neighborhood of five minutes we'll be happy to submit your written statement for the record. >> absolutely. thank you for the opportunity to appear today. the fiscal year 2014 budget, as you mentioned has not been released yet. but there's still much that i can report to you. you're aware we collected revenue.ion in through march 29, the i.r.s. received 88 million individual returns, issued $77 million refunds. this unfolded despite the difficult challenges presented by substantial tax law changes that were not enacted until january 2 of this year, as you know. it is important to understand

these accomplishments, those i have outlined in my testimony may not be sustainable within the current budget environment. yes, i think we'll continue to succeed with the filing season, e'll continue our efforts in having an excellent performance but it will start to reflect the budget cuts. there will be be a steady erosion to taxpayers and the money we collect. we'll continue to dedicate staff and resources where they are most essential. for example, we'll continue to commit staff for identifying dentity theft cases. if these cuts continue future service and enforcement levels will, in fact, a new reality. in this regard, let me note the

affects of the sequester. we said publicly the i.r.s. faces up to seven furlough days of this fiscal year. we anticipate the first day we'll be closed will be around the memorial day holiday. we expect a reduction in the revenues we collect and the calls we can take. we've delivered smooth filing seasons and successfully carried out core duties. our efforts to address identity theft is having an impact. over 3,000 employees are working on identity theft as we speak. that is more than double the umber in last filing season. and it was money well spent. during fils fist call year 2012, $20 r.s. protected

billion. we've suspended or rejected over two million suspicious returns. we've been more efficient and that reduction is over -- almost an 8% cut in our budget. as we're asked to tackle significant new challenges, including identity theft, a.c.a., and the new reporting rules. we've met some of these cut -- uitingsing expenses by $ half a billion. by closely managing hiring we've seen a reduction on the full time permanent i.r.s. employees from the end of 2010-2012. we're running 10,000 employees below where we were at the 2010

filing season. we've onlabor spending increased the needs of delivery for meetings and training. this allows the i.r.s. to reduce deincreases by a 55% from 20 of 10. $60 million in printing and postage savings as well as aggressive reduction in rent payments. we'll continue our efforts to be fiscally prudent and make wise decisions. however, as i noted without a change in the current budget environment, american people will see an erosion in our ability to serve them. thank you and lil glad to take any comments or questions. >> thank you for your testimony. . t me start the questions

this sub committee overseas maybe 20 different agencies that we're charged with providing the funds for. it's always important that we talk a sequester as it relates to efficiency and effectiveness. t sounds to me like you saw it coming and you prepared for it. one of the things on this sub committee, most of the members agree that if you want to reduce spending there's a better way to do it than have across the board cuts. that's why we have appropriation committee, that's why we have hearings like this to make budgets and priorities and tough decisions and then fund the programs that need to be funded and reduce funds on programs

that don't need to be funding. we are where we are. i think our budget resolution as well as the senate budget resolution anticipated that the sequester is going to stay here. even though congress, as you probably know we reduced spending from 2010 to 2012 by $90 billion, that was all discretionary but that was a giant stp that hasn't happened in the last 50 years. but we're still living in difficult economic times. i appreciate what you're working on and what you're doing. talk a little bit more about how you prepared for the sequester. what kind of information did you take into conversation when you decided how you're going to deal with this. i guess for non-defense agencies about 5%, defense is more like 8%. so number one, tell us a little

bit more about how you decided what you're going to do and then talk a little bit more too about whether or not you think that if you have to live with the sequester, that this actually forces agencies like yours to do things. it sounds like you're trying to do that. you're forced because of the these across the board cuts to make tough decisions to be more efficient. when we were here before the expected general butter asked a question about the tv video studio. there's been a lot of discussion about that and how important it is in the long term. touch on those two points as it relates to sequester if you would. >> you're surmise is correct. we saw this coming. we certainly saw tighter budgets coming. in 2010, we put in a hiring

freeze, which has allowed us to be at a place where we're only at seven days of furlough. that was a large step. that was a way for us to invest in those areas we felt we needed to invest. greatest, the identity theft area is one area we needed to fund and we did so. we funded other programs as well, our return prepare area, our offshore work. we did fund the a.c.a. work we need to do. we have tried to save and invest in various ways. we've trimmed quite dollarsically in travel and training. we cut back in postage and several other ways to get us to the point where sequester is not

easy and it is not the way i would want to do it. if we, in fact, have to end up at a lower level i would like more time to prepare us for that lower level than have it come in one year. that is not a way to plan but time off. ay to take let me touch on the studio. there has been some noise on that. we think the studio is an efficient use of our resources. it is 15 years old and it allows us to train our people virtually and educate taxpayers on a basis of youtube and other types like that rather than face-to-fapes has allowed us to move away from face-to-face travel. we're spending 80% less on train

and travel than we were in 2010. that has allowed us to do quite a few things. on a personal basis the studio allowed me to go online on the web to 4,000 of my managers this fall and walk them through the priorities of the internal revenue service. that was the ability for them to have a face-to-face with me online and ask their questions and get an understanding on where the service stands right now. that is kind of essential for us. we think with the cuts in travel, which the studio can always be more efficient, i'm not willing to say we won't work on that. but the studio has allowed us to do these cost-saving things. >> thank you. let me ask one final question. i think today we'll have time for a second round of questions. you touched on the affordable care act. i think more and more that is going to come to the forefront.

people are realizing that it is coming quicker than they anticipated. of course, you're right in the middle of all that. the i.r.s. has to start in 2015, i guess, people have to report o you about their health care. if they don't have insurance or adequate insurance that is going to be a tax penalty. i guess the question is, are you prepared to collect all of this information, assess the penalties, administer the subsidies, i guess, that people have to understand? the big question is, as you prepare for this do you think the general public understands all that is going to be required of them about the penalties and nonpenalties? finally, where is all the money going to come from? i understand that h.h.s. has

transfered some money to you all but it sounds like you know it is coming and you're gearing up for it. but it seems to me that the general public, probably doesn't understand all of this and i wonder what you think about that and how prepared you are to deal with this? it is fairly complicated as it tarts impacting people's daily lives. >> there is no doubt that the health care provisions is a large lift for the internal revenue service. with respect to health care, h.h.s. is the face to the teach. they will be working with if exchanges as early as october to this igning peep up for -- people for this coverage. it is our job that the exchanges have the information they need to make intelligence decisions, in terms of who qualifies for

