tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN October 11, 2013 12:00am-2:01am EDT
through the new health-insurance marketplace. the department of health and human services has personal responsibility for defining the structure and operations of the marketplaces. open enrollment for insurance purchase to the marketplace is began an eye to refers to and coverage can begin as soon as january 1st 2014. ..
to assist them in determining whether individual who as applying for insurance coverage qualifies for financial assistance, including the premium tax credit. our use of information technology will also play a key role going forward as we incorporate the various provisions into tax administration infrastructure. second, the protecting the safety and privacy of taxpayer data. being shared with federal and state entities under the aca statutes. this includes beth the establishment of safeguard procedures before data is released and on the ongoing monitoring of safeguarding practices going forward. third, updating and improving business processes and systems to facilitate tax return filing and compliance with the tax-related providings of the aca, including the premium tax credits. i'm pleased to report that the systems and processes they irs has developed to support
enrollment in the marketplace were launched on schedule and are working as planned. we have handled all requests received today via they hhs data services hub and turn-around times are meeting our goals. and a tata protection effort is working a intended. we ensured that data security agreements agreements were approved for all entities scheduled to receive taxpayer information, including state, individual market places and those medicaid offices that requested profile before october 1st. we have also been working to ensure that individuals who seek information from the irs about obtaining insurance coverage to the marketplace are steered to resources that can best help them. we have collaborated to ensure available of consistent information on web sites and channels and outreach to businesses and professionals. looking to the forward the irs
is focused on preparing for aca provisions that will have an impact on irs forms and procedures beginning with the 2015 filing season. in regard to the tax credit, preparations are underway to modify forms and instructions, enhance education and outreach to the taxpayers and their adviser, update our business practices and complete he it infrastructure changes in time for the 2015 filing season. this concludes my tonight. aid be happy to take any questions. >> thank you. i recognize myself. miss ingram, i heard you correctly, all going as planned and well in the roll out -- >> the portion of the responsibility of the irs is going fine. >> excellent. i'd now like to -- if you'd give the first document to the young lady. i'd like to bring your attention to an e-mail chain dated friday,
july 20, 2012. in which you were cc'd and added to the chain in preparation for the delivery of these documents, i assume, which we delivered under discovery. you reviewed those, is this correct? >> i'm not sure i've seen this particular one but i'm reading it now, sir. >> take your time and read it. >> i've reviewed the document. thank you. >> thank you. do you recall this document? >> i do not recall the document. i think i recall what it is a discussion about. >> well, one of the areas of interest is there's a signaturent redaction that is, quote, the statute 6103. do you know who is underneath
that blackout? >> i don't recall the document so i can't help you with what is underneath the redaction, sir. >> the subject of this -- let's go to a second one. would you give her the second document, and we'll pause and give you time to read it. this one is from you directly so hopefully you recall it. [inaudible conversations] >> i recall it. >> do all members have the document in front of them? can we have the clerk transcribed the -- distribute the documents? i want to make sure everyone has them in front of them. do we have enough copy inside okay. they'll be distributed if they gentle lady will because for a moment. [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> do all the members now have the document? i think the front row need more. [inaudible] conversation. >> miss ingram, do you recall the second document in which you're the author? >> i remember the conversations. since my name is on the e-mail i assume it's -- >> okay. do you know the names underneath
any of these black boxes? or the information? >> no, i'm sorry, couldn't remotely remember what might have been underneath. >> you don't know what is underneath there as an expert at the irs, many times awarded by both republicans and democratic administrations, do you know what 6103 indicates? >> yes, i understand 6103, yes, sir. >> okay. and is it true that in fact is sensitive information that is not to be distributed outside people permitted to have it within ther is and is a very limited amount of people here in congress? >> i understand the rules of the 6103, yes, sir. >> well, you understand that you can't distribute 6103 information outside of people authorized to see it. is that correct? >> correct. >> so, why are political appointees in the office of the president receiving 6103 information? on what basis would you be
allowed to discuss the information, which is a form of classification under 6103, with political appointees at the white house? the irs is a nonpolitical organization, you're not a political person, but isn't it true political appointees are not allowed to see this knick unless specifically cleared. correct? >> i'm not familiar with what process was used to put the markings on this document. my understanding from looking at the document is these are names that were offered to us as examples of how the -- >> i understand. you have been with the irs a long time. 6103 information, did you share 6103 information with people at the white house? >> i'm not conscious of ever sharing 6103 information to the white house but i cannot speak to what the process was for putting these labels on this document. >> so your testimony today is you have never shared
confidential information with political appointees at the white house, but in your 75 or 79 trips to the white house, meetings and small and not so small groups with political appointees at the white house, then i have to understand, either this 6103 information as the irs has said it is and you have shared it with political appointees at the white house, or it's not 6103 in which case someone at the irs is abusing the redaction, and keeping this committee from getting the information it needs for its proper and lawful discovery. i think we will have danny werfel back here on this subject. did you participate in redaction decisions at all? >> no, sir, i did not. >> okay. now, i guess one of the -- this is a serious matter, but it appears from this that you were part of the discussion at a time in which a controversial rule
was going into effect that included a number of conservative and religious groups and that you were providing back and forth advice to white house personnel on that implementation. is that correct? >> my rex -- recollection of this exchange had to do with what the current irs rules are under regulations under 6033 in case policymakers wanted to use any definition that existed already in the tax code, and they understand what they would cover or not cover, depending on which definitions they chose to employ. it was not a discussion about their decision about what to use. >> so you were providing technical information on how the administration could determine whether or not church and nonchurch groups, schools, sponsored by schools and other affiliated group -- whether or not they could be compelled under the affordable care act to do certain things. is that correct? >> it was a discussion about what the current definitions under 6033 heaven and have
been -- mean and have been. >> the question from political eye pointees to you in your nearly 80 trips and a large amount of e-mails, had to do with anywhere desire to compel religious groups to do certain things under affordable care acten and you were advising them as to the law and how they might implement it, and in the case of one e-mail you said, hoping there is a quick answer, while i prep for something else. please copy me on the answer. so, this was something where you wanted to be aware scoff participate in the decision process by political appointees at the white house. is that correct? >> i think that portion of the e-mail is addressed to staff at the irs, hoping they could take care of answering the questions about -- >> i was reading your quote: hoping there is a quick answer while i prep for something else. please copy me on the answer. that's your portion of that first e-mail. >> an aca-related question and i
wanted the staff analysis. >> you have been intimately involved in aca implement indication questions, including whether or not somebody would receive a waiver, whether or not somebody under current law could or could not be forced to do something they did not want to do. is that correct? >> i've been involved in answering questions about how the rules work, and that's what this exchange is about. it was not about what rule the policymakers ought to adopt. >> one last time. the information underneath here, if it's not 6103, you certainly would agree we should know what it is, if it is 6103, it's something you said you have never done, which is to transfer 6103 information to political eye pointee at the white house. >> i have to refer you to the people who did the redactions. >> i just -- >> i don't know what is underneath, sir, i'm sorry. >> neither do we. i now recognize the ranking member.
