-- they just really do not trust hillary. i am looking at some other candidates. bill clinton is going to make money, but talking like she is an automatic nominee, i do not think that is the case. that is my question or comment. thank you for your time. guest: it is interesting you say that. the folks with hillary clinton bernie sanders and martin o'malley, no one are taking them seriously as challengers but that could change. the perception a lot of folks have of the clintons, even folks who are democrats see the clintons as ending the rules. just the idea if they remember the first clinton presidency that you have to spend a lot of your time defending the clintons in these ways were it is not really cut and dry what they did, that kind of frustration are we about to go into another time of what is the meaning of this and me defending the

clintons, if i am a democrat, i think that weighs on people. if the foundation creates that kind of fatigue, it can hurt hillary clinton the primary or later on. host: can all those phone or debt foreign donors make direct touch visions in their own country? guest: that is the genius of the foundation. at the clinton global initiative they are in front of angelina jolie and bill gates and bono. you get to ponds age and be honored with bill clinton. if you just give money to some cause somewhere else, you do not get that prestige, you do not get to have your name on something with bill clinton. that is powerful even for people who are incredibly wealthy. the mexican telecom billionaire, one of the richest men in the world, it would not seem like he needed extra prestige or gravitas, but that is someone who has gravitated to bill clinton. he is to go to bill clinton's speeches, right down lists of top 10 orders around the world

even people like that see a benefit associated with bill clinton on stage. that is the genius of the clinton foundation. to get a piece of clinton prestige, they get -- host: what about nonprofits? do they get the same access? guest: if you want to sponsor the foundation, $250,000. if you just want a ticket for your company it can be twice thousand dollars per ticket. but they have a way for nonprofits, to get in for reduced rates or for free. they are there also, but obviously the whole thing is set up, it is a big moneymaker for the clinton foundation because these companies want to be there. host: jane, columbus, ohio, thank you for holding on. you are up next here good morning. are you there? caller: yes.

i have a statement. i think it is great people are donating money to the clinton foundation where they go and help other people. you have to have rich people donate. poor people will not be able to donate the kind of money they need but when it comes to the presidency, nobody talks about how much money it takes to put a man or a woman into the presidency. guest: i think that is right. you need a lot of money to become president. that is sort of a different side of hillary clinton. she will need a lot of money and a lot of political donations if she will make a successful run for president. i do not want people to get the

idea of a mingle with the foundation. the foundation is a separate entity. it is not a part of the presidency to those things are separate. they are not the same thing. host: there is a listing of all the various arms of the clinton foundation, a good deal of them starting -- does it only -- only go to clinton foundation programs, or does it donate to other charities outside the clinton foundation? guest: it makes grants to other charities but a lot of them are funneled. a healthier generation come after clinton had emergency heart surgery, she partnered with the american heart association, that is a huge program trying to get -- in schools, which employs hundreds of people in schools around the

country, that of its own thing. it is kind of broken off into its own thing. host: james in houston, texas, you're on. go ahead. caller: is that me? i'm sorry. my comment was, i was just wondering when they come out of office when he was president hillary was complaining they were just totally broke and like he was going to have to get in line for food. how come none of this ever comes up when she is getting ready to run for president and telling all these lies? i do not understand how that works? host: go ahead. guest: that was something she said early in the preparations for the presidential run.

at that time, there was a lot of fun raising requirements for the presidential library in arkansas. the comment i think she said was not flat broke in the way regular people understand flat broke. obviously, if you look now, the change in their network has been just incredible. part of that is due to any president, as an earlier caller said, can make a lot of money giving speeches. but there is an extra -- that is the great thing about the clinton foundation, as she blesses the money, the my also blesses him. he gets to be a greater global figure and become more demand run the world, the more he convenes the money. host: are there programs the clinton foundation decided to stop, because of lack of interest? guest: one major program. it helped get the clinton

foundation its start. clinton's moves from the base of operations in arkansas where they were building the library to new york, where hillary was a senator. she says i am a small business woman, i want to get better, but i do not know how to get better. he set up a whole mentoring program to show small businesses to understand things like marketing, websites. it expands to nine cities. we talked to a lot of people who are really involved in this and thought it was a great program. it and. it is not scalable. it is too much work per person to go around the world to it with the clinton foundation likes to do, it is mostly about bringing in money as found was people in that program found it to be, it was not scalable. it is one major initiative they shut down. host: david fahrenthold

>> on the next "washington journal" -- as the supreme court prepares to rule on a case challenging federal subsidies for health care, we are joined by alan weil to discuss how states are preparing for the decision. later, we hear from roger derose of the kessler foundation. they discuss a new survey on the state of the workplace for disabled people. "washington journal's" live every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the conversation with your calls and comments on facebook and twitter. last week, the acting head of the transportation security administration was removed from

duty after an investigation revealed that tsa agents failed to find fake explosives during tests. this morning an oversight hearing on tsa. that is live at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 3. before the end of the current term, the supreme court is set to decide king v. burwell, a case challenging federal subsidies. next, texas senator ted cruz chairs a judiciary subcommittee hearing on the health care law. he criticized treasury department officials for not testifying before the subcommittee. this is an hour and 45 minutes.

senator cruz: before we get to the substance of the hearing, i want to take just a few minutes to discuss the empty table before us. it's a symbol for how little regard the obama administration seems to have for the american people. two weeks ago, this committee sent a letter to three current employees of the u.s. treasury department. requesting their attendance here at this hearing. the talk about treasuries role in developing the obamacare exchange's subsidy rule, which is hurting millions of people across this country, and which is directly contrary to the statutory text of the underlying bill. specifically, this committee sent letters to mark mazer assistant secretary for tax policy and treasury, emily, the deputy assistant secretary, and serving as the acting assistant secretary when the rule was written and finalized, and cameron, who was the deputy tax legislative counsel for tre treasury. after these invitation letters

were sent, the treasury department reached out to my staff. and indicated they did not intend to send any witnesses. you know, i would wrote our -- note our former attorney general, eric holder, the first attorney general in the history of this country to be held in contempt of congress. these three empty seats demonstrate the ongoing contempt for congress. and for the american people that is manifested by the obama administration. for the treasury department to tell the united states senate they have no time, they will not even answer questions about how they created rule making and direct conflict with statutory text is the height of arrogance.

the beginning of this hearing was to give them an opportunity to come and answer questions, to recognize the oversight responsibility given to the senate, given to congress by the united states constitution. by their absence, i take it the administration is saying they are not subject to oversight. and yet, at the end of the day the american people provide the ultimate oversight. given that the administration refused to cooperate in this hearing, it is my hope that the full committee will take it to the next level. of invoking compulsory process so that members of the executive branch will be made to answer whether they tried to follow the law or whether they were instructed by political operatives to disregard the law in the interest of a political

outcome. that's a question the executive needs to answer. and the purpose of this hearing is to begin getting to the bottom of it. now, i can understand why the administration is reluctant to engage in this discussion. i can understand why both in substance, after over five years of obamacare, we have seen that millions of people are hurting under it. the american people were promised by the president, if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan. well, millions of people discovered that promise was false. that it was knowingly, deliberately false. as millions of americans had their health insurance plans cancelled. the president promised the american people, if you like your doctor, you can keep your

doctor. that, too, we now know was a statement that was knowingly deliberately false. today as a consequence of obamacare, millions of americans have lost their jobs, have been forced into part-time work, lost their health insurance, lost their doctors and are facing skyrocketing insurance premiums. i can understand why the administration would be reluctant to defend that record of merits. i can also understand why the administration does not want to answer questions about the underlying legal question. the statutory text is straight forward. and if the end of the day, it is not a complicated question, what the administration did is took statutory language of an exchange established by a state, and through transmortification that would make harry houdini shake his head in wonderment

defined the federal government's exchange as an exchange established by a state. the question this hearing and the next panel hopefully will get to is was that an attempt by an executive agency to follow the law? to carry out the president's constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed? or was it a deliberate effort to ignore the law, driven by political and partisan objectives, from political appointees at the treasury department and the white house? this was a question of exceptional importance. if the executive refuses to implement the laws that are

passed by congress, then the basic protections of our constitution become afen ral. -- become ephemeral. that's the purpose of this hearing. i'm disappointed that the administration has chosen not even to engage in this conversation. with that, i'll recognize the ranking member senator coons. senator coons: thank you. senator cruz, i thought i'd open by commenting in this same room earlier today, we had a lengthy three-hour marmk up on patent litigation reform. at the conclusion of his remarks, i was compelled to whisper to my staff counsel that i thought senator cruz got it right. senator cruz: i hope that comment is not used against you in your next campaign. senator coons: hopefully it will not.

senator cruz: i hope it's not used against you in your campaign. senator coons: i just mentioned at the outset, by way of saying while we found agreement on issues of the constitutionally protected right this morning, we will approach today's discussion and this hearing with a somewhat different perspective. i find it unremarkable that the witnesses requested for today did not appear. the administration has ongoing litigation, litigation before the supreme court which is expected to be resolved very soon. and it's my understanding that they were not comfortable sending a witness to the hearing under the circumstances. i find that unremarkable. congress has a way of compelling cooperation with oversight which it has not done. so the simple fact is, we are left with a so-called hearing today about the rule making process in a senate judiciary subcommittee with witnesses who are not involved in the rule making process. it is my hope we'll move past this political theater and on or back to the substance of the judiciary committee. thank you.

