they provide everything else. that is $100 a day. it is $36,500. is that correct or not correct? >> i am not entirely clear on what the second amount is that you are referencing. >> is a 100-dollar per day penalty for not providing everything on preventative services list. and that list is rather long for men and women and children are including the things that have to be provided in the employer provided health care. so there is a lot of question out there from a lot of employers that they miss one of those, or if they choose not to provide one of those. but they don't provide it, at 100% coverage paid for by the employer, they are not fined $2000, they are fined $36,500. one hundred dollars per day. >> i will have to take the question back to the lawyers. >> i would appreciate that because the same question has been asked by multiple employers in my district. they can't get anyone at the irs

to answer the question and they continually ask this question. is this really $100 per day per person. in fact it is actually per person that is affected. it's not an import employee. so if that employee has children, their assumption is also 36,500 per char old grandchild as well. no one will give them an answer from the irs on what that penalty is and how it stacks up. all the big it is a stall from that and we have to get clarification because there are businesses that are out there that do have a problem whether for religious reasons were other reasons. if they miss one, that is a pretty big hit. it is no longer just a fee or a penalty, but that is punitive. $36,500 per person. >> what i can say from the perspective of my planning is that that is not in my current work plan to address that issue. so that does not necessarily answer your question, and if that is the case, i will take you back.

>> any guess on a time limit? they have asked for months of clarification. can we get a time we might get an answer to that? >> if it relates to matters that are in litigation, there are a number of places that i have to stop to get the answer. >> thank you, i feel back. >> the gentle lady from california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ma'am, thank you for your incredible service to our country for 31 years. i'm pretty disappointed in this hearing today, mr. chairman. we have a shutdown and 800,000 per load federal employees at the irs. 90% of the staff have been furloughed. october 15 is the deadline for all tax returns to finally be submitted. and we are talking about miss ingram. thought about how the irs is going to process this, all of the paper that will be coming in in the next week.

instead of having a hearing on the impact of the shutdown of the public, the majority has decided to been actively reenact groundhog day, holding another hearing to point out wrongdoing by the administration. except this version of groundhog day is not funny at all. the committee has decided to bully a civil servant with a long and distinct square with the irs. in fact, members of this committee on the other side have made their intentions clear. accusing the woman of responsibility for the scandal and political bias that they have not been able to prove. let's be clear that she is not a political appointee. she received a distinguished service award from president george bush in 2004. she was given the job of implementing the aca precisely because she is confident and able to get the job done. a thankless task for sure.

so let's go to your credentials. you have been a staff person within the irs for 30 years. is that correct? >> since late 1982. >> okay, in 1982 you graduated from the distinguished law school at georgetown. is that correct? >> yes, man. >> you have the opportunity of going two k. street but chose rather joined the irs. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and you serve in that capacity since the administration of president reagan. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> every administration since then. republican and democrat, you have been in service to this country by the internal revenue service? >> yes, ma'am. >> and has been charged that you are responsible for targeting

tea party organizations seeking tax-exempt status and republican house member accused you of being directly in charge of his targeting. and i quote that she provided her rent is customer service under her watch. and now she is going to do the same implementing of obamacare. >> okay. >> i would like to give you a chance to respond to that attack. were you directly in charge of targeting tea party groups? >> no. >> were you involved in any way, shape, or form, of targeting tea party or others at the irs? >> no, ma'am. >> so where would mr. griffin get that kind of flawed information? >> i think the fact that on paper i was left on the prior position and it confused many

people. and the fact that in the spring of 2012, steve miller asked me to send on a few meetings and listen in and it has caused confusion for some people. i had a more than full time job at the aca starting in december of 2012. and only on an occasional basis that i perform particular tasks when requested by mr. miller, usually having nothing to do with this. >> i was december 2010? >> yes. >> okay, in 2004, president george bush were to be the nation's highest, i repeat the highest civil service award for the distinguished executive presidential rank award. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> this award was for your outstanding tax law leadership and effective efforts to combat terrorism financing. is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> i think we have a picture of you with the president. president bush.

>> it is hard to see where you are, but i have been told that you are right under this. >> is that the personal meaning that she had with the president, who are those people that are watching the one-on-one personal meaning? >> i didn't say it was a person. >> okay. >> i said that she was being awarded the distinguished service award, the highest civil service award that you could receive in national service. >> were all of the other people receiving the same order in that picture? >> the gentlelady's lawyers have provided. >> i believe that the year was roughly 55 or 1960 -- i'm sorry, 55 or 60 receiving. >> okay, how many members the federal employment or within the irs?

>> so this was the entire employment of 50,000 people, and she was one of them. >> this is an award given to a small number of people who are part of the senior executive service and i don't have the exact number of the total senior executive service from the federal government. >> but it is an extraordinarily large number of people. you were recognized as one of a handful of people who have done extraordinary work. my time has expired, but i would like for us to explore may be in greater detail her work in combating terrorism financing because we know that that is a profound risk that we are dealing with. >> i think the gentlelady and we now recognize the gentleman from arizona. >> you know, in my district in arizona, my constituents are becoming concerned with the federal government and its overreach and the ability to keep personal information

secure. earlier this year, the epa leak personal information of hundreds of cattlemen and farmers of rural arizona to special interest groups, which put their financial security at risk. additionally, the irs has political targeting of individuals earlier this year to -underscore our constituents skepticism. my question is to implement the insurance exchanges, the irs will have to share taxpayer information which will probably than it ever has before. how do you plan to make this information fully protected and not misuse? >> thank you, sir, for what it verifies something that was said earlier. and that is when our information upon request of the applicant be provided, when it flows to the exchange or the medicaid office, it is secured behind the scenes and it is not shown to anyone

who is applying who is assisting them were to the general employees in those two offices. it is a back room data feed that has been mixed with other data to come up with determinations that are then shared and that is an arrangement that we worked out quite specifically to reduce the risk that unauthorized people might see this data. >> the administration has stated that the data hub is ready and finished and that's security testing and there are problems when the exchanges occurred last week. in fact, the largest paper in my state actually wrote this. despite this, consumers may experience temporary setbacks when applying for coverage through the new government run website and they were right. some residents discovered this

when attempting to log on to health care.gov and it made a high volume of users on the nationwide exchange, users in other states reported a similar problem. given the technical struggles, why should we have confidence in the testing? >> i'm sorry, if i could get clarification. of its own system? >> yes, why would we trust their security mechanisms? >> the irs historically has a very good track record about our own systems. again, i would emphasize that when our data goes to the marketplaces and the medicaid offices, it does not interface with the website, which i believe is what you were discussing if i was listening correctly. >> okay. so when did the irs finish with the irs data hub prior to october 1? >> i would have to take back the

question of exactly one. but the testing continued through various types of testing that went on all your. >> so what about the comments of the irs has functioned very well in what they have been asked to do. can you tell me how many inquiries they actually process? >> these are inquiries for data. and these are not the moment. i want to be clear that these are two different things. >> but they are tied to enrollment? >> well -- >> in order to fully enrolled. >> if you want financial assistance. >> yes. >> in the have to assess that the marketplace, they must by statute ask is for the data. if it's medicaid, it's optional. however, in total to date, we have processed several hundred thousand requests. >> okay. >> from all over the country? >> mall over the country. >> at a hearing before this

committee in july, inspector general for the audit and tax administration says that concerned the lack of adequate testimony could result in delays including processing aca applications for insurance. despite having 3.5 years to prepare for the exchanges for the launch, was her time to test the system to your knowledge? >> we are very comfortable that any of the testing that was about our systems or our interface was the data hub and we would not have turned on if we were not comfortable. >> ending with a quick question. and i am amazed at your detail, you are a detail oriented person, are you not? >> it depends on the topic, sir. >> i am amazed at your detail. i am a dentist, so i am very detail oriented. so i am saying that you are detail oriented. i suspect with the dialogue that

you do know what is below 103. do you not? >> i see hundreds of e-mails per day for most of my career. i cannot remember what is in a particular one. >> but your recollection talks about those with specifics within that documentation of e-mail. know who is below or not? >> i do not know who is below those bucks. >> okay, thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> thank you, ms. ingraham. i understand that the irs had a number of important steps that had taken preparation for the october 1 deadline made the health care.gov website operational. in addition to getting it ready to share this for eligibility for premium tax credits, the irs also has to ensure that the exchange of information would protect the privacy of taxpayer information. so i would like to ask.

