weight when people file their taxes 60% or 70% get refunds because they in effect overestimate. we think that is where it will work. the accuracy of the information we are providing to verify the estimate by the taxpayer as far as not a difficulty or problem. the states get the same information from us automatically. sen. portman: i have lots of other questions for you and i will submit those for the record. one of the things that the inspector general said was it would be tough until you have implemented a predictive and analytical fraud model. i appreciate your service and the fact that this is going to

a complicated tax season for you. sen sasse: thank you mr. chairman and thank you mr. commissioner for being here. are you familiar with a piece in the washington post yesterday about the 100% to 400% fpl level for the aca. he is summarizing a yale journal of regulation piece about who qualifies for the tax credit will stop it is my understanding that is 100% to 400% of the federal poverty line. it looks to me that you have put forth a rule that disregards the 100% income level. i am curious if that is true. mr. koskinen: i am not aware of that. i would be delighted to get your information. i am not aware that we have done anything that ignored the statutory framework. sen sasse: we will follow up with a letter. the particular concerns i have a related to the broad application

of irs discretion. obviously in the regulatory rulemaking process but also in particular cases. many of our constituents, when i travel in nebraska, have genuine fear of the irs because there is an inadequate understanding of how discretion is applied. it is not clear that an employer would not be subject to an employer mandate penalty if employees that they have and upon exchange through no fault of the employer. i would love to get more information about that. can you help us understand more broadly how policy decisions in the rulemaking process are made between hhs, the irs, and the white house. you have 36 components of your jurisdiction? mr. koskinen: we have all the tax components come under our jurisdiction. our role is tax administration.

policy issues about what legislation ought to look like what changes in this act ought to be, are decisions made by the treasury, the white house, and the congress ultimately. issuance of regulations is a joint effort between the treasury department and the irs. we are a bureau of the treasury department. we don't issue regulations by ourselves. they technically have the authority but obviously designed regulations on the impact on administration. if there is a policy decision, for instance the policy decision about the penalty application, that is a decision by the treasury department. we get involved only to the extent that is a question for the implications on tax administration. which is the best way for it to work? all of the policy issues are decided, again, by the administration and ultimately by the congress in terms of

legislative recommendations or fixes. sen sasse: would that be true with regard to the credits for illegal immigrants as well. the decisions that were made about the refund ability for folks that appeared to be getting credits in certain cases. the irs plays no role in that rulemaking process? mr. koskinen: we participate in the discussions about if you are going to make that change about tax decisions. we meet every two weeks going over regulations to make sure that as these regulations are designed, they are designed not only with tax administration in mind but they don't make it more difficult for the administration of the tax laws. sen. sasse: in the king v.

burwell case, those decisions were made in the treasury department's tax policy division? mr. koskinen: those interpretations of the policy issues are up to the treasury. we participate, getting our view of how it would be for tax administration. but the policy calls are ultimately the responsibility of treasury, the white house, hhs and ultimately, the congress. sen. sasse: going back to the chairman's opening issue with his constituent. if a decision was made, how will the decision be made about the timeline of repayment of that. i understand you want to not call a penalty.

mr. koskinen: they will have the $11,000 back that they all or if they have difficulty with that they will contact us. we keep encouraging them to do that. we do not have to hire someone off of a late-night tv to deal with the irs. they can work on an installment agreement. you can develop an installment agreement online, which is one of the new things we built over the last year. i think they have substantial difficulties and they can work with us on a compromise. those are all tax administration issues. sen. sasse: one last question. these 34 provisions of the aca who is the point person inside the irs for the tax administration of all the new aca authorities? mr. koskinen: ultimately the commissioner's which is why i am here i met every two weeks for the last two months working

toward the implementation of the development of the systems making sure filing season that started. so i am ultimately responsible. thus far, i think filing season has shown that we have done a remarkable job in the face of both the challenges, getting them into a model t with not a great sound system but applications running for 60 years. you pull that off, i am delighted. i think we are up to it. i do think we do statutory mandates, so we will always have a highest priority of whatever statute you past. but if our resources are cut, we can't do other things we have discretion over. improvement of our i.t. systems, tax enforcement have to be put on hold.

with the implementation of the affordable care act i couldn't be more pleased with the irs has been able to do. sen. johnson: let me just admit because back of the envelope calculations are dangerous. the second year would be about $340. i want to correct the record, i was wrong. it really looks like the minimum penalty will be the maximum penalty. i just want to correct that. it just seemed, man, i started going through that logic of, this is unbelievable. sen. mccaskill: commissioner everybody is offended at the

notion, regardless of party or ideology, at the notion that the irs whatever target groups based on their belief. i understand the outrage, i understand the need to hold people accountable. i would like you to explain when we vent that frustration by cutting your agency, who exactly are we punishing? mr. koskinen: as other people have noted, when you punish the irs by cutting its budget, ultimately you are punishing taxpayers because you limit the ability to provide the service to them that our employees provide. satisfaction comes from helping people and they feel they don't have the resources. sen. mccaskill: your budget has been cut by 18% since this scandal came up and, what is the

call wait, the average amount of time have to wait on the phone as you don't have enough personnel to answer? mr. koskinen: at this point, it would be on average about 28-30 minutes. sen. mccaskill: what percentage of the phone calls can even answer at this point after these draconian budget cuts that were supposedly punishing you but are actually punishing my constituents that can't talk to anybody? mr. koskinen: about 60% of the calls this year are not going through. that exacerbates the problem because if you can't get through, we have had over 6 million disconnects where the system gets overloaded and we know you will be there too long and you simply get disconnected. a lot of people are calling 2-3-four times just to get through that you to wait for the

half-hour. sen. mccaskill: and we have seen the scam in this country of people calling and claiming to be the irs and basically stealing money through coercive efforts and misrepresentations on the phone. when you are able to go after the criminals, what is the return on investment for every dollar that you are given to go after the criminals? and i saw those criminals firsthand as a prosecutor, that are using the irs and the tax code, and cheating all of us in america who pay their taxes. what is the return on investment for every dollar you get. what do you return to the treasury in terms of your ability to go after the criminals? mr. koskinen: enforcement alone, the return is over 10 times the amount. as a general matter, when you

give us one dollar you get 4-6 dollars back. we're the only agency where to give us money we promise to give you more back. sen. mccaskill: let me make the point, because this sometimes -- and i don't want, maybe i will get to an aggressively partisan place here. when you estimate your taxes you are deciding what you're going to make it what you are going to all of the government and then you decide what will be withheld. if you are right, if you are perfect, then it is even. you don't know anything and you don't get anything back. but if you underestimate your income, you might owe more. this is something that every taxpayer has to do every year, correct? so really what we are doing with

the aca is exactly the same thing. the individual has to estimate whether or not they are entitled to get this amount of money for their insurance premium or if in fact they are entitled to that amount, and if they estimate wrong, they are either going to get money back or own money. mr. koskinen: that is correct in one of our goals is to try and educate the public to understand that. sen. mccaskill: and they will get better at this. mr. koskinen: our experience is that after the first year everyone pays attention and understands it is not a free good. when you get an advance payment and ultimately has to be reconciled with the reality of your income. sen. mccaskill:. finally, calling it a personal responsibility tax. a 32-year-old man in america has enough money to either buy a new harley or health insurance. under the umbrella of freedom he decides i want a new harley. he goes out and put that harley on the pavement and he is sent

to the nearest hospital where, in america, we don't say to him you decided to buy the harley, we are going to let you die. instead we take him in the hospital and sometimes give him millions of dollars of health care. he goes bankrupt, the hospital has uninsured care. now, there is no magic fairy that i am aware of that comes into the hospital and pays the bill. what happens when back i decided to buy the harley instead of the health insurance, the hospital called the insurance company and says, we are going to have to charge more for labor and delivery. we will have to charge more for a knee replacement. we will have to charge you more for angioplasty. and then the insurance company called small business down the road and says, i'm going to have to raise your premiums. those premiums have been going up by double digits every year

for years prior to this reform. the question we have here is one of personal responsibility. i am lectured about personal responsibility is so my friends on the other side of the aisle constantly. the question is, do we know all of us who pay insurance, should we pay a higher premium cacique got to get a harley or should he have personal responsibility to be able to cover his medical bills? and that is really the essence of this question. we say you have to have insurance when you're driving a car because you might harm someone else. when you go into the hospital with uninsured care, you are passing those costs on to people that have taken personal responsibility. i get so tired of this notion that somehow this is the big arm of government instead of the notion that it is time that we acknowledge that personal responsibility in the health care sector is just as important as personal responsibility in any other sector.

