voices 2024. be a part of the conversation. your unfiltered view of government and funded by these television companies and more including comcast. consulting executives testified on their work for saudi arabia and other foreign clients before a senate subcommittee. the four companies represented advised saudi arabia on the country's public investment in sports and on the larger

strategic vision for engagement with united states. >> this hearing >>will come to order. apologies for beginning a little late. we have a vote on going and another at about 5:30. but i want to thank the four individuals for being with us and thank, as well, my friend

senator johnson as ranking member for his cooperation and his support moving forward with this hearing. a lot going on before the united states senate, but the issue before us today is truly of historic consequence in practical and precedential ce in importance. four company sitting here today are represented by very able leadership, if they accept their obligation to respond to congressional subpoenas. their apparent refusal to do so in full is not only unprecedented but threatens opening a door to other united states companies, cloaking themselves from scrutiny whenever they work for a foreign government or even a

foreign, state owned enterprise. this potential shield invoked by these four consultants risk blocking not only this subcommittee but all of congress from obtaining information needed to do our job. this subcommittee has long engaged in investigations into united states companies and foreign entities. it has engaged in negotiations over the scope of responsive materials. it has received documents and ensured their confidentiality but it has never ever conceded it to a blanket sweeping claim of foreign sovereign immunity over commercial documents in the possession of an american company. it may seem like a technical issue to you but it

is of critical historic consequence to the united states congress in doing its job. it is simply staggering to me that american companies are not only willing to accept this claim, allowing the saudi arabian government to determine what is permitted to provide this subcommittee, but also that they would use it to justify refusal to comply with a duly issued congressional subpoena. a congressional subpoena is not a request. it carries the full weight of the law, the failure to respond to it carries with it serious consequences. it is-- that saudi arabia is threatening employees of your company's with imprisonment if the documents that we are seeking were not produced. staggering to me. outrageous.

perhaps we should not be surprised. we began this inquiry because of our concerns that saudi arabia, a country with an aborted human rights record was trying to take over american golf and use that institution to sports wash its own public image. advocates argue that we should believe that they are turning over a new leaf and beginning a new chap or. we are presented with another example of extreme and deceitful conduct. to the united states public and the united states government, saudi arabia claimed these are just innocuous commercial investments including investment in sports but in its own courts, it argues that it is classified material pertaining to state national

security interests. you simply cannot have it both ways. united states companies, united states investments, us focused strategies and united states institutions allowing these companies to ignore the obligation to respond to us law is not just an affront to the subcommittee but it risks creating a dangerous precedent that would allow companies to effectively contract away their obligations. to other countries around the world, where we do business and perform services. to comply with united states law. the inquiries began last summer with the saudi arabian fund or the billion-dollar investment in us golf. it has become much bigger and more consequential. after mckenzie, bcg-- each

refused to voluntarily produce records because of a saudi arabia objections. we issued subpoenas. we want to determine what work the companies have done and are doing that allows the foreign authoritarian government to use institutes of commerce in the united states to increase influence within our shores and rebrand the tarnished image after years of horrific human rights abuses. subpoenas seek documents that will illustrate how these foreign companies have assisted it in increasing investments and asserting influence in the united states. it is to understand the scope of services provided including but not limited to how they intend to use investments in us entities and institutions like

the pga tour and other sports to increase their access. cases of foreign entanglement need to be strengthened. limitary findings certainly suggest that we need stronger protections of american interests when it comes to foreign entities. the deadline to produce documents we learn from each of the consultants that they had filed lawsuits in saudi administrative court to block them from producing these documents to us. we were surprised to learn that the pif had taken the unprecedented staff -- step of asserting that records requested by the subcommittee are quote, classified as confidential,", and that production of these records could allegedly quote, harm the national security interest policies or rights of saudi

arabia and pose a quote imminent threat to the kingdom's sovereignty. and quote. the pif 's claims and the saudi court order raise our alarms and added to the urgency of this investigation. how is it that consulting work performed by american companies including records about investment in united states golf could harm saudi arabia's national security. how can allegedly commercial investments directed at the united states be out of the reach of subpoenas issued by the united states government? the fact that we have to ask these questions heightens concern about their work not only for saudi arabia but other

regimes around the world, many of them authoritarian. governments. the companies sitting before us have told us that they are concerned that they or their saudi based employees will be imprisoned in saudi arabia if they comply with our subpoenas. and to this, i would say it to saudi arabia, i know you are watching. no one anywhere in the world should be arrested, imprisoned, or otherwise harmed because an american company has complied with american law. we will be watching what the reaction is assuming that you decide to do the right thing and comply with american law. our nation has a long history of welcoming foreign investment, and i want the saudi

investments in the united states to continue but we also have a long history of transparency and compliance and adherence to the rule of law. doing business in america requires compliance with american law, and we are not about to sell our legal system to the highest bidder or the biggest bully. i know that saudi arabia wants to be a serious player on the world stage. i believe it can have a constructive role. i truly believe it can have a very positive impact in the widening crisis in the middle east, and i hope it will. i have visited saudi arabia and i'm convinced of its good faith determination to play that role, but threats to us companies and interference with congressional oversight are simply not consistent with those goals.

the pif is not here today but us-based consultants are. while their conduct is troubling, there consultants bear responsibility as well. you have opted to sign contracts governed by foreign laws. you have chosen to put offices in saudi arabia where your employees may be imprisoned under its supposed legal system. you have chosen to accept what i suspect amounts to millions, if not billions of dollars in the face of a harrowing record of human rights abuses by your business partners in saudi arabia and at least in one instance, accused of playing a role in those abuses. even though you have documents that we are seeking, you continue to refuse to comply with subpoenas unless

explicitly authorized by the pif. let me be clear. a series of choices got you to this point. and you have decisions to make. the ramifications for today's hearing have the potential to echo far outside of this chamber. the subcommittee will consider all of your legal defenses. i respect your right to make them, but contracting with a foreign entity is not one of them. we are not about to allow a press meant that would make a foreign contract a defense to complying with a newly authorized subpoena. saudi arabia is welcome, and we do welcome their investment in the united states. if they invest in our enter price is and take advantage of

our economic system, and they have the protection of our rule of law. the rights under united states law, they simply can't-- they can't simply pick and choose the laws they are going to obey. with that i turned to the ranking member. >> since the start of the subcommittee's investigation and the agreement between the pga tour and the saudi arabian public investment fund, i've been in concerned that intrusion into delicate negotiations could make it even more difficult for professional golf to create a structure that would allow the best players to regularly compete against each other at the highest level.agai other at the highest level. unfortunately we have not had a public hearing on the subject since last september. allowing the pga tour to pursue this with minimal interference. last wednesday it was announced they are partnering with the strategic group that will invest up to $3 billion in two a commercial venture.

