allow poor people to go without efficacy in the congress of the united states of america. now, who is helped by the federal rental assistance program? elderly with children the elderly themselves. the disabled with children, disabled adults. more than 50% of the people on federal assistance are disabled, elderly and children. are we saying that america no longer wants to help the disabled, the elderly and the children? have we gotten to a point now where we've got to cut through the bones all the way to the elderly, all the way to the disabled? is this the america that we have fought hard to create? i stand with you and i promise you, especially those who are

listening who don't have the advocacy that you need in congress that there are some among us who will not sit silently by. we will not acquiesce or give our consent. >> the time is expired the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia, mr. hurt. thank you mr. chairman, thank you secretary castro for being here. i'm interested to hear some of the comments we've heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. the accusations there are people on our side that want to shut down and end hud. folks that believe there is anything but full support for the fair housing act. it interests me to hear that. i don't think that's what i have heard and anybody that i represent in virginia's fifth district a rural district believes that. the people i represent believe there should be ooa safety net and

hud play as role in providing that. we recognize and the people iienti represent recognize we need to have federal programs that work and are efficient. i know you believe that as well. we need them to be efficient to serve those that need the assistance and we need to serve those who pay the bills. and that is the taxpayers. so that's the prospective i bring to this. i am concerned about people i represent who live in rural virginia. one of the things i would like to ask you about relates to the role of hud and its housing programs. and housing assistance. as it relates to the rural housing service with the usda. in 1965 when hud was created it

was geared maybe safe to say. continues to be geared to urban areas. would you agree that's true how would you say that's changed? >> we are the housing and community development department because we do a lot of work in rural areas and tribal communities. so by no means are the investments we make limited to our urban areas. >> with that said there was a ga report in 2012 that confirmed that, that said that there is indeed a tremendous amount of work that hud does in rural areas. my question is if you're interested in trying to make sure that we are most effectively using the tax dollars and the leverage at the federal government to provide

the most for the -- most effectively is my question is are there opportunities where we can see reform and consolidation between the rural housing service, the uusd squarks hud programs? >> we're willing to talk about the potential for efficiencies. i know the question about potential consolidation between fha and rural housing service has been discussed recently and this is not the first time it's been discussed. just one note of caution there these are two programs that are distinct. they have other standards that are different. i'd say that while hud certainly done a robust amount of work in rural questions, there's no question that the usda has a

greater reach in your rural communities. >> how can you say there's not a duplication of effort? >> they're complimentary. rhs and ffa do have similar approaches. we'd love to get your staff and you a follow up on that analysis. all of that is to say that we're willing to explore what's possible, but i think at the end of the day, this conversation should be had as part of a lrgeer conversation about housing finance reform. >> mr. secretary, we did have our subcommittee, housing insurance subcommittee had a hearing on this in may. the director, mr. hernandez did not seem to be very open to consolidation at all i guess my question is, is based on the 2014 agreement that the organizational charter for the joint federal housing agencies charter which i assume you're familiar with. what has been done? have you met with anybody at the usda or with mr. hernandez to

figure out how we can consolidate these efforts between the usda, hud and hud's efforts as well as the va's efforts? >> i know that my staff has had conversations in the past. with rural housing service. we can get you the details -- >> i'd like to see them because this is something that's been an issue since 2011 when the president started out on this course i would like to have some feed back. >> time to the gentleman is expired the chair recognizes gentleman from missouri. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for conducting this hearing and inviting secretary castro back. welcome. before i ask any questions mr. secretary, let me just personally thank you for your visits that you've been to st. louis and made to the state of missouri.

we hosted you a couple weeks ago in ferguson missouri. i appreciate the attention that you have given that community. especially with our newly minted promise on designation. today it is an unfortunate reality that a child's zip code has huge implications for life outcomes, including access to quality education healthcare and transportation. hud is currently working to finalize a proposed rule regarding the fair housing acts requirement that all recipients of federal housing funds take steps steps to affirmatively further fair housing. can you explain how this rule will help insure greater quality for all children in the future?

>> i'd be glad to. this is a bit of unfinished business from the 1968 fair housing act. it requires that the secretary take steps to insure fair housing. the challenge has been that the federal government has never provided precise guidance sufficient precise guidance to communities on how to do that. we have not really given them the tools to do that. we are closing in on a rule a new affirmative housing rule part of that is an assessment of fair housing tool that they'll be able to use to understand what the fair housing challenges in those communities are. i can tell you as a former mayor, a former local elected official and former council member, i wish i had had that kind of tool when i was on the city council or as mayor of san antonio. because as a policymaker it

helped -- would have helped to understand what more we could do. they will file an amendment of fair housing with their consolidated plan every five years. we're looking forward to rolling this out. this is in the rule making process so i won't go into the specifics of it. we're excited about the possibility of this improving the fair housing landscape in the united states. >> thank you for your response and effort in that area. studies show that federal assistance helps families stay out of poverty achieve stability and ultimately better life outcomes particularly for children. can you elaborate on the positive impacts that hud's rental assistance programs have on our most vulnerable house holds across the country?

>> it's tremendous. the impact that we have. provides stability for young people, it provides comfort and dignity, as was mentioned to the 56% of households that are headed by someone who is elderly or disabled. it gives individuals who are working age the chance to get on a stronger path to prosperity in fact 43% of our working age adults in hud assists housing do in fact work. so the rental assistance that we give is in and of itself successful ipn putting a roof over their head and putting them on the path to the kind of prosperity they want to work for. >> how does the brook rule that caps tenants' rent at 30% of income help families maintain housing affordability while still having enough room in their budget for other basic

necessities? >> what that rule insures is that, of course they have a responsibility to pay 30% of their income in rent. they have skin in the game. they are putting something foráj,pi >> time of the gentleman is expired the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. stivers. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm glad you're here, secretary.

thanks for your call last week. offering to work with me on a lot of issues that we share a passion for. and i want to read from hud's mission statement and ask you about four areas real quickly. this is a summary of your mission statement. it talks about you want to work to strengthen the housing market. you want to utilize housing as a platform to improve the quality of life. build inclusive and sustainability communities free from discrimination and transform the way hud does business. that's my summary of your mission. i hope you believe that's an accurate summary it's excerpts from your summary. moving to work homeless youth definition which you and i have talked about. housing finance, involving cond condominium rules. i'd like to start with -- it's a bipartisan issue. it's a flexible and holistic program that indeed does use housing to build people's

quality of life and transform lives. so i guess i want to get you on the record that you're going to work with us on their bipartisan bill that will expand the program and allow it to be used a holistic program that looks not just at the housing needs but the total needs of the residents and makes it a little more flexible for the agencies administering it. >> we absolutely are. we're looking to do what we can -- >> i'll take yes as an answer. >> our budget proposes 15 more. >> great, thank you. second, on homeless youth, you may be aware that the 2014 annual homeless assessment record to congress actually said that homelessness among families declined by 8% between 2007 and 2014. the numbers reported through -- department of education actually said they went up 85%. so since the 2007 school year.

that's a big disparity. it really has to do with the hud definition leaving out homeless children. and i guess my question -- i don't want this to be a loaded question, but it kind of is. how are we going to solve the problem of homeless youth if we don't count them correctly? >> i believe we are counting them. first of all i look forward to work ing with you. we had a good conversation about this issue. as you know we have concerns about this legislation. one of those concerns is that it injured hud's may take away the ability to prioritize and emfu. >> we want to make sure -- you got to count people before you can help people. if you don't know they're homeless. the hud definition of excluding folks who are under 18. >> i will give you the flexibility. it's really important we count them. your definition excludes them.