i feel better, thank you. sen. carper: i'm tom carper and i approve that message. sen. ernst: i want to statr for the record that i do ride a harley, i have insurance, and i have full protective gear. so i am personally responsible. fortunately, i don't make that choice will stop i know what i can afford in do so accordingly. senator sasse had brought up some good discussion about king v. burwell, and where your role will be once that decision is made.

if it goes the way i think it should go, then we will have subsidies that have gone to states and to individuals that shouldn't have gone to those individuals. but what do we do, and maybe you have thought about this, in a hybrid situation. there are a handful of states in which iowa is one. it is a hybrid exchange, neither state or federal but a combination of both. have you thought through that and what role the irs might be playing? mr. koskinen: basically, there is no way for us trying to predict what the court will hold and what it will decide in terms of how to parse through all of this and what the responsibilities are of states federal government, the congress. much like potential tax extenders, we basically play the hand we are dealt. the court will make a decision and then we will respond. the policy issues, back to the earlier question, about what the implications are beyond tax administration will be decisions

made by the treasury department and the administration. at this point, we have enough challenges running the filing season and so that is what we are focused on. sen. ernst: i do appreciate that. i hope that was the decision is made we can all jump on that together and figure out how we will handle that situation. since september of 2014, hhs has dropped over 300,000 individuals from obamacare because those individuals have failed to document their legal residency. we don't know what their status is. many of those were enrolled for over a year. during that time, many of them did receive premium assistance tax credits and cost-sharing subsidies for which they are not entitled.

they can't prove their residency, they are not entitled to those. under the administration's current policy, if an individual or family is unable to prove his or her citizenship or lawfully present status, hhs provides coverage and taxpayer-funded subsidies under the affordable care act before the individual legal status can be verified by any government agency. if citizenship cannot be verified, those individuals are dropped. because many of those, if they are illegal immigrants they are not necessarily filing tax returns. i understand that it would be difficult for the irs to try and

recoup payments or credits are subsidies because they won't be subject to the reconciliation process when they file tax returns because they don't file tax returns. so how, as the irs, are you able to handle that situation and what is the plan moving forward for those folks that were receiving credit or subsidies? mr. koskinen: the qualifications and determinations were made by hhs. which runs medicare and medicaid and has experience on recouping payments. this is an area where they will be responsible for doing that. sen. ernst: that won't even be run through the irs? mr. koskinen: if the premiums have been paid on their behalf at this point, the idea is that cms will pursue those to the extent that they pursue any other payments that they make that turn out to be improper.

sen. ernst: this is going to be a very difficult situation with so many different entities involved with subsidies, tax credits. one agency not knowing how another agency is going to handle it. mr. koskinen: we worked together on that, there is not a gap. this has been an effort that is not totally unique, but for us we spent a lot of time with cms and have a very good working relationship with them. we have a lot of conversations with the treasury department. we chime in the terms of how it will affect tax illustration but -- tax administration, but i don't think there is any gap. as new issues come up, they all have to be resolved. sen. ernst: i know it is a very difficult situation and thank

you for coming today to testify. sen. ayotte: thank you chairman, thank you commissioner for being here. i wanted to ask about a situation we have in dealing with the new hampshire but it up in new hampshire is unique on this. i received a number of complaints from my local libraries that they didn't receive the necessary tax forms and instruction booklet. in new hampshire, we happen to have a high percentage of people that actually will file my paper -- by paper and historically they have been able to go to their local library and get the tax forms so that they can do their taxes. i wrote to you, originally in february, about this issue. the first response i got back, one of the primary reasons you said that these forms weren't being provided to people at their libraries in new hampshire

was that the irs budget was cut. but the reality is, on taxpayer services, congress allocated the same amount of money. so why is it that irs is not able to provide the same level of customer service this year? it is not just this library issue. for us in new hampshire to have to go through the runaround that we did to get our libraries basic tax forms, it just was kind of unbelievable to me when my staff told me all the runaround we were going through. can you help me understand why this is happening? and what troubles me even more is that the national taxpayer advocate recently testified before the senate appropriations committee that this year taxpayers are receiving the

worst levels of taxpayers service since at least 2001 and the statistics are staggering in terms of 40% of the calls that the irs is receiving from taxpayers are not being answered or responded to in any way. mr. koskinen: the answer to that is, we get an appropriation in buckets for enforcement, for operations, which is for customer service and information technology. we also have user fees that go through to part of our operating budget. historically, we have never been fully funded for taxpayer services. the amount of money provided has been been supplemented by about $150 million out of the various user fees that we charge. because in both 2014 and 2015, we were zeroed out and funding for the affordable care act. we asked for $300 million each year just for i.t. and congress

provided zero. while the base appropriation for taxpayer services was the same we have to take $100 million out of our user fee allocation to put it into information technology. we have a smaller amount of money available for taxpayer services than before and the appropriators understand that because we go through it with them regularly. we are as concerned as you are about the low level. i have now visited 37 cities. i have talked with 13,000 irs employees. one of the common themes is that they want to help taxpayers. they get satisfaction out of answering questions. one of the concerns they had was when we told them we can only answer simple questions because,

questions make the queue get longer. we told congress last her that if our budget was flat, let alone cut by $350 million, we expected the level of service would drop to 30% to 53%. we have to run the filing season. we collect over $3 trillion for the government in the ordinary run of the filing season. if you cut our budget, the only places they can cut is enforcement, taxpayers service and improvements in the information technology. our experience has been that 85% of the forms we have been sending out do not get used. we have been providing a lot of forms for landfills. for the libraries, we have provided them the basic forms, what we provided them a format that would allow them to make copies of any form they wanted. they could download and make

copies of those. anyone could call us and asked for documents. there was a problem because with the extenders, we could get them up online and you can download them online. if you called us, it would take a few weeks longer before they actually got through the formal process. we tried to give taxpayers alternatives. the library concern, which i understand, is that making copies is not a free good. with limited budgets, libraries are strained by that. that is why we encourage them to say that their constituents could go online and download them themselves. those people, we tried to give visibility so that they could call a special line. sen. ayotte: we had to send my staff are people he over to get these forms for people in new hampshire and we were only able to get 10 at a time. from your testimony, the one

thing that people need to understand is that you had to take money from the tax payer services lying to fund the implementation of the affordable care act. we flat funded you and you took the money to implement obamacare. mr. koskinen: it is the $100 million that we had to put into the statutory mandate and we have to do statutory mandate. sen. ayotte: the gao found the irs used $12.1 million for taxpayer services to implement the informal care act. mr. koskinen: the congress passed an act three days after our budget was dropped, they passed the act without any additional funding. we will do that because you have told us to do it, but the only way to do that is to find the