advanced premiums and other subsidies of that nature under the a.c.a. we'll be doing matching of taxpayer identification numbers eastern information that will flow back -- that will flow back -- our people aware of it yet? i think some are and some are not. the big ramp up has to happen this summer so people are ready in the fall for those who need it to go to the exchanges. many people are covered by employer insurance and they will not busy b as impacted. we will be ready on the back end as well. most of the reporting to us will be from the exchanges and insurance company, not the individual. we'll be ready to process that and see who is covered and who

is not. i don't anticipate problems in that area. that is a competency that we have in many areas. >> so the individuals won't -- they won't be required to give information to the i.r.s. about whether they have insurance and whether it is adequate or not? >> adequate, no. they will have a check box so they can say yes, i have insurance and my family is covered with insurance. i want to correct a misimprex. we're not looking at what kind of health care they have. that is -- h.h.s. is setting out their standards and the insurance companies are going to tell the folks -- >> are they going to be the ones that explain to them about the subsidies that my get and that have to be on

a tax form? >> if you have a tax payment then yes, that information will be on the tax form. information will be in well advance of that. it seems a lot of people are going to end up in 2015 realize they are penalized for not having health care in 2014 and thought they might get a refund and owe some more. >> i don't think that is right. we have a lot of work to do to make sure that does not happen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. rom fiscal year 2010 until 2013, the i.r.s. has been cut by nearly $1 billion. as you have noted in our testimony, what do you believe is the long-term impact of this?

we keep talking about these cuts that are taking place in all federal agencies but you have a unique role. u have to implement new laws and you have to do the regular work that you do every year, which is incredibly important and big. yet, you are getting less and less to be able to do all of this 37 --. >> we've been able to maintain coverage levels at god place for the american public in term tolves examination programs. i would like to see higher but 70's for we're in the people calling in for the file season. that is not bad frankly, given the budget. those are the types of things that we're going to see some

rosion on as we have somewhere 70,000 fewer permanent folks on board. we have as many as 5,000 or more are in the enforcement area. there will be a real impact on revenues. there will be a real impact on the level of service on the phones and the ability to engage with taxpayers when they come to our walk-in sites. all of these areas be impacted, there is no question about that. >> at what point do you think we can have a crisis in the collection of the enforcement? this is what is happening in other hearings. people are open about it and say yes we could. do we reach a point where you're having dollars out there that are not being collected because we don't have the people to collect them?

>> i think we already have dollar out there that is not being collected. i don't think there is a crisis immediately. i don't. i think you're going see some erosion in our performance metrics and that isn't good for voluntary compliance. as people realize they have a better chance of winning the lottery and this getting audited then they are not going worry about what they do on their return. i don't think that is immediate. if the trend line continues in the fashion that it is today then you may get a different answer out of me. at that point, i don't see a crisis, i see severe erosion happening. >> i have one more question, mr. chairman in this round. it came about as i'm listening to you. at the end of this week, hopefully, all members of congress will be celebrating the introduction of a bill. but certainly, we'll be celebrating, which the

comprehensive immigration reform. it looks like is it going happen sooner. as you know the discussion has been for who will be able to stay in the country and be put, perhaps on a path to citizenship you have to to have no criminal record, speak some english, you have to pay back taxes. in addition to the fact that this will be yet another affordable care act-type new law that you have to deal with. i realize you're not writing the bill and neither am i. we each have a senator who is writing part of it from our states. do you have any clue, any understanding at this point as to what role you will be asked to play? if you pay back taxes somebody has n the government has to say

he's up to date, she's up to date. >> there's been some discussions with the internal revenue service on this matter.mostly, e with the department of treasurer's office of tax policy, dealing with the legislative work of the administration. do i have concerned? i do not know enough about what will be asked of the service to express a concern one way or another. there would be issues around taxpayer information, 6103, obviously, there will be issues around resources, depending on the air as to do. is it something we need to be cognizant of? i would think that we would be brought to the table so that people can make no in discussions about that. >> at some future date if you could give the committee, with the chairman's commission -- permission, i know that there are folks who are here that are undocumented but get an irs

number and they pay taxes. could we have an understanding in the future of how many folks have been doing that already? i know in many cases they are business people, i think in all cases. >> i can endeavour to do that. i do not think our data is perfect in that regard, but we can get that to you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the commissioner for his testimony here today. i had a couple of questions that i want to get to, but the first thing on my mind, as i was preparing for work this morning, i am alerted the and the media that the internal revenue service is planning to use social media and some import the mckiernan -- enforcement mechanism. i wonder if the chairman could give us a window into just what the utilization of social media actually means to the

discriminating taxpayer out here a, as they continue to work with the irs? >> we do not come at the current time, you social media. possible, we are talking about it. on some basis, it makes sense to look all public information. we would not be selecting people but it is possible, we are talking about, whether in our collection area, for example, a collection officer could take a look of some of publicly available information to see if that person is showing assets that they might otherwise not be talking about. we are not doing it yet, and we are going to have a long conversation before we do it, but i think it makes sense to have that conversation.

>> interesting. so it would be somewhat of a micro targeting toll, perhaps, that you would use. i do not want to put words in your mouth. >> i would not describe it that way. we are looking at -- and it would not be targeting at all. would it be a tool that we would utilize once we had a person we were working with already? it would not be something that we go out and find people. that is not the discussion we're having. >> so you would not use the tool in such a way to prospect potential customers, if you will. >> absolutely. >> you would use it as an extraordinary means to follow up with already existing persons, businesses, or otherwise that are on social media? >> first of all, we now have not been a decision one way or the other. to the extent we are talking about it, we're not talking about prospecting.

we are talking about, would it be a tool in our school down if we were negotiating with an existing taxpayer. >> earlier, you talked about coming in 2012, collected $23.50 trillion, 92% of total tax receipts, and we have had an extensive discussion already in this hearing about the effects of sequestration. a couple of questions related to .esources on the first question, it would be, how would we calculate the total amount of resources optimumy to have an collection of what is due the federal government? i know you submit information to the white house, ask for certain .hings to be in your budget

the second part of the question, may be axed in a different way, along the concept of diminishing returns, is there an amount of money out there that would not prove to be beneficial, i e would not yield back the results ?hat you would be looking for help me sort out the resource question. >> the first question of it is there a perfect amount of money to be given that we would collect the maximum anon of revenue? that is sort of an impossible question. i do not think we have an answer to that. it is clear we could use more, since 2010.14% that begins to show holes in our -- grab location and ability to collect. what we would be asking for, the way we would ask for it, a

combination of looking at what our priorities are, looking at what is reasonable for us to do in a given year in terms of hiring. we are nowhere near any of those things. weo not have a perfect -- look at things in a fashion that if you give us $1, and whether that dollar goes for enforcement, service, or otherwise, the numbers tell us, and to support this, we are at $4 return to the government. >> it is my intent to establish that at $2.50 trillion, that is equal to or greater than federal receipts in the past, comparatively. is that a record number? >> it floats in that area, 2.3,