>> i would say there is more overlap than what's been given credit. >> i would love to work with you to help solve that. we can't help those people until we count them. they count in my opinion and i want you to help count them. third with regard to condominiums, you may know the process with regard to fha funding for condominiums is complicated. if fha would simply move to risk based pricing for condominiums only. you've had the ability to do risk price. clearly condominiums have amore risk. if you could move away from model that excludes so many condos. only about 10% and 20% of condos are eligible for financing. we've got to fix it.

it's an affordable way for somebody to get housing. it's a big way a lot of urban people get housing. to exclude fha from them is a tragedy. i want to quickly get to fair housing initiative if we can. did you by any chance -- since you've been there. you came long after happened. did you happen to look at your ig's report from 2014 -- i guess it was issued in 2015, recently -- this is your -- wait a second that the wrong one. it was issued in 2014. have you had had chance to see this 2013 i'm sorry. >> i'm familiar with this report. >> i appreciate it. >> brought it with me, too. >> have you implemented the recommendations? >> we have implemented the recommendations.

we've issued a directive emphasizing the need for on site monitoring. and our fheo has implemented a tracking system as well. >> that's great. i know i'm out of time. real quickly, can you tell us have you upidated your conflict of interest standards, it's low. it doesn't include having board members competing against the folks that are subjected to these lawsuits. >> i look forward to following up. >> the gentleman is correct, he is out of time. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from north carolina mr. pit ingeer. >> mr. secretary, good to be with you. mr. secretary, i'm a business man. i served in the north carolina senate. i led an effort for our efficiency and restructuring our government looking for fraud and waste looking nat democratic legislature. came up with a billion and a half of savings none of those

amounts were contested with anyone. work would the speaker addressing what we could do to consolidate our health and human services department. worked on medicaid fraud which was persatesive throughout our government and around the country, about 20% of it. i think the push back that you sense from this side of the aisle today, is wanting a recognition that there is a concern for some abuse. you know even -- you referenced several times that the individuals that you serve come from the very poor or the disabled. the disability insurance has increased in the last decade from $88 billion to $145 billion. that's a lot of money. a lot of people. it seems that a lot of folks have been able to gain access to that. i've worked with our secretary of health and human services in

north carolina. on addressing food stamps. there's very little eligibility requirements. i have heard on the phone with our majority leader and our staff trying to create the eligibility requirements incentives to address it. i think the overall concern is the abuse of the system. and what is being done. you made a clear compelling statement of a great american success story and dressing the needs of veterans and their homelessness. i think what we're looking for is that great american success story in creating accountability. inside the system. and looking for real metrics. looking for what you're doing to make sure that only those who really need assistance are getting it. if you have 56% of your folks that you're servicing -- a good portion of those are disabled

and you have enormous access to disability, where does that fall in line in terms of people being able to access not just disability, but then be able to get federal housing? so all of this is a real concern to all of us. we want accountable government. i reject the statements that were made to imply there is some type of racial concern here. i've been involved in federal housing in my community for 25 years. you can talk to civic leaders, pastors, african-american pastors whom i have worked with very closely. i understand the need. and i am responsive to the need. at the same time i represent individuals who want a fiscally accountable government. we don't see a demonstrated effort in so many ways of how that's being manifest. i would appreciate your response to those concerns. >> i appreciate the question and

the concerns. and early on in my tenure, we set out a vision for hud. and one important part of that vision was to create a more accountable and transparent department. so one of the first things i did i co authored a letter joint letter with our ig that went out to all of our employees. telling them that folks ought to cooperate with ig investigations and reviews. we have gotten our departmental enforcement center to work closely with our ig. we work with our ig to implement the recommendations on audits and reports. so that we improve performance out there. we're looking at ways that we can improve monitoring of our grantees. one challenge, for instance we have over 8,000 grantees. >> could i interrupt you? would you agree with me there is abuse of the system?

>> that abuse happens in the system sometimes? >> yes. >> i agree with you on that. >> good. i think that's what we want -- if you want to come back to this with real measured results not what you've given to staff and what to look for. but measured results in what you've done to bring accountability inside your system. that would really demonstrate to us that we're putting our tax dollars where they really belong. we care deeply about those in a safety net that need our help. we cared deeply though as well about the american taxpayer and how they're being exploited time and again. >> i share that concern. we'd love to follow up sfwlp. >> time for the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. secretary, a couple quick ones just to sort of build the box. for the agency, what do you

think the thing you do or the agency does very best where you do it efficiently, you affect people's lives, and the cost, the dollar outcome, as you measure it, is something you're proud of? >> well there are several things that fit that category. >> just i think -- it's fair to say many of us are proudest of is progress we've made working with the va and others on veteran homelessness. >> your veteran homeless program. what is the thing that most concerns you where the dollar per life affected or helped or changed is unacceptable to you? what is that? >> what is your question? >> same thing just the opposite, the mirror image of the first question. what in the dozens and dozens and dozens of programs and initiatives you are managing -- look you've inherited much of this. if the dollars spent, it is

unacceptable to you the quality, the outcome in effecting and helping people's lives. >> i think it's fair to say every day i read the clippings from around the country. and i see one of the grantees that is not spending money the way they ought to -- >> no. no. i beg of you. i don't want to go the anecdotal direction. i want this to be sort of your math brain side thing. the manager of a multibillion dollar agency. what program are you -- is unacceptable to you that the dollars being spent on the number of lives you're actually helping? >> i don't believe that there is a program that hud has -- >> no program -- >> i guess what you're calling is basically a useless program. >> no. no. no. we all have those that the way they designed the efficiencies -- >> is your question what program we need to improve in terms of efficiency? >> you just told me you're very

proud of your veterans homeless. obviously you came up with a methodology and mechanics there you thought was effective per dollar. but on the flip side you can't tell me anything -- >> no. your question s what program or programs can we improve the efficiency on what programs concern me about the efficiency on. >> if you had a target now where it was time for a technology revolution, cost revolution delivery revolution in what you do to use that money to affect people's lives what is that program that is time to have the management. >> there are many -- >> give me the number one. >> one of them i think we can make more progress on is cdbg. i am told by the folks that a lot of the work is centered around, essentially just routine -- >> so what paperwork and -- what is the technology you can bring

to that to bring that revolution about so that the dollars per life affected is acceptable to you? >> this is why we're requesting it upgrades so we can improve our it system to enhance monitoring and cut down on the amount of time our people have to sit down doing paperwork -- >> they provide the efficiencies that will -- >> that is one example. help more people's live and accomplish it through the efficiency and paper -- >> your characterization is off about that it's one program. it's not one program -- >> you do initiatives at the program level? >> there's no question, congressman. there are efficiencies that we have yet to achieve that we need to achieve. i think my message is it's going to take us improving the systems, that often takes an investment. we need that investment from you. >> well, you actually have a misnomer there because if you

take a look at the rest of the world, particularly in the private sector the adoption of technology and efficiency gicizeies is -- >> congressman -- >> let me finish. >> when the gold -- >> secretary. >> and this -- >> secretary come on. >> mr. secretary. >> the time belongs to the gentleman from arizona. >> you shocked me with that rudeness. >> that's a fact. >> shall we try again, mr. secretary? come on, you're better than this. you are much better than this. your brother is one of my favorite people here. which -- as we try to help you policy wise to find those efficiencies where you believe you can have the most impact through your testimony you keep repeating over investment investment investment investment. in the same breath you tell me

these technology dollars are going to provide you efficiencies. why aren't you also telling us these efficiencies are going to pay for the technology investments. with that mr. chairman, i yield back. >> time for the gentleman has expired. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome, mr. secretary. thank you for joining us today. i'd like to talk a little bit hud's continuum of care which is set up tewo engage local communities. your staff has been talking with my office and a constituent provider in my district about challenges with hud regulations they have run into as a single sex provider. this provider does great work in the north hills of pittsburgh helping women with children avoid homelessness. most of the women there have been in poverty, many are domestic violence survivors. and many have experienced mental health or substance abuse issues. despite that the outcomes

achieved have been tremendous. with more than 80% of clients increasing income and education levels and finding permanent housing, each of these figures exceed hud requirements. however the regulations as they currently stand prevent the provider from continuing to serve females with children. and i can't imagine that they are the only ones experiencing this issue. in thinking through some of the issues i question whether it makes sense for every program to be all things for all people. this provider serves a unique population that seems like a key tenet of the program. it is again to empower folks on the ground. tailor program to meet the needs of the community. it can't be one size fits all. could services under the continuum of care for different genders be provided at different locations. if that is what the community deems to be the most appropriate? >> yeah. thank you for the question, congressman. i'm not familiar with this particular case.

i'm glad my staff has been working with your staff on it. i would love to follow up with you on it personally. we always strive to allow local communities to meet their own needs. and sometimes it becomes a challenge when those local needs clash with other dictates. we would like to work with you and with the community to see what's possible on that. >> would you agree that you can work with different genders depending on the context of the situation? for example if you have a resident that has been helping with domestic abuse survivors, maybe there should be a particular sensitivity there to the residents? >> i would agree with you that that does exist in different places. sure. >> and should washington, d.c. come down and say no, you can't do that, you have to open up the program when you have a specific

population there -- >> again, i don't want to speak to the specific case. i am not familiar with the details of this particular case. in general what we like to do is, as i mentioned earlier, have mission driven flexibility so that we can meet the mission that hud has working with local communities, and effectively serve those people that our programs are meant to serve. >> do you know whether there are waivers in a program for example that hud would be able to grant. >> in many areas we are. in certain circumstances we have granted waivers in order to meet the fundamental goal of that program. >> we'd like to follow up with you and consider any waivers that would be appropriate to help this very vulnerable population. in meet ing with providers throughout my district there is concern and frustration with regulations that are burdensome.

