watch live on c-span, listen on the app or get the video online. you have a front row seat to both conventions all beginning monday, july 18th. >> tonight on c-span2, a look at 2016 congressional races with house republican campaign committee chair greg walden. and the house hearing on the legality of cost sharing provisions in the affordable care act. >> at a breakfast roundtable with reporters the chair of the republican committee discussed the 2016 elections and the affect of the campaign on the races. the christian science monitor hosted this hour-long forum.

>> as some of you heard me say, some guest my have to depart earlier. chairman walden is here, and rob simms. this is chairman walden's fourth visit and thank you for coming back and bringing mr. simms with you. >> i will talk about representative walden's family coming by wagon train in 1845 in order to get as many questions. that is it for the biographical portion and now to the ground

rules. we are on the record, no live bloging, tweeting, no filing of any kind while the breck breakfast is underway to give us time to listen to the guest. it is likely we will beending well before the 9:30 usual stop time. to help you resist the selfie urge we will e-mail pictures to the reporters after the breakfast. if you would like to ask a question do the traditional thing and send a subtle, non-threatening signal and i will call on one and all in the time we have available. we will start with letting the guests make opening comments and set the stage and go to questions after that. thank you for coming. appreciate it. what i should say on a tragic morning with a number of colleagues not here because of the events in dallas. >> thank you, david. it is an honor and privilege to be back with you, many who i see on the hill and in the speakers cloak room.

thank you for letting me share a few comments and take your questions. i want to start with hoping we are keeping in your prayers. i pray we can come together as a country and address the issues of the violence effectively. i want to clarify one thing david said, he said my family came by wagon train and i want to point out it was my ancestors that came in 1845. not my own family. this is an interesting election here and i would like to set the stage by going backwards a couple cycles and then take it today. if you go back to the 2010 election it was a wave year and referendum on a president and a party that had total, complete

control cluing 60 votes in the senate at one point. the american people thought there was no check and balance, no break on the system, that we are traditionally acustomed to. up rose this ground swell of grassroots support to make a difference and change and stop things in washington from the run away train they were on. that produced the biggest republican majority in the house since world war ii. in the 2012 cycle, you had kind of a balancing out because you had, not a referendum only taking place in the house election, but a presidential election cycle as well. the senate wasn't gain by the publ public. we had a good freshman class from 2010 and redistricting took place due to the enormous numbers across the country.

if not all of the members elected in 2014, earned their way into the their seats, you will see there was a bump at the end but most of us knew every game unlike 2010 when names came up and said who is that? they never stopped doing their work. we knew coming into the 2016 ele electo electorial cycle it would be different. we knew it would be different than '14. we understand that now and did

then and we are a data driven organization. we have terrific recruits coming forward and open seats and challenge seat opportunities, literally from one end the count country to another. our members have done good jobs legislatively. if you look at katko in new york he has passed 11 bills and two signed into law. my favorite headline fighting until 5 a.m. to save fort drum. when you see these legislatures coming to washington to get things done and fix a broken system and they have a lot to go home and talk about because they are doing it every day. they are working hard and

running effective campaigns. finally, when we look at the presidential playing field, as you know, mr. trump was before our conference yesterday, acally which it was cordual and positive and i think many members had the opportunity to hear directly from mr. trump for the first time and vice versa. there was kidding and jostling back and forth and people left our conference feeling better about the nominee. there is a narrative coming from the dccc that all we have to do is boost the race to be over. we see no data and efrd to indu k indicate

such. i have faith in the american people and their ability to tell the difference between one person and another. if you are out doing the work the voters know you and what you are about. they will have a decision on who is best able to represent them locally. finally when we read the 70-80 seats are going to be in play it is a head scratcher to figure out where the data is staying from. so, we feel good about where we have at. we know we have competitive races we have to run.

we think we are well equipped financially. best finances we have had and on the data digital, strategic and analytic side as well. there is not a single one of these candidates i wish i could have recruited somebody else to run in their place. thank you for coming out. the floor is yours >> i will just do one so we get to as many people possible in the time we have. let me -- you were talking about a good meeting yesterday with mr. trump. there was a report in politico recently that said unlike with the democrats, the dccc is in close communication with the clinton campaign, that mr. simms says he has no contact with the presidential campaign. >> let me suggest part of the difference is as you know in the

presidential situation the rnc and the presidential campaign begin to merge pretty rapidly. ryan was in the meeting and trump was complimentary and said now i know him and see what the rnc is all about. we work directly with the rnd. we know at the dnc they had fights over bernie sanders and the chairman and who is running what and their finances are in pretty bad shape. we have a very good communication strategy working through the rnc. but rob? >> what the chairman said was precisely my point in that article and with that quote which is our work, most courts align with the rcn upstairs and i would not suggest that was unusual at all particularly if you work at the lowest estates that the trump campaign released

in the 17 or so states they expect to be most targeted. for us and the seats that are most that have been washed and our nominee and whatever controversy or anything else reported on. after the 2012 elections, chairman and his team undertook an exhaustive review of the previous election and an opportunity report was produced. one thing that was clear before any candidate announced was the rnc can no longer be in a position of gearing up and

staffing up in the final four months of a presidential election. it revolutionized and revamped what the structure was going to be and how they were going to function in a four year period so when we had a nominee, whoever that nominee would be and the democratic campaign with president obama and outside groups spent a trumend hazard - tremendous amount of money attacking him. today, they have several hundred staff people on the ground in these targeted and swing states that have been employed by the

rnc. they are full-time staff and engaged and knocking them down. i would suggest as we continue to report about the presidential campai campaign. and we know what it takes to win a presidential campaign in today's time and environment.

>> do you know how many house members are going? are you inviting them to go or telling them to stay home and campaign? >> i don't know the number. it is pretty significant. >> we haven't seen a final number of those types of things. i have suspected we will get a final list next week. but as you know, for most of these cases they are done for the state delegations and the state parties, where some of the members are delegates and attending with their delegation. so i suspect we will see a finalist next week. i suspect there will be a significant number of members there. we don't advice them one way or the other -- advise. it is up to them. most of us are busy at home in our districts. i listened to john mccain's

acceptance speech as my wife and i were going out to go camping. >> there was an issue they didn't want to talk about and it seems like they think this is a winning political issue now to talk about. do you think they think anything they can create on the left with that issue will cause problems for your members? who do you think you will be able to contrast that? >> it gets back district by district and each make up their own mind. it gets down to constitutional rights and due process. what we saw play out on the house floor and seen come

forward in terms of their hash tag campaign flies in the rights of protecting everybody's rights. we need to make sure terrorists don't have access to weapons foreignists don't buy them. we need the fbi to do good. >> i believe 202 was the final count on the mental health reform legislation which has been several years in the making. it deserves a tremendous amount

of credit as do many of his cosponsors on the republican side. one thing that has been lost in the gun control debate is the mental health component of some of these tragic incident and the changes congressman murphy's bill will make could have a tremendous impact. >> the data shows if you have a serious mental health issue and are not getting help you are 15 times more likely to harm yourself or someone else with a violent act. we can make progress here. i did roundtables on this, talked to families, providers, law enforcement. this is an i area we can make a difference. >> next to john slab. >> looked at democrats using donald trump as their boogie man. republicans drawing on someone

as unpopular as secretary clinton is that an issue for the republicans to use? scott garret of new jersey thought -- inaudible. his opponent used to work for bill clinton. >> that would be a unique situation where you could easily make that case. i believe it is easier to tie a democrat to hillary clinton than a republican to donald trump for a couple reasons. i think we would all to admit donald trump his own brand. he has not shied away from that. hillary clinton is the democratic establishment candidate. given what happened in the last couple weeks all of this view that a lot of us have and this

transfers to a mothership here and what does that mean and who gets what appointments. you see today, the day after the justice department closes its investigation, the state department reopens there on ms. clinton and staff. there is a lot there. americans have a lot of questions and she has a long record. when you do the polling and poll in the districts we are competitive in and where the races are really going to be you find she is less poplar than donald trump. this isn't going to be an election held in a vacuum. you are spot-on.

there are two nominees at least. she is a drag on the party. she is more unpopular than donald trump in the competitive districts and in those districts our data show this is recent, but voters want to vote republican republican for congress. >> you were quoted back in december after mr. trump came out with his proposed ban on muslims saying this isn't what we are as a party or a country, we cannot yield to this, and according to the cook political report, no relation, you said it puts certainly competitive seats in jeopardy and we will have a much more difficult time unquote. you just said that ms. clinton is a drag. is trump a drag? >> that was back in december. nothing has happened since then. so things evolved. what we now know looking at the

data is that hillary clinton is a bigger drag in our competitive seats than donald trump. that is not necessarily -- somebody can probably find a district where that is not the case. i understand that. as we look overall, this is what we are seeing. they are either equal or she is less poplar. i think part of that, too, if you look at it, and i think the national media polls release bear this out. the independent swing voters look at talk and perform more like republicans than democrats. even through the primary process where the narrative driven is all of the imcumbants are in trouble because these voters will come in and throw them out and there is a ground swell of

outsid outsid outsid outsider ank. and the ones loosing are a reflection of redistricting changes. not a single member lost because of an environment issue or outside forces working against them or things of that nature. so the trump voters are continuing to support our candidate in the district. the middle of the road voters want to vote republican on barometers like the generic ballot and they will lean in favorability showing they are there and there is emphasis in that context and not just a direct line from the presidential election down to the congressional level. >> john? >> thank you, dave.

