[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                     HEALTH CARE REFORM LITIGATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 8, 1994, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] is recognized for 30 minutes as the designee of 
the minority leader.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a very severe problem that 
strikes at the heart of the health care debate that is going on within 
this Congress and within the Nation right now.
  Many of us recall that there was a special task force that was formed 
by the President. He put the First Lady in charge of that, announced 
creation of interdepartmental groups. All of this was approximately a 
year and a half ago when it began. It becomes more and more apparent as 
time goes on that there has been a great amount of deception that has 
been practiced in connection with that, a great amount of secrecy 
attempting to hide from the American people the interests that were 
involved in promoting the health care plan that the administration is 
sponsoring, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it appears that that has 
included lying to Congress in testimony that has been given to a 
subcommittee of which I am a member.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and I today have 
sent a letter to the Attorney General of the United States requesting 
an investigation into this involving a high administration official, 
Patsy Thomasson, who is Special Assistant to the President of the 
United States for Management and Administration and who testified to 
our subcommittee last year regarding what she claimed and, through her, 
what the White House claimed was the makeup, the membership, of that 
task force, and these working groups that were working on the 
President's health care plan, and how much it cost the American people.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for a private group that has been 
involved in bringing a lot of this to light. A lawsuit was filed last 
year by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the 
American Council for Health Care Reform, and the National Legal and 
Policy Center against Hillary Rodham Clinton, Donna Shalala, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Lloyd Bentsen, the Secretary of 
Treasury, Ira Magaziner, a White House adviser, and multiple other 
members of the administration, seeking something very, very simple, Mr. 
Speaker. Seeking to have the meetings of that health care task force 
and its different working groups held in public as they believe, and I 
believe, is clearly required by the laws of the United States and 
requiring their documents to be opened to the public, and they have 
been in litigation in this for months.
  First they had a ruling from the district court. The White House 
appealed it. It came back for further proceedings, and it was now set 
for trial September 12. On Monday of this week, Mr. Speaker, U.S. Judge 
Royce Lambert here in the District of Columbia directed that there will 
have to be a trial for the administration to stand and to answer for 
what has gone on with this task force with its expenditure of Federal 
money and who has really been involved in making these decisions. That 
was definitely a setback for the White House because they have been 
contending for months that these 500-plus people that were involved in 
that task force were all Federal employees. They filed a charter saying 
the expense would be under $100,000, and yet now the plaintiffs in this 
lawsuit have filed documents with the court showing that 357 people who 
were members of that task force and the working groups were not Federal 
employees and contending that about $20 million of taxpayers' money was 
spent when we were told it might be less than a hundred thousand or, at 
most, a few hundred thousand, and I am angry, Mr. Speaker, that in 
testimony to our subcommittee, when we asked about this because we have 
oversight of the White House appropriations, and they come to us, to 
our subcommittee, for the money, we were told in testimony by Patsy 
Thomasson, sent there to represent the White House and the President of 
the United States, and I quote from documents she submitted to our 
committee; she claimed, first, the members of the health care task 
force, which are all Cabinet secretaries of the First Lady, have never 
been kept secret.

