tv Energy and Commerce Committee Markup of Affordable Care Act Replacement... CSPAN March 10, 2017 2:00am-4:01am EST
to the technology. not for another atf employee. when i was at san diego international association on the chiefs of police area the deputy made a choice -- he said our p.d. got shot at. within 12 hours, we collected that. had that scanned in and it went down into our correlation and training center where we said hoc we serve the state and locals better? within 12 hours we sent the response back and said that shooting is matched up to three other shootings. it went to our gun intelligence enter. where you collect, analyze, synthesize and disseminate information rapidly. they had four guys locked up within 24 hours.
it is a game changer for investigative leads on what i refer to as trigger pullers and then to go after the trafficers supplying them with firearms. i think it is something everybody can wrap their arms around. i spent a lot of my career in detroit. the victims, it is painful to watch people being shot and the misery it does on the families and the shootings and even at funerals. i've done surveillances on those. to answer your question, i believe, even if i was a taxpayer outside of a.t.f., this is something worthy of attention to address the gun violence across america and to reiterate the point, i think we have made a lot of progress, working with local p.d.'s.
last year, there were over 7,500 uns stolen during f.f.l. burglaries. we're trying to say -- prevent hat, working with the national sports shooting foundation, educating for security. it is different than an armed robbery where we can't hit them with 924-c. an f.f.l. burglary is a different animal. it is just the right thing. >> thank you very much. >> these machines, they cost how much? >> mr. chairman, i have to go back. it may be $129,000. the cost of this, which is just like fire departments have come across the country and tactical
teams doing regionalizeation, not every p.d. needs a machine where you can have where they have memorandums of agreement and i know of other p.d.'s that say come down on tuesday and enter all of your casings. it is an expensive item but it saves lives. >> we would like to work with you. i want to learn more about it. if you could educate us. >> i really appreciate it. >> that would be great. you said something that really caught my ear. it is something the committee has been looking at and we would really appreciate your help. i was encouraged when you say the statistics that you have at your disposal, you said "we don't want to waste our time on cases that won't be prosecuted." that's true of every law enforcement agency i have ever encountered. there is nothing more frustrating than the men and
women who go out there and do the hard work and put a case together and then the prosecutor says it is not as sexy or jury friendly as we hoped it would be. so we're not going to do anything here. in order for us to get our arms providing nd that, us -- i think a three-year window unless someone else wants to weigh in here. i don't want to go back 15 years. if you can look back over the past three years and give us some statistics, here is how many straw purchasing cases we had. here is how many not -- i have to push the department of justice to find out what they are actually prosecutoring. they are not going prosecute it so why bother, right? i want to know what those cases are. i want to know what you have given them. the example and the parallel i'm
giving is the t.s.a.. t.s.a. i cannot say enough about their instagram account. you want to go see an amazing instagram account, go to the t.s.a.. every day they are putting up pictures of guns and other types of weapons and knives and things people are trying to bring on airplanes. when you work with the local law enforcement, when you work with the prosecutors, it is crickets. they almost never prosecute anybody. and my guess is we're having the exact same phenomenon throughout the country with these gun violations. i need exposure to that. that's where your help providing statistics, sooner rather than later. i don't know what time frame to put on that but you said they were fairly easy to put together. can you get back to us in a reasonable time to provide us those statistics? >> mr. chairman, i would be happy to.
>> that would be really helpful. we will be having a hearing about this. i need to know that you're perblely involved and engage -- personally involved and engaged on this and willing to cooperate with us on that investigation? do i have your cooperation on this? >> mr. chairman, you absolutely do and whatever i'm legally allowed to do without getting in a jam with a federal judge, again, i'm all yours to testify. >> i know i said it a couple of times, but you're providing congress the information requested is not making that information public and not only o we not recognize the so to speak but we don't believe it binds you lu i know there are a lot -- but i know there are lots attorneys that will give you advice. we don't think you have to pursuit-sue it in court but if
you think you have to, i want to make sure you're at least asking. >> let me say this to you. so often we have these hearings and things don't get tied up properly. i just want to you -- let me tell you what i told the chairman a few minutes ago about you. i said i believe this guy is a good guy. and that he may not have fully understood the -- because i do feel your sin air isity. i really do. i have interviewed a lot of witnesses in my career as a lawyer. i just want to thank you for your candor. but i have to tell you something about this guy. he can be kind of nice, but once he thinks you understand him, fury ink you saw some
today? gets worse. all i'm saying is that you now -- as best you can. ok? >> my former boss said the education of tom brandon continues. meant no disrespect. trying to do the right thing. but hey, obviously it didn't go that well. but i appreciate your comments about me being candid and open. that's my m.o.. >> we also thank you for your service. >> i appreciate that. >> you have been through a lot. you have seen a lot. >> fast and furious, changed my life. i stayed in the game. i stayed in the fight because the men and women of a.t.f. do a vital and important mission of protecting the public. the a.t.f. of 2017 is not the a.t.f. of 2010 when much of this stuff happened.
thank you for allowing me to say that. >> thank you very much. >> i want to thank you for your service and your candor. you're earning our respect the proof will be in the pudding as we move forward. i believe you too. hopefully we understand each other and d.o.j. understands us as well. back to your service in the united states marines and moving forward, you have done a lot for this nation. put your life on the line on a regular basis which is more than most people do and we admire and i can't say enough about the men and women who also serve with you in doing that because, you know, we're up here wearing tice and are real critical and yet you see the 16-hour days these people put in dealing with the worst scum you can possibly imagine and i want you to know we all recognize that and are
grateful that people will step up and do that, not only with a.t.f. but other departments and agencies as well from border patrol to working in the prisons. it is tough. it is tough. we don't say or praise people enough for the good work and the sacrifices they make and their families make and their spouses, their kids, their friends, their family, their parents. it is tough. and they do amazing work. we never compensate them enough. but i do hope from time to time we stop and pause and recognize them. again, i think it is one of the beauties of this nation is that we have these kind of candid, really candid discussions, but we have also got a duty to do on both sides of these tables here and so we appreciate you working with us and helping us to ultimately get to the truth and make things better and to mr. horowitz again, the number of people that work with you know how much we appreciate them. thank all the members here
>> two house committees advance g.o.p legislation to to repeal the affordable care act along party line votes. the house goes o the budget committee. we'll hear fra speaker paul ryan and then get reaction from house minority leader nancy pelosi. then f.b.i. director james comey on cybersecurity. republican senator tom cotton has called the current g.o.p healthcare bill worse than obamacare. he said the house healthcare bill can't pass the senate without major changes . to my friends in the house,
pause, get it right. don't get it fast. finally what matters in the long run is better, more affordable healthcare for americans. not house leaders' arbitrary alendar. >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up friday morning, republican congressman scott taylor from virginia on president trump's revised travel order and other homeland security initiatives and then democratic congresswoman val denings of florida will be on to talk about the trump administration's law and order agenda. be sure to watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00
a.m. eastern friday morning. join the discussion. >> sunday night on afterwards. the council of foreign relations president examines challenges to foreign policy in his book, "a orld of disarray." >> the pieces that you primarily put forward, you say there was considerable continuity on how the world worked during this period. describe that. >> a lot of the structures of the world such as it was was based on this idea of sovereignity. the idea that borders were significant. that they defined nation states, countries. and that there was a deal out there. that we won't try to change your borders by force if you won't
try to change ours. >> sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwards. >> house speaker paul ryan talked to reporters about the g.o.p healthcare legislation. his briefing ran 35 minutes. >> all right. we're going to do something different today. like town hall meetings. speaker ryan: good morning, everybody. i've got a few things i'd like to say. first of all, i would like to walk you through exactly what the american health care act is. i want to walk you through exactly what this health care law is an what we're replacing and how -- and what we're replacing and how important it is to repeal and replace obamacare not because the law is collapsing but it will get worse
if we do nothing. let me show you what our problem is and what we're trying to do. we are going to repeal and replace obamacare and we are going to do it with a three-pronged approach. number one is what we're talking about right now. this is what the ways and means committee marked up this morning, what the commerce committee is in the middle of doing right now. that's reconciliation. that's the american health care act. there are only so many things you can do in that bill because of a senate floor rules reconciliation. you can't put everything you want in that legislation because if you did, it would be filibustered and you couldn't even bring it up for a vote in the senate. number two, administrative action. this law, obamacare, has 1,442 sections or instances that gives the secretary of h.h.s. enormous amounts of discretion to administer health care, meaning, i don't think barack obama and nancy pelosi and harry reid when they crammed this bill through that donald trump would be president and tom price would be secretary of h.h.s. so number two in our three-pronged approach --
administrative action where the health and human services secretary deregulates the marketplace and allows more choice and more competition to come into the marketplace. number three, and this is where i think there's a lot of confusion all over the map. additional legislation that we feel is important and necessary to give us a truly competitive health care marketplace. so think of things like interstate shopping. that's a reform that we long believed in, that we think is really important to give regulatory competition,. association health plans. let a farmer buy her insurance through the national farm bureau plan or a restaurateur by his insurance for he and his employees through the national restaurant association plan on a nationwide basis. let small businesses buy their insurance through the nfib plan nationwide. we'd love for that to be in this reconciliation bill but the rules in the senate don't allow that to happen. so we will move those bills independently. we are going to move those bills at the same time through our process and bring those to
vote. unfortunately they have to hit what we call the 60-vote threshold. so we have a three-pronged approach to repealing and replacing obamacare. let's get into why this needs to happen and why it needs to happen now. options are disappearing ast. this law is in the middle of a collapse, and people are quickly losing their choices. in 2016, the amount of counties in america that had three or more insurers, three or more carriers to choose from was about 2,000. in 2017, that number has plummeted. insurers are leaving the marketplace. choice and competition is going away and people are having less choices. how many insurers, how many counties in america that had just one insurer? a little over 200 just last ear. so in america, about 200 counties had only one plan to choose from, one insurer.
