. .

where one was flown to another country. i believe that as you look at your policies, this sanctions should be as severe for this type of witness tampering as it should be for the underlying violent acts. because that's what this is, witness tampering. and that, if you put those sanctions in place, will make very clear that if someone is a victim of sexual violence that neither the coaches nor the players, nor anyone else should be interfering with their ability to come forward or interfering with the way they need to feel safe. or the support that they need as victims of a crime. i wanted to ask specifically a follow-up question on an issue. as i look to you, ms. roberts and ms. patterson, one of the things i'm concerned about as i

listened to the testimony today that in terms of the players side of this, that they not hide behind the collective bargaining process or agreement when it comes to basic accountability and basic responsibility for not committing crimes. because this is what they are, crimes. crimes of violence against women, sexual violence against women or as we have seen in some instances violence against children. and so as i look at -- i want to use an example, ms. roberts, the recent situation of the imposition of discipline against jeff taylor. he was a charlotte hornet player. i understand he received 24-game suspension for a conviction for domestic violence for beating a girlfriend.

and what i saw was the union's complaint that that suspension was excessive. as i understand it, the player himself has accepted this suspension. i have to say your response or the union's response to say that this was excessive, to me, highlights the problem that we're facing. and it's disgusting to me that you would say that that's excessive. what do we do in those situations? i want you to address that. why do you believe that was excessive? and if we're going to get at this issue, this has to be the players and the responsibility of the officials in the league and the owners and everyone has to have a hand at this. so i'd like to know what you were thinking or not you particularly, but the union. >> i'm happy to answer your question. let me be clear. the players association was not for one second suggesting that some punishment was not warranted. of course, it was warranted and

we expected the commissioner to impose punishment and he did. our position was simply that we have a cba, and we have a disagreement about this, we believe that it had precedent that indicated that it was an excessive punishment. the commissioner when he imposed the punishment acknowledged it was a significant departure from prior punishments. so again, our position was that the cba required us to collectively bargain if there was going to be some imposition of punishment that belined the cba. having said that, the player was never discouraged from accepting responsibility. it was his right to grieve or not to grieve. he chose not to grieve. i said to him to his face and behind his back and i'll say it again, we absolutely endorse his decision to take responsibility for what he did and the matter has been closed. my only point, senator, is this. while we all agree, and we do all agree, that this is very serious business, and we need to take it seriously, we don't believe that we need to, at the same time, abandon due process.

and that's the only point. that doesn't mean 24 games may not be appropriate. under certain circumstances. it simply antiwithin the four corners of the cba, and again we had a disagreement about this, it did go beyond the scope of what was collectively bargained for. but i don't want you, senator, or anyone to assume that the national basketball players association does not take this seriously. we do. i have spent the last two weeks visiting with 9 of my 30 teams. i intend to see the rest of them in the next two months. every time i meet with them i make clear to them that we will not tolerate this kind of conduct. it's not the nfl problem. it's our problem as well. i don't want our position on the jeff taylor matter to confuse our commitment to making sure that this thing goes away. my final point is this. is. >> no, i'm sorry, your time is over. >> then i guess i won't. >> senator blumenthal is next. i'm going to go vote. senator cantwell will be chair. i'll be back and let's just work it out. okay? we have to keep it going.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. i want to join in expressing my admiration for your proceeding in spite of the obstacles that have been raised. thank all of you for being here. we have some sports heroes here and we have some professional legal heroes and i'm grateful to each of you for coming to talk to us today. but i want to talk about the people who are not here, the owners. and in a certain sense, they are the bosses. they are going to be the ones who make the ultimate decision. let's just talk the realities here and the financial reality is that words and promises are a lot more difficult than action. and i'm looking for a way to impose accountability beyond a hearing, beyond negotiations and accountability that means

something in dollars and cents. right now, the professional leagues represented here are not only the object of public scrutiny, they are the beneficiary of huge benefits in the form of tax breaks, subsidies for teams and stadiums, as well as chief among them, the antitrust exemption. today i am proposing that we end the blank check to the leagues, the antitrust exemption that has enabled the leagues to successfully negotiate together as no other corporations in the united states would be permitted to do under an antitrust law, for literally billions of dollars. that antitrust exemption should be contingent on doing the right thing, really acting, not only talking about acting, but doing it. by acting, i mean investigating comprehensively and aggressively, imposing sanctions

