the payments are made to accommodate high risk patient pools. the house commerce committee held a hearing last week. [inaudible conversations]

>> good morning. we are here today at the oversight investigation hearing to examine the transitional reinsurance program established under the patient protection and affordable care act. the administration has inexplicably changed position on a major component program, specifically how reinsurance payments are allocated. despite issuing two final rules, cms changed his position to prioritize payment to insurers, essentially ruling of the treasury does not get money until the insurers get paid. this latest interpretation contradicts the plain language of the law. this is just the latest in a long line of examples of the administration breaking its own signature law in an attempt to profit up, a program created to provide

financial assistance to companies through obama care incentivizing companies to continue selling plans because it compensates them for enrolling high risk individuals. final payments will end in 2017. for each enrollee insurance companies contribute a set dollar amount, and those funds are distributed to insurers who enroll the highest risk individuals. the portion of each is allocated to the treasury. approximately $5 billion would be designated to the treasury with 20 million going to insurers. march 112014 cms issued a role that spelled out how to divide the fund between treasury, insurance companies, and administrative costs. treasury would receive 25 percent of the fund, but while insurers have received

billions of the treasury has received nothing. that is because cms changed its mind ten days later. ten days later the rule was published completely reversing policy position. in the new rule cms prioritized payments to insurers overpayment to the treasury. cms finalized this rule in may of 2014. why did cms dramatically reverse its own policy to favor insurance companies? we look forward to getting a straight answer and do know there is a causal relationship, and the administration has worked to incentivize insurers to stick with the exchanges. i have emailedhave e-mailed top white house officials begging for more money for lower premiums. i expect there will be an

attempt to justify the change in interpretation and may even argue that the statute is ambiguous or silent about what to do of the fundif the fund does not collect the full amount, however the statute clearly states that the portion of the contribution intended for the treasury shall be deposited into the general fund of the treasury of the united states and may not be used for reinsurance program. thank you. this meansyou. this means that each contribution contains a portion intended just for the treasury, and those funds cannot be diverted. the nonpartisan congressional research committee agrees with us. they analyzed the statute and interpretations and found the statutes unambiguously state that each issuer's contribution contain an amount that reflect its proportionate share of the u.s. treasury contribution and that these

amounts should be deposited in the general fund of the u.s. treasury. it may also be argued that neither contemplated what to do moreover, cms contemplated what would happen if the fund did not collect enough money. in a final rule it was predicted there would be a variance between statutory benchmarks and the actual amount received. when asked about the legal basis for diverting these funds before subcommittee on health the secretary provided no legal justification. instead emphasizing the program is temporary implying the committee's concerns are unimportant because plan will be over in 2017. i disagree.

cms exemplifies a problem that goes beyond just this one program when the executive branch decides to reprioritize the budget endeavor money intended for the treasury it is a concern for congress. when officials decide to ignore a clear mandate from congress is nephron to the legislative body. the administration cannot rewrite its own want to make it more convenient. a dangerous precedent and is an affront to the separation of powers. moreover the program funnels money to insurers in an attempt to prop up the affordable care act. there is no mechanism to underwrite high-risk individuals. this will premiums riseraise higher? the administration actions appeared to be trying to delay the inevitable and collapse the affordable care act. i think the witness for being here today. i appreciate his candor and

hope you will pledge to return to a lawfula lawful interpretation and allocate funds to treasury as required by law. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i guess no one here is surprised we are having yet another oversight hearing. this subcommittee has had 16 oversight hearings since passage, and also we have sent dozens of oversight letters to the department of health and human services, cms, and others. i know for a fact the agencies have spent countless staff hours and taxpayer dollars preparing testimony for hearings, responding to letters and providing documents and briefings to satisfy the oversight interest. i just want to ask one question. has anything of value be

gained? no, we have not. listen, i believe in government oversight.oversight. in fact, i urge the chairman of the full committee and you to have meaningful oversight hearings around the affordable care act because i believe there are some things that can be fixed. you know, goodknow, good government oversight eliminates the shortcomings and causes of institutional failures thereby informing any substantive changes in public policy. unfortunately, our oversight of the act over the last six years has served neither to enlighten the committee, improve the law, nor help millions of americans. i usei use example, the hashtag that the majority is using and social media, #great obama, #great obama care heist or some of the inflammatory statements in the press release that the majority sent out about today's hearing and why we're having it.

you heard over and over again it's that the aca is destroying the lives of americans and also you just heard that the administration has not followed the law. i think that there may be a matter of misinterpretation or different interpretation, but no one can argue the 20 million new americans have insurance because of the affordable care act. in this press release my colleague describes the reinsurance program, the topic of today's hearing as aa taxpayer-funded giveaway. this is a program, a reinsurance program that the majority understood was necessary and put in their own bill on medicare part d when they passed that in 2005. 05. the reason we have the aca reinsurance program is it helps us transition from an individual market that relied on medical

underwriting to one in which insurers can no longer discriminate against individuals for pre-existing conditions and cannot declined offer coverage to somebody because they are sick. it's this achieves the goal by collecting contributions from insurance companies which are then in turn used to make payments to insurance companies and the individual market which will offset the largest claims for the sickest individuals. i would hardly call that a taxpayer-funded giveaway. this same press release describes the administration's decision administration's decision to prioritize reinsurance payments to insurers as unlawful. now, this rhetoric is also unfair and inaccurate because what we have here is a difference of opinion regarding a policy decision and aa difference of views on how to interpret a provision of the aca.

so i look forward to hearing about those differences today, but unlawful, again, seems to be a bit extreme. i want to put this in perspective and read an excerpt of a letter from bert brown to president obama. print brown is a lifelong republican who recently introduced the president at a speech in milwaukee, wisconsin. he said, i did not vote for you either time. i have voted republican for the entirety of my life. i proudly wore pins and display banners. ibanners. i was vocal in my opposition to you, particularly the aca. allow me to say, isay, i am sorry. i was so very wrong. you saved my life, and i am eternally grateful.