money somewhere. sen. ayotte: i wanted to follow-up on an issue that someone may have already asked you about. that is the incorrect 1095-a form taken -- sent to many individuals incorrectly. do you know how he taxpayers in new hampshire received the wrong form? mr. koskinen: those forms are provided designed and filled out by cms. if anybody knows, they would know. sen. ayotte: do you think that the people who waited a little longer -- as i understand they are being treated differently and are still on the hook for paying, if they own a larger premium, there may be a distinction between those depending on when they are filed. however the people in this country who were misled in terms

of what they thought they would be receiving, how would you treat those individuals? what are we going to do with the lost revenue? mr. koskinen: of the 800,000 the estimate of the cms was about 50,000 involved. in terms of being misled, we had a long, informative discussion on that and i think after the transition of the first year people will understand better. when you register and apply for insurance coverage, you make an estimate of what your income will be for the year going forward. the way we all make estimates when we file our estimated payments and withholding. we then provide income verification about what your last tax return filings were. on that basis, a determination is made. first, you know by working it through what the premium for

your insurances and then a calculation is made about how much of that premium will be paid on your behalf to the insurance company. one of the things we have tried to make clear from our standpoint, because we wanted to make sure that if people had a change from their circumstances that they would have an estimate and could go back to the marketplace. a lot of people actually went through and assumed that once they get the premium paid to the insurance company, that somehow it was never going to get reconciled. most people understood that it was going to have to be reconciled but a lot of people have not understood that. we think that going into next year that most people will understand that when you estimate your income, if your income goes up, then there is less support for your insurance payment going forward. it is a question of how much you pay and how much the government pays. if your income goes up you will be eligible for less and if you

let the market know immediately they will update the advance payment immediately and you will have no reconciliation at the end of the year. we have spent a lot of time and cms has spent a lot of time getting people to understand that if your estimate was wrong or changed, you need to get back to the marketplace. a number of people did. that would be to get a 1095-a for the one part of the year and then another one when you're premium changed so that then at the end of the year you know exactly what your premiums were. we think that will be a lot better the next year because people will have been through it once. if your income changes of the course of the year, due to get back to the marketplace. sen. lankford: thank you for the work that you are doing for the american people.

you've walked into the middle of a lot of chaos, with laws that we all have some frustration with. i want to talk about just a couple of things. we talked about the eitc and identity theft issues. we had a 22% estimated fraud rate with the eitc. the challenge has always been, this has been a high priority issue, how to get on top of this. what is the plan now to try to get on top of this $13 to $16 billion loss. mr. koskinen: it is a major challenge for us and i have been concerned since we started. we have made progress, good

progress, in some areas. except for eitc. the percentage of payments and the dollar volume of those have been pretty much with a range and not changing. the plan is, we did put together a working group of everybody who anything about this. we can't keep doing this expecting it to magically get better. we went back to the drawing board and it turns out that we have asked for support from the congress. we need to get w-2's earlier. we need to have correctable error authority. we see in the returns when there are errors.

two people claim the same dependent in our database says different, we can't make that correction without entering into an auditor exam. we did last year about 450,000 of those exams. but we have 27 million applicants, and to the extent that 20% of them are getting the improper payment, we will never be able to audit our way out of the problem. we said if we had error authority, we can make that correction, advise the taxpayer. the taxpayer would still have the right to come in and say they really have three kids as opposed to one. you always have the ability to make that clear, but we would be able to make those corrections directly. over 50% of the eitc returns are filed by taxpayers. most of them know what they are doing. they try to do the best they can. it is a complicated tax statute that if anybody wanted to simplify we would certainly support that. they are making honest mistakes. and then as we said, there are

crooks. they are advertising that we know how to get you a good refund. we have tried to more taxpayers. if your preparer says just sign a blank form, you may never see that refund or they have nothing to do with what your reality is. if we had correctable error authority and minimum requirements and qualifications training for tax preparers, we think that we could make a dent in this problem. we will never get it to zero but to me, you just can't keep running the system this way. it looks either like we don't know it is a problem or we don't care about it, or we can't do anything about it. sen. lankford: that is an aspect of this committee to determine where we are stuck and what we can do to be unstuck. you just articulated three different issues you need congress to help with, w-2 issue, correctible error authority and simplify the

statute eitc, so there's less gray area. basically more black and white -- who gets it, who doesn't, how it gets applied, is that correct? mr. koskinen: we need w-2's earlier, correctable error authority, qualifications for preparers, and if we could simplify the statue, it would be helpful. senator lankford: this is something you are trying to manage in the transition of obamacare. september 2014, hhs dropped 300,000 people saying they did not have documentation for residency status. some of those people weren't in the process with tax credits. what is the plan to recoup? we have 300,000 people that received a subsidy that hhs came back to answer they are not eligible. how is that working out? mr. koskinen: it is a

complicated situation. they actually never got the tax credit portion. the government had made an advance payment to the insurance companies on their behalf. so, as a general matter, the policy has been that hhs and cs -- cms, that deal with medicare payment sometimes improperly made, basic policy is that cms and hhs. a responsible when the payments are made on the basis of improper identification. collecting it again is up to them. senator lankford: up to hhs? because there are 300,000 people that do not have citizenship this point. they are receiving this advanced payment. that is over there?

mr. koskinen: yes. senator lankford: the law prohibits employers from reimbursing or providing financial employers -- sorry, to employees -- to help them pay for and individually purchased plan. so someone says they are going to go on the general market. the employer will provide them some sort of amount. in the past, small businesses would say, i cannot afford a policy. but i will find a way to help you do that. my understanding is that not -- is not legal anymore. are you aware what the tax policy is? mr. koskinen: it is my understanding that is a tax policy. that is a policy set by the treasury department in response to statutory language. senator lankford: does the irs carry out the penalty part of that? mr. koskinen: once someone has decided what the policy is, the tax administration is our responsibility.

to the extent rules are set, we are responsible for administering them. so the penalties would be our responsibility. senator lankford: so at this point, there is a consequence that could come down for someone helping to pay for premiums out of the general market? mr. koskinen: the treasury department has provided guidance in that regard. that point has been made. senator lankford: kaiser family foundation has done a tremendous amount of research. they listed in their research only 4% of households received the correct obamacare subsidy. that is not your responsibility, but it becomes a big issue on managing and affects a lot of people as they go through their tax planning and preparation. it is one of the aspects that has to be corrected. if we have 4% of folks receiving the correct subsidy upfront, we have a major problem to be dealt with.

otherwise, they have to deal with the consequences of it. mr. koskinen: you have a much higher percentage of people estimating their income. what you are doing at the front end is making an estimate of what you're making at the future. that determines your premium. so, unless you know your job and know that your income is not going to change, you are always going to be making an estimate that by definition will never be 100%. senator lankford: it sets up americans to fail. mr. koskinen: what will happen is what people do with their withholding. 70% of people get refunds because they overestimate. that is what we expect people will do here. they will be careful about estimating. they will say, i am going to overestimate to make sure the premium is going to the

insurance company i'm entitled to. i will get a refund in april. so it will be that normal taxpayer behavior. senator lankford: thank you. i yield back. senator: in june of this year, the supreme court will decide a irs ruling. has the irs done any planning in case the ruling comes down and it is an adverse ruling in terms of your rulemaking? mr. koskinen: as i said earlier, there are a wide range of possibilities on how the court will rule in terms of what it decides or wants to have its ruling implemented. our challenge is moving forward and preparing for the next filing season. there is no way we can adjust

filing season planning trying to anticipate various options. much like we do with tax extenders, we run on the assumption life will look like it is. we have to adjust afterward. senator johnson: if the supreme court rules that subsidies can only be paid through changes established by the state, that is going to create problems for the irs, correct? mr. koskinen: depends on how the court rules. senator johnson: let's say they follow the law the way it is written and say that subsidies can be paid through exchanges established by the state. how would you possibly handle that? my question is, have you given any thought to that? any planning whatsoever, in terms of that possible eventuality? mr. koskinen: there will be a set of issues.