as a consequence of that investigation, adopting a due process that has been so sorely lacking and mr. vincent is the reason why the league was so embarrassed because there was no process and maybe most important looking forward and really it hasn't been mentioned here, aid to the organizations and groups that provide assistance to the survivors and victims of domestic violence within your leagues, in your families and across the united states. i want to thank mr. torre for his example, because i think men have a vital role, which is the reason why your players can be such role models, such positive role models for others and why the leagues can be such positive role models in providing tangible financial assistance, which you have not yet done for

all the talk here to the advocacy groups and organizations that are so pivotal in fighting domestic violence. so i'm asking for a commitment that you will support this accountability and that you will support the groups that assist victims and survivors. in the interest of time, i'm just going to ask is there anyone here who would not make that commitment? by the absence of a response, i'm going to assume that you would agree with me that that kind of commitment is important and necessary. you've begun doing it, but i'm not asking you to continue what you have done, but for a substantial increase in that assistance to the hot lines and the shelters and all the servic the shelters and all the service

groups, and i hope that you will all join in that commitment. let me ask, mr. vincent, what is the timeline for you for the league to adopt a process for imposing punishment within the nfl? >> the commissioner had stated in his earlier press conference that he would like to have a new policy in place by the super bowl. that would be the latest. >> and what is the process that will provide for owners to approve that process? >> next week we actually have our owners meeting where we will begin to talk about some of the things that we have learned. we've heard much about the process, accountability. so we're hoping to vp within the next two weeks a real clarity on the position on where we are as far as a firm process, a consistent and clear process moving forward. >> the bill that i have proposed

would sunset the professional sports league anti- trust exemptions under the 1961 sports broadcasting act and the comparable provisions for the mlb one year after the bill's enactment, it would authorize a commission to provide a report to congress regarding the league's behavior in the interests of the public and it would allow congress to reauthorize exemptions every five years based, in part, on commitments to aid public service organizations. how much is the nfl willing to commit to aid those organizations? >> well, we have made substantial commitments. we made five-year commitments to the domestic violence hotline. >> what is the amount of those commitments? >> i think it's $4 to $5 million a year. >> you have made a commitment to the -- >> national domestic violence hotline. >> $5 million a year? >> yes, sir. >> would you be willing to make commitments of the same or comparable size to other organizations that do similar kinds of work? >> i cannot make that commitment today.

>> who can make that commitment? >> i want to make sure we're trying to get the rest of the members in, so your time is expired. >> who can make that commitment? >> that's something we discuss as an entire team with our experts. who are those leading organizations, the organizations at grassroot level that need the support to support our families, to support nfl personnel. so that's a collective decision that was made for us to support the national domestic violence hotline and the national sexual assault resource center. >> thank you very much. to all of you, i'm sorry that my time has expired. >> thank you. senator booker. >> thank you. real quick, i just want to thank the ranking member for saying we should perhaps revisit this after the new year when i assume you'll be chairperson. because that issue of accountability keeps coming up. only can be held by this body should we have the chance to revisit this and see the progress that's been made. i'm going to go quickly. as a vote has been called. you obviously mr. vincent are

saying that you're seeking to held fund and a lot of the charities you enumerated in your opening statement was about funding and supporting prevention, treatment, and the like. and that's true you see those organizations often need more resources, is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> mr. torre, real quick, major league baseball does not have a tax didn't exempt status. is that correct? the actual league. major league baseball. >> right. >> does that hurt your financial bottom line? >> i don't think so. >> right. i don't think so either. >> i think we're doing well. yeah. >> mr. vincent, the congressional budget office says if we remove those teams, those leagues, unlike major league baseball, there is a number of leagues, including the nfl, that have a tax-exempt status. the congressional budget office says if we remove from ta