i have a pre-existing condition, and so could never purchase health insurance. only after the aca came into being cannot be covered. put simply, if you are taking the time to read this, i would not be alive without access to the care i received. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to enter mr. brown's letter into the record. >> without objection. >> it is time to have a productive conversation about improving the aca in the lives of our constituents. >> the gentle lady yields back. i recognize the chairman of the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this hearing continues the subcommittee thoughtful and necessary oversight of the presidents healthcare law. the three and a half billion dollar question is why cms is diverting money to taxpayers about any authority to do so. the portion of the contributions to the reinsurance program must be

given to the u.s. treasury. still, cms has chosen to violate law by prioritizing reinsurance contributions to help insurers rather than allocating the required portion to the u.s. treasury. initially cms follow the letter of the law. similar to its rule the prior year cms planned to allocate contributions to the reinsurance program between the health insurers, treasury, and administrative costs. less than two weeks later cms switch gears and issued a different proposed rule completely reversing their previous position. rather than allocating a portion of the contribution to the treasury,treasury, as dictated by law, cms prioritize reinsurance contributions to help insurers and finalize that rule two months later.

the question is, why the sudden reversal? legal memorandum released earlier this year by the nonpartisan crs found that the statute does not permit cms to prioritize reinsurance payments to insurers. in fact, the congressional research service found cms actions appeared to contradict the plain language of the law. i would like to think that you have come to provide us answers to those questions as we look to understand who, what, when, where, and why of that decision. we look forward to that discussion. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back and i recognize the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. only pass the affordable care act in the law we dramatically change the healthcare landscape in this country, and the law has

been an historic success and has achieved the goals and goals and made access to comprehensive healthcare a reality for the american people. thanks to the affordable care act 20 million more americans now know the security of health insurance and for the 1st time ever, the uninsured rate has fallen below 10 percent, and these are remarkable achievements. the insurance system in this country was broken. my republican colleagues were obsessed with repealing the law. no one is advocating a return to the old system of rapidly rising costs, growth and efficiencies and painful inequalities, a system where upwards of 129 million americans could be discriminated against in the individual market for pre-existing medical conditions, and these individuals to be charged more than a healthya healthy person for the same coverage and were often denied coverage altogether. many plans lacked important

benefits and limited coverage. fortunately, these things are no longer true. people previously deemed uninsurable finally getting health insurance coverage. under the old system ensures thought to protect their bottom lines by awarding the sickest and costliest patients, a practice known as medical underwriting. todayunderwriting. today insurers must offer coverage to everyone and cannot cancel a policy because of sickness. sickness.sickness. the lowest temporary reinsurance program operates the smoothest transition to one in which everyone is guaranteed coverage. this present cost of large insurance claims the early years of the new marketplace collecting contributions for health insurance companies

than he used to make payments to insurance companies in the individual market to offset the cost of their's is enrollee's. republican colleagues taxpayer-funded giveaways. the temporary program funded entirely by contributions from insurance companies. unfortunately, this type of overblown rhetoric and blatant misinformation is typical when it comes to my republican colleagues and the affordable care act. the same framework is a permanent fixture of our part d program, aa law which republican support, defend, and promote. i find it ironic and hypocritical this is available for medicare part d, but a supposedly

taxpayer-funded -- taxpayer-funded giveaway is from a democratic president. you can't have it both ways. the subject of today's hearing,hearing, march 262015 press release from the majority describes cms decision to move billions from the treasury, payoff insurance companies and stop unlawful payments to insurers. in these characterizations are simply absurd. let's be clear. what is at stake is a policy disagreement on how to interpret statutory language in the affordable care act. interpreted the law through a formal, transparent notice and rulemakingrulemaking process determining that the statute is silent about the agency should do in the event the collections are insufficient to fund payments to insurance companies and the u.s. treasury. payments should be

prioritized and this prioritization further detaches the statutory goals of the program. i know my republican colleagues clearly disagree with this interpretation and are entitled to their view, but the misinformation is counterproductive and does nothing to help a single person. let me conclude by expressing my department. hearings like this only served to hurt americans and perverse the progress that has been made. i believe we should work to improve the law and that ensure all constituents have access to the quality affordable health care they deserve. >> acting administrator.

he oversees programs. you have been a force ona force on this committee. >> i ask unanimous consent. >> holding a hearing. you have any objections to testifying under oath? >> i do not. >> you are entitled to the advised by counsel. >> raise your right hand and i will swear un. placed use were the testimony you are about to give is the truth kemal truth, nothing but the truth. >> i do. >> you are now under oath. you may now give a five-minute summary of your

written statements. >> i am pleased to be here and look forward to discussing the affordable care act. the critical building block from which so many consumers are benefited. the nations uninsured rate is at its lowest recorded level. we talk about these numbers it is important to understand that it just does not happen myself. critical provisions allow people with significant medical expenses to be covered affordably. reducing the cost of health insurance is in everyone's interest, individuals and small businesses you pay premiums and because the government gives federal tax credits to people with modest incomes and is a much better deal for the treasury. we all benefit. covering people with significant medical expenses

is a core policy objective. an example of the family who lives in dallas, texas. studying for a phd describe what happened other than being small he appeared to be healthy, but doctors have discovered that he had a heart defect all have come to nearly 3 million. but we have been covered through it all. though he is doing well, he has more surgeries, speech and physical therapy and other procedures in the future and it is comforting to know that because of the affordable care act cannot be denied coverage in the future because of pre-existing conditions. conditions. my point is not simply to remind us what is happening

as millions of families get coverage for the 1st time. buttime. but to point for the importance of the details that matter. critical policy provisions, we all know the situation can be visited on any of us. sometimes we need a sense of healthcare to get well. i spend morespent more than two decades in the healthcare industry before joining the government and can tell you until 2014 every day medical expenses like this path of american families for the rest of their lives. they can no longer deny or put limits on coverage because they have a serious illness. every company pays a small amount of money in the confidence that if they have to enroll people like the hubbards they will receive

money back to help cover the cost. this is not aa concept unique to the affordable care act. congress included the reinsurance program in medicare part d for similar reasons. let me address the implementation of this provision. in the case of reinsurance the statute did not contemplate what should occur if collections fell above or below the mark indicated in statute. while i havei have been in government only a short time, occasionally across all programs we do encounter instances in which the statute is silent as to the necessary details to implement policy. given this, two years ago cms proposed an approach and saw public comment about the legalof both the legal and policy reasoning of how to address the specific scenarios. they receive universal public support and no one,

not one commentor questioned the legality or appropriateness. i can tell you we take concerns very seriously. we understand the differences in interpretation happen and as the committee has more recently expressed comeau lawyers carefully reviewed and expressed the recent memo to confirm our approach as supported by statute. as the cbo noted, the entire cost of treasury is projected to be 25 percent lower than originally estimated. the program is reducing cost , continues to help many families and serves taxpayers well by lowering federal tax credit obligations. this year we will add approximately 500 million to the u.s. treasury and selections will exceed the target amount.

