mr. carvin tells us, that mr.urst was a veteran for only 10 months, then i think he's correct, he would not qualify for va health care because you generally have to serve two years. so that's where we are on standing. now, if i could turn to the merits. >> so are you saying one person does have standing? >> no, no. it will depend on whether as a factual matter 1 of the 4 has and is, in fact, liable for the tax penalty for 2014. and that's information that is not in the government's possession. it is in the possession of petitioners' counsel. and i should make one more point, with respect to 2015, there were no projections, there's nothing in the record about the possible income of any of the petitioners for 2015, so there's really nothing that would establish a case of controversy for 2014. >> well, you're surely not raising a standing question with us here for the first time at oral argument, are you? >> well, mr. chief justice, as i said, that based on the projections, it was our understanding that at least 1 of

mr. carvin tells us, that mr. hurst was a veteran for only 10 months, then i think he's correct, he would not qualify for va health care because you generally have to serve two years. so that's where we are on standing. now, if i could turn to the merits. >> so are you saying one person does have standing? >> no, no. it will depend on whether as a factual matter 1 of the 4 has and is, in fact, liable for the tax penalty for 2014. and that's information that is not in the government's possession. it is in the possession of petitioners' counsel. and i should make one more point, with respect to 2015, there were no projections, there's nothing in the record about the possible income of any of the petitioners for 2015, so there's really nothing that would establish a case of controversy for 2014. >> well, you're surely not raising a standing question with us here for the first time at oral argument, are you? >> well, mr. chief justice, as i said, that based on the projections, it was our understanding that at least 1

mr. carvin. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. very quickly on standing mr. hurst would be subject to a penalty absent relief from this court 2014 as discussed both he and miss levy would face the same principle for 2015 if the government suggests their cases are moot because of changed circumstances under cardinal chemical 508-s-iii. it's their burden to raise it. not ours, in terms of supplement supplementing the record. in terms of the anomaly, losing, 34 states losing their medicate funds, the general greatly distorted the statute. it says a state shall establish procedures so the notion that hhs establish them is obviously contrary to that. it says the state will identify people to enroll on their exchanges. well they can't enroll anybody on their exchanges if there are no such exchanges in the state. therefore, by the plain language, if you adopt the notion that's established bit state means established by hhs, all of them need to lose their medicaid funding. >> could i follow up on something

mr. carvin handled. mr. when they amended the complaint in the nfib case, the state governments alleged the exchanges were coercive. why were they coercive? not because they threatened subsidies of the citizens of those states, that they didn't set up an exchange.ey wer they were coercive, the lawsuit e th said, because the states would e regula cede regulatory authority if the federal government established exchanges. that's not my position.that is that is the state's position and that is their incentive along with a lot of grants to establish exchanges. now, the opponents really have to take the position that the statute has one and only one ble permissible reading because there is a strong presumption that you read statutes to be effective, that you read just statutes in furtherance of their evident purpose. justice scalia says that in his says th book, "nonstatutory interpretation." and the argument here is that the ar this self-emulating i interpretation that the treasury department was so derelict in r

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 oct

mr. carvin. may it please the court. this is a statute of the statute that meets the court. >> will you please back up, before we get to a question of statutory construction, as you know, each plaintiff, or at least one plaintiff has to have a concrete stake in these questions. we can't put them as ideological questions. and we have four plaintiffs. as to two of them, and there is a declaration stating, i am not eligible for health insurance from the government. but there is a question of whether they are veterans eligible for coverage as veterans. >> yes. one of those is mr. hurst. i'd refer you to the joint appendix of page 42 where there is the government's recitation of facts where mr. hurst would have to spent his own money because of his irs rule. mr. hurst was a veteran for 10 months in 1970. he is not eligible for any veterans service because if you serve such a short -- health services if you serve -- >> i'll ask the government if they agree. >> and i should point out the government has