this year in 2017, that number has skyrocketed to over 1,000 counties. over one in three counties in america you got one plan to choose from. hese insurers probably never intended on being monopolists but they are in these counties. there is no choice, no competition, one plan to choose from. it's a 454% increase in american counties of people who are stuck with one option. now that humana said they will pull out of the marketplace next year, there will be counties that will have zero options. so here is what is happening under a law that is collapsing. premiums are going up and going up at a very, very fast clip. options and choices are going down. so what we're seeing in america is people who have to go buy their own health insurance are getting far, far fewer choices, down to the point where they have one in one out of three counties in mark and the price they pay for that coverage is going up and up and up.
take a look what's going on around the country. this just shows you a map of the premium increases just this year alone. minnesota, 59% increase in their health insurance premiums. pennsylvania, 53% increase in their health insurance premiums. tennessee, 63% increase in their health insurance premiums this year alone. over one year. alabama, 58%. oklahoma, 69% increase in their health insurance premiums. nebraska, 51% increase in their health insurance premiums. arizona clocked in at a 116% increase in their health insurance premiums with obamacare. here's what's happening. quote, obamacare is in a death spiral. it is not getting any better. it's getting worse. that's the c.e.o. of one of america's leading health insurance companies, aetna, said this just a couple weeks ago.
what is a death spiral? it's a weird term. it's kind of gruesome if you ask me. a death spiral is a system in an insurance pool only sicker people who absolutely have to have the insurance buy it, and healthier people who want the insurance won't pay those really high prices because it's too expensive and they don't absolutely have to have it because they're healthy. in in any kind of pool typically you have a healthy paying premiums to subsidize that sick person, but the way they set up obamacare, it's not working that way. so only the people who must have health insurance, the oler and sicker person is buying it, it's cranking up the cost of the insurance so fast that the premiums are just spiral outing out of control and the insurance companies are pulling out of the marketplace. it's a death spiral. it's literally and mathematically a collapsing in the insurance markets. that's what america is facing today.
if we cyrimly did nothing, just washed our hands of it, if we in the majority party said, you know what, democrats gave us obamacare, let them live with it, the collateral damage in this country would be awful. more and more people would see even higher premium increases in 2018. more and more people would just see zero choices. we can't do that. the goal of health care reform has always been one we all share. the goal of health care reform is people get access to affordable coverage. our goal is use choice and competition, not government coercion and mandates. so here is what we propose. here is the american health care act, the bill that is moving through the committee process through regular order today, the bill that's going to take three weeks just to move through the house because we are following regular order. lower costs. more choices, not less. patients in control. universal access to care. these are the four driving principles that we are focused on. lowering the costs, giving people more choices, having
patients in control and universal access to care. let me walk you through how exactly we propose to do this. these are long-standing conservative principles that those of us who've been working in health care for about 20 years have been fighting for, dreaming about, working toward. now we have an opportunity to do that. how do we do this? first off, you have to repeal this law. you have to repeal the taxes in obamacare. it's $1 trillion in taxes in obamacare that that make it harder to make medical devices, that makes it harder to lower costs. the spending. the spending in obamacare is getting out of control. it's a debt explosion. more importantly, the way the system works, it's driving up the costs and the mandates. the mandates are arrogant and paternalistic. it is the government at the federal level telling people, this is what you have to buy. it's going to be really expensive. you must do it. if you don't like it, tough. that's what the government is saying to americans today.
so we get rid of the taxes, we get rid of the spending, we get rid of the mandates. the key thing that a lot of people want to know, when i do my listening sessions, when i talk to people with various diseases, advocacy groups, they want to know when they pass this the next day they are not going to lose their health insurance. that's not going to happen. we pass this law and the day after, americans who have insurance aren't going to lose it the day after. we need to have a stable transition to conservative health care reform, and that's what we're doing so that we do not pull the rug out from anybody who is enjoying some kind of coverage they have today. so we want to have a stable transition. a few of the points i think are really important, does this bring peace of mind to americans that's concerned with all that's going on here is we want to protect those people with pre-existing conditions. we think that's very important. that's been a cornerstone of republican health care proposals all along. in 2009, i, along with congressman devin nunes, senator
tom coburn, richard burr, offered the patients choice act. it was one of our alternatives to obamacare. again, like many other republican alternatives, we had an answer for people with pre-existing conditions and we have one here. all of our republican health care alternatives have always agreed with the idea of letting young people stay on their parents' plans until they were 26. we would retain that. what our goal is to do is to provide universal access to quality, affordable health care. here's another issue with obamacare. obamacare is not just the individual market that you think of the obamacare subsidies. it was also a taking over of the medicaid program. here's the problem with medicaid. medicaid is a program that is washington controlled and it is done in such a way that it stops innovation and experimentation at the state level. it makes it harder for states to customize the medicaid population and the medicaid program to work for their particular states. and as a result, more and more
doctors just don't take medicaid. i mean, what good is your coverage if you can't get a doctor? and that's a huge, growing problem with medicaid. medicaid is also growing at an unsustainable rate so this ballooning cost are threatening the very viability of the program and our fiscal future. so what we propose is to modernize the medicaid program. modernize the medicaid program along the lines that we as republicans have been talking about for years. i think it was ronald reagan in like the 1970's when he was governor who said the states should take over control of medicaid. every budget we have had as republicans, when i was budget chair writing my road maps to the path of prosperity, every one of our republican conservative budgets said let's give medicaid control back to the states. in honor to the principle of federalism, give the states and the governors the freedom and flexibility to customize the care for their low-income populations how they think needs to occur. our problems in wisconsin are a whole lot different than the problems they have in new york or in nevada or in utah or
california. so we propose more efficient spending on medicaid that's sustainable and have a safety net to the most vulnerable. give local control to our states and governors so they can craft medicaid to work for their populations. how do you protect people with pre-existing conditions? i think this is probably one of the most important issues of them all. here is basically what happens today. under the current system, we have costs driving up. in the current system, options are going away. as i just described, choices are fleeting, prices are going up nd under the current system, the thing about obamacare is we are going to make everybody buy insurance at the federal government level, young people will go to the market to pay for the older, sicker people. the younger people will be made to buy health care and they will pay for the person who gets
breast cancer in her 40's or gets heart disease in his 50's so take a look at this chart. the red slice here are what i call people with pre-existing conditions. people who have real health care problems. the blue is the rest of the people in the individual market. that's the market where people don't get health insurance of their jobs or they buy it themselves. the whole idea of obamacare is the people in the blue side pay for the people on the red side. the people who are healthy pay for the people who are sick. it's not working and that's why it's in a death spiral. here's how we propose to tackle this problem. we want to have a system where we encourage states with federal funding to set up risk pools and reinsurance mechanisms. for example, in wisconsin we have a great risk pool that actually worked so that people with real high health care costs and diseases and pre-existing conditions could still get affordable health care. obamacare repealed that. they had a great risk pool on reinsurance system in utah, washington state, all those are gone.
