[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE IRS'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING
AND ENFORCING OBAMACARE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 9, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-67
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
86-195 WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT,
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TONY CARDENAS, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada
KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
RON DeSANTIS, Florida
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Stephen Castor, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 9, 2013.................................. 1
WITNESSES
Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram, Director Affordable Care Act Office,
Internal Revenue Service
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Written Statement............................................ 15
APPENDIX
Letter to the Hon. Elijah E. Cummings from Mr. Daniel I. Werfel,
Acting Commissioner, Department of The Treasury................ 94
Opening Statement submitted by the Hon. Matt Cartwright.......... 95
WSJ article submitted by Mr. DesJarlais.......................... 97
WP article submitted by Mr. Bentivolio........................... 101
EXAMINING THE IRS'S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING AND ENFORCING OBAMACARE
----------
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:38 a.m., in Room
2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Turner, Duncan,
McHenry, Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Lankford, Amash, Gosar,
DesJarlais, Gowdy, Farenthold, Hastings, Woodall, Collins,
Meadows, Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings, Maloney, Norton,
Tierney, Lynch, Connolly, Speier, Cartwright, Pocan, Duckworth,
Kelly, Davis, Welch, Cardenas, Horsford, and Lujan Grisham.
Staff Present: Brian Blase, Senior Professional Staff
Member; Molly Boyl, Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian;
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; David Brewer, Senior
Counsel; Daniel Bucheli, Assistant Clerk; Caitlin Carroll,
Deputy Press Secretary; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk;
Steve Castor, General Counsel; Drew Colliatie, Professional
Staff Member; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P.
Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations;
Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Meinan Goto, Professional Staff
Member; Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff Member;
Frederick Hill, Director of Communications and Senior Policy
Advisor; Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight;
Michael R. Kiko, Staff Assistant; Emily Martin, Counsel; Laura
L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Sarah Vance, Assistant Clerk;
Rebecca Watkins, Deputy Director of Communications; Tamara
Alexander, Minority Counsel; Meghan Berroya, Minority Counsel;
Yvette Cravins, Minority Counsel; Susanne Sachsman Grooms,
Minority Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman,
Minority Communications Director; Chris Knauer, Minority Senior
Investigator; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of Operations;
Una Lee, Minority Counsel; Juan McCullum, Minority Clerk; Dave
Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; and Daniel Roberts, Minority
Staff Assistant/Legislative Correspondent.
Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order.
The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental
principles: First, Americans have a right to know that the
money Washington takes from them at the IRS is well-spent. And,
second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government
that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government
Reform is to protect these rights, along with every--every
right articulated in the Constitution.
Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable
to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they
get from their government. It is our job to work tirelessly, in
partnership with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the
American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal
bureaucracy.
Today, the American people are suffering through a second
week of a partial shutdown, created by an inability of Congress
and President Obama to compromise, to reach an agreement on
funding the government. But, more importantly, the funding of
the government today is virtually impossible without dealing
with entitlements.
One of the central issues in dispute is Obamacare, formerly
called the Affordable Care Act, but since no part of it makes
it more affordable except through subsidies, both the President
and the Congress have chosen to call it Obamacare. For today's
hearing, we will call it Obamacare.
Three and a half years after the Affordable Care Act became
law, the administration is struggling to launch this massive
program and, in fact, is failing. It is the chatter on
nighttime comedy that, in fact, you can probably download
anything and everything faster than you can get onto an IRS
site. The fact is that, while no mitigation in the
responsibility to both pay taxes or to buy Obamacare, Americans
are unable to get on the site. If they get on the site, it is
confusing, and, without a doubt, there are few choices.
The promise of Obamacare, to bring people better health
care for less, has been just the opposite. Healthcare rates in
the private sector have risen precipitously. And the promise to
provide you the opportunity to keep the health care you have
and the doctor you have has gone just the opposite. If you go
to the exchanges, it is unlikely that you are going to find the
availability of your doctor for your health care. And, in fact,
hundreds of thousands of Americans are being thrown out of
healthcare programs and onto the exchanges as a result of this
law.
We are not here today to relitigate the questions of a
partisan, Democratic-controlled House and Senate on a
completely partisan basis passing a law, 2,400 pages plus, and
saying, ``You'll find out what's in it. After it passes, you
can read it.'' We are not here to do that, but it is, in fact,
the result of that kind of legislation that has led us to find
that after 3 years of our witness working at the IRS with
partisan officials at the White House on an almost daily basis,
we have the implementation of a one-sided, we-know-it-all type
of law.
Today, we will hit a number of areas, including did the IRS
plan to fail or did they fail to plan in a way that was open
and transparent and consistent with the law. Just as 90 percent
of an iceberg is below water, the problem in the user
experience on the Web site is generally dwarfed by deficiencies
that happened behind the scenes on the back end.
Previous hearings of this committee have shown that even
the contractor chosen to implement the data-sharing is one that
has had failures that resulted in privileged information,
including Social Security numbers, being lost. Undoubtedly,
this will occur again, since every State, thousands and
thousands of individuals now have access to your taxpayer
information as part of Obamacare, and you, in fact, have no
control over who those people are and how they are selected.
Additionally, some of the most vulnerable among us are
being sold and signed up for Obamacare by people who have no
training in HIPAA, no training in any of the protections of
sensitive healthcare information. But that is a law, and we
will go through it.
Today's hearing has a lot to do with the 47 new provisions,
including 18 new taxes expected to raise $1 trillion over the
next 10 years, in a program that will cost many times that with
other taxpayers' costs.
Obamacare gives the IRS power to force Americans to
purchase health care and levy a penalty/tax, as determined by
the Supreme Court, on those who are delinquent. And yet, even
though the employer mandate has a penalty of $3,000 per worker,
it is very clear that it is often better for the employer to
dump their workers and their retirees in order to avoid an
onerous set of new rules.
That is part of what this committee has been looking at.
And, in fact, while the Treasury Department plans to send
health insurance subsidies directly to an insurance company, if
the Treasury sends too much to a health insurance company, the
plan is for the IRS to go after taxpayers to collect the
overpayment. Yes, if there is a mistake made, you will pay for
it.
In the wake of the IRS scandal caused by an effort to
target Americans because of their political beliefs, Americans
concerned about the IRS and how they will handle this personal
and private information have every reason to be concerned. Who
will have access to the highly personal health and financial
information? A great many people, most of whom you don't know.
There will be no control over it at the Federal level or State
level that meets the requirements of the privacy acts of health
insurance.
Additionally, the IRS has repeatedly made mistakes in
disclosing information, most often conservative groups and
their donors. Those kind of mistakes could be amplified
repeatedly, either deliberately or accidentally--we are still
trying to determine that--but the accidents seem to keep
coming. The accidental targeting of hundreds of conservative
groups, including Tea Party groups, has not abated. In fact,
many of those groups have still not received their approvals or
denials, something that our witness knows something about.
What information in the individual tax return will the IRS
be sharing with officials outside the agency? My ranking
member's home State of Maryland, in fact, leaves some question
about whether or not the State will take the information
collected and use it in other ways, including garnishments or
other tax levy. The truth is, once the government has more
information about everything, including your cost of health
care, who lives in your home, who you are claiming, it will add
to the ability for both the Federal and State to tax you
further and ask more onerous questions.
The U.S. Government Accountability Office described a data
hub, as a ``complex undertaking involving the coordinated
actions of multiple Federal, State, and private stakeholders.''
During the committee hearing in July, Alan Duncan,
Assistant Inspector General for Audit for the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration, testified that, in
fact, TIGTA remains concerned about the protection of
confidential taxpayer information that will be provided to
State and Federal agencies broadly.
The Assistant Inspector General also testified that it
would be difficult to complete all the interagency testing of
the hub prior to October 1st, and, in fact, not all of it was
done. We went live with beta software for the Affordable Care
Act, and it shows. It shows every day, as the American people
struggle to try to get information.
In September, the problem became more than just worries
when a Minnesota exchange admitted to accidentally--and I
repeat, accidentally--releasing sensitive information that
contained names, addresses, and Social Security numbers for
2,400 brokers. This is, as I said earlier, just the tip of the
iceberg.
Let us all be honest: Obamacare's first week has been a
mess. But we can't undo the last week, and there are no
mulligans. This, in fact, will continue day after day, and
there will be no do-overs. We can only admit that the law is
not ready for prime time, look for ways to mitigate it, and ask
for the administration to be understanding that what man and
Congress creates, in fact, will always have some flaws in it.
Today's witness, Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram, is here to testify
and answer our questions. Ms. Hall Ingram is the Director of
the IRS's Affordable Care Act Office. Before overseeing
Obamacare implementation for the IRS, Ms. Hall Ingram was the
Commissioner for the IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities
Division. She served full-time in that role from 2009 to 2010.
The administration has already delayed or revised several
parts of the health law, and, in many cases, unilateral action
was directly at odds with congressional law. Many Americans
have been uneasy, feeling that the administration is flying
Obamacare by the seat of its pants. There are some sobering
recognitions that, in fact, Executive orders not contemplated
in the law seem to be an everyday occurrence, while changes to
the law seem to be, by definition, impossible. It is our hope
that Ms. Hall Ingram will spell out the challenges the IRS is
facing so that we stop reading the surprising, yet still
unsurprising, news of how implementation is going poorly.
In closing, this is not going to be the committee's final
hearing on Obamacare implementation. The ranking member has
indicated that he wants to hear more from IRS witnesses. I do,
too. Our intent is to bring additional IRS officials for
testimony in the future, but today we are focused on Ms. Hall
Ingram.
I might note two things. First, repeatedly, when we have
asked for Ms. Ingram, we have been asked to and we have
deferred and allowed other witnesses. Today, the determination
was that the person who by definition was at the center of the
targeting of conservative groups for a period of 2009 to 2010
and the person who has owned Obamacare since its passage,
virtually since its passage, for implementation must be heard
from.
