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.

it's legitimate but what i tell you is we are always look in the rearview mirror. the snapshot in time shows are members in strong shape and voters in the district hillary clinton worse off than donald trump. what happens between now and november we are going to be watching and adjusting. >> will go next to "washington examiner." >> mr. chairman you touched on the rnc and the job they are doing on the ground in various swing states in different areas but there has been a lot of talk about the trump campaign and how they are forced to pick up the slack in many ways operationally speaking with the ground game and the trump campaign -- how would the rnc basically served in the trump campaign congressionally when it comes to resources and money?

>> so again reince priebus has done a great job. started early address the issues started early, addressed the that needed to be addressed at the rnc going back several years. in terms of funding compare that to the dnc. one is done really well and one is broke. the relationship of the candidate is hard to manage. i can imagine what he goes through in terms of trying to manage through primary season. he did it very skillfully and effectively and professionally and has a great team. they work their way through all that and during all that they develop the best data center in republican history.a center they have put field staff on the ground for a long period of time where the dnc i don't believe has a lot of field staff on the ground of the rnc does. where hillary may have a lot trump may not and it begins to balance out and dared not only our landlord they are great partner with us. we have no complaints about where they are at in their ability to work with us and all

the appropriate ways. >> cou >> christina could you ask them to turn down the music even though we like having theme music here. eric garcia from roll call. >> my question to you is there are congressmen and allen and florida have been open to supporting mr. trump. what would you say about those coming and saying they are not going to vote for trump and there is this kind of -- effect d think i would be something that would be beneficial to them? >> i think each candidate, each member is going to make their

own decision about their own views and they will represent their districts to be used effectively.di they are best able to do that. we don't run a cookie campaign aarp -- cookie-cutter campaign approach that puts out that mandate across the country to tell the candidate they have to do this go better than anything. the only thing we tell them as you need it when you need a budget and organizational grassroots plan to pitch your district to he will hold you accountable to what we agreed that plan should we to make sure you are meeting your targets so you have a path to the tree but beyond that you do we need to do in your district to represent the people that you seek to represent. >> i woulduggest in a couple of district the democrats have a problem. ask colin pederson if he is voting for hillary clinton. rick nolan endorsed bernie sanders in the primary in what i think is one of our best pickup opportunities on the offensive side. now he did that probably

ideologically because his voting record shows he's pretty far to the left not only for that district may think for most of minnesota. but also 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'm sorry northeastern minnesota near the wisconsin border so again there are two sides to this presidential dynamic and several of the seats we had a case with mr. ashford who was caught on film two week ago on a train i believe in him our constituent asked him, think. innocently what hardee are you a member of and who do you identify with and he said i will be whatever party you want me to be. this is a man who historically over the years has change parties many times and i wouldld argue in this environment with

d.c. politicians the way they are, with the going onn the district and the republicantheyd district, that is an absurd statement to make. in his history shows he wasn't just saying that flippantly as a joke.ip that's who he is. so again the national environment and the national dynamics and the things at the top of the ticket and i'll these cases can push and pull different ways depending on which district we are talking about. >> thanks for coming and sorry i if i was a little late but looking at the map and what you are looking to do this election what would a good night look like in november because democrats who thought that they were you know playing offense to the cycle, they were hoping

maybe after donald trump became the presumptive nominee they were rubbing their hands together and that it might be a better nicety think you are playing more defense than you spoke a little bit about this but would you mind elaborating? >> i think we are planning for good night. we have to be realistic about these things.anning for the biggest number of republicans in the house since 1928 and so we are going into the cycle that we have work to do not only to hold the majorito but also to look at an opportunity. my goal is to hold that majority i can opportunity. the reality is we have some seats that are going to be in play including somewhere we have open seats but they have got some some problems too too. think it's too early purdue to predict what that night looks like. don't think if we sat here in 2010 we would have said we are going to have the biggest majority since world war ii and

frankly two years ago we were scoffed at. loudly and strongly or whatever attitudes you want to use. i will just tell you look into the data. if we had the election today we'd be in very good shape maintaining pretty much around where we we are at and i hope that continues as we go into the general election. if you hear the dccc and i talked to people who go to some of their meetings and come back and say they are not even talking about majority. they know that's not realistic but then you read they are saying we are going to expand the playing field. i don't see that so there's arrange there. i don't know what it is yet butw i don't thinks it's a wide range. >> do follow up on -- a follow-up. when you campaign againstt democrats, there's a message

they been using that the republican majority hasn't beenn passing legislation on x, y and z and is that public ate that at all? >> our legislative efforts they use in my opinion in violation of the house ethics rules. not only that i think it was despicable the democratic campaign committee used an issue like the violence that occurred in orlando as a fund-raising scheme. and they did it repeatedly through the night. >> is there anybody who hasn't had one before to do a second round. dal >> given what you say about some of these races. gallego has posted directly in campaign videos trumps comments.