                              {time}  1600

  Then she says the reason the names of the working group participants, 
who were all Federal Government employees, were not immediately 
released was because they were working very hard on this problem, and 
we did not want them to be harassed by lobbyists and special interest 
groups.
  She continued in testimony to Congress. She said the working group 
includes more than 400 people, made up entirely of Federal employees, 
and repeated a third time in her testimony the working group is made up 
entirely of Federal employees.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been filed in the U.S. District Court a list 
of over 300 people on those working groups who were not Federal 
employees, who were being paid by groups such as managed care 
interests, other health care groups, academia, people from universities 
and colleges, and people from some multi-billion-dollar foundations, 
all with interests in health care, all potentially profiting from the 
Clinton health care plan, that were involved in this. It was not 
strictly Federal employees.
  Because of that, Mr. Speaker, the law says they had to meet in 
public. They had to keep their records open to the public. And Federal 
Judge Lamberth, in a 3-hour hearing Monday, which I attended, asked the 
Justice Department attorneys, look, the meetings of the task force are 
over. They have a health care plan that has been submitted to the 
American people. Why do you still insist upon secrecy?
  You know what the Justice Department attorney, Mr. Mark Stern, 
replied to the judge? He said well, why do they still insist on wanting 
to know? They want to know because it is the law, Mr. Speaker, because 
we have the right to know. If we are dealing with one-seventh of the 
American economy, we have a right to know what interests are involved 
in putting together this plan on behalf of the White House.
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot] and I have asked today for an 
investigation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Lightfoot].
  Mr. LIGHTFOOT. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I would like to personally thank the gentleman from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Istook] for the personal effort that he has put into this, sitting 
for 3-plus hours through a hearing, and not sending a staffer to do it, 
to be there to hear firsthand what the judge had to say.
  This issue started with us some months ago in our committee when 
there was at least a sense that maybe what we were being told was not 
totally accurate. Then there were a number of reports that appeared in 
the press that would indicate to the opposite of what we had been told, 
knowing that sometimes the press does not always get it exactly right, 
very reluctant to push forward with anything as serious as a letter 
that has been sent to the Attorney General.
  But in light of the court hearing, which the gentleman sat through, 
the fact that in that document, and as the gentleman just read from our 
hearing testimony in our subcommittee, a direct quote from Ms. 
Thomasson, that the working group is made up entirely of Federal 
employees, this was in response to a letter. So it was not off the 
cuff.
  We had asked, just backing up a bit, asked Ms. Thomasson if she would 
describe for us the makeup of this working group, and she said first of 
all, I will consult with the White House with regard to your questions 
about the health care task force and we will get back to you with some 
type of an answer.
  What the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] just read was her 
answer, where, as he pointed out, the group was entirely made up of 
Federal employees.

  Yet, the judge has a list, I believe some 26 pages, of people who are 
not Federal employees, who are tied to all kinds of special-interest 
groups.
  For example, here is chief, medical staff, of a particular hospital. 
Here is a University of Pittsburgh Center for Medical Ethics. Howard 
University. You can go through here and pick out about anything you 
want. The Heller School, a portion of Brandeis University. The National 
Governors' Association.
  These are not Federal employees. These are special-interest-group 
people who have their fingerprints all over this so-called piece of 
health care legislation that we will be asked to vote on here, as we 
are being held here so we can get enough votes to do it.
  So, in essence, I really appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Istook] in coming up with factual information, into just 
press reports, not just hearsay, but black and white comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would again like to thank Mr. Istook for yielding. I 
have another meeting I have to attend, but I think it is critically 
important that honesty and integrity be a part of this whole operation. 
If there is anything in this country that people are upset with, it is 
the perception, and, unfortunately, sometimes backed by reality, of the 
dishonesty of people in government. When highly placed officials come 
before a congressional committee and tell us something that is not 
true, and it has been verified through their own statements and through 
legal documents, rather than just hearsay, then we, I think, have an 
obligation, an oversight obligation on behalf of the American people 
who elected us, to get to the bottom of the issue.
  So, again, I really compliment Mr. Istook for the hours that he has 
put in in making sure that we do have all the legal documents, that we 
do have the testimony, and we do have the comparisons made, and also 
members of both of our staffs who worked very hard making sure that the 
gun was loaded. You do not want to pull the trigger on a blank at this 
point, underscoring that we are basically asking the Attorney General 
to appoint a special counsel because of this obvious relationship with 
the President, which that would happen in any administration.
  Again, thank you for yielding.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Thank you, Mr. Lightfoot.
  Reclaiming my time, you know, when we mention the deceit that has 
been practiced in this case, I think it is important to notice what is 
going on in this court case regarding Ira Magaziner, the special 
advisor to the President, who was widely considered to be the architect 
of the Clinton health care plan.
  Now, Mr. Magaziner filed an affidavit with the court last March, in 
March 1993. One of the statements in Mr. Magaziner's affidavit, reading 
from it, page 4, paragraph 11, he told the court. ``Only Federal 
Government employees serve as members of the interdepartmental working 
groups,'' which of course is directly contradicted now by the knowledge 
that over 300 non-Federal Government employees were involved, which 
means that all the records, under the law, have to be opened.
  Now, is this hearing Monday, Judge Lambert, talking about Mr. 
Magaziner's conduct and the fact that the plaintiffs have asked that 
Mr. Magaziner be cited for being in contempt of court, the judge twice 
from the bench commented in regard to what Mr. Magaziner told the court 
in 1993, in March, said, ``It is not true.'' It is not true. That in 
order to retain the secrecy that is so precious to the White House, 
that is so essential to this administration, there were willing to let 
the court be told something that was not true. And he asked the 
attorneys for the Justice Department Monday, he said, that has been 15 
months ago. Why didn't you ever file a correction, instead of 
misleading the court for over a year? And the attorneys for the Justice 
Department had no good reason, and no good explanation.

