[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
                               __________

                      THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2023
                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-55
                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
54-254                   WASHINGTON : 2024                  
               
               
                       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
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ADAM SCHIFF, California
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
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
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

                              ----------                              

                      Thursday, November 30, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State 
  of Virginia....................................................     1
The Honorable Eric Swalwell, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee 
  on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the 
  State of California............................................     3

                               WITNESSES

The Hon. Christopher Dunham, Acting Assistant Director, Office of 
  Legislation and Congressional Affairs, Federal Bureau of 
  Investigation
  Oral Testimony.................................................     6
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     8
The Hon. Jeanne Bumpus, Director, Office of Congressional 
  Relations, Federal Trade Commission
  Oral Testimony.................................................    11
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    13
The Hon. Naz Darakoglu, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of 
  Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of State
  Oral Testimony.................................................    16
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    18

                                APPENDIX

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on 
  Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight are listed below    39

Materials submitted by the Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight 
  from the State of Virginia, for the record
    A letter to the Honorable Lina Khan, Chair, Federal Trade 
        Commission, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Jul. 
        28, 2023
    A letter to the Honorable Lina Khan, Chair, Federal Trade 
        Commission, from the Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the 
        Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, Sept. 
        5, 2023

                 QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD

Questions for the Hon. Jeanne Bumpus, Director, Office of 
  Congressional Relations, Federal Trade Commission, submitted by 
  the Honorable Ben Cline, Chair of the Subcommittee on 
  Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight from the State 
  of Virginia; the Honorable Nathaniel Moran, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight 
  from the State of Texas; and the Honorable Laurel Lee, a Member 
  of the Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to 
  Oversight from the State of Florida, for the record
Responses to questions from the Hon. Jeanne Bumpus, Director, 
  Office of Congressional Relations, Federal Trade Commission, 
  for the record

 
                       HEARING ON COMPLIANCE WITH
                          COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT

                              ----------                              


                      Thursday, November 30, 2023

                        House of Representatives

     Subcommittee on Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ben Cline [Chair 
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Cline, Van Drew, Moran, Lee, 
Swalwell, and Ivey.
    Mr. Cline. All right. 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 of the Subcommittee on 
Responsiveness and Accountability to Oversight.
    As we do in this Committee, we will begin with the pledge, 
so if everybody would rise and face the flag.
    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. Thank you.
    I want to thank our witnesses for appearing, and I want to 
also thank Ranking Member Swalwell and Member Lee for being 
here as well.
    Today, the Subcommittee's going to continue our efforts to 
get answers directly from representatives from the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the Department of State, and the 
Federal Trade Commission. We look forward today to engaging 
with the witnesses that have appeared to discuss the 
productions we have received to date and the status of our 
other outstanding requests, as well as the agencies' compliance 
with the Committee's subpoenas.
    Since the beginning of the Biden Administration, the 
Committee has made numerous requests for information and 
documents concerning the operations and actions of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. The Committee has also issued various 
subpoenas to the FBI. To date, the FBI has yet to fully comply 
with the Committee's subpoenas, as well as certain requests for 
information and documents.
    For example, on August 17, 2023, Chair Jordan issued 
subpoenas to Attorney General Garland and Director Wray 
regarding coercion by the Federal Government to have companies 
and groups engage in content moderation. To date, the responses 
to these subpoenas have been deficient and overdue.
    While the FBI has produced some documents for the Committee 
and made some documents available for review, many are publicly 
available, duplicative, nonresponsive, or significantly and 
substantively redacted.
    Relatedly, on April 28, 2023, Chair Jordan issued a 
subpoena to Global Engagement Center Special Envoy Rubin to 
investigate the nature and extent of the GEC's interactions 
with companies and groups over content moderation. GEC's 
response to date--less than 1,500 nonpublicly available pages 
of documents, which are extremely limited in scope--has been 
wholly incomplete and inadequate.
    Since the State Department last testified before this 
Subcommittee in July of this year, only 290 additional pages 
have been produced. This is despite the State Department 
representatives proffering that production would be in the tens 
of thousands of pages at the least.
    As virtually everything that GEC does is related to content 
moderation on social media, it's vital that these agencies 
produce all relevant documents that the subpoena compels them 
to produce so that the Committee has the opportunity to 
determine how the FBI, the State Department, and other actors 
with which the agencies were communicating with labeled speech 
misinformation, disinfor-mation, or malinformation, to 
effectuate its takedown from platforms.
    It's also important for the Committee to obtain these 
documents to ascertain the nature of the relationship between 
the Biden Administration and social media companies.
    Additionally, the FBI has been deficient in responding to 
the Committee on several other important oversight matters. For 
example, on March 9, 2022, the Committee requested a briefing 
on the status of the FBI's investigation into the pipe bombs 
placed at the RNC and DNC headquarters on January 6, 2021. 
After receiving a nonsubstantive response from the FBI, the 
Committee sent a letter reiterating its request for a briefing 
on May 24th and June 14th of this year. The Committee has also 
requested documents and information related to the pipe bomb 
investigation.
    While we look forward to the FBI providing the Committee 
with the requested briefing in the coming weeks, we still await 
the requested documents and information.
    Additionally, the Committee has sent letters to the FBI 
requesting documents and information related to its 
confidential human source program and information regarding 
former Special Agent in Charge Charles McGonigal and the overt 
politicization of the FBI. To date, the FBI has not responded 
to the Committee's requests.
    We are also here to hold the FTC accountable. Since Biden 
appointee Lina Khan has begun chairing the FTC in June 2021, 
she has advanced a radical agenda, upset the rule of law in 
ways that have hurt the American people, mismanaged agency 
career staff, and sought to act in ways inconsistent with what 
the FTC's legal authorities permit.
    Given our oversight responsibilities, the Committee 
Republicans have sent the agency 16 letters containing numerous 
requests. The Committee has also issued a subpoena to the FTC.
    Committee requests have covered a range of topics, such as 
Chair Khan's abandonment of long-standing bipartisan antitrust 
standards, or the rapid decline in FTC career staff morale and 
record staff departures from the FTC. Likewise, in April, over 
seven months ago, the Committee subpoenaed Chair Khan for 
documents based on the Judiciary Committee and the Select 
Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government's 
report about how the FTC harassed Twitter in the wake of Elon 
Musk's purchase of the company.
    The FTC has fallen far short in its responses to 
Congressional oversight. The agency has routinely failed to 
provide status updates requested about document productions. 
Even where the FTC has made an effort to produce requested 
documents, its responses have been inadequate or raise new 
questions.
    For example, the FTC has produced thousands of pages of 
publicly available documents, hundreds of pages of 
nonsubstantive schedules, but is withholding key materials from 
the Committee with no sound basis. The FTC has produced only 
one publicly available court filing in response to the 
Committee's April 12th subpoena. In defiance of the subpoena, 
the agency is withholding everything else.
    In her interactions with the Committee, Chair Khan has 
taken it on herself to question the legitimacy of and seeking 
to block Congressional oversight. Congress must make important 
decisions about funding the FTC and the scope of the FTC's 
authority. The FTC's obstructionist approach to the Committee's 
oversight can and should be a factor in Congress' decisions.
    The Committee's work here is still underway and will 
continue despite the FTC's efforts to frustrate its oversight. 
These hearings play a critical role in assisting the Committee 
in its oversight obligations, which, in turn, allow 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 
Article I authority to legislate. Without the information that 
the Committee needs from the administration, we cannot do our 
jobs for the American people.
    Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Swalwell, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Swalwell. He's not eating. He's not eating.
    ``Mar-a-Lago? What the hell, Kevin?''
    ``They're really worried,'' McCarthy said. ``Trump's not 
eating, so they asked me to come see him.''
    ``What? You went to Mar-a-Lago because Trump's not 
eating?'' Liz Cheney responded.
    ``He's really depressed,'' McCarthy said.
    That's why we're here. Trump's not eating, and this entire 
Congress has been Jim Jordan and MAGA Republicans feeding 
Trump. They're just feeding the beast with the insane hearings 
that they're holding all over the Capitol. That's why these 
three witnesses have been pulled out of the important work they 
do, is because Trump is not eating.
    This is not the first feast for the beast. In fact, we've 
seen this the whole Congress. We saw the creation of the 
Weaponization Committee. There have been multiple 
investigations into the investigation of Hunter Biden. There 
has been an investigation into the prosecutor who indicted 
Hunter Biden. There have been efforts to defund the FBI who 
were a part of a raid onto Mar-a-Lago.
    There has been an effort to undermine the New York district 
attorney's investigation into the former President. They 
brought in prosecutors who were a part of that investigation. 
There have been letters to Fani Willis in her January 6th 
investigation into the former President.
    So, you're just here as a part of an effort to feed the 
beast. Jim Jordan, who has assembled this hearing today, and 
the other MAGA Republicans are just working every day as 
Trump's chef. This isn't ``Top Chef.'' This is the U.S. 
Congress. We were sent here to govern. We're not sent here to 
work every day on behalf of one person. He's not eating, and 
that's why you're here--to feed him.
    Then, there is the comical hypocrisy that Jim Jordan would 
convene a hearing around anyone's subpoena compliance. You see, 
we are now 567 days, 19 hours, 12 minutes, and 35 seconds into 
Jim Jordan refusing to comply with the subpoena for his 
involvement on January 6th and attack on the Capitol.
    You would think that a Member of Congress who has sworn an 
oath to defend the Constitution would want to help their 
government in the largest investigation the country has ever 
taken. The largest investigation with the most indictments, the 
most witnesses, the most trials, around a single event, the 
Chair of this Committee, who has got a problem with the 
subpoena compliance--and we're going to talk about the 
overcompliance that we've seen from your agencies--it's just 
comical that he would call hearing to complain about you 
complying with subpoenas when he, 567 days in, won't even 
comply with his own.
    These claims--it's clear that what Republicans want to do 
to impeach Joe Biden is not working. They can't draw the 
straight line between what they think Hunter Biden did and what 
they want Joe Biden to have done. They may prove at the end of 
this Congress that Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. That may be 
coming. They have not proved anything else, and so they're 
trying to draw the foul.
    They're going to ask for dozens, hundreds, thousands of 
documents, and they're going to hope that you're not going to 
respond to one of them, so now they have an obstruction of 
justice case to use as a predicate for impeachment.
    I also want to talk about the transcribed interviews, 
because all of you have sent to this Committee 92 individuals 
to be a part of transcribed private interviews--not for the 
public to observe, but 92 private transcribed interviews.
    Take a guess at how many of those interviews have resulted 
in a public hearing. It's zero. It is all theater. It is all to 
feed the beast, because Donald Trump's not eating, so they have 
to haul these people in. They learn in private that there is no 
wrongdoing, and so we never hear about it in public.
    Finally, the center of so many of these investigations has 
been the current President's son. You would think, after a year 
of hearings about the current President's son and the 
indictments against the current President's son and the 
prosecutors involved in the case of the current President's 
son, and the private transcribed interviews around the current 
President's son, that you would see the Republicans bring in 
for a public hearing the President's son.
    So, what happened this week? The Republicans subpoena 
Hunter Biden. Hunter Biden says, ``Great. I'll come in. I'll 
testify publicly.''
    Jim Jordan and James Comer, they can't take yes for an 
answer. They don't want him to testify publicly. It's for the 
same reason that the other 92 witnesses have never came in. It 
is all to just feed the beast, to keep Donald Trump happy.
    So, welcome to a post-Thanksgiving meal to feed Donald 
Trump, and I introduce to you the chefs, led by top Chef Jim 
Jordan and Chef Boy McCarthy, who went down to Mar-a-Lago, in 
their effort to keep Donald Trump happy.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. Without objection, all other opening statements 
will be included in the record.
    I'll now introduce today's witnesses.
    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.
    Ms. 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 Naz Darakoglu. Ms. Darakoglu is the Assistant 
Secretary of State for the Bureau of Legislative Affairs. She 
was confirmed by the Senate on June 16, 2002. The Bureau of 
Legislative Affairs coordinates all legislative activity for 
the State Department and is the primary intermediary to 
Congress.
    We welcome our witnesses and thank them for appearing 
today. We'll 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're about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
    Let the record reflect that the witnesses have answered in 
the affirmative.
    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.
    Please remember to turn on the mics.
    Mr. Dunham, you may begin.

            STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHRISTOPHER DUNHAM

    Mr. Dunham. Thank you.
    Good afternoon, Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to come before you again to describe the FBI's 
continued efforts to respond to the Committee's oversight 
requests.
    I'm the Acting Assistant Director of the FBI's Office of 
Congressional Affairs. I'm here again voluntarily to answer 
your questions. Unlike others who have come before this 
Subcommittee, I am not a political appointee, nor am I an 
attorney. I spent the entirety of my professional government 
life in civil service in support of the FBI's mission.
    I agreed to serve as the Assistant Director in an acting 
capacity late last year. In this role, I have led 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 have served in this role, I have been 
committed to working in good faith with all Members of this 
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, and we recognize that 
it can shed valuable light on the FBI's operations and 
stewardship of taxpayer dollars.
    By virtue of the FBI's dual law enforcement and 
intelligence responsibilities, we work closely with eight 
Congressional 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, now more than ever, 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 continuing to 
accommodate the Committee's oversight interests.
    We understand the purview of this Subcommittee is 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 for the FBI 
across 17 different topics, in addition to requests for dozens 
of transcribed interviews.
    Since January, the FBI's provided nearly 30 responses to 
this Committee, including 22 document productions. More 
specifically, since I was here before you in March, the FBI's 
produced nearly 2,000 pages of documents and provided dozens of 
briefings for Committee Members and staff, including in our 
Quantico and Redstone facilities.
    During that time, we have also provided 14 FBI witnesses 
from multiple FBI divisions, and from literally across the 
country, who have come before this Committee to sit for 
extensive questioning and transcribed interviews covering a 
multitude of topics.
    Today, we remain engaged with Committee staff, and the 
FBI's actively responding to your requests for documents and 
information, including working to supplement our ongoing 
productions as we identify additional responsive documents.
    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 vital law enforcement and intelligence efforts. This, of 
course, is at the core of the FBI's mission: To protect the 
American people and uphold the Constitution.
    I'm happy to answer your questions.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Dunham follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Dunham.
    Ms. Bumpus, you may begin.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. JEANNE BUMPUS

    Ms. Bumpus. Thank you.
    Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, and distinguished 
Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jeanne Bumpus, the Director 
of the Office of Congressional Relations at the FTC. Thanks for 
the opportunity to address the Commission's responses to 
requests from the Committee of the Judiciary since the 
beginning of the 118th Congress.
    The FTC is the only Federal agency with the broad mission 
of both protecting consumers and maintaining competition in 
most sectors of the economy. Its jurisdiction includes privacy 
and data security, consumer fraud, and anticompetitive mergers 
and conduct in the pharmaceutical, defense, technology, 
hospital, retail food, and other sectors that affect every 
American, every day. The FTC's 1,200 public servants work 
tirelessly to meet this broad and critical mission.
    The Commission is committed to accommodating the 
Committee's requests for information consistent with our 
obligation to safeguard the independence, integrity, and 
effectiveness of our vital work.
    Since I last testified before the Subcommittee in March, 
the Commission has established a clear responsiveness to the 
House Judiciary Committee's wide range and unprecedented number 
of oversight requests. The Commission has received 15 letters 
with 76 specific requests from the Judiciary Committee, and 
we've responded with 29 letters, 20 productions, five 
transcribed interviews, a nonpublic briefing, hearing 
testimony, and over 8,500 pages of documents.
    These are just some of the House oversight requests that 
the Commission is currently responding to. In this calendar 
year, the FTC has received a total of 25 letters with 133 
specific requests from House Committees, and we've responded 
with 46 letters, 33 productions, and over 12,000 pages of 
documents.
    These responses are in addition to providing information to 
Congress as a regular part of what we do every day. The FTC 
works with Members and Committees to provide them with expert, 
thoughtful, and timely information, irrespective of party or 
position. The FTC devotes significant time and resources to 
supporting Congress' needs for information, working with our 
bureaus and offices across the agency to respond to requests. 
Commission officials and subject matter experts are in constant 
communication with Members and Congressional staff.
    In this year alone, the FTC has provided technical 
assistance on over 100 proposed bills, responded to over 80 
Congressional letters, provided about 15 nonpublic and over 80 
public briefings about our programs and operations, and 
assisted with constituent services and outreach efforts aimed 
at helping consumers avoid fraud.
    The Commission is eager to continue to share our work and 
collaborate with Congress to improve and enhance our service to 
the American people.
    In conclusion, the FTC recognizes that Congressional 
oversight is an important part of our system of government. We 
remain committed to working with Congress and with this 
Committee in good faith.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Bumpus follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Bumpus.
    Ms. Darakoglu, you may begin.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. NAZ DARAKOGLU