senator cruz: all right. we'll go ahead and give each senator a chance to make a brief opening statement before we move on to the next panel. the senator on this side of the aisle, who was here next, was senator sessions. senator sessions: thank you, mr. chairman. as a long-time practitioner in federal court, 15 years practicing before federal judges, i developed such a great respect for those men and women who lead those courts. the judicial process that we do through, the legal process that we go through, and in states all over the nation, we presume laws are past, juries are told that executive enforces the laws, and the people expect that. that's the whole essence of the american legal system. and the president of the united states is, in fact, the chief law enforcement officer in

america. he has an absolute duty to see that laws are faithfully executed. i've seen in my time here presidents of both partiesy sies -- both parties acquiescing in policies they don't like. i don't believe we have ever seen a president of the united states who is so willing to just ignore plain law to advance a political agenda. this threatening law in america. american people acquiesce in court decisions every day. many of which they strongly disagree with. but they acquiesce because that's our system. part of their acquiescence is a grudging belief that somewhere somebody is following through on legal procedures and what's happening to them in the courtroom is a result of a fair and decent process.

i do believe, senator cruz, that we're not in a healthy relationship right now. and if we get to the point where the american people believe that the supreme court, five members out of nine, on the supreme court are just advocating and imposing views instead of faithfully following classical interpretive policies of law then i think we have threatened the foundation of this republic. my full and firm belief is that the strength of this republic is founded on the anglo american rule of law which we basically inherited. we just celebrated the 800th anniversary of magna carta, and that's different from a lot of people. so, mr. chairman, thank you for hearing -- having this hearing, and i

don't believe the president is entitled to do what he wants to no matter what the law says. senator cruz: thank you, senator sessions. senator blumenthal? senator blumenthal: thank you mr. chairman, and i want to join with my colleague, senator coons,in expressing my appreciation for your very eloquent remarks this morning even though we voted on opposite sides of the issue. and for your having this hearing because i think it's a topic that well merits attention and scrutiny. if i had been asked for my advice by these witnesses, and i wasn't, i would have probably given them counsel that appearing here to talk about these issues literally on the eve, or perhaps a few days before the united states supreme court rules on almost directly related questions of law and possibly fact, would have been imprudent.

and even foolhardy and might have been perceived as improper. the timing of this hearing in relation to the united states supreme court decision predetermined the outcome of their appearing here. and i would respectfully suggest, mr. chairman, that these same witnesses be invited at some later point, certainly consideration by the full judiciary committee of any compulsory process should await another invitation at a different time, and i do not mean to suggest that the empty table was used as a prop for an argument that may be misperceive but i would strongly urge that this committee revisit the potential testimony from these

witnesses on another occasion. on the issue at hand, contrary to the arguments of many partisan opponents, i firmly believe that the right decision will be to uphold this law, both the act, itself, and plainly overwhelming evidence from its consideration of passage demonstrate its nationwide scope. everybody involved understood when it was being debated and when it was being passed that tax credit would be available regardless of which government entity set up an exchange. the act simply would not have worked any other way. the financial support for yufl universal coverage would not have been there without this understanding. and so i welcome the scrutiny and oversight and hope that we will find a path where we can really on a very bipartisan basis work together. thank you, mr. chairman.

senator cruz: thank you, senator blumenthal. senator hatch? senator hatch: well, thank you mr. chairman. let me begin by thanking the chairman for conveneing what i consider to be an important hearing. i also want to say i'm disappointed by the first panel's decision not to appear here today and testify. here we are investigating a hugely important issue, whether obamacare authorizes subsidies for federal health care plans purchased through the federal exchanges, and the administration's representatives won't even talk to us. you would think the administration would jump at this opportunity to tell the public how a determined that the tax of obamacare remains the exact opposite of what it says. how determined that established by state means established by the federal government. i can only conclude the administration's refusal to participate today means it has no good explanation. decided early on subsidies needed to be available in

federal exchanges if law was to work the way the president envisioned and didn't particularly care what the statute actually said. so many things about this whole process are disturbing. you have a congress that passes a hugely consequential bill through a backwards legislative process after the people of massachusetts, massachusetts lkts elect a republican senator to stop the bill from moving forward. you have a president that then decides to rewrite the law through administrative fiats to say what he wishes it said rather than what congress actually wrote. you have a seen or administration official refusing to even show up to exflan how they arrived at their anti-textural reading of the statute. these are not the actions of an executive branch accountable to the rule of law. these are the actions of an executive branch willing to bend the law to suit political purposes. i've spoken many times about president obama's disturbing disregard for the rule of law of which the obamacare subsidy rule is just one example.

last month i published an article with the ucla "law review" explaining how the president's rewriting of obamacare countervenes. after the court case challenging the president's action. i'd like to quote from that article. "what's ultimately at stake here is president's obligation to follow the law. faced with a statute that doesn't operate quite the way he envisioned, president obama decided to disregard the parts of the law he doesn't like and instead implement a different statute. the constitution doesn't give the president leave to unilaterally rewrite laws. the power to amend laws lies with congress and until congress amends the statute, the president is bound to the text congress passed. now, i ask consent for the article to be entered into the record. senator cruz: without objection. senator hatch: i'm glad we have

a second panel with us today who can talk about the administration's path to determining that subsidies can be offered on federally established exchanges. even though obamacare provides no such authority. now, i wish the administration would take this as seriously as we do. let me just say that that whole obamacare matter, and heard all sides and really got tremendously involved in it naturally because i've done an awful lot of health care legislation over my 39 years in the congress. and i have to say that one of the principle arguments was by some that -- that, you know, that the -- the people would have to go, the exchanges would have to be set up by the state. the argument behind it was that's the only way you're going to get people to really sign up for it because that's where the money goes. and that argument was used on more than one occasion and all i can say is i'm very concerned about this whole issue. the statute is unambiguous.

it's amazing to me that we've come this far without somebody admitting that, hey, they made a mistake. and that we would have to rewrite the law so that you can do what they've just unilaterally decided to do without any real legal authority to do it. thank you, mr. chairman. senator cruz: thank you, senator hatch. senator whitehouse? senator whitehouse: thank you chairman. i want to echo the comments of my colleagues about the empty chairs here. senator blumenthal and i have both been the attorneys general of our states and we have had the obligation to provide advice to government officials on how to respond when their agency is the subject of ongoing litigation and i concur fully with the remarks of senator blumenthal and i concur fully with his recommendation that once that impediment is lifted the chairman should consider

having the witnesses return. i think it could be a constructive hearing if it were not for that impediment which i think is a real and genuine one. in rhode island we aren't very affected by king v. burrwell because we did set up a state exchange and our state exchange has been quite a success. we've just hit 500 businesses having achieved health care through our exchange which has a business plan as well as the individual plan. thousands of families have achieved coverage or major primary care practice groups are adapting the way in which they practice to take advantage of some of the innovation programs in the affordable care act. they are seeing better care for their patients. their patients are are seeing longer hours, simpler processes, more support for prevention and other types of less costly ways of dealing with people's health.

we are seeing better care delivered in a less costly way. we are seeing that at the national level. the aco's have been put through the innovation center. they were able to demonstrate hundreds of millions of dollars in savings accompanied by better, simpler care for the individuals whom they served. i think we have a continuing process that we are obliged to pursue to make sure that the american health care system, which remains, by 30 to 50%

more expensive, per capita, than all of the countries we compete with. i think that gives us an obligation to keep our eye on the ball and make sure that we are reducing the cost of care while maintaining or improving the quality of care that our people receive. there is no reason we should be the highest per capita cost in the developing world and has health care outcomes measured by things like length of life that equate to countries like greece and croatia. we can do a lot better. the affordable care act is a tool that has been proven to do a lot better.

the exchanges are driving the health care system in that direction. unfortunately, behind the political language and the political fight that have accompanied the affordable care act, there are an awful lot of americans who have had to deal with the american health care system and they have seen firsthand what a complex burden some in efficient bedeviling system it was. i think that in this area of lowering costs by improving the quality of care, the affordable care act has made some important breakthroughs. we want to encourage those breakthroughs to make us more internationally competitive and to provide a better humane

result for the people of the country and, at least in rhode island, i think the state exchange is helping the state manage that problem and steer itself in that direction. thank you very much for your time and i will yield back. >> thank you, senator whitehouse. when it comes to discussion of cost and limiting cost, i think obamacare has been an abject failure. i think you will be hard-pressed to find decreases on health care premiums. rather the efforts health-care

premium increase has been over $3000. under obamacare, they are getting less coverage. they have less coverage, they are paying more. i would also note that it is the dependency of king versus burwell. miss mcmahon testified before the house oversight committee with the same underlying issue. the administration sent a witness.

i am going to enter the letter into the record. with that, i would like to welcome the second panel to the table and we will start immediately as you can be seated.

i would like to introduce the members of the panel. he was my first boss in private practice. i'm sure many will hold them to account for all the mistakes i have made. we have mr. michael cannon from the cato institute we have professor andy gray wall. we have the representative from

the constitutional accountability center. i would ice each of the witnesses stand and be sworn in. . do you affirm that the testimony you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> i was just talking about the importance he of this hearing. the real issue is the rule of law. is this going to be a nation

governed by constitutional prerogatives or the policy preferences of unelected bureaucrats? i think that is executive what happened in this case. this is an extraordinarily simple case. the irs is transformed it into something that we receive subsidies on exchanges there is not a reasonable interpretation of that language. they cannot dispute that the plain language is the opposite. they try to change the subject. they say, you ripped the

language out of context and the language is contrary to the underlying purpose of the statute. in reality, neither of those is true. the context in which those words reside confirms in every way that the plain language means exactly what it says. following that plain language is really the only way to implement the broader purposes of the affordable care act. for example in terms of context, it is argued that this is an unusual place to put a restriction on subsidies, but the reality is that section 36 b is the only provision in the act that deals with the availability of subsidies and the reality is that it is the only restriction that makes it clear that you need to make a purchase off of an exchange to receive the subsidy. so far from being an unusual place, it puts the restriction in the logical place and the context makes that clear.

