it probably cost government hundreds of thousands of dollars crass personnel. cal after all of the bad actors. furthermore, we disagree with the discussion. they're far away any increase marginal cost. after all an erroneous concern puts taxpayer at risk. ..

>> congress should not give the irs additional power by forcing tax preparers to get an irs license before they assist taxpayers with their tax return. tax preparers are already regulated by several statutory requirements posing civil and criminal punishments from everything from failing to keep a list of the returns prepared in three years to actual tax fraud. tax preparers are required to recommendation steer with the iring's rs to obtain a number so they include on every return they prepare so that the irs can

track and analyze their return. these tools already provide the irs with what it needs to identify, track, and penalize a few bad apples without up necessarily burdening the majority of the law-abiding preparers. we have a few recommend the solutions superior to licensing. first, it's protection and anticompetitive. rather than protecting consumers, licensing regulations can protect large incumbents and industry insiders from competition by erecting costly barriers to entry. indeed, they conclude the large education firm like h&r block can benefit the most from licensing preparer. unsurprisingly, the license regulations were a product of lobbying by a powerful special interest. h&r block, jackson hewitt and

intuit supported licensing, while others obtain special depression -- exemptions for their members. they oversaw the drafting at irs, and, of course, mom and pop preparers do not have the resources to send lobbyists to washington, d.c. to represent their interests. at the same time, licensing burdens usually fall hardest on the little guy who don't have the same financial resources and can't benefit from economies of scale. licensing was expected to push out tens of thousands of independence prepares, oddly 10-20% of all preparers. most of those who would have been put out of businesses were seasonal mom and pop preparers, like my client, an 81-year-old from wisconsin who hangs o shingle outside his house every tax return and prepares taxes for every year op his dining room table. others would be harmed due to raising prices and licensing

reduces competition, bad for consumers. between reduced competition and increased compliance cost, this will artificially drive up prices consumers pay for tax preparation. it reduces choices and interferes with the consumer economy over personal finances. they are left with fewer options and forced to pick a new preparer if licensing drives their current preparer out of business. indeed, instead, taxpayers, not the irs, should be the ones to decide who prepares their taxes. licensing may also result in other expundits and consequences against consumers. higher prices and fewer choices pushes unqualified tax preparers to prepare their own an boosts the number of unregistered ghost preparers who do not sign the taxes they prepare. they could fail to deliver.

licensing regulations cannot do much about fraud prevention already not achieved combine the with the existing criminal penalties. they can sit through continuing education courses just as well as an honest preparer. moreover, licensing and irs mandated training are largely ineffective. for example, the volunteer program has a 61% error rate in 20 # 11 #. similarly high error rates found over the years and pick the studies of irs employees answering just a single question. likewise, an irs study finds license california preparers had the third highest error rates in the country for two years in a row by the state's longstanding licensing program because the real problem is not competency, but tax code complexity. as they explained in may, tax code complexity guarantees that every return has an ere error in

it. some inadvertent, some intentional. this just limits who is likely to make the errors. licensing should be ri jected because better solutions to the problems already exist. first, voluntary certification as far as superior to mandatory licensing, allowing consumers and preparers to decide if they value certification and opt in or out. the best way to reduce preparers is reduce complexity. simplify the tax code. third, the irs has the legal and feck any call tools needed to identify, track, and penalize a few bad apples. enforcement of these laws is preferable because unlike licensing, it does not pose the cost on law-abiding tax preparer. thank you. >> thank you, and all of you have been very helpful. i want to see what i can do to draw out the key questions.

as i understand it, it's particularly concerned about the small practitioner, and i certainly understand why small businesses can be frustrated with needless government red tape and bureaucracy. my understanding, however, is you are a small practice. >> there's a total of four, two are cpas and two are lps. that qualifies. >> do you feel app play poe? that this disadvantage is you against mr. cobb. looks to me you passed competency. that does not look like a disadvantage. >> well, the numbers true, but it's not in oregon and california.

oregon with the licensing as recent as 201 # 1, nearly 84% of the practitioners in oregon are not employed by h&r block or the three big companies in oregon, and in california, it's nearly 89%, so it just proves that, and both of those cases have some form of registration for practitioners. >> mr. chairman, if i may ask quickly. sir, 40% of our system is small business. we have 1670 franchises, many of whom like you with one or two offices, and, really, they are small businesses. >> okay. now that we've at least addressed some extent to the question whether small practitioners are disadvantaged by having minimum standards. i want to ask you, we've had our

system for decades, and we are outspoken souls, and i've been on the finance committee since 2005, and i've not had anybody who is a practitioner come and say, oh, my goodness, it's bureaucratic water torture if we have the kind of thing we have in oregon, the competency tests, audit preparation, those who are not competent, and nobody is marching or picketing, and is that a fair appraisal on what we had? of course, results are documented by the general accounting office, and you referred to it as realm. we have superior results with this system that i would characterize and people going to it is appropriate oversight,

appropriate oversight that gets asked, what's really missing today which is the minimum competency standards. fair assessment? >> very much so, very fair. >> what can may learn from, you know, oregon's experience over these decades? i mean, i heard discussions about the cost, i've not heard complaints about oregon's cost or things of this nature. are there other lessons here from oregon's experience from the irs? >> the cost in oregon are very affordable, the most exceptive cost is education, but because we've required education, we have a lot of resources in the state that provide cost effective education rather than sending two or three or four hundred dollars for education. you can get education through other resources, not as especially tensive. the registration fees are very affordable for even a small

business. i had a larger business in years past and paid those and still managed to keep my head above water with the business. it's not. we wondered why it's taken the nation so long to be -- >> well, too logical for the rest of the country. >> yeah. >> one other question, if i might. one of the things that concerns me about some of thee questions respect to having minimum competence and the like is those who are opposed say we already have these tough standards and seems to me what you have found is that that's not the case. what we basically have a reactive after the fact when the harm is done to people who just want to get every single dollar back they are owed. is that a fair characterization?

>> yes, mr. chairman, that is a fair characterization. as you stated, majority of the elections that the irs had tools and actions that it can take are after the refunds have gone out, after the tax preparer disappeared in some cases, and it's the taxpayer who is left explaning and dealing with the back taxes, having to pay back interest and punishments whereas upfront regulations have potential to prevent some of these refunds going out. >> my time's expired. i just appreciate the fact that you have done this second independent inquiry. people can question the value of one independent inquiry. i wouldn't base i watched professionalism of your office over the years, but you've now found it twice. i note because you are screw up lent in documenting the facts saying, look, we looked at 189

cites, but there's other ma la sighs in line with yours. there's a lot to do to fix this. thank you, mr. chairman. the perspective i think will benefit the committee and hopefully the irs as well. i just want to ask a question. credential prepares like attorneys, cpas and enrolled agents have long been regular lated, subject to professional standards of competence and conduct. is there clear evidence that returns prepared by the preparers are less prepared than those prepared by now unregulated preparers or ghost preparers?