here's how they work and here's how our system would work. we would directly support the people with pre-existing conditions. let me give you a sense of this. 1% of the people in these markets drive 23% of the costs. 1% of the people in the individual health insurance market drive 23% of the costs. reassurance program is to cover more than just the 1% to cover the people who have high health care costs. so by having state innovation funds to go to the states to set up these reinsurance programs, we would directly subsidize the people who had pre-existing conditions. direct support for the people with pre-existing conditions so that everybody else has cheaper health insurance. what you do when you do this is, the individual market, the people who don't have pre-existing conditions -- they have much more stable prices. let me give you an example. take a small business that has 40 employees. let's say that four people in
that business get cancer. well, under that business, that business has to pay for all of those cancer pamings. all of those cancer treatments so the other 36 people in that 40-person pool get hit with much, much higher premiums to pay for the four that got cancer. that's how shurnings works today. that's one of the reasons why this thing is going bankrupt. here is our solution. let's make sure we cover the people who have pre-existing conditions. make sure it kicks in for the people in that small business that get cancer, subsidize that coverage. what you do by doing that is you dramaly lower and stabilize the price of insurance for everybody else. so those other 36 people this that small business have predictable prices, lower prices. that brings you more choice, more competition and lower prices for the vast, vast majority of americans who are not in the pre-existing condition category. directly subsidize them through
state-based risk an reassurance pool programs that we would finance with support from the federal government to attack this problem and let health insurance stabilize. go down in price. here is another thing that we think is extremely important. one of the problems we have is we don't really have a consumer dynamic in healthcare. people don't always care what things cost or how good care is going to be because they don't get that information. we actually immunize or block able for people to actually see what things cost in healthcare or to act like a consumer. let me give you an example. jenna and i have three kids. they are 33 months apart. we call them irish triplets. our three kids had three tonsillectomies over the course of three years from the same e.m.t. at the same hospital. each one of these times i tried to find out what is this going to cost never could i get an
answer to that question. i only found out what it cost months after those procedures when i got various bills from the doctor, the from the hospital. the difference in these three years was huge. one of them, the rovery bill, the rovery for my son, he sat in la-z-boy, ate jell-o, watched spongebob for four hours and that was 1,400 dollars. why should we shop like this for healthcare? so that is law that i helped write in 2003. something that we as conservatives have been fighting for for the whole time. we want to increase health savings accounts which is what we do in this bill so we have more competition and lower costs. in 2000, i got lacics surgery. the reason i can see yule so
well. it was little bitive. insurance didn't cover it. i knew exactly what the procedure was going to cost upfront. since then, that laser that does this procedure has been revolutionized three times and the price is lower. so in this area of healthcare, quality went up and cost went down because i cared as a consumer what it was. so it is not that dynamic cannot happen in healthcare, it is that it isn't happening throughout most of healthcare. what health savings accounts does is helps hard working taxpayer get access to affordable solutions to help them pay their out of pocket costs. it is their skin in the game. they save money. if they say what is this going to cost me, what is the best value for my money, if we can bring that consumer pressure to bear in he will care, we can enlist the support of millions of americans to fix this healthcare problem. instead of using o.p.m., other
people's money, to pay for healthcare that you don't care what things cost, we want to harness the power of the marketplace, the power of the consumer, the patient and the doctor to demand better services, quality. we want transparency on priess, quality. so we can bring consumers to the bear. this is what we mean when we say wept a patient healt healthcare system. here is a really important part of our american healthcare act. refundable tax credits. i want to explain what we mean when we say this. turned current system, we have a washington controlled system with skyrocketing premiums and dwindling choices. it is a death spiral. it is collapse. the government makes you buy it. our solution is a portable monthly tax credit. this is why we believe this is the right way to go. we want a market-based system which will give us lower costs,
more competition and more choices. there is a real problem in the tax code in that the tax code discriminates against people who don't get healthcare interest their job. if you're working and you're not on medicaid and you have a job paying you $10-$15 an hour and that job does not give you health insurance, there is nothing that the tax code does to help you buy he will insurance. what we're saying is that is not fair for the man or woman who is working at a job that doesn't get health insurance offered to them. let's give people the same kind of tax benefit to go buy health insurance if they don't get it from their job. giving the person a monthly portable tax credit gives them the ability upfront to go buy health insurance of their choosing. here is the key. you buy what you want to buy. if you don't want to use your tax credit to buy he will insurance, you don't have to.
if you dwoont to buy this plan but that plan, go for it. it is called free market healthcare. the state gets to set up their own health insurance systems. you can buy what are you want to buy where you live. that is called patients choice. that is one of the biggest tools we believe can be used to replace obamacare. this is part of replacing obamacare with a system that works to give everybody universal access to affordable coverage. now here is where we stand. the current system is riddled with endless regulations that are driving up costs and limbing choices for consumers and you see how the collapse is occurring. our solution, greater consumer options. the patient is the nucleus of the healthcare system. we don't want insurance companies becoming monoplies looking for favoritism in a crony isk way in washington.
wealth health insurers, doctors, hospitals competing against each other for our business as consumers. that is how the great american free enterprise system works in all other aspects of our lives and economy. that is what should work in this system as well. for result, you choose the plan that meetses your needs. you buy what you want to buy. not what the government tells you to buy. so our goal here is this. lower costs. more choices. patience in control. universal access to care. there are two points i would make in conclusion. we as republicans have been swating seven years to do this. we as republicans who fought the creation of this law and accurately predicted that it would not work, ran for office in 2010, in 2012, in 2014, and in 2016 on a promise that we would -- if given the ability,
we would repeal and replace this law. how many people running for congress and the senate did you hearsay that? how many times did you hear president trump when he was candidate donald trump say that? this is the closest we will ever t to repeeling and replacing obamacare. the time is here. the time is now. this is the moment and this is the closest this will ever happen. it really comes down to a binary choice. we now stru ability through the budget rules that we have in the senate with our three-pronged approach to actually make good on our word. e told in 2016 what it would look like when we had a chance to replace obamacare. so we said in 2016 to our citizens, to the american people who are our constituents, if you
give thus chance, this opportunity, this is what we'll do. now is our chance and opportunity to do it. questions? >> you said this is a binary choice. why would somebody not believe this is take it or leave it when you hear from members of the freedom caucus when they say take your bill or change its? and two, when the democrats approved cap and trade in the summer of 2009, there was much criticism of a manager's amendment put in at the end to make that bill pass on the floor. when we hear these criticism sfrs republicans, why would we expect something like that not to merge in this case to make that bill pass and get their votes? >> i would answer in this way. what people are talking about. there is a lot of confusion out there. among conservative groups and among members. reconciliation has certain limbs. there are folks who would lover us to put in this bill all of these other ideas.
one conservative group is saying you better put shopping across state lines in this bill. or we're not going to support it. if we did that, we would not be able to pass this bill. it would be filibustered in the senate and not come up for a vote. it really is a conversation about to third prong approach. the other bills are going to pass outside of reconciliation. in the house, we're a majority body. we can pass. much of the conversation is about moving this other agenda on the same track around the same time to get these things done. the last point is as you know the process, a lot of people don't , we're going through four different committees. that's how legislation works through regular order. we just did the ways and means committee last night. we're in the middle of the commerce committee. next week it goes to budget committee and then the rules committee before it goes to the house floor. the bill will be out there for three weeks to be looked at.
