before the necessity of any criminal trial. it was my sense that in those instances, that established such a credible threat and it was possible so in 2002 even the threat of the subpoena was sufficient to move an agency to an accommodation with respect document disclosures and the white house to allow officials to testify without a subpoena. the last instance was the failed claim during the chairmanship of dan burton in the 2002 investigation of two decades of informing corruption in the fbi forced an office. i might add it was a bipartisan effort in which the contempt vote was a virtual certainty. the current situation is that congress is under a literal siege. the last decade has seen significant challenges.

presidential operation and other things. with respect to the investigative oversight, recently the executive branch has adopted a stance which was first enunciated in part of the department of justice in 1984 that the historic congressional processes and attempt to design compliance with the information gathering prerogative are unconstitutional and unavailable to a committee if the president feels they need not apply.

congress passed to protect its investigative authority. the current stance of the justice department means that every time the issue was subpoenaed, for documents and testimony that is not going to be complied with, they will force you into district court and that will mean delay and the possibility of additional decisions which has occurred in the myers case and in the present litigation which in total with its investigative time and time before the court has gone on for five and half years without resolution. >> thank you very much thirst. >> mr. lazarus you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much. i think the mic is now on. as senior counsel to the constitutional accountability center, i helped draft a brief

that the cac filed in the house of representatives which you reference mr. chairman. that brief is on behalf of mr. pelosi. it supports the notion that a has authority to fund the affordable care act cost-sharing provisions. my purpose is to explain why. as all of us know the cost-sharing reduction program was designed and has been integrated as a component of the affordable care act, however, house leadership and district court contend there is no appropriation even though as they concede it does provide a

permanent appropriation for the laws complementary tax credit program. with respect, this assertion is at odds with the plan for restructuring markets and the mechanisms and how they are intended to operate and other pieces that would make no sense under this interpretation. the administration has determined the premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions are funded by the preparation and section 1324. that interpretation, the administration's interpretation, suffers administration's interpretation, suffers from none of the above fatal deficiencies and enables it to act as congress intended.

the supreme court rejected a similarly perverse contrived interpretation which, in the words of its architects was contrived to drive a stake through the heart of obamacare, i believe at the american inter- prize institute that was stated. in that case, chief justice john roberts held for the majority on how the provisions should read very carefully. they pass the affordable care act to improve health care markets, not to destroy them. if at all possible, you must interpret the act that is consistent with the former and avoid the latter. this can be read consistent with congress's plan and that is the reading we adopted.

one year later, aca opponents have mounted the same strategy. they brandished a contrived interpretation ignoring the statute as a whole, crafted to undo the statutory design and yield results that are inconsistent with improving health insurance markets. the house leadership prescribes the tax credits and amend where there is no such reference in 1402. this is a prism. the structure made clear that the csr subsidies and the assistant tax credits form a

mutually independent package and both are critical to what the supreme court characterized as the aca series of reform. i should also add the house leadership narrow interpretation would generate a cascading series of nonsensical results. most nonsensical among these, i think there is something like 40 of them, they make no sense under the leadership's interpretation of the district court interpretation. federal expenditures would actually increase and from the same fund for which the house leadership interpretation saves taxpayer dollars, they are not here and i cannot point this out to him but the department of health and human services has

determined that the net budget impact of the district court's interpretation would cost them billions of dollars annually and i believe that my colleague. >> if you can wrap up please. >> okay, i'm sorry, i'm over. i didn't realize that. they lawfully acted to provide benefits for the individuals receiving cost-sharing reductions. withdrawing funding would flout the design of the aca and the provisions that establish that design which is why this later effort to undermine reform is no more likely to succeed than its predecessors. thank you very much. >> i now recognize myself for five minutes. at the hearing yesterday at the department of treasury officials stated on the record, if congress doesn't want the money to be appropriated, it capasso law saying do not appropriate them money from that account.

is that how appropriation law are supposed to work that congress has to pass a law specifying how the executive branch cannot spend a specific account or indicate which is not permitted? >> the answer is that's exactly the opposite as to what happened. it's trying to say we can spend whatever we want until you stop us as opposed to the role of the congress under the constitution to first authorize and then appropriate the funding. failing to say you can't spend it is not the same thing as saying it was originally approved for spending. >> thank you per mr. rosenberg in the course of this investigation, the committee has really faced unprecedented obstruction for the administration has refused to comply with subpoenas issued by this committee and the committee , witnesses have given us know basis to do so. one of the excuses given is that

the house prevents the ministration from complying with the request. in your professional opinion, does the house lawsuit conclude that congress, from conducting oversight to the cost-sharing reduction program, yes or or no question. >> no. >> why not? >> the supreme court has addressed this issue in at least two major cases. the question specifically arose that the witness got up and said i'm involved in a lawsuit and i'm going to leave my testimony for that lawsuit. for that he was held in contempt of congress and the supreme court upheld it saying no way he can avoid the the investigation.

a second case some years later came to the same conclusion with regard to a witness who claim that the committee, the litigation that was going on, might cause some concern and might reveal evidence that he was criminally responsible. of course that's too bad. >> let me ask in addition to that, the the administration's further abuse to provide documentation or materials, they claim they can withhold this information based on long-standing executive branch confidentiality interests. is this a valid or legal reason to withhold information from congress question and. >> no why not? >> when congress operates, in

practice it has kept for itself the discretion to determine whether common-law privileges such as deliberative process, attorney-client privilege, work product privilege will be recognized. indeed, your processes of investigation and holding hearings is based on the need and its ability to get all the information possible the matter what. congress has the discretion whether or not they can accept the claim and it is entitled to

know everything. under law, that's the final word. >> to mr. badger, in expanding from your testimony, why do you think the administration has taken these kind of positions where we see the executive branch spending stretching. >> i think mr. chairman, if chief justice roberts believes that the aca has improved individual markets and not destroy them, he doesn't get out much. what is happened is this has turned into a dumpster fire for insurers forcing them to rely on a series of unlawful subsidies as i've laid out in my testimony. again i return to the ranking member's remarks remarks. the idea of honestly addressing these would be a good approach for congress to take. what happened is the

administration realized what was happening. insurers realize what was happening and that caused a series of sudden dubious legality to try to get more money to insurance companies and keep them in the game. that has not worked. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lazarus, as i read your biography, you are a constitutional law expert. is that correct? >> i will have to leave that to the expert. >> will that's what you do. thank you. in fact you wrote the brief on behalf of of the house democrats that was filed with the court in this case. >> i helped write it. >> okay, i want to ask a couple of questions about your view of the administration's interpretation of the statutory provisions at issue here. first, i think i heard you say in your testimony that you

believe the administration's position that the aca makes clear that the csr and advance premium tax credit are integral components of a single program that are both funded out of an explicit permanent appropriation of statute. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> why do you believe that? >> let's try to be brief about it, the administration is a perfectly perfectly coherent interpretation of the statute which in my view is clearly the most reasonable interpretation. >> the administration has a perfectly reasonable, well thought interpretation of the appropriation issue in respect to cost-sharing reductions. it's outlined very clearly in the justice brief and supporting brief like ours.

just in brief. >> let me just stop you there and say we've got your brief and we've got your testimony too. as you know, the district court decision went against your position in the ministration position, correct. >> the district court --dash okay their ruling --dash it says there's no preparation. >> the case is on appeal now parked. >> yes. >> in your experience, most of these lawsuits that have been followed around the aca have had a diversity of district court opinions and many have been reversed by the appellate court level is it your view that the administration has an excellent case on appeal? >> both with respect to whether the house of representatives can

claim that it is standing to bring lawsuit in respect to that merits. >> you testified that, just a minute ago that the csr fund has 6.4 million people receiving that benefit. is that correct. >> it is correct that i testified and i got that information from a report by the department of health and human services. >> okay, of those 6.4 million people, they are middle class and lower class because that's the requirement, is that right? >> they would have to have income that are between 10100% of the federal poverty level. >> okay.