a there are policy questions about how to implement them. some statutes are past and people are given more time to transition. depending on the decision, there will be policy decisions made about how to transition. they could make life more complicated for everybody. senator johnson: you were not commissioner when the ruling was handed down. did you ever look into or research how the ruling was developed? mr. koskinen: no. i spent 45 years parachuting into agencies under challenge. my rule of life is play the hand you are dealt. that decision was made before i got here. my job is to administer the agency as best we can where we are. senator johnson: you never looked into whether the irs was working with the white house in terms of how they should rule on that? mr. koskinen: except as a general matter, we do not work

hand in glove with the white house and anything. the policy discussions we have are with the treasury department. regulatory processes work with the treasury department. senator johnson: the irs is responsible for evaluating exemptions for the individual mandate. how many americans in general was the estimate in terms of americans that will qualify for exemptions provided for? mr. koskinen: at this point, we have not told that data out of returns. i cannot give you an answer on that. the assumption was that more people would probably file for exemptions. or had coverage for part of the year than people who will pay the shared responsibility payment. it will be a number we will see

in three or four weeks. you will be able to accumulate that data. senator johnson: it will be pretty much on an honor system? anyway of trying to verify that through auditing? mr. koskinen: what we will do in these matters is, when the computer selects returns with issues, when we look at those, we look at everything. of the 75% of americans who say they have coverage, if we have an issue with your return, we will ask you if you had coverage because you said you did. we will track through. when someone says they had a hardship and they made a lot of money and we are auditing you, it will be noted that you apply for an exemption you do not seem to qualify for. then you are subject to penalties and interest.

and penalties for purposefully understating income. it can amount up. senator johnson: coming back to the couple that wrote me the letter, what if they are unable to repay? they were talking about not having the cash on hand. they do not have the ability to pay other than pulling money out of a retirement fund, which is a high penalty. if you pull money out of your retirement fund, there is a 10% penalty. mr. koskinen: only if you have already retired. if you are 59.5 years old, you can pull it out. senator johnson: they might have been retired. mr. koskinen: if they are 59.5 they only pay tax on it. under, and there is a penalty. senator johnson: what about the

timing of paying the subsidy? mr. koskinen: as i have said you can go online. if you qualify, you can do an online installment agreement that would allow you to spread payments over time. you can do that online or call us after the filing season. hopefully you get through quicker. you can arrange that so you do not have to take draconian steps. in this case, it sounds like an installment agreement would be an appropriate response. senator johnson: over what time? mr. koskinen: generally three to five years. if you have not paid on time there is an interest charge but no penalty. senator johnson: what is the interest? mr. koskinen: it goes after the government interest rate, which these days, is low.

senator carper: not that i do not want to encourage people not to pay on time. my dad always used to say to me, use common sense. my mother used to say, treat other people the way you want to be treated. your response to senator johnson's question, saying people could go online and pay no penalty, aside from interest, that seems to be using common sense. and seems to be treating people the way i would want to be treated. i said to senator johnson, in public works, we focused on nuclear regulatory commission.

i walked in and you are explaining to senator james, what can we do to be of assistance? i am a believer in repetition. i'm going to ask you. this is important. in terms of what we can be doing to enable you to do a better job , i just want to hear it again. mr. koskinen: this is in the context of what we can do in the earned income tax credit area. senator carper: you may have answered the question. mr. koskinen: i am happy to repeat it. we need to get w-2's earlier to match up front. we need what is called correctable error authority. when we can see there is an error on a return, that we now

have to audit. if we can make the correction, send a correction notice to the taxpayer, they can say i really do have three kids instead of one. another person who claim the child is not my fault. i get credit for it. the third point is that we need help. have to returns for eitc are prepared by paid repairs. making sure their people doing returns on behalf of someone else. those are three things in the green book. i said the fourth thing would be the statute is complicated in terms of figuring out is in charge and what relationships are. i think a lot of tax preparers and a low income people are stymied by that complication.

if somebody wanted to step back and say it is a great program with bipartisan support, if there were a way to make it easier for people to figure out exactly who gets credit and when, that would be a help. the first three are things that could be done now to immediately give us a significant opportunity to make a dent in the issue. if we were given the tools, we should be accountable for making that improvement. it will not go to zero, but it is a situation where i think we cannot keep running it without beginning to make progress in limiting improper payments. senator carper: when you look ahead, sort of looking ahead, i do not know how long you will be

commissioner -- mr. koskinen: i think i have another 2.5 fun filled years. senator carper: what gives you joy in your work? mr. koskinen: it is an important agency critical to the function of government. you do not have to get up monday morning worrying about whether what you're doing is important. second, it is a wonderful workforce. when you get to talk to 13,000 employees across the country and they are dedicated to the mission, spending a lot of their time helping taxpayers -- it may take me a while to convince people we are from the irs, but spend a lot of time trying to help people. if you are trying to be compliant and figure out how to pay your taxes, we want to help you do that. it has been a remarkable experience dealing with employees.

we have been under a lot of pressure. and i have 37 cities, in addition to the town halls. they are a remarkable group. it gives me great satisfaction to work with them. and it is a great honor for me to be commissioner. senator carper: on npr a couple of years ago, i was listening in delaware, the reported on an international survey. they asked, what do people like most about their jobs? some people liked getting paid. some people like having benefits, pension, health care. you know. vacation time. some people said they liked the folks they work with, the environment in which they worked. most people said what they liked was the fact that what they were doing was important. and they felt they were making progress.

that was it. what most people said is what they were doing is important. and i find -- god knows the work you are doing at the irs is important, i think it was holmes who said we need tax for life in -- we need taxes for a civilized society. but we are not allowing you to make the kind of progress that you ought to be able to make. i think with your leadership and good advice from others, you are making progress. but not the kind you want to make. the wait times we here on the phone. people showing up at offices and not having forms available. we have a job to do here in

concert with you so that the people we serve can feel better about the job you're doing and you can as well. thank you so much. senator johnson: we always give the witnesses a last chance at making a closing comment. if there was anything on your mind that you wanted to get off your chest. mr. koskinen: it has been an important discussion about a very important subject. i think hopefully, it has been helpful to the members of the committee. i think we are on television as well. my hope is that people watching have a better idea about the affordable care act, the efforts we are making to make sure it goes as smoothly as possible. i hope it is helpful for the public to understand that those participating in the marketplaces, what they should pay attention to. again, when circumstances change, they should get back to the marketplace to make sure their reconciliation is as painless as it goes.

