do. Do you know what NPPD is? Nobody does. That's the point. So we need to make it clear that cybersecurity is within the Department of Homeland Security. The name change is important so that our stakeholders know that. OK. So, what else? WHITEHOUSE: Changing the name is important. NIELSEN: What we need to do WHITEHOUSE: Is there anything else important? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. What we need to do is we need to look at additional ways that we can share information, that we can use information that we gain from our Intel WHITEHOUSE: And Congress should be allowing that? NIELSEN: Congress should allow that in appropriate circumstances. Yes, sir. WHITEHOUSE: What do you speci?cally request of Congress? I am trying to ?gure out what the legislative agenda of your department is in Congress, with respect to cyber. Is there a speci?c proposal that you have in writing, any place, that we could see that we could consider with respect to having hearings and trying to augment whatever authorities you need'? DHS-OO1-6335-001055 NIELSEN: Sure. We have multiple technical assistance that we've provided to a variety of bills, but we're happy to sit down with you and WHITEHOUSE: But is there an actual proposal? Technical assistance is something the departments do in response to legislative proposals from Congress to try to amend legislation that we've proposed to make it work effectively in your system. It's not -- I don?t think, in my view, properly characterized as a proposal by the executive branch. I'm trying to ?nd out what the executive branch is proposing to us. NIELSEN: We do not have a separate proposal. No, sir. WHITEHOUSE: OK. I would actually urge that you consider it. I think there is bipartisan interest. I think cyber is a real issue and I think the silence from the administration, with respect to legislative recommendations, is deafening right now. You also participate in the so?called NIST Framework for protecting critical infrastructure, correct? NIELSEN: Yes. WHITEHOUSE: What is your view of the adequacy of the security for our electric grid that is presently provided by the NIST Framework?I NIELSEN: So, the NIST Framework, as you know, in conjunction with a variety of protocols and guidance provided by the Department of Energy encourages those owners and operators of electric utilities to take a variety of measures. We need WHITEHOUSE: And with respect to guaranteeing an American that their electric service is secure from cyber attack, how con?dently can you assert to us that the NIST Framework does that job? NIELSEN: The NIST Framework is voluntary. DHS-OO1-6335-001056 WHITEHOUSE: In other words? NIELSEN: In other words, we need to continue to do more. We need to update it. We need to keep up with the threat. The threats continue to evolve. WHITEHOUSE: And what would make it more than involuntary -- more than voluntary? What would make it mandatory? What would get what are you looking for to go beyond voluntary with respect to the NIST Framework? NIELSEN: I think voluntary works. but what I'm suggesting is I will never be able to sit here and guarantee that we have full security. WHITEHOUSE: When I asked you if security was adequate due to the NIST Framework your answer to me was. it's voluntary. NIELSEN: It is. Yes, sir. So we need to continue WHITEHOUSE: . . . matters. NIELSEN: We need to continue to update it and make sure that we're addressing the threats of today and not the threats of six years ago when we ?rst started looking at the NIST Framework. WHITEHOUSE: So do you think that the NIST Framework, on its own, without any legislation from Congress, is adequate for Americans to rely on security in the electric grid from cyber attack? NIELSEN: It needs to be updated. DHS-OO1-6335-001057 WHITEHOUSE: OK. And, does it need to be updated with help from Congress or is it something that you?re going to do to update it on your own? NIELSEN: I believe it's something NIST is doing under its own authority and direction from Congress to do. But the United States -- the Department of Homeland Security is a strong partner with them. WHITEHOUSE: Yes. NIELSEN: with industries. So, we will continue to provide them with guidance and support. WHITEHOUSE: I?ll make it a question for the record, but I?d love to know what exact guidance the Department of Homeland Security has given NIST, with respect to these updates that you recognize are required. And if there is any legislative effort that you think is required to support or to supplement the NIST framework, I would like to have that. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. WHITEHOUSE: I?ll make that a question for the record, also, if I may. I don?t think it?s an unfair question. Do you? NIELSEN: I do not. Cybersecurity is a huge and emerging issue. DHS continues to expand under the authorities that we have, working both with international partners, as well as industry. And, yes, sir, I think it is worth further discussing. WHITEHOUSE: Good. Election interference, does the Department of Homeland Security have a role in election interference? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001058 We are looking at the cybersecurity of election systems upon requests of states, as you know. So we have 11 states right now where we are conducting risk and vulnerability assessments at their requests. And we have prepared for any other requests from the 50 states and will ensure that it occurs upon request before the next election cycle. WHITEHOUSE: Was there Russian election interference in the 2016 elections? And can we anticipate further Russian and foreign election interference in the 2018 election? NIELSEN: I believe that Russia, in general, will continue to try to test our systems and where they can extract information and, perhaps, disrupt, they will. WHITEHOUSE: So yes and yes. NIELSEN: Yes, there was interference. To my knowledge, no votes were changed. WHITEHOUSE: And in 2018 do you expect them to come at it again? NIELSEN: In 2018, I think we can expect a variety of actors to test our systems. Yes, sir. WHITEHOUSE: And what steps do you recommend or are you taking to protect the 2018 elections from that continued interference? NIELSEN: So the first is the risk and vulnerability assessments that we?re offering. We're working within our national infrastructure protection plan framework to provide guidance to help states and WHITEHOUSE: That was the guidance to the 21 states that there?s actually been technical hacking of their election machinery? DHS-OO1-6335-001059 NIELSEN: That wasn?t guidance, that was a noti?cation. So the guidance that I'm talking about is looking at the full system, if you will, of the election cycle. So, going all the way back to supply chain concerns through to the dissemination of votes upon capture. WHITEHOUSE: The reports that have looked at this from places like the Atlantic Council and the CSIS have all reported that the avenues of Russian election interference are not limited to speci?c cyber intrusions. They also involve propagandizing, the propagation of fake news, the creation of phony people, who are actually bots, to drive information efforts to manipulate American companies like Facebook and Google, and so forth. Are you interested in those means of interference as well, or are you limited in your effort to the speci?c cyber intrusion and the potential for actually changing a vote between the machine where it?s cast and the register where it's tallied? NIELSEN: We are working on our core mission which, as you know, is cybersecurity, but yes, we're working with other interagency partners on the broader issue of Russian propaganda as you called it, but Russian insertion WHITEHOUSE: Do you have a better name for it? NIELSEN: No. That's what it is. WHITEHOUSE: OK. Do you have any legislative proposals related to election interference with -- and that would help us protect our 2018 elections from continued interference? NIELSEN: I do not believe that, at least from a DHS perspective at this time, that we need any additional authority in that area. But we'll be sure to follow up with you. WHITEHOUSE: OK. So you're comfortable that you can protect America from having Russians or other foreign actors interfere in all of the ways that I mentioned from our 2018 elections? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001060 No. sir. That's not what I said. WHITEHOUSE: Well then why would you not need additional either resources or authorities in order to address the problem if you can't do it with what you have now? NIELSEN: Because, as you know, DHS does not play that role. That is a state and local role to ensure the integrity of their election systems. We are providing support and guidance and will continue to do so. WHITEHOUSE: OK. So you are testifying that the United States Department of Homeland Security has no role in protecting the country NIELSEN: Sir, that's not what I said. I said, we?re providing guidance and WHITEHOUSE: You said it was a state role. NIELSEN: proving risk and vulnerability assessments upon request, but it WHITEHOUSE: To the states. NIELSEN: role and responsibility of a state to ensure its election process. WHITEHOUSE: So. I guess what I?m trying to get clear response of what your interest and -- and concerns are in this area. But it sounds to me as if what you have told us is that you see the Federal role in protecting American elections as subordinate to the role of the states and the role of your department is only to provide guidance and whatever other support you are offering to the NIELSEN: DHS-001-6335-001061 Guidance, support, information sharing, vulnerability and risk assessments. Yes, sir. WHITEHOUSE: And does that include all the other areas of Russian election interference that I addressed beyond just a pure cyber intrusion into the state-run election systems? NIELSEN: We are working with our Federal interagency departments to try to address a broader conversation just as we are with WHITEHOUSE: So there is a Federal role in that? That you?re engaged in with the Federal interagency process not NIELSEN: Discussions. Yes, sir. WHITEHOUSE: And out of that, have there been any legislative recommendations whatsoever from any department to your knowledge NIELSEN: Not to my knowledge on the propaganda, no. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Senator Klobuchar?? KLOBUCHAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up with Senator Whitehouse?s questions as the Ranking on the Rules Committee. Senator Lankfod and I have a bill, along with Senator Harris and Senator Graham, that focuses on getting some resources to the state to better share with Homeland Security. As you know, in 21 states, attempts were made to hack into their election equipment. A lot of the state election of?cials didn?t even know about it for months. And so, the bill requires that kind of information sharing and then also puts in some resources and we've found a way to fund this to DHS-OO1-6335-001062 help states to ramp up their efforts to protect their election equipment with back-up paper ballots with better equipment. Are you aware of this bill? It?s called the Secure Elections Act. NIELSEN: I -- I am aware of the bill and I really look forward to working with you all on it. KLOBUCHAR: And do you think that would be helpful to get some resources to the state to do that? NIELSEN: I think what we hear from the states because it?s a voluntary relationship, is that they are concerned, from their perspective, about resources. So I think looking at ways in which we can support them makes sense to me. KLOBUCHAR: OK. Very good, because a number of the Secretary of States, Democratic and Republican, are coming out for this idea that we start helping, because, to me, it's our fundamentals of our democracy that we have the freedom to vote. Now, when the President disbanded and it is along the same lines, the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, there's a lot of controversy, as you know, about that. He initially called on your department to review the ?ndings of the commission and are you going to be spending DHS time working on this issue? KLOBUCHAR: Given that I don't think it's in your jurisdiction. NIELSEN: Yes ma'am. So, there are parts of it that are -- we covered the cyber security part to be able to ensure the integrity from a cyber security KLOBUCHAR: Agreed. As we just talked NIELSEN: Yes. And then I think the larger question of voter fraud, some of that -- if the ?ndings are such, exist within the Department of Justice, exist with other parts of the federal interagency which we will work with. DHS-001-6335-001063 There is a voluntary system, right now, whereby a state that is concerned -- that those who are not appropriately registered to vote, or who, perhaps, are not even registered to vote, vote. From an immigration perspective, we will work with states to help them determine if voters are in fact not appropriately registered for federal election, but it's voluntary and we do it upon request. KLOBUCHAR: I?m trying to -- do you agree that the department?s jurisdiction over elections though is related to the critical infrastructure designation? NIELSEN: Yes. First and foremost; yes. KLOBUCHAR: OK. But you?re also going to be working on this issue of registrations; is that correct? NIELSEN: We do now. If somebody requests us to run some questionable, in their mind, voters, we're happy to do so. KLOBUCHAR: But you are going to have to focus of the department be on legitimate threats to our election systems? NIELSEN: We are working very closely with the states on the cybersecurity, yes. KLOBUCHAR: OK. So, I'm going to go back to what we were talking about earlier here with DACA and the meeting. AndI really wasn't going to go into this until I listened to the exchange with Senator Durbin who, I believe, has a lot of integrity and I think people on both sides of the aisle would agree with me, as well as Senator Graham. And I was listening to your answers under oath that you did not hear -- and I'm not going to again repeat this word and give it any dignity -- we'll just call it the word, s-hole -- do you know what that word means, then? NIELSEN: I -- I -- yes. KLOBUCHAR: DHS-OO1-6335-001064 OK. So, you testified under oath that you did not hear the president use that word at the meeting; is that correct? NIELSEN: That's correct. KLOBUCHAR: And is it possible he said the word at the meeting and you didn?t hear it? NIELSEN: Anything is possible. Yes, ma'am. KLOBUCHAR: And did you hear him say the word s-house?? NIELSEN: I -- no, I did not. KLOBUCHAR: So, is it possible he also said that word and you didn't hear it? NIELSEN: Again, it's possible. It was a meeting of 12 people; there was crosstalk. I, unfortunately, was not - - the meeting as you know was unscheduled, so last minute, when I was notified, I had to clear my schedule -- I came in a bit late, so anything is possible. I can?t testify to what I don?t know. KLOBUCHAR: OK. I appreciate that. Because words like this matter; do you agree with that? NIELSEN: I do. I also agree that if you can forgive me -- and I won't actually -- other profane words I don't think were appropriate either and they were not used by the president. And I actually was struck more by the fact that the conversation, although passionate and appropriately so, had gotten to a place where many people in the room were using inappropriate language in the Oval Office in front of the president -- that's what struck me. KLOBUCHAR: Was it true that Senator Graham though pushed back DHS-OO1-6335-001065 NIELSEN: Senator Graham gave an impassioned speech on what he believes are the American ideals. Yes, he did do that. KLOBUCHAR: Very good. So, let?s get to that and the matter at hand which is DACA and the DREAM Act and trying to protect 800,000 people who, most of us on this committee agree, came here through no fault of their own. And, right now, we have a situation where an estimated 15,000 young people have lost their DACA status already, leaving these with tremendous uncertainty. Can you give us assurances that the administration is not planning to pursue enforcement actions on young people whose DACA status has expired while the current court order is in effect? NIELSEN: If you are a current DACA register, you are still -- you still have status. No one has lost their status. No one will lose their status until March 5th or later, depending on what happens with the court. KLOBUCHAR: Are there any circumstances under which the administration would remove a DACA bene?ciary from the US. at this time? NIELSEN: At this time, no. Unless they commit a crime. And unfortunately, we?ve had 2100 that have they have lost their status and now they would be targeted for deportation. KLOBUCHAR: Were there any circumstances under which the administration would have removed a DACA bene?ciary from the United States before the recent court issue order was issued? NIELSEN: Not if they appropriately retained their status. Again, if they committed a crime or a national security threat there's always exceptions to that. KLOBUCHAR: On the issue of schools, the University of Minnesota is really concerned about this. I had asked about this at a previous hearing has DHS engaged with universities and institutions of higher education regarding the elimination of DHS-001-6335-001066 NIELSEN: We did in -- I don?t believe that I don?t know and we?ll get back to you -- I don't know if we have in recent months, but as part of the ongoing conversation; absolutely. KLOBUCHAR: OK. Because it falls in the middle of their semester -- a lot of them are in school and I just ask that you look into that because it's a major concern there. The issue of steel dumping we're now moving into an entirely different area. This is something that we worked hard with the -- your predecessors on this issue with the Commerce Department - - and this is illegal steel that's being dumped on our shores. In 2015 we passed legislation to strengthen the tools that custom officials have to ensure that our trading partners in foreign industries are competing fairly. Because there was some change in tariffs, that meant hundreds of people went back to work last year and the year before in my state. What is CBP doing to level the playing field for domestic manufacturers? We had talked before with Secretary Johnson about work being done to look at the shipments that are brought over if they contain illegal steel. NIELSEN: Yes. So, the Department of Homeland Security, through CBP, is working with the Commerce Department, the US. trade representative in the State Department to see what else might be warranted to ensure that not only the law is able to enforce, but that we can identify the illegal or illicit transfer -- the dumping, if you will. So, there's the dumpng that comes here legally, but is dumping because it's under, as you know, the tariffs, but then there's also the illegal shipments. So, we're doing both. KLOBUCHAR: Exactly. I was trying to envision like a perp walk where the ship would be sent away with all the illegal steel. I just think we have to make a point of this -- that we?ve got a situation where this is still going on. I think there?s been some enforcement and we gave some resources for that. So, I think I'll follow-up with NIELSEN: Please do. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. I?ve introduced the Stop Act with Senator Portman to help our customs and border agents crack down on illicit shipments of fentanyl and other dangerous drugs from overseas. Our bill was endorsed by the president?s opioid commission and I'm hopeful that it will advance in the Senate. Will you commit to working with us on this issue? DHS-OO1-6335-001067 NIELSEN: Absolutely. I am a big fan. We've been working very closely with the United States Postal Service to ensure that we can, in fact, implement it upon passage. Was very happy to see the Interdict Act as the beginning of the conversation, but the Stop Act is very important, and I do look forward to working with you and Senator Portman to very quickly pass that. KLOBUCHAR: OK. Another priority is this Conrad 30 bill which addresses physician shortages in rural areas by allowing physicians who were educated in the US. to remain in the US. in exchange for three years of service in an underserved area. That could be an urban hospital. That could mean a rural hospital where we don?t have enough doctors. I wanted to thank Chairman Grassley for working with me on improvements to this critical program. Are you aware of this? And will you commit to working with me on this legislation? It was an issue I had raised with General Kelly when he was in your chair. NIELSEN: I am aware of it. I?d be happy to work with you. NIELSEN: There clearly is a continued demonstrated need in such areas. So let?s find a way to meet it. KLOBUCHAR: OK. And ?nally, last year I was concerned with the USCIS decision to suspend the premium processing for the visas, which included the doctors under this program, who could not begin practicing medicine in these rural areas as scheduled, as a result of the delay. I led a bipartisan letter about this. Do you know if steps have been taken to insure that an additional suspension of premium processing will not take place in the future? NIELSEN: I do not, but I'm happy to get back to you on that. KLOBUCHAR: OK, very good. And then, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to put on the record a editorial that was in our GRASSLEY: Without objections. DHS-OO1-6335-001068 KLOBUCHAR: a Liberian, who came from one of these countries, whose son just graduated from Carleton College, and making the point here, which he does so well, the great addition so many of these immigrants have made to our country. GRASSLEY: That will be so ordered. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Blumenthal?? BLUMENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for being here, Madam Secretary. And I want to join you in thanking the very dedicated men and women who work in the Department of Homeland Security, often at great sacrifice to themselves and at substantial risk. And I've met many of them and I think your pride in their work is very well justi?ed. I am interested in a number of the statistics that you provided. I didn't ?nd them in your testimony. You said that there has been a 30 percent increase in ICE arrests? NIELSEN: A 30 percent that -- well, there?s probably a lot of 30 percents. The one that I mentioned was the 30 percent increase in unaccompanied minors crossing the border between October and December. BLUMENTHAL: Has there been an increase in the number of ICE arrests of NIELSEN: Over last year. Yes, sir. BLUMENTHAL: And what is that? DHS-OO1-6335-001069 NIELSEN: I believe it's around 30 percent. BLUMENTHALI So ICE is arresting more people who are undocumented in this country and would you agree that many of them have no criminal records, because the priorities of the Department of Homeland Security have changed so that there no longer is a priority on individuals with criminal records being arrested? NIELSEN: Actually, sir, that?s not true. The priority remains: those who are criminals, serious criminals, and those who have ?nal orders of removal. Ninety two percent of those removed last year were criminals. So I BLUMENTHALI When you say NIELSEN: Yes. BLUMENTHAL: have criminal convictions NIELSEN: Correct. BLUMENTHAL: felonies? NIELSEN: Yes. BLUMENTHAL: And so that means 8 percent had orders of removal NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001070 Ninety two percent is both -- both together. So the other 8 BLUMENTHAL: So you count someone with an order of removal against him or her as a criminal?I NIELSEN: No, sir. I'm just saying the priority of the department are those with ?nal orders of removal and criminals. That number is 92 percent. BLUMENTHAL: Well, I would like you to get back to me with more precise and exact numbers, because our experience is that many individuals who've been in this country, playing by the rules, paying taxes, working hard, raising families, they may have orders of removal, but they have appeared regularly at Department of Homeland Security checks. And they are noti?ed suddenly, without any real notice that they are going to be deported a week or two or three from that time that they appeared. I?m also eager that you respond to my letters on that topic. I've received no response. And I have written, also, about apparent DHS policies on sensitive locations, in terms of arrests at places where, according to ICE policy, there should not be arrests, including, possibly, courthouses, churches and other places that are regarded as sensitive locations. As you know, a woman who is a victim of domestic abuse, if she seeks help at law enforcement, police station, may be fearful about doing so if she is undocumented and she's threatened with deportation. So it works against proper law enforcement also, in terms of people who may have leads about crimes or seeking to report crimes, generally. So, I'd like answers to my letters of October 17th and November 13th on that topic. NIELSEN: We?d be happy to clarify some of that information. It sounds like needs to be clarified, happy to do so. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. Let me ask you about the testimony that you gave, very helpfully, to Senator Whitehouse about the Russian attack on our -- you would agree that Russian meddling and interference in our elections constituted, in effect, an attack on our democracy, correct? NIELSEN: It's highly concerning. I want to be careful about the word, attack, but yes. DHS-OO1-6335-001071 BLUMENTHAL: And there's no question that it happened on a massive scale. You'd agree with the unanimous opinion of the intelligence community in that regard? NIELSEN: Yes, I have no -- I have no reason to doubt that. BLUMENTHAL: Would you agree also that the Russians need to pay a price, otherwise they'll repeat it?iI NIELSEN: I believe, yes, we need to put all kinds of activities in place, not only to prevent them and to mitigate, but to deter their -- their behavior. BLUMENTHAL: And any American who supported or aided that attack, call it interference, or meddling if you prefer that word, should also be held accountable, correct? NIELSEN: Should be held accountable in some way, sir. I'm not familiar with the laws that might apply in that situation, but yes, they should be held accountable. BLUMENTHAL: Well, there are laws that prohibit conspiracy when a law is violated, correct? NIELSEN: As far as I know. Yes, sir. BLUMENTHAL: So, at a minimum, whether through the law of conspiracy, or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, or money laundering, those individuals who supported or aided or abetted the Russian interference with our election should be held accountable, correct? NIELSEN: Yes. BLUMENTHAL: DHS-OO1-6335-001072 Would you agree with me that the investigation by the Special Counsel is not a hoax or a witch hunt? NIELSEN: I believe that investigations by Special Counsels are important. BLUMENTHAL: And, in particularly, the investigation by Robert Mueller is necessary and appropriate, correct? NIELSEN: It?s -- yes, sir. BLUMENTHAL: And should be protected ?om political interference? NIELSEN: On all sides, yes. BLUMENTHAL: I want to ask you about Puerto Rico. I visited Puerto Rico twice since the hurricane. And I think that the Federal response there has been shamefully and disgracefully inadequate. Almost half the island is still without electricity. Much of the water is undrinkable. Many of the major roads are impassable. And the economy is on the brink of failure. Half the hotels are still closed. And many of the manufacturing plants are going to move out of the island and manufacturing is a mainstay of its economy, if electricity is not restored. When I ?rst visited, I was told that electricity would be restored by December. BLUMENTHAL: In my latest visit, a couple of weeks ago, the date shifted to March. I would like a commitment, from you, that you and the department, through EMA and coordinating with the Corps of Engineers, will give us a date by which electricity is restored. NIELSEN: You have my commitment to give you the best guess that we have, in terms of estimating the time of restoration. DHS-OO1-6335-001073 WHITEHOUSE: Well, the people of Puerto Rico deserve more than a guess. (CROSSTALK) NIELSEN: They do, sir. But, as you know, it's very complicated. We have to account for weather. We have to account for terrain. We have to account for aging infrastructure. We have to account for a variety of factors that I cannot predict. But, yes, you will have our best estimate, given all the data that we have as to when electricity will be restored. WHITEHOUSE: Last week, I wrote to FEMA, and speci?cally the administrator, Brock Long, because of reports and we veri?ed them with people in Connecticut that they have been told that the transitional shelter assistance program will be ended for them, because their homes are now habitable in Puerto Rico, despite the absence of water, electricity and reliable structures. Would you agree with me that the standard of habitability should include those factors? NIELSEN: I would agree with you that we need to do more, and we are doing more. As you know, we have the ?rst and foremost duty to protect the safety and security immediately after an event, in response. HUD works with us on the longer-term housing. And, right now, what we?re seeing is the transition from short-term housing to longer-term housing through recovery. WHITEHOUSE: Correct. But people are now being evicted from their temporary shelters in Connecticut and, likely, in Puerto Rico, without the Section 8 or other HUD programs. NIELSEN: I?m happy to look into that, sir. WHITEHOUSE: I would like you to look into it, and I?d like you to also give me what the standard is for habitability, because, certainly, it should include water, electricity and a reliable roof that is a structure that can be regarded as safe and secure. Would you agree? NIELSEN: I?d be happy to look into it. Yes, sir. DHS-OO1-6335-001074 WHITEHOUSE: Let me just close on the topic that?s been raised, unfortunately, repeatedly, and I know it?s one that?s uncomfortable for all of us here, and I'm not going to repeat the word. But, at any point in that conversation on Thursday did the president of the United States use that four-letter word beginning with S, in combination with any other words, or alone, that you heard? NIELSEN: Sir, respectfully, I have answered this. I?ve been very patient with this line of questioning. I am here to tell you about the threats our country faces and the needs and authorities that are needed by the Department of Homeland Security. I have nothing further to say about a meeting that happened over a week ago. I'd like to move forward and discuss ways in which we can protect our country. WHITEHOUSE: Let's -- then, I agree -- expand on the compromise that was offered, the proposal that Senator Durbin and Senator Graham and others -- the bipartisan proposal that was suggested. Would you agree with me that it?s an encouraging step and should be built on, because we want to avoid the mass, draconian deportation that otherwise will occur to these very brave and talented young people who have come to our country? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. I think anyone who is willing to work towards a solution to this -- as I said, my staff has continued to meet with their staff since that meeting. NIELSEN: And I'm very hopeful that we can agree upon a deal, amongst us all, that increases border security, that ends chain migration and the diversity lottery and that also accounts a permanent solution for the DACA population. GRASSLEY: Senator Hirono? BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. HIRONO: DHS-OO1-6335-001075 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would all like to move on. So, I would like a very short yes or no answer to this question. Before I move onto ask you questions about what happened in Hawaii this weekend, you testi?ed that you did not hear the President use the words s-hole or s-house, though he could have said those words and you just didn't hear it. My question is, did you hear Senator Graham use the s-hole or s-house words at the meeting with the president, yes or no? NIELSEN: Ma'am, no. HIRONO: Now, there is no question that there are heightened tensions between North Korea and the United States. And you touched upon the Department of Homeland Security?s efforts with regard to disaster responses and what happened in Hawaii could qualify as that, of course. So, the false emergency alert about a ballistic missile threat to Hawaii induced real fear and panic throughout the islands and while the threat was false, the panic and the fear were real. I understand that there were human factors and system failures involved, and I'd like to ask you some questions about what we can learn from this about the system's failures and how we can improve the emergency alert systems, not just for Hawaii, but for every state. So, can you explain to me exactly what the role of your department is in overseeing state emergency alert systems. NIELSEN: Yes, ma'am. So, we provide the backbone of an alerting system, which state and locals are able to tap into to reach their citizens. It's called the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System. It provides for a variety of capabilities including geo?targeting, so we that can alert those who are in harm?s way. But the decision in this case to utilize that backbone and how it was utilized was the state's decision. HIRONO: Yes, we realize that it all started with human error. So, obviously, we need to identify the human failures and correct them and then to the extent there were system failures, because there was a very long span of time from the ?rst alert and then correcting that alert. So, that seems to point to some communication and other kinds failures that we ought to be addressing. So, do you have the responsibility to convene state emergency managers to make sure that each state has an alert system that functions properly? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001076 We do request a variety of information from state and locals on their alert and warning systems as part of our threat assessments conducted by FEMA, as well as any time we provide grant assistance. Often, the request is to use federal money to improve alert and warning systems, in which case, of course, we work with the states to ensure that that is done in a way that makes sense. HIRONO: So do have an overall responsibility or a part of your responsibilities to make sure that every state's alert systems work properly? NIELSEN: What other words, we provide the backbone to ensure that at any time if the president or the Department of Homeland Security would need to send an alert to citizens with an impending catastrophic event, for example, we can do that. The state and localities then often use that backbone to distribute and disseminate their own messages. I will say, in some areas, as you know, state and locals have their own system that you can opt into with other types of non-catastrophic events. Snow, for example, or major rainstorms. Something else that their citizens should be aware of. HIRONO: Well, this had the potential for being totally catastrophic. So, do you have a role in setting standards and ensuring that state emergency management agencies use best practices in a situation like what occurred in Hawaii on Saturday? NIELSEN: So, FEMA has been in touch with the emergency manager in Hawaii. We have offered our support for any after action that they have performed. I have asked my folks at DHS to do their own after action to ensure that we are clear when we receive a alert and warning from a state, both that it is disseminated properly, but also that we can verify. Initial lessons learned, you know, we would work with the states, particularly in this threat to ensure that they are connected to those who can quickly verify whether that threat is real or not. In that case, that would be the Department of Defense. So, we are in active conversations with them to ensure that they can improve their system. Yes, ma?am. HIRONO: So you would agree that there are responsibilities, the FCC, for example, they have acknowledged they have a certain responsibility. DHS, the state and Paci?c Command because the order to send out this alert should have come from Paci?c Command, upon getting the noti?cation from Northern Command and there was a missile launch and where it was heading. So, we can improve all of those communications. DHS-OO1-6335-001077 NIELSEN: Yes. HIRONO: Was your department aware that the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency did not have a mechanism currently in place to address the false alarm situation and alert and an alert retraction mechanism? NIELSEN: We were not aware before this occurrence. No, ma'am. HIRONO: Are you going to make sure that every state has that kind of fail-safe mechanism? NIELSEN: We will work with states to ensure that, yes. HIRONO: So, the White House called the false alert purely a state exercise, but I think that understates the problem, because I believe that addressing issues with alerts about a ballistic missile threat from a foreign country, everyone assumed that it was from Nonh Korea, is not only a state problem. Would you commit to working with me to ensure that states, not just Hawaii, we have to include Guam, are already in a uniform and effective way to alert their people of missile threats? NIELSEN: Yes, I will. And I'd also like to work with you to ensure that we're providing speci?c instructions on what to do upon an alert. HIRONO: And once Hawaii EMA, the Emergency Management Agency realized that it had sent out a false alert, it apparently wasn't clear to them whether or not they needed to consult with FEMA before sending a retraction. Do you know what the requirements are? Were they supposed to get somehow, agreement, involvement in order to send out a false alarm message? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001078 No, ma?am. There?s no requirement for them to get any permission from FEMA to retract a mistaken alert and warning. HIRONO: So, the fact that that seemed to have been a concern, that's yet another clarification of clearer communication that has to occur. NIELSEN: Yes, we all should clarify that. HIRONO: So, how can DHS play a role in ensuring that all of the systems involved in sending out alerts and retracting them are understood by all the states?? Are you taking some very speci?c steps to make sure that this is happening? NIELSEN: Yes, I have asked the administrator of FEMA to work with the state emergency management agencies to ensure that the protocols and standard operating procedures are clear, both on issuing initial alerts, understanding the basis on which they have been alerted and then, of course, making a course correction in the very, very small cases when that might be necessary. HIRONO: Are there formal plans in place on how to respond to a domestic missile attack, because we?re not just talking about Hawaii, of course, or Guam. But North Korea is developing missiles that can reach continental US. So, is there is there a formal plan in place through your department on how states are to respond to a domestic missile attack? NIELSEN: We continue to work with the states to understand the threat and the effects of it. At the Federal Inner Agency we've had a variety of exercises leading up to the cabinet level exercise in February, where we will discuss the federal rules and responsibilities in support of state and local response. HIRONO: I understand that though when you say that they cabinet level, it was the subcabinet level, not at your level. NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001079 No, I'm sorry. I said the cabinet level will occur in February. We did have a deputy secretary exercise in the fall. Yes, ma'am. HIRONO: So, you are going to have a cabinet level? NIELSEN: We are. Absolutely. HIRONO: Make sure that every state has in place what they need NIELSEN: To meet -- well, let me just be clear. The cabinet level exercise will clarify the roles and responsibilities with the federal government. So that includes, as you say, to the extent that we're talking about an alert and warning system. We would like to make sure that the FCC which is undertaking an assessment, as you know, is clear. So, we'll clarify that. At the same time, we're working with state and locals to make sure that they have the information that they need. HIRONO: Thank you. It sounds as though everybody's on board, especially after what happened in Hawaii, to make sure that this doesn't happen in Hawaii or anyplace else, for that matter. I want to get to question of DACA because I was at the meeting at the White House where you said that, and you also said that today, that no DACA participants had lost their status. NIELSEN: I did not say that. I said 21 have lost their status because they committed a crime. HIRONO: I'm talking about 15,000 that I'm informed have lost their status. And so, DACA participants have to renew their status and only those whose status expired at a certain timeframe were allowed to renew after the ending of DACA was announced. So there were thousands of participants in DACA