Dialogue on the current legislative issues. In particular, id really like to thank chairman greg walden for being here today, particularly after the news we all heard this morning. Here at Bloomberg Government our tools, news and analysis are aligned with topics that the house energy and Commerce Committee has been working on. Were looking forward to discussing with him health care, energy, Consumer Protection among other topics. With that id like to introduce my colleague, lauren duggen who leads content at Bloomberg Government and will be chatting with greg walden this morning. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you toerch for joining us today. Obviously were beginning the event under a little bit of a darker circumstance, but i wanted to ask you, chairman walden, what do you know so far and whats the status of your colleagues at the moment . Thank you and good morning. Its not the way we want to start a day any day, and i hope well have a moment of silence and put in our prayers the lives of those being tended to at the hospitals in the washington d. C. Area. Including the majority leader who i have no firsthand knowledge, but i believe was hit in the hip and apparently two of his security detail as well in the shooting at the baseball practice out in outside of alexandria. Maybe we could take a moment of silence and pray for their health and recovery. Thank you. Thank you so much, mr. Chairman. I think it bears noting there was a security detail there which might have helped the situation out. These are people that follow the leaders of congress around and keep them safe. Its a reminder of the threats that exist and the bravery of the people that protect our leaders. Worth noting that as well. We come here today with a packed congressional agenda and perhaps no committee has a broader agenda than yours given the reach to health care, the energy and the environment, telecom, technology, all those issues. Its hard to pick one to start with. Id like to start with the biggest one, which i think is health care. Where do you assess the debate today . We know your Senate Colleagues are working on a bill, maybe behind closed doors now, circulating language. Where do you assess the status of this . In the first few months the year when we had this task before us, we got a lot of public suggestions from colleagues across the aisle. After we passed the bill and sent it to the senate, thats been kind of radio silent thereafter. They have a tough job. I respect that. And i know theyre serious about their work. I nola mar aleck zander is a terrific legislator. If anyone can pull it together, its him and warren hatch and the others involved. Its hard doing major reform of entitlement programs, something involving insurance at any level, especially Health Insurance is very difficult work, and they have virtually no margin of votes like we had virtually no margin to work with. Theirs is even tighter. I want to be respectful of their work. I would say this. That as part of getting them the reconciliation vehicle, we always understood there were changes, at least i understood, there would be changes to the bill, hopefully improvements in the bill. You always want your legislation to get better. To that end, we carved out some head room, if you will, about 86 billion that would be available to make other changes within the bill that they have access to. You see the data coming out of hhs and the studies. Theyre far more realistic than cbos and the insurance number, and so i im hopeful. I think theyll get Something Back to us, and then well have to evaluate it in the context of the votes we have. And with the support of the president. Is this a bill that you see headed to a Conference Committee where youre going to hash it out, or do you think if it passes the senate, thats what you have to work with and youll have to accept it . Im not going to preclude any potential future to continue to improve the legislation. We have to see what they pass. And when they pass it. The key for me is can we get a good package together that works for americans that deals with our budgetary problems, that fixes the individual Insurance Market that its inarguable that it is collapsing around us. We can argue over the support mechanisms that are there, but in the long run, this individual Insurance Market is becoming terribly expensive, and youre seeing fewer and fewer choices for people who are in that market to get access to Health Insurance at all. And you run into people who arent receiving the subsidies who are in the individual market. I talked to a woman, her premiums for 600 a month and her deductible is 16,000. She has it for catastrophic, basically. Thats not really what was intended, im sure, by the last administration. So we having work to do to fix this. Is there a plan b if this reconciliation bill doesnt get through the senate. Are you considering reduction issues the csr issue, i weighed in after evaluating it. I believe while it clearly we had won the lawsuit that the way the Obama Administration did it was illegal, the commitment in the contracts were such that we needed to make good on the contracts. And we didnt want to bring too much disruption, any disruption, any unnecessary disruption to the market. My view from the beginning has been that the csr should be funded but funded legally, and there are ways to do that. I think that would give stability to the market. Is that something you see needing to happen sooner rather than later . Lets see what happens in the next month or so. But i think whatever goes forward, our goal should be stability, the market, lower premiums, more access and choice. And i think our legislation when analyzed, even as it came out of the house, would provide lower premiums, according to cbo and others in the out years, but we begin to bend the curve down and achieve it. Im not sure there are any other plans out there that do that. Does the 23 million