>> i now recognize the gentle lady from new york. >> thank you. and i'd like to thank miss ingram for your public service and congratulate you on earning a reward and an award for your work in combating terrorism financing, as one who lost 500 constituents on 9/11, i know how important this work is. it can -- it's vital to our homeland security, and vital to saving american lives. so i wanted to thank you for that. i also think it's important that we realize the impact the government shutdown is having on our economy, because an important part of homeland security is economic security, and our economic security is falling. the stock market its closing at the lowest level in a month. the dow jones average fell 136
points. the standard and poors index fell 14 points. the nasdaq fell 47-points and consumer confidence is at an all-time low due to the threat of a default on our debt, on american debt. i do want to make an important point, that 195 democrats have signed a petition saying that they will vote today, they'll vote in ten minutes to open up the government and i feel if a vote was allowed on the floor, there would be enough like-minded republicans that would vote as we did though balance against women act, and other areas, jointly in a bipartisan way, to open up our government. and i would say that instead of having a hearing on unfounded allegations, we should be looking at what the impact of this shutdown is on the irs, and other government agencies, and
their ability to provide services to the american people. so i'd like to ask you, miss ingram, how many -- what is the percentage of people that have been furloughed in the irs? >> i've been informed that it's roughly 90%. >> 90%. who is left? >> a small number of people trying to keep essential things moving. >> do you think the government shutdown will impact the agency's ability to carry out your mission to enforce the tax laws of our country in a fair and -- process with great integrity? >> overall comments on issues about shutdown and budget i need to did he ever to the folks back at the irs. >> well, i want to focus on one area that the irs plays a critical role in our economy, and that's approval of mortgage loans. and regretably, due to the recession, home ownership is at
the lowest level in 18 years. but home sales are finally beginning to tick up, until we got to this shutdown, and now they have again fallen backwards. even though housing finance is considered by some economists to be as high as 20 to 25% of our economy, with the related industries, so this slowdown in the approval of mortgage loans is going to have a dramatic effect on our economy. and the shutdown at the irs has a specific responsibility because is a understand it the irs has to approve or provide tax records for one year for any mortgage approval. is that correct? >> i'm not the right person to answer detailed questions about that program. i'm sorry, mam. >> i looked up the irs web site in case you couldn't answer, and
any loan approval is subject to the review of mortgage lender of at least one year's worth of federal tax returns. this process of verifying income requires the assistance of an irs employee. therefore a mortgage company cannot verify income and the sale cannot be closed. so therefore even though he fha is processing loans and some banks are processing loans, they need the irs to approve these tax returns, so, therefore, the sale and the mortgage cannot go through. and it had on the web site, commonly asked questions, and it said can i third party obtain a tax transcript during the shutdown? and the answer was clearly, no. so, we can't move forward in this vital area of approving our home loans and mortgages that could help our economy move
forward. and consumer confidence continues to decline the longer this shutdown lasts, and as a result of a lackluster expectations, realtor.com also notes the number of mortgage applications is also decreasing dramatically after experiencing an uptick prior to the shutdown of federal government. so, i would say that what we should be focusing on is what we can do to open up the government. we're now in day nine of the government shutdown. my time is expired. let's work together to open up the government and get our economy moving. >> i thank the gentle lady and i'll take her opening statement as a recommendation that we hold a hearing on whether in fact essential personnel at the irs should have included people in that department. now to the gentleman from ohio. >> miss ingram you have been at the irs how long?
>> i'm sorry. >> you have been at the irs how long? >> over 31 years. >> and you take the -- i want to go back to where the chairman was. you take the 6103 confidentiality statutes seriously at the irs. >> very seriously. >> let's put up the definition here just as the statues itself no officer of employee of the united states shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner connection with his or her service as such an officer or employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. this is pretty straightforward you can't share personal taxpayer information. correct? >> true. >> okay. and then you gave the -- i found it in my opening statement you gave a presentation to irs overall sight board and highlighted this as you were talking being the affordable care act. this is from the presentation you gave according to the minute office that meeting in front of the irs oversight board and i want to chauffeured tax law improcesses privacy 'rules
that -- this encompasses the release of the data and the safeguarding of the data in the hand of the recipient. so you can't pass this back and forth. you have to protect it. this was a presentation you nave front of the irs oversight board. now let's go back to the e-mail the chairman had in front of you, if we could. where -- it's addressed to miss jean lamb -- lambro who is that. >> on the domestic policy council. >> you understanding you don't know her veil we are. >> i don't. >> according to the white house visitor log, at 17 month time frame you visited with her 75 times. that's more than once a week. sara h. a. ingram, 8/26. jean lambborough, deputy assistant to the president on health care. 75 times you visited and you don't know her. >> those are the time is was
cleared to attend, not necessarily the time is actually attended. >> do you know how many times you tapedded the 75 you were cleared. >> many fewer. >> so something about below 57 but could have been 5 times. your testimony to mr. otherwise i.c.e. sass are do issa was you did not disclose any 6103 information. correct. >> i have not. >> who then the irs decided you did, and blacked out all -- all they blacked out on that e-mail? we got this from the irs. we didn't black it out. >> there's a difference between whether somebody gives me information about a taxpayer to which i can respond, versus releasing any mail to other members such as the members of congress, but i defer to the people -- >> are you saying you're allowed to give 6103 information to the white house? >> it is not 6103 income -- >> look at the e-mail closely.
look where it's blacked out? there's a number written on each of those black-out areas. what is the number? >> for the release of the dish. >> no, the number. >> 6103. >> so someone at the irs decided this was confidential taxpayer information, and when we got these documents, when the committee got these documents, they said that's information you're not allowed to see, committee, but it was fine for you to communicate to the white house and release that information and give that information. >> i would refer you to the people at the irs -- >> we want to know -- great, we like in know who that person is who made that decision because you didn't think it was. someone did. >> i believe the committee is interacting with -- >> let me ask you a question. this is your e-mail. put that back up if we could. i just want to ask you one question. if it's not 6103 and it's your eminem, there's one little sentence: the large, well-known blank university. see that little sentence?
the large well-known blank university. what is underneil that. >> i don't know. >> rough wrote it. you don't. >> i don't remember eve e-mail issue do. >> this is about the lawsuits, number of christian affiliated universities had against the government recording their religious liberty rights, correct? that's the subject matter of these e-mails. >> about the definition under 6033 -- >> you can't tell me that's christian university, catholic university, even though you wrote it. >> i do not know what is underneath the blanks. >> you can't tell me what is underneath the blanks even though you wrote it. you can't tell me who decided to black this out and redact so it the committee couldn't get it. but your testimony is i did not share any confidential taxpayer information with the white house, even though 75 times you were cleared to meet with miss lamb bro and you had this conversation back and forth with all cynips reef dynamicses and they -- redactions and they say the same thing, 6103. it looks like someone broke the
law here, miss ingram. >> i would refer to the congressman to this team working on -- >> in chairman. i will you provide us the person or persons who decided that this committee couldn't see this information and wrote 6103 on this e-mail? >> i will take the word back that the folks who are working with the committee on the production of documents -- >> that's should -- you should be able to give us the information if it's not 6103. tell us who -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> be happy to yield. >> use woo the individuals behind miss ingram from the irs identify yourself for the record? >> i just want to know if there's somebody there that can communicate to the irs that we road like to have these in knopp reducted format? anybody in that group that can correspond with the -- i apologize. maybe danny werfel should have been here. >> he should have been. that's my point. >> any one of you that has the
ability to correspond to legislative affairs or the irs to let them know that we would like to the unredacted documents so we could go forward and ask miss ingram what her involvement was and what organizations were being targeted or answered in this case? will one of you raise your hand if you can? >> chairman, we'd be glad to take your -- >> notice. we don't ant -- you'll be hack here if that's the case. okay. i instruct the clerk -- recognize the gentleman -- instruct the clerk to get a call in to the irs. i'd like those documents delivered before this hearing is over so we at least can ask the question details about her own e-mail she doesn't seem to be able to recognize. >> mr. chairman,. >> host: go ahead -- >> on furlough. >> two wick things -- >> in this case they're essential. >> mr. chairman, remember what took place. the white house and the irs are communicating back and forth, potentially giving away
confidential taxpayer information to get lawsuits disdismissed from christian universities. number two. remember this. this law compels every single american, individual mandate, to go to this exchange and give personal information to the irs. they're compelled to do that, and this lady was sharing personal information with the white house. >> would the gentleman -- the gentleman's time is -- >> what the. >> host: like to be resurrectes niceizeey. >> for fivey, may i have stenin. >> the gentleman is recognized for five. >> thank you very much for your courtesy. miss ingram, up like the last questioner i'm going to allow you answer my questions. you have not -- not you, mr. chairman. >> i'm glad i wasn't they last one there. i hope you have questions for her. >> i have questions. i don't answer questions -- ask
and answer. miss ingram, you have been attacked by several members of congress for personally directing the so-called targeting of pea party groups applying for tax exempt status. for example, a republican congressman tim griffin accused you of being directly in charge of the targeting, and republican congressman tom price, accused ofoff systemic harass, of religious organizations and argued you should be suspended. let me ask you to respond to these accusations directly. did you play any role whatsoever in developing the inappropriate criteria used to screen an applicants for tax exempt status? >> no, i did not. >> the inspector general didn't find you responsible, either, because inspector general understood you were not in the chain of command during the relevant time period. it appears that many of the accusations against you are
based on a misunderstanding about your title and your position. although you left your previous position in december 2010, your job title did not officially change until 2013. so if someone looked up your job title, they might think you were still at deg. is that right? >> that's true, sir. >> now, his ingram, it's my understanding when you began your new pigs implementing the aca in december 20, you were no longer functioning as the commissioner of tax exempt and government and its. , that? >> yes, sir. >> when you took the aca job in 2010, your former deputy, joseph grant, became the acting commissioner of teg. is that correct? >> yes. >> disms. grandfully assume those responsibilities in december 20? >> yes, he did.