who were already on renewal status and now they -- so they couldn't apply for renewal. So, these are the young people who have lost DACA status, 15,000 of them. Take my word for it. So, I'm glad that after the California court ordered DHS to begin to renew these applications, and you have done so. DHS-001-6335-001080 NIELSEN: Yes, we have. HIRONO: I commend you for that. I want to know what's happening to the 15,000 who have lost their status. Are you creating and expedited procedure for them to have their DACA status restored? NIELSEN: I will get back to you on that, ma'am. I'm not familiar with 15,000 who have lost their status. As I understand it the programs ends March 5th. So, let me get you HIRONO: Well, people were on rolling renewal. So, obviously, not everybody ended at the same time. NIELSEN: I understand. I also understand there was about 20,000 who decided not to renew who were able to renew. So I'm not sure if we're talking about the same HIRONO: We?re talking about those people who lost their status because they were in the middle of renewal and so they could not renew in the time frame that they were given after the announcement. NIELSEN: I?m happy to get back to you with details. HIRONO: Thank you. Can you see my sense of urgency about this? NIELSEN: I do. HIRONO: Thank you. GRASSLEY: DHS-OO1-6335-001081 Senator Booker? Senator Booker? BOOKER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just want to say about the DACA issue going on right now. To me, this is a very profound, moral issue in our country. It?s a moral issue because, as you know, many of these children do not have even memories of their home country and now in our nation they're doing things that are extraordinary. In my state, we have DACA recipients, who are servants in the military. We are who are ?rst responders. We have who are entrepreneurs. One young lady sat in my of?ce and employs hundreds and hundreds of people. And I am sure you are aware, because you've probably met with these people, correct? You?ve met with yes? NIELSEN: I have not met with DACA recipients as secretary of homeland security. No, sir. BOOKER: Have you met with them before? before? NIELSEN: Not as self identi?ed, no. BOOKER: So, then, for your knowledge, a lot of these folks are now hanging not only the balance of waiting for policy, but it's an -- a grievous anxiety, it?s undermining their life and their well-being and their ability to serve. This moment for them, these weeks and weeks of waiting on something where 80 percent of Americans agree, Republicans and Democrats agree, that we should ?nd a way for these folks to stay in this country. What is happening to them right now is unacceptable treatment to people who are fellow Americans, but for the documentation. I want to just turn though and you'll have to forgive me, listening to the testimony has changed my line questioning a bit because this is very personal to me. I sit here, right now, because when good white people in this country heard bigotry or hatred they stood up. Moving into my home community we were denied housing because of the color of our skin. And it was white Americans from Bergen County who banded together to ?ght against racism, to fight against hate speech. To ?ght against people who had broadbrush generalities about people based upon their ethnicity, based upon their origin, based upon their religion. What went on in the White House, what went on in the Oval Of?ce is profoundly disturbing to me. DHS-OO1-6335-001082 And I'll tell you this, I heard about when I was in Puerto Rico when it happened. And here I was, there, trying to help a community dealing with savage challenges. I can?t tell you how many Puerto Ricans brought up that conversation in the White House. I returned to Atlanta to go to the King Center Awards and from the greatest luminaries from the civil rights movement, down to average Americans, this was on their mind. I returned to Newark, New Jersey, and I talked to African-Americans from Africa, I talked to Central American Americans, I talked to regular Newarkers and this was top on their mind. Yesterday, I talked to the ambassador from Haiti and to see all that they are doing as a result of this conversation. Now, I've been in the Oval Of?ce many times, and when the commander in chief speaks I listened. I don't have amnesia on conversations I had in the Oval Of?ce going back months and months and months, and I have had individual meetings with the president and I have had group conversations were there was, as you said, crosstalk. And why is this so important, why is it so disturbing for me, why am I, frankly, seething with anger? We have this incredible nation where we have been taught that it does not matter where you are from. It doesn?t matter your color, your race or religion it is about the content of your character, it's about your values and your ideals. And yet, we have a language that from Dick Durbin to Lindsey Graham, they seem to have a much better recollection of what went on. You?re under oath. You and others in that room that suddenly cannot remember. It was Martin Luther King that said, "There is nothing in this world more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity". And so here we are in the United States of America and we have a history that is beautiful and grand and also ugly where from this nation to others we know what happens when people sit by and are bystanders and say nothing. When Oval Of?ce rhetoric sounds like social engineering. We know, from human history, the dangers of that. Our greatest -- our greatest heroes in this country spoke out about people who have convenient amnesia or who are bystanders. King said, man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right. A man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice. A man dies when he refuses to take the stand." Elie Wiesel says, "We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." BOOKER: Gandhi said, "Silence becomes cowardice -- cowardice." "When we occasion -- when the occasion demands speaking out," like Lindsey Graham did, "and acting accordingly." This idea that the commander-in-chief of this country could, with broad brushes, talk about certain nations, and thus, cast a shadow over the millions of Americans who are from those communities, and that you could even say in your testimony that Norwegians were -- were preferenced by him, because they're so hard working. NIELSEN: I -- I DHS-OO1-6335-001083 BOOKER: Excuse me. Let me ?nish. NIELSEN: Happy to. BOOKER: Let me just draw a connection of why that matters. I'm sure you remember the six words from our president; the six words that he said after Charleston, Virginia last summer. People marching with tiki torches and hate, and he said, "There are very ?ne people on both sides" -- "very ?ne people on both sides." When the commander-in-chief speaks, or refuses to speak, those words just don?t dissipate like mist in the air. They foster. They become poison. They give license to bigotry and hate in our country. I know you're aware of a 2017 GAO report that found, and I quote, "Out of the 85 violent extremist incidences that resulted in death since September 12th, 2001, far right-wing violent extremist groups were responsible for 73 percent." When I go through the black belt in the south, when I'm in Atlanta, black churches in Newark, they're concerned about jihadist Islamic terrorism. We watched the twin towers, from Newark, go down. But since 9:11, 85 violent incidents, 73 percent were with people that hold bigoted, hateful ideas about minorities. One American killed in Charleston, Virginia, dozens injured; nine Americans killed in a church shooting in Charleston, South Carolina by a white supremacist; an American killed and another wounded in Kansas after a white supremacist targeted them for their ethnicity, saying, "Get out of my country"; six six Americans killed and four others wounded in Wisconsin, where white supremacists targeted individuals for their religion. The commander-in?chief, in an Oval Of?ce meeting, referring to people from African countries and Haitians with the most vile and vulgar language. The language festers. When ignorance and bigotry is allied with power, it is a dangerous force in our country. Your silence and your amnesia is complicity. Right now, in our nation, we have a problem. I don?t know if 73 percent of your time is spent on white supremist hate groups. I don't know if 73 percent of your time is spent concerned about the people in fear in communities in this country Sikh Americans, Muslim Americans, Black Americans. The fact pattern is clear of the threats in this country. I hurt. When Dick Durbin called me, I had tears of rage when I heard about this experience in that meeting, and for you not to feel that hate -- hurt, and that pain, and to dismiss some of the questions of my colleagues, saying, "I?ve already answered that line of questions," when tens of millions of Americans are hurting right now because of what they're worried about what happened in the White House. That's unacceptable to me. There are threats in this country; people plotting. I receive enough death threats to know the reality. Kamala receives enough death threats to know the reality. Mazie receives enough death DHS-OO1-6335-001084 threats to know the reality. And I've got a president of the United States, whose of?ce I respect, who talks about the countries of origins of my fellow citizens in the most despicable of manner. You don't remember, you can?t remember the words of your commander-in-chief. I find that unacceptable. Mr. Chairman, I'm grateful to be on this committee. I'm more than ever, today, happy I?m here. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Senator Graham? NIELSEN: Sir, could I just respond, if you don't mind, after that? GRAHAM: (inaudible) NIELSEN: I would just like to say GRASSLEY: Wait -- wait, Senator Graham. Go ahead and respond. NIELSEN: Would -- would that be GRASSLEY: Yeah. NIELSEN: I would just like to say, I I do, clearly -- and I want to be clear on this abhor violence in all of its forms. I couldn't agree with you more, that the Department of Homeland Security has a duty to stop and prevent violence in all of its forms. Our preventing terrorism programs have been reassessed and re?looked at, just this year, to ensure that we actually are going after the threats, to include white supremacy, not just to focus on what was focused on in years' past. So just -- just to -- I would just like to say that to you. I share your passion. It's unacceptable. It can?t be tolerated in the United States. Under the authorities that I have at the Department of Homeland Security, violence, in any form, will not be tolerated. DHS-OO1-6335-001085 GRASSLEY: Senator Graham? GRAHAM: Thank you very much. Welcome, Senator Booker. I'm glad you're here, too. So do you agree with me that the threats to the nation are -- are pretty severe, and if we shut down the government, that'd be a bad idea? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: OK. Does the president intend to extend DACA past March 5th by executive order? NIELSEN: Not that I?m aware of. GRAHAM: Do you think he has the legal authority to do so? NIELSEN: I believe the attorney general has made it clear that he believes such exercise is unconstitutional. It's for Congress to GRAHAM: So I agree with that. I just want everybody on this committee to know that I don?t believe the president can extend this by executive order, and March 5th, a lot of bad things begin to happen. And it seems to me we ought to try to avoid that if we can. Do you agree with that? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Now, let?s talk about two Trumps: the Tuesday Trump, and the Thursday Trump. Whose idea was it to do the meeting on Tuesday? DHS-OO1-6335-001086 NIELSEN: As far as I know, it was the president?s. GRAHAM: I will say something that some people may not like, but I thought he did a really good job. Did he -- he talked about comprehensive immigration reform. Do you remember that from Tuesday? NIELSEN: I do remember that being raised. Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Is he still supportive of comprehensive immigration reform? NIELSEN: I believe what he made clear is, he's happy to listen to proposals and have the discussion, but there are some immediate needs. I think those are (inaudible) (CROSSTALK) GRAHAM: Right, I agree with that, but he said he wanted to do comprehensive? NIELSEN: He said he was open to it, absolutely. Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Yeah. I think he said he wanted to. Do you remember him saying we need to be bipartisan, when it comes to immigration reform? NIELSEN: Very important. GRAHAM: OK, and he still believes that? NIELSEN: Yes. DHS-OO1-6335-001087 GRAHAM: Do you remember him saying the word love?l NIELSEN: I don't remember him saying the word love. I remember him saying care. I've heard him use love before, compassion. GRAHAM: Well, we'll get the tape. He said love. We should do this with love. And so, what I heard Tuesday was a president who seemed to understand, it had to be bipartisan. Phase One is just a down payment. It needs to be comprehensive. We need to go to merit-based immigration. We need to secure our border, and we need to be fair to the illegal immigrants, and we need to emphasize security, but he said love. GRAHAM: Thursday. Do you (ph) -- are you aware that the Senator Durbin and the president talked at 10 o'clock, around that time, Thursday morning? NIELSEN: Only through news reporting after the fact. GRAHAM: Are you aware of the fact that Dick Durbin called me and said I had the best conversation ever with the president? We should follow up on it. NIELSEN: I am now. GRAHAM: OK, so is everybody else. Are you aware of the fact that I said great, Dick, [?11 call The White House and see if we can set up a meeting? You are now? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: DHS-OO1-6335-001088 So what happened between 10 and 12? NIELSEN: I don't know, since I didn?t hear any of that until GRAHAM: I don't either and I'm going to ?nd out and I'm not going to ask you because between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock, we went from having conversations between Senator Durbin, which I believe every word, and the president that was very hope?Jl and by the time we got there, something had happened. So, Tuesday, we had a president that I was proud to golf with, call my friend, who understood immigration had to be bipartisan; you had to have border security as essential, you have border security with a wall. But he also understood the idea that we had to do it with compassion. Now, I don't know where that guy went, I want him back. As we go forward, how does this movie end? What's going to happen? NIELSEN: I hope that we can find a legislative package that addresses those four pillars that, it appeared to me, all the Congressional GRAHAM: Yes, let?s go through those four NIELSEN: Sure. GRAHAM: Border security; do you expect that the Democrats will give the president everything he wants for border security in Phase I. NIELSEN: No, sir. That's why we took the priorities that he issued in the fall and we culled them down. GRAHAM: Merit-based immigration, do you believe we will move to a merit-based immigration system in Phase NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001089 Completely and fully, no. GRAHAM: OK. Do you agree with me that the reason we won't (ph) is if the Democrats give us everything we want on border and merit-based immigration and go to nuclear family in terms of future immigration ?ow, they won't have any leverage when it comes to the rest of the 11 million. NIELSEN: I have not seen any proposal where they give us everything we need on border security. GRAHAM: Well just trust me on that, I deal with them a lot; they're not. I'm going to tell y'all guys, I'm not going to give the 11 million legal status and hope one day y'all will deal with us on border and merit-based immigration. Do you understand leverage? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Do you think the president understands leverage? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. NIELSEN: So here's what I would suggest to you. In Phase 1 to expect my friends on the other side to go comprehensive for us and DACA for them, it's not going to happen. I'm telling my friends on the other side, DACA and nothing else, is not going to happen. The sweet spot is DACA plus, more than the DACA kids and making down payments on border security; moving slowly, but surely, toward a merit-based immigration system; to be followed by Phase 2. Can I describe Phase 2 as I see it? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. Please. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. Phase move further toward border security in its full sense; that we begin to find a pathway forward for the 11 million not included in Phase 1 who or not crooks, drug dealers, rapists, felons, which is the overwhelming majority of the 11 million. DHS-OO1-6335-001090 That once we get a glide path for them, I expect, in return, that when they're through the system we'll have a merit-based immigration system based on the economic needs of the country, that we'll have a secure border and we'll increase legal immigration so people in the future don't have to cheat. Does that sound pretty reasonable? NIELSEN: It sounds like a Phase 2. GRAHAM: OK. So, I'm going to try to get you through Phase 1, that the president's watching, I'm still in the phone book, don't give my number out, but call me. This has turned into a show and we need to get back to being a great country where Democrats and Republicans have worked together to do something that we should have done years ago. To the ?00,000 young people; some young, some older, we're not going to leave you behind. I don't know how this movie ends, but you're going to be taken care of. To those who want to begin to fix a broken immigration system, you're going to get something too. I don't know how we right the ship; Dr. King said something pretty poignant about us, he said, "We came on different ships, we're all in the same boat now." So here's my hope, that we can find through Phase 1, a reasonable down payment on border security, begin to correct some of the problems when it comes to chain migration, deal with the DACA population fairly and with a sense of compassion and set up Phase 2, and all I would say, Madam Secretary, we need your help. NIELSEN: Sir, I've been ready. I've offered to meet with anybody who would like to meet with me to further this discussion. I would like to do it, we need to do it. GRAHAM: I'm going to take you up on that offer. And to the country at large, things are going to get better; it's not going to end this way. The president ran hot and I think I know why, something happened between Tuesday and Thursday and we'll get to the bottom of that, and quite frankly, I got pretty passionate and I ran a little hot too. Somebody needs to ?x this problem, Obama couldn't do it; Bush couldn't do it and both of them, to their great credit, tried. Do you think President Trump can do this? NIELSEN: I think he wants to do it. Yes, sir. GRAHAM: DHS-OO1-6335-001091 And I think Dick Durbin has been one of the best people you could ever hope to work with, that he?s a decent, honest man, a liberal Democrat. Yeah, he said yeah. And I'm a conservative Republican, but on this and other things, we can ?nd a way forward. GRAHAM: So, Mr. President, I?m going to end today where I ended Tuesday. Close this deal. Thank you, Madam Secretary. NIELSEN: Thank you, sir, for your leadership on this. GRASSLEY: Before I call on Secretary Harris, I would hope, Senator HARRIS: I don't know if that's a demotion or a promotion. (LAUGHTER) GRASSLEY: I?m sorry. Before I do that I -- you don't have to answer this, Senator Graham, but it seems to me that in phase 1, we ought to at least be able to agree that we should make it -- make it easier to remove dangerous criminals in phase 1, instead of waiting for that. You know, that's just kind of a simple GRAHAM: Yeah, that's GRASSLEY: That's a common sense task. You ask that to any American, and they would say yes. GRAHAM: I think that's a good idea, among other good ideas. And I'm glad we're talking about phase 1, rather than s-holes. GRASSLEY: Senator Harris?l DHS-OO1-6335-001092 HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There?s so much that has taken place over the last week and during the course of this hearing, that, frankly, stirs in me, as in my colleague Senator Booker, and others, great emotion. I join issue with the statements of Senator Booker. I am deeply concerned and troubled about the