>> i'm unaware of specific evidence that shows that, you know, credential preparers in their specifically mentioned groups are fundamentally different; however, i don't have full access to the data that, you know, the gao or others have used. as an academic, though, i'm willing to help them design more statistically reliable and more, you know, educated studies, examining these important questions. >> okay. thank you. let me ask you this. software developments, increasing computer literacy made it easier for many people to prepare, and, of course, prepare their own tax returns. in fact, the percentage of self-prepared returns have been increasing in recent years. is this trend one that is improving or degrading the overall quality of tax compliance? >> mr. hatch, senator hatch, that's an issue we did not look at this this study, when you looked at data from irs's

national research program data base and looked at error rates for preparedded files returned versus self-prepared returns, we did see a significant difference that returns prepared by paid preparers had an error rate of 60% versus 50% for self-prepared returns. >> let me throw this out. when a taxpayer stops using the services of the paid preparer and instead uses software to self-prepare their own returns, do we have any statistics or evidence? do you? what happens to the quality of the tax filings? >> again, the data that irs collects in rap dome audits, most recent, national research program audit covers the taxes

of 2006 to 2009, and they looked at variety error rates for both preparers and self-prepared returns, both in the aggregate and also the specific tax issues or line items. one, for example, is the earned income tax credit, and in that case, the data, estimates showed that returns prepared by paid preparers had a error rate of 51% versus 44% for self-prepared # returns. >> okay, now some expressed concern that regulation drives up ethical preparers underground turning them as what is referred here to to as "ghost preparers," difficult to discover and shut down. how big is this problem of goings preparers and is the problem gets worse? what's done to address that particular problem? >> i'm not aware of any data,

irs data or otherwise that goes to the root of the problem. again, they feel that a baseline , assures people they are going to have their tax returns prepared by and meet certain qualifications and have a certain level of assurance their tax returns will be compliant. >> thank you, i thank you, h&r block does a great job as well as others, and i'd like, mr. chairman, to put this into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, thank you, all, for being here. >> senator casey. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i only have time for one question, and i know the panel will not necessarily be upset about that, but i wanted to ask a question that relates to your testimony. on page 12, you summarize what

the so-called -- the folks go through the system and minimum standards, and we all would agree, i think, that that's especially important, those kinds of standards are especially important to vulnerable population, folks who are easily misled or we have to depend on someone who come into contact with who might mislead them. i would assume that when we talk about basic minimum standards here that you would hope that everyone gets the -- or everyone would have that opportunity to be served by an individual that

goes through the minimum standards, that would be accurate? >> yes, that would be accurate, senator. we have continuing education every year for people who start out wanting to be a tax preparer fer us, it's 100 hours of training, 75 hours of income tax training, skills training, continuing education, we average around 35 years for anyone whether you've been tax preparer for 30 years, you come in and get that, so, certainly, we would want, and, you know, we adjust hours, you know, to whatever it is, but, generally, we agree with your point. >> and would the requirements

you just outlined, you would think that would be the best direction that the federal government should move in? in other words, how do you affect this for all policies to benefit from? >> again, i think we have a great model. the chairman has certainly pointed out with pride and what oregon does. i think that is a model that they built off of. i think the research we've done shows that this is, you know, you've heard all day about fraud and various cases that people have cited. i think that we have a standard, which is been implemented for a number of years, and you have clients, consumers, who, in our research say, of course, i don't

imagine you find it often, but we wanted a level playing field, and what we want to do is this is not about anticompetitive behavior, but this is about going up against people who are just, you know, you hear the horror stories in the furniture store, how big is the refund to lope people, and we just want to clean up the industry. >> thank you, and you'll have until the close of business friday, april 11th, and i just want to make a short statement and give the last word to senator hatch on this topic. last week in this room, on a bipartisan basis, our committee committed to dealing with what are the tax extenders, there's a

number of provisions that expired, will expire this year and last year, and we indicated this is going to be the last time this committee did this. we have toover saul the tax system, make it simpler, in a bipartisan way to americans this time of year do not feel like they are going through bureaucratic water torture to comply with the tax rules. you've given us very helpful suggestions here. senator hatch and i will be working together on this, and both sides of the aisle will figure out the appropriate side

of oversight. we'll talk about it and inform members of our proposal, but, clearly, what we've learned today, starting with the gao is this problem persists. you've documented it a second time. it's consistent not just your analysis, but others. the taxpayer advocates said not only does the problem be now, but there's incentives for additional opportunities for the unscrupulous who are fortunately the minority to police our people and very often those are the most vulnerable, those who are the low income, so that audit concerns us, and then we're really glad that you caism because you've shown, once again, that oregon knows there's a better way. we don't just sit around and say, oh, this is wrong, that's wrok, but roll up our sleeves and come up with solutions. you've been very helpful to us,

and i'll work closely with senator hatch op comprehensive tax reform, on appropriate oversight with respect to tax preparers, and i want to give my friend and colleague the last word here. >> nawng, mr. chairman -- thank you, mr. chairman, and i'm grateful for you being here, and all i can say is a that the more i look into this the more i worry about the problems involved. on the other hand, there's a lot of good people in this industry who are trying to do what is right and who do do what's right. we have to look at this carefully, and i don't want a great big bureaucratic institution to make it more expensive to file tax returns, and, you know, i have certain feelings for your libertarian tax preparers as well, so i'm grateful you took the time to see us, and hopefully you'll

continue to weigh in and give us your ideas on how we might do a better job here. thank you so much. >> hearing's adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> i think what we need it something for the reagan administration on brat commission, and our outside group with integrityings, former members of congress, no current elected politicians to come in and do a complete audit of government top to bottom. every agency of government has a decent legislation or a charter that created it. there's a purpose. if not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within a reasonable budget, it should be cut or eliminated. take head start. i mean, this came in with the highest motivation. do you know, and i didn't until i researched it, there's now three head s.t.a.r.t.s. why do we have the other two? the first once did not work. why the third one? because the second one did not work. >> on "after words," cal thomas

on fixing a broken washington on saturday night at nine eastern and immediately following, a heritage foundation book party for mr. thompson as he signs the book and chapters with guests. this weekend on booktv, this year's national black writer's conference saturday at noon eemp with panels on race, power, and politics, literature, and shifting io debit dentties in south africa.