got gop.dthebill it is not 2,000 pages, something they whipped together. we didn't write it in harry reed's office on christmas eve. this bill was worked on for a year. this bill wased on from january to june last year so we can offer our constituents and the american people our agenda. we ran on it through the election and have trabs translated it into legislation. ese two key components defederalize entitlements, putting a cap on. i that is something conservatives have been talking about and dreaming about for decades. repeeling another entitlement, obamacare, its mandates, its taxes, replacing its with
republican free market health care tax policy. if you told me 10 years ago this is where we would be, i would think i would be in a dream. i would be doing back flips. to conservatives who have been fighting for healthcare reform, this is so exciting. members realize this is a chance, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. naturally people are saying i would love to have this in there. i would love to have that in there. that's the process that we're going through. what people are learning is that reconciliation tool is pretty tight. there is a lot of stuff we would love to put in the bill but unfortunately the senate rules don't allow us to do that. that's where we see a lot of confusion and frustration. understandably so. that's also why we have a three-pronged approach. the additional legislation that we're going to move as well. >> you're saying this bill is crafted in a way that it would meet the reconciliation test in the senate. >> correct.
we'll see what -- when we get our score. you typically don't go with your score ready. i'm sure we'll have to make some tweaks and adjustments. yes, this bill is written so it is called -- it is written so it can't be filibustered. so they have to bring it up and vote on it in the senate. if we put things in this bill that take that privilege off of it so it is not reconciliation, they won't even vote on it. they will filibuster and they won't vote on it. that's what i mean when i say this is the closest we have been to replacing obamacare. this is the closest we will ever get to repeeling and replacing obamacare. >> how did you come wake up the am that you would give out in tax credits? why should a fap family makes
$140,000 a year get the same am it is a family that makes there are 40,000? >> it is a good question. it is based on the way insurance works, modeled after the tom price legislation which he had last year, which is adjust for age and family size because the older a person gets, the more costly their healthcare is. that's how insurance is written. to tax credit adjusts more tax credit for the person's age and obviously if you have a bigger family, you have more healthcare costs so a bigger tax credit. 12 members of the freedom caucus were co-sponsors of the price legislation just last december. a lot of our members through through our feedback, we had several listening sessions in february, four conferences getting feedback from our members on this drafted of this legislation, getting their ideas. one of the concerns is we should cap this credit. like a millionaire that doesn't
get he will care from work but as a millionaire doesn't get a tax credit. that is something everybody agreed with. the ways and means committee made that adjustment. we don't want to have a job penalty. go back a few years ago. when they said obamacare produce reduces job lock. 2 million to 3 million people will not take jobs because of the way the subsidies work. if you set that credit limit too low and a american loses that credit by getting a raise or advancing in life, you don't want to disincentivize that. the senate sets a level where that wouldn't occur. that is for a middle income factor or an upper income family so that we never tell a person don't take that raise, don't get that job, don't take that promotion. we don't want federal tax law or tax credits to ever encourage a person not to advance or take a
job or get a raise. let me go in the back. >> these companies onboard provide the option that you're talking about. almost every industry and organization has come out against this. the reason why they are against it as commerce might like it is because companies can't offer these products and still make money. >> it is great example. here is what people are not seeing which is number two. tom price, for legal reasons can't tell you what he is thinking about doing. there are laws that prevent that. we can do so much deregulation for the executive branchly the secretary of health and human services. he put one out the other day that will go a long way for lowering health insurance. they have gone a way showing what they can do in phase two here where they can dramatically lower the price of health insurance. >> there are no concessions?
>> don't interrupt, if you don't mind. here is the other point. we have basically a few option in front of us. number one do, nothing. let it sit and collapse. what the insurers are telling us, if you thought a 25% increase was rough in 2017, it is going to be a lot more than that in 2018 and more ininsurers are going to pull out. if we done know what is going on come late spring, we're going to have massive premium increases and pullouts and it will collapse the individual market. what they also tell us though, if you only repeal the law, just gut and repeal the law as some folks from suggesting, you'll have triple digit increases and collapse the individual market. if we just repeal obamacare. sts not like life goes back to life br o bam acare.
you can't just go back to the day before. that's why we're offering the american healthcare act. a system that brings choice and competition back into the marketplace. gives people the use of risk pools, tax credits, to go find affordable coverage and that brings ininsurers back into the marketplace. if they can actually offer the plans that people want the buy, not the plans that people are making them buy, they will have more plans being offered. there will be more choice and more competition. that is what brings down costs. in conjunction with all of thed a minute stravet things that tom price can do, those efforts together can help dramaly save our system and give us lower cost health insurance, better quality health insurance and access to affordable health insurance. don't forget how all of this works together. subsidize the sick and pre-existing conditions. health savings accounts to help
consumers in the marketplace. providers compete for our businesses based on cost and quality. families who have jobs but not the type that gives them insurance benefits, they at the beginning of the month can buy a plan that meets their needs. that is how you fix and save the system from the crash that is occurring and we're very, very confident that will work that way. thank you for indulge me. thank you for putting up with my town hall presentation. i just think it is really important to try and iron out all the differences, to show there is folks who say you should have this and that in this bill. reconciliation doesn't let you do it. we're doing it here. people say it is so expensive and costly. tom price can fix those things. we can fix this problem. we promised the american people we would fix this problem. the way to fix this prock is to repeal obamacare and replace it with a market-based system.
it is something we as conservatives have been dream about for decades. this is the chance and the best and only chance we're going to gets. that's why i'm really excited. thank you very much, appreciate t. >> a reaction now from house minority leader nancy pelosi on the house healthcare bill. she told reporters that republicans should focus on mproving the existing law. ms. pelosi: good morning, good morning. busy time. busy time. it's been seven weeks since the president's inauguration. since then we still have not seen any jobs bill come forward from the president, no job proposal, no infrastructure plan, no movement on renegotiation of nafta. what we have seen is the republicans' long-feared and job-killing health bill. that means less coverage and
more cost to the american people. pay less -- pay more for less. pay more for less. the republican bill is one of the largest transfers -- there are a few things you should know about this bill. the republican bill is one of the largest transfers of wealth from working families to the richest people in our country. robin hood in reverse. the richest 400 families in america will get a $7 million tax break each year to the tune of $2.8 billion break every year. it's $600 billion moving from the working class families to the richest families in our country. that means those people plus others. seniors will see a lifetime of medicare trust fund shortened by three years. they take $150 billion out of the trust fund, shortening the trust fund by three years. we had lengthened it in the affordable care act.
but that's in keeping with the republicans' line on medicare that it should wither on the vine. so they're shortening its solvency and that's in keeping with also what they want to do in other legislation, the ryan budget, to remove the guarantee from medicare and have it just be a voucher and not a guarantee. medicare by definition is a guarantee. so you are undermining that guarantee. and millions would lose access to essential medicaid coverage, not only critical for poor children in our country, but for americans with disabilities, for seniors with long-term care needs and to fight against opioid and other addictions. women lose access to comprehensive health coverage when the republicans defund planned parenthood, stealing even more women's access to contraception and preventative care. young people who are likely to face an interruption in coverage will suffer what the young people call a millennial penalty.
republicans surcharge on enrolling after a break in coverage. so if you are a senior, if you are a person with disabilities, anyone affected by the opioid epidemic, a poor child, a woman or young person, the list goes on and on, you are grossly affected by this legislation. and that's why groups like the diabetes -- groups that deal with diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, hiv-aids, other groups, easter seals, are opposed to this legislation. republicans are racing this bill forward before the c.b.o. can truly expose the catastrophic consequences of the health bill and this is in stark contrast when we passed the bill. the press is saying, well, you're criticizing them. that's not true. we had open hearings in the
three committees, ways and means, energy and commerce, education and labor, hours of public markup, dozens of republican amendments accepted. we never had a markup or floor vote without a c.b.o. score to show what was happening what the impact of the bill would be. it's interesting because as i said to some of you yesterday speaker ryan then asked ranking member of the committee on the budget signed a letter to doug elmendorf, along with the members of the energy and commerce, ways and means, education and labor saying we shouldn't proceed until we had a c.b.o. report which we fully intended to wait for. we had already asked for it and had our markup scheduled into the future of receiving that.
in his letter the speaker says -- references that the house speaker, that would be me, has indicated legislation we marked up before the committees of jurisdiction and debate on the house floor at the beginning of august. this is a letter in june. we had already requested the c.b.o. report. but he says before the house democrats go forward, we want to know the consequences, including the number of people who would lose access to their current insurance, the number of jobs lost due to business taxes, the number of uninsured people who would obtain coverage and the extent of the cannibalization of employer coverage due to medicaid expansion. and goes on and on. you have this letter so you can read the rest of it. he was asking for things that we asked for, too, from the c.b.o.
