[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.