[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-12
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
51-764 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM McCLINTOCK, California HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin Georgia
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ADAM SCHIFF, California
CHIP ROY, Texas DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESPONSIVENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
TO OVERSIGHT
BEN CLINE, Virginia, Chair
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey ERIC SWALWELL, California, Ranking
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas Member
LAUREL LEE, Florida GLENN IVEY, Maryland
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Hononable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State
of Virginia.................................................... 1
The Hononable Eric Swalwell, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee
on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the
State of California............................................ 2
WITNESSES
Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant Director, Office of
Congressional Affairs, FBI
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 8
Jeanne Bumpus, Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Federal
Trade Commission
Oral Testimony................................................. 12
Prepared Testimony............................................. 14
The Hon. Roberto Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary, Office of
Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, U.S. Department
of Education
Oral Testimony................................................. 18
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight are listed below 42
An article entitled, ``Jim Jordan Refuses to Cooperate With Jan.
6 Panel,'' Oct. 13 2022, The New York Times, submitted by the
Honorable Glenn Ivey, a Member of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State
of Maryland, for the record
A list of documents requested for the Department of Education to
prioritize, submitted by the Honorable Nathaniel Moran, a
Member of the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability
to Oversight from the State of Texas, for the record
APPENDIX
Statement from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee
on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, submitted by the
Honorable Eric Swalwell, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State
of California, for the record
HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT
----------
Wednesday, March 29, 2023
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ben Cline [Chair
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Cline, Van Drew, Moran,
Lee, Swalwell, and Ivey.
Mr. Cline. The Subcommittee will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to this hearing and the Subcommittee on
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight. Again, by
leading us in the Pledge, will everyone please rise. Rise in
the back.
All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Mr. Cline. All right, thank you.
I begin with opening statements. The Chair recognizes
himself.
Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, Committee
Republicans have made at least 50 different requests for
information and documents concerning the operations and actions
of the FBI since the onset of this Administration.
Committee Republicans have sent numerous requests to the
Biden FTC. These requests include the FTC's harassment of Elon
Musk's Twitter; the abandonment of longstanding bipartisan
antitrust standards; and the FTC's extraordinary decision to
ban voluntary noncompete clauses in employment contracts,
supplant State laws without legal authority.
The absence of a sound and transparent administrative
process results in failed and costly government policies. This
is what we are seeing unfold at the FTC under Chair Lina Khan.
It is incumbent on Congress to provide oversight to these
matters. Such oversight will remain necessary while the FTC
continues to take actions on matters its enabling statute does
not authorize.
Additionally, since the fall of 2021, the Committee has
requested information and documents concerning the operations
and actions of the Department of Education. The Committee has
reiterated some of these requests, multiple times.
On February 3, 2023, in the face of continued obstruction,
Chair Jim Jordan issued subpoenas to FBI Director Wray and the
Education Secretary Cardona for documents. Unfortunately, the
Committee continues to have concerns about the responsiveness,
not only of the agencies, but of the very documents they have
provided.
For example, on March 1, 2023, the day the FBI was to
comply in full with the subpoena, the Bureau produced just four
pages of school board-related documents. While the FBI has
since made additional documents available to the Committee
pursuant to the subpoena, questions remain, and the Committee
awaits the Bureau's next production.
We invited the FBI to testify at the last hearing on March
9, 2023, but the FBI refused. Although we were disappointed the
agency was not there, the DOJ and the Education Department
testified before the Subcommittee regarding the agency's
compliance with the Committee subpoenas and various requests.
While the witnesses made some commitments to the Committee
during their testimony to produce certain information, they
otherwise provided underwhelming testimony and responses to
Members' questions.
Actual evidence that was required, that was requested and
would have been of interest to the Committee was, in fact,
provided in a tranche of documents the day before. Despite
every effort by the staff to go through all the documents, we
didn't actually get through the documents before the hearing on
the day after they were provided.
We look forward today to engaging with the witnesses that
have appeared to discuss the productions that we have received
to date, and regarding the status of our other outstanding
requests.
These officials are charged with the responsibilities of
working with Congress, coordinating policy. They play a key
role as gatekeeper of witnesses and information. These hearings
play a critical role in assisting the Committee in its
oversight obligations which, in turn, allows the Committee to
examine potential legislative changes within our jurisdiction.
The courts have recognized that Congress' power to conduct
oversight is an indispensable component of our authority to
legislate. Without the information that the Committee needs
from the Biden Administration, we cannot do our jobs.
This Committee, the Subcommittee on Commitment and
Accountability to Oversight, which is not the actual
Weaponization Committee as much as the Ranking Member may claim
that it seems to be, this Committee will not allow delay and
indifference to obstruct the legislative process.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today how
their respective agencies will comply with the requests made to
them.
Now, I yield time to the Ranking Member Mr. Swalwell for
five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Well, here we are, another partners meeting
of Insurrection LLC. That is what this is. This is the newly
formed, largest law firm in Washington, DC. Only has one
client, maybe a second client that we are going to learn about
today, but that client is former President Donald Trump. Their
job is to litigate every one of his petty, petty, petty
grievances.
Perhaps the next client is Elon Musk, and that is why FTC
has been called here today.
Jim Jordan's Obstruction of Justice Committees that he is
overseeing have less credibility today than they did when we
convened just three weeks ago.
It is now 321 days since this subpoena was sent to Jim
Jordan that he did not comply with. So, it is comical that we
are here today under Jim Jordan's leadership asking people why
they don't want to comply with subpoenas. The guy won't comply
with the one that was sent to him 321 days ago, witness to a
crime, the crime that has led to more arrests than any
investigation in America. He is a witness being asked to do his
patriotic duty and respond to a subpoena, 321 days later
refuses.
Also, since the last hearing of this Committee to Obstruct
Justice, Chair Jordan is now interfering in an independent
criminal prosecution. There is an investigation in Manhattan,
also in Atlanta, also at the Department of Justice into the
former President. Jim Jordan has sent a letter to the
independently elected District Attorney Alvin Bragg of
Manhattan. He is asking Alvin Bragg to commit a felony.
Why is he asking Alvin Bragg to commit a felony? To help
Donald Trump.
Why is it a felony? Because if Alvin Bragg were to turn
over what Jim Jordan is asking, Alvin Bragg would be violating
New York law that says you cannot turn over Grand Jury
proceedings. That is what they are asking him to do. Again, the
law doesn't matter if your client is Donald Trump.
The other day Jim Jordan was asked, well, what do you think
of the former President who put out on Truth Social the other
day essentially another call to action, a January 6th-like
post, when the former President said this posting:
[Slide]
Mr. Swalwell. Jim Jordan was presented with this post by
the former President that calls for death and destruction. Mr.
Jordan said that he would need his glasses.
He was looking the other way. Jim Jordan looking the other
way.
Well, we have blown up on the screen, and we have put it
right here, and I will leave it for Jim Jordan, this is what
Donald Trump said, Mr. Jordan:
What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a
former President of the United States, who got more votes than
any sitting President in history, and leading candidate by far
for the Republican Party nomination, with a crime, when it is
known by all that NO Crime has been committed, and also known
that potential death and destruction in such a false charge
could be catastrophic for our Country? Why and who would do
such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truly hates the
USA!
Mr. Swalwell. Again, I am going to leave this up here in
probably 200 size font, so Mr. Jordan doesn't need his glasses
to read it.
The same individual who posted this, also posted this
photo.
[Slide]
Mr. Swalwell. There you go: Donald Trump, real tough guy,
holding a baseball bat next to a picture of that independent
prosecutor that Jim Jordan wants to commit a felony, Alvin
Bragg.
You won't hear from this Committee to Obstruct Justice any
condemnation of what Donald Trump posted. They can't condemn
him. They can't.
So, in their silence they condone it. In these posts from
Donald Trump he incites more and more Americans to commit
violence, like a woman who was arrested yesterday near Times
Square with a knife seeking to carry out an act of violence in
Donald Trump's name.
So, what has changed since the last hearing? Well, we have
now learned that the FBI investigated tips that they were asked
to investigate through a tip line. That is their job, to run
down every single lead.
Parents have every right to advocate on behalf of their
kids. I have three little kids. When they get older and go to
school, I will be a fierce advocate for their education.
No parent has the right to threaten a school board
volunteer. If a threat is brought to the FBI, it is their duty
to investigate those threats.
We have also learned from all the document production from
DOJ, and the FBI, and the Department of Education, that there
is not one instance where the Department of Justice called any
parent or a groups of parents domestic terrorists, as has been
claimed by Jim Jordan.
We also learned at the last hearing that this isn't really
about parents and kids at all. Mr. Van Drew spent almost all
his time wanting to go into the Mar-a-Lago search. Again, this
is about one client and litigating his grievances.
It is also about a tweet that Jim Jordan posted back in the
fall: ``Kanye, Elon, Trump.'' Now, after that tweet was posted,
Kanye said he is, ``going death con 3 on jewish people.'' The
tweet stayed up for months.
Everyone was, like, hey, guys, turns out your hero Kanye
West hates the Jews. We all stand with Israel. Please take down
the tweet.
They didn't take down the tweet. They kept the tweet up.
Day after day Jewish communities are hurting, they say, please
don't put this tweet up.
It stays up.
So, we can cross Kanye out. It looks like we are here today
for the other two, Elon and Trump.