>> this subcommittee will come to order. today's hearing will examine two very important complex regulations, implementing requirements to the affordable care agent, recommendations on local businesses and work. these regulations are long overdue. businesses forced to wait four years to pass the law for the department to finalize the rules. in the meantime, the regulatory process set out of controversy political fire storms and exktive delays. most importantly, the process is, again, raising the question of fairness. why does big business receive better treatment than individual americans? why does it force some laws, but not otherses and why fair to force some to comply and others are passive in delays?

another significant question that needs asking and will be hoping today is what does any of this haved too with true health care reform? for all the problems that did exist in the health care system prior to affordable care act, the employer base system was working, and 160 million americans received coverage from an employer, the largest source of health coverage in america. the largest part about the regulations, lower the cost of health care, reported purpose of the affordable care agents. instead, this law adds layers upon layers, of costs and burdens and concerns about the privacy of government, forcing businesses to gather, report private information about workers' health. workers i know are not real comfortable with the irs gathering and holding data on their personal health care insurance decisions. in their families for their life. why does the government need to know and track that? survey after survey of companies and health benefit experts believe the employers aca adds

to the cost, not lower them. unfortunately, local businesses now have to keep track of terms like "look back period," "stability," "ag gages rules, and "minimum values," and they have to worry if they meet the definition of "affordability," and they have to develop reporting systems, invest in new technology system, and worry about the security of the personal data op their workers and workers' families they are required to entrust to the scandal prone irs. they have to grapple with the reality that the information they collect and transmit to the federal government will be the main proof of the irs uses to enforce the wildly imposter mandate employers buy government approved health care or pay a tax against their own employees. the witnesses today, a senior adviser to the treasury, secretary, acknowledged experts on the law, and i proort you coming bag to the committee to

discuss, and hopefully we'll be able to answer any question to the detail of both regulations. i believe you are the only person in america who is capableble to understand the regulation. how their relationships and i seriously doubt many companies do. i know my district, multiple franchises, low profit margins, and high worker turnover have little idea how this is supposed to work. i know they most likely do not have the extra money lying around to invest in the i.t. required to comply with the information reporting requirements. these are issues and that's why they delayed the mandate, but a one year delay does not make this less complex for the businesses in their -- what does this have to do with health care reform to lower health care

costs? finally, the american people still have not been given adequate answers about fairness. to understand the mandate on businesses is costly, and that's why you gave big business a break. why not give the same break to individual americans and their families? many families are frightened by the affordable care act. the new plans they did not want, higher premiums the doctors and hospitals face in the longer term. they are not alean. congressional budget office stated 8 million americans will lose their health insurance at work as a result of the affordable care agent. that's not fair. it's not health care reform. these are the questions surrounding these controversial reporting regulations, and we hope to gain more insights today. before i recognize dr. mcdermott i ask unanimous consent all written statements are included in the record. without objection, i now recognize the ranking member for his opening statement.

>> mr. chairman, >> after the gnashing of teeth about this hearing today, of course, it's all fantasy, another stunt of by the republicans to satisfy the extremists, and producer of fox news, let's start with the facts. thanks to ica, every american has health security and no longer locked out of the market or discriminated against because a of preexisting condition. more than 7 million people signed up for health insurance through the federal and state based marketplace, more than 11 million turned eligible for medicaid between october and february of this yore, and 3 million adults are now covered by their parents' coverage.

these are real people. real stories, real play depress, not actors, paid for fear and fraudulent g.o.p. attack ads. sorry. the fight -- the law is succeeding. all the focus here is wrowt about this will not change that. these bow sus hearings all need to raise the inevidentble. what you are hearing today is the government shouldn't have given time to business to implement this if we have run ahead and done it. we ran too fast, and is the porridge too hot, too cold, or just right? the day is coming when republicans will attempt to destroy the aca by destroying or fix it, and loving it to death. but today, the cries are about

employer responsibility and regulations which were designed by the treasury to help employers transition to the aca requirements. certainly, you have to acknowledge that truth, the economy improved, and we got 8 million new jobs since the aca came in, and you can say it's because of aca. i will not, but some could. this will not acknowledge that this week's gallop poll confirms that the unensured rate in america is the lowest since 2008. this reduction of 15% is driven by enrollment under obamacare. declines to the unensured rates were among low income and black people in this country, and insteds, they over a series of mistruths and half truths and misinformation so think clear. the cbo stated there is no

compelling evidence that part-time employment has increased as a result of aca. it's clear that the aca eliminates job lock. americans change jobs to be jerp neuros and to refork to take care of a child or a loved one. most importantly, republican misinformation has nothing to do with the story of the mind. in 2008, a terrible fall in her home, rushed to the emergency room, cared for, but she was struck with a $23,000 hospital bill. she couldn't afford insurance policy. she was forced to sell her home to pay off the hospital bill. today, she's happy, healthy, and covered because of aca. she no longer chooses between food on her table or life

sustaining medicine. due to the health security act, she has both. so before republicans who map to replace -- whatever they plan to replace aca, join the world and inevitably drop this effort to save money, they will stage a few more repeal votes, i'm sure, on the floor, it will not be the last one. we'll have it becausely will not give up attempt to deny it's the law of the land and it's working. they will likely extend elbow energy trying to throw it off and the millions of the cold harsh winter of no health care coverage, no peace of mind, and no protection. i can't wait for the day when we get to work fixing things in the law that needs to be fixed. that day will come as sure as i'm sitting here. i yield back. >> today, we'll hear from

mr. markey, assistant secretary for retirement health policy, u.s. department of trash ri. you are recognized for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you, ranking member, i appreciate the opportunity to testify on the final regulations involving the shared responsibility provision and the information in the affordable care act. the employer responsibility precisions are contained in section 4980h of the internal revenue code, and time regulations under this were published in february -- excuse me -- and the information reporting provisions for employers and insurers are in section 50 # 66 and 6 # 055 of the code.

final regulations relating to information reporting were published last month and will be yewsed to ad more the employer and responsibility shared provisions and premium tax credits. the time regulations provide employers with the guidance they need to comply with the employer responsibility provisions and provide flexible and practical means of doing so. before developing these issues, treasury issues, four successive notices describing potential approaches to implement provisions and public comment on each. the comments on the proposed regulation from a wide range of stake holders were considered carefully in developing the final rule. the rules contain various identifications including an optional lookback measure period

to make it easier and practical for businesses to determine whether employees are full-time, whether hours vary between full-time and part-time, and whether they are seasonal employees. this measurement period was designed based on existing employer health care practices to be helpful and add main straitble. the rules provide free optional alternative safe harbors that make it easy for employers to determine whether the coverage they offer is affordable to employers, and fig rules provide guidance, largely prompted by comments on the proposed regulations on whether employees of certain types or certain occupations are considered full-time, including volunteers, such as volunteer firefighters and first responders, seasonal employees, and adjunct faculty.