can you tell me how often hud is doing a retrospective review of regulations? >> that's a good question. a few years ago the president asked each of the departments to look at all of their regulations. and to eliminate at least 5%. that was the goal of those regulations. in that time roughly over the last three or four years hud has eliminated i believe the last thing i saw was 11% of those regulations. we'd be glad to get your staff a follow up on which regulations they have been. we share a goal i think. we heard this from congressman lukemeyer. at pha's and non-profits that hey, hud can you get better about stream lining some of the administrative burdens. where we can do that, mark my

word -- >> is there any formalized ongoing review of existing regulations so -- >> oh, sure, there is. there is streamlining rule that's in development. >> the rule is in development right now? >> the rule is in development. >> when can -- >> the proposed rule was issued in january of 2015. our goal is to issue that rule in the summer of 2015. so this summer. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield back. >> the time for the gentleman has expired. the chair recognized the gentlemangentle woman, ms. love. >> i don't know all of the questions that were asked but i want you to know that i'm hoping that we have a good civil just back and forth so we can get some information. good? yes? >> yes, sure. >> great. i have just finished reading an article on the hill and understand that the administration, the obama administration is moving forward with regulations designed to

help diversify america's neighborhoods. your pushing forward with that, right? >> i wouldn't characterize it that way in terms of deversifying america's neighborhoods. >> i'm looking specifically at a department of housing -- your hud rule that's coming out that is dedicated to diversifying neighborhoods in the attempt to try and end some areas that you think that are segregated. for instance. >> we just had a conversation about this. the rule on affirmatively furthering fair housing. >> i just want to know some quick examples that you have where the government has actually, the federal government has actually been able to diversify areas or end poverty

in local areas where the local municipalities could not do that? >> that's not the way we're thinking about it. >> how are you thinking about it? >> the way we're thing about it is -- i used to be a mayor. i know you used to be a mayor. >> i know that as a mayor you wouldn't want the federal government coming in to tell you what to do with your zoning laws or rules. you have more skin in the game. you have more of an incentive to take care of the people that live in your area. you're the boots on the ground. that's why i'm trying to figure out where you think this would be a good idea. >> the linchpin -- i'm going to be careful about what i say about the rule. it's in rule making right now. we don't want to prejudge all of the contents of the rule. i think it's fair to say that the goal is to insure that local communities have the tools to assess the landscape of housing in their area and where the investments are, where

affordable housing opportunities are. understand what -- >> you think they don't have to tools right now and you need to provide the tools they need to landscape their area? to have more data for their area? >> i believe that through this rule they will be able to get an assessment -- >> do you feel like you didn't have the right type of tools to make the right types of decisions in your area? >> i said earlier i had had his tool when i was mayor. it would have helped us i think to understand how we could insure that throughout the community people would have the opportunity for upward mobility. >> i have limited amount of time. before we go on can i get a commitment from you that you are not going to do anything that preemps what the municipalities are doing in their area, you won't make any zoning laws or any rules that are going to

preempt what cities will do? >> i've seen talk about that. this is -- >> yes? yes in. >> this is not about changing laws. >> the city i was mayor of named one of the best cities for liveability and affordability. it wasn't because we put pockets in areas of affordable housing. it wasn't because we said there are people that cannot afford specific housing so we're going to make sure that we do that. it's because we actually lowered the price. we lowered taxes, we made sure our taxes paid for public safety, police and fire, and we gave people opportunity to use their own money in order for them to be able to pick affordable housing in their own neighborhoods of their own choosing so that their kids can go into -- go to school of their choosing. one of the things i'm really

concerned about, i put up an article on facebook that talked about utah going from 193,000 homeless to 178,000. that is remarkable that a state can do that. >> they did it with a lot of our money, i agree. >> no. no. listen. they actually did that because that was their decision. >> with our money, sure. >> what do you mean our money? it's taxpayer dollars. you think it belongs to you? this money does not belong to you. it belongs to the people. >> i'm proud of it. i'm proud of what utah has done. >> it belongs to the people. you should take note from what we are doing. why not follow what utah is doing so we can end homelessness. every program we have aimed at poverty should be aimed at making poverty temporary not tolerable. >> the time of the gentle lady has expired. the chair wishes to advise all members in order to accommodate

the secretary's schedule the chair intends to recognize three more members the gentleman from colorado, arkansas, and kentucky. those who are monitoring the hearing in their offices, you are a day late and a dollar short. at this time we will recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. pearlmutter. >> thank you mr. chair, mr. secretary. good to see you. >> good tuesdayo see you. >> i'd like to talk about some of the sustainability energy saving measures that the department has undertaken with local governments, with local public housing authorities. i know in colorado your agency has worked very closely with a number of our local governments and local housing authorities to really make sure that the residents have very well built

units and complexes that are very efficient in their operation. so if you could just talk to us a little bit about what the agency is doing nationwide and any specific examples that you want to raise. >> yes. i want to say how much i appreciate representative -- the chance i got to get out to denver not too long ago. in fact, the denver housing authority is a good example of this. i had the chance to visit north lincoln homes. in north lincoln homes they have installed 10400 solar panels on the building. we want folks to have a roof over their head. we want them to live in a safe and healthy environment. and we have a win-win here. it's healthier. it's better for the environment and they're saving money in terms of energy saveingssavings. >> colorado is the fittest state. utah has a lot -- >> i won't challenge you on

that. >> i want to talk about colorado for a second. i appreciate your -- >> yes. so we're doing just a whole bunch of work on this. that -- those buildings are part of what's called a better buildings challenge. and the better buildings challenge includes a push to get multifamily building owners to agree to improve their energy efficiency by 20%. we have gotten 89 multifamily partners that represent 400 million million square feet. that's one significant advancement we've made. there are also other big communities like new york through its housing authority, that is working to do green energy retrofits. we worked with them to make it economically feasible in conjunction with the private sector so they'll have renovated and more environmentally sound

green energy units there in new york. and we just think that this is the victory all the way around. >> and i have seen instances where your department has worked with other agencies within the federal government, whether it's education, or transportation or energy you know to make sure that you know new complexes, new housing units are near transit or it's easy for the residents to get from one place to another. can you comment on that? >> i'm confident that one of the lasting legacies of the obama administration is that it has broken through the silos sustainment communities is a good example of this, which was hud, dot and epa working together and asking local communities to do the same thing. because we know if we're going to lift up the quality of life for people, it's not just about

housing, it's also about access to transit. it's about a good school. it's about the opportunity foreign policy a good job. how do all of us work together across the silos so that folks have a holistic opportunity to rise? and denver is a good example of this. whether it's in -- investment in transmit that connects to some of the housing there. or environmental investments that have been made. the promise zones we recently announced the second round of are another good example of this. we want to make sure we're making an overall holistic impact on quality of life and economic opportunity. >> is there anything i haven't touched on that you'd like to talk about? >> there are a million things we'd love to talk about. we're very proud of so much of the investments that are made. we're also mindful as folks, i know, on this side of the aisle have said that we can continue to work on efficiency. and accountability.

and we will do that. >> with that mr. chair i yield. >> gentleman yields back his time the chair recognizes the gentleman from arkansas mr. hill. >> thank you mr. chair, ranking member. mr. castro. had the great pleasure of being in texas over the weekend and had dinner at austin at the lbj library. i was thinking quite a bit that dinner about would the president, this many years later, be happy or sad about the performance of the great society programs since we really haven't gotten poverty as a percentage of the population down since his time. i know we've spent trillions trying to. but i do welcome you back to the committee. i met with my public housing authority twice in little rock, arkansas. and one thing that came up consistently was hud's bureaucratic delays and disposition of properties that -- i was informed that it

can take up to literally a year through your chicago disposition office to take a property that's been sold -- take it off the books and therefore we can't redevelop new units without putting that cash to work, do a real estate closing. that seemed like a really long time to me. i wondered what you consider a bench mark for that disposition process? >> yeah. i believe it's fair to say that according to the history of the property and the size of it that you see a range, however i agree with you that we certainly should endeavor to do it in a way that is as swift as possible. and while i'm not familiar with the particular case of the little rock housing authority, i'd be glad to follow up with you and your staff so we can figure out with regard to that how do we improve that situation. more broadly, give you an answer on what our average is. it may be that -- >> my question is not case

specific. it is prospective. but i've seen it in a couple of instances now. i encourage you to set a bench mark that is substantially better than that. you talked about your success with veteran homelessness. we appreciate that. in preparing for the hearing, i was really shocked when i read a crs memo that suggests that of the $45 billion in new discretionary appropriations provided for hud's programs and activities $43 billion, some 95% basically all of it is nearly all that funding is apparently dispersed by automatic or computer driven funding and so it's basically on auto pilot. that is goes out. they say it's allocated by formula, 95% of hud's

appropriations is allocated by formula. whatever that may be -- which means that hud doesn't have a lot of input. managerial input. this is change i've noticed since coming back to washington that our cabinet secretaries don't have a lot of control about mixing programs or changing personnel. we see at veteran's administration all the time. i know you are frustrated by that. whether you choose to mention that here is your business. how many more houses could be build or how many more lives could we change if we had a reduction in the 7,800 employees that you have? if 95% of your spending is driven by a formula, do you really need that big a head count? could we reduce that head count? what do you think about that? >> we'll always looking for efficiency. in january of 1981 we had 16500