i know you are nearly inexpert unconstitutional law but as you wrote your amicus brief in this matter and as you produce this, were you aware of any proposal that is pending in congress to replace this csr program was something else? >> no i'm not aware but i would want to add that congress has every ability to change the law. >> right, in fact, what will happen is the lawsuit, if the trial court opinion is upheld by the court of appeals, the result of that will be struck down. >> yes, it will be a complicated process as my colleagues on the other side have explained in their testimony. that will be the result. >> so you are not aware of any

pending legislation in congress question. >> no i am not. >> so these people could lose their and if it. >> i believe that is true, you. >> thank you. i yield back. >> now i recognized ms. black born for five minutes. >> i want come to you mr. miller because you've looked at the report and know that we find the administration does not have the authority to do these payments. they go ahead and they do that nonetheless. let's go back to the legislation in your opinion, does the aca designate any source of funding for the cost-sharing reduction program? >> no it does not. the provisions that provide for mandatory appropriations by

linking it to pre-existing list of categories and adding the tax credits to that, but there's no language that links it to the cautionary reduction payments therefore there is not that appropriation. >> can a program or can money be appropriated by inference? >> you can try and this administration and it is tried pretty extensively, but under our constitution, you cannot do that. under standard appropriation of law, which the gao is long-standing expertise in that area lays out, the general categories of how you appropriate -- >> what would the consequences be for an executive branch? if they choose to appropriate money by inference? >> there are several consequences. first there getting a free ride. >> that's doing oversight. >> that's correct. they're basically saying you're going to do that until they can

stop that. this is an unusual lawsuit. the house is an institution to go into court to assert a constitutional authority and that's why they got the ruling they did. as a general rule, this has worked out in the clinical process. we are at an unusual moment, to oversimplify, congress passed a law that didn't work. now the executive branch decided they couldn't fix it or wouldn't fix it so were stuck. they're making the law into something else and trying to appropriate money instead of fixing the law. basically what they did is they pay some pass something and realized it is not a workable program. much like we in tennessee realized years ago that tim care was not a workable program. it was too expensive to afford

and a democrat governor came in and completely reshaped it. it took 35% of the state budget. they had to re-shape the drug program because of the number of prescriptions that were being written and said this is not sustainable. we had another governor said this is going to be transparent and you need to know what this is going to cost you. they couldn't shift the money around and play game of chess behind the curtain but nobody was going to see. what they decided to do federally was say oh my gosh, our theories don't work.

we can't afford this. the insurance companies are going to bail on us. let's start moving some money around here because this is too expensive to afford and we don't want egg on our face. pretty much? >> pretty much. again this is structure. to respond to what mr. lazarus said, this is not a rerun of the case, this is simply a core provision of the constitution that says it's the role of congress assigned to them to appropriate money. it's pretty straightforward bread the law doesn't have to change if congress votes tomorrow to appropriate funds for this. it decided not to. there's not any authority for that money to be spent. >> thank you, i yield back. >> we recognize the gentle lady from florida, mrs. castor for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman chairman. think you to the witnesses for being here. approximately 20 million americans have gained coverage

since the affordable care act became law about six years ago. my republican colleagues continue to look for ways to pull the rug out from under these americans in addition to the over 64 votes to to repeal the law, republicans in congress have decided to sue, targeting now the cost-sharing reductions that are a key part of ensuring that our neighbors back home have access to affordable healthcare. the affordable care act had a number, it's a complex law, it had a number of different components. part of of it was to end discrimination against our neighbors who had a pre-existing condition, like a cancer diagnosis or diabetes. insurance companies could no longer lock them from purchasing insurance. another part of the law was intended to stabilize insurance markets because this was a

fundamental change in the way people would purchase insurance. especially if you have people with pre-existing conditions coming in, and i think everyone agrees to that, i would hope so, to know that my republican colleagues have said that were going to repeal the act in its entirety. it's important to have a stable insurance market especially when their state-based. another important part was to ensure that our neighbors, our working-class neighbors, who are doing everything right, can can go in and purchase a policy. this has been a remarkable improvement to the way things were handled in the past. we've all talked to so many of our friends and neighbors that now have that stability in their life that they didn't have before. of the approximately 11 million consumers who enrolled at the end of march, including

1.6 million floridians, my neighbors neighbors at home, nearly 6.4 million individuals were benefiting from this cost-sharing reduction piece that helps make their coverage more affordable. what that really means, it makes a difference in whether or not they can get to see a doctor or nurse, get the checkup they need or not. so in your understanding, how how does the cost-sharing reduction piece fit within the broader mission of the affordable care act? >> thank you. the cost-sharing reduction enables people who have insurance, and to got premium assistance tax credit funding, to afford their insurance premiums, but people who could not afford to purchase healthcare comes the deductibles

and co-pays were too much for them to afford. the cost-sharing reductions enabled those people have confidence that they will be able to actually use their insurance and therefore it encourages them to purchase it. without that the act wouldn't work because as you just said, insurers must accept people without respect to their health status. unless the pool includes a large number of people, including healthy people, the market will be destabilized. the cost-sharing reduction provisions are essential to achieving that stabilization. >> so this is kind of another tactic that might republican colleagues have taken in addition to the repeal votes,

the republican majorities follow a lawsuit in federal court to undermanned families ability to purchase affordable insurance. i was surprised about the lower court ruling. let's be clear here, if the house republicans prevail in this lawsuit, it's going to be our neighbors all across america who are hurt. mr. lazarus, if the house republicans are successful here, what is the impact to families across america? do you know, out of all these 64 votes there has not been a corresponding plan to address their needs. are we just going to have many of our neighbors that are out of luck? they have been successful in pulling the rug out from under them and they won't be able to find affordable insurance? >> first of all, i would certainly not lose hope that the district court's decision is going to be upheld. i think think the administration has very powerful case both on

whether or not the house has standing to get itself into court over this and also on the merits of the administrations compelling interpretation. what i do know is i believe 57% 7% of all people getting insurance on the exchanges, 57%, that's many millions of people, are eligible for receiving the cost-sharing reduction. we are talking about a lot of your neighbors. thank you. >> i just want to say, with regard to my think there's some confusion about the csr and also the premium tax credit. administrated administrations admitted in a lawsuit that they get the reduction regardless of whether or not the insurers are paid in regardless of what is held on appeal. it is a subsidy to insurance companies.

the tax credit goes strictly to the people. i just want to make sure that's on record. i recognize mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i feel in many respects like a fish out of water on this. i go back 40 years ago when sam erwin was in the watergate thing and he said i'm just a country lawyer. he had made some fairly profound remarks. i'm just an engineer. i'm dealing with something that's a medical and legal issue more than anything else so i'm enjoying the conversation with it, but i'm caught with some of the discussion that we seem to be, from my perspective more the ends justify the means. i'm not sure that's the way were supposed to be doing that. i don't think there's any question that people getting health care medical benefits, that that's a good thing for

them, but how how do we get there? i've made some mental notes to myself about food. we could rush food to market but if we bypass the fda in the process to make sure the food is approved that was supposed to get to market, then we shouldn't do it but they benefited from it. same thing with medicine. we have a lot of medicine that can help people but we need to follow the process to make sure it is appropriate for them. it just goes back again to the same thing to what we heard a year ago where the administration said they have no authority to deal with this immigration issue but then they went ahead and did it. i know they said there was a request, that the president put in a request for appropriation. just like he did on immigration, they need to have authority to do it.

he asked for authority for appropriations but he was denied any went ahead and did it anyway then he apparently said i'm just going to do it. i'm curious whether we have a rule of law or a rule of man. i thought all the statements we saw on the wall were rules of law. i'm gonna go back to rosenberg, if lazarus is right in this thing gets overturned, where do we go

what should we be doing here in congress then, mr. rosenberg? >> with regards to the appropriations process? >> yeah. if this thing is overturned what are we supposed to do? >> get a new plan? >> get a new what? >> pass laws. the problem there wasn't appropriation and you should think there should be a appropriation for it, pass it but, you have to have a plan and you have to have, you know, the votes to do it. >> okay. >> mr. miller, same question, what should congress be doing at this point? >> well, we tried to fix these problems in the past and your historical example is rather apt, there was lot of controversies in the 1970s, not only about watergate but budget process.