    Ms. Darakoglu. Thank you.
    Chair Cline, Ranking Member Swalwell, distinguished Members 
of this Subcommittee, it's a pleasure to appear before you 
again today.
    Last, I appeared before this Subcommittee, I cited our 
Congressional engagement from 2022 and the beginning of 2023. 
So far, in the 118th Congress, the State Department's Bureau of 
Legislative Affairs, also known as H, is lined up for another 
record-breaking year of Congressional engagement.
    Since January, H has supported 88 Congressional hearings, 
more than 2,900 briefings and meetings with Members and staff, 
responded to more than 1,000 letters from Congress, produced 
474 reports to Congress, and facilitated 512 codels and 
staffdels around the world.
    Regarding our commitment to oversight, the State Department 
is currently responding to 29 open and wide-ranging 
investigations from six separate House Committees. When I 
testified in July, the Department had provided more than 16,000 
pages of documents across Committees. We are now up to over 
25,500 pages. In response to this Committee's inquiry into the 
Global Engagement Center, or GEC, we have produced more than 
1,900 pages of documents, up from 1,200 in July.
    The GEC's offer to brief Members and staff of this 
Subcommittee still stands, and we welcome the opportunity to 
further engage with you on GEC's day-to-day work in furtherance 
of our national security.
    GEC principals have also testified before other House 
Committees in a demonstration of the Department's 
responsiveness and cooperation with oversight inquiries. As 
noted in my previous testimony, the GEC focuses on the 
international information space and works to identify, analyze, 
and expose harmful foreign disinfor-mation and propaganda 
emanating from places like Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing. The GEC 
does not focus on the domestic information space.
    As we continue to make productions and show the breadth and 
depth of the GEC's work abroad, we ask that Congress repeal the 
termination clause included in the GEC's mandate, so that the 
U.S. Government can continue this important effort beyond 2024.
    In addition to the GEC request, the Department has provided 
Chair Jordan and this Subcommittee with all available 
information on three specific visa cases in response to 
requests from the Committee. Should there be additional cases 
of interest, we look forward to reviewing and responding to 
those requests.
    Secretary Blinken and the Department's leadership maintain 
that Congress is a partner in foreign policy, and we remain 
committed to working with you in good faith on your oversight 
priorities.
    Across all Congressional oversight inquiries, career 
Department employees have been pulled off their day-to-day 
missions to support the document production and review process. 
The Department has also hired more oversight staff to assist 
with the growing number of requests.
    As we work to respond to more than two dozen requests, I 
would be remiss if I did not share the Department's concern 
over the House's proposed 14 percent cut to the State 
Department and Foreign Operations budget. This drastic cut 
would not only hinder the Department's ability to respond to 
Congressional oversight in a timely manner, but would also 
endanger the Department's national security objectives, 
particularly as the United States faces new and enduring 
challenges with the People's Republic of China, in the Middle 
East in Israel, Ukraine, and beyond.
    Of course, not passing the administration's full 
supplemental requests touching on these priorities would have a 
similar negative effect.
    Again, I thank the Subcommittee for allowing me the 
opportunity to appear before you again, and I look forward to 
your question.
    [The prepared statement of the Hon. Darakoglu follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cline. Thank you, Ms. Darakoglu.
    Let me begin with a question for Mr. Dunham.
    Well, let me just say we will now proceed under the five-
minute rule with questions. I anticipate we'll have two rounds 
of questions today.
    Mr. Dunham, understanding the FBI's role in censorship on 
social media is a crucial part of the Committee's investigation 
into the apparent collusion between the Federal Government and 
technology and social media companies. On April 18, 2023, the 
Committee requested documents and information in furtherance of 
its investigation by the FBI.
    However, the FBI did not make its first production until 
June 21, 2023, over a month after the response to the 
Committee's April 18, 2023, request was due.
    The entirety of the first production was the publicly 
available 386-page deposition transcript of FBI Special Agent 
Elvis Chan in Missouri v. Biden.
    Why did it take the department over a month to make this 
production of one publicly available document?
    Mr. Dunham. Mr. Chair, we're working through the requests 
that we received in April. We've made four productions already 
of 600 pages of documents. We've also been providing 
transcribed interviews to the Committee, which our 
conversations with staff indicated that was a Committee 
priority. So, we had three Senior Executives who came before 
this Committee for day-long transcribed interviews to talk 
about this very subject.
    We have more information in the pipeline that's 
forthcoming. I understand the Committee's concerns with 
redactions on the documents. We've had some discussions with 
Committee staff already to address those concerns.
    I think our most recent production provided more limited 
redactions. That's my goal, is to provide as limited redactions 
as possible in our productions to the Committee. We are bound 
by Department of Justice and Executive Branch policies, which 
means there are certain areas where we have to be a little more 
considerate when we're providing information.
    Those areas could be when we're touching on ongoing 
investigations or sources and methods or non-SES employees. My 
goal is always to provide as much information as possible with 
limited redactions, and--
    Mr. Cline. All right. Well--
    Mr. Dunham. --if there are instances where the Committee 
has concerns about those redactions, I'm happy to continue a 
dialog so that we can see what the legislative purpose is to 
see the information underneath, and we can make accommodations. 
We've done that several times already this year when we've been 
able to have discussions with the Committee and lift 
redactions, and I'm happy to continue this pattern of 
accommodation.
    Mr. Cline. Well, and there have been a lot of staff 
conversations, but the reason that you're here is, in part, 
because those staff conversations have not produced the 
documents that we have asked for.
    This is not--when we ask for redacted or documents without 
redactions, it's not a request. It's part of the subpoena. So, 
the subpoena explicitly instructs the FBI to produce unredacted 
copies of the documents.
    So, let's look at this document that's entirely redacted 
save for the opening and closing remarks.
    Can you articulate what was the reasoning behind the 
redaction here?
    Mr. Dunham. I can't, as we sit here--
    Mr. Cline. Because you can't understand--
    Mr. Dunham. --determine the--I'm not--
    Mr. Cline. You can't define the document.
    Mr. Dunham. I'm not the one that redacts, so I can't--
    Mr. Cline. You can't tell.
    Mr. Dunham. I can't--as I sit here, I understand the 
concern. What I can tell you is that we're striving to provide 
documents as limitedly redacted as possible with employees--
    Mr. Cline. So, tell me: Why are employees at Twitter and 
Facebook, many of whom do not have a clearance of any kind, 
able to receive these communications unredacted, but Members of 
Congress are not?
    Mr. Dunham. I just go back to what I said previously that 
we're bound by Department of Justice's and Executive Branch 
policies that dictate how we provide information to Congress, 
and there are certain areas where we have to be more 
considerate and provide redactions. Those conversations that we 
have with staff to--
    Mr. Cline. Right.
    Mr. Dunham. --talk about these redactions are extremely 
helpful for us in coming to an accommodation to provide more 
information, so I appreciate it.
    Mr. Cline. An accommodation with the request actually helps 
even more.
    So, earlier this week, Committee staff prioritized a list 
of documents to be produced in unredacted form to the Committee 
by December 8th. You may recall that conversation. It just 
happened earlier this week.
    Mr. Dunham, can you commit to producing these documents in 
unredacted form for the Committee by that deadline?
    Mr. Dunham. We are working through those requests now. We 
just got them a couple days ago, and we'll work to provide them 
as soon as possible.
    Mr. Cline. Are you aware that the subpoena requires the 
production of a privilege log if the FBI places redactions on 
certain documents?
    Mr. Dunham. I believe I have read that in one of the 
subpoenas, correct.
    Mr. Cline. All right. When can the Committee expect that 
privilege log?
    Mr. Dunham. I don't have a response for you today, but I'll 
take that back and see what we can provide.
    Mr. Cline. All right. You'd agree that the Committee's 
subpoena compels the production of certain categories of 
documents, correct?
    Mr. Dunham. I believe so.
    Mr. Cline. Documents and communications between or among 
the FBI and the Executive Branch, correct?
    Mr. Dunham. I believe so.
    Mr. Cline. All right. Why have no documents or 
communications with the White House or other Federal agencies 
been produced?
    Mr. Dunham. We're working through the productions. Like I 
said, we provided four productions already, over 600 pages of 
documents. We did prioritize the transcribed interviews, which 
we had three executives come up to spend the full day with the 
Committee to talk about these issues, and answer questions--
    Mr. Cline. All right. Can you commit to produce documents 
responsive to this category by December 14th?
    Mr. Dunham. I commit that we will provide information as 
soon as possible.
    Mr. Cline. All right. The Ranking Member is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Dunham, following subpoenas you've received from the 
Judiciary Committee Republicans, didn't you offer to meet and 
confer with Judiciary Republicans on multiple occasions?
    Mr. Dunham. I think my staff has had several offers to meet 
and several conversations with staff.
    Mr. Swalwell. Today, you are appearing voluntarily to this 
hearing?
    Mr. Dunham. Correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. This is the second time appearing voluntarily 