2.5. >> as we look at the ensuing months over sequestration, is it fair to assume, based on your testimony, that that number will be substantially lower than $2.50 trillion? >> no, i do not want to say that. it could be billions less, but that is not much against the $2.50 trillion amount. the amount of money we take in his most involuntary. fortunately. 83% voluntary compliance rate. most of it comes in voluntarily. there are two aspects of for money for us. >>we can draw out the other 17%a certain portion of that, and secondly, that 83% may fall to the extent we are not out there. those things are intangible that i cannot give you a number around. we are not talking about trillions here, congressman, that is clear. >> but it is your testimony that we will collect less money, the question is, whether it would be substantially less? >> substantially is a subjective

term. >> i would understand that. >> i think we would collect substantially less. we are working on the numbers now but i do not have those today. we just got our $600 million. >> thank you. >> in 2001, 2009, we increased funding for the irs and revenues went down. point is intuitive, if you spend more money on the irs you get more money, you spend less, you get less, which, sometimes, does not always work out. the gao says that if you spend $1, you get that $69. why don't you just give them $1 trillion and then we can go home? it does not quite work that way. the acting commissioner would

say, it does not always work that way. >> that is right. in general, and these numbers are based on history, is four to one in terms of the money that we get back. what the chairman says is right. if you give us money this year, it is unlikely to have an immediate impact. actually, it might erode the love it because we have to hire and train, and that takes people off of revenue generation. it is always a lagging impact. in budgetreduction has a leg impact. we are doing fewer exams as we speak and those closures will not occur this year necessarily. they may occur next year. sequestration will not be an immediate hit on our numbers, it will tail out in 14 and become much more evident than. >> mr. chairman, to your point

and to the gentleman's questions, they are absolutely fair. extent that you can move towards understanding what those numbers are certainly helps us with appropriations. you refer to it as a performance of matrix. we can figure out there are other variables. the chairman pointed out revenues between 2001 and 2009, clearly, a lot of that had to do with economic downturn, correct? what other variables are out there that get to hell collections go? >> the number of folks we have, where we put them is a key variable. as you mentioned, economic downturn, economic surpluses will impact receipts, obviously. and will impact the number of balanced dues that show up on our books during a recession is alarming, a large number. that changes the way we do our

extent that you canwork and wi. also, to the extent, law has changed, that has an impact as well. of whatalked about -- your reaction to it -- they did a study last december about correspondence exams for certain businesses with the possibility of increasing revenue collection by about $1 billion per year. i am sure you hear about studies like this. i am sure you are constantly analyzing the most efficient way to target, given less resources. what was your reaction to this? >> i would have to go back and take a look. i do not remember it off the top of my head. gao does a nice job of giving us help. i think whether we would swap out of work is an interesting question. we have increased, in the last

five years, the number of correspondents examinations we do. they are very efficient in the number of them that occur. they are not necessarily as weighty in terms of the amount of revenue they bring in. you have to maintain coverage for the field. it is a different sort of coverage. you need both. could we swap them out? absolutely, and i will look at that study and come back to you. >> continuing on efficiency being an absolute necessity, where are you and how you analyze the need for modernizing our brand software and how that has helped? we have done really well. i think we rolled out a new system last year. we have had a great deal of

success in our modernized electronic filing. electronic filing is now at 89% for individuals. that will come down as the year continues, but that is as high as we have seen it, and that is wonderful. our systems are working quite well. we are nowhere near done. we are getting better we have as gao has acknowledged. if you were to ask me if you had one less dollar to give me, and that dollar was for bodies or i.t., i would take it for i.t.. that is the lifeblood of our efficiency. that is my answer to that one. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. commissioner, good to see you. let me thank you for being so accessible. we all recognize you have a difficult job to do, so thank you for your willingness to do that. very briefly i also want to concern, for your involved and on identity theft. you and i have talked about

that. i know you are frustrated that more needs to be done but i appreciate the fact that you are focusing on that. we share the importance of that. let me talk about another issue that we talked about briefly but i want to throw this out for my colleagues, and then i want to throw out five questions for the , but i do need to add -- because the commissioner has been accessible -- that we had a conference call with your staff. thank you for that. i understand the irs is now considering declaring that the bonds of a special district, in florida, are taxable on the basis that at the time the bonds were issued, the board of that special district was controlled by one of for a few people. my understanding is that no bonds have been considered to be taxable on this basis before and that the irs has never articulated this requirement

before. this would seem to be a retroactive change in the law regarding the special districts. by the way, there are hundreds of them throughout the country. the burden of the ruling would fall on the homeowners in those districts who would ultimately have to pay any settlements. bonds of other be affecteduld also by if this ruling were to take place. commissioner, a few questions to throw your weight. has the irs and made a determination in the past? if so, when and where? never considered this issue before? if so, what was the outcome? has the irs audited a local government before where one or a few people controlled that local government, and where the irs did not declare the bonds to be

taxable? has the irs considers the affect on similar issue arose in florida and other states, and on the residents of those issuers, and obviously, the investors of the bonds? be any, would this not issue appropriate for notice and for comment during the rulemaking process? i understand those are a lot of questions. again, i want to thank you for meeting with me before, and also for allowing and setting up that conference call. i just need to make sure we are here to understand that what we are trying to do is get a handle on this before it becomes a major issue. you can imagine the special districts around the country, if all the sudden this takes place, the impact could be devastating, huge. thank you, commissioner, for

your indulgence and meeting with me and speaking with me. those are issues that i think we need to resolve. have tonk i'm going to come back to you on the specifics, as you might guess. obviously, to the extent an individual district we with 6103 rules would prevent discussion there, but what i can guarantee is we will have further conversations as we move forward in this area. >> i look forward to the conference call. i just want to make sure -- these are some of the issues that need to be answered. i do want to thank you for meeting with me and i look forward to continuing to work with you. obviously, we need to make sure that we avoid a catastrophe of this nature. withthe impact nationally, andn florida, when be, potentially,

catastrophic for folks who live in the district. thank you. i look for to continuing our conversation. >> thinking, mr. chairman. , mr. back to sequestration acting commissioner, you indicated they would be the first month where you would theya day where furloughs come into affect. have you identified how many of the 90,000-plus employees of the irs will be furloughed? it is our intention -- and we do need to talk to national treasure reunion, tell our folks more formally -- but right now looks like the first of those days will be in may. i would say it is our intention that everybody is going to be taking a furlough day.