Although there are individuals behind the witness, they
will not be sworn and they will not be permitted to testify.
The only witness today is Ms. Hall Ingram. And I will take
responsibility directly for asking the Commissioner not to
attend, since he was not there at the time and was brought in
only when the scandal over targeting conservatives became a
problem. We have a fact witness in front of us. My hope is that
she will be candid in the release of all the facts.
I have also been notified that the ranking member intends
to ask for pictures of Ms. Hall Ingram receiving--or being with
past Presidents. I will object to that. This is not about
whether Ms. Hall Ingram is a Republican or a Democrat. This is
not about the politics of anybody at the IRS.
The IRS, by statute, is limited to two political
appointees. It is critical that we ask the questions about the
nonpolitical appointees, not the counsel, not the Commissioner,
what are their actions, not what are their politics, their
registrations, their leanings or their self-stated intention.
People are not to be judged at the IRS based on how they vote.
They are to be judged based on the job they do and how they do
it.
With that, I recognize the ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Just one question. What picture are you
talking about? What are you talking about? Do you want to show
it?
Chairman Issa. No, I am not going to.
Mr. Cummings. Oh, okay.
Chairman Issa. We were told that--we were handed these by
her personal attorney. They are pictures with past Presidents.
The minority requested them is what her attorney told us. Is
that correct, Mr. Cummings?
Mr. Cummings. What is the big deal that we want to see
pictures of a witness with President Bush?
Chairman Issa. Mr. Cummings, you have constantly and the
people up and down the dais have tried to paint political,
Republican versus Democrat. Somehow, if somebody is a
Republican or was appointed by a Republican, that somehow any
claim of targeting conservatives is not there.
The fact is, this committee's docket will be--or enclosures
will include extraneous material but not material designed to
forward some question that paints somebody as a Republican or
Democrat.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Issa. I do not know the gentlelady's politics, and
I do not----
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Issa. --intend to ask.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, just one moment. The way
politics comes up in all of this is, of every single witness
that has been interviewed, your staff has asked their political
affiliation.
We have had this conversation before at this dais, by the
way. So I just--I was just curious.
I will go into my opening statement.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Cummings. Today, our Nation is entering its ninth day--
the ninth day of House Speaker John Boehner's government
shutdown.
Speaker Boehner has refused to allow the House to vote on a
clean continuing resolution that would end the shutdown, even
though it would pass with a bipartisan majority. Instead, he is
allowing a small group of Republican extremists to pursue their
idealogical crusade to repeal the Affordable Care Act and put
insurance companies back in charge of healthcare decisions for
millions of Americans.
Even worse, our country is rapidly approaching the debt-
ceiling deadline of October 17th. Yet Republicans seem willing
to jeopardize the full faith and credit of the United States of
America unless we eliminate the Affordable Care Act, even
though it is the law of the land and has been upheld by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
House Republicans have voted more than 40 times to repeal
the Affordable Care Act. So although today's hearing may be
cloaked in the rhetoric of improving the law, nobody truly
believes Republicans want that to happen. Instead, today's
hearing is an obvious attempt to link two issues that have
nothing to do with each other: the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act and the so-called IRS Tea Party scandal.
For nearly a year, Republicans have been railing against
today's hearing witness, Sarah Hall Ingram, for being the
supposed mastermind behind the IRS targeting of Tea Party
groups and for being some sort of political operative who is
now in charge of implementing Obamacare.
One of our committee members, Congressman Jordan, said Ms.
Ingram: ``headed up this scandal.'' He said:``I can't wait--I
can't wait until we get her in front of the committee.''
Congressman Tim Griffin accused Ms. Ingram of being:
``directly in charge of IRS targeting.'' He said: ``She
provided horrendous customer service under her watch, and now
she is going to do the same implementing Obamacare.''
Another member of our committee, Congressman Meadows,
criticized the bonuses Ms. Ingram received. And Congressman Tom
Price argued that her: ``employment at IRS should be
suspended.''
The problem with these accusations is that they are 100
percent wrong. After hearing directly from 30 witnesses and
reviewing thousands of pages of documents, our committee has
obtained absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Ms. Ingram was
involved in any way with developing or directing the use of
inappropriate criteria to screen Tea Party groups or any other
groups applying for tax-exempt status.
In fact, we found just the opposite. Ms. Ingram left her
position as Commissioner of the Tax Exempt Government Entities
Division in December of 2010, 6 months before her former
subordinates became aware of inappropriate criteria used to
screen applicants for tax-exempt status. Russell George, the
Inspector General of the IRS, stated that Lois Lerner did not
learn about the inappropriate criteria until June 2011, 6
months after Ms. Ingram left for her new position implementing
the ACA.
There is another problem with these ruthless Republican
allegations: Ms. Ingram is not a political operative. She is,
in fact, a dedicated public servant who has excelled under both
Republican and Democratic administrations. In 2004, President
George W. Bush awarded Ms. Ingram the Nation's highest civil
service award, the Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank
Award, for her outstanding: ``tax law leadership'' and, ``her
highly effective efforts to combat terrorism financing.''
And although you won't hear this from my Republican
colleagues, after President Bush gave her that award, Ms.
Ingram also received a bonus in recognition of her exemplary
service. That bonus was larger than any she received during the
Obama administration.
Dragging Ms. Ingram through the mud and impugning her
reputation as part of a broader Republican campaign against the
ACA is the worst kind of politics. It is intellectually
dishonest, and it is unfair to this highly regarded public
servant.
October 1st was a historic day for our country, not because
Speaker Boehner shut down the government but because it was the
first day millions of Americans could sign up for health care.
In the first 2 days alone, 7 million Americans visited
healthcare.gov, which dwarfs the highest Web traffic ever
experienced on Medicare's Web site.
Although there will continue to be challenges implementing
this law, I want to thank Ms. Ingram for her service under both
Democratic and Republican administrations and for her work on
the ACA, which, by all accounts, is outstanding.
Finally, Mr. Chairman--you alluded to this--I would like to
place a document in the record, and that is a letter from Mr.
Werfel, our Acting Commissioner.
Since today's hearing was supposed to be about IRS
implementation of the ACA, I asked you last week to invite
officials from all four IRS offices in charge of this program.
On Monday, you refused. And I heard you this morning, just a
few minutes ago, when you said that we are not finished with
this--and I am pleased to hear that--that other witnesses would
come forth later.
And so I asked these officials to attend today, along with
IRS Commissioner Werfel, in case committee members have
questions outside the scope of Ms. Ingram's responsibilities.
Last night, I received a letter from Mr. Werfel stating that
you personally told him that he and these other IRS officials
were not welcome, that essentially they were banned from the
hearing room.
I have seen a lot of things as a Member of Congress over my
17 years, but I have never seen a committee chairman tell the
head of an agency that he could not be present during a public
hearing with one of his own employees.
I will read the letter, if I might, because I don't want
to--I see you moving around a little bit. I want to make sure I
read it.
It says, ``Dear''--it is dated October 8th, 2013. It is
addressed to me. It says, ``Dear Ranking Member Cummings, I am
responding to your letter today requesting that I attend
tomorrow's hearing along with other IRS personnel who have
relevant subject matter expertise in matters related to the ACA
implementation.
``I spoke directly to the chairman this evening regarding
your request, and the chairman requested that I do not attend.
Instead, the chairman suggested that we have technical experts
present that could be available to support Ms. Hall Ingram but
that would not be called to give her direct testimony.
``Given my respect for the chairman's authority in this
matter, I have decided to agree to the chairman's direction and
will not attend in person.
``Of note, I remain concerned that Ms. Hall Ingram alone
will not be able to provide comprehensive testimony regarding
IRS efforts to implement the ACA, given that many of the
significant IRS activities in this area fall outside of her
direct purview. However, it is my understanding that the
chairman's decision that Ms. Ingram will be the only witness
for tomorrow's hearing is now final.
``And I thank you for your ongoing assistance.'' And it is
signed, ``Danny Werfel.''
I ask that that be made a part of the record, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I reserve and recognize myself in opposition
on the reserve.
The gentleman in his opening statement made it clear that
he thinks that the targeting of conservative groups is a phony
scandal, while the President, just the opposite, said it was
serious.
The gentleman has repeatedly wanted to make it very clear
that his job is to stop the work of this committee.
Mr. Werfel was, in fact, an individual who----
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, you just said something that is
absolutely not true. I have not done that, and I resent you
saying that.
Chairman Issa. I appreciate your resentment, but I will
continue.
Mr. Cummings. That I have tried to stop the work of this
committee?
Chairman Issa. It is very clear you have.
Mr. Cummings. You said--come on, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. The fact is that, at the last hearing, you
requested, for my four witnesses, seven. And I gave you four.
The policy of this committee is and has been under both
Republican and Democratic leadership that the minority is
generally accommodated with a witness, a witness germane. You
have repeatedly abused that in the process.
When you sent a direct invitation for a number of
individuals, including someone that was not there during the
planning of the Affordable Care Act and will be gone in a
matter of days, in the name of the Commissioner--he was highly
inappropriate to be a fact witness because he wasn't there
before and he will not be there in a couple of weeks.
In conversation with the Commissioner--and I will allow
this in afterwards----
Mr. Cummings. Well, thank you.
Chairman Issa. The fact is, in conversations with the
Commissioner, I said, of course she can have any and all people
that would help her in answering the questions, people--maybe
if somebody comes up with an esoteric question on what the
URL's will be for Obamacare, fine. But, in fact, we have asked
for repeatedly and deferred Ms. Ingram on a previous occasion,
even though she is the head of the department implementing. She
is the highest individual with the longest service related to
the questions here today.
So, elections have consequences. I have the responsibility
of announcing what a hearing is going to be, sometimes hearings
that you request. I have the primary responsibility for
selecting the witnesses, and I have always taken seriously the
suggestions of witnesses you want and, when they are timely,
have always provided at least one. That is not true of my
predecessor, Mr. Towns. Although a friend and a good man, he
often did not even give me one witness. So the decision to have
the head of the implementation was mine.