they're committed to operating this program for american families and will focus on efficiency for taxpayers. i look forward to answering your questions to the best of my abilities. >> thank you. unanimous consent to include the memo on the record. without objection. i recognize myself for five minutes. on march 11 cms issued aa final rule that allocated a proportion of reinsurance contributions to treasury in accordance with law. ten days later cms issued another rule in reversing its position and prioritizing payments to insurers of the treasury. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is before my time. i could not give you, other than what i have seen in regulation which is, 1st of all, not uncommon for new

regulations to supplant older regulations as people learn more, and i believe it was laid out in regulation that was posed subsequently that they were concerned about the precision or the estimate. and so they laid out the policy and legal reasoning subsequently as to why they felt that was the right course. >> in prior rulemaking cms has already contemplated what would happen. cms said the treasury would still receive an apportioned fund.fund. so, the rule did not change because cms had to figure out what to do, the fund came up short. >> i think -- i'm sorry, can you repeat the question. >> the rule did not change because cms had to do what you have had to figure out what to do if the fund came up short.

>> i think there was uncertainty as to how to handle situations if it did come up short, and so i believe that they looked at the situation and determined that was the best policy decision. public comment as to whether that was the right decision but laid out legal reasoning to get comment on whether or not it was appropriate. >> they had already contemplated the scenario that might come up short and then made the sleep to change their interpretation. this is what is so puzzling to us. as you say, lawyers reviewed it and changed our minds on that. i would think truth and law instead of interpretation, but let's go back to statute which fits directly to the issue. it unambiguously states because the statute

unambiguously states each issuer's contribution reflects a proportionate share of u.s. treasury contribution that they should be deposited to the general fund. would not be entitled to deference. now, you read the memo, i'm assuming? >> yes, i ham. two. more importantly, so have my lawyers. >> ilawyers. >> i don't give a darn what your lawyers say if they are wrong. this is an unambiguous statement. congress made it clear rule in law.of law. just because lawyer said we do not agree with what the law says, we don't agree with what cms says, i do not see whatwhen the law grants latitude to say, here is what the law says, but it is open to interpretation of lawyers who wish to see otherwise. help me with this. i do not understand where

the authority comes from to make that change. >> well, we believe we have the statutory authority. what is at root is the statute is clear on what happens in the circumstance were 12 billion in the statute is silent on what happens when different amounts are collected. because i was not here i will pieces back based upon what i have learned, that that meant either interpretation, they're could be multiple interpretations of what to do. >> the wording unambiguously is pretty clear. multiple interpretations. have you seen the movie the big short? >> ii have. >> the whole issue was while they are taking these mortgages, aaa, a, b rated, the banks were basically reselling and repackaging these to keep these bond

package is strong. other people were saying it cannot be sustained. the banks can't keep doing this. this whole thing looks to me of the same out. i like the story you told. i agree. what worries me is that when this whole thing ends in a few months and they are not going to have this comeau we will see collapse in the health insurance market. i am out of time. >> okay. that wasokay. that was an interesting question about a movie, the big banks and everything. do you think -- i have not seen the movie, but i am going to. do you think what is happening is the same thing, that the banks did? >> no, congressman.

>> why not? >> reinsurance payments, the premiums are funded in order to cover losses they received. this is not taxpayer funds but really is as a very common technique to make sure people at large claims can get covered. >> this is going to be facedown. >> you said that you are not at 25 we know you are not at cms at the time of the policy was designed. >> that's correct. >> so, so, when it was designed, but you say you have gone back and researched it and figured out what happened. youtalk to your lawyers about it.

now, so when in 2015 cms proposed prioritizing reinsurance payments over payments to the u.s. treasury in the event that collections fell short of the amount needed to make the payments, do you know how that proposal come about? >> i don't know how it came about, but i know that because they were unsure approach they took was to file a notice of proposed rulemaking for everybody to see so that they could see comment both on the approach at the policy as well as the legal reasoning. >> to they go through that process? >> they did. >> to they get any comment that this was illegal? >> no. >> did they get any comments that it was a

taxpayer-funded giveaway? >> no, they did not. >> do you know if the agency consulted with his lawyers when it put the proposal together? >> i can tell you that the lawyers scrupulously review every regulation the agency proposes. >> the lawyers felt, i assume, that it would be legal to do this kind of rulemaking. >> that's correct. >> you told mr. murphy that mr. murphy that you have subsequently talked to the lawyers about whether this was legal despite the language that mr. murray cited from the statute. what was the advice they give you about why they thought it was legal? >> first of all, it is not uncommon for there to be differences of opinion or memos that come in and do not agree.

i practice was to make sure that upon reading that letter they still have the same interpretation they have before commanded the comment was that they believe that the regulation very clearly is supported by the statute. >> even now? >> even now. you know, i think we have aa good track record of responding. for example, ga over the last 252015, 47 recommendations from the gal and 43 times we concur. four times we times we did not. sometimes, many times we are in agreement. there are occasions we see comments that we do not think that we agree with. >> is this one of those? >> this is one of those times. >> do you think that this is

an appropriate rule? >> yes. this is a highly successful program benefiting many americans. >> do you think when it faces out that the bottom will fall out? >> i do not think so. >> why not? >> the market now has a better feel for people being insured. i wasi was not the case three years ago and more so last year and more so this year, but by the time we get to the third-year people have a good understanding of the illness. >> and will be able to smooth out. >> i believe so. >> thank you and i yield back. >> recognize the vice chair for five minutes. >> thank you cost of chairman. i would like to follow up a little bit on the comments that were made here, the chairman murphy raised about changing decisions and opinions. thank you for coming back. it is good to see you again. small, rural hospitals all

across this country are in dire shape. nearly 60 hospitals of close over the last five years. in my state over half the critical access hospitals operate rural health clinics and are being adversely impacted by the decision to disallow the cost of operating. now, this is in contrary to previous decision that approved it in 2004 and said specifically that you could include the cost. now it has been a reversal. they intend to enforce this new decision retroactively over five years. andand the impact of this on rural health clinics in critical access hospitals will force of back payment of millions of dollars where

they can barely afford to keep the doors open as we speak. these hospitals are training our most poor and vulnerable citizens in rural communities. just last week west virginia health and human resources wrote cms a letter. are you aware of that? >> not familiar with it in detail. >> they simply cannot afford to make this retroactive payment. it is almost six or 12 hospitals, nearly 20 percent so please, i know you all have dug your heels in and i understand it, but this is a