the divisions between the pga tour remains in discussions between the two entities are ongoing. some public reports that indicate that a final report will occur before the masters tournament but others say it is on life support. until a formal decision is reached between the parties i remain concerned that any congressional oversight of the matter will do more harm than good. that said, as ranking member, i must acknowledged and defend the constitutional authority to investigate a broad range of issues and entities. using that authority mr. blumenthal continue to look into the pits. ps i said information, a subpoenaed the u.s. subsidiary, and eventually submitted the four us-based consultants following subcommittee attempts to obtain records voluntarily.

unfortunately, due to saudi arabian claims of -- the consultants have been constrained with documents they believe that they can provide. it is my understanding the all four firms here today are facing litigation by the pif. their employees would be in violation of saudi law and could face severe consequences. it is a very serious reality that the subcommittee must consider as it proceeds with the inquiry. i do have some sympathy for the positions they are in but i have no sympathy for the severing claims. any foreign entity wishing to do business in the u.s. must comply with u.s. law and be responsive to congressional subpoenas. that is why i joined chair blumenthal for full compliance with the subpoenas. to be clear, conducting

oversight of the pif is not my prate top priority, but i am supportive of supporting the oversight prerogatives and responsibilities. psi is the chief investigative body, which is why it is armed with the power to compel the production of words. if the ability to access records is weakening, then oversight will atrophy further. as a result i join you with your follow-up letters to these consultants because i believe the pif . i hope you will similarly support my efforts for the end -- towards the end of lester i sent you two leaders letters totaling 30 pages detailing the department of health and human services failure to respond to my oversight requests on the origins of covid-19 and the development and distribution and safety of vaccines. i ask that you subpoena hhs records and information contained in more than 50

outstanding arrest, including 50 specific pages of dr. fauci records and the empirical analysis that hhs uses of surveillance told to assess the safety of covid-19 vaccines. some of these outstanding requests are nearly 3 years old. let me pause to let that sink in. prior to getting the emergency use authorization for the vaccine in december, the cdc and fda held a video conference where they were touting the benefits of the surveillance system. they said they were going to take adverse events so seriously, they found somebody who reported a couple days lost work they will follow-up. that was total and complete bs. early in the year of 2021 those agencies produced a standard operating procedure where they described the analysis and

proportional reporting ratios on the system. they then denied that they had produced those analyses and later recanted that and said in fact they did. i have been requesting now for well over one year that analysis. we pay for the individuals working at these agencies. we pay for these agencies. they publish the standard operating procedures and they say they're going to do the analysis they do the analysis and they will not turn them over to my oversight request, which means they are keeping them hidden from the american public. this subcommittee cannot allow taxpayer-funded agencies to obstruct oversight intended to obtain information that every american has the right he. i hope you will join me in defending psi's oversight prerogatives and together demanding full compliance with the subcommittee's request. i think the witnesses for

complying with today's hearing and look forward to your testimony. >> thank you, senator johnson. let me assure you that i totally respect the minorities responsibility and right to do this kind of oversight. i am prepared to take steps, beginning with strong communication to hhs, that it has to comply with your oversight request and i am committed to work with you on moving forward. >> we will draft some letters. thank you. we appreciate that. >>let me introduce the witnesses. the global chair of boston consulting group, a consulting company based in boston, massachusetts employing more than 30,000 people in offices around the globe. bob is the global partner of -- -- mckinsey and company in new

york city. michael klein is the leader of m klein and company that is based in new york. paul cleary is the chief executive officer of -- strategy or global public relations which is headquartered in new york city. as is our custom i asked the witnesses to stand and be sworn in. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you god. >> i do. >> we will begin with your testimony, richs lesser. >>, chairman blumenthal, ranking member johnson and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is rich lesser and i am the global

chair of boston consulting group . i joined bcg in 1988 and i was the chair for north and south america from 2009 through 2012 and ceo from 2013 through 2021. i appear before you today proud to represent bcg. all 30,000 colleagues across 50 countries and more than 100 offices including 25 in the united states. we strive to take on the hardest problems and create enormous value for clients while leaving our purpose and values every day. bcg work in the private sector as well as with government entities is guided by the -- of the countries in which we operate and for their citizens. in all of their work week complied consistent standard.

bcg opened its first office in the kingdom of saudi arabia when i was ceo in 2015. our office there is now home to 260 bcg employees of 28 nationalities including american citizens. women make up nearly 40% of our consulting team and approximately 50% of our overall staff. saudi arabia is a long-standing u.s. ally and has undertaken important the first to diversify its economy and are pursuing social and cultural reforms, improving education, developing infrastructure and more. saudi arabia's pif has been an important part of the economic development and diversification. over the years, bcg has contributed to these efforts. for example, helping on the saudi arabia's labor market reforms including increasing women's participation in the workforce.

furthermore, we have supported saudi arabia in defining employment programs and upscaling young saudi arabians. we have also worked on advancing the education system and infrastructure development. bcg is now caught between two sovereigns. the subcommittee requested that we provide information related to work we have done to work we have done for the pif. the pif has told us that it considers that information to be protected government information. like other countries, saudi arabia has lost protecting that kind of information and applies serious criminal penalties. we risk penalties for the firm and for individuals working or living in saudi arabia. in support of the position, the pif initiated litigation

against bcg in saudi court and we have challenged the pif's position. bcg is complying with the subpoena and making production to the committee within the legal constraints that we are subject to. we have engaged with leaders at all levels of the pif and continue to make a robust -- to make as robust a production as possible to the subcommittee. i also want to reassure you that our work for the pif is consistent with the work we do for commercial investors and other sovereign wealth funds. we advise on fund strategy and investments, operating models, and value creation opportunities. we also advise clients on how to accelerate the success of their portfolio companies. i also want to be clear on the work we have not done. we have not worked for the pif on livegulf or on its investments in sports in the united states.

we have not worked for the pif on its direct investments in u.s. companies other than uber and magic leap, as we shared with the subcommittee last week. and we have not supported the pif on any u.s. lobbying efforts. we are committed to finding a solution to this challenging situation that satisfies all parties involved and does not put our firm or our people at risk of serious criminal prosecution. we are hopeful that this subcommittee and the pif can continue their dialogue and resolve these issues as quickly as possible. bcg has immense respect for the subcommittee's important work and desires to cooperate with your inquiry. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thanks, mr. lesser. mr. bob sternfel. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking

member johnson, members of the subcommittee, i am bob sternfels and i am the managing partner at mckinsey & company where i have worked for years and i am here to provide as much information as i can. mckinsey & company is one of the leading providers of business consulting services. we were founded in chicago in 1926 and today we have more than 45,000 employees across 65 countries and more than 14,000 employees here in the united states. we are an american company with american values proudly serving clients around the globe. we seek to comply with the laws in every location in which we operate but we go beyond what is required by having what we believe is the country's most rigorous selection policy which takes on both the content of the work and the work performed. what this means in practice is we do a thorough risk assessment of every client engagement we take on. turning to the middle east, mckinsey opened its office in saudi arabia in 2010 in recognition that part of the saudi economy as part of a rapidly changing and important region.