                              {time}  1610

  So Mr. Magaziner, as part of his September 12 trial, may be held in 
contempt of court for lying to a U.S. district judge, Royce Lambert. 
And as the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have said in their papers filed 
with the court,

       The defendant, Ira Magaziner, made false statements and 
     misled this court and the plaintiffs when he testified under 
     penalty of perjury on March 3rd, 1993 that the 
     interdepartmental working group of the President's task force 
     on national health care reform and its cluster groups, 
     working groups and subgroups, were composed only of full-time 
     employees and special government employees of the Federal 
     Government.

  Now, for 15 months that has been the heart and soul of this case. 
That has been what has been in contention and what has dragged it on, 
dragged it up to an appellate court and back down, what has kept these 
documents, and I understand that there are 100 boxes of documents that 
are being held by the White House in secrecy, all because the Judge was 
told that all the people involved were Federal employees, and thus 
there was an exemption to the disclosure laws.
  Now, at the hearing Monday, the attorney for the Justice Department 
said, ``Well, judge, we are not pushing that point anymore.'' The judge 
asked him, ``Well, are you withdrawing your contention?'' ``Well, we 
are just saying it does not matter anymore.''
  There were 43 subdivisions, called working groups, with this health 
care task force. And do you know what the Justice Department has said 
in its briefs to the court, they said, well, we are sure that 3 of them 
anyway, that is 3 out of 43, three of them were entirely Federal 
employees. And yesterday, in open court, the Justice Department 
attorneys made a stipulation to the judge that they would not contest 
whether these were all Federal employees or not.
  Why was Ira Magaziner telling the courts something that was not true? 
In order to keep the lid on the secrecy of everything that has happened 
behind the scenes of the Clinton health care plan. Why did Patsy 
Thomasson tell something to our subcommittee in testimony to Congress 
that was not true? To keep the lid of secrecy on the Clinton health 
care plan and who put it together and whose interests are really 
involved.
  There is going to be a lot to pay when this trial is held September 
12. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, you and I and the other taxpayers here 
in this room and across the country are the ones who are paying for it. 
Because the Justice Department is spending our money to continue to 
make garbage claims to the court, trying to keep the lid of secrecy on. 
And they are already being held accountable for tens of thousands of 
dollars of legal fees for the plaintiffs and it will probably go into 
hundreds of thousands of legal fees that the Government will be asked 
to pay. That means the taxpayers will be asked to pay, all so the 
Clinton administration can try to keep the lid of secrecy on how they 
put together their health care plan.
  How can we vote on something when they want to hide from the Congress 
and from the American people and from the courts how it was put 
together? How can anyone in good conscience bring that plan to this 
floor? Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
  Mr. DeLAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman 
from Oklahoma for taking this special order, because he has done 
extensive work on this issue and brought it to the attention of the 
House and, certainly, to the attention of this Member.
  I did not come down to the floor to make a statement, because the 
gentleman knows more about what is going on. I came down to the floor 
because as I was watching the gentleman, several questions were raised 
in my mind, at least, as to what actually is going on here.
  First off, it is amazing to me that the national media does not seem 
to understand this. I have not read a whole lot about it. In fact, the 
court case that he is talking about, the trial that is coming in 
September, I noticed in several of the major papers around the country, 
received very little play. In fact, a major newspaper I was reading 
just yesterday put it on the back pages in reporting about this trial 
that is coming. The national television networks may have reported on 
it. I do not watch them all the time, but certainly they are not making 
a very big deal out of this. So the gentleman coming to the floor 
really highlights what is going on.
  The first question that came to mind is he talks about the documents 
that are being held by the White House: Is it not possible that this 
House could get a hold of these documents so that we, as a House, can 
understand what has been going on in the White House in developing the 
health care reform package? Should not this House, controlled albeit by 
the Democrats, should not this House be having hearings on this very 
issue or are they going to use the same excuse that they have always 
used in the Whitewater affair, that you have to let the legal system 
run to the end of the rope of the system before Congress ever exercises 
its responsibility and authority and looking into this?
  We are going to make sure that we pass a health care reform bill 
before we even have hearings on how it was actually written.
  Mr. ISTOOK. As the gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay knows, I am a 
freshman Member of this body. So what would I know. But I know that 
during the last 12 years, whenever there was even the slightest hint 
that somebody from the administration had deceived or lied to Congress, 
it was all over the place. There were hearings being held everywhere. 
Witnesses being subpoenaed; television cameras training in; reporters 
there to find every word and every nuance that came down.
  Here we have testimony to our subcommittee in direct contravention of 
what the facts are, and it seems to be a very different approach.