now as speaker of the house, he's saying, we need this to be mark it up. did i say, when we did ours, we had the -- our bill was out there about 30 days before we ven voted on it. this is something they put out in the dark of night on monday, go overnight. they don't want the american people to see the facts. they're always afraid of the facts. it's just a remarkable thing. they're afraid of the facts, of the president's tax return. and we will continue to ask for those tax returns because we want to know about the russian connection. what do the russians have on donald trump politically, financially and personally? what is that connection? what will the tax returns tell us about that? and we need a bipartisan, independent, nonpartisan outside
investigation to get to the bottom of that. on monday, the president, again, put forth his executive order seeking to reinstate the muslim ban and refugee ban. the trump administration's insidious, i call it, repackaging has done nothing to change the immoral, unconstitutional and dangerous goals of the ban. this is the same ban with the same purpose driven by the same dangerous discrimination that weakens our ability to fight terror. the president's conduct over the weekend emphasizes how little regard he has reality, the contempt he has for evidence and facts. i am deeply concerned about their willingness, almost bragging about separating parents from children at the border. i am going to go to the border again, revisit the border again
over the weekend to see firsthand because he said, oh, you can't believe what you read in the paper. we know how to take care of kids. we can put them in foster homes. that's the attitude of this administration, separating children from their parents. something's wrong with that. but protecting the american people which is what we all take an oath to do and what the president says is his reason for separating mothers and children requires us to be strong and smart, not reckless, rash and cruel. so, again, we -- on three fronts, of course, the affordable care act and all that it means to families is very important. the united methodist church in their statement said, people will die because of efforts like this to roll back health care. aarp, the american medical association, the hospital association, nurses and physicians, patients, insurers
and consumer groups all oppose the g.o.p. bill. the more we learn about the proposal, of course, the more we see it as a plan that will make americans pay more for less. any questions? yes, sir. reporter: thank you. on sunday's "meet the press," president trump's director of national intelligence said the agencies he oversaw, c.i.a., f.b.i. and n.s.a., to his knowledge, there was no evidence of conclusion between members of the trump campaign and the russians. do you agree with that? ms. pelosi: he's talking about his -- no, we haven't had the investigation that we need to have and that's what we're saying is follow the facts. follow the facts. so i also heard him say that he didn't think there was any reason to believe that the president, president obama was tapping donald trump. but what we're saying is follow the facts.
we think there's plenty of evidence that shows for sure that the russians were disruptive of our election. follow the facts. the personal, political and financial connection to russia. thank you. sorry. allergy. reporter: when it comes to >> wouldn't you advocate having seen some of those materials on the russian probe. the publication and the classification of those materials that has been put out to the big eight. is that something that people should see? >> we have to have an investigation. i have always fought for more members of congress having access to more intelligence because members of congress have decisions.
they have to take votes. they have to establish budgets. as to what our needs are. so they need intelligence. they need information. now, i think many members of the committee should be receiving that information. i don't know there is a plan to do so. >> >> makeeclassify it known to the members of the intelligence committee. their reluctance to let its known to congress. 535 people. certainly should be making it known to the members of the intelligence committee to have to make decisions as representative of the other members on the intelligence committee. this is something i have been arguing for for over 20 years in the intelligence committee. committee isnce reluctant to share as much as.
you are the custodian of that intelligence. we are responsible for decisions and we should see that information as well. >> president trump had readers from conservative groups at the white house last night and according to a number of media reports, he said something along the lines of if this does not work out, we will let obamacare kale -- failed. and blame the democrats. indicative of the fact that the president does not know what he is talking about when he talks about the affordable care act. it is threefold, reduce cost, expanded benefits, and in large for allo insurance americans. predicated on the idea that health care is a right, not just
a privilege. when he talks about that, he feels to understand that not only do 20,000,000-100,000 -- 20,100,000 people have health care, the 155 million people who have access through the workplace, have had expanded whether it is on the pre-existing condition, time limits, your child on your policy until 26, no longer being a woman as a pre-existing condition. you cannot keep that unless you -- the cost will be astronomical. that is why we did not have that before the affordable care act.
people would never be a four -- able to afford it. prohibitive. i know that the republicans really don't care that much about the 20 million people who have been added to the rolls. you can see what they are doing to medicaid, they want to completely undermine that. they should care about the 155 million people who have health insurance for whom a rate of increase in cost has been drastically reduced. has been the slowest rate of increased. to the cost ofue pharmaceutical drugs. when he says that, what are you talking about? are there some places that we as the house of representatives have ideas we would have liked to prevail with dealing with the senate.
there are things we could do for the individual market and the rest. we like to work with him on that if he has the interest of the american people at heart. this is not about politics. if there is anything that is part -- personal it is health care. the american people know that their members are hearing from them on this. i wouldre telling them not be alive today without the affordable care act. they are hearing zero formal care act changed my life. many of them living in very red states and areas that voted for donald trump. ironically, if ironically is even the word -- sadly the if thewho will lose care republican plan were to prevail are people who voted for donald trump. benefits for those $600
billion are going to largely blue states. do you know where some of the benefits will be lost? largely red areas. there is a transfer of wealth. it is an ideological thing. i don't think the president really knows what he is talking about. >> what information that -- has gotten. the think the information on a general flynn of until perhaps last -- mid-january. that being said, are you concerned that the former president "a change in execute orders that opened information channels between the
intelligence agencies so they could share the information amongst each other which let the intelligence information flow that could make leaks easier? >> no. no. i think we don't want everybody in a pipeline so we are not having the benefit of information or intelligence to keep the american people safe. i don't think that anything to do with the leaks. >> we know you don't like the replacement bill. sent -- you have said that you are open to fixing the parts. >> i have some things i would like to have prevailed over the senate. there the provisions in replacement bill that you think is a legitimate fix to obamacare -- >> no. no. the purposes -- back to the three goals. it is not lower cost. it does not improve benefits.
it does not expand access. that is the purpose of the bill. if i am an executive and have a tax deduction for my bonus, that is a good thing. how can they put such a thing in a bill? doesn't that tell you something about them? it would have a bill that is expanding -- what are you saying? trump promised insurance for everybody. director may be accidental he told the truth, i don't know. insurance is not really the end goal. goal?s their why don't we predicated on the facts? speak with the speaker from time
to time how important it is to have evidence-based decision-making here. this is so contrary. they want us fact devoid. a factory area in which to make decisions. you have any suggestions question mark maybe there is something in there i missed. was it the tanning salons? what was that about putting a medicaid? standard on stopping the expansion of medicaid? now they are talking about making it worse. worse then what is in the bill. if you have something in particular you think is a good idea, test me. >> you said you don't think it will pass. what happens next? >> we will proceed and hopefully people will -- what happened with the affordable care act is so many people have taken advantage of it. had been deterred
negativef the misrepresentations the republicans put out about it. whatever you think of that it is for certain that many more people would be in short if the state had expanded medicaid. a few million of people will have been covered in states that they don't have it. these governors -- not always the governors. when it legislature or the governor or what ever has not agreed to expand medicaid, they are saying to the people in don't cares we whether you have health care or health insurance or not. by the way, this is very employment and job opportunity. if you don't have access for care who is going to open a
factory in your area? a lot of this is connected to quality of life. again, if you know something that is an improvement, if you want to mention its, i am happy to response to it. so far haven't seen anything at what i heard this morning in the press. says todministration me, betrayed administration, don't believe everything you see in the press. i said i don't especially when it comes to me. i am just talking about the facts and effects are damaging. it will increase the number of uninsured in our country. we should be working together to say what can we do to improve the individual market? to parts of the
bill that the republicans would not allow us to implement? they stood in the wake of the implantation. that should not have happened. but it did. we have to preserve what we have . sure that. last one. >> he said insurance is not the goal but it is an issue of lowering cost. while there might be more people in aca, the costs are greater for them, making health care and accessible. can you speak to that argument? >> the costs or greater now that they have insurance? >> he says there might be more people in short, but the people insured under aca -- >> did they have insurance before?