tax-exempt status, two yield millions of dollars a year annually back to taxpayers. and so my question is to you, understanding that these organizations need more funding, why does the nfl need a tax exempt status when we could be redirecting the money to domestic violence prevention programs? >> what i would say, let me make it clear. all league -- all club revenues, all league-generated -- >> you don't have to enumerate that for the record. i am very familiar with individual teams' revenues. i'm simply asking you right now, i have to justify to my constituents why the nfl, this multi-billion dollar organization, has tax-exempt status. do you believe that unlike -- that just like the major league baseball, do you believe you should have tax exempt status? >> yes. we're ran just like a trade association. very sim layer. >> so you think you should continue to enjoy a tax exempt status that major league baseball does not have? >> it's not to enjoy. today that's how we're currently ran. our clubs, again, all revenues

taxed. senator, i've actually saw your proposal and i do believe that when we combine both public and private resources, we could fund the ichntervention and preventi, some of the things i've seen in your proposal. this is how we both collectively, privately and public resources, we can make a difference in the area of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse. >> i appreciate that and the charity. my simple point is our professional leagues that enjoy as the senator just said, exemptions to a lot of laws and enjoy tax-exempt status should not enjoy a tax-exempt status. where that money that the congressional budget office could save taxpayers millions of dollars annually. that could be used to invest in programs that right now it seems we have to rely on the charity of the nfl.

and i don't think that's adequate. let me shift gears real quick. i feel very fortunate having played college football to have a lot of friends that have played in the nfl, played in the nba, and some friends that are still in the nfl and nba. and i have been described to me incredible resources. player orientation to me is dazzling when they let the players know, hey, we're here for you. if there is a crisis, we have hotlines. if you're stuck at a club and can't get a ride and you're inebriated, the nfl is there for you. you can call. and the nba, this i know. thank you for shaking your head. and so one of concerns i have when it comes to calling that team for issues of domestic violence, that often the incentive, from my experience and what i know about my friends that are players -- and forgive me, i don't know the nba or nfl

players, that the objective is to keep that player out of the news, to keep issues quiet. and to me, that works against ultimately what the goal is whether it comes to domestic violence, which is bringing light and attention to a problem. as opposed to creating an environment where it's swept under the rug. one of the big concerns i have is this rapid response that clearly we see that i know about personally that the response doesn't have two different objectives that are contrary to actually dealing with the problem that might be encountered. and i just like in the second that i have left, if you could give me assurances that what i know to be the case from friends who have played and are playing in the nfl and nba, that this system will be changed in a way that puts the victim's needs and concerns ahead of that player's ability to remain on the field and the corporate interests that exist to keep that player being productive.

i'd like both nba and nfl representatives to do so and i'm done. >> that is at the core of what we're talking about, what we have been evaluating is to make sure the victims and survivors have the support that they need. we recognize that we have to break the culture of silence. the programs that you mention, the last four years, that was my sole responsibility. player programs and services. it's a shared responsibility. those programs are put in place in collaboration with the players association to assist families. we want to encourage the families to seek out proper help, proper assistance. i can assure you moving forward in the area of domestic violence, sexual assault and child abuse, that we want to make sure that we break that silence, that the victims and survivors are safe. >> senator, i'll just make the same assurance. part of our training and education program that we're

rolling out with our teams and have shared at the highest levels is to make sure that this is not something that is discouraged but encouraged both for people to get help, but also to report behavior that's in violation of certainly of any criminal law and any violation of the nba's codes of conduct. >> and just return to the chair, that's the accountability we need to make sure these systems are changing. just for the record, i think it's ridiculous that the nfl and other sports teams enjoy tax-exempt status. that's resources that taxpayers can be using. >> thank you, senator booker. thank you for emphasizing that point because i won't have time for questions. i will just submit some questions for the record, but that particular issue is of interest to me and obviously the fact that the baseball association and basketball association don't enjoy that tax-exempt status and yet the nfl continues it. my main point is we saw this case with donald sterling. and we saw immediate and swift

action. in fact, michael jordan praised the nba saying a powerful message was sent that there can be no tolerance. zero tolerance for racism and hatr hatred. so it's clear that in some cases, these organizations can act swiftly, and do act swiftly. the question is in this issue of domestic violence why you don't. i think that what we're hearing from many of my colleagues today is what is the culture within these organizations that prevent it from acting as swiftly as was in the case of donald sterling. so i'm going to submit some questions for the record, but i also, too, want to be on record that the nfl, i'm hearing from my constituents as i have raised this issue related to what is a very hateful name in association with the nfl. but my constituents now are just

