HOUSE OVERSIGHT 031448 I spoke with Mr. Argall by telephone on August 12, 2015, and inquired as to when I could expect a third interim production. He informed me that the FBI reviewer assigned to the Epstein file had not commenced the processing of any additional materials in the 2 months following the May 29 production and, further, that any such review was not currently scheduled and would not begin until, at earliest, October 2015. Given the lengthy delays due which include second level FOIA reviews conducted in Southern Florida by either the USAO or FBI, it predictably will take, at the very minimum, 5 1/2 months from the prior production in May until a third "batch" would be provided (not the 60-90 days I had repeatedly been told was the ordinary delay between separate 500 page productions on large files such as Mr. Epstein's). At this pace — a production offewer than 500 pages out of the still unprocessed 11,000 pages each 5 1/2 months — the remaining 22 "batches" will not be produced for ten more years. Mr. Argall also advised that the reviewer assigned to the request was processing other files and that, in essence, other than communicating with me (which Mr. Argall has done on a regular basis), he could not suggest a way to expedite the pace other than by my advising Mr. Epstein to relinquish his FOIA rights to the review of his entire file. The FBI response to the above-numbered FOIA request has been utterly incompatible with the language of the FOIA, which states that "[u]pon any determination by an agency to comply with a request for records, the records shall be made promptly available to such person making such request," 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(C)(i)(emphasis added), and with court opinions defining the FOIA "basic policy" as focusing on "citizens' right to be informed about 'what their government is up to," Dep't of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 773 (1989). Additionally, the FBI's delays in this m