>> mr. chairman, you and rob speak forcefully about there being no there there and the incumbents thinking donald trump is the boogie man. let me point out a couple things that increasingly the incumbent republicans who we never looked at before are vulnerable. darryl isa now has a strong opponent in a state where the field poll show last week hillary clinton leading donald trump by 30 percentage points. in new york, two upstate races where republicans retired, the nominees on paper should be shoe ins.

they are having to work hard. are you spending more on incumbent retention this year than previous cycles? >> we have 247 members today and number of retireees. tled only make sense to spend more on the incumbents. we have offensive opportunities as well. you know, jack martin taking the steve israel seat. that is a real possible win for us. jack is in this third term as the state senate and comes from the more democratic part of that district. i think it is a net zero pvi or maybe one point. jack is a great recruit and candidate.

chris gibson's race was expensive for chris and he was the incumbent to hold that. when he retired i wasn't particularly happy. in this job you don't want nearly any of your members to reti retire. we are pleased with john faso. he won in the primary and is well positioned to hold that seat. chris gibson was campaigning on three parades in the fourth of july. they will do it together. >> with the isa seat in particular you had other dynamics at play. a democratic presidential primary in california that at least going into the final days was still competitive, there is a college population in mr. isa's district in san diego that i think you could say was

feeling the burn. and mr. trump had lost out the republican nomination. we didn't have that going into the primary. going into the general election, mr. isa is i think sitting on about $4 million and i think he is engaged in running a real campaign. if the democrats want to make a run at mr. isa in that district with his position and with his campaign i would say good luck to them. >> just an update... >> i think you have several dynamics. new york 22 is a swingy seat that mr. hannah had held for several cycles. you have a dynamic with an independent candidate who is in the process of qualifying to be on the ballot.

he is going to be on an independent ballot line. we have to see what the ballot looks like and what that means going forward. >> do we know more about time? >> francine from the monitor is next. >> thanks for coming. i would like to ask you about what is going on with support for tea party type freedom caucus candidates. my understanding is they will be going -- we will be loosing some of those members in congress, somewhere i read by about a third because of retirement. and i don't know if that is accurate.

but i average we are loosing a significant number because of retirement. so my question is what is the outlook look like for that wing of the party and the elections coming up and what happened to the political fervor around voters? trump has done everything and it is like whatever happened to these people? what is going on in that wing of the party? >> our job is to maintain the majority, grow the majority, make sure paul ryan comes back as speaker, or we have a republican speaker. i don't divide up how that works based on which caucus you are part of within our conference. we have the tuesday group people, clinton caucus, unaffiliated people. we just look at the races we need to be part of to elect are republican.

i don't have the data you are asking. there were times where cook clawson being active and maybe a few others. i think john said six. i don't know -- and ibmost of those districts, by the way, there would be solid republican districts. >> what is your sense of the political ferver that was so strong? where is it now? >> i don't think if is at t2010 level. i think in part because you no longer have a run away barack obama, nancy pelosi, harry reid washington. there are checks and balances. so you don't have the same energy of make them stop. this is where you got obamacare. and wait until the premiums are finalized on november first. i am seeing carriers pull out on

the individual markets and rates not more than double digits but mid double digits. there is a lot going on. that energy is still there. some is paying out for mr. trump or mr. cruz or others. and i think that energy will not be denied at the ballot box in the fall. they will turn out. the questions i have is what do the bernie sanders thinks about the kids working hard and they win a state and ms. clinton gets more delegates because the system is rigged. it is interesting to see where the energy plays up. >> all the evidence shows ticket

splitting has been in a decline. in wisconsin, where my newspaper is, it is basically vanished. where hillary clinton is the drag, or donald trump is the drag, doesn't it make it more difficult than it would have been in the past to overcome that? do you factor that into your calculus? >> we do analysis district by district. the data publically available is more nationalized. so we drove down district by district, race by race, and look at where the swing voters are and what they are concerned about. >> let's take a district like wisconsin eight where it is open and donald trump numbers are bad consistently in the polling and state. in the district you have an outgoing republican member who is outspokingly critical of donald trump. it seems like there is a potential for a top of the

ticket and a drag for them. >> we have 26 seats defending the cycle won by president obama in '08 and '12. that shows they are splitting the ticket. the state of wisconsin a perfect example. i don't believe it has gone republican in a presidential cycle since 1988 and that would include speaker ryan's district. >> right. he carried all of those districts because of the composition of the districts even though obama won state-wide. >> i believe barack obama won speaker ryan's district. >> so, demonstrating ticket splitting. >> all of the districts are carried by romney and the republicans won at the house.

>> if you are suggesting that donald trump is going to lose wisconsin eight that is a different issue. i think the bigger issue for us is going back to the 26 districts, which i think, are -- everyone would agree is the battlefield for the house in this cycle the voters demonstrated they would split the ticket. everything we see in the data and districts and polling and analytical work we have been doing shows the voters today are splitting their tickets. could that change over the next four months? sure. but god knows things have changed over five months when we were speculating about who would be the republican presidential nominee and how it would work. the data we are seeing in the districts all over the country, as well as where we can

extrapolate and project where the data is, the voters in districts like wisconsin 8 want to vote for a republican member of congress and we will good whoever the nominee is in that district will be able to maintain the seat. >> in 2010, remember we took back the seat and he beat a democrat. >> sorry about that. two questions. how concerned are you about the zika virus funding if they don't have anything before we adjourn for the summer? it looks like you will decrease the number of women in the house conference. is that a concern? and let the grow project grow and other areas why are they not

succeeding? >> let me start with zika virus. we have from the get go provided a fund for the rest of the fiscal year using funds unspent today to depend. there was surplus money set aside allocated for ebola that will not be spent. i think it was 700-some million available. don't hold me to that. i don't have the data in front of me but it was a considerable amount. and we moved forward with funding for the next fiscal year which doesn't start until september. we are working on that. it is an issue of great concern especially for our members more down in the southern part of the country where this mosquito is. so we are trying to figure out and make sure we get the money in the right places to do the right work at the right time. we always tried to address the

issue of spraying for mosquitos and changing some of the regulations that slow down that effort to actually do the vector control that needs to be done there. we will continue and committed to finding a way through this. so, in terms of recruitment of women. we have a very aggressive effort to do that. we have talented members within our conference who have headed that and will continue to do this. we will always be focused on growing minority members within our conference, women members within our conference, have tried their best and we will continue to try. it is hard, you know, in many cases, finding people to run for these offices regardless of any those criteria. this is a tough job. we will continue to remain focused on treatment of women and helping them in their campaigns.

i am telling you ann wagoner, diane black and we have talented women and the highest elected republican woman i say in the world is kathy morris rogers is integral in that area. we have to do more and continue to work on it. we have real talent to draw upon. >> we had our young meeting with 11 republican nominees in targeted districts and three of those candidates are women. we have several primaries that have to be voted through still. particulary in florida where we could have nominees that are women. this as a focus on our part and it has been throughout the tenure of the chairman. i think this is a longer term effort for us that will have to go on and all the way down

through the state and local races. >> we will go to buzz feed next. >> keeping this in play, and i know you said not 80 or 90 percent are not required. do you see this changing? >> i think it is hard to put a number on the ballot there were

five that we won out of seven. we are down to two. one is an open seat in arizona and we will not know the outcome of the primary until later in august. the other is minnesota which is colin peterson's seat. we run the board on seats we should go pickup because they traditionally want to vote for a republican for president. we are playing in the purple and blue territory to a high level as a d-plus six or seven. so my guess is you have got a dozen or more seats that i think the battleground is usually about 20 seats. but i think our members are well positioned and we plan to be on offense. that is why our first group of premier challenger candidates or

new candidates we will say because some are open seats is really strong. if you think of john bacon in omaha, they came in and spent 433,000 and told voters he was more moderate and beat the primary canada with 66% of the vote. mr. maxwell became 53-47 a few years before that. general john maxwell is very well positioned. out to california, sheriff scott johns is against omny bear.

we are matching our ability to lay down money. >> what was the number of republicans? >> i don't where you heard that from. >> i think one of the things that has been lost in a lot of the constitution of this is the democrats had an absolutely -- discussion -- abyssmal cycle. if you look at tom mcarthur, they could not recruit and lost a candidate to an individual going through bankruptcy proceedings and is worth $600. if you look at several other districts where they had tremendous recruitment failures including michigan 8 where they touted melissa gilbert from little house on the prairie and dancing with the stars fame who they are trying to in a back

room get off the battle and chose somebody else because her campaign was an unmitigated disaster. there is a context to these seats in play. they spend a lot of time talking about eric paulson in minnesota. i am tell you now i am not going to take away the story for him but what he has done this quarter fundraising wise will blow everyone's socks off. i understand what they are doing. they are doing what we would be doing in a similar situation with a lot of these people. it doesn't bear out to say they are 70-80 feet within play. >> beyond that they don't claim they will get the majority. that is 29.

they will not tell you they have a path to victory to get the majority. i think members are doing an incredibly good job in their community. they vote that district and there people in their district know that. they went from speaking no spanish to debating in spanish. it is remarkable. there is a national narrative i respect but it does drill down district by district, race by race, and that is what we look at; the data in those district district by district what is going on. it is only a snapshot in time. you can pull up a quote from

december and i am going to tell you we are always looking in the rear view mirror and this shows our members in strong shape and hillary clinton worse off than donald trump in terms of fame and unfame. what happens between now and november we will be watching and adjusting. >> question for you. you touched earlier on the rnc and the job they are doing on the ground and in various swing states. there is not a lot of talk about the trump xanl campaign and how they are forced to pickup the operation in many ways. how worried are you that the rnc is serving to harm congressional

when it comes to resources and money? >> again, ryan did a great job, started early, addressed the issues that needed to be addressed at the rnc going back several years. compared to the funding, compare to the dnc. one did well and one is broke. the relationship to the candidates? i cannot imagine what he goes through trying to manage a primary season and did it skillfully and has a great team. during that, they developed the best data center in republican history. they put field staff on the ground for a long period of time. for the dnc there is not a lot of field staff on the ground but the rnc does. it begins to balance out and they are not only our landlord they are a great partner with us. we have no complaints about

where they are and their ability to work with us in the appropriate ways. none. none. none. >> could you ask them to turn down the music? even though we like having theme music here. eric garcia from role call. [inaudible question] >> my question to you is talking about donald trump and my question to you is where would you say there are a number of people coming out saying they will not vote for mr. trump and what do you think about that? do you think that would be

beneficial to go district by district? >> i think each candidate and member will make their own decisions about their own views and represent their district's views effectively. they are best able to do that. we don't run a cookie cutter campaign approach that sets out any mandates or requirements across the country to tell every candidate they have to do this, that or the other thing. we tell them you need a data plan, budget and organizational grass root plan that fits your district and we will hold you accountable to make sure you meet the target so there is a path to break free. beyond that, do what you need to do in your district to represent the people you seek to represent. >> and i would suggest in a couple districts the democrats have a problem, too. ask peterson if he is voting for clinton? mcnoland endorsed bernie sanders and he is one of the best pickup

opportunities on the offense side. he did that ideology because his voting record shows pretty far to the left for that district and minnesota but hillary clinton said she wants to put the mining business out of business which is a death sentence in the iron range in northeastern wisconsin or i am sorry northeastern minnesota near the wisconsin border. there are two sides to this presidential dynamic in several of these seats. we had a case with mr. ashford who was caught on film in a parade in omaha where a constituent asked him innocently what party are you a member of and where do you identify with and he said i will be whatever party you want me too. this is a man who has changed parties multiple time and i

would argue in this environment with the view toward dc politicians the way they are and the angst going on that is an absurd statement to make. his history shows he wasn't just saying that flippantly. that is who he is. so again the national environment, the national dynamics and the things at the top of the ticket in all of these cases, can push and pull different ways depending on which district we are talking about. >> thank you. good question. >> i am sorry if i missed the remarks. but would you -- looking at the map and what you are looking to do this election, what would a good night look like in november? democrats who thought they were playing offense cycle were

hoping, you know, maybe after donald trump became the nominee they were rubbing their hands together and thinking it might be a better night for them. do you think you are -- would you elaborate more? >> i think we are planning for a good night. the biggest number of republicans in the house since 1928. 1928. and so we knew going into the cycle that we would have our work to do not only to hold that majority but also look at the opportunities. my goal is to hold the majority and look at the opportunities. we know we have seats in play including retirements and open seats that have problems, too. i think it is too early to predict what that might look like. i don't think if we sat here in 2010 we would say we will have

the biggest majority since world war ii. and out the driveway, two years ago we were scoffed out loudly and strongly and every other adjective you want to use. we exceeded that. if we had the election today we would be in good shape of maintaining pretty much where we have at and i hope that continues as we go into the general election. so if you hear the dccc and i talk to people who go to their meetings and say they are not talking about getting the majority and they know it is not realistic. then they read they will expand the playing field to 80 seats. i don't see that. there is a range there. i don't know what it is yet, but i don't think it is a wide range. >> do you plan on using a sit-in when you campaign against

democrats in the district? a message they have been using is the republican majority hasn't been passing legislation on the xyz. does the sit-in comp li -- complicate that? >> they violated the rules and the democratic campaign committee used an issue like the violence in orlando as a fundraising scheme. period. they did it repeatedly through the night. >> is there anybody who hasn't had one before we do a second round? yes, sir, from dallas. jaime? >> down in texas, trump made

comments and he is trying hard to connect to the national campaign. i gather from what you have been saying so far you don't think -- i am curious on what you felt about that and the race in general. and given the arrest in dallas last night and the gun-related incidences across the country over the last few weeks and months how do you think it impacts the gun debate toward november and the political climate? >> again, let me say as i did in my open comments, all of my thoughts and prayers are with the people of dallas and those who lost lives but with those in batton rouge and falcon heights as well. each situation has its own unique circumstances and we don't have the facts in all of the cases but certainly this is an issue all americans are concerned about.