in terms of the broader purposes, the plaintext of the act makes it clear that the principal purpose of the act is to ensure that the states run these exchanges and not the federal government area did it is mandatory. the states shall operate these exchanges. one of the principal problems with the irs rules is that it undermines that statutorily stated purpose. since the subsidies are made available, it provides the states no incentives to undertake this difficult and arduous task. so the irs rule dramatically undermines one of the stated purposes of the aca, which is to on -- have states establish exchanges. none of the proponents of the rule can explain why any reasonable legislature would have thought all the states or most of the states would have done this if they were provided no incentive to do so and they

cannot explain any other incentive other than conditioning of the subsidies. the notion that there is some purpose out there to have subsidies in all states is simply a fiction invented by the obama administration. there is no legislative history anywhere suggesting that congress intended to make subsidies available on exchanges that are established by hhs. therefore, the purpose argument is not any effort to discern congressional intent through any normal means of expressing legislative intent, it is a unilateral effort to impose the executive branch's own purposes and contradistinction to those of the legislation. we have a specific statutory provision that tells you what the limitation is. we have the provision that tells you why they impose that limitation and there is no legislative history which contradicts either of those

statutorily and acted texts. any legislative material that any justice of the supreme court has looked at, there is no purpose that would justify the irs's revision of the code. my final point is that the proponents of the act cannot even agree on the rationale behind why the irs's revision was ok. the solicitor general invented this term of art theory at the supreme court. you will not see that term of art theory anywhere in their discussion of the role at that time that they did it. this was a postdoc invention that is not consistent with what the irs came up with. the media explanation was the giant mistake that nobody really understood what was going on but neither the solicitor general nor the irs has bought into the fact that this was -- idea that this was simply oversight.

these are all unpersuasive and are it on its with each other. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity to discuss what we do know about how the irs developed its health insurance premium credit rule the role that is being challenged in king v burwell and it is the role that implements the tax credit provision of the act. congress imposed on the irs's authority. the irs is unlawfully subjecting workers and employers to that tax. one of those workers is kevin hayes, a jazz musician who lives not far from here in northern virginia.

he lost $8,000 of income this illegal tax reduces income by nearly $100,000 and has eliminated 100,000 jobs. the reach of the individual mandate was expanded. the authority rests with congress alone. the supreme court has heard all oral arguments.

it would create an estimated 3700 jobs. it would increase earnings by $100,000. my co-author and i have written at length about how neither the aca nor the legislative history provide support for the interpretation of the statute. today, for the remainder of the testimony the available evidence suggests that officials did not -- the aca did not give them the authority.

they failed to consider important issues. it meant immediate and sustained criticism from members of this committee. it ignored the plain meeting of the tax credit eligibility requirement that recipients must enroll in health insurance through an exchange established by the states. mr. carvin mentioned the term of art argument that was made before the supreme court what little we know about the administrative level shows this positively that they did not

believe it was a term of art. according to an article in the washington post which interviewed several members who are involved in the development of this rule. the overriding concern was not generating negative news stories, the overriding concern was avoiding negative news stories. in december of 2011 the van ranking member of the finance committee sent a letter to the department of the treasury after this rule and before was finalized the irs and the

treasury department have been more -- ignoring the request for 3.5 years. the american people need to know how this happened and that begins with transparency. >> i want to explain why it is nearly impossible to believe. i don't take any particular decision on the king v burwell issue and i don't know whether obamacare is a good or bad idea. that is why i am sitting in the middle. i do want to discuss three circumstances where other regulations clearly contradict

the legislative language. you'll think these ones are very clear. in the first circumstance, the statute grants credits when their income falls within a particular range. if you think established by the state is clear the aca has two related provisions. if you are a large employer, we want you to automatically enroll employees in coverage and the department of regulations will issue regulations saying as

much. as a sweetener to this, persons who are enrolled will get credits that means there is no penalty on employers. the irs does not like that result you will get a credit under 36 b even the you are getting coverage by your employer and your employer will get hit with the penalty. the third category relates to unlawful aliens. some very low income persons cannot get medicaid. some states say, we will help you, but please wait five years before you apply for medicaid. the statute says, we will help you out on the state exchanges

if you are here lawfully, you can get a credit even if you are here on lawfully and you meet the income requirements, you are eligible for a credit. the statute is clear that says you must be here lawfully to get the benefit of this special rule. all of these three provisions may be good ideas in the abstract, i don't know. they clearly violate the relevant statutory language. as we talk about the treasury expanding, we don't give enough attention to the more penalties from employers. the fact that the irs is collecting penalties from private businesses should

receive more attention. >> thank you members of the subcommittee for inviting me here to testify before you today. i must take issue with the substantive premise of the hearing today. it suggests that the treasury department rewrote the affordable care act when it insured that tax credits would be available nationwide to all americans. far from rewriting the statute i would say they applied the aca according to the statute when it made this rule. similarly, i must take issue with my esteemed colleague, mr. carvin. that is not has statutory interpretation works. it is also not how anyone understood that.

it made clear that no one understood the law for residency you the federal fall back for the law instead of electing an exchange for themselves. the contrary members of statements by members of congress at the time and those drafted by committees and the cbo all assumed that tax credits would be available in every state. did any members of congress stand up at that time there were none. it is important to correct

mischaracterizations. it is a fundamental -- not plucking a forward phrase out of a statute and using it to defeat the fundamental purpose of the entire act. to help achieve this aim of broadening access to health care and insurance, they provide the exchanges. each state shall, not later than january first 2013 establish at an exchange. there is flexibility in meeting the requirement. if a state chooses not to establish an exchange or cannot establish an exchange that meets

the requirement when the statute uses the term, it refers to exchanges established at the state level by the state with respect to the eligibility for tax credits, the act presents the income level, not the bureaucratic entity which runs the health insurance exchange at that point. what about the rule profound -- found in the provision from those who purchased a policy from an exchange purchased by the state. you could pluck a forward phrase out of moby dick that says it

was about whale watching. readings the law to provide tax credits nationwide on state run and federally facilitated exchanges allows the provisions of the aca to work harmoniously. that is something that should be a guidepost when reading a statute. that would deny fx to the regulatory scheme by converting the basic structure and rendering the decision absurd. that is something the supreme court has said we should avoid when reading the statute. i believe it accords with the plaintext of the law. interpreting section 36 b in this way it is the best

interpretation of the law. i would be delighted to answer any questions the panel has. >> i can promise you none of us will be wearing robes. >> thank you to ranking member kunz for allowing me to testify -- and fighting me to testify today. the supreme court will tell us that they were right. the affordable care act is working. 14.1 million americans have

insurance. the rate of uninsured americans as dropped. health care price inflation is at its lowest level and the rate of -- third, they would roll back this project because they contend that the treasury department should have found that what congress intended to do was to enact a self-destructive statute, one that co-worst states to set up their own exchanges by threatening to impose a backup system that did not work. why would congress have done that why would they have had a

nonfunctional backup when the whole point of the backup is to ensure that the statute did work in those jurisdictions and why would congress planted timebomb in the statutes anyway? the argument is that the irs and the treasury department, those questions were off-limits because of the language is so clear that there was only one permissible interpretation. why would the states have an incentive to establish exchanges. the states answered that question in the case that mr. cardin handled. the state governments alleged that the state governments were coercive. they were co-or sieve because

the states would cede regulatory authority -- that is not my position. that is the state position. the opponents really have to take the decision that the statute has one and only one permissible reading because there is a strong presumption that you need statute to be effective. justice scalia says that in his book. the argument is that the self immolating interpretation only

if it is impossible to construe the in any other way. no one was aware of it. it was not discovered until months after the statute was enacted by a lawyer whose announced mission was to find a statutory glitch that would take down obamacare. nor is this a one and only interpretation except now by an authoritative interpretive probably for at least four members of the supreme court. the solicitor general, senate and house leaders and staffers who are involved in the drafting of the bill. health insurers. the american hospital association. american cancer society.