our work with client in saudi focuses solely on areas such as education, housing, diversifying the economy, energy transition, healthcare, and expanding opportunities to small and medium-sized enterprise. this includes many u.s. and multinational companies that work and invest in saudi arabia. one of the clients we serve in saudi arabia is the public investment fund. our work with the pif is like the work we do all around the world. we support them on a range of topics including this analysis, organizational matters, and other operational issues. the vast majority of our work is related to activities in saudi arabia, not in the united states. in fact, there are only three global engagements where we identified some link to the u.s. and to my knowledge none of those yielded any investment in the united states. an area the subcommittee expressed as a prior to to us was golf.

our support on the topic of golf was limited and occurred in 2021. our work the potential revenues for a new golf core and what would make such a tour economically viable. we also analyze ways to structure a new golf tour including organizational and staff models. mckinsey did not assess the viability of a new tour nor did we advocate and advance the interests of the tour with any external audience. our work predated the want to live golf and was good for the pga tour's merger with live golf. as i previously stated, we take the subcommittee's authority extremely seriously. since first learning of the subcommittee's interest, we have worked to provide you with documents it will be understood to be your key priorities. your produced 4500 pages of documents including the final deliverables that were prepared on golf as well as the relevant contracts and materials in the request for proposal from the pif.

these materials demonstrate the scope and content of golf which was primarily business analysis for a new golf tour. shortly after receiving the subcommittee subpoena, the saudi court issued an injunction prohibiting disclosure of our materials. we have opposed that injunction and continue to do so vigorously. this includes any claim that our officials are under saudi law. this is very serious to me because from what i understand the violation of saudi law can result in civil and criminal penalties. so this has put us in a difficult position. frankly, we are between a rock and a hard place. on the one hand, we are contesting this ruling in saudi arabia. on the other, we are on constant discussions to provide you with more information in a matter that is respectful about competitively sensitive information. we remain focused on complying with this subpoena and adjoin the well-being of more than 400 colleague spaced in saudi arabia, nine of whom are americans. we fully recognize that this

has been frustrating for the committee and it has also been difficult for us. we made progress in removing redactions as recently as yesterday and i give you my commitment that we are not done with this effort. we will continue to work with the subcommittee after today's hearing. thank you for the invitation to be here. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thanks, mr. sternfels. mr. klein. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i have immense respect -- >> i think your microphone may not be on. you want to press that button in front. >> it says talk. there we go. i have immense respect for the united states senate and for this committee, and i'm committed to answering your questions to the best of my ability. my name is michael klein, and i worked as an investment banker for approximately 35 years. i lead and the client and company, a financial advisory

company based in new york city. i am proud of the work our team has done to support some of the most respected american companies and investors in the american economy. i am also proud of the work we do for the communities we serve. because of our small size, we focus only on it . financial advisory services for a limited number of clients and consequential transactions. and we hold ourselves to the highest professional standards in all of our engagements, both in regard to our home u.s. market and where our clients reside. you have invited me here today to discuss our response to a subpoena about the u.s. investments made by the public investment fund. we have sought to comply with the committee's requests, and we will continue to do so.

i believe there is a great deal that we will agree on today and i am hopeful that we can discuss that in full. one of the issues i understand has been central to the committee as a potential investment partnership between the pga tour and the pif. as you know, the pga tour has recently announced a transaction establishing a commercial entity controlled by the tour with a stated goal to grow the tour through an investment in excess of $1.5 billion from a group of american sports investors not affiliated with the pif. the tour has stated publicly that negotiations with the pif are ongoing, and that any investment by the pif will be subject to appropriate regulatory approvals. this is consistent with the framework agreement struck in june 2023 to unify and grow the game of golf between the pif and the pga. one of the things i believe we

agree on is that markets should be fair and transparent to all participants. the united states has the most as the most advanced market in the world has robust regulatory processes to ensure justice. our firm believes in these processes and we fully participate in them. we have provided a substantial collection of materials reflecting a good faith effort to produce responsive information. we understand that you would like more and are working to provide even more documents through ongoing reviews with the pif and to our own specific direct application to the courts. but, as the committee is aware, i am appearing today under significant legal strengths -- constraints outside of our direct control. last november, our company and the others year-to-date were sued by the pif in saudi arabia to prevent us from submitting certain information to the

committee. we have formally been enjoined by the court. we have challenged this injunction so we can comply fully with the committee. although i hope the case will be resolved in the future and there are hearing scheduled for just next month, the outstanding court orders expose me and my employees to not just civil liability but criminal penalties, including potential imprisonment. as i hope the committee can understand, that is simply not a risk i can take for myself or for my employees. our ability to respond today in full does not reflect any lack of willingness. nor does it reflect any concern regarding the work we have done. we are proud of the work we have done. we are simply limited by the ongoing litigation. despite the lawsuit, our intention remains to comply and comply fully.

in fact, we cleared substantial additional materials late last week. we expect ongoing additional productions in the near future. the reality between being caught between two legal orders from two sovereign nations is challenging and it is not one i have faced before. but please know i sit before you as a proud american. i am a new yorker. i am someone who has built a business, attracted capital to the united states, and help create u.s. jobs. i have been able to do this because of what is possible in this country. i am grateful for that opportunity and the opportunity to be here with you today. thank you and i look forward to your questions. >> thanks, mr. klein. >> mr. keary.

>> chairman blumenthal, ranking member johnson, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is paul keary and i am the cofounder and ceo of teneo . we respect the important work of the subcommittee. toward that end, i would like to address three areas today. first, i will introduce our firm and explain the type of work we do for our clients in the u.s. and around the world. second, to provide some more information regarding one of our many clients, the public investment fund or pif. and finally i want to provide important details about our ongoing good faith efforts to continue providing information and documents to the subcommittee. we have been and remain committed to cooperating and we fully intend to comply with the subcommittee's subpoena. i will start by introducing teneo. we are a global advisory firm based in the u.s. and headquartered in new york city.

we have nearly 1700 employees and more than 40 offices around the world and we are very fortunate to advise many of the world's largest companies across nearly every industry. we operate at the highest level of ethics and have a deep commitment to doing right by our clients, employees, and our stakeholders. our firm operates across five business segments. our strategy of communications business advises companies on engagement strategies to help companies build relationships with their stakeholders. we have a leading financial advisory business engaged in insolvency managers. a business that helps companies develop and execute growth strategies and a risk advisory business that helps companies navigate geopolitical, cyber, and other challenges and a executive recruitment business. all of these services focus on helping clients achieve their strategic operation and financial objectives. next, i would like to

particularly address teneo's work with pif which is more than one of 1200 clients. over the course of the last several years, we have worked with pif on strategic communication's efforts. we have had them convey their investment philosophy and business approach both in the u.s. and globally. pif is the economic engine driving saudi arabia's transformation , moving the country forward and modernizing its society as part of the country's vision 2030 strategy. we are proud to play a small, constructive role in promoting those efforts. since our work for pif began, we have been opened and transparent about our engagement in 2021. we registered for pif under fara and have disclosed the details of our work and expenses in semiannual reports to the justice department. we have also found each of our contracts with pif and the

individuals working with pif matters. all of this has been publicly exposed. we know that pif's potential investment in pro golf in the u.s. is a interest to the subcommittee. we were engaged by pif on their initial consideration of a possible investment in golf. we have helped to evaluate this opportunity and advised him pro communication strategies if a investment strategy went forward. i would note we have never represented liv golf. teneo was engaged back in the beginning of june 2023 to help manage medications with key pif stakeholders. as to the subcommittee interest in this matter, it is important to reiterate that teneo is a proud american company with great respect for this institution, this subcommittee, and u.s. law. we have been committed to working with your committee from the start of work to identify and provide materials responsive to the subcommittee's request.