  Now, maybe someone would suggest that it is because before you had a 
Democrat Congress, and a Republican administration and now you have a 
Democrat Congress and a Democrat administration. You and I would 
certainly hope that that is not the case. But what other conclusion can 
reasonable people reach?
  This information, we were told by the administration, these are the 
best and the brightest coming in to talk about health care. And they 
have no special interests involved. They are only from groups like 
multibillion dollar groups like the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation and 
the Henry Kaiser Foundation that have been pushing through grants, 
multimillion dollar grants all over the country toward the type of 
health care system that the Clinton administration has, that have 
interests in managed care groups.
  There were people from managed care groups, from medical clinics and 
hospitals and think tank type groups that were not Federal employees 
but they were all brought in. We were told that was the best and 
brightest. They put together this plan, even though there are people 
who will profit from the Clinton plan that were involved in putting it 
together.
  Mr. DeLAY. Would not the managed care groups profit from a plan that 
as first outlined by Hillary Clinton where managed systems would be set 
up, in essence pushing aside any other sort of insurance and putting 
all of us under MBO's or the way they put it, managed care systems?
  Mr. ISTOOK. Absolutely.
  Mr. DeLAY. So what in essence they did is they pulled people together 
that would reflect their own ideology and their own philosophy.
  Mr. ISTOOK. And with profit.
  Mr. DeLAY. And with profit. Pulling people together in secret to 
write this. I watched the White House, the Whitewater hearings 
yesterday. Everyone was saying, there is no cover-up here. This 
certainly smacks of cover-up.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Let me tell you something very important: When the 
Federal Advisory Commission Act was adopted in 1972, and that is the 
law that says, when you have a group that is not totally Federal 
employees but it is federally sponsored and administered and paid for, 
it has to meet in public, it has to make its papers available to the 
public and so forth, at that time the report, with the bill that 
adopted that law, included this statement: One of the great dangers in 
the unregulated use of advisory committees is that special interest 
groups may use their membership on such bodies to promote their private 
concerns.
  I think that is exactly what has happened with the task force, and 
the working group and the cluster groups and the subgroups as they 
called them that they put together here.