22 states. the former director of the cbo. all of these people interpret the statute the same way the irs does and to say that their interpretation is impermissible is to question either their literacy or their candor and neither is really endowed. let me just say with regard to the irs and their process, truth is a defense, and the irs engaged in a process that produced a reasonable result one that did not gut the statute, as the interpretation offered by the aca opponents would do. one that was consistent with the commonly -- with the commonly understood meaning of the statute by those who enacted it at the time. thank you. >> thank you very much. i'd like to thank each of the members of this learned panel. you know, i agree very much with

the testimony of mr. carvin, that this is fundamentally about the rule of law. this is fundamentally about the question of whether the federal government can impose billions of dollars of taxes upon millions of americans directly contrary to the text of federal law. it is likewise about whether the federal government can spend billions of dollars explicitly prohibited by federal law. if the answer to both of those questions is yes, if the administration's interpretation is aceded to, it makes the constitutional law making function sirpurfulous. if they direct and spend directly contrary to statute the limits on the executives' authority are altogether abricated.

the legal question is not complicated. the statute provides that monthly premiums for qualified health plans enrolled through an exchange established by the state, the entire argument here, is whether the federal exchange established by hhs is an exchange established by the state. now several witnesses have testified that no one possibly envisioned that an exchange established by the state meant an exchange established by the state. i would note, if we can have the second panel, please, i would note that at least one person understood that very well, someone who has been described as one of the leading architects of obamacare. professor jonathan gruber who, indeed, achieved worldwide fame when he candidly admitted that

passage of obamacare depended upon, as he put it, the stupidity of the american people. and professor gruber quite candidly said, "what's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits." now, i would note we heard several times no one understood this. well, apparently professor gruber understood it very well but was relying upon a lack of transparency and as he put it the stupidity of the american people to keep it hidden. i want to focus on the decision-making process that occurred at treasury and the irs. mr. weiner mentioned that no one is questioning the candor of treasury of the irs. well, it's difficult to make an assessment of that.

what i can tell you is that they are not here. i would like to ask you, mr. cannon, what do we know about the decision-making process at the irs and treasury in establishing the rule here? >> unfortunately, very little. as a mentioned before, a request by senator hatch has been ignored by treasury and irs for 3 1/2 years. the chairman of the house oversight committee after being frustrated by treasury and irs' unwillingness to release those documents to his committee issued a subpoena for those documents. treasury and irs have been ignoring that subpoena, for how long ago, september of last year. almost a year. >> let me stop you on that point because it was said a moment ago no one is doubting the candor of treasury or the irs. you're telling me the treasury

and irs are denying a congressional subpoena, refusing to show up to this hearing? is that correct? >> that is -- well, the congressional subpoena has to do with a house committee for the document, not a subpoena to show up to the hearing. they're ignoring a subpoena to provide the documents which i think bears on the suggestion made by the ranking member that if they don't show up at this hearing, perhaps compulsory process could be pursued. compulsory process has already been pursued against treasury and irs -- >> the obama administration is defying that process. that seems at a minimum not an exercise if candor, living within the ordinary bounds of the english language. >> it's not an ideal transparency, no. >> now, my understanding is staff was permitted to review some documents under highly restrictive circumstances. can you describe those circumstances as you understand them? >> well, after much persistence

by the staff of the house oversight government reform committee, the treasury and irs did release some documents. 386, 387 pages, i believe. a fair amount of which was the final rule, itself. about half of it, a lot of it maybe i would think a fifth, 20% of it, was my work hatthat they just released to the committee. only about 5% even commented on was there any substantive discussion by treasury and irs officials? and it was never -- here are the factors we're considering. it was just mentioning these things tangentially. those are the documents they released -- >> also allowed to review some documents but not take notes not make copies. >> there are many documents treasury and irs have not released and on two, three occasions staff were allowed to review those documents. they're allowed to go into a room sometimes with pen and paper, sometimes without pen and paper. not allowed to take documents out of the room o or make copies. on one occasion, they were not allowed to make notes.

>> no notes, no copies, no transparency to congress, no transparency to the american people, defying is asubpoenas, refusing to show up at this hearing. my understanding is the documents they're fighting tooth and nail to avoid sunshine coming upon show that initially career staff at treasury and the irs analyzed the phrase, an exchange established by the state, and concluded it means exactly what it says, an exchange established by one of the 50 states. is that correct? >> well, i'm not sure about that, senator. what we know is that -- this is from the in-camera review, they're allowed to go into the room with documents but couldn't take pen and paper with them. they had to scramble out of the room and write down everything they remembered. staff were allowed to look at different drafts of the proposed rule before the proposed rule was issued. from what we know of their review of those drafts is initially irs officials had included that statutory

requirement that tax credit recipients be enrolled, quote, through an exchange established by the state. around the same time a treasury official raised this issue with the irs, that requirement, that statutory language was dropped from the proposed rule. >> so, mr. cannon, i want to make sure this committee understands that. our understanding, although to be clear, the obama administration is blocking release of the documents so it is all deliberately hidden in the lack of transparency that professor gruber bragged about. but our understanding is the initial version of the rule drafted by career staff at the irs and treasury attempting to follow the law followed the plain text and concluded it had to be an exchange established by a state but then subsequently it appears that political appointees at the department of treasury overruled that decision and substituted instead a political decision contrary to

the judgment of the career staff but consistent with the political outcome desired by president obama and the white house? >> what we know for a fact is that that provision, that statutory provision was dropped from the implementing regulations around the same time this political appointee at the treasury department intervened. we don't know anything of the substance of those discussions what happened there. we do know that was a statutory provision that was on its way of being implemented as part of the proposed rule and then it was dropped and that's significant because that tells us a couple things. one, it tells us treasury and irs officials never believed that the phrase, the statutory requirement through an exchange established by the state was a term of art as the solicitor general now argues. >> nigh understandmy understanding is some of the

documents have notations initials, perhaps may reflect an individual who also worked in the white house as part of the policymaking apparatus. is that correct? although this is all murky and opaque by design of the administration, but is that your understanding as well? >> there was white house input into the development of this rule. there's white house input into the development of many rules. we don't know exactly who provided that input. >> the initials l.f. were written on at least one of these documents? >> i have not reviewed those documents but that is what house investigators report. >> all right. let me ask a final question. the administration is arguing pursuant to chevron deference that it is the courts owe deference to its efforts to implement this law. i want to ask mr. carvin, if the process that there appears to be a suggestion occurred here although quite deliberately the administration is blocking any effort for the american people to know if it occurred, but if it is the case that career professionals at treasury and the irs in their expert judgment read the statute to mean exactly what it means on its face, that an exchange established by the state means an exchange established by the state, and if it is the case that political

operatives ordered those career professionals to disregard the law and reach a political conclusion instead, is it your understanding that that sort of partisan political decision to disregard the law is the kind of decision that is orderinaryily given chevron deference? >> no, mr. chairman. as you know, one of the principle things that agencies can't do under chevron is behave in an arbitrary and capricious manner and obviously the par pardimatic of it is simply inch -- paradigm attic definition of arbitrary or capricious is implementing political objectives. in terms of process, you're not deferring to the tax expertise of the irs, the task force which i think is undisputed, drawing up these regs was not just irs people. it was hhs and white house operatives. so i don't even think they went through the pretense of pretending this was a neutral interpretation of the law. i hasten to add, of course chevron's inapplicable here any way because the statute is

completely unambiguous so there's no opportunity for deference and as justice kennedy pointed out during oral argument, there's a strong cannon of statutory construction because this body, congress controls the purse, moneys will come out of the federal treasure riff only if that's done unambiguously. >> thank you, mr. carvin. i would note if it is, indeed, the case that partisan political operatives in the obama administration instructed career professionals to disregard the law and reach a political outcome, it's not surprising that they were afraid to come here and testify and explain that that's what occurs and perhaps give some context to why the three witnesses on the first panel chose not to attend. senator coons? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'll note you've taken nearly ten minutes in your first question, i hope i'll have roughly the same period of time if possible. i believe the core issue we are seeking to have a conversation about here today is the availability of subsidies, the role in the aca, and the appropriateness of how the aca has been interpreted and

applied. so let me first speak more broadly to that general context. the aca, as mr. weiner pointed out in his testimony, is working. thanks to the aca, 16 million people have gained access to affordable quality health insurance and since october 2013, the uninsured rate just to take one of many positive statistics for the non-elderly adults in america has fallen by nearly 35%. this success would not be possibility without the availability of the premium tax credit which provides nearly 8 million american individuals in the 37 states using healthcare.gov with an average subsidy of $3,200 to purchase health insurance. as we all know, this historic decrease in the number of uninsured is only possible under the aca, is only possible that it becomes affordable because the 87% of individuals who signed up under healthcare.gov qualify for subsidies and this was central to the intent of the law in my view, eliminating subsidies which may well be the

outcome of supreme court action if they, i think, rule on this in a way that is advocated by some today. would result in a massive disruption in the individual market with millions losing access to affordable insurance and average costs of remaining insured increasing significantly. it is my contention that that is not required by the structure, the text, the history of the law. in fact, the opposite. that the text and the history and the structure of the aca leads to only one possible conclusion. that tax credits are available to all poor, working class, and middle class americans, those who earn between 100% and 400% of the poverty level. as we all know, there are many who have opposed the aca for principally ideological reasons. they fought it in congress and lost. they fought it before the

treasury department and lost. they fought the individual mandate in the courts and have lost. now another group of opponents has raised another legal challenge. asking our courts to bless a contorted reading of the law in a way that would sabotage a core provision of the act and undue the way that the subsidies work to the fulfillment of the core goal of the affordable care act. now, neither the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee nor myself were present as the law was crafted, but there have been a number of quotes in the press recently from those who were actively engaged suggesting that this cramped reading that's being advanced runs directly contrary to the universally held understanding of those who were engaged in its drafting and implementation. from doug elman door f, head of the cbo at the time, to members of the joint committee of taxation, charles clapton, former senator enzi, senator snow, herself, recently been quoted saying they did not see or recall any distinction between federal and state exchanges as this was being drafted. and the denial of subsidies based on that would have gone contrary to their understanding of the intent.