as for the race on the border, they showed the campaign to be effective last time and take out incumbent diego. since that time he has demonstrated what an effective, talented and skillful legislature he is, what a thoughtful representative he is, and he has worked his tail off in his district district. he has an enormous work ethic and knows how to run an effective and positive campaign. you have to have more than just trying to tag somebody to somebody else to go beat somebody. can it be an ingredient in a campaign? of course. hillary clinton, pelosi, whoever

they want to pick or we want to pick. but at the core those are operating on the side. but the court does get down to a binary level. bill herd reaches across party and cultural lines and perform effe effe effectively for the people of texas on the border. he is a very likable, good guy. i think he will run a good solid victorious campaign. >> we have one more.

>> places where trump is unpopular would you authorize members to run -- >> we don't allow or authorize them. i am just saying, hawaii run their own races. it is a partnership. we don't control the content of their ads. they are going to do what they need to do in their districts to represent the voters. they get to make those choices in the campaign and we work collaboratively with them. and based on what their own personal views and philosophy and the voters make the choice.

we stay out of spending money in primaries. we give advice and council but they make the decision on how the campaigns are run. >> here is the last question. >> i wanted to return to a question about zika virus funding. if something isn't done before the summer recess and there is an outbreak and it becomes a serious issue it seems to me democrats think it is winning political issue to them because they suggested republicans put in poison pill things within that bill that forced their hand in blocking it. and blocking with funding for planned parenthood and things like that. and republicans said democrats are making up reasons to vote against it for political purposes. why do you think your members, in particularly the ones in southern states, would be able to argue.

>> this is what americans are upset about. they want us coming and doing their job. the fiscal year ends at the end of september; right? so the outline should be covered to the funding by this administration. this has been authorized. we argue over what starts october 1st in the next fiscal year. i met with the head of the nih and the person looking to come up with a vaccine.

this horrible disease is similar to others we have vaccines for. it is a disese we know how to create a vaccine. he said it will take a year and a year and a half to get a safe vaccine but they are confidant they can get there. there is nothing standing in their way to move forward on getting that vaccine. our efforts try to expedite the spraying for mosquitos was blocked by the democrats. for the life of me i don't know why they object to using existing money that is there to go pay for this. we should be able to work this out that is what people expect us to do. i would hope they would not use

this as a political tool. we are certainly not. there is no advantage to us politically to delay this. we have to come why can't we come to terms on this. i think we can. we passed it. they need to let us get out of the way and move forward. ...

>> >> he may be pulling more from hillary van trump but this is very early on for most voters as they are just trying to realize an independent third-party candidates on the ballot and

how the rest of the cycle unfolds. >> [inaudible conversations]

this bill neck and memoirs you have to be wary of of am

bound to be self-serving and most of these people did not want to disclose to much. >> ended early is happening and they panicked. mobs of white men armed with pistols and clubs spontaneously downtown marched in the yen shooting and beating every black person. with the assault also the

role of colored troops and walter isaacson offer is an argument networking that their ads -- methods. >> his view that small businesses a of start-ups from the new economy. then made a set of rules and with the white house rewind. and to be told they're in a season and for america of the time at last.

the taxpayer pays the bill the american people will not be taken in by any scheme to give money with one hand and take away from the other. >> the democratic national convention. and and mcgovern excepting the democratic nomination. >> that congress never authorize this part of the health care lot. this secretary turned down the invitation in to testify. cheering the energies of --

commerce subcommittee. [inaudible conversations] >> [inaudible conversations] suspend bank could morning. there is a number of things happening at the capitol building so i appreciate members patients.

somebody could get the door i would appreciate that. this is a hearing of the energy commerce committee on reduction program on the source of funding to save the constitution is clear then should be drawn from the treasury this means executive branch cannot spend money unless congress says it can be adjusted estrus -- yesterday they testified before the ways and means committee to say do not appropriate that money that is a direct'' a direct contradiction an affront to granted to the constitution we are here to examine those revocations with cost sharing reduction program to permanent

appropriation not whether or not to discuss if it is a legal although it has a ready been decided that it is we're here to talk about the consequence of the brazen attempt that the aca establish a program to request an annual appropriation of the fiscal year 2014 budget request a few months later the administration began to make payments anyway they decided to raid the permanent appropriations the pilot of the most appropriations lot. expose this committee launched an investigation investigation sought to understand including how the decision was made and they

have refused to cooperate with their relentless efforts we can shed some light on the administration's decision. they are outlined in the joint report and this is the report you should all have. it boils down to this don't judge by actions of my intentions n oath and sworn to protect the constitution says the administration believes none of us are. i do believe we should be doing something especially for low-income struggling with health issues this is a constitutional question if they will uphold the constitution or look the other way on the merits of the affordable care act we should all agree that we all must follow though lot

today's hearing has consequences from the administration's decision to unconstitutionally fund the program these consequences are widespread the impact of congressional oversight you buy administration's actions are part of a broader pattern there are clear problems with the law to violate the constitution it is injustice tsr but also problems with the transition reinsurance program and the list goes on. and broad institutional concerns that play with the power of the purse with the congressional branch providing inject important check that applies to any president of any party at any time.

this can dictate the terms of oversight it is critical to a functional democracy. this is how to improve the efficiency and how we eliminate waste fraud and abuse as a report makes it clear the executive branch has gone to great lengths about the cost-reduction program from the american people if they think what they're doing is legal but i would invite them to explain that the subcommittee will not accept any witness tactics in fact, again today the administration obstruction we invited hhs secretary or a designee of her choosing to attend this hearing but they failed to provide anyone the most transparent administration tries its utmost to avoid scrutiny that begs the question is someone trying

to hide something? thank-you to our panel of witnesses appearing today we'll report to listening to your opinions on the in administrative actions before recognize the ranking member of one to personally think this committee for what was done for health reform particularly from my friends with your steadfast quest for the station the chair the vice chair the full committee the ranking members is as powerful a personally want to thank you for that and now i recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thinks for your help on the mental health bill was the joint effort with a lot of bumps in the road with negotiations but an example of what this committee can do when we work together and as i said it on the floor is a good first up with funding and we all know that but

unfortunately today's hearing is not productive like all mental health hearings were and really it is not intended to improve that a california or the affordability of care for middle and low-income people but yet another hearing to bash the administration as they try to do their best to enact and implement the affordable care acting just for the record to 17 hearing that this subcommittee has had since the aca was passed in 2010 and with congress alone with the hearings and we have had with this subcommittee have focused on aca oversight and i have said repeatedly in misstatements in this committee i would not mind that if there was an attempt to do something to improve the way it works obviously

we try to enact constitutional legislation that is our job and that we were sworn to uphold but we do have a judicial branch which they are there to give checks and balances just in case people get a wrong and in this case the house republicans decided they thought the program was unconstitutional. it is not this committee's job to determine whether this program is unconstitutional or not. it is the court's job. guess what? that house republicans filed a lawsuit in federal court and ask the judge to decide between the two conflicting interpretations and guess what? the trial court judge chosen to rule on the merits of the case and ruled for the house republicans and said in fact, according to the

judge's decision that this provision was not constitutional now the administration is appealing that decision so watery doing here today? i am not here to say if it is my opinion if i am a lawyer whether this is constitutional or not that i will say that everything that i knew in the deliberation of this bill that everybody believes this to be constitutional. so once again we have oversight to haul in the administration and other people to talk about whether this provision cost sharing reduction program is constitutional or not but in fact, what we should talk about is what are we going to do to improve the aca so the middle class and taxpayers can afford health

care? i was glad to hear you say it isn't about the merit of health care or the provisions but isn't that what we really should be worried about? should we let the courts were about the ins and outs of the constitutionality and if in fact, the appeals court upholds that decision shouldn't be our job to figure out how to give subsidies to the middle and low income people so they can afford health care? there is nothing that i have seen to indicate there is any ill will with respect to the cost sharing reduction program no indication that the administration and knowingly violated the constitution and in fact, they thought it was

constitutional so why are we here? once again to dash they see a rate the administration through the mud and continue the policy i think it would be much more useful for this committee to look at legislation or policies. >>. >> kudos on mental-health that is not a bad mark nearly 18 months ago when the chair paul ryan and i set -- sent the document for the source of funding for the cost sharing reduction program late last year we

believed then and still today illegally and unconstitutionally had a permanent appropriation to pay back tax refunds. and just as many administration officials forced to issue subpoenas and i santry myself and we have learned a lot despite the unprecedented obstruction there are basic facts that the administration is still withholding. the majority staff of this committee with the ways and means had released the report we did it because my state of michigan they deserve to know how the government was spending

their hard earned tax dollars talking billions the federal government has an obligation to each and every taxpayer with full transparency with accordance of a law and the government has failed to do so this administration has gone to great lengths and not even to give the documents how they came to find the program that we cannot conduct effective oversight and to introduce our proposal with the affordable care act once and for all there is a better way for word to make important changes for the health care system to improve access and

decrease cost that will not require them to shuffle around five -- thousands of dollars yesterday's hearing with though long-term the implications of her findings to go far beyond the sea is their - - c is our program with the appropriation laws and principles with the institutional powers of the legislative branch redid invite her to provide a witness and have declined our invitation and we deserve answers. >> and i do want to second the comment of the

appropriate designee to investigate this issue as we have discovered that has disregarded the constitution by transferring money to the kashering reduction program and has gone to unprecedented lengths to provide this information with the rationale we risk the entire executive branch from oversight. and must not continue with the next administration afford to hearing from the witnesses and what the committee might do and we as

congress we have oversight and that is what we're doing because we have found money that is reprogrammed and shifted from one account to another it is called article one powers we should be doing the oversight in making the determination and i yield back the balance of my time. >> is my a job to give the ranking members of voice but before we do that it is not

unusual and not come to a hearing while in the process. the district court made a ruling on appeal to another and there is a problem with nobody from the administration is showing up but that doesn't matter for those to be in the supreme court building. there is no problem with the administration showing up and let's let the courts work its way through that. when we pass the affordable care act we dramatically change the health care landscaping in the united states with the reality to the american people with the third open enrollment earlier this year to re-read

enrolled with quality affordable health insurance. that rate has fallen to the historical low decimating 20 million previously uninsured adults with the cost sharing reduction to afford their deductibles and this tsr is ensuring that out of pocket health care cost place is a financial burden on american families. to take the vantage of the benefits by the program with 11.1 million consumers 57% lysias our program has

proven effective that accomplishing what it estimates those that our eligible for cost sharing reductions saving an average of $479 each year you hear the benefits of this gsa our program this committee has chosen to attack and undermine the affordable care act. six years promising to repeal and replace the affordable care act but we have yet to see a meaningful piece of legislation until last week. the recently unveiled the plan to provide quality coverage from our constituents those watching the here need to understand the authority is exclusively focused to take down the affordable care act.