i remember working on impoundment authorities and pass ad whole budget act to deal with that. it encourages the worst instincts in both sides. you get into trench warfare where congress would retaliate in various ways, not as effectively, you would be shutting down the government. trying to hold other appropriations hostage. that makes our politics descend into worse example as who can get away with as much as possible. this is fundamental, legal, structural constitutional issue here, beyond what you prefer in health policy in particular. all parties need to be accountable in broad daylight to say, here is what our argument is, we're voting for it. we'll find out what happens and what the public will support. you can't do an end-run around the process or you get this type of improvization where the administration tries to run out in front what the law says and the congress plays catch-up. >> yield back balance of nye time. >> gentleman yields back.

i recognize mr. green for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lazarus, thank you for testifying and i think your testimony clearly lays out why the affordable care act includes what we call either permanent or mandatory appropriation for the csr program. mandatory spending is not unusual. affordable care act in 2010 did that, alongwith a bill we just recently passed this year for mandatory funding for the schip program and continuation of the fqhc program. so congress does add on at times. my republican colleagues disagree with you, and disagree with the administration claiming that the administration actedded unlawfully concluding it had the authority to fund the csr program without an annual appropriation. in fact this lawsuit shows that they even were willing to go to court. mr. lazarus, congress has many tools at its disposal when it

disagrees with an agency on policy, is that correct? >> that is very definitely correct and those tools are available to it right now. this is, the sky is not falling, mr. miller. this is a simple meatier of difference of interpretation, of the relevant statutory provision on the part of the administration and congress. congress can fix that in instant if wants to go on record, casting a vote to take subsidies away from people who need them. congress has actually done that in the affordable care act and we're all here very well aware of that. specifically, the risk corridor program, which has been a target of criticism from my colleagues on the right side here and it has, congress has actually acted to affirmatively deny appropriations to fund that program. so, you can put your money where your mouth is or your votes are

if congress wants to and it shouldn't really be running to court to try to protect itself here. >> well, some of my colleagues seem to claim victory on the legal issue because of the federal district court recently ruled in their favor. they suggest that the ruling is conclusive evidence, being a lawyer i know there is an appeals process and were you surprised by the district court's decision? >> well i wasn't surprised after going through the oral argument frankly, but i, yes i was surprised because the precedent are very clear that -- implication of the lay with the executive branch. so i was very surprised that the court ignored those precedents and granted standing. >> do you expect the ultimate outcome of the case on the appeal? >> well, i believe it is more

likely than that that on appeal the decision will be reversed but of course i could be wrong about that. we have to wait and see what it is. >> as a lawyer i normally don't ask a question i don't have the answer to but i want to ask the panel, doing health care policy for decades with republican and democratic administrations some way you have to find a way to encourage the private sector to take the poorest folks, the ones who have a lot of claims and the csr is part of that process. can any four of you think that over the period of time whether it be the prescription drug plan of 2003, that encouraged insurance companies to cover poorer seniors who took a lot of medications, and i would be glad in my one minute 10 seconds, how did that happen? how was that dealt with in 2003? >> congressman, i represented the white house in negotiations on that and the way it was done

was that it was a bipartisan process to agree on a law. the difference here is -- >> i disagree. and it wasn't bipartisan. >> say on senate side. >> on our side. >> on senate side we had over 60 votes and that required substantial democratic support but they were part of the conference process. the difference here, congressman, i don't want to be argumentative this is not working. the reality is that despite all of these corporate subsidies, despite all of the changes that were made during the first part of 2014 by the administration, some of which do appear to be unlawful, the insurance companies are still losing money in the individual market. we haven't solved this problem yet and what i would encourage, just to correct the record, of the 6.4 million who are getting these subsidies, even if the administration were to follow the law, section 1402-a-2, it

shall reduce cost sharing under the plan. the insurer has obligation to do it, irrespective of the presence of these funds. what i would hope to precipitate the kind of conversation we had with respect to part d, people worked together, acknowledged this is not working in many ways and try to work together on getting something that does. >> in my last, 15, 20 seconds, whatever i have, i agree with you, we need to work together to see how we can fix it because these folks need the health care coverage. just dropping six million people off without this assistance. hopefully in the majority we can deal with that and fix it instead of going to court and you know, the law needs to be successful, so we need to fix it. >> thank you. mr. griffith, you're recognized for might have fins. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i appreciate it very much. this is an important hearing because it points out some major flaws and problems we have in the way washington is currently working.

i think it is high time, and this is a classic example, of it, it is high time we start defending the legislative prerogative. it is not a matter of democrat or republican or independent, or socialist or whatever party you want to put on there. it is a matter of defending the constitution from the congressional branch, from the legislative branch of our government. we aren't doing it and we should be doing it, whether it is democrats or republicans. one of the reasons i really hope we'll have a republican president so my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will see if a republican president were to flaunt the law as it has been flaunted in this particular circumstance and try to spend money not authorized by congress, i will stand up and say to that president, just as i'm going to say today, you can't do that and weil not sit idly by and we'll not allow you to do that. doesn't matter whether is republican or democrat or a program i like or dislike we have to follow the law.

we are not robots just doing thing. yesterday i made independent constitutional decision. we don't have to wait on the courts to tell us what is and isn't constitutional. we get to make some of those decisions ourself. we take a vote to uphold the constitution. i voted against my party. i thought paragraph five of the rule had something that i thought was unconstitutional. getting that off my chest as well i think 60 vote rule in senate kit killing us. we can in the house pass a law with majority vote. you can't do that in the senate. totally botched up entire process. doesn't matter whether you're a democrat or republican, when it takes 60 of 100 votes to pass a piece of legislation it is wrong. the process doesn't work and it is weakening, it is weakening the legislative branch government and dangerous to the republic. mr. rosenberg, you said to mr. mckinley, if we, if this

ruling is upheld and we have to flip things around where instead of voting for appropriations we have to vote against appropriations and say you can't spend money here, the problem with just passing a law and having a new plan, that 60-vote rule in the senate. there. i got all of that off my chest but i think it is very clear, just like in the solyndra case where they didn't have authority to subrogate, they said before lunch was different than after lunch, it was an hour later, you wasn't supposed to sub row great at the time but can sub row gate later. they are interpreting law same way. if we take a law as legislative branch government we have to wait for the courts before we take any action we lose our authority and diminishes the legislative brand. mr. rosenberg, would you disagree with what i said? >> not at all. >> i appreciate that mr. miller, would you disagree with what i just said. >> no. i would underscore what was

significant about the house v. burwell cases, think about this, the judge knocked out a different cop complaint the house had about employer mandate because that was a matter of statutory interpretation. however this went to a core constitutional provision, the power of congress to determine appropriations to spend money. that is why it was uniquely moved forward and got past the standing considerations. there was really no other plaintiff you could have bring this case before a court. and that's why, as a judge in very unusual ruling said this is only way to remedy this issue. >> and i think we may have some more of those but first we have to stop looking at ourselves as playing for the republican team or the democrat team and start playing for the legislative branch government because if we follow the process in the legislative branch of government we end up with better government. i don't think that, in due deference, mr. lazarus, i don't think we can say we can flip it. i think that is bad for the republic too.

