Transcripts For CSPAN2 Consulting 20240705 : vimarsana.com

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 president ial 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 companys 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 its 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 subcommittees 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 arabias 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 todays 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 theyre going to obey. With that i turned to the Ranking Member. Since the start of the subcommittees 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 pifs 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 followup 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. Faucis 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 followup. 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 didnt. 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 theyre 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 taxpayerfunded agencies to obstruct oversight intended to obtain information that every american has the right he. I hope you will join me in defending psis oversight prerogatives and together demanding full compliance with the subcommittees request. I think the witnesses for complying with todays 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 wellbeing 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 longstanding 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 arabias pif has been an important part of the Economic Development and diversification. Over the years they have contributed, for example helping on the saudi arabias labor market reforms including increasing womens 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 pifs 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 subcommittees 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 countrys 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 mediumsized 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 tours merger with live golf. As i previously stated, we take the subcommittees authority extremely seriously. Since first learning of the subcommittees 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 wellbeing 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 todays 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 im 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 committees 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 yeartodate 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 subcommittees 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 Worlds 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 an next i would like to address teneos work with pif, one of 1200 clients. We have worked on Strategic Communications networks conveying the business approach in the us and globally. Pis is the engine driving saudi arabia forward and modernizing it as part of the countrys vision. We are proud to play a small constructive role in promoting those efforts. Since our work for pif began with been open and transparent about our engagements in 2021. We registered the details of our work, our fees, expenses and subsequent semiannual report to the justice department. We have also filed each of our contracts and registered those individuals working on pis matters. We know that the potential investments in professional golf in the us is of particular interest to the subcommittee. We were engaged on their consideration of a possible investment in golf and evaluate the opportunity and advised potential Communication Strategies if an investment went forward. Weve never represented iv golf. In the beginning of june 2023, to manage communications to key stakeholders. As to the subcommittees interest in this matter its important to reiterate a proud American Company with respect to the institutions and us law. We have been committed to cooperating with your inquiry from the start and devoted resources to identify and provide materials responsive to the subcommittees response. Weve made 8 submissions consisting of 4600 pages and we will keep providing further documents as quickly as possible and thousands of additional relevant documents for their review as contracts require and we await further authorization. I know youve been frustrated by the pace of production and i understand that frustration. I believe you also know that teneo like other consultants is in a challenging situation as the saudi court has issued an order directing us not to produce documents under review by pif. Despite these challenges we are committed to finding a path forward in which we work cooperatively and in good faith with the subcommittee to meet oversight interests. Im proud of the work teneo does in the us and globally and look forward to your questions. Thank you. So my colleagues will understand, i welcome and express gratitude for your testimony. The position that ive 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 compliant with the subpoena. You say you are between a rock and a hard place but youve chosen sides. Youve chosen the saudi side, not the american side. So let me begin with a couple overall questions. We have 7 minute rounds and the second round if we have time. Let me ask each one of you and it is a yes or no question, if this were a subpoena from the United States department of justice or the securities and Exchange Commission would your position be the same . Yes or no . We are caught between it is a yes or no. Would your position be the same . We would be taking Legal Counsel as we have here on what to do in a situation with our two sovereigns that have put us your position wouldnt be the same. We would be taking counsel on how to handle a situation. We are caught between two sovereigns and doing the best we can including i dont mean to be rude but i have limited time. Thank you, senator. We treat complying with all subpoenas under us law incredibly seriously. It would be the same. Michael klein. In the same way as we are here today we would intend to comply fully and we would intend to cooperate and we would endeavor to work through all legal