we have it made eight submissions to psi to date consisting of over 4600 pages and we will keep providing further documents as quickly as possible. we have also provided thousands of additional relevant documents to pif for their review as their contracts require and we await further authorization. i do know you have been frustrated by the pace of production and i understand that frustration. i believe you also know that teneo like the other consultants here is in a very challenging situation as a saudi court has directed us for now not to produce documents under review by pif. despite these legal challenges, we are firmly committed to finding a path forward in which we continue to work cooperatively and in good faith with the subcommittee and pif to meet your oversight interests. again, i am very proud of the work that teneo does in the u.s. and globally and i look for to your questions.

>> thank you. just of my colleagues will understand, i will come and express gratitude for your testimony but that position that i have heard expressed today is essentially that you will comply with the subpoena but only and solely so far as saudi arabia allows you to do so, which is not compliance with this subpoena. you say you are between a rock and a hard place but you have chosen sides. you have chosen the saudi side, not the american side. so let me just begin with a couple of overall questions. we will have seven minute rounds and we will have a second round if we have time. let me ask each one of you -- and i think it is a yes or a no question.

if this were a subpoena from the united states department of justice or securities and exchange commission, would your position be the same? rich lesser. >> senator, we are caught between two sovereigns. >> it is a yes or no. >> i think we would be taking legal counsel i want to do in a situation where there are two several to put us in a -- >> it would not be the same. >> we would be taking counsel on how to handle the situation. we are caught between two sovereigns and are doing the best we can. >> i don't mean to be rude but i have limited time. >> yes, we treat complying with all subpoenas under u.s. law incredibly seriously. >> mr. klein. >> the same way as we are here today, we would intend to comply fully and we would

endeavor to work through all legal ramifications. >> i am going to take that as a yes and mr. lesser, i take your is as a yes. mr. keary. >> we will fully comply with the subpoena. >> so your position would be the same. let me ask each of you a yes or no question. if, we are talking about china. china issues some administrative court order. beijing. saying, you cannot comply with a lawful subpoena from the united states congressional committee, would your position be the same? >> our position is that we have to follow the laws in the countries that we operate in and we are caught between two. >> so your position would be the same. you would comply only to the extent that the people's republic of china prc would

permit you to do so? >> i think we would be looking for guidance on a situation like that. >> american court biden >> senator, complying with the u.s. subpoena remains the highest priority while we continue to operate and abide by the laws of all of the countries we operate in. >> i will take that as a yes even though i don't find it responsive. mr. klein. >> senator, thank you. we would intend, as we do here today, to cooperate fully and and we would deal with, as we are today, expeditiously solving any legal constraint that we have. >> so, you would accept the order of the chinese court telling you not to comply with the american subpoena. mr. keary. >> senator, as mentioned earlier, we will fully comply

with the subpoena from the psi. all we have ask for is some time to work through the legal complexity but the compliance with the subpoena is what we will do. >> i think a lot of the american public will be asking me and our colleagues, when we go home, what are they hiding? what are they concealing? if it were the department of justice subpoena or if it were a court order from china, their position would be the same. is that a defensible position? i want to ask each of you, beginning with mr. lesser, what was your most recent amount of revenue. in the last year. for your consulting service. >> we do not disclose our revenue globally beyond the global revenues so i cannot sure that information. we are a private company. with

great respect sir. >> do you calculate or do you have those numbers? >> somebody probably does but i do not have that number, senator. >> mr. sternfel, what was the revenue to you from saudi arabia last year. >> we operate in a regional model so it is middle east, africa, and central asia. >> you don't break out revenue numbers? >> we break out by the region. i know it is less than 10% of our total revenue. i would be happy to come back afterwards on that. >> mr. klein. >> we don't have that number here but i am happy to provide it for you. it is a small number relative to the rest of our business. >> but you will provide that?

mr. keary. >> i give you a sense of in a 2022, our fees were just under $10 million. >> let me ask, mr. keary, you have filed under fara, the foreign registration act. >> correct. >> mr. sternfel, mckinsey and company has not filed under fara. i have the respective filings. for each of your companies. yours is totally blank. teneo has filed under fara. what is the justification for mckenzie not doing so? >> thank you, senator. i cannot comment on the page you mentioned but i can answer

the question, which is as it relates to fara, we take fara incredibly seriously. we seek outside expert counsel on anything that might be fara related. we sought expert counsel in this case, and given that there was no policy or influence of any kind , determined that this was not fara reportable. >> well, let me just say to colleagues, i think one of the findings that we are developing here is that fara needs to be strengthened. and i am not saying, mr. sternfels, that you are violating the law, but certainly if teneo thought it had an obligation to file under fara, i am questioning why mckinsey and company did not. maybe the law should be strengthened so there is a

legal obligation. it is clear and unmistakable. you have said -- all of you -- that you have produced thousands of documents. no question that you have as recently as last night. literally. we have not been to all of them but we have been to some of them. and a lot of them are press clippings, they are press releases, they are public documents, and all sorts of stuff. and then a lot of them are -- they look like this. that is not responsive to a subpoena when you say you are making every effort to comply. that is laughable. so, you know, we will continue this conversation with you but, again, i come back to the basic question here. what are they hiding?

is that saudi arabian national security investment in live golf. is that a matter of national security to the kingdom? hard to believe. senator johnson? >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the fact are holding up those redacted documents. it reminds me of and off a lot of less 50 pages of dr. fauci's emails. is not a sovereign. he works for us. and yet hhs, that was a responsiveness to us. just trying to make that point and readying a strong request, hopefully with you signing onto shake those loose from the agencies. i would like to go through and have each one of you witnesses describe exactly what your attorneys are telling to the legal jeopardy is within saudi arabia for your employees that work there.