so let's be clear, in my view this hearing is just another part of a five-year effort to deny working class americans any help in affording health insurance, having failed at frontal assaults the aca's opponents are trying to contort the letter of the law, this important law, to defeat its spirit. so for some insight into that, let me begin with mr. weiner, if i might. in your view,s is there any doubt at the time the aca was adopted it was understood to mean what treasury has subsequently said it meant? at the time that it was passed? and what, in your view, happened to create the dispute that we're discussing today? >> senator, there's no doubt at all of that proposition. we see, for example, jonathan gruber's statement several years after the statute was adopted. he's an economist, an academic economist.

well, i see your jonathan gruber and i raise it with four aces. senator orrin hatch who said back in january, 2010, that -- that establishing an exchange is not a condition of receiving federal funds. and that was stated by other people as well. in june -- well, i mentioned when the states amended their complaint. october 2011. the american legislative council, exchange council, alecka right-wing legislation, said there's no penalty for a state in allowing the federal government to implement an exchange. november 2012, nebraska's governor explaining why states -- why the state wouldn't set up an exchange, said there's no real operational difference between a federal exchange and a state exchange.

officials assessing exchanges in georgia, south carolina, west virginia, all these states advanced knowledge that subsidies were available. this is the way the statute was understood and since it was understood that way, it really doesn't prove much to say that the treasury department incorporated the incorporated the language of the statute into an early draft of the regulation. >> if i might, miss wydra, the majority of witnesses have urged us to read four words in isolation and have argued that it leads to only one possible interpretation. the supreme court in its 2007 decision, national association of home builders versus defenders of wildlife wrote "the meaning origuity of certain words or phrases may only become evidenced when placed in context how does the context of these four words, how does the text of the entire statute support the reading that exchanges established by the state includes exchanges established for the state by the secretary

of hhs? you touched on this in your previous testimony. i'd appreciate your revisiting the point. >> thank you, senator. yes, the supreme court has made absolutely clear in numerous court rulings by justices of all ideological stripes that statutes are to be read in their entirety, in their context, and to effectuate rather than to defeat their central purpose. and i think it's important to note that there are basically three main features of the affordable care act that make its insurance market reforms work. you have the individual mandate which ensures that either you sign up for health insurance or pay a tax penalty assuming you have the income to do so.

the important market reforms such as preventing insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions. and then of course you have what we're talking about here today, which are the tax credits, which make it affordable for americans to enter the insurance market and to make the entire affordable care act's reforms work as they are intended to by the law. so in looking at the statute as a whole and in looking at the issue that is before the supreme court in kim v. burrwell it's important to note the role of the tax credits in effect waith the key purpose of the affordable care act to make insurance available for all americans. so i think when we're look at the xchsz it's important to note that when you're talking about who is going to run the exchange, whether or not the state establishes its own exchange or the federal government does it according to

section 1321 standing in the shoes of the state the idea is still to make sure tax credits are nationwide available to all americans who need them. otherwise the action doesn't work and numerous provisions of the law are rendered absurd if you take the reading of the tax credit provision that critics of the treasury rule have put forth. you know, we talk about what congress intended. and when you look at what they intended, it was again because of the purpose of the act and the way that it is structured integral to achieving the purposes of the law that every american who needs these tax credits be able to have them. that is the way that it was scored by the congressional budget office, the statute. that's the way that the joint committee on taxation understood the law to work. that is the clear congressional intent behind the law. so when you look at the law and

the way that the supreme court tells us, looking at it in context, reading the text of the law, looking against the backdrop of cooperative federalism which justice kennedy raised in oral argument, noting that if you take the critics of the treasury department's rule you could basically put the states to an irrational choice either set up an exchange or if you take the federal fallback which the statute allows you to do, we will take away millions perhaps even billions of dollars from your constituents who need the tax credits desperately. that doesn't make sense and it's not in line with the way the supreme court tells us we should read statutes. >> thank you, miss wydra. that's very helpful. i appreciate the testimony of both witnesses. >> senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. well, the fact you that say it was a goal to make insurance available for all americans doesn't mean the statute can be written in any which you'd like to effectuate some theory of care. congress will be faced with the legislative responsibility if the court rules to deal with the statute as it is left standing. it's going to be a difficult challenge but i think that's

what we're paid to do. the president doesn't get to make up the law as he's done so often. it's really troubling to me the extent to which this has become the theory around here, that the executive office must do something. congress failed to act. but when congress fails to act it acts. it makes a decision. it says no to some of these things. it didn't pass the law unless the state exchange language was in there. that's what the congress passed. so i think we're really in dangerous ground when we get this far away from plain statutory law. with regard to the health care cost, i see in cnn money a recent report from cnn money united health care cost in florida is up 18%. humana up 30% in texas. that's two of the biggest states and two of the biggest insurers in america. i don't know how well it's doing in the practical world. now, mr. grewal, let's take

another area that i think is even simpler that you raised in your study that the affordable care act provides tax credits to u.s. citizens win comes between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level. are you aware of anything else in the affordable care act that would alter that number, that range, 100 to 400? >> no, for aliens there's an exception. congress decided that for aliens they would come up with a special rule because aliens could not get medicaid. but for citizens there's no statutory exception and the irs has effected that amendment by regulation. >> so by regulation irs altered that what would appear to be plain language to extend credits for citizens they would effect several million people below

100% of federal poverty level. is that right? >> right now the estimate by kaiser is about 4 million people aren't eligible for medicaid but don't get -- don't satisfy the 100% statutory floor. so we're talking several million people, yes. >> and mr. carvin, you've studied this. are you aware of any exception that could be used to justify adding several million people when they don't fall within the statutory range? >> it's precisely the rationale they use for the lawless irs rule here, which is it's a good thing to give poor people insurance. congress cut it off below 100%. we don't like that. so we're going to take billions of dollars from the federal treasury and help poor people. we don't need no statutory language, we'll just do what's right. and so no, it's precisely the same analysis you've seen here which is this is supposed to be available for all americans and therefore we can do whatever we want.

>> mr. grewal, another one it seems to me is dramatically clear and has been violated as you noeknow section 36-b of the aca grants credits to some non-citizens with low incomes only if they themselves are lawfully present in the united states and cannot obtain medicaid coverage. irs regulations issued pursuant to that statute, however contradict the statute and allow subsidies if "the taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer's family is lawfully present in the united states" and "the lawfully present taxpayer or family member is not eligible for the medicaid program." do you find any statutory basis for the administration to find such an exception to what appears to be plain language?

>> absolutely not. and the odd thing about that >> absolutely not. and the odd thing about that particular change as opposed to the other two, at least for the other two they had the courtesy to announce what they were doing in the premiumball to the regulation. for this one there's no explanation at all. just the text of the regulation goes beyond the statute without any hint they're expanding the credit to persons not lawfully residing here. >> i think your analysis is important to us. we've had a number of statutes that talk about governmental ledge shaigs. and the american people have an expectation that when a law is passed the chief executive will follow that law and this is just plain. mr. carvin, you've studied the aca. is mr. grewal correct? is there any authority that you

can find that would allow the administration to provide health care coverage to individuals if they're a member of their family is lawfully present in the united states? >> it's yet another revision in a series of stark revisions to the aca that the obama administration has done, all pursuant to roughly the same analogy, which is we want to make this better, we want to make it work in the way that we want and do all the kinds of legislative compromises that go into actually crafting statutes will be disregarded if the people in the administration view it as inconvenient. >> our goal is to make available health care for all americans. that wasn't what the law said, however. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. carvin, you argued in the supreme court, did you not? >> i did. >> you argued for the plaintiffs? >> correct. >> are they here today? >> no. >> you know, this hearing has been conducted with a lot of hype and hyperbole, not uncharacteristic of the debates surrounding the affordable care act. a lot of overheated, overreaching rhetoric. but there are some facts. and as ronald reagan said, facts are stubborn things. the fact is the affordable care act is working. it has provided insurance coverage to millions of americans, more than 10 million americans. and not only did congress intend certain results but what congress intended is actually happening. we're dealing here with reality on the ground.

in connecticut, which has a health exchange, like 13 states do, the uninsured rate has been cut by one half from 12.3% to 6%. 7.7% of connecticut consumers have qualified for the tax credit. millions of people across the country are now protected against discrimination. for example, based on pre-existing conditions. for years and years as the attorney general of the state of connecticut i did advocacy on behalf of people who were discriminated against because of supposed pre-existing conditions. there's mental health care that has been expanded along with substance use disorder benefits and federal parity protection. 62 million americans have benefited, and more than 600,000 in connecticut.

so the aca is working. and the public health and prevention fund has provided connecticut alone with $31 million for tobacco cessation, obesity prevention, health coverage, enrollment assistance. those facts in effect i think support the argument that congress not only intended certain consequences and the interpretation suggested by ms. wydra and mr. wiener fits within the statutory whole and the context of the statute but also the results of the statute. i'd like to ask mr. wiener whether that interpretation in effect of the

statutes, the reality on the ground, comports with what congress intended. >> yes, it very much comports with what congress intended. congress did say in the statute that the goal was to extend health care, affordable health care to all americans. it said it six times. that was in language that was enacted by congress, not some purpose intuited by a judge. it was what congress said it was trying to achieve in the statute. >> ms. wydra, do you agree? >> yes, absolutely. senator sessions joked that the statute should have been written to say health care should be able for all americans. well, point of fact, title 1 of the act is titled "quality affordable health care for all americans." so that is the stated purpose of the law. and it wouldn't make any sense for congress to have written the tax credit eligibility to defeat that purpose.

