this hearing will come to order. apologies for beginning a little bit late. we have another vote at about 5:30. i want to thank the four individuals or witnesses today for being with us. and i would like to thank as well my friend, senator johnson, for his cooperation and support in moving forward with this hearing. a lot going on of historic magnitude before the united states senate. but the issue before us today is truly of the store consequence in presidential and

practical import. the issue is in fact whether four companies sitting here today, represented by very able leadership except their obligation to respond to congressional subpoenas. the apparent refusal to do so in full is not only unprecedented, but it threatens opening a door to other u.s. 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 risks blocking not only the subcommittee, but all of congress from obtaining information needed to do our job. this subcommittee has long engaged in investigations into u.s. companies and foreign

entities. it has engaged in negotiations over the scope of responsive materials. it has received documents and insured their confidentiality, but it has never ever conceded 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 historical consequence to the u.s. congress in doing its job. it is simply staggering that american companies are not only willing to accept this claim, allowing the saudi government to determine what is permitted to provide this subcommittee, but also that they would use it

to justify their 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 even more staggering that saudi arabia is threatening employees of your company's with imprisonment if the documents we are seeking are not produced. staggering to me, outrageous. perhaps we should not be surprised. we began this inquiry last summer because of our concerns that saudi arabia, a country with the poor and human rights record, was trying to take over american golf and use that to sports wash its own public image. saudi arabia and advocates argue that we should believe that they are turning over a

new leaf, beginning a new chapter, but we are presented with another example of extreme and deceitful conduct. two the united states public, and the united states government, saudi arabia claims these are just innocuous commercial investments, including investments in sports. but in its own courts it argues that it's classified material pertaining to state national security interests. it is simply cannot have it both ways. we are seeking u.s. documents from u.s. companies about united states investments, u.s. focused strategies and united states institutions. allowing these companies to ignore their obligation to respond to u.s. law is not just an affront to the subcommittee, it risks allowing companies to

effectively contract away their obligations to other countries all around the world where you do business, where you perform services to comply with united states laws. although the subcommittee's inquiry began last summer with questions about the saudi arabia public investment fund in u.s. golf, it has become much bigger and more consequential. after mckinsey, bcg, each refused to voluntarily produce records about their work because of the saudi arabia objections and we issued subpoenas compelling them to do so. our goal is simple, we want to determine what work these companies have done and are doing that allows a foreign authoritarian government to use instruments of commerce in the united states to increase its influence within our shores and

rebrand its tarnished image after years of horrific human rights abuses. our subpoenas seek documents that will illustrate how these four companies have assisted and increasing investments and asserting influence in the united states. our purpose is to understand the scope of services they have provided, including but not limited to how they intend to use these investments with united states entities and institutions like the pga tour and other sports to increase their access. we intend to use the findings to consider whether our laws surrounding the disclosure of foreign entanglements needs to be strengthened. the preliminary findings certainly suggest that we need stronger protections of american interests when it comes to foreign entities. just days before the original deadline to produce documents and the subpoenas 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 they had taken the unprecedented step of asserting that the records requested by the subcommittee are classified as in confidential, and that production of these records to congress could allegedly harm the national security interests , policies or rights of saudi arabia and pose a imminent threat to the kingdoms sovereignty. the claims of threats to saudi arabian sovereignty and the court order raised our alarm 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 a subpoena issued by the united states government? the fact that we have to ask these questions heightens our concerns about their work, not just for saudi arabia, but for other regimes around the world, many of them authoritarian. the companies sitting before us today 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 .2 this, i would say and i 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. and 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. 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 am convinced of its good faith determination to play that role. but threats to u.s. companies and interference with congressional oversight are simply not consistent with those goals. it is u.s. based consultants and while the conduct is troubling consultants bear responsibility too. 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 billions of dollars in the face of a harrowing record of human rights abuses by your business partner and at least in one instance, accused of being, of playing a role in those abuses and even though you have documents we are seeking, you continue to refuse to comply with our subpoenas unless explicitly authorized by them. 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 this chamber. the subcommittee will consider all the valid legal defenses. i suggest your right to make

them, but contracting with a foreign entity is not one of them. we are not allowed to allow a precedent that would allow a foreign contract to be a defense to complying with a duly authorized subpoena. saudi arabia is welcome and we do welcome their investment in the united states. if they invest in our enterprises and they take advantage of our economic system , and they have the protection of our rule of law, the rights under united states law, they cannot simply pick and choose the laws they're going to obey. with that i turned to the ranking member. >> since the start of the

subcommittee's investigation into the framework agreement between the pga tour and the sad arabian public investment fund, the pif, i have been concerned that our intrusion could make it 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. fortunately, we have not had a public hearing on the subject since last september, allowing the tour to pursue the goal with minimal interference. it appears that progress has been made. last wednesday the announced they are partnering with strategic sports group, which will invest up to $3 billion into a new commercial venture. divisions between the pga tour remain and discussions are ongoing. some public reports indicate that a final agreement could occur before the masters tournament in april, while other reports indicate that a deal is on life support. until a formal decision is reached between the parties, i remain concerned that any congressional oversight of the