                              {time}  1420

  Groups that had a tremendous financial interest, who could again 
financially by having a health care plan devised that would help their 
way of doing business, they got to be the insiders. Look in the 
Washington Post, on the op-ed page, a column by David S. Broder, and it 
refers to some earlier writings of Joseph Califano, a former Cabinet 
secretary, talking about the fact that the real debate here is over a 
pot of gold that is worth in excess of $1 trillion because of the value 
of the expenditures each year for health care in the United States.
  If someone can change the system so that they are the ones who profit 
from the expenditure and the cash flow of this trillion dollars, then 
obviously they are a special interest, then obviously they have an axe 
to grind and they have an interest to promote.
  I'm not against someone wanting to promote their financial interest, 
but if they are doing it in a taxpayer-funded group and they are not 
Government employees, they are supposed to be in the public eye, they 
are supposed to make their documents and their work products available 
to the public so we can look, we can look for the reflections of their 
financial interest in the end product that came out of that group. That 
is what happened. The White House continues to try to hide it.
  Unfortunately for them, Mr. Speaker, through this litigation that is 
coming to light, the testimony of Ira Magaziner through the affidavit 
that the judge is saying is not true, in the course of the testimony of 
Patsy Thomasson to our subcommittee, what are they? They are part of an 
effort by the White House to conceal those financial interests. I think 
it is time that it be brought to light.
  Mr. DeLAY. I agree with the gentleman about bringing it to light, if 
the gentleman will continue to yield. It is just amazing to me, the 
lack of oversight this House is exhibiting, particularly in its 
committee.
  I just want to ask one more question, if the gentleman will continue 
to yield. I was walking over here and missed the gentleman's 
presentation about Patsy Thomasson's lying to his subcommittee. Did the 
gentleman talk about what the subcommittee did when they found out that 
they were given information that was not exactly the truth?
  Mr. ISTOOK. At this point the subcommittee has not acted, and I'm not 
holding that against the chairman, because I have not yet asked him to 
act, because we have just completed the compilation of this material 
and sent the letter to the Attorney General this week.

  So I think if the gentleman has someone who is lying to Congress, 
which is a criminal act, of course, that you need to give the 
opportunity for the criminal justice system to take an interest in it, 
even though the Attorney General has a conflict of interest personally, 
because her office is defending Ira Magaziner and defending the very 
type of statements that Ira Magaziner and Patsy Thomasson have made.
  I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh].
  Mr. WALSH. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Istook]. I would 
also like to thank him for holding this special order here tonight.
  I would just like to comment for a couple of minutes on the 
importance of this case, and on the importance of the precedent that 
has been set. We are talking about a working group that was established 
just after the President took office, headed by Mrs. Clinton, who we 
all know is the First Lady, is not elected, but has a very, very, very 
important role in the conduct of this domestic policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the way this task force was put together, it would be 
very easy to direct the result of this task force by who is impaneled.
  Mr. ISTOOK. Let me make a comment about that, Mr. Speaker, because it 
is fascinating, the twists that the Justice Department, on behalf of 
the White House, is now going through. Since they can no longer say in 
good faith to the court that these were all Federal employees, what 
they are contending to the court is this big working group, this 500-
plus people, was not really an organized group at all, and they really 
did not make a report to the President, which directly contradicts 
earlier affidavits of Mr. Magaziner.
  Let me tell the gentleman from New York what they are calling it. 
This is from the Government's brief, and they argued the same thing 
earlier. They said, ``The working group truly was a horde, rather than 
a committee.''
  They told the committee this was not an organized, structured group, 
this was an anonymous horde of people who just happened to come 
together at $20 million or so at taxpayers' expense, just happened to 
come together and work on these things. Is that ridiculous and 
laughable, or not?
  Mr. WALSH. I would submit to the gentleman, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, the impression that the American public and this 
Congress were given was that this was a serious working group empaneled 
by the President and the First Lady to arrive at a radical change in 
our health care delivery system that will affect one-seventh of our 
total economy and 100 percent of all Americans.
  Now they are telling us that this was a----
  Mr. ISTOOK. A horde.
  Mr. WALSH. An anonymous horde of individuals.
  Mr. ISTOOK. We are supposed to trust one-seventh of the American 
economy to an anonymous horde that was unorganized and did not know 
what they were doing.
  Mr. WALSH. I think the judge also asks the right questions: Why at 
this point, when we are about to broach the subject legislatively, when 
we are about to vote on legislation that will affect one-seventh of our 
economy, 100 percent of all Americans, why are they still holding back 
on the information that was arrived at 18 months ago?
  We are going to be voting on a bill within 2 weeks. We have not seen 
it yet, which is more business as usual. Who knows, maybe this 
anomalous horde is in the process of putting this legislation together, 
too. I would suspect that some of those individuals who are on the task 
force are working right now with the leadership of the Democratic Party 
to put this bill before us.
  Mr. ISTOOK. I think I can answer that.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman will find the answer to that in 
many of the claims that are coming from the administration right now, 
and from this little bus tour that is going on and so forth, because 
they are standing up and saying, ``Look, it is special interests that 
are trying to stop us.''
  What they do not want revealed to the American people is, it is 
special interests which are pushing for the Clinton health care plan, 
and there are financial motives on both sides of that question, I would 
say to the gentleman from New York. I have no problem with that. I 
understand.
  As Mr. Broder wrote, it is a $1 trillion pot of gold, but I do not 
think anybody should pretend that they are acting out of nothing but 
pure motives and the other side is acting out of financial motives. 
There are financial motives on both sides.
  There are motives of compassion and concern with people's lives and 
ability to live their lives on both sides, but I really take umbrage at 
this false pretense, this facade that the administration has that 
somehow their motives are pure and everyone else's motives are suspect.
  That is why they are trying to keep the lid of secrecy on. That is 
why they were willing to go so far as to have someone file an affidavit 
with the court that the judge is saying is not true, and why you can go 
so far as to have testimony to Congress trying to mislead Congress as 
to how this health care plan was put together.
  I think that is the answer to that. I think that all of us in this 
Chamber and all the people in the country need to be aware of that, and 
they need to insist upon the openness. I do not want the taxpayer to 
have to pay the legal fees for those who have brought this lawsuit. I 
think it is time for those who insisted upon secrecy to be the ones to 
pay for it. If that means that people at the White House get stuck with 
a couple of hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, that is their 
problem, and it should not be ours.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter, with attachments, 
dated July 27, 1994, which I sent to Attorney General Janet Reno:

                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 27, 1994.
     Hon. Janet Reno,
     Attorney General of the United States, Department of Justice, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Reno: As Minority members of the House 
     Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
     General Government, we request the appointment of a Special 
     Counsel to investigate two possible violations of 2 U.S.C. 
     Section 192 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 by Patsy Thomasson, 
     Special Assistant to the President for Management and 
     Administration.
       We believe these violations may have occurred during her 
     testimony before our subcommittee on the cost and membership 
     of the President's National Health Care Task Force.
       The appointment of a Special Counsel is necessary because 
     much of what is known about the Task Force has come to light 
     through a civil court case which is being defended by the 
     Justice Department. In the case (Civil Action number 93-399 
     in the U.S. District court for the District of Columbia), the 
     Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has sued 
     Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ira Magaziner, and others for 
     violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The AAPS 
     contends the National Health Care Task Force was not made up 
     solely of federal employees and was subject to the public 
     disclosure requirements of the Act. The defendants are 
     arguing the opposite position. A trial has been ordered.
       Since the Department of Justice is representing the 
     defendants in the case, it would be a conflict of interest 
     for the Department to investigate Ms. Thomasson regarding the 
     same matter. To avoid any possible conflict of interest, the 
     appointment of a Special Counsel seems prudent.
       The circumstances we ask to be investigated are outlined 
     below. Further details on each one are provided in the 
     attached pages.
       The first violation involves Ms. Thomasson's statements on 
     the membership of the President's National Health Care Task 
     Force and the Health Care Working Groups. She made multiple 
     assertions of Congress that all Task Force members were 
     federal government employees. These statements appear to have 
     been false. The Plaintiffs have advised the court that 357 
     participants were not federal employees.
       Please note that White House advisor Ira Magaziner is 
     facing a possible Contempt of Court adjudication for making 
     similar misrepresentations in an affidavit to the court. Your 
     Department is defending him. This further illustrates the 
     conflict-of-interest of your office, and thus the need for a 
     special counsel regarding Ms. Thomasson.
       The second violation involves Ms. Thomasson's statements 
     regarding the estimated costs of the National Health Care 
     Task Force and its working groups. Her statements to Congress 
     regarding this cost appear to have vastly understated the 
     cost to taxpayers.
       Attached are: (1) Details on statements made by Ms. 
     Thomasson before the subcommittee, followed by highly 
     contradictory reports that have come to light through the 
     news media and civil litigation; (2) A 26-page list of 
     persons who, contrary to Ms. Thomasson's testimony, evidently 
     served non-federal employees who served on the Health Care 
     Task Force; (3) A partial summation of Task Force expenses 
     exceeding the amount to which Ms. Thomasson testified; and 
     (4) A copy of the relevant federal status regarding false 
     testimony to Congress.
       Making misrepresentations or false statements to Congress 
     is a serious matter. As part of our responsibility to oversee 
     public spending, it is essential that the Subcommittee 
     receive clear and accurate information.
       We respectfully request the appointment of a Special 
     Counsel to investigate whether Ms. Thomasson knowingly or 
     willingly violated the law by misleading Members of Congress 
     in her testimony.
           Sincerely,
     Jim Lightfoot.
     Ernest J. Istook.