words that, I believe, that Dick Durbin has shared with us, that came from the president of the United States. I believe that the words spoken by any president of these United States are powerful words, and should be spoken with the spirit of unifying and not dividing our country. Should be spoken in a way that brings dignity to other human beings and does not demean them. I am deeply concerned when we are just having celebrated the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, who spoke about the effect of racism in this country, and words that are motivated by racism -- for so many reasons, they are harmful, they have led to death, at their mildest form, which is not mild, it suggests to one group of people that they are inferior and to another that they are superior to their fellow man. This is a pivotal moment in the history of our country. IWhen we are having discussions about whether the people of Norway, and I will use your words, Madam Secretary, and you spoke about how they were referred to as, by contrast to the people of Africa and the various country -- the 54 countries of Africa, and Haiti, and we speak of them, and you've spoke of them according to the President as, "The people of Norway, well, you know, they work very hard." The inference being the people of the 54 states of Africa and Haiti do not. That is a fair inference. And you run the Department of Homeland Security, and when you say you don?t know if Norway is predominantly white when asked by a member of the United States Senate, that causes me concern about your ability to understand the scope of your responsibilities and the impact of your words, much less the policies that you promulgate in that very important department. You opened by talking about a number of statistics that paint the threats the country faces from terrorism, and particularly, you spoke of those who commit acts of terror who were not born in this country. The study you mention, however, leaves out some of the most rampant terror attacks that we?ve seen lately, which are domestic acts of terror. As has been mentioned, there is a report from the FBI and DHS which outlines white supremist extremists, and I quote, the report says, "Will likely continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the course of the next year.? The report states that, "White supremist extremists are responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from the year 2016, more than any other domestic extremist movement," I?m quoting. It is deeply troubling that in your opening comments, when you talk about the threats to our nation, our homeland, to national security, that you failed to mention a report that outlined a very speci?c threat to us as the American people. Deeply troubled. You must understand the inference, the reasonable inference, that the American public is drawing from the words you speak, much less the words of the President of the United States. DHS-001-6335-001093 Now, I'd like to move on and talk about your management of your agency. You and I spoke several times during your con?rmation process, both at a personal meeting on November 2nd and in your November 8th con?rmation hearing before the Homeland Security Committee. In your con?rmation hearing on November 8th, you stated you would issue guidance to your agents, stating that DACA recipients and are not enforcement priorities. HARRIS: Have you done that? NIELSEN: They are not enforcement priorities, ma'am. HARRIS: Have you issued that statement and that to your agents, that guidance? NIELSEN: That is clear from the (CROSSTALK) HARRIS: That's not my question. NIELSEN: I, personally, have not. No. HARRIS: You also committed that you would make clear to DHS employees that DACA recipients? information would not be shared for enforcement purposes. Have you done that? NIELSEN: I have veri?ed that. It is not proactively shared. If it's a national security threat, that's a different matter. The DACA information is not proactively provided. I have veri?ed that. HARRIS: That's not my question. Not, "Have you veri?ed it?" That's clear to me. My (CROSSTALK) DHS-001-6335-001094 NIELSEN: It's in policy. It's in existing, written documentation. HARRIS: My question, I will repeat, is based on a commitment you made to me, in another United States Senate hearing. NIELSEN: And I'm saying that "written" is already exists. So I didn't need to redo it. It already exists. HARRIS: That is not the point. Have you made that clear? NIELSEN: Yes, I have. HARRIS Hundreds of thousands of employees in your department? NIELSEN: Yes. I have had multiple meetings where we have discussed this, and I have clari?ed, again and again. Yes, ma?am. HARRIS: Have you issued some kind of directive, written directive, to the hundreds of thousands of employees of your agency? NIELSEN: It already exists. HARRIS: So you've not done that? That's the NIELSEN: Why would I do it again? It already exists. DHS-OO1-6335-001095 HARRIS: OK. Let's talk about why you would do it again. Let's talk about the data that shows that there has been a -- an increase of, I think, threefold, of the number of people who are non-criminals, by own definition, who have been detained in your department. How do you reconcile your point, which is that it's clear to the agents in your department, when the data supplied by your own agency does not re?ect that? NIELSEN: The data that I have has 92 percent, last year, being criminals and those with final orders of removal. HARRIS: And so, where we have information that there has been an increase of the number of people -- nearly three times the number of individuals with no criminal history, as compared -- as compared to the same period last year, are you saying that's incorrect? NIELSEN: I?m saying I don't have the data that you're looking at. Is it final orders of removal, or is there another national security threat? HARRIS: No criminal history. NIELSEN: That's not what I asked. Is it a ?nal order of removal? HARRIS: We're talking about the people that you are contacting. Are you prioritizing, equally, people with no criminal history, as you are those who you described earlier, as being criminals because they are felons? NIELSEN: We prioritize those with criminal convictions, as well as those with ?nal orders of removal. HARRIS: So my question is, do they have equal priority in your agency? DHS-OO1-6335-001096 NIELSEN: They're both top-tier priority for enforcement. HARRIS: Do they have, then, equal priority? NIELSEN: Ma'am, we're going to enforce the law. If there's a ?nal order of removal, we will seek to remove you. HARRIS: OK. What is your budget request for this year? NIELSEN: I -- I don?t have the ?gure for -- for FY. '18. HARRIS: Do you believe that your department and agency is adequately funded, or that you are in need of resources? NIELSEN: I -- it depends on the particular area, but we have worked very closely with the administration to ensure that we do have the tools and resources we need to do our job. HARRIS: So I'm assuming that you have adequate resources, which is why you can apply equal priority to those who are felons and those who have no criminal records? NIELSEN: Ma'am, we will not ignore the law. If you have gone through the system and you have a ?nal order of removal, you are a priority to be removed. HARRIS: This past Saturday, following a recent US. district court ruling, your agency resumed accepting DACA renewal applications. Will you commit to providing direct notice to all DACA recipients about their ability and right to renew? DHS-OO1-6335-001097 NIELSEN: We -- I will look into that. Yes, ma'am. HARRIS: You will recall that. when NIELSEN: It's, by the way, it's posted on the website and it's posted for anyone who is a current DACA recipient. that they can read it and understand how they can reapply. HARRIS: It is also posted on your website. Is it my understanding that we are no longer accepting initial or renewal requests for deferred action for childhood arrivals? Are you aware that that's on your website right now'? NIELSEN: No. I am not. HARRIS: I would suggest that you get to that right away. NIELSEN: We will clarify. HARRIS: During your con?rmation hearing. you also told me you would issue written guidance to frontline of?cers on Sensitive Locations policy. And in light of the case that you have now been asked about at this hearing, about the 10-year-old will with cerebral palsy surgery, can you tell me, have you don't that? Which is, issue guidance to your agents on Sensitive Location policies? NIELSEN: We?ve clari?ed the guidance. and we have had discussions with leadership on how to ensure that every person who enforces the law understands what the sensitive locations are. Those sensitive locations have not changed since 2012. HARRIS: DHS-OO1-6335-001098 And what guidance -- did you provide the guidance, that you're now referring to, in writing? To all the agents in your department? NIELSEN: It's in writing. HARRIS: Can you submit that to my of?ce? And when did you issue that? NIELSEN: We can submit it. We can provide it to you, yes, ma'am. HARRIS: When did you issue that? NIELSEN: It's the same guidance that's been in existence since 2012. What we have done is clarify and reinforce the existing guidance. HARRIS: And you'll send me that that clari?cation? NIELSEN: Yes. HARRIS: And you mentioned, in your testimony today, that, in that case of Rosa Maria Hernandez, that your agents were being helpful in escorting that family, the 10?year-old who needed NIELSEN: To the hospital. HARRIS: to the hospital. So I would suggest to you, it is not helpful for Border Patrol agents to follow an ambulance to a hospital and then arrest a 10-year-old after her surgery. And I would ask you to review the ef?cacy of the conduct of your agents, and your perspective on what happened that day. DHS-OO1-6335-001099 (CROSSTALK) NIELSEN: I am happy to provide you the actual facts of what happened. I?d also just like to say, if I could, Chairman, if you don?t GRASSLEY: Yes? NIELSEN: It's not a fair inference, at all, to say that my comments about Norway were in contrast to any other country. What I was describing was the president's views upon meeting with the prime minister. And what I was quoting was what he was told, in meeting with the Norwegian delegation. That's what he was repeating. That were words that they said that he repeated that, then, I repeated. It was not meant to be in contrast. With respect to white supremacy, we take that very seriously. As I said, that we have expanded our prevention efforts of terrorism in the Department of Homeland Security, to ensure that we, in fact, are going after violence of any kind. Any kind is not appropriate, and I will not allow it to occur if it's within our authority to stop. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I would just ask that the record -- I'm sure, and we can all review it, will re?ect that, in the opening statements, when discussing challenges to our homeland in terms of security, the white supremist threat was not mentioned. Thank you. I have no further questions. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Here's where we are now. We have Senator Coons, when he comes back, for 10 minutes. And then I've had requests from Durbin, Leahy, Whitehouse and Hirono for a second round. That would be five minutes apiece. I?d like to ask some second-round questions, too, but I?m going to go to Senator Durbin first, while we're waiting for Coons. But I do -- you can see, I?ve been abandoned by everybody on my side. So -- so I -- I?ve got to get done by 2 o'clock. DURBIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DHS-OO1-6335-001100 (CROSSTALK) GRASSLEY: everybody understand, cooperate in that respect. Go ahead, Senator. NIELSEN: And, sir, if I could just ask, since it?s been three hours, could we take just a ?ve-minute break? GRASSLEY: Sure. Now is NIELSEN: I greatly appreciate it. GRASSLEY: now's the time to do it. NIELSEN: OK. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Then that may mean that we go with Coons ?rst. FEINSTEIN: Senator Durbin? DURBIN Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, I want to try to put into context a time table because here?s what we face, as I understand it. Because of the California court decision, your agency is opening for those who previously were protected by DACA and whose protection or registration has come to an end an opportunity to reapply. Is that correct? NIELSEN: Yes. DHS-OO1-6335-001101 DURBIN: Need to turn your mike on. NIELSEN: Sorry. Yes, sir. DURBIN: OK. And we also know that come March 5th, the president said the program's over. So those who would have expiring DACA protection as of March 5th would not be able under the president's directive of September 5th to apply for new DACA status. Is that correct? NIELSEN: Yes, that's correct. DURBIN: And you have said and I -- I assume it -- it re?ects the Administration that you do not believe that President Trump has the authority to extend the March 5th deadline. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. DURBIN: OK. We also have heard, two weeks ago, from your agency that any changes to DACA that we decide to go forward with will take several months, I think they said six months, to implement. Have you heard that? NIELSEN: I -- I have not. DURBIN: I think that?s true. The point I?m getting to is this. This is a matter of urgency. I hope you agree. NIELSEN: I do. DURBIN: DHS-OO1-6335-001102 And this week, we think, is a critical week. Do you know what the position the administration is on the California decision? Are they going to accept it or are they going to appeal it? NIELSEN: I don't. Last I checked in with the Department of Justice they were considering their options. I -- I don't have an update. DURBIN: Should they choose to appeal it, it could end in a matter of hours, it is possible, because I believe it?s injunctive relief that has led to this decision, and a higher court can decide differently on that. Do you understand that as well? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. DURBIN: OK. The point I want to get back to from Lindsey Graham. There are many things we can talk about, I?m going to, just in a minute or two, address one issue. We are talking about two phases. That's what the president said on Tuesday of last week. We believe, Senator Graham and I, and many others, there are lots of big issues involving immigration involving security. But we also believe there's a sense of urgency and immediacy to dealing with DACA and to doing it -- doing it in a fashion where the president?s checklist of four items are included. That's why we've brought forward this bipartisan approach. So, I just urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, join with us in bringing this matter forward this week. We -- we know. I think we know the parameters of what we are discussing and we should act with that sense of urgency. One of the things on your must have list which you passed out on Tuesday, and have brought to us again today in a different form, relates to asylum protection. And you use the example of a child at the border being coached to use the words credible fear and that triggers a certain reaction. But I would like to call your attention to something that, I hope, can add another perspective. It?s an article entitled, "When Deportation is a Death Sentence". It was written by Sarah Stillman, published in the New Yorker. I want you to read it. I hope you'll read it. Because it talks about what happens when the agents who are involved in this don?t ask the right question, don't hear the answer and send many women back to their death and they go through cataloguing where that occurred. There is a requirement, as I understand it, in the CBP manual that before deportation a person must be asked, do you have any fear or concern about being returned to your home country or being removed from the United States? Would you be harmed if you return? And that the agent asking the question has no authority to evaluate the validity of that fear, instead if the answer is in the af?rmative, they are referred to an asylum officer. Is that your understanding as well? DHS-OO1-6335-001103 NIELSEN: Yes, sir. DURBIN: OK. They are then told in the same manual, err on the side of caution, apply the criterion generously. Yet, it turns out, an ACLU report in 2014, now this is before your time, found that 55 percent of those who were stopped and questioned were not asked that critical question. And that, of those who ended up saying, affirmatively, they were concerned, only 40 percent were protected and allowed to stay. It's -- it's known, I'm thinking, and I hope you'll concede, asylum seekers are not entitled to lawyers. Children as young as 3-years of age have been asked to represent themselves. With a lawyer in the process, someone seeking asylum has five times the likelihood that they?ll be allowed to stay in the United States. So when you get into the area of asylum and making this quicker, you also run the risk that you're sending people to their death. I am not exaggerating because we know the Central American countries have, unfortunately, the highest murder rates in the world. And the gang activity down there that we fear coming to the United States is rampant down there. How would you balance that? How would you address those two concerns? NIELSEN: Well, I'd -- I would look at them separately. First of all, I do look forward to reading this article and certainly to see what we have done since 2014 to ensure that the manual and those questions are asked and are followed-up on appropriately. We have a duty to protect those who are in fear of their life. I stand very ?rmly on that. So I'm happy to work with you if there's anything else we could do or it?s not clear, we need to do both of those. DURBTN: Thank you. I?ll just conclude by saying refugee and asylum officers have a dual mission, according to one of their own who stated this. Identify people who aren't refugees and who just might harm us, but also to identify and protect real refugees. Would you agree with that? NIELSEN: Absolutely. DURBIN: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. FEINSTEIN: DHS-OO1-6335-001104 Thank you. Senator Coons is next, for 10 minutes. COONS Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Thank you for your service and thank you for your answers to so many questions today. I want to cover some ground that's already been touched on and, in a few places, open some new questions, if I might. Like so many of us, I?ve had the opportunity to meet with both in my home State of Delaware where quite a few are attending Delaware State University, but also in the hallway here, both before and during this hearing. Did I hear correctly, you have yet to meet with any NIELSEN: We?ve met with many of the associations. We've met with many members of Congress. But I personally have not, to my knowledge, met with a No, sir. COONS: I just ?nd it a compelling circumstance, an opportunity to hear from them about how they came to this country, what their concerns are, and what sort of pressures they're under as we wait to ?nd a bipartisan path towards resolving this situation. And I won?t go through it in detail. We've heard from Senators Graham and Durbin today, I think, a compelling summary of how they?ve reached a responsible compromise where each side has given, and where we should be ready to move forward on a bipartisan compromise to address DACA. I think it?s urgent we do so. We on this committee have heard from a bipartisan group of former secretaries of Homeland Security that we cannot wait until March to ?x DACA. They say, quote, "The realistic deadline for successfully establishing a program in time to prevent large-scale loss of work authorization is actually mid-January." Do you agree with Secretaries Chertoff, Napolitano, and Johnson, that implementing a successful program by the White House's self-imposed March 5th deadline, requires at least 45 days of lead time? NIELSEN: What I would hope is thatI -- we could work with Congress to address that. As long as we are ?nding a permanent solution for that population, it would seem to me, through law we can adjust any timelines we need to, to ensure that they can continue to work. COONS So the administration would be open to delaying further its self-imposed March 5th deadline? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001105 Well, if we are finding a permanent solution, in part of that, we can adjust the timelines. But, no, as I had testi?ed earlier, the administration itself is not looking to extend the March 5th deadline upon a determination it?s unconstitutional. COONS: Well, I think there remains real urgency. And the reason for meeting with and hearing from them is to get a clearer sense of how it's impacting their lives. NIELSEN: And, sir, if I could -- I -- I cannot stress how strong I feel about ?nding a permanent solution for this population. So I?m happy to work with you and anyone in days and minutes that follow this hearing, to do just that. So I -- I do feel the urgency. I think we owe it to them and we owe it to the American people and our ideals to ?nd a solution. COONS: Thank you, Madam Secretary. As for the travel ban, we're now on the third version of President Trump's travel ban which blocks individuals from certain countries, primarily Muslim-maj ority countries from entering the United States. And I have joined more than 100 of my colleagues in the House and the Senate in ?ling a series of amicus briefs or amiei briefs, that have challenged these different travel bans. Do you agree that citizenship is an unlikely indicator of terrorism threat, as a draft DHS report recently concluded? NIELSEN: I -- if you're talking about the Section 11 Report, what we found, unfortunately, is that 73 percent of those convicted of international terrorism?related charges were foreign?born. So, in that case, that is an indicator. COONS: Foreign-born, yet, what has been at issue in a number of these challenges is the correlation between foreign-born and the speci?c nations that have been identi?ed for the development of this travel ban. I'll just remind you that we -- we continue, those of us who have challenged it in court, to see a lack of clear correlation between risk to the United States and the nations that are identi?ed. Let me move on, if I could, to the incidents in Charlottesville. A May 2017 joint intelligence bulletin from DHS and the FBI concluded that, quote, "White Supremacist Extremism Poses a Persistent Threat of Lethal Violence" close quote. Do you know whether DHS issued a warning to state and local law enforcement authorities before the deadly attack in Charlottesville?? That the Unite the Right rally could could turn violent and, from this assessment, was expected to likely become violent? NIELSEN: DHS-001-6335-001106 I am not aware. No, sir. COONS So my concern here is that there were reports several days before the event, where DHS was clear that an escalating series of clashes had created a potential powder keg. And a failure to notify state and local law enforcement may have prevented them from being fully prepared to confront this latest episode of white supremacist extremism. Have you personally briefed the President on the threat of violent white supremacist movements within the United States?I NIELSEN: What we?ve talked about, generally, is terrorism and violence in all its forms. As a part of that, yes, we have briefed at a high level the instances that we know. The FBI as you know and the Department of Justice is also very involved in that topic. COONS And is it your sense that the President places a suf?ciently high priority on being prepared for and responding to white supremacist violence, among the various threats to security within the United States? NIELSEN: I believe that he has been clear that he abhors violence in any any form that it might take. I think at DHS, we need to continue to do more, not only to ensure that the state and local of?cials have the information they need, but to be able to provide the warning signs, the what are we looking for, how do we know as this starts to occur within a community, what more can we do, and we?re looking at that now. COONS Well, thank you. COONS As a member of the committee and the co-chair of the law enforcement caucus, I welcome opportunities to hear from you about how you think understand and respond to unacceptable incidents of violence that are rooted in white supremist thinking. I also think it's important that all elected leaders send messages that make it clear how unacceptable these practices and attitudes are within the United States, rather than winking at them or in?aming them. I?m a member of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee as well as this committee, which just released a minority report on Vladimir Putin's assault on our democracy. And in particular, DHS-001-6335-001107 actions outside the United States; actions around the world to interfere with elections among our vital Western allies and its implications for US. National Security. The report notes that Russian intelligence actually circulated a fake US. Department of Homeland Security assessment that the 2016 US. election was not a victim of cyberattacks. What's the president's strategy, what's the department's strategy, for countering the Kremlin?s disinformation operations like this one, which can be signi?cantly misleading to Americans who are trying to better understand what happened and what may happen? NIELSEN: It's a very serious issue, ?rst of all, so let?s underscore that. Anything that in any way interferes with the integrity of our election system should be taken very, very seriously. The State Department, as you know, as part of a strategy to address a whole variety of issues both positive and negative with our relationship with Russia, continues to look at this issue. As you know, it's a balance. We have to ?nd the ways to target our reaction that will have the effect of having them reduce their speci?c actions. So we have to ?nd the way in which best to do that. But it will continue to be a priority in terms of conversations and certainly, from a DHS perspective, we?re looking at a variety of ways to do that just in our general conversations with the private sector; how can they ensure that the information they're providing is, in fact, accurate? Whether it be about elections or something else. COONS: The report actually recommends that the president establish an interagency fusion cell modeled on the National Counterterrorism Center to coordinate the United States? response to Russia's in?uence operations. Is that something you?d endorse? NIELSEN: Not familiar with it, but I'd certainly be happy to look at it. It will take all of government to be able to ?ght this, so. It will. And I must say, in response to questioning by a previous senator, I heard you say that you agree that Russia interfered in our 2016 presidential election. You agree that that is the unanimous conclusion of our intelligence community and that given that, they're likely to interfere with our next elections in 2018. Did I hear that correctly? NIELSEN: They certainly will try. DHS-001-6335-001108 And, Madam Secretary. I'm very encouraged to hear you say that so clearly, because bluntly. for us to be prepared and for us to work together and for us to defend our democracy requires clarity about what happened. Can you offer any understanding for me about whether it undermines your leadership in this role to have a president who repeatedly changes the subject, suggests this didn't (CROSSTALK) BLUMENTHAL: it somehow is Democrats complaining about the outcome of the (CROSSTALK) BLUMENTHAL: or suggests that it?s a misleading witch (CROSSTALK) COONS: for us to continue to try and understand what happened in 2016 and to prepare to defend our own democracy from a likely repeated attempt by Russia or other adversaries in 2018?? NIELSEN: I do think that clarity is important and I do think that we all need to work together to be very clear what speci?cally happened and how to prevent it in the future. Is it at all puzzling to you that the president hasn't been in the lead in defending our democracy from these attacks? NIELSEN: I?m not sure I would agree with the characterization, but I do think we need to do more and that?s certainly my intent and the Department of Homeland Security's perspective. COONS: Last question. This month, President Trump disbanded the Commission on Election Integrity, citing the opposition of many states and ongoing legal challenges. And he subsequently tweeted that he asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action. What prior experience does the Department of Homeland Security have in investigating allegations of voter fraud? DHS-OO1-6335-001109 NIELSEN: So, voter fraud, as I mentioned earlier, is a large topic. The part that DHS plays, we're looking at the integrity of the cyber systems. We'll continue to work with state localities on that. We also do have a program where states come to us with concern about illegal immigrants voting in a federal election. It's purely voluntary, if they ask us to look to see if some of their voters have the right to vote, we do that in a system that we currently have. So those would be the type of roles. Other than that, we're just working with state and locals to ensure if there's anything they need with respect to their infrastructure or systems, working with the secretaries of state, that we can provide that. GRASSLEY: Senator Leahy'? COONS Thank you. Madam Secretary, I'm convinced that we face a genuine threat to our next election and I think it's important that our president speak clearly about this and I'm grateful for the opportunity to work with you to try and both resolve our pressing challenges in immigration and in finding a reasonable compromise on immigration law to protect But also, more importantly, to protect our democracy, itself, in the next election. I think both are important issues for our nation going forward. Thank you for your testimony. GRASSLEY: Senator Leahy'? LEAHY: I was watching on the questions and answers, and I was thinking several months ago the DHS inspector general completed a report on the implementation of President Trump's travel ban. Inspector general asked for it to be released, but it's still being kept secret. Why haven't you released this report?I NIELSEN: Sir, as I understand it, that's part of ongoing discussions with the LG. There is no issue with respect to issuing the report. What's at LEAHY: Doesn't the American public have a right to know? NIELSEN: DHS-001-6335-001110 Absolutely. But some of the information in it is protected by privilege. And we also want to be sure that employees at the Department of Homeland Security have the ability to talk to each other and in a pre-deliberative (ph) way. LEAHY: Did the report acknowledge that certain DHS of?cials acted in violation of federal court orders by preventing some people from boarding ?ights to the United States? NIELSEN: It does draw a conclusion that is similar to what you're characterizing, but unfortunately that particular conclusion is mistaken. We were looking at a population whose visas had been revoked from. So from a DHS perspective, we cannot allow entrance if a visa is revoked. LEAHYDHS, rather, of?cials acted in violation of the federal court order by preventing people from boarding ?ights to the That did not happen? NIELSEN: No, sir. We complied in a timely manner. We also complied with the court orders. LEAHY: So the inspector general is wrong when he -- if he says that there is a violation of federal court orders by preventing passengers who boarded ?ights to the NIELSEN: Unfortunately, there is two parts of the coin here. By law we have to follow executive orders. By law we have to follow court orders. We cannot take a court order and decide not to comply with any part of the executive order, whether or LEAHY: Let?s just take the court order. Did certain DHS NIELSEN: We complied with all court orders. LEAHY: You do, OK. DHS-OO1-6335-001111 Now the report you released this morning, there has been a lot of press on it, but it doesn?t answer a lot of questions. The 402 foreign-born individuals convicted of terrorism, was that terrorism exclusively in the United States? Or was it terrorist acts abroad? or were they arrested abroad and brought to the US. for trial? NIELSEN: It includes all of that, I believe, sir, and it is detailed in the report. They had to be annexus (ph) to the United States, so (inaudible) LEAHY: Well, the report -- the report says exactly which countries they had come from? NIELSEN: I don't believe it says which countries, no, sir. But it does talk about what that population of convictions (inaudible) LEAHY: But you're going to get me the list of how many NIELSEN: The breakdown. LEAHY: were here in the United States for years, how many came from abroad, how many were -- committed acts elsewhere? I know you have to go back through -- most of them were prosecuted by either the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration. But I'd like to know how it's broken down. NIELSEN: Yes, sir. LEAHY: Now, earlier this month, CBP issued a derivative -- a directive on searching electronic devices at the border, including at airports. It says they have the right to thumb through travelers? phones and other electronics, without any basis for suspicion. They can demand a pass code to unlock it. And they can keep the device if they don't get this pass code, without any probable cause, without any basis or suspicion. DHS-OO1-6335-001112 So I want to make sure I understand this. I live an hour's drive from the Canadian border. If I go to Canada and visit some of my wife's relatives, and I come back, you can -- and I drive up in my Vermont license plate car, and it's easy to remember it; it has license plate I pop in (ph) and they say we want your -- your laptop and your phone and your pass code. And I say, well, do you have any reason? They say, we don't need one, is that correct? They can do that? NIELSEN: There LEAHY: I -- I understand they might not with me, but they can do that, is that correct? NIELSEN: They can search the data that is apparent on the phone. They can't use the phone to access anything that might be stored remotely. LEAHY: Well, they can demand the resident unlock their phone or laptop, then search through its contents. NIELSEN: Through the content on the phone. LEAHY: And the contents might be on the Cloud, which is remote. NIELSEN: No, they -- actually, sir, if I could, they will actually ask the person, in the 100th of 1 percent cases in which this occur, they will ask the person to disconnect the phone from the network. In unusual circumstances, if the person is not able to do that, the CBP of?cial will. But it actually prevents pulling down any data from the Cloud. LEAHY: They can they can require their pass code and all, without any probable cause, if they want, according to the directive they have. Is that correct? NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001113 Yes. LEAHY: Boy, NIELSEN: Probable cause, though is -- let's just be clear LEAHY: (Inaudible) (CROSSTALK) NIELSEN: it has to be a there has to be a reason. There has to be a reasonable suspicion LEAHY: Welcome to America. NIELSEN: probable cause, then allows them to of course look into other things. But, again, we?re talking about 1 100th of 1 percent. LEAHY: I don't care what it is, welcome to America. Incidentally, and I will be asking this question when you come before the Appropriations Committee, I?ve been trying to get answers from DHS about the hiring and retention issues at the Law Enforcement Support Center in Williston, Vermont. Please have your staff give us some understanding of that. I want to know -- I realize I?m going over my time here. I want to know where the Federal dollars that we have voted for, and being assigned where they're going, because we can't seem to ?nd out. And as your budget comes before my -- the committee where I'm Vice Chairman, I'm going to want to know the answers to that. And I want to know how quickly DHS and CBP will work with the Canadian government on preclearance. NIELSEN: On the Williston, Vermont issue, I'd be happy to provide that. I'm actually going to Canada on Thursday, as my ?rst international trip. We'll be talking about a variety of issues, but of course including preclearance. So, I'm happy to get back to you after that meeting and let you know what the path forward is. DHS-001-6335-001114 LEAHY: OK, well please please let me know. But on the Williston one, we have been trying, and trying, and trying to get an answer. Frankly, I?ve been trying to be very helpful, but I don?t want to vote more money unless we know what to expect. NIELSEN: We will follow up, sir. LEAHY: Thank you. NIELSEN: Absolutely. GRASSLEY: Senator -- you weren?t on the list, but if you want a second round, you're next up. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again, Madam Secretary. I want to emphasize how important the Special Counsel investigation of Russian meddling and collusion and possible obstruction of justice is. And I welcome your constructive and positive attitude toward that investigation. I hope you'll talk to the president and ask him to agree with you that it isn't a witch hunt, it isn't a hoax. It has to be supported. Political interference, as you put it, on any side, is abhorrent. On the question that we all want to move on from, which is that meeting on Thursday, I heard Senator Graham make reference to a tape. He, I believe, said that on the issue of whether or not the president used the word "love", we'll have to check the tape. Are you NIELSEN: Oh, I?m sorry, the -- yes, sorry, now I know what you are referencing. That was the Tuesday meeting he was referencing the one that was publicly aired. So I think he was saying to go back to the tape, because that was on the -- that was on the news. BLUMENTHAL: You're not aware of any tape of the Thursday meeting? DHS-OO1-6335-001115 NIELSEN: I am not. No. sir. BLUMENTHAL: Have you spoken to others about that meeting who might recall what words were used? NIELSEN: I actually have not. I haven't spoken to Senators Cotton or Purdue or Leader McCarthy, others who were there. I have not. BLUMENTHAL: How about anyone in the White House? NIELSEN: No. BLUMENTHAL: Have you discussed that meeting? NIELSEN: No. sir. BLUMENTHAL: Let me talk about the compromise that Senators Durbin and Graham have helped to lead. You mentioned that you had not seen anything before that meeting reduced to writing. You?re aware that there is a summary now in writing? NIELSEN: I do not have -- I personally do not have it. I would love to have it. BLUMENTHAL: I have a copy of it. NIELSEN: OK. DHS-OO1-6335-001116 BLUMENTHAL: I don't believe that it is classi?ed. But you have security clearance and I think, you would agree, it is the only bipartisan deal in town right now, correct? NIELSEN: There is a bill that I understand was introduced in the House. It has not been voted on, as you know. But there is a Goodlatte, McCaw bill as well. BLUMENTHAL: That's not bipartisan. NIELSEN: I -- I like I said, it hasn't been voted on, so I BLUMENTHAL: Well, it has no bipartisan sponsorship, correct? NIELSEN: Understood. BLUMENTHAL: So, if we?re going to reach a deal by the end of the week, we ought to be working with this deal, correct? NIELSEN: And my staff continues to do that, yes. BLUMENTHAL: And no one is going to get everything they want at this stage, correct? NIELSEN: Correct. BLUMENTHAL: Let me move on to, again, Puerto Rico, and ask you; in past crises there have been agreements between FEMA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. DHS-OO1-6335-001117 You made reference to HUD earlier in terms of HUD carrying out FEMA's Individual Assistance Program. Why have FEMA and HUD not reached such agreement? NIELSEN: With respect to housing? BLUMENTHAL: Correct. NIELSEN: Yes. So, we were -- a couple -- a couple reasons. One, we have some requests, as you know, that might come through the supplemental, or when the budget gets passed. So some of it is money that HUD needs to be able to implement its program. But, generally speaking, the roles and and the rules between the departments are very clear. They're in the national disaster recovery framework and they?re spelled out there in terms of the transitional period between response moving through to recovery. BLUMENTHAL: But they have to enter into an interagency agreement. It?s customary for your agency and HUD to do so. We?re more than three months after the hurricane and there is no such agreement here. I hope that you will reach this agreement because so far, only 350,000 of the one million applications for assistance in individual disaster relief have been approved by FEMA and HUD could be a really partner, correct? NIELSEN: Happy to look into that. BLUMENTHAL: Would you agree with me that the relief package is essential in meeting Puerto Rico's needs? The House has allocated, I believe, $81 billion, but none of it targeted to Puerto Rico. Would you agree that money has to be speci?cally allocated to Puerto Rico? NIELSEN: The governor continues to be clear what he believes he needs for his state to recover. I don't have those figures in front of me but yes. BLUMENTHAL: Well, he has said he needs $94 billion in my