it may be that there are certain areas where we need to stagger that a little bit too protect our systems. there may the i.t. folks that have to be gone in order to ensure we are protected. probably have to be cybersecurity people on duty as well. those would be limited numbers of people, but it is our intention that everyone would be taking a day. >> thank you. shifting gears, in a few days, a couple of weeks, i will be holding another round of town meetings in my district. alabama, alonge, the gulf coast. like most members of congress, i enjoy going home and talking with people i work for, hired me for a two-year contract, so i look forward to town hall meetings, but i will ask you this question. i have asked this question

your acting post, inspector general's, previous commissioners as well. do you, by chance, happen to know, since these meetings will occur right after the 15th of april, how many of the current number of irs employees actually employed professional help to file their taxes or use or some other means, other than the old fashioned taking the shoebox of the closet, the receipts, putting them together? >> unfortunately, i would have no way of knowing that. >> it would probably be instructive, as we deal with the complexity of the tax code, it might be in lightning to know employees have to

deal with frustration that taxpayers around the country have to deal with, especially as begin closer to the 15th. there have been a report in previous years, may be possible to update. when we met with a former inspector general a few years ago, i asked the question, suggested maybe we could even do some type of online service so your employees could say. just an idea. i promise you -- a lot of people do not think members of congress pay taxes or have other responsibilities. i think it would be interesting to know how many of the employees of the service actually have to seek professional help, like many hard-working taxpayers do. >> i will take a look at that. >> that would be great. the other question that comes to and is, you were talking

little bit in response to the chairman of the ranking committee, about the affordable care act, and most of the responsibility will be on the department of health and human services. roomps everyone in this does pay taxes and we have that obligation on the 15th, but do you know how many of the employees of the irs will be impacted by the affordable care act, in terms of -- will members of congress and staff be available to go into the federal exchange? i have not been able to get a lot of help from health and human services about how this is going to work. i was just wondering the service will be under the affordable care act as well? >> yes and no, if i understand the question. we are a part of the federal employees health program, and

that is, i think, coverage taxable under the affordable care act. yes, you are covered by the provisions, and yes, you have employer coverage -- >> members of congress and their staff -- not committee staff, leadership staff, protective officers of the president -- ,here was a carveout unfortunately. you will continue to participate? >> i believe so. that is more a question of opm and the irs. mr. chairman, i am going to save my second question for the second round, as it deals with cybersecurity. mr. commissioner, thanks for joining us today. we appreciate your testimony. i wanted to follow-up on some question the chairman was asking

regarding the implementation of health care legislation. you may have covered this, so just a brief follow-up. to we have an estimate to the cost to the irs specifically related to the implementation of the health care act? >> we have what we have spent so far, but we think we will spend this year. i think the more you will see what the president is asking us to spend next year. through 2012 we have spent $480hing in the range of million. 405 million of that was for i.t. all of that has come to us from the hhs fun to implement aca. this year we had asked for something in the middle 300's. we did not get that, obviously. so we will have to trim that back. with sequestration, we could get

it down to the 300's, something in the realm of $309 million. with sequestration, it may be lower than that. >> is that an ongoing cost? >> it will differ, going out. the only difference that i am aware of, cdo original estimate of $5 billion to $10 billion to implement. we haveook at the 488 had so far, 300 this year, we may be looking at something at the lower end of that range, but i do not have -- we do not budget on a 10-year basis. we come to you every year. >> are all the forms ready, are we in a position where the irs will be on time that taxpayers need to fill out around the country? >> i believe so. estimate on the cost of compliance?

not the health care cost but the to smallative cost businesses, to the american people who will be affected by this? >> i do not know that there is one, to be honest. we can go back and check on that for you. to know.ld be helpful we talk a lot about the cost of government to implement half the acts passed in congress but probably did not spend enough time diving into what is the cost, particularly related to your agency on the compliance side, how much americans will be spending just filling out the paperwork that the irs requires to ensure there has been proper compliance. do we have an estimate on the cost of compliance with the internal revenue code is over all in this country? are but wethere would probably have to go to the department of treasury for that. i do not have that with me but i do not doubt that there are several of those. >> to follow up on the

conversation regarding the tax compliance, really, the bang for the block in terms of where we spend dollars, where they have the most valley to the american people, certainly, your testimony is that every dollar we place into the ira as we would get $4 back into the treasury. is that correct? >> that is the minimum. to the extent our enforcement dollars, there would be more. any agreed amount is $4. >> certainly, your testimony is that if we put a trillion dollars into the garment we do not get 4 trillion dollars back. how does that work itself out? the law of diminishing returns. >> i appreciate that. i do not think i answered that well. no real good answer. trillionnot take a dollars, even if you wanted to give it to us because it is well beyond that which we could

accomplish anything with. what we ask for is what we think we could spend. those amounts are manageable, and we will see tomorrow what those are. this year they were something in the realm of -- we were at $11.8 billion for the cr, and above that, what the president has asked. i believe it is valid for that. beyond that, it depends. we will get to the point where we cannot spend at all. >> the tax gap in this country is estimated at $400 billion. that is the number that the irs uses $4 being paid that should be paid. >> i think it is in the middle 400's. after you and that everything else out, including voluntary payments, in voluntary payments,

much less than that, but the voluntary compliance rate, which is a to sell the sixth number, is in the 83% range. $450 billion tax gap number. >> i can come back on that. the irs thatet of will be requested tomorrow, that number is not public. 2013, when you will spend after the sequester? >> $11.19 billion. >> so the tax gap is roughly $480 billion. 385, i apologize. would your testimony be -- the budget is about $11 billion. on a four-to-one ratio, would it take another $40 billion to get that millio? whatat is not my testimony