Mr. Werfel is a dedicated, long-serving public servant. I
asked him not to be here for what I thought would be simply a
staged opportunity to say, why don't you let the Commissioner,
who didn't know about it before and won't be there in another
week, the Acting Commissioner, do it.
For that reason, I will allow the letter in.
Chairman Issa. But understand that the attempt is to get to
the truth, and this committee has tried to hold as many
hearings, including hearings on subjects that you have
requested, and we will continue to do so.
So, with that, the unanimous----
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't finished. May I
finish?
Chairman Issa. I have accepted your unanimous consent.
Mr. Cummings. That was with regard to my document. I wasn't
finished with my statement.
Chairman Issa. Oh. The gentleman may have an additional 1
minute.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I am just going to say we have a title here
that says, ``Examining the IRS's Role in Implementing and
Enforcing Obamacare.'' That is the title of the hearing.
And, you know, you have made an allegation that I am trying
to stop everything. I am trying to get to the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. That is what
I am trying to get to. And that is why I resented your
statement.
But, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Issa. We will now recognize the subcommittee
chairman, since his name was mentioned as----
Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, finally, finally she is
here. We have been trying for 5 months to get Ms. Ingram in
front of this committee. I was beginning to think there was no
such person as Sarah Hall Ingram. I mean, a couple months ago,
Chairman Lankford and I had a joint subcommittee scheduled. Ms.
Ingram was supposed to be in front of that committee, but Mr.
Werfel called up and said, nope, she is not coming; I am
instead.
For months, we have been trying to get this lady in front--
here is the lady who, as the chairman said, is at the center of
the storm of two of the biggest issues this country has dealt
with in recent history: the targeting of conservative groups
and implementation of Obamacare.
Here is the lady who was Lois Lerner's direct boss, and
today is the first time she has been in front of this
committee, after this scandal has been known about for 5
months? Here is the lady who for the last 3 years has been head
of the office for implementing the Affordable Care Act, and
today is the first time she comes in front of the committee? I
mean, this is unbelievable. Two of the biggest issues facing
the country, and the first time she comes in front of the
Government Oversight Committee.
And Mr. Cummings brings up the letter that we got yesterday
from Mr. Werfel. They tried again yesterday to not have her be
here. So it raises just one simple question: Why? What does she
know that the IRS doesn't want this committee, this Congress,
and the American people to know? What does she know about the
Affordable Care--what are they trying to hide?
So, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your persistence. I am glad it
finally happened. I mean, it is astonishing that it took 5
months to get her, but I am glad it finally happened.
One more thing if I could, Mr. Chairman, and then I will
yield back.
Could we put up a slide?
Mr. Cummings raised this issue, and Mr. Werfel said she is
not the right person to bring, we need these other folks here,
we need Mr. Werfel here, he wanted to come.
Let's put up--this was a briefing--if we could put up the
first slide?
This was the briefing given to the IRS Oversight Board just
this past May, May 2nd, 2013. And guess who gave that briefing?
Who do you think gave that briefing? The lady we have been
waiting to get in front of this committee, Sarah Hall Ingram.
And, again, you don't have to take my word for it. We got the
minutes from the meeting.
If we can put that slide up?
The minutes from the meeting, Affordable Care Act update,
led by Sarah Hall Ingram, Director, ACA Office.
So Mr. Werfel didn't want her to come today, hasn't let her
come for 5 months, but she was good enough to brief the IRS.
And not just brief it; look what it says she talked about. Ms.
Ingram discussed the security and safeguard programs the IRS
has in place regarding the sharing of data among its partners,
including those for the Affordable Care Act program.
This is exactly the lady we need in front of the Congress.
It just took us 5 months to get her here. So this is important.
Mr. Cummings. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Jordan. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Cummings. Let me make sure I understood what you said.
You said that I was trying to stop her from coming here? Did
you say that?
Mr. Jordan. We have a letter from Mr. Werfel indicating he
didn't want Sarah Hall Ingram to come to this----
Mr. Cummings. Oh. Well, that had nothing to do with me.
Mr. Jordan. You just a read a letter from Mr. Werfel, a
different letter you had. You said that----
Mr. Cummings. I just read----
Mr. Jordan. You wanted Mr. Werfel here, as well.
Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield? I just want to----
Chairman Issa. If the gentleman will suspend.
The record from the chairman is, in fact, that Mr. Cummings
tried to get four additional witnesses----
Mr. Jordan. Exactly.
Chairman Issa. --on this panel. Mr. Werfel tried to not
have Sarah Hall Ingram come. And the request, no matter where
they originated, to not have her testify today repeatedly came
from the Commissioner.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan. Here is the point, Mr. Chairman. Why in the
world does it take 5 months to get the lady who was there when
the targeting of conservative groups started, who was Lois
Lerner's direct boss, who for the past 3 years has been
implementing the Affordable Care Act at the IRS? Why in the
world should it have taken 5 months for her to come in front of
this committee? What are they trying to hide? And that is why
this hearing is so important.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Issa. Members will have 7 days in which to submit
opening statements for the record.
Chairman Issa. And we will now recognize the panel.
Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram----
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Issa. The ranking member will not be recognized
because of accusations you made in your opening statement.
Would Mr. Cartwright like a few moments?
Mr. Cummings. Of course.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Cartwright. I thank you, Chairman Issa, for this
opportunity to discuss the IRS's role in implementing and
enforcing the Affordable Care Act. I do look forward to today's
testimony. And I would like to hear all about the nationwide
dragnet that finally snared our witness and brought her here
today.
I will say, the IRS has begun to play and will continue to
play a key role in both the implementation and the enforcement
of the Affordable Care Act. The Department of Health and Human
Services manages the implementation of the ACA, with the IRS
assisting mostly by administering subsidies to those who
qualify under the law and penalizing those who don't comply
with the law.
To determine which individuals fall into the latter
category, the IRS, along with the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services, operates a data hub, allowing those applying
for coverage on the healthcare exchanges to easily determine
which plans and which subsidies they qualify for.
This data hub does not--and I repeat, does not--receive or
maintain any personal health information or medical records. It
simply routes data, never storing it, and accesses only the
information needed to determine individual eligibility for
coverage and tax credits.
These tax credits are desperately needed in my district,
where nearly 9.4 percent of my constituency lives below the
poverty line. Seventy thousand--and that is 10.5 percent--do
not have healthcare insurance, including 6,500 children, and
will be able to utilize the subsidies offered under the
Affordable Care Act and coordinated by the IRS to finally get
covered. Clearly, my constituents need the Affordable Care Act.
I look forward to today's testimony. And I want to echo the
comments of the ranking member, that this effort to somehow
link--the attempts to generate and gin up a scandal about the
IRS and link that with the implementation of the Affordable
Care Act, this is quite an act of limbo dancing going on here.
And I will be interested to see if my colleagues across the
aisle can actually carry out the idea of linking the supposed
IRS scandal with the implementation of the ACA, when we don't
even have the people who are actually most knowledgeable in
charge of those areas here as a witness. In fact, they were
apparently instructed not to come.
With that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Chairman Issa. We now go to our--as I said, I will say it
again, Members may have 7 days in which to submit opening
statements for the record.
We will now recognize our first panel.
Ms. Sarah Hall Ingram is Director of the Affordable Care
Act Office and formerly Commissioner of Tax Exempt and
Government Entities at the Internal Revenue Service.
Ms. Ingram, pursuant to committee rules, would you please
rise to be sworn and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about
to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth?
Ms. Ingram. I do.
Chairman Issa. Please be seated.
Let the record indicate the witness answered in the
affirmative.
Your entire opening statement, Ms. Ingram, will be placed
in the record, so you need not read verbatim. Please try to
stay as close to 5 minutes as you can.
The gentlelady is recognized.
STATEMENT OF SARAH HALL INGRAM, DIRECTOR, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
OFFICE, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
Ms. Ingram. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and
members of the committee, my name is Sarah Hall Ingram, and I
am the Director of the Affordable Care Act Office under the
Services and Enforcement part of the IRS. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the work the IRS is doing to fulfill our
responsibilities under the ACA.
IRS implementation of the tax provisions of the ACA
represents the collaborative work of all parts of the IRS. I do
want to make clear that my office is responsible for only one
piece of this large puzzle. That piece involves the business
operations, flows, and procedures and products. Significant
work is also being done by our Information Technology Division,
our Office of Safeguards, and the Chief Counsel's Office.
The written testimony we provided the committee reflects
input from all these various functions. I will give you the
best view that I can of our ACA implementation efforts from my
perspective, but others who are accompanying me today may be
better positioned, in many cases, to answer your particular
questions. They include Chief Technology Officer Terry
Milholland; the Director of Privacy, Government Liaison, and
Disclosure, Rebecca Chiaramida; and Healthcare Counsel Tom
Reeder.
The IRS is charged with implementing the tax-related
provisions of the ACA. While many tax provisions have already
been implemented, a major effort in this regard involves the
delivery of premium tax credits that will help millions of
American families access affordable private health insurance
coverage through the new health insurance marketplaces.
The Department of Health and Human Services has principal
responsibility for defining the structure and operations of the
marketplaces. Open enrollment for insurance purchased through
the marketplaces began on October 1st, and coverage can begin
as soon as January 1st, 2014.
The IRS has a supporting role in the development and
operation of the marketplaces, which is to provide data and
computational services to the marketplaces for use in making
their determinations about citizen eligibility for financial
assistance. In addition, the IRS is responsible for
incorporating the premium tax credit and other tax provisions
into the tax administration process for tax returns filed in
2015 and beyond.
Our implementation efforts in this regard fall into three
major categories: first, employing information technology to
facilitate data-sharing with HHS and State agencies to assist
them in determining whether an individual who was applying for
insurance coverage qualifies for financial assistance,
including the premium tax credit. Our use of information
technology will also play a key role going forward, as we
incorporate the various provisions into tax administration
infrastructure.