time to may be rethink that, please. see if there is not some kind of solution that we could work through because they were based upon a previous decision, and you have made another decision contrary to that. we are just trying to prevent a retroactive payment. if it must go forward, they can make that adjustment. going backward, i must appeal to your sensitivity. >> we we will, and i know you have been working with your staff. healthcare and rural america is a foremost issuea foremost issue for us. we have recently appointed a rural health task force and will ask the task force to look specifically into this. >> if you would, please. he also agreed to work with the state of west virginia to provide technical assistance that would recognize the important role

is critical access hospital serve in providing rural healthcare services and consequently clarify eligibility for continued medicaid dish payments. >> yes. >> just in closing, the closing, the last of three questions, did cma provide grants or other forms of assistance so that they could better cope and address these situations that are occurring with the backdrop all across america small hospitals are closing. do you have anything like that or funding sources. they support the economics and long-term economics and rural health and look and see what is appropriate in the case of west virginia. there are number of programs across the department.

>> you are agreeing, can agreeing, can you work with our office in the state hospital association to ensure. that is what i am hearing you say, they may not be aware. >> we will absolutely do that. >> most importantly, do not make it retroactive. thank you and i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you. good morning. despite countless attempts by my republican colleagues in congress to repeal, undermine the fund, the affordable care act, the law is making affordable health insurance a reality for so many american families, and especially in my state of florida. since passage five years ago an estimated 20 million americans have gained coverage, and i like to

think of it in a couple different categories. improvements to medicare, so many all the neighbors are paying much less for prescription drugs, billions of dollars back into the pockets and then lengthening the life of the medicare trust fund is vitally important. all of the preventative care ending discrimination, they have gained coverage. now we can finally take a true measure of coverage for so many of our neighbors. the uninsured rate has dropped to an historic low. there it is dropped 6.1 percentage points. this the mandate provision

took effect in 2014 our african-american and hispanic neighbors have experienced the greatest decrease and let me tell you the story of the state of florida, my home state. on the highest rates of uninsured in the country. in florida, 1.7 million floridians for automatically reenrolled in quality affordable health coverage through the marketplace. that is 10 percent of the entire country is nationwide nearly 11.7 million consumers are automatically reenrolled. tax credits help. 72% of market place and enrollees and enrollees obtain coverage for hundred dollars or less. and in florida we are fortunate to have a

competitive market. consumers to choose from 11 and 2014. consumers to choose from an average of 42 health plans in the county. this was the goal, to have a competitive marketplace so americans can do what they do best,best, go shopping and compare and have navigators helped them through decisions. and then there was the question, young adults, we need healthy folks to enroll which plays right into this transitional reinsurance. the good news is, in florida over half a million consumers signed up for marketplace coverage, and about half a million consumers signed up. continuing to harp, it is

just not true, and the facts are out. if you can put this historic role of the uninsured rate into perspective, what does this mean for our country? >> well, thank you, congresswoman. having been in healthcare my entire career and never seen the uninsured rate defined it has been rewarding to see that happen and to feel it in my job. florida has a lot to be proud of. if the state chooses to expand medicaid. >> it will be even greater. so, i think that there is a lot of good things that have happened in good things to come. >> thank you to you and your team for everything you have

done. >> that gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think it is important we continue to have these type of discussions. certainly in the early days of president obama's administration the statement was made repeatedly that transparency would abound in the healthcare law. in many ways it was meant as a criticism to republicans. what you remember is not on board, everyone will know it everyone is going to know it and then we found that it was not.

even going back to 2,009 i submitted a resolution of inquiry asking for who was involved in crafting the thing that eventually became known as the affordable care act. i should have seven of the 11 things that i asked for. i never got them, but it was a minor moral victory for me as we have gone on time after time we bump up against things where it just does not seem like it all adds up. so at this point can you tell me which person, official, office within cms is responsible for interacting with hhs leadership, with the white house on these reinsurance payments.

is there a single individual or office? >> i think the best way for me to answer that question given that i was not here, could not name any specific individuals, everybody. this was a public, transparent role put out that had to be reviewed and cleared. hello i speaking. >> when meeting obligations.

>> this is before my time. >> could you research that for us and get is that information, who that person would have been? >> we can try. >> so, outside of the formal rulemaking process that anyone outside the executive branch communicate with service leadership or cms about prioritizing reinsurance payments by the reinsurance program generally? >> not to my knowledge. >> multiple reports in the press during the years 2012, 2013, 2015 about episodes where all of the insurance executives were going down to the white house and meeting with the president, his team, and secretary sibelius, would there be any

way that the committee could know if these reinsurance payments were part of those discussions? >> not to my knowledge. >> would there be any office memorandum that would have been generated by these meetings? e-mails. we need to see those types of communications. >> not that i have seen. >> well, again, we have asked for the production of some documents. what has been produced has not been particularly helpful. are there additional documents that you are working on to provide to the committee? >> i know we have provided a number of documents and are working on more. >> when did the committee expect to see -- receive those documents. >> quite soon.

i cannot give you a date until i get to my team. >> that is when our income taxes or do. >> i cannot commit to monday. no. >> it has been a repetitive problem in the subcommittee. the department of energy where it just seems like there was a decision made internally to change the rules on behalf of the administration, and it is troubling, the committee continues to be troubled by that, and unfortunately today's hearing is just additional evidence that we are not there yet as far as the transparency part. thank you, and i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman and sir for being here today. another question, the question given that united

health pulled out, were you concerned about other companies pulling out of the program? you indicated that you did not think that there was much concern of that. i am just curious, as you are looking at that, who are you discussing this with? are you talking to folks in the marketplace? >> so, in 2016 the average individual had -- nine out of ten individuals had three or more health plans to choose from. what we call of full shelf. obviously people are just beginning the right filing process with 2017, and we will see and will have to let that speak for itself. anticipateanticipate there will be additions and subtractions and in the informal conversations i've had with people throughout

the industry including state departments of insurance for monitoring these things very closely and what i hear from companies themselves is indeed that there may be some people to pull out and people that enter additional markets but that i do not see the overall equation changing. >> so it is not your anticipation them that you will see more companies withdrawing from exchanges once this reinsurance supplement is there? obviously it is creating a large liability for these countries and we are seeing some pullout. >> our job is to make sure people can see it coming so that they can price for it. what people expect of government is predictability and visibility. as long as they know in advance that this is a three-year temporary program then, as they submit bids