we could do is close the gap through various ways, including some legislative and some -- certainly -- there is more money out there to be done. no question about that. at some point, you are not going to -- it will not be a pretty thing to give us the ability to go farther down the line of that money. there always be a tax gap and it varies pace to place. will be interesting to see what some of the reporting that you all have given us will do to the tax gap in the next couple of years. the foreign account reporting that you have given us. the credit card reporting that you have given us. the basis reporting that you have given us. those are things that should make as much more efficient. we would not need as many more to get to that. >> that is something we can agree upon. if we can give you greater

efficiency in terms of dollars that the irs spends it is returned, closing that gap, that would be something that everyone would think is a beneficial use of taxpayer funds. i know you are investing in technology and i.t., i have had constituents write in, i had one constituent sent me a note in 2011 that said investigators found an address in michigan that was used to file 2100 separate returns. some cases where refunds are deposited into the same account. those denouncing the manual mistakes. those seem like mistakes that could be caught by greater technology. a couple of questions. how are your technological advancements going to make it more effective so that we can avoid those fraudulent transactions, claims, in a way that does not require us to invest in more people but more effective use of the dollars we have?

i noted in the inspector general's report, hundreds of reforms,of dollars of including reducing office space by a million square feet, rental savings over five years, and a variety of other things. are those item being implemented, do you have disagreed with some of those items in the report? we give you $1, you will return $4, what are the irsthe things that can do to turn the resources we are using now into greater results and efficiency? >> that is a set of questions. let me hit the first one of those, if i could. the technology question -- and the one that you raised -- in an identity theft world where we are seeing a lot of refund going to an account, or a lot of refund going to an address, we have technology fixes in place this year, and it seems to be

working. that is something that we sought and took action, technological action on that through filters that we are doing. we are doing more of that. we are doing it much better. i would say we did much better last year than we did the year before identity theft, and better still this year. we still have work to go, do not get me wrong. the inspector general's report i will not be familiar with each one of the recommendations. i can speak to rent. we have been very aggressive, and in my written testimony you can see how aggressive we have been. posting the progress of a 43 duty. 6000 square feet this year has been returned. year0,000 square feet this has been returned. over the next few years, 1.6 million square feet of rental given back. i have outlined in my testimony, the contra savings we have, training, travel, we have been

aggressive over the last couple of years. >> i appreciate that. >> i think we have time for another round of questions. i would like to ask a couple of quick ones. ,s we talk about this tax gap it is intuitive, you spend more money and you get more money. we talked about the fact that bracket creep, population, gdp, all those things have an impact. i think we are all aware of that. read not long ago the former commissioner, here is what he said. making the tax code less complex is the single most important thing we can do to improve taxpayer service and boost compliance. it is almost like you say, appropriate more money, or we could make the tax code more simple. if we make a more simple, it is easy to comply with. if it easy -- if it is easier to

comply with, it easier to enforce. that may be one way to increase the revenues that would not cost any money, if we could get around to simplify the tax code. i do not think anybody disagrees with the fact that it is pretty complicated, hard to understand. somebody said it is thicker than the bible but it does not have any good news in it. i have a law professor in law theol that said the thicker burbage. as we talk about ways to collect revenue, do you agree with that, that there is a relationship between the complexity of the tax code and compliance? at the end of the day, the question might be, if we could simplify the tax code and make it easier to comply with, make it easier to enforce, you would not be as overworked as you are today? >> that is right. that is an absolutely ballots

of comments, mr. chairman. i think the code is way too complex. i could not agree more with dag's commentary in terms of making it simpler. certainly, the number of calls we would get would be diminished. difficulties in processing and matching should be much less and. so, yes, i would agree, i would love to see a simpler tax code. ouraybe you could report to friends on the authorizing committee, if they could simplify the tax code, that would reduce some of the need to spend the money we have to spend to help people comply and also to catch the people that are not complying. one last question. we talked all around this, we talked a little bit about it when the inspector general was here, the whole question about fraud, filing tax returns. 900,000ember, it was

stolen id's, people filed a tax return based on a dedication backed -- identification theft, maybe $6.5 billion was paid out. standpoint, firsthand, are there things that we can do, do you need more resources, more authorization? how can we get a handle on that? as i understand, once it takes place, the inspector general said, the best thing i can tell you is to file early. if you file before the bad guy files -- but if you file after he files, as i understand, you could be caught up in a big mess that could take six months, even though you have not done anything wrong, somebody stole your id, filed a tax return and got a refund, and when you file

somebody says that you are not that person, so then you have to prove your the person, and you are stuck with the six-month process of getting out of that mess. if we could stop on the front end -- are there things that we could help you do from a legislative standpoint? >> the budget will include a few things in there that will help in identity theft. , i could argue, $6.5 billion, i think that is based on old schemes that we have taken care of. i do not know the number is. i think a million people is probably not far from being wrong in terms of the number of people who have had their identity stolen. i mentioned in my testimony we have got better at this. $14 billion in fraud .n 2011, $20 billion last year 5 million returns were stopped.

you are absolutely right. you have to stop it up front for it creates all sorts of problems. but you are also right, if you are the second one in, you will run into an issue with us, and we will have to work through which you, having to file on paper, file an affidavit with us, and the sheer number of those has caused us some delay. i can tell you we're getting much better at that, too. we are closing many more than we are receiving now for the first time in quite awhile. by the end of the year we should be in a much better place. at six months will hopefully be the exception and not the rule. i hope to have 60 to 90 days to report to you. it will not be in the that we can get the right person through. into the future, the gold standard here, mr. chairman, would be, when you come in to file your return, you prove you are who you are. when you go through our filtering system, we have an

aggressive set of filters that will help us. and that will get us to the point where we have many fewer people running into the wall here. now that70,000 pins allow a person who has been a victim get through the system much easier. that has been going quite well. and we are doing this as we speak. we are doing some work around so-called out of wallets' questions, which means there is something that you know but that somebody who knows reduced use your identity probably does not. so when you get caught up in our system, we are running a test now to see. we have all been involved in -- the financial industry does this now. what was your first car, where did you live on a certain date? question that a thief will not know that you probably will. that will give us reason to say you are who you say you are and we can move the to the system faster.