flabbergasted that the nfl continues to enjoy a tax-exempt status. what purpose? and yet on these issues of having a name of hatred for a team and then having these cases of domestic violence to say nothing of the incidents of what happened in florida with players, the nfl is not showing the leadership that i believe that it should and it certainly doesn't deserve the tax-exempt status. i'm going to submit questions for the record and i want to thank my colleague for her leadership on this issue. senator mccaskill. and certainly want to work with her in her role as previously understanding these issues from a prosecutorial perspective. and how can we get some cultural issues ingrained into these institutions. i'm going to turn the gavel over to you and thank you. >> i'm going to state on the record that i'm going to miss a vote. i think this -- i would vote aye on the nominee we're voting on

right now and the record should reflect that but i'm going to skip that vote because i think the questions that need to be asked here in the long run can have more impact on a problem that i think is pervasive and important than one more vote in a confirmation that is going to occur with or without my vote. so i'm going to stick around so mr. rubio, you have an opportunity to question now. then hopefully i'll get another chance. >> thank you, madame chair. thank you all for being here. i'm going to limit my comments to the national football league. all of you, domestic violence is important in society as a whole. living in a city that has a franchise. you may not know this, i would have played in the nfl had it not been for my lack of size, speed or talent. but that was my goal. i want to begin by saying, mr. vincent, i have the highest respect for you. though we have never met, we have a lot of friends in common. your representation among many in league circles is high as anyone i have ever heard. as a dolphin fan i remember us drafting you from 1992 and sorry

to see you leave in '96 when jimmy let you go. big mistake. in any event, i appreciate your service at both as a player for the nfl, and now for the league. i do want to make two points about the nfl that are important and ask you this question. the nfl doesn't just play for three hours on sunday. monday and thursday nights. the nfl is a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week endeavor that actively wants americans to a e admire and emulate the people it puts on the field. it wants young people to wear -- this is true of all the leagues but i'll focus on the nfl. it wants young people like my sons, they want them to indeed wear the same shoes, wear the same jerseys, buy and use the same products. we just read a couple weeks ago, now they regulate what earphones they can use during pre-game warm-ups because the league has established a contract with one of the providers.

this is an ongoing endeavor. it wants young people to look up to these athletes, and they do. being involved in youth football, this is very sad, but it is true in some instances. some of the only positive male role models that many young americans today have happen to be the professional athletes they'd see on sundays or at nights on television in any of your leagues. i think it is important to preface that. this is a sport that's not just played three hours at a time. it has deep impacts throughout society. there are millions of young americans, especially young boys, who look up to these players and whatever happens or does not happen with them has a deep impact on them. because for many of them, it is the only male role model that they have in their lives, unfortunately, and in cases where people go wrong. and that's why the ray rice case so interested me. because the situation with mr. rice involved someone that my son actually personally admired. my sons came to admire ray rice

because -- now getting deep in the weeds here, but one of my sons kind of plays a hybrid running back position. he's not the tallest kid on the team, but he's very quick. he looked for someone on the national football league who had the same attributes and that was ray rice. he really looked up to him. a few weeks ago he wanted to know why ray rice wasn't playing. and i had to explain. the impact of that was extraordinary. he's still kind of young to comprehend fully what it means but what happened or didn't happen with him had an impact on him and other young people across america because it served as an example of what happens in society and in life when someone does the wrong thing. that's why i'm so interested in that case. beyond the horrifying instance that happened. my understanding from the testimony i watched on television a few minutes ago is that you stated that the commissioner nor the league had seen the elevator video. but that it didn't need to because, in essence, everything that happened in that elevator that the video showed had already been admitted to and testified to by mr. rice. is that correct?