ramifications. Im going to take that as a yes. It would be the same. As mentioned in my opening remarks we fully comply with the subpoena. Her position would be the same. Let me ask each of you a yes or no question. If we were talking about china, Administrative Court order, beijing saying you cant comply with a lawful subpoena from a United States Congressional Committee would your position be the same . Are posed vision is we have to follow the law of the countries in which we operate. We are caught between two. Your position would be the same, you would comply only to the extent the peoples republic of china, prc, would permit you . We would be looking for Court Guidance on a situation like that. On an issue of international comedy. Bob sternfels. Complying with the us subpoena would be our highest priority while operating in abiding by the laws of all the countries we operate in. I will take that as a yes also even though its not directly responsive. Michael klein. We would intend as we do here today to cooperate fully, and we would also deal with it as we are today expeditiously, solving any legal constraints that we have. So you would accept the order of the Chinese Court telling you not to comply with the american subpoena. I would as i mentioned earlier, we will fully comply with the subpoena, weve asked for and given by your staff time to work through the legal complexity but compliance with subpoena is what we would do. A lot of the American Public is going to 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 rich lesser, what was your most recent amount of revenue in the last year . From saudi arabia. We dont disclose our revenues globally beyond our global revenue center. I cant share that information. We are a private company with great respect, sir. Do you calculate, do you have those numbers . Somebody probably does. I dont have that number. Bob sternfels, what was the amount from saudi arabia in the last year. We operate in a regional model, so its middle east, africa, and central asia. You dont break out revenue numbers for saudi arabia. We break out by the region. That region in total, i dont have the exact figure but less then 10 of our total revenue. I would be happy to come back after words on that. Michael klein. Thank you, senator. We dont have that number here but im happy to provide it for you. It was a very small number relative to the rest of our business and we would be happy to provide that number. Our contract and fees are filed under fara. In 2022, our fees were just under 10 million. Let me ask you, paul keary, you filed under the Foreign Agent registration act. Correct. Bob sternfels, mckenzie has not filed under farabe. I have the filings on the poster board for each of your companies, yours is totally blank. Teneo has filed under farabe. What justification for mckenzie not doing so . I cant comment on the page you mentioned but i can answer the question as relates to farabe. We take fara incredibly seriously. We seek outside expert counsel on anything that might be fara related. Expert counsel in this case, and given there was no policy or influence of any kind determined this was not fara reportable. Let me say to colleagues, i think one of the findings we are developing here is that fara needs to be strengthened. Im not saying you are violating the law but certainly teneo stock had an obligation to file under fara. I am questioning why mckenzie didnt. Im not saying you are not doing so violates the law but maybe the law should be strengthened so that there is a legal obligation under these circumstances thats clear and unmistakable. You have said. All of you that you produce thousands of documents, no question that you have. As recently as last night, literally, we havent been through all of them but weve been through some of them and a lot of them are press clippings, press releases, public documents. All sorts of stuff and a lot of them look like this. Thats not responsive to a subpoena. When you say you are making every effort to comply, thats 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 investments in l iv golf, matter of National Security to the kingdom. Hard to believe. Appreciate the fact you are holding up the redacted documents. Remind me of the last 50 pages of doctor faucis emails. Doctor fauci is not a sovereign. Doesnt work for a sovereign nation, he works for us and yet hhs, the responsiveness to us in terms of that kind of redaction. To make that point again, running a strong request hopefully with you signing on to shake those loose from the agencies. I would like to have each of you witnesses describe exactly what your attorneys are telling you the legal jeopardy is within saudi arabia for employees that work there. Starting with you. Theres been multiple litigation efforts going on and we received strong letters from the pif and the saudi court saying our staff and our firm is criminally exposed if we were to share documents that they havent approved, so we have contested that litigation multiple times to try to get permission to produce as much as possible in response to the subpoena but i feel at substantial risk criminally not just for the firm but for our staff, that is what our lawyers have advised us and we have to take that incredibly seriously. You pointed out specific employees who would 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 . I genuinely dont know. I dont think specific individuals have been singled out but the fact that individuals would be at legal risk has been clearly stated to us. Bob sternfels. Senator. I am not a lawyer and certainly not an expert in saudi law but what i understand is an injunction has been filed against us. We are vigorously opposing that injunction. From what i understand, the penalties for that injunction are significant civil and criminal penalties and we have 100 folks in saudi and that includes nine americans. Would saudi citizens be at a higher level of legal scrutiny than the american citizens . Saudi citizens and potentially more subject . I dont know, from what i understand this has implications for all of our folks. Michael klein, what are you aware of in terms of jeopardy to your employees in saudi arabia . The pif has expressed to our firm and 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 contractor that we have signed, but a right to certain protections under sovereign law as saudis. What the court order we received states, is that if we are to provide either in written form or in this form information that were to breach the specific injunction, we could be held criminally liable. 