one. inaudible] >> and that was earlier today. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, the u.s. house will debate legislation setting up a diabetes care commission. mebts will debate a -- members will debate a biel dealing with weather research programs. you'll be able to see the house live in about 15 minutes. a conversation with the new head of the republican study committee, mark walker. host: the 47-year-old legislator and former baptist preacher just starting his second term in the house of representatives but was recently elected by his colleagues to lead the 170-member conservative republican study committee. thank you for being our guest this week. mr. walker: our reporters will be asking the questions back at

the table is scott wong, congressional reporter for "the hill" and scott, you are up first. go ahead. scott: congratulations on your chairmanship. there's a lot of -- it seems like republicans after they received a visit from mike pence on capitol hill this week are on the same page when it comes to repeal but there's a lot of differences of opinions when it comes to the replacement portion. we still haven't seen a lot of specifics on the timeline, how long it's going to take, how long this -- when we're going to see a bill and also how long the transition period will be. can you help shed some light and how do republicans sort of all get on the same page in these next coming months? mr. walker: to take the second part of your question first -- i believe there is a genuine desired to have unified government, to have an administration, senate and

house. i don't believe this is just in name only. so starting on that premise, how do we begin to move forward? obviously according to a gallup poll recently over 80% of the population believes obamacare, the affordable care act needs to be overhauled or replaced entirely. if that's our premise and foundation, that will be something we will be able to come together and find a path forward in repealing it. now, the first part of your question was timelines about both the repeal versus the repair. speaker ryan i think said it best when he said repeal is relief. the amount of small businesses and individuals, even stories from our freppeds across the aisle have people calling in constantly saying, we need relief here. that's first and foremost. how do we undo the mandates? that's something very important to us. now, in that timeline we have several different things and yesterday the r.s.c. rolled out the number one legislative voted on the republican side or the most co-sponsors, i should

say, on the americans health care reform act, dr. phil roe from tennessee, you know, who better to draft some of this health care policy than a gentleman who employed hundreds of medical professionals and understands the health care industry as a whole? those were the kind of things we want to take at that time forefront. is that particular legislation the end all? no, it's not. it's round one of the 15-round heavyweight fight to make sure we're pushing back even on the narrative that republicans don't have a plan. as far as the final piece of your question, as far as the timeline on the replacement, i believe that's a little premature to nail that down. i believe the consensus is sometime this year, to be able to have some kind of position to move forward. i've heard two, three, four years. i believe in following through with our promise to the american people. i believe it needs to happen in this calendar year. scott: you mentioned the r.s.c. repeal and replace plan that you guys laid out yesterday.

can you explain what maybe the biggest difference is with that plan versus the one speaker ryan and the leadership laid out with a better way? mr. walker: yeah, they're very, very similar. i believe there is a primary difference would be the tax deduction versus the tax credit. i believe the family under the americans health care reform act will allow individuals $7,500. families $20,500 as opposed to tax credits. another minor difference, we're making sure we're doing verything we can for pre-existing conditions. the as long as you stay on the plan you are protected. united, nobody is planning on pulling out the rug from anyone and that's important to us. let me say this, scott, sometimes the narrative, if you look at even the most centrist polling, from we're able to 25%, not quite

double, have had some kind of harm or more premium spike. so the thought process that republicans all of a sudden have to have a replacement plan that covers the 40%, the 15% and 25% is unfair in a thought knowing that obamacare is failing on a daley basis. to say -- daily basis. to say there is a magical plan that we can replacement is a fallable argument. >> a bit about the timeline. my understanding is the r.s.c. plan does include provisions for transition. generally two-year transition with some exceptions of things that could be repealed -- replaced earlier as well. lindsey: can you talk about that position, is the r.s.c. in favor of a two-year transition? do you think that's where the conference is headed as well? mr. walker: i think there are several pieces of discussion going right now. our goal is when it comes to

replacement -- i will add this. we will make sure maybe we can call it repeal-plus, that we're able to follow through on the budget reconciliation, the deal we were able to work out next year, to get under the cloture 60 vote threshold. i guess if too much is added it would violate, according to the senate parliamentarian. we need to make sure when we repeal and we stay within that threshold. lindsey: related to that you mentioned the senate. it seems like there is division on the senate. a lot of senators say we would like to put up a replacement the same time as repeal. the house is not really moving in that direction. have you talked to your counterparts in the upper chamber about this and the r.s.c. plan and kind of how you guys will move forward? mr. walker: that's happened from time to time the house and senate are not on the same page. we want to tell them where we

want to go. i talked to mike lee and others fairly frequently. not always just about this issue. but making sure we're trying to be united when it comes to once again that unified approach. scott: this last -- this past congress we saw the rise of the freedom caucus. this is the band of conservative lawmakers, many of them your close friends, but they've gotten a lot of attention. they sucked up a lot of oxygen in the republican conference. they've been credited forcing out speaker boehner in the last congress. tell me a little bit about how you see your organization, you know, coexisting with the freedom caucus? there's been some concern that maybe these are redundant organizations, criticism from people who have left your organization that the r.s.c. is not effective enough in moving policy to the right. can you talk a little bit about that?