they have held hearings hands letters and issued subpoenas and filed the unprecedented lawsuit in federal court to conduct meaningful oversight to come together to improve the lot with the options available. held to no such thing. those that now benefit from the al lock. >> anybody else? >> being the former state senator and would be glad to yield back. >> and understand they are given a limited time to speak.

simic those opening statements should be introduced by the record as the former policy adviser an accord to the comments with the market based alternatives and the legislative consultant with the merit catalog division and to investigate the prerogatives we appreciate you being here today on this issue and i would like to

introduce the constitutional accountability center and is quite an esteemed panel to hold the investigative hearing to review have objections to of testimony under oath? the you wish to be advised by counsel? si no requests nazis' rise elsewhere iran. and the testimony or to give this a whole truth nothing about the truth? >> you are now under oath under the united states code because we're in a tight

time schedule you will begin to discuss the affordable care act kashering reduction program to be responsible and accountable is part of the ec implementation of demand for health insurance among young and relatively healthy people. this miscalculation lead to a series of decision with the departments of treasury of health and human services during 2014 from the reckless to the illegal. and from the university of houston have published two studies the performance in

the 2000 benefit year the for study provided information on how ranchers baird we found that the corporate welfare payments with the former free insurance payments andros corridor claims averaged more than $1,100 per enrollee or 25% of premiums insurers would have received $1.25 of revenue for every dollar collected in premiums. of the 174 issuers that sold an individual despite billions of dollars of individual and corporate

subsidies that were available but not for groups 100 10% of premium dollars mackenzie and company estimates they have more than doubled now why has this happened? number cater center has laid out why there are rules laying out the qhp has disastrous results for the insurers that billions of lawful and unlawful subsidies largely replacing risk-based insurance and the individual market based on age and income.

whatever the redistribution of false the real -- the rule structure seems to do this by requiring insurers to sell products that are generally unattractive to younger and healthier people. and then overcharged them for the products while discounting premiums for those or older and less healthy it is a market that attracts high risk enrollees and repels the low risk that makes a dysfunctional as is begin to dawn on the administration officials they've made a series of sudden policy reversals to entice the insurers to remain this included the expenditures of appropriated money of the sea is our program to the diversion of billions of dollars from the treasury to insurance company for the reinsurance program repeated restructuring of the program to make payments 40 percent

more generous than at the time they submitted the premiums and a slow retreat from the prior position on the risk corridor budget neutrality putting into a tar plight fund a forces taxpayers to bear the cost of bad business decisions made by the corporations that the risk for program acts as intended with the up unlawful diversion of funds through the reinsurance program to ensure the losses piled to not render congress his budget meaningless the health care reform law is not working in the individual market the unlawful payment of corporate subsidies cannot fix it and i'm encouraged by the remarks of the ranking member of the chairman and i agree that congress should prepare the health care

reform law but it should not only look at the helm of improvisation that tries to disguise the deficiencies. >> you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the obama administration decision regarding their kashering reduction program under the affordable care racked this ruling reaffirms a longstanding rules of the appropriations asking insurers to those mandated by that aca but were never appropriated by congress and could not be spent by the obama administration they always be expressly stated in cannot be inferred or implied the aca did not designate a source of funds for those. it has offered legal rationale to find authority

to continue funding the payments but as the lead judge concluded the plaintext outweighed the arguments in most cases even muddier the distinctions and not already the overly broad approach to occurring permanent appropriations in this case would provide no limiting principles to prevent future administrations to pay for virtually any program on the theory it is somehow linked to previous tax credits under the section of the law in this congress and a future congress that is a constitutionally designated branch of the federal government to decide whether or how to appropriate funds for this tsr payments and this legal controversies to be placed with a larger context for the last six years you bomb administration has been frustrated by its inability to get congress to have more

funding for the less popular programs the key is trying to stretch died in san lot to spend money without consent or authority the administration has a lengthy rap sheet to bypass the constitution statutory law and the norms of administrative law its transgressions have challenged opponents to sue in court if they want to uphold the law but this pattern of conduct seriously undermines that minimum level of respect for and from our government agencies and officials the laws passed by congress are not just merely suggestions to be collectively revised were disguised -- discarded trust and the basic integrity of our government institutions is the key foundation of democratic accountability

civil discourse and economic progress and if we're going to reduce the partisanship and gridlock the long list takes illegal short cuts to make the expedia revisions of the alarmist be replaced by offering a more persuasive case for several legislative changes that our necessary then to facilitate congress to do so but until then the subcommittee investigation of oversight policies and practices remain essential to maintaining political accountability and rule of law i submit my written testimony earlier this week to the joint investigative report into a source of funding as it was available for review carefully meticulously details how the administration the abused

and raided another appropriation in order to pay for the kashering reduction program and then instructed the work of several committees investigating his actions we have learned not every serious abuse of power in his different cannot or will be remedied in court that a minimum the american people need to know more officials executes a lot to control funds in shape by aspects of their lives to hold them accountable with representative form of government i hope today's hearing will further that objective. thank yous. >> mr. rosenberg? please put your microphone close turnon. >> i am pleased to be here

members of the committee this is a welcome return before the committee i learn whatever i think i know about investigative oversight from the legendary chairman and a great staff i did more work for this committee between 1975 and 2005 than any other committee in congress if i have to boil down the essence of what i learned about oversight, committees wishing to engage in successful oversight to establish credibility of the white house and the executive department they oversee early and often inconsistent in a manner revoking respect of the standing committees with an array of formidable tools and rules to support the powers of inquiry that is

absolutely critical to the success of the investigative power of the incredible pratt of consequences but that is the possibility of criminal contempt each of which could result that there is little doubt that such threats were affected in the past through 2002. between 75 and 98 of those cabinet level officials in contempt for of those came from this committee that were very effective -- effective indeed those first two votes those under in

contempt with to statutes with the confidentiality provisions and each of those apartments that claimed of nondisclosure provision to challenge that in both cases the votes of preliminary subcommittee were sufficient to have the documents released and that testimony in similarly under john

dingell, as i said all of these resulted one way or another of substantial compliance. before the necessity of any criminal trial. it is my sense in those instances where it is established such incredible pratt it was possible even the threat of a subpoena was sufficient to move an agency to the accommodation of disclosures or the testimony of officials for the white house allowing them to testify without a subpoena. blast was a failed presidential claim of privilege of the 2002 corruption and i might add it was a bipartisan effort

that the contempt vote was a certainty. the current situation is congress is under siege by the executive blast decade has seen challenges the from the congressional office the department of justice prosecution of members successfully deny aid protections and coopt of presidential rule making but with respect with investigative oversight with the executive branch adopted the stance that was first enunciated by the department of justice 1984 the historic congressional process of

content designed to ensure compliance information gathering was unconstitutional and unavailable to the committee as the president unilaterally determined that they need not comply. >> your out of time please give a final statement. >> congress has to protect its investigative authority. and the justice department means every time you issue a subpoena for documents or testimony it will not be complied with the will for sure into district court that means delay and up possibility of an average of judicial decisions as with the meyers case and a "fast & furious" litigation which in total. >> akio it has gone on five and a half years about resolution. >> thank you.

you're recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman. >> i think the microphone is on. >> as senior counsel to the accountability center helped draft a brief that was filed in the house of representatives in bir weld you reference mr. chairman. that was on behalf of the democratic leader policy and other leading members of the caucus and supports the administration's determination has authority to fund the affordable care act cost sharing provisions that are at issue in this case and in this hearing in my soul mission here is to explain why. to begin the cost sharing reductions program was designed and has in practice operated as an integral component of the affordable care act however house

leadership and the district court contend there is no appropriation for those sections even a section does give a permanent appropriation for the law that is complementary bringing a systems tax credit program with respect to this assertion is at odds with the ac a plan for restructuring individual insurance markets with the mechanisms congress designed to effectuate that plan with contractual provisions of how they are intended to operate with multiple other provisions that would make no sense under the interpretation the administration has determined the premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions are commonly funded by section 1324 and that interpretation by the

administration suffers from none of the above efficiencies to operate as congress intended just one year ago the supreme court rejected a similar perverse contrived interpretation which in the words of the architect was contrived to drive a stake to the heart of obamacare i believe that a conference of the american enterprise institute that was stated purpose of in that case chief justice john roberts held the majority editing everyone interested in how it interpreted those provisions of cost sharing reductions should read very carefully in said congress passed the affordable care act to improve the health insurance market is not destroy them if at all possible we must interpret

the act in a way consistent with the former to avoid though the latter. section can barely re-read consistent with what we see as congress's plan and that is the reading that we adopt one year later opponents have mounted a rerun of the same strategy a hyper littlest contrived interpretation to ignore the statute as a whole crafted to one do the design to yield the results that our inconsistent with the plan for improving the health insurance markets with the sort of scenario that they ruled out the house leadership's argument that prescribes the tax credits to specifically amend section 1324 that there is

no such reference which addresses the ses are subsidies but this is a narrow prism the structure overall makes clear that this tsr subsidies and the premium assistance tax credits have an interdependent package and together are both critical to what the supreme court characterized as a series of interlocking reforms. i should also add the house leadership narrow interpretation as the department explained has a cascading nonsensical results and the maltese are 40 provisions that could make no sense under the interpretation the federal expenditures would increase in the same front from the

house leadership interpretation german captain is not here so i cannot point this out to him but the department of health and human services has determined the net budget impact of the district court's interpretation would cost the government billions of dollars higher annually and i believe my colleague. >> please wrapup we relate. >> i'm sorry. i am over. i apologize. the administration's lawfully acted for intended benefits for those individuals currently receiving cost sharing reductions with the design of the aca in the provisions which establish that design with the undermining efforts for health reform will succeed over its predecessors. >> recognize myself for five minutes for questions at the ways and means hearing

yesterday from the record if congress doesn't want the money appropriated it can pass a law to say do not appropriate the money from that account. >> is that how appropriations laws are supposed to work that they have to pass a law how they cannot spend a specific amount? >> no. your question implies the answer that is exactly the opposite we can spend whatever we want until you stop us as opposed to the role of congress under the constitution to first of the rise and then appropriate the funding. >> to say you cannot spend it is not to sadism originally approved for spending. >> with the course of this investigation the committee has faced unprecedented obstruction the administration refuses to

comply with the subpoena from the committee of ways and means, and that's they have no basis to do so in one excuse is that the house prevents the administration from complying with the request in your professional opinion does the house lawsuit preclude congress from conducting oversight over the so worse of funds for the reduction program? >> yes, sir, no? >> no. >> why not? but the supreme court has addressed the issue with two major cases one of the teapot dome case and that question specifically arose the witness said the time involved in a lawsuit and a half to testify i leave my testimony for the lawsuit

and then was held in contempt of congress and the supreme court upheld that and said no way he can avoid the breasts of congress to continue the investigation knowing what was going on the second case a few years later came to the same conclusion with the witness who claimed to with the litigation going on might cause concern or maybe even real evidence that he was criminally responsible for. the court said too bad. >> the administration has refused to provide documents or testimony with internal materials. it claims it can withhold that information based on longstanding executive branch confidentiality

interest is their legal reason to withhold information from congress? >> no. when congress operates, it has in practice kept for itself the discretion of the of common law privilege such as collaborative privileged attorney-client privilege or what will be recognized. indeed your process of investigation holding hearings is based on the need and the ability to get all the information possible on a matter what.