before this hearing. Is that--this Committee. Is that right?
    Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. Has the FBI provided Committee Republicans 
with over 1,700 pages of documents?
    Mr. Dunham. It is actually over 2,500 pages.
    Mr. Swalwell. The FBI has also offered to work with 
Committee Republicans to prioritize their document request. Is 
that right?
    Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. This included offering in-person review of 
nonpublic documents. Is that right?
    Mr. Dunham. That's correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. Have you seen, on social media, the doxxing 
of what you would call non-SES, which is like senior-level 
employees--the names of FBI agents and DOJ employees, not by my 
Republican colleagues, but by just folks on social media who 
have doxxed and put out their public information?
    Mr. Dunham. I have. This goes to one of the areas where 
we're a little bit more considerate about where we can provide 
information. We are bound by the Department of Justice and 
Executive Branch policies, which I mentioned previously. Some 
of those policies relate to non-SES employees. They feel that 
executives are best suited to answer questions and answer for 
decisions that are made under their command.
    It's not just about those policies. It's also about the 
safety of our employees. We've had employees that have been 
named by Congressional Committees that have come before 
Congressional Committees that have experienced harassment and 
threats this Congress. It's not lost on me that, a couple of 
weeks ago, a man in Tennessee was arrested, or pled guilty to 
conspiracy to kill FBI employees who were working on a January 
6th case. We're in a heightened threat environment.
    Just last week, the website you're referring to, which had 
nonpublic information about our interactions with the 
Committee, promotes doxxing. It's got pictures of FBI 
employees. It's got their dates of birth, their addresses, 
their spouse names. It's ridiculous. It's unacceptable.
    So, when I say we're protecting these employees, it's not 
some effort to hide the ball; it's to protect them for their 
safety and protect them from these threats and harassment that 
they've experienced this year.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Dunham.
    Ms. Bumpus, welcome. You're also appearing voluntarily 
today. Is that right?
    Ms. Bumpus. That's right.
    Mr. Swalwell. This is your--you're a 17-year career FTC 
employee, and you've served under four Republican Chairs and 
four Democratic Chairs. Is that right?
    Ms. Bumpus. That's right.
    Mr. Swalwell. The Judiciary Committee only has jurisdiction 
over your antitrust work. Is that right?
    Ms. Bumpus. Correct.
    Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Darakoglu, welcome back. You have 
testified before, and you were unanimously confirmed by the 
U.S. Senate. Is that right?
    Ms. Darakoglu. That's right.
    Mr. Swalwell. You are also voluntarily appearing?
    Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Second time before this Committee?
    Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. Did I hear right that the State Department 
has provided more than 1,600 total pages responding to the 
House's investigation?
    Ms. Darakoglu. It's actually 1,900.
    Mr. Swalwell. OK. So, just like the FBI's, it's going up as 
we speak.
    Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
    Mr. Swalwell. You have also offered numerous times and 
through meetings, briefings, and correspondence, to Judiciary 
Committee Republicans to meet with them and confer about the 
documents they want. Is that right?
    Ms. Darakoglu. Yes. We've also provided opportunities to 
meet with the Global Engagement Center itself.
    Mr. Swalwell. What is the purpose of the Global Engagement 
Center?
    Ms. Darakoglu. The purpose of the Global Engagement Center 
is to identify, analyze, and expose foreign disinformation and 
propaganda.
    Mr. Swalwell. Why is that a problem for us?
    Ms. Darakoglu. It is a major problem, because a lot of that 
foreign disinformation and propaganda often targets the United 
States.
    Mr. Swalwell. Does it draw a distinction between the 
Republican Party or the Democratic Party when it presents 
itself?
    Ms. Darakoglu. While I'm not an expert in disinformation. 
From my personal experience, I can tell you that they do not 
discriminate between parties.
    Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. Gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I have prepared remarks, but I'm going to go off them a 
little bit. I want to speak about my colleague and friend, Eric 
Swalwell's remarks about feeding the beast. I can't let it go.
    Do you want to know what the beast is? The beast is the 
invasion of people's personal rights, their freedoms. When it's 
done by agencies, the beast is even bigger.
    The beast is the invasion of their security. The beast is 
when we require--when a standing Subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee requires and requests documentation over and over 
again, and we don't get it.
    If we weren't concerned about how much of it we were going 
to redact, if we weren't concerned that we didn't want the 
Committee Members to know, perhaps it would move a whole lot 
faster.
    This isn't about raw abuse of politics. Quite frankly, this 
isn't about Donald Trump or any one individual person. It's 
about the misuse of agencies, and we've had an FBI Director who 
admitted that it has happened right before this Committee. 
We've had an Attorney General who has admitted it. We have John 
Durham who did a report on it. We know it exists.
    Ben Franklin said, ``Anybody that is willing to give up 
freedom for security deserves neither.''
    The beast is $42 million that we spent on a secret program 
for confidential human sources that has hurt good people. 
That's the beast. That's the beast that we fear. That's why we 
have so much concern. That's why we have so many requests.
    This is serious stuff. It's about the very essence of this 
republic.
    So, Mr. Dunham, since the beginning of the Biden 
Administration, our Committee has been actively engaged in 
overseeing the actions of the FBI. In doing so, we have made 
numerous requests for documents and information regarding a 
number of issues regarding the Bureau's actions, their 
activities, and their operations. We have continued issues 
obtaining said--such documents. We still have the problem. In 
areas where we have gotten particularly little response, I 
mentioned confidential human source program, which we know has 
gone awry. We've proven that numerous times. Even the FBI's 
admitted it.
    On September 19th, the Committee wrote to--2023--Director 
Christopher Wray seeking clarity on the FBI's use of CHSes. 
Despite receiving an estimated $42 million of every man and 
woman who pays taxes in this country, the program is pretty 
much secretive. It's unacceptable to me. It's unacceptable.
    What we do know only comes from select testimony. What we 
do know comes from the Durham Report, both of which were highly 
critical of the program. This is not a Republican talking 
point. It's not a Jeff Van Drew talking point. It is what we 
know and have found out. It is a fact.
    Given these concerns, I have to wonder why the FBI has not 
addressed our requests, and more thoroughly.
    So, briefly, because I'm going to run out of time--what 
steps have the FBI taken so far to provide the Committee with 
the outstanding information requested September 19, 2023, 
letter? What have they done? Please bold it out; not a long, 
vague thing. I want to know direct answers.
    What steps have you taken?
    Mr. Dunham. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
    So, we've provided some information already on this topic. 
Earlier this year, we provided a letter in response to the 
Committee that detailed some information about our CHSes. We 
had the Assistant Director of our Counterterrorism Division 
come up earlier this year and brief the Committee, and he 
discussed a--the CHS program a little bit during that briefing.
    We had six individuals who were--come before the Committee 
for transcribed interviews, who got to this issue of CHSes. 
We're aware of the Committee's additional requests, and we're 
working through them, and I hope to have information--
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
    Mr. Dunham. --as soon as possible.
    Mr. Van Drew. So, let me--because I'm a simple guy here, 
and so I just want a simple yes or no.
    Can you commit to providing the Committee with the 
outstanding requests for information contained in the September 
19th by December 14th of this year?
    We've been working on it for a while. There is no reason 
that we can't do this. You say you have a lot of people on it. 
Can you commit to that? Yes or no?
    Mr. Dunham. I will commit to providing the information as 
soon as we possibly can.
    Mr. Van Drew. Can you do it by December 14th?
    Mr. Dunham. I have to figure out where the information is 
in the pipeline--
    Mr. Van Drew. Why can you do it by December 14th? This has 
been going on for a while.
    Mr. Dunham. I understand that. We've been providing a lot 
of responses to the Committee. We've provided 30 responses this 
year already on 16 different topics.
    Mr. Van Drew. I can give you a commitment. We want it by 
December 14th.
    Mr. Dunham. I understand that, and I commit to you that 
we'll provide it as soon as possible.
    Mr. Van Drew. That's not the answer I wanted.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'm just getting increasingly angry as this hearing goes 
forward. I think (a) there is a Groundhog Day feel to this.
    I want to make the request, because we had these witnesses 
come back that--representing different departments over and 
over again, and there is a discussion about efforts to comply 
with the subpoenas. The Republicans State their dissatisfaction 
with that.
    In the process, there is, I would think, communications 
between the majority staff and the Departments. Apparently, 
minority staff doesn't get included in those.
    I'd like to see those, because, frankly, when I looked at 
some of these document requests, they're ridiculously 
overbroad. The one here from April 18, 2018, No. 1, all 
documents and communications from January 1, 2020, to the 
present referring or relating to the moderation, deletion, 
suppression, restriction, and reduced circulation of content; 
the development, execution, or application of companies' 
content moderation--how many documents are we expecting to get 