We are also here because the Republican Party that has done
such a great job over many years standing up for the police, no
longer back the Blue.
Last week we had a hearing where you could call anyone in
America when you have the majority, the power of a subpoena, we
had a hearing about the ATF. These guys brought a witness who
had just recently tweeted ``fuck cops.'' ``Fuck cops.'' That is
what this guy tweeted. Anyone on earth could have come to that
hearing and they brought someone that said, ``fuck cops''?
Then one of their colleagues, this is what she is selling
on her social media: Defund the FBI.
So, we went from backing the Blue to backing the coup.
So, we will waste our time today on this exercise on behalf
of Donald Trump and perhaps Elon Musk, but everyone on their
side is going to have to go home this weekend to their
constituents. Their constituents are going to ask them one
question. Three little babies died this week at a school in
Nashville. No other Committee in Congress has jurisdiction to
do something about that except this Committee. So, you are on
the Judiciary Committee. Three kids are dead. They are going to
be buried this week. What did you do about it?
Did you show up to the Judiciary Committee and fight for
those kids? Or did you show up and fight for Donald Trump?
They showed up at the first hearing after Nashville and
they are fighting for Donald Trump.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. Thank the gentleman.
As I want to apologize to our witnesses because you may
wonder, did I wander into the wrong hearing? No. This is the
Subcommittee on Accountability to Oversight, not the
Weaponization Committee, as much as my esteemed Member would
like it.
Mr. Ivey. Mr. Chair, point of order.
Unless you are going to give us a chance to respond on your
time--
Mr. Cline. You are not recognized.
We will now introduce today's witnesses.
The Honorable Christopher Dunham is the Acting Assistant
Director for the Office of Congressional Affairs at the FBI. In
that role he leads the office that serves as the Bureau's
primary liaison to Congress.
Jeanne Bumpus is the Director of the Office of
Congressional Relations at the Federal Trade Commission. Her
office works with Members of Congress and their staffs to
provide information on the Commission's activities and advance
the interests of the Commission in Congress.
The Honorable Roberto Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez is the
Assistant Secretary for the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development at the Department of Education. His office
advises the Secretary of Education on all matters relating to
policy development, implementation, and review.
We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing
today. We will begin by swearing you in.
Would you please rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Cline. The record will reflect that the witnesses have
answered in the affirmative.
Thank you. You may be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
The microphone in front of you has a clock and a series of
lights. When the lights turn yellow you should begin to
conclude your remarks. When the light turns red, your time has
expired.
Mr. Dunham, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER DUNHAM
Mr. Dunham. Good afternoon, Chair Cline, Ranking Member
Swalwell, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee.
I appreciate the opportunity to describe the FBI's efforts
to respond to the Committee's oversight requests in the 118th
Congress.
I am the Acting Assistant Director of the FBI's Office of
Congressional Affairs. I am here voluntarily to answer your
questions.
Unlike others who may come before this Subcommittee, I am
not a political appointee nor am I an attorney. I have spent
the entirety of my professional government life in civil
service of the FBI's mission.
I agreed to serve as an Acting Assistant Director several
months ago. In this role, I lead a team of agents and
professional staff who are dedicated to working with Congress
on all manner of legislative, policy, and oversight issues.
As long as I serve in this role, I am committed to working
in good faith with all Members of the Subcommittee and the Full
Judiciary Committee.
The FBI recognizes the important role of Congressional
oversight. We appreciate that oversight is a critical
underpinning of the legislative process. We recognize that we
can shed valuable light on the FBI's operations and stewardship
of taxpayer dollars.
Since 2021, the FBI has testified at 32 Congressional
hearings and participated in hundreds of Member and staff
briefings. By virtue of the FBI's dual law enforcement and
intelligence responsibilities, we work closely with eight
Congressional oversight committees of jurisdiction, including
both House and Senate committees who oversee the intelligence
community, and committees like this one who oversee the Justice
Department.
In every instance we strive to provide Congress with
information to support its legislative needs without
compromising our law enforcement and national security efforts,
including our investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities.
The FBI must also consider the privacy and safety interests
implicated in revealing the identities of our dedicated line
agents and personnel.
With these considerations in mind, we are committed to
working in good faith to accommodate the Committee's oversight
interests.
We understand the purview of this Subcommittee to oversee
the responsiveness of agencies to the Full Committee's
oversight requests. In this Congress so far, the Committee has
identified well over 50 informational requests, across nearly a
dozen different topics, in addition to requests for 19
transcribed interviews.
The FBI is complying with the Committee's requests in good
faith. Since January, the FBI has provided ten responses on
nine separate topics, including substantive written responses
that provide critical information and context.
We have also produced nearly 1,000 pages of documents, with
more to come.
In addition, we authorized the appearance of a former
senior FBI official for a transcribed interview last month
before the Committee.
Today, we remain engaged actively responding to your other
requests, including working to supplement our initial
productions on a rolling basis as we identify additional
responsive documents.
Committee staff recently indicated that the Committee is
prioritizing, in addition to today's hearing, the scheduling of
transcribed witness interviews. That scheduling is underway.
The FBI is working with Committee staff to provide multiple
requested witnesses for transcribed interviews in the next few
weeks.
Finally, we look forward to continued engagement with the
Committee, especially to discuss additional ways to prioritize
remaining requests in light of our available resources and the
Committee's interests. We remain optimistic that by working
cooperatively we will be able to satisfy the Committee's
legislative needs, while also safeguarding the independence,
integrity, and effectiveness of our law enforcement efforts.
This, of course, is at the core of the FBI's mission to
protect the American people and uphold the Constitution.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. I am happy
to answer your questions.
[The prepared testimony of Mr. Dunham follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Ms. Bumpus, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEANNE BUMPUS
Ms. Bumpus. Thank you. Chair Cline, Ranking Member
Swalwell, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I am
Jeanne Bumpus, Director of the Office of Congressional
Relations at the FTC. I am here to address the FTC's responses
to requests from this Committee.
The FTC shares your view that Congressional oversight is
vital to a well-functioning democracy. The commission is
committed to cooperating with the Committee's efforts to seek
information consistent with our obligation to protect the
agency's ongoing initiatives and law enforcement efforts. As a
former Hill staffer, I appreciate that oversight is an
essential responsibility of Congress, and a critical aspect of
the legislative process.
The FTC works regularly with Members and committees to
provide them with expert, thoughtful, and timely information
irrespective of party or position.
My office connects Congressional staff with commission
officials and subject matter experts to provide technical
assistance on proposed legislation, coordinates responses to
Congressional letters, assists with efforts aimed at helping
your constituents avoid fraud, coordinates the provision of
information and briefings about the FTC's work and operations,
and shepherds nominees through the confirmation process.
On February 14th Chair Jordan wrote to the FTC requesting
documents and information related to the commission's recent
issuance of a notice of proposed rulemaking on noncompete
clauses in employment contracts, and we began working to reply.
On February 28th the FTC sent a letter and an initial
production of documents to the Committee. In that letter, the
FTC answered numerous questions and made clear that it is
committed to
responding to the Committee's document requests in a timely
manner.
A week later, the FTC provided additional documents. To
date, we have sent approximately one, 400 pages of responsive
material to the Committee. FTC staff continues to reach out to
Committee staff to keep them apprised of our efforts and
discuss how best to provide additional responsive materials.
In addition, on March 10th the agency received a request
from the Committee for documents connected to Mr. Musk's
purchase of Twitter, and any FTC investigation of the company.
The commission provided an initial letter response on March
27th, and we followed up with the Committee staff earlier this
week.
On March 13th the FTC received a letter asking that I
testify today about the agency's responsiveness to the
Committee's requests.
The FTC remains committed to working with Congress in good
faith, consistent with longstanding commission policy. The FTC
looks forward to continuing to engage with your staff to comply
with the Committee's oversight requests, while ensuring the FTC
can continue to protect the independence, integrity, and
effectiveness of its law enforcement efforts and core agency
processes.
I am happy to answer any questions you have.
[The prepared testimony of Ms. Bumpus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Cline. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON, ROBERTO RODRIGUEZ
Mr. Rodriguez. Good afternoon, Chair Cline, Ranking Member
Swalwell, distinguished Members of this Subcommittee.
I am Robert Rodriguez. I have the honor of serving as
Assistant Secretary in the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development at the U.S. Department of Education. Our
role is to develop and implement policy, budget, and data
across the department and improve student opportunity and
outcomes.
Although I am pleased to advance our administration's
policy priorities and budget before Congress, I am here today
on behalf of the department to discuss our document production
and ongoing good faith effort to respond to this Committee's
oversight needs.
Having served for eight years leading the Democratic staff
on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee,
I have a deep appreciation for the important role that Congress
exercises with regards to oversight, to advance and uphold the
efficacy and integrity of government.
I am pleased to share that the Department of Education has
been responsive to Congressional inquiries regarding the topics
of interest before this Committee for more than a year. This
includes voluntarily appearing and testifying before this
Committee on Thursday, March 9th, transmitting two document
productions totaling 1,335 pages, and engaging in numerous
communications with Committee staff.
It is in that spirit that I am appearing before this
Committee again today, and that the department will continue to
voluntarily engage with the Committee about its informational
needs.