>> yes. if i can, senator, again, the commissioner had stated he had not yet seen the video and as i mentioned earlier, i think any one of us who had witnessed that saw that despicable act. >> the point is that mr. rice, whatever we saw on the video, he basically had already told the commissioner that whatever that video showed, he admitted to. is that correct? >> yes. >> so basically not having seen the video is the same as having seen it in this instance. that's what you have said here today. you didn't need to see the video because they already knew what happened. >> senator, as i acknowledged in the beginning, we made a mistake. >> i guess i'm trying to understand the process by which -- you may have explained this already. i know what would have happened to ray rice had he tested positive for marijuana or for steroids or amphetamine, had he

taken sudafed without a doctor's note. is this essentially a commissioner defines punishment based on how he feels? or an admitted action -- this was not a disputed incidents. he describes it to an extent today you said you didn't need to see the video to know how bad it was. what is the criteria used to determine punishment? we are going to leave the last bit of this hearing, take you live now to the house oversight hearing. going to be hearing this morning from jonathan gruber who advised the white house and the state of massachusetts on health care insurance programs. he's expected to talk about his public criticism of the obama administration's rollout of the affordable care act. also at this hearing this morning the administrator for the centers for medicare and medicaid services, maryland tavner. and we'll be hearing about personal experiences from an

independent contractor, ari goldman. this is live coverage here on c-span3.

the committee will come to order. without objection, the chair will be authorized to declare a recess at any time. the oversight committee exists

to secure two fundamental principles. first, americans have a right to know that the money washington takes from them is well spent. and second, americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. our duty on the oversight and government reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their government. it is our job to work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to bring genuine reform to the federal bureaucracy. this is and has been our mission for four years that i've been honored to serve. miss tavenner, before i begin with my opening statement i want to make you aware in hopes that your people will deliver documents pursuant to a subpoena that expired -- didn't expire, that was due eight days ago

related to the documents behind your coming before this committee and giving false and misleading testimony related to the so-called 7.3 million enrollment figure. we asked for, and we received, only half of the documents and the documents that were excluded were the ones that created the talking points and the people who caused you to use inarticulate language that carefully allowed you to say 7.3 million, without disclosing that that included at least 400,000 dental plans. that was subpoenaed. it was clearly understood. last night we received a huge data dump and it was not in there. and it makes it very difficult for us to go forward with some aspects of today's hearing, as you can imagine. it is clear that this hearing in no small part was not because of what obamacare is about.

not about the health care. it's about honesty and transparency to the american people. today's hearing is likely the last full committee hearing of this congress. this committee has a primary obligation and has lived up to that obligation to look at government, to make more government more transparent and accountable. and, at times members on both sides of the dias have helped in trying to create that transparency. but no government program needs increased transparency and accountability and honesty more than the affordable care act known as obamacare. it is proven time and time again to in fact have made false claims. every member on both sides of

the dais can agree that the affordable care act, or obamacare, is a large, expensive program reliant on a complex network of government programs which significantly impact the lives of all americans. and yet history of design passage and implementation with the law is fraught with ha half-truths and deceptions. here are just a few of the false claims the administration has made regarding obamacare. if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. nothing in obamacare forces people out of their health plans. no change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans. health care inflation has gone down every year since the law -- affordable care act -- has been passed. and that it now has the lowest increases in health care costs in 50 years. to that we add, we've got close

to 7 million americans who have access to health care for the first time because of medicaid expansion. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. when trying to pass affordable care, obamacare, the administration repeatedly claimed that the law's individual mandate was not a tax. however, months after passage in a brief defending the mandate's constitutionality, the justice department argued just the opposite -- that it was a tax. 1 of our 3 witnesses this morning offered a simple answer to this change in position. >> -- to make sure cbo did not skater mandate as taxes. so it is written to do that. in terms of risk free subsidies, get a law which says healthy people are going to pay in -- it made explicit healthy pay in,

sick people get money, it would not have passed. lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically call it the stupidity of the american voter or whatever but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass. it is the second-best argument. look, i wish mark was right we could make it all transparent, but i'd -- >> i wish he was right and we'd made it all transparent. professor jonathan gruber is considered by many as the architect of obamacare. as a former obama administration official put it, professor gruber was "the man" on obamacare. the guru of health care. the official we went on to say, "i remember that when i was at the white house, he was certainly viewed as an important figure in helping to put obamacare together." no one can look at the amount of money he has -- he was compensated for his work on

obamacare totaling millions of dollars and think that our witness was anything but a critical player in the affordable care act. current administration officials, however, have attempted to distance themselves from professor gruber. ever since he stated, and started, telling the truth about are the tactics used to pass this law. in fact, the center for medicare and medicaid services urged the committee not to seat him with the administrator next to him. and dr. gruber, we think you're right to be there. in fact, we believe that this is a perfect pairing, a pairing of individuals who are in fact responsible for what we know and don't know before, during and after the passage and implementation of the affordable care act. september 18th, 2014, the