we will start with you. mr. lesser. >> thank you for the question, senator. there have been multiple litigation efforts going on and we have received strong letters from the pif and from the saudi court saying that our staff and our firm is criminally exposed if we were to share documents that they have not approved. and so we have contested that litigation multiple times to try to get permission to produce as much as possible in response to this subpoena, but we do feel at substantial risk criminally not just for the firm but for our staff, and that is what our lawyers have advised us and we feel we have to take this incredibly seriously. >>so if they specifically pointed out specific employees that will be found legally liable, would that be the top manager or would it be individuals that would literally go into the files and make file copies or any and all

of the above? >> senator, i genuinely do not know. i do not think specific individuals had been singled out but the fact that individuals would be at risk is clearly stated to us. >> mr. sternfels? >> thank you, senator. i would start with i am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert in saudi law but i will tell you what i understand. an injunction has been filed by the pif against us. we are vigorously opposing that injunction. and from what i understand, the penalties for that injunction are significant civil and criminal penalties and we have 400 folks in saudi and that includes nine americans. >> with the saudi citizens that work for you be under a higher level of legal scrutiny then let's say the american citizens? would they be higher risk because they are saudi citizens

i potentially more subject to the court dictates? >> senator, i don't know. from what i understand, this has implications for potentially all of our folks. >> mr. klein, what are you aware of in terms of the jeopardy of your employees and saudi arabia? >> ranking member, thank you. the pif has expressed to our firm and to others what they believe is their right as a sovereign to go to court to preserve their interests, and that they have a right, not simply based upon the contracts that we have signed, but a right to certain protections under sovereign law as saudis. what the court order that we received states is that if we are to provide, either in a written form or in this form, information that were to breach the specific injunction, we could be held criminally

liable, and that criminal liability, as i understand it, is as much as 20 years imprisonment, as well as monetary fines. it is not defined as to which individuals. it is addressed directly to the firm. >> mr. keary, what did your counsel tell you? >> thank you, senator. the first point principle is i don't think we get there. we work to fully satisfied the committee in terms of the subpoena and the accelerated production of documents to show the good faith efforts are delivering the returns. secondly, from a legal perspective, u.s. counsel has shared it is just a very complex, almost unprecedented situation. our saudi counsel suggest a range of challenges but it is really hard to protect in this juncture, senator. >> so, when you go to court and

challenge das -- i guess you are challenging the pif? or are you challenging the saudi government? you say you're fighting off these injunctions. who are you fighting in this case? the saudi government or the public investment fund? mr. keary, i will start with you. >>i am not a expert on saudi law. my understanding is it is against the pif. >> mr. klein? >> senator, thank you. we have expressed to the pif and to the court our full intention to comply and we have sought relief with which to comply fully with the subpoena. >> is this just basically in response to the lawsuit they have initiated against you? you have initiated your own counter lawsuit. this is responding to the court proceeding? >> thank you, senator. we have responded with our own

direct filing both seeking specific document relief and seeking to end this litigation. so i can't show less text >> who initiated the litigation against you? was that the saudi government or was that the pif? >>as i understand it, senator, it was the pif and they have invoked, again, as i understand it without all the expertise, certain of their laws that they have information that they have as a government. >>mr. sternfels, the chairman put up a graphic they're talking about disclosures this information may impact saudi national security. have they made that claim? is there any justification for that claim as far as you are aware of? have you pushed back against that? >> senator, as i said, we are objecting to the injunction and

i can today talk about the work that we did do with the pif as it relates to that matter if that is of interest. >> mr. lesser, my time is running out here. just describing what you have done against us pushing back injunction. >> sure, senator. the pif has sued us in saudi court and make clear to us that if we were to share unapproved information we would be violating saudi law and we have litigated this matter in saudi court seeking permission to be able to produce under this subpoena and that litigation is ongoing and we have -- it was delayed several times and we are continuing to pursue that vigorously in order to be able to produce materials for you. >> so if i may, you are obviously producing some documents. you will be producing documents even after this injunction has been granted. is it just a general type of injunction? is it about specific information? what does the injunction cover? we will start with you, mr. lesser.

>> we have asked to produce fully to comply with this subpoena, and only a portion of what we have asked to produce has been approved to produce so the litigation is related to the remaining information that we would like to produce that we have been unable to do. >> so, a general injunction, and you are pushing back on kind of a case-by-case basis. can we produce this? can we produce that? is this common with all four of you? okay. i have no further questions. thanks. >> senator butler. >> thank you for coming. i would like to just -- i genuinely have a couple of yes or no questions, and customs short answer wants. mr. lesser, we will start with you and sort of work our way down. how long has pif been a client of yours and are they still a client of yours?

>> they are still a client. they were a client as of 2016 because that was one of the documents we complied with. i don't know if they were a client before 2016. >> senator, similarly they are still a client. i do not know exactly when we started working with them. >> senator, thank you for the question. the pif remains a client of ours and i believe our first engagement was in 2017. >> senator, our engagements with pif started in 2021 and they are still a client. >>mr. keary, let's start back the other way again. really a yes or no. do you normally retain clients who sue you? >> it is a very unprecedented scenario, senator. i agree. >> mr. klein.

>>senator, thank you for the very fair question. this represents an important behavior for our client and quite frankly for the pif who has historically been a client that has operated with best practices of governance with us. >> no, senator. it is not a common practice but over even the last several weeks we have made a lot of practice here in continuing to get this subcommittee what they need and hopefully we are not done in that dimension. >> senator, many aspects of this are unprecedented in this situation, and i would say we have made some progress and are continuing to do our best efforts to be able to make more progress. >> i have got to say -- i cannot say i am surprised by the responses of any of the corporations or the companies represented here, but it does take me back to senator blumenthal's point.

if you have a client and have close and to have a client in the pif , and they have displayed not normal, out of character behavior, and aggressive behavior towards you, threatened your company, your livelihood, the security of your employees, and you remain in business with them sounds incredibly curious to me . and, again, i associate myself with the comments of the chair, i wonder what is actually going on here because i have not seen a u.s. business choose a foreign -- any client -- foreign or otherwise -- that would behave so aggressively towards your overall bottom line. just a last bucket of questions, mr. chair, if i could.

maybe they will go as quickly. mr. stern field is really -- livgolf, directed towards you. i have some curiosity about your work -- not yours -- the work of mckinsey work on a project, a self-described futuristic city in saudi arabia. are you familiar with that? >> i am not, senator. but if it is of interest is -- >> what is of interest of the human rights violations targeted towards a indigenous community and the displacement of 20,000 individuals in the reported death sentence by the saudi arabian government of three tribe members who resisted displacement. i am concerned about -- well, i want to know how those types of

human rights violations, as alleged, rest with the intentions and visions of mckinsey, and, again, sort of how you can choose to retain a client who has been -- that may not share your values set and has been aggressive toward your overall business bottom line. and i would love to have a follow-up with you specifically on those alleged violations. those are all my questions, chair. >> thanks, senator butler and senator hawley. >> thank you for calling us here and to the witnesses for being here. mr. sternfels, if i can start with you, did i hear you say in your opening statement, we have the gregory industry's most rigorous client selection.

policy? >> we believe that to be true. >> how is it then that you end up with so many clients that were state owned corporations hostile to the united states? >> the basis for my answer was that we have invested over $700 million over the last several years to put in place the rigorous client selection process and there is a whole series of factors. >> so let's talk about your clients like the china communications construction. it they have been blacklisted by the united states government and this is a state owned enterprise responsible for building artificial islands in the south china sea, certainly in direct contradiction to national security interest in you help them develop their five-year plan. why is that a good idea? >> senator, our work in china

overwhelmingly works with multinational companies including those being the u.s. >> let's talk about another one. the chinese ocean shipping company and that is a state owned conglomerate that has played a role in expansion and the beijing bid to extend global reach. this company has been given special permission -- industrial base. at this company has provided logistical support to the chinese navy escort operations in the gulf of aden and it serves as the -- people liberations are me. you are advising them. how much money are you making off of that? >> no, senator. we are not advising them. >> have you? >> you didn't advise them?

