Type of threatening coercion that doesnt really fit in the relationship between sovereigns. This 39 School Corporations who have joined, i was talking to a few people in the hall. They are usually not standing next to me during my election process. Lets leave it at that. But they were very concerned about the way we educate our children and the way our School Corporations as a part of our sovereign government has been structured. We have a school board. They elect the people who run the school and they use parttime workers. So its bus drivers, the teachers aid, people that work in the cafeteria. Under indianas law, 30 hours or 37 1 2 hours, anything less than that is parttime. Were going to have our last keynote address and then we will break for lunch, which will be held upstairs on the second floor. Our final speaker of the day is the attorney general of oklahoma, scott pruitt. He holds the merit of he holds the distinction of seeing the merit in this litigation before any other attorney general. He was the first to challenge the irs disputed taxes and spending way back in september 2012. Last month, fairly slowly it seems, a Federal District court in oklahoma rules for general pruitts case and against the federal government, the Obama Administration not surprisingly has appealed that to the 10th circuit, which will hear oral arguments in january. Scott was elected attorney general of oklahoma in 2010. His official biography says that as attorney general, he is dedicated to fighting corruption, which i assume would include illegal taxes, mandates and subsidies imposed by the federal government. He established oklahomas first federalism unit in the office of solicitor general to combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by the federal government and has led efforts to bring attorneys general together to advance policies and legal strategies that protect the interests of their states from an overly intrusive federal government, including a multistate lawsuit challenging the con sstitutionality of the dodd frank law. Most importantly, for seven years he was the managing general partner of the aaa Baseball Team in oklahoma city, some honest work. Welcome to the podium. Thank you. Its good to see you. [ applause ] it was honest work. I enjoyed my time as a owner of aaa baseball. Im disappointed about last nights outcome of game seven of the world series. We were rooting for the kansas city royals. But it was a great series, a great time for baseball. Sometimes the mistake is made david is from kentucky. He will understand this. Sometimes the mistake is made when im introduced that i played basketball. I played baseball and then i will step out from behind the podium and im 59 and people say you didnt play basketball. That is true. They recruit people taller than i at that university. I want to say thanks to david for the invitation and to michael as well. Its a joy to be here. General zoeller presented this morning. Its good to see you. Its good to have partners and teammates in the room. I do want to offer, if i might i know you have had many discussion points today on policy, the legal components. If i could offer something to you to generally before i get into the specifics of oklahomas case. A couple of policy statements that i think are relevant. One, i think we need to remind our friends on the left that Health Insurance does not equate to healthcare. Sometimes, policy makers both at the federal and state level believe that they can simply expand eligibility and coverage and somehow that magically will fix all of our healthcare outcomes in this country. Thats not the case. At the end of the day, you still need a physician in a treatment room providing care to a patient. Unless a doctor is willing to take the reimbursement rates that are being paid to him or her, that means that will affect care. In the state of oklahoma, to give an example, 14 or 15 years ago when i was in the legislature, the state of oklahoma expanded eligibility. And it increased federal poverty up i think at least 200 . It may have been beyond 200 . So politicians all over the state were able to go out and stay, look what we have done. We have provided more Health Insurance to those that needed it as if that was going to fix all of these healthcare outcomes. There were two doctors, two, pediatricians, in all of the city of tulsa, that were willing to take the reimbursement rate. As such, all you had was long lines, delayed treatment for those that needed it there in the city of tulsa. One, i think we need to remind those in this policy debate that Health Insurance and healthcare are two different concepts. Also, this, as you expand the role of government, particularly the federal government, but government generally as a payor, then medical inflation will continue to rise in a substantial way. We talk about using these programs that are talked about at the Affordable Care act state level. We need to curtail outflow and cost of medical care and what ends up happening is a continued expansion of the role of government. Which is working opposite of controlling cost. Thats not why im here. Its not what i do day to day. But its relevant to my comments today. Here is why. Because when the lawsuits were initially initiated by attorne s s general and by states, the original challenge to the unconstitutionality of the law of the Affordable Care act in march of 2010, you remember the criticism levelled against states attorney general. It was a political case. It was to make the administration look bad. It was an election year. Attorneys general being used as a puppet to go out and challenge the administration to do what . Bring disrepute to the Affordable Care act. It was political, they said. They also said that it was about policy, the fact that attorneys general didnt like the content of the law. Now i will be the first to tell you that if i were in congress at the time that the law was pa passed would have argued against it and tried to defeat it. I will say to you, my colleagues, when these lawsuits have been initiated, fundamentally they are not about