congress has discretion whether not to accept the claim of deliberative process and is entitled to know everything under the law and that is the final word. >> so expanding from your testimony why is administration taking this position to stretch the law? >> i think mr. chairman and chief justice roberts believes the aca has improved individual markets and not destroyed then he does not get out much. what has happened this has turned into a dumpster fire for the insurers. forcing them to rely on a series of unlawful subsidies that i laid out in my testimony provide return to the ranking members opening remarks with the idea of

honestly addressing these would be a better approach for congress to take we moved into 2014 the administration realizes happening in the neck caused a series of regulatory improvisations to get more money to the insurance companies to keep them in the game that has not worked >> i time is expired. >> as i read your biography or a constitutional law expert? >>. >> that is what you do and he wrote the amicus brief on behalf of the house democrats filed with the courts in this case. >> so i want to ask a couple of questions about your view

of the administration's interpretation of the statutory provisions of that braddish owe. first i think i heard you say in your testimony that he believed the administration's provision makes clear the premium tax credit are integral components of the program that is funded added the explicit permit? >> correct. because to be brief the administration is perfectly coherent interpretation of a statute that in my view is clearly the most reasonable. it has a perfectly reasonable well thought through interpretation of

the appropriation issue with cost sharing reduction provisions and it is outlined very clearly in the justice department's priests >> rabil just stop you there to say because he had your brief than your testimony testimony, the district court decision went against your position correct? >> yes will work. >> the district court. >> their ruling went against you. >> it said there is no appropriation. >> and the cases on appeal now. >> definitely. >> did your experience most of these lawsuits filed have had a diverse district court opinions that have been reversed.

>> that is true. >> is it your view they have an excellent case on appeal? >> both with respect to whether or not the house can claim that it has standing with respect to the merits of the interpretation. >> you testified that the sea is our fund has 6.4 million people receiving that benefit. >> if it is correct that i so testified and got that information from a report by a hhs. >> of those people there all middle-class or lower class because that is a requirement. >> they would have to have incomes between 100 and 250 percent of the poverty

level. >> okay. geithner you are nearly an expert on constitutional law but as she wrote the amicus brief are you aware of any proposal pending in congress to replace this fund? . . upton

>> i believe it that is true. yes. >> okay. thank you. i yield back. >> thank you, now recognize vice chair of the committee, ms. blackburn for five minutes. >> i want to come to you, mr. miller. you have looked at the report, you know we find the administration does not have the authority to do these pavements. yet they go ahead and do that. so, let's -- time to go back to the legislation. in your opinion, does the aca designate any source of founding for the cost sharing reduction

program? >> no, it does not. the provisions which provide for mandatory appropriations by linking it to preexisting categories. there is no language that links to the cautionary reduction payments. there is not that appropriation. >> can money be appropriated by inference? >> you can try in this administration and it has tried extensively but under our constitution you cannot do that and state appropriation law lays out the general categories. >> what would the consequences be for an executive branch that choses to aappropriate money this way?

>> they are getting a free ride. >> that is while doing oversight? >> that is correct. and saying we will do this until you can stop us. that is why we are in this in pass. it is an unusual position. as a general rule, it works out and we are at an unusual moment to over simplifsimplify. congress passed a law that didn't work. the executive branch decided they could or wouldn't fix t. they are stuck. they are trying to appropriate money that was want there. >> so they passed something, realized it wasn't a workable program. must like we in tennessee

realized that kim care wasn't a workable program. it was established by an 1115 waiver. it was too expensive to afford. and a democrat governor came in and completely reshaped it. it took 35.3% of the state budget by the year 2005. he removed 300,000 people from the program and reshaped the drug program because of the number of scripts that were being written. he said this is not sustainable. the good thing there was we had a governor who would say i am going to be transparent in this and you need to know what this going to cost you. they could not shift the money around and play a game of chess behind the curtain that nobody was going to see. what they decided to do

federally was say our theories don't work. let's start moving around because this too expensive to afford. pretty much? >> pretty much. this is structure and not a rerun of burwell. this is simply a core provision of the constitution that says it is the role of congress to appropriate money. the law doesn't have to change if congress votes to appropriate funds to. there is not any authority for that money too spent. >> thank you, i yield back. recognize the gentlelady from

florida, ms. caster. >> thank you, chairman. thank you witnesses for being leer. approximately 20 million americans have gained coverage since the affordable care act became law six years ago. my republican colleagues look to repeal the law and the republicans in congress have decided to sue targeting the diagnose so insurance companies could no longer block them from

purchasing insurance. another part of the law was intended to stabilize insurance markets because this was a fundamental change in the way it is ruled. it is important to have an important insurance market especially when it is state-based. another part is to make sure our working neighbors can go in and purchase a policy. this has been a remarkable improvement to the way things were handled in the past. we have talked to many friends and neighbors that have that stability in their life they didn't have before. so of the approximately 11

million consumers who enrolled at the end of march, including 1.6 million florida residents, 6.4 million individuals were benefiting from this cost sharing reduction piece that helps make their coverage more affordable. what that really maneans is it makes the difference if they can see a doctor or nurse, get the checkups they need or not. mr. lazarus, in your understanding, 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 who got premium assistance tax credit funding to afford their insurance premiums.

but people who could not afford actually to purchase health care because of the deductibles and co-pays were too much to afford. the cost sharing reductions enable those people to have confidence 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 and unless the pool includes a large number of people including healthy people, the markets will be destabilized. the cost-sharing provisions are essential to achieving that stabilization. >> so this is kind of another tactic my republican colleagues have taken in addition to the

repeal votes, the republican majority, the republicans in congress filled a lawsuit in federal court to undermine's families ability to purchase insurance and i was surprised about the lower court hearing. if the house republicans prevail in this lawsuit it is 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, you know out of all of these 64 votes they have brought, there have not been a corresponding plan to address their needs or are we just going to have many neighbors out of luck? they have been successful in pulling the rug out from under them and will not be able to find affordable insurance? >> first of all, i would certainly not lose hope that the district courts decision is

going to be upheld . i think the administration has a powerful case on whether or not the house has standing to get itself in the court over this and also on the merits of the administration's interpretation which is compelling. what i do know is i believe something like 57% of all people getting insurance on the exchanges, 57%, that is many millions of people, are eligible for and receiving cost-sharing reduction. we are talking about a lot of your neighbors. thank you. >> all right. time is expired. i want to say with regard, and i think there is confusion about the csr. they admitted regardless whether or not the insurers are paid.

it is subsidy to the companies and the payment goes to the people. i recognize mr. mckinley for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. he said i am just a country lawyer and made remarks and well i am just an engineer and dealing with something that is a medical and legal issue more than anything ems else. i am caught with some of the discussion that we seem to be, from my perspective, more the ends justify the means. i am not sure that is the way we are supposed to be doing this. i don't think there is any

question that people are getting health care and medical benefits and that is a good thing for them. how do we get there? how do we get there? i made mental notes to myself about food. we can 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 we should not do. but they benefited from it. i have no authority to deal with the immigration issue he said but then went ahead and did it.

and then he said i am just going to do it. i am curious whether we have a rule of law or rule of man? i thought all the statements we see on the walls around here are the rules of law. if it is upheld i think we will

be okay because it appears it will be clear you cannot spend money that hasn't been appropriated or authorized vice versa. what happens if they overturn it? what happens to us in the process? can you elaborate on that? what should we be doing in congress? mr. rosenberg? >> with regard to the appropriation process? >> the whole thing. if this is overturned what are we supposed to do. you have to have a plan and you have to have the votes to do it. >> mr. miller, same question. what should congress be doing? >> we tried to fix these

problems in the past and your historical example is app because there was controversial in the 1970s about watergate and the budget process and working on impoundment authorities and we passed a budget act to deal with that. it encourages the worst instincts on both sides. you get into trench warfare where congress would retaliate and you would be shutting down the government and holding other appropriations hostages and that turns it into the worst example of who can get away with as much as possible. this is a fundamental, legal structure constitutional issue here beyond what you prefer in health policies in particular. all parties need to say here is the argument, we are voting, and we will find out what happens and what the public support. you cannot do an end run around or you get the administration

running out in front of what the law says and congress has to play catch up. >> thank you. i yield back my balance and time. >> gentlemen yields back and i will recognize mr. green for five minutes >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. lazarus, thank you for testifying and your testimony lays out why the affordable care act includes what we call permanent or mandatory appropriation and mandatory spending is not unusual. the affordable care act did that along with a bill we passed for mandatory funding for the s ship program and the continuation of the f2hc program. my republican colleagues disagree with you and disagree with the administration in claiming that the administration acted unlawfully and concluding it had the short to fund the program without annual appropriation.

this lawsuit in fact shows they were willing to go to court even. mr. lazarus, congress has many tools dealing with policy; is that correct? >> that is correct. the sky is not falling mr. miller. this is a matter of different interpretation of the relevant statutes. congress can fix that in an instant if it wants and congress did that in the affordable care act. we are here and the risk for the corridor program has been a targeted of criticism from our colleagues on the right side here. congress has actually acted to

affirmative design that. you can put your money or votes where your mouth is if you want and it should not be running to court to try to protekct itself here. >> some colleagues claim victory on the ruling because they ruled in their favor and suggest the ruling has conclusive evidence. being a lawyer, i know there is an appeals process. were you surprised by the district court's decision? >> i wasn't surprised after being to the oral argument. but, yes, i was surprised. the presence are clear that there is no congressional standing simply to vet a disagreement over implementation of a law with the executive

branch. i was very happy the outcome. i believe more likely than not on appeal the decision will be reversed but 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 policies for decades with republican and democratic administrations some way you have to find a way to encourage the private sector to take the poorest folk and the csr is part of that process. can any four of you think over the period of time, whether it be the prescription drug plan of 2003, that encouraged insurance companies to cover poor seniors who took a lot of medications and i would be glad in my 1

minute and ten seconds -- how was that dealt with in 2013? >> i represented the white house and negotiations on that. the way it was done was it was a bipartisan process to agree on the law. the difference here -- >> i disagree. i was here and it wasn't bipartisan. >> i will say on the senate side we did have over 60 votes and that required substantial democratic support. they were part of the conference process. the difference here -- this is not working. the reality is despite all of these corporate subsidies and changes that were made during the first part of the administration, the insurance companies are benefiting.