he is trying very hard get in the national campaign. i gather that you don't don't think i will be a tip but i'm curious yourhoughts on that and the race in general and secondly if i may do to the events in dallas last night and gun related incidents across the country over the last few weeks and months how do you think, how do you think that impacts the gun debate and the political climate more generally? p >> again let the say as i did in my opening comments. all of our prayers are with the people of dallas and the families who have lost lives but also with those in baton rougei and minnesota. each of these situations has its unique set of circumstances and we don't have the facts at and all the cases yet but certainly this is an issue all americans are concerned about. as for the race will heard

proved his ability to run a very effective campaign last time and take out an incumbent, gallego. and most people said i wasn't going to happen in a district like that. since that time he has demonstrated to the people and his district and i think the people and the people in america what effective than talented and skillful legislator he is come out what a thoughtful representative he is and he has worked his tail off in his district. he has an enormous work ethic and he knows how to run a very effective and positive campaign. and you've got to have more than just trying to tag somebody to somebody else to beat somebody. can it be an ingredient in the campaign? of course.en hillary clinton, whoever theycl want to pick or whoever we want to pick. the core goes to -- the core

does get to a binary choice between this person and this person. i don't know what kind of work ethic he has although i don't think it's very strong. will heard has demonstrated an ability to reach across party lines, cultural lines and everything else and perform very effectively for the people of texas and on the border i have been down there and he's a very likeable and good guy. so i think he will run strong campaign and very solid and a very big tory is campaign. >> we have got one more. >> to more maybe, that's fine. they have an call yet, right? >> thank you for your time.

in places where trump is unpopular which you authorized numbers --. >> we don't authorize them. i'm just saying they run their own races and we work as a partnership. >> would you allow them to run run. >> we go control content of their ads.o do what th [inaudible] >> they are going to do it they need to do in their districts to represent the voters in the district at the notion that we somehow -- they are individuals and they like to have a voting card and everything and they have to make those choices in the campaign. we work collaboratively with them obviously but they won't run data-driven campaigns and based on what their own personal views and philosophies are in the voters get to make a choice of justice we stay out of spending money in the primaries

we will give advice and counsel but at the end of the day they make those decisions on how their campaigns are run. th >> the last question. >> i wanted to return to question about sica funding. if something doesn't get done before the summer recess and there's an outbreak in a becomes a serious issue, seems to me that democrats think it's a way to negotiate for them becausepo they suggest republicans put in things within that dell that forced their hand and blocking it. >> such as? >> such as blocking funding for planned parenthood and things like that, the way to pay for it and republicans say democrats are made king up reasons to vote against it for political purposes. why do you think that your members and particularly the ones in the southern statesut would be able to argue that. >> this is the sort of argument

that americans get fed up with. they expect us to do her job and get things done and not end up in these political skirmishes. that's why right out of the box appropriators said there's always money available, i'm spent that can be put to use to do with sica in the remainder of this fiscal year. the fiscal year ends in september so the outline should be covered through money that's already available to be spent in this fiscal year by this administration. that i think has been authorized by what we are arguing over is what starts in october 1 and for the next fiscal year. now having said that i met with the head of the nih and the person that heads up a team that is looking up how to come uph with a vaccine and had a discussion with him. the good news is there's a way to get there because this horrible disease that has come

on the scene is similar to a others with vaccines so it's a disease that we know how to create a vaccine. they are already moving or as rapidly as they can to put the initial trials like -- and that he said will take until the end of the year. then they go into i think its face to after that. he's a basically we will take about a year or year to have to get a safe vaccine that they are con booth that they can get there. he indicated there's nothing standing in their way to move forward on getting that vaccine. our efforts to try to expedite the ability to spray for mosquitoes was blocked by the democrats. i don't understand why they object to using existing money that's fair to go pay for this but we should be able to worke r the south and that's what people expect us to do. i would hope they would not useo this as a political tool.