Second, protecting the safety and privacy of taxpayer data
being shared with Federal and State entities under the ACA
statute. This includes both the establishment of safeguard
procedures before data is released and on the ongoing
monitoring of safeguarding practices going forward.
And, third, updating and improving business processes and
systems to facilitate tax return filing and compliance with the
tax-related provisions of the ACA, including the premium tax
credit.
I am pleased to report that the systems and processes that
the IRS has developed to support enrollment in the marketplace
were launched on schedule and are working as planned. We have
handled all requests received to date via the HHS data services
hub, and turnaround times are meeting our goals.
Our data-protection efforts are also working as intended.
Prior to October 1st, we ensured that data security agreements
were approved for all entities scheduled to receive taxpayer
information, including the federally-facilitated marketplace,
State individual marketplaces, and those Medicaid offices that
had requested approval before October 1st.
We have also been working to ensure that individuals who
seek information from the IRS about obtaining insurance
coverage through the marketplace are steered to the resources
that can best help them. We have collaborated across agencies
and stakeholders to ensure the availability of consistent
information on Web sites and other channels, as well as in
outreach to individuals, businesses, and professionals.
Looking to the future, the IRS is also focused on preparing
for ACA provisions that will have an impact on IRS forms and
procedures beginning with the 2015 filing season. In regard to
both the premium tax credit and the individual responsibility
requirement, preparations are already under way to modify forms
and instructions, enhance education and outreach to the
taxpayers and their advisors, update our business processes,
and complete the IT infrastructure changes in time for the 2015
filing season.
This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to take any
questions from the committee.
Chairman Issa. I thank you.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Ingram follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.009
Chairman Issa. I will now recognize myself.
Ms. Ingram, if I heard you correctly, all is going as
planned and well in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. Is
that correct?
Ms. Ingram. The portion of the responsibilities the IRS was
in charge of is going fine.
Chairman Issa. Excellent.
I would now like to--if you would give the first document
to the gentlelady.
I would like to bring your attention to an email chain
dated Friday, July 20th, 2012, in which you were CC'ed and
added to the chain.
In preparation for the delivery of these documents, I
assume, which we were delivered under discovery, you have
reviewed those. Is this correct?
Ms. Ingram. I am not sure whether I have seen the
particular one, but I am reading it now, sir.
Chairman Issa. Okay. Take your time and read it.
Ms. Ingram. I have reviewed the document. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. Thank you.
Do you recall this document?
Ms. Ingram. I do not recall the document. I think I recall
what it is a discussion about.
Chairman Issa. Well, one of the areas of interest is there
is a significant redaction that quotes the statute 6103. Do you
know who is underneath that blackout?
Ms. Ingram. I don't recall the document, so I can't help
you with what is underneath the redaction, sir.
Chairman Issa. Okay. So the subject of this--well, let's go
to the--let's go to a second one.
Would you give her the second document?
And we will pause and give you time to read it.
Ms. Ingram. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. This one is from you directly, so hopefully
you recall it.
Ms. Ingram. I recall----
Chairman Issa. Do all Members have the document in front of
them?
Can we have the clerk distribute the documents? I want to
make sure everyone has them in front of them. Do we have enough
copies? Okay. They will be distributed.
If the gentlelady will just pause for a moment.
Do all the Members now have the document?
I think down in the front row they will need more.
Ms. Ingram, do you recall the second document, in which you
are the author?
Ms. Ingram. I remember the conversations. Since my name is
on the email, I assume it is----
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Ms. Ingram. --me.
Chairman Issa. Do you know the names underneath any of
these black blocks, or the information?
Ms. Ingram. No. I am sorry. I couldn't remotely remember
what might have been underneath.
Chairman Issa. So you don't know what is underneath there.
As an expert at the IRS, many times awarded by both
Republican and Democratic administrations, do you know what
6103 indicates?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, I understand 6103. Yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. Okay. And is it true that that, in fact, is
sensitive information that is not to be distributed outside
people permitted to have it within the IRS and a very limited
amount of people here in Congress?
Ms. Ingram. I understand the rules of the 6103, yes, sir.
Chairman Issa. Well, you understand that you can't
distribute 6103 information outside of people authorized to see
it. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Correct.
Chairman Issa. So why are political appointees in the
Office of the President receiving 6103 information? On what
basis would you be allowed to discuss the information, which is
a form of classification under 6103, with political appointees
at the White House?
The IRS is a nonpolitical organization. You are not a
political person. But isn't it true that political appointees
are not allowed to see this information unless specifically
cleared, correct?
Ms. Ingram. I am not familiar with what process was used to
put the markings on this document. My understanding from
looking at the document is that these are names that were
offered to us as examples of how the----
Chairman Issa. Yeah, no, I understand. But you have been
with the IRS a long time. 6103 information--did you share 6103
information with people at the White House?
Ms. Ingram. I am not conscious of ever sharing 6103
information with the White House, so I--but I cannot speak to
what the process was for putting these labels on this document.
Chairman Issa. Okay. So your testimony today is that you
have never shared confidential information with political
appointees at the White House, but--in your 75 or 79 trips to
the White House, the meetings in small and not-so-small groups
with political appointees at the White House.
Then I have to understand, either this is 6103 information,
as the IRS has said it is, and you have shared it with
political appointees at the White House, or it is not 6103, in
which case someone at the IRS is abusing the redaction and
keeping this committee from getting the information it needs
for its proper and lawful discovery.
I think we will have Danny Werfel back here on this
subject.
Did you participate in redaction decisions at all?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir, I did not.
Chairman Issa. 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?
Ms. Ingram. My 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 that 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.
Chairman Issa. So you were providing technical information
on how the administration could determine whether or not church
and non-church groups, schools sponsored by churches and other
affiliated groups, whether or not they could be compelled under
the Affordable Care Act to do certain things. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. It was a discussion about what the current
definitions under 6033 mean and have been for some decades.
Chairman Issa. But the questions from political appointees
at the White House to you in your nearly 80 trips back and
forth, and apparently a large amount of emails, had to do with
their desire to compel religious groups to do certain things
under the Affordable Care Act, and you were advising them as to
what the law would be and how they might implement it. And in
the case of one of the emails, you said, ``Hoping there is a
quick answer while I prep for something else. Please copy me on
the answer.''
So this was something where you wanted to be aware of and
participate in the decision process by political appointees at
the White House. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. I think that portion of the email is addressed
to staff at the IRS, hoping that they could take care of
answering the questions about 6033.
Chairman Issa. Right. I was reading, actually, your quote.
``Hoping there is a quick answer while I prep for something
else. Please copy me on the answer.'' That is your portion of
that first email.
Ms. Ingram. Yes. It was an ACA-related question, and I
wanted the staff to do the analysis.
Chairman Issa. So you have been intimately involved in ACA
implementation questions, including whether or not somebody
would receive a waiver, whether or not somebody under current
law could or could not be forced to do something they did not
want to do. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. I have been involved in answering questions
about how the rules work, and that is what this exchange is
about. It was not about what rule they, the policymakers, ought
to adapt.
Chairman Issa. And one last time: The information
underneath here, if it is not 6103, you certainly would agree
that we should know what it is. And if it is 6103, then it is
something you have said you have never done, which is to
transfer 6103 information to political appointees at the White
House.
Ms. Ingram. I would have to refer you to the people who did
the redactions.
Chairman Issa. No, I just----
Ms. Ingram. I don't know what is underneath, sir. I am
sorry.
Chairman Issa. Neither do we. Neither do we.
I now recognize the ranking member.
Oh, I now recognize the gentlelady from New York.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
And I would like to thank Ms. Ingram for your public
service and congratulate you on earning a reward, an award, for
your work on combatting terrorism financing. As one who lost
500 constituents on 9/11, I know how important this work is. It
is vital to our homeland security and vital to saving American
lives. So I wanted to thank you for that.
I also think that it is important that we realize the
impact the government shutdown is having on our economy.
Because an important part of homeland security is economic
security, and our economic security is falling. The stock
market is closing at the lowest level in a month. The Dow Jones
average fell 136 points. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell
14 points. The NASDAQ fell 37 points. And consumer confidence
is at an all-time low due to the threat of a default on our
debt, on American debt.
I do want to make an important point, that 195 Democrats
have signed a petition saying that they will vote today, they
will vote in 10 minutes, to open up the government. And I feel
if a vote was allowed on the floor, there would be enough like-
minded Republicans that would vote, as we did on the Violence
Against Women Act and other areas, jointly in a bipartisan way
to open up our government.
And I would say that, instead of having a hearing on
unfounded allegations, we should be looking at what the impact
of this shutdown is on the IRS and other government agencies
and their ability to provide services to the American people.
So I would like to ask you, Ms. Ingram, what is the
percentage of people that have been furloughed in the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. I have been informed that it is roughly 90
percent.
Mrs. Maloney. Ninety percent. Well, who is left?
Ms. Ingram. A small number of people trying to keep
essential things moving.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, do you think the government shutdown
will impact the agency's ability to carry out your mission, to
enforce the tax laws of our country in a fair process with
great integrity?
Ms. Ingram. Overall comments on issues about such shutdown
and budget I need to defer to folks back at the IRS.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I want to focus on one area that the
IRS plays a critical role in in our economy, and that is the
approval of mortgage loans.
And, regrettably, due to the recession, homeownership is at
the lowest level in 18 years. But home sales are finally
beginning to tick up until we got to this shutdown, and now
they have again fallen backwards, even though housing finance
is considered by some economists to be as high as 20 to 25
percent of our economy, with the related industries.
Mrs. Maloney. So this slowdown in the approval of mortgage
loans is going to have a dramatic effect on our economy.
And the shutdown of the IRS has a specific responsibility.
Because, as I understand it, the IRS has to approve or provide
tax records for 1 year for any mortgage approval. Is that
correct?