i it was announced he would act as commissioner. >> did lois lerner report to mr. grant when he became the acting commissioner of teg? >> yes. >> so after 2010, miss lerner did not report to you anymore. is that right? >> only on paper, not in function. >> so she was no longer in your chain of command. >> that's right. >> the inspector general reflected miss lerner learned about this in june of 2011. six months after you moved to your full-time aca position. is that correct? >> i understand that is the timing, yes, sir. >> since you no longer report -- since she no longer reported to you, did lois lerner tell you've about the use of inappropriate criteria 2011? >> i don't recall hearing anything about it until i sat in on a meeting requested by my
boss and n she spring of '12. >> in fact, mr. grant, who was her direct supervisor, told us miss lerner did not tell him anything in 2011, either. i just want everyone to be clear on the fact because i think there's some people clearly confused about this timeline. i want to go back to some things mr. jordan was asking about. i take it that you are very concerned about 6103 information. right? you -- how do you view that? how have you operated -- how long have you been with the irs. >> over 31 years. >> tell me about your view with regard to 6103, information, protecting it, and i remind you you're under oath. have you ever to your knowledge released inappropriately 6103 information? >> i've never, as far as i know,
ever violated any portion of 6103, which is a basic tenant from day one of employment at the irs to protect the confidentiality of the data the citizens give us. >> so you have spent 31 years at irs. >> yes, sir. >> that's a long time. i just want to thank you for your service. and i know this is a difficult situation today. i'm hoping this committee will be courteous to you. you are the face of our public servantses who give the blood, sweat and tears and sack re identifies for a big -- sacrifice for a bigger good, and i appreciate that, and with you i'll yield back. >> gentleman from florida. >> have you ever heard of henry chow, chief information officer of medicare and medicaid
services? >> yes, sir. >> he said, october 1st, the rollout was not ready for october and hoped it would not be a third-world experience. are you familiar with his evaluation of the ability to roll this out? >> no, sir. >> okay. well, kind of funny. in the newspaper today it was reported that it's easier to blog from kenya, third-world country, than to sign up for obamacare. would you say that's an accurate assetment of where we are? >> ail can speak to is whether our part is working as planned, and it is. >> well, your part is a couple of things. we talked about the income verification, and you don't have the ability to do that now. is that correct? >> we are operating a system that when we were asked for the limited tax data on -- >> when somebody applies now,
there's no verification of their income? or thrill be? you have that capability? >> there is currently operating an income query process whereby the market place goes how to the at that time hub to us to -- >> can you now -- >> yes, we are successfully -- >> can you now, when someone goes online, you can verify their income. >> when we get the request, we are successfully and in all cases returning timely answers. i cannot speak to the -- >> therefore the people that are have so far signed up you can verify their income now. >> there have been -- >> and you will. >> it's not the irs' role in the application process to do the total -- >> so you're enforcement, though. >> pardon me? >> are you enforcement. >> tax compliance, yes, sir. >> will, a court said this is a tax process, yes, sir. >> are you ready in 2014 to --
when are you going announce to folks nat 2014 they have a $95 individual penalty or $285 family penalty if they haven't complied with signing up? >> we have final regs, materials on our web site, and that's part of the public -- >> when do you plan to send out notices in 2014? >> i'm sorry, sir. notices? i'm trying to track -- >> you have not complied and individuals have not complied. we eliminated the employer mandate temporarily issue guess the president suspended that. but you have -- folks are going to get stick are shock when they fine out they're going to have this obligation, but you're prepared to send that out? >> we are already -- have information about that flagstaff our outreach materials in welcome meetings, on the web site, et cetera.
>> but you haven't sent that out. you're not ready -- >> which notice are you -- >> you haven't complied with $95 individual -- >> yes. >> -- payment, 258 for family. at some point that has to kick in -- >> after the returns are filed in early 2015 would be in first tame we would have any information. >> not until. the another thing is can you tell us how many have signed up for obamacare? >> no, sir. that's not part of the irs role. >> you have no insight. you know, all the report is have, read a little bit of who was responsible for setting this up. it says the system was developed by cgi group, and i got a list -- if you could put the is who up got the contract to put this system together. this is a partial list, a quarter of a billion dollars
these folks received. i didn't know them but they have a pretty good reputation. i recognizeed booz hamilton. were you involved in deciding whether these contractors are awarded or who put these together? >> this are all hhs contract are and i have nothing to do with that. >> i asked you deliberation. >> nothing do with that. >> would there be political people, appointees, that would have made that or other people? >> i have to refer you to the other agency. >> just a little surprised by that. just show the committee. i went to one of my recognized booz hamilton and checked the political contributions, and it's quite revealing. over almost a quarter -- that's a million dollars to the democrats side, 287, and $63,000 to the republican side. looks like some of these
contracts -- this is on -- went to political folks but you're not aware of that activity. >> we have no part in any of this. >> again, that might be interesting to go back for the media and other folks to see who got contracts and who were the big players. finally, the -- are you aware of any requirements for hiring additional personnel or additional space needed to house irs personnel who will be involved in obamacare? how much space and how many people? >> i'm not aware of space issues, but the 2014 presidents budget includes the need to have additional i.t. specialist come in and help us finish the work for 2015. >> finally, the amount of capacity, i'm told, of your core data center for most of our
400i.t. core data centers we only use 8 to 12% of capacity. do you know what% of capacity for the data centers are could you provide it to the committee is used by irs currently? >> that's certainly beyond my knowledge -- >> if you can provide that. we find very little has been used for most of those. again, according to reports, mr. conly and i have gotten. thank you. yield back. >> thank you, gentleman. gentleman from virginia. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's get a few things out of the way here, miss ingram. have you ever read the crucialable by arthur mill center. >> i've not read it. i've seen it performed. >> you know what it's about. >> yes, sir. >> what is it about? >> well, i'm from new england, so i'm familiar with the original story. >> so it's about? >> it's about the salem witch trials. >> all right. so let's get -- have you been
consorting with the devil? >> not to my knowledge, sir. >> are reports that you can fly accurate? >> greatly exaggerated, sir. >> have you been involved in any way in trying to pervert our youth? in salem or anywhere else? >> i certainly hope not, sir. >> you're sure. >> yes, sir. >> you received an award in the bush administration for excellence in public service, the highest award for anyone in the irs. is that correct? >> it's the highest awards given to the -- >> did the devil have nothing do with that award? >> i was not part of the nomination process or the awarding. can't say. >> we now know that the bush administration manufactured evidence about weapons of mass
destruction to justify the invasion of iraq. were you involved in that? you received an award from president bush so there's a connection. >> yes, sir. >> really. hmm. all right. if that's your item, miss ingram. in your testimony, you said that the irs is permitted to disclose tax return information to other federal agencies and state tax authorities to 'ofa sill tate efficient tax administration and cited the fact that the aca provides a exception dnr 6103 -- for information sharing activity can you explain what that means? sounds like the devil is involved. >> from time to time congress puts exceptions in the 6103 rule to permit or in some places require us to share tax data in narrow circumstances to forward some policy that congress has in mind. as part of the aca there was
amendment made to 6103 to require us to share data upon request. >> for what purpose? >> for the purpose of the recipients using it to determine eligibility for the benefits at the marketplaces and medicaid. >> so the recipient would be who, the white house, political operatives? the devil? who is it? >> it's the individual marketplaces and medicaid offices who are using the data under the new part of 6103, to make income-based determinations on eligibility for their program. >> so it's not political activity? >> no, sir. >> it's not partisan political activity? >> no, sir. we're required by statute. >> by statute. you mean we wrote it. >> yes, sir. >> oh. i just want to say that at least on this side of the aisle, you are an esteemed public servant