there is no damage to us politically to weigh down the say you have to ask why kelly come to terms on a? i think we can. we passed it and they need to get out of the way and lets move forward. >> with two minutes left. do we have time for one more? last question from "politico". i'm sorry taken so long for us to get to you. rachel from "politico." >> you talk a lot about donald trump and hillary clinton but what if any effect is gary johnson have? >> i don't know that he will have much of an effect. he may. there may be some pockets around the country in that way. [inaudible] >> an outside third already candidate at this point in the

cycle tend to be somewhere around 10 or 12%. a row question is historically they have not sustained that during november with the exception of perot obviously so as we test we will include him on the ballot to coast we want to poll on how the ballot is going to appear before the voters and we will see what kind of impact he's having right now. think some of the national polling indicates he may be pulling a little bit more from hillary than he is from trump right now. again but this is very early on for most voters. they are just may be starting to realize that there is an independent third-party libertarian or a green party candidate on the ballot. we'll just have to see how the rest of the cycle unfolds.

>> thank you for doing this. we really appreciate it. >> thank you all. [inaudible conversations] >> if we are going to invest additional $100 million into higher education, we have got to change the way we deliver education we also have to expect more for the dollars we are getting. >> there's a body of literature that is pretty clear there are certain courses you should take math, sciee and english that should be in place if you expect to be successful in college. to simply accept students who haven't met that obligation to let them into a the school is doing a great disservice to them

and it's selling the effort which is something i actually support. >> memoirs always have to be wary of because not only are memoirs bound to be self-serving to a degree, but most of these

people did not want to disclose too much and in some cases it may dissemble to try to mislead people. >> many, it will it's finally happening in full uprising in a panic. mobs of white men armed with pistols and gloves formed spontaneously downtown, marched to the scene of the shootout and began shooting, beating every black hearse and they could find.

>> his view was that small businesses and startups would be that donovan knew a comment made and indeed one of the things that his group did and by the way they made a set of rules and maxims for how to be good startup entrepreneur and innovator. >> and the music of our children we are told everything there is a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. and for america the time has come at last. >> every politicians promise has a price. the taxpayer pays the bill. the american people are not going to be -- but any scheme or

government gives money with one hand and takes away with the other. a house hearing on the affordable care at committee members questioned the legal analysts about the constitutionality of the laws cause sharing reduction program. republicans have argued that congress never authorized this part of health care law. health and human services secretary is sylvia burwell turned down an invitation to testify. n congressman tim murphy chairs the energy and commerce subcommittee on oversight.tee.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> could have -- good morning again. their things happening over the capitol building and will move as quickly as possible so i appreciate members patience in trying to get to her witnesses.e if somebody would get the door in the back of their might appreciate that.

this is a hearing of energy commerce committee on the aca cost reduction program ramifications of the frustration suspicion on the source of funding to the csr per gram. prm the cost of tuition is clear no money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law thise means the executive branch cannot spend money in this congress as they can. yet just yesterday assistant secretary for tax policy testified before the ways & means committee quote of congress to some of the money's a pro. he could pass a law saying doie not approve breed mice from that account. that's a direct quote and contradiction to the principles of her patients log an affront to the powers of the constitution and the concept for that is not permitted. we are here to talk about the ramifications of the administration's decision to fund the car sharing program. we aren't here to discuss whether or not the decision is illegal through the court has decided that it is.

we are here today to talk about the consequence of the administration's brazen attempt to grab the part of the purse from congress for the aca w establishes the csr program and did not fund it. the administration at us and request an annual appropriation for the csr program and the president's fiscal year 2014 budget request.est an a congress denied the request. a few months later that mr. should begin making csr payments anyway. the administration decided to. the tax refunds and credits which violated the most fundamental tenet of the pro-persons of law. every 222 long committee on ways & means committee launch investigation into administration sections for the committee's investigation sought to understand the facts surrounding the decision to fund the csr program. her questions were straightforward and included when and how this decision was made and who made it. from the outset the mistress and refused to cooperate with the committee investigation but

despite the administration separates to obstruct the necessary investigation we were able to shed light on the industry's decision. details of the findings speculate in our report released yesterday and i believe you should all have a the administration's position essentially boils into this. john -- don't judge my actions judged by intentions. the presence warned up to defend the constitution. n o this administration seems to believe it's about the law but may be clear none of us are. this decision is not about the political character or the ability to provide health care for anyone. i certainly believe we should be helping particular those that are low income they struggle with health issues but this is about a constitutional question and will this committee and this congress uphold the constitution and look the other why? the position on the merits of the affordable care act we all agree that we must must solve off tuesday's hearing will examine the consequences through the committee's investigation into the administration's