politics and not about policy. They are about something more transecen transcendent. Its rule of law. The cases that michael and general zoeller and the state of oklahoma are involved in is about something more important than simply one piece of legislation. We see this in other fields. David mentioned doddfrank. We see it in the energy sector. We see it in the finance sector as i indicated. We see it an attitude that permeates washington, d. C. Agencies believing they possess the authority to improve upon a statute. To change a statute, to repeal a statute, so long as the results are what we think need to occur, they say. So long as we think its what congress intended. I will get to that in a second. We have the authority to change the reading of the statute, to achieve outcomes that we think are most appropriate. Well, last time i checked, thats not how our system works. Last time i checked, fifth grade civics teaches us that the executive branch exists to enforce the law as passed by the legislative branch. When the legislative branch passes and adopts a piece of legislation that establishes boundaries for an agency, you dont get to legislative intent. Thats whats remarkable about the arguments being offered. They go into the cases as they did in oklahoma and they say clearly congress the wouldnt have intended this type of result. We were trying to expand access to healthcare, they say. So we cant read the statute that way. Really . Then why does the statute say what it says . That really is the tug and pull that we have experienced in oklahoma and im sure michael has experienced and general zoeller as well. These issues about policy and politics have not driven, in my estimation, the lawsuits that have been filed, fundamentally, its about rule of law and making sure agencies are accountable to the laws as passed by the legislative body. History about our lawsuit in oklahoma. We actually i filed our lawsuit in january of 2011. I was elected november of 2010, was sworn in in january of 11. I joined 27 other states at that time. Filed a separate litigation in oklahoma. Oklahoma passed a constitutional amendment in november of 2010 saying that no government, the federal government, could compel the purchase of Health Insurance. It was an antiindividual mandate provision. It was in the constitution. So i defended our constitutional provision against the aca in federal court in oklahoma. Started litigating in january of 11. Shortly thereafter, the judge stayed the case. It sat until june of 2012. After the decision in june of 2012, we did what most states across the country started doing, evaluating the implementation of the law. As you know this is something that has to be said. Because those on left and the media say we have litigated this so much. Why are we continuing to see litigation . The litigation in 2012 that made it to the Supreme Court was about one thing and one thing only, did congress have the authority to pass the law . Not whether agency were implementing the law with what . . H adherence to the language but whether they had the authority under the commerce clause. Medicaid expansion was a bill part as well. The states won on that giving each state the option, the discretion on whether to set up medica medicaid. That was thestistutionalitycons. Micha michaels lawsuit is about Something Different. Its about whether the agencies are adhering to the language in the statute. We started evaluating that in august of 2012. I know this will shock you. But we learned these agencies in fact were not, particularly the irs. So when we evaluated this Healthcare Exchange issue, every state in the country had a decision to make under the law on whether to set up an exchange. It was a policy decision. It was legislative on whether to set up a change. Congress incentivized, as you heard, the creation of exchanges. Why did they do that . Because they couldnt require it or mandate it. That would violate the constitution. So congress did what they always do whether they want the states to act a particular way. They offered money to the states. They appropriated billions of dollars, one in the creation of exchanges but two they tied the subsidies to the creation of a state exchange. I will say to you that there was policy and political reasons why congress did that. The policy reason is there were some senators, particularly senator from nebraska at the time, believed that the federal exchange was a precursor to the single payer system and was concerned about that and wanted states to have a vibrant role in the setting up of exchanges but secondly, there was a political calculation bit administration. They wanted to share the responsibility of the rollout of the Affordable Care act with all the states across the country. We now know why. Because theyre not very good at it. They knew it then and they didnt appropriate the money. They wanted all the states with the federal government working toward this implementation. When 36 states said no, there was a problem. Unfortunately, rather than go back to congress, which is what the president and those that pass the aca should do to fix whatever portions of the law that created this dynamic of 36 states saying no, they took this attitude that i talked about at the beginning. Were going to improve the statute or change the statute. And disregard section 1311 and say that the subsidies can be issued in all 50 states irrespective of the decision the policy decision that was reserved to the states. Now, that should offend everyone in this room, whether you are for or against the healthcare law, the Affordable Care act, we should all care about an agency after the fact saying that they have the authority and the power because of a Certain Circumstance to change the law. Thats, in fact, what the irs did. We sued. I amended. We had the only live case in the country from a state perspective at that time, august of 2012, our case was dormant. It was the only case in the country. We went to the court, amended our complaint and brought the lawsuit against the agencies in question, with respect to the rule