employees. today we had 7810. >> you spent a lot less money then, too. you were spending $10 billion in 1983. >> we're having to do more with less people. but i think you and i can agree on this, that we are always looking for ways through the use of technology and doing things smarter, that we can become more -- >> does that number shock you, 95%? does that surprise you that crs is 95% of your spending is based on a standing formula that flows out -- >> does it surprise me? i want to double check that percentage. it doesn't surprise me a lot of our programs are essentially formula funded. there are also a number of them that are competitive funded. there is not much discretionary power -- >> what do the nearly 8,000 people do in that instance

then? >> they -- essentially administer the programs. we have had a lot of talk about how we can insure more accountability. they are our front line. >> if you are a good inspector general and a good congress to agree to a it upgrade. if you're going to have that much automated spending wouldn't that be the way to handle it? where do they get to innovate and add value. >> we need to investment in it so we can achieve some of that. i agree with you on that. >> i yield back. >> time for the gentleman is expired. the chair recognizes gentleman from kentucky, mr. bar. >> thank you for your patience. we're winding up the hearing here. i appreciate your time here today. the congressional research services you probably know reports that hud has spent since its origination in 1965 approximately $1.65 trillion on its programs over the course of

the these 50 years. yet, since 1965, the percentage of prime age male workers in the work force has declined from over 90% to only about 77% has declined from over 90% to only about 77% today. also, the official poverty rate has been discussed has remained essentially flat. in 1965 7% of american children were born outside of marriage, today that number is over 40%. that matters of course because single parent families are four times more likely than married couple families to lack self-sufficient si and persist in poverty. finally, since 1965 since is the advent of your department the number of single parent families in official poverty has more than tripled. so we talked about this quite a bit today, but how do you personally define success in the mission of the department of housing an urban development?

>> we have addressed this, congressman. i define success this in several ways. first of all somebody having a roof over their head a veteran that served our country having a roof over his or her head is success -- >> can i stop you right there? i agree with you. putting -- >> we agree on that snu i want to elaborate here a little bit. putting a roof over someone's head is success certainly if keeping that individual out of homelessness. >> for the department of housing. >> sure. but wouldn't you define success with higher expectations that the aspiration of your agency shouldn't just be putting a person who is homeless into a shelter or putting a roof over their head but instead putting a person in a position where they themselves are putting a roof over their head? isn't that the expectation that we would want? isn't that what the american taxpayers expect in terms of the return on their investment? >> what they expect is that the

department of housing will provide safe quality affordable housing first and then we also, of course want to work to ensure that people also have the stability to get on to the path that they want in life, but let's not suggest that the fact that they have a roof over their head doesn't count for anything. >> oh, it certainly counts. i just think that our aspirations need to be much higher, our expectations are far too low. the expectation should be that success is measured not just in how many people we're moving into dependency on the department but how many people -- >> i disagree with that. >> how many people we are moving out of dependence -- >> there is no -- >> what's the evidence on that? >> since my time is expiring mr. secretary, let's talk about your stated testimony which i appreciate that you're always looking for ways to become more efficient, you're always working on efficiency and accountability and that you've assigned your deputy secretary to lead an operational and management review that deep dives to deliver more efficiency. let me give you an pampl of

where i think the department could deliver on that commitment. in kentucky i have heard from many of my constituents who are grantees of continuum of care. in one city in kentucky with the homeless rate that is average they're getting about $8 million. in a similar city with the same homelessness rate they're getting about 1/8 of that money. for those constituents in that underserved community they tell me hud has been capricious in prohibiting funds from being redirected. in other words in the city with the large number of continuum care funds the grantee is supposed to by statute have 24 months to expend all those fund or those funds will be recaptured. but the statute also says that the secretary shall reallocate the funds for another homeless assistance and prevention project that meets the requirements of this part to be

carried yeed out if possible and appropriate in the same geographic area as that area served through the original grant. i have heard from my constituents that the request to remove the unexpended funds from one grantee in one kentucky county to another less than an hour away has been denied. so my question to you is what do you define as a geographic area and why can't we take unspent funds in one area and reallocate those to another area where there is an equal and chronic need? >> that is a great question. in fact, it's a great request he because this is one of the things that we would like to work on, especially in smaller communities to allow them to be able to share resources whether it's on overhead or direct provision of services. so let's work on that. >> mr. secretary, i appreciate your offer. i want to work with you on that to, again, help you make good on your commitment to make these dollars go further for the american taxpayer. thank you. i yield back. >> time of the gentleman has expired. i'd like to thank the secretary for his testimony today.

without objection all members -- all members -- the committee will come to order. without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit additional written questions for the witness to the chair, which will be forwarded to the witness for his response. i would ask the secretary to please respond as promptly as you are able. without objection all members will have five legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials to the chair for inclusion in the record. this hearing stands adjourned.

on c-span's road to the white house more presidential hopefuls announce their candidacy for president. live saturday on c-span former secretary of state hillary clinton will kick off her campaign with a speech that will outline her agenda as a candidate live from the fdr four freedoms park in new york city at 11 eastern.

on monday afternoon at 3:00 we're live at miami-dade college where jeb bush will officially announce his candidacy. and tuesday on c-span.org businessman donald trump says whether or not he will make a bid for the presidency. you can watch any of these events on line at c-span.org. c-span's road to the white house 2016. >> director of clinical cardiology at brigham and women's hospital in boston dr. patrick oguera on the advances in heart surgery and the progress being made if the understanding of heart health. >> this actually is a valve that has been crimped on to this catheter that's being now positioned into the diseased valve and it will be deployed here in just a second with the balloon being inflated and a new valve will be inserted inside the old calcified accident o to

the tick valve and as you can see here the delivery system is being withdrawn and then the wire will be withdrawn and what we've just seen in this little pictorial display is replacement of a diseased aortic valve in a manner that does not require open heart surgery. so we're trying to become smarter about predicting who will get disease, we're trying to become smarter as to identifying the most effective means to prevent or attenuate the disease and then smarter about following up over a long period -- a longer period of time. so we're currently in an era where we're trying to harness the promise of the human genome research project that's been in existence for more than a decade with all of the information that's been driven by the giants of the industry like google for example, and information about

sociology, geography demographics, where you live where the railroad tracks are in your city, that's your likelihood to get diabetes on the basis of your educational background and what's your likelihood of developing something like diabetes or hypertension if you live in a certain part of a city where you have less access to the right kind of food or even the right kinds of instructions about sodium consumption. little things like that that could have enormous impacts on population health. >> dr. patrick ogara sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's q and a. >> like many of us first families take vacation time and like presidents and first ladies a good read can be the perfect companion for your summer journeys. with a better book than one that peers inside the personal life of every first lady in american history. "first ladies, presidential historians on the lives of 45

iconic american women," inspiring stories of fascinating women who survived the scrutiny of the white house, a great summer thyme read available from public affairs as a hard cover or e book, through your favorite bookstore or online book seller. >> coming up tonight on c-span 3, a house ways and means hearing with health and human services secretary sylvia burwell. then some of the commencement speech beginning with governor greg abbott at the university of north texas in denton followed by eric swal we will in liver more, california. later a senate hearing on alleged retaliation against federal whistle blowers. >> health and human services secretary sylvia burwell was on capitol hill this week to testify about the department's 2016 budget request and the healthcare laws implementation.

secretary burwell also took questions about an upcoming supreme court decision that will determine whether federal subsidies should be offered to those who sign up for insurance through federally run marketplaces. this hearing was held by the house ways and means committee, it's two hours. >> committee will come to order. we know that the secretary is on a tight timeline today with a hard deadline at noon. that's why the ranking member and i just discussed that we will limit members' questions to four minutes so as to accommodate as many members as possible in the questioning. but first let me start off by thanking our witness secretary burwell. i understand that you've got to get going so we're going to move this as quickly as we can, but we were supposed to have this hearing earlier in the year but

events overtook us so here we are today. i understand that the majority of your remarks are going to be about the budget, that's all well and good, about you it shouldn't surprise you secretary burwell but we're a little more interested in talking about obamacare especially given the president's remarks this week. i hope he gives you a medal for this job because defending this healthcare law is to easy task. i think any objective observer would say that this law is on the fritz. by the law's own standards the whole point of obamacare was to make healthcare more affordable but premiums aren't going down they're going up. way up. all over the country. insurers are proposing double digit premium increases, in maryland close to 30% tennessee 36%, south dakota 42%.

