I can understand what Mr. Housefather is saying. I don't mind your idea of asking for more specification as to what they could potentially be referring to, but I have two thoughts.
The first is that the purpose of the study and the letter as brought forward by the majority of members of this committee was to bring to light and to have transparency as to the full work of McKinsey so that we could better understand and evaluate their role in concert with our government.
Secondly, which I guess builds upon the first, is that I don't, and I don't think any of my colleagues on this side of the table would, accept any type of attempt to hide information from this committee or not be completely transparent where there is not a very good reason that warrants not sharing that information with us.
I'm open to Mr. Housefather's suggestion of a list of what that might include, but I'm skeptical. I will say that up front. I think it would have to be very good reasoning, and if I may say, Mr. Chair, this is not the first time that McKinsey has done this. On page 59 of When McKinsey Comes to Town a consultant group, Missouri Health Care for All, also had questions about McKinsey. The group wrote that they could not know if McKinsey had any conflicts of interest because they didn't know who all of their current clients were.
It seems to me as though they have a history of not wanting to be forthright with their client information. As I said, if there are legitimate concerns, like the safety of individuals or true national security interests, I'm open to evaluating that, but certainly not anything that this committee, as a body of the people, should have full access to for the purpose of our study.
Thank you.