On January 17, 2023, Chair Jordan sent a letter to the
Department of Education about three topics:
First, Chair Jordan inquired about a letter that the
National School Boards Association sent to President Biden.
Second, the Chair's letter asked about a Department of
Justice memo.
Third, the Chair's letter asked about an appointment to the
independent, nonpartisan National Assessment Governing Board.
Immediately the department began to engage in the standard
accommodations process with the Committee, resulting in our
February 2nd response, expressing our readiness to work with
the Committee regarding its oversight requests.
The next day, on February 3rd, the Chair served a subpoena
to the department for documents.
On February 13th, department staff communicated that a
document production would be forthcoming by the March 1st date
specified in the subpoena.
On February 16th, nearly two weeks before the Committee's
requested production date, the department was called to testify
about our response to the Committee's inquiry.
As promised, on March 1st the department transmitted more
than 1,000 pages of responsive material to the Committee.
On March 9th, Assistant Secretary Graham testified before
this Subcommittee regarding the department's response to the
Committee's request.
Just four days later the Committee again asked the
department to return to testify regarding this inquiry, even
while our staff were actively engaged in continuously providing
further information to be responsive to the Committee's
requests.
On March 24th, the department transmitted its second
document production consisting of 331 pages and offered an
opportunity for Committee staff to view selected redactions in
camera.
Our ongoing engagement with the Committee, multiple
document productions, and willingness to appear voluntarily
before this Committee on multiple occasions demonstrates the
department's continued commitment to working with Congress in
good faith, while ensuring that we fulfill our core mission of
fostering educational excellence for all students across this
country.
Carrying forth that mission is important today more than
ever before, as our Nation continues its recovery from the
pandemic, supports students' academic success and well-being,
and works with local and State educational agencies to tackle
pressing challenges such as the teaching shortage that is
facing schools, classrooms, and communities across the Nation.
While my colleague, Assistant Secretary Graham, wasn't able
to be here today, I am pleased to appear before the Committee
and respond to your questions about this process.
Thank you.
[The prepared testimony of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions. I anticipate we will have two rounds of questions
today. I recognize myself for five minutes.
I am going to take a moment to address some of the comments
of the Ranking Member.
Now, to the Chair of this Committee this is not the January
6th Committee, this is not the Weaponization Committee, this is
about compliance. As much as we want to have cooperation from
the witnesses, compliance is what we are after. So, at the end
of the day we want to see the documents.
Now, as to the allegations made by the Ranking Member, the
Chair, Mr. Jordan, never said that he wouldn't testify before
the January 6th Commission. I noted that you put up a letter.
The letter actually was in response to a letter from Chair
Jordan about testifying. He said this multiple times in
interviews.
The January 6th Committee stopped negotiating with Mr.
Jordan about potential testimony. Every time the January 6th
Committee asked Mr. Jordan to testify, he responded.
On December 22nd he responded. He responded January 9th. On
May 12th they asked, on May 25th he responded, on May 31st they
responded renewing their subpoena. On June 9th Mr. Jordan sent
another letter, and no response after the last letter from Mr.
Jordan.
Now, the Chair was very responsive--
Mr. Swalwell. Will the gentleman yield--
Mr. Cline. I will not.
Mr. Swalwell. --to answer whether he actually testified?
Mr. Cline. It is my time. It is my time.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. Did he testify?
Mr. Cline. It is my time.
Freedom of speech is among the most important rights,
guaranteed to every American. Elon Musk's acquisition of
Twitter last year served to revitalize this fundamental freedom
in the digital age.
Now, in the wake of this acquisition the FTC engaged in an
aggressive campaign to harass Twitter and deluge it with
demands about its personnel decisions in each of the company's
departments, every internal communication relating to Elon
Musk, and even Twitter's interactions with journalists.
These demands have no basis in the FTC's statutory mission
and appear to be the result of partisan pressure to target
Twitter and silence Musk.
The FTC is currently imposing some demands on Twitter that
have no rational basis in user privacy. There was no logical
reason, for example, why the FTC needs to know the identities
of journalists engaging with Twitter.
There was no logical reason why the FTC on the basis of
user privacy needed to analyze all of Twitter's personnel
decisions. There was no logical reason why the FTC needed every
single internal Twitter communication about Elon Musk.
The strong inference from these facts is that Twitter's
rediscovered focus on free speech is being met with politically
motivated attempts to thwart Elon Musk's goals. The FTC's
demands did not occur in a vacuum. They appear to be the result
of loud voices on the left, including elected officials, urging
the Federal Government to intervene in Musk's acquisition and
management of the company.
The FTC's harassment of Twitter is likely to be the one
fact, Musk's self-described absolutist commitment to free
expression in the digital town square.
So, Director Bumpus, on March 10, 2023, Chair Jordan sent a
letter seeking information and documents about the FTC's
investigation of their harassment of Elon Musk's Twitter. It
demanded that Twitter identify all journalists and other
members of the media to whom Twitter has granted any type of
access to the company's internal communications, using Slack,
emails, resources, internal documents, and/or files since
October 27, 2022.
Your response, the FTC's response was not timely and only
barely responsive to the inquiry, with no indication when
additional information would be provided.
As the Select Subcommittee's report states, its approach
appears to be the result of partisan pressure to target Twitter
and silence Musk.
When does the FTC expect to provide the information and
documents requested in the March 10, 2022, letter?
Ms. Bumpus. Congressman, as you noted, we provided a
narrative response to the question posed earlier this week.
We have reached out to staff. We would like to be
responsive. We look forward to connecting soon with the
Committee to talk about next steps.
Mr. Cline. Well over two weeks since the FTC received Chair
Jordan's inquiry, and the FTC barely responded on substance to
the inquiry. Can you tell me what accounted for the delay?
Ms. Bumpus. Congressman, we want to be responsive to your
request. The commission, while I cannot talk about nonpublic
investigations, has confirmed that it is investigating
compliance by Twitter with a consent order related to data
security and privacy. We look forward to continuing to engage
with this Committee to get your responsive documents.
Mr. Cline. All right. We asked you to testify today. You
initially responded that you would not and requested that the
Executive Director testify.
Can you tell me, are there topics or subjects about which
you have been instructed or encouraged not to testify? If so,
what topics and who gave you those instructions?
Ms. Bumpus. Not at all, Mr. Chair. I have not been
instructed not to testify about anything.
Mr. Cline. All right. Well, through the Twitter files
Americans are learning more about one of the most significant
threats to civil liberties in the modern era. The Executive
Branch's suppression of free speech is a real peril to our
republic. Given the gravity of the situation, it was my hope
that the FTC would provide the information necessary for this
matter.
I now yield to the Ranking Member for five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
Chair, what is interesting to me is that this hearing is
about transparency. My staff has told me that there are
multiple documents that you have allowed my staff to look at in
camera, meaning they can go look at them, but they cannot have
them, documents that you have been given related to an FTC
inquiry.
My ask is, just that you turn those over to us. It sounds
like we are asking you to do what you think these witnesses are
not doing. So, again, just in the spirit of transparency we
would like those documents.
Mr. Dunham--
Mr. Cline. I'll take it under advisement.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Dunham, following the subpoena you received from the
Judiciary Committee Republicans you offered to meet and confer
with them on multiple occasions. Is that right?
Mr. Dunham. We met with the Committee in early January on
the initial forming of the Committee in the new Congress. Then
we have had several engagements or outreach since the subpoena.
Mr. Swalwell. What would happen if you violated a subpoena
and just didn't show up?
Mr. Dunham. I am not sure what the consequences would be
for me. We are actively engaged with the Committee and intend
to do so going forward as well.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Well, thank you for doing what Jim
Jordan wasn't willing to do and show up and be responsive.
Your good faith effort did not end there, though. In fact,
you also offered to work with them to prioritize their
documents requests. Is that right?
Mr. Dunham. When we received Chair Jordan's letter on
January 17th, we also had a meeting previously scheduled that
afternoon with Committee staff, more as a meet and greet to
talk about the 118th Congress and discuss the topics of
interest to the Committee to determine what was the primary
focus on their interest.
Mr. Swalwell. In addition to that meeting, you allowed them
to come in person and review nonpublic documents. Is that
correct?
Mr. Dunham. In response to the subpoena, we provided in
camera review of guardian documents related to any official
tags, which is a substantive production at the core of the
Committee subpoena's request.
Mr. Cline. These guys viewed those documents?
Mr. Dunham. The documents were viewed by both majority and
minority staff.
Mr. Swalwell. After viewing the documents--and do those
documents, by the way, include what we call law enforcement
sensitive information?
Mr. Dunham. The documents themselves are law enforcement
sensitive. There are law enforcement files. There are tips that
we received from the public and the actions associated with
those tips. So, yes.
Mr. Swalwell. What is the difference between something you
call law enforcement sensitive and something that you could put
on the front page of the Washington Post?
Mr. Swalwell. Something that is purely unclassified versus
something that has a law enforcement caveat that is necessary
to protect potential investigative equities, witness
information, subject information, anything related to sources,
methods, techniques, and that type of thing.
Mr. Swalwell. After Jim Jordan's team viewed the documents,
are you aware of a report that Jim Jordan drafted related to
the inquiry?
Mr. Dunham. I am aware.
Mr. Swalwell. In that report, was it a public report?
Mr. Dunham. I believe it was a public report.