and we deeply appreciate your service. we are glad you stepped up to try to make affordable care available to all americans pursuant to the statute written by this congress, and at least speaking for myself, i deeply row -- regret the fact you're going to be pilloried here today and i verb much appreciate as a fellow new englander your willingness to put up with it, but dent for a minute think that what you're going to be subjected speak for all of us, it does not, and if the american people are watching this hearing they're going to be ashamed of the treatment to which you are subjected. thank you to are your service. >> member yield? >> i will yield. >> just one question, miss ingram. you have asked -- been asked self questions about your
respond under the irs with regard to the affordable care act. have -- are you where you were scheduled to be? in other words, with regard to the development of everything that you all were supposed to do under your section of the irs? >> yes. >> are you following my question? >> yes. we're on -- for the business operational parts i'm responsible for contributing to the team we're on schedule. >> thank you very much. >> gentleman from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i'll make it clear i have no complaints about or criticisms of miss ingram, but in forbes magazine just this morning, it says, a columnist wrote this and said one weekend of the launch of obamacare average is not a joke. it's easier to blog from the kenyan borders than to sign up
for insurance on obamacare's federal exchange. why is this happening? ol' poll picks. the obama administration was more afraid of the delaying the launch of obama care of botching it. owl you need to know about the rollout of obamacare is subsidiesed insure exchangeses and the toughest questions posed to the obama administration have come from comedy central. we're going to do a challenge of kathleen sebelius on the daily show. i'm going to download every movie every day and you are going to try to sign up for obama cad and we'll see what happens first. unquote. the last part in a joking manner but this is nothing to joke about. it's really kind of sad that this law was signed into effect in march of 2010, 42 months the government employees have had to prepare for this, three and a half years, and miss ingram has
been working on this since december 2010, and i've got no complaint about miss i can gram. i think it's ridiculous, kind of sad that after all this time, things are in the shape that they're in, and also, i found out this morning that the taxpayers have paid over $400 million to -- in sweetheart deals to government contractors to help all the government employees to try to get this in shape. this is the most messed up, convoluted, confusing law i think has ever been passed, and even before this rollout, as bad as its been, thousands and thousands of citizens across the country have written and e-mailed and called members of congress. i've got just -- i can bring so many examples.
but i've got one that says i'm a retired tva employee and received notice of more than 500 didn't increase in monthly health insurance starting in 2014. monthly premiums will be $1,459 per month for me and me wife. went into the understoodable care site and premiums are about the same except none over my doctors are on the list. i encourage you to keep voting to defund obamacare, vote against increasing the debt ceiling and vote to include everyone in obamacare. no waivers or credits mitchell slogan for president obama is, be majors sign up for your own plan. that was from bruce weiss. another man, joseph schmidt, e-mail me: i remember our president saying the new healthcare bill will reduce costs. i had my health care renewal forms and the premium increased 15%. a $700 deductible is add evidence and my co-payment is increased. drug coverage is increased. maybe you can do nothing about
this and i understand. i just want 0 you to know i feel as if the truth was not told. and another example, from bruce christopher, it says my 2011 health insurance premium is going up 11% for less coverage, copay and detickettibles doubled. just thought you want to know. now, you have your responsibilities, and the irs commissioner, mr. shoeman, was here earlier and also -- he said he note that the statute does not allow traditional enforcement methods, but he said that the irs will, quote, communicate with the taxpayer and attempt to resolve the outstanding liability. can you tell us, since you're in charge of this miss ingram, how will the irs communicate that information to taxpayers? >> i believe then commissioner shulman was referring to the
individual payment system. >> that's correct. >> so the traditional parts that are not available to us part of the statute is if there is a high school related to that provision, liens and liveys cannot be used for that provision and we're making sure that is absolutely true as it rolls out. if somebody is not covered, which most americans are, or they're not eligible for an exemption, statutory exemption which another group is, if they actually have a liability and do not pay it as part of their return filing process, it would be a balance due like other balance dues, and we're very conscious that in the early times there is education to be done -- >> how will you identify the people who haven't complied? >> are they supposed to check a box on their tax return or what is going to happen? >> we saved great deal of feedback it be helpful to americans who are covered to be
able to check a box and know they were done. so our intention is to give people an easy way as part of their tax filing process to check a box, or indicate the exemption they qualify for, or to put a -- calculate the penalty as part of their return filing process. >> and now you know that all these employer mandates have been delayed. and it was my understanding that the irs was going to use the information obtained in these employer mandates to do your required compliance work. so, were you going to use the information from these -- that these employers provided? >> so, the information that is relevant to this provision is information coming from the insurer, information reports, and for the first year, the congressman is correct, that is not mandatory in the first year. we are making sure that citizens have the information they need
to fill out the returns correctly and honestly, which most taxpayers do, i'd like to emphasize. and we will be looking to see whether there are other ways to look at the filing patterns. but our main concern in the first year is to make sure people are educated and know -- >> my time is expired. >> we'll have the returns. >> i just want to say this is not a joke to the american people, and it's sad that we would have laughter and jokes near this committee hearing in my opinion. thank you. >> gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and miss ingram, thank you for coming here today and putting 'with our committee. especially right now, in an atmosphere on capitol hill where there is an utter frenzy to do everything people can think of to get rid of obamacare before it takes effect. including this hearing. but miss ingram, i want to -- in
my four and a half minutes left i want to see if we can cover the big picture. you are a 31 year employee of the irs. is that correct? >> yes. >> you were not working at the tax exempt and government entities part when the targeting of the -- both consecutive and progressive political groups came to light. aim correct in that? >> i was not working at tege, though i -- it's true on paper i still had that title. >> i see but you didn't know that the targeting was going on until after you stopped working in that area. >> yes. the first i heard was in the spring of 2012. >> you now work on the irs piece of part of the implement addition of the aca. is that correct? >> yes, sir. >> you're working 60 or 70 hours a week at that, aren't you?
>> yes. >> you're working in one of the four offices of the irs having to do with implementation and handling of the aca. aim correct in that? >> yes, sir. >> so, one office is the information technology division. that's been tasked to provide overall direction and day-to-day management and oversight of aca related i.t. delivery for new and modified systems. is that true. >> that that's true. >> you're not in that insofar as. >> no, sir. >> another one this privacy and governmental liaison and disclosure office, tasked to monitor almost 300 federal and state agencies currently approved to receive tax data and to ensure compliance with section 6103, the one that had been ban died beside this morning. >> yes, sir. >> you're not the that office, are you in. >> no, sir. >> ones the office of health care council it has been asked to task -- across the office in
key will be operation with the aca, acio, aca safeguards -- you're not in that office in. >> i am not. >> the one you're in is aca services enforcement, that has been tasked to coordinate aca in collaboration with aca, a cio, associated chief information officer, health care council, and aca safeguards. aim correct in that? >> yes, sir. >> all right. well are -- well, now, if you had questions about those offices you're not, and it would be more appropriate to bring the people from those offices and question them, would it not? >> yes. there is a limit as to what can provide as to their operations. >> for example, exactly how 6103 information blocking comes up, you would want to ask the privacy and governmental liaison and disclosure office about that, wouldn't you?