you are one of four senior executives at the irs at the implementation of the affordable care act. >> there are principles all over the irs. >> out of the four of them, one of those is responsible for getting the technology operational and another is responsible for ensuring that taxpayer information remains protected. is that correct? >> yes. >> ranking member cummings asked the chairman to invite counterparts at the irs to attend this hearing today to testify as to their responsibilities. but the chairman declined the requests and apparently directed them not to attend the hearing was to behind you in case questions came out. nonetheless, i have questions.

and i'm just going to forge ahead and hope that you can answer some of them. first of all, the aca requires the irs and hhs and other federal agencies to share taxpayer information. can you explain why that data sharing is necessary? >> my understanding, my understanding is that the reason that the irs was put into that process, the enrollment process, was to provide a data foundation for starting the conversation at the marketplace about what the best prediction of the following year's income would be. the statute also contemplates that the marketplaces might have multiple sources of income data and also taking into account the individual says. but we are required to do is one

asked, provide the limited data points. >> given the different agencies involved, what measures has the irs implemented to ensure that taxpayer information is protected? >> i will stay very high-level. if there are more detailed questions, i will take them back and provide them with detail. in general, the irs has a safeguarding program that has been around for decades. and it does oversee agreements among having nothing to do the aca with over 300 or something state and federal entities. that program was brought as being normal to a new data sharing mandate in the statute. and in addition, i understand the safeguards that people were involved with hhs, they made mistakes early on and assess what they needed to see before they certified anyone and that

would be in place, a lot of educational stuff and helping them build stuff into the design of their systems. on-site visits, whatever. but there is a lot of stuff with the details and i would prefer to take the question back and get a response. >> one other of my committees of homeland security, we have learned that the data hub will not actually store information, but instead will essentially be a pass through the routes information to authorized users. is that correct? >> yes, think of it as an envelope being cared for by a mailman. >> so will the other person be able to see the taxpayers information, or do they just get a ruling on the eligibility of income? >> the agreement that we insisted on for anyone receiving this data was that the taxpayer would not be displayed.

and we have looked at how the website at the recipient level are being built to assure ourselves about. i can't answer the question as to whether there is a variety as to how it was determined on this. >> what about criminal penalties for the misuse of wrongful disclosure, personal tax information in regards to the aca? >> my understanding is that the tax safeguards including sanctions travel with the data. so whoever receives that data is subject to the same provisions maxa there are several criminal penalties for the misuse of this? >> just. >> i will conclude by saying that i hope that members on the other side will avoid reckless, and in my opinion, irresponsible assertions that personal information will be compromised under the correct.

just as current tax law requires, individual and corporation corporation share this information with the irs everyday and there are professionals at the irs would handle this information with the care and caution that they share each and every day. and if they fail to do so, there are criminal and civil penalties that they can be held against for any breach of that information. >> with gentleman yield? >> no, i would like to conclude my comment. so the point that i would like to make is that it's very irresponsible and also reckless to somehow suggest that this personal information -- you all file your tax returns every year. these professionals handle this

with care. including raising the alarmist concerns. ideal back my time. >> i would just say that we don't know that it will be compromised. but what we do know is that someone at the irs thought that it already was and i yield to the gentleman from north carolina. >> i think the chairman for making that point and i appreciate my colleague going far out on the line to pledge to the american people that the personal data will not be breached and i hope that the gentleman is right. but i fear that it is not going to be right. the question with data security is a major one not just for government, but private corporations in america and around the globe. the question of data security is a complex one. obviously. it is oftentimes not a question

of a few will have a date and trend data breach, but when. the depth and the breadth of that data breach as well. >> with the would the gentleman yield for a question? >> yes. >> i think the gentleman. the other gentleman wouldn't yield. but i couldn't help but remember the national organization that saw their donors list released by the irs and the answer was in vernon and my understanding is that no civil penalties occurred. those contributors being contacted and harassed, i think the gentleman. >> thank you. >> the health insurance exchanges, the words i get for my constituents, about how long it takes to first logon to even get a website available so that they can logon. i tried for three days to actually get to a logon page was actually unsuccessful. but once they get in, there is a

concern about whether the rates and the subsidy amounts are correct. do you have concerns about that? >> the irs does not have a role not part of the operations and i would have to refer you to hhs. >> in terms of the subsidy amounts, you would not have any role? >> whether the responses response is when we are queried are correct, i don't know exactly what part that is being referred to. >> is the irs calculate the subsidy amount? >> we offer a service that the marketplaces are not required to use on anonymous inputs, doing a math calculation as a service and that's all we do. >> okay, so in my state of north carolina we are under the federal exchange because we chose not everyone at the state level. so the calculations that my constituents are receiving after they logon, identifying

information. >> i believe that they are using this computation service. >> also you are involved. >> that we are not, we get an anonymous sets of data points to get back and we are not part of the citizens fluxion of how much they want to take or how that interacts with the actual premiums on the policy that they select. i just want to be clear about what part that they do. >> okay, so if you're saying that you are not involved, you said that you or someone involved in this. >> i am not familiar with what part you are discussing. >> okay, let me just give you a few stories. i didn't find your answer anyway

satisfying. but hearing the stories for my constituents. michael waited for hours to first logon in that and then it took him hours to set up an account on the federal exchange. unfortunately with the repairs over the weekend, and he's had to start over again this week. mike from hickory saw his premiums rise to $650. and phil saw an increase even though the policy was unchanged and saw an increase of 42%. and he is determining that the policy may actually be worse than it was previously. and erica and her three kids other premiums rise and matthew from asheville saw his premiums rise 285% and curtis from shelby saw his premiums double

essentially from $549 to $1077. so when people talk about obamacare, i'm more concerned about the families that are impacting my district. we want people to have access to a portable health insurance, but these rates are not affordable in the fact that the irs is a huge implementing agency does not actually give my constituents any great deal of reassurance about the federal role here. so with that, i yield back my time. >> i think the gentleman. and mr. davis, please go ahead. >> would you please turn on your microphone? >> okay. thank you very much. let me thank our witness for being here.