Mr. Swalwell. In that report did you see any law
enforcement sensitive information.
Mr. Dunham. I am not, I am not aware of what information
was in the report. I haven't studied it that closely in hope to
determine whether there was law enforcement sensitive
information there. That is something I can certainly get back
to.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. I will go back to you with some pieces
that we saw that were included in there that would qualify as
an unlawful disclosure.
Ms. Bumpus, thank you, again, for also doing something that
Jim Jordan would not do, and responding to a subpoena.
Is it true that you have worked for multiple prior Chairs
that were Republican and Democratic, and even worked for John
McCain when you worked for the Hill?
Ms. Bumpus. Sorry.
Yes, Congressman. I did work for John McCain on the Hill
prior to coming to the FTC in 2006. I have worked for eight
Chairs as Director of Congressional Relations for Democrats and
for Republicans.
Mr. Swalwell. While you were responsive to the inquiries of
the Chair, is it true that you cannot provide information about
ongoing or potential investigations?
Ms. Bumpus. That is correct. Under the rules of the
commission, we cannot disclose nonpublic information without a
vote of the commission.
Mr. Swalwell. So, would you be committing a crime if you
did what Jim Jordan is asking you to do?
Ms. Bumpus. I cannot speak today about nonpublic
information or about ongoing investigations.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you.
Yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I hate to waste time, but I have to start out because this
falls under the policy if you say things over, and over, and
over, and over again people will start to believe them. Let's
hear the truth. That is not what the truth is.
Mr. Jordan, our Chair, told CBS News on January 13, 2022,
that I never said no.
He never said no to testify before the January 6th
Committee. Here is a direct quote. We have it, and I would like
to enter this into the record, Chair, this direct quote:
``There is a reason I was concerned about testifying,'' but I
never said, and this was on CBS, ``I never said no.'' That was
to Major Garrett.
I would like to enter that.
Mr. Cline. Without objection.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
So, I don't know if I should say it again, would that make
everybody believe it more? Because Mr. Swalwell thinks that by
saying it over, and over, and over, and over again--that is a
lot of ``overs'' in there, Eric, just like you do when you
speak.
Or by using the ``F'' word when we really didn't need it in
the testimony in the hearing. We could have done that in quite
a gentler way. It is sensational. It is sensational.
Certainly, Mr. Swalwell, this hearing is not about you. I
know it has been made about you to some degree. You are a
sensational guy and you have been involved in an awful lot of
things that are pretty amazing and questionable. We are not
here to discuss them today, because that would be exciting
testimony.
We are here to discuss, No. 1, Jim Jordan, if you want to
keep bringing it up, and January 6th.
By the way, I wouldn't blame him that he doesn't want to
testify. He said he would. Because the January 6th Committee
wasn't bipartisan. It wasn't formulated right. It didn't have
any real Members on there that were appointed by the minority
leader at that time or anybody from really any substance of the
Republican Party.
The bottom line was it wasn't a real Committee. It didn't
tell the truth. It didn't do the right thing.
Now, do you want me to say that over again? It wasn't the
right Committee. It didn't do the right thing. It didn't tell
the truth.
Do you want me to say it over again? It wasn't a good
Committee. It didn't do the right thing. It didn't tell the
truth.
Mr. Ivey. One more time.
Mr. Van Drew. One more time?
It didn't tell the truth. OK?
So, I can repeat things a lot, too, and it wastes time. You
never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Mr.
Swalwell, I will say this. I don't know if you have ever seen
the show ``Seinfeld,'' Jerry Seinfeld. Remember that show? Some
of us are old enough to remember it, and some of us just like
it.
They asked George one time, because he was going to tell a
big, fat, whopping lie, and he said, ``Well, the truth is the
truth if you believe it is the truth, even if it is a lie.''
Mr. Swalwell, I believe that is the deal in what you are
doing. I am sorry. Sorry to have to say it to you, but that is
what I think.
Mr. Dunham, thank you for coming in today.
Can I ask why the FBI wasn't present at our previous
hearing?
Mr. Dunham. Yes, thank you, Congressman.
First, I would be remiss if I didn't mention I was born in
Carney's Point.
Mr. Van Drew. Ah.
Mr. Dunham. I have a lot of family in South Jersey--
Mr. Van Drew. God bless you.
Mr. Dunham. --who are your constituents.
Mr. Van Drew. Salem County.
Mr. Dunham. People territory down there. Love it.
I was with the director. He was testifying before the House
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for their threat
assessment hearing. I had conversation with the staff in
advance of your March 9th hearing.
Mr. Van Drew. Please excuse me. I don't mean to be rude.
Why didn't they just show up? Isn't it so much easier?
It is like everything else, why not just give us the
documents? Why not just show up? You know something is wrong,
intuitively something is wrong.
Again, Mr. Swalwell asked, what of the American people?
They know something is wrong. Over 60 percent of them know that
it is not right.
I love the FBI. I want to trust the FBI. I don't understand
some of the things that are going on now. I don't understand
why he wouldn't be here at this meeting. He should have been.
Mr. Dunham. I appreciate the flexibility of the Committee
allowing me to come at a later date. I am here today to answer
your questions.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you for doing that.
By the way, what I am going to do, and I know it is going
to aggravate him a lot, I am going to talk about Mar-a-Lago
again. Everybody ready, because we can say over, and over, and
over again it doesn't matter. It has nothing to do whether you
like Donald Trump or not.
You know why it matters? It matters because dozens of FBI
agents descended upon Mar-a-Lago where there was a former
sitting President who had Secret Service around him. Were they
afraid of the Secret Service? Is that why they needed so many
arms?
Did they think Donald Trump was going to come out and he
was going to start shooting it up?
What was the reason, especially when there was cooperation,
especially when it was done with our current President who had
somewhat of a similar situation, and this didn't happen?
So, what is the answer to why did we need so many people?
Why did we have to be so violent? Why did we have to be so
aggressive?
Mr. Cline. The gentleman is permitted to answer.
Mr. Dunham. Congressman, as you are aware, there are
multiple special council investigations looking into not only
the Donald Trump, former President Trump documents, but also
the Biden documents as well. I would defer you to the
Department of Justice for questions relating to this.
Mr. Van Drew. That is not an answer. I am sorry.
I love you are from Carney's Point, but it is not an
answer.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman's time has expired.
The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Ivey. I would be happy to answer the question. Thank
you.
The reason they went in after Donald Trump differently than
they did with President Biden or Vice President Pence, as we
discussed at the last hearing--this is like Groundhog Day--was
because Trump hid documents and didn't comply with the subpoena
that he was given.
He actually, apparently his lawyers lied on his behalf
because he lied to his lawyers. That is why that lawyer had to
testify, was ordered to testify by a judge last week.
So, on the Jim Jordan piece, which we also did at the last
hearing, OK, he never said no, but of course we know he never
said yes because, guess what, he never testified.
I have got an article here, it is by Luke Broadwater with
The New York Times, entitled, ``Jim Jordan Refuses to Cooperate
with January 6th Panel.''
I would ask for unanimous consent to have it admitted into
the record.
Mr. Cline. Without objection.
Mr. Ivey. With respect to the Jordan response which, again,
we did it last, so I didn't know I was going to have to do it
again, but let me just read it into the record.
They requested material from Jim Jordan in the form of a
subpoena, I guess similar to what you just got, but in
response, rather than just produce documents like all you have,
and produce letters saying we look forward to complying and
offer to meet with you so we can make compliance work, Jim
Jordan sends a request back saying he wants all the materials
referencing him in the Select Committee's possession, and all
internal legal analysis related to the constitutionality of
Member subpoenas.
Now, if you all did something like that, they would send
the cavalry after you. Because that is clearly a noncompliance.
Not only that, it is about as close to saying a direct no as
you can get.
So, we can go through this. it is clear Jim Jordan never
testified. He never intended to testify. There are others who
didn't as well. Speaker McCarthy didn't testify. Congressman
Perry didn't testify, on and on, and on.
You are being held to a different standard. The standard
you are being held to is unreasonable. Let me just say it that
way.
You have done everything to comply. Your compliance would
be totally acceptable in a court. The reaction of the Committee
coming after you, like a subpoena the day after you responded,
is outrageous.
I got to say the second hearing, too, even in the face of
your ongoing compliance is a complete waste of time because you
are doing everything to comply that they would be expected to.
In my view, this Committee really ought to be doing
different things.
I earlier today--I was at a press conference about the
Nashville shootings. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction
over gun violence; is choosing not to exercise it. Republicans
are choosing the Second Amendment over second graders. We are
talking about banning books instead of banning assault weapons.
They have got the right to do that, but it is really time
for us to get focused on real things. These investigations they
are conducting, the Weaponization Committee they created,
rather than deal with real weapons that we have got on our
streets and in our schools right now, is another complete waste
of time.
By the way, there was a reference to the public thinking
this is good stuff, is actually quite the opposite. The public
is already starting to recognize that. These hearings, these
so-called investigative hearings which are chasing after
nothing, the American people recognize that this has nothing to
do with the things they care the most about.
They are worried about the economy. They are worrying about
getting guns out of our schools. I think we have had 127 mass
shootings just this year alone. Our response from the
Republican side of the aisle is total silence on this. We get
thoughts and prayers but, as Paul wrote, ``faith without
works,'' is dead.