tack season was like a bad dream before, now it's a total nightmare. people could never afford these plans on their own so the law gave them subsidies to some people. well, now 2/3 of the people who got them had to pay the irs back on average over $700. that's not the kind of am unthat people just have laying around. and for all of this hassle, for all of this what are we getting for it? the argument was that if people had insurance they'd go to the doctor instead of the emergency room, but now even more people are going to the emergency room. so whatever the supreme court decides later this month i think the lesson is absolutely clear, obamacare is just flat busted. it just doesn't work. and no fix can change that fact. we're not talking about a ding or a debit or a fender-bender or flat tire, the whole law is a

lemon, it's very linchpin, it's central principle is government control. that means higher prices, fewer choices and lower quality. so the answer isn't just to tighten a pew screws and everything will be fine the answer is to tweak it here and tweak it there and we'll all be okay, the answer is to repeal and replace this law with patient senate reforms. the truth is i don't have to convince this administration that the law is broken. i know that you know that it's broken because you keep trying to fix t for several years now hhs has delayed parts of the law and sometimes in some cases they've rewritten it on the fly. we know the most egregious example, the is subsidies. the law said people who buy plans on state exchanges can get subsidies. it doesn't say anything about federal cases and yet hflt hs has sent millions of subsidies out the door putting millions of people at risk. more and more it seems the

administration isn't so much as implementing the law as they are improvising it. we have already seen the evidence of the administration using one account to pay for multiple programs. programs that congress they ever funded. that's one of the main reasons we are holding this hearing today. it is congress that wields the power of the purse and more and more the administration is acting like a purse snatcher. so, again, my kudos to you, secretary burwell on a very difficult assignment but the american people they deserve better, they deserve a healthcare system that puts the patient first, they deserve lower prices, they deserve more choices, it they deserve higher quality and the committee is going to do all it can to make those things happen. and with that i'd like to yield to the ranking member. >> welcome. you know, i'm glad we're having this hearing and obviously the

republicans want to focus on aca and i think that's a good idea because what's busted is not aca, but your attacks on it. endless attacks. never coming up with a single comprehensive alternative. all these years. so you sit as armchair critics while millions of people have insurance who never had it before millions of kids have insurance who would not otherwise have had it. people who have preexisting conditions no longer are canceled or can't even get insurance, the doughnut hole is gone. millions of people in lower income categories are now insured through medicare,

millions and millions and millions. cost containment is beginning to work. it's beginning to work. the increase in costs, that rate is going down and so is you're livid because it's getting better. that's why you're livid. and i'm not surprised at yurour -- your fervor. we will be glad to take it on. we will be glad to take it on. and i think you just need to understand what this experiment is all about. it was combining increased access to medicare, to medicaid,

with an increased reliance on the private insurance sector. that's really what this is all about. an experiment. and you talk about government control? more and more people are getting insurance through the private sector. and the states that are denying their citizens further coverage under medicaid are essentially telling people well, get lost when it comes to health coverage. get lost. and you have a governor, mr. chairman, who is running around this country talking about the evils of healthcare when millions of people are benefiting from what happened. so you decided to turn this from budget to aca. welcome. welcome. your frustration is millions and

millions and millions of people are benefiting have healthcare when they did not before. so madam secretary i think they've thrown down the gauntlet. i don't think you -- i don't feel sorry for you. i think you love this job and you like being the person who is administering this experiment in greater health coverage after 70, 80 years of nothing being done in this -- in this town or throughout this country. so i happily welcome you because i think you're a very happy warrior. i yield back. >> i'd like to recognize the happy warrior now for your opening statements. the floor is yours secretary burwell. >> thank you. chairman ryan, ranking member levin and members of the committee thank you for the

opportunity to discuss the president's budget for the department of health and human services. i believe firmly that we all share common interests and therefore, we have a number of opportunities to find common ground. we saw the power of common ground in the recent bipartisan sgr fix and i appreciate all of your all's efforts to get that work done. the president's budget proposes to end sequestration, fully reversing it for domestic priorities in 2016, matched by equal dollar increases for defense funding. without further congressional abc the sequestration will return this full in 2016, bringing dis regs naer funding to its lowest level in a decade, adjusted for inflation. we need a whole of government solution and i hope both parties can work together to achieve a balanced and common sense agreement. the budget before you makes critical investments in healthcare science, innovation

and human services. it maintains our responsible stewardship of the taxpayers' dollar, it strengthens our work, together with congress, to prepare our nation for key challenges both at home and abroad. for hhs the budget proposes $83.8 billion in discretionary budget authorize. this is a $4.8 billion increase which will allow our department to deliver impact today and lay a strong foundation for tomorrow. it is fiscally responsible which in tandem with accompanying legislative proposals would save taxpayers a net $250 billion over ten years. in addition it is projected to continue slowing the growth of medicare by securing [ inaudible ] in savings as we build a better, smarter, healthier delivery system. in terms of providing all americans with access to quality, affordable healthcare it builds upon our historic progress in reducing the number of uninsured and improving

coverage for families who already had insurance. a recent example of this progress is the 10.2 million americans who are currently enrolled in health insurance through the marketplaces in 2015. the budget covers newly eligible adults in 28 dates plus d.c. where expanded medicaid and it improves access it to healthcare for native americans. to support communities throughout the country the budget makes critical investments in health centers and our nation's health work force, particularly in high need areas. to advance our common interest in building a smarter, better healthier delivery system it supports improvements to the way care is delivered providers are paid and information is used. to advance our shared vision for leading the world in science and innovation the budget increases funding for nih by $1 billion so advance biomedical and

behavioral research among other priorities. it invests $215 million for the precision medicine initiative, which will focus on developing treatments diagnostics and prevention strategies tailored to the individual genetic characteristics of individual patients. to further our common interests in providing americans with the building blocks of healthy and productive lives this budget outlines an ambitious plan to make affordable quality child care available for working families. to keep americans healthy the budget strensness our public health infrastructure with $975 million for domestic and international preparedness, including critical funds to implement the global health security agenda. it also invests in behavioral health services including more than $99 million in new funding to combat description opioid and heroin abuse dependence and overdose. finally, as we look to leave our department stronger, the budget invests in our shared priorities

of addressing waste fraud and abuse, initiatives that are projected to yield $22 billion in gross savings for medicare over the next decade. we're also addressing our medicare appeals backlog with a coordinated approach we are pleased that the senate finance committee last week passed bipartisan legislation and we look forward to working with this committee on t i also want to assure you i'm personally committed to responding promptly and thoroughly to the concerns of members of the committee. i want to close by taking a moment to say how proud i am of the hhs employees from their work combating ebola to assisting unaccompanied children at the border, the commitment that they show day to day day in and day out as they work to help their fellow americans have those building blocks of healthy and productive lives. i look forward to working closely with you to advance our common interests on behalf of the american people. thank you. >> thank you. let me first start off by saying

where we agree with the administration, we work with the administration, this week's action on trade is a perfect example. but on this healthcare law we could not be more opposed to what the administration is doing. we really think this is doing a great harm to the healthcare system and to the people we all represent. so let me start by just addressing the big elephant in the room. any day now the supreme court as you well know because your name is burwell, in king versus burwell, is about to rule and if the court rules against the administration then millions of people will be stuck with a government designed health insurance that they cannot afford. so, i mean, the big question is then what? what about the people who are going to lose their subsidies, and possibly their coverage? is the president going to dictate to us how to fix this flawed law or is the president

is the administration, going to be willing to work withes us to give families greater freedom in choosing the healthcare that work best for them? >> so with regard to the question of the courts, i think you know we believe that we are implementing the law as it was written, as the statute is written, as it was intended as cbo has scored it for all these years, as recent articles have reflected that those that were part of writing the law indicate that it should be. the idea that citizens in the state of new york should receive federal subsidies that taxpayers contribute to and citizens in the state of texas is should not is not what we think the law inn -- >> i understand your opinion on what the court ought to do but it stands to reason that there's a pretty decent chance that they may not go your way. so the question then is then what? >> so if the court does decide and if the court would decide for the plaintiffs in the idea that the court would say that subsidies in the federal marketplace are not eligible those states that are part of the federal marketplace, that

those citizens can't have those subsidies, if the court makes that decision, we're going to do everything we can and we're working to make sure we are ready to communicate to work with states and do everything we can, but the rhetorical decisions, if the court says that we do not have the authority to give subsidies, the critical decisions will sit with the congress and states and governors to determine if those subsidies are available. >> so here is the question i'm trying to get to is the president going to stand up and wave i have a one sentence fix, take it my way or the highway? is that going to be administration's position or is the administration going to be willing to work with congress to find a way to give people more healthcare freedom? ? that's the question i'm trying to get at. >> with the question of healthcare freedom it is it is important to reflect the marketplace is a market, it uses private insurers, people that sign up in the marketplace are not on so they have many