>> no. inspect why is it a good idea to advise them at all. they are a are a state owned enterprise directly contrary to the security interests of this nation. >> they are no longer a client of ours. >> whited to advise on 22 of the 100 big state owned enterprises? >> i do not believe that number is accurate. >> how much money do you you make off the united states government? >> i don't know the size of the work with -- >> i do. in 2021 you made more than $850 million with the department of defense as her top client. when you bid for those government contracts did you disclose your work for the chinese state enterprises that were conducting work prior to -- >> we take oci very seriously and i have even gone around disclosures. >> is that a yes? >> i am happy to come back to on any details specific to the

work that we do on the department of defense. >> that is not what news reports and news agencies have found. to quote nbc note news again, the u.s. navy in customs and border protection, you did not disclose your work with chinese enterprises. a report in 2021 showed that you had admitted to providing services only for local governments but not for the central government in china. my question is, why should you be able to get any contracts in the united states government? if you are going to advise countries that are hostile to us and make money off of them, why should you be getting u.s. contracts? >> we have never worked with the communist party. >> china is not a democracy. they own these companies. these companies are doing the bidding of the chinese military and you are making money off of it hand over fist.

i guess if you want to do that it does not violate the law but why should you then be able to turn around and make $850 million in one year alone off the american taxpayer. explained that to me. >> senator, our work with the federal government, we stand behind. >> i am sure you do. it is incredibly lucrative. that is a problem. you make gobs of money off our enemies and then off of us. it is outrageous frankly. listen, you should not be doing any work with the chinese communist party or any enterprise they own or have some share in. if you are serious about ethics you would not be doing it. but it is particularly outrageous that you then make money -- almost $1 billion in a year, off the united states government including the defense department. now, i have introduced a law that would prohibit you from doing just this and i will continue to push it until we get a vote on it. let me ask you about one other thing since i have got you here, and i represent the state of missouri that has been absolutely devastated by the

opioid crisis and i know you know a lot about that because speaking of money mckinsey has made a unbelievable amount of money off of the opioid crisis. mckinsey proposed paying a $14,810 bounty to pharmacies for each opioid overdose. is mckinsey proud of that work ? >> senator,our work was actually to reduce opioid abuse. >> i think we have a poster of this. "we sell hope in a bottle." this was a campaign you came up with. "we sell hope in a bottle." hope in a bottle. you helped purdue pharma market them to children. the massachusetts attorney general has filed a lawsuit that has all of these disclosures in it describing how mckinsey and company

pushed her due to turbocharge oxycontin sales. mckinsey urged the sackler's, the owners of purdue, to make a clear go-no go decision to turbocharge the sales engine. they pushed the board of directors to turbocharge the sales engine. to drive up the sale of opioids. it is killing people left and right. is mckinsey proud of that work? >>senator, as i had stated in the house, we were too slow in seeing the epidemic unfold around us. >> you helped cause the epidemic. >> no senator. >> really? you don't think marketing these drugs to doctors and children helped cause the epidemic? you don't think you have any part in that? >> senator, what i can say is we were the first to actually reach a settlement with all states. >> well, sure.

sure. when you are over a barrel. what are you doing for victims right now? >> senator, we have reached a agreement with the states and municipalities. >> are you setting up a fund and sharing some of your profits with them? >> it is public. >> i am asking you, have you set up a compensation fund. >> senator, are substantial sentiments go to exactly that cause. >> i have listened to your responses and you don't want to be accountable for anything that you do here, this is unforgettable and frankly unforgivable. and your work right now taking money from this government as you help the chinese communist party is absolutely unforgivable and i will not rest until it is illegal. thank you. >> thank you senator. senator hassan. >> i want to say thank you, chairman blumenthal, and

ranking member johnson for holding the hearing and this inquiry into the efforts of the saudi arabian crown prince to influence u.s. policy. i joined senator holly in my concern about the opioid epidemic. we have passed legislation to require transparency in similar situations. let's turn to the issue not -- issue at hand today. congress has a really will establish right to compelled documents and testimony, including for the united states companies. i just want to be clear for the public. the supreme court of the united states has held that our constitution prohibits united states judicial interference from the issuance of rational subpoenas. so, a court in this country cannot interfere with

congressional subpoenas. so, i just want to make sure we have this on the record is it true that your company refusing to comply with the subpoena -- the citing an injunction from a saudi arabian admission of court . a court that is notoriously not independent and under the direct influence of the saudi regime. so yes or no. we will start with the you, mr. lesser. >> senator, we have complied to the extent that we can given the situation we are placed in. >> so that is a yes. you are taking the saudi arabia court direction over this one. >> senator, we would believe were in the process of with of complying with the subpoena and the subcommittee and we will continue to do so. >> but you are still letting the saudi arabian court government how you were complying. >> we are complying and we intend to comply fully and we

intend to continue to press all avenues to ensure our full compliance. >> so, that means, i just want to be clear. if you are not successful with the saudi arabian courts, you will fully comply and just decide that the united states congress has authority and you are going to follow our law? there to comply with this u.s. subpoena from the beginning and we intend to comply going forward. >> i will take that as a "you will continue to allow the saudi arabian and mistreat of court to govern your response."