number concern you when it comes to messaging the bill . Sure it does. I dont believe its accurate. Cbo has a difficult job to do. But their analysts put an enormous premium on the effect of the individual mandate. I believe that that view is overrated, and dispelled by their own data against reality. If you look at the report that just came out in terms of obama care enrollment. In 2016 and 2017, theyre off by a two to one ratio in terms of how many people they said were signed up versus how many are. Year by year theyre off by about a two to one ratio. I spoke to a group of cfos who said if your predictions and calculations were off by two to one, do you think youd still be working for the ceo . I mean, this is crazy. While they have a tough job, they get it wrong consistently and dramatically when it comes to enrollment. I have a different view. When we did Medicare Part d, we had more flexibility to enact the legislation, and if you look at where we are on Medicare Part d, its 52 lower in drug costs today than what the cbo said it would be in 2003. Theres a dynamic competitive marketplace with an exchange, if you will. Seniors like it, about 85 approval. No bus trips to canada and mexico much anymore to get drugs. It works. It works. There are ways to design the markets that will cork, and it is what it is. What flexibility do you sense on the package of medicaid, changes in particular, that were in your bill . Well, this is one of the tougher parts. It was hard for us as well. Because half the republicans in the house come from states that are expansion states like mine. Half are from states that didnt do the expansion. Thats a natural conflict then. What we tried to do was make sure that states could cover low income individuals appropriately but not have a blank check. And thats why with the per capita caps we put in in traditional medicaid, if you look at the medicaid cpi medical and cpi medical plus one, those are the two different categories we did, those numbers generally run above what states are spending today, but it puts it on a budget. Now, the expansion population is the issue. If you cut to the chase, the debate were having over medicate is what percent should states bear in support of low income people who need medical care in their states versus the federal taxpayer. On the expanded population obama care said well pick up 100 . If somebody gave you a credit card and said shop and buy whatever you want, well pay the whole thing, youre going to make choices about which stores you go to. If its your credit card, you make a different choice. In a state such as mine, our f map rate is 63 . That means the federal government pings up that much. State picks up 37 . When obamacare phases in, the debate will be between a 90 on the expanded population and 63 . Whats the right number . The head room that we gave the senate in some funding allows them to adjust the tax credits, and ive always felt they should be adjusted to income, and some other support mechanisms plus the Patient State Stability Fund at 138 billion. It gives them a lot of flexibility. They can adjust the timelines on the expansion. If theres a phase down, phase out, they can adjust the ratios. They have a lot of opportunities to figure that out. Theyve got to do it in the context of their politics. Well have to do it in the context of our politics, but i believe the they have a lot of tools in the tool box to work with. A related program thats not been part of the reconciliation debate but faces a deadline is chip, the childrens Health Insurance program. What principles do you take and how long of an extension are you supportive of and are there issues . Before we get to that one, we had the user fee agreements with fda. We voted that out of committee 540. That was on a the next deadline. We have a bunch of these deadlines. You have to be chairman and discover deadlines. Ill have to talk to fred upton. No. These are on my watch, but its always fun to blame fred, you know. So we got whar we called it going, the user fee agreements. Were working with the senate to get that done. If we dont get done in the next few weeks perhaps fda has to send out layoff notices. Do you have floor time for that bill . Yeah. Im not worried about that. Now to your question on sship. This is an Important Program for the states and children in the states. When obama dacare was construct there was a notion schip wouldnt need to be. That hasnt played out. And so were looking now at that reauthorization. How long, how much, when do you fund it . And all of that. Im not going to get too far over my ski tips in terms of what were going to do. But we recognize its an Important Program. I anticipate reauthorization, but were going to evaluate it as well. The majority leader talked a lot about phase one, phase two, phase three. Phase one being the reconciliation, phase two being what secretary price can do, phase three, other Things Congress can do. What are the oh things in phase three you want to pursue . Phase three is like what we passed this week or will pass this week on medical malpractice reform. We couldnt do that in the context of reconciliation because of the rules, but it will save up to 52 billion to taxpayers if we enact what california has. Were passing that in the house. The Association Health plans. We looked at that. Were trying to evaluate how you would do purchase across the state lines and create a national marketplace. Theres one thing after another here that youll see us take up and move forward as time sort of permits given these other mandatory things we have to address on the health side. You know, well be working on these. Remember, those we knew it would require 60 votes in the senate. Some of these we passed in the senate before, and its kind of that Jimmy Buffett song if the phone doesnt ring, it must be me. You dont hear much back. Theyve got a tougher hill to climb. When it comes to your home state senator