mr. carvin.rs of the committee for the opportunity to discuss what we do know about how the irs developed its health insurance premium tax credit rule of may 23rd, 2012. that's the rule that's being challenged in king v. burrwell and it's the rule that implements the premium assistance tax credit provisions of the patient protection affordable care act of 2012. two federal courts have found that that rule expanded the reach of the aca's employer mandate beyond the clear limits congress imposed on the irs' authority. according to those courts, the irs is unlawfully subjecting more than 250,000 employers and 57 million workers to that tax. one of those workers is kevin pace. a jazz musician who is not far from here in northern virginia. according to the "washington post," pace lost $8,000 of income in the first year the irs unlawfully imposed that mandate on his employer. as a direct result of that mandate. according to one estimate, this illegal tax reduces a typical affected worker's income by ne

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 octob

mr. carvin. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. very quickly on standing. mr. hurst would be subject to a penalty absent relief by this court for 2014. as i've discussed, both he and mrs. leevy, of course, would face the same principle for 2015. if the government is suggesting that their case has become moot because of changed circumstances, under cardinal chemical 508 u.s. 83, it's their burden to raise it, not ours to supplement the record. in terms of the anomaly, in terms of all the states losing 34 states losing their medicaid funds, the solicitor general greatly distorted the statute. it's printed at 64a of their exhibit. it says, "a state shall establish procedures," so the notion that hhs established them is obviously contrary to that. it says, "the state will identify people to enroll on their exchanges." well, they can't enroll anybody on their exchanges if there are no such exchanges in the state. therefore, by the plain language, if you adopt the notion that "exchange established by the state" means established by hhs, all of them need to lose their

mr. carvin.u just heard him describe a few moments ago is not how statutory interpretation works. how you heard him describe the affordable care act is also not how anyone involved in enacting the statute understood the law to work. republican and democratic members and staffers alike involved in drafting the law have made clear that no one understood the law to preclude tax credits for residents of states that opted to use the federal fallback provided to them in the law instead of electing to set up an exchange for themselves. to the contrary, statements by members of congress at the time and reports drafted by committees and the cbo all assumed that tax credits would be available in every state on any exchange without making a distinction between state-run, and federally facilitated exchanges. did any members of congress stand up at that time and profess the vision of the tax credit provision that we heard mr. carvin and other critics of the treasury rule put forth? as mr. carvin had to admit

mr. carvin. >> mr. chief justice, and may please the court.this is a straightforward case of statutory construction where the plain language of the statute dictates of the result. >> mr. carvin, will you please backup, because before we get to the question of statutory construction, as you know each plaintiff, or at least one plaintiff, has to have a concrete stake in these questions. they can't put them as ideological questions. and we have four plaintiffs. as the two of them there is a declaration stating i am not eligible for health insurance from the government, but the question of whether they are veterans eligible for coverage as a better and. >> yes. one of those is mr. hurst who would have to we refer you to joint appendix at age 42 what this is the government's recitationrecitation of facts within the declared that mr. hurst what hasn't been $750 of his own money because of the irs rule. mr. hurst was a veteran for 10 months in 1970. he is not eligible for any veterans service because if you serve such a short am health services. they

mr. carvin in assam the same issue called how they were having the d.c. circuit. some of you may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiffs theory and the full d.c. circuit decided to do with its located over again. this is all the drama was going on and in that context, mr. carvin said he thinks the republicans on the supreme court are going to get as much of it -- "give as much as a damn as to what a bunch of obama appointees think." and just in case there's any ambiguity as to what he was saying here, he asked them, do you think you are going to lose any judges appointed by a republican and he said no i do not think i will lose any republican appointed judges. so this is not a case about statutory interpretation. >> let me just jump in. it is important that we use the language is statutory interpretation. this case is argued as a statutory interpretation case, and the reason for that is because it is obvious what congress intended. but to just say congress intended the subsidies to be available in federal exchanges. but you can say congress screwe