when you say we didn't specifically say they couldn't spend it they can spend it. i think that is error. >> mr. griffith, add one thing you didn't mention, beyond 60 votes in the president, you have a presidential veto. you have administration which could actively and protect its illegal actions correction by congress to override it. >> that is true although i respect the constitutional prerogative of president to veto a bill. if we get it out of the senate, my position the president won't veto everything we send him. if we send him0 bills we don't like, we'll get at least 10 or 15 past the veto pen. my time is almost up. mr. rosenberg, i like to get cites on teapot dome case. that is important as legislative prerogative. that is what this legislative hearing is about. not trying to take down the hca. it is about the legislature defending its right where it

will spend money and not spend money. unfortunately the administration totally disregarded it. we need to be more aggressive. my time is up. i can't let you respond. >> my p.m. page five. >> page five, very good. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman yields back. recognize miss clark for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank our expert witnesses for appearing here today. i just want to drill down a little bit more on some specifics with respect to the csr. congress designed the aca cost sharing reduction program to reduce out-of-pocket costs for certain enrollees purchasing silver plans on the exchanges. cost sharing subsidies along with advanced premium tax credits lower beneficiary's pay for health insurance costs. essentially the discounts lower the amount of money consumers must pay out-of-pocket for deductibles, coinsurance and co-payments. the department of treasury then

reimburses insurance companies making these cost sharing reductions. this is the basic premise. so mr. lazarus, how is the mission of the cost sharing reduction program consistent with the broader goals of the affordable care act? >> thank you very much. the cost sharing reduction program is essential to the overall operational plan of the affordable care act. it enables people who otherwise couldn't afford health care, even with, even with premium assistance to help pay their insurance premiums, to get health care and therefore encourages them to actually buy insurance. they become part of a larger insurance pool, that leads to stabilization of markets, and it enables the markets to accommodate the fact that the law now forbids insurance

companies from turning away people if they have preexisting conditions and so forth. so all of these components work together just as the supreme court ruled in king v. burwell and the cost sharing reduction provisions are absolutely integral to that. so that's how works. >> thank you. since congress passed the affordable care act in 2010, the number of uninsured in the united states has fallen by 20 million people. this is a remarkable achievement. such an achievement would not have been possible without insuring that all elements of the law work together as designed to provide a stable and accessible insurance marketplace. in his opinion in king v. burwell chief justice roberts wrote, quote, congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.

if at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former and avoid the latter. mr. lazarus, can you apply this same reasoning to the csr program? >> well, i would say that, if you take the approach that chief justice roberts elaborated there he was applying it to the premium assistance tax credits and stating that under that approach they, the law, ambiguous provision in the law should be interpreted to make them applicable to all states, rather than not just states with state-run exchanges. i would say that the cost sharing reductions part of the subsidies is on exactly the same footing as the premium assistance tax credits and would fit into that analysis in the same way and therefore the administration's interpretation is the proper interpretation.

>> very well. mr. chairman, we have heard today that the cost sharing reduction program is a critical component of the affordable care act and has a very important role in efforts to provide health care security for working americans. to attempt to dismantle this program without providing any other way to insure access to critical health care services, to deserving americans, is frankly i believe irresponsible. and i hope we can move on from this partisan investigation to provide all of our constituents with the health care coverage that they need and having said that, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> thank you, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. as health care provider i want every american to have access to quality, affordable health care, a goal we all share. this was a bad law, passed in a bad law. reef mind everyone the law was senate bill that did not have the chance to go to conference because it, any change to the

law would have resulted in its failure to pass congress after a change in the makeup of the u.s. senate. we all know that. and when you do those type of things you end up with this. i would also encourage everyone to look at our better way website, house republicans in our proposal to replace the affordable care act. mr. lazarus, does the ends justify the means? >> dot ends justify the means? >> yes. >> no, they don't. >> because essentially in your testimony that is what you have said. >> no, that is not what i said. >> this is my time. >> with all respect that -- >> you said what will happen if the district court decision is upheld, and our democratic colleagues implied the same, that it should be overturned, even if the constitution is violated. that is essentially what you said. >> no, that is not what i said. >> what did you say? >> that the administration has a different interpretation of its appropriation authority here.

that the administration perfectly sensible. >> can you quote me in the constitution where their interpretation is, says in the constitution, that the only people that can appropriate money is the congress. can you tell me in the constitution where it says that you can interpret that that the, at executive branch can appropriate money that is not, congress has not appropriated? >> the administration's position is that congress has appropriate ed the money. your position is it has not. >> the distribute court disagrees with you. >> true. >> you know, and other thing is, i want to just clear this up. this could apply to any law. but, in this case, does it, because the law's intent is to provide insurance to american citizens for health insurance, does it matter, in your, the gist of your testimony is that it doesn't matter what the law actually says because the intent of the law is to provide coverage? >> that is not at all what i

said. >> that is what you basically said. >> that is not what the administration is argue. >> ben this isn't partisan issue. this is legislative branch discussion versus an executive branch discussion and honestly and fairness, it has been a struggle for 240 years. but i agree with my colleagues that have said, that unless the legislative branch in a bipartisan way reasserts its authority, the future of the constitution and this country is at risk. >> i certainly agree that if, if you believe that the administration's interpretation of its appropriations authority with respect to this program is incorrect, you should attempt to pass a law -- otherwise ooze your ample powers to change that result. >> let me just say this you're a partisan supporter of the administration and you know as well as i do, and you can say that because you know the

president would just veto anything related to the affordable care act and we don't have the override vote. so pretty easy to say that, right? but i would like to know what you were saying back when republicans had 60 votes in the senate, house, white house. i think your view would be a little different. but the other thing i want to get at, in this, does it matter if a law makes sense to make it enforceable? obviously the constitutional provision of appropriations doesn't make sense to you in this case but does that matter? does it mean we can't enforce it because it doesn't make sense to you. >> the constitutional provision about -- >> you said in your testimony. doesn't make any sense. >> makes perfect sense. >> people will lose their health insurance if we don't do that that implies the ends justifies the mean. that the constitution doesn't matter. doesn't matter why we oppose the affordable care act or that in your interpretation that doesn't make, that just doesn't make any sense.

none of that matters, right? what matters is what the constitution says about appropriating money and the district court at this point, i would argue that i don't think it is going to be overturned because historically congress has been found to have standing in this, to sue the administration based on our congressional appropriations and i would hold that we, we're going to win that. and i would also say that, that, people on both sides of the aisle, in the legislative branch, should continue to argue that this is in the constitution and it is our sole authority to appropriate money. it doesn't matter what it is for. doesn't matter what law it pertains to. i yield back. >> i just want to clarify that the administration in 2014 asked for an appropriations for this. if what you're saying is true they didn't have to, that belies what they did.

so in fact that is true. the second thing is, the department of treasury said there is currently no appropriation to treasury or anyone else in purpose of cost sharing, reporters, clarify that for dr. bucshon. >> mr. chairman, if you do that, let him respond to the statement. >> yes, i'm perfectly aware that the administration did request an appropriation. but that has often, or at least sometimes happened, that, an administration will request congressional action, in an area where it is unclear whether or not the executive branch has authority to act on its own. it happens all the time. and the only question here is whether in fact the administration's interpretation of its authority is correct or is not correct. >> along those lines, if you can get us examples of that and show me where, show this committee where in the affordable care act it gives that authority. you just said it was unclear. but also treasury said it was

not. treasury said there is currently no, no appropriation or treasury or anyone else for purposes of cost sharing payments. so you're saying it was unclear to the administration. they asked for the money. which is same for this committee. shows us in the lines in affordable care act that give automatic preauthorization for future of this and also, the appropriations and if you could respond to the statement of the treasury of this committee would appreciate that. >> just two points. the first point is, it's hardly surprising there was disagreement within the administration over this issue. that often happens but what matters now, is whether or not the position that the administration has finally and with careful attention taken, whether that position is correct or not. now the position is -- >> wait, wait. make sure i understand. they took a position whether or not that is correct? >> whether it's correct. i mean -- >> that is what this committee

is trying to find out sir. you don't get to take a position and retro -- >> you asked me where in the affordable care act does the authority to spend this money come from? the administration's interpretation that within the integrated program that includes both the cost sharing reductions and premium assistance tax credits, within this integrated program, both portions of the advanced payments to insurers, to cover those, two halves of the program, are quote refunds due from section 36-b within the meaning of 31 usc section 1324 because both are compensatory payments made to insurers made available through the application of section 36-b, which sets forth conditions necessary to qualify for both of those subsidies. that is the administration's text all interpretation -- textual terp tanks. i think that is perfectly reasonable interpretation.