i take senator carper's point that the irs is important. people ask me why i have been at this now, why i continue to be enthusiastic about it. if you spend 45 years of your life doing turnarounds and dealing with agencies under stress, you have to be optimistic and assume it will get better. so i am optimistic. i think there are people anxious to be supportive. we have a responsibility to spend taxpayer dollars carefully. we are given this money from people who worked hard to provide them to us. we have to make sure we use the funds well. we have to make sure people understand when there are problems. my goal in life is to have no problems. but even with a shrunken workforce, it is the world's

most complicated tax code. we deal with virtually every american family. our goal needs to be that, when we have our problems, things do not go as expected, that we fix it quickly and are transparent about it. taxpayers need to be comfortable and confident that we will treat them fairly, even with limited resources. i do not want individuals thinking i'm getting audited because of something i said. i want them to understand there is an issue in their return that caused us to look at it. if someone else had the issue, we would be looking at them as well. it is a system that depends upon voluntary compliance. we collect $3.1 trillion per year because americans are trying to pay the right amount and do the right thing. for that system to work, they have to have confidence and be

comfortable with the fact that tax administration is not a political enterprise and is designed to treat everyone fairly and make sure that people pay a fair amount. they can work with us to deal with it. if we can move in that direction, then we will be making progress in the most important way, which is to protect the voluntary tax compliant system of this country. senator johnson: i appreciate that. the agency has lost credibility and needs to be restored. i hope you do everything you can to restore the credibility. i appreciate your service, your thoughtful testimony. your forthright answers to our questions. the record will remain open until 15 days until april 30 at 5:00 p.m. hearing was adjourned. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] if i can nick nick captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org

>> dr. harris, thank you. and i think we all want to show some appreciation for the fact that you were able to envision the need of this type of forium and to put your money where your mouth is as people would say. i know you are very well thought of by many of the elected officials currently in office throughout the country who are students and -- of political science at howard and you have done a fine job, sir, and we are very proud to be students and associated with you. thank you for this program. when i was -- i received a phone call and he asked me if i would be the moderator of a panel and i asked him, please tell me what it is about, where it is, and what is going on and he said it is at the school of divinity at howard and i am like, i am in.

tell me what the subject matter is and what we are doing and he explained to me as you see the title of what we are talking about today is transitioning from the moment -- from the moment to the movement. analyzing social issues revealed in recent killings of unarmed african americans by law enforcement and that is a subject matter that if you put your head in the sand, he would still hear the gunshots. you cannot get away from this. when i read that i thought the only issue i would take with this is the fact that we are analyzing social issues revealed in recent -- this is not recent. one of the things i hope that our speaker, mr. crump will get into and our respondents will also address is how is it that for so many years with the

efforts by the distinguished scholars and lawyers we have had here at howard throughout the century and we have fought so very hard for our civil rights laws and fought so hard for the constitution and laws to equally apply to all of us, how is it that we are still here today talking about recent killings? if you go back and look at the lynchings and you look at the killings of african-americans throughout the history of this country, this is not a recent phenomenon. i am honored today to be the moderator of a panel that will present to you the views of some very distinguished, highly successful, and well-known lawyers. our lecturer today is attorney benjamin l. crump. if you did not know the name if you see his face, you will know him from tv. it is not the tv persona that you are going to hear today and it is not the tv persona that has been fighting on some of

these issues throughout the country. there is a statement that he makes and i am not going to read the bio that is in the program. you can read that at your leisure. this -- there is a statement that he makes, he understands the practice of law is a privilege that carries responsibilities, and that is one of the issues i hope we all of us get into and talk about today and that is, what is that responsibility? who owns that responsibility and how should it be applied? he has a long history of fighting for individuals. he has a long history of fighting for civil rights. i will not name the individual clients that he has, but you know that last year, when the world was dealing with the shooting death of trayvon martin, and the trial of trayvon martin and the acquittal of george zimmerman, that there was an attorney standing beside the family

attorneys standing with the family, speaking on behalf of that family, and making people appreciate the issues, whether you agree with the issues or disagree, attorney crump has been successful at in bringing these issues to the forefront of american society. you will see him equally on cnn, on abc, nbc today, msnbc, and he is always taking the position fighting for his clients. we also know that mr. crump is recently involved in filing a lawsuit and representation in cleveland, and we have with us the mother of tamir rice samaria rice, who will talk with us about some of those experiences. attorney crump will talk about how it is that the progress --

practice of law is a privilege that carries a great responsibility. in addition, we will have a response by respondents, first wanda moore, an assistant attorney general in new jersey. her office focuses on community police -- community and police partnerships. she spearheads the limitation of community-based crime prevention strategies to reduce truancy. she has also served as director of prisoner reentry programs in the city of newark, and she is the past president and founding member of the thurgood marshall action coalition. already with that introduction what it is we're trying to say of wanda moore is there is a concept out there called community policing. you are familiar with that concept, aren't you? community policing is a

concept, and its basic form, the police become part of a community as opposed to rolling in when there is trouble. their presence is always there. ms. moore will help us understand that concept am a what policies are being implemented now, and what the strategies are that relate to that. it is interesting that she will talk about this because some of the allegations and criticisms that i am sure mr. crump will make is that there is a shoot first mentality and i know we will hear about tamir, about who shot -- i was going to say one second of an absurd getting out of the car. we will talk about community policing and training and police conduct, and i know that she will have some rebuttal and some things to add as to what

mr. crump will share with us. we also have professor trulear of howard school, the school of divinity. he served as associate professor of the applied the elegy and director of the school since 2003. he was a visiting the sting was presser -- professor -- visiting distinguished professor. he also held positions at yale geneva college, and jersey city state college. the rest of his bio is contained in the brochure that you have in front of you. i know that he will talk about some of these same reentry programs, some of the impact of prisoners, some of the stigma associated with an arrest and dismissal, and i hope that when we talk about some of these

issues, we will talk about the fact that sometimes police officers will lock somebody up that may be questionable, have the charges dismissed as soon as they get to the prosecutor's office, but then you have a young person there with a criminal record. ladies and gentlemen, that is -- those are our panelists, and with that, i will ask mr. crump to, to share his words. our featured lecturer will talk about that transition from the moment to the movement, and the role that lawyers and he play in this transition. mr. crump?

benjamin: thank you, attorney martin. to dean pollack and his administration, especially sylvia and gaye and shirley who made me feel so welcome when i arrived at howard university this morning, for the absolute honor of being the charles harris lecturer. i was so moved when i read about what you did, mr. harris because that's what it is about when we think about what god -- why god gave us the blessings, not to keep it to ourselves, but to pass them on so i salute you and i thank you, mr. harris. [applause] before i begin my comments to you, there's a few people i want to recognize who are very dear to me.

i have the honor of being the president-elect of the national bar association. [applause] thank you. and billy, i know they say lawyers always trying to bill hours and they have a lot going on but they took time out of their busy schedules to come and be here so i want to acknowledge one of my personal heroes -- and you all know him well here in d.c., when i was running for president, she gave me advice and told all her friends, this is my horse, i'm going with crump as my candidate. and that is none other than the great allie latimer. ms. latimer, please stand, if you will. when the n.b.a. was looked at as an all-boys club, it was allie who said that no, we have

to remember that the black women were on the front line the whole way. so, allie, you embody everything we have become as an organization. also, there are others. jennifer, margot, cynthia, all the lawyers, all the lawyers please stand. i don't want to leave anybody out. i want all these gals to be with me in los angeles. great lawyers. a lot of times, you know, one or two get the spotlight but really, we're all in this together and we can never forget that and i can never be what i am to be if you're not what you're supposed to be so cynthia, all of you, i thank y'all so much from the bottom of my heart for being here and giving me advice and counsel.

when you're out on the front lines and you fight in the fight, you need your brothers and sisters to encourage you and give you wisdom that it's hard to see when you're right there in the middle of the battle. billy is a great lawyer but he's part of a dynamic duo. one of the things -- i'm going to talk to you from the heart. i didn't prepare notes because his wife is one of the great journalists of america, and every time i would go on national public radio or "tell me more" with michelle martin, what did i have prepared to say? michelle was going to ask me what she wanted the people to know. so y'all give a round of applause to michelle. i mean, she was incredible. when we started the journey with trayvon, she was there from the beginning and i think

it was people like her, when some of the other major media didn't particularly think it was important to talk about the life of a young black male. it was michelle martin and so many of her listeners who continued to push the envelope and said we want to talk about this little black boy who was killed in sanford, florida, who was walking home. i have a very special person here with us, as billy said, and i'm going to talk about it in great detail because if you know the name of trayvon martin, you know the name of michael brown of ferguson. this is not a list anyone wants their children's names to be added to. trayvon was 17. michael brown was 18. tamir rice was 12 years old.