Ms. Ingram. I am not the right person to answer detailed
questions about that program. I am sorry, ma'am.
Mrs. Maloney. Well, I looked at the IRS Web site just in
case you couldn't answer, and, by law, any mortgage loan
approval is subject to the review by the mortgage lender of at
least 1 year's worth of Federal tax returns.
This process of verifying income requires the assistance of
an IRS employee. Therefore, a third-party mortgage firm cannot
verify a borrower's income via his or her tax return and the
sale cannot be closed. So, therefore, even though the FHA is
continuing to process loans and some banks are processing
loans, they need the IRS to approve these tax returns. So,
therefore, the sale and the mortgage cannot go through.
And it had on the Web site commonly asked questions. And it
said, can a third party obtain a tax transcript during the
shutdown? And the answer was clearly no. So we can't move
forward in this vital area of approving home loans and
mortgages that could help our economy move forward.
And consumer confidence continues to decline the longer
this shutdown lasts. And as a result of lackluster
expectations, Realtor.com also notes that the number of
mortgage applications is also decreasing dramatically, after
experiencing an uptick prior to the shutdown of the Federal
Government.
So I would say that what we should be focusing on is what
we can do to open up the government. We are now in day 9 of the
government shutdown. My time has expired. Let's work together
to open up the government and get our economy moving again.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. And I will take her
opening statement as a recommendation that we hold a hearing on
whether, in fact, essential personnel at the IRS should have
included people for that department.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. With that, we go to the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Jordan.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ingram, you have been at the IRS how long?
Ms. Ingram. I am sorry, I was adjusting the mic, sir.
Mr. Jordan. You have been at the IRS how long.
Ms. Ingram. Over 31 years.
Mr. Jordan. And you take the--I want to go back to where
the chairman was. You take the 6103 confidentiality statute
pretty seriously at the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. Very seriously.
Mr. Jordan. In fact, let's put up the definition here, just
the statute itself.
It says, ``No officer or employee of the United States
shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him
in any manner in connection with his or her service as such an
officer or employee or otherwise or under the provisions of
this statute.''
This is the statute itself. It is pretty straightforward.
You can't share personal taxpayer information, correct?
Ms. Ingram. True.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
And then you gave the--I cited it in my opening statement.
You gave a presentation to the IRS Oversight Board where you
highlighted this as you were talking about the Affordable Care
Act.
If we can put that slide up.
This is from the presentation you gave according to the
minutes of that meeting in front of the IRS Oversight Board.
And I want to show, ``Federal tax law imposes privacy
protections that bar IRS from disclosing Federal tax
information.'' Down to the final sentence, ``This encompasses
both the release of the data and the safeguarding of the data
in the hand of the recipient.''
So if you are conveying--you can't pass this back and
forth, you have to protect it. This was the presentation you
gave in front of the IRS Oversight Board.
Now, let's go back to the email the chairman had in front
of you, if we could. It is addressed to Ms. Jeanne Lambrew. Who
is Jeanne Lambrew?
Ms. Ingram. She is--my understanding is that she is on the
Domestic Policy Council.
Mr. Jordan. Your understanding? You don't know this lady
very well?
Ms. Ingram. No, I don't know her very well. No.
Mr. Jordan. Well, according to the White House visitors
log, we just--I mean, we do this all the time. We grabbed the
White House visitors log. In a 17-month timeframe, you visited
with her 75 times. That is more than once a week. It says,
Sarah H. Ingram, 8:26, Jeanne Lambrew, Deputy Assistant to the
President for Health Care.
Seventy-five different times it is in the log that that is
who you visited with, and you would say you don't really know
her?
Ms. Ingram. Those are the times that I was cleared to
attend, not necessarily the times that I actually attended.
Mr. Jordan. Do you know how many times you did attend of
those 75 you were cleared.
Ms. Ingram. Many fewer.
Mr. Jordan. Many fewer. Okay. So something below 75, but
potentially you could have been there 75 times. Okay.
And your testimony to Mr. Issa was that you did not
disclose any 6103 information, correct?
Ms. Ingram. I have not.
Mr. Jordan. Okay. So who, then, at the IRS decided that you
did and blacked out all they blacked out on that email? I mean,
so--we got this from the IRS. We didn't black it out. We
actually want to know what is underneath.
Ms. Ingram. There is a difference between whether somebody
gives me information about a taxpayer to which I can respond
versus releasing an email to other members, such as the Members
of Congress. But I defer to the people at the IRS----
Mr. Jordan. Well, wait. So are you saying you are allowed
to give 6103 information to the White House?
Ms. Ingram. It is not 6103 information. It is coming----
Mr. Jordan. Well, can you look at--just look at that email
real closely. And do you see where all the black print is, see
where it is all blacked out? There is a number written on each
of those blacked-out areas. And what is the number written
there? Can you just say for the record what the number is?
Ms. Ingram. ``For the release of the documents''----
Mr. Jordan. No, no, no. What is the number?
Ms. Ingram. 6103.
Mr. Jordan. 6103. So someone at the IRS decided this was
confidential taxpayer information. And when we got these
documents, when the committee got these documents, they said,
``Oh, you know what? That is information you are not allowed to
see, committee.'' But yet it was fine for you to communicate to
the White House and release that information and give that
information.
Ms. Ingram. I would refer you to the people at the IRS who
can----
Mr. Jordan. So we want to know----
Ms. Ingram. --better explain the difference between----
Mr. Jordan. That would be great. We would like to know who
that person is who made that decision. Because you certainly
didn't think it was. Someone did.
Ms. Ingram. I believe the committee is interacting with
people at the--
Mr. Jordan. Let me ask you a question. This is your email.
So go down there--put that back up, if we could.
I just want to ask you one question. If it is not 6103--and
this is your email. Let's just go right below the line, there
is one little sentence, ``The large, well-known''--blank--
``university.'' Do you see that little sentence there? ``The
large, well-known''--blank--``university.'' What is underneath
that?
Ms. Ingram. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Jordan. You wrote it and you don't know? You can't
remember?
Ms. Ingram. I don't remember every email that ever
crosses----
Mr. Jordan. You remembered the subject. This is about the
lawsuits a number of Christian-affiliated universities had
against the government regarding their religious liberty
rights, correct? That is what the subject matter of all these
emails are in this exchange with Ms. Lambrew, right?
Ms. Ingram. It is about the definition under 6033----
Mr. Jordan. So you can't tell me, is that Christian
University? Is that Catholic University? You can't tell me what
is underneath that word even though you wrote it?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir. I do not know what is underneath the
blanks.
Mr. Jordan. You can't tell me what is underneath the blanks
even though you wrote it. You can't tell me who decided to
black this out and redact this so the committee couldn't get
it. But your testimony is also, I did not share any
confidential taxpayer information with the White House, even
though 75 times you were cleared to meet with Ms. Lambrew, and
you had this correspondence back and forth with all kinds of
redactions, and all the redactions say the same thing, 6103.
It sure looks like someone broke the law here, Ms.
Lambrew--or Ms. Ingram.
Ms. Ingram. I would refer the Congressman to the team with
which this committee----
Mr. Jordan. Would you provide----
Ms. Ingram. --is already working on this document.
Mr. Jordan. Will you provide--Mr. Chairman, if I could,
please.
Will you provide us the person or persons who decided that
this committee couldn't see this information and wrote ``6103''
on this email?
Ms. Ingram. I will take the word back that the folks who
are working with the committee on the production of documents
clarify with you----
Mr. Jordan. But that should----
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Jordan. Or you should be able to give us the
information. If it is not 6103, then just tell us, give us the
clean email.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Jordan. I would be happy to yield.
Chairman Issa. Would the individuals behind Ms. Ingram who
are from the IRS please identify yourself for the record?
I just want to know if there is somebody there that could
communicate back to the IRS that we would like these documents
in unredacted format so that we could go forward and have a
conversation. Is there anyone in that group who can correspond
with the IRS?
I apologize. Maybe Danny Werfel should have been here.
Mr. Cummings. Yeah, he should have been here. That is my
point.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Issa. So is there any one of you who has the
ability to correspond to Leg Counsel or to Legislative Affairs
or to the IRS to let them know that we would like the
unredacted documents so we could go forward and ask Ms. Ingram
what her involvement was and what organizations were being
targeted or answered in this case? Will one of you raise your
hand if you can?
Ms. Ingram. Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to take your
questions----
Chairman Issa. No, we don't want your ``I will come back
for the record.'' You will be back here if that is the case.
Okay. I would instruct the clerk--I will recognize the
gentleman in a second.
I will instruct the clerk to get a call in to the IRS. I
would like those documents delivered before this hearing is
over so that we at least can ask the witness details about her
own emails she doesn't seem to be able to recognize.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Issa. Go ahead.
Mr. Cummings. Hopefully they are not on furlough.
Mr. Jordan. Two quick things, Mr. Chairman. First of all--
--
Ms. Ingram. They are.
Chairman Issa. Well, in this case, they are essential.
Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman, first of all, remember what took
place here. The White House and the IRS are communicating back
and forth, potentially giving away confidential taxpayer
information, to get lawsuits dismissed from Christian
universities suing the government over their religious liberty
rights, number one.
Number two, remember this: This law compels every single
American, individual mandate, to go to this exchange and give
personal information to the IRS. They are compelled to do that.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Jordan. And this lady was sharing personal information
with the White House.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman----
Mr. Jordan. That is why this law is so scary.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has now expired.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman like to be recognized?
Mr. Cummings. Yes. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I have 7 since
you had 7?
Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much for your courtesy.
Ms. Ingram, unlike the last questioner, I am going to allow
you to answer my questions.
Ms. Ingram, you have--not you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I am glad I wasn't the last one there. I
hope you have questions for her answers.
Mr. Cummings. I certainly--no, I have questions. I don't
answer questions--ask and answer.