from--there should be some limitations on a request that broad.
    I've got to say this, too, and it's a little broader than 
the context of this hearing, but the effort to comply with the 
Republican request for documents and information has gone above 
and beyond. Having Weiss come up here to testify in the middle 
of a prosecution--a Federal prosecution that the Republicans 
clearly want to have go forward, or I would think, and then 
asking him questions that no prosecutor should ever be asked in 
the middle of a prosecution--you never do that.
    The Department of Justice took the extra step and made him 
available to come testify. Now, when you didn't like what he 
said, now the Committee's issued subpoenas to the next layer of 
prosecutors, Ms. Wolf and others.
    Same thing with the SES requests, too which I thought was, 
again, over the top--it's pretty unusual to have five SES 
employees come and testify. Didn't like what they said, I 
guess. Then you tried to go and get lower-level staff to 
testify. In doing that, apparently, majority staff reached out 
directly to people who were represented by counsel at the 
Department in violation of bar counsel Rule 4.2.
    You got a letter back from Chair Khan on that point, which 
I think is good, but I think we need to make sure what we're 
trying to do here with the Committee, is use the powers for the 
right purposes.
    Mr. Chair made a reference to legislative purpose. I don't 
know that the Judiciary Committee has any jurisdiction over the 
State Department really. The legislative purpose for some of 
the things you've requested, like this stuff about morale at 
the FTC, I don't really know what the legislative fix would be 
for morale issues.
    By the way, as somebody who's been on the opposite end of 
these kinds of subpoenas, you want to hurt moral for staff? 
Have them spend entire days going through files to turn up 
documents for stuff that's not relevant to the mission that 
they're trying to address, because you know what? The State 
Department's--we've got two hot wars we're in the middle of 
right now with respect to Ukraine, with respect to Hamas.
    There are a lot of other things--Anthony Blinken, I feel 
like he's on a plane somewhere every day. We've got--instead of 
them addressing those kinds of issues, this is what we're 
talking about. Documents for--I guess there is some theory 
about pipe bombs or some kind of fake effort or false flag with 
respect to the pipe bombs?
    I'm looking at this, the January 6th. I think they've had 
800 successful prosecutions in that case. Not one witness--not 
one case has raised anything about this. In the Homeland 
Security, we had something about ghost buses where they are 
saying they were false--FBI agents undercover pretending to be 
part of the January 6th invasion, and there is not one piece of 
evidence to support it.
    Eight hundred convictions, pleas, and trials. Nobody has 
raised this, and, if they have a right to get it, you know it's 
in a criminal case. Same thing with this confidential human 
source stuff. If there is a confidential human source that 
testifies or has relevant information in a criminal case, it 
has to be disclosed.
    Where is the evidence of that in the cases that have come 
forward? I submit that there is none.
    I've run out of time. I guess I'll come back to this on the 
second range, or second round, but I would ask, just out of 
good faith--
    Mr. Cline. Gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Ivey. --allow us to participate in the meetings and get 
the emails that you send. When they come up here to give full 
days of meetings to try and figure out how to comply with the 
subpoenas, please let us know so we can participate.
    Mr. Cline. I would be happy to take that under advisement. 
I would also State I think they know how to comply.
    The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
    Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Bumpus, I want to talk to you briefly about some very 
specific requests to the FTC.
    On March 9, 2023, a number of House Judiciary Committee 
Members, including myself, Ms. Lee, and Mr. Van Drew, wrote the 
FTC concerning its ill-advised current approaches to mergers 
and acquisitions. In that letter, the Committee requested 
related documents and information.
    Later, Chair Jordan and Chair Massie reiterated these 
requests on April 5, 2023. It was over seven months ago. There 
are still several requests. In particular, Items No. 4 and 7, 
which will be the topic of my questions to you today.
    As a refresher, Item No. 4 is all documents and 
communications referring to or relating to the decision to 
withdraw the Trump Administration's 2020 vertical merger 
guidelines, and then Item No. 7 is all documents and 
communications relating to the FTC's policy concerning early 
terminations. Those are the two primary scopes of what I want 
to ask you about.
    We understand that the FTC has not completed its 
productions of those requests. What's the status of the FTC's 
document collection and review of those two requests in 
particular?
    Ms. Bumpus. Congressman, as you're aware, we've made four 
productions and have produced over 1,300 pages of documents so 
far. We are continuing to review documents and produce them on 
a rolling basis.
    Mr. Moran. On those two specific requests, can you provide 
me with any specific update as to the review and the production 
of those documents that are responsive?
    Ms. Bumpus. I cannot. As you know, our staff are in regular 
contact with staff on the Committee, and we'd be happy to 
engage with you on that.
    Mr. Moran. All right. What's the reason why you can't 
provide me with an update today? I know that's the topic of 
some discussion that has been discussed before today's hearing, 
so I would expect that you would have been prepared to tell me 
when those documents could be produced or how many documents 
are left to review.
    Can you tell me any of that information?
    Ms. Bumpus. Regrettably, I cannot, but I'm happy to take 
that back, take your concerns and your priorities back, and we 
will continue to work with the Committee.
    Mr. Moran. So, how come you weren't prepared to answer that 
question today? It seems like a very basic question, and, 
frankly, a reasonable question. I'm supposed to be asking about 
document production. Those are two requests have been made and 
reiterated, not just by the Committee, but by the Chair. You've 
been working on them for seven months.
    How come you can't tell me the status of that production?
    Ms. Bumpus. I can tell you that we are continuing to review 
documents. We will continue to produce them on a rolling basis, 
and we are happy to continue our regular contact with staff 
members on the Judiciary Committee.
    Mr. Moran. On those two specific requests, do you know if 
there are actual documents that are being reviewed internally, 
potentially responsive to those requests?
    Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
    Mr. Moran. Do you know who would know at the FTC?
    Ms. Bumpus. I'm happy to take that back. Again, I know your 
staff are in regular contact with staff at the FTC about all 
the productions.
    Mr. Moran. With respect to those two requests, Nos. 4 and 7 
from that March 9, 2023, letter, do you know if any email 
notification or other steps have been taken to notify 
individuals at the FTC to preserve materials that may be 
potentially relevant and responsive?
    Ms. Bumpus. Yes. My understanding is that notices have gone 
out to custodians, and documents have been collected and placed 
in a central repository.
    Mr. Moran. Who is the custodian of that central repository?
    Ms. Bumpus. There are many people with access to that 
central repository who deposit and review documents.
    Mr. Moran. Who would be considered the ultimate custodian 
of those records?
    Ms. Bumpus. I'm not able to provide that information today, 
but we are happy to continue talking to your staff.
    Mr. Moran. I'm still curious why you can't tell me who are 
the custodian of those records. You've been in the Department 
for 17 years. In the Office of Congressional Relations, I would 
suspect you would know who the custodian of records is for this 
particular production request.
    Ms. Bumpus. I don't.
    Mr. Moran. Can you find out?
    Ms. Bumpus. I am happy to take your request back and I know 
your staff, again, talks regularly to our staff, and I will be 
happy to get back--
    Mr. Moran. No. My question wasn't will you find out. My 
question was: Can you find out? Are you able to find out who 
are the custodian of those records?
    Ms. Bumpus. I don't know that there is a single custodian 
of those records. Like I said, staff from across the agency 
have been collecting records and placing them into the 
repository for review.
    Mr. Moran. Is it a large number of staff, or just a limited 
number of staff that is the custodian or has access to that 
depository?
    Ms. Bumpus. I don't know the numbers. I'm happy to take 
that back.
    Mr. Moran. Would you say it is more than 50?
    Ms. Bumpus. I don't know.
    Mr. Moran. Is there anything you can tell me about that 
document production today?
    Ms. Bumpus. Nothing more than I've already said.
    Mr. Moran. My request would be, in the next 17 seconds 
before we let you go, or before I let you go is: Next time you 
come--those are really important questions. I'll probably ask 
you similar questions next time.
    I'd like to know who is in charge, the custodian of 
records. I'd also like to know, as it relates to items that 
have not been produced, what the status of that production is. 
That's useful information that we need as the Committee to make 
decisions on this side of the dais, and it would be helpful in 
reaching a conclusion as to our document requests.
    So, I would make that request of you.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Bumpus. Thank you.
    Mr. Cline. The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I'll start here today: Some of our colleagues today have 
questioned why we have these hearings, why we've continued to 
have these hearings, why we've done this more than once. In the 
line of question and answer that we just heard, we were getting 
the answer to that loud and clear.
    It's simple, because we have been requesting documents and 
subpoenaing documents and requesting information, and we still 
don't have it. If the documents responsive to the subpoenas had 
been provided, if the information responsive to the requests 
had been provided, we wouldn't be here.
    This hearing is only necessary because we do not have the 