choices. as a matter of fact, in the marketplace this year there were 25% more plans. that's more choice that's more competition, that is why -- >> let me ask it this way because i want to be kind of everybody's time. let me ask it this way, if the plaintiffs prevail, if the king side wins and then the exchanges are deemed unconstitutional, not legal in the federal exchange states, then the individual mandate is effectively struck down for those taxpayers in those states. is the president going to say reinstate the individual mandate? i've got to tell you it's not real popular and we here at least on this side of the aisle aren't eager to reinstate the individual mandate, we would like to free people from some of these mandates. i'd say that the administration has been a little two-sided on this particular issue, mandates, where you've delayed the employer mandate twice. that goes away as well. so is the administration going to take the position congress must reinstate this thing and

all these 37 states reinstate the individual mandate reinstate the employer mandate my way or the highway, or is the president going to be willing and flexible to work with congress to fix this mess and negotiate with congress? that's what i'm trying to get at. >> i think it's actually very important, though, with regard to the decision before the court, the decision before the court is who receives subsidies and whether or not those subsidies can be given in states that have a federal marketplace versus a state marketplace. >> we understand that. >> that is the decision and that is the openly decision before the court right now. >> okay. so -- >> so with regard to what happens if that decision occurs. >> yes. >> three things occur. the first thing that occurs is for the people -- >> secretary burwell, we know what will occur we all know this. the question is what will the administration do? will they stand up with one piece of paper and say my way or the highway or will they work with congress to address this the situation? >> so the problem that occurs if the court decides against us is

that they have made a decision that the subsidy -- >> you're not going to answer the question, are you? >> no, the answer is the problem that gets created is subsidies aren't available they aren't available for millions of americans, they lose their insurance, it drives up costs in the individual market. to solve that problem the critical decisions are going to sit with the congress. >> okay. right. >> or states. >> for a bill to become a law, house, senate, then the person at the other end of pennsylvania avenue, the president signs that law. is the president going to come out and say only my way or the highway, one sentence one page fix, or is that president of the united states going to be thinking less about digging in and defending his law as exactly written or is he going to be willing to actually teal with the issue which is affordable healthcare for millions of people who are losing their health insurance, is he going to work with congress to address this situation or is he going to put concrete around his ankles and say it's my law or nothing? that's the question i'm trying

to get at. >> so the president and we have said the administration has said all along with regard to improvements and we believe that there are improvements that can be made, we look at three things and a fourth underlying. affordability, access, quality and the issue of how it affects the deficit and our economy. we will look at anything and have that conversation. >> okay. >> with regard to the specific that you raised i do think it is important, the issue of the individual mandate that is related to a very fundamental part of the system which is preexisting conditions. it is our experience at least it in my conversations across the country that most americans believe that you shouldn't be kept out of insurance or banned. if i have a child that has a condition that's born with a particular condition that i shouldn't spend my time worrying that that child will never get insurance once they go off mine mine. >> you're going off topic.

i'm going to cut you off there. we both know there are ways of dealing with those problems without having to impose an individual mandate. let me leave it there in the interest of everybody's time, mr. levin. >> well i'm not surprised at the tone, but i really think it is so counter productive. chairman, you talk about two-sidedness. the two sides when you say you worry about the millions who will lose their insurance when it's your allies who brought the suit that would deprive them of insurance. you talk about -- about concrete, having feet in concrete. that's exactly where you've been in terms of aca. your feet have been in concrete while you have -- you have brought up bill after bill to

try to destroy aca. and when you say will the president be my way or the highway, that's precisely what has been your approach to aca. precisely. you've never sat down with us to say how could we make some changes. instead, you have been out to destroy aca. and you say where's the president's plan when the president believes the court will and should uphold the law? all you've done is issue op-eds. >> and bills. >> and bills. contrary -- contradictory bills. so you don't have any plan. like you haven't had a plan for

60 years. so you can keep going after the secretary and she will keep trying to spell out -- i will ask you when i finish how many people have been receiving subsidies, madam secretary? >> so 7.3 million people have received subsidies through the -- that are in the marketplace right now. >> so when you shed tears about 7.3 million, remember -- or about the law, it's 7.3 million. what's been the average subsidy? >> $272 per month is the average subsidy. and in terms of those that are in the marketplace that are subsidized that's the 7.3. so 10.2 million people are currently in the marketplace overall, about 85% of those receive subsidies. the average subsidyvíñ is $272 per

month, which is what results in the affordability. >> and just quickly tell us how many people have received additional care through expansion of medicaid. >> the question of the total number because there are people in terms of the expansion itself, about 10 million people are the estimates in terms of those states that have expanded. >> so add those two together and we're talking about individuals with families and the republicans come here and castigate you and this president. the shoe should really be on the other foot. i yield back. >> mr. johnson. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hardly know how to follow that. i guess i'm supposed to thank

you for being here but i have to tell you i'm not in agreement with much of what you're saying. let me just ask you you know we're trying to the healthcare back in shape and it sounds like to me that you want to go your way and not try to work with us. let me just ask you if there are any proposals that hhs supports that will reduce costs for consumers without setting price controls or imposing other restrictions that will reduce access to care? >> yes in terms of there are a

number of things that are part of our budget and we're currently implementing that are reducing costs. we know since the passage of the act -- >> but it looks like to me everything is going up. >> well medicare spending if we look at what it was projected to be in terms of the previous ten years up to 2008 where it has been since '9 through '14 we saved $300 billion. with regard to per capita healthcare costs in the country in 2011, sae 12 and '13 the cost growth is the lowest that it has been in 40 years. so that's taxpayer savings, that's also -- >> but the insurance rates are going up, not down. everybody is paying more for it. >> so insurance rates before the affordable care act were going up on in the individual market well above double digit numbers. so what we've seen since the implementation is while those rates are still continuing to go up they're going up at a much lower rate. >> okay. let me just change subjects for a second and ask you about an

effort that my colleague lloyd doggett and i have been after for a number of years and that's ending the use of social security numbers on medicare cards. as you know that finally became law earlier this year as part of the medicare act chip reauthorization act. let me ask you is hhs already implementing that and how fast do you think you will be able to issue cards without social security numbers on them. >> first let me say thank you. having put this in the budget when i first arrived at omv i thought as i told you on our call that it would take years so thank you for your leadership and effort on this. we were pleased and i personally was excited. right now we are putting together the work plans to to that. we haven't established the exact time table but as soon as it was passed the next day i have asked the team where are the work plans, we want to do it as quickly as possible in ways that will serve the consumer. as you know, there are a lot of medicare consumers, we want to make sure we're not disrupting them or their services but we

very quickly want to do it. like you we believe this is an important part of privacy and security. >> well, i thank lloyd doggett for helping me with that. how easy do you think you can make it for seniors to get a new card? >> we want it to be easy for seniors and we want to make sure they understand. one of the things we don't want to do by making this improvement is create confusion. figuring out the way that we can enter in the new people coming in very quickly with their cards but those with the existing cards because we don't want to have a confusing situation. so that's what we're working to do and look forward to staying in touch with you and your office about how we do that. >> thank you, ma'am. thank you mr. chairman. >> mr. rangel. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i don't want to thank my colleague mr. johnson for not drinking the kool-aid in the back against

obamacare. obamacare. >> try that kool-aid. >> i can't try that kool-aid i was a former church boy and i thought that the right thing for americans to do was to believe that healthcare was a part of the pursuit of happiness. it doesn't even seem like a political thing. if a kid is sick and someone says you cannen have healthcare it should pain you see as human beings if a person goes to a doctor and finds out that the child has an illness, but he can't get insurance. if we find the good samaritan on the side of the road and we know that most people middle class people have insurance but that pofr sometimes restricts people from getting this it just seems to me that instead of tearing down the system where you know if in your hearts people are getting healthcare, that you would say, i don't like the way you've done it, mr. president. i don't like the way you democrats have done it.

let us help you to do it better. but to take some sense of pride that the supreme court will just strike down the opportunity for people to get just basic healthcare to me is not just mean spirited -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> i don't think so, mr. chairman, because you are on a roll now and i don't want to have you to become a nice guy at this point in time because i'm glad that you have rehearsed the attack that you intend to do and i don't care who the secretary is, if you are on the side of giving assistance to people that can now go see a doctor, that can now prevent going into intensive care because they have had preventive care that can now get insurance that they couldn't have insurance, from a political point of view i wouldn't want to be in your shoes explaining it. of course, those that already covered it's no problem there, i've got mine, jack, you get the

best that you can but i don't care what religion you believe in and even if you don't believe in any, it seems like compassion should override partisanship and if we don't like what's before us we should work hard to repair and to fix it and to improve it. so, you know at 85 years old if i have to decide on what moral side i'm going to be raising issues on, wra find a better one than this. you know, it goes without saying if you cripple, if you're blind, disabled if you want help and if money and insurance is what is keeping you from getting it, you could not give a better political home run ball to the american people to decide a basic question which side are you on? so i'm glad that politically my party would never put me in this position and the only position i

would rather be in is where you're sitting madam secretary to be able to see that you are on the right side of the issue you can see that people don't really want to discuss the millions of people that are being helped and we're not talking about -- we're talking about life and death in the true sense of the word. if someone had had a conscious that when the doctor said i wish you would have seen me earlier and they said, i wish i could but i didn't have insurance to do it, doctor, or how many cases we have in intensive care saying, this woman this man should never had to have been here if it was detected earlier and we have a mechanism for all of this. to we have to -- >> time for the gentleman has expired. >> well, thank you mr. chairman. >> i would just -- >> i'll take that. >> good. >> it was another minute there but you cut that off. >> we're doing four minutes so we can get to members of the other dias here.