>> and mr. carvin, i assume you disagree. >> the model that was followed in the aca for the subsidy was precisely the model for medicaid. we all agree that medicaid was conditioned on the states doing certain things. my friends on the left here would say it would be insane to end medicaid payments for the needest americans. and yet the aca conditioned the medicaid on the states doing certain things. and that's because this body thought we can get the best of both worlds, we can get the states to do something and we can get universal coverage. precisely the same logic obtains here. you give the states a real incentive to do things, and then the premiums will flow if the state does it. so there's two purposes to the aca. one is stated in 1311, states shall run exchanges. the second is we want subsidies to be available. the only way to accomplish both

purposes is to condition the subsidies on states running the exchanges, just like congress conditioned medicaid funds on the states altering their medicaid eligibility standards. there's nothing inconsistent with the purpose. there's nothing illogical. unless this body is going to say it was utterly illogical to do what it did with medicaid. so no, it's perfectly logical, perfectly reasonable public policy. >> well, let me just say that your friends who from your perspective are on your left actually are on our right. >> i was giving a geographic description, not an ideological one. >> which i think in a sense reflects the different perspectives that we may bring to these issues, and i respect yours. but i would just suggest, again, that congress establish a system that fits together as a whole. it's working as a whole. we can argue hypothetically.

we can use rhetoric. but the fact of the matter is congress actually did something good here. i can say that because i wasn't a part of congress at the time. and i approached this area with a lot of humility. very simply, in my view a ruling for the plaintiffs in king v. burrwell would be contrary -- would have catastrophic for millions of families who owe their health insurance to the statutory structure that congress approved. not a perfect structure. not absolutely perfect in all of its wording and statutory language but a ruling for the plaintiffs in my view would be a human tragedy. as well as a legal travesty. and so i'm hopeful that the reasoning that you advanced to the court will not succeed but i thank you for being here today and i thank all of the members of the panel.

thank you. >> thank you very much. i would note on the discussions of the expansion of health care that studied have also shown that virtually all of the expansion has been on medicaid and that roughly 900,000 people have received private insurance, that nearly as many people have had their insurance canceled as have signed up on the exchanges for private insurance and the data are compelling that forcing people onto medicaid ends up predictably producing worse health care outcomes. with that senator hatch. >> i might also add that more people are now going to the emergency rooms because they can't get care. too long a wait to get care they need. i also want to bring out that there were about 30 million people that didn't have health care when we started this issue and this bill. guess how many there are today. between 30 and 35 million still don't have health care. now, maybe you can make some explanations about that.

you quoted my letter, mr. wiener. i'll just put the letter into the record if i can. >> without objection. >> also mr. carvin. let me just say another thing to mr. wiener. with respect to mr. wiener, the quote that you made from my law review article where you said supports the president's position was a reference to a supreme court's holding in south dakota versus dole. i do address that issue in my ucla law review article. and let me just put that into the record as well. just the page where i address it. ok? >> without objection. >> mr. carve inin, you've been carrying a load on your shoulders here. proponents of the president's position have argued that congress could not have intended

to deny subsidies to federally established exchanges. but isn't it a fact that a very good reason the congress would have wanted subsidies to establish exchanges was namely to incentivize states to create these exchanges. and congress couldn't order the states to create exchanges directly. so it needed a way to incentivize the states to create exchanges. i think isn't that a perfectly reasonable argument as to what was going on here? >> you're entirely right about the constitutional provision. this body has in countless statutes incentivized states precisely the same way. it's noteworthy the help committee at the same time was considering it conditioned subsidies on certain insurance reform provisions. the clinton administration health care proposals also conditioned subsidies on state cooperation.

so far from departing from the norm, this is the norm that this body has continually used not only in the health care area not only with respect to medicaid and the aca, but with respect to virtually every provision, which is since we can't force the states to do it but we wanted them to take an operational role the best traditional way of doing it is conditioning federal funds on having the states become our cooperative partners. >> all right. well, let me just say -- ask this question to you and mr. cannon as well. i want to thank you both for your important work on this issue. i'd like to read for you a passage from my recent ucla law review article and then ask you to comment. "advocates of the president's position that obamacare authorizes subsidies for federally enrolled plans would have us believe that statutes are infinitely malleable, up can mean down, right can mean left established by a state can mean established by the federal government. what matters to them is advancing some alleged statutory

purpose regardless of what the statute actually says. that furthers the president's agenda. now, those of us on the other side, however, insist that text does matter, words matter. they always have. and what the statute says is what matters because at the end of the day the words in our statutes and in our constitution are what bind our leaders and what prevent them from doing whatever they want to. now, fidelity of text is a foundation of the rule of law." do you agree with that passage? >> i do. and i want to make it clear we're not talking about ripping text out of context. i fully agree with my friends you that need to read this in context. i've said that approximately 400,000 times. and i always supplemented it with the point that context reinforces for the reasons i've already articulated at every turn that 36-b should be interpreted to mean what it says. so we're not talking about some

green eye shade, pulling words out of context. that's not statutory interpretation. read in context, this serves a very valuable, sensible purpose and there is no reason to depart from the plain language. >> mr. cannon -- yeah. mr. cannon, in your written testimony you discuss an investigation that two house committees conducted into the irs's drafting of the obamacare subsidy rule. what are your takeaways from that investigation? if you could add this too, in your view what are the most troubling things that the house investigators found? >> well, as i mentioned in my testimony, i think the most troubling things are those that show -- or that indicate that the treasury department and the irs recognize that this statutory language posed an obstacle to how they wanted to implement the statute, so they jettisoned what the statute said and implemented the law as they saw fit.

or they just exercised power as they saw fit. and this is not a victimless sort of scenario here. there are 57 million individuals and employers in this country who are being subjected to illegal taxes because the irs decided that it would ignore the clear language of federal law. one of those people is kevin pace, who i mentioned in my testimony. he took a hit to his income of $8,000. he's a jazz musician. if you think $8,000 is a lot of money to you, it's a lot more money to a jazz musician. others who are affected by this rule are seeing their incomes hit by $1,000. others are paying penalties to the irs that employers and individuals, from which they're statutorily exempt, that is -- and the irs it appears from what little we know that the irs knew that this language prevented them from doing that but they tried to find a workaround, they tried to disregard it. the other problem -- or the other thing that this investigation shows is how the arguments that the government has made before the supreme court are not the -- were not the reasoning the irs used when

it developed this rule. the fact they jettisoned the statutory phrase through an exchange established by the state from their implementing regulations tells us that they knew it was not the term of art of solicitor general claims. if it were a term of art that incorporated an exchange established by the federal government, there would be no reason to take it out of the proposing -- or out of the draft proposed regulations. you could keep it in there if it's a term of art. but they knew it was not. they knew it was an obstacle to implementing these taxes and spending that money. and so they threw it out. >> mr. carvin, let me just ask you this. under the well-known chevron doctrine if a statute is ambiguous, an agency interpretation can be sustained if it is a product of "reasoned decision-making." from the evidence we have, do you believe that the irs subsidy rule is the product of reasoned decision-making and if not why not? and what does that tell us about the lawfulness of the rule?

>> as i indicated -- >> you can also answer if you care to the arguments of -- or who were arguing for the administration's position. >> with respect to your specific question, senator hatch, no. as i've indicated to senator cruz, fulfilling the administration's ideological agenda is the opposite of reasoned decision-making because they're simply substituting their policies for that of the enacted law. and i would in addition point out that it strikes me as interest, and i believe the solicitor general more or less admitted this during oral argument, that from anybody's perspective the notion that this body was delegating to the irs the seminal decision on whether or not to have these subsidies, which my friends to the left agree is very important to the act, strikes me as quite counterintuitive. this was not filling in the gaps in a statute. this was the basic policy decision. so no. congress spoke precisely to the

question at issue as the chevron phrase has it. congress made a decision. so there was no room for the irs, much less white house operatives to change the basic policy decision embodied in the statute. >> well, thank you. now, let me ask professor is it grewal? >> grewal, yes. >> ok. i want to pronounce it right. i hope i'm pronouncing yours right. is it wiener? ok. now, you identify in your written testimony several other irs regulations that grant obamacare subsidies to statutorily ineligible recipients. these include regulations granting subsidies to individuals outside this statutory income range. individuals automatically enrolled in employer health care plans. and even some categories of unlawful aliens. now, what does the fact that the irs ignored limits on its authority to grant subsidies in other instances tell you about its general attitude toward obeying limits on statutory authority?