i don't want you to take ben crump's word for it. i don't want to take my most able co-counsel walter madison's word for it. i want you to look at the video for yourself. it's on youtube. just google the name on the internet and you see the video of her, her baby, her baby boy her last child was taken from her and you will know that when the grand jurors convened in cleveland, ohio, some time in the next few months, the face of police brutality in america will be that of a 12-year-old child, a baby, tamir rice. we have his mother here with us. ms. samaria rice, y'all please give her a round of applause and your prayers.

thank you and i'm so happy that we have so many people here, especially the young people. i saw you come in from the back. i know you were coming from class, but the young people, we're so happy to be here because this really is about you-all and we are to remember that, you know, billy, i've had the pleasure of speaking to 2700 women last night and not too far from here in richmond, virginia, as the a.k.a. mid atlantic regional conference and it was so interesting that all the media folks showed up and they said, mr. crump, we

know you got this conference and you're talking to these women but why aren't you talking with the young black men and trying to say what they got to do, the obligation -- almost trying to shift the burden to us. you know, michelle, it's always they try to find the reason to try to justify killing our children and putting the problem on us. and i remember telling all these sisters out there what we have to do and it's so important that we remember our children are watching us and the whole world are watching our responses and so i told them from the very beginning that, we're here with these women speaking up for our children, standing up for our children, defending our children, willing to fight for our children and if need be, ready to die for our children because they're our children and you're not going to be

allowed to tell our children that they can't be children. you know, they're trying to demonize trayvon martins of the world, demonize michael browns. i don't know how they're going to try to demonize tamir rice, a 12-year-old kid, but as i stand here, dr. harris, i can guarantee you this, being part of the criminal justice system that we're a part of, they're going to try to blame tamir rice for what you see in that video. so i stopped my comments. they said, after i got them off of that, talking about what message are you giving to young black men, and for all these sisters, and i said, and they said, why do you take on these cases, why do you keep making these issues, you know, these controversial issues? and i remember thinking, i looked at the newspaper in richmond, virginia, and it was the same headline, walter, all

across america, and they said, because of what just happened to walter scott in north charleston, south carolina, the headline read, "black men still targets." and so i told him, without even saying a word, this is why i take on the cases i take on but i have a news flash for you. it's not just black men. it's black women. it's black boys and it's black girls. it's brown boys, it's brown girls. and, yeah, i said, it would be so easy for us to look the other way. we comfortable, we making money, you know, we got these fancy law degrees and stuff, but as i stand here at the school of divinity at howard university, wouldn't god be ashamed of us if we didn't use the blessings and the talents

and the education and everything he's given us to not stand up for the least of ye to not stand up for our little brothers and sisters who are looking to our community and screaming out to us, for leadership, screaming out to the lawyers, screaming out to the preachers, the doctors, all those people who sacrificed for us to get these degrees. and the one time they need us, we look the other way and say, i'm not going to get involved in that, it's too controversial. i'm not going to get involved in that because i wonder what they'll say at my job. so it is for these reasons that we have to speak up because it's not just the black men. when i think about it, you know, trayvon was 17. michael brown, 18.

i remember being very honest with them, brothers and sisters, i said, the reason i take these cases is because 17-year-old trayvon martin mattered as he laid on that ground dead in sanford florida, in that gated community with a bullet hole through his hoodie where his heart was located. michael brown, 18 years old, in ferguson, missouri, mattered as he laid on the ground dead in broad daylight in ferguson, missouri, for over four hours. tamir rice's life mattered. 12 years old. playing with a toy gun, who he had got from his friend.

attorney madison, we went through painstaking measures allie, to make sure america understood that even though everybody knows police officers are trained to de-escalate situations, certain times in certain communities for whatever reason, billy, they use different procedures, seems like, to escalate situations. and so when you watch that video in cleveland, ohio, the police officer comes up in such a reckless way. i mean, he's driving that police cruiser that if there were other children at that playground, my god, we probably would be dealing with more than just one fatality.

and they pulled up driving recklessly and within less than two seconds from the car stopping, two seconds, they made a decision, they didn't try to give any verbal commands even though they would have us believe, if you take their word for it, that they yelled three times at him to drop the weapon and put his hands up. they would have you believe that but don't take my word for it. go google tamir rice and watch the video yourself and you decide whether they really gave that child a chance to surrender. i think tamir, like trayvon, went to his grave never knowing what he had did wrong. so in less than two seconds, they got out and you see tamir falling over, and i know this is very emotional, samaria, and

i apologize, but we got to let people know the story because if not, they'll just sweep it under the rug. and so, tamir, this 12-year-old baby, is down there on the ground in the snow in cleveland, ohio, and there at the community center, and samaria will tell you how normal that day was when she gets the opportunity to speak to you, but his sister, his 14-year-old sister, tarjay, she came running out of the community center with the other children, and she is crying and it's so riveting to me. she's screaming, "they killed my baby brother, they killed my baby brother" and the other children have their cell phones out and they are recording it and one of the young men says, no, no, he's not dead, he's

still moving. and i'm listening to this cell phone, i'm saying, oh, my god, how terrible this is for this little 14-year-old child. but it gets worse. when they finally get to the tragic scene where her brother has been killed and she's screaming "they killed my baby brother," the police officers would like to say, well, this 12-year-old looked like an adult so we didn't know. but at this point when his 14-year-old sister runs up screaming "they killed my baby brother," they now know this is a child and this is obviously his sister because she's screaming "they killed my baby brother" and what humanity do they offer this little black girl? what kind of comfort? what kind of counsel do they try to extend to tarjay?

well, the fortunate thing attorney madison and i have in this case now is the fact that the video surveillance keeps running and so we get to see not only what they do to tarjay but also what they do to samaria when she arrives on the scene and her brother, and we get to get a vantage point into the mentality of these police officers on that tragic day, and what they do to tarjay this 14-year-old girl, who sees her brother lying on the ground, just been shot, kicking in the snow. they manhandle her. they tackle her not once. but when she tries to get back on the ground, they tackle her again and she's just trying to get to her baby brother.

and to add insult to injury, they then put handcuffs on her and it's all on the video. don't take my word for it. they drag her in the snow, in the same police cruiser that you see them just manage to go get out of the car and shoot her baby brother, they put her in the back seat of that police cruiser handcuffed where she lays there watching her baby brother kicking in the snow, dying. and they then try to justify it, in the answer to our complaint, right, attorney madison, by saying, 12-year-old tamir rice is responsible because he should have been more careful.