administrator, miss tavenner, came before us and testified that in fact there were 7.3 million people enrolled in the -- and i quote this carefully -- health insurance marketplace coverage. that tortured language had not previously been used, and it followed a series of document requests after we were told, trust us, the numbers are good, in which we discovered that in fact 7.3 million would have to include a fairly large 400,000 individuals in, more or less, $50 dental plans. obviously when you say you met a goal, and the difference between making a goal and not making a goal are plans that nobody would consider a key element of the affordable care act. hhs initially failed to provide any documents to explain how the

numbers had been interpreted. on october 1st, 2014, the committee requested the enrollment data underlying tavenner's 7.3 million enrollment announcement. our requests were met with delays, run-arounds, that bordered on obstruction. after weeks of negotiation, cms finally provided the enrollment data printed on spread sheets with -- and for those who are my age will appreciate this -- 6-point font, something that is not readable even with your reading glasses. when electronic copies were demanded and the data was finally delivered, oversight investigators discovered that all of the hundreds of spread sheets were in fact password protected and locked. after further negotiation, we finally were able to receive the passwords and recognize that all along there had been an inherent

deception. this was quickly discovered and would have been discovered by anybody simply by putting the spread sheets in ascending order of dollars. on november 21st, 2014, only after it was publicly noted the committee discovered the administration was willing to acknowledge 393,000 dental plans in the figures released in september. moreover, hhs included dental plans in its enrollment figures, not just once, but twice. the agency has included dental plans in its november enrollment figures and has now been forced to revise down to not greater than 6.7 million enrollees. the administration claims it made a mistake. however, there is great skepticism about that, and particularly the term "mistake" when it appears as though

instead hhs and cms were too clever in an attempt to inflate the numbers and say they'd met a goal. it is a small technical error in many ways whether you had 7.3 million or 6.7 million, if in fact it is simply whether you met a goal or didn't make a goal. but whether yn you doctor the b add additional numbers, then use careful language so that you didn't lie, but you deceived, that's what we are concerned about on this committee. the american people have the right to know the honest numbers. management has an obligation to know it if they are in fact going to be accountable to the taxpayers for doing their job and in fact the american people expect no less. professor gruber is often said in washington to be the definition of a gaffe. that's when somebody accidently

tells the truth. you made a series of troubling statements that were not only an insult to the american people, but revealed a pattern of intentional misleading the public about the true impact and nature of obamacare which is in many ways -- in many ways you help craft. today we'll have an opportunity to ask you to apologize for your low opinion of the american people, and hopefully apologize for the false information on which the analysis of what the affordable care act would do was built leading to the disagreemendisappoints we see here today. and with that i would recognize the ranking member for an opening statement, is not here. all members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. we now go to our panel of witnesses. miss marilyn tavenner is the administrator of centers for medicare and medicaid services

at the department of human services. and mr. jonathan gruber is a professor at m.i.t. mr. massey would probably normally introduce him with being the massachusetts institute of technology. pursuant to the committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify. would you please both raise your right hands -- stand and raise your right hands to take the oath. >> mr. chairman? >> just a moment. i'm going to go through where i am. please. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. please be seated. let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the afoirm ti affirmati affirmative. please be seated. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. chairman. at this time, mr. chairman, in the absence of the ranking member, may i ask that we have a minority witness, mr. ari goldm goldman, for whom we thank urine

dull against. and we would ask for convenience sake, since we have a small panel here, that mr. goldman be added to the panel and be sworn in and testify at the same time. >> you know, i appreciate your suggestion. he is not a government witness and not an expert in any of the facts being discovered today so we will leave him on the second panel but i thank you for your suggestion. miss tavenner, you are recognized for five minutes for your opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. members of the committee, appreciate the opportunity to appear here today and answer your questions about cms' continuing work to provide affordable high-quality health care to the americans we serve. in my -- >> ma'am, ma'am, i appreciate if you just pull the mike a little closer. thank you. sorry. >> in my previous appearance before your committee, i reported a number of americans that were enrolled in marketplace coverage and had paid their premiums that included both medical and dental