>> regarding the king v. burrwell issue, if that regulation is valid it's impossible to believe that it's because they closely paid attention to the statute and their statutory authority. it could be by accident that the regulation is valid. but i think with so many instances it's obvious to me that they are implementing the law that they wanted to see enacted rather than what actually was enacted. >> all right. well, i think i've taken -- i appreciate the extra time that the chairman and ranking member have granted me. i appreciate you both. >> well, thank you, senator hatch. i'd like to thank each of the witnesses here. we have heard i believe incredibly important testimony. testimony that i think has particular salience to the millions of residents in the states that have not established state exchanges. to the millions of young people, young people fresh out of college, millennials, whom the obama administration is trying to exact billions of dollars in

illegal taxes from each of you to a legal immigrant like my father 58 years ago. if you live in a state that has not established an exchange, the testimony we've heard today at this hearing is that the obama administration is trying to impose on you personally thousands of dollars in penalties that are flatly contrary to law. and i would note that these penalties coming from the individual mandate disproportionately hurt the most vulnerable among us. the people being hurt by these illegal taxes are not the warren buffetts and bill gates of the world. they're young people. they're single moms. they're hispanics. they're african-americans that are suddenly finding a big tax bill that is due from an administration that is ignoring and violating federal law to extract illegal taxes.

and i would note the testimony this panel has given, that the career professionals at the irs and the treasury department recognize they were bound by law not to collect those taxes from millions of people who didn't owe them until political operatives, the testimony suggests, overruled them instructed them to disregard the law and collect taxes from people who did not owe them and could not afford them. that testimony is quite stunning, and it is testimony that every american ought to consider. i want to thank each of the witnesses from the subcommittee. and the committee will keep the hearing record open for an additional five business days. which means the record will be closed. as of the close of business next thursday, june 11th, 2015. i note senator coons wishes to make a closing remark.

so senator coons. >> thanks, mr. chairman. we came to this hearing today of differing views of the history the structure, the purpose and impact of the aca. i thank the witnesses for their testimony. but i think we leave with sharply differing views of the path forward and of what the purpose was of this hearing today. in my view this is just another part of a five-year-long effort to deny working-class americans any help in affording health insurance. having failed at repeated frontal assaults, the aca's opponents are now trying to advance a contorted view of the letter of this important law in order to defeat its very spirit. and i too will raise the specter of a tax increase. these opponents of the affordable care act apparently find the idea that every american should have access to affordable health insurance so offensive that they are willing to advance a cause which if successful would immediately raise taxes for 7.7 million americans by an average of

$3,200 a year. in order to destabilize this law and ultimately in an effort to bring it down. i hope they are not successful and i hope instead the affordable care act continues to be improved and to strengthen access to quality health care in this country. thank you for holding this hearing. i appreciate the fairness with which you've conducted it. >> thank the members of the panel and the hearing is now

this morning, the relationship between it u.s. and israel. washington journal looks at the lookahead -- weekend in congress.

>> the house rules committee meets today to consider floor rules for the 2016 appropriations bill and a bill dealing with agricultural labeling of meat that originates abroad. we will see that it 5:00 eastern on c-span three. monday, he spoke to the jewish committee global forum about u.s. israel relations and the ongoing nuclear negotiations with iran. his remarks are 30 minutes.

when john kerry broke his leg bicycling in france, we all prayed for his quick recovery. the complex negotiations of the iranian a drive for nuclear capability will come down to the wire. he had just been in switzerland and would be heading it back to europe again to continue the talks. the crisis in ukraine was escalating. we will here in detail about ukraine. isis was on a rampage. they were seizing population centers in iraq and syria. the coalition was waiting tough choices to defeat this growing peril to american interests.

the ugly phenomena of anti-semi tourism was on the rise. challenges to its around the world and human rights demanded american leadership and fortunately, a gifted and experience it diplomat assumed many of the secretaries

responsibilities following his accident. the challenges america faces never stop. they are being met with out interruption. by a seasoned foreign policy practitioner it is my honor to introduce the senior diplomat. deputy secretary of state tony blinken is a longtime friend of ajc. he has served on both ends of pennsylvania avenue in positions of great responsibility, and edition to spending -- in addition to spending time practicing law and spending time in a washington think tank.

he spent 10 of them working for vice president i did. first as the head of then senator biden's foreign relations staff and then later as his security advisor. as you know, the biden family are now in morning of the tragic death of the vice president son, beau, five days ago. to tony and others in this room, we offer our sincere condolences. the world with which ajc interacts every day in our global advocacy work is in jeopardy and massive transition, with new and evolving threats,

competing national interests and some but not quite enough true friends. will today, i'm privileged to ask debbie terry -- deputy secretary of state tony blinken, a true friend of ajc and unremarkable american to join us here on stage. [applause] secretary blinken: thank you all very much. it is wonderful to be with you today. stan, thank you for those incredibly kind and generous words. and thank you also for your reference to vice president biden and his family in this incredibly difficult time.

beau biden was one of the finest people i was privileged to know. the loss for his family and for a this country is a great one. so i greatly appreciate the recognition of it i would also like to represent harris who is celebrating 25 years at the helm of the ajc. [applause] secretary blinken: david congratulations. muzzle tov. we look to 25 more years fit and shalom to our israeli audience into our distinguished guests here in washington, including the former minister of bulgaria. it is great for you to be here

today is welfare -- as well. [applause] secretary blinken: it is a real pleasure to join all the and to see so many familiar faces, even if mine wasn't the one you are hoping for. [laughter] secretary blinken: secretary kerry very much wanted to be here today. as a think many of you know, he has great admiration for the work that you do to advocate for the security of israel, the well-being of the jewish people and the human dignity of all. he may be off his feet for a short while, but he is a much in a leak with all our efforts across the border i would tell you that the smartest thing that we did to the state department was to sign up for the at&t family pan because the secretary has been burning up the phone lines night and day. no time zone is safe. but we are all looking forward to having him back in the office very soon.

we are also very fortunate to have ensured a team at the state department directing our efforts every day to combat antisepsis is an -- anti-semitism and to promote peace and security in the middle east. in they were all here this morning as was frank lowenstein. they are exemplary public servants of the highest caliber. but their work, our work, would in an not be possible without yours. scholars and students, community members, local leaders who are building relationships across religious and ethnic lines from tokyo to sao paulo to new delhi. you can call the state department of the jewish people, a title so apt that i may start giving out assignments today. yours is a community whose police as martin luther king has described it as "bold by

action." they have use their voice to advocate against intolerance with unwavering commitment. your present at san francisco at the birth of the united nations for the changing of the high commission for human rights. he dedicated years of diplomacy, research, and i look to hope shape a historic declaration and passed by the second vatican council 50 years ago that heralded a new era of catholic-jewish relations and stood up for anti-hatred and as occasion by any time -- by anyone at anytime. any of also stood by president obama and his ironclad

commitment to israel's future is secured democratic prosperous jewish state. i quote "it would be a moral failing on the part of the u.s. government and the american people. it would be a moral failing on my part if we did not stem up firmly, steadfastly, not just on israel's right to exist, but to right -- thrive and prosper." that was president obama just a few months ago in washington. [applause] secretary blinken: for more than 65 years since israel's founding, in years of war and peace, and common crisis america has been behind it with concrete support. but no administration and no president has done as much for israel security as president

obama. [applause] secretary blinken: don't just take my word for it. listen to another voice who called this administrations support as "vitally important pickup that was benjamin netanyahu. our nation's armed forces have conducted more foreign military exercises with israel than ever before, including the largest exercises our history. this work has strengthen our military capabilities and the him military capabilities and the security of both our and countries. at every level of our relationship, we are engaging and more competence of an meaningful consultations than ever before, from our political leaders to our intelligence officers to our defense officials. that the president's support is

true in terms of our vigilance to protect israel's legitimacy on the world stage and to fight for its full and equal participation in u.n. institutions. we help secured israel's permanent membership in western european and others groups from which it a long been excluded. last year, the united states opposed 18 resolutions that the u.n. general assembly had that were biased against israel. u.s. cast the only no vote against unfair anti-israel measures in the u.n. human rights council. [applause] secretary blinken: we will continue to stand with israel and against one-sided biased resolution, even if we are the only country on her to do so. -- to do so. [applause] secretary blinken: finally, our

unprecedented support for israel security can be seen in our direct resistance to israel's defense. last year as you know, despite difficult budgetary times, the united states provided israel with more security assistance that ever before. since 2011, the united states has provided over $1.3 billion for a missile defense system that has saved lives, protected homes, schools, and hospitals from a rainfall rockets like those that just felt again this past weekend in gaza. [applause] secretary blinken: to guard against more distant but equally dangerous threats. we have worked with israel on the arrow weapon system to it intercept ballistic missiles and shorter range missiles. we have worked on an

unparalleled radar system that could buy israel valuable time in the event of a missile attack. and we will soon start deliveries to israel of the f 35 joint strike fighter, making israel the only country in the middle east would you most -- with the most advanced fighter in the world. [applause] secretary blinken: this administration has also stood firmly with israel and its quest for peace with its neighbors. a prerequisite for long term stability and representation of true democracy and the jewish homeland. as president obama has routinely emphasize, the united states will never stop working to was the goal of two states working a living side-by-side for a democratic jewish state. taken together these examples are reflective of a president added administration with the personal and abiding concern for israel security and its future. him and him -i can attest to

this to you from direct personal experience. last summer, late on a thursday, during the gaza crisis, when i was in my position at the white house, i got a call from ron said i will like you to come over and see me. i said come on over now. he arrived at the white house a later on that evening, around 8:30 p.m.. he said that israel needed an emergency supply of more interceptors. the ambassador and the attache rented the subsidies of why they needed it immediately. next friday morning, i went to the oval office to meet president obama. he responded with three words, get it done.