decision to fund the csr program for through permanent appropriation. they impact appropriate to spot and congressional oversight. the abundanceees rations prograr part of the broader pattern. their clear problems with the law that the administration violates the constitution to keep the law going.proble their problems with the transitional rinchers per gram and a basic health care and the list goes on for their broadrana institutional concerns that play. the constitution clearly states the part of the personalized top executive at congressional branch for this provides congress important check on thet second second branch of that applies to any president of any party at any time. the appropriations which turnsny its constitution and its head. finally we as an institution must confront the executive branch decision that they can dig it the terms of our oversight. oversight is critical to the functioning democracy and that

is why the constitution grants progress -- congress to oversee and investigate executive branch activity. it's how we eliminate waste fraud and abuse in government. as a report mixed with a second branch has gone to great length to keep information about the cause sharing reduction and the american people. they think what they are doing is legal then i invite them to to come before this committee explain it.e doing is legal b the committee will not exempt any witness that takes. in fact we have another instance of administration of the structure in. hhs the most transparent administration history of this at administration is trying to avoid scrutiny and that begs the question is someone trying to hide something? i want to thank our esteemed panel of witnesses for her.tryig

and we look forward to hearing your opinions on the consequence of the administration sections and therefore recognize the ranking member of the to listen subcommittee minutes to get a want this committee for what was done for mental health reform particularly my friend ms. towht get -- ms. get. the chair of the chief committee powerful what came through and i want to thank you for that but now i recognize the ranking members is a member. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for your praise on the mental health bill. it really was a joint effort and there were a lot of umps in the road and difficult negotiations. as an example of what this committee can do when we really work together and as i said in this committee and on the floor now we need funding and i think we all know that. unfortunately today's hearing is not a productive hearing like all of our mental health hearings were and it's really

not intended to improve the aca or to improve the affordability of health care for middle income and low income people. it's yet another hearing to bash the administration as they tried to do their best to implement to an act and implement the affordable care act. just for the record it's the 17th hearing that the subcommittee has had since the aca was passed into law in 2010. and congress alone nearly one fifth of the hearings we have had in the subcommittee have focused on aca oversight. as i have said repeatedly in my various statements in this committee i wouldn't mind that said repeate if there actually was an attempt to do something to improve the way the aca works. now obviously we tried to enactt constitutional legislation in this congress. that's our job. that's the thing we were sworn

to a poll but we do have the judicial branch which is better to give checks and balances just in case people get it wrong and in this case the house republicans decided that they thought the csr program was unconstitutional. it's not this committee's job ty determine whether this is unconstitutional or not. it's the court's job and guess what, the house republicans filed a lawsuit in federal court , they asked the judge to decide between conflicting interpretations of the laws and guess what, the trial court judge actually chose to rule on the merits of the case and the judge ruled for the house republicans and that in fact according to that judges position this division of the

aca was not constitutional and now they have administration is appealing that decision. what are we doing here today? this matters in the court. i'm not here to say whether it's my opinion even though i am a lawyer about whether this is constitutional or not. but i will say that everything i knew is that the liberation of this bill but everybody believe this provision to be constitutional and so once again where having this oversight where we are calling in thee to b administration, we are hauling in other people to talk about whether this provision this cause sharing reduction program is constitutional or not. in fact what we should be talking about is what are we going to do to improve the aca so the middle class and lower income taxpayers can afford health care. mr. chairman i was glad to hear you say that it's not about the

merits of health care or a provision of health care to low-income people but isn't that really what we should be worried about? should we let the courts worry about the ins and outs of the constitutionality and the appeals court upholds the trial court decision shouldn't be our job to try to figure out how to give some kind of subsidies or other offsets to low income people so they can afford health where?dle and there's nothing i've seen since 2002 indicate that there was any ill will on behalf of the administration with respect to the low cost sharing reduction program. there is no indication that the administration knowingly violated the constitution. they in fact that it was constitutional. so why are we here? once again we are here to back the aca to pull the