                              Attachment 1

       Possible Violations by Ms. Patsy Thomasson of 2 USC Section 
     192 and 18 USC Section 1001.


                            circumstance #1

       Statement by Patsy Thomasson before the House 
     appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and 
     General Government on March 30, 1993, with regard to the 
     make-up of the Health Care Task Force and Health Care Working 
     Group:
       ``First of all * * * I will consult with the White House 
     with regard to your questions about the Health Care Task 
     Force * * * and we will get back to you with some type of 
     answer.'' (The following written response was submitted by 
     Ms. Thomasson through the White House to add to her 
     statement):

                         Health Care Task Force

       ``First, the members of the Health Care Task Force, which 
     are all cabinet secretaries and the First Lady, have never 
     been kept secret. The reason the names of the working group 
     participants--who were all federal government employees--were 
     not immediately released was because they were working very 
     hard on this project and we did not want them to be harassed 
     by lobbyists and special interest groups * * *''
       ``However, Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President 
     for Policy Development, manages the interdepartmental working 
     group that is charged with gathering information and ideas 
     for the Task Force; the working group includes more than 400 
     people, made up entirely of federal employees--including more 
     than 90 Congressional staffers.''
       ``The working group is made up entirely of federal 
     employees.''
       Source: ``Hearings before the Treasury, Postal Service and 
     General Government Appropriations Subcommittee, FY 1994,'' 
     Part 3, pages 389, 483, 484 and 485.


                             contradiction

       Documents brought to light in the civil suit filed against 
     the government by the Association of American Physicians and 
     Surgeons reveal that large numbers of people who worked on 
     the National Health Care Task Force were not federal 
     government employees. Nor is any discrepancy a minor one. The 
     Plaintiffs most recently contend that 357 persons on the 
     Task Force were not federal government employees. 
     According to an analysis of the documents submitted to the 
     court in ``Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and 
     Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and 
     Permanent Injunction,'' May 4, 1994, page 186, many 
     members of the Task Force ``were not, in any way, 
     employees of the federal government [SGE's and FTE's], and 
     were assigned no official status at all.'' Attached is the 
     26-page list, which the Plaintiffs earlier compiled and 
     submitted, of the non-government members of the Task Force 
     and their outside affiliations. This list was drawn from 
     documents previously submitted to the court by the 
     government in that litigation. It identifies 323 separate 
     persons in this category.
       The Plaintiffs' memorandum further points out that three 
     Task Force working groups were composed entirely of non-
     government employees and in fact had no official status with 
     the federal government at all. These working groups were: 
     Cluster Group V, ``Ethical Foundations of the New System'', 
     Working Group 17, ``Bioethics''; Cluster Group XIV, ``Numbers 
     Audit'', Working Group 34, ``Numbers Audit'', and Working 
     Group 39, ``Minority Issues Review Group.''
       Even the government, in its May 4, 1994 submission to the 
     court claimed that only ``Working Groups 13, 15, 16, 31 and 
     32 were composed wholly of permanent, full-time federal 
     employees.'' The government's statement leaves the assumption 
     that at least some of the members of the remaining 38 of the 
     43 Working Groups, 15 Cluster Groups and 4 Subgroups were not 
     federal government employees.
       On July 25, 1994, when directly challenged by U.S. District 
     Judge Royce Lamberth to state whether all Task Force members 
     were federal government employees or not, Justice Department 
     Attorney Mark Stearns was unable to do so.
       Mr. Ira Magaziner initially estimated that 98 people would 
     be needed to staff the working groups and that they would be 
     drawn entirely from the White House and various federal 
     agencies. Court documents reveal the actual number of working 
     group members eventually grew to at least 506 people, many of 
     whom represented organization and interests outside the 
     federal government.
       In addition, news reports have listed members of the Health 
     Care Task Force working groups as employees of the Robert 
     Woods Johnson Foundation, other interest groups and 
     universities.
       According to page one of The Washington Times of March 26, 
     1993, ``A review of group members by The Washington Times has 
     identified a Maryland doctor who has taken paid leave from 
     her job at the state-operated Springfield Hospital Center in 
     Sykesville, near Baltimore, to work for Mrs. Clinton's task 
     force--at a cost to Maryland taxpayers of nearly $20,000.''
       According to the New York Times of March 19, 1993, one 
     adviser, Thomas O. Pyle, was the head of one of the 15 
     committees working for the task force on National Health Care 
     Reform. He is also chairman of the Jackson Hole Group, a 
     conclave of health-care executives and policy analysts 
     sometimes described as a brain trust for the Administration. 
     ``Trade publications have names of roughly 200 of the more 
     than 500 people working for the task force. Of those who head 
     the 15 working groups, about a dozen are known, including six 
     Federal employees, a state official from California, a 
     professor of sociology and a policy analyst closely 
     identified with an advocacy group for elderly people.'' 
     ``From 1978 to 1991, Mr. Pyle was chief executive of the 
     Harvard Community Health Plan, the largest health maintenance 
     organization in New England.'' ``He said he was still a 
     director of the Millipore Corporation, a multinational high-
     technology company based in New Bedford, Mass. * * * 
     Millipore sells a wide range of products to drug companies * 
     * *''
       It seems abundantly clear that Ms. Thomasson's testimony to 
     Congress was blatantly false, and obviously misled the 
     Congress.