mr. walker: i want to push back calling it your organization. scott: your committee. mr. walker: founded in 1973, it has been a historical policymaker when it comes to legislation. i believe it was about the time we came into the 114th congress the freedom caucus was launched. i don't know that we have an adversarial problem with the freedom caucus. in fact, many of the freemed caucus remain in the r.s.c. voted for us in the recent chairman race. we try to be an arbitrator. that's why i believe we have an opportunity to lead the republican study committee because that's our approach. as i told the r.s.c., even running for this position, the republican study committee, it's not any more just about good policy. there's three components -- good policy but also the right approach and the right voice. i even dug out the old youtube commercial from the kellogg's

commercial where the rough neck new englander guy and there is a line at the end of it that helped kellogg's corn flakes turn it around that says this, taste them again for the first time. i feel like sometimes conservatives -- i like to think about this for the first time because our challenge is not to continue to take our message to the base. that's the easy path. that doesn't take very much discipline. what our goal is, if we truly believe we have the message for upward mobility, economic opportunity, pulling people out of poverty, entrepreneurialship, if we truly believe that, the guys i serve with do, then it isn't the burden or the challenge to take that to new communities, to new generations. we're doing so you have to be careful using what i call tired or worn out rhetoric. it takes energy to go into different places. sometimes you're outnumbered. sometimes you are in the minority as far as being a conservative in thought. but that's the real, i guess, the real thing i enjoy about

all this is you get to go to new places and talk about these things. but it has to start with the relationships. i talked about this hopefully it will be getting some traction but from day one one of the reasons i ran is because over the years as a pastor for over two decades we have been worked in places like cleveland and baltimore and new york. not just those communities but different generations and college-aged students and say where do you see yourself in 20, 25 years? is it the entitlement mind set of a federal government to make your decisions, to have full control of your lives? sometimes when you talk about it and even from a faith perspective, that you're created with unique gift in this, unique opportunities, unique skill sets to go out there to develop those skill sets is a fulfillment in life and purpose. those are one of the things we are trying to take not just from the individual aspect but also incorporate the republican study committee. lindsey: so about the two caucuses sometimes being at

odds with each other doesn't even take into account that both of them have been at odds with leadership in the conference from time to time ofe the past couple of conferences. susan: i wanted to ask you about the opening day about the occur fuffle about the ethics rules change and what kind of footing you think that gave the republicans in congress for the brand new session and what you think what it might have done to the speaker's leadership and how it's viewed by the public? mr. walker: one of the things that speaks strongly -- i take the latter part of the que first -- if you look at how many votes the speaker, paul ryan, had on the floor says a lot. all but one voted for the speaker. it's rare you have that kind of support for speaker of the house. i do believe there's a certain level of confidence for speaker ryan. as far as the ethics votes that you talked about, in the context, i believe sometimes even members of congress, you go through the different

emotions, you go through the different things and there were several tms, if you will, shared how different members were charged several hundreds of thousands of dollars without having a chance to face their accuser. i do believe speaker ryan said, hey, not now. if you think back a couple months ago it was the same kind of argument on earmarks. even if you're willing to make a constitutional argument on that or even if you can make the point that's within congress' wheelhouse to bring back earmarks, sometimes you say just because it's lawful is it the right thing to do? here we have a new president, new administration coming in that is running on draining the swamp. you need to be careful bringing back congress the way they used to do business and i believe that speaker ryan was -- made a wonderful decision working with this administration of saying, hey, let's rethink this thing on the o.c.e. maybe there's time for that

conversation just like earmarks but not now. lindsey: earmarks is something i wanted to ask you about. the speaker, the when you tabled that discussion last year, was something they would revisit in the first quarter of this year. where do you fall down on that discussion of whether earmarks could come back in a limitted form and if you believe they should come back, what's the appropriate avenue reinstating them? mr. walker: personally, and i believe the position that r.s.c. is against earmarks. the reason why, historically, we've seen where there's not only corruption but abuse when it comes to it. i know the other side of the argument, the army corps of engineers who gets to choose a lot where this money now goes, different projects, doesn't always get to the red states so i can understand the frustration. i believe if we'll continue to try to say, hey, here's what we're trying to accomplish with congress, here's the honesty, here's the transparency, i believe that this is not the time for earmarks to return, to be