i would is ask members it if approximate you do have a question ask it earlier on so that the secretary has a chance to respond. gentleman from texas is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam secretary. healthcare is about patients not politics. i was pleased to hear you answer, mr. ryan, if it the court rules against irs in this case that the administration will do it everything we can. can you give us some guidance here? will the president sign legislation other than merely extending the subsidies to federal exchanges? >> with regard to the question of legislation and the affordable care act, we've had -- that has been a question and a comment and where we've been is when there is repeal of fundamental elements it -- >> but on going forward. i appreciate looking backwards but going forward if the court rules for the plaintiffs will the president sign legislation other than extending subsidies to the federal exchange approximate sh. >> so the president has and i think will continue to sign

legislation that we believe improves affordability, quality access and takes care of the deaf is sit issues. >> so the answer is -- and thank you for saying what i hear you say the president will sign legislation other than simply extending the subsidies to the federal exchange? you're saying that's correct? >> the sgr bill that we recently signed includes very important provisions that actually extend the affordable care act's effort to do delivery system reform. >> did you know that's not in the supreme court case is specific to that asking your guidance the president will sign legislation -- >> specific to the supreme court case. >> -- other than merely extending subsidies? >> specific to the supreme court case, if the question is the supreme court case, i want to return to what the supreme court case is about. >> no i'm really just looking -- we're looking four your guidance in a bipartisan way. so your answer is yes the president will sign legislation other than extending the subsidies the federal exchanges?

>> with regard to the question of the supreme court case, that is an issue about subsidy. that is all that is about. >> and your guidance to us would be -- >> if your question is are we willing to consider things that would improve our enhance affordability, quality and access, we are open to those things. >> so yes. >> with regard to the supreme court case, though, i think it's very important for me to be clear. that is about one item. >> the subsidies. >> that is about one item. >> i'm very well aware. i want to make sure again as we look to work together to put patients ahead of politics you're saying, where he the president would definitely sign legislation other than exchanging -- extending the subsidies of the federal exchange the answer is clearly yes. >> i want to distinguish between the question of how one resolves the problem that gets created. that is -- that has -- doesn't have anything to do with any other parts of the affordable care act. >> no. this this is such an easy question. >> no, i actually -- >> it can be yes the president will sign other legislation or,

no, he will sign only that legislation. >> congressman, i think it's very hard for me to answer a question about hypothetical legislation. >> no, it's actually not hypothetical as we know the court is going to be ruling not hypothetical. if they rule for the plaintiffs guiding us you're saying the president would sign other legislation? he will not as mr. ryan said he will not say, my way or the highway? >> with regard to fixing, improving the affordable care act, these are two different issues. >> no. madam secretary i don't mean to interrupt. i'm really speaking seeking your guidance. so the answer, no though, to finalize it is yes? >> my answer, congressman is we will review any legislation we get that has to do with the affordable care act based on -- >> i'm asking about signing so the answer is no? >> with regard to legislation that we sign we'll look at any piece of legislation and we'll judge it by four things access -- >> let me ask this, again,

guidance. will the president sign legislation to extend those subsidies temporarily while republicans and democrats and the president work toward a long-term solution? >> with regard to the subsidies as i have said the critical decision is with congress. if the congress writes legislation that makes sure that those is subsidies are available, that is something that -- >> so the answer is yes. yes, he would sign legislation other -- >> check time. >> -- than extending it, correct? >> congressman, i apologize but when you say other -- >> time. time for the gentleman has expired. mr. mcdermott. >> mr. chairman, thank you. ms. burwell, it's really nice out in seattle i'm not sure you made the right choice coming back here to work. >> i'm in the wrong washington, is that what you're telling me? >> i listen to this and we're all talking about if the president does this and whatever but let's talk a specific because i think that we haven't

heard a specific come out of the republicans in -- since the bill was passed. they've never put anything on the table. now we have a bill 1016 put in by senator johnson from wisconsin and his -- it's his solution if the bill fails, and as i read read it quickly it repeals the individual mandate, it reveals the employer mandate and it says that the states can continue the funding down -- and the standard of benefits that people get are not the national standards, but whatever the state of mississippi or alabama or georgia or texas or one of these states that has not had an exchange, whatever they set as a benefit, we know it will be lower because it already is, they won't cover people in medicaid. so they clearly don't care about the level of healthcare, but explain to me how you would -- >> will the gentleman yield --

>> to 1016. >> will the gentleman yield. take back the disparagement of the citizens of georgia. >> he has a it -- she has the right to explain what the president would think of a particular piece of legislation that's been put forward as a serious thing by a senator in the united states senate. >> so with regard to the johnson piece of legislation, that piece of legislation is from our perspective is repealed because it gets rid of preexisting conditions it stops the funding for preventive services it undoes that people up to 26 would be covered and it actually takes away subsidies from all over time. so with regard to that particular piece of legislation, that is a bill that from our perspective is repealed and we've spoken to the issue of something that repeals the affordable care act is something that the president will not sign. >> so in answer to mr. brady's

question will the president sign a bill that we pass if we pass this bill will the president sign that? >> as i have said this bill is in its current form is repeal and the president has said that he will not the sign something that repeals the act. >> is there anyplace that you see that there is a proposal on the table by any member of the house or senate that makes -- that looks at this point as though it deals with protecting the aca in general and fix the one specific problem? >> we have not seen anything. >> and you've looked at all the legislation and read all the press releases and everything else? >> at this point we have not seen something that addresses the specific issue of the question. although, i think there's also the issue i think we're all very focused on the law scenario, at some point i think it actually is important to focus on the win as well in terms of how we all

go forward if there is a win >> tell us about the costs of healthcare. we hear the chairman says the president promised that the -- there would be a reduction in premiums. now, would you explain why that's a little bit misleading in that certainly everything is going up in the society, but they are not going as much as was predicted, i think, is what you would -- i'd like you to talk about that. >> that's correct. and as we have seen, the premium increases that occurred in the individual market and even in the employer-based market we are seeing smaller increases in those premiums than we saw before. so while there are increases, the increases that we were historically seeing that were driving costs for individuals for employers and in terms of medicare and the cost to the government that is what we have seen shrink and slow he. >> thank you, mr. tea berry. >> thank you, mr. chairman thank you secretary burwell. >> the recent sgr medicare

reform bill that passed a couple months ago included a bipartisan bill that i sponsored to require binding bids from suppliers participating in the durable medical equipment and please competitive bidding program the provision supported by my democratic colleagues removes bad actors from the program, something i don't have to i know go over with you and ensures that seniors get quality medical equipment. in a compromise with the administration the law requires that cms implement the provision not earlier than january 1st of 2017 but not later than january [ inaudible ] -- very generous timeline to implement the bill and would hope with your leadership that we could move it closer to the january 1, 2017 timeline because at the end of the day as you know, again there's bipartisan support for this concept, my good friend

bill pascrell is all over this issue as well. we think this will ultimately help separate the good from the bad and ultimately help our seniors. so your leadership would be critically important to moving that closer to the beginning than the end. >> so it is related to mr. johnson's question too. as soon as the bill passed which was such a very important bill, i don't think i need to articulate to this committee all the important things have worked to put together the work plans so that we are specific and we do try to meet and where we can beat deadlines we've been able to do that on some bipartisan legislation on behavioral health that was supported both in the house and the senate in terms of beating deadlines we were given. where we can we're going to try to. thank you for your support and help in doing that. if we need further support and help i will come and ask. >> thank you. >> but it is something that is a priority. >> thank you. the other issue, is intellectual property rights. incentivize the creation of

innovative new medicines that improve people's lives and supporting u.s. jobs we're talking about trade this week. i want to ask you specifically about india. over the past couple years india's intellectual property climate is unfortunately dee rated pretty significantly. in the u.s., i p intensive industries has suffered including pharmaceuticals, they've expressed significant issues with respect to the indian market, most notably courts in india have issued license as well as denied and revoked several patents for popular medicines held by u.s. companies citing an indian law many believe die verjs from india's international trade commitment. have the compulsory license and revocation patents on medicines been a part of any hhs discussions with its indian counterparts? i know this is kind of a question that might have come out of left field based upon what you prepared today, but would you agree it would be ill-advised for any u.s.