>> i need to let other members. >> thank you, mr. chair. i do not want, i do think, our witness -- thank our witnesses for being here today but i regret we're in a sense wasting your time to reexamine an issue that has been examined to death. this issue fundamentally comes down to a difference of opinion about what was intended by the affordable care act with regard to the crs program. yesterday the majority release ad 150-page report with the ways and means committee documenting in great detail their opinion on the legality of an appropriation for the csr program. so, mr. lazarus, in your opinion is it responsible to conclude that the aca provides a permanent appropriation for the csr program? >> i believe that it east correct. i understand there's a argument a good argument for opposite point of view. i respect that i believe that is not only responsible but it is legally correct.

>> my republican colleagues also claim that administration, has quote, overreached in executing the csr provision of the affordable care act. mr. lazarus, would you agree with that assessment? >> not only would not agree but i think the constant din of charges coming from the president's political opponents that he is is over reaching, violating laws is very unfortunate distortion of the truth. we must remember that prior to king v. burwell last year we heard the same litany of charges that funding the premium assistance tax credits in federal exchanges states was a gross violation of the law when it turns out the supreme court didn't agree with that at all but we're still hearing it and hearing it over and over again.

we heard it with respect to various delays in the effective dates of parts of the affordable care act as administration implemented it but the truth is, when part d of medicare, the prescription drug benefit, which was a president bush program and turns out a very good program, i can personally testify to that, when it was implemented, there also were delays because it is very complicated implementing these very complicated laws. secretary leavitt, who was the secretary of hhs at the time said that the obama administration's delays were, quote, wise, unquote. so i think that this, these charges of overreach reflect a political strategy of demonizing this administration rather than the facts. >> i thank you. just a few minutes we have conclude ad difference of opinion exists yet it is

reasonable to believe that the executive branch acted appropriately in executing the law. now my republican colleagues have been examining this issue for two years without reaching that conclusion. today's hearing follows the filing of a lawsuit in federal court questioning the constitutionality of the csr program. it follows 15 letters from the majority of the committee and from the ways and means committee to administration officials. it follows six subpoenas for documents to three different federal agencies. follows interviews with 13 current and former government officials from four federal agencies. and follow as hearing yesterday by the ways and means committee with four federal witnesses. so, my question is, congress clearly has a wealth of tools at its disposal. mr. lazarus, has congress successfully used its legislative authority to review or, to reverse or defund the administration's implementation of the cost sharing reduction program?

>> well i think that the fact that congress, that, congress, republicans have taken no steps to pass such legislation is an eloquent, an eloquent testimony the fact they're failing to use those weapons and instead running to court as kind of a diversionary tactic. >> i thank you for that assessment. and i would just state, enough is enough. after 64 votes on the floor, dozens of hearings and countless letters to the administration, it is clear that there is no purpose to this aimless oversight. i call on my republican colleagues to move on to other important topics that deserve our time and attention and certainly respond much more appropriately to the general public that we serve. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. now i recognize mr. mullen for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

the administration's position on source of funding only changed after the sequestration reported, is that correct, mr. lazarus? >> i believe that it is correct. >> okay. mr. miller, would you mind explaining that a little bit more for us? >> the timeline was -- first they requested the appropriation. then they also filed some information that -- basically confirmed that this would be subject to sequestration. they reversed direction on that, because it would be subject through sequestration because it is not a mandatory appropriation which is beyond just that single year. that would have reduced the cost sharing reduction payment. >> right. insurers was only getting 92.8 cents on the dollar? >> across the board haircut for those fund that are subject to sequestration. >> i think the position that we're trying to take timing on this can't be -- what is word

i'm looking for here? it's, the timing on this seems a little odd for us -- >> coincidental. >> coincidental, thank you. oklahoma accent was not allowed to be spit out. but seems odd to us, and the justification that is coming out behind this, i have a hard time to believe, mr. lazarus i appreciate your opinion on this but sound like you're trying to justify the actions. all we're trying to do not keep poking the eye in this administration even though we do that quite off the your honor. who is hurting here? the insurers who we're supposed to protect. oklahoma exchange went up 49% this year alone. insurance costs skyrocketed through the roof. the same people we were supposed

to take by this law it is hurting. don't take our word for it. see how much insurance is costing today versus what it cost in 2010, in six years. something's wrong here. and that is all we're trying to do is fix it. we all have constituents. we all, we don't want anybody to go out there without insurance but yet there already is and with the cost rising the way that it is, why? just one piece of it? it is costing the taxpayers some dollars. we're the ones holding the bucket full of dollars i guess but this is i guess is just one piece oft. mr. lazarus, i'm not trying to come after you on this one, i'm disappointed you hearing trying to justify the administration actions for some reason it is political. it is not political at all. mr. miller would you like to respond a little more what mr. lazarus was saying a little while ago?

>> i could choose a lot of territory. let me raise one -- argument is having both ways, arguing alternative in court. we heard people are going to be suffering because they won't be getting any cost sharing reduction subsidies. we'll still be required to do it. even if that was the case trying to have it both ways argument, insurance will raise premiums and tax credits will be even larger for premiums, so they will all be covered anyway. it is one of these migrating arguments, no matter what you do you end up in the same place. >> mr. rosenberg, you're our congressional oversight expert, literally wrote the book on this i know you've been asked what, you know what we could do. i think your response was is, pass legislation. we tried that. doesn't work. we have this guy in, keeps holding us up. what else could we do here in congress to help hold this

administration accountable to, to keep things that we feel like is completely outside of their boundaries? everybody says we can throw control the purse strings. so in your opinion, as expert, what is our next step? >> well, you've got to shore up your abilities to know what's going on. to know how decisions are made, who makes them. and what's clear in your investigation, and it has been clear the last five or six years in other investigations, the doors have been closed on you. either slow-walking, getting information, you know, that gives you the ability -- >> deliberately slow walking. >> deliberately slow walking. and axe lieutenant refusals. -- absolute. when subpoenas are issued, they're ignored.

and when you try to go to do what traditionally has been done for 200 years, either go for a criminal contempt to show that you mean what you say and you need what you're withholding from it, it is now impossible to do. what they're telling you, if you want to do that, go to court for a civil action. and what that does is put everything on hold and we know that it takes up time and time in good oversight is a necessity. you know, timely getting the information so that it can be acted upon so it can be effective is there. >> thank you. gentleman's time expired. >> i'm sorry, my time expired, thank you, mr. chairman, allowing him to try to explain that. >> thank you very much.

miss schakowsky is, you're recognized for five minutes. >> i apologize for missing -- there is all these conflicting things. i appreciate you all being here. i do have a couple of questions for mr. lazarus but yesterday the ways and means committee held a hearing on this very same topic, cost sharing reductions in front of representatives from hhs, omb, and a member of that committee repeatedly declared this quote, not about poor people. this is about an insurance subsidy, unquote. i think this is simply disingenuous, like the advanced premium tax credit, the cost sharing reductions are a direct benefit to consumers. to simply flow through insurance companies. average consumer benefiting from the cost sharing reductions receives approximately $500 per year and suggesting that it is an insurance subsidy i think is

a cynical and misleading attempt to distract people from the reality that house republicans are trying to take health care benefits away from low and middle income families. >> will gentlelady yield? >> no. >> we are not. >> this tells us all we need to know about the republican party's priorities. this investigation is not a good faith university to improve the affordable care act and insure that all of our constituents receive quality, affordable health care. this is just a partisan witch-hunt. mr. lazarus, the affordable care act has now faced its fair share of challenges in the court. does this lawsuit do anything to improve the quality of health care for the american people? >> well, i think that the lawsuit is a very inappropriate lawsuit. i think that, it's a political food fight between the executive branch and part of the congress.