So, I hope that we can get focused on two things. If you
are going to stay on this track, let's be honest about what is
going on here. The Chair mentioned in the face of continued
obstruction. There is no evidence of obstruction here, there
really isn't.
In fact, the in-camera inspection that was done I think was
at the recommendation or the offer of the minority staff. Then
after the inspection was done, apparently some of this
information got leaked out.
So, could be just a coincidence. I got to say, next time
this Committee comes and says we want to see what you redacted,
that has got to be in the minds, and appropriately, of these
people who run the departments, especially when they are
dealing with sensitive information. Whether it is ongoing
investigations, sources and methods, or whatever, and certainly
Grand Jury material, it is important for that front, too.
So, I yield back my time. I sure do hope we can get focused
on things that really impact the American people.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Moran is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Rodriguez, I want to direct my questions for you. Thank
you for taking the time to meet with us today.
At the last meeting, as you know, Secretary Gwen Graham was
here to discuss document production issues. She pledged to meet
immediately with staff and those involved in production to
discuss the production, supplementation that was needed, and
also redaction issues that came up at the last hearing.
I want to ask you, were you part of that meeting, Mr.
Rodriguez?
Mr. Rodriguez. No, sir, I was not.
Mr. Moran. Have you met with Ms. Graham to discuss what she
pledged to this Committee last time she was here? If so, what
did you guys talk about?
Mr. Rodriguez. I am aware of her commitment. We did not
meet to discuss that further.
Mr. Moran. All right. What preparation did you have between
last meeting and this meeting to prepare for providing
additional supplement, supplementation to what you testified
to?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, sir, we, I have spent hours preparing
for this hearing and to be able to answer your questions. I
know our staff has met, I believe on three occasions over the
last few weeks, to further discussion some of those redactions.
Mr. Moran. In your preparation did you look through that
thousand-plus pages that have been produced?
Mr. Rodriguez. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Moran. Did you look at them in unredacted form?
Mr. Rodriguez. I also reviewed some of those, not every
single line.
Mr. Moran. OK. Let me show you what was just handed to you.
I am going to reference it.
It is a list of 26 different documents by Bates number,
starting with No. 1, Bates Number HJC-11816 all the way down to
number 26, HJC-118850. It is a series of 26 sets of documents
that this Committee has prioritized and asked you to produce at
least in camera, without waiving the ability to see them in
full and unredacted form for the Committee itself. The
Committee staff has asked to look at these in unredacted form
in camera.
Only two of them have been offered to be put up to do so.
Do you know why it is only two and not all 26?
Mr. Rodriguez. Sir, I do know that we are continuing our
work to provide additional documents for the Committee's
review. I believe there will be a third package as well of
documents.
Mr. Moran. Is that third package going to be unredacted
copies of any of these 26 referenced on this page?
Mr. Rodriguez. I cannot speak to the particular planned
redactions or lack thereof for this next package. I do know
that there are the two first and second documents that have
been prioritized for discussions with this Committee to be made
available in camera.
Mr. Moran. Are you able to testify about why any of these
documents on this 26, list of 26 has been actually redacted?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, I can speak, sir, to the process of
redaction, which is consistent with longstanding process at the
U.S. Department of Education across the course of multiple
Administrations, and with executive branch confidentiality
interests.
So, those redactions may be based on deliberative process,
attorney-client privilege, personal information. I can say that
many of those documents contained internal confidential
communication.
The department remains ready--
Mr. Moran. Let me stop you there.
Can you be more specific when you say internal confidential
information? What do you mean by that other than personal
information, or attorney-client privilege, or the deliberative
process for this?
Mr. Rodriguez. Sir, I mean those three things. Sorry.
Mr. Moran. OK. So, is it your testimony that some of these
documents on those 26 actually contain attorney-client
privilege?
Mr. Rodriguez. Again, I can't speak to this list of 26
documents, only to the first delivery of the package, and to
say that we remain ready and will continue to meet with this
Committee to provide further information in response to
specific interests relative--
Mr. Moran. So, who can, I would like to know who can
actually tell me which privilege that you are asserting applies
to which document?
Mr. Rodriguez. That would be a process to continue in the
conversations with this Committee. I know our staff's--
Mr. Moran. No, I get that. You are not answering my
question.
Who is it that we can sit at this table to ask that
question as to why these documents are being redacted, and why
this Committee staff is not being able to see them in camera?
Mr. Rodriguez. I am happy to take that question back, sir.
Mr. Moran. When can you get me an answer back out?
Mr. Rodriguez. I will take that back and commit to getting
back to this Committee after this hearing.
Mr. Moran. You are going to be able to get me a specific
name of a person that can tell me the specific reason why each
of those documents is redacted? Is that what I hear you saying?
Mr. Rodriguez. I am happy to take your request back and to
continue and commit to our department continuing to work with
this Committee on a case-by-case basis relative to specific re-
dactions that the Committee is interested in seeing.
Mr. Moran. You have mentioned a lot about, or you have
mentioned something about the deliberative process privilege.
Are you able to tell me what the common law elements are to
assert that privilege?
Mr. Rodriguez. No. I am not able to speak to those
technical questions today. I can take those questions back for
further discussion.
Mr. Moran. Well, just for information, it has got to be
prede-
cisional, and it has got to be deliberative. Those
communications must meet those two substantive elements. If it
doesn't meet those two elements, it doesn't qualify for that
privilege.
Now, there is some argument to say that privilege doesn't
apply at all. Assuming it does even at all, it has got to meet
those two requirements.
I would urge you and your colleagues to go back and look at
each of these documents to make sure that you can in good faith
say it does in fact. Because we are going to get to the bottom
of these at some point. We are going to come back to the
testimony you are giving in this hearing today and we are going
to understand whether or not that privilege is being asserted
correctly or not.
In fact, it hasn't been officially asserted, I will just
tell you, it hasn't been asserted at all except in the
Committee room, which is not the appropriate place. It must be
in writing and must be done before the subpoena deadline was to
be responded to.
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman can respond if he wishes.
Well, let me just put it this way: I think that long and
short what the gentleman said was the more we get, the less
likely you are coming back. The less we get, the more likely we
are going to see you again.
The gentlelady Ms. Lee is recognized.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Director Dunham, I would like to direct my questions to
you.
On January 13, 2023, the FBI's Richmond Field Office
published an official document that linked radically or
ethnically motivated violent extremists with what the FBI
referred to as radical-traditionalist Catholics.
This proposed targeting of Americans practicing their faith
necessitate oversight by Congress and raises serious concerns
about Americans being able to freely exercise their religion
without having unlawful surveillance conducted by agents of
Federal law enforcement.
As somebody who spent many years working alongside the
brave men and women of the Bureau on the local level, we also
here want to ensure that the FBI is directing its resources and
its attention to helping protect our communities and keep our
communities safe, as opposed to an undue or unwarranted focus
on surveilling particular religious groups.
So, with that, is it correct to say, Director Dunham, this
Committee, in fact, sent a correct to information--a request
for information to the Bureau on February 16, 2023?
Mr. Dunham. I believe that is correct.
Ms. Lee. All right. In response to that request, to this
date the Bureau has produced 18 pages of documents. Is that
right?
Mr. Dunham. I think that is accurate.
Ms. Lee. All right. Among other things, this Committee
requested a list of the FBI investigations, local law
enforcement agency reporting, and liaison reporting, with
varying degrees of cooperation and access the FBI's Richmond
Field Office relied on to make its assessment. Have those
documents been provided to date to this Committee?
Mr. Dunham. We have not provided those documents.
Ms. Lee. When will those documents be provided?
Mr. Dunham. I don't have a timeline for you yet. We, my
letter that we sent last week I mentioned that there is an
internal review going on to get to the bottom of a lot of these
issues that you, that you referenced. I anticipate having
ongoing dialog with the Committee and with staff, and will be
able to provide more information once our review is complete.
Ms. Lee. Mr. Dunham, are you personally engaged in that
review process?
Mr. Dunham. I am not.
Ms. Lee. Who at the FBI is engaged in that review process?
Mr. Dunham. I will have to take that back. I believe it
might be through our Inspection Division. I will get back to
you on that.
Ms. Lee. To this point, has the Inspection Division given
you a date by which they will be producing these documents back
to us?
Mr. Dunham. I don't have a date for you. I will get back to
you.
Ms. Lee. All right. Is it also correct that this Committee
requested a list of FBI employees involved in the drafting,
reviewing, approving, or disseminating of the January 23, 2023,
Domain Perspective entitled, ``Interest of Racially or
Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist Radical-Traditionalist
Catholic Ideology.'' We made that request to you as well; is
that right?
Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
Ms. Lee. To this point have documents been provided in
response to that request?
Mr. Dunham. We have not.
Ms. Lee. When will those documents be provided to this
Committee?
Mr. Dunham. That is something that I will take back and I
will get you information on.
What I will say is that some of that information may
contain what we call non-SES employee information. That is
something that through practice and policy we are more
protective of our employees to avoid having them become targets
of our adversaries for intel or operational purposes, to avoid
them becoming targets of harassment, to avoid any limitations
they may have.
It has been the FBI's position that decisions that are made
are best reflected, best explained by the executives who direct
those decisions. I anticipating having--
Ms. Lee. Assuming the FBI is capable of distinguishing
between particular sensitive information it feels it needs to
protect and that information which is something that is
appropriate and necessary for us to engage in oversight,
correct?