while about 96% of u.s. employers are expect from the employer sharedded responsibility provisions because they have fewer than 50 employees, for where the provisions apply, the rules provide a garage wall phased in, which is described in my written statement. with respect to information reporting, they fall on the proposed regulations urged that the final rules provide ways to comply for employers offering highway affordable coverage to all or virtually all of the full-time employees. they requested rules have a single form for self-assuring employers insured under section 5650 # 56 and 6055. accordingly, the final regulations were issued with a view to simp fying and streamlining the proposed reporting rules to make them as

practical and workable as possible, consistent with effective implementation of the law. that includes the need to provide individuals president information that they need to complete tax returns accurately for purposes of the individual shared responsibility provisions, and potential eligibility for the premium tax credit, and provide the irs with the information needed for effective and efficient tax administration. final rules contain several key simplifications. employers that self-assure have a way to report under the employer and the insurer reporting provision using a single consolidated form. in addition, employers that make a qualifying offer to any of the full-time employees aresided app alternative to reporting monthly employee specific information on those individuals.

together with the other agencies in the executive branch, treasuries implementing the affordable care act to provide affordable, quality health coverage, we welcome the opportunity to continue our work with the committee to achieve objectives. thank you, mr. chairman, and i look forward to answering the question. >> you work close with businesses to implement the mandate on companies in their reporting requirements, and there's compliments from employers for the work on the mandate, not so much about the reporting requirement, and the grumes work with closely that are the most upset about the new reporting requirements. in other words, they are not misinformed, but understand the rules. they call the regulations mind boggling for businesses of all types. national restaurant association

described regulations as overwhelming that will trade confusion for restaurant operators, typical small businesses in our communities. you believe you did the best you could, so it's a problem, the affordable care act, that needs to be changed to make this workable or treasury get regulations wrong? >> mr. chairman, first of all, i would bet that the employer reporting regulations are not complex, final regulations do provide simplified messages that we expect many employers especially when they have time to study and digest the rules will be able to use, for example, an employer making a

qulg mying offer to full-time employees would be able to report in a summary fashion, employers self-insuring use a single consolidated form for the 6056 and 6055 reporting. and for employers 245 do not qualify for the simplified reporting method, we don't think that, in fact, the reporting rules are asking for more than is reasonably necessary to administration the statutes. at the employer level, name, address, lawyer id number, contact person, basic information necessary to check compliance. at the employee level, generally, the individual offer

up coverage whether they sevenned an offer of affordable coverage whether they took the offer, whether they enrolled in it, and if they apply for a premium tax credit, we have to know whether the employer did make them an over that precludes them from eligibility, the premium tax credit, and, mr. chairman, because these credits are available on a monthly basis, the information reporting is monthly, but we made the most -- greatest effort we could to simplify and stream line talking to a lot of employers, employer organizations in the process where it is poll not to use month by month reporting, but provide an option to just have a one code for the whole

year, information sufficiently uniform across the year. if it's possible to avoid information, what was the dollar amount offered to the employee, which the statute asks for because the employee would not be entitled to a premium tax credit if they had app offer from the employer that was affordable that was not more than 9.5% of their household income. we looked for ways to help employers avoid having to do any work that could be avoidable to incur any costs, but might be avoidable or reduced. if an employer makes an offer that is affordable to the individual, they don't have to indicate what the dollar amount the individual had to pay is as long as it's below an amount that would preclude those

eligible for a tax credit. we are trying to look for the bottom line, mr. chairman, in order to streamline things as much as possible for the business and that includes, of course, small as well as larger businesses. >> i don't question the intention or hart word used to put this together. that's not the issue here. i read the simplified approach, and coming from the chamber of commerce and background of local businesses, filing this myself, even with the simplifieded form approach, complex, burdensome, and using the approach, i just say that's my viewpoint. a couple quick appointments. you testified before the committee in the waste of treasury, delaying mandate on businesses. explain the treasury believed

they had the authority urn delaying the employer mandate, and asked in a straightforward question, you know, if that gives you the authority to delay the employer mandate, does it give you authority to delay the individual mandate? if that was a policy the white house chose to pursue? i know we had nine months to look at this issue, and nine months later what's the result of the analysis? do you have the authority to delay mandate on individuals and families? >> >> mr. chairman, thank you for the question. what we have done has been to take back the comments of the committee at that hearing, raising the question, should the individual's responsibility provision be the subject of

transition relief as well? we thought about that carefully before the hearing, of course, but because the committee was interested in that and raise the the question again, we considered it further, and concluded that there is not good reason to delay individual shared responsibility, and if i could share our thinking with you, mr. chairman, first of all -- >> may i ask this because, you know, i think we recognize you decided not to provide that same fairness for individuals, and i know you have reasons why, but the question is, do you have the authority to delay that mandate? >> mr. chairman, if we don't believe that it is appropriate to be delaying that provision, believe that it's actually fair

to individuals to keep that provision in place because it helps protect them from preexisting condition exclueses, from various aggressive practices that used to be possible in the insurance policy industry in the market, then we don't reach the question whether we have legal authority. there are a lot of things we don't think we should do. we can't be -- wouldn't be considering whether we have the same authority we have with respect to the employer responsibility where there's good reason to have given stake holders the additional time that they very much asked for there's good republican there to consider whether we have authority to do what was necessary. in the case was individual responsibility provision, individuals who can't afford to pay that don't have to pay it. as you know, there's a hardship

exemption that hhs can provide for people who can't afford it. people who can't afford the coverage but want coverage, they get through that premium tax credits or medicaid. we didn't see a reason to -- >> the question -- >> -- to provide more phase-in. >> you chose not to for the reason you outlined, but the question, still, is, do you have the authority? you didn't have the authority to extebdz tax credits outside the exchange. you didn't have the authority to extend the deadline for signing up, but you did that. the basic question, again, is, do you have the authority, whether you choose to use it or not, to extend the the individual mandate? >> congressman -- >> in you view. i know mine months ago you assured us you'd analyze it and give us back the answer, so what is the answer? >> congressman, we did amize

whether there was any reason to extend the times for the individual's responsibility provision beyond the statutory phase-in or extense provided for 2014 and for 2015 such that the provision does not apply fully until 2016. on top of that statutory phase-in, as you know, 1% of pay this year, # #% 2015, 2.5%, these are the maximums, by 2016 so the statute has phased that in. we don't see a reason to adam: min straitive phase-innings on top of the statutory phase-in, and, indeed, we do think, mr. chairman, sincerely, that this individual shared provision

makes possible key insurance reforms that had bipartisan support in congress. >> sure. sure. so, do you have the authority, should you choose to, to extend the individual mandate to delay it? >> mr. chairman, that is a question we do not reach because we do not believe we have any cause to that we should delay it, and, therefore, we don't have the predicate for entering into the analysis of whether we would have legal authority. there's so many other things we do not believe we should do. we certainly don't reach the question in those other areas whether we have the legal authority to do something that we believe is unnecessary. >> have you done, since you chose not to, have you done the analysis? maybe we'll go back to when you

said you would go back and do the analysis. did you do that? >> mr. chairman, again, what we did was to -- >> no, i recognize -- you're talking to the committee that follows your work closely, but did you go back to do analysis on the authorities? >> we don't think we have the authority to extend something that a provision that -- where's there is no need in terms of administratability. individuals can fill out their tax forms to indicate very readily whether they have paid their -- whether they have coverage, and if they don't, whether they are exempt, and if they are not exempt, to make the payments. the tax forms will be our easy for individuals to complete in