mr. carvin. a similar case was pending in the d.c. circuit. the d.c. circuit actually bought the very -- theory and decided to look at it over again. this is while discovery was going to go on. and in that context, mr. carvin said he does not think the appointees on the supreme court will "give much of a damn" about what the circuit thinks. and my friend asked him, do you think you will lose any judges who are appointed by a republican? he said no, i do not think i will lose a republican appointed judge. so this is not a case about statutory interpretation. >> it is important that we use the language of statutory interpretation. the reason for that is because it is patently obvious what congress intended. if you just say, congress intended for subsidies to be available on federal exchanges but you concede congress screwed up in accomplishing that, then you lose or we may lose. because the courts answer is let congress fixed it if congress screwed up. that is why it is important to do what ian bid, which is look at the statute as a whole, which is the b

mr. carvin and he asked them -- him on the same issue called high -- how the some of you may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiffs theory and the full d.c. circuit decided to do with its located over again. this is all the drama was going about the d.c. circuit are going to block it, and in that context, mr. carvin said he thinks the republicans on the supreme court are going to get -- going to give a damn about what a bunch of obama appointees on the d.c. circuit think and just in case there's any ambiguity as to what he was saying here, he asked them, do you think you are going to lose any judges appointed by a republican and he said no i do not think i will lose any republican appointed judges. so this is not a case about statutory interpretation. elizabeth: let me just jump in. it is important that we use the language of statutory interpretations. this cases are good as a statutory interpretations case and the reason for that is because it is obvious what congress intended. but to just say congress intended the subsidies to be available in federal exchanges but you

mr. carvin and he asked him -- a case presented the same issue called how big was pending the d.c. circuit. some may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiff's theory, a three-judge panel did, and then the full d.c. circuit decided to do what they call unbonking the case, look it over again. while all this drama was going on about whether the d.c. circuit was going to do that and what that meant as the possibility they would hear that case. in that context, mr. carvin said he didn't think the republican appointees on the court are, going, going to give much of a damn about what a bunch of obama appointees on the d.c. circuito;qh think. just in case there was any ambiguity as to what he's saying here, hill asked him, do you think that you're going to lose any judges who are appointeded by a republican? he said, no i do not think i will lose any republican appointed judges. so, you know, this is not a case about statutory interpretation. you know, if it -- >> although it's important -- let me just jump in. it's important that we use the language of statutory interpreta

mr. carvin. mr. cannon?ou.nk you. >> thank you, chairman cruz. thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member coons and members of the committee for the opportunity touss what discuss what we do know about how the irs developed its health insurance premium tax credit rule of may 23rd, 2012. that's the rule that's being challenged in king v. burrwell and it's the rule that implements the premium ch assistance tax credit provisionsal imp of the patient protection affordable care act of 2012. two federal courts have found that that rule expanded the reach of the aca's employer mandate beyond the clear limits congress imposed on the irs' authority.the according to those courts, the irs is unlawfully subjecting more than 250,000 employers and 57 million workers to that tax. one of those workers is kevin pace.ns, mus a jazz musician who is not far n from here in northern virginia. according to the "washington post," pace lost $8,000 of income in the first year the irs unlawfully imposed that mandate on his employer. as a direct result of that mandate. according to one estim

mr. carvin and asked him, this is when a case was pending in the d.c. circuit. some of you may remember the d.c. circuit actually bought the plaintiffs a ferry and then the three-judge panel that and the full d.c. circuit decided to do what's called on balk the case. they said they would look at it over again. this is what all those dramas going on whether the d.c. suburbs going to on balk at and what that would mean. in the context mr. carvin said that if the token appointed to the supreme court are going to quote did much of that damn about what a bunch of obama appointees on the d.c. circuit think and then just in case is any ambiguity as to what he was saying, he was asked do you think you're going to lose any judges who are appointed by republican? and he said no, you don't think i will lose any republican appointed judges. so this is not a case about statutory interpretation. >> so it's important to let me just jump in it's important that we use the language of statutory interpretation. this case is argued as a statutory interpretation case, and the reason