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. What is your counsel tell you . Thank you, senator. I think we work through and fully satisfy the subcommittee in terms of the subpoena and an accelerated production of documents to show good faith efforts delivering returns. From a legal perspective us counsel has shared a complex almost unprecedented situation, a range of potential challenges but it is hard to predict. When you go to court and challenge the pif or the saudi government . You say you are fighting these injunctions, who are you fighting in this case . The saudi government or the Public Investment fund . Im not an expert in saudi law. My understanding is its the pif. Michael klein. Thank you. We have expressed to the pif and to the court our intention to comply, weve sought relief with which to comply fully with the subpoena. This is your response to the lawsuit they initiated against you. You have initiated your own counter lawsuit. This is just responding to the court proceeding. We have responded with our own direct filing seeking specific document relief and to end this litigation. The litigation against you. Was that the saudi government or the pif . I understand it, it is the pif. They have invoked as i understand it, without full expertise, certain of their laws regarding information they have as a government. Bob sternfels, the chairman put up a graphic disclosing this information may impact saudi arabia National Security. Of they made that claim . Is there any justification for that as far as you are aware of . Have you pushed back against that . As i have said, we are objecting to the injunction. I actually can today talk about the work we did do with the pif as relates to this matter. My time is running out. Describe what you have done pushing back against this injunction. The pif has sued us in the saudi court and been clear that if we were to share unapproved information we would be violating saudi law. We litigated this matter in saudi court, seeking permission to produce under the subpoena. The litigation is ongoing and delayed several times and we are continuing to pursue that vigorously in order to produce materials for you. You are obviously producing some documents. Producing them after this injunction has been granted. Is it just a general type of injunction . Is it about specific information . Whats the injunction cover . We have asked to produce fully to comply with the subpoena and only a portion of what weve asked to produce has been approved to produce so the litigation is related to the remaining information we would like to produce that we have been unable to do. So a general injunction and your pushing back, a casebycase basis. Is that common with all four of you . I have no further questions. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming. I genuinely have a couple yes or no questions, and short answer ones. Lets start with rich lesser and work our way down. How long has pif been a client of yours and are they still a client . They are still a client. I know they were a client as of 2016. That was one of the documents we complied with. I dont know if they were a client before 2016. Similarly, they are still a client. I dont know exactly when we started working with them. Thank you for the question. The pif remains a client of ours and i believe our first engagement was in 2017. Our engagements with paf started in 2021. Lets work our way back the other way this time. Just again. A legitimate yes and no. Do you normally retain clients who sue you. Its a very unprecedented scenario. Thank you for the very fair question. This represents aberrant behavior for client and for the pif who has historically been a client that has operated with best practices of governance with us. No, senator. It is not common practice. But i would say over even the last several weeks weve made a lot of progress here in continuing to get this subcommittee what it needs and i hope we are not done on that dimension. Many aspects of this are unprecedented for us in this situation. I would also say we have made some progress and are continuing to do our best to make more progress. I cant say i am surprised necessarily by the responses of any of the Companies Represented here but it does take me back to senator blumenthals point. You have a client, youve chosen to have a client in the pif, they have displayed not normal, out of character behavior, aggressive behavior towards you, threatened your, security and it seems curious to me. I wonder what is going on here. I have not seen a us business choose a foreign any client foreign or otherwise that behaves aggressively towards overall bottom line. Last bucket of questions. May be they will go as quickly. Bob sternfels, directed towards you. I have some curiosity over your work, mckenzies work on a project, selfdescribed futuristic city in northwestern saudi arabia. Are you familiar with that . Im not but if it is of interest, im happy to come back. What is of interest are the Human Rights Violations targeted toward the indigenous community, displacement of 20,000 individuals, and the death intent by the Saudi Arabian government three tribe members who resisted this place. I am concerned, i want to know how those Human Rights Violations as alleged rest with the intentions and vision of mckenzie. How you can choose to retain a client who may not share your values and been aggressive towards your overall business bottom line. I would love to have a followup with you on those alleged violations. Those are my questions. Thanks, senator butler. Did i hear you say, they have the most rigorous appliance policy. How do you end up with so