even if the administration were to follow the law, section 1402, a-2 says the issuer shall reduce cost sharing under the plan. the insurer has an obligation irrf -- irrespective of the funds. people work together, acknowledge this isn't working in many ways and try to work together on getting something that does. >> in my last 15-20 seconds, i agree with you. we need to work together to fix it because these folks needed the health care coverage. hopefully the majority can deal with that and fix it instead of going to the court z and expecting them to fix it. >> mr. griffith, you are

recognized for five minutes. >> this is an important hearing because it points out major flaws and problems that we have in the way that washington is currently working. i think it is high time, this is a classic example of this. it is high time we start defending the legislative prerogative. it isn't a matter of democrat, republican, independent, socialist. it is a matter of defending the constitution from the congressional branch. the legislative branch of our government. we are not doing it. we should be doing it whether it is democrats or republicans. it is one of the reasons i hope we will 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 like it has been 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 will say today you cannot do that and we will not sit by and allow you to do that.

doesn't matter if it is a republican, democrat, or program i like or dislike. we have to follow the law. just yesterday -- we are not robots here just doing things. yesterday, i made an 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 those decisions ourselves and that is why we take the oath to uphold the constitution. i thought paragraph five included something i thought was unconstitutional. i have to say this as well. i think the 60-vote rule in the senate is killing us. mr. lazarus, you said we can just pass a law. we can in the house pass a law with a majority vote but you cannot do that in the senate. they have botched up the entire process. doesn't matter if you are democrats or republican, when it takes 60 votes to pass legislation, it is wrong.

the process doesn't work. it is weakening the legislative branch of the government. mr. rosenberg, you said to mr. mckinley, if the ruling is upheld and we have to flip things around where instead of voting for appropriations we have to vote against them and say you cannot spend money here the problem with just passing a law and having a new plan is the 60-vote rule in the sen ate. i think it is clear just like in the case where there was no authority to subgreat at the time of the initial loan but can come back later it is the same thing here. when we take the position as the legislative branch of government that we have to sit back and wait for the courts before we can take action we lose our authority and diminishes the legislative branch.

mr. rosenberg, would you disagree with what i said? >> not at all. >> mr. miller, would you disagree? >> no, and i would underscore what was you network about the burwell case -- unique -- they knocked out a different complaint about the employer man date. that was a matter of statutory interpretation. but this went to the power of congress to determine appropriation and spend money. that is why it was uniquely moved forward and got past standing consideration. there was no other plaintiff you could have bring this case before a court. that is why the judge in the unusual ruling said this was the only way to remedy the situation. >> i think we may have more but first we have to stop looking at playing for the republican or democrat team and play for the legislative branch of government because if we follow the process in the legislative branch we

will end up with better government. i don't think, 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. i think since we didn't specific say they couldn't spend it they can spend it. i think that is an error -- >> one thing you didn't mention, beyond 60 votes in the senate you have a presidential veto. you have an administration that could act illegal and protect illegal actions by vetoing protections. >> that is true and i respect the president's right to veto the prerogative. but my position is the president will not veto everything you send him. if we send him 70 he doesn't like we will get at least 10-15 picked. mr. rosenberg, i would love to get the sites on the tea pot dome case you sited. that is what this hearing is about. it isn't about trying to take

down the aca. it is about the legislature defending its right to determine where it is going to spend money and where it is not going to spend money and unfortunately the administration is totally disregarding it and we need to be more aggressive. my time is up. unfortunately i cannot respond more -- i yield back >> recognize ms. clarke for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman and i thank our expert witnesses for appearing here today. i want to drill down on specifics with respect to the csr. congress designed the sharing reduction program to reduce out of pocket cost for certain enrol enrollees purchasing silver plans on the exchanges. advance premium tax credits lower the beneficiary pay for health insurance cost especially

discounting the lower amount consumers must pay for deductibles, co-insurance, and copayments. the department of the treasury then reimburses insurance companies for the cost sharing reduction. this is the basic premise. 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 is essential to the affordable care act plan. it enables people who otherwise couldn't afford health care even with permitters i premium assis health care and encourages them to buy insurance and they become part of a larger pool that leads

to stabilization of markets. it enables the markets to accommodate the fact the law now forbids insurance companies from turning away people if they have pre-existing conditions and so forth. all of these components work together just as the supreme court ruled in burwell. and the cost sharing reduction provisions are absolutely integral to that. that is how that works. >> thank you. since congress passed the affordable care act in 2010, the number of uninsured people have fallen by 20 million. this is a remarkable achievement and such an achievement would not be possible without insuring all elements of the law worked together as designed to provide a stable and accessible insurance marketplace.

in burwell, justice roberts rote 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 the same reasoning to the csr program? >> i would say if you take the approach that chief justice roberts elaborated there he was applying it to the premium assistant tax credits and saying a provision in the law should be interpreted to make it apply in all states and not just in states with state-run exchanges. i would say that the cost sharing reduction part of the subsidies is on exactly the same

footing as the premium assi assistance tax credits and fit into the analysis the same way. >> very well. mr. chairman, we heard the cost sharing reduction program is a critical component of the affordable care act. it is playing a very important role in the effort 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. i hope we can move on from this partisan investigation to provide all of our constituents with the health care coverage they need and with that i yield back. >> as a health care provider i want every american to have access to quality, affordable

health care but this was a bad law, passed in a bad way. the law was a senate bill that did not have the chance to go to conference because any change in the law would result in failure to pass the congress. i would encourage everyone to look at the better way website with the plan for house republicans to change the affordable care act. do the ends justify the means >> no, they don't. >> essentially in your testimony that is what you said. it is my time. >> with all respect that is not what i said. >> you said because what will happen if the district court decision is upheld and democratic colleagues implied

the same. >> can you quote nowhere it says in the constitution that the only people that can appropriate money is the congress and that reads the executive branch can approp appr appropriate money? >> the administration's position is the congress has appropriated the money and your position is they haven't. because the law's intent is to

provide insurance, does it matter what the law says because the intent is to provide coverage. this isn't a partisan issue. this is a legislation branch discussion versus an executive branch discussion. it has been a struggle. but i agree with colleagues who say unless the legislative branch in a bipartisan way reasserts its authority the future of the constitution is at risk. i agree if you agree with respect to the program this is in correct, you should attempt to pass a law.

i would like to know what you were saying when republicans have 60 votes in the senate and when you say and i think your view would be different. >> the constitution provision about -- >> you wrote in your testimony -- that doesn't make any sense. >> makes perfect sense. people loosing hell insurance don't do tat. that is implying the

constitution doesn't matter, the ends justify the means, and it doesn't matter why we oppose the affordable care act or that in your interpretation it doesn't make 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 i don't think it is going to be overturned because congress has been found to have standing historically to sue the administration based on congressional appropriation. i would hold we will win that and i will also say that it doesn't what it is for or what

law it per tains to. >> i want to clarify the administration asked for appropriation for this. if what you are saying is true, they didn't have to, that belies what they did. the second thing is the department of treasury said there is no appropriation for purpose of cautionary payment. >> if you are going to dothat you should let him respond. i am aware they did ask an appropriation. but that sometimes happened that an administration will request congressional action in an area where it is unclear if they have authority to act on their own. it happens all of the time.

the only thing that is important is what is seen. >> you said it waunz clear, but the treasure said it was not. it would have given the automatic preauthorization for this and if you could respond to the treasury i would appreciate that. >> two points. the first point is it is hardly surprising there was disagreement within the administration over this issue. that often matters. but what matters now is the position the administration with careful attention has taken.

>> let me understand. they took a position whether it is correct? that is what the committee is trying to find out. you don't get to take a position and -- >> you asked nowhere in the affordable care act does the authority to spend the money come from. the administration's interpretation within the integrative program including the cost sharing reduction and premium assistance tax credits both portions of advance parliaments to insurers and cover the program are quote refunds due prom section 36 b it set forth conditions necessary

to qualify for both subsidies. that is the administration's contextual interpretation. >> i thank the witnesses for being here but regret issues an issue we looked at for too long and it comes down to a difference of opinion. yesterday the majority released a report with the ways and means committee documenting their opinion on the legality for the appropriation of the csr program. mr. lazarus, is it responsible to provide the aca provides permanent appropriation for the csr program?

>> i believe that is correct. i understand there is a good argument for the opsis point of view -- opposite but i believe this. >> mr. lazarus, would you agree with the other assessments? >> i would not only agree but agree the constant den of charges coming from the president's political opponents that he is overreaching and violating laws is a distortion of the truth. prior to king burwell, we heard the same litany, the tax credits

in federal change was a violation of the law and the supreme court didn't agree with that. but we are larrying it over and over again. it turns out it was a good program, i can personally testify to that, when it was implemented there were delays because it is very complicated in implementing these complicated laws. they said it was quote wise unquote to do this. i think these charges of overreach reflect the reflection

of this administration demonizing the act. >> it is reason to believe the executive branch acted appropriately in executing the law. my republican colleagues have been examining this for two years. today's hearing is the filing of a lawsuit questioning the constituti constituti constitution constitutionality of the program. it follows interviews with 13 current and government officials from four federal agencies. my question is congress has a wealth of tools.

have they used their legislative authority to review this. >> i think the fact that congress republicans have taken no such steps to pass such legislation is an eloquent testimony to the fact they are failing to use those weapons and running to court as a diversion tactic. >> i would state enough is enough. after 64 votes on the floor, dozens of hearing, 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

respond appropriately to the general public we serve. with that i yield back. >> now i recognize mr. mullin for five minutes. >> the identity of the source only changes at the report, right? >> i believe so. >> mr. miller, would you mind explaining that a little more? >> they filled information that confirmed this would be subject to sequestration and reversed direction on that. it was because it wasn't a mandatory appropriation beyond that year and that would have reduced the cost sharing reduction payment. >> the insurer gets 92.8 cents

on the dollar? i think the position we are trying to take is the timing can't be -- the timing seemed a little coincidental. thank you. the oklahoma accent wouldn't allow me to pit it out. the justification behind this i have a hard time believing this. mr. lazarus, i appreciate your opinion on this but it sounds like you are trying to justify the actions. all we are trying to do is not keep poking the eye in this administration even though we do that quite often. but who is hurting? the insurers. the people this is supposed to protect. the exchanges in oklahoma went

up 49% alone this year. the same people we were supposed to take by the law it is hurting. don't take our word for it. go out and see how much insurance is costing today versus 2010. in six years. something is wrong here and that is what we are trying to do; fix it. we all have constituents. we don't want anyone out there without insurance but there is and the cost is rising. why? it is costing the taxpayers and dollars. we are holding the bucket full of dollars, i guess. but this is one piece of it. mr. lazarus, i am not trying to come after you on this but i am just disappointed in hearing you justify the administration's actions and think it is

political for some reason. it is not political. mr. miller, would you like to respond more to what mr. lazarus is saying? >> i could chose a lot of territory. let me raise one that hasn't been talked about. the argument of having it both ways. there was argument in the alternative in court. we have heard people are going to be suffering because they won't be getting any cost-sharing reduction subsidies. even if that was the case, they are trying to have it both ways and say the insurance will just raise the premiums and the tax credits will be larger and covered anyway. it is one of these migrating arguments where no matter what you do you end up in the same place. >> mr. rosenberg, you are congressional expert and literally wrote the book on this. i know you have been asked what we could do, i think your response was pass legislation.