and so when the reporters asked me last night, why do i do this, why do i do this, i think of my own children, i think of sybrina fulton at the first million hoodie rally when she said, all nervous out there -- excuse me -- in new york city, she said, thank you all for standing up for my son, trayvon martin. but he's not just my son -- thank you, bill -- but he's not just my son. he's your son. he's all our son. because if it can happen to my child, it can happen to your child. and we all got to stand up for our children. we all got to stand up for justice. and i'm here to tell you, i'm

trying to go tell it on the mountains to everybody. don't think that it can't happen to your child. remember trayvon was in a gated community. all these affluent bourgeois african americans of today they like to think oh, that's just something that happened in the hood. well, it's happening more and more in these suburbs because they don't think you-all, your children, supposed to be there. and when they see your children, black and brown faces, they don't distinguish anything from the people who they think are bad people because they live in the hood. they just see black. they just see brown, they just see color. and in a matter of seconds sometimes two, they make a life-or-death decision and it's not just the police. it's the qausi police like the george zimmermans, neighborhood

watch folks, making these decisions that our children are being taken from us. and then we look, and i'm talking from the heart -- then we look at what happened in south carolina. "time" magazine called me, billy, and they said, you know crump, you've been on these cases now all over america. we want you to write an op-ed piece about what this means, what this video means, dr. harris, and so i thought about it, and it's on time.com and it's going to be in their magazine coming out next week, the article that i wrote. and i chose the title, "will

america finally challenge the standard police narrative?" and y'all know what the narrative is. "oh, i felt threatened." "i felt my life was in danger." "the unarmed person of color reached for my weapon so i had to kill him." and they keep justifying these things based on just this narrative, they sanction killing innocent people of color, all over america, in every city it's happening. and it's the same narrative over and over. and they just accept it as the gospel. and it's just tragic because when you really think about it no matter how ridiculous it is they still accept that narrative. our children, our boys have been shot in the back multiple times, but the police say, i

felt in fear of my life, so they justify, sweep it right up under the rug. people get shot in the back of the head but they say, i felt in fear of my life. they sweep it right -- people handcuffed and they say, i was in fear of my life, sweep it right up under the rug. and i'm here to declare to you all, they were on their way to doing that in south carolina. i mean, they had already -- the standard police narrative was there. he said, he reached for my taser. i'm thinking, but, you shot him in the back five -- how many times? audience: eight. benjamin: so he reached for your taser but obviously he's running away from you. why do you feel your life is in danger? i mean it's happening all over america. alicia thomas in los angeles lapd, she was handcuffed and shackled and the police killed

her. they say, we felt in fear of our life. and they tried to sweep it right up under the rug. so when will america challenge the narrative? we hope they say, do you think because this video is so defined that it will change? and i keep saying, well, it didn't change for tamir rice. it didn't change for eric gardner. it change for antonio zambrano martez in washington, the hispanic version of mike brown broad daylight, he puts his hands up and the police shoot him seven times. we saw it all on video. it didn't change for floyd dent in inkster, michigan. that's where the 57-year-old man who was driving his car,

who had never committed any crime in his life, retired from ford, and the police stopped him, beat the hell out of him and then if you believe mr. dent, planted cocaine in his car, and they took him to jail and he said, no, no, take a drug test, take my hair, do whatever, i've never used drugs in my life and he said, i didn't do anything, these police officers attacked me and then when you look in the background of the police officers who attacked him, he had then charged before with planting evidence, he was found not guilty but they charged him in detroit and now he was with a small suburb police department and so you ask yourself, why don't we ever listen to our community versus just accepting the narrative? they accepted the narrative on

floyd dent. he went to jail. he was well on his way of being convicted as a felon and then the video came out and you saw what these guys did and you saw the evidence being planted. and so why do we keep accepting the standard police narrative? he was threatening, i felt in fear of my life. it keeps happening over and over again. let me back up for one quick second. tamir rice case, the shooter you should have pulled my coattail. the shooter, the person who shot tamir rice in less than two seconds had been previously forced to resign from a neighboring police department because they said he was unfit to be a police officer, and that he was untrainable. it didn't matter how much training he went to, they said he was untrainable.

but yet, he kills tamir rice in less than two seconds and the district attorney still don't say there's enough probable cause to charge him, we got to go to this secret grand jury proceeding and we know from ferguson and staten island, if you didn't know now, us lawyers, we all know, you send it to the grand jury when you want a case to die, when you don't want to bring charges. so we just got to be real here. i'm going to make a few more points and i know the panel's going to have some great responses but i'm talking to you from the heart because it just matters. our children lives just matter. our brothers and sisters' lives just matter and we talk about transitioning from the moment to the movement, i think all those phone calls when they first called, when these people are dealing with the worst hour

of their life in many instances. they've lost a husband. they lost a wife. they've lost a son or a daughter. and those moments are just -- i think about tracy martin and trayvon. you just never can get that sound out of your head, that phone call when they first call and, you know, they try sometimes to stereotype black men as if we don't love our children and we don't accept our -- i'm hear to tell you, tracy martin loved his son, trayvon. and when he was on that call -- y'all remember tracy as a manly man. he drives trucks and he has the body and the beard. the women like to look at him. and tracy was on that phone and i mean when he said about the

neighborhood watch volunteer with a 9 millimeter gun killed my son when he was walking home from the 7-eleven, it's almost like he was whispering. so when you see this on tv this real manly man, i mean, it's the sound of heartbrokenness, just hopelessness. he was shattered. what he was telling me was that would have done it, they were violent, and me being an officer of the court, i was almost debating, saying, you don't need me, mr. martin, give it a couple of days because your son is walking with a bag of skittles and can of iced tea and the neighborhood watch volunteer has a 9 millimeter gun and shoots him in the heart, i'm like, no, your child, unarmed body, the

smoking gun in the self confessed killer's hand, i'm like, of course they're going to arrest them. i really believed that. i'm an officer of the court. you know, i see, in our community, people in court get arrested every day with no evidence at all, with an innuendo of somebody said you looked like them, you know. they thought you was in the area. and they arrest. you had all the evidence. probable cause is such a low standard to just at least arrest them and give us our due process, give us our day in court, our constitutional rights. this whole notion that it's equal and fair and whatever happens to anybody in america we treat them all the same. so i'm believing that and mr. martin says, no, they said they're not going to arrest him

because this stand your ground thing. and at that point we all have to make a decision, y'all. we have to make a decision when nobody's watching, when there's no cameras, there's no crowd, you know, there's no million hoodie rally, nobody said, i am trayvon, president obama hasn't said, if i have a son, he would look like trayvon. lebron james haven't put on the hoodie with the miami heat and said we are all trayvon, before any of that happened, before the petition and 2.7 million people signed the petition saying a little black boy's life mattered. we all have to make that decision whether we're going to

answer the bell where nobody is watching but god. and when you do that god just takes over from there. yeah don't know what god has planned until you answer the bell to try to do right. when you try to do right he's going to help you along the way. i think about how trayvon became this worldwide phenomena. when michael brown's family called he was laying on the ground you answer the bell and you just don't know what's going to happen. people in japan are talking about -- from tokyo to ferguson, just the tiss. you never know what's going to happen. and last, before i get ready to leave you, don't think you can't make a difference. you can make a difference. you can. i'm talking about to all of you all. young and old alike. all us established people, there's a michael brown in every community in america.

there is a that mir rice, tray von, alicia thomas and the list can go on and on. in every community. and when you hear about these black boys being shot in the back by police officers, these hispanic boys being handcuffed and killed, we don't do anything. and if you just want wrote a letter to the editor with your position and your stature, that will make somebody look a little farther into the matter. if you just did anything. and the young people thank god for the young people. and i'm here, the capstone, houffered university and i know c-span. so i want to give due to a young man who said i can make a difference. it was a howard law school student who called my office

when trayvon -- we couldn't get nobody to cover it. i'm out here saying, call all my friends in the media. and they're like ok, a little black boy got killed. why is that news worthy? it's almost like a cliche, little black boys getting killed. and i'm like, but it was a neighborhood watch volunteer. i hadn't even said anything about race or anything. i just thought, a neighborhood watch volunteer can kill an unarmed child and nobody thinks it's a big deal. it was this little boy at howard university. because the young people got on social media and they started talking about this kid called me up i guess while he was studying. he said attorney crump, i was thinking after i read your article and i want to start a petition on line to see if that can help. because i just feel we've got to do something. and i just want to get your

permission and see if it was ok. and ask his family's permission. i said anything you can do will help. and that kid that one kid who thought that i need to do something started the largest petition in the history of chase.org. they still haven't gotten anywhere close to getting 2.7 million people to go take the time and fill out the form to sign the petition like that there but that was all because of one howard university student saying i can make a difference. so dave, to the school of divinity, mr. harris, ladies and gentlemen, and america that kid gave the best example of how we change a moment into a movement. you just step up and you try to do right. thank you. god bless you.