visits. He has a lot of evidence in support for it. Let me just ?nish by asking you -- it?s a simple question can you commit that the policies on DHS-OO1-6335-001118 sensitive locations, that there will be no enforcement operations at churches, hospitals, schools, courts will be rigorously followed by both CBP and NIELSEN: Yes, sir with one exception. In the courthouse, not all of the courthouse is considered sensitive location. Part of the courthouse is a controlled area. We will not target victims in that area. But it is controlled. It is much safer for my of?cers to pick up a criminal in that environment. But with respect to the 2012 list that continues to exist today, yes, you have my commitment, we will not enforce in those locations. BLUMENTHAL: And would you respond to my letters NIELSEN: Yes. BLUMENTHALI failure (inaudible). NIELSEN: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. BLUMENTHAL: Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Hirono. HIRONO: Thank you. Madam Secretary, how would it be possible for someone who entered this country through the Visa lottery program and who was a legal permanent resident, but had not yet gotten his U.S. citizenship to be responsible for sponsoring 23 other people for visas in the space of seven years? NIELSEN: As an LPR, you have the ability to sponsor. DHS-OO1-6335-001119 HIRONO: Is it possible to sponsor 23 others in a span of seven years? Let me put this into context. Because President Trump has been very vocal about the diversity lottery program as well as the chain migration and he cited numerous times at the meeting that I was at in the White House on Thursday about a horrible terror attack, which happened on the West Side Highway in New York City. And several times, he mentioned that the attacker who was admitted through the diversity visa program was responsible for 23 other immigrants entering the US. So I would like to get the factual basis for the president's assertion that this person has managed to bring in 23 other people into the country. Because this is what the president repeated many times. Can you -- do have that information or can you get that information? NIELSEN: I don't have it in front of me. I?m happy to provide it. As you know, there?s no ceiling on the number of people -- to my knowledge, there's no ceiling on the number of people that you can sponsor. But happy to provide you the information requested. HIRONO: There seems to be this -- this misconception about so-called chain migration that, somehow, someone can bring in an entire family tree, which includes just about anybody you can think of. And that is not how migration works. Because you have different groupings of family members that can come in under that kind of system. So I would really like to get the factual basis for what the president was asserting as -- as to this particular immigrant who came to this country. Somehow, I don't think that there is a factual basis. So turning to unaccompanied minors, who are apprehended at the border and who are released to HHS, you stated that -- and they do have to show up for their deportation hearings. You said that 90 percent of them do not show up? NIELSEN: Yes, ma'am. And not just to deportation hearings per se, but just to their initial HIRONO: Any kind of hearings? (ph) NIELSEN: they -- yes. HIRONO: DHS-OO1-6335-001120 So the -- the statistics from the Executive Of?ce of Immigration Review shows that the vast majority of children do show up and almost every child who has legal representation does show up. So I cosponsored a bill introduced by Senator Reed last Congress, and am introducing it again this Congress, that would require the government to appoint counsel to unaccompanied children coming across our border. And we know that there are children as young as three and four and I -- I have been to immigration court where there these young children. It is very true that if they are accompanied by a lawyer, that they are more likely to succeed in their request for asylum or whatever, the -- they refugee status. So if you would -- if you would like to see all the children return for the hearings, don't you agree that providing counsel is a good way to that -- to do that? NIELSEN: We have a duty to protect the children that come here, ma'am. So I?m happy to work with you and look at the proposal. HIRONO: I think one of the ways is to ensure that they be provided counsel, because you can hardly expect four, ?ve, six year old children to be able to represent themselves in these proceedings. I want to turn to the priorities -- the deportation priorities that you have. And you indicated that those who have ?nal orders of -- for removal, even those people who have not been convicted of any criminal no criminal convictions, that they may have a ?nal orders of removal. And many of them -- a number of them have received waivers from your department, waivers against deportation. So, you know, nobody's arguing that we should not be deporting people with criminal convictions but do you consider that anyone who has a deportation order, regardless of what the basis for that order was and where waivers have been granted in the past should not be looked at and provided waivers?I Because we know of examples of -- in Hawaii, there was a coffee farmer who had married an American citizen, who had American children, who was deported. And he had received a number of waivers. So is it not within the authority of your department to grant these waivers? NIELSEN: Ma'am, we look at each case on a case-by-case basis. What I was trying to assert before and I'll reassert now is we can ignore the law. So if they've gone through all of the courts, they've exhausted all possible appeals and they have a ?nal order removal, we will HIRONO: There are a number of people with ?nal orders of removal who have had waivers of their deportation. Is it not within the authority of your department to grant these waivers? DHS-OO1-6335-001121 NIELSEN: We look at them case-by?case. HIRONO: Yes or no. Do you have the you have the authority to grant the waivers? NIELSEN: In some cases, yes. HIRONO: Yes, you do. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Booker, before you talk, we've got -- I I said I had to quit around 2:00. Maybe it?s more like 2: 10. So I?ve got you and Harris. Senator Coons, do you want ?ve minutes? That's 15, so I hope that we can -- that nobody else comes in here, because I?d like to get my questions in. Go ahead, Senator Booker. HOOKER: After I speak, I can Katie (ph) bar the door if you'd like me too, sir. GRASSLEY: Go ahead, OK thank you. I'll I'll trust you. BOOKER: Thank you sir. Well, just real quick, the -- I, like you, agree that dangerous criminals, we should get them out of our country, but when you say that bucket of criminals, you?re talking about people that could be low level crimes from a decade ago. That still counts as a criminal, correct?I NIELSEN: The ones that we target are criminal offenses, in other words, there are some civil offenses that would not fall within our top tier prioritization. BOOKER: But but it's a felony for marijuana possession, say, that somebody might have done 10, 15 years ago. That's a that?s a criminal in your de?nition. DHS-OO1-6335-001122 NIELSEN: Yes sir, yes sir. HOOKER: And that person would be prioritized for deportation? NIELSEN: One of however many we agree on are here illegally, 11 million, yes. BOOKER: OK, you said earlier, and this might be a question for the record, because I know you weren?t in your position at this time, but you said earlier that the customs border patrol follows court orders, correct? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. HOOKER: And so I had a personal experience with this last year when I went to Dulles Airport during the first iteration of the Muslim ban, there was a -- there was a temporary injunction from a federal judge, requiring the customs and border patrol to provide individuals effected by the executive order access to counsel. I was called to go up there because they were refusing to abide by that and provide counsel for those individuals. This was a question for the record, would you please explain to me -- I was there myself, they refused to even talk to me or discuss it as I was holding the court order to let the people being detained. Could you please, for the record -- I have yet to get an understanding of why customs and border patrol was refusing to abide by a court order. NIELSEN: I?d be happy to look into that. BOOKER: Thank you very much. On December lst, 2017', Department of Homeland Security?s of?ce of Inspector General released a detail of report detailing the results of on and out spot inspections of six detention facilities. I?m sure this is a yes question, but you believe in the dignity of all human beings, correct? DHS-OO1-6335-001123 NIELSEN: Absolutely. BOOKER: And that they should be treated with a certain level that respects that dignity and af?rms your humanity. Well, the Inspector General's report raised serious questions regarding the treatment and the care of ICE detainees. The report stated, and I quote, we identi?ed problems that undermine the protection of detainee's rights, their humane treatment and the provision of a safe and healthy environment. In light of this administration's highly aggressive posture towards the immigrant community, and putting people into these facilities, it?s very troubling to me that your own Inspector General would have a report detailing the United States of America treating others in an inhumane manor that?s an assault to their dignity. And so can you af?rm to me that you're aware of this report? NIELSEN: I am aware of this report, yes sir. BOOKER: And then what actions are you taking right now to address the concerns? NIELSEN: First of all, looking into both the recommendations and the facts provided, as you might know, the Homeland Security Advisory Counsel did its own review independently for the department just a year ago, over a year ago I guess at this point, on detention centers. I?d like to look at the recommendations from both to address any issues that remain, and certainly any concerns of inhumane treatment. BOOKER: 0K, and so you're saying that you?re going to try and implement the recommendations of the report, can you give me some kind of timeline or show us (ph) and NIELSEN: I?m happy to come and brief you myself, sir. I have not had an opportunity to understand the depth of any changes that might be necessary, or whether the facts -- I just need more information, as you said it just came out in December. So I'd be happy to do that. DHS-OO1-6335-001124 BOOKER: I?m really grateful, and I will take you up on that offer. On September 11th, right after the attacks, the federal government created a -- I know you -- the NSEER System, the National Security Entry and Exit Registration System. The program requires non-citizen Visa holders from certain countries to register with the federal government. The registration process included finger printing, photo -- photo taking, interrogations. Once an individual was registered, NSEERS required the person to regularly check in with immigration of?cials. And ?nally, NSEERS monitors people who registered with the program to ensure that no one remained in the country longer than the law permitted them. Notably, the only people who had to register for the list were from Muslim countries with the exception of North Korea. And so, I?m wondering, do you believe that it is legal in keeping with the values of our country and trying in our (ph) constitution to force people from Muslim nations to register their presence in the United States? NIELSEN: Based on the fact that they?re Muslim, absolutely not. HOOKER: And I've introduced legislation trying to prevent that kind of registry from being created through NSEERS, is that something that you'd be willing to commit to making sure that does not happen in terms of creating something akin to a Muslin registry? NIELSEN: Yes. BOOKER: Thank you. HARRIS: Thank you. I think you would agree that all federal agencies, in fact all government agencies, have limited resources to perform their duties and responsibilities, and have to make priorities therefore about where they will use the limited resources and prioritize based on whatever they perceive to be their mission. Your testimony before the Homeland Security Committee, which I am a member, on November 8th, you -- I asked you if you agreed with what your predecessor Secretary Kelly at the time, said which is that in terms of enforcement priorities, there has to be something else, we?re operating more or less at the other end of the spectrum in terms of the range of offenses for which you can DHS-OO1-6335-001125 detain, and he said and we're operating more or less at the other end of the spectrum, and that is criminals, multiple convictions, he said. I asked you that, and I quoted that, you said yes I agree, we should prioritize criminals and any others that we are concerned may present a national security concern. I asked you whether the de?nition of criminals would include people who have violated the law in terms of the violation of the penal code. And I asked you to urge -- I urged you to consider those as the de?nition of a criminal. You said, quote, yes, so the criminal the criminally criminality that I would be talking about, with respect to enforcement priority, is above and beyond the original illegal entry. The Washington Post reported in September of this past year, a three fold increase in arrests of non criminals by your agency. You also, in addition, apparently have changed the way that you report data in your department, and in the past, ICE would provide data broken down by individuals who committed the most serious offenses. And, however, this year, you?re report has lumped all criminal offenses and convictions together so you have combined serious crimes with traf?c offenses. I would urge you to recall and review your testimony before a Senate Committee only a couple of months ago, where you at that point, in seeking con?rmation of this United States Senate, indicated that you saw a difference between criminal offenses, felonies, and those who have entered the country illegally. For example, I would ask you to consider the case U.C. Berkeley student Luis Mora, who remains in DHS custody, I believe as of today, but was apprehended on January 4th. He came to this country as a child, he is a political science major, he volunteers at his church, he was the winner of the San Diego Union-Tribune?s Young Latino Champion Award, and today's the ?rst day of instruction at U.C. Berkeley for their Spring semester, and instead of being in class he is in ICE custody, at the Otay Mesa Detention Center. Madam secretary, I would ask you to consider the previous comments you have made to a committee about your priorities regarding enforcement. Take a look at this case and determine whether he in fact ?ts what you have indicated before in your priorities. Because if you stand by your previous testimony, he does not. NIELSEN: I stand by my testimony. I am happy to look into the facts. I can't -- not prepared to testify to them today because I?m not aware of them. HARRIS: I appreciate if you?ll look into the facts. Thank you for that. During a January 4th, 2018 interview on Fox news ICE agency Acting Director Homan said he asked the Justice Department to, quote, "Look into criminal charges for elected of?cials with sanctuary policies, as they are harboring illegal aliens, according to S-USC 1324." This comment was speci?cally about California elected of?cials after the enactment of the California Values Act. My question is whether DHS is currently working with the Justice Department to bring section 8-USC 1324 charges or any criminal charges against state or local of?cials. DHS-001-6335-001126 NIELSEN: I believe the request was made. The Department of Justice is reviewing what avenues might be available. The context of this is of course not only putting my ICE of?cers at risk but also ?nding an ef?cient and effective way to enforce our immigration laws. HARRIS: So, you are aware of cases in which this code will be used to criminally charge elected officials? NIELSEN: I am not aware of any cases, no ma'am. I believe it was just a request to look into it. HARRIS: And was that a request to from your department? NIELSEN: Yes. HARRIS: At your con?rmation hearing, you committed that you would report to Congress within three months about what you have done to address the November 3rd report which is entitled, Major Management and Performance Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security. Are you prepared to keep that commitment which would be March NIELSEN: Yes, ma'am HARRIS: Last week, the White House disbanded the controversial Election Integrity Commission because without finding widespread evidence of voter fraud. Following it's disbanding Chris Kovach said claimed he would "be working closely with DHS and the White House on this issue." And my question -- my ?nal question Mr. Chairman -- could you please specify, does Mr. Kovach have an advisory role or any role at DHS on this matter or any other matter? NIELSEN: He does not have an advisory role. He is as you know a secretary of state. We're working with all of the secretaries of state to ensure the integrity of our systems but, no, he does not have any advisory, informal or formal role. DHS-001-6335-001127 HARRIS Thank you. GRASSLEY: Senator Coons? COONS: Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Madam Secretary, for a chance to continue questioning you on some of the issues I?ve raised previously and a few additional. First, about conditions of detention. On September 26 last year the ACLU filed a complaint asking DHS to investigate 10 cases of pregnant women who were held for weeks at detention facilities in California and Texas despite a memo signed by Acting Director Homan last year barring the practice "absent extraordinary circumstances or the requirement of mandatory detention." I also raised this in person with then Acting Director Homan. The complaint by ACLU alleges at least two of these women miscarried while in ICE detention centers because of insufficient healthcare support during detention. How many pregnant women are currently in ICE detention centers and what has DHS done to ensure they get the healthcare they need? NIELSEN: Sir, I can't give you the number, but the guidance that you referenced by Acting Director Homan goes into quite some detail about the provisions and support that ICE detention centers would provide. Many of the instances I believe that have been in the press are actually in our sister agency related to HHS. So, we?re working with HHS as well to ensure that the policies are aligned. COONS: Thank you. The administration sought in this year?s budget proposal, FY. '18 that we?re now well into, to cut funding for the Port Security Grant Program by half from $100 million to $50 million. And I understand there?s a proposal being discussed to cut it even further to 36 million. Needless to say, this program's important to a number of ports on the Delaware River. My home state is Delaware. Why do you think it's prudent to signi?cantly reduce investments in port security? NIELSEN: What I believe, sir, is that we -- what we did, what the administration did, was look at all of the grant programs across the board from a risk basis. There are other risks that we need to address so it's more of an allocation issue. It's not to say there isn't a risk at the ports. As you know, the DHS-OO1-6335-001128 Coast Guard continues to be very involved, as do other parts of DHS and the government that help with the security of the ports. COONS: In April, Senator Rubio and I introduced the Counterterrorism and Screening Assistance Act. And there is a companion in the House. It would strengthen the ability of our allies and partners around the world to track terrorist and foreign ?ghter travel, in particular. It directs DHS to provide appropriate versions of custom and border protections, global travel, targeting and analysis systems, software, and other systems to foreign partner governments. And it also authorizes DHS to provide excess nonlethal equipment, supplies, training to foreign governments to further U.S. Homeland Security interests. Does DHS support these goals'? And, in your understanding, would it support the passage of this bill? NIELSEN: To prevent foreign fighters from coming to the United States, absolutely. Yes, sir. We?d look forward to working with you on it. COONS: We appreciate your engagement on that. About four months ago, Hurricane Maria slammed into the island of Puerto Rico and both the U.S. Virgin