the federal care act under the affordable care act and individuals are given shared responsibility to improve the quality and affordability of health insurance coverage in the united states. starting in 2015, the individuals share responsibilities for the provisions that calls for each individual to have minimum essential health coverage. individuals will report on their tax returns whether or not they have health insurance in 2014. let me ask you this. suppose i have employer provided insurance that i have enjoyed for over five years. i like my coverage. i have no desire to change my coverage. when i file my taxes, will it be

as easy as checking a box to say that i have employer coverage and am therefore in compliance with the requirement. >> like most americans committee will be able to check a box. >> many have health coverage today. it would count as minimal essential coverage and would not need to do anything more than continue the coverage they have. and this includes those who anticipate that coverage. including more affordable options and the health insurance marketplace has opened this month with everything they and the district of columbia. can you explain what qualifies

as minimum coverage. >> if someone does not have employer coverage or does not have coverage through a government program like the veterans administration or medicaid or medicare, i would suggest that they do two things. that they check out the marketplace they have access to depending on where they live and what kind of marketplace it is in something the other things worth noting is that there are exemptions from those who share the responsibility requirements and before somebody worries about paying a penalty, they ought to -- i would recommend that they tried to have insurance to hedge their personal and economic liabilities. and also to check out if they cannot do that.

to make sure they understand the exemptions in the information that is on her website as part of our continuing education process reaching out to people. if they have something now, we want to make sure people understand these pieces. they want to access something, here are the opportunities. they meet one of the exemptions, then they should consider, still consider having insurance, but they should understand that. and only the very small number of people, according to the cbo, need to worry about the penalty, but they will have what they need to meet their obligations on every turn. >> let me ask you if an individual receives insurance and this includes minimum wage?

>> insurance is insurance to matter where you get it. >> thank you very much. >> let me ask you, when you talk a lot about education and how important it is in the states to do that, can you just tell us what role that you all play with regard to educating? >> certainly. >> certainly for 2013, a great deal of the federal agency education has had to do with the opening of the marketplaces. that we have worked closely with our colleagues to make sure that any discussions about tax provisions and rules were correctly and accurately portrayed in their materials for their websites or their public presentations. we have partnered with a small business administration and hhs on a number of outreach event,

including tax practitioner forums and chamber of commerce event and webinars since we have been leveraging this format. and as we go into 2014 and certainly as we approach this filing season, a great deal of the education isn't specifically about tax provisions and specifically about the tax were returns that will be filed in 2015 and the focus and which avenue is about reach and the volume of educational efforts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to ask you some questions about the health care exchanges. the first, we've had a lot of our colleagues praising service

and integrity and i'm not sure that i have any reason to doubt that. do you believe as an american, i know you worked for 31 years and you're probably proud of the organization that you work for, do you believe that tea party groups were indeed targeted? >> there is an understanding on this point and i have not followed this and so forth. but i am, i do not ever think that it is okay to use people's political viewpoints in the managing of inventory and i'm not familiar enough with exactly what happened. but when i sat in a meeting in the spring of 2012 and when i skimmed the report this past

spring, i was upset at the way that activities were described. >> so you think it is appropriate that this committee continues to pursue investigation and find out who is responsible, if this indeed happened? >> i would never voice an opinion about the prerogatives of this committee, sir. >> okay, that is probably fair. but nonetheless come it seems like we are under fire today for wanting to get answers for people are just what you said. and the president spoke out against it and now it is being called a phony scandal. you think it's a phony scandal or do you think it warrants further investigation? >> well, sir, i do not personally engaged in the public debates, either about investigations -- >> you have an opinion?

>> over my career, when there have been any questions about something not going right and particularly if there is a rift, which i have not heard of, any concerns about allegations are about the appropriate handling of cases, i have always thought that this was the appropriate place for me to turn to look into things. and i understand that they have a part of this process. >> okay, let's talk about some of the problems that we are encountering and i would like to ask unanimous consent in a wall street journal article to be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> okay, this references the fact that less than two weeks before the launch of the insurance marketplace created by the health overhaul, we cannot reliably determine how much

people need to pay for their coverage according to executives and people from the program. for people determine how much people would pay on federally run exchanges at miscalculating prices and only started this week and there was a statement that there was an analogy that rates are being calculated incorrectly with a senior health executive that did not want to be named. and our operations people are concerned and the potential of them to stick around. so according to the gao, the federal government spent $400 million to prevent this data hub after 3.5 years and $400 million in wanted the website also directly last week? >> it is not part of those

activities, sir. >> are there any plans to provide this in individual mandate for those who are unable to access the federal exchange and obtain minimal coverage? were essential coverage? >> i would say that it is a little early to have a conversation. matt do you think you could've been better prepared if you have another year? >> dirs? no, i do not. >> you think it's as good as it's going to get? >> i think that the responsibilities that were assigned to the irs, we planned and we turned on and it is working. >> what we do to people who who cannot pay their portion if they subsidize a family of four gets $5000 and they have to pay let's say $5000. what if they cannot pay that and were you going to do differently >> the only thing that is of interest to the irs and administering the individual responsibility is which months

that that family has insurance in the fact. we are not directly involved in whether the individual is behind on their payments to insurance companies and what we get told is which month is that in effect. >> is that determine the extra taxes that they pay? >> that is the underlying piece of data that goes into the calculation. >> okay, we now go to the gentle lady from new mexico for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, thank you miss ingram. i'm going to focus on the affordable care act components and some of the statements about the implementation me by my colleagues. every federal employee that is for load is a casualty in my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have appealed the affordable care act have

prevented millions of americans from signing up for affordable health care insurance. today i have listened to the focus on the hhs component of the web design and whether or not people can get on. and i want to go back to a couple couple of issues. i wasn't here in congress, i am clear that there have been several congressional mandates and significant portions in the billions to both dod and is part of those investments, they are required to share information that would help the backlog. and they have not. as far as i know, they are really nowhere close to getting that resolved and i have not seen this effort to repeal or pull back any efforts to make sure that the veterans are assisted. and that is part of the stimulus package of 2009, all public and private health care providers

have to adopt electronic electronic medical records. and that is virtually every health care provider. and i have to do that by 2014. and if they don't do that they will be penalized in 2015. i can tell you that is a new congress member having to navigate my health care from a district, i still have two go get a hard copy, if you will, of an x-ray to get it here. despite these mandates and the incentive payments that have been made available to these health care providers to be able to share electronic medical information and to provide it to me. so like the forbes article, i can be in a third world country access my bank records, but i still cannot get electronic medical records in my personal medical records. the point being that medicare, informant for medicare was a nightmare and i was writing

about this when i got hundreds of phone calls a week from seniors who are were dismayed and upset, who could not figure out which plan that they had to enroll in. i have limited enrollment faces in that plan changed the formulary with the drugs that they need it, the folks that were getting benefits from their state and their medigap plans, it was really awful. and the big complaint is now being addressed over time in the affordable care act. the point being that repealing medicare part d. enrollment is tough and i expect that this committee and others will make sure that the irs and hhs get their jobs done and do it well and that we ask you what we can do to assist the best possible implementation to deal with all of the glitches that have been identified today and

to make sure that the millions of people who have attempted to enroll cannonball. so my last statement, trying to make sure that this anomaly of my colleagues have identified, suggest this and i have seen no effort to pull it back and repeal. most americans are happy when they know that they can get a tax credit of any kind. >> yes. >> when they are pine for those tax credits, they are effective and getting whatever help to make sure that they get their access to that subsidy? >> we try to make sure that everyone knows what obligations and benefits they are eligible for and we try to equip them and their advisors to make that process as easy as possible, just like when we make a similar acts effort.