that was adopted in may of 2012 by the irs. Thats what we have been doing since that time. Now, david made the comment that things are moving slow in oklahoma. Im just glad that we got a good outcome the last two to three weeks. It has been a period of time that we have been litigating this. Obviously, im encouraged about what judge white said. I want to call to your attention some comments that judge white made. In his opinion, he addresses this political policy aspect. Because there are many if you read the briefs in oklahoma that were filed by the Justice Department, theres in my estimation theres more policy discussion than there is legal analysis. It was more trying to shame the court and shame the state for trying to fulfill the statute as passed by congress. Here is what judge white said in response to some of the not intere interest magss made in arguments as well as in the briefs. An agency rule making power is not to make law. These are direct quotes from the order. An agencys rule making power is not to make law. Its only the power to adopt regulations to carry into affect the will of congress as expressed by the statute. He goes on, the court is aware that the stakes are higher in the case than they might be in another case. The issue of consequences has been touched upon in the previous decisions discussed. He is speaking speaking of his decision to vacate the irs rule, the majority stated, we reached this conclusion frankly with reluctance. He goes on, this is a case of statutory interpretation. The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits. Such a case, even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal, does not gut or destroy anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the act as written. Congress is free to amend the aca to provide for tax credits in the staid ate and federal exchanges if thats the legislative will. That think matter. Its great to hear a court in this country, a federal judge say what he said. And im hopeful that tomorrow we are on the eve of perhaps a decision by the u. S. Supreme court to take up the case to settle this and provide the clarity needed across this country. 36 states have said no to an exchange. 36 states collectively have made that decision based upon statutory language and policy considerations. And right now, we have uncertainty about the decisions that they have made and citizens across the country, including employers. Because we know the consequence of not setting up an exchange is more than just simply subsidies not being issued to citizens in your state. We know had a it affects the employer mandate. I would also submit to you something that is not talked about as much is the individual mandate is affected as well. Because under the Affordable Care act, there are exemptions provided to individuals if your healthcare cost eclipse 8 of your annual income. The administration knew that as this law was passed that the healthcare costs would rise dramatically and they wanted to use the subsidies to avoid the eclipsing of the 8 flesh hold. If 800 billion are not issued in 36 states, not only is the employer mandate going to be crippled, but many individuals across those states are not going to have to comply with the individual mandate. So this is a critical, critical lawsuit. Because it goes to the heart of whether this administration, these agencies at the federal level can in fact enforce the law as was set up at the beginning. It is desperately needed for the Supreme Court to deal with this issue sooner rather than later. Im hopeful that we receive good news about the petition. It has been filed by michael. We support that. I know general zoeller does as well. We will be there to support that in inany way we can. This is an issue that needs to be resolved. I want to address this argument that was made about i mentioned the policy on the political side of the decision to bring a lawsuit and that that was not the consideration and not the focus. As we got into the litigation, the response by the Justice Department was that our argument was absolutely fanciful. It was absurd is the word that was used. Because of the what . Impact that it would have and they took this position that was almost a very arrogant issue as it relates to i cant believe that a state or plaintiff would bring this lawsuit against the federal government in this way. And then we found out about what . A video. You have talked about the video, obviously, that was found. And the audio i dont flow if you listened to the audio as well. We had the at built in oklahoma to do something that was pretty important. After the video came out and the audio came out, clearly Jonathan Gruber said initially it was a mistake, that he didnt intend what he said. Its always interesting that people say that. I know you heard me. I know i said those words, disregard the content and meaning of those words. I didnt mean that at all. Then the audio was found later and maybe subsequent videos as well. We filed a notice of Supplemental Authority in our case. Our case was still pending. After the videos came down. Those video and that audio, they were not part of any record in any case in the country. So we had the luxury and the latitude when those videos were produced to file a notice of Supplemental Authority. The judge actually made reference to it. In his order. Here is what he said. I thought you might find this interesting. The court permitted the plaintiff, the state of oklahoma, to supplement the record with statements made by professor Jonathan Gruber was involved in the acas drafting. Its undisputed that in january of 2012, he made the statement, if you are a state and you dont set up an exchange, that means your citizens dont get their tax credits. Whats disputed is whether it was off the cuff, which you have addressed earlier today. He goes on to say, the statements cut against any argument, this is whats important. The statements cut against any argument that the statutory language might support a reading of Incentivizing States to set up exchanges as nonsense made up out of whole cloth. Those v