Island. And Puerto Rico particularly, and to some extent, Florida, suffered signi?cant damage, but it was catastrophic for Puerto Rico. What?s your sense today, four months later, of roughly what percentage the Island has power and water'? NIELSEN: Well, the power, as you know, goes up and down. We're around 60 percent to 70 percent water. The story with water's a little better. But there's a lot more that we need to do, sir. It's going to be a road of recovery, we need to continue to work with them. COONS: And what's your sense of the official death toll in Puerto Rico as a result of Hurricane Maria's" NIELSEN: So, I know they?re looking at that. As you know, it's a state and local determination to determine causation. We've been in close contact with the governor as he does his review and assessment. It's an important ?gure for us all to understand. COONS Do you believe your department?s response to Hurricane Maria could have been better? NIELSEN: DHS-001-6335-001129 I believe that we learn lessons as we go. It was an unprecedented response, is what I can tell you, both from a prepositioning to an immediate response to the men and women who are there on the ground now. We had one of the largest surge forces that we?ve ever had, meaning we had people coming from all parts of government to join with FEMA. But I'm very anxious to learn the lessons learned and just see how we can do better in the future. COONS: I?ll say, while I'm grateful for the service of those, the United States military and FEMA who responded, I think it could have been, and still needs to be, better than it has been. I hear regularly from the Puerto Rican community in Delaware about family members who are still stranded, and about failures to respond in a way that I would expect Delaware would have received or other states on the mainland would have received. And I am gravely disappointed in the response to date and would love to work with you to try and, as you would put it, learn those lessons but also to strengthen the response. My last question; since November, the department has terminated TPS designations, temporary protected status designations, for quite a few countries. If I'm not mistaken, Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, they?ve suffered a devastating earthquake. El Salvador, a country with very high homicide levels; as well as Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone which suffered near catastrophic civil wars. Our country has long welcomed those seeking refuge from natural disasters and from civil strife. There was, as has been discussed at great length, an unfortunate meeting last week where the president was reported to have suggested that we don?t welcome people from certain countries and in particular countries under dif?cult circumstances. In my experience, some of the greatest Americans have come from countries suffering through dif?culties. Alexander Hamilton immigrated here from Nevis. I have been to Haiti, I have been to Liberia and there are Liberian Americans and Haitian Americans in my home state who make great contributions to our state and our economy and our culture every day. Will you produce the analysis and the input the DHS received from other agencies that justify these terminations in TPS status NIELSEN: I?m happy to work with your staff to the extent that some of the information does not belong to me, if you will. I'd have to work with my colleagues to be able to give you an affirmative. But yes I'm happy to walk you through the full analysis. COONS: Thank you, Madam Secretary, for the answers and, in my view, it is important that we ?nd a way working together to both protect our homeland from those threats we both see clearly yet to do so in a way that re?ects and respects the values that have made this a country that has long been a beacon for human rights and a place that has welcomed refugees and that has been strengthened by the contributions of immigrants from all of the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. DHS-OO1-6335-001130 GRASSLEY: Two members left. Me with my second round. ['11 have a couple questions and then I?m going to go and Senator Flake is going to ?nish up and he's going to use his 10 minutes. Since October 31st, and that's the terror attack that we had in the United States, call for an end to the Diversity Visa, those calls have increased. As you know, the controversial program functions as a lottery allowing aliens from countries with low rates of immigration to the United States a chance to register to submit visa application. Due to random selection applicants many have expressed concern with the pro grams susceptibility to fraud. 2017' GAO report found that consular officer reported widespread use of fake documents to verify applicant?s identity. In addition they state inspection general report found that aliens from countries with ties to terrorism were permitted to apply for this visa. In a recent response to a letter that I sent asking for a candied assessment of this program the State Department described the document an identify fraud that exists in the application process and the resource intensive method for uncovering it. Due to the Diversity Visa Lottery?s vulnerability to fraud and abuse its document use by terrorists do you think the Diversity Visa Lottery Program should be eliminated? Do you think that this visa program has an increased potential for use by terrorists and criminals entering the country and receiving status? And the second question is more important than the first one. NIELSEN: Sir, I believe, as you said, it?s documented. There?s a lot of fraud and abuse in this program and with the 80 plus programs that we have for legal immigration I believe that we can and should do better for the American people to ensure that those who come here are able to contribute, willing to contribute and to assimilate into our communities. GRASSLEY: In regard to sanctuary cities and states, I applaud this administration's efforts to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions and encourage communities to participate in the 287(g) program. Unfortunately since President Trump took of?ce a number of jurisdictions decided to stop honoring ICE detainer requests. That's dangerous and I worry about the impact an entire state becoming sanctuary will have on public safety. So, considering that, can you describe the Trump administration ongoing efforts to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions and what steps you are taking encourage communities to cooperate? NIELSEN: Yes, sir. First of all, as you know, we?ve asked Congress make clear that the detainer authority applies and also to provide indemni?cation from those who want to work with us. This is truly a issue of safety. This is it an issue of safety for immigrant communities, it is also an issue of safety for the of?cers and men and women of DHS. DHS-OO1-6335-001131 The safest place to take someone into custody is in a controlled environment which is in the jails after they have committed the crime. The container, as you know, allows for a state and local jurisdiction to give us 48 hours notice. It does not have to be that they hold 48 hours after. They can give us 48 hours notice and we will come and pick them up in a controlled environment which is safer to all of the communities and to my of?cers. GRASSLEY: Yes. I think I'll submit the rest of my questions for answer in writing. Thank you for being here. And now, Senator Flake for your 10 minutes. FLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and sorry I may have missed a lot of what is going on. I tried to get some of it coming in but if I plow old ground, I'm sorry. With regard to, I know, I heard mention of the president wanted to get a full 820 billion appropriated for the border wall or wall system. Do we have left over money even from last year, money that has been authorized that has not been spent on border infrastructure? NIELSEN: Sir, the money, as you know, is allocated and there?s plans to spend it. So the 20 that the president was speaking of is moving into the future in other needs that we've identi?ed. FLAKE: How quickly, if you moved as fast as fast as you can, could a border structure wall system be built? NIELSEN: We will build it as fast as we can. As you know, there are a lot of variables that are hard to count for and not just the land acquisition but the willingness of states and localities to work with us. FLAKE: Right. NIELSEN: I would just note that California has a blacklisting law that they have proposed which would prevent contractors from working with the Department of Homeland Security and if they do they are not able to get state and local contracts. So, variables such as that are hard for me to account for but we will work on it as fast as we can, sir. DHS-OO1-6335-001132 FLAKE: I believe I have heard you say we're talking seven years at the soonest that this could be built and that says nothing of eminent domain issues and litigation in Texas, for example, where it's almost all private land. Is there any -- do you believe it could be done faster than seven years? NIELSEN: We are certainly looking into it, yes, sir. FLAKE: If it can't be done in one year, is there any reason for the Congress to appropriate all $20 billion for this at this time? NIELSEN: I think the discussion was around authorization not appropriation. The idea there is if we only authorized year-by-year there's a question of whether we would have the funds for the next year. And, as you know, these contracts are quite complicated. Being able to know that the money will be there the next year, at least from an authorization perspective makes quite a difference in terms of efficiency and effectiveness of acquisition programs. FLAKE: Let me drill down a little on what the border wall or wall system actually means. The president is -- some language he's used is, to me, a little con?ising. Right after he was elected, I believe he said we're not talking about a fence, we're talking about a wall. And he's talked about a big beautiful wall. I have appreciated what you've said and what has been said recently by the president and others and appreciation that it can't and shouldn't be a 2000 mile wall that the topography simply does not allow it. And but I just like to talk about Arizona for a minute. We have over 300 miles of border. Is there any place in Arizona that you are aware of that has an opaque style wall that somebody would think of as a wall? NIELSEN: In terms of planning for future? FLAKE: No, in terms of current. NIELSEN: DHS-OO1-6335-001133 I -- sir, I don't know. I'm happy to get back to you on that. FLAKE: I can answer some of that. We have had, in the past, through some of the communities, the old landing mats from Vietnam era that were turned on their end and cemented into the ground. The problem is you can't see through them. And so kids on the other side or others on the other side of the wall can throw rocks and there?s property damage and injury to our border agents. So we've actually been taking those out, the plan has been taking those walls out and putting in a bollard style fence, which works better. In fact, the president visited near -- well, in Yuma. Near Yuma, near San Luis. We have probably the best border infrastructure anywhere along the southern border. It?s two fences with an access road in the middle. But two fences, not a wall. I -- I?m struggling to think of any place in Arizona now where we have what could properly be called a wall or anywhere were such an opaque kind of structure that one thinks about when they say wall would be appropriate. Can you correct me there? NIELSEN: I think your your point is well taken. What has changed is the president asked the men and women of CBP what is it that you need. What is it that you need to provide operational control of the border. And what the men and women on the front lines came back and said is we do not need a wall from sea to shining sea, what we need is a variety -- and that?s why we call it a wall system -- a variety of components that together help us reach those four missions that I mentioned earlier. I'll just say quickly because I think you -- you were outside. But impedance and denial, which is that infrastructure, access and mobility admission readiness and domain awareness. FLAKE: All right. There some parts of Arizona, actually, where we have a lot of our border traf?c, near Naco or Douglas, where if you did put a border wall, it would actually drown out communities on the southern side. You have a watershed and river and ?oods that -- that go northward. And if you had a wall, it would impede the progress. In fact, even the fences that we have there, the new fences have to have storm gates in them. And in certain times of the year, those storm gates have to be left open for the floods come through. And so I I just I hope that the the evolution of discussion on this will continue. And that when you talk about a border wall and the wall and the wall has to be ?Jnded, it -- it conjures up images that don't exist, to say nothing of who would pay for it. And we won't even get into that. But -- but just when talking about the wall and insistence that the wall be funded, it -- it -- that may be a good rhetorical device or campaign device, but in the real world it doesn?t mean much. And I'm pleased, like I said, that you?ve been moving in a different direction, talking about a wall system, which really isn't a wall. Fences are better. Good fences make good neighbors is DHS-OO1-6335-001134 probably apt here. And we certainly do need more structures, more barriers more infrastructure. In previous iterations of immigration reform legislation, we've provided for that. It's not just now. The president wasn't the first one to talk about needing a border barrier. So -- so anyway, that -- I'll move on from -- from that and talk a little about CBP hiring. We have the CBP Hire Act to make it easier to retain and hire border agents and port agents. Can you talk about what the needs are there? NIELSEN: FLAKE: We've had dif?culty hiring them fast enough. NIELSEN: We -- hiring continues to be a challenge but one that we're taking very seriously. Commissioner - Acting Commissioner McAleenan has been very clear both on the need to hire and to retain. So we're looking not just at our authorities and how we can innovatively reach new and expanded audience, but also we're looking at things like the polygraphs that they have to take as of?cers, to ensure that they are done ef?ciently and that they're not inappropriately, if you will, and unnecessarily weeding some out. FLAKE: All right. With regard to the the wall systems. Can you talk about the need for border roads or access roads? NIELSEN: They're vital. It's the way in which CBP can then respond to an alert, whether it be a visual alert or whether it be from a sensor or camera so that access and mobility is key not only for safety of the agents, but also for their ability to do their job. FLAKE: Let me just say for Arizona, when I talk to the property owners down there, the ranchers and others, that is one of the most important items that they reference again and again and again. And the border agents. You know, you you can have decent barriers, which we can't have everywhere. As I mentioned, the topography doesn't allow it. But you've got to have roads. You've got to have access. And sometimes, the there can be activity, illegal activity or crossings just a few miles away. But without access roads to get there, it can take a couple of hours for agents to -- to -- to respond. So I -- I hope that that's on the list in the bipartisan bill that we've been working on. That is part of the -- what -- what is authorized, so I hope that -- that that can move ahead. DHS-OO1-6335-001135 With -- with that, let me say do you support body cameras for DHS law enforcement? NIELSEN: I have not had the opportunity to have that discussion with my component heads but I understand the need for it and I look forward to discussing with them. I'm happy to get back to you on that. FLAKE: All right. Senator Whitehouse? WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman Flake. FLAKE: You're recognized for five minutes. WHITEHOUSE: I think I may be the last questioner that you see. So I hope that as you go back and reflect on today?s hearin 3, that a few things stick out. I think Senator Graham?s conversation with you -- I hope that you take that very much to heart. I think it?s formulation of the need for there to be a Phase 1 and then a phase two and that if either side wants everything in phase two pushed forward to Phase 1, we?ll crash right at the very beginning, we won't be able to move forward. Phase 1, I think, is a very constructive idea. And I thought that after the first meeting with the president, we were very close to the outline of a Phase 1 resolution. I think also the notion that's been discussed here of wall systems is a very good idea because I think there's a difference between being in support of border security and being in pursuit of massive, unnecessary, overly- expensive and unwanted public works spending programs, just walls for the sake of walls. And particularly where they will do damage to local communities, local farmers, local access to the river and so forth. I think the more we calm down and think this thing through, the more you?ll ?nd that there is in fact support for considerable reasonable increases to border security. And I hope that's the key message you take away. I would like to change the topic in my last minutes to fentanyl. Fentanyl is killing Americans at a phenomenal, appalling rate. Fentanyl is a compound created chemically that behaves in the mind, in the brain, as if it were heroin, but it can be dialed up to far more lethal concentrations. And the result is that very often, an addict who is accustomed to heroin gets suddenly into Fentanyl, and they die. Rhode Island has a small town called it's got just a couple thousand people. It's got, I think, only two funeral parlors. There may be 25, 30 people in the entire police department, so in one three month period, beginning of the year a couple of years back when I DHS-OO1-6335-001136 was working on the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act with Senator Portman, they had six fatalities in that little community. That is a little bit like beating on a bruise, you know? People get hurt by the ?rst fatality, and then the second, and then the third, and then the fourth, and people know each other and it's back to the same funeral homes and the police are starting to get very agonized at what they have to see and how hard it is for them to respond and that they can't deal with it. And the lethal aspects of Fentanyl, I think, are felt all across the country in all of our states. My understanding is that a very good deal of it is coming from China, that it is so potent that it can be dialed down to fairly small packages and still shipped, and I would like to urge that you make it a really important border security priority, as important as walls and fences, to try to ?gure out how our shipping services and our postal service, through which customs controlled materials come from overseas, can ?nd the damn Fentanyl before it gets into our children and kills them. NIELSEN: You have my commitment, sir. Earlier, we talked about the STOP Act, we talked about the INTERDICT Act, but we need to do more and couldn?t I couldn't agree more. WHITEHOUSE: I think the topics that I've mentioned in my previous questioning, election interference and cyberseeurity, are ones where I think there's very considerable partisan eagerness to protect our country on both sides of the aisle. Republicans and democrats alike feel very strongly about that. Fentanyl's exactly the same way. NIELSEN: I agree. WHITEHOUSE: There is a bipartisan door that is open to you on all three of these issues, so I urge you, come knocking. NIELSEN: I look forward to it sir. WHITEHOUSE: OK, good. NIELSEN: Thank you for bringing all three up. DHS-OO1-6335-001137 WHITEHOUSE: Now, I'm a little frustrated that there seems to be no proactive legislative effort coming from any part of the administration on eyber, coming from any part of the administration on election interference, and very little coming on -- on Fentanyl, and I think these are opportunities that you are missing to accomplish important things in a bipartisan way that will save American lives. NIELSEN: We will be by to talk about it. WHITEHOUSE: Very well, thank you. NIELSEN: Thank you. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman Flake. FLAKE: Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I?m glad that Senator Graham mentioned the phases, I know we spoke about that in that Tuesday meeting. But those of us who have been involved in immigration reform legislation before recognize that some of these issues are extremely thorny. They take a lot of negotiation and compromise on all sides, things like chain migration asylum policy -- policies dealing with unaccompanied minors, worker programs, enforcement issues, those are all things that will need to be part of comprehensive reform. But in order to make sure that we protect those who came, through no fault of their own, the so called DACA kids, there's got to be a Phase 1, and phase two and probably a phase three. And I hope that that -- that message is taken back and certainly recognized, in order to get the votes that we need to pass this important legislation. The hearing record will be open for one week. I would ask those who need to get questions in, and ask those who are answering the questions, to do it as quickly as possible. And I ask unanimous consent that the closing statement of Senator Grassley be part of the record, without objection, and with (LAUGHTER) nobody to object to. With that, the hearing stands adjourned. DHS-OO1-6335-001138 NIELSEN: Thank you, sir. List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA, CHAIRMAN ORRIN G. HATCH, R-UTAH LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-S.C. JOHN CORNYN, MIKE LEE, TED CRUZ, R-TEXAS JEFF FLAKE, THOM TILLIS, R-N.C. BEN SASSE, R-NEB. MICHAEL D. CRAPO, R-IDAHO JOHN KENNEDY, R-LA. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, RANKING MEMBER PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT. RICHARD J. DURBIN, D-ILL. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, D-R.I. AMY KLOBUCHAR, D-MINN. CHRIS COONS, D-DEL. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, D-CONN. MAZIE K. HIRONO, D-HAWAII CORY BOOKER, KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF. WITNESSES: HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY KIRSTJ EN NIELSEN TESTIFIES DHS-OO1-6335-001139 . Heulton, T'grler {bif?i me' dibifEii (W5) To: Subject: RE: From WH Date: 2018f01f03 19:03:04 Priority: Normal Type: Note Krebs said the same thing on a different chain. Will track down. Thanks From: We) Sent: January 03, 2018 7:01:30 PM To: Heulton, Tyler; I Subject: RE: From WH This really wouldn?t be a cyber thing. First I?m hearing of it. DHS-001-6335-001140 From: Houlton, Tyler Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 7:00:14 PM Subject: FW: From WH Any guidance? mm: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:59:16 PM To: Houlton, Tyler Subject: From WH Tyler, Are you guys putting out a statement on this from the ?Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in DHS-001-6335-001141 endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.? Houlton, Tyler libli?i Sender: 0311(5) Recipient: Sent Date: 2018f01/O3 19:03:03 Delivered Date: 2013;01/03 19:03:04 DHS-001-6335-001142 waldman, Katie thus: I From. ?Claffey, Lauren {bus} h?n'R'l ?Costanzo, Emily ?we: I Iii-mm (W5) ?Hoffman, Jonathan libiiEi I Iib?ii?Ei ?Houlton, TylerIiIb?JIlE} limits: I ?Lansing, Christyn [:th IibiiEi To: Subject: Zeke Miller Tweet Date: 2013f01f03 18:50:52 Priority: Normal Type: Note Zeke Miller @ZekeJMiller Trump dissolves election fraud commission per WH statement after states buck information requests 3-: Media preview :Htwitter.coleekeJ ii ler/statusf948702880973942784 Waldman, Katie I Sender: biiE?i I ?Claffey, Lauren I I ?Costanzo, Emily limits) I Recipient: ?Hoffman, Jonathan irhwm I (Imus: DHS-001-6335-001143 ?Houlton, Tvler If bif 61 dams: ?Lansing, Christvn Marsh 103KB) Sent Date: ZOIBIDUOB 13:50:51 Delivered Date: 2?13f01103 18:50:52 DHS-001-6335-001144 From: 5 ?Hoffman Jonathan ?Claffey, Lauren Fw: Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Date: 2018101303 18:48:50 Priority: Normal Type: Note Subject: FYI From: White House Press Office Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:45:38 PM To: Media Inquiry Subject: Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity DHS-001-6335-001145 THE WHITE HOUSE Of?ce of the Press Secretary FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE January 3, 2018 Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity ?Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.? DHS-001-6335-001146 Unsubseribe The White House - 1600 Avenue, NW - Washington DC 20500 - 202-456-1111 Houlton. Tvler Irb?HEh Sender: ?Hoffman, Jonathan (knife: I ?Claffey, Lauren My I drbirsi ?Manfra, Jeanettelfb?IIEI Recipient-W?nhenmum I Sent Date: 2018f01I'03 18:48:49 Delivered Date: 2018f01I'03 18:48:50 DHS-001-6335-001147 Subject: RE: From WH Date: 2018:01f03 19:22:23 Priority: Normal Note Thanks From: (mus) Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 7:21:56 PM To: Subject: RE: From WH Tyler?s cell: From: DHS-001-6335-001148 Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 7:02 PM To: Houlton, Tyler 100(5) we: Subject: RE: From WH This really wouldn?t be a cyber thing. First I?m hearing of it. From: Heulton, Tyler Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 7:00: 14 PM To: (bus) Subject: FW: From WH Any guidance? DHS-OO1-6335-OO1149 From: WE) Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:59:16 PM To: Houlton, Tyler Subject: From WH Tyler, Are you guys putting out a statement on this from the ?Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action." Sender: Recipient: Sent Date: ZOISIDUOB 19:22:23 DHS-001-6335-001150 From: Bloomberg Government To: ?him Subject: First Word Alert: WASHINGTON DAYBOOK: Trump Hosts Malaysian PM at White House Date: 201?}09f12 07:27:01 Type: Note WASHINGTON DAYBOOK: Trump Hosts Malaysian PM at White House By .Joi Preciphs September 12, 201? ET Bloomberg First Word Here?s a look at the scheduled events of interest today in Washington. All times are Eastern and subject to change. WHAT TO WATCH - President Trump hosts Malaysia?s Razak at White House 'k . - Senate plans vote on Hassett nomination for CEA WHITE HOUSE . - 11:45am: Trump hosts Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak at White House; pair hold expanded meeting at 12:10pm - 6:30pm: Trump hosts dinner with senators CONGRESS - Senate convenes at 10am; resumes consideration of motion to proceed to NDAA, post-cloture - 2:15pm: Senate proceeds to consider nomination of Kevin Hassett to be chairman of Council of Economic Advisers; roll-call vote approx. 2:35pm i - House meets at 10am; votes postponed until 6:30pm 0 - Rules Cmte meets 3pm to take up legislation aimed at deporting members of designated criminal gangs, and barring members of criminal gangs from entering the Room H-313, US. Capitol - NOTE: Link to text of HR. 3697; link to description from House DHS-001-6335-001151 Judiciary Cmte Chairman Bob Goodlatte and bill sponsor Rep. Barbara Comstock BUDGETIECONOMY FINANCE - - 8:10am: Treasury Sec. Steven Mnuchin speaks at the Delivering Alpha Conference in NY. 0 - JPMorgan Chase Co. CEO Jamie Dimon and Blackstone Group Chief Stephen Schwarzman also scheduled to deliver remarks 0 - 2pm: House Financial Services Subcmte on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit and Subcmte on Monetary Policy and Trade hold joint hearing, "Examining the Relationship Between Prudential Regulation and Monetary Policy at the Federal Reserve"; 2128 Rayburn . - 3pm: House Cmte on the Judiciary Subcmte on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law holds hearing, "Occupational Licensing: Regulation and Competition"; 2141 Rayburn DEFENSEICONTRACTING - - 2pm: House Cmte on Armed Services oversight panel holds meeting "Securing the Peace After the Fall of 2212 Rayburn - - Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity holds meeting at New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College, in Manchester, NH. - Related story: Federal Judge Wants More Information From Trump?s Voter Panel ENERGY . - 10am: House Energy and Commerce panel on energy holds hearing on reliability in the electricity industry, with FERC Chairman Neil Chatterjee scheduled to testify; 2123 Rayburn HEALTH - - 10am: Senate Finance Cmte holds hearing, "Health Care: Issues Impacting Cost and Coverage"; 215 Dirksen . - 10am: Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Cmte holds hearing, "Stabilizing Premiums and Helping Individuals in the Individual Insurance Market for 2018: State Flexibility"; 430 Dirksen - - 10am: US. Census Bureau will hold an online news conference to DHS-001-6335-001152 announce ?ndings from three reports: Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016; Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2016; and the Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2016 HOMELANDITRANSPORTATION . - Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Assn kicks off 2-day event, "Homeland Security Conference" at Walter E. Washington Convention Center . - 10:15am: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Cmte holds hearing to consider nominee Daniel J. Kaniewski to be FEMA deputy administrator for protection and national preparedness; 342 Dirksen - - 2:30pm House Cmte on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcmte on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials holds hearing, "Building a 21st Century Infrastructure for America: Rail Stakeholders? Perspectives"; 2167 Rayburn INTERIOR . - 4pm: House Natural Resources Cmte holds markup of four pieces of legislation including HR. 3668, dealing with sportsmen?s and recreational access to federal lands, and HR. 71?, requiring the govt to examine the economic cost of adding to the endangered orthreatened species lists; 1334 Longworth LAWIIMMIGRATION - 9am: Bipartisan Policy Center holds an event, "Curbing Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing" . - 10:15am: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Cmte considers nomination of Jonathan Pittman to be an associate judge, Superior Court of the District of Columbia; 342 Dirksen 1t - - 9:30am: Senate Foreign Relations Cmte holds hearing on nominees to be ambassador to Afghanistan, ambassador to Bahrain, and director of the African Development Bank; 419 Dirksen . - 10am: House Cmte on Foreign Affairs holds hearing, "Sanctions, Diplomacy, and Information: Pressuring North Korea;" 2172 Rayburn . - 4:55pm: Sec. of State Rex Tillerson meets with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi at State Dept TECHNOLOGYITELECOM DHS-001-6335-001153 1t 0 - 10am: Senate Banking Cmte holds hearing on examining fintech landscape; 538 Dirksen UNITED NATIONS . - The 72nd Regular Session of the United Nations General Assembly begins at the world body?s headquarters in New York City with the theme, ?Focusing on People: Striving for Peace and a Decent Life for All on a Sustainable Planet? 0 - Trump will make his first address before the body next week; General Debate will open on Sept. 19 AFTER THE HILL . - Stephen Bannon, the former White House chief strategist, will speak in a moderated conversation at the CLSA investors forum in Hong Kong - Related story: Bannon to Speak at China-Linked Forum That Hosted David Beckham . - 6pm: United States Capitol Historical Society will present the 2017 Freedom Award to "Hamilton" creator Lin-Manuel Miranda "for inspiring informed civic participation and achievement in advancing public understanding of our nation's founding"; U.S. Capitol Statuary Hall To contact the reporter on this story: Joi Preciphs in Washington at ipreciphs1@bloomberd.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Derek Wallbank at dwallbank@bloomberq.net Chelsea Mes, Laura Curtis Washington Daybook News Alert 201? BGOV LLC. All Rights Reserved. Sender: Bloomberg Government 4ib?ii6i Recipient: ?331(6) Sent Date: 2017f09f12 0?:26z53 Delivered Date: ZONIDQI 12 0?:2?:01 DHS-001-6335-001154 To: lWales. FromlleE) ?Quinn, Cameron Subject: FW: of Election Integrity Recommendations Date: ZUIBIDUUB 20:25:46 Priority: Normal TYPE: Note Cameron, Thanks for reaching out. W5) ?bril") Also, feel free to call my mobile ifyou have questions or want to discuss. Thanks. Brandon Brandon D. Wales Senior Counselor to the Secretary Department of Homeland Security Of?ce: Mobile From: Wales, Brandon Sent: Monday, January 8, 2018 8:05 PM To: Hoffman, Jonathan wrote: From me. Sorry for the delay. ?The Department continues to focus our efforts on securing elections against those who seek to undermine the election system or its integrity. We will do this in support of State governments who are responsible for administering elections.? From: ?331(5) Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:59:16 PM To: Houlton, Tyler Subject: From WH DHS-001-6335-001218 Tyler, Are you guys putting out a statement on this from the ?Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today I signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and have asked the Department of Homeland Security to review these issues and determine next courses of action.? Sender: kbxsi Hans) . . . ?Houlton, Tyler 5 Reelplent. (WK 3 Sent Date: 2013f01f03 20:46:09 Delivered Date: 2018IDUO3 20:46:36 DHS-001-6335-001219 Houlton, Tyler (lever ?Hoffman, JonathanlleE) ?Wales, Brandon Cc: Dinh. Uyen whys) Subject: RE: Request for Brie?ng with DHS Of?cials; re: January 3. 2018 Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 10-4. Walking into another meeting, but happy to follow up with Charles. I believe we also recently briefed McCaskill?s of?ce on our election cybersecurity efforts. Acting Director Of?ce of Legislative Affairs National Protection and Programs Directorate Please tell us how we are doing in our Customer Service From: Krebs. Christopher Sent: Thursday. January 4. 2018 2:56 PM Wonnenberg. David Cc: Dinh. Uyen Subject: FW: Request for Brie?ng with DHS Of?cials; re: January 3. 2018 Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Dave. Ijust spoke to Uyen. can you give Charles Shaw a call when available and say we?re still sorting out the implications ofthe termination ofthe Commission. For background this is related to an executive order on voter fraud the president signed out in May. It is DHS-001-6335-001226 not related to our election cybersecurity efforts. Feel free to give me a ring for more background. Thanks, lChris From: Dinh, Uycn Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 2:00 PM I Thlf?l I Cc: thin-n Wonnenberg, David Subject: RE: Request for Brie?ng with DHS Of?cials; re: January 3, 2018 Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity 34 Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Hello Counselor Shaw, We?d be happy to set this up for HSGAC. I?m copying our NPPD lead, {bits} who should be able to coordinate this brie?ng for you 8: the committee. Cheers, Uyen [Department of Homeland Uyen (Win) Dinh, Esq. Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Legislative Affairs {blt?l From: Shaw, Charles (IISGAC) Hairs} I Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 1:43 PM To: Dinh, Uyen fbysi Cc: Eaton, Jackson <1thE} Subject: Request for Briefing with DHS Officials; re: January 3, 2013 Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity Hello, My name is Charles Shaw. 1 work as Counsel for the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC). We would like to schedule a brie?ng with of?cials from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for HSGAC majority and minority staff, regarding the ?Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity" and the ?Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity" [respective links included below}. Would you please provide our of?ce with a list of available dates and times, when DIIS of?cials would be able to meet with IISGAC majority and minority staff to discuss these developments, and the new role DHS-001-6335-001227 DHS will be assuming as a result? Thank you! Best regards, Charles Shaw Link to the Executive Order: presidential-advisory- Link to the Statement: presidential-advisory- commission-eleetion-integrimf commission-eleetion-integrimf Charles WE. Shaw Counsel U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security 35 Governmental Affairs Senator Claire McCaskill, Ranking Member Recipient: David libirsi SEI?qul 'Ilblt?l ?Dinh, Uyen Irhirm (Irma-n Sent Date: ZUIBIDUUS 09:13:05 Delivered Date: Z?l?f?ll?? 09:13:05 DHS-001-6335-001228 ?Bin? He) To: Subject: RE: McCaskill letters Date: 2018:01104 16:58:44 Priority: Normal Type: Note 10-4. I'll let Charles know he can expect a call. Thanks. (W05) Acting Director Office of Legislative Affairs National Protection and Programs Directorate (bits) Please tell us how we are doing in our Customer Service Survey Original From: Dinh, Uyen Sent: Thursday? January 4. 2018 4:58 PM DHS-001-6335-001229 T0 (bli?l Subject: RE: McCaskill letters Yup. He is back -likc a hcart attack tomorrow. From: Sent: Thursday. January {14, 2018 4:45:08 PM To: Dinh, Uycn Subject: RE: McCaskill Not a problem! Is DAS Wonnenberg reaching back out to Charles on the brie?ng request re: January 3, 2018 Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity &Staternent by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election lntegrity?i??I bll?l Acting Director Of?ce of Legislative Affairs National Protection and Programs Directorate Please tell us how we are doing in our Customer Service Survey Original From: Dinh. Uyen DHS-001-6335-001230 Sent: Thursday. January 4. 2018 4:42 PM To: llbl'lsl Ce: Wonnenbet?g. David <1lbl'l5l Subject: RE: MeCaskill letters No worries. Thanks for shepherding these through to the ?nal goal line.? From: (bll?l Sent: Thursday, January [14, 2018 4:30:19 PM To: Dinh, Uyen; Ce: Wonnenberg, David Subject: RE: MeCaskill letters Uyen. The letters have been signed. The bad news is Chris signed and returned hard copies and no one is in the office, so unfortunately we?ll have to transmit tomorrow. They will be routed to OLA ?rst thing tomorrow morning. Acting Director Office of Legislative Affairs National Protection and Programs Directorate (bits) DHS-001-6335-001231 Please tell us how we are doing in our Customer Service From: Dinh, Uyen Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 1:44 PM To: [Hillel Ce: Wonnenberg? David Subject: RE: MeCaskill letters Gents: do we have an estimated time of when these letters may be ready?? Uyen Front: Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 20l 8 6:17 PM To: Dinh, Uyen l; Wonnenberg, David dlbit?j Subject: FW: MeCaskill letters 1 will follow up with Kolasky. Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:16:06 PM To: Subject: RE: McCaskill letters I will submit the BOD letter tomorrow. Jeremy, Let?s ping Kolasky on the other. DHS-001-6335-001232 Frern: I Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 11:11:04 PM To: 11(b)(5) I Subject: RE: MeCaskill letters lbllEl The letter regarding BOD 17?01 is with as SOPDUS Krebs wanted it reviewed for legal certainty. The letter regarding election security is with ADUS Kelasky for review. I'm unsure when we can expect that to come through. Best, From: Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:09:09 PM Te: IlbllEl Subject: FW: MeCaskill letters What is the current status and-"er held up on these?? From: Dinh, Uyen Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 6:06:59 PM To: Ce: Wennenberg, David Subject: MeCaskil] letters- DHS-001-6335-001233 ould expedite these letters? What?s the hold up MeCaskills peeps are now inquiring about its status. update me soonest. Thank you. Uyen From: (?321(6) Sent: Wednesday, January 2018 5:54:53 PM To: Dinh, Uyen e: Subject: RE: Checking in on letters 1152833- Letter Dated 1031 is with NPPD 15254l?Letter Dated 10f24 is also with NPPD Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Department of Homeland Security Original From: Dinh, Uyen Sent: Wednesday, January 3, 2018 5:47 PM DHS-001-6335-001234 Subject: FW: Checking in on letters Could help tne track down where these 2 McCaskills letters are in our system? Thank you! Uyen From: Klein, Julie Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2018 5:08:06 PM To: Dinh, Uyen Subject: Checking in on letters Uyen, I hope you?re doing well and were able to take time off. I?m writing to check in on two letters Senator McCaskill sent to the Secretary. One letter was sent on ll?l'e?3l regarding election infrastructure, and the other was sent on 10324 regarding the Kaspersky BOD. Do you have an update on the status of either and when we can expect responses? I appreciate your help on this. Many thanks, Julie Julie Klein DHS-001-6335-001235 Professional Staff Member Senate Homeland Security and Governmental A?airs Committee Member Claire MeCaskill Senator for Missouri I 23> three) [cid:image00] .png@01 D26767.068BBFCO 5::[cidtimage005 .png@0 1 D26 9B4.4684E5 30]