we tried that. it doesn't work. what else can we do in congress to up hold this administration countable to keep things we feel are outside of the boundaries. everyone says we control the purse strings. in your opinion as the expert what is our next step? >> he thaz to shore up your abilities to know what is going on. to know how decisions are made, who makes them. it has been clear the doors have been closed on you.

the slow walking -- >> deliberately slow walking. >> and absolutely refusilrefusi. when subpoenas are issued they are ignored. when you try to go to do what traditionally has been done like a criminal contempt to show you mean what you are saying, it is now impossible to do. dwi court for a single action. that puts everything on hold and we know that it takes up time and time is a necessity.

>> thank you. the gentlemen's time expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing him to explain that. >> thank you very much. ms. schakowsky you are recognized for five minutes. >> i really apologize for missing. there were all of these confl t conflicting things but i appreciate you being here and have a couple questions for mr. lazarus. yesterday the ways and means committee held a hearing on cost sharing reductions in front of the members of the hhs and a member of the committee declared this isn't about poor people but an insurance subsidy unquote. i think this is not genuine. the cost sharing reductions are a benefit to consumers that flee through the insurance company.

the average consumer benefiting receives approximately $500 a year and suggesting that it is an insurance subsidy is cynical and distracts people from the reality that house republicans are trying to take hillary clinton -- health care benefits away. >> will the gentlelady yield? >> no. this tells us what we need to know about the republican's priorities. this isn't a good faith investigation to make sure constituents receive quality health care. ...

>> >> this law was passed to make people not insurance companies but the affordable care act has provided 20 million americans with political health insurance and offered millions more protections against discrimination against preexisting conditions a gen gender of the approximate 11.1 million consumers who have effectuated a moment 57% or 6.4 million individuals were benefiting to make coverage more

affordable what is the text of a loss of just of congress intent with the affordable care act was passed? the way it has administered those consistent with their broader reform to the insurance marketplace. >> yes. in brief the cost sharing subsidies are the essential component to the other mechanisms that the affordable care act to employees is to further the goal to get as close as possible to universal insurance and the statute is replete with a specific component of the plan that is necessary to achieve and

it is replete with specific references to the importance of the cost sharing reductions to achieving those purposes. >> does it only takes us further from that goal and it is read disrespectful to the american people of the coverage provided in the law but over the years the passage of the affordable care act we have attempted to sit down with the republicans to come up with the kind of fixes that on a bipartisan basis and there's so many times we felt give

is the name of the constituent and we will take care of it thank untried to make it work. we need to be serious about working together to making it the great lawn that it could be. >> mr. chairman i am hearing a lot of passion on the democrats on the other side by we're holding a partisan hearing. we have three grandchildren with the fourth of the way while i am here. it is about our children and grandchildren ndf every dollar deficit space after we pay end earn a living within our means?

every time i cast a vote no matter what finding it is the solution is the same barrault more money that my children and grandchildren have to pay back to be disrespectful that is disrespectful of we cannot pay our way now is fundamentally immoral. talk about eight and switching and false advertising american here is a great plan and here is what it will cost billions of not trillions so when we get into a hearing like this when the administration has an appropriately put $7 billion remind the democrats were that could go that could fully fund. [inaudible]

n fix all the bridges out $1 billion per bridge that would fully fund zika 5,000 bridges in america that is why this hearing matters so here is a rhetorical question if the $7 billion did not flow into the insurance companies of the constitutional authority what would have happened to the premiums across the hca? >> there are a lot of moving parts of the front and then to provide the subsidies but we have a lot of moving parts. >> because this tsr is part of a california they would

have to continue then you could argue one way or another the premiums go up than the government, the broader audience are is by making congress responsible as it should be deciding how to sort that out. we don't know how congress may decide. >> with those costs the pressure is we may decide to prioritize our children's future for our grandchildren's future or. [inaudible] funding or infrastructure repair but this administration of what we've would say is an unconstitutional overreach and the president said the selfie calls anybody but teacher uses the pen all the time that this is absolutely proper and to bring up another point there is

something called the anti-a deficiency act congress cancer cell in individual who misappropriates government funding without the appropriation request it has to be individual in this administration continues to refuse to put anyone's name on the line that was involved in illegal decisionmaking and i would just ask if that is the improper interpretation if we don't have a name we cannot sue that misappropriated money? >> wright begins to have to have been accountable officials in there is a mysterious effort. >> we did get names we will hold hearings but that is the little nuances that matters i believe they matter quite a lot but i will go back to say this is about my children and grandchildren ted respecting

the taxpayers we respect the taxpayers of united states of america for the future generations robbed of the opportunity to live the american dream that will be so saddled with debt the debate we see in venezuela and greece and p.r. >> thanks to the panel for joining us today to tell the truth to offset some of those claims we have heard how great the affordable care act has been the architect has said publicly that if they could flip a full americans into this they would eventually like it but they still don't they were promised they could keep their doctor and that turned out to be like even their insurance plan indigos

lawn and on i want to remind everybody what the constitution says that, i will come back to that but one of the claims is that this was of frivolous lawsuit the courts have upheld this so just so we have a clearer context article one says no money should be drawn for the treasury does is say if it is deemed to be that way so my question is we have had an unprecedented levels of obstruction from this administration and this indicates they have nothing to hide if they didn't then

send us all the documents we ask for a wouldn't tamper with the witnesses and let them answer the question. if they didn't have anything to hide they would do that. but nonetheless we have learned a lot about the administration's decision from this program and we will continue to present those facts as congress carries out the executive branch cop as part of checks and balances they think that this is unacceptable there had been executive claims its penetration is trying to claim privilege of confidentiality claims are you aware of any such privilege the executive

branch has? >> the administration is clearly obstructing the investigation do you agree that the administration is clearly obstructing congress to pursue this matter? >> yes. from what i have been reading and what i now. >> the direction he was headed is what could congress be doing to ensure it has the access for oversight to help congress pass legislation? what additional steps to we need to take? >> shore up your ability to enforce your subpoena and there are two ways. traditionally you had a criminal contempt process but the administration has

come out that has said we can block that we don't have to go to court to do it in you can't because it is unconstitutional and it interferes with those prerogatives you used to have and still have another course of the inherent content to bring a a recalcitrant officer to hold him in contempt and even in jail at that particular point that seems an unseemly in also unconstitutional what you'd do to make that process? domain that appeared

draconian the you go out and arrest and detain to put them in jail for it what you want is to get information and have leverage to do it to have the judicatory proceeding of what is it dash and determined with a trial before a the house and as a result in not imprisonment but a fine that goes against the salary of a particular person. and if up held through the challenges, a finding of

contempt would trigger a point of order and that brings attention. >> thank you. >> we're out of time. could you be so kind to submit other recommendations? and remind members they have 10 business-- suit -- to submit for the record. >> i really don't question the motives of the majority that is the congressional prerogatives if congress believes they have overstepped their constitutional bounds but i do think based on what was

said today there may be an honest disagreement. >> will yield? >> no i want. and also to implement but be that as it may, i feel what the democrats are trying to say today is even if there is the general disagreement on the constitutional authority this problem could be easily resolved by congress by passing legislation to clarify. >> mr. chairman? >> can i have order? >> if this fund is struck down by the court then 6.4 million people will lose their subsidy.

>> that is not true. >> mr. chairman. >> the results is that we hope that there has been no effort to fix this and their respective of what happens in a court, we need to work together to make sure they can get affordable health care. >> i will say that i disagree and i asked members to read the jury to investigative report and the source of funding that outlined in this event this committee is dedicated to find some solutions for health care you're not abandoning those in the third is a constitutional question and all the we fundamentally degree with what mr. lazarus says meet half to pull together and find solutions normally

those who are low income compared to health care but simply declaring because i can make it so as not a constitutional issue and we will uphold that if other members have questions please give those to us. >> we do have documents that might make this easier. >> we now enter when dash adjourn. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

if he'd molested big moment in the to the clear dash he did i a moderate. >> but she is pushing the idea is of equal pay and child care which was issued to issue -- which was a huge issue.

>> there is no question in that black males today face a much higher rate of getting stopped when they're innocent and that is a crime that the community faces because of the elevated rates of crime speed the a

couple of minutes early as a guest may have to depart early thanks for coming in our guest today chairman of the republican congressionalals. committee this is the fourth visit with our group i will dispense with the detailed biographical information in order to get in as many ruletions as possible theree is said for the biographicaln t

portion en no filing of any time kind to listen to what thehe guests say there is no embargo and is likely we will be ending well before the usual time to help assist that we will e-mail thing anpictures as regular attendees no please do the traditional thing to send meme a settled nonthreatening signal we will start by offering our guests to make opening comments to set the stage and we will go to questions after that.with a numf as a tragic morning the number of our colleagues and not here because of the events in dallas. >> is an honor and privilege to be back at ec and a regular basis of the hill

thank you for letting me share your comments i do want to start that we're keeping in our prayers' those of the tragic shootings and the communities as well and we can come together as a country to address the issues of this violence effectively. he said my family came to by wagon train it was my ancestors. [laughter] not my own family. election [laughter] but this is a very interesting election year ending coming forward to where we are today and then i would like to get into your questions and answers. going back to the 2010 election that has full and complete control of people

thought there was no check or balance traditionally as we are accustomed and then there is an enormousm groundswell of support to make us a difference in the change from the runaway train into the 2012 cycle there was a referendum that could only take place in theasnt house election also a presidential election cycle as well the president wonwe had reelection in part because he had such a good freshman class of 2010 to have to do to the enormous number of republicans elected those are the seats that we are battling over in 2014 the we

have the biggest majority since 1928 last original goal is to hundred 47 almost all of those who are elected in the 2014 and earned their way into their seats if you go back that they were riding effective competition traces yes there was a bomb kne that the end unlike 2010 even lee said the u.s. that and they said that is why you didn't see us coming they never stopped coming into the 2016 cycle the dynamic would be much different we did not do it would be this different the we begin the process predicated on the point that turnout model would be dramatically different and we in the stand that now andec

we are daybed driven organization in dhl jersey to opportunities from one end of the country to another we have retirement but overall we feel very good about where we are at with the house campaign committee and where our members are apropos. they have done their jobs legislatively passing 11 bills across the house tour signed into law my favorite headline from lois -- a local paper fighting until 5:00 in the morning if you can see what is happening in the districts they came to washington to get things done that have a lot to go hall and talk about because they see the clips every day

they're working hard running effective campaigns when we look at the presidentialdual an playing field for the first time many members have the opportunity to hear from mr. trump there was some jostling back and forth in a nice way and i think people after conference feeling much better about the nominee but there is the narrative that all they have to do his morsi image of our candidates up against the nominee and it is over i hope that is their game plan we see no evidence at this time to indicate that strategy works because they are doing their work

legislatively to run the campaign that allows the people to know they're not somebody else. i have great faith in the voters to differentiate between one person and another your voters know you and know what you are about there will have a decision who is best able to represent locally so it is a head scratcher to see where the data is coming from. in a couple of these instances they would indicate that they forgot to recruit anybody we feel good where we are we have competitive races and are

well equipped financially the best finance his we ever had come on the strategic and analytic side there is a dressing alike could have recruited anyone else i will stop with that thanks for coming in the foreshores.th >> one to get to as many as possible with the time that we have. >> you were talking about a good meeting yesterday with mr. trump but there was a report in "politico" recently that said unlike the democrats being in close communication that mr. sims he says he has no contact with the presidential he has not campaign is that still the situation would?