many clients who are state owned chinese corporations hostile to the United States . Thank you. The basis for my answer, we have invested 700 million the last several years, put in place a rigorous client selection process, all series of factors. Lets talk about that. Like the china commune occasions construction company. This is a firm that is blacklisted by the United States government. This is a state owned enterprise that is responsible for building artificial islands in the South China Sea probably in direct contravention of international law, certainly in direct contravention to United States security interests, you helped them develop their five year plan. Why is that a good idea . Our work in china overwhelmingly works with Multinational Companies including many of those being us and private you have advised 22 of the one hundred biggest state owned companies in china according to the New York Times, lets talk another one, the Chinese Ocean shipping company, a state owned conglomerate that played a key role in chinas naval expansion, quoting nbc news and beijings bid to extend its global reach. This company has been given special status by the ccp and forms the core of chinas Defense Industrial base. This company has provided Logistical Support to chinese navys escort operations in the gulf of aden and expert say it serves as the maritime logistical arm for the Peoples Liberation army. You are advising them. How much money did you make . We are not advising them. Do you ever advised them . We advised on none of the topics you had. You didnt advise the chinese open shipping committee. Not on the top you describe. They are state owned enterprise engaged activity directly contrary to the security interests of this nation. They are no longer a client of ours. Why did you have eyes on 22 of the 100 biggest Chinese State owned enterprises . That number i dont believe is accurate. I dont believe that numbers accurate. How much money do you make of the United States government . I dont know the size of it. I do. In 2,020 when you in 2021 you made more than 850 million in consulting work for the federal government with the department of defense as your top client. Would you bid for those government contracts did you disclose your work for the Chinese State owned enterprises that were conducting activity averse to our National Security, did you disclose that the department of defense . We take oci angrily seriously and going beyond what is required around disclosures. We take it in could Rayburn House Office building is the and made all appropriate disclosures. 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 and News Agencies that looked into this. To quote nbc news, bidding on contracts with the barbed of defense, customs and Border Protection you did not disclose your work with Chinese Enterprises with apparent conflict of interest, reporting 2021 showed that you admitted to providing services only provincial and local governments in china but not the Central Government in china. Why should you be able to get an contrast to the United States government. If youre going to advise foreign nations who are hostile to us and make gobs of money off of them why should you be getting Us Government contracts . We never worked with the Chinese Communist party or the Central Government of china to the best my knowledge. Org 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. My question is, if you want to do that it doesnt violate the law but i just wonder why should you then be able to turn around or to make it hundred 50 million in one year alone off of the american taxpayer . Explain that to me. Our work with the federal government we stand behind, we bring im sure you do. It is incredibly lucrative. Thats the problem. You make gobs of money off of our enemies and then make gobs of money off of us. It is outrageous frankly. You shouldnt be doing any work with the chinese commonest party and any enterprises they own or have some share in, you shouldnt. If you are serious about ethics, you wouldnt be doing it but it is particularly outrageous that you then make money, almost one billion dollars in a year off of the United States government including the defense department. I have introduced a law that would prohibit you from doing this. And i will continue to push it until we get a vote on it. Let me ask about Something Else since ive got you here and i have to tell you. I represent the state of missouri that has been devastated by the opioid crisis. I know you know a lot about that because speaking of money mckenzie has made an unbelievable amount of money off of the opioid crisis. Let me ask about the New York Times report which found mckenzie proposed paying a 14,810 bounty to pharmacies for each opioid overdose. Is mckenzie proud of that work . Our work was to reduce opioid abuse. Let me ask you this. We sell hope in a bottle. An Advertising Campaign you came up with which we sell hope in a bottle. Thats for opioids. Hope in a bottle, you helped Purdue Pharma market them to children. The Massachusetts Attorney general has filed a lawsuit that has all these disclosures senate. Describing our mckenzie consultants recommended and pushed purdue to turbocharge oxycontin sales. Mckenzie urged them to make a clear go no go decision to to a charge the sales engine, the consultant was the board of directors to turbocharge the sales engine to drive up the sale of opioids that is killing people left and right. Is mckenzie proud of that work. As i stated in the house, we were too slow in seeing the epidemic unfold around us. Really, you dont think that helps cause the epidemic, marketing these drugs to doctors and children helped cause the epidemic, you dont see any part in that . We were the first to reach a settlement. Sure when you are over a barrel. What are you doing for victims right now . We preached agreement with states and municipalities. Have you set up an Insurance Fund . The settlement details are public. Have you settled the compensation fund, your prodigious profits with the victims . Are substantial settlements go to that. Ive sat here and listen to