responsive documents and information that have been requested 
of these agencies.
    I would like to start here with Ms. Naz Darakoglu.
    On March 22, 2023, the Committee wrote to GEC Special Envoy 
Rubin requesting documents and information related to the 
nature and extent of the agency's interaction with technology 
companies and third-party groups over content moderation and 
the censorship of speech on social media and other platforms. 
This information was subsequently subpoenaed on May 22, 2023, 
and also the subject of discussion at a prior hearing of this 
Subcommittee in July.
    To date, the State Department's production has been 
incomplete. The documents produced are limited to the work that 
the GEC has done to identify foreign mis- and disinformation 
promoted by various news outlets and platforms, as well as 
coordination with third-party fact checkers, but we have less 
than 1,800 pages of nonpublicly available documents, much of 
which is not wholly related to the underlying request.
    So, I'd like to start there. The Committee's subpoena 
compels the production of multiple categories of documents. For 
example, the production of certain documents and communications 
between the GEC and third-party entities, such as the Stanford 
University's Election Integrity Partnership, correct?
    Ms. Darakoglu. [Nonverbal response.]
    Ms. Lee. OK. We don't have any documents yet related to, or 
communications with, the EIP or Election Integrity Partnership, 
and the failure to produce those communications is particularly 
of interest to the Committee. There are only a few known 
custodians. The timeframe is known. There shouldn't be any 
concern about privilege, because this relates to a third-party 
entity.
    You noted in your opening testimony that the focus really 
was on foreign actors and not domestic, which of course is one 
of the key issues that we're trying to get to the bottom of is: 
What was the nature of this relationship and the why? So, it 
would really add a lot of transparency to one of the core 
questions.
    So, could you tell me why there hasn't been more 
information produced on that subject, and what timeline can we 
expect additional compliance there?
    Ms. Darakoglu. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I will note that I personally review every tranche the 
Subcommittee receives, and seven tranches have been produced, 
so I can tell you several of those tranches did have 
information with third-party entities, because I have seen them 
myself.
    In terms of Stanford and others, I'm happy to get back to 
you, but just to say we have been producing responsive 
documents, and 1,900 pages of such have been provided to this 
Committee. You've referenced 1,800 pages that are not public. 
Just to point out, 1,800 out of the 1,900 are not public, so we 
are completely responsive.
    On Stanford, in particular, I'm happy to get back and see 
what we have.
    Ms. Lee. Is it a reasonable goal for all of you to provide 
those documents to us--those responsive documents by December 
14th?
    Ms. Darakoglu. So, I have to say, as the Assistant 
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, it is my responsibility to 
be responsive to all of you. If I closed out this search at any 
point without knowing the full universe, that would not be 
adhering to my responsibility to be responsive. So, I have to 
say we're going to continue searching. We are going to continue 
providing documents to all of you on a rolling basis, and I do 
not want to put a timeline on it, because we're going to 
continue providing what we see as we get it.
    Ms. Lee. So, your testimony with us today is that the 
efforts to continue to search and locate those documents are 
ongoing, and you'll be providing us a rolling production?
    Ms. Darakoglu. Yes.
    Ms. Lee. OK. So, do we know to a certainty one way or the 
other whether there are more documents, or is it something that 
further investigation and review is required to even make that 
determination?
    Ms. Darakoglu. I think we can confidently say, or I can 
confidently say that there are more documents.
    Just to point out one example, there were nine requests in 
the original letter that you referenced. One of them is all 
documents and communications from January 1, 2020, to the 
present referring or relating to misinformation, 
disinformation, or malinformation. These are broad scopes. We 
are working with your staff continually on prioritization. Yes, 
I think it's fair to say, with a request like this, there are 
more documents out there.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    My time has expired. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. All right. I thank the gentlelady.
    Ms. Bumpus, as you know, on March 10, 2023, the Committee 
wrote to Chair Khan raising concerns that the FTC was abusing 
its authority in investigating Twitter. The Committee requested 
relevant documents and communications. The Chair refused to 
comply voluntarily with the Committee's requests.
    Therefore, on April 12, 2023, the Committee issued a 
subpoena to Chair Khan for the relevant information. 
Notwithstanding that subpoena, and the Committee's subsequent 
accommodation and followup communications with the FTC, Chair 
Khan remains noncompliant with the subpoena.
    Her justification for failure to produce FTC documents and 
yours today are unpersuasive.
    First, the FTC has produced one document, a single document 
in response to the subpoena, correct?
    Ms. Bumpus. That's my understanding. Sorry. I understand we 
produced a document at the end of September.
    Mr. Cline. Are you aware that this document was already 
publicly available?
    Ms. Bumpus. Yes.
    Mr. Cline. So, the document that you produced, the only 
document that you've produced in response to the subpoena, was 
a publicly available document.
    Do you think that is compliance? Is that under your 
definition of compliance?
    Ms. Bumpus. Mr. Chair, as you know, the request implicates 
an active law enforcement investigation. The Commission has 
provided several nonpublic responses and a lengthy and very 
detailed nonpublic briefing.
    Mr. Cline. Not responding to the subpoena.
    Ms. Bumpus. This is responsive materials to the subpoena. 
We have addressed your interests and addressed your concerns 
through our nonpublic responses, written responses, and through 
the nonpublic briefing.
    Mr. Cline. You would not be here if you had addressed my 
interests and the needs of this Committee.
    Now, you have said that the FTC has identified custodians 
who may have documents responsive, and the FTC has taken steps 
to preserve documents responsive to the subpoena, correct?
    Ms. Bumpus. That is my understanding.
    Mr. Cline. OK. It's my understanding that the FTC has 
deleted former employee documents. Is that correct?
    Ms. Bumpus. I know that is a concern, and I know that is 
the subject of correspondence with your Committee.
    Mr. Cline. You can confirm that the FTC has deleted former 
employee documents?
    Ms. Bumpus. I think it is addressed in our--we addressed 
your concerns in our correspondence.
    Mr. Cline. Is that a yes?
    Ms. Bumpus. I believe that we did delete emails of former 
employees.
    Mr. Cline. Has the FTC taken any steps to preserve 
documents of former employees who left the agency during the 
pendency of this investigation?
    Ms. Bumpus. My understanding is that we are preserving 
former employees' emails, and we are seeking to preserve 
appropriate documents.
    Mr. Cline. As you know, Congress can withhold agency 
funding when an agency ignores oversight requests, let alone a 
subpoena.
    Do you agree that the FTC's noncompliance with this 
subpoena should have significant repercussions for the agency?
    Ms. Bumpus. We are attempting to be responsive in light of 
the fact that this is an ongoing--
    Mr. Cline. You're failing to be responsive. You're failing. 
So, your stonewalling, your noncompliance today is, quite 
frankly, insulting to this Committee and insulting to the 
American people who we represent. We expect more from you.
    It is unfortunate that you are here again, because we 
strive, through our Committee conversations, our staff 
conversations, to actually work behind the scenes to get the 
information that we've requested without having to resort to 
these hearings.
    We understand that it takes time from your schedule. We 
understand that it takes time from the staff behind you. The 
American people are demanding these documents, are demanding 
this information, are demanding accountability, and we are the 
branch of government that must ensure compliance, that must 
ensure that those Executive Branch agencies that fail to comply 
are held accountable.
    So, I ask you again, can you confirm that the FTC will 
comply with the subpoena and provide the documents requested?
    Ms. Bumpus. We will continue to attempt to meet the 
Committee's informational needs consistent with protecting our 
law enforcement equities and we will continue to review our 
ability to share additional information.
    Mr. Cline. All right. The gentleman from California is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Swalwell. I'm having a hard time understanding where 
all this is going. We're in December now, and 92 individuals, 
many from your agencies, have come in for secret, nonpublic, no 
video recording interviews, and not a single one of them has 
come to a public hearing, has testified publicly about any of 
the claims that they're making.
    So, after 92 people come in and we're almost in December 
and nothing is coming to public light, that's how you conclude 
that this is just an effort to feed the beast, that Donald 
Trump is not eating, and that he wants his allies in Congress 
to just bring in his enemies and to torment them.
    Then we see you can't make this public. These people don't 
have anything that add up to what Donald Trump is alleging. So, 
we just go through this exercise.
    It's a little bit concerning because the FBI isn't tasked 
with small responsibilities. They're only in charge of taking 
on terrorism, public corruption, child exploitation, white 
collar crime, fraud, and kidnapping.
    Instead, they're dealing with this nonsense to just satisfy 
a petty, aggrieved former President who has many of my 
colleagues, as I said, just working as his chefs. This is a 
buffet for the former President, to just make him happy.
    The greatest example is Hunter Biden. These guys have 
literally, in this room, put up pictures of nonconsensual nudes 
of Hunter Biden to embarrass the former--to embarrass the 
current President. That's the length that they will go. He 
says:

        Hey, I'll come in, you can show your pictures, you can 
        embarrass me. There's not going to be any lines between what 
        you think I've done and what you think my dad has done.

Now, they don't want to do it. It just shows a complete lack of 
seriousness.
    I actually think this Congress is more like the WWE, it's 
like pro wrestling, because so many of these folks, when the 
cameras aren't on, when we're not in the, quote ``ring,'' they 
come up to me, they pay me and my colleagues compliments.
    Don't take my word for it. Talk to Mr. Ivey or anyone else 
on this Committee. They mock the former President. You see that 
in Liz Cheney's book, the number of these guys who mock the 
former President.
    When the lights and cameras are on, we're in that ring, 
they got to take the steel chair, swing it around, because 
they're doing it on his behalf.
    To the American public, they can't tell the difference, 
that it's just for entertainment for these folks. These folks 
think that the American public are fans and that this is just 
entertaining and we're keeping the chief entertainer, Donald 
Trump, happy.
    These folks aren't fans. They're constituents. They want us 
to work on making healthcare affordable. They want us to 
address the global crisis that could come to America. They want 
us to have more security on every corner in America so that 
we're safe in our communities. They want their college to be 
affordable. They want breathing room in their personal 
finances.
    So, it is a little maddening that all of you are dragged in 
here for what is really just, as I said, more feeding of the 
beast, this pro wrestling exercise, where, I promise you, when 
we're not in front of the lights and camera, these guys are 
going to roll their eyes at Donald Trump. They don't like him, 
but they do this because they need him and his fans to stay in 
office.
    I'm sorry that the important work that you're doing for all 
our constituents, including their constituents, is affected and 
delayed and held up because we have to feed the beast.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. I think the gentleman is a fan of WWE. I can 
assure him Congress is not WWE. If it is, then this 
administration is the equivalent of ``The Sopranos.''
    The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized.
    Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Chair.
    This has been a very colorful meeting today. It's part of 
my personality, I can't let things go. So, let's be clear. This 
is not about WWE. It's not about Donald Trump. It's not about 
any of these things.
    It's about a concern--let's really get down to the real 
essence and the nub of that agencies have information that 
reveals that there are problems in some of the things that they 
did.
    This is not far-fetched, this is not fabricated, this is 
not something untrue. We know, for example, that the FBI had a 
plan to send undercover agents into traditional Roman Catholic 
churches. The FBI Director apologized for it, said it was 
wrong.
    We know, for the truth, that there was no Russian 
collusion. The Attorney General said that was true. The Durham 
Report, which was objective, not done by a Republican or a Dem, 
just an objective report, showed that they used confidential 
sources, namely Igor Danchenko, who is a bad international 
actor, and paid him American tax dollars, and it was all false.
    Those are just two brief, small examples.
    So, the reason we're doing this, the reason this is 
important, is because we are trying to get information that 
occurred within agencies, whether it be the FBI, whether--and, 
again, it goes across the board into many different agencies.
    The misuse of FISA, by the way, that's something that a 
traditional liberal should be concerned about, the misuse of 
FISA. Because guess what, hundreds of thousands of times they 
were invading people's personal lives and getting information 
on every Jack and Jill in the country.
    People don't like that. We're a free country. That's a mark 
of a totalitarian country.
    So, it boils down to those specific facts. We're being 
specific here. You guys are busy and you're doing a lot of 
important work. I realize that. You're busy. You're not 
forthcoming with the information because, quite frankly, and I 
believe this to my very core, there's information there that 
you don't want us to know.
    So, the work of this Committee is important because we need 
to have that information to get to the truth. It's good for all 
of us to know what the truth is.
    You know what, a trick in politics is to get people's eye 
off the ball, about a feast, about Donald Trump, about feeding 
the beast. It's none of that. It's just that we want specifics. 
We've been specific. We want specific information. Turn it over 
and you don't have to be here.
    Guess what, this whole Committee is busy. We don't want to 
be here either. We're not getting the stuff we need, and we're 
going to keep doing it over and over again, and you're probably 
going to be told over and over again to do everything you can 
to talk around it. We're going to keep asking the questions 
because it is our job, because we want to keep this a free 
country, and it really does boil down to that.
    So, in any event, Ms. Bumpus, as you know, the Committee 
also wrote the FTC on February 14, 2023, requesting documents 
and communications related to the FTC's noncompete rulemaking.
    We haven't heard back in nine months. I know we're all 
saying here there's an effort to do this, but it's been nine 
months.
    Has the FTC completed its collection of documents? Please 
just, yes or no.
    Ms. Bumpus. My understanding is that we are still producing 
documents on a rolling basis. We've produced almost 6,000 pages 
to date, and we've made eight productions.
    Mr. Van Drew. OK. You haven't completed it.
    Do you know how much remains?
    Ms. Bumpus. I do not.
    Mr. Van Drew. OK.
    Specific questions were asked today of all of you by 
Congressman Moran and Congresswoman Lee. I would hope that next 
time when you're in--because you're going to be here again--
that when you come again you can answer the specific questions 
that were asked today.
    The FTC completed its review of the documents it collected. 
Has it completed its review? I know the answer is ``no'' from 
what you've told me, correct?
    Ms. Bumpus. That's correct.
    Mr. Van Drew. When does the FTC expect to complete the full 
production of documents in response to the February 14th 
letter?
    If you asked me when I expect at least--we're not even 
going to lock you in but say, gee, this is when I expect it 
would be done, this is what we believe unless there's something 
that happens that we don't anticipate--can you give me a date, 
a timeframe, or any information?
    Ms. Bumpus. I'm sorry, I can't.
    As you know, the Committee has sent us 15 letters. It's 
made 76 requests. I know this is a priority. Other oversight 
Committees also believe that their requests are priorities. We 
are attempting to meet all these demands while continuing to do 
the work of the agency.
    Mr. Van Drew. Well, thank you. Some of those are 
duplicative, so when you answer our questions, you're going to 
be answering other people's questions.
    Again, Mr. Moran, Ms. Lee, and I think the Chair, of 
course, we've all asked specific questions. There's no reason 
you can't come back next time--sorry to say there will be a 
next time, I believe it's up to the Chair--with specific 
answers.
    I thank you for being here today. You're nice people.
    Really quickly, to Congressman Swalwell, sure, I'm going to 
be nice when I see you. We're all colleagues. We disagree 
profoundly to the core on everything that we believe. 
Nevertheless, we're still human beings, and you can still like 
people but thoroughly disagree with them.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Swalwell. I'm offended on your behalf for the 
``Sopranos'' comment as a Representative of New Jersey.
    Mr. Van Drew. That's right. I didn't even go into that New 
Jersey remark. Thank you.
    Mr. Cline. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Ivey. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Yes, I'm a little surprised by the ``Sopranos'' comment. 
Seems like the Trump family would be a lot closer to ``The 
Sopranos'' than the Biden family, but we'll leave that to the 
side for the moment.
    I agree with Congressman Van Drew with respect to Section 
702. I would also note that not only does it go to the heart of 
protecting the country, as we heard from the testimony here 
from Chair Wray, and I believe from the Attorney General not 
that long ago, and I heard it in Homeland Security as well.
    What's interesting, though, is that there's bipartisan 
legislation pending to address 702, which expires, I believe, 
at the end of December, and we haven't had a hearing on it.
    We keep doing these kinds of hearings, and then these other 
kind of hearings where I think they're off on tangents about 
other things.
    It would be nice to try and address--and by the way, 
Director Wray testified in Homeland Security there were four 
other provisions that are set to expire that he thinks are 
important for national security reasons that we need to 
address. No hearings here in Judiciary, no hearings here on 
Homeland Security either with respect to those issues.
    So, I hope, since I assume all of us are interested in 
national security, especially of that nature, we can get around 
to having a hearing on that. Maybe we can squeeze it in between 
one of these production hearings that we keep having.
    With respect to the legislative purpose issue, we've got 
pending legislation for 702. I don't know that I've seen any 
legislation that's come out of the 11 months of hearings we've 