for the coming year they can submit them knowing what they now know about the population which they did not know earlier and about the fact that there will no longer be a reinsurance program. >> discussed methods to convince insurers to stay in the exchanges in the event that you see a dropout following the termination of this transition period? >> most of the conversations occur locally within the state. that is generally handled there and locally. we do all we can to support and make sure we are balancing out the marketplace so that it can be a functional marketplace, so i would say we focus on policy decisions that will make the market healthy over the long-term and not so much on the micro decisions that will affect an individual plan here are there. >> policy options comeau

what are you talking about exactly? >> to give you an example, we focused recently on the rules for special enrollment period. and what should be required of an individual to demonstrate that they are eligible for insurance during a special enrollment period. outside of the open enrollment period. getting ever it is important because of the rules are too lenient you end up with people major supply for insurance when they get sick which disrupts the market, and if they are to charitable keep people from us, citizens who deserve and need coverage away from having coverage. those are the kinds of policy decisions we recently have been making decisions around command it is our job to watch the marketplace because it is early, see what is working and not a make adjustments. i expect good government will be continued with small adjustments along the way. >> but other than just going

through the state exchanges you have not had any discussions or decisions about specific things that you can do with companies thinking about pulling out of the exchange with us to -- this transitional subsidy? there is no planner discussion of any other way to convince them to stay? >> i would not characterize our job is to convince them to stay, nor would i tell you that we have heard concerns about the transitional policy going away. because they have long understood it was a three-year plan, there has not been a major topic of discussion, at least to my knowledge. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. i know you have votes coming up in a few minutes. we will move quickly. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i want to thank you for making the affordable care act and health reform work. the 1st rollout in our district in urban area of

houston called before the affordable care act we were one of the highest in the country, people who work but did not get insurance through their employer. the 1st rollout we identified 20,000 people were able to get health insurance and with each renewal time we have increased that. just recently we identified 50,000 of my constituents in urban houston who would be able to get healthcare if the state would have expanded medicaid. 50,000 just in our district. and that is with 100 percent federal reimbursement, not a penny of state dollars for three years. so it is just frustrating. my colleagues have been throwing around the 3.5 billion figure, but i think that it is important to talk about that number in context. last month the congressional budget office came out with a new affordable care act estimate stating compare

with the projection made by cbo and jcp, the joint committee on tax in march 2010 just before the aca was enacted, the current estimate of the net cost of insurance coverage over 2016 and 2019 period is lower by 157 billion, lower by 25 percent. 157 million on the budget, not something we see in the halls of congress very often. 157 billion left in the treasury. the insurance market and these estimates are complex and we have been talking about how important reinsurance has been creating stability in the market. is it fair to say reinsurance has played a role in the success covering so many people out coming in substantially under budget? >> yes. >> consumers when the health insurance premiums are low, but how does that impact the u.s. treasury?

>> because insurance premiums for modest income americans are subsidized with tax credits, everything we do to improve affordability for consumers directly reduces the obligation of the federal government, and so the hundred $57 billion under budget is, i think, in part, a result, as you point out, out, of good stewardship and effects of -- effective execution of these programs like reinsurance. >> does that reflect the decision to prioritize reinsurance payments has been a good deal for us taxpayers? >> it has. >> i want to thank you for that. there are many recent examples of counterproductive action by congress support the overall goals of health reform. a successful attempt by the republicans to limit payment resulted in payouts of only $0.12 on the dollar that

insurers originally expected to receive. .. >> if premiums did increase what could be the consequences for the tregs

no law we have ever passed in congress is perfect but tr the last six years all we have seen is repeal after repeal instead of sitting down and working across the aisle to make sure it is best for the taxpayer and the people that need the interest. >> i recognize ms. blackburn. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. mr. slavitt, you say you feel

like the law gives you the authority to change the rule? >> yes, we believe we have the statutory authority. >> can you point out explicitly where it says that? is there anyway you can read this and then tell me that we are not explicit in what it says? where you could put rules in place and then go back and change your mind and decide to rework this. can you submit to us the memo that says this is where we think we misread the law the first time and changed our mind. >> thank you for the question. >> did you know that memo exists? >> the entire legal reasoning was made public in the regulation so we can make sure

to get you a copy of that. >> that would be helpful because i was a little bit confused when you said you didn't know what the process was or what the decisions were because you were not there. then you turned around and you said it was a public and transparent process and in answering, you said there was advice given and you knew there were memos to that affect. i think what we would like to see from you since the law is pretty explicit, i think we would like to see from you explicitly which memo and know what person decided that this was going to be a good idea. so will you submit that for us and can we have it within the next week? >> we will send it to you this week. absolutely.

>> that will be good if you can give us that entire paper trail. in answering another question, you said you thought it was important for the insurers to see the money coming so they can price for it. did i understand that right? >> i believe what i said or intended to say, can't remember what i exactly said, is that we give enough visibility and clarity into the rules and enough time that the insurance companies know what is coming, know what to expect, and that way, if we are aiming to lower premiums for americans, which we all are, that can affect the effe effective. >> you think we have additional taxpayer funds into the this program in order for the premiums to come down because we don't have enough money that people are paying or the insurance cost too much or they have access to the queue not to the care so the hospital still

have a tremendous amount of uncomensated care? is that what i am understanding? >> i apologize if you misinterpreted me. no taxpayer funds have gone into this program. they come from insurance companies, employers, individuals, to fund and smooth out large losses like the ones i talked about. >> so then they have to have that money in order to get the prices down which means the consumer who is buying the product is going to pay more so the insurance company has access oo the money to put back in the product. is that correct? >> i don't agree with that characterization. >> so the money just exists? if we can manufacturer money we can manufacturer a lot of things. in the reinsurance program what insurance company has gotten the most money? >> i don't know the answer to that. >> would you find that out and

get it to us? >> sure. >> that sounds great and in the interest of time i will yield back. >> i know we have a vote now and i think three members on this floor. mr. mullin, mr. griffin, ms. brooks can you stick around and we will do this after votes and go right to the questions? thank you very much. we will be back after votes.