your responses to my colleagues and its the same thing over and over. I tell you what. This is unforgettable and unforgettable and your work right now, taking money from this government as you help the Chinese Communist party is unforgivable and i will not rest until it is illegal. I thank you for holding the hearing and leaving this inquiry into the efforts of the saudi arabia and crown prince to influence us policy and the impacts it has on National Security. I want to note for the record, i join senator hawley in my concern about mckenzie after all in the epidemic. We have legislation fully implemented to require more transparency in similar situations but lets turn to the issue at hand today. Congress has a wellestablished right to compel documents and testimony including from United States companies. I want to be clear for the public here, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that our constitution prohibits the United States judicial interference with the issuance of congressional subpoenas so a court in this country cant interfere with congressional subpoenas so yes or no down the line i want to make sure we have this on the record. Is it true that your companies refused to comply with this committees subpoena citing an injunction from a Saudi Arabian Administrative Court, a court that is notoriously not independent and under the direct influence of the saudi regime, yes or no, starting with you, rich lesser. We have complied to the extent that we can. So that is a yes, youre taking the Saudi Arabian ct. s direction over this congressional direction . We believe we are in the process of complying with the subpoena in this subcommittee and will continue to do so. But you are still letting the saudi arabia in court govern how you are complying if you are complying. Thank you for the question. We are complying, we intend to comply fully, and we intend to continue to press all avenues to ensure all full compliance. I want to be clear, if you are unsuccessful with the Saudi Arabian ct. You will fully comply and decide the United States congress has authority over United States company and you are going to follow our law. If the saudi arabia in court doesnt go your way, you will follow the law here and fully comply . We are hopeful that we will resolve all aspects of the legal issues in saudi arabia and we have intended to comply with the us subpoena from the beginning and we intend to comply going forward. I will take that as you will continue to allow the Saudi Arabian Administrative Court to govern your response. We will fully comply with the subcommittee subpoena. We are accelerating that process, we will fully comply with the subcommittees. Regardless what the Saudi Arabian courts decide. We will comply, senator. Let me be clear, by refusing to respond to this committees subpoena and request for legal justification for your refusal your firms appear to have placed your loyalties to saudi arabia above your 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 look at the law of the jurisdiction you want to do business in and if it says they might give you trouble with complying with the United States subpoena from this congress you might decide not to do business there because thats a high risk. And the fact that you decided anyway seems to me to say that you dont take the authority of this congress very seriously so now to Bob Sternfels and rich lesser, saudi arabia does not have an independent judiciary. Of congress were to subpoena information from mckenzie or its work in china or on behalf of the Chinese Government that the Chinese Court could also tried to block compliance with that subpoena. If the Chinese Court blocked compliance with the congressional subpoena would you refuse to respond to the subpoena . Yes or no. We are doing everything we can to reply to the subpoena as fully as we can and specific to china, we have very clear guidelines on the kind of work we do or dont do. If a Chinese Court tried to block your compliance with the subpoena you would ignore the Chinese Court, or do your best to get them to change their mind but ultimately you would comply with a subpoena from this congress regardless of the position of the Chinese Government. 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 the subcommittee added subpoena and we are continuing to work to fully reap the requests. Let me ask Bob Sternfels, the Chinese Government tells you you may not comply with a subpoena from United States congress, what are you going to do . I start with reaffirming we dont work with the federal government in china. We have tight client selection policies. My time is limited. The Chinese Government runs the businesses in china. Lets be very clear about the line youre trying to draw. So now. Again. My time is limited and i have one more question for you, Bob Sternfels, will you cooperate with an investigation, a subpoena from Congress Even if the Chinese Government says no. Absolutely, cooperating with this senate is our highest priority and we will continue to do so. If that is true, then you need to respond fully to this committees subpoena. Because right now what we see is refusal to cooperate with this investigation and that sets a very dangerous precedent which again leads me, my colleagues and the American Public to question the loyalties of your company. I have one more quick question if i could and it really is a followon to senator hawley. I have tried to bring Greater Transparency to groups like mckenzie in the wake of your failure to disclose your work for opioid producers while simultaneously advising the food and Drug Administration on opioid regulation. Once again, mckenzie is failing to be transparent in its work and in this case there significant implications for our National Security. We talked with senator hawley about your receipt from government contracts. In fiscal year 2023 you had tens of millions of dollars of proceeds from our Defense Industry and National Security agencies such as the Us Department of defense so i have to tell you that im deeply skeptical that mckenzies work is compatible with National Security