matter may do more harm than good. that said, as ranking member i not only acknowledge but i must also defend the sub it is constitutional authority to investigate a broad range of issues and entities. using that authority chairman blumenthal chose to continue the inquiry into the pif and u.s. business dealings. they sent the request to the pif and subpoenaed the u.s. subsidiary and eventually subpoenaed the pif's four u.s. based consultants following the records requests. unfortunately, due to claims of immunity, the consultants have been constrained in what documents they believe they can provide. it is my understanding that all four firms here today are facing litigation instigated by the pif in saudi court. they claim that by producing certain records 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. i do have sympathy for the position the consultants find themselves in, but i have no sympathy for the saudi claims of sovereign immunity in this inquiry. 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 chose to join chairman blumenthal and calling for full compliance with the subpoenas. to be clear, conducting oversight of the pif is not my 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.

i join you in your follow-up letters to these consultants and the pif, because i believe in defending access to records. i hope you will similarly support my efforts. towards the end of last year i sent you two 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, distribution and safety of vaccines. i ask that you subpoena hhs records and information contained in my more than 50 outstanding arrests, including 50 specific pages of dr. fauci's records and the empirical bayesian analysis that hhs uses as a surveillance tool 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 didn't. 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. >> 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, getting 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, 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. the global managing partner of mckenzie, a consulting firm headquartered in new york city, and they have offices in more than 60 countries and employ more than 30,000 people. michael klein is the leader of emma klein and company. a global strategic advising company based in new york. paul cleary is the chief executive officer of a global public relations and advisory firm 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? thank you. we will begin with your testimony, mr. lesser? >> chairman blumenthal, ranking member johnson and distinguished members of the subcommittee, i am the global chair of boston consulting group, or bcg. i joined bcg in 1988. i was 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 33,000 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 our clients while living our purpose and our values every day. our work in the public sector, including with governments and government owned entities is guided by a mission to improve the financial, economic and societal well-being of the countries in which we operate and for their citizens. in all our work, we apply consistent standards that dictate who we will work with and on what topics. 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 they have contributed, 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 and 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 magically, 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. >> 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 mad dash 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. wrinkly 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. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thanks, mr. sternfels.

>> members of the committee, i appreciate the opportunity to be here today. i have immense respect -- >> i think your mike may not be on. you want to press that button right in front. yes. >> 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 a financed market in the world with 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 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. >> chairman blumenthal, ranking member johnson, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. my name is paul kerry 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 will know we have never represented live golf. teneo was engaged back in the beginning of june 2023 to help manage medications with key pif stakeholders. has for the subcommittee's 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 today 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. at this were a subpoena from the united states department of justice or securities and exchange commission, would your position be the same? mr. lesser, yes or no? >> senator, we are caught between two sovereigns -- >> a yes or a no? >> i think we would be taking legal counsel on what to do in a situation where there are two sovereigns who 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 we have limited time. >> thank you, senator. yes, we treat complying with all subpoenas under u.s. law incredibly seriously. >> it would be the same. mr. klein? >> thank you, chairman. in the same way we are here today, we would intend to comply fully and intend to cooperate and we would endeavor to work through all legal ramifications. >> i am going to take that as a yes, and mr. lesser, i am going to take your response as a yes. mr. gary? >> we will fully comply with the subpoena. >> so your position would be the same? let me ask each of you also a yes or a no question. if we were talking about china.

china issues some administrative court order, beijing. saying you cannot comply with a lawful subpoena from a united states congressional put mindy. would your position be the same, mr. lesser? >> our positions we have to follow the laws of the countries in which we operate and we are caught between two. >> so your position would be the same. you will comply only to the extent that the people's republic of china, the prc, would permit you to do so? >> i think we would be looking for court guidance on a situation like that. >> and american court guidance? >> i believe so. >> complying with a u.s. subpoena remains our highest hierarchy while we continue to operate and abide by the laws of all the countries we abide in. >> i will take that as a yes

even though i do not regard it as directly responsive. mr. klein? >> we would intend to cooperate fully, and we would also 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. perry? >> as i mentioned earlier, we will fully comply with the subpoena. all we have asked for and been given by some staff for some time to work through the legal complexity. the psi and the compliance is what we will do fully. >> i think a lot of the american public are going to be asking me and our colleagues when we go home, what are they hiding. what are they concealing. if it were a 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 from your consulting service? >> we don't disclose our revenues globally beyond our global revenues, senator, so i cannot share that information. we are a private company, with great respect, sir. >> do you calculate? do you have those numbers? >> somebody probably does. i do not actually have that number, sir. >> mr. sternfels? >> it is the middle east,

africa, and central asia. >> you don't break out numbers for saudi arabia? >> that region in total is less than 10% of our total revenues, sir. >> the entire region of saudi arabia? >> i would be happy to come back after that. >> thank you, senator. we don't have that number here but i am happy to provide it for you. it was a very small number relative to the rest of our business and we will provide it. >> thank you. mr. perry? >> senator, as i mentioned earlier our contracts are filed under fara. to give you a sense of 2022, our fees with pif are just under $10 million. >> let me ask you, mr. perry, you have filed under fara, the foreign agent registration act.