that regard. lord knows, i'm not sunlighting our tax system as a whole is simple or easy to-and-a-half dpait, but this -- to navigate, but this test for the individual is not a difficult task. employers, by contrast in complying with the employer responsibility rules, have more to deal with. they provide the plans for all of their employees. >> so i just want to give you plenty of time to answer so you can do it in clear ways. your answer is you do not have the authority to extend the individual mandate because you don't see the need to? >> well, mr. chairman, let me make clear. the -- i'm not one of the practicing lawyers at the treasury department. my role is not to do legal analysis. i'm a policy perp. >> the analysis, and i'm -- you did do the analysis as promised? >> mr. chairman, i would like to go back, if i may, to the

hearing record and to the transscricht to make sure that i'm understanding what we undertook. obviously, we're happy to help you and be cooperative in the work. if i misunderstood what we agreed to do in july, then that's on me, mr. chairman. >> happenstance. did you do the analysis in >> i did not do a legal analysis of the authority to extend a provision that we don't believe should be extended and then would not be good for the american people to extend. >> if you've done the analysis, you would be glad to guard that to us? if it's been done as of this date? you'd be glad to share it with the committee? >> mr. chairman, happy to go back to my legal counsel

colleagues at treasury. we have an excellent legal team, very experienced, very knowledgeable, and take the the question back to them and see what they have to say and get back to you. >> perfect. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm puzzled by the line of questioning. it sounds like you -- the way you operate in the treasury, i'm not a lawyer either, so i'm sharing that with you. you decide is there something we should do to make this thing work, and then you look to see if you'd have authority to do that. is that a fair shortcut @ tangs of what you do? >> first, if i may just clear something up of less importance. i am a lawyer, but a recovering one, if i may say, and i'm not part of the legal counsel

treasury, but involved in the policy. if you could clarify the question for me. >> the question is, when asked seven different ways like a good lawyer about whether or not you had done the seasonal sis about whether you had the authority, but your answer was over and over again, i never got to the point because we didn't think it needed to be done or looked at. if it was something to be done, we would have done the analysis. can we do it. is that fair? >> i'm in general agreement with the way you're approaching this. the authority to provide regulations in general under the tax code including to provide

relief on those occasions where transition relief is worth considering is cop tanned in the statute, section 780 # 5a of the internal revenue code, and that language reads as follows. it says that the secretary of the treasury, and i quote, shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of. ..

across administrations of both parties, for more than two decades and, i am not aware of any instance where the treasury department's provided they believe that it was not appropriate to provide transition relief. >> i should hope not. >> and the cases, the list of examples, which is not a complete list that we have provided to the committee in our testimony last year in july and then again in the letters to the committee, examples of past exercises, this well-established

party under 7805 day of the tax code exercises that discretion to give transition relief unwise . that list of instances. and again, i am sure there are more than that. that was intended to be illustrative. there are instances where the treasury concluded that there was a legitimate need for more time. stakeholders who were affected, taxpayers who were affected by lobs effectively if they had more time and in some cases the tax system as a whole would need more time. >> that me interrupt you. my time is almost gone. i want to enter something in the record for the national research federation which represents 42 billion americans. they're tax counsel says the administration is to receive a

gold medal for recognizing the enormous complexities of the affordable care act and its ability inflexibility working with retailers and others in crafting a much-needed common-sense reforms. continuing simplicity dream liner in clarification of the affordable care act and the best interest of the employers and employees and administration of the congress. the national retail federation will continue with the constructive conversations with the congress and administration. it sounds like at least one business organization the you did a good job. i think that is really what is necessary for people to understand. you talk about 5% of employers are covered. 95 percent have less than 50 employees. 95 percent of those already give coverage to their employees. or talking about a very small

number of people. >> thank you, doctor. that objection. votes are occurring. we would like to ask chairman johnson to ask his question, and then we will recess. >> as you know, chairman of the social security subcommittee, one of my longstanding prior leases been to protect american social security numbers. this requires the irs to collect massive new amounts of personal information, including social security numbers and identifying theft and privacy, growing concerns of all americans. how many americans will have their social security numbers collected, stored and reported? >> all of them that are involved in health care.

>> let me ask you another one. it will collect social security numbers? employers, insurers, both? >> regarding your first question to my believe that the social security numbers are now collected as part of the 1040 form that applies to -- that is filed by tens of billions of american taxpayers. we're happy to give you the exact number. my recollection is that there are more than a hundred million tax filing units. they provide tax i.d. numbers currently to the irs. >> our we going to protect them? >> sir, we share very much that concern. the importance of and privacy of

the information is a high priority. the irs has been very vigilant about that. over its history. we all, i think recognize, as you are suggesting, sir, that recent events in the private sector, for example, underscore the importance of the point you're making the privacy and security are key, but we don't think that we are taking risks with privacy and security in the case of these recordings. >> well, but under this law given those numbers to your employer. now we just give them to the irs when we file our tax return. how are you going to protect those numbers? >> many employers to have the

social security numbers. typically they have the social security numbers of their employees. now, we recognize that there is a legitimate balancing here and that we agree with your concern that privacy and security of the personal data be treated with the utmost care and seriousness. these reporting provisions are intended to give effect to that concern. one way that they do that to all one way that they do that, sir, is that when taxpayer identification numbers are provided as part of the affordable care act reporting, the purpose of making sure that the tax system is, in fact, right away that it should and that people are not being charged with individual

responsibility penance when, in fairness, they should not be because they did have coverage or the people get in order to make sure that people don't get premium tax credits that they are not entitled to under the law, the social security numbers or the other taxpayer identification numbers that are collected for the purpose of making sure that the tax administration is proper and appropriate, those are provided by the employer or the reporting entity to the irs and a statement is provided to the individual, to the employee as well that the statement, which is the document that might otherwise present more of an issue year because it is not going through that existing safe channel from employers to the irs, that statement would have a

truncated taxpayer id number. in other words, those seven numbers that many of us now see on our documents that have some of the digits of the social security number and then the rest next out for security so that if that statement falls into the wrong hands the social security number is still secure. >> well, that is not very convincing. you know, i think it is killing to be tough to assure every american that their most private information is safe from criminals because they are attacking us every day. >> thank you, mr. sherman. we will recess. >> let's reconvened a hearing. >> appreciate it very much. the chair recognizes mr. pasco. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning. good afternoon.