interests given your work has been linked to alleged human rights abuses in saudi arabia and supporting Chinese State owned enterprise that construct 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 elses. The reason you are here today is because you know that if your response to these subpoenas seems to call that into question. Thank you, mr. Chair. Just to follow up on some of those questions let me 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 put it, rich lesser, or cooperating, as you put it, Bob Sternfels, is not complying. I hate to talk here like a lawyer, but these distinctions make a difference and we will potentially see in court how much of a difference they make and the fact that your position would be the same in response to a department of justice subpoena or sec subpoena simply shows the consequence, the magnitude of the issue that concerns us here. I recognize and sympathize with your concern for your employees. I am concerned also and i just have to ask each of you, dont you have second thoughts about doing business with the client, a country that says it is going to throw your employees in jail for obeying the american law . Rich lesser. This whole experience going back six months now has been unprecedented for us, and as we understand from our lawyers, and unprecedented disagreement where a Senate Subpoena is in direct conflict with the laws of another country that views 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. I am still hopeful that we will get to a resolution that will work to meet your needs and respect the laws there so that we are not, so that we can move forward in a positive way. Thats the spirit weve operated in since the beginning but it is unprecedented. When this experience is over we will look at what we have learned from it and how we can avoid a similar situation in the future. It has been an extra ordinarily difficult one for our entire team to navigate. And we think quite unprecedented in the history of the relationship with Senate Subpoenas and the laws of other countries. Bob sternfels. We remain optimistic that we can avoid any of the outcomes you talk about. Do you have second thoughts about doing business with a country that says not just we will arbitrate our differences, settle our differences in court, no, it is our way or we put your people in prison. Doesnt that give you some qualms . I remain hopeful that we dont get to that scenario. That is what they told you, correct . We face an injunction and the injunction has potential penalties. No one has said that. We are hopeful we can avoid that. I do come back to my commitment that i made to you personally in the entire subcommittee that we will continue to comply with the subpoena and we dont think we are done here and we will continue to advance submission of materials and reduction in those reductions you pointed out. Michael klein. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I agree with you, this is extraordinarily troubling. Troubling for us and unprecedented and it does give great pause for thought. We have a responsibility as a transactional advisor to complete the work weve done with commitments we have made. In addition, we look carefully at the actions of the pif over the length of our relationship. As i indicated or continue to indicate, this is an aberrant situation. Our work has been best practices, best governance, strong, datadriven investment, historically, we have been presented with a statement by the pif is that they believe they have certain sovereign rights that are limiting their ability and has put them in this position of this particular court case, but it is intensely troubling and we share your concern. Paul keary. Our work is transparent, we are confident we will satisfy the subcommittee with full compliance. I can tell you, i have been a prosecutor. Ive been a private lawyer. I am not sure i would work for a client that says to me comply with american law and we will throw you in prison for work done on an American Investment in america under american law with protections of rights america guarantees. Let me ask you, Bob Sternfels, we know that mckenzie advised on project wedge before the launch of l iv golf. What is project wedge . You are correct. We advise the pif on project wedge. This was work conducted in 2021 budget was six months worth of work, there were two phases to this. It focused on the economic viability of standing up a new golf league before the creation of l iv or any discussions between the pga and l iv. We were asked could a new golf league be economically viable and we conducted Business Case analysis around that set of questions. You worked on the mode appeal. Im not familiar with that. Aside from project wedge and l iv golf, what other deals have you worked on . As i 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 and found three. They related to the topics of carbon credits, carbon capture, and health care. To the best of my knowledge, none yielded any investment in the United States. Did any of those projects, including project wedge involves saudi arabia National Security . In terms of what we were asked, not to my knowledge, we were focused on a Business Case analysis. Did it work for saudi arabia or pif regarding the pga tour or l iv golf involving National Security . As i stated. I worked the rich our work did not involve l iv golf or the pga tour. We were involved before the creation budget was focused on, agnostic we could a new golf league be economically viable. Has any of your work involved saudi arabia National Security . From the standpoint of our look at our work as we described, this was normal work we would do for an asset owner, sovereign wealth fund. Weapons systems or troop movements . Or classified information . No. That was not the nature of our work. And if your work involves National Security . We serve as investment bankers. We have not done any work on National Security issues. Paul keary. I worked is not involve National Security. A final set of questions. I noticed senator marshall has returned. Thank you, mr. Chairman. My first question is for Bob