[applause] >> thank you for those words and your thoughts. i know it's very painful and as a father of four children, one of them a little black boy, i worry every time he sout. i know a lot of parents we worry about our children but we worry about our little black boys. i know it's very difficult and i know what you've gone through having read some of the articles in cleveland about you . and what's going on with you and your family. would you feel can you believe coming up -- comfortable coming up and sharing from your

perspective something about that mir? can you tell us something about your son something about that day? can you take a minute? thank you. will you help me welcome ms. rice. [applause] >> well, can you hear me? i just want to first of all just say that afe god of my understanding and that is the only way that i'm standing along with the supportive nation and my family. supporting me right now.

i am grateful to be here. i'm honored to be here. and thank you for welcoming me here. a little about tamir was the youngest of four. he was my special child. he was very bright and very talented in a lot of things. you know you always want your kids to succeed in things that they do along with your help. so of course i played a major part with his schooling being at his school, making sure he was at after-school activities where he wouldn't have to be on the streets. just gave him structure.

and i believe in that a lot. but you can't watch every second. you can't watch every second thing that is your children do, unfortunately. he had a promising career. loved all sports and a great swimmer. a helper. he was a helper at his school. by him being so tall and maybe almost the tallest one in his school even in the sixth grade he was up there with the eighth graders as tall as they were, sometimes they would call tamir to get things off the shelves and things like that. this is the principal along with his teacher and the other staff members. so they kind of worked with me with him. and i was grateful for that. like i said, a great helper.

he was just helping them with the halloween little program over at the recreation center across the street from my house. everybody loved him up there. the whole community knew him. i had just been over there almost a year. i just try to do the best i can as a single mom. i'm a human being and i'm a vulnerable human being at this point. people like me where i come from and the obstacles that i had to go through, sometimes we make it, but a lot of times we don't. that's why i'm there so much for my kids because i knew that they were going to make it. my other three children, they're going to make it, too.

but i knew my son had a promising career, that's all i could tell you. he excelled at everything. hest just recently put on the drum line at his school. so he had a lot of talent and tricks and just a wonderful kid. beautiful smile. very mannerable. everywhere i went they always say my children are mannerable and nice. i take pride in it. i invested a lot in it. i made a lot of sacrifices for myself too, just to make sure that they had the things that they need. >> why don't you tell them about that day. >> ok. i was robbed of my son's future. let me just say that. a little about that day. it's a normal saturday. i had just fixed lunch.

they ate their lunch and went outside. i gave them a couple dollars to go to the store. i didn't think anything of it. just a normal day. they always go to the rec. free wifi. they get to play in the gym. the game room. there's a lot of staff. they can call me if my kids are up there misbehaving at any time. i'm on speed dial. normal day for me. i got a knock at the door. it had to be about 3:30. they had just left it wasn't even 30 minutes. and i heard a knock at the door and two children just told me the police just shot your son twice in the stomach. i was in disbelief. i'm like no, not my kids. they know. no. my 16-year-old son was there at the time. he was sick.

god had put the strength for him to run out there be no shoes on and no jacket. and it was chilly that day. it was snow on the ground and it was chilly, and he beat me over there. when i arrived on the scene i was still in disbelief. but when i arrived on the scene, i saw my 12-year-old son laying on the ground just wondering, like, what did he do? what happened? what's going on? the police told me to -- as i was charging towards them trying to get to my son they told me to calm down or they were going to put me in the back of the police car. my 14-year-old daughter was in the back of the car in hand cust. i asked to let her out. they gave me an ultimatumium to stay with my 14-year-old or go with my 12-year-old in the ambulance that day and made me sit in the front seat. my other son when i arrived on

the scene they were putting my other son in the police car because he was trying to get to his little brother. so i was two children in the police car them giving me an ultimatumium to either stay with the 14-year-old or go with the 12-year-old. and that's just how my day was that day. and it's just been a nightmare ever since. it's been a nightmare. we're doing the best we can under the circumstances. i just never thought i would be in a situation like this. ever. i'm a mom. i'm vulnerable. i just never thought -- i'm still numb to the situation a lot. still numb. i still can't believe it. i'm still waiting for answers.

looking for justice. but what i can say is that i also -- well, some of the community has created a petition on change.org it's to make sure we keep the pressure on the prosecutor for a conviction. also we have an account in his name for donations as we can. i'm planning a community hymning festival june 20th. his birthday is june 25th. he would have been 13. having a community hymning. so i hope you can come.

june 20th. i thank you. [applause] >> first i would like to -- i do a lot of public speaking, i moderate a lot of panels and it's very natural and easy for me to get up and speak. i don't know how you did it. thank you. >> i did it with god. >> well, you're in the right place. i know that we will all say no matter what happened we cannot imagine the loss of a child, the idea of seeing your son lay on the ground like that. and i know that our prayers are with you and god bless you and your family. moving on with our rebuttals. i would like to put in the

middle of lawyers a theelogen. so we will get a chance to -- do you mind going last? you're all right? we're going to bring up professor trulyier to talk about these issues. we quality it a respondent and he's going to respond in a way. but i think that you will hear -- you will not hear a lot of people actually disagreeing with these concepts. because these are concepts that i think that we're all looking for solutions for and they're real everyday issues. professor, will you take a moment and share some of your thoughts on these issues. [applause] they set it up first for our respondents to speak from the table but i think it would be

easier if they stand and address the audience. >> part of the narrative. why at a school of dwinty have this presentation? attorney crump has said that life matters. he named names of people whose lives matter. in the christian tradition we believe that life matters because life is a gift and that all human beings are created in the image of god. and so when you take a life, you snuff out the image of god. and so every life matters. which means that we need a vocabulary to talk about our young black males and the other

constituencies that attorney crump mentioned that does not demonize and does not dehumanize. we have to stop drinking the thug coolade. we have to stop drinking the animal coolade. we have to stop with the name calling and the objective if iing that we ourselves do with our own. in the name of distancing ourselves from them. the second thing that came out for me out of this, aside from the theology of life matters, is his noteation that these instances belong to all of us. one of the thing

turned it into an issue and folks don't deal with issues. they deal with people. one of the things we're trying to surface is how many of us as human beings are impacted by this system, whether it is as victims -- the new luverage is not victims it's survives because that means that you've made it through something. so we're talking about now about survivors. whether you're a survivor of a situation or whether you are

someone who has a son or a daughter who is actually in the system, because one of the things we don't talk about much is that 80% of all young black males who are incarcerated are also crime survivors. they don't think of themselves that way but the very institute has done research and we discovered that when you interview young men who have been incarcerated they say have you ever been a victim of crime? they say never. then you say have you ever been jumped by somebody with no cause? and they all put their hands up. have you ever had something taken by force? how many have had your house burglarized? they put their hands up. they've been victimized. they have survived trauma. and unless we are engaged in helping them deal with the trauma they're bound to repeat the trama. the problem is we see them as someone out there. we don't see them