i think we will have danny werfel back here on this subject. did you participate in redaction decisions at all? >> no, sir, i did not. >> okay. now, i guess one of the -- this is a serious matter, but it appears from this that you were part of the discussion at a time in which a controversial rule was going into effect that included a number of conservative and religious groups and that you were providing back and forth advice to white house personnel on that implementation. is that correct? >> my rex -- recollection of this exchange had to do with what the current irs rules are under regulations under 6033 in case policymakers wanted to use any definition that existed already in the tax code, and they understand what they would cover or not cover, depending on which definitions they chose to employ. it was not a discussion about their decision about what to use. >> so you were providing technical information on how the administration could determine whether or not church and nonchurch groups, schools, sponsored by schools and other affiliated

congressman langford great congressman wanted her several months and ago the irs said no you really want danny werfel they were too gentlemenly and allowed the irs to pick the witnesses instead of themselves. ultimately we knew we were going to get ms. ingram and we got her today. >> greta: you asked her whether there was legal authority by which the president himself can decide to enforce or not enforce certain provisions of the law. and i think if i am correct you are talking about obama care was passed by congress and then since then there have been waivers and exemptions which i assume is what you mean? >> yes, ma'am. >> why do you ask her that question? >> well, i'm asked that a lot. inmean, who says that the chief executive gets to pick 'and choose which laws? i mean, we are told all the time obama care is the law. get used to it. quit fighting it well, if it's that great, we are we turning off the employer mandate? why are we turning off certain waivers? why are there so many exemptions? why is the annual benefits provision being rewritten? i'm a simple-minded lawyer as you know and i naively