no. > if you did not have before you did not have to pay for what you're going to regret. in many cases they have a subsidy and would like to increase the subsidy. that if there were no reasons to do the formal care act, if there were no reasons, everyone as you may suggest. he who was shutting down government and voted against opening government, even think that social security, medicare, medicaid should all be subjected to reduction, that is who you are talking about. if there were no other reasons to the affordable care act, if everyone loves his or her provider or his or her in sure -- wnsurer. one compelling reason was cost. the costs were unsustainable and increasing.
they were increasing to an individual, families, small businesses, corporate america which is footing a large part of the bill. unsustainable.y the costs were going like that. -- if you are not getting you have pre-existing conditions, 123 million people in our country. bye-bye baby. you are now protected from dissemination in terms of a pre-existing condition. if you're no longer subjected to a lifetime cap, while you may be investing more in your downside, your exposure is greatly reduced. you cannot just compare what is happening now to the increases that might be happening now because of one thing or another as you have to compare it to
where would be be without the affordable care act? in a world where the cost would be through the roof. no even dreams of having a pre-existing condition discrimination removed. lifetime caps . unsustainable to our federal budget, corporate, small business, individual, family across the board. this was transformative. the only thing is we were so busy fighting the fight that and they got out there and misrepresented what this is all about because they don't believe in government. they don't believe in medicare. it should wither on the vine. medicaid, putut it in a box, tie it in a ribbon and throw it out the window. if you don't believe in that responsibility to the american people then you can understand the course that they are on.
this is an important fight for us to have. it gives us an opportunity to sing the praises of you for a book air act but better than that, to hear the stories of the american people. compelling.are so more eloquent than any policy statement anybody can make. that is what the republicans do not want to hear. the truth, the facts. that's what they don't have town meetings. is why they don't want to hear what the cbo score will be. tell them in terms of how many people will lose coverage. that is really what this is about. not just health care the good health of the american people. cut the prevention fund. prevention is one of the best investments we can make. it keeps costs down because people are healthy.
is really not a discussion of what kind of ability do you want, this is a question of is there a public role or public responsibility in terms of public-private initiative. what we put forth is a market economy solution. market.the public -- the private market. the free market solution. romney care. heritage foundation with individual mandate. this is something that they should support except they don't support a public role and that is really unfortunate because we have a responsibility to meet the needs of the american people in the most cost effective way to get them the most advantage to reach their aspirations. and by the way, save money in
the meantime. our vision, our founders life, liberty, the freedom to pursue their happiness. locked because of an insurance policy. not job locked because they can't pursue another line of work. because they have to hold down a different job rather than pursuing their own aspirations. it is about entrepreneurship area is about individual aspiration. creativity. prevention. wellness. many things. like any bill that has ever passed, it is not perfect. we can find ways working together to improve it and you always learn more from implementation. thank you all very much. we watching the warriors now. >>. go on that.
host: mary agnes carey covers all things health care for "kaiser health news." khn.org she is joining us on the phone here in washington. thanks for being with us. ms. carey: thanks for having me. host: walk us through some of the highlights for what house republicans are working to. repealing the mandate. ms. carey: you had to have health insurance or pay a penalty unless you had an exemption. what they are saying now is that you as an individual will not be
charged a penalty if you don't enroll in health insurance. this is been something republicans have wanted to do for a long time. they don't like the idea of the government requiring americans to have insurance or pay a fine. host: it is repealing the insurance penalty that not the insurance mandate. why? ms. carey: the first part of this effort to repeal or replace the aca has to go through a budget reconciliation. they are doing that because that allows the bill to pass with 51 votes in the senate instead of 60. it could not be filibuster. why they focused on the penalty is under budget reconciliation, everything has to have an impact on the budget. the penalty creates a fee, there is a remedy impact and that's why they have focused on the penalty. host: this also includes tax credits. how do they work? ms. carey: they differ from the tax credits in the aca. under the house republican plan, they would be geared more toward age and not income. in the affordable care act, it was more about income where lower income people got a greater share of money. on the republican plan, if you are under 30, it is about $2000, and it ranges up to $4000 for
people 60 and older spirit they are refundable tax credits that can be used to buy insurance. the thought is that if they change the structure, did it away from income-based and make it more for age, older folks may be charged more for their health insurance under the republican plan and that is why they have a greater subsidy for older people. the idea is that you could take the money on the market, buy coverage that is good for you should families get up to $14,000 of these tax credits. they have caused some consternation with conservatives who feel it is an entitlement field -- entitlement. they have done it so that all people from all economic stripes can benefit. host: when would the credits kick in and is there an estimated price tag? ms. carey: we don't know the price tag yet. everyone is waiting on it from
the budget office. that is expected next week and tax credits would kick in in 2020. host: there is a freeze for at least one year for planned parenthood. ms. carey: community health centers are popular with republicans and democrats. they provide a lot of care, especially with low income individuals across the country. the thought is, some of health care that would not be administered at planned parenthood, because of the freeze of money there, it would go to the community health centers to help them care for some of those folks and take the overflow but there has been concerned that perhaps the community health centers won't be able to absorb that. so let's go to planned parenthood.
there is a freeze for a year to planned parenthood for federal funding. republicans have wanted to do this for a long time as planned parenthood, even though it is not the majority of what they provide, they do provide abortions. the key thing, remember there is a federal prohibition -- paper abortions. only allowed for the life of the mother. because planned parenthood provides that service and republicans have been against that service that is the key reason behind they want to stop federal funding for planned parenthood for a year. this is a provision that is really going to have some problems in the senate where we have seen susan collins of maine and lisa murkowski of alaska, two republicans come out, say they propose this. there are only 62 republicans in the senate so this is going to be a problem.
what of the changes in medicaid and what impact will he have? >> the shift in how the medicaid program would operate. right now it is done, it is funded by the federal government on a matching basis with state. it is a variety of percentages. the average is a 54% match for most states, some higher, some lower. there is no ceiling, area it is an entitlement. what would happen under the house republicans proposal is this would become a cap amount of money given to states and states would have more flexibility to administer the medicaid around as they see fit. the concern all around this provision is will it be enough money. will the amount of money rise fast enough to keep up with medicaid expenditures and well this simply be a cost shift not only to state governments but to
the individuals in the program? something like 70 million people in the medicaid program. it couldconcern that cause some major disruptions in the program. proponents of this, paul ryan, the speaker of the house, at his press conference today walked the press thread. many governors want it. we are waiting for the cbo score to lay out the impacts on the medicaid program. contract,mal complicated, it's ultimate premise was to make sure that everyone was insured. what is the incentive under this plan for people who don't want to write insurance? >> if you do not health insurance, if it lacks for more than 63 days. perhaps you had a plan and then you did not have a plan or never enrolled at all. when you went back into the
market, you would be hit by a 30% surcharge for year on your premiums. that is on top of the base premiums. that would be the incentive for you theoretically do not have a lapse in coverage, to make sure you are covered. conversely, critics are looking at this and saying, well if you know you're going to hit a premium surcharge and you do not have insurance now, why would you get in before you got sick? you might wait until you got sick and then be more expensive to take care of. some look at the provision and say it may not really get people in the market or keep them there. host: the reporting of myriad miscarry. -- mary agnes carey. thank you so much for your time. ms. carey: thank you.
no plans to step down after he pushed back president trump's allegations that the obama ministration caps on said trump tower. director, earmarks next. the house oversight committee continues the investigation of the death and integrations investment organization killed in 2011. > a marine unit has been> deployed to syria. the deputy commandant will take questions on the operation and on long-term graincorp readiness from the house armed services committee meeting at nine clock a.m. eastern. in the afternoon a number of native american tribes will protest the code access pipeline with astone xl project rally across from the white house. at 1:00 p.m. eastern also live on c-span two.
>> there must let styles. tons of money. i do think that they make it to the very top and stay there, not primarily motivated by money. they want to have standing and status. it wants to be respected. they want to have power. rex sunday night on q&a. beyond global founder and ceo ,iscusses her book super hubs how the financial elite and their networks rule our world. crocs i think many see what is wrong with the system but it is one of the key questions i asked. prisonerold the system or are the prisoners of the system? is this their fault or is it the system's fault? in the end, i come to the conclusion that it is the interaction of both. >> sunday night on c-span's q&a.