administration through the mud and to contain this policy. think it would be much more useful for this committee to look at legislation or to look at policies that would help fix this program and made it -- make it affordable to get health care. spent the gentlelady yields back and the chairman recognizes mr. upton for five minutes. >> it was nearly 18 months ago when former ways than means chair paul ryan requested information about the source ofd funding for the cost reductions csr program.ce of chairman brady continued on with this investigation and we believed then and still believe

today that the president illegally funded this program or a permanent appropriations primarily to pay back tax refunds. unconstitutional over the course thely investigation with the more than dozen letters and it meant -- interviewed administrative officials. i sent three subpoenas myself and we have learned a lot despite the unprecedented obstruction from this administration that there are basic facts the administration is still withholding from congress. yesterday the majority of this committee along with the majority staff of the ways & means releases report during our investigation. we did it because folks at home my state of michigan and frankly across the country and elsewhere deserve to know how the government is spending their hard-earned cash dollars. we are taking billions, talkingg billions.

the federal government has an obligation to each and every taxpayer to spend the money with full transparency in accordance with the law and when it comes to the csr program i'm sorry to say the federal government has failed to do so. this administration has gone to great lengths to prop up the health law. 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 .. 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 head and the white house to allow all the officials to testify without a subpoena. the last such instance was the failed presidential claim of privilege during the chairmanship of burton 2002 investigation of 2,000 corruption in the boston office.ight add it was a bipartisan effort.

the current situation that is literally under siege by the executive with unlawfulhe fm raid on congressional office the department of justice prosecution to deny a speech or debate protectionections president check call option end of pages you rulemakingf among others but the investigative oversight with the executive branch has adopted the stance from thent department of justice that the historic process designed to ensurere

compliance is unconstitutional and unavailable to the committee and it need not comply. >> we're out of time please give a final statement so we can move on. >> congress passed to protect its investigative authority.na for documen and for that testimony that will not be complied with. with the possibility of decisions in the present fasted serious litigation that in total was the investigative time. >> the akio that went on without resolution. >> thank you.

>> the microphone is on. as senior counsel to the accountability center i wrote the amicus brief filed in the house of representatives and this is on behalf of democratic leader policy and supports the administration indebted has authority to the cost sharing provisions and that is io's to explain why. is all listed here another cost sharing reductions program was designed and operated as an integral component of the affordable care act.

and to contend there is no appropriations to the costr sharing reductions it does provide a permanent appropriation for what is complementary for thebr systems tax credit programto ths this assertion is at odds with a plan to restructure insurance markets with mechanisms congress designed to effectuate that plan and how they are intended to operate with multiple other provisions to make no sense under these interpretations. the administration hasas determined the premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions are permanently funded and that i

interpretation suffers from nine of the above fatal deficiencies just one year ago the supreme court rejected a contrivedved interpretation which in the words of the architect was contrived to drive the stakehe to the heart of obamacare in the case said chief justice john roberts announced for the terms which everyone interested in how they interpret those provisions of the cost sharing reductions should read veryng carefully to pass the formal care act to improve the market's not destroy them.ll poss if all possible to interpret

the act that can barely re-read and to have a of a transparent refund of the same strategy that contextual hyper littlest tointt ignore the statute as wholest with statutory design to yield results consistent with the plans to ensure - - assure the markets. >> house leadership's argument that prescribes the tax credits amending section -- section and 1324 it

addresses the ses are subsidies. but the structure overall made clear that these subsidies for men mutually interdependent package and both are critical to what the supreme court characterized as a series ofte interlocking reforms. also add o the house leadership as a department explained a cascading nonsensicalnsensical results and under the leadership interpretation it would actually increase from

that the house leadership purports to save taxpayer dollars. with the department of health and human services to have billions of dollars a newly. >> please wrap up we are late. >> i am over..or i didn't know that provide apologize. >> with this 6.4 millionindividr individuals for funding for the lifeline and the provisions that established that which is why the latestorts effort is no more likely to succeed than its predecessors. >> recognize myself for five

minutes for questions. if congress doesn't want the money appropriated it could pass a law saying do not appropriate the money from that account. is that however preaches laws are supposed to work off. >> your question implies the answer perpetrated is exactly the opposite they tried to say we can spend whatever we want until you stop us as opposed to the role of congress to firstf authorize and appropriate the funding. save you cannot spend it is not the same as originally approved for spending. >> with the course of this investigation the committee has faced unprecedented