correct? >> correct, senator. >> mckenzie has not filed under fara. i have the respective filings and i will put them up on the posted board. for each of your respective 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 mckenzie did not. i am not saying that you're not doing so violates the law but maybe the law should be strengthened so there is a legal obligation under these circumstances that 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 them 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. >> 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 and potentially more subject? >> 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. perry, 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. are saudi counsel suggest a range of challenges but it is really hard to protect in this juncture, senator. >> sell you when you each go to court and challenge what, again, are you challenging the pif or are you actually 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 -- >> 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 ask a talk today about the work that we did do with the pif as it relates to that matter if that is of interest. >> 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. >> 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. >> 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. >> yeah. 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. >> senator, thank you for the very fair question. this represents apparent behavior for our client and quite frankly for the pif who has historically been a client that has operated with best practices of government 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 directed towards you. i have some curiosity about your work -- not yours -- mckinsey's work on project, i think, now you.

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. >> that is true, senator. >> how is it then that you end up with 70 clients were state- owned corporations hostile to the united states. >> the basis for my answers we have invested over $700 million in the last several years to put in place a rigorous client selection process that looks at

a whole series of factors. >> let's talk about some of the client like the china communications construction company. this is a firm that is blacklisted by the united states government. this is a state-owned enterprise responsible for building artificial islands in the south china sea. probably in direct contravention of international law and certainly to united states security interests. 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 many of those being qs and private sector -- >> actually, you have advised 22 of the 100 biggest state- owned companies according to the new york times. let's look at another one. a chinese ocean shipping company that has played a role in the naval expansion and in beijing's extent for global reach. it has been given special

status by the ccp and forms the core of china's defense industrial base. this company has provided logistical support to the chinese navy's operations and i am so quoting, it served as the maritime logistical arm for the people's liberation army. you are advising them. how much money did you make on that contract? >> no. senator, we are not advising them. >> historically, we did not advise on the topics you described. >> why is a good idea to advise them at all? they are a state-owned enterprise directly contrary to the security interests of this nation? >> that are no longer a client of ours. >> why did you advise on 22 of the 100 biggest state-owned enterprises. >> i do not believe that number is accurate. >> how much money do you make of 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 your 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 have even gone around disclosures. >> that is a yes? >> i am happy to come back to you on any details specific to the work we do on the department of defense. >> that is not what news reports have found the news agencies have looked into this. to quote nbc news, you did not disclose your work with chinese enterprises in apparent conflicts of interest. airport in 2021 show -- december of 2021 -- you omitted only to provincial and local governments in china but not for the central government.

why should you be able to get any contracts to the message government? if you're going to advise foreign nations were hostile to us and make gobs of money off of them, why should you be getting u.s. government contracts? >> senator, we have never worked with the chinese government -- >> you are working with state owned enterprises. 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, i guess it does not violate the law. but i wonder why is it you should then be able to turn around and make $850 million in one year alone on the american taxpayer? explain that to me. >> 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 million 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.

>> 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. all of these disclosures describing help mckinsey consultants recommended and pushed purdue to turbocharge oxycontin sales. mckinsey urged the sackler's, the owners of purdue, to make a clear go-no go decision to turbocharge the 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. >> you know, i have said that and i have listed responses to my colleagues, and it is the same thing over and over. you don't want to be accountable for anything that you do. but i tell you what. this is unforgettable and frankly unforgivable in your work right now, taking money from the government, as you have helped the chinese government, is absolutely unforgivable and i will not stop] until it is illegal. >> i want to thank you, chairman blumenthal and ranking member johnson for holding the hearing and sleeting this inquiry into the efforts of the saudi arabian crown prince to influence u.s. policy. and the impact it has on our national security. i just want to know for the record, as mr. sternfels well knows, i joined senator hawley and my concern about mckinsey's role in the opioid epidemic. we have passed some legislation that needs to be fully

implemented to require more transparency in similar situations. but let's turn to the issue at hand today. congress has a really well- established right to control documents and testimony including from united states companies. i just want to be clear for the public here. the supreme court of the united states has held that our constitution prohibits united states judicial interference from the issuance of congressional subpoenas. so a court in this country cannot interfere with congressional subpoenas. so i would just -- yes or note down the line -- let's make sure we have this on the record. is it true that your company's refuse to comply with this subpoena citing a 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 please, yes or no. we will start with you, mr. lesser.

>> senator, we have complied to the extent we can given the situation are placed in. >> so that is a yes. you are taking the saudi arabian's courts direction over this one. >> senator, we believe we are in the process of complying with the subpoena and the subcommittee and we will continue to do so. >> by you are still letting the saudi arabian court govern how you are complying if you are complying. mr. klein? >> senator, thank you for the question. we are complying and intend to comply fully and we intend to press all avenues to ensure our full compliance. >> so that means -- i just want to be clear here -- if you are not successful with the saudi arabian courts you are going to comply and just decide that the united states congress has authority over a united states company and that you are going to follow our law.

at the saudi arabian court does not go your way you are still going to follow the law here and fully comply? >> we are entirely hopeful that we will resolve all aspects of the legal issues in saudi arabia and we have intended 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.