been having on these kinds of issues. So, I look forward to 
that.
    If there is a legislative purpose, let's get to it, let's 
get the legislation out.
    One other comment, too. I worked on the Senate Whitewater 
hearings, and when I first got there the Democrats were in the 
majority. After that election that came up in 1994, I was on 
the minority staff. No matter which side I was on, the two 
staffs worked together to deal with these kinds of document 
productions.
    Matter of fact, before these subpoenas went out, the 
minority staff, whichever it was, Democrat or Republican, 
depending on the time, had a chance to review it and raise 
concerns or questions about it.
    So, I think the subpoena I mentioned earlier, I think we 
certainly would've raised concerns about that before it was 
sent out because, as I said, it was tremendously overbroad.
    By the way, it didn't have an end date either. So, when all 
of you say you're going to do rolling productions, I guess 
that's understandable, because there's no deadline for when the 
production is supposed to terminate and potentially new 
documents could've been generated. So, I think you have to be 
careful about making some sort of date commitment.
    Just to mention this as well, in court context, civil or 
criminal, rolling productions are understood, and so the rules 
of discovery and productions are written in a way that 
contemplate the fact that parties produce what you can, but 
there may be documents that you find later, certainly in 
agencies as large as yours, and the number of demands that 
you're facing from across all these House Committees. So, I 
would hope that we could keep that in mind.
    I think at the end of the day, I would say this: We have a 
lot of very urgent matters that we could be addressing, and I 
hope that we can get to them.
    As I mentioned, there's a hot war going on with respect to 
Hamas. I would note that, maybe it was two weeks ago, that this 
bin Laden letter surfaced that became viral.
    One of the things that we heard in the testimony in the 
Homeland Security Committee was there's a sensitivity or 
concern about lone wolf terrorism being generated here in the 
United States by these kinds of online outreach efforts.
    We know that Hamas and other terrorist organizations engage 
in that sort of thing, and, frankly, they've been successful 
with that.
    We also know from testimony from the FBI and the Department 
of Justice and Homeland Security that the domestic terrorism 
threat is bigger than foreign terrorism threat here in the 
United States.
    So, it would be good if we allowed agencies that are trying 
to address these kinds of things--at CISA, at Homeland 
Security, I think your agency has some oversight with respect 
to this on the foreign side.
    These are important times to allow you to do that work, and 
tying your hands at a time when I think--well, actually, I 
don't have to say ``I think.'' The FBI Director testified that 
there's heightened risk of that kind of terrorism taking place. 
Seems like a bad idea to me and puts the American people at 
risk.
    So, I hope that we can get to the point where we're 
addressing those kinds of critical issues that have that 
deadline and do some of that work here in the Committee.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. I thank the gentleman.
    The gentlelady from Florida is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Lee. Well, I feel like we need to start here again.
    There have been numerous hearings on the subject of FISA 
and 702. In the Crime Subcommittee we've had two full hearings 
on that subject.
    In fact, the Judiciary Committee and its various 
Subcommittees have hearings every single week on urgent and 
important substantive issues.
    We are here today because it is also important and 
significant and meaningful that when a Committee of the U.S. 
Congress asks for documents or information from an agency, that 
we get a response.
    It is not nonsense when the U.S. Congress requests 
documents and that request is ignored. It is not nonsense when 
we conduct a hearing to get compliance with a subpoena or a 
document request and we are slow-walked or we are stonewalled.
    One of our important functions here is to ensure that we 
are providing accountability, oversight, and transparency for 
the American people. That is one of the important functions 
that we have.
    To suggest that the work of this Committee is somehow 
unimportant or a waste of time is to absolutely miss the 
fundamental principle that the role of Congress is to ensure 
that we are providing that accountability and transparency.
    That is why we were here. If we received the documents we 
requested immediately on submission of the subpoena, a hearing 
would be unnecessary. We haven't, and so we continue.
    I'm familiar with the concept of a rolling production. In 
fact, I'm a former judge. I'm very familiar with what happens 
in the context of document production and discovery.
    The difference is, if we were in a courtroom, in a standard 
courtroom, and we requested documents and they weren't received 
by a deadline, you know what we would do? We would have a 
contempt hearing.
    If in that instance there still wasn't compliance, there's 
an escalating range of sanctions that get imposed by a judge.
    So, we are here, and we work with you, and we will continue 
to work with you in good faith in an effort to find what 
exists, to do so in a meaningful and reasonable way, to 
appreciate your compliance, and to work with you when there is 
more that we need.
    It is abjectly incorrect to insinuate that this hearing, 
that our purpose here today, that our continued purpose in 
having these hearings, if it continues to be necessary, is 
insignificant.
    What we are doing here today is the foundation of providing 
transparency and accountability, and we will continue to have 
these hearings for as long as it takes.
    Mr. Dunham, this Committee has requested documents from the 
FBI related to a couple of different categories that I would 
like to address with you here today.
    One relates to pipe bombs that were placed at the RNC and 
the DNC headquarters in January 2021. The second is documents 
related to former Special Agent in Charge Charles McGonigal in 
the alleged politization of the FBI. So, let's begin there.
    On February 2, 2023, the Committee wrote a letter to 
Director Wray requesting documents and information related to 
the indictment of Mr. McGonigal, the former special agent in 
charge. Has the FBI searched for documents responsive to this 
request?
    Mr. Dunham. We provided an initial response earlier this 
year. It was a classified response, providing information about 
security steps that we took to mitigate national security 
concerns.
    As you're aware, the investigation is still ongoing to the 
point where Mr. McGonigal has not been sentenced yet, so there 
are still some of those Department of Justice considerations 
that we are bound by.
    I understand that the Committee has additional requests for 
information, and I'm happy to continue to provide information. 
Once the issue is adjudicated, I'm happy to see what else we 
can provide as well.
    Ms. Lee. Explain for us, if you would, the distinction in 
what you will be able to produce prior to adjudication and 
post-adjudication and why.
    Mr. Dunham. I'll have to take that back. I'll have to talk 
with the folks that are closest to this, closest to the case, 
and see what information we can provide.
    Ms. Lee. All right. Please, if you would, will be something 
that is a subject in a future hearing, should we reconvene on 
the subject.
    With respect to the pipe bomb investigation, what steps has 
the Bureau taken so far to provide the Committee with 
outstanding information that was requested in the June 14, 
2023, letter?
    Mr. Dunham. Sure. So, I was disappointed that we offered a 
briefing a couple weeks ago, we weren't able to make schedules 
work. I believe we have a briefing scheduled for December 12th, 
a couple weeks from now.
    We provided an initial response last Congress on this that 
went to the heart of what we've done so far on the case, as 
best we could. We provided an updated response to Congress.
    This is one of those areas where, I mentioned earlier, 
we're bound by Department of Justice and the Executive Branch 
policies where we have considerations we have to make when 
things touch on ongoing investigations. The pipe bomb is very 
much still ongoing.
    We've been able to make significant accommodation for the 
Committee to get this briefing scheduled. I hope it satisfies a 
lot of your questions. We'll be waiting and standing by for any 
questions that are not answered, to take those back and see how 
we can accommodate the Committee.
    Ms. Lee. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Cline. I thank the gentlelady for her comments, for 
reminding us of the tools that were at her disposal, some of 
which are at our disposal in this body.
    That concludes today's hearing. As with the hearings we've 
had over the past year, I'm disappointed in the answers that 
have been given, the lack of clarity, and a commitment to 
produce the documents that we've requested.
    As we near the one-year anniversary of the establishment of 
this Subcommittee, we have to consider whether additional 
action must be taken to hold accountable those offices, those 
officials who are refusing to comply and engaging in what is 
essentially the obstruction of justice.
    Mr. Ivey. Mr. --
    Mr. Cline. The gentleman is not recognized.
    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, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:26 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=116616.

                                 [all]