ron wyden, hes worked on ideas. Are there ideas you and he have about issues specific to oregon when it comes to health care that youd like to pursue. We held up the aisle in the Alaska Airlines flight for about an hour flying back to oregon and talking about a host of issues. Not a lot on health care, i would confess. More on some Natural Resource issues and a few other things in that conversation. He lives and breathes health care and finance. He had a medicare reform proposal with speaker ryan several years ago. There may be opportunities Going Forward. But lets face it. On obamacare, the Affordable Care act n its a partisan issue. It was when it got created. Any changes to it are perceived that way. I never anticipated democrats being able to come forward and do much in this environment in a bipartisan way. Its just too much of a base political issue. And so we knew wed have to carry the water. But i think on other Health Reforms there are opportunities. And certainly when it comes to spending in our states, efficiency in our states. Were back. There was a story today in oregon about a new Software Program theyve been working on thats now multiples of what they anticipated. Theyre up to 141 million on a new i. T. System. For gosh sakes, if youre spending four or five hundred million just on the software, how does that happen . So anyway. Lets shift to environment and energy issues. You announced three bills. One deals with yucca mountain. Its been stalled but one of the biggest blockers may have left the Congress Last year. Were going to rename it too. What are you going to call it now . Oh, somebody suggested the former majority leaders name. So talk to us about that bill and maybe what your vision is for that, the brown fields program. Those are all good questions in fact on yucca, were looking at interim and permanent storage. Got to get that right. But the key here is for taxpayers for the industry we need to get a solution. Nobody has led stronger and better and more eagerly than john shimpdis. When i made him chairman, i said there are two things i want you to focus on, one is a long Term Solution for nuclear waste, yucca, and two is rsf reform. Thats like thanks a lot. Yucca is at the top. Secretary perry was out the nevada. Looked at yucca y. We discussed it. We want to move forward. And we will move forward, and we hope to get this done. I recognize it wont be easy. I know that challenges ahead or it would have been done a long time ago, but this is high on my list to try to give it our best shot. Were working on that. Brown fields legislation, this is a very, very Important Program for the country. You want to create jobs and clean up environmental waste and mess . This is the program to do it. We have great partnerships and stories with the states. And its one of these, and ill get the multiple wrong. Somebody will fact check me so i wont use it. Its like whatever we put in, theres multiples of economic return on the other side. Because you clean up these places and then theyre developed. And whether its oregon has some Great Stories about that, west virginia. All over the country. And we really need to evaluate as a country how much we invest here. The rate were going, its like 1,000 years to get it done. Were looking at the appropriate funding levels and authorization. But mechanically the program is really solid. It needs to be reauthorized and modernized. Youll see us in the committee. One of the charges from the speaker and the Steering Committee was to every committee, look at the programs under your jurisdiction that have not been reauthorized in modern times, and reauthorize them. And if you dont have time to do it, maybe we need to look at other committees taking that jurisdiction. Wait a minute. No. No. No. Well get to it. Some of these like safe drinking water, the brown fields, these are 30yearold programs. They havent been authorized. Since then, a lot has changed. Thats why i asked joe barton to work with secretary perry on a 21st Century Energy department. It was basically created in an era of scarcity. And were not in that era anymore. I think its our responsibility to look at the programs. I think youll see a lot of them come out on a bipartisan basis. What are some of the ideas you take to the debate about how to refocus the Energy Department . I think we need to delve in and see what works and what doesnt. Thats why joe is going to head it up in partnership with fred upton. You have two different sub committees with jurisdiction. We have the whole nuclear piece, the department of energy, and our jurisdiction there is fairly broad and deep. We dont have the codes of the missiles, but bewe do have a lo of the rest of it. Ive done oversight work at some of the issues on the labs, security, a bunch of things. That will be part of it. And then what is its appropriate role. Some of energy has bled off into epa where it belongs back in energy. We have both agencies. I think im right that epa was never actually constituted. Its just a collection of programs put under a name. In some respects the whole department itself hasnt been really reviewed. Id put that on my list Going Forward. You cant do it all at once. But these are the debates we should have as the authorizing committees. So appropriators arent called upon to do both jobs. When it comes to the epa, they wanted a cut using the annual level. Its a significant reduction j similar reduction in the head count at the epa. What vision does that take the epa to . Heres how i approach it. I think you have to look at whats the core mission of the epa. And i reference things like brown fields. And those things that you have this enormous backlog, and its essential to the environment and to the economy of community after community after community to get those cleaned up and put back into productive use. Part of what were trying to do, whether its our review of the epa and the proposed budget, or other ag