Ms. Ingram, you have been attacked by several Members of
Congress for personally directing the so-called targeting of
Tea Party groups applying for tax-exempt status. For example, a
Republican Congressman, Tim Griffin, accused you of being
directly in charge of this targeting. Similarly, Republican
Congressman Tom Price accused you of systemic harassment of
conservative and religious organizations and argued that you
should be suspended.
Ms. Ingram, let me ask you to respond to these accusations
directly. Did you play any role whatsoever in developing the
inappropriate criteria used to screen applicants for tax-exempt
status?
Ms. Ingram. No, I did not.
Mr. Cummings. The Inspector General didn't find you
responsible either, because the Inspector General understood
that you were not in the chain of command during the relevant
time period.
It appears that many of the accusations against you are
based on a misunderstanding about your title and your position.
Although you left your previous position in December 2010, your
job title did not officially change until 2013. So if someone
looked up your job title, they might think that you were still
at TEGE. Is that right?
Ms. Ingram. That is true, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Now, Ms. Ingram, it is my understanding that
when you began your new position implementing the ACA in
December 2010, you were no longer functioning as the
Commissioner of Tax Exempt and Government Entities. Is that
correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. When you took the ACA job in 2010, your
former deputy, Joseph Grant, became the Acting Commissioner of
TEGE. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Ms. Ingram, did Mr. Grant fully assume those
responsibilities in December 2010?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, he did. It was announced that he would act
as Commissioner.
Mr. Cummings. Did Lois Lerner report to Mr. Grant when he
became the Acting Commissioner of TEGE?
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. So after 2010, Ms. Lerner did not report to
you anymore. Is that right?
Ms. Ingram. Only on paper, not in function.
Mr. Cummings. So she was no longer in your chain of
command?
Ms. Ingram. That is right.
Mr. Cummings. The Inspector General determined that Ms.
Lerner learned about the inappropriate screening criteria in
June of 2011. That was 6 months after you moved to your full-
time ACA position. Is that right?
Ms. Ingram. I understand that is the timing, yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Since you no longer reported--since she no
longer reported to you, did Lois Lerner tell you about the use
of inappropriate criteria in 2011?
Ms. Ingram. I don't recall hearing anything about it until
I sat in on a meeting requested by my boss in the spring of
'12.
Mr. Cummings. Now, in fact, Mr. Grant, who was her direct
supervisor, told us that Ms. Lerner did not tell him anything
in 2011 either. I just want everyone to be clear on the fact,
because I think there are some people are clearly confused
about this timeline.
And I want to go back to some things Mr. Jordan was asking
about. I take it that you are very concerned about 6103
information, right? I mean, you guard--I mean, how do you view
that? And how have you operated--first of all, how long have
you been with the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. Over 31 years.
Mr. Cummings. And so tell me about your view with regard to
6103 information and protecting it. And I remind you that you
are under oath. Have you ever, to your knowledge, released
inappropriately 6103 information?
Ms. Ingram. I have never, as far as I know, ever violated
any portion of 6103, which is a basic tenet from day one of
employment at the IRS, to protect the confidentiality of the
data that the citizens give us.
Mr. Cummings. So you have spent 31 years at IRS.
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. That is a long time.
Well, I just want to thank you for your service. And I know
this is a difficult situation today. I am hoping the committee
will be courteous to you. You are the face of our public
servants, who give their blood, sweat, and tears and sacrifice
for a bigger good. And so I just appreciate you.
And, with that, I will yield back.
Mr. Jordan. [presiding.] The gentleman from Florida is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ingram, have you ever heard of Henry Chao, C-h-a-o,
Chief Information Officer of Medicare and Medicaid Services?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. You have? He said--before October 1st, he said
the rollout was not ready for October and hoped it would not be
a third-world experience. Are you familiar with his evaluation
of the ability to roll this out?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Mica. Okay. Well, it is kind of funny. In the newspaper
today, it was reported that it is easier to blog from Kenya, a
third-world country, than to sign up for Obamacare. Would you
say that that is an accurate assessment of where we are?
Ms. Ingram. All I can speak to, sir, is whether our part is
working as planned, and it is.
Mr. Mica. Well, your part is a couple of things. We talked
a little bit about income verification. And you don't have the
ability to do that now; is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. We are operating a system that, when we are
asked for the limited tax data on----
Mr. Mica. When somebody applies now, there is no
verification of their income? Or will there be? Do you have
that capability?
Ms. Ingram. There is currently operating an income query
process, whereby the marketplaces go through the data hub to us
to----
Mr. Mica. But can you now----
Ms. Ingram. Yes, we are successfully----
Mr. Mica. Can you now, when someone goes online, you can
verify their income?
Ms. Ingram. When we get the request, we are successfully
and in all cases returning timely answers. I cannot speak to
stages before us.
Mr. Mica. So the people that have so far signed up, you can
verify their income now?
Ms. Ingram. There have been requests----
Mr. Mica. And you will. Now, if----
Ms. Ingram. It is not the IRS's role in the application
process to do the total verification.
Mr. Mica. But you are enforcement, though, right?
Ms. Ingram. Pardon me.
Mr. Mica. Are you enforcement?
Ms. Ingram. We are worried about----
Mr. Mica. IRS is the enforcer?
Ms. Ingram. --the tax compliant----
Mr. Mica. Tax compliant.
Ms. Ingram. --the tax provisions, yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Right. Well, the court said this is a tax----
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. --process.
Are you ready in 2014? When are you going to announce to
folks that in 2014 they have a $95 individual penalty or a $285
family penalty if they haven't complied with signing up?
Ms. Ingram. We have final regs, we have materials on our
Web site, and that has been part of our----
Mr. Mica. So you ready to go----
Ms. Ingram. --part of our public outreach.
Mr. Mica. When do you plan to send out notices? Will that
be in 2014?
Ms. Ingram. I am sorry, sir. Notices? I am trying to track
you.
Mr. Mica. Well, that you have not complied and individuals
have not complied.
We eliminated the employer mandate temporarily. I guess the
President suspended that. But you have--folks are going to get
a sticker shock when they find out that they are going to have
this obligation.
But you are prepared to send that out?
Ms. Ingram. We already have information about that
provision in our outreach materials, in public meetings, on the
Web site, et cetera.
Mr. Mica. But you haven't sent that out. You are not ready;
you are just preparing for that.
Ms. Ingram. May I ask for a clarification about which
notice the Congressman is referring to?
Mr. Mica. Again, if you haven't complied, there is a $95
individual----
Ms. Ingram. Yeah.
Mr. Mica. --payment, $285 per family. At some point, that
has to kick in, right?
Ms. Ingram. So after the returns are filed in early 2015
would be the first time----
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Ms. Ingram. --that we would have any information.
Mr. Mica. Not until then.
All right, another thing is, can you tell us how many have
signed up for Obamacare?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir. That is not part of the IRS role, and
we have no insight into those numbers.
Mr. Mica. You have no insight.
You know, all the reports I have--I read, you know, a
little bit of who was responsible for setting this up. It says
the system was developed by CGI Group.
Then I got a list of who--if you could put the list up of
who got the obligation contracts to put this system together.
This is a partial list. It is about a quarter of a billion
dollars these folks received. I didn't know them, but they have
a pretty good reputation, I understand. I did recognize Booz
Hamilton.
Were you involved in either deciding on any of these
contracts being awarded at all or involved in picking who put
this together?
Ms. Ingram. These are all HHS contracts. We have----
Mr. Mica. I know.
Ms. Ingram. --nothing to do with those.
Mr. Mica. No, I asked you--yeah.
Ms. Ingram. No, we have nothing to do with that.
Mr. Mica. And would there be political people, appointees
that would have made that, or other people in HHS?
Ms. Ingram. I would have to refer you to the other agency,
sir.
Mr. Mica. Well, I was just a little surprised by that.
And I will just show the committee. I went to one of my
recognized, Booz Hamilton, and then just checked the political
contributions.
If you would put up the political contributions.
It is quite revealing. Over almost a quarter of a--let's
see, that is a million dollars to the Democrat side, $287, and
$63,000 to the Republican side. It looks like some of these
contracts--and this is on opensecret.com--which is to political
folks.
But you are not aware of any of that activity, right?
Ms. Ingram. We have no part of any of this.
Mr. Mica. And, again--and it might be interesting to go
back, for the media and other folks, to see who got contracts
and who were the big players.
Finally, are you aware of any requirements for hiring
additional personnel or additional space needed to house IRS
personnel who will be involved in Obamacare? How much space and
how many people?
Ms. Ingram. I am not aware of space issues, but the 2014
President's budget includes the need to have additional IT
specialists come in and help us finish the work for 2015.
Mr. Mica. Finally, the amount of capacity, I am told, of
your core data center, for most of our 400 IT core data
centers, we only use about 8 to 12 percent of capacity.
Do you know what percent of capacity for the data centers,
or could you provide it to the committee, is used by IRS
currently?
Ms. Ingram. That is certainly beyond my----
Mr. Mica. Well, I am asking if----
Ms. Ingram. --knowledge, but we can take the question back.
Mr. Mica. --you could provide it. Because we find very
little has been used for most of those, again, according to
reports Mr. Connolly and I have gotten.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now, let's get a few things out of the way here, Ms.
Ingram.
Have you ever read ``The Crucible'' by Arthur Miller?
Ms. Ingram. I have not read it. I have seen it performed.
Mr. Connolly. And you know what it is about?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. What is it about?
Ms. Ingram. Well, I am from New England, so I am familiar
with the original story.
Mr. Connolly. So it is about?
Ms. Ingram. It is about the Salem witch trials.
Mr. Connolly. Ah. So let's get--you are under oath. Have
you been consorting with the devil?
Ms. Ingram. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Are reports that you can fly accurate?
Ms. Ingram. Greatly exaggerated, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Have you been involved in any way in trying
to pervert our youth in Salem or anywhere else?
Ms. Ingram. I certainly hope not, sir.