>> yes, sir, and the lawyers that advise them. >> right. now, let me ask you this. there's an october 4, 2013, letter, that ranking member cummings wrote to chairman darrell issa, asking that people from all four of those divisions be brought here to testify. that was declined. they only wanted you, and they have asked you about all of these other subjects. do you have any information at your disposal as to why chairman issa declined participation of all these other people who know about these subjects? >> i've not been part of any of those conversations, sir. >> in fact in the same letter, ranking member cummings, asked pointedly if chairman issa would also invite acting irs commissioner danny werfel, who is overseeing -- who is charged with overseeing this entire effort at the irs.
and that also was declined. miss ingram do you know why chairman issa declined bringing acting irs commissioner werfel to answer those questions here today? >> again, haven't been the part of any of those conversations, sir. >> and i guess even larger picture, miss ingram, you don't work at the hhs, which is responsible for the overall rollout of the affordable care act, do you? >> no, sir. >> and they weren't invited here to answer questions today. do you know why that was? >> i'm not familiar with how the decisions were made, sir. >> well, if you had a question about a subject, wouldn't you want the person there that knows the most about that subject, to answer those questions? wouldn't a tribunal that wants to get to the truth of things act that way instead of putting it all on somebody who is only
working in one specific area? >> i defer to the committee. >> thank you very much for your time. i yield back. >> thank you. gentlemen from utah is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i actually yield to the gentleman from ohio. >> i appreciate the gentleman yielding. real quick in answering mr. cartwright's questions we have the eac implementation irs overtight board briefing briefin 2013. a document from ther is irboard. miss ingram did that briefing, page seven of the minutes action says affordable care update led by sarah hall ingram, discuss security and safeguarding of the data good enough for her to brief the irs oversight board. seemed like it would we appropriate for her to brief this committee and congress. i want to go back to the e-mail quickly if i could.
let go can back. i just want to stress for the committee the underlying issue here was about 58 different institutions who were suing the government because they believed their religious liberty rights, their first amendment religious liberty rights were being infringed upon by the affordable care act. isn't that correct? this regarded the lawsuits in place that were filed regarding infringement of religious liberty. >> i'm sorry, congressman. i don't see where the litigation is mentioned. >> not mentioned. that's what you're talking about. >> no, sir. i'm complaining dish. >> only the schools below college level affiliated with the church or operated by religious orders, these schools would not immediate the -- unless their -- that is all about institutions because, again, remember what was going on at this time. the administration was concerned about all these entities suing the government. this is --
>> 6103 -- 6033 rules and the enter revenue code and how they worked. >> used to define who qualifies and who doesn't, who would be exempt and who wouldn't be, and the end result was, from your discussion the and the way the rules was changed, most of these lawsuits were dismissed, lawsuits like colorado christian university, priests for life versus sebelius, roman catholiccary. bishops versus send bowla, hobby lobby, wheaton college -- most of these cases have been dismissed because of the change in the definition that was being scud in these e-mails. correct? >> all i know to respond to you, mr. congressman, is i was answering questions about how current tax definitions worked under 6033. i was not involved in litigation or regulation decisions. >> you were answering the white house wanted to know if they could change the definition. you were giving them information about the definition. and the end result was, most of these suits were dismissed.
that's what happened. >> i can't speak to that. i can only -- >> you don't have to speak it to. it's the fact. part of that was determined by the back and forth between the white house and you, and our concern, of course, is in that corporations that resulted in most of thieves indications -- these cases -- you shared personal taxpayer information with the white house. and now, and now, under the affordable care act, americans have to give personal information to the irs, to the same lady, to the same organization, that potentially, at least by someone's definition, shared all kinds of personal information with the white house political people. at a time this -- this top at a time when religious institutions were suing the government because the affordable care act infringed on their religious liberty rights. that's what people are nervous about. that scares a lot of people.
you guys working back and forth, personal information going in e-mails, the end result is, lawsuits get dismissed. religious institutions don't get their day in court and now all of america has to send the same kind of personal information to you and the irs? in order to get healthcare. >> may i have a minute to respond? >> sure. >> first, will let the committee and the specialist on 6103 law provide the explanation why it would not have been 6103 problem for me to have this e-mail but an issue and the committee and i'll let you and the work that out. >> wait. stop there it was okay -- that's amazing. it's okay for the white house to get the unredacted version, political people at the white house, from the same entity that targeted groups who came into existence because they opposed the affordable care act but congress can't get it. that's just what -- that is unbelievable. you just told us it's okay --
you said you didn't do anything ongoing. it's okay for the white house to get information, we on the oversight, government oversight committee cannot get the same information, icannot answer whether the information originated with the white house or not -- >> this is -- you wrote it. -under don't know what is underanything those blocks butt -- but it was okay for the white house to get and it not us, and the americans are supposed to rest assured the irs will treat their information when they're forced to sign up nor affordable care act you have to rest assured you guys will treat nat a confidential narks fashion. unbelievable. >> your time is up. >> my time expired. >> i'll yield back. >> thank you. good for you. >> thank you, ingram, for subjecting yourself to this. a lot of the members is in congress, republican members, including some of the ones on this committee, have been
alleging the white house orchestrated the so-called targeting of tea party groups, on may 14, 20 4 , chairman issa stated on national television, and i quote, this was the targeting of the president's political enemies effectively and lies about user during the election year so it wasn't discovered until afterward. our committee has had over 30 witnesses in interviews and hearings and up in of them indicated the white house was involved treatment of foreclosures tax exempt status do you have any reasonable to believe the white house directed targeting of tea party organizations. >> i have never heard anything that would indicate that. >> did anyone in the white house directly or indirectly every instruct you to treat the tea party organizations differently than any others. >> never had any such conversation with the white house. >> you have no knowledge of any white house role in these case whatsoever. is that correct? >> none whatsoever, sir. >> knew there have been press accounts claiming that since 2009, you visited the white house 165 times.
is that correct? >> i have been told of the press accounts. they had to do with clearances, not attendance. >> so those logs can often include scheduled visits that didn't tapes. so how many times did you actually visit the white house complex during this time frame in 2009? >> i'm sorry. from when to when? >> from 2009 on. >> i don't have a number, sir, but once i started the aca work, from time to time i would accompany treasury to the old executive office building to provide administration analysis among multiple agencies and that put me on a list for building clearances that war a repeating invitation, bit i only win when i couldded a value from an administerrability. >> were there any discussions about the tax exempt status?
>> never, sir. >> in fact, these regularly scheduled interagency meetings are on the affordable care care act. >> that's correct. >> they took place in the old executive office building, not in the white house itself. >> i would say, yes, except i have a vague memory that for one meeting i went through a -- somewhere in the subbasement, i went through a second checkpoint. so i don't really know where i was at that point but i want to be open and complete about that. >> some people have attempted to paint these meetings as evidence of a political bias on your mart so i want to give you an opportunity to respond to that. have any of you informations implemented the affordable care act motivate bid by your political views. >> absolutely not. there's no place for political views in my position. >> have you ever treated organizations differently based on their political views.