                            Circumstance #2

       Statement by Patsy Thomasson before the House subcommittee 
     on March 30, 1993, with regard to the total costs of the 
     Health Care Task Force and Health Care Working Group:
       ``Expenses of the working group and Task Force are funded 
     by the Department of Health and Human Services through an 
     interagency agreement with the Office of Policy Development 
     that totals $325,000. The estimate [sic] budget is as 
     follows:

Personnel...................................................... $32,000
Transportation of things......................................... 1,000
Rental payments to GSA.......................................... 72,500
Other rent, comm., util......................................... 10,000
Printing........................................................ 60,000
Other services.................................................. 60,000
Supplies and materials........................................... 7,500
Furniture and equipment......................................... 32,000
Travel.......................................................... 50,000
                                                       ________________


      Total................................................. $325,000''


                             contradiction

       The official Charter of the ``President's Task Force on 
     National Health Care Reform,'' dated March 17, 1993, states 
     in clause IV, ``Established Costs''--``The estimate cost of 
     the Task Force is expected to be below ``$100,000.''
       The Washington Times, reported March 24, 1994 on the court 
     case brought against the Task Force by the Association of 
     American Physicians and Surgeons states, ``The task force 
     spent $4 million on consultants and possibly $16 million more 
     in consulting fees, salaries and expenses,'' and that 
     ``several outsiders * * * were paid $97,000 salaries or $300 
     an hour in consulting fees.''
       The Wall Street Journal, in a June 6, 1994 editorial on the 
     court case, stated, ``The Task Force spent at least $4 
     million and possibly as much as $26 million on expenses, 
     salaries and consulting fees.''
       While the figures reported in the press may not be precise, 
     they, along with court documents, indicate the true costs of 
     the Task Force were far in excess of the amount given in Ms. 
     Thomasson's testimony before the appropriations subcommittee.
       More importantly, salary, expense and travel reimbursement 
     documents filed in the court case against the Task Force 
     reveal its true costs to be far more than was represented to 
     Congress by Ms. Thomasson.
       Attached is a list of 24 full-time Special Government 
     Employees who served on the Task Force showing the salary and 
     travel compensation they received. Also included in the list 
     are part-time paid members of the Task Force and unpaid 
     members who received travel reimbursement. The list shows 
     that amount of government funds each person received in 
     salary and travel costs.
       Government salary expenses for Special Government Employees 
     alone came to almost $550,000. The documents show travel and 
     other reported expenses add up to another $136,000. Full 
     costs reported in documents submitted to the court total over 
     $685,000. These are only the specific costs revealed in 
     records submitted to the court. The true, unreported costs of 
     the Task Force may be much higher.

                          ____________________