it doesn't he belong in court. i think that ultimately on appeal that's the determination the courts are going to make. >> this law was passed will make health care about people, not about insurance companies. the affordable care act has provided 20 million americans with affordable health insurance and offered millions more protections against discrimination for preexisting conditions, age and gender. of the approximately 11.1 million consumers who had effectuated enrollment at the end of march 2016, 57%, or nearly 6.4 million individuals were benefiting from csrs to make coverage more affordable. mr. lazarus, what does the text of the law suggest about congress's intent when the affordable care act was passed? is the way the administration has administered the cost sharing reductions provision

consistent with the broader reforms to the individual insurance marketplace and the american health care system? >> well, yes. in brief, the cost sharing subsidies are absolutely essential component to other mechanisms that the affordable care act deploys in order to further its goal of getting as close as possible to universe aol insurance. and the statute is replete with references to those purposes with the specific components of the plan necessary to achieve them. and it's, and it's replete with specific references to the importance of the cost sharing reductions to achieving those purposes. >> thank you for that. and it's clear that in passing the law congress's intent was to

make it easier to access quality, affordable health coverage. and i believe the republicans partisan investigation only takes us further from that goal. the comments made yesterday were misleading and they are disrespectful to the american people who are benefiting from the coverage provided through the law. let me just say too, over the years since the passage of the affordable care act, which was a very big and i think powerful and important law, we have attempted to sit down with the republicans to come up with the kinds of fixes that on a bipartisan basis we could do. what i have seen is that all the bad has been embraced. some times i felt like, give me the name of that constituent, and we'll take care of it in our constituent service office to try to make it work. i think we need to be serious about working together, stop these frivolous lawsuits, and

get down to making this law the great law that it could be. thank you. i yield back. >> gentle lady yields back. mr. collins recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm hearing a lot of passion from democrats on other side why we're holding what they call partisan hearing. i have three children, four grandchildren with a fourth on the way. that's why i'm here. that's why i think this hearing and others like it are important. it is about our children, our grandchildren. the fact that every dollar of deficit we spend today, our dollars my children, and other children in america and grandchildren will have to repay. we're not living within our means. i go back to that every single time i cast a vote. seems as though democrats whether zika funding or anything else, their solution is always the same. borrow more money that my children and grandchildren have to pay back. you talk about disrespectful? now that is disrespectful.

if we can't pay our way now, what are we doing borrowing on backs much our children and grandchildren? it is fundamentally immoral. so, here we are, affordable care act. talk about bait and switch? talk about false advertising? america, here's this great plan and here's what it is going to cost. well, it is costing billions, if not trillions more than it was supposed to cost. when we get into a hearing like this where the administration has inappropriately put $7 billion, i like to remind democrats on other side where that would go? that would fully fund zika and rebuild 5,000 bridges in america that have fallen apart at a million dollar a bridge. $7 billion would fully fund zika. $7 billion on top of that would rebuild 5000 bridges in america. that's why this hearing matters, to remind the americans that dollars matter.

so, mr. miller, here is kind of a rhetorical question for you. if the $7 billion hadn't flowed into the insurance companies and what we would say was beyond the constitutional authority of the administration, what would have happened to premiums across the aca? >> there are a lot of moving parts on that front. if you follow one line of argument that the insurers would still be required to provide these subsidies, those premiums would be higher. but you have got a lot of moving parts not at the sail time. >> well, if we stop there because the csr is part of the aca, so they would have to continue to provide them and if there's not funding you could argue one way or the other premiums go up and maybe the federal government then would have to -- >> the broader answer by making congress responsible as it should be for deciding how to sort that out there would be a lot of cross pressures.

we don't snow how congress might decide to subsidize low income individuals differently. >> in those cost pressures we may decide to change some things. we may decide to prioritize our children's future. we may decide to prioritize our grandchildren's future. we may decide to prioritize zika funding. we may decide to prioritize infrastructure repairs. but this administration we would say is unconstitutional overreach and decided they would set priorities. president said he has a phone and a pen. i don't know he ever calls anybody but sure uses pen all the time. that is where this oversight hear something absolutely proper. bring up this point, maybe this is nuance, but do it anyway. something called the anti-deficiency act. under the anti-deficiency act, congress can sue an individual, an individual who misappropriates government funding without an appropriation request. it got to be an individual. in this administration is

continued to refuse to put anyone's name on the line that was involved in what we would say was an illegal decision-making and would just ask you, sir, if that's a proper interpretation, if we don't have a name we can't sue someone under the antideficiency act that misappropriated money? >> that's correct. the way it applies you have to have accountable official and that is little bit of mysterious effort right now. >> we've been attempting to get names. we can't get names. i guess we'll hold hears. we invite the secretary in. she refuses to come in. i guess that is her right. i don't know, make we get her in another way. those are little nuances that do matter. i believe they matter quite a lot but i'll go back and just say if this is about my children and grandchildren. it is about respecting the taxpayers. that is why this hearing occurred. we respect the taxpayers of the united states of america and future generations who will be robbed of the opportunity to live the american dream that we grew up if because they're going

to be so saddled with debt, the debate will become the debate we're seeing today in venezuela, in greece and puerto rico and i yield back the balance of my time. >> gentleman yields back. recognize mr. flores forfy minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the an r panel for joining us today. i want to tell the truth to offset some of the claims we heard from the other side how great the affordable care act has been. the architect of the plan has said publicly that if they could fool americans into this, that they would eventually like it. well americans still don't like it. americans were promised they could keep their daughter. that turned out to be a lie. they were promised they could keep their insurance plan. another lie. they were promised premiums would go lower. a third lie and it goes on and on and on. i want to remind everybody what the constitution simply says and it says -- let me come back to that in a minute. also one of the claims from, one of the folks on the other side this is frivolous lawsuit.

mr. lazarus, admitted the validity of the lawsuit. the courts upheld the validity of the lawsuit. if it was frivolous lawsuit they would have thrown it out originally. so we have a clear context where we're going. now article i, section 9, paragraph seven says, no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law period. it doesn't say if the administration deems it to be that way or if it reads the law a particular way. so my questions are this. we've gone, we've had unprecedented levels of obstruction from this administration and that indicates they have got something to hide. if they didn't have anything to hide, they would send us unredacted document. they would send us every document. they would send witnesses. wouldn't tamper with witnesses. they would let witnesses answer questions. if they didn't have anything to hide they would do that. and so, but none of less, even though they have attempted to cover this up and cover up their

illegal actions we've learned a lot about the administrations decision to unconstitutionally fund this program and we're going to continue to pursue the facts. we have another problem here though. as congress continues to carry out it is constitutional obligation to conduct congressional oversight executive branch which is necessary part, constitutional part of our checks and balances the administration continues to with hold information from congress. this is unacceptable. mr. rosenberg, i have a couple of questions. there have been executive claims of confidential or, administration sort of tried to claim privileges. one is called confidentiality claims. the other one is called heightened sensitivities of the are you aware of any such privilege the executive branch has to withhold information? >> -- with regard to that. >> the administration clearly obstructed congressional investigation here. do you agree with that, mr. rosenberg? >> i'm sorry? >> that congress clearly, excuse me the administration clearly

obstructed congress trying to pure this matter, do you agree with that? >> yes. from what i've been reading and what i know, yes. >> one of the things, direction mr. mullen was headed he was asking what could congress be doing to insure it has access it needs to conduct oversight to help congress pass legislation. i mean, what additional steps do we need to take? >> you need to shore up your ability to enforce your subpoenas. >> okay. >> there are two ways to do it. traditionally you have had criminal contempt process. but the administration has come out with with a dicta we can block that. we don't have to go to court to do it and you can't because it is unconstitutional.