government employee to undermine the policy of the u.s. to promote strong international property rights in foreign markets and if you aren't prepared to answer that would you mind looking into it and getting back to us as we have this trade debate this week? >> yes i'm happy to get back. ustr would probably lead in in any of those conversations that were in that space, so i think what i will do is coordinate with ustr so we get back to you together because i think you probably know those conversations with the governments are being led by ustr. we give our policy and programatic input to them and they lead. we will make sure one of the two get back. >> i appreciate your leadership. i yield back. >> thank you. mr. neil >> thank you mr. chairman. madam secretary, the opioid addiction issue is pronounced now across my congressional district and there are all sorts of stories now that indicate a

nationwide trend and i'm curious about the response of your department, the agencies that you oversee and also to ask specifically about description drug misuse. >> where he. >> the evidence that you're coming across on that basis. >> so with regard to the issue that you have raised thank you for raising in our budget there is $99 million additional dollars to implement an evidence-based strategy on the problem, let's just quickly touch on the problem. when we think about the problem as you articulated in your district across the country opioid and overdose deaths have exceeded the number of deaths from car accidents or any other accidental death. in the year 2012 there were 259 million prescriptions for opioids. that's more than one for for every -- >> would you say that again? how many prescriptions? >> over 250 million prescriptions in 2012 for opioids. so that's how many prescriptions there were. so that's more than the number of adults in our country.

so that was one prescription for every adult in the country in terms of where we are and the magnitude of the problem. let's go to the solution space. we have worked and worked with states and worked with the congress. there are a number of bills here up on the hill right now, three basic areas we need to focus. one is prescribing, a big part of the rob as you can see from that number is prescribing. what we need to to there is we need to provide new prescribing guidelines for pain and pain medication that will help the problem, but also in the prescribing space states need to do what are called prescription drug monitoring plans. they are almost in all 50 states and they are the means by which a physician has the opportunity to look up and see that a controlled substance was already given to you and control it that way, same thing with pharmacists. so prescribing is number one. number two is the use of meloxone which is a very important drug that actually stops death when there is overdose and making sure that

first responders have access. that is a very important part of that picture. nick christoph had a piece about it this week. number three is the issue of medicated assisted treatment combined with behavioral issues and making sure we could t. do treatment for those who are addicted. those are the three things, the 99 million additional funding in our budget cuts across cdc and sampsa. i've been in massachusetts with your governor and done a joint event with your governor. this is a bipartisan and statewide issue and whether it's governors or both sides of the legislative body in both you know, sides of the aisle. certainly your all's colleague from kentucky is leading in this effort on the house. so that's your plan, that's what we're trying to do. >> it's noted that in some places in new england heroin is selling for $3.50 a bag on the streets ever some of our old

industrial cities. i have house bill 1821 that i would invite members to take a hard look at. senator markey has a companion bill in the senate and what and what specific actions should congress be taking along these lines to assist you in noting as you have that there are now more deaths from overdose than from automobiles? >> with regard to the places where we need help from congress to implement the strategy is one in the area of another drug that helps in this. the question of prescribing. so we believe that's an important place. the second place is in making sure people are trained with the guidelines. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. welcome, secretary. last fall last fall they proposed the

child enforcement rule. and dave camp along with senator hatch sent a letter expressing concern about this. and the issues that were raised were that the administration in this area was usurping the authority of congress to write law and was in effect writing law. this has been a repetitive theme. i think chairman ryan raised this issue regard to certain issues relating to obamacare. but we've seen this with immigration, obamacare, other issues of telephone law, tariff measures. this committee in a bipartisan way has been willing to work with the administration on these child support policies. why does the administration choose to trample on the constitution and article i powers in an area where we want to work together? i just don't get it. i understand there is always tension where we disagree. i get it. and that's a fight we're seeing play out in the courts. but why in an instance where we

do have willingness to work and cooperate on this important issue area. >> we would look forward to the opportunity to work in this space. in terms of that particular rule, there were some very important things that i know you were familiar with and the fact that some of these things were done in the 1990s. so people have to do paper applications with regard to child support. so a lot of the rule was about things like improving ability to use technology and other things. and improvements and simplifications to the rule. if there are specific policy areas that are of concern, we are listening to those comments that have come in. i think you know we have not finalized the rule. and we'd welcome the opportunity to work on the issues and the substantive areas. some of the things that have been mentioned in the release that happened yesterday are in areas where the states advised us, in the state of texas in terms of we are following what

the states have asked us to do in terms of things like using money for people to do job training, which is an issue that is important in a number of the states. >> chairman ryan and i introduced legislation yesterday dealing with this. in order to protect our constitutional right to write law, i know this companion legislation and senate by senator hatch and senator cornyn. but we want to put the administration on notice that this body, the legislative branch, writes law, and that the executive branch executes. and we're getting tired of it, especially in an area where we have some agreement. just be put on notice that we're going to assert our constitutional prerogative. on a different issue, the employer mandate has not been implemented. a lot of complications with it. we know how complicated it is. we have heard testimony in the past on this. and i know it does not apply to small businesses 50 or fewer full-time equivalents. but those individuals would still be subject to the individual mandate. why is it, has the administration been reluctant to assist these kinds of small businesses? i questioned secretary liu when

he was before this committee earlier this year with regard to health reimbursement accounts. and there was a move i think for a six-month reprieve on really onerous penalties for small businesses. but six months. i just don't get it. have i legislation that would actually make it more effective for small businesses to use these health reimbursement accounts which are completely legal under aca, but yet for some reason your agency and the administration has decided to close the door on these. >> i don't get it. shouldn't we be helping small businesses and their employees at a troubled time? >> so we agree with you and want to try and do more. in the budget right now the budgets proposal that is before the congress right now for fy-16 we've proposed expanding the tax credits available for those up to 25 employees. we want to move it up to 50, to expand the access to tax credits they can get. >> health reimbursement accounts

are very effective. >> time. >> thank you. >> the time of the gentleman has expired. >> mr. doggett, are you ready? >> thank you for being here. it seems to me that the focus of this hearing and all of our work should be on how we could make this health care system work better and deliver services and insure more families instead of speculating about some court decision. as you know, madam secretary, i have a number of concerns about the way this law has been implemented, particularly in texas, and the fact that two out of three of our texans who are market eligible for these marketplaces are not yet enrolled. and i think there are things that your office can do for more effective implementation. i would encourage you strongly to do the same kind of cost benefit analysis like you did at omb. look at the contractors and see if they are delivering on their services. i have a number of queries to you about those. i hope to focus on how we can make it better and make the implementation better. when i hear you accused of being

a purse snatcher, it does get my attention. the easiest thing for the court to do and i think the right thing is to not ignore the other 900 pages of the law and focus solely on four words, and if it's necessary to have a legislative fix deleting four words solves the entire problem and allows this law to work the way congress intended for it to work. there are many other ways to address this problem and some states are looking at the possibility that the best way to fix the law, should the court render the wrong decision, is to simply create their own exchange. it's also extremely impressive to me that of all the proposals that have come in at the last minute of republicans to deal with the possibility of an adverse court decision, how many of those proposals attempt to include as much of the hated obama care as possible, preserving the right of young people up to age 26 to

participate in their family's health insurance program, attempting to maintain exchanges. if today we're asking you about how to make improvements to reach more people in our laws, that would be a reasonable thing instead of the polemics that are going on here. i think, i think it is probably historic. i could not find another circumstance in which members of the house and senate ask a court to deny thousands indeed across the country millions of people an opportunity to get a federal tax credit to say please deny in texas our two senators, please deny our constituents $600 million every month in federal tax relief. but let them keep paying taxes to finance the same kind of tax credits for people in california. or someone from wisconsin, since chairman ryan joined the same brief in the court, who says, please have my constituents continue to pay taxes to fund tax credits in connecticut but

deny thousands in wisconsin.m; k to say it's a lemon to provide families the relief with insurance for pre-existj conditions that they never had v+ç$

there's two issues that i'd like to use our couple of minutes on. first, they're related. it's the discussion around cost sharing reduction payments and then also the basic health program. so just to set the table, the cost sharing reduction payments, the issue is whether the administration has the authority to spend out of an account that hasn't been appropriated. as you know, chairman ryan and chairman upton wrote to you and secretary liu on february 3rd. your response back at a staff level -- look, i mean, it was

sort of predictable. it restates the obvious in terms of the number of truisms about the affordable care act. and then it says, go talk to the lawyers at the department of justice because there's pending litigation. little bit of a cute response in my view, but it's your play. now, where there is no litigation pending and the issue is exactly the same is on the issue of basic health programs. so it wouldn't be satisfactory to say, you got to check with justice, because they're not involved in any litigation because there is no litigation between us at this point in time. so here's my question. the law's really clear that you can't spend money that hasn't been appropriated. there's no ambiguity about that. the constitution's clear, the gao states this, many, many different entities say that money cannot be spent absent an appropriation. and yet there are a number of states that are announcing that, you know, minnesota was a state