>> as you know, with the presidential situation that the rnc begin to merge pretty rapidly that was complementary he said now i got to know him i know what the rnc is all about wayne l. at the dnc they have their own fight between sanders and the chairman to zimbabwe their finances are in pretty bad shape so we work through the rnc. >> that was precisely my point where most closely aligned and i wouldn't that thethat is unusual and all if you look at the listt

of states that the trump campaign listed to be the most targeted that is the most template resent a tremendous amount of overlap and one thing i will say about the origin see what the chairman and his team has done which has largely been lost that our nominee after the 2012 election the chairman undertook does a very exhaustive review of one postmortem after action and one thing that was clear for any of the candidates of the 2016 cycle was the rnc can no longer be in a position to gear up in the

final four months of a presidential election they completely revolutionized what the committee structure would be and how they would function over a three in four years period seth webber that would be they would not be starting from scratch. if you recall in 2012 with governor romney there is a period for a couple of months by the time he clinched the nomination and officially the nominee at ad thr convention where the democratic campaign of obama spent a tremendous amount of money attacking him and organizing their base everything they have done today is to have people on the ground that has been

employed by the rnc ferments bettis full-time staff engaged knocking on doors for months that is a tremendous advantage so i would suggest that as we continue to report about the presidential campaign fund-raising you can put the said the context over the past several years to accommodate the primary process and what it takes to win a presidential campaign. >> to start from "usa today"? >> do you have any idea how

they're going to the g.o.p. convention should they go is the better to stay home and campaign? >> it is pretty significant. >> in those types of things before everybody departs for convention for most of these cases there the allegations of the state parties with the numbers are delegatesnalistx which i suspect they will see is the chairman said to see a significant amount of the numbers there. >> we tried to figure out after they made those decisions it is said to them but for most of us we're busy at home in our districts john mckenna listen to his acceptance

speech as we have to go camping there are other choices that people make there is a lot going on. >> bun that issue of gun control it was an issue theyth did not want to talk about. >> day think this is a winning political issue to you think they can create on the left to create problems or why they can contrastown mind that? >> if his district by district but fundamentally house s down to constitutional rights and what we saw a player out of the house floor in terms of

a the #campaign money to make sure terrorists don't have access to weapons yassin need to make sure the fbi has surveillance and there is room while still preserving due process rights so we will see legislation move forward. >> house of representativesas t is the final count number mental health reform legislation several years is

not making one thing that has been lost in the debate is the mental of component than the changes that these bills make to have a tremendous impact. >> if you have a serious mental health issue if you are 15 times more likely to harm yourself or someone else in a violent act. >> to providers them law-enforcement. >> you talk about the democrats than donald trump

is the for the republicans to use? >> so that is a unique situation and clearly we're can make the case i also believe it is easier to triage democrat to donald trump is his own brand and has not shied away. second clinton is the quintessential establishment last couple of weeks before the clintons there is a separate sets of rules so it isn't like mrs. clinton is a

brand new candidate there is enormous record including the foundation.re to receive foreign moneypointme. perhaps what does that meandepa the day after the justice department finds its investigation there is a lot there. and what the races will be it is less popular than donald trump.there are tw there are two nominees thean

least seven that a competitive district is recent data that they want to vote republican. >> after he can mount to to say this isn't what we are as the party are as al country we cannot yield to this but you say to have a much more difficult time to save mrs. clinton is a drag. >> again what we now know issean

that is the bigger dragon the competitive see dan p donald trump they could find it is a district that isn't the case as you look over the independ the independent swing voters to talk him perform in even through the primary process that there would be in trouble in the outside the inkster in the results have

shown the members of congress so far was a reflection of redistricting changes because of thef environment to issue. so they're continuing to support our candidates and the district they want to vote republican in this like the generic ballot also to show in that context in down to the congressional level.forc

>> end as donald trump and in the increasingly we cater other publications poorly of the initial all candidate primary in the state were the field poll shows clinton leading truck by 30 percent of those to a state races with a retired for the nominees they have to work

very hard are you spending more on incumbent retention? >> first of all, have 247 members it makes sense we would spend data retention if you go back at 2010 we tried to pick up but we also have offensive opportunity come then as a real possible win for us. coming from the more democratic part of the district and then they have been operated a to pick up.

and then to a whole - - for the incumbent to hold that to know in this job that nearly any of your members retired there lois b. a handful but he won convincingly in the primary to hold that seat. they will do this together and we will hold the sea. at pl. >> and to have other dynamics him play going into the final days with the college population that you

could say was feeling the berndt to have an engagement i going into the general election i think is sitting on $4 million is clinton doing and being fully engaged to make the run in the district with his campaign i would say good luck. you have a and for several cycles a dynamic of the independent candidate that is in the process to be on the ballot

he has ben on television with a self funding candidate so to now he is on the independent ballot and what that means we have to see with the balance looks like going forward. >> do we know anything more about timing? >>. >> i would like to ask you about what is going on my understanding is say listen to those members in congress because of retirementon is whath

lenders to andrea of losing a significant number because votersirement so with those is ltions coming up just strikes me what ever happened? a. [laughter] what is going on? >> our job is to maintain to make sure paul ryan comes back as speaker. i don't divide up how that works depending on which the caucus so let's get where the competitive race is to elect a republican. >> it'll have the data you

are asking for. there are maybe a few others and we don't spend money in primaries. >> enter v so strong that no offensive as the 2010 level read you have raleigh's you could have 30 or 15 because he no longer have a runaway barack obama there are checks in unbalances with the same energy may until the premiums are finalized digi.

with more double digits in what is going on out there. in you will not be denied from the ballot box. what do bernie sanders people think? because the system is riggedth by the super delegates. >> we will take care of slight detour. >> how they distinguish between a member but the

ticket splitting is in a long decline it practically vanished it doesn't matter fed is clinton or trump if they have to overcome those factors. >> we do the analysis district by district so we drill down district by district and look where the swing voters are.en >> that is one of the openumberd seats where donald trump's numbers have been pretty bad in the outgoing republican mayor when dash member whont was outspoken how much of a

concern is that for you? >> i disagree with the premise of your question of the cycle one by president example. 2012. the state of wisconsin is a perfect example that woulde of include speaker ryan's district. >> because of thea won composition? to read believed barack obama is in the speaker'semonste district. >> still demonstrating. >> but they want at the trump

house. >> so if you are suggesting that donald trump then that's a different issue but going back to the district's that everyone would agree that they could split the ticket. everything we see in the data and all the polling for the past several months shows that the voters are splitting their tickets. canada changeover the next four months? sure. guide knows things have f changed over the past five months we're all speculating will be the republican presidential nominee but of what we see today in these

districts all over the country to extrapolate the voters want to vote so they feel pretty good. >> can remember reject back at sea in 2010. >> but there are races we have to go run. >> to questions what about the funding for the members of. [inaudible] of those are retiring looks like the overall decrease number of women so why did

not succeeding? >> with zika with the rest of this fiscal year for that is what is available to be spent in this will not bemillio available. spent and not knowing the exact number i think it was 770 million was available but it was a considerable amount for the next fiscalit isi year so we are working on part e that for the of members in the southern part of the country so we tried to figure out to get the moneyyt in the right place at the

right time will also try to address the issue of spraying for mosquitos to change those regulations to do the metric control the needs to be done and being committed to find a way through this. in terms of with a river very aggressive effort to do that and talented members who will continue to do this focusing on those minority members and will -- and willyou continue it is hard this is a tough job we will continue to remain focused with the

finance vice chair we have some talented women and republican women as we say in the world that is in trouble in that effort we have to work data but we have some real talent. >> and wheat and add republican nominees of those young gun candidates in the primaries that still have to be voted through particularly in florida where we could have additional nominees so this is a big focus an effort on our part in this is also a longer-term effort for us to

go one with successive cycles and all the way down to the state and local races >> so how many are in play? invested the question why is of the districts will that be a problem to change have math of registering to vote? >> the first question was how many? i think it is still hard to put a number of bad especially based on this data that we are seeing, as pointed out reelected those abroad over from what mitt romney have carried from

another cycle there were seven red and -- several districts that had democrats in the we 15 tavis seven we will not know the outcome of the primary for the open seats in arizona until later republican for preside much run the board because traditional 81 it to run for for president sabrina to offer higher level and i guess is you have a dozen or more seats of the offense.ound is usually 2020 seats but our members are well positioned as with a

premier challenger candidates is really strongand if you spend $4,303,000 to be a more moderate candidate then two years ago that. maxwel person would be against usne sitting incumbent and then would be very well positioned what dash sarah f. scott jones who was already headed there if not there already not only into his son's campaign but it would appear across the country into other campaigns think we have a good opportunity to pick up some seats they have some problems on their side and

we meet them with cash on hand. >> had turnover you heard that from. >> what has been lost in the discussion with theussion -- democrats did is the abysmal cycle to recruit these districts if you look at tom macarthur they came in very late they cannot recruit anyone for the primary and then lost their candidate to individual that is currently going through bankruptcy proceedings if you look at several other districts including michigan from dancing with the stars toom say now they are trying to

get off the ballot because seats in play.tigatedd disaster so there is athey spent context where they spend a lot of time talking how his see in suburban minnesota is now in play but i will tell you now what he has done this quarter fund-raising wise will blow everyone's doing in a . .

who within a years time went from speaking aashto debating his opponent on television in spanish producer mark are both so again this national narrative which i respect but it does drill down eventually district by district, race by race and that's a wee look like are the data in those districts, district by district what's going on and everything is established in time.