>> absolutely not. >> have you seen any evidence that plate cat bias has motivated the actions of any other employees. >> i have not seen bias in the work of the irs. >> we should be troubled by the baseless attacks launched against you and others during the course of this investigation so hopefully the record will be clear. now recognize your duties have -- i yield for mr. cummings. >> the thing i'm sitting here and listening to all of this and i listened to what mr. jordan just asked you. it is troubling. you have a family? >> yes, sir. >> you married? >> yes, sir. >> children? >> not my own. thank you. >> the reason why i ask you that is sometimes i think we forget that public employees are human
beings. simply trying to do a job. people who could probably go out and n the private sector and make more money. and you gave 31 years. that 31 is just ringing in my head. that's a lot of time. i want too go back to something mr. conley said. you -- i want you to know, you may very well be attacked here today, but this is really not about you. this is bigger than you. and i want you to understand that. thank you very much. >> i appreciate the gentleman's comments and he is exactly right. it is not just about miss ingram. it's about americans who have to comply with this act, and i would just point out this, too. lots of people underneath these
rea tasks have families as way and had their personal information bandyy'd about like it wassing wassing in, the gentn from michigan. >> thank you for being here to testify. we need to ask questions of a lot of people and you're one of those. i appreciate the fact of concern for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we treat federal employees like human beings as well. and that's right. ought to be that way. but i also think about the 59-year-old woman in jackson, michigan, who called my office in tears, single parent mother who informed by her player she was being cut back from her parttime job of 35 hours as a home caregiver to 25 hours, and additional revenue she made as a waitress now would not come anywhere near covering her mortgage. that's a human being and we're
trying to get answers in hearing like the this and we appreciate you being here. it's also the employer 54 individual, human beings in hi my district, who was told by his insurance carrier they could not provide coverage for them anymore for their employee because they wouldn't meet requirements of obamacare. and so that's why these hearings are important to get to the issues that get the human beings, citizens, taxpayers, people who have dreams dreams ad aspirations, just as you, miss ingram, and i, and my colleagues have as well. and that's important to do this, and not to have a battle that continues to go on about shutdowns, though i believe very clearly, leadership on the other side of the aisle relishes the shutdown taking place and the pain it brings about for political reasons. i ask you a question. moving on. dealing specifically with the employer mandate.
in the affordable care act. and the constitutional opinions that are out there, all over the place, that the president did not have the authority to delay the employer mandate, and we're asking for the individual mandate to be delayed for fairness so we can get it right. but miss ingram, were you involved with discussions about the employer mandate delay prior to announcement of the delay in a july 2nd blog post? were you aware of that? >> i was asked during that early summer about my views about the administerrer ability about going forward with no relief or going forward with various kind of relief and including the input that was coming in from the employer community about wishing to have more time to analyze their dat and i.t. needs, and from the insurer
community and to consider administerrable which i always do, not only from the point of view from ther is irbut from the individual and the information reporter. >> do you know why the administration chose to wait as long as july 2nd to post this delay in a blog? why that decision was made? >> i was not in the decisionmaking process. i provided administerrability analysis. >> were you involved in the discussions regarding the administration's legal rational behind the delay. >> no, sir. >> sow won't dote what factors were considered for our president to make that decision. >> i was not involved in the discussion. i was told the decision was made by the assistant secretary. >> is it true the irs will collect obamacare's penalty? >> when, sir? i'm sorry. in what --
>> when it's in effect. will you -- the irs, collect in the employers' -- obama case's employer mandate penalty in. >> yes. once the information reporting commences there will be sufficient information to be able to calculate the tax. >> so the employer mandate penalty amounts to $2,000 or $3,000 penalty per worker, as i understand the law. can you explain why the penalty would be $2,000 per worker and when it would be $3,000 per work center. >> the difference between the two parts of that statute refer to whether the employer offers coverage at all, and that is the smaller amount but is a multiple of a number of workers with some subtractions. if the employer offers adequate insurance, then the only question is whether an employee got a premium tax credit who was
entitled to it despite the employer ifer and the number who get the tax credit would be in multiple of the 3,000. >> this the irs have to offer the employer the opportunity to review and protest the assessment? >> as we put in our q & a's on the web and talk about publicly, the employer has very little ability to calculate that themselves because it requires knowledge of the 1040s and who got a premium tax credit. so we'll provide a proposed bill for the employer, including the underlying information and let them help us correct the data. >> when does the correction take place? after the payment of the system. >> no, sir. after we propose an amount and they can work with us on correcting any errors in the calculation, and then there would be a bill. >> i thank the chairman and yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from wisconsin. >> thank you, mr. chairman.
miss ingram, thank you very much for being here. i want to echo the comments from people, your patience has been tremendous. i don't know where to begin. are you of libyan descent? >> not to my knowledge, sir. >> have you ever lived in libya? >> no, sir. >> have you ever traveled through libya? >> no, sir. >> all right. how about dua libra? >> no, sir. >> if you were at all involved with benghazi, would have hit the g.o.p. trifecta, irs, affordable care act and benghazi. you have made people on the side -- we have hearing where we keep pounding at different things hoping we hit something and i think it's been pretty clear from people on this side of the aisle marx cartwright and our ranking member, but you were not --or job was not in charge of any targeting of tea party or progressive groups that this
committee has discussed. no my functional assign. s did not include any of that. >> and we have seen lots of e-mails with redynamicking. you're not in charge of redacting at the irs. >> no, sir. >> they brought up some financial donations to presidential campaigns, is your job at ther is fors oversee somehow financial donations? >> no, sir. >> they brought your travel schedule a number of times. how many times you were at the white house. i assume we'll have the janitorial staff at the white house come in, too because they've been there an awful lot. how about -- a number of areas we -- you're not responsible for -- let's good to what specifically -- you are here for, which is your supervision within the irs of the affordable care act. specifically it's been nine days since implementation. have there been any problems pacifically in your area with the irs portion of the
implementation of the afford ayable care act? >> we have successfully taken in and turn around all the requests we have received from the hub, and as far as we can tell, and we are looking on a daily basis -- it's operating well. >> are there any areas, based on, again, the oversight from your department, that you see a potential area that you're watching very closely that could have some issues? ...
>> we don't have problems that you are aware with with your responsibilities of the affordable care act? >> up the irs is comfortable thing is operating well civic that is great to hear we appreciate your willingness to field a wide variety of of the question is relevant and not relevant i do have to say that people
say that democrats relished the shutdown actually we are disgusted that our small businesses cannot get sba loans of that is pretty disgusting that they cannot grow jobs and the economy. that veterans may not get benefits because we're holding our breath in congress is disgusting and the fact that the day after i visited in wisconsin that there is not the funds that is disgusting and so many federal employees are for loading and not working i don't relish that i am disgusted by it and the fact that this country cost $160 million per day while we are closed down is not something that democrats relished and i want to clear the record set of think a single person would relish.
>> will the gentleman yield? >> thank you. just to clarify, my comments about that relishing goes to the leadership of the senate and the white house that are clear they will not negotiate. we have worked together with all the things you mentioned we passed them in a bipartisan fashion to the said that it is time for us to stand together to ask the senate and the president to show leadership to negotiate to a solution -- solution and i want to see that as well. >> i would respond that i believe i serve of the budget committee. for six months we have asked people since march 23rd to sit down and have a conference when 20 minutes before a big night the idea comes to sit down? i don't know if the figure point he goes to the said
the leadership. >> i now recognize the edge of the man from oklahoma. >> i just want to talk about the process implementation and was the irs ready to implement the employer mandate as far as tracking through penalties or covering employees? were they prepared? >> because it mentions we will be ready to take returns from anybody who tries to do that the work is the same for us either way. >> right now the irs is fully prepared to do what it needs to do with or you will add the months ahead. >> no. >> you are ready either way the administration made the decision tree will not do it this year not because the
irs was not prepared? >> right but it would have spent 50 months away. >> because of the forms is the expectation from the irs that starting 2015 or 2016 with full rollout the individual businesses will have to list the individuals within their company throughout the course of the year in what they were offered? >> if it is a sufficient size. >> 50 or more? >> roughly. >> so they have to report starting in 2015 or '64 full implementation? every individual that is offered that? >> every full-time employee per the statute civic going back to the $2,000 penalty but business doesn't know
that? but there is the expectation of the business will report to the offer qualified health insurance but then to show and some months later it comes back to the business you cody additional penalty because and employee of yours received a subsidy and is not eligible? >> how long will that take? >> there are a number of different ways they might do that but we have heard from the business community's to be relatively promptly. >> if it individual starts to receive the subsidy and signs up how long it are
they identify if it added new job but i don't want to pay this? and how long will the pavement's continue to move? >> the entire process for those credit pavements for when somebody stops to pay is what goes on between hhs and the marketplace. the informations and the irs receives is from the marketplace of what amounts have been made appropriately. >> is treasury verified?