it interferes with presidential prerogatives. you used to have and still have another course called inherent contempt, where, you can bring recalcitrant officer before the bar of the, of the house, question him and hold him in contempt. and even jail him at that particular point. that has been deemed unseemly and also unconstitutional by the justice department. what you need to do is to make do two things. one you have to make inherent contempt process seemly, that is, don't make it appear draconian. that you go out and you arrest, detain, try, and then can put them in. what you want is need information. you need leverage to do it.

if you bring someone in has ajudicatory proceeding which the facts about the obstruction are looked at and determined by a committee with a recommendation be a trial before, before the house, have the person brought, you know, brought in, testify, and as a result there would be a fine. not precedent but a fine, you know, that went against salary of the particular person. that would have an effect after it was upheld, it will be challenged of course. after it is upheld, a finding of inherent contempt would trigger a point of order with regard to salaries and that will get out and that will bring attention. >> thank you. >> second thing you can do --

>> sir, we're way out of time. we have votes coming up in couple minutes. would you be so kind to submit other recommendations to the record. i would like to thank all witnesses that participated in today's hearing. remind members they have 10 business days to submit questions for the record. and -- >> mr. chairman? >> you would like -- >> i want to say one thing briefly which is, i really don't question the motives of the majority here. i think it's in the congressional prerogative to file a lawsuit if congress believes the administration overstepped its constitutional grounds but i do think based on what mr. lazarus said today and what the administration filed in their brief, there may be an honest disagreement here. we believe that the administration had the constitutional ability to establish -- >> will the gentlelady yield? >> no, i won't, to establish the

csr and also to implement it. but be that as it may. i feel, what the democrats are trying to say here today is, we're trying to say even if there is general disagreement on constitutional authority this problem could be easily solved by congress passing legislation to clarify it and the thing we're concerned about -- >> mr. chairman, can i get parliamentary inquiry here? is this out of order. >> if this csr fund is struck down by the court, then 6.4 million people will lose their subsidies. >> not true. that is not true. >> and so, mr. chairman -- and so, the result is, we really hope that what we're trying to say, there has been no effort to fix this. and irrespective of what happens in the court, in the court, in

the court case, we need to work together to try to make sure these people can get affordable insurance. that is all i'm trying to say. i yield back. >> just, other members, been our tradition in subcommittee i give ranking member a wrap-up moment and i would say -- i disagree. i would ask members to read the joint congressional investigative report and source of funding for cost sharing program where we outline a lot of these things. this committee is dedicated to try to find some solutions for health care. we're not abandoning those who are in need. there is a constitutional question here. fundamentally disagree with what a lot of what mr. lazarus says good intense shuns don't automatically mean good results. we need to pull together. i agree with we need to find solutions. none of us want to leave low income people on the lurch without health care. simply occurring i can make it is not constitutional answer. we will continue to uphold that. i thank all members for this. i would suggest if other members

have other questionings to isn't to this panels get them to us. >> mr. chairman, i submit if administration provided documents it might make this a little easier. they have cored up. >> i want to say we have asked for a lot of those documents. we'll continue to do that. but with all this i know adjourn this subcommittee. [inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations]. >> last night in dallas, five police officers were shot and killed with seven others wounded following a protest downtown. two civilians were also injured. starting shortly, attorney general loretta lynch deliver as statement on the dallas shootings from the justice department. you're looking at a live shot right now. we'll have her comments live in just a few minutes here on c-span2. lots of reaction following the murder of those police officers. texas senator ted cruz tweeted this out. men and women of law enforcement selflessly run into harm's way to save lives of others. may god protect them and bring peace upon dallas. texas congressman pete sessions who represents north dallas posted, these criminals targeted

our officers and we can not and will not tolerate this. and congresswoman eddie bernice johnson who represents downtown dallas tweeted, so much tragedy and pain throughout the country. we must remember violence is not the answer. we must have peace. back to our live shot of the justice department. we are waiting any moment now a statement from attorney general loretta lynch about the dallas police shootings. we'll stand by and see that live here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations].

[inaudible conversations] . .

[inaudible] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]. we are looking at a live picture of the justice department where we are awaiting statement from loretta lynch. she is expected to speak about

the shootings in dallas. this is live coverage on c-span2

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] [inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation]

[inaudible conversation] we are waiting for loretta lynch to. >> guest: reporters live regarding the police shootings in texas.

he it appears she is a few minutes late. in the meantime we will show you a portion of this morning's "washington journal" whose topic was the police shooting. >> host: our guest during us from baltimore is a black lives matter activist and community organizer joining us from baltimore. good morning and welcome back to the program. >> guest: it's good to be back. where to start. louisiana, minnesota, dallas, what's your reaction to everything that's been going on, not just this week but in general in the country. >> guest: we shouldn't have to protest. people shouldn't have to be in the street to be heard. people protesting is a last resort. police have been involved in communities for along time. it wasn't until we were in the street in ferguson in 2014 that forced the conversation at the national level about this terror that is happening in the

communities. what we see happening are two black men who should be alive today but they're not alive because an officer chose to kill them. when we think of the lack of conviction across the country that has happened at least just in the last two years, what we know to be true is the court is saying their involvement is not criminal. that reminds us that we need to make sure the laws and practices hold police accountable. they have incredible power to take people's lives but they also operate with impunity and they aren't held accountable by a any of our structures. these cases remind us of that. my heart goes out to the victims of all violence when we think about what has happened over the past 48 hours. >> host: our guest will be with us for a half-hour. the rest of the program will put the numbers on the bottom of the screen and get to your calls in just a moment or two. a little bit of confusion, mr. mckesson about what kind of protest this was.

some were calling it a black lives matter protest and some were saying it wasn't, that the organization doesn't have a branch or anything in dallas. does that matter and can you clear clarify anything for us? >> guest: the two important things for me, the movement is bigger than any organization. what's confusing at this moment is that there is an organization that has a name that is the same name of how we call the movement. when people think about this moment they talk about the black lives matter movement which is more expansive than any person organization. there also is an organization called black lives matter. they didn't start the protest but it is one of the organizations around the country but there are so many incredible activists and organizers that are pushing to make the world more equitable. when you think about the protest that happened in dallas or minneapolis or baton rouge, at its root, it's people coming together saying we know the world can be better and here's how. let me find other people who believe it with me. >> host: let's get to the

phones. david is calling from georgia. you're on the line. good morning. >> caller: good morning. how are you doing? i mean a throw some history at you. you know, you all are listening to politicians and talking like politicians. please quit it because as americans, we need to speak as americans. what is going on in our country is fascism. plain and simple. they call the people over there in the persian world radical muslims. sir, it was started by the end of world war ii when he said a fascist state in egypt that has moved up into the middle east. that is the plain and simple of it. until they point out that it is

fascism and that the good people of our world have to say enough and crush it and quit preaching it to our children, this is going to continue. i hope you can do something that will change what's going on and i wish you all the luck in the world. >> host: let's hear from our guest. >> guest: i appreciate it. what's real is there is a tear happening by the police in communities across the country. you can call it fascism or dictatorship by badge, you can call it a host of things. the outcome is the same. black people are being disproportionately killed by police. police have killed nearly three people every day in 2015. there is is a crisis. i'm hoping --dash. >> host: what are your expectations.

what actions do you expect to come from this? what's realistic in your view right now? we believe we can change structures that change culture. what we know to be true is the culture of policing is broking. the officers where they can do what they want and they won't be held accountable needs to change. we think about things from union contracts and in louisiana, the bill of rights that officers don't have to give a statement here for 30 days. there is a host, even with freddie gray, when he got killed, the police didn't have to give a statement for ten days ten days. that is unfair protection that the police have. then we go to things about body cameras and investigators and prosecutors have a range of things that we can map out policy. prescription.

what i'm hopeful will come forth will also be included in the democratic convention platform is a call for a national use of force standards that both explicitly call for the preservation of life and makes deadly force the last resort. >> host: we have a democratic caller from florida. hello natalie. >> caller: i am very, very upset about what's going on but the problem is, we as people. [inaudible] we need to stop trying to -- god gave us the law.