mr. keary? >> we will fully comply with the subcommittee subpoena and we will accelerate that process every day but fully comply regardless. >> regardless of the saudi arabian courts? >> we will fully comply. >> let me make this clear for those who did not comply, those who have legal justification for your refusal, your firm's appear to place your loyalties to saudi arabia above the a loyalty to the united states of america our national security, and the principles of transparency. i also heard your discussion about the risk assessments you do before you decide to take on a particular client. and one of the things a good legal department does in a massive company with lots of resources is that they look at the law of the jurisdiction that you want to do business in

and if it says they might give you trouble with comply with united states subpoena from this congress, you might decide not to do business there because that is a high risk. and the fact you decided anyway seems to me to say that you do not take the authority of this congress very seriously. sent out to mr. sternfels and mr. lesser, both mckinsey and boston consulting group do work in china which does not have a independent judiciary are. i'm concerned of congress were to subpoena information from bcg or the work in china or on behalf of the chinese government that a chinese court could also try to block compliance with that subpoena. to the two of you, if a chinese court blocked a congressional subpoena what you refuse to respond to the subpoena? mr. lesser? >> senator, we are doing everything we can to comply with his subpoena as fully as we can, and specific to china,

we have very clear guidelines in and of the work we do and do not do. >> so if a chinese court try to block your compliance with a subpoena, you would ignore the chinese court or do your best to get them to change their mind but ultimately what comply with the subpoena from this congress regardless of the position of the chinese government? >> senator, we do our best to comply in every situation and follow the laws of all the countries in which we work. that is what we have tried to do here and we are incredibly respectful of this subcommittee and its subpoena and we are continuing to work to be able to fully meet your requests. >> so let me ask mr. sternfels again. the chinese government tells you you may not comply with the united states congress. what are you going to do? >> thank you, senator. i would start by reaffirming that we cannot work with the federal government in china. we have a very tight client

selection policy. >> i will stop you because my time is limited. the chinese government runs the businesses in china. so let's just be very clear about the line you're trying to draw just is not there. so, now, again, my time is limited and i have one more question for you, mr. sternfels. will you cooperate with an investigation for a subpoena from congress even if the chinese government says no? >> absolutely, senator. cooperating with this senate is our highest priority and we will continue to do so. >> if that is so you need to respond fully to this committee's subpoena. because right now what we see is a refusal to cooperate with this investigation and that sets a really dangerous precedent which again leads me, my colleagues, and the american public, to question the loyalties of your company. now, i have one more quick question if i could, and it

really is just a follow on to senator hawley. i have led oversight and legislative efforts to bring greater transparency to conflicts of interest from groups like mckinsey in the wake of your failure to disclose work for opioid producers while simultaneously advising the food and drug initiation on opioid regulations. once again, mckinsey is failing to be transparent in its work and has significant implications for our national security. you talk with senator hawley about your receipts from government contracts. i know that in fiscal year 2023 you had tens of millions of dollars of proceeds from our defense and ministry and for national security agency such as the u.s. department of defense. so i have to tell you that i am deeply skeptical that mckinsey's work is compatible with united states national security interests, especially

given the work has been linked to alleged human rights abuses in saudi arabia and supporting a chinese-state owned enterprise that constructs military installments in the south china sea. at the end of the day, what the american people want to know is whether american companies will put american national interests before anyone else's. and the reason you are all here today is because your response to the subpoenas seems to really call that into question. thank you, mr. chair. >> thanks. just a follow-up on a couple of the questions, let me just make clear, you answered the question about china when i asked it, essentially saying your position would be the same. and i think that answer is essentially the same as you gave to senator hassan because doing your best, as you have

put it, mr. lesser, or cooperating, as you put it, mr. sternfels, is not cooperating with the subpoena. i hate to talk your like a lawyer but these distinctions really make a difference and we will potentially see in court how much of a difference they make. and the fact your position will be the same to a department of justice subpoena or and scc subpoena simply shows the consequence -- really, the magnitude of the issue that concerns us here. and i recognize, and i sympathize with your concern for your employees. and i am concerned also. and i just have to ask each of you, don't you have second

thoughts about doing business with a client, a country, that says it is going to throw your employees in jail for obeying american law? mr. lesser? >> senator, this whole experience, going back six months now, has been unprecedented for us and as we understand from our lawyers, a unprecedented disagreement were a senate subpoena is in direct conflict with the laws of another country that use the information to be confidential. we are all navigating uncharted waters here and we are doing it in the spirit of being as compliant as possible. and i am still hopeful we will get to a resolution that will work to meet your needs and respect the laws there so that we are not -- so we can move forward in a positive way, and that is the spirit we have

operated in since the beginning, but it is unprecedented. and when this whole experience is over of course we will look at what we have learned from it and how we can avoid a similar situation in the future. but it has been a exporter a difficult one for our entire team to navigate, and we think quite unprecedented in the history of the relationship of senate subpoenas and the laws of other countries. we remain optimistic that we can avoid any of the outcomes that we talk about. >> could you have second thoughts about doing business with the country that says that we will try to arbitrate our differences, try to settle our differences in court? no. it is our way or we put the people in prison. doesn't that give you some qualms? >> senator, i remain hopeful. >> that is what they told you.

>> senator, we have faced an injunction. no one has said that. we look at the injunction. i do come back to my commitment that i made to you and the entire subcommittee. we will continue to comply. we do not think we are done here. we will continue to advance both in submission of materials and reduction in those that you pointed out. >> mr. chairman, thank you. i agree with you. this is extraordinarily troubling. troubling for us. it does give great pause for thought. we have a responsibility as a transactional adviser to complete the work we have done for commitments we have made. in addition, we look very carefully at the actions of

over the length of the relationship. as i indicated and will continue to indicate, this is an aberrant situation. our work has been best practices, best governance, strong, data-driven investment historically. we have been presented with a statement by the pif that they believe we have certain sovereign rights that are limiting their ability and has put them in this position of this particular court case. it is intensely troubling and we share your concern. >> senator, our work is transparent and i am very confident that we will satisfy the subcommittee with full compliance. i just don't think we get in terms of those consequences. >> i can tell you, i've been a

prosecutor, i have been a private lawyer. i am not sure i would work for a client that said to me you comply with american law and we will throw you in prison for work done on an american investment in america under american law with the protections of rights that america guarantees. let me ask you, you know that mckinsey advised the past on project wedge before the lunch of. what is project wedge? >> we advise the pif on project wedge. this was conducted in 2021. about six months of work. there were two phases to this.

it focused on the economic viability of standing up a new golf league. this was before the creation of. before any discussions. the question that we were asked is could a new golf league for b. >> will also work on the. >> i am familiar with that, senator. >> aside from project wedge, i.v. golf, what other deals have you worked on? >> senator, i have mentioned in my opening statement, the vast majority of work that we do with the pif relates to investments in saudi arabia. we conducted a thorough research to find any work that we have done that would have

any intersection with the united states. we found three. they related to the topics of carbon credits, carbon capture, and healthcare. to the best of my knowledge, senator, none yielded any investment of the united dates. >> let me ask you, did any of those projects, including project wedge, involved saudi arabia national security? >> in terms of what we were asked, senator, not to my knowledge. we were focused on a business case analysis, sir. >> for saudi arabia or pith pith pif . >> we were involved well before the creation. it was focused on, agnostic way, could a new golf league the equally. >> has any of your work involved saudi arabia national security? >> senator, from the standpoint

of our look at our work as we described, this was normal work that we would do for an asset owner, southern well fund. >> weapon systems, truth movements, specified information . >> no, senator. that was not the nature of our work. >> any of your work involve national security? >> thank you, mr. chairman. we serve as investment tankers. we do not do work on national security issues. >> senator, no. none of our work involves. >> i have a final set of questions. i noticed that senator marshall has returned. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my first question is for mr. bob sternfels. it is my understanding has a