obstruction will not listen to the subpoena and have given us no basis to do so one example it prevents the administration from complying with a request ines your professional opinion does it preclude the congress from conducting oversight with the cost share reduction program? >> no. the supreme court has addressed this issue withtw two major cases and that question specifically rose that they got up and said i will have to root testify te

and was held in contempt in the court upheld that to say no way he can avoid then vide of congress to continue investigations to know what is going on. the second case coming to the same conclusion with a witness who claimed to of the delegation going on that there was a concern or maybe reveal evidence to be criminally responsible and the court said too bad. >> they further refuse to provide documents or testimony over materials. they claim they can withhold this information based on longstanding executive

branch confidentiality interest is there a legal reason to withhold information from congress? >> no. when congress operates, in practice it has kept for itself the discretion if common law privilege of attorney-client privilege will be recognized by the chair and indeed your process of investigation to hold hearings is based on the need and its ability to get all information possible the matter what the court,

congress has discretion whether or not over that collaborative process and is entitled to know eve everything and that is a final word. >> expanding widely think the administration is taking these positions? >> i think mr. chairman of the cheese justice roberts believes they have improved individual markets and he doesn't get out much this has turned into a dumpster file for insurers forcing them to rely on a series of unlawful subsidies maysi damage testimony but theth the

idea to honestly address these is a very good approach for congress to take but we moved into 2014 administration realized what was happening and so did the insurers that caused a series of regulatory improvisations of these illegalities to get more money to the insurance companies to keep them in the game that has not worked >> i about of time. >> as i read your biography or a constitutional law expert? >> i will leave that expert part. >> that is what you do and he wrote that amicus brief on behalf of the house democrats in this case? >> i did hope to write that i was one of three people. >> '01 to ask a couple of

questions about the interpretation of the statutory provisions at issue here. first a think i heard you say it your testimony that he believed the administration's position makes clear that they are integral components of the program that is both funded added of the permanent appropriation statute. correct? >> correct. to be brief but the administration is perfectly a coherent interpretation ofnt the statute that in my viewmy is clearly the most reasonable. >> it has set up perfectly reasonable well thought their interpretation of the

appropriation issue with a cost sharing provisions it is outlined very clearly in the briefs and supportingests briefs. >> rabil just got to their. because we have your pc and your testimony. as you know, the district court decision which againstwe your position. >> yes will work. >> the district court. >> they said that there is no appropriation. >> amikacin is on appeal. >> definitely. >> with your experience with these lawsuits filed have had a diversity of opinions and many have been reversed. is

is it your view day have an excellent case on appeal? >> with respect to whether of not the house can claim it has standing and with respect to the interline merits. >> you testified one minute ago that the ses are fed has f 6.4 million people receiving that benefit is that correct?>> >> it is as i testified the report by a department of hhs. >> darr although class or lower class because that is i the requirement? >> behalf to have been times between 100 and 250%.

>> i know you are expert on constitutional law but as she wrote the amicus brief in this matter a you aware of any proposal pending in congress to replace the ses our program with something else. >> bettis said of freeing its hands congress has every ability to change the law. >> in fact, will happen if the trial court opinion is upheld the result is that the fund that benefit 6.4 million people will be struck down. >> yes.

we'll be a very complicated process as my colleagues have explained >> 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. zarus, 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 wa 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 that if you take the approach that justice roberts elaborated he applied that to the premium assistance taxed credits the ambiguous provision of the law makes them applicable allstate's not just of the state run exchanges.

i was a cost sharing reductions part of the subsidies is exactly the same footing as premium assistance tax credits as he put it into the same analysis and the interpretation is the proper interpretation. >> very well. we have heard the kashering reduction program is a critical component of thecu affordable care act and as the attempt to dismantle a program without providing any other way to those deserving americans frankly i believe it is irresponsible moving to this ned investigation with the health care coverage that they need and having said that i yield back. >> as a health care provider

to read access to quality affordable health care that is a goal that we share it is that bad goal to remind everyone but did not have a chance to go to conference because any changes resulted in a failure to pass congress and we all know that when you do this type of things. >> looked at the better way web site and the affordable care act. to the ends justify the means? >> no spirit because essentially that is what u.s. said in your testimony. >> with all due respect. >> you said because of what will happen if the district court decision is upheld and the democratic colleagues implied the same initiative

be overturned even if the constitution is violated. that is essentially what you said. >> no. i said to have a different interpretation of the appropriation authority. >> 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. >> ihank 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