we are testing that now. that is the gold standard, going forward, i hope, and next filing season we will see if we can get there. it is not an easy task for us. well we're doing better, i do not want to give the impression that we are done. >> is there any kind of authority that we can help with, obviously in terms of resources, but any kind of administrative issues? >> there are some issues in terms of what we can share with state law enforcement. there are also some issues -- we will be working with staff on this. issues that will come out in the budget. generally around the strength of penalties in the criminal area and civil area. there is the death master file which has caused consternation in terms of an fourth publication of people's names and social after they pass. that is how people scoop up their file. there are things of that nature that we can work with you, a whole list of them. >> we are happy to help where we

can. >> and we could use resources. >> i understand that. you already said that. one of the questions that has --e up throughout the years i was tempted to call up one of my favorite subjects. there was a lot of attention around earned income tax credit. in my opinion, targeting a certain part of the community. at one point, the numbers were pretty bad. 44% of the audits were being conducted on 17% of the taxpayers. and disproportionately, those obtaining the aitc deductions. concerning the improvements you are making, are they going to enable you to make better decisions about where the irs

should do the audits? >> i would hope so. i think our percentage is lower now than it was. i should also mentioned we have tried to be balanced and our approach across income levels. fair amount of coverage in the upper income levels as well. i do think we still see a good deal of error and fraud in the eitc. we are trying to leverage, and we should, and that is we have been working on our prepare our leverage. another way for us to be more efficient is in our regulation of the return preparer community, many of them working on the eitc. we have done work with that community to try to have an exercise more due diligence to actually talk to them on the basis that gets them to create better eitc returns.

hopefully, that will have an impact, beneficial for the recipient, and for the government, in terms of being able to leverage our efforts with respect to a preparer of 100 returns, rather than return by return. that is less burdensome on the taxpayer as well. >> in the past, there were comments made to this committee about this issue, in the sense that in some cases it was not the individual that went in. i am not saying that one is to blame. there is something going on that should not be going on. people have to pay the price for that. but they were encouraged by some of the people who prepare these forms to claim something they were not supposed to be claiming. do you not -- you know that to be a fact, is that part of what you are discussing, to work with those communities so that, in fact, it may not be something that they are due to do the wrong thing, but encouraging people to do the wrong thing by not being forward? is a difficult

provision, complex, it is not apparent on the face of the form exactly what is happening. i think we have seen some return preparers, good or bad, doing the wrong thing with respect to the eitc returns. we began last year something that we have called the real time pilot. it is a technology improvement as well. we look at returns as they're coming in, who prepared them, are they better returns? as quickly as we can, we are going to the prepared to drive them in the right direction. the kind of thing we are doing to get the return preparer on the straight and narrow. whether they are doing errors or something worse than that, i do not know. we tried to be more aggressive with early intervention here. >> i appreciate that approach.

for my last question, we go from the lower income tax earner to the folks that have money offshore. the offshore voluntary disclosure plan, you highlighted the success for which $5 billion was collected through the end of fiscal year 2012. my question is, how is that program doing now, what is your evaluation? $5 billion is a great number. with the cuts that we are making to the irs, not increasing at the proper level, is this program in danger of not being able to continue the success stories so far? >> i will start with the discussion, it has been a success. 30,000 folks have come in, $5 billion-plus over the last few years. it has been a success. that said, how were resources impacted?

not everyone comes in voluntarily. where we receive information through a whistleblower, where we receive information from another source, treaty or otherwise. where we will receive information in the next couple of years from foreign financial institutions, there will be a lot of work to do. those will not be voluntary cases. those, traditionally, are difficult and time-consuming examination where you some of our best agents. that could be an issue. to the extent that does not happen, i'm not sure the voluntary compliance program will continue to be a success. you do need, in addition to the open window, a bit of an force behind that. -- that says it right there. aggressive enforcement arm as well as the opportunity for people to come in voluntarily. hope that we could

continue to grow the program. i know that is a bad word around here but it is a fact for returns. too, so with fairness, that the person working in an office or factory is being treated as the same way as a person who has money somewhere else. sir, thank you for your service and answers today. >> i want to go back to efficiency for just a minute. i am going to zero in on what i call a productivity model. i assume the irs, like other agencies, has some criteria by which they judge the performance of their personnel. i call it a productivity model.

call it what you want. do you study those models? >> we have a good number they je of their personnel. i call it a productivity model. call it what you want. do you study those models? >> we have a good number of measures that we look at. everything from the number of examination person cover, all ty to concern areas. we have no lack of measures, which are productivity measures. >> generally speaking, what they are your people most productive? are they as productive on monday, as they are on friday? are they more productive tuesday, wednesday, thursday? have you gotten down -- >> we have not done that. monday we are busier on the phones, out of necessity. outside of that, i am not aware of us doing something -- i am aware of some of the manufacturing concerns that actually do that sort of analysis on a daily basis. that is not what we have done. >> going back to your testimony about furloughs, what would be the rationale to use on just

its peoples subjects to a furlough? >> the analysis will be several fold. sir, thank you for your service and answers today. decide when it makes sense to do it. there is no doubt, obviously, that a date around a holiday may be a less productive day at the internal revenue service. i do not doubt the service is like many other institutions that way. that is something we will think about, obviously. we will also have to think about our employees. which means we are not going to budge these things in a fashion. to take thisme time off, i can afford it. it is a little different for a grade 4 or grade five in one of our facilities that is living hand to mouth to afford it. we are born to have to space them out for that reason.

so we would not do more than one in a pay period, for example. we would also think about what day, whether we do this -- does day or closed for that do we do this on a graduated basis? we are still talking about that. what i can to take this say, in terms of the cost, we will close for the day. otherwise, people will be frustrated with the continued lack of service on the remaining days because we will be down throughout the week, instead of just closed on a given day. our judgment is that is a better way for the agency to operate. it may be that we choose to close entirely because that is more efficient in terms of our security, and other ancillary costs. >> who will make the ultimate decision? will it be pushed down to the managerial level? >> it will be my senior staff and i that will make the decision. to push it of the cost, we will close for the day. otherwise, people will be frustrated with the continued

lack of service on the remaining days because we will be down throughout the week, instead of just closed on a given day. down, i think, in by its madness and inconsistency. bad placenagers in a as well. i think we will make the decision at the highest levels. >> i do not want to put you on the spot but let's say it is time to make that decision. would you say the principal guidance, the cornerstone principle in the decision will orbased on productivity said class 4, you class 5 employee? >> is a mix of everything including what is best for the taxpayer. >> in your own opinion, do you think it would make more sense if we dealt with the lower performing employees first? whether to retain them at all, as opposed to furloughing our

highest performing employees? >> that is probably a question best given to opm. those are rules that are across government. >> if they were here i would ask them of their opinion, but i am asking your is. >> in my understanding of the rules, i will not be able to a effectuates something like that. >> very good. >> thank you, commissioner. mr. chairman, going back to theft, south florida, as you know, is ground zero for identity theft. whether it is the irs or any kind of identity theft. i know there have been some pilot programs in cooperation with the state's attorney's office, local law enforcement. if you could give us any idea, it is it working as well as you hoped? is yielding any results?