good evening. open enrollment began october the first one and 7 million american several in private coverage and 39 in medicaid or their children's health insurance program. yesterday gallup announced for the fourth straight time that the rate of uninsured americans has declined and is now at the lowest level recorded since 2008. before the hca many people were paying for plans that did not provide them with the covers a needed. the purchase the man high, out of pocket costs an artificially low count some coverage. americans or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and insurance companies arbitrarily increase their premiums to the part where they could not afford insurance. my colleagues on the other side refused to the acknowledged any benefits that have resulted from this law. back nine years ago when we

passed pardee in an excruciating 3:00 of 4:00 vote. i don't know if you remember that, but at that time if you remember what happened after, democrats mostly voted against it, republicans voted. the reason why we passed it, most of us had campaigned against it before. what did we do? we went back into our districts. the first three and went to, talked and said, look, i was against it. this is going to be a good benefit down the road. it has some problems, but we will work those things out. and my brother said at the time, the beginning of parred the rollout, they heard only about

what was wrong with the program. doesn't that sound in my ear? my good friend sam johnson who now work for a closely with this year said to cms officials, you guys have done a super job. so despite bois has happened, automatic enrollment of pool of eligible stiches into three, four, five months. serious, serious problems. the beneficiaries were not receiving the payments that they were eligible. there is confusion about those in the states have to step in to pay for seniors tracks. they had to come up with $26 billion because the rollout was not working. hamilton was not nearly what it needed to be, what they expected it to be. by late fed yuri 2006 only 5 million seniors had signed a

up. nearly 20 million seniors. now, let me say this, mr. mr. chairman, this hearing is simply another attempt by your colleagues to spread misinformation, chip away at the hca to distract and the fact that this law has already helped millions of americans. you don't admit. we have admitted that some things are wrong. can't you bring yourself to that and we work together think of many more people will be enrolled. the governors will have -- be cooperative, think how many more people would be enrolled. the governors and chose not to accept medicaid into their coffers to help support think how many more people would have been involved over the three and half million that are world since this program went into

effect. analysts disappointed to see delays. i appreciate treasury's desire to make sure the employer responsibility provisions are well drafted and incorporate the feedback of the business community and others takeovers before moving forward with implementation, but my perspective, the final will published by treasury in february addresses a number of concerns that have hurt the business community. can you please discuss treasury's process for soliciting feedback from the business community and other stakeholders? and can you tell the committee what some of the feedback was and how treasury address the stakeholders concerns? as the bottom line. >> we have about five minutes. perhaps you could do it by letter.

>> happy to do that. >> i want to refer back to my colleague, mr. mcdermott, opening statement. he said it is pure fantasy that the republicans contend the hca is unworkable. if that is the case, why did you do these delays? >> we do not believe that the hca, the affordable care act is unworkable. the reason we did provide transition relief in accordance with treasurys authority to do so under the tax code. with respect to the employer shared responsibility provisions , stakeholders make the case to us --

>> it was unworkable to them? >> made the case to us, sir, that with more time -- >> why did they need more time? >> with more time they would be able to better adapt there reporting systems -- >> under the time friend that the law allowed they did not have the time to conform their systems to what was being required? >> congressman, the business community started out in dialogue with us on what their temporaries would be. >> i'm just asking, why did they solicit and seek more time that these delays now allow them? why did they seek more time? >> we did. the reason they some more time set as it was explained, was not

generally that it that they could not comply but that they thought it would be much more effective and less difficult if they had time to study the rules and adapter systems. >> the days when it would cost more money? to the talks about the increased cost for legal charges and accounting changes? all of those items would make it very difficult.

>> when we began an intensive dialogue with stakeholders, the points were made. if the rules or not a simple and administrable enough then they would impose costs that might otherwise be avoidable. >> did you ever seek then to try to assess with the application, with the increased cost would be something similar to the american health policy institute study ac maynorich ten years is going to increase their cost by 1,501,000,000,000 to 1,806,000,000,000. did you do any independent assessment on the department about what the increase burdens of these mandates would have on those employers of over 50?

>> congressman, throughout the treasury's those of common will making process -- >> did you do a study? >> we assessed -- >> sir, did you do a study independently determine what the increased cost would be on those over 50 employees to determine what they would experience? it is of very simple question. >> congressman, we talk -- >> i know. you said that over and over again. did you do an independent study? would you please answer the question? >> congressman, would be happy to answer it. >> please do. >> i am not aware -- >> thank you. you are not aware of any independent study. is that your answer? >> i am not aware of the treasury department study of the cost. >> what you think that was not done? why you think that was not done? why? why did you do that to

independently determine what the impact would be? >> congressman, we were getting a considerable amount of specific feedback from employers >> was it necessary? >> all time has expired. perhaps you could answer that. >> i will come up with additional questions. i appreciate your very specific response to the question. >> dr. price. >> thank you, mr. chairman. appreciate you being here. dr. mcdermott and his comments by saying that he felt this was above is airing. do you think this is a bug is hearing? >> congressman, i think the committee has an important

oversight role to play with respect to the treasury department, and i very much respect and of the treasury department and the irs very much respect committees or relatives in the committee's important role and function in the oversight. >> requests i made. it is incumbent upon the executive branch to comply with those requests. >> congressman, certainly the executive branch, the administration, i can only speak for, of course, treasury in my case. but the view, the requests of this committee with respect, of course. we take the committee's requests seriously and you the committee's role as not only legitimate but important. >> thank you. >> you mentioned that this employer reporting requirement

on the heads of 4% of employers out there. is that an accurate statement? >> mr. price, the employer responsibility requirements, including the employer reporting requirements for employers that have at least 50 full-time employees or full-time equivalents. that is about 4 percent of the total number of employers in the united states. >> how many employees is that? >> it is a considerable number of employees. ninety-nine no of hand as i sit here the exact number. the have not seen the data. we would be happy to give you the exact number. >> i think it's around

90 million. i look forward to their response. you mentioned, and i think this quote is accurate. the request of the employers is to get the basic information to check compliance. did you all do a study to my estimate what that costs? >> congressman, you are asking whether we estimate it what it would cost the employer to comply with the reporting requirements? >> we have not, to my knowledge. i am not aware. there may be some other, such a study in the executive branch.

i am not aware that treasury went beyond the very intensive dialogue and fact gathering from the business community. congressman, we felt it was very important to hear from balance to take the cost into account. we ask the business community. >> the cost. you have to take the cost into account. >> certainly. and congressman, depending on the specific provision, depending on how particular rules are simplified, the degree to which their simplified, the cost is going to vary. the businesses themselves did not have generally -- >> i have just a little time. >> i'm sorry. >> start this year there will be credits and subsidies provided to employees based on misinformation.