[break to vote] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

>> we are reconvening this hearing on unlawful insurance payments. i will recognize the gentlemen from oklahoma, mr. mullin, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here and hanging over as we had to run the votes. they don't seem to care about hearings. they just call votes whenever. look, there is a couple questions i think are very important to us so we can get an understanding. i understand on march 24th, 2014, hhs issued a rule for making payments that are required by law under the reinsurance program. it is my understanding this rule accurately reflected what was required by statute. the payments being made in three areas. one to the treasure, insurance companies, and to cover administration cost. that the correct? >> believe so. >> you believe so?

that is what the law it is, right? >> yeah. >> ten days later hhs issued another proposed rule that completely changed what was proposed with the payments going to the insurance company and the treasury own gets paid once the insurance companies reach a threshold. is that correct? >> yes. >> can you explain why? >> because the statute was silent -- >> what do you mean? it doesn't speak. it is written. >> it is written to address the estimated collection of $12 billion. but it doesn't address is what happens if a lower amount or higher amount is collected which is why the agency put out public regulation. >> ask you this, it specifically says the treasurer insurance company to cover administrative

cost. not the insurance companies and then pay only after a certain threshold. that wasn't specified in it. is that correct? >> the rule -- >> not the rule, the statute. >> i am speaking of the statute. it speaks to what happened as 12 billion is collect in the first year. what the agency needed to do, and this was before high time, and they put forward for public comment two years ago. >> has that public comment been made public? >> yes. >> the responses have been made back to the committee? >> yes. >> okay. >> so public comment on how to address situations like the one that arose where less than 12 billion was collected >> what did the public comment suggest? >> they suggested the policy of

first taking care of reimbursing the claims of the insurers was the proper policy and legally supported. >> by whom? that wasn't the original instent of the statute. we don't support it going back to the insurance companies. its intention was to help pay down the debt. the actual rule was issued and ten days later you reissued another rule stating you felt what needed to be done. >> i understand there is a difference of opinion. >> it is a statute. when it is law, and we have a question and ask a committee or hhs for a response, we would like clarification. what we would never get is clarification. >> we believe there is a statutory authority that legal reasoning was put forward

publically. >> if there was clarification it needed to be clarified why wouldn't it come back to the committee and see clarification on it? the statute is a statute of what it was so other than issuing a rule and ten days later coming back and issuing another why not just can back here? we feel hhs ignored the statute, the intent of congress -- >> i don't think that is the case. >> how do you explain it? you never came back here. >> this was two years ago. it was put forward for public comment for everyone, including the committee, to apply for the public reasoning. >> it is my understanding the committee asked for clarification and none was issued. >> i would have to go back and check on that but that wasn't my recollection. i wasn't here but that is not what i heard. >> we are hear asking questions

still. >> and we are doing our best to provide the legal and policy answers and that is what i am hear to answer. >> now recognize the gentlemen from texas mr. flores for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman. thank you mr. slevitt. february 2016, in front of this committee, secretary birdwell was asked about the legal justification for burdening funds and she provided no legal justification. seems like we are still struggling to find legal justification under which the funds were diverted.

i have fact-based questions to start with. the first one is h much money have you collected for the insurance freshman program in 2014 from all states? >> we have the precise number here somewhere. >> i would assume you have this number in preparation for this committee meeting since that is what we are talking about. >> 9.8 billion dollars. >> for the treasury you collected zero i am assuming? >> for 2014? that is correct. >> how much did you pay to insurance companies for 2014? >> i think it was 8 billion. >> 8 billion. and the 1.7 billion difference. where did that go? >> that is still in a pool to be used against claims that come through the reinsurance pool. >> moving to 2015, how much did you collect for reinsurance? >> 6.5 billion.

>> the law says it was supposed to be six. for the treasury, i am assuming ze zero? >> that is 500 million to the treasury. >> you did give that to the treasury? >> we will. >> you will or you did? >> we will. >> what were the insurance payments that fiscal year? >> came in at -- they have not been made. >> so you are sitting on six and a half billion from 2015 and a billon seven for 2014. what have you collected this year? >> don't have an estimation yet. >> okay. what do you anticipate collecting for the treasury? >> don't yet have an estimation. >> i understand you made early payments to the insurance companies. what is that number?

>> that was 2.7 billion. 2.7 billion for insurance companies. moving back to the underlying issue, cms changes between march 11-march 21st as my colleague from oklahoma said. in light of the memo that contradicts the statute will cms correct the rule back it the interpretation of march 11th. >> we believe we have the statutory authority to issue the rule that was issued. >> you are not going to change back to the original? >> we believe what we are following is supported by the statute. >> i disagree but there we are.

self-insu self-insured companies are contributing to the traditional reinsurance funds even though they continue to cover employees and haven't dropped them. they are not contributing to the reinsurance issues or to the potential draw on reinsurance. some of these companies have paid out huge sums. over 50 million to bring into the this program. how can we justify the payoffs to the insurance companies from these private companies who have maintained self-insured plans for their employees and don't have a stake in the exchanges? >> that is what the statute considered originally from my understanding. >> my question is how do you justify the payoffs to the insurance companies from the employers that have no stake in the exchange?

why did you change the formula and pay them more? >> again this is all before my time but that is what the statute considered exactly. >> as an editoral comment, i used to be a ceo and i could not blame my predecessor. i could not say it was before my time. when my board asked me a question, they wanted me to provide an answer, not to say that is before my time. so i want you to know my opinion on that. >> understood. thank you. >> i believe then that is all of the questions we have from our members. so i want to thank you mr. slavvit for being here. can we get the assurance we will receive the documents in a time matter? >> yes, sir.

>> can you tell us when you will have the documents that are due out? >> we will follow up. we can put that right on the schedule and get you dates. >> we would like that. thank you very much. in conclusion, thank you so much for being with us today. i want to remind members they have ten business days to submit questions for the record. i ask mr. slavvit to respond promptly to those requests as well. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

>> earlier today, republican leaders rejected a bid to rewrite the convention rules. it was written the vote bitterly divided the party pitting a small group eager to advance the proposal against the rnc chairman and allies who warned implementing the change would further flame donald trump. next, it is remarks by the

president of somalia who delivered a keynote speech at the u.s. institute of peace on the political and security developments in his country. this is about 35 minutes. >> my name is george moose and i have the honor of serving as the vice chair of the board of directors for the united states institute of peace. it is my pleasure to welcome all of you to this important discussion of current political and security developments in somalai. we are honored to have as our guest today hassan sheikh mohamoud, president of somalia.