>> we are not notified of the advanced apportioned yes it is supposed to follow up and down. >> the $2,000 penalty if the employer does not provide health care at all? if there provides full health care except the preventive services list if i read this correctly that penalty is $36,500 per employee. $2,000 if they provide nothing but if they don't provide it the thing on the preventive must then it is $100 per day $36,500. is that correct? >> i am not clear of the second the amount. >> it is a $100 per day for not providing a rethink of
the preventive services list for men and women and children that have to be provided in the employer provided health care. so there is a question that if they miss one of those where it for religious reasons they choose not to provide what if they don't want her to percent coverage paid by the employer then they are not find to thousand dollars but 36,500 and 30 long dash $4 per day. >> i will have to take that question back. >> i will because we have been announced by multiple employers but nobody yet the irs cannot pass -- it's a question is a really $100 per day per person that it is affected so if the employee has children it is $36,500 per child and as well.
the will and will give them idiots are what the penalty is all they get is a stall and we need clarification because businesses do have a problem with religious reasons and if they miss one that is no locker a fee or a penalty but it is punitive. $36,500 per person. >> with perspective of my planning that is not in my current work plan to address that issue. i will take it back. >> said the gas? we have been asking for clarification over months kidney give it time period? >> it relates to matters in litigation there are a number of places i have to stop. >> so do they.
>> ms. ingram you thank you for your incredible service to our country over 31 years. i am disappointed in this hearing today we have to shut down, a hundred thousand furloughed employees that the irs 90 percent of the staff has been furloughed, october 15 is the deadline for all tax returns to be submitted and reid talk about not how they will process the paper that is coming in over the next week instead of having the hearing on the impasse the majority has decided to reenact the movie on "groundhog day" to find wrongdoing by did ministration only this version is not funny.
the committee has decided to take along distinguished career of the irs the aside made their intentions clear accusing ms. ingram of a scandal and political bias that they have not been able to prove. ms. ingram is not political appointee by receiving a distinguished service award from george bush in 2004 and she is competent and able to get the job done. a thankless task force showers so let's go to your credentials. you have said a staff person within the irs of for 30 years. is that correct? >> since late 1982. >> you graduated from the distinguished law school at
georgetown. correct? >> you have the opportunity to go to pastry for the big box but chose to support your country by a jury being the irs. correct? >> yes ma'am. >> user to that capacity since the of the illustration the president reagan. so every if ministrations since then you have said id service to the country at the irs. >> yes ma'am. and has been charged you are responsible for targeting tea party organizations seeking a tax exempt status. you were accused of being'' directly in charge of the targeting " she provided her read this customer service under her watch now she will
do is to save implementing obamacare. i want to give you a chance to respond to that attacked were you directly in charge of targeting tea party groups or other groups that the irs? >> no. >> where it would mr. graf said get that flawed information and? >> i feat on paper the prior position confused many people in the spring of 2012 i was asked to sit on a few meetings id listed has caused confusion for some people but i had a full-time job with ac a starting 2012 of december and only on the
occasional basis performed particular task bitterly having nothing to do. >> it was december 2010. >> times ra. >> 2004 president bush awarded the nation's highest civil service award a distinguished executive presidential break the word. >> this was for your outstanding leadership and effective efforts to combat terrorism finance? correct? i think we have a pitcher of the with president bush. it is probably hard to see the ayatollah. >> will you yield? is this a personal meeting she had with the president? were those people that were watching? >> i did not say it was a personal meeting.
>> said she was awarded the highest civil service aboard that you could receive. >> worthy of their people also receiving the same of board? >> i am not sure. >> if she provided it with male recipients? >> i believe it was roughly 55 for 60. >> budget is out of how the members of federal employment or the irs? >> this is over a hundred thousand there are 50 that are selected. >> this is given to people that are part of the executive service said not have the total number stephen pitts is said extraordinary large number of people in and you were recognized as one of a
handful of people that has done extraordinary work my time has expired of a bike to explore in greater detail her work to combat terrorism financing because we know that is a profound, a profound risk that we dealing with. >> we now recognize the gentleman. >> in my redistrict we're becoming increasingly concerned with the federal government over beach to keep information secure earlier this year the epa lead to personal information and of hundreds of cattlemen and farmers and special interest groups to put financial security at risk. the irs political targeting just underscores the constituents skepticism.
to implement the insurance exchange the irs will have to share tax period formation more broadly they had it ever has before. hardy plant to make this information fully protected and not miss used? >> fet for letting me clarify. when our information flows to the exchange of the medicaid office it is secured behind the scenes and is not shown to anybody to the people in the offices. it is mixed with other data available to come up with the determinations that are shared and that is in a range reworked out specifically to reduce the
risk that of authorized people may see that data spee vic they have said the of this is ready and secure but there are all kinds of tactical problems actually the largest paper in my state road after five years of planning experts said they may experience temporary setbacks while applying for coverage and they were right they rediscovered trouble they had a high volume of users of the nationwide exchange and other states reported a similar problem was a rehash of confidence in the irs testing. >> if i could get clarification of the irs
testing? >> why would we have confidence of your security measures? >> the irs has a good track record historically with their own system of the and when our data goes to the marketplace and medicated does not interface with the web site which i believe is what you are referencing. >> so when did it is the testing with the data hub? >> i would have to take back that question exactly when but that. >> along those lines for what they haven't asked to do what have they processed to date? spee reviews are increase
for data and not enrollments' so those are two different things. >> but they are tied to enrollment in order to fully involve. >> if you want to read angeles systems then they have to ask if it is the marketplace they must ask for the data if it is the medicaid office it is optional. is in total today we have processed several hundred thousand requests from all over the country. >> at a hearing before this committee it july the inspector general for the tax administration said lack of adequate testing could result in significant delays to process the hca applications and despite having 3-1/2 years was there
adequate time to test the system? >> we are comfortable in the of the testing of our interface with the data hub we would not have turned on if we were not comfortable. >> i will end with a quick question i am amazed at your detail. were very detail oriented. >> it depends on the topic. >> your familiarity with what i saw. i suspect with your dialogue do you know, who is below with the rigid three? >> i see hundreds of the man as i cannot remember. >> the your recollection of the discussion was very astute to specifics of the of the documentation below
6103? >> i do not below -- know who was below those blocks stephen fet for agreeing to appear before our committee i industry of the irs had important steps to take in preparation for the october october 1st deadline to make that operational in addition to getting the technology ready to share the data required to determine eligibility for premium tax credits they also had to ensure the exchange of information were protect the privacy of taxpayer information. i want to ask the view are one of four senior executives at the irs that run different parts of the implementation of the affordable care act and you are one of them? >> i am one of four but there are people all over. >> out of those one of those
is responsible for getting the technology operational it another is responsible for insuring the taxpayer information is protected. correct? >> so ranking member coming this asked your counterpart to attend this hearing to testify as to the responsibility bin he declined the request. he directed them not to attend the hearing or even sit behind you in case questions came up. nevertheless i have questions and i will forge ahead and hope you can answer some of them. the ec requires the irs, hhs and other agencies to share taxpayer information. can you explain why that data sharing is necessary? we back minders standing --.