there will be some errors made just because of the nature of the beast. when an error is made and an employee gets a subsidy of credit that they are not eligible for in hindsight is the ira is going to go back and give that money back? >> congressman, the -- let me address that this way. the affordable care act provides that if an individual obtains a premium tax credit based on information that turns out to be either not correct or not current and based on the current final information such as the income of that household for the year in which the coverage and therefore the premium tax credit was provided, the law provides for reconciliation process in

connection with the individual filing a tax return with the irs >> that means getting that money back. >> there could be either an additional tax credit that the person is entitled to if they planned less than they were entitled to. for example, it might turn out that there income was actually lower than what was anticipated. >> my time is expired. afford to providing some questions in red for. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your time here today. many nebraskan said express their concern to me that many of the changes made to the health care law had been made without congressional approval. i was wondering, if the administration is working on legislation that they would

propose before congress to codify any of these changes that have already been made. >> congressman, are you referring to the transition relief with respect to the employer shared responsibility? >> can you agree that there have been many changes made or delays in time frame since 04 that have been issued? is the administration working on anything to propose that in the form of legislation? >> congressman, the treasury department -- and i can speak for only with respect to treasury since that is where work, the treasury department has exercised its authority to provide various safe harbors or businesses and other stakeholders transition relief

for stakeholders of various kinds pursuant to its well established and at long held authority under section 7805 a of the internal revenue code. we have authority to interpret the tax code and particularly, sir, when they're is new law, what the statute refers to as an alteration of the law relating to internal revenue my authority with respect to and a lot to issue rules and regulations to give effect to it. and when we get the kind of credible comments from stakeholders the we received regarding the need for or transition relief in some cases or as much simplification and streamlining as possible, which

we have tried our best to do in the case of the reporting as well as the employer responsibility. >> there are many folks who are concerned that the executive authority is not being used appropriately. would the administration be open to, from your perspective, be open to proposing legislation that would codify any of these changes? >> congressman, the kind of practical common sense interpretations of the tax statutes at issue that treasury is provided in connection with employee responsibility regulations and the reporting regulations are consistent with treasury's existing statutory authority. that statute exists in the form

of section 7805 a of the internal revenue code as it has been in effect not only recently but for years and for more than two decades. .. >> we have exercised it in much the same way that previous treasury department officials under previous administrations, both republican and democrat, have exercised this with

statutory authority. >> following up on the question of mr. johnson relating to the information it contained an is associated with this and other information, has the irs tested if they have the ability to process and protect the gathering of the nation that i think would be shared in a much greater velocity and there are more questions being asked on the tax returns related health care. >> congressman, this is not a matter of personal health information being shared with the irs. >> okay. >> but has the irs tested security of this information? >> to my knowledge, and i don't work in the irs per se, but my understanding is that the irs constantly checks its systems to

make sure that the kind of security of information and privacy that the committee is expressing concern about and that the administration is likewise extremely concerned to be kept and maintained in as protective away as possible for the american taxpayer and the american people in general and we are trying to make sure that the systems are secure and to protect individual taxpayer information from breaches of security and we have the current system of employers that obtain social security numbers from individuals and we're those social security numbers are placed, on the tens of millions of 1040 returned that are filed

every year. the social security records, numbers filed every year, financial institution numbers reported every year, that is all part of that system and i know that the irs takes the utmost care with that. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, sir, for coming to the clarification of that today. take us back, if you will, as hers that treasuries determination for the one-year moratorium on the employer mandate with artman in section 7805 and in transition with discretion authority. because it just seems to me when i heard the administration make the announcement for the one-year delay, it was based on the feedback and in essence you are saying that it's not that you don't want to with porter, but we need more time to upgrade

our software so that when we do report we can report as accurately as possible. i think to the administration's credit you heard that feedback from the business community and i understand it can be difficult in the initial stages and give you a little bit more time to upgrade your system so you can report accurately. is that close to the finding of the determination as far as the one-year delay? >> we have the exercise of our well-established authority under the tax code, including ones that would provide appropriate lead in connection with a change in law and they have yet to

sponsor health care plans for their health employees. so as you say, many of them indicated that we are prepared to comply with this and many of them say this is a good law and we think that this will help the american people and we are prepared to comply with it. please just give us additional time and that is not unusual. when major legislation is elected, i think one thing that probably everyone can agree on here, i would imagine if that this legislation is major.

and when something like a significant reform is enacted, it is very common and very typical for rule making progress in that shed light on the practical concerns were challenges that any major piece of legislation poses. >> this invokes the transitional relief and i've had an opportunity to review in the past how this is highlighted with some of the specific incidents in the past with this authority as well. is that correct?

>> yes, that is very true. we submitted a list of instances that illustrates that for more than the last 20 years and we have exercised the authority under 7805 of the tax code to provide transition relief of various kinds to a limited degree, limited in scope and limited in time with a respect to a variety of new tax related legislation. and it has been very typical for the taxpayer community to say no, we have studied this law, and we now realize securely through the process of repose regulations, that everything is more complicated than it first appears to be. it is not just the affordable

care act. >> mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent that that be submitted for the record. it just seems that we have a tough position given the affordable care act. you are damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. and if you do provide relief, you're criticized for not helping make the program collapsed to insist on right or timely or in compliance. so i encourage the administration to continue using the pragmatic discretion that you have working with the business entity trying to make this work for all americans. >> thank you for being here today. there are two concerns about the regulations, so we will continue this dialogue going forward. please check on the analysis done on the authority that i would like to have for the committee that i will follow you to that effect. thank you very much and thank you for being patient with the

vote. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> cq rollcall, what is notable about the house republican budget for 2015? >> one of the interesting things is that like last year, this budget would balance 10 years, something that a lot of conservatives are not interested in. but what they had to do is they had to use dynamic scoring where they got a score from the congressional budget office based on the amount of deficit reduction which basically said that it would actually cause the economy to expand more revenue

and less spending. so they basically use this to get it to balance in 10 years. >> what does the house have to do to get them on board to vote for this budget? >> welcome and they needed to make sure that its balance. and to do that they actually had to increase some of the spending cuts over the years. they basically reduce the government spending for domestic agencies starting in 2016. and the dynamics will probably help with well because that is nothing but a lot of republicans believe in. >> it's one of the five alternatives at the house will consider. how different is their plan from the paul ryan budget?