anything else that we could do to help you do that? >> i think it is. you would have to talk to states and local governments about this. this speaks to the fact -- in florida, in particular, there is no income tax. as a result, we do not have a natural way of communicating with law enforcement. in other states it is easier because we can talk about taxes to other tax people. in florida and other states is more difficult. local law enforcement does not have the right to get that information. what we did is create a waiver process for victims who wanted to help out, to give a waiver to local law enforcement to come to us and allow us to share the information. i would say it got started slowly. florida and eight other states first.

i would say we had 1500-plus waiver requests, and it is working all right. we recently, in fact, in the last few weeks, expanded across the country, and judging that it worked well. i think we have more than 300 local and state authorities participating with us at this point. >> that is good news. before you were talking about the issue of the pin. the irs is not the only one subjected to this kindlast few . the private sector, credit cards, etc. yesterday i went to get gas in miami, and it was declined. guess it was a gas station that they did not know i went too much or what ever. i had to call and they said, is this yours, great, and then they reestablished the credit card. about thel heard billions of dollars of the private sector had been hit on.

here is my question. when you are going through your process, are you doing it internally, can you contract sum of this stuff out to others who are doing it? are you looking in the private sector is doing, contrasting with a private-sector? or do you know if you have a better record, frankly, than some of those credit card companies? therefore, doing a better job internally if you are not contracting? how does that work? >> it is a mix of questions and i will give a mix of questions -- answers, if i could. i did mention earlier in the hearing that we are doing some out of wallet work. ant would be to go to outside contractor who has the sort of information that says, where did you steve miller live in 1995? do the comparison there. we are testing that have to see if it is a way forward.

the other thing i would mention ,- in a perfect world, again you would prove that you are steve miller before you file your return. when we receive your return, we have everything we know about you that is acceptable. we know that steve and miller has lived in the same dismal ,ouse for the last 20 years that he has the same wife and dependent, things of that nature, so that we could compare it to what comes in. it seems obvious that steve miller probably does not have nine dependents and has moved to south florida, for example. that would be an odd sort of change and that would raise flax for us. we are getting their but we are not there yet. that is where we need to get to. i think financial institutions have a much richer database of

interactions. they know where you have been shopping, what you have been doing with that credit-card. it is much easier for them to flag. we need to get there. is -- is it is only once a year that we have to interact with you. we will get there. mr. chairman, i will ask two more questions. i want to be dropped identity theft, per say, and talk more broadly about cybersecurity, with regard to foreign threats. when the inspector general for the treasury for tax administration came to the subcommittee last month, i had the privilege of asking him a question that i am going to ask you. i would very much appreciate your response on this. recent news reports have detailed the extensive penetration by advanced,

potentially state-sponsored cyber has been launched threats against american businesses and government agencies. obviously, the tax and financial information of american businesses and individuals would be highly valuable to cyber criminals and other hackers. can you give us an assessment about what the irs is doing to protect its systems, especially from foreign threats, if you know of any? >> i think we are probably better serve coming back to you in more detail, possibly, if you want, have our cybersecurity guys talk to you directly. i think we have a first-rate team that we take it incredibly seriously, that it is not necessarily about penetration into the system, it is what you do once you're in the system and get out once again. we are good at that, i think. that said, it is not a perfect world. i think we would be better served.

if you would like, we could have a more direct conversation with you. both sit on the defense committee and we have had numerous hearings about cyber threats it is an idea the committee might want to consider. my lasthift gears in question. i'm not trying to throw you a curve ball. i want to ask about how many people work at the irs. you said you did that know, but you would try to get the answer. that would be great. from time to time, i do not know at the acting commissions of the iressa went into this. members of congress sometimes are exposed to questions from their constituents. why would you knuckleheads pass this law that would force me to do this thing, this act?

law.times, it is not a it does not legislation that moves appear. it is some rule by an agency or department that the law created that has nothing to do -- i will give you a good example that has nothing to do with you. i know my colleagues lives in the beautiful bronx. they have a fishery services under the department of commerce. they have recently come out with a rule, not a bill that we introduced or legislation be passed or that president obama signed into law, but a rule that says you can only get the red fisher or 27 days, two

per day. has nothing to do with the irs, but i'm using that as an example. d have any idea how much much of the tax code that is enforced by and is and administered a direct result of legislation that became an action into law based on how much of it is some rule and regulation that is interpreted by the irs? does that question make sense? do notake sense, but i think i have an answer for you. that there are places in the regulations where we are more complex than we need to be. more voluminous than the codes are. it is bigger than the bible. i'm quite sure there are cases

where that is the case. we try our best not to do that. we succeed sometimes and other times we do not. i do not know the balance of that. a thought that came to mind as you are answering some of the questions. i don't know if it would be possible to get a number on it. for the people who live in my it is very fresh rating at times when people look at washington and government in a broad brush and think that sometimes these crazy ideas that come down from the city are actually -- that we had a debate on it. i can only imagine. ,very town meeting i have there is a question about the complexity of the tax code. i was just curious. thank you. >> thank you.

i understand. i'm not sure, but i'm told the has 19- word "cihild" different definitions under the tax code. it is not hard to imagine people having a tough time understanding what is in their and whether it is a regulation or in the code. >> thank you. sllowing up on mr. bonner's chewning we look at tax reform that is a fundamental discussion we have to have. how did these things get into the tax code? 4 million words. it is very fresh rating to small businesses and individuals who try to comply. i know the chairman brought up tax reform. what is the irs engaged in regarding taxi from? -- tax reform? are there specific proposals? >> we have offered up specific