[applause] secretary blinken: by tuesday, just a few short days later, we had an additional 225 million and short fuse funding from the u.s. congress to do just that. the united states and israel might not always see eye to eye. we may have our differences. but our bedrock security relationship is sacrosanct and i'm here to tell you that it is stronger than ever. [applause] secretary blinken: i can tell you another thing this morning. it's at the very top of our minds as we sit at the negotiating table with iran. united states and israel shared a conviction that iran must not under any circumstances allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. [applause]

secretary blinken: when it comes to that core strategic goal, there is not an inch of daylight between the united states and israel. now we continue to believe that the very best way to prevent iran from having a nuclear weapon is through a verified negotiated agreement that resolves the international community's legitimate concerns and as a practical matter make it impossible for iran to give us the means and time to stop it. the june 30 deadline is fast approaching. and we do not yet have a conference of agreement. there remains a chance that we won't get one. if we don't get what we need on a few key issues, we won't do it. i secretary announced in april the deal that we are working for the close each of iran's for pathways from obtaining enough material for 11. the iranian pathways and the plutonium pathways for iran's

heavywater reactor in iraq and the potential covert pathway. the copies pathways, any comprehensive -- to cut off these pathways, and copperheads of -- any comprehensive platform to detect iran to break out overtly or covertly. when you take this opportunity here today to address some of the concerns that floating about around the deal that we are working toward. i have to tell you that these concerns are simply misplaced and are more myth than fact. first, the deal that we are working to achieve will not expire.

there will not be a so-called sunset. different requirements for the deal have different durations, but some, including iran's commitment to all the obligations, but not to a liberation treated, not an obligation to build a nuclear weapon. as well as the building of an additional protocol we continue in perpetuity. by contrast, an absence of an agreement, iran's obligations under the interim arrangement that we have reached an so-called joint plan of action would sunset immediately. then, iran would most likely leave with a program of tens of thousands of centrifuges. second, this deal would provide such extensive levels of transparency that if iran fails to comply, the international community will know about it. and we will know it virtually right away, giving us plenty of time to respond diplomatically or if necessary by other means. most of the sanctions would be suspended not ended for a long period of time if iran written

edges on its commitments. we would not agree to a deal unless the iea's been a to whatever iranian sites are required to verify that iran's program is exclusively decent. [applause] fourth, there is simply no better option to prevent iran from obtaining the material to make a nuclear weapon than a conference of agreement that meets the groundwork that we said unfortunately, it is a fantasy to believe that iran will capitulate if we ratchet up the threat of more sections. even iran suffered more from the him great deprivation from the war i direct, and despite the

intensifying find pressure, iraq went from 152 to 97,000 centrifuges. nor is it without our partners that they would go along with such a plan. they signed on to get iran to the negotiating table and to conclude an agreement that meets art core security interest. it is not for iran to abandon a peaceful nuclear program. despite the economic loss that it for some people, in large part because we are convinced about diplomacy and about reaching a diplomatic solution. if they lose that belief, united states and not iran would be isolated in the sanctions that we have worked so hard to build would crumble away. to those that would prefer that we some military action now

against iran without going the last diplomatic mile, you need to consider that such a response with first destroy the international sections coalition, and second, only set iran's nuclear program i a few years back at best and they would bury their program deep underground and speed toward actual nuclear weapon. with the copperheads of weapon agreement that we are working to approve, we would achieve much more than that. all that said, the united states continues to believe as we have from day one that no deal is preferable to a bad deal. we have had plenty of opportunities throughout the negotiating process to take a bad deal. we did not and we will not. [applause] secretary blinken: and we know that just like the interim

agreement have we reached, any conference of agreement will be subject to legitimate scrutiny of our congress and our closest partners. we will not agree to any deal that would not withstand it. at the same time, i would say to opponents that you have an obligation, too. here united states, you have an obligation to tell the amazing people exactly what you would do differently and exactly how you would get it done. [applause] secretary blinken: many of you will recall after we signed the interim joint plan of action that began these comprehensive negotiations that there were those who told us that we made a treacherous mistake. that iran would not comply in the sections was in that we built would crumble. we jeopardized the security of our nation and our partners. president obama and secretary kerry maintained that the united states are partners with israel and the entire world would

become safer the day after a joint plan of action was implement it. that is exactly what happened. again have to go, iran's nuclear program was rushing full speed ahead towards larger stockpiles, greater uranium enrichment capacity, and the production of weapons grade plutonium short a breakout timelines. today, iran has lived up to its commitments under that joint plan of action. it has halted its progress on the nuclear program and rolled it back for the first time in a decade. how do we know that? because today as a result of the interim agreement, the iea has daily access to iran's enrichment facilities and a far deeper understanding of iran's the program. they have been able to learn new things about iran suture future production and they happened -- iran's centrifuge production and they have been able to identify that they are reaching those agreement. if we do not reach a deal, it

will not end or alter the demand for greater respect for human rights and the rule law. and we continued to insist that iran can help us find robert levinson. [applause] secretary blinken: and reaching the conference of deal will not alter our commitment to fighting iran's efforts to spread instability and to support terrorism. this will not change with or without a deal. [applause] [applause] and secretary blinken: but iran with nuclear weapons -- without a nuclear weapons, excuse me be far less emboldened.

it will reduce the pressure for nuclear arms race and strengthen the international proliferation regime. is a critical step to greater global security for the united states, for israel, and for all of our partners in the region. finally, i would like to address this morning another great concerns. and that is the deeply disturbing rise in anti-semitism in parts of our world that have already seen how this tragic story ends. and last for years, as all of you know so well, there have been horrific attacks on jews from brussels to paris to copenhagen. in some countries, we are seeing a rise of government officials media personalities, binning of horrid and dangerous anti-somatic conspiracies about jewish individuals, about israel, and about the united states. and in a few places, we see the rise of extreme right-wing parties from hungry to greece openly embracing not to like hatred of jews.

-- nazi like hatred of jews. happening just 70 years after the holocaust and pledging never again, while survivors are still with us to bear witness. with organizations like ajc at the forefront, communities are mobilizing a response. in france, germany, and the united kingdom, leaders have strongly expressed their unshakable solidarity with their jewish citizens. many have formed human rings of protection around synagogues in sweden. but more must be done to make this fight a global priority. last month, the ajc released a very about provoking called action on anti-semitism that raises important recommendations that all of us can benefit from.

these include developing a new curricula for education, undertaken thorough studies of protecting jewish communities, and blocking social media sites that incite hatred and violence. but all of you know so very well that anti-semitism is not just a jewish issue. it is not a jewish issue. they cannot be addressed i jewish organisms -- by jewish organizations alone. like all forms of prejudice, it is an issue for all societies at every corner of the globe. [applause] secretary blinken: it is simple. we cannot and we will not tolerate it that is why the united states is devoting more and more resistance -- resources to this fight. our embassies in conflict -- and consulates are providing support. our diplomats are undertaking efforts to push back

anti-semitism unfortunately on everyday basis. this year, we work to organize the first u.n. general assembly session on anti-semitism in history where people of all faiths took to the podium to denounce anti-semitism and pledged to halt its rise. our special envoys has traveled to 25 countries and 37 communities to discuss the situation and to find new ways to combat anti-semitism wherever it exists. [applause] secretary blinken: ladies and gentlemen, for over 100 years, the ajc has led the campaign against intolerance, against injustice, against a false choice between security and

peace for the state of israel. for what ajc has always known and what the world must now understand, is that these issues just don't affect someone else. someone else's freedom, someone else is, someone else's safety they affect all of us, each of us. a undermine our security. they defy our humanity and the call to question our most basic values. and their personal. i have to tell you that their personal to me as well. last summer at the height of the conflict in gaza, i exchanged e-mails with a cousin who has been living in tel aviv for nearly 30 years. she wrote to me and the rest of our family about living with a constant worry for her children, especially her eldest son who is training for the engineering unit that would be deployed to uncover tunnels and dismantle bombs. she wrote about living with the

fear that terrorists were tumbling underground and could kidnapped or killed her fellow citizens. she wrote about transforming their storage room back into a bomb shelter and cycling to work with one earbud after ear so that she could hear the air raid sirens, about living on a 92nd time in, because that is how much time you happen to get to a bomb shelter when the car goes off. as i read her e-mails, i thought of the mothers and fathers of israel who send their children off to school or military service and endured each day the desperate hope that their sons and daughters will be ok. i thought of the mothers and fathers in gaza who face their worst nightmare when the children were caught in the crossfire. and i thought of how these

parents share more experience in pain than they do enjoy -- then they do in joy. and i've thought about how it would be in reverse. this is not about naivety or false hope but that the steps that we can take together can make us all more free and more secure. the conviction that a two state solution is the best and only way to preserve israel's future to preserve democratic jewish state and have the palestinians to a state that a verified conference of agreement is the best way to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear often, and our stand against anti-semitism is the only way to uphold the democratic values on which our societies are built. as they have for over a century, the voices of ajc remain essential in shaping the future. in setting us on a better course. it is daunting. it is uncertain.

but we per serving -- pursue this better future with courage and commitment and the confidence that comes from being with you in the very best of company. the voices, your bold expressions, and your resolute actions, may they always carried far and wide so that together we may usher in a world that is just a little bit more just, more free, and more secure for everyone. thank you very, very much. [applause] secretary blinken: thank you. [applause] >> the homeland security

committee holds a security -- oversight hearing over the tsa. the house rules committee meets today to consider floor rules for the 2016 defensed upper creations bill. see that meeting live at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three. >> book tv will cover book festivals from around the country. watch for the annual roosevelt reading festival from the presidential library. in july, we are alive at the harlem book fair.

there will be author interviews and panel discussions in september, we are live from the nation's capital for the national book festival those are a few of the events on c-span. live today on c-span, washington journal is next. at noon, house returns for general speeches. the u.s. house returns for legislative business at 2:00. coming up, bloomberg congressional editor derek wall bank gives an update.

there will be a discussion on how states will prepare for the decision. host: good morning. the house meets at noon today before returning to legislative business at 2:00 p.m. the senate will be back at 10:00 a.m. before then we have a three-hour "washington journal" for you. we begin talking about student loan debt in the united states. borrowers are leaving school with on average $35,000. with spiraling college costs already becoming a major topic.