>> do the taxpayers ever see the subsidy or does it go to insurance companies? >> are two ways that they can ask access the assistance. if they need help with a month-to-month basis as they go along, then they may find the advanced payment convenient and they go to the insurance company and they are building the insurance company only for the balance. if for some reason someone things that they can make their payments themselves, there is also an opportunity if they qualify to ask for the credit at that point and this includes the economic decision. >> rethink the gentle lady for yielding. >> i will be brief. given that and recognizing that the benefit will go towards a premium, i ran the high-risk pool. and now we are one of the only

states that provides low income tax premium benefits to individuals with pre-existing conditions who could not otherwise afford insurance. my experience was that we were generally happy about paying less for the premium regardless of the effort to make that happen. >> is that what you expect to occur by those americans who have access under the portal correct? >> we understand that the principal purpose is to make it possible for people to get insurance who could not otherwise afford it. >> i think the gentle lady. we now go to mr. trey gowdy. >> good afternoon. what is the legal authority by which a president can decide to enforce or not enforce certain provisions of the law. >> i am not in the group of people who analyze the legal underpinnings of that. but i will say as an

administrator, it is not uncommon when there are not large new information reporting situation. >> i am asking for the legal basis. >> i have not done the analysis indicators. >> let's simplify it. can the president unilaterally increasing find that congress set? >> i'm sorry, i am confused. >> is not a trick question. can any chief executive unilaterally increase the fine or a statutory maximum? >> i don't know any example that. >> so the answer would be no? >> i hesitate to respond to all of the agencies. >> i'm going to say trust me and the answer is no. you cannot.

you cannot decide that we think the maximum should be live instead of 30 years, so we will send it and you can't do that. >> i understand, sir. >> and you can also not suspend a mandatory minimum. >> and this includes a 924 see violation, the president cannot decide that he doesn't like that law and suspend it. is that correct? >> yes. >> again, it's not a trick question. >> is more of a civics question. >> i am trying to get my head around the parameters. >> if the gentlemen would be gracious enough to follow my time. >> is a layperson, is a layperson at the irs, have you

ever, even if you are exiting it around you, heavy on by the executive order? >> yes. >> you ever consider as a lawyer and a professional that the president can usurp the irs law or regulation through executive order. and i did not say fill in the gaps. >> with the chairman indulge me taking that into parts? >> that would be the gentlemen from two -- >> may i respond? >> you may. >> the executive order part -- i don't understand that, but let me say that it is not uncommon in my 31 years, particularly when he started his new and when a constituency is having

difficulty, giving them an additional time or year or trying to tailor on a temporary basis what people have to do with that statute. >> my question is what is the legal basis and have you ever seen an instance when an executive unilaterally increase the marginal tax rate? >> no. an increase? >> no. >> you would agree that there are certain categories, even if the executive may not agree with the law? >> it is never a question of whether we agree with the law. that is not irrelevant decision. >> that is particularly in this area. >> i am talking about a statute passed by congress and i asked the legal authority by which an

executive can decide which portions of the law he or she wants to enforce and which provisions of that law, that they decide not to enforce. >> if there is any variation of the statute, it is never a single statute, and it includes that includes analysis by someone who is not me. >> the recent analysis is only if an executive believes that a law is unconstitutional, like, for instance, doma. so we are going to go back when the russians were facing the media. people question your legal and constitutional authority to delay the employer mandate did you consult with your lawyer. this was the president responds, in what i said was i will seize any opportunity that i can to

strengthen the middle class, improve their security, but where congress is unwilling to act, i need to be able to do right by the american people. i did not hear the legal authority for suspending the law. i heard a political justification. did you hear legal authority in his response? >> i don't know anything about his response. >> did you hear a legal justification for suspending certain provisions of the law? >> i overheard what you said. it speaks for yourself. i cannot interpret it. >> can you cite a legal justification for determining which portions of the law you would like to turn off and turn on? >> i'm not familiar with the tax code where we would be changing

things in the way the previously mentioned. changing a tax rate, increasing a tax amount, reducing a tax amount. the situations in which i have been involved both in the aca and prior to the aca over the years have had to do it taking into account with those who need more time or logistical help in meeting their obligations. >> your testimony is there is no provision of the aca is not being implemented precisely as it was passed? >> is that your testimony? >> yes, as we understand by congress to. >> what does that mean? have you failed to meet any deadlines and is any portion not implemented under the timetable of which it was passed? >> thank you. there are several provisions at the request of the tax payer community that we have taken

into account the need for me to have delayed a provision passed by congress and i would point you to the wp w-2 provisions with the administrator administered request and the information filing requirements and was based on and they needed more time to arrange their data and their systems. >> the employer tax can be figured out about some of that reporting. >> mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent. because something in her response prompted another question. >> without objection and so ordered. >> you said you had heard from the community. and i am not familiar with that entity in our branch of government. my question is what is the role of congress, she would want to

respond not enforcing the provision of the law. but the tax payer community, what is the role of congress? >> congress, from time to time, will enact statutes. and they are difficult to administer on that timeframe. they will not always do what they ask. and they think it is a temporary accommodation and does not do lasting damage to the enactment of congress and we will take this into consideration and we take very seriously this as part of her job.

>> it is hard to stymie and this is not reinforce this part of the law because some group decided to implement it. because you live with the consequences of it because you can imagine that they didn't like some other provision of our criminal code being enforced. can you imagine that? >> are out of time and unions and large companies were communities are an individual taxpayers are currently not getting a delay and they are not a community. without we go to the gentle lady from illinois. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have great concerns about the data sharing network that was created by health and human services that this became operational.

>> that is right. i wish that we could have actually asked some questions about how the program is running. with that, i yield my time to the ranking member. >> thank you very much, ma'am. i was listening to the exchange with mr. trey gowdy. and i guess i hear all of the complaints about the irs and i remember when i practiced law. one time i was audited for five years and i mean, one time. >> i ask unanimous consent of that the remaining time be fully yielded to the gentleman. you are now recognized for the remaining time. >> she cannot actually yield and then leave under the rules?

>> that is correct. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. >> i represented a number of people, and they, when they got notice of the letter from the irs, we get very upset and nervous. >> what you just said, it sounds like you're talking about a situation where sometimes sometimes we are trying to work with folks -- including showing consideration. is that what you're saying? >> i'm trying to distinguish whether someone likes or doesn't like a law, which is irrelevant to our work. but whether there are logistical and practical problems with

people's ability to do the mechanics of the need to do. i would just like to distinguish those two points. >> you are darned if you do and darned if you don't. >> we have had some bad action. and you know, and i think the part of this is for what you have done. and the word on the street is that you are a superstar. i'm telling you what i heard. >> did you ask this question? >> no, sir, i did not.

>> the piece that you have, i mean, the irs has said that you have been able to put it together. and i guess, could you tell us how that came about, you're constantly talking about these timelines, because there are other problems and some other areas. maybe people need to listen about how the irs did this. and i am not trying to put you on the spot. i constantly said two words. the effectiveness and efficiency. and i told tell them that we have one life to live, we have a limited amount of time on this earth and where we are, have to get things done and we have to get them done well. so i'm just curious as you talk about the process of getting to where you have gone too. >> i think a very basic part of our success today and our confidence and planning going forward is that we recognize that we needed talent from across the irs. and we identify that talent and

set up a governing committee is chaired by the two deputy commissioners to which we all report in. and if someone wants more details about that, there are gao reports that go into that in more detail. the best governing mechanism is what we try to set up early on including the project management mechanisms to ensure including the veriest phases on the effective date, and what would have taxed them. ..