-- we have offered proposals in the past. i do not think we were part of any organized discussion right now. i was hoping we would be in that. tax reform is right. it has to be done with the knowledge of what our system can do and can't do and the time it would take where we catch up with the law. there are things we bring to the table. tax reform generally would be the department of treasury and tax policy. >> both parties and folks from both ends after mark talking about spectrum. we know the house of ways and means are talking about it. it will be a part of the debate in d.c. this year. looking at stake examples or in other nations, are there therical data that show simplicity of the code as it relates to -- i know that

chairman asked about this already -- the tax collection? thathere examples of codes have greater compliance rates and are very simple and yet effective in achieving results? we have other countries that have a good model question mark >> -- model? >> i'm not aware of that. the economists over there might have been doing much more work over there. >> we spent some time discussing the audit procedures and compliance related to that. and folksfication stealing it. looking at the inspector general's report, it says, irs

shows that 50% of the partnership returns audited after being selected by the discriminate index function system are related to the return that were closed at no fy 2011.t f1 111 -- significant amount of resources on nonproductive audits and comply it taxpayers are unnecessarily burdened by these audits. do you concur with these findings? what are we doing to fix that problem going forward? how do we create a system that burdens taxpayers that are following the rules less? i think it is absolutely the we have come to you

and found that we have no adjustments to the return. we will always have some of that. something at the 50% level indicates we are either doing it wrong or should not be there. it could be either, actually. that is not the case. i think we are doing better. .he partnership area has grown we have seen huge growth. we need a presence there. you need to have a better selection mechanism. we are getting there. the fundamental point that if you a have a high nutrient rate and you are doing something wrong and shouldn't be there, we need to move away away from those areas and target resources. >> we look forward to those results. >> thank you. miller, thank you for taking the time to be here today.

the largest agency that we provide funding for, we and thete your services services that 90,000 people do. in particular, in these difficult economic times, the work you do is very important to providing the funds. the more that we collect that is duly owed, the better off we are. if there are ways we can work together, we want to work with you and say thank you for all the work you do. >> thank you. >> the meeting is adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on the next "washington furnal" jeff mason and susan errechio discuss upcoming immigration bill and gun violence. backlog of claims at the veterans affairs. i'm foreign relations and the latest on the korean peninsula. "washington journal" live on c- span. >> kentucky senator brand paul spoke to students at howard university. he talked about the republican party outreach effort to minorities. , senator, for

coming. i'm a junior here at howard university. my question is, i believe we must define which republican party. are we discussing the republican that 19th century republican party? the abraham lincoln republican party? or the richard nixon and ronald reagan republican party? which one do you identify with? [applause] i think that is a great question. it hit the nail on the head exactly as to what our obstacles are. whole, including those clapped, perceive there is a completely different party. you do not object to the part of the emancipation and voting rights and citizenship and all

of that of the 13th,, and 15 amendments. and 15th amendments. are so part of the party that you like. we do not see an abrupt difference. we say warbled jim crow and horrible racism that happened in the 30s, 40s, 50s. it was all democrats. it does not republicans. did some of them switch over and become republicans? yes. but republicans were primarily not those people. it isn't -- is an obstacle. edwin the senators was brooks.

his comment was -- i thought it was a pretty interesting comment. if democrats had the incredible history of abolition, emancipation, voting rights, you would hear about it all the time. they are good at talking about stuff like that. republicans have done a terrible job. that is why we have to resurrect some of this. if i would have said, could you think the -- would be? would any of you know it would be republicans? >> yes. [laughter] i didn't know you knew that. i do not know what you know. i'm trying to find a connection. hasink the general public not talked about the great history and interaction between the republican party and black

history and voting rights in our country. i would try to make the argument that it is an uphill battle. it is for me to try to convince you that we have not changed. that is what i'm trying to do anyway. of his speechall at howard university sunday at 7:05 p.m. on c-span. >> next we talk with a congressional report about a legislator in a -- about them legislation in congress. , thank you fore being here. what is the significance of the vote? guest: the senate will talk. that is basically it. it will begin tuesday afternoon on a series of measures. they will start with the big one. it would expand the background

check program to just about every commercial sale and most private sales. a lot of senators said throughout the week that this was something that they needed in order to vote to proceed for a formal debate of the actual legislation. it is expected that that proposal will have enough. the question becomes, what other amendments will be considered? we believe that controversial assault weapons ban will be the second amendment opposed. to make someoposal changes to parts of it regarding gun trafficking. normally buying a gun from someone who is not supposed to have one. from there, who knows? maybe carrying permits across the country. it might be some changes in how the government pays for and supports mental health programs across the country. we expect weeks of debates on this.

maybe into may as well. if they do not finish it by then, he'll come back to it once they return. host: tell us about this first step, this amendment. how does a get included now? what are the discussions going on? guest: they will bring it up tuesday. they will have a debate on it. it will have an up or down vote on it. it is believed that they will have enough support to proceed. of them said they were concerned about any infringement on the second amendment rights. to say,seen as a signal look, there is nothing here that you can support. we have made sure that is nothing being done that would seize weapons are make it difficult or someone to buy one. they are pushing the fact that this would make it much more equitable for gun dealers

license gun dealers versus people who so weapons at gun shows. there are certain things that do not happen i gun shows that must happen at a gun shop. we are trying to equip the playing field. host: house majority leader give anyd, did he indication on whether there would be a limit on the number of amendments? guest: that is a big unknown. i think there were enough republicans who voted for this on the assumption that is just just about going to allow everything. that note understands only republicans interested, but democrats are interested. guns is an issue that breaks job free than ideology. -- geology than ideology. ideaology.y than they need to be able to show their constituents back calm that they're part of a fair and

open debate on this issue. every single proposal out there has been considered. in the end and it now what is in theyill, i think understand enough of the democrats will say, you have to at least allow some of these controversial amendments on either side of the issue to get my vote. he has said, if you have an idea to strengthen or weaken this law, bring it forward. but if republicans start to thatnt some amendments are ways to strike down most of the law, then you might seized democrat step in -- then you might see democrats step in. host: senator reid said that we will see an assault weapons ban be a part of this process. an amendment that will come forward. what do you expect? guest: he has a ready said he does not think it will have more than a certain number of votes.

a lot of states have passed limits on sizes. new york and connecticut. a federal restriction on the size is likely going to fail. at least of those democrats supporting those measures and that there is gun control groups could say that they tried. presidentemembered obama's dramatic turn in his state of the union. all of these will get a bow, but they are not expected to pass. host: we have seen in congress inatives of victims killed sandy hook and other places like chicago talking to congress and the senate chamber. how was that momentum going to be sustained? will it be sustained? this could take weeks. guest: i believe it was no more than eight to 10 family members of the victims