i could like to welcome congress, ambassadors and other members of the diplomatic core. we are happy to be joined by ambassador johnny car son, former assistant secretary of state for african affairs and senior advisor at the instew u institute. he will be the moderator for today. we are an independent institution founded by congress and dedicated to the proposition peace is possible, peace is practical, and peace is essential for u.s. and international security interests. we pursue this vision of a world without violent conflict by working directly with parners in conflict zones -- partners -- equipping them with peace

building knowledge, training and tools that are developed and tested in the course of our years of experience. somalia is a country that knows all too well the devastatine consequences of sustained conflict. i know that from personal experience. somalia was one of the first countries i visted almost exactly 23 years ago at a time where wh the seeds of the current conflict were being sewn. this weekend the world witnessed in horror one of the most tragic consequences of the continuing conflict when 200 or more somalia's were downed in the mediterranean ocean as they were attempting to reach europe. there are enormous challenges

that continue to face the region. but it is also clear that we are seeing signs that peace is indeed possible. we look forward to this opportunity to hear more about these developments. the united states has been an important partner and supporter of this evolution, the obama administration decision to nominate an ambassador to somalia is another important step in building a strong u.s.-somalia relationship. usip has been working for more than 20 years across the horn of africa to build peace and build partnerships with the u.s. state department, non-governmental organizations and regional stakeholders. in the context, education grants, training and resources to help somalia receive the

skills needed to build more resilient societies and states. with our non-profit peace lab helped us facilitate the 2012 provisional constitution working with constitution drafting bodies, with civil society organizations and government representatives. we have helped to train members of the somalia police force through courses on community policing methods that have proven to be beneficial. we have engaged youth, 18-25, as they emerge as leaders in their community. mr president mohamoud was a peace building before a president. and before entering politics he

studied mediation at the summer peace building based in harrisburg, virginia. when the current round of conflict erupted, he remained in somalia and served as an advisor to governments, national organizations and ngo's. he stabbed the independent peace and development party and his election to parliament in 2012. this background is cleary reflected in the approach he has taken to somalia's challenges. it is a pleasure to welcome you and invite you it address the audience. [applause]

>> i would like to share important elements with you. ladies and gentlemen, almost four years ago upon my appointment of president, i made a pledge on behalf of somalia to pursue three items. secure somalia, democratic somalia, and progressive and

prosperous somalia. somalia agreed to political transformation by drafting a federal constitution, adopting a federal mode of government, and holding democratic nationwide elections by september 2016. we laid out this ambitious agenda knowing that we face enormous challenges of trying to transform somalia which is not an easy matter. but we have to specifically focus it on the the specific agenda we prioritize it as the most important element in the post-conflict environment. somalia has been without a function state for some time. so in early 2015, we established the ambitious agenda called it the vision 2016. that was outlines how we are going to move out of the current

status of that day to a new status in 2016. we lobbied that with three parliament attacks in filtrating the country with establishing federal somalia, the second trek was reviewing the provisional constitution that was existing by the time and the third was making somalia a democratic state or country. this was the bases for the new somalia that we are envisioning in 2015. that was going to be done in a very difficult environment. an environment where the space for doing these exercise was very narrow, very limited, where the people had a much more

priority which was the security at the time. we move forward and today we have celebrated somalia, which i can claim that the somalia structure has been put in place. those unities that have been established lack capacity, they lack enough for us to implement the real federation. but they are there. somalia has been a territory that is ungoverned for a long time. today we have someone who is responsible in a particular area of somalia. someone is in charge and has full responsibility of that territory.

can they implement it enough? this is a question. these institutions are in place in somalia. today, we have our provisional constitution under review. we have reviewed the constitution by technical teams. the constitution consist of chapters that are thought universal. some chapters you will see in all constitutions. and there are chapters that are specific to the question which need specific attention. there are parts that need a lot of consensus agreement around them. they have been drafted and at our last meeting of the national liberal forum we discussed it, shared the draft with the

leaders of the region and state, we asked them to go back home discuss with their people, and next time when we get together we will discuss about the points that we need to worry about. in may 25-june 5 the national consensus conference agreed to take place where the different corners of somalia will get together and talk about the important chapters of the constitution. the national leaders forum would agree in three days session and a seven day session the public will discuss at the national level, then we will take it back to the cabinet of the federal government under parliament, and then the process waits until referendum. that is where the second track,

which is the review regarding the third track of elections and democraticization of somalia. it was not possible to achieve the goal which was one person one vote for somalia in 2016. the resistance on the ground doesn't permit that to happen. the challenge we have is shall we wait and stay where we are until next term? or we do what we can do right now which was to do an election modem we agree and that is for 2016 only. we agreed on a road map from 2016-2020 in which we have

explained it how to get out of the formula of 4.5 and go to universal of one person, one vote. the transition journey started in 2010. it has been mandated two years and afttwo years we went back we a process that was going on for two years was there, ended up in 2014 with transitional from the federal government, and the transition of charter agreed on somalia as a federal county. in 2012, the 8th parliament has

been formed by 135 members of the clan. we said two important things. one is that journey has to go further and take it out of somalia. in 2016 we want it to happen in different parts of somalia. a larger number of cities need to participate in the election of the next parliament.

trying reduce that number will need a lot of time and energy and that is not available right now. keeping the formula 4.5, we maintain for the reason being there is no other tool or instrument available right now because the constitution and others are in the making. what is different? the difference is taking the election to different places in somalia. involving more citizens to participate in bringing the next parliament. that is what is new to this process now. almost 14,000 citizens will participate in the election. although it is the clan.

we have 14,000 citizens electing 275 mp's in six different locations. the journey started in kenya and has moved to the head quarters of the federal member states in 2020 is planned to go down into the districts which we are planning and put in place a road map that indicates what happens and when in the next four years of the new term where the government is going to implement the road map including state, local and national elections at the end.

that is the end of the journey when we reach one person one vote in all distances of somalia. now the elections are more demographic, indirect, and in 2020 we are expecting it will be one person, one vote. this is the new somalia we are working on. why i have started my presentation in politics is we believe that so many good things the world can do for somalia. the world brought force to fight with us and other evil forces. in 25 years, the world has been

trying to fix the political problem of somalia. the world can help the

the war is not militant only. it has other facets. economic, social, the war in the military region reaches some advance stages but the war in front of the economy and social

services are still lagging behind. somalia is a huge country in ternlz -- terms of resources. in terms of politics, we have never benefited in those regions. it is time for the federal government of somalia to divert toward the stimulating and recovering the economic aspect of somalia. and we have made a good starting in that. today the somalia teams are coming back and j vesting back to the country at a different level. the somalia government is struggling with performing substantially institutions of the country. we will have trust work institutions that can deal with international partners. after 22 years the imf has

produced -- after 27 years, sorry, the last time imf published a report on somalia was 1988. in 2015, we have the next report that indicated 3.7 percent economic growth in somalia. somalia concluded the consensus and the international found we are entering into the a program that will go on another year to make sure somalia has access to the international financing institutions and will go into the program so that somalia can benefit with international tools for development and construction. on conclusion, i would like to say a little bit about the future of somalia.