and the minimum number of people needed to either operate them or from my shop, business people in order support that work, so there are a -- is a small number of people from my shop who have beenen -- on duty to support it. >> thank you very much. >> thank the gentleman. because we can never tell how many members are going come and go we have up to ten additional members who may ask between both sides. it would be appropriate to take about a five-minute break? >> i'm happy to, yes. >> why don't we go ahead and do

that so we not take you in a -- i can't tell you how much longer beyond the people sitting here. we'll stand in recess for a few. the meeting come back to order and come back to the gentleman from texas who has been patiently waiting. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and miss ingram i appreciate for your being here. i know, it's not the most comfortable seat to be in washington, d.c. i want to step back and take 30,000-foot view of what is going on right now. when people think about the irs, the primary responsibility is to collect taxes, the buferlg of which which is income tax; is that correct? >> that's the primary purpose yes. >> and the irs relies on -- we have the audit here and there. the vast majority what the irs does is based on. public complying with the law? >> we're, it's a corner stone of our democracy. >> can with the current scandals that are going on, it's my

feeling that the american public is losing confidence in the government at some of the leaks within the irs to member list of organizations. you had the whole targeting scandal. do you think these miscues, i'm trying to pick a benign word have a negative impact how the american perceive the entire government and the irs in particular? >> without speaking to particular examples, i am deeply sad bed -- saddened as a veteran of the civil service at anything that damages the confidence of the american people and the administration -- >> and inappropriate for the irs to share information with anybody for political purposes. would you agree with that? >> i don't think political purposes should be part of our work. >> fake, that was one of the

article impeachment against president nixon. which eventually lead to the resignation was a charge improperly using that information. let me go to -- so i think we've got a problem here that needs to be addressed in a big picture way. i also want to talk for a second debate security. as a former computer consult assistant. i know, no matter how good of a job you do in securing your own networking. once you open up a whole for somebody else to get in and share data with them, you can no longer really have control over the ultimate security there. so despite -- assuming the irs were perfect. inspect this age, i don't think there's a thing of perfect cybersecurity. as soon as you start sharing informing with third spart there anything in place if somebody is not being careful with that you can cut them ?awf how do you dale with the security from the third party folks you sharing data with? >> i think there are a couple of

pieces to keep in mind about the situation. one is i think would be glad to provide a more detailed briefing later on the whole data security at the irs piece. i think that could be arranged. >> that's something i would like to do. but you do agree as accessed to the information more difficult security gets. >> why which is why in the arrangement how we share data in the insis stance we -- it not be displayed to individuals looking at the screen or people helping them. >> all right. i want to get something the ranking member said. heft talking about government shut down. you mentioned you furloughed quite a bit of people. my understanding is that the report of 91% of the irs is fur loid. -- furlough? >> i'm not an expert on the detail. it sounds roughly right. >> my understanding, again is that the people who take the checks and cash them for people to be filing last minute october

5th are there but the people who process the refunds for the people who are owed them are not. are you aware of that? >> i'm not an expert on the criteria for which people stay are not. there's a life and properties a foact that. >> i fleesht. i promised i would get mr. gody my last minute. he didn't get anything. >> thank you. we're told from time to time on this side of the aisle that the affordable care act is the law of the land. it's been affirmed by the supreme court. we should get used to it. you may, from time to time, have seen some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sharing that sentiment with us. i want to read another quote to you. it's not from you. the quote is important, i think. everyone is up in arms because they don't like it. they can't do anything about it. think want the irs to fix the problem. everybody is screaming at us right now fix it before the

election. do you know who said that? >> i have no idea. >> lois learner said that before she invoked her fifth amendment privilege. she said it in connection with citizens unit the. the president has been vocal himself for call forking the overturning of citizen united. so in conclusion, i guess some of our frustration is this. the president doesn't like citizen united. lois learner doesn't like citizen united. my colleague on the other side of the i'm don't like citizen united. they can advocate for the repeal and legislative remedy, and not following it. they're not called arsonist or terrorist or anything else. those of who may think the affordable care act is costing people job or may be oarchedded that the hhs would -- people violate the religious view. somehow the analysis is different when we ask it all be changed or repealed or not enforced.

so duplicity of that citizens united versus the affordable care act, i think, is what is fueling some of the frustration. with that, i would yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. we go to the gentle lady from illinois. >> i think your mic, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here today. i would like to ask you about the allegations that have been lodged against you. republican congressman tom price accused you of systemic harassment of conservative and religious organizations. he also argued that your employment at the irs should be suspended. i would like to give you an opportunity to respond those extents directly. because congressman and women have say a lot of things to the press and smear your name and never give you a chance to respond. did you engagement in systemic harassment of conservative and religious organize? >> no. >> throughout your 31-plus year at irs have you ever treated a taxpayer differently based on

your own political or personal belief. >> absolutely not. >> i want to talk about the timeline. i know, we discussed your move from the commissioner of taxes in government entities to your new position at the aca on december 2010; is that correct? >> i'm sorry. >> your move. >> misdirected by the sign. if you can ask me again. >> that you moved from the commissioner of tax exempt government entities to your new aca position december 2010? >> yes, ma'am. >> during the tribed interview with committee staff you said during the tenure of the commissioner miss learner never told you about the allegation realitied to the tea party case. >> i no memory of hearing about them while there was. >> you became aware of the general allegations in 2012 from press releases; is that correct? >> i heard some things in the press, which is in the spring

and my boss asked me to sit in on a couple of meetings. >> mr. mill sphear. >> right. >> asked do you attend a meeting about the allegations in 2012. >> yes. in the spring. that's when he decided to send the teem senate toy conduct -- cincinnati to conduct an internal review. >> that's what i was observing. >> when were you on the team? >> nam. >> did you conduct any internal review? >> no. i had no role in between the few meetings i attended help persuade miss marx to participate. okay. when the review was completed, you were inform bid the internal review team that some applications for tax exempt tax-exempt status had been screened using inappropriate criteria and experience delay. >> mr. miller asked me to sit on

a meeting where they reported back. i heard at that time there were serious concerns based on the ground review about the delay in cases of handling of cases -- were you involved in -- >> i sat in on a couple of meetings that mr. miller asked me to join that at which the team presented their proposal of what they would recommend happen next. in term of analyzing the cases and educating staff and so forth. so i sat in on some of the meetings and that was kind of my role. you weren't a i had a more than

full-time job. i know, many people in this room work long hours, but 60 or 70 hours seems like a full-time job to me. that job was aca. i was not having my of aca duties taken off me. when i could sit in, when i was requested, i true to collaborate. it was only a few time. i didn't make a lough times i was invited. did you play any role in low wees learner's decision to reveal the ig finding at the meeting? >> none. >> let me -- it was not charged with implementing the corrective measures. and you had no interaction with the decision. >> correct. could you yield me 30 second?