relationship with the communist party and the chinese military. you do significant work for them. what can mckinsey get to this committee that mckinsey is committed to america and not the communist party? >> senator, we do know work and to the best of my knowledge, never have for the communist party or for the central government in china. the vast majority of work that we do in china is for multinational companies. many of those are u.s. companies and private sector chinese companies. >> these companies are owned or partially owned by the ccp. >> not to my knowledge, senator. >> will all the witnesses commit to give your list of chinese clients to your u.s. government clients? mr. rich lesser? >> senator, my understanding is the most recent legislation of

the national defense authorization act sets very clear guidelines of what it means to be compliant and to ensure that all the work we have done is done in the most way and all information that needs to be shared is shared and we will be completely compliant with those regulations as they are established. >> mr. bob sternfels, will you disclose your list of chinese clients to your u.s. clients? >> we go well beyond the oci requirements in terms of disclosure and i am happy to share that with you afterwards in quite a bit of detail. >> senator marshall, yes. >> senator, yes. in the event that we have to, yes. >> okay. i'm going to come back to mr. sternfels . you say you do your work with the department of

defense, correct? >> senator, we do work with the department of defense. >> you do not do any work with chinese companies? >> senator, we do know work with the chinese communist party or the central government in china. >> the chinese am companies. >> the mast majority of our work, senator, in china, is with multinational companies. many of those u.s., private sector, chinese institutions. >> i assume some of those have chinese ownership and certainly, as i understand the ccp, it is a very complex web. is american taxpayers spending money on dod -- how do you make sure that none of those chinese owned companies are infiltrating or stealing any of your intellectual property or spying on our military? >> i appreciate the question, senator. as a son of yvette, a vet,

taking national security in the united states is incredibly important to me, sir. it is incredibly important. we have stood up in working with the department of defense that we have collaboratively built with the dod. both around dedicated information technology infrastructure. around how we staff and how we treat information. the dod has vetted and approved. i can take you through that in detail. >> have you noticed any cyber attacks on those systems and where to those cyber attacks come from? >> senator, i cannot give you the details on that. i can tell you that as well know, cyber attacks happen all the time. we remain vigilant on this. we continue to invest significantly to do our best to defend and we have worked collaboratively with the department of defense on our architecture to seek their approval for how we have set

things up. >> i yield. thank you. >> thanks, senator marshall. i have a couple more questions. senator johnson, if you have -- >> senator displayed some documents. i got some from mckinsey as well. who made those reductions? >> i did not know if you are asking me, senator. we did not make those reductions. we have been working with the pif to reduce those reductions. they were done by the pif. >> mr. lesser, if you provided documents, were there any in them? >> yes, there were reductions.

i believe we redacted some personally sensitive information like names but all the other reductions, to the best of my understanding, came from the pif, not from. >> did you supply documents? >> senator, thank you. the soul reductions that we provided were cell phone numbers. >> no other reductions made by the pif? >> any reductions made on any document that was delivered would have been made by the pif or other members of the review process. our firm submitted documents that were complete with the exception of personal cell phone numbers. >> okay. mr. keary ? >> no reductions in the documents provided. >> okay. i guess the only other point i want to make is i am actually heartened by the fact that the chairman, other democratic

democrat colleagues are talking about how important it is to comply with congressional oversight and provide documents. i would say just under your request, the chairman mentioned twice it was staggering. we do not have full compliance. i'm pretty impressed with the situation. senator hanson said that this information would set a very dangerous presence. i am heartened by the fact that my democrat colleagues are taking oversight and the committees of constitutional authority to demand these documents. personally, i think it is even more staggering and even more dangerous, preston, that our own federal health agencies refuse to turn over the last 50 pages. those are heavily redacted. can't get the analysis. i know i am making a point again but we really do need to step up the plate, demand those

documents are provided to us and if they don't do it, i hope we follow-up with a strongly enforced subpoena. >> mr. keary , make no reductions because what you produced was 837 pages of emails that contained nothing but news clippings. there was some silly essentially, nothing to redact. mr. klein, your reduction, half of it was public tax returns which are available publicly and there were reductions of the other records. 925 pages of typically available pga tour tax returns. they held up the mckinsey documents which consisted of

blank pages. an example of your production. you are familiar with them. every one of those calendar invitations redact's the names of all the meeting attendees, not really useful. i could go on in the interest of time, i won't. i would not call that compliance or cooperation. let me just finish with a round of questions i think follows up on the point i made about qualms of doing business. about doing business. if i am not mistaken, mr.

sternfels, one of your past engagements for the saudi government, and i would've hoped that you identified it, was to conduct research to identify major influencers who have been critical of the saudi government on social media. is that correct? >> senator, we did no such work for the saudi government. >> limitlessly show you a slide which identifies a number of individuals who have seen this slide. one of those individuals, omar abdul, who was a friend, alleged that his family members were not only after mckinsey helped to identify him. the other two individuals on

this page, was arrested and a third who had been anonymous disappeared from the internet after being identified by mckinsey. managed to. he was in canada. you are saying that this slide does not reflect work that you did and in any respect or any form for the saudi government? >> absolutely. no work we did for the government. this was work that was done for internal purposes. we conducted a thorough investigation and found that there was no evidence in misuse. this material never left mckinsey and respected the individual in question. both lawsuits that he brought against us were dismissed in u.s. court. >> wanted to do this kind of slide? perhaps, other materials?

>> i cannot comment why it was created. but i can comment is that it never left mckinsey. >> did you do that kind of work respect to decisions in other countries? >> senator, i cannot comment on the work that we have done. that is not the type of work that we do. >> have you ever done that work in china? >> not to my knowledge, sir. >> let me just say, enclosing, we appreciate your being here. as i said at the beginning of this hearing, the ramifications for this proceeding have potential to echo far outside this chamber. the federal government oversight in their dealings with foreign governments and

foreign investors. simply cannot and should not be dictated by a foreign power. i have heard a lot today about feeling caught in the middle and having no choice but to. we do not take them likely. the pif is an arm of the saudi kingdom, the saudi government, the saudi ministry. you have an obligation to follow united states law contracting with a foreign government or entity does not eliminate that responsibility in my respectful view. >> i would like each of the companies that are before us today to commit to appear before this panel again should we have additional questions about your compliance or the

information you have provided. to all of you commit to be here again? >> yes, senator. >> yes, senator. >> senator, yes we will. >> thank you. >> i, again, want to think for the partnership and support as we seek one of the principles of congress, which is our fact- finding, fact-based investigation. we will work together on other investigations that you have expressed interest in following through on. this subcommittee will consider the testimony heard today and the formal legal objections filed that each of the consultants, this record will remain open for original comments or questions by any

subcommittee member. with that, the hearing was adjourned, thank you very much. >> thank you.