Mr. Dunham. Agree with that.
Ms. Lee. There are also multiple methods for producing and
providing information to us that we have heard about, even
during the course of this hearing, that could achieve both
objectives of protecting the necessary identification
information for agents who are out working in the field, but
also ensure that as Members of Congress we have access to these
vital documents to conduct our oversight, correct?
Mr. Dunham. Correct.
Ms. Lee. All right. Now, the Bureau's interests in this
potential threat appear to be increasing as there was an
upcoming election.
Can you elucidate for us why it would be that this
particular subject was something that became of interest to the
FBI as an election was approaching?
Mr. Dunham. I don't have, I am not a subject matter expert
on this topic, I don't have any inside information on the
product.
I think the attorney general, and the director have been
clear in their testimony when asked about this that the
products did not meet the FBI's exacting standards and it was
unacceptable. That is why we are looking into how it came to
be.
Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you, Director Dunham.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentlelady. We will start Round 2. I
want to start by, just for the record, noting in response to
some of Ranking Member's allegations about sensitive material
being made public that the information that he alleges was
improperly made public was actually provided by a
whistleblower. That information was made public legally and
under a May 11th letter and a November 4th report.
Mr. Swalwell. Will you give us the whistleblower notes?
Mr. Cline. I will take that under advisement. Let me go
back to Ms. Bumpus. Ms. Bumpus, it has been well over a month
since the Committee's oversight letter about the FTC's
rulemaking on noncompete clauses was sent and explain that
letter that FTC lacks legal authority to promulgate this rule.
It is also running roughshod on federalism and well established
area of State law.
On February 28th, the FTC provided a written response and
only 43 pages of notifications that schedule a variety of
meetings. On March 7th, over three weeks ago, the FTC made a
production of around 1,400 more pages of materials. Of that
production, only about 100 pages were not already publicly
available, and none of them have provided any insight as to the
internal discussions that have led to this radical proposed
rule.
Understand that the FTC has said they will produce
materials on a rolling basis. It has been more than a month
since the FTC received this oversight letter and 22 days since
the last production. When does the FTC expect to complete its
production of responsive documents?
Ms. Bumpus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can't tell you when we
expect to complete it. I can tell you that we're continuing to
work on it, and we expect to make another production in April.
We've reached out to your staff, and we hope to engage with
them to learn more about your priorities.
Mr. Cline. OK. Well, it is well known that the FTC
frequently seeks extensive information from private parties
that it investigates. When those parties fail to produce what
is required for the FTC to conduct its investigation, the FTC
also seeks sanctions. In the FTC's response to this inquiry,
most of what it has provided is already publicly available or
otherwise incomplete. I find it quite remarkable and
inconceivable that the FTC would tolerate such a production
from parties under its own investigation. What should the
Committee take from the FTC's paltry production to date on this
important matter?
Ms. Bumpus. I hope the Committee takes that we respect your
oversight authority and that we'd like to be responsive. We
look forward to continuing to work with you to get there.
Mr. Cline. In its letter in response to the Committee's
oversight of the FTC's proposed noncompete rulemaking, the FTC
said that a CFPB employee served a detail to the FTC and worked
on the rulemaking. This CFPB employee, quote,
. . . led the team on a daily basis. He supervised the drafting
of the notice of proposed rulemaking, ensured versions of the
draft NPRM were circulated to the team and bureaus for their
review, ensured versions of the draft NPRM were circuited to
the commission for its review, and oversaw any necessary legal
research.
Ms. Bumpus. This is an interesting and troubling
development. It raises questions about former Commissioner
Chopra's outsized remaining influence at the FTC. It is well
known that Chair Khan was on Rohit Chopra's staff, and she gave
jobs overseeing the competition and consumer protection
missions as well Chief of Staff and Chief Technologist, Rohit
Chopra's other staffers.
Now, we are learning Rohit Chopra's influence continues as
he has assigned one of his CFPB employees to a detail at the
FTC. That employee has led and supervised the FTC's noncompete
rulemaking effort. The Committee has questions related to the
FTC's decision to staff this rulemaking in this way. However,
for you as the Director of the Office of Congressional
Relations who coordinates the FTC's responses to our inquiries,
let me ask, did the FTC take any steps to coordinate your
response to this Committee with the staff at the CFPB?
Ms. Bumpus. Not that I'm aware of, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cline. When you helped coordinate the production to the
Committee, did you raise the issue that additional searching
would need to be done at the CFPB?
Ms. Bumpus. I wasn't involved in the production itself. I
don't know.
Mr. Cline. Former Commissioner Rohit Chopra is the Director
of CFPB. Has your office been in touch with him about
responding to the Committee's request?
Ms. Bumpus. I have not been in touch with him and no one in
my office has.
Mr. Cline. Who at the FTC is supervising the CFPB's
employee's leadership on this issue? I would like a name.
Ms. Bumpus. I'm not sure I understand the premise of your
question.
Mr. Cline. Who at the FTC is supervising over the CFPB,
this specific employee's leadership in this area? Do you know
of the employee of whom I am speaking?
Ms. Bumpus. I believe the employee you're talking about was
employed in the Office of Policy Planning.
Mr. Cline. OK. Who is the head of--or who was supervising
that official in policy and planning?
Ms. Bumpus. I believe the current head of the Office of
Policy and Planning is Elizabeth Wilkins.
Mr. Cline. OK. In your experience, how common is it for the
FTC to rely on staff of another Federal agency to lead its
teams on a daily basis and supervise drafting of rules?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
Mr. Cline. What other interaction does your office, or the
FTC, have with the CFPB that this Committee should be aware of?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm not sure of the extent of our interaction.
I know that both of us, the agencies, are charged with consumer
protection. So, I would assume that there would be interaction.
I can't characterize the amount of it.
Mr. Cline. OK. I just want to note that even in the limited
materials that were provided, we can see that the FTC staff
communicated using a staffer's personal Gmail account. In other
instances, the employee was using the employee's CFPB account,
and other CFPB employees were using their CFPB accounts to
communicate with the FTC on this matter. I yield to the Ranking
Member for five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Bumpus, isn't it true that you all at the
FTC had a consent decree with Twitter in 2011 and May 2022,
well before Elon Musk bought that company?
Ms. Bumpus. That's correct.
Mr. Swalwell. Those consent decrees allege that Twitter had
been reckless with consumer data. Is that correct?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't want to characterize them, but they
dealt with the company's practices with respect to data
security and privacy.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Rodriguez, which the Committee in
Congress has jurisdiction over the Department of Education?
Mr. Rodriguez. That would be the Education Workforce
Committee and the Senate HELP Committee.
Mr. Swalwell. That is not the Judiciary Committee? You
didn't name them.
Mr. Rodriguez. That's correct, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. OK. So, you could argue that requests that
Virginia Foxx has on the House Education Committee from you
have to be balanced against requests that you have from a
committee that's outside your jurisdiction. Is that right?
Mr. Rodriguez. I am here to provide this Committee the
information that it needs. We endeavor to balance all our
Congressional requests.
Mr. Swalwell. I hope this side cleared all this with Ms.
Foxx because on our side, people would be pretty pissed off if
you started going into another committee's jurisdiction knowing
that Leg Affairs only has so much bandwidth. Well, I thank the
witnesses. I am sorry you had your time thoroughly and
exhaustively wasted here today.
I would like to enter into the record Jim Jordan's
testimony to the January 6th Committee. He didn't testify to
the January 6th Committee is what you are about to say.
Actually, that is the point here is that there is no
credibility.
There is no credibility on Jim Jordan's Committee to
obstruct justice. He can't talk credibly about witnesses not
complying with subpoenas, and that is why he is not here. He
wasn't at the last hearing.
He often goes to Subcommittee hearings. This is one of the
only ones he doesn't go to, and it is because there is no
credibility. You can't ask people to comply. You can't complain
when people don't comply when you are 321 days into your own
noncompliance.
Just doesn't work. So, he won't come here. He will ask my
friend, Mr. Cline here, who is doing his best job to represent
Mr. Jordan to do that instead. Mr. Jordan won't come here.
Mr. Jordan will pull the old, I don't have my reading
glasses, trick when he is asked if he will condemn a threat of
death and destruction by the former President. Mr. Jordan and
actually no one on this dais on the other side will condemn
Donald Trump posting a picture of himself with a baseball bat
next to an African American independent prosecutor. My
colleagues continue to want to focus on Mar-a-Lago.
There is so many questions about the Mar-a-Lago search
warrant from my colleague from New Jersey. That is not even the
focus of this hearing. We learned zero today about what their
allegations were.
I would actually say the only earnest questioning came from
Mr. Moran and Ms. Lee who had real questions. Everything else
was on behalf of Donald Trump. That's what we are going to
continue to see from this side is litigating on behalf of just
one client, Donald Trump.
Their credibility is in a free fall. The attacks on law
enforcement continue. Right after the Mar-a-Lago search, Mr.
Dunham knows this, a madman with an assault rifle went to an
FBI field office.
Thankfully, he was killed by brave agents at the Bureau.
The attacks from this side on law enforcement are only going to
bring more attacks on law enforcement. I say that as someone
who has two brothers who walk the beat.
When you bring witnesses in this building, in this room who
tweet out, ``fuck cops,'' what do you think is going to happen?