>> i would be glad to e. >> i want to make sure i follow up on miss kelly. let's understand this for the first ten months. you there were and it was your job between february and december of 2012. then until may of 2013 you held the title meeting that you had a responsibility even if you were doing another full-time job. so for ten months you were lois learner's boss. for the next two years you were the boss but not residence. ultimately if she or people doing something wrong, it was still something you should have either relinquished the title or taken some action. and in may of 2010 when you knew that having regularly come up here you never inform congress of the target even after you describe it. i want to make sure miss kelly's statement how you were not part of it understood for ten months you owned it as the boss. for the next two years you owned

it by title and didn't reealingish by tight. you didn't reveal it. be allowed to arns the allegation you made against her. >> these are not allegations. these are facts. >> why don't you let her answer date. >> you object. to a lay i did defending herself? >> the gentleman -- a 31-year employee. >> the gentleman -- >> let her answer it! that's not right. >> the gentleman will suspend. you asked for an unanimous consent because of a statement that there had been allegations. i stated a crinology of fact. the crinology of facts are for ten months she was on the job during the period of this scandal. additionally for the next several years they have the title but not residence, and she, by her own testimony, testified she became aware of

it; however, didn't inform the congress or take measures to make it public. it became public through other means. none is in controversy or allegation. >> while she's sitting here shaking her head. i want her to have an opportunity to say whatever she was thinking. maybe she doesn't have anything to say. she's shaking her head like this. i'm trying to be fair to the witness. >> the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. so help me god! >> i'm sure you want the truth, if in fact, it -- >> it's not indicating. it's allowing someone -- when you make allegations like that! when you make allegations, a person should have an opportunity defend themselves. that's why i asked unanimous consent he be give more time. simply have an opportunity respond. if she doesn't want to respond, fine! >> i think -- >> would the gentleman. >> reset to five minutes. if the gentlelady would like that respond as to the

crinology, particularly as to the first ten months which you were on the job, well, conservative groups were being targeted that's fine. i would be happy to have it. i was responding to miss kelly's essential statement -- but the time line is different. it's not the subject of today's hearing if you have some other further input we would be glad to hear it. >> with your indulgence, mr. chairman, i would like to put a few points on the record. one of which is during the ten months that i was -- more than ten months. during the 2010 year before i went to aca, at tege, i had five discreet areas i was responsible for, and a lot of very big things going on including eeo that had nothing to do with the determination letter program as it relates to 501(c)(4). i have no recollection of hearing about the incidents

contained in the tick data report. we were busy with issues that affected tens of thousands of exempt organizations such as the statutory requirement of nonfiling organizations become nonqualified. that was taking lot of time. we were working on the implementation of the charitable hospital rules that the aca 0 imposed on the hospital sector. there was a lot of things going on. i want to put it in context for 2010. when i was assigned to go to the aca, in the same announcement, the commissioner announced an acting commissioner in charge in my absence. it was made quite clear to me that my responsibilities laid at the aca project. since that was a more than full-time job and there were people in charge of operating the tege division, that is where i was told to concentrate and i

did. from time to time, where, because of my previous experience, such as indian governments, i could be helpful by very briefly helping out with the particular task, i was asked to do that. i -- it was always on top of my aca dutieds, so if you talk about 60 or 70 hours when i had to do that. it was on top of that. in the spring of 2012, the few meetings i was asked to sit in, i saw in the meetings people including my own boss who were focused on the issue they were learning about, upset about what they were hearing, wanting to get to the botment to of it. wanting to make sure they understood what was going on. i assured myself that tying data had become involved. knowing that team was in charge of it and driving it and having very clear instructions that my job was aca and knowing that

they were in the mix, who i trust to the get to the bottom of these kinds of questions or allegations of this thatch. i continued to work on aca. so although i understood that the fact that my title on paper was not changed for some time, and despite the fact that i repeatedly offered to my bosses, you know, put me whenever you need me to be do the work i do every day as an impartial civil servant. the fact that the tight didn't change confuses people. i would like people to understand the nature of what my responsibilities were and my knowledge were at those various periods. >> i appreciate that. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> i appreciate that. and hopefully you appreciate what you said and i take it as completely accurate. 100%. it's not inconsistent with the three statements i made that you were in charge for the first ten months in which this scandal was

going on without your knowledge. that you had the title for the next two years that you became aware of it and, by your own statement, you felt they were taking care of it. you felt no responsibility to inform congress or any other way go public with it. i'm not foughting you. i'm saying you didn't know it was going on while the bad service going on for the beginning of it. you maintained the title, that's not a disparagement of you. the fact you said maybe somebody else should get the title. in fact, is probably part of the challenges enacting should have been a confirmed, if you will, individual so you could get past the question of somebody handling this. then, of course, lastly, while many people at the irs knew about this well before the election, as it was being asserted, it was kept private. not blaming you, but as miss kelly was going through her series, i saw these three time

lines i could accurately state. i believe i did, i think you accurately confirmed, through no fault of yours these were accurate timelines and part of what is an investigation of this committee is in fact all the various elements that went in to people at 501(c)(4) disproportionately conservative groups from -- well, before 2010 until today many have not received an approval or denial. that is what i think some members of congress are called bad customer service. i wouldn't call it bad customer service. i have other terms for it. hopefully we have settled that. i appreciate your patience, you're recognized for the full five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i do want to give you a chance. earlier in the testimony mr. carte right was asking a question and i think he misspoke briefly. were you employed during the

time in that particular position while targeting was going on. your answer was no. and i believe we know from the timeline indeed, you there were for at least 8 to 10 months while the targeting has been going on according to what has been reported with the report. >> may i state i haven't studied the report. >> i have. i have read it probably five times. >> i respect that, sir. >> assuming the report is correct and the targeting began in february to april of 2010. were you indeed employed in direct management capacity that the particular time? >> if that's the time frame. >> okay. then i was formally and functionally the commissioner until december. >> in the record they gave a chart -- >> okay. >> that was not just a chart in

name only. that's where i first learned of your name was from the report. >> okay. >> in doing that, they put in that there was systemic management failure or lack of management that would directly implicate you. so today you are correct in your testimony you were there during that first part of 2010 while targeting was going on. >> that's the period you're talking about. i was tege as commissioner. >> were you upset that louis learner, prior to your meeting you were brought back with mr. miller. were you upset she never told you about any of this targeting? because she was right in the middle of this storm. it you had a personal relationship not just a professional relationship. were you not upset she didn't share any of this?

>> once i was on aca, i wouldn't have been necessarily a logical person for her to turn to. >> but i -- but happened under your watch. you wouldn't be upset that she didn't share it. >> if i may finish, sir. i wish i would have known in 2010 that i could have helped deal with it in a better way. i don't recall ever knowing about the kind of stuff that i understand i the report covers. after i went to aca? >> what did you know? the kind of stuff. what did you know about during that period of time? those are carefully chosen words. >> no , sir, they weren't particularly carefully chosen. i apologize. i was aware there was a lot of noise out in the public about

the citizens united case. i was aware there were a lot of other critical eo project that affected lots and lots of eo which had mandatory implementation date from the legislation. and i know that traditionally the kinds of cases in which questions would arise about political activity or campaign intervention had come up in the c3 area and had come up in the exam stream and the process for selecting cases for exam based on letters that members of the public write to us all the time suggesting that we look at their -- >> so let me ask you this. if you are called to testify back then, would you have give the same statement you have today with regard to the implementation of aca if everything is good, everything is going alone the way it should. obviously you are under the belief then. could you be wrong today, as you

are wrong in assuming that everything was going well under your previous management? >> the oversight of the division involves a different management process inset of reporting up and division of labor and the project management office does. >> you're definitely sure you're right today in that is because your role has changed? >> because in the project management office my role is very hands on. because of the structure in nature of the project. >> okay. i have more -- >> let me ask you then with obamacare and data hubs. i know, a lot of that is hhs. are you involved in the nature of their testing from a security standpoint on going back and forth? is the irs involved in that? is it all on the hhs side of things? >> my understanding is that our testing with them is to their connection the hands shake

between their machine and our machine to make sure that the handshake works we're not involved in the tegging -- testing they do with others. >> i thank you. going to the gentleman from massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the ranking member as well. i have one matter that i want to address. a number of speakers ago one of the gentle mab from the other side suggested that it was comparable what the republicans were doing in attacking the affordable care act it is true that the president and many democrats including myself have called for the repeal or the overturn of the citizens united decision? however, importantly, i think it

is important to say that neither the president nor i have shut down the government in pursuit of our goals. and the government president or democrats in congress have suggested that we dpe fault -- default in the national debt in per suit of the goal. i think that's an important distinction. thank you for your willingness to come before the committee and help us with our work. and i appreciate your patience. i do have some questions regarding the role of the irs as privacy, government liaison and government disclosure office in your role of implementing the aca. ranking member cummings earlier asked that a representative from this office appears as a witness today. however, that has not happened. the chairman refused that request. i'll direct the questions to you. according to the irs organizational chart, i'm

reading the office of safe guards has the responsibility for monitoring nearly 300 federal and state agencies that currently are to receive fakesser data to ensure they are complining with privacy laws. under the affordable care act the irs, hhs state and federal exchanges and other federal will share taxpayer information in order to determine eligible for the premium tax credits. is the sharing of federal taxpayer information with state and federal agency a new tax task for the office of safe guards? >> well, for a more complete answer, we can provide that through that office. but we have decades of experience with the sharing of tax data under the long list of exceptions of 6013 that congress from time to time added to that section. this is a new one.