>> this weekend american history tv on c-span3. on the civil war, a republican authority regulates on what might have been, had he not been assassinated. >> we would have to assume that he was going to follow a very cautious plan. he might not have been willing to have black codes implemented for instance. he certainly would have been much more conciliatory. >> on real america, the 1952 film round-trip usa in world trade. >> 10 million from this yard alone. >> sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. we tore carpenters hall, the ball and served as a meeting place for the first continental congress in 7074. >> you all are never entered henry for his give me liberty or give me death.
his more significant was remark made here in the earlier days. roomhe looks around the said gentlemen, we are no longer from massachusetts. we are no longer from pennsylvania. we no longer are from virginia. we are all americans. >> at 8:00, on the presidency, ronald reagan and the transformation of global politics. >> the reagan administration was attentive to human rights violations elsewhere in the soviet area focusing considerable attention on the martialision to impose law. in response to the influence of solidarity, the union movement there. >> for the complete schedule go to c-span.org.
>> james comey talking about seven or security concerns. the fbi's increasing focus on cyber security, and the importance of private companies partnering with law enforcement agencies. he also said he intends to serve out the rest of his term as fbi director. this conference was held at boston college. [applause] dir. comey: good morning. things for allowing me to share some thoughts with you. this is the perfect place to have this conference and i am thrilled to be part of the inaugural gathering. i hope there will be many more. it is a pleasant place not just because of the challenges and opportunities in this great city and region, but because boston college as a leader in thinking and educating on these incredibly important issues.
this is a great place to have it, i hope you will do it many more times. you are stuck with me for about another six and a half years. i would love to be invited back again. any place called irish hall is a neat place to have this given my background. i want to share with you thoughts about how the fbi thinks about the threat we all face and how the fbi has been trying to address that threat. a key part of that approach is going to involve the partnerships that special agent shaw referred to. and after i am done talking, i will take your questions. you can as the about anything, i am very slippery and i will avoid things i don't want to talk about. [laughter] dir. comey: let me begin by talking about the threats. to state the obvious, the threats are too fast, too big and too widespread for any of us
to address them alone. the way we think about fighting terrorism is very similar. the threats are hard to see and moving quickly. we need to work together to address them. that is every bit as true when it comes to cyber threats. and let me start with who we think of as bad actors. i think of it as a stack, kind of like an evil layer cake. at the top of that stack are nation states. think china, north korea, russia. just below that are multinational syndicates that are involved in increasingly specialized roles to steal information, money, innovation through the cyber vector and often times doing it on behalf
of nationstates and often times doing it on behalf of anyone willing to pay for it. nationstates, international cyber syndicates, the next layer, the group of people we would lump together under the insider threat. employees, contractors, people who for any number of reasons might be moved to penetrate a network from the inside. it could be motivated by personal grudges, by ideological police or money. next down the step is hacktivists. and the bottom of the stack is terrorists. the reason they are there at the bottom of the stack is because they are deft at using the internet to communicate and proselize, but not at threat they are looking to exploit the weakest link, human beings.
as good as we become at detection and patching and firewalls, we are only as good as the cyber security of individual employees, so the whole stack is focused on social engineering to find out how our people think and work and operates and see if there is a way into a network. what are they after? information, access, advantage. it is not just about the loss of data.
increasingly we are worried about the corruption of data. think about the harm someone can do by an intrusion at a blood bank and changing blood types. an intrusion on a financial institution and changing a few digits in the holdings of an institution. and we are worried about the lack of access to data that shuts a business down. think sony. the impact is obvious, as well. these are more than just attacks on our infrastructure, they are taxed on employees and customers, they are taxed on reputation and our economy insecurity. and they are increasingly attacks on our fundamental rights, the right guaranteed to us as free people in this great country. what can we do? we cannot prevent every attack. the attack surface is too big, the weakness of systems and people too pronounced and ubiquitous, but this behavior is
subject to deterrence. people conducting cyber intrusions are not high on crack. they are not motivated and inflamed by passion that often motivates people to bad acts. there is a lot of thinking that goes into cyber intrusions, and we believe there is a way to influence behavior, to impose some thoughtfulness on people. to do that, we believe we have to be more predictive and less reactive. we think there are three things that we can do together to address this threat. first, reduce of vulnerabilities overall, and that involves us in the fbi helping you in the private sector and our partners in the government understand what are the bad guys doing, how are they coming after us, what are their tactics, what are their techniques, what are their fingerprints? by sharing that information, we allow you to harden your target
against the bad guys. we also think part of this is making cyber security a priority at all levels. am talking to a group of people who did it, but it is very important that cyber security not be one risk assigned to some guy in the basement of your enterprise to focus on. because the threat threatens the entire enterprise, so it must be thought of as an enterprise risk. in must be thought of at the board level, and it is something that has to be embedded in every single thing and enterprise does. second, we have to work together to try and reduce the threat. i will hit that little bit more when i explained what the fbi is doing. we need to find people responsible for the intrusions and hold them accountable in order to force some reflection on that actors before they act. and we have to be better at mitigating the damage. we think we have a role to play there and helping victims
understand just what as happened to them so they can get back on their feet. that is what we think we can do together, but i want to focus exactly on what the fbi strategy is here. so when you ask questions, you can poke at it and give me feedback. there are five parts to the fbi strategy to address all things cyber. first, we are trying to focus. by that, we mean focus ourselves in a better way. we are doing that in a number of different ways inside the fbi that may not be apparent from the outside. the normal way the fbi assigns work is by asking a basic question, where did it happen? and wherever it happened, we assign it to that field office where that places. where did the bank robbery occur? it occurred in the boston division, so boston division
will work it. when it comes to cyber, that framework breaks down. he gets where it happened, if that is all you ask, you may end up with some random manifestation of a threat that is coming from someplace on the other side of the earth that is hitting many places in the united states and around the world and just happens to pop in a particular place. we think if we find a work based on that often random manifestation of the threat, we may not be at our best. we have developed the cyber threat team model and are doing something new. we are assigning cyber intrusion based on who shows the chops. which office has shown the greatest ability to respond, detect and respond to and thwart a sophisticated adversary. and whoever is best, we give it to that office. and because physical manifestation is a real thing
and there are executives that have to be talked to, victims of have to be interviewed, physical machines have to be examined in a particular place, we allow up to four other offices to help. we call those attack offices. and to make sure it does not become chaotic, air traffic control is run from the cyber division headquarters. a field office that has shown itself to be excellent at this could be little rock, but the intrusion could be somewhere else. this has the consequence of generating competition in the
fbi. we want people to try and steal ownership of a threat from other parts of the enterprise. i don't mean by being sneaky, i mean by showing you have the chops. we have shown we can work it in a great way. we think that will have the effect of lifting the entire cyber program a good way. second, we've come up with a concept we borrowed from the world of counterterrorism, because counterterrorism requires response a moments notice to incidents that are horrific and maybe anywhere around the country or world. we have flight teams when it comes to counterterrorism, experts who have a go back with them at all times. when something happens in the united states or around the world, the team goes to that spot. we are going with the same sort of things with cyber. we have something called the
cyber action team, where we have experts who know at a moments notice they have to be prepared, even though it is a virtual world, they have to be prepared to be physically present at the site of a cyber intrusion at an emergency event. these people are all over the country and know that this is one of their responsibilities. last, in every field office, we have cyber task forces. as you heard from hank shaw, we live on the concept that we do nothing alone. we bring together great talent to form a cyber task force so we have the chops in each field office to respond to threats, collect evidence, to think in a great way about how his threat is moving. most important, to share information with the private sector and get appropriate information from the private sector. that is one way we are trying to focus ourselves. the second way is by stealing your talents.