Mr. Connolly. You are sure?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Well, all right.
You received an award in the Bush administration for
excellence in public service, the highest award I think for
anyone in the IRS; is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. It is the highest award given to members of the
Senior Executive Service, yes.
Mr. Connolly. Did the devil have anything to do with that
award?
Ms. Ingram. I was not part of either the nomination process
or the awarding. I can't say, sir.
Mr. Connolly. We now know that the Bush administration
manufactured evidence about weapons of mass destruction to
justify the invasion of Iraq. Were you involved in that?
Ms. Ingram. Uh----
Mr. Connolly. Because you received an award from President
Bush. So there is a connection.
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Really? Hmm. All right. If that is your
testimony, Ms. Ingram.
In your testimony, you said that the IRS is permitted to
disclose tax return information to other Federal agencies and
State tax authorities to facilitate efficient tax
administration. And you cited the fact that the ACA provides a
specific exception--and we are talking about 6103 here--for
information-sharing activities.
Could you explain what that means? That sounds very
ominous. It sounds like the devil is involved here.
Ms. Ingram. So, from time to time, Congress puts exceptions
in the 6103 rule to permit or in some places require us to
share tax data in narrow circumstances to forward some policy
that Congress has in mind. As part of the ACA, there was an
amendment made to 6103 to require us to share data upon
request----
Mr. Connolly. For what purpose?
Ms. Ingram. For the purpose of the recipients' using it to
determine eligibility for the benefits of the marketplaces and
Medicaid.
Mr. Connolly. So the recipient would be who? The White
House? Political operatives? The devil? Who is it?
Ms. Ingram. It is the individual marketplaces and Medicaid
offices who are using the data under the new part of 6103 to
make income-based determinations on eligibility for their
programs.
Mr. Connolly. So it is not political activity?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Connolly. It is not partisan political activity?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir. We are required by statute.
Mr. Connolly. By statute. You mean we wrote it?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Connolly. Oh.
Ms. Ingram, I just want to say that, at least on this side
of the aisle, you are an esteemed public servant. We deeply
appreciate the service you have provided to your country. We
are glad that you have stepped up to try to make affordable
care available to all Americans, pursuant to the statute
written by this Congress.
And, at least speaking for myself, I deeply regret the
fact, going back to ``The Crucible,'' that you are going to be
pilloried here today. And I very much appreciate, as a fellow
New Englander, your sangfroid and your willingness to put up
with it. But don't for a minute think that the pillorying to
which you are going to be subjected speaks for all of us. It
does not. And, frankly, if the American people are watching
this hearing, they are going to be ashamed of the treatment to
which you are subjected.
Thank you for your service.
Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Connolly. I will yield.
Mr. Cummings. Just one question, Ms. Ingram. You have been
asked several questions about your responsibility under the IRS
with regard to the Affordable Care Act.
Are you where you were scheduled to be--in other words,
with regard to the development of everything that you all were
supposed to do under your section of the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. Are you following my question?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, we are on--for the business operational
parts that I am responsible for contributing to the team, we
are on schedule.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jordan. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I will make it clear that I have no complaints about or
criticisms of Ms. Ingram. But in Forbes magazine just this
morning, a columnist named Avik Roy wrote this. He said this:
``One week into the launch of Obamacare, however, it is not a
joke. It is literally easier to blog from the Kenyan border
than to sign up for insurance on Obamacare's Federal exchange.
Why is this happening? Politics. The Obama administration was
more afraid of delaying the launch of Obamacare than they were
of botching it.
``All you need to know about the rollout of Obamacare's
subsidized insurance exchanges is that so far the toughest
questions posed to the Obama administration have come from
Comedy Central. 'We are going to do a challenge,' Jon Stewart
told Kathleen Sebelius on 'The Daily Show.' 'I am going to try
and download every movie ever made, and you are going to try to
sign up for Obamacare, and we will see which happens first.''
Some of the last questions made it seem that maybe they
were done sort of in a joking manner, but this really is
nothing to joke about. It is really kind of sad that this law
was signed into effect in March of 2010. Forty-two months the
government employees have had to prepare for this, 3-1/2 years.
Ms. Ingram has been working on this since December of 2010.
And, once again, I have no complaints about Ms. Ingram. But I
think it is kind of ridiculous, kind of sad that, after all
this time, things are in the shape that they are in.
And, also, I find out this morning that the taxpayers have
paid over $400 million in sweetheart deals to government
contractors to help all the government employees who have been
working on this to try to get this in shape. I mean, this is
the most messed-up, convoluted, confusing law that I think that
has ever been passed.
And even before this rollout, as bad as it has been,
thousands and thousands of citizens across this country have
written and emailed and called Members of Congress. I have to
just--I can bring so many examples, but I have one that says,
``I am a retired TVA employee and received notice of a more
than $500 increase in monthly health insurance. Starting in
2014, monthly premiums will be $1,495 per month for me and my
wife. Went into the Affordable Care site and premiums are about
the same, except none of my doctors are on the list. I
encourage you to keep voting to defund Obamacare, vote against
increasing the debt ceiling, and vote to include everyone in
Obamacare--no waivers or credits. My slogan for President Obama
is: ``Be a man, sign up for your own plan.'' That was from Jack
H. Weiss.
Then another man, Joseph Schmitt, emailed me, ``I remember
our President saying the new healthcare bill will reduce costs.
I have my healthcare renewal forms, and the premium has
increased about 15 percent, a $700 deductible is added, and my
copayment is increased. Drug coverage is also increased. Maybe
you can do nothing about this, and I understand. I just want
you to know that I feel as if the truth was not told.''
And another example from Bruce Christopher, it says, ``My
2011 health insurance premium is going up 11 percent for less
coverage. Copay and deductibles have doubled. Just thought you
would want to know.''
Now, you have your responsibilities. And the IRS
Commissioner, Mr. Shulman, was here earlier, and also he said
that--he noted that the statute does not allow traditional
enforcement methods. But he said that the IRS will, quote,
``communicate with the taxpayer and attempt to resolve the
outstanding liability.''
Can you tell us, since you are in charge of this office,
Ms. Ingram, how will the IRS communicate that information to
taxpayers?
Ms. Ingram. I believe then-Commissioner Shulman was
referring to the individual payment provision.
Mr. Duncan. Right. That is correct.
Ms. Ingram. So the traditional parts that are not available
to us per the statute is that, if there is a liability related
to that provision, liens and levies and any criminal steps
cannot be used for that provision. And we are operationally
making sure that that is absolutely true as it rolls out.
For the if somebody is not covered, which most Americans
are, or they are not eligible for an exemption, a statutory
exemption, which another group is, if they actually have a
liability and do not pay it as part of their return-filing
process, it would be a balance due like other balance dues.
And we are very conscious that, in the early times, there
is education to be done and----
Mr. Duncan. Well, how will you identify the people who
haven't complied? I mean, are they supposed to check a box on
their tax return, or what is going to happen?
Ms. Ingram. We received a great deal of feedback that it
would be helpful to Americans who are covered to be able to
check a box and know that they were done. So our intention is
to give people an easy way as part of their tax-filing process
to check a box or indicate the exemption that they qualify for
or to calculate the penalty as part of their return-filing
process.
Mr. Duncan. And now you know that all these employer
mandates have been delayed. And it was my understanding that
the IRS was going to use the information obtained in these
employer mandates to do your required compliance work. So were
you going to use the information that these employers provided?
Ms. Ingram. So the information that is relevant to this
provision is the information coming from the insurer
information reports. And for the first year, the Congressman is
correct that that is not mandatory in the first year.
We are making sure citizens have the information they need
to fill out their returns correctly and honestly, which most
taxpayers do, I would like to emphasize. And we will be looking
to see whether there are other ways to look at the filing
patterns.
But our main concern in the first year is to make sure
people are educated and know what they need to do.
Mr. Duncan. Well, let me--my time has expired, and I just--
--
Ms. Ingram. In second year, we will have the returns.
Mr. Duncan. I just want to say that I feel it is really--
this is not a joke to the American people. And it is sad that
we would have laughter and jokes here in this committee
hearing, in my opinion.
Thank you.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ms. Ingram, thank you for coming here today and
putting up with our committee, especially right now in an
atmosphere on Capitol Hill where there is an utter frenzy to do
everything people can think of to get rid of Obamacare before
it takes effect, including this hearing.
But, Ms. Ingram, in my 4-1/2 minutes left, I want to see if
we can cover the big picture.
You are a 31-year employee of the IRS; is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Cartwright. You were not working at the Tax Exempt and
Government Entities part when the targeting of the both
conservative and progressive political groups came to light. Am
I correct in that?
Ms. Ingram. I was not working at TEGE, though I will note
that it is true that on paper I still had that title.
Mr. Cartwright. I saw that. But you didn't know that
targeting was going on until after you stopped working in that
area?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. The first I heard was in the spring of
2012.
Mr. Cartwright. And you now work on the IRS piece of part
of the implementation of the ACA. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. You are working 60 or 70 hours a
week at that, aren't you?
Ms. Ingram. Ah, yes.
Mr. Cartwright. All right. And you are working in one of
the four offices of the IRS having to do with implementation
and handling of the ACA. Am I correct in that?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay. So one office is the Information
Technology Division. That has been tasked to provide overall
direction and day-to-day management and oversight of ACA-
related IT delivery for new and modified systems. Is that
right?
Ms. Ingram. That is true.
Mr. Cartwright. You are not in that office, right?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Another one is the Privacy, Governmental
Liaison, and Disclosure Office, which has been tasked to
monitor almost 300 Federal and State agencies currently
approved to receive tax data and to ensure compliance with
Section 6103, the one that had been bandied about a bit this
morning, right?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And you are not in that office, are you?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. One is the Office of Healthcare Counsel.
This office has been tasked to coordinate the ACA across the
Office of Chief Counsel in collaboration with the ACA, ACIO,
ACA Safeguards, and ACA S&E PMO. You are not in that office
either, are you?