we have taken the same kind of care to make sure they are in place and the oversight is launched. >> very good. it sounds like the office has a long standing experience in overseeing the transmission of taxpayer data? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and what kind of policies and procedures must state and federal agencies have in place in order receive taxpayer information, can you describe that? >> i'm going give you a high level answer. because i'm not an expart -- expert on the detail. for example, the oversight board document the page reprepared by the disclosure office. but in general, there are very detailed -- it's a detailed publication of 1075 that sit on the website. there is an extensive multipage template that is the foundation for the safe guards procedure report.

there are also a number of other kinds of data sharing agreements under various statutes. those have all been implemented with the appropriate entity whether the entity is, as i said in my testimony, is hhs or whether the entity is the ultimate recipient of the data. now these federal agencies and state agencies sufficient safe guards in place following all the detailed procedure in those requirements. >> okay. were the state and federal exchanges certified pursuant to the process prior to october 1st? >> yes. the data hub, the federally facilitated exchange, the individual exchanges at the state level and several of the medicaid offices had also asked to be certified by october 19st. >> okay. my time is short. i do want to thank you your

service. thank you for holding the important hearing today. since i came to congress i have heard from every sector of the economy. they tell me the same thing. obamacare is making it difficult to create more jobs and making it more costly to buy insurance. from the city manager of michigan, who told my staff that he's unsure if the city parts can main contained because it might put the city over 50 employees. to nearly every single business owner who comes in to my office worried about the insurance that currently provide their employees. skyrocketing in price. obamacare is hurting a lot more people than appear to be helped by it. at this time, mr. chairman, i like to enter to the record, if i may, today's "washington post," a particular article many

foresaw health sight jam. >> without objection. so ordered. >> thank you. it basically says two ally of the administration both of whom spoke on the condition of being anonymous. because of the controversy surrounding the rollout said they approach white house officials this year to raise concerns that the federal exchange was not ready to launch. in both cases. obama officials assured them there was no cost for alarm. on september 18th, the hospital secretary kathy -- if i get it right -- testified before mr. lang ford's subcommittee that the administration was giving confusing information and making last-minute changes that left the state scrambling. john, chief technology office at service provider said the government should have been able to prepare for the type of

traffic that the site is experiencing. i think that any modern web company would be well prepared for launch of the scale he said. we're not talking about hundreds of millions of people. and not complex transactions. it's not downloading full movies off a net flick. the question i have is did they have enough time prepare? did the people doing the work know what they were doing? end of quote. your testimony today, sounds like testimony this committee heard earlier this year from cms administrator and districter of the center for consumer information and insurance oversight u. how can we know the irs was prepared and enough time to conduct the checks and make sure

the safed guards were in place to protect all the sensitive information flowing through obamacare data hub. how the designs --

it was reported that the minnesota exchange accidentally released the name -- with over 24 brokers. exchanges will store significant amount of sensitive data. including income and employment information. if it comes to irs's attention that an exchange is properly handle sensitive data like minnesota has done, what steps will the irs -- greatly reduce the likelihood. if it comes to our attention, we actually can turn the switch off on the computer --

they received briefsly? >> i think my time is expired. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and go to the district of columbia. who i was with earlier working on the issues of reopening the district of columbia i want to personally thank her for her efforts. consider the district of columbia local budget which was -- fast returning out of contingency funds was important enough to leave a hearing i know you have -- i very much appreciate you did.

he was going tell me that the hearing was going on. [laughter] and i realized i was awol. i didn't want to attend the hearing. the gentleman's question about being prepared is those two my question. you are a senior civil servant. of considerable intelligence and long -- i imagine you were given the function because of the long record and your great ability

ever seen a change as major as the change that you now confront? you have everything from your regulations to your i.t. infrastructure we are organized and on track. as you mentioned were you given increase in funding beyond your

normal funding in order to handle the new workload in those two instances? >> i will confess i was not employed in 1974, i don't know what was done then. in 1986 i was not a position to know that. the budget of the iefers was consult by 3%. that's one thing. you wonder -- some increase. not to mention difficulty. let me -- that let me ask you then. first let me tell you i happened to be sitting in the financial services appropriation.

i was stunned the appropriation committee passed a 24-% reduction in the irs budget for 2014. i need to know, particularly in light of concerns, privacy and other concerns raised here whether you will be able to meet your benchmarks at the internal ones that you say have thus far been met. and to afford the protections with a quarter of your budget being cut at the moment when you're seeing one of the most major increases in responsibility given the irs. >> women, i would like to leave the budget discussions to aking commissioner werfel and the budget team. i'm a little hesitant to opine on the elements that

congresswoman -- >> i'm not asking about the elements. i'm asking -- simply move forward and absorb the major responsibility. change the infrastructure, issue new guidance, clean all the employees with new it and regulations is that a fair -- is that a fair -- is our agency has great cancel on the hands including the legislative implementation we are required to do. tough budgets, require tough choices. and focus beyond me will be involved in those that choice making depending on what is

available at any given time. that your effect of this in carrying out the aca and your other responsibilities under the internal revenue code will be scrutinized by this committee and others. if it does not -- notwithstanding whatever the cut is, if you not need up to those none of the blame will be laid here in the congress of the united states. which instead of -- to accommodate changes. it has mandated has reduced your budget making it very difficult asiewmenting the budget gets out at all. the gentle lady makes a point. if you manage to live with 24% less, we won't call you. [laughter] if it doesn't work out,

undoubtly somebody will be in front of many committees. we go to the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for having this hearing. i'm sure it's going to be a subject that will have a recurring importance given the huge exchange of the authority of the irs under the so-called affordable care act. i heard some of the colleagues on the other side of the aisle almost mocking the hearing and it really struck me because it's almost as if somehow we're not just not supposed to talk about obamacare anymore. i think as we see become implemented. the more and more apparent it's been the promises made to justify the law's passage are essentially null and void. they were essentially false pretendses. for example, president said the only change for people with insurance is that you will pay less. and that estimate was 2500 per family. that americans are finding out is totally not going to be the case. if you like your plan, we're told you can keep your plan. yet we see stories of spouses

losing their coverage, employees losing their employer-based coverage. then we said if you like your doctor you response the issue is not going to go away given what was promised is not being delivered. i think it's also just interesting to compare the passage of the health care law with some other major pieces of legislation. i just look at stuff. it's amazing. social security got 96 percent of democrats in the house. 81% of republicans. eisenhower's interstate highway system got 93% of democrats in the house. 98% of republicans. civil rights act 1964. reagan 1981 78% of democrats in the senate supported it and 98% of republicans and even welfare reform in '96 brought bipartisan