People are going to take up violence against the cops. Those
were your witnesses. You brought them here.
When you have a colleague that you don't condemn who says
defund the FBI and you are silent, you let that happen, people
are going to go after the FBI. So, we will waste more time. As
Mr. Ivey pointed out, more kids will be victims of gun
violence.
The Committee that can do something about it will focus on
this nonsense. I know where Mr. Ivey and I are on the issue of
gun violence. We are going to continue to stand up to protect
kids. It is clear that these guys are only here to protect
Trump. I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Van Drew. Well, I would say the Ranking Member has made
it clear. What he has made clear is that he is going to use gun
violence as a political tool, and that is unfortunate. It is
unfortunate to keep taking these children and their families
and running them through the political gauntlet, because you
want to gain some points with it. That isn't the point of this
Committee.
I have questions. The first question, I want to thank
Congresswomen Lee for bringing this up. It is OK to be Roman
Catholic, right? Somebody answer me, please.
Mr. Dunham. Yes.
Mr. Van Drew. OK. I was getting a little nervous. I am
Roman Catholic.
Mr. Ivey. I will say yes.
Mr. Van Drew. OK, OK. What is radical Catholic ideology?
Why were we looking into that? What is that about?
Mr. Dunham. I am not able to speak to specifics of the
actual product. I think that is what the internal review that I
referenced earlier--
Mr. Van Drew. Doesn't that concern you?
Mr. Dunham. Certainly, I agree with the director's
statements that the product was inexcusable.
Mr. Van Drew. Yes, it sure was. What would ever lead
anybody to think that they could start investigating that? Now,
I am not as good as I should be. I miss mass sometimes.
Mostly, mass is a very peaceful thing where people go to
pray and get Holy Communion. What are we investigating? How did
that ever get through at all, to even get started? Why did it
have to be condemned when it never should have happened?
I just want to say something else too. Since Mr. Jordan was
brought up again, I really hate doing this because we do have
more important things. Mr. Swalwell stops, I will stop.
Again, here is his quote. ``There's a reason I was
concerned about testifying, but I never said no.'' This is a
quote that is recorded. It is part of our hearing. It is part
of the testimony.
The Chair has accepted it, and he has said that numerous
times. Now, concern with testifying, I would be damn concerned
testifying in front of that Committee. That Committee was a
rigged Committee.
That Committee didn't tell the truth. That Committee was a
political tool and nothing else. It was shameful that Congress
was used in that way.
That Committee was in nobody's mind or nobody's sense
bipartisan. So, Mr. Jordan didn't do anything wrong. He is
always everywhere. Yes, I will defend him.
I think he is a damn good Member and a damn good Chair and
doesn't deserve that. Nevertheless, if we have got to say it
over and over again, I will say it over and over again. Just
like I said if you have come over and over again, and you are
probably huddled together at the beginning of the day and say,
all right, who is going to have to put up with it today and
decide who is going to go.
I feel bad that you have to go through it. You do because
all we need is the information. If we get the information, we
won't have to go through this process.
All I heard today is, I can't speak to the redaction. I
can't tell us why we aren't giving access. I am not aware, not
sure. I don't know. I don't know why it is so long. I don't
know about the rule of law on this case. Have to take that
back. Have to take it back.
We know no more--I am going to end this today in a similar
way to when I ended the last one. We know virtually no more now
that we knew then. You don't have the documents with you,
right?
Correct, you do not have them? Can somebody answer that?
Mr. Dunham, you don't have them? Ms. Bumpus, you don't have
them? Mr. Rodriguez, you don't have them? I assume you didn't
lose them, correct? Am I correct in my assumption? Please
somebody answer me.
Mr. Ivey. You want me to answer that one too, or--
Mr. Van Drew. Yes, I would like all three to answer. It is
a pretty easy question. God help us. I hope it is an easy
question. Because if you lost them, I would understand what
happened.
Mr. Dunham. We are actively engaged in providing additional
information to the Committee. We have made ten responses to the
Committee since the January 17th letter, including productions
totaling nearly 1,000 pages.
Mr. Van Drew. You don't know what it is going to be. Why
can't we just get all the information, get it done, look at it
together. If you don't want us just to have it, learn what
really happened. We know things happened here, that things went
awry. We just do.
Do you want to talk about the American people? The American
people know something is wrong. They know something went awry.
They know something is wrong, and they just want to get
answers, no more or less than we do.
We don't want to go on these tangents. If other people do,
we will. Who at the FBI made the decision to not comply with
these requests until a subpoena was actually issued. Can
somebody tell me that?
Mr. Dunham. I'm not sure there's a sole decisionmaker
there. We weren't aware of the school board request until we
received the subpoena. We were operating under the January 17th
Chair Jordan letter is our prioritization list to get
information to the Committee for the 118th Congress.
Mr. Van Drew. So, nobody is sure. Did the FBI only comply
with the Committee's various questions on February 3rd? Were we
complying before then? It is the elephant in the room, and it
is my last question. I will yield back.
Are the way that Republicans are treated different in any
way than the minority--as when we were the minority as
Democrats? Is there any difference? When the Democrats were the
majority and we were the minority, any difference in the way we
are treated?
Mr. Dunham. There's absolutely no difference.
Mr. Van Drew. Do you swear to me under oath that there is
no difference?
Mr. Dunham. There's absolutely no difference, Congressman.
We provided a response of information in the 117th, and that
was through the form of written materials, briefings, testimony
before the Full Committee, proactive information that we
provided the Committee on a routine basis.
Mr. Van Drew. So, then you would swear under oath, all
three of you, that the information that we have is no more or
less than the information--
Mr. Ivey. Point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cline. The witnesses may answer.
Mr. Dunham. I'm not aware of any difference in how we
operate or practice in policy. It's consistent.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for
five minutes.
Mr. Ivey. It is hard to know where to start with all that.
The gentleman's comments about losing the documents, I also sit
on Homeland Security. It is a little ironic because Democrats
on Homeland Security have been trying to get the IG at the
Department to come give us information about the loss of the
January 6th information by the Secret Service with respect to
text messages on January 5th and January 6th.
Our Republican colleagues to date haven't been helping us
in accomplishing that. So, there is no evidence of loss of
documents here. The Chair mentioned something about the FTC.
When you seek information, if you don't get it, you go to
sanctions.
I do want to point out that there's a lot of intermediate
steps the courts require to be followed that this Committee has
not followed before you get to sanctions. If you go to
sanctions and request sanctions too soon, sanctions get imposed
on you. So, for example, in this instance, some of the
subpoenas I looked at struck me as overbroad. They could have
moved to quash.
They would never do that to this Committee out of respect
for the House. That is certainly something that could have
happened and probably would have happened in the private
sector. Overbroad request? No deficiency letter from the
Committee back?
Hey, we are missing this in writing. Also, as I mentioned
before, the duty to consult, there have been some
consultations. Usually, that has been the outreach of the
departments to the Committee as opposed to vice versa. Issuing
a subpoena the day after receiving the letter I thought was
just over the top.
The comment about on a separate topic, mentioning gun
violence means, quote, ``these children and their families are
being dragged through this again,'' was particularly striking.
Just last week, we sat in this hearing room with families of
gun violence, survivors listening to a hearing. They were
trying to--this is the bill that was going to overturn the ATF
restrictions on the shoulder straps.
They were here because they want to be here. They were here
because they want something done about gun violence. They had
children die, and that is why they showed up.
The same families that showed up or actually same types of
parents that showed up a couple of hours ago on the steps of
the Capitol, they had children that were killed. They had
classmates that were killed. They are not unhappy about us
bringing this up.
They are there because they want us to bring it up, and
they are bringing it up too. In addition to bringing it up, it
is really time to do something about it. The Republican
response to gun violence, as Mr. Jeffries said a little while
ago is basically in the witness protection program. Nobody can
find what it is.
There is an effort to try to hide it behind these hearings
that they don't have a response to gun violence or many of the
issues that they complain about. The time has come to put up or
shut up. With respect to the budget, with respect to funding, I
have got the Vox article here.
The gentleman mentioned something about the American people
want this. This is by Christian Paz. Quote, ``The House GOP's
investigations are flopping.'' That's the name of the article.
So, the American people see through this. They want us to
do things that really impact their lives. This hearing which is
essentially kind of an enforcement hearing on a subpoena which
a judge wouldn't bother with.
He would say, you guys go back and figure this out, which
is what we should be doing here and which they have offered to
do. Trying to work this out in a Committee hearing when we
don't sit down with the people who actually do the work and
make the decisions and can go through the redactions that you
want. Let's go meet with them.
Let's do it that way. Let's get it done instead of wasting
time at the hearings like this. Then the last point about
concern about testifying.
Mr. Jordan didn't show up because the January 6th Committee
was stacked and unfair to Republicans. I just want to remind
everybody here almost all the witnesses that testified at the
January 6th hearing were Republicans. In fact, one of them was
President Trump's daughter.
One of was former President Trump's son-in-law. One of them
was former President Trump's Attorney General. They weren't too
scared to go testify.
They went. They got subpoenas. Some of them actually just
complied voluntarily. They went and testified. Mr. Jordan
didn't. The Speaker didn't. Others didn't.