Sternfels. I understand mckenzie has a relationship with the Chinese Communist party and the Chinese Military, you do significant work for them. What assurances can mckenzie give to this committee that mckenzie is committed to america and not the Chinese Communist party . We do no work and to the best my of my knowledge never have for the Chinese Communist party or the Central Government in china. The vast majority of work we do in china is for Multinational Companies many of those are us companies and private sector chinese companies. These companies are owned or subsidiaries or partially owned by the ccp. Not to my knowledge. Will the witnesses give your list of chinese clients to your Us Government clients . Rich lesser. My understanding is the most recent legislation of the National Defense authorization act sets clear guidelines of what it means to be compliant and to ensure all the work that studies done in the most secure away and all information that needs to be shared is shared and we will be completely compliant with those regulations as they are established. Bob sternfels will you disclose your list of clients . We go well beyond the oci requirements in terms of disclosure and im happy to share that with you after words. In quite a bit of detail. Yes. Paul keary. We dont work with any us corporate entities but yes. Let me come back to Bob Sternfels. You are saying you do work with the dod, correct . The department of defense . We do work with the department of defense. You dont do any work with chinese owned companies. We do no work with the Chinese Communist party or the Central Government in china. Or chinese owned companies . The vast majority of our work in china is with Multinational Companies. Many of those us, private sector chinese institutions. I assume the chinese ownership and certainly as i understand the pcp is a complex web. American taxpayers are spending money on dod and are needed to work, how do you make sure that none of those chinese owned companies are infiltrating or stealing your intellectual property or spying on our military . Appreciate the question. As a son of of that who spent four years, my dad served in the navy and both grandparents were vets, taking National Security and the us is incredibly important to me, incredibly important was we have stood up a dedicated capability in working with the department of defense that we collaboratively built with of the dod, around dedicated Information Technology infrastructure, around how we staff and how we treat information that the dod has vetted and approved. If that is interesting i can take you through that in detail. Have you noticed any cyberattacks on those systems and where do those Cyber Attacks, from . I cant give you details on that. I can tell you as you well know Cyber Attacks happen all the time. We remain vigilant on this. We continue to invest significantly, to do our best to defend, weve worked collaboratively with the department of defense on our it architecture to seek their approval for how we set things up. I yield, thank you. Thanks, senator marshall. I have a couple more questions for senator johnson. Senator blumenthal displayed some documents received that are heavily redacted. Let me start with you. Who made those reductions. I dont know if youre asking me. We did not make those reductions. Weve been working with the pif to reduce those reductions. They were done by the pif. Did you provide documents, where there any redactions and them . Yes, we did provide documents, yes, there were reductions. I believe we may have redacted some personally Sensitive Information like names but altogether reductions to the best my understanding came from the pif, not from us. Michael klein. This will reductions that we provided were cell phone numbers. Reductions made by the pif . Any redactions made on any document that was delivered would have been made by the pif or other members of their review process. Our firm submitted documents that were complete with the exception of personal cell phone numbers. No reductions were provided directly by the pif. The only other point i want to make, im heartened by the fact the chairman and other democratic colleagues are talking about how important it is to comply with congressional oversight and provide documents. The chairman mentioned twice it was staggering that we dont have full compliance, pretty unprecedented situation here. Senator hassan said not getting this information would set a very dangerous precedent which im heartened by the fact my democratic colleagues, and the committees Constitutional Authority to demand these documents. Personally i think it is even more staggering and even more dangerous precedent that our own federal Health Agencies refused to turn over the last 50 pages of doctor faucis emails, those are heavily rejected, we cant get the analysis of their own system. I know i am making the point again but we need to step up to the plate, demand that those documents are provided and if they dont do it in a strongly worded letter we followup with a strongly enforced subpoena, thank you. Paul keary, no reductions because what you produced was 837 pages of email of emails that contain nothing but news clippings that were nothing to redact. Michael klein, your production half of it was public tax returns which are available publicly and there were rejections of the other record, 925 pages of publicly available pga tour tax returns was part of your production. I held up the mackenzie documents which consisted of blank pages but rich lesser, an example of your production, 40 pages of calendar invitations, i have them in front of me. Every one of them rejects the names of all the meeting attendees. Your production. You are familiar with them. Every one of those calendar invitations redacts the names of all the meeting attendees, not really useful. I could go on in the interest of time, and let me just finish with a round of questions which i think follows up on the point i made about kwanzaa of doing business, about doing business in saudi arabia. If im not mistaken, mr. Sternfels, one of your past engagements for