by stealing the great people who work for you, and you can see our interests are not entirely aligned here. by attracting great talent to work for the fbi, to respond to the sophisticated threat. we all face the same challenge, a shortage of cyber trained talent. here is the challenge we face. we cannot compete with you on dough. you have more than we do. you do not come to the fbi for a living. if you did, we lied to you in the recruiting process. [laughter] dir. comey: we bad mouth you. the pitch we make is come be part of this mission, come be part of something that is really hard and stressful, that does
not pay a lot of money or offer a lot of sleep, how often does that sound? the good news is that a whole lot of young people want to be part of that kind of mission and want to be part of doing good for a living. "the new york times" did a survey last year of over 50,000 young people and ask them to name their ideal employer. 50,000. the fbi was number five. apple was number four, which is a painful thing to contemplate. [laughter] dir. comey: we have to be ahead of them in terms of attracting people to be part of this mission. one of our major challenges, summed up by one of my daughters, she said to me the problem is that you are the man. i took it as a compliment. she said, "no, i don't mean that as a complement. the problem is, who would want to work for the man?" i said, you are right, but you
are wrong. if people knew what this was really about, they would want to be part of this mission. we are trying to show people what this is like your the fbi is an addictive life. most no one leaves. matter what you look like or your background, if you become a special agent, our turnover is about the same, about .5%. it is addictive work. we are trying to show people what it is like to be part of this mission. part of avoiding this you are the man trap is to be cooler than i may appear. we are not going to have beanbag chairs and granola, but close to that. we want young people to understand their opportunities in the fbi they may not realize.
no opportunities will come to them. something else we face, we need integrity, we need physicality. if you are going to carry a weapon on behalf of the united states of america, you have to be able to run, fight and shoot. and we need high intelligence and specialized intelligence. those are rare attributes. we find people who are high in integrity and cannot do a push-up. then there are the people who are great behind a computer but might want to smoke weed on the way to the interview. one of the things we're considering is can we grow more of our own?
attract those great people of integrity, physicality and intelligence and grow our own specialization inside the fbi to meet the need for the talent we have today. i don't want to give away too many more of our secrets about how we will approach this, but among the things we're trying to think about is, are there better ways to offer an interchange between public and private? one of the parts of our fbi culture is you come and never leave. we want to make it easier for agents to work in the private sector and then come back to the fbi. we are going to take great ideas from the young people we hire. we are trying to focus on talent and focus ourselves in a better way. second, we are trying to shrink
the world. the cyber threat has made everyone a next-door neighbor to everyone else. belarus and boston are next-door neighbors on the internet. the bad guys have made it small. the way we have to respond is shrink back on behalf of the good people. we have to make sure we have to make sure we're clear inside the government on who has what responsibilities. at the end of president obama's administration, he offered us the clarity that so many of us have wanted. the lanes in the road -- the fbi responsibility is threat response. to figure out what the bad guys are doing and to respond. homeland security is responsible for mitigation. being great at helping people get back on their feet. national intelligence is responsible for making sure we all have the intelligence we need to understand the threat and mitigated responsibility. but here is the deal, it should
not matter who you call. one of the things we have gotten better at since september 11 is it does not matter to whom you report a terrorism threat. if you have a tip in to walk up to a sheriff's officer or an fbi agent, it does not matter. the information will get to the joint terrorism task force almost instantly. we have to get to the same place with cyber. i think we have clarity, but you don't need to remember that. we have to get to a place and we are pretty close, that where no matter who you offer information to come a gets to the people who can act on it. that needs to be our responsibility, not yours. and we won't make the world smaller by forward deploying our people. more cyber attaches, special
agents embedded in industries around the world and intelligence agents that specialize in cyber. even though intelligence moves at the speed of light, and relies on human intelligence to shrink the world against the bad people. third, we want to make sure that when a bad actor sits at a keyboard, they feel our breath their neck. we have the literally lock people up who engage in cyber intrusions to impose cost. people often say, they are halfway around the world, how will you find them? they vacation, as well. they go on honeymoons, to visit friends, and by knitting together the good people of law enforcement and national security, we are able to lay hands on those people much more often than before.
that imposes a cost that makes others think about us. even if we can't lock people up, we think it is to call out the conduct. we did that two years ago by indicting people from the people's liberation army in china, by indicting people in iran in 2013. we believe that has a wanted poster with your face on it, even if you said halfway around the world working for another government, get your attention. even if you're working for another government halfway around the world, you to dream of traveling and your children going abroad to be educated. we have many flaws, but we are dogged people.
we just gave up on db cooper recently. [laughter] dir. comey: it took us over 50 years to give that one appeared the man jumped out of an aircraft over the cascades. we don't give up. we are dog people who don't forget and we think that impacts people. we think it changes behavior. part of this is grappling as a community of nations towards norms. cyberspace is relatively new to all of us and we are, bit by bit, trying to establish norms of behavior. among the key norms we have had discussions with our counterparts in china about our and understanding of a framework like this -- nationstates engage in intelligence gathering. they always have and always will. our job at the fbi is to stop them from stealing information for their advantage as a nation. that goes on and will always go on. what nationstates do not do and cannot do is steal stuff to make money. to steal innovation, formulas, plant seeds in order to benefit commercial enterprise.
that is criminal behavior. that is different from the actions of a nationstate engaged in espionage. since the indictment of the pla actors, we have seen positive steps from china toward embracing that framework and understanding the difference between nations they conduct an criminal activity and helping us investigate the criminal activity. we are working very hard, whether it is through indictment, arrest, prosecution or simply naming, calling it out, and making people think about us before they put their fingers on the keyboard. the fourth thing we're trying to do is help state and local partners deal with the fact that almost every criminal investigation state requires digital literacy. in the good old days, for those
of you who have been around a while, you can execute a search warrant on a drug location and find one of those black composition notebooks where people would have written how many kilos and how it was split up and who would do what, who were the runners, who were the enforcers. today, that same search warrant requires you to take it exploit lawfully thumb drives, laptops, tablets, all manner of digital devices. to do anything in the criminal investigative world requires computer literacy. one of the things we're trying to do is add better training, better partnership and lift the tide of digital literacy across the united states. the fbi, as big as we are, simply cannot get to all frauds and all intrusions coming through the internet. i'm told people get him mills from me saying i'm in nigeria and need you to wire me money. i'm never in nigeria and need
you to wire me money. but that rips off old people. we think we can help our partners of state and local law enforcement help that. and last, we have to get better in working with the private sector. you in the private sector of the primary targets of cyber intrusions because the data, the innovation, the money, every thing sits on your networks. because that is where it sits, that is where the bad guys go, whether they are a nationstate, a fraudster or the functional equivalent of a bank robber. here is a depressing fact. the majority of intrusions in this country are not reported to us.
they are kept from us by companies who think, "we just need to take care of this thing and get on with their business. we don't need to get entangled with the feds, it will be such a hassle. we need to remediate this thread and pay this ransom and move on with our operations." that is a terrible place to be. it is a great thing to hire the excellent private sector companies that are available to do remediation, but if the information is not shared with us, we will all be sorry, because you're kidding yourself if you think, i will just remediate this thing and it will go away. it will never go away. it will be back to hit you, your neighbors and your family. it is shortsighted to conclude that our interests are not aligned when it comes to this. a lot of times people think the
fbi interest is long-term and mine are short term. but they are the same. how are we going to get you to talk to us more? do explain you how we operate in why we are practiced and expert at treating you like the victims that you are. we have gotten very good over the last 100 years at treating victims of a filing crime like the victims they are and making sure they are not the victimized by a legal process, by the disclosure of personal information, so they are not retraumatized by our engagement. a company that suffers an intrusion is also a victim and they will be treated that way by the fbi. we know that one of our obstacles that we need conservative general councils. i was one of those general
councils. you worry whether it will violate an obligation and a different place, what will it mean with regulators, how will this all work? this is too much risk, let's remediate and move on. we think we have a compelling case to make based on a track record of hundreds and hundreds of investigations that we will protect your privacy, we will not share data about your employees and operations, and we will have an adult conversation at the beginning to explain, here is what we will do with the information you share with us so that you, as a counselor or ceo, can make a judgment about risks and benefits. maybe after the conversation you decide you do not want to cooperate, but i think it is highly likely that after you understand how we operate, you will.
your main question is what do , you need from us? i would suggest to you, what we need from you is for you to get to know us before there is an intrusion. i guarantee that all of you have significant facilities, have a relationship with the fire department. they know your layout, your generator, your setup, your pipes. they don't know any of your proprietary information but they know enough so that if in the midst of a crisis with smoke all around, they can find their way in and save lives of people who work with you. i think we need to get to a similar place. we were able to respond to the place. we could respond to the