we shall not kill or steal. stop trying to deal with these people and that is caucasian people. they're not going to do right by us. they've been trying to kill us and that's what they're doing. we need to turn back to god's law and the almighty, the great one will protect us. we need to show the people, don't be mad about it. stop killing our men. >> host: that was natalie. >> guest: we have people who have made their way way out of nowhere. we exist in the legacy of struggle because this country has not been kind to black people since its beginning. we have always been people who have to push and press because of racism and systemic injustice. that is real. what we also believe to be true

is that this is our country too. we have the power to change laws and make positive changes in processes that force it to respond to our lives differently. i think what we've seen in a different type of mobilizing in a different type of organizing among black people and politicians need to say we can make this a better place and i firmly believe that. it's important that we continue to note that at the root of all of this is white village, white supremacy and racism and we have to be able to talk about the way racism affects so many things in our country because it is dramatic and it has real outcome. >> host: a little bit about your self and your organization. one wants to know if you are a leader of black lives matter. how is he chosen to speak with the people of ferguson? >> guest: your position within the group, can can you explain to us. >> guest: there are so many people leading across the country and that's really powerful.

there is no one or two or three leaders of the movement. there are people leading at the local and national level and that's really important. i am one of many people doing work in this space to make sure we have an equitable and just society. one of the specific projects that we launched, i was in the streets of ferguson using our bodies as a way to push back on dominant cultural narrative. what's important about this moment is you continue to see so many people are now part of the conversation and are speaking out and have their voices heard in ways that they have not before. >> host: there's a washington post story that says with police shootings back in the headlines americans remain unsure about black lives matter. they say that shootings in louisiana and minnesota have reignited the movement. americans are still trying to figure out how they feel about it.

orville the course of existence, black lives matter has become polarizing and contentious political movement. opponents accuse it of promoting violence and some say the long overdue reaction. how would you describe yourself? >> guest: the movement is young but this is an old fight. these are people coming into the street and people organizing saying we can do something about it and this is a relatively young space. i also know that there are opposition about the movement and people are doing good move work to oppress this. the change that will happen in a police being accountable is about cities and states passing legislation, passing policies and changing practices in ways

that will make communities safer and it's also about having a different mind shift around what safety means. if i asked you where you feel the most safe, you're probably not going to say in a room full of police. you're probably going to say with people who love you. then how do we scale that understanding of thinking. this is slow work, if issues of race has always been in this country and people still look back on slavery and other injustices and don't actually do a full accounting of the trauma they inflicted on community so it is no surprise that people in this moment are afraid and uncomfortable to talk about race, but we must. >> have have you met with the presidential candidates this year. >> guest: i met with president obama in february but i also met with hillary and bernie. i think he has come a long way in his understanding of racial injustice per he already had a good understanding of racial economic injustice. they are being lobbied or protest by communities of color and i think that her platform

has been brought in a way. i am hopeful that her platform and the democratic convention platform will include two things that it does not right now and one is a call for a national use of four standard in the other that hillary said to me when we spoke is whether she believes in communities having oversight of the functions and that actually doesn't come across in our platform or the democratic convention platform which worries me. >> think you for waiting we are going back to calls. >> caller: i have a few questions. i was listening to the earlier segment concerning the police officers that were shot, five of of them are killed and 12 that were shot total, do we know the race of those people? i didn't see all the reports so i don't know. before people that were the terrorists or the murderers, do

we know, i know one was killed in the other three, one being a woman, do, do we know the race of those people? did i miss something? i'm just curious. then i'll have a comment after that. >> host: i haven't seen that in the early reporting. i'm not sure if our guest knows and curious as to why you're asking and then make your comment. >> caller: well because i'm curious as to why a few of the callers had the actual facts that they were talking about but i'm wondering why all the people who have spoken aren't very wealthy because they seem to all be clairvoyant about the issues that they don't even know about. even concerning the shooting of the man in minnesota in his car. i'm confused on that issue to because the only video that we have is from the girlfriend of the man who was shot after the man was shot. i'm curious as to no questions have been asked about what happened before that.

apparently he was stopped for a taillight being out so, i don't even understand how any of this happened until we know what happened. >> host: let's get back to our guest. anything to respond there? >> guest: what we know to be true is that he was killed and was not posing a threat to the officer. we believe to be true is that he was not hosing a threat to the officer either. the officer in the video that we saw was still pointing a gun at him when he was immobilized and still considered him a grave threat when he physically could not move. that speaks to the mind of the officer and the mindset of seeing black bodies and threatening them even when they are immobilized because he shot him in point-blank range. we do have questions outstanding but both of these men should be alive and i think we can all agree on that. >> host: several callers in

pieces spoke about social media. it strengthen its power these days. what's your reaction, what's your take on the role of social media and then broaden it out to media in general. we did have a caller earlier today who said a lot of this is created by the media and fueled by the media and that's part of the problem. what do you think. >> guest: we've always faced these issues and it manifests in a few ways. one you have a story that's never told or it's told in a few ways by everyone but us and we become the other race. twitter and facebook allows people to tell their own stories on filtered by any other source. in both of these cases, one a cell phone and one facebook prime, we see people able to push these videos out and have them exposed to audiences that they would otherwise not be able to if we didn't have these tools. that's incredibly powerful it

was powerful for us in ferguson and minneapolis and the activists in chicago and across the country. >> host: what we see now is the media asking police questions and pushing on the police in ways that we have not seen before. i think in ferguson and sense we see a much more critical media perspective holding them accountable both in print and at press conferences and i think that is actually changed how people understand the role of the police. there's a point where the police could do no wrong in any capacity and if the police that it must be true and now we have a press corps that's much more critical and i think that is in the interest of the public. >> host: we have marion on the line. >> caller: i wanted to say that i'm so glad that this young man is talking about this and i want

to say that i hope they keep going with the white people and black people uniting. i look at the news and i see police shooting with a woman and her kids and it makes me angry. i see police beating up black women and black little girls. when i see a police.a gun in a car for a man that's already shot, he shouldn't be a policeman. there's something really wrong and i hope they keep up the work to straighten out everything in this country. thank you. >> host: thanks for calling.

any reaction? >> guest: i agree with everything she said and what is also real is that these officers are choosing to inflict this harm. one of the instances she talked about where the officer sat on the young girls back, the the officer chose to do that. the officers chose to kill these men and all of these other unarmed citizens with all these other black and brown people and the officers could make it different choice but they know they will be protected at all costs and that highlights that we have a real problem in this society and we have to work on it. >> host: steve from maryland. the morning. >> caller: i've been listening to your guest and now i have a few comments. first of all, he just brought up freddie gray and that they wanted to kill them. i follow the news in baltimore and every policeman has been found not guilty or has sufficient evidence or whatever.

that is an incorrect statement. second thing i want to say is that people need to be taught how to deal with the police. i'm a middle-aged white man and i feel insulted when the police walked to my car with their hands on the pistol, but i'm smart enough to keep my hands on the steering will and say officer i'm going to reach into the glove box and get my drivers license. that goes back to michael brown. if he had followed the orders, he would've been killed but also, the policeman was found not guilty too. i want to address white privilege. please please don't tell me about right privilege. i grew up in southeast washington in what was a 50-50 black and 50-50 white. i get up morning and go to work and i work 12 hours a day five days a week to have what i have. nobody's given me anything.

i have black men in society that only same businesses i do do and are just as successful as me. it's because we work. it has nothing to do with being white on my part. that's all i have to say, thank you very much. >> host: let's get a reaction from our guest in more. >> guest: so the first thing about freddie gary and like i said, the officers chose not to seatbelt him. they chose to ignore any call for help that he gave. again, officers chose actions that led to freddie gray's death and that is real. i don't believe people should die for jaywalking and he was at best jaywalking. we live in a country where the officers have incredible power and can do