the saudi government, and i wouldve hoped that you identified it, was to conduct research to identify socalled major influences who been critical of the saudi government on social media, is that correct . Senator, no, we did no such work for the saudi government. Well, let me to show you a slide which identifies a number of individuals, im sure you seen the slide because it comes from mckinsey. One of those individuals, Omar Abdul Aziz who was a friend of general jacobi, allege as family members were not only tortured by saudi government after mckinsey helped to identify him of the two individuals on this page, khalid was arrested and a third who had been anonymous, disappeared from the internet after being identified by mckinsey. Mr. Aziz managed to avoid arrest because he was in canada. You are saying that this slide does not reflect work that you did in any respect or any form for the saudi government . Absolutely, senator, theres no work we did for the saudi government. This was what there was done for internal purposes. We conducted a thorough investigation and found that those no evidence. This material never left mckinsey in respect to the individual in question, both lawsuits that he brought against us were dismissed in u. S. Courts, sir. Why did you do this kind of slide and perhaps other material, identifying incidents in saudi arabia . Senator, i cant comment on why it was created. Why i can, is why i left mckinsey. Did you do that kind of work with respect to dissidents in other countries . Senator, i cant comment on the work that weve done it that is that the type of work that we do. Have you ever done that work in china. Was not to my knowledge, sir. Well, let me just say in closing, we appreciate your being here. As i sit at the beginning of this hearing, the ramifications for this proceeding have potential to echo far outside this chamber, whatever happens next, the course of the federal government oversight of United States companies in their dealings with foreign governments and foreign investors, simply cannot and should that be dictated by a foreign power. We have heard a lot today about consultants before us feeling caught in the middle and having no choice but to bend to the will of a bully. We dont take unlikely the unprecedented and aggressive stance that the pif has taken. The pif is an arm of the saudi kingdom, of the saudi government, of the saudi ministry. And you have an obligation to follow United States law, contracting with a foreign governmentnt or entity does not eliminate that. Responsibility, in my respectful view. I would like each of the companies that are before us today commit to appear before thison panel again should we hae additional questions about your compliance or the information atyou provided. You all of you commit to be here again . Yes, senator. Yes, senator. Senator, yes, we will. Yes, senator. Thank you. I again want to thank the Ranking Member force partnership and support as we seek to uphold one of the bedrock principles of the congress, which is our constitutional duty to conduct vigorous oversight andr rt factfinding, factbased investigation. I want to commit to him again Work Together on other investigations that you have expressed interest in following through on. And this subcommittee will consider the testimony heard today on the formal legal objections that you filed, that each of the consultants have filed your this record will remain open for 15 days for any additional comments or questions by any subcommittee member. And with that, during his agenda adjourned. Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] today on cspan the u. S. Supreme court hears oral arguments on whether former prident donald trump should be on colorados 2024 president ial primary ballotfter the state Supreme Court ruled in december he was ineligible based on the constitutions insurrection clause under the 14th amendmt. Thats live at 10 a. M. Eastern. On cspan2 at 10 a. M. Executives of johnson johnson, Bristolmyers Squibb testified on the cost o prescription drugs before the senate h. E. L. P committee. At noon the Senate Returns to conser debate on bill to provide foreign aid to israel, ukraine and taiwan. No votes are currently scheduled. On cspan3 treasury secretary janet yellen testifies on the s. Inancial system and Economic Outlook before the Senate Banking committee. That gets underway at 9 a. M. Eastern. You can also wchur live coverage on the cspan now video app or online at cspan. Org. Booktv every sunday on cspan2 teachers leading authors discussing the latest nonfiction books. 8 p. M. Eastern Bloomberg Businessweek National Correspondent joshua green wh his book where he discussed economic populism on the left and the future of the democratic party. At 10 p. M. Eastern on after words, use with his book the end of race politics in which he argues the u. S. Should move towards a color colorblind approach to race. Watch booktv every sunday on cspan2 and find a full schedule on your Program Guide watch online any time at booktv. Org. Cspan is schoenfeld view of government. We are funded by these Television Companies and more including cox. Koolende vries syndrome is extremely rare. Hi. But friends dont have to be. This is joe. When you are connected you are not alone. Cox supports cspan as a Public Service along with these other Television Providers giving a front row seat to democracy. I the Senate Lawmakers fail to move forward with a Border Security and foreign aid package. Th w negotiate by a Bipartisan Group of senators. In a 4950or the senate fell 11 short of the 60 votes needed. Senate proceed with the vote to rensider the legislation without the Border Security provisio wch only required a simple majority. It was approved by vote of 5841. A procedural vote on foreign aid for israel, ukraine and taiwan may now be held before the end of the week. Heres some of the debate. And firstcome happy birthday, mr. President. Have a good one. I hope you all have a good one today. All right. Well, today, mr. President , today senators face the decision several months in the making. Wilson republicans vote to s