>> it actually cuts him a little bit, not a lot. but cut spending a lot more than the ryan budget. so it would actually balance this in four years instead of 10 years. >> democratic alternative budget would add 1.8 taurean dollars in taxes and aside from that, what does that democratic at but his lease until about where their priorities are? to it increases spending a lot compared to the ryan budget. and there's a lot of mandatory spending programs and the increases discretionary spending and get rid of the sequesters. >> in terms of specifics, what

is the biggest increase that they are proposing. >> in terms of the biggest increase in spending, it is really spreading throughout the budget. and they assumed that the unemployment insurance will be assumed immigration reform overhaul, which would bring in more money and as i said, the discretionary spending has increased and they have increased spending on other social programs as well. so it has really spread throughout. >> and then the congressional black caucus and the progressive caucus will have their shot at a budget alternative. what should viewers know about those budgets? >> both of those budgets will have more spending than the alternatives and the progressive

caucus budget would have the most additional spending and also revenue. the progressive budget would actually increase revenue by almost $7 trillion over 10 years. by comparison, the democratic alternative would increase it by under to join. >> and the president's budget also getting a hearing on the house floor. what is the likely result they are? >> many will vote against it, and let's say that that is because representative mulvaney put this budget together and it is basically -- well, he says that reflects the democratic budget but it is his depiction

of old thomas budget. and democrats say that it is not really obama's budget, so they will vote against it and of course they will vote against it because it is the obama budget. >> lastly, we are saying lots of alternatives and what someone is going to happen in the process of the and i? >> little to nothing. the senate budget chairman patty murray is not in the senate budget this year. it is possible that some budget resolutions can be considered in the senate. but there is really not a lot of appetite among republicans in the senate to have a big debate. >> cq budget reporter paul, thank you for being with us. >> thank you. >> the house is working on its

2015 budget resolution this week. on our next "washington journal", we will talk to committee member marsha blackburn about the gop's 10 year plan. and congressman earl pascrell lays out his party's budget priorities. and the west virginia chemical spill that happened in january, she will join us later in the show as a guest. "washington journal" live each morning at seven eastern. you can also join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> on the question of integration of baseball. it is clear to me that he had serious doubts about the innovation of this.

and they want a fan base. we are thinking that they want our fans. if you want to integrate, take whole team. black all-star teams into the majors. we have bunches of players. >> integrating professional baseball on saturday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. >> tomorrow the senate is expected to have its first vote on a pay at what a bill that will require employers to pay

men and women equally with the same jobs. number cuts went to the floor to discuss the bell. we will hear first from another barber michael you. >> madam president, the bill that we will be voting on tomorrow in the united states senate 11 women will be coming to the floor to speak but i will not introduce each one. we want to get right to the issue rather than talk about each other. we want to talk about the need for paycheck fairness. i ask unanimous consent that each one would speak up to five minutes each. >> without objection. >> madam president, i want to be very clear. why are we on the senate floor?

women need a fair shot to get equal payfloor? women need a fair shot to get equal pay for equal work. we want the same paying for the same job and we won it in our checkbooks. we want to finish the job that we began five years ago. five years ago one of the first bills passed during the obama administration was that we passed the lilly ledbetter act, which reopened the courthouse door to women who wanted to secret dress for the way that they were treated on equally in the work ways. but we want to miss the job and that is what paycheck fairness does. what does it mean? well, right now in the united native america, there is a veil of secrecy and where is it? in the workplace. right now in many companies and

businesses, employees are forbidden to talk about the pay they receive with another employee. the other thing is in many places when an employer seeks redress, he or she is retaliated against and last but not at all least, there are loopholes that many employers use to justify women paying less. they invent excuses and they call them business necessity explanations. we are on the floor today to say that we want to end the bigotry of low wages for women. equal pay for equal work. no secrecy, no retaliation. no loopholes and no ways without equal pay. it is the equal payday and what

does that mean? them into the women of the united states of america have to work in many instances 15 months per year to earn what a man makes doing the same job with the same experience and the same seniority that a man earns in one year. we are not against the guys. there are many men who do jobs that they hate so their daughters to have the jobs they love and after working to ensure that they have a good home and a good education, they see their daughters are paid less and we all know that there is a generalized rate suppression going on of the middle class. another topic and another debate. and it's hard to believe that women are almost half of the work force and during that time

as we make up 50% of the workforce, we still make only 77 cents for every dollar that a man makes. african-american women make 62 cents. and it's almost half. we need to change the goal and that is what we seek to do by bringing the paycheck fairness act to ban retaliation against employees who work for federal contractors and we will start to ban retaliation within the federal contractors and we also have called upon the contractors to submit data information so

that we would know what are the gender differences that are going on on the very contracts that we have. >> and women make only 59 cents. fifty years ago we have gained all of 18 cents and 50 years ago. eighteen cents. well, that is not the way to go. but we will do is to make sure that no retaliation, no excuses. we hear this all the time. so many women now are single breadwinners themselves.

not only will it be limited to women with back pay when they are being discriminated against. and my time is up herriot. >> madam president, my time is up. i'm go into the well. i have been at this legislation a long time. but what i would like this to tell you that hope and help is on the way in and reinforcements are here and now i turn to elizabeth warren and then after that senator claire mccaskill. >> senator mikulski, thank you for your leadership on this issue. i've come to the full floor today support of equal pay for equal work.

collectively we are still working toward the spirit when the equal pay act was signed, with women were earning 59 cents on the dollar for every dollar earned. women are taking head found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men and 264 out of 265 major occupation categories. 56% of all occupations, men get paid more than women. the effects of discrimination

are real and long-lasting. women are roughly the same as first paying for college, but according to the american association of women, these women make only 82 cents on the dollar compared with men one year after graduating. but they face an even deeper road to repay those loans. unequal pay means until her retirement in the average person that collects social security will receive about $3000 less each year than a similarly situated man, because the benefits they earned are less when they are working. there is a big problem and women are fed up. >> today, some women can be fired just for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes.

earlier today the president issued orders to stop contractors from retaliating against women who ask about their pay and to instruct the department of labor to collect better data further gender pay gap. and good for him and good for women working on federal contractors. now the u.s. congress should extend these protections to all women as is no discrimination, no retaliation when the women asked how much the guys are getting paid and basic data to tell us how much men and women are getting paid for these key jobs. so there it is. it is basic protection, basic information and a fair shot. that is essentially what this bill does. and sure, sometimes men will be paid more than women. employers can still make different payments for salaries based on factors like skill,

performance, expertise, seniority, and so forth. the paycheck fairness act does not touch any of that. but it simply provides the tools that women need to make sure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing and not just the fact that they are women. several states have already adopted a similar rule and businesses continue to thrive without any exposure of losses. this induces a level playing field for men and women and an equal chance to get the job done in america's women are tired of hearing that pay inequality is it real we are tired of hearing that it's our fault were ready to fight back against pay discrimination. i think senator mccaul you and all of my colleagues were speaking on the floor today.

and i urge the senate to pass the paycheck fairness act to strengthen america's middle-class families and level the playing field for all working women. madam president, i yield. >> madam president, the senator from missouri. .. what is the united states senate supposed to be about? why do we come to the senate? why did our founding fathers lay out a constitution that had these branches of government, and in the branch of government that we reside in, we are called the legislative branch. so what is that about? i think what the founding fathers wanted us to do is to make our laws reflect the values and priorities of the american people.

and the paycheck fairness act is a simple step towards making our laws reflect two of the most important values we have in the united states of america. i guarantee you if i walked up to any of my colleagues that intend to vote against this and said do you believe in equality and justice, they would say of course we believe in equality and justice. and justice. ' >> there are laws on the books. well, here's the deal. you can't get justice if you don't have the facts. if the facts are a secret, a protected secret, then justice is always going to be