somalia has a very prosperous future because of its wealthiness, because of its clear direction of fixing and transforming the country in terms of politics. it was not an easy task. a task that can begin overnight because this is a young nation that is going to rebirth again. we are changing almost every system that was existing in the country. highly centralized government system now highly decentralized government system. we were having systems put in place during the cold war and now we are changing all of those systems. we are getting, because of the federal system, almost every load that was existing in somalia has to be reviewed with major changes taking place including and starting from the constitution. with this we hope that somalia

will be a better place that attracts international investment. this is a country that is the largest on the african continent but unfortunately we don't benefit from that. we have illegal fishing, destroying the ecology of the ocean. we have a lot of continuous that have been thrown out by the sea. we don't know what is inside it but this is very good indicator toxic waste has been dumped in somalia. there is no signs or anything written on them. we don't know the day it explodes.

this is important for the generations of somalia to come and this can't happen without having a function state in place. this is the priority of the somalia government. after a long time of war in the somalia we don't expect the wounds to be healed overnight but we are in the process of healing the past wounds. we are in the process of addressing the reasons for those grievan grievances that happen in the past, building the trust among our people, and building the trust of our people toward the state. this is very important. the last time somalia went to the elections was 1969. 47 years ago. who is there in somalia today who participated in that

election of 1969 and who can do this today? one of the benefits of the election process happening this year is it is a learning process so that in 2020 we will be doing it better when we do the mistakes and pitfalls now in 2016. i thank you very much. [applause] >> mr. president, thank you very much. we have a few questions and i will invite you to sit down. we have a few from the audience coming in. mr. president, somalia under

your leadership and the leadership of your president -- predecessor has made incredible progress. one of the former u.n.representatives said recently somalia moved from a failed state to a fragile state. the question i have this afternoon to start off with is do you believe that the international community, and the u.n.who have been strong partners with you, have become weary of working with somalia? i ask that because several things have come up. the european union reduced st e

stipends from the u.n.is one example. but are you getting the support you need to go to the next step? >> i think one important thing is anslar came to somalia in 2017. in ten years, for a country, looks like it is too long. for somalia, it is not. however, this space we talk about today, that we are going to do elections in the first couple of the system of the country, all of this has been -- was composed because of the amazon and national army that wi widened the space for the government to exercise. i think it has been a useful tool for somalia.

it has been an ex experiment i can say is successful. there is nothing to continue. this gift cannot continue. the world after all of this is investigating and it is getting fatigued. what we have been asking the world is, which we ask, say it was short of what the world was supposed to do is investigating somalia national army or security forces. it has not been enough attention has not been given to the past unilaterally and bilaterally there are many countries that supported the system among the united states. but a very small amount of what

has been spent in the amazon will make a lot of difference in somalia. that is what today we are growing and not realizing that without having a robust reliable force. we will have a force we are expecting. discussions are going on on how to make sure with the short period of time we will be able to take over and i would like to say tangible changes will be seen. >> mr. president, i am going to do this in sort of rapid fire since we only have a limited amount of time. a question from the audience.

how is your administration addressing the deep seated clan animosities that have been built up over the decades in somalia? >> one thing i agree with the person that asked that question. there is a level of mistrust among somalia. it is always available in any post--war environment. the wounds of the civil war have not been healed completely but the healing process is a process that takes time. we start with working in this building with the consoling for 15 years before becoming president and i will like to share my experience with you. even this is not possible without institution's interest.

when a criminal kills someone, we call that person a criminal. but in a post-conflict environment, that killer or martyr becomes plan x that kills plan y. we isolate the responsibility of the crime to the individual committing it. this type of trust is only possible when we have these functional institutions in place.

it has to be guilt. the former governor of the somalia started that and we are integrated in making them a national force. there has been the conferences going on in many places. we believe the healing process has been started. it will take time to fully restore the full trust. >> mr. president, you have two large powerful and influential neighbors, both of whom have large somalia indigenous populations. they have both been countries that have contributed to the efforts to bring about stability. i am thinking of ethopia and

kenya. how are your relationships with those two neighbors? >> we don't have a long history with kenya. the relationship started in 1960. before that there wasn't one. there was clan conflict that was traditional. what we have a long, long history with ethiopia. a history of 700 years. most of this history is not -- is a history of conflict and jihad. it has been a very difficult history for that country. that history ended in 1990 both

somalia state and ethiopa state collapse because of the difficult problems we were having and we were making the other one to fail. it took three years to bring back the siege and at the beginning they kept continuing on to build. they are in the process of buildling still 20 years long. so took longer for its own reasons. but what we are realizing is they have no choice or option other than to do this. we need to make shared interest among the two nations. it is not something that can happen overnight. but we started and that discussion has reached a very good level at the political

level. it is still difficult. i will not say this is going to happen. this good relationship we are looking forward is not going to happen in one term or two terms or short term but it is happening at the beginning. somalia is realizing that the political discussions within government, and they don't see they don't have any more appetite to continue with that. yes, there are kenyan forces and ethiopian forces and they all came the somalia with the good intention of supporting somalia to defeat these international agendas of al-shabaab. once that is out of place, they will not be in somalia. it is the responsibility of the somalia's to do whatever

possible that makes somalia a beautiful place. and that is the final defeat of al-shabaab. whatever makes somalia very stable country that is our duty and we do believe the forces will leave somalia sooner rather than later. mr. president, our time is up this afternoon. i want to take this opportunity to thank you again for coming to usip and to compliment you and your colleagues and your fellow citizens on the enormous progress that has been made over the last six or seven or eight years in rebuilding and the strengthening of somalia and bringing it back. so thank you again for your presence here this afternoon and i am sorry our time has

exhausted. ... we have a very hectic schedule and i apologize. thank you very much for coming and giving me this opportunity. i think you very much. >> we will have you back again [applause]. ladies and gentlemen, please remain in your seat. [applause].