agreement. you didn't have any bipartisan agreement here response i think that also contributes to the controversy. i keep hearing that this is the law of the land as if it's somehow sack are singt you can't add legislative changes. we have the authority to do that. of course we're able to suggest changes, delays, repeals. whatever is in our article i authority. but the thing about this notion that somehow it's the law full stop. you can't even talk about it is this such a sacred piece of legislation, then why isn't the president implementing it as written? , i mean, we have talked today about the delay and the employer mandate, which was supposed to start in jan. with no statutory basis for the delay. we know there was a delay on the cap of out of pocket costs that were supposed to take effect this year. we know subsidizes were granted. and members of congress without having a statutory basis. income verification for exchange

subsidizes expended. and the use of subsidizes on the federal basic exchanges. that's why i want to talk about now in term of whether the implementation is being done with the law. the law under the affordable care act section 1401, the disib can go to an individual, quote established by the state. never the less on may 23rd, the irs finalized a regulation which allows subsidizes to flow federal exchanges even though there's no provision in the law to allow that. so my question for you is, were you consulted when they were devising this rule about whether

the irs should issue guidance allowing subsidizes to flow to people who were enrolled in federally run exchanges instead of changes instituted under section 1311? >> i was -- it was in a briefing or two other people discussed it. it wasn't my decision. >> they are weren't asking you your thoughts about whether you thought that these subsidizes should flow to people and federally run exchanges. >> on mrltability -- >> were you prior to the regulation being instituted were you device going forward with your implementation assuming that the subsidizes would be available for the states that decline to create a state exchange?

the proposed including a same position. there were many comments that were sphiel -- filed as is always the case. it's -- what is in the proposed stage. ask about whether what is coming in and comment and the likelihood that something would change so we don't go too far in implementation steps if something is going change and we have to change our work. that's my role. >> so the answer is question. it you assume there would be federal subsidize for federally run exchanges? >> i kept track of the likelihood that it would change so i could adjust if necessary the administrative work. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and bring up a good point. cbo never scored that subsidize. at this point, we concluded our first round. i'm going to ask the gentleman from maryland, the ranking member, to close and i'll close. >> thank you very much, mr.

chairman. i want to thank you for something else. i want to thank you for having a can-do attitude. i mean that. i'm the sewn -- son of two sharecroppers. one of the things my father used to say they educate all seven of their kids, on a domestic salary and laborer. and their attitude was always there's no such word as can't. i believe your a great example of so many of our federal

employees. many of them right now. whenever they may be. possibly watching this. say that too have can-do attitudes. we hear a lot about the affordable care act, and collarly. there are things to be done to make it better. a lot of problems and issues, but i think what you have shown is that the piece that was that you had to deal with, obviously the planning targeted dates, i guess, the time table making sure that tasks were done.

you shook your head a limb earlier when i said the word on the street. was that, you know, you're a super star. but that's what i've heard. you don't have to shake your head again. it's the time like you and the people that sit behind you that give so much that give so much because you realize it's so much bigger than you. i look at the people who come to work for us. most of these folks could be doing something else. but they come, i'm talking about republicans and democrats.

they give it everything they've got. i know, you said you feel comfortable you're on target, and i would just ask you to maintain that. i'm saying this for a reason. because i want people know they are appreciated. they really are. they are appreciated for what they do because they are touching millions upon millions of american -- and a lot of times i'm sure they sit at the desk and say you know what am i doing this for. i believe in my heart it nub your soul. it must must. and i think that when people have a passion for something

that is where their strength is. and if we, as the public, are beneficiaries of your passion and of your purpose to make this society a better society, and i am convinced that once we work out the kinks in obamacare, that we will have something that will benefit society long after we're dead. that, to me, i mean, i can't think of too much more when you think about, you know, looking back at your life and someone were to write a book and you to be able to say i did my part. i did it well and i'm not just talking about you bawl the -- all the team that make it happen

the irs and bach, if they want to call it that. i want to thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i thank the gentleman. quick announcement. i spoke to acting commissioner werfel, and he was not able to get us the documents that we presented to you. additionally, obviously, he -- not obviously, but he stated that in fact he wouldn't be able to determine whether you were correct or not correct about that being 6103 documentation. i'll work out with the committee and the commissioner how question go through and get properly redacted material going forward. how we can get the discovery we did not. we'll try resolve some of those questions. hopefully, without having you back. even though i desperately would like to know the details underneath these communications and others. and from our oversight, it appears as if though are hundreds, not thousand of

documents that claim to be 6103 that are not. you are noted in the redaction business neither is the commissioner directly. i want to go through a couple of short things. let me run through the numbers and ask your your experience of working with the community makes sense. warren buffett may bees a couple of billion in a bad year. under the affordable care act, as a single individual, his penalty would be in the millions if he didn't buy insurance. yet the required cap it would be less than that. do you find it interesting

there's no provisioned in the affordable care act for somebody to self-insure or meet the financial responsibility therefore, being mandated to buy a profit oriented insurance package in many cases? >> well, i want to -- if i could speak to the comment about mr. buffet. the actual calculation of the tax is capped what if would cost to get insurance. it wouldn't be a multiple of his income. but i'm sorry. i apologize i was distracted. >> would that be the minimum plan? >> right now they set a minimum there's no maximum dollar set. is that a highest deductible? >> i'm not going to have the exact -- premium. but it's capped at the cost it otherwise would take somebody to get insurance. i can give you a more precisely. >> if mr. buffet would have a $10,000 -- >> let's say.

>> plan that would be the minimum he could have. he would be penalty losed $10,000 taken from him. he would get no health care. >> that would be his economic choice that the point. >> he cannot insure and pay the same amount as for insuring under the law? >> thing is a more sophisticated answer to that. i would like to be able to respond more fully. >> yeah. please respond in writing. from what we read if you pay the fine, if you self-insure, you will be charged the amount of having insured. you will have no coverage, but you, in fact, can self-insured. so you can pay all of your own charges, not be covered, yet pay the same amount as if you were covered. i just find sort of an interesting one. let me switch to another part. in most of your 31 years of federal service, i presume -- i'm not trying to be overly personal. for $2 --

2.1 million workers. you're familiar with the 300 or so choices available and certainly the 11 plus available to you in any of the communities around the district of columbia. you're in an fhabp plan. >> i'm in a plan for the program, yes. >> and does it meet the minimum under the affordable care act requirement for insurance? >> my understanding is that it does. >> and employees of the house and senate, including employees of the committee, are in the plan also. is in any reason any logical reason that they should be thrown out of the plan other than it would mandated in the law? >> i haven't been involved in any of the discussions about what should or should not be done about the coverage on the hill. i would defer to those people. >> it's a stupid things done by members of the house and senate

to the employees who work for us probably something for stay out of as long as you get to stay in fhabp. the next question is one that falls to you. if congress, tomorrow, declared it was a federal exchange, would there be any inconsistency with federal exchanges, small business, federal exchange such as the d.c. exchange? >> i'm not sure what the inconsistency question is. your question started me working on the logistic and wiring. that's where my brain went. >> currently it covers over 8 million people. it covers cobra for people who left the federal work force. it covers the vast majority of retired federal employees, and covers vicialgly every current federal employee and their families. so you have a plan that has over 300 options, you yourself in the

district area get dozens and dozen of choices. you have a nonage discrimination, single price point you can shop online prior to making your decision. ..