So, let's not pretend like that was some scary trap that
was being set. They just didn't go because they didn't want to
go. That's basically what is going on here today with respect
to this hearing. Let's not hold them to a higher standard than
we hold ourselves because that is exactly what this hearing is
about. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman. I will note to Mr. Dunham
I was reminded that in the last hearing last month the
representative from the Department of Justice did concede that
Members of the minority were responded to differently than
Members of the majority. So, while the FBI may have a different
policy, Department of Justice apparently responds to Members of
the majority while ignoring Members of the minority's requests.
Mr. Ivey. Will the gentleman yield, because we discussed
this last time?
Mr. Cline. Go ahead.
Mr. Ivey. OK. Will the majority under our Committee rules
has authority to get responses that the minority does not? Now,
if you are agreeing today that we can get that same authority,
I would appreciate it. We would love to have that not just with
respect to this hearing, but other hearings that we want to go
forward with--
Mr. Cline. You just made my point.
Mr. Ivey. --like the one I just mentioned.
Mr. Cline. You just made my point. There is different
treatment for the majority than the minority. I just wanted to
caution as he answers the question.
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Ivey. These were the rules that you proposed and you
voted in. Very well.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I would ask
procedurally that the list of 26 priority documents that I
handed--or that was handed to Mr. Rodriguez during my first
round of questions be admitted into the record.
Mr. Cline. Without objection.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Ivey just say a judge wouldn't bother with
this. I just want to make a little comment about that. I was a
judge, and I would tell you I would have bothered with this
because if it was brought to me, I didn't like it when parties
played shell games with discovery and lawsuits. I frankly
wouldn't put up with it.
I would make parties produce relevant documents that they
needed to in a lawsuit. Mr. Swalwell also called this hearing a
waste of time. Ms. Bumpus, I want to ask you, do you think it
is a waste of time for this Committee to seek information on
behalf of the U.S. taxpayers that they deem relevant through
their duly elected representatives in Congress?
Ms. Bumpus. No, I don't.
Mr. Moran. All right. Ms. Bumpus, thank you for that. I
appreciate that answer because I don't think it is a waste of
time either. I think it is exactly what we should be doing. Did
you discuss with Chair Jordan and Senator Cruz's--did you
discuss Chair Jordan and Senator Cruz's March 10th letter with
Chair Khan?
Ms. Bumpus. No, I did not.
Mr. Moran. Did you discuss the letter with Chair Khan's
Chief of Staff or any of her other direct reports?
Ms. Bumpus. I believe I did engage with her Chief of Staff.
Mr. Moran. OK. Only her Chief of Staff?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm sorry. I think I did speak to Chair Khan
briefly when we received the letter as well.
Mr. Moran. What was the nature of those discussions?
Ms. Bumpus. To inform them that we had received the letter.
Mr. Moran. That was all the discussion was?
Ms. Bumpus. That was the essence of the discussion?
Mr. Moran. Then did you followup with Chair Khan's Chief of
Staff?
Ms. Bumpus. I think the process when we receive requests
for nonpublic information under the commission's rule is to
refer the request to the Office of General Counsel. Those
requests are then sent to relevant offices and bureaus around
the commission depending on the nature of what's being asked
for, for a response.
Mr. Moran. So, as it relates to the nature of what is being
asked for in the March 10th letter, who would be responsible
for collecting the documents in response to the March 10th
letter?
Ms. Bumpus. I think we have staff throughout the commission
who may have those records who are working on the response.
Mr. Moran. Can you identify any of those staff?
Ms. Bumpus. Not at this time, no.
Mr. Moran. Can you identify a supervisor, somebody over the
staff that we could go to, to figure out exactly who is going
to respond to the March 10th letter?
Ms. Bumpus. I believe it would be the Bureau of Consumer
Protection.
Mr. Moran. Do you know if any of the documents have been
collected to date in response to that March 10th letter?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
Mr. Moran. Do you know who would know that?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know. I'm happy to get back to you on
that.
Mr. Moran. Do you know whether or not any text messages
have been collected in response to the March 10th letter
request?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
Mr. Moran. Again, would you know who would know that?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm happy to get back to you on that.
Mr. Moran. Can you get back to me this week?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm happy to inquire.
Mr. Moran. All right. Has anybody told you or not to
produce any specific documents to the Committee that are
responsive to the March 10th letter?
Ms. Bumpus. Not at all. The Committee has not refused to
produce any documents.
Mr. Moran. Are you aware of anyone being told not to
produce specific documents that are responsive to the March
10th letter?
Ms. Bumpus. Not at all.
Mr. Moran. Does the FTC ever brief Congress on nonpublic
investigations?
Ms. Bumpus. Yes, we do.
Mr. Moran. Why would this investigation be any different?
Ms. Bumpus. I believe that providing nonpublic briefings
which we do at the request of Chairs and Subcommittee Chairs of
relevant Committees is often the fastest way to inform those
committees. We have engaged in that practice for many years and
continue to do that.
Mr. Moran. I assume then that the FTC also briefs the White
House on nonpublic investigations. Is that true as well?
Ms. Bumpus. Not that I'm aware of, no.
Mr. Moran. One of the requests in the March 10th letter is
for communications with the White House related to Mr. Musk. Do
you know why none of these documents have been produced to
date?
Ms. Bumpus. I'm not.
Mr. Moran. Do you know who would be aware of why those
haven't been produced to date?
Ms. Bumpus. I don't know whether they exist, and I don't.
Mr. Moran. So, can you tell me anybody at all specifically
by name that is involved in responding to the March 10th
letter?
Ms. Bumpus. My name is Jeanne Bumpus. I'm the head of the
Office of Congressional Relations. I coordinate communications
between the agency and the Committee.
Mr. Moran. I appreciate that, but you really haven't given
me any information today. So, I am curious if you could give me
the name of anybody with actual answers to my questions that
relate to the March 10th letter and the response to that
letter.
Ms. Bumpus. I'm happy to get back to you on that,
Congressman.
Mr. Moran. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Cline. Thank you. The gentlelady from Florida is
recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Dunham, I'd like to
spend a few moments discussing the FISA process. Now, would it
be correct to say that the purpose overall of FISA is to
collect information about espionage or terrorism from foreign
powers or the agents of foreign powers?
Mr. Dunham. Certainly, one of the reasons. I'm not a
subject matter expert on FISA.
Ms. Lee. It is the purpose being foreign intelligence
information collection, correct? Now, it wouldn't be used by
contrast for the purpose of collecting information for purely
domestic criminal activity. Is that right?
Mr. Dunham. I'm not a subject matter expert to answer any
of those types of questions. What I can tell you is I know
we've offered a pretty extensive substantive response to the
Committee's inquiries that we sent last week or the week
before, 10-plus pages responding to your questions plus 400-
plus pages of document productions. I believe we're in the
process of setting up a briefing for Committee staff and
Members.
I know this is a topic that's really a legislative priority
for the FBI. So, I'm more than happy to get the right person in
front of you to answer the questions related to FISA so that we
can alleviate a lot of the Committee's concerns and also
educate on a lot of the reforms that we've put into place over
the last two years that go to some of the heart of those
concerns as well.
Ms. Lee. So, as you sit here with us today then, it would
be your position that you are not qualified to share with us
the scope of the FISA process and whether it might relate to,
say, domestic criminal activity versus the collection of
information about foreign adversaries and foreign terrorist
threats?
Mr. Dunham. I'm certainly not qualified on a lot of things
in FISA, FISA, getting to the bottom of FISA, the definitions,
the ins and outs of the process, why we use it, the value of
it. I would feel more comfortable having a subject matter
expert come before you and really dig into it.
Ms. Lee. You are aware, are you not, that in the past, the
Office of the Inspector General has concluded that the FBI has
engaged in overreach as it relates to information collection
within the FISA courts?
Mr. Dunham. I'm aware of some of those reports, correct.
Ms. Lee. This Committee made a request of the FBI that
states, in part, the Office of The Director of National
Intelligence's Annual Statistical Transparency Report revealed
that from December 2020-November 2021 the FBI conducted over
3.3 million U.S. person queries against its 702 holdings. This
was a substantial increase from the number of U.S. person
queries the FBI conducted from December 2019-November 2020
which the report stated was approximately 1.3 million. Now, can
you share for us today why that number increased?
Mr. Dunham. I can't share for you the specifics. What I can
tell you is I believe the response that you received on March
14th goes to the heart of a lot of those questions the
Committee had. We are in the process of offering a briefer to
go over a lot of the questions the Committee has, in addition
to--
Ms. Lee. If you have identified for us that you don't
perceive that you are the internal subject matter expert on
FISA at the Bureau, who would be the person that we should
bring in if we wanted to have a thorough discussion about the
scope of FISA and the responses to our substantive requests?
Mr. Dunham. We have a FISA team that's responsible for
responding to Congressional engagements, Congressional
information requests. I'm happy to have one of them come before
the Committee for a briefing. I think we're in the process of
setting that up, actually.
Ms. Lee. All right. Thank you, Director Dunham. Mr. Chair,
I yield back.
Mr. Cline. All right. I thank the gentlelady. That
concludes today's hearing. We thank or witnesses for appearing
before the Committee today.
As we said, the more we hear from you between now and the
next time, the less likely it is that we will see you next
time. Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record. Without objection, the
hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
All materials submitted for the record by Members of the
Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight
can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent .aspx?EventID=115601.