>> my a understand a the irs was put in to the enrollment process to provide a data foundation from filed tax returns from the marketplace the best prediction of the following year's income would be but it also contemplates it may have'' sources of income data also take into account what the individual says. all we are required to do when i asked provided the limited data points. >> given the different agencies involved what measures has the irs implemented to insure it is protected? >> i will stave very high level if there were detailed we can provide the committee with more details but in
general it has a program that has been around for decades in overseas agreements over federal entities of the program was brought as normal to a new data sharing mandate and in addition vegas stand to save the kurds people were in discussions very early to insurer what they needed to see before they certified to help them build into the design of their system with the on-site visit but there is a lot of detail i would prefer to take the question back. >> and on and another committee of paul klee and
security we have learned the data hub will bought storer information but will be a pass through to authorize users. is that correct? >> feat of it as an envelope >> will of the other person's see that tax payer information or do they just get the eligibility? >> the end treatment we insisted on that it would not be displayed. and we have looked at the web sites at the recipient of all how they are being built i cannot answer the question the bottom line determination is communicated. >> are there criminal penalties for wrongful disclosure or misuse it
regards to that a see a? >> raiders today is the sanctions travel with the data. >> so there are civil and criminal penalties? i will conclude by saying that i hope the members of the other side will avoid reckless and irresponsible assertions that personal information will be compromised under the affordable care act as current tax law requires corporations a share this information with the irs every day and those officials handle this with the care with the caution that they should every day
if they fail to do so there are criminal and civil petite blond dash penalties. >> will the gentleman yield? river to i'd like to conclude. the point i would like to make it is irresponsible and reckless to somehow suggest this personal and duration will be compromised. people file tax returns every year. inter be sure that these professionals handle with care period we'd need not to raise the alarmist concerns with this data does not support for i yield back my time. >> we don't know that it will be compromised as someone at the irs already thought that it was. >> the key for making that
important point i appreciate my colleague goalie paul on the lighted to pledge to the american people their personal data will not be breached. a and i hope the gentleman is right but i fear it is not going to be right. data security is very major that's just for government by private corporations around the globe and is america. data security is complex and often times not requested if you have good data and reach but when. adapts a.m. breakfast of that data breach. >> will yield for a question? >> theater gentleman would high-yield but the national
organization for marriage is that it was it ever did no civil or criminal penalties occurred to buddy was punished for inadvertently releasing and those could to readers being released. >> the health insurance exchanges the worst i can inform my constituents about how long it takes a person to log god to even get a web site available to law of god , i tried for three days to actually get to the log on page and was unsuccessful. but once they get a and, there is a concern whether or not the rates and subsidy amount are correct. do you have concerns about that? >> the irs does not have a rule of that part of the operation of that goes to hhs. >> so the subsidy amounts you don't have a role?
>> of our answers are correct have a high confidence level. >> is the irs calculate the subsidy amount? >> we offer a service that the marketplace are not required to use based on the anonymous employee to the bond if calculations. >> so in my state weirder the federal exchange so the calculation that they are receiving after they log on to give the i did defying its formation? vivid they believe it is using the computation service. >> so you are involved? >> we get a novice at data points we are not part of the citizens selection how
much of that or what it terex of the premiums soar want to be clear about what part we do and after we've respond. >> so if you say you are not involved but it sounds like you are somewhat. >> i am not familiar with what part is not working so i cannot discuss. >> i will give you a few stories because i don't fight your answers satisfying but why did it waited for hours to log on and it took hours to set up an account of the federal exchange and over the weekend he sought it was only did that had to start over. another saw his premiums
rise from 380 of to 680 even though the policy was not changed and was an increase of 42%. and he is determined to the policy may be worse than was previously. and others saw previous raids from $481 up at $847. another sock previous rises 285%. another sock premiums double from $545 about $1,077 so livid people talk about obamacare and the rhetoric will we see added the irs said implementation i am more concerned about the families of my district. these rates is simply not
affordable and the fact the irs is a huge implementing agency does not give my constituents and the great deal of assurance about the federal role and with that i yield back. >> let me think the witness for being here. ms. ingram under the affordable care at the state government insures that individuals share the responsibility to with the availability starting in 2015 the individual share
with the minimum essentials health coverage. and whether or not they may have health insurance in 2014. if i have an employer provided insurance that i have enjoyed over five years i like my coverage. i have no desire to change my coverage. is as easy as jackie a box i have no employer coverage and therefore it compliance? >> like most americans you can check a box. >> may have health coverage
today to have been among the center coverage will not have to do anything more than continue the coverage that they have but those who don't lew anticipate the continuing coverage to explore more affordable options has opened this month for every state for the district of columbia. a so what qualifies as minimum coverage? >> is somebody does not have employer coverage through a government program like the veteran said the industry should or medicaid or medicare i would suggest
that they check out the marketplace that they have access to to see if the networks. the other saying that is worth noting there are a series of exemptions before somebody worries about paid a penalty i would recommend they try to have insurance to look at the liabilities and also to understand the exemptions. as part of the continuing education process to reach out people through lots of channels and in the work with hhs in their operations we want to make sure people understand those three pieces if they have some
things down their fight if they want to access here are opportunities then they should still consider having insurance but i understand all the very small number of people to be to worry about the penalty they will have what they need to meet the obligations. >> if they received insurance through the spouse's employer do they have minimum coverage? we back insurance is insurance to a battery you get it. >> when you talk about important it is king you tell us what role you played
to educate? >> we have approached the education and path of time period dancers to the over 230-degree deal of the across federal agency education comes with the marketplace but we were closely with our colleagues to make sure eddie tax rolls work correctly and accurately portrayed or the public presentations and we have partnered with the sba and hhs on a number of our reach yvette's including tax practitioner forum sam local chamber of commerce events and web banners since we are leveraging that for matt. going into 2014 and approaching the filing season and a great deal of
the educationists specifically about tax provisions and the tax returns filed and air the 2015. the focus shifts overtime over what is a topic can what avenues of a reach so it evolves over time there are phases. >> mr. chairman thank you. i want to ask questions about the health care exchanges but indulge me we have had a lot of top colleagues raising your service to defend your integrity at the irs. a reason to doubt that but do you believe as said american and working for the irs you are probably proud for that organization but do you believe the tea party
groups were targeted? [inaudible conversations] from what i understand at this point and i have not followed all of these discussions were the press, i do the ever see if it is okay to use people's political viewpoints of the bandage chain of inventory in the tax agency i am not familiar with what has happened but when i sat in on of the beating elected a report i was upset at the way activities word described. >> so that you take it is appropriate to pursue an investigation to find out who is responsible. >> would never voice in a
pate you about the prerogatives of this kit committee. >> it is fair. >> but we are under fire it is never right to target the president spoke out now is called a phony scandal as the american? >> i don't personally engage the public debates either about the investigations. >> do you have an opinion? >> over my career when there has been in the questions or allegations about something not go reid right and in particular if there is any personal bias that i have not heard that and the concern about the
appropriate handling of cases i have always thought that i reduced the of that they are part of the process is the big let's talk about the problems they are in countering of a light to enter the "wall street journal" article with online health insurance but this article references the fact less than two weeks before the insurance marketplace that they cannot reliably determined how to paint for much of the coverage but people familiar with it determines how which people would pay for subsidize coverage say it is still miscalculating prices have the schedule will be started this week and there was a
statement there is a plea get the dollars through their rates are calculated correctly and one said that tech operations people our concerned about the problems they are receiving about the potential to stick around. according to the gao the government's ban 400 million to develop said data of after 3-1/2 years and $400 million why did it failed dramatically last week? evictee irs is not part of any of those activities. i am sorry. >> for their anti-to access the federal exchange to get essential coverage? >> it is a little early to even have that conversation.