Ms. Ingram. No, I am not, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Okay.
The one you are in is ACA Services and Enforcement
Division, the one that has been tasked to coordinate ACA across
S&E operations in collaboration with ACA, ACIO, Associate Chief
Information Officer, Healthcare Counsel, and ACA Safeguards. Am
I correct in that?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. All right.
Well, now, if you had questions about those offices that
you are not in, it would be more appropriate to bring the
people from those offices and question them, would it not?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir. There is a limit as to what I can
provide as to their operations.
Mr. Cartwright. So, for example, exactly how 6103
information blocking comes up, you would want to ask the
Privacy, Governmental Liaison, and Disclosure Office about
that, wouldn't you?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir, and the lawyers that advise them.
Mr. Cartwright. Right.
But now let me ask you this. There is an October 4, 2013,
letter that Ranking Member Cummings wrote to Chairman Darrell
Issa asking that people from all four of those divisions be
brought here to testify. That was declined; they only wanted
you. And they have asked you about all of these other subjects.
Do you have any information at your disposal as to why
Chairman Issa declined the participation of all these other
people who know about these subjects?
Ms. Ingram. I have not been a part of any of those
conversations, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. In fact, in the same letter, Ranking Member
Cummings asked pointedly if Chairman Issa would also invite
Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who is charged with
overseeing this entire effort at the IRS, and that also was
declined.
Ms. Ingram, do you know why Chairman Issa declined bringing
Acting IRS Commissioner Werfel to answer those questions here
today?
Ms. Ingram. Again, I haven't been part of any of those
conversations, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And I guess, even larger picture, Ms.
Ingram, you don't work at the HHS, which is responsible for the
overall rollout of the Affordable Care Act, do you?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. And they weren't invited here to answer
questions today. Do you know why that was?
Ms. Ingram. I am not familiar with how the decisions were
made, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Well, if you have a question about a
subject, wouldn't you want the person there that knows the most
about that subject to answer those questions? Wouldn't a
tribunal that wants to get to the truth of things act that way,
instead of putting it all on somebody who is only working in
one specific area?
Ms. Ingram. I defer to the committee. Sorry, sir.
Mr. Cartwright. Thank you very much for your time.
And I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
The gentleman from Utah is recognized.
Mr. Chaffetz. I thank the chairman. I would actually yield
to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Just real quick, in answering Mr. Cartwright's line of
questioning, I would just remind the committee again: We have
the ACA implementation IRS Oversight Board briefing May 2nd,
2013, the document we got from the IRS Oversight Board. Ms.
Ingram did that briefing. Page 7 of the minutes says,
``Affordable Care Act update, led by Sarah Hall Ingram.'' She
discussed the security and safeguard programs the IRS has in
place regarding the sharing of data among its partners.
So it was, again, good enough for her to brief the IRS
Oversight Board. It seemed like it would be appropriate for her
to brief this committee in Congress.
I want to go back to the email real quickly, if I could.
Let's go back. I just want to stress for the committee, the
underlying issue here was about 58 different institutions who
were suing the government because they believed their religious
liberty rights, their First Amendment religious liberty rights,
were being infringed upon by the Affordable Care Act.
Isn't that correct, Ms. Ingram? This regarded the lawsuits
that were in place, that were filed, regarding infringement of
religious liberty.
Ms. Ingram. I am sorry, Congressman. I don't see where the
litigation is mentioned.
Mr. Jordan. Not mentioned. This is what you are talking
about.
Ms. Ingram. No, sir. I am explaining how----
Mr. Jordan. Only schools below college level that are
affiliated with a church or operated by a religious order,
these schools, while exempt from filing, would not meet their
religious employer unless they are a church--this is all about
institutions. Because, again, remember what was going on at
this time. The administration was concerned about all these
entities suing the government.
Ms. Ingram. This is about 6103 rules--6033 rules in the
Internal Revenue Code and how they work.
Mr. Jordan. Used to define who qualifies and who doesn't,
who would be exempt and who wouldn't be.
And the end result was, from your discussions and the way
the ruling was changed, most of these lawsuits were dismissed,
lawsuits like Colorado Christian University v. Sebelius,
Priests for Life v. Sebelius, Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Washington v. Sebelius, Wheaton College v. Sebelius, Hobby
Lobby--most of these cases have been dismissed because of the
change in the definition that was being discussed in these
emails, correct?
Ms. Ingram. All I know, to respond to you, Mr. Congressman,
is that I was answering questions about how current tax
definitions worked under 6033. I was not involved in litigation
or regulation decisions.
Mr. Jordan. You were answering--the White House wanted to
know if they could change the definition. You were giving them
information about the definition, and the end result was most
of these suits were dismissed. That is what happened.
Ms. Ingram. I can't speak to that, sir. I can only
explain--
Mr. Jordan. You don't have to speak to it; it is the fact.
And part of that was determined by the back-and-forth between
the White House and you. And our concern, of course, is, in
that correspondence that resulted in most of these cases being
dismissed, you shared, at least by someone's definition at the
IRS, you shared personal taxpayer information with the White
House.
And now, under the Affordable Care Act--and now, under the
Affordable Care Act, Americans have to give personal
information to the IRS, to the same lady, to the same
organization that potentially, at least by someone's
definition, shared all kinds of personal information with the
White House political people at a time--this took place, again,
at a time when religious institutions were suing the government
because the Affordable Care Act infringed on their religious
liberty rights.
That is what people are nervous about. That scares a lot of
people. You guys working back and forth, personal information
going in emails; the end result is lawsuits get dismissed,
religious institutions don't get their day in court. And now
all of America has to send the same kind of personal
information to you and the IRS in order to get health care.
Ms. Ingram. May I have a minute to respond, sir.
Mr. Jordan. Sure.
Ms. Ingram. First, I will let the committee and the
specialists in 6103 law provide the explanation as to why it
would not have been a 6103 problem for me to have this email
but a 6103 issue vis--vis the committee. And I will let you and
they work that out.
Mr. Jordan. Oh, wait, wait, wait. Just stop right there a
second.
So it was okay--that is amazing. It is okay for the White
House to get the unredacted version, political people at the
White House, from the same entity that targeted groups who came
into existence because they opposed the Affordable Care Act,
but Congress can't get it. That is just what--that is
unbelievable.
You just told us it is okay--you said you didn't do
anything wrong, it is okay for the White House to get this
information, but we on the Government Oversight Committee can't
get the same information.
Ms. Ingram. I cannot answer what is under those blocks, so
I cannot answer whether the information originated with the
White House or not. And I would refer you----
Mr. Jordan. This is phenomenal. You wrote it. You don't
know what is underneath those blocks. But it was okay for the
White House to get it, but it is not okay for us to get it. And
Americans are supposed to rest assured the IRS will treat their
personal information--when they are forced by the law to sign
up for the Affordable Care Act, Americans are supposed to rest
assured you guys will treat that in a confidential fashion.
Unbelievable.
Mr. Cummings. Time is up.
Mr. Jordan. My time has expired.
Mr. Chaffetz. I will go ahead and yield back.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Tierney is recognized.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Ingram, for subjecting yourself to this
today. I appreciate you being here.
So, look, I mean, a lot of the Members in this Congress,
Republican Members, including some of the ones on this
committee, have sort of been alleging that the White House
orchestrated the so-called targeting of Tea Party groups.
For example, on May 14th, 2013, Chairman Issa stated on
national television, ``This was the targeting of the
President's political enemies effectively, and lies about it
during the election year so that it wasn't discovered until
afterwards.''
So our committee has now heard from over 30 witnesses in
interviews or in hearings, and none of them have indicated that
the White House was involved in the treatment of applications
for tax-exempt status.
Ms. Ingram, do you have any reason personally to believe
that the White House directed targeting of Tea Party
organizations?
Ms. Ingram. I have never heard anything that would indicate
that.
Mr. Tierney. Did anyone in the White House directly or
indirectly ever instruct you to treat the Tea Party
organizations differently from any others?
Ms. Ingram. I have never had any such conversation with the
White House.
Mr. Tierney. So, to be clear, you have no knowledge of any
White House role in these cases whatsoever. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. None whatsoever, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Now, there have been press accounts claiming
that since 2009 you visited the White House 165 times. Is that
correct?
Ms. Ingram. I have been told of the press accounts.
Mr. Tierney. Okay.
Ms. Ingram. Those have to do with clearances, not
attendance.
Mr. Tierney. So most of us realize that those logs can
often include scheduled visits that didn't actually take place.
So how many times did you actually visit the White House
complex during the timeframe, in 2009 area?
Ms. Ingram. I am sorry, sir. From when to when.
Mr. Tierney. From 2009 on.
Ms. Ingram. Well, I don't have a number, sir, but once I
started the ACA work, from time to time I would accompany
Treasury to the Old Executive Office Building to provide
administrability analysis for an issue that is being discussed
amongst the multiple agencies. And that put me on a list for
building clearances that was a repeating invitation, but I only
went when I could add value from an administrability point of
view.
Mr. Tierney. On any of those visits that you made, were
they about the applications for tax-exempt status that are
under investigation by this committee?
Ms. Ingram. Never, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Okay. In fact, these regularly scheduled
interagency meetings are on the Affordable Care Act is
primarily what you were invited to participate in; is that
correct?
Ms. Ingram. As far as I know, always Affordable Care Act.
Mr. Tierney. And they took place in the Old Executive
Office Building, not in the actual residential White House or
the Office of the White House itself?
Ms. Ingram. I would say yes, except that I have a vague
memory that for one meeting I went through a--somewhere in the
sub-basement, I went through a second checkpoint. So I don't
really know where I was at that point, but I just want to be
open and complete about that.
Mr. Tierney. Sure.
Well, look, you know, some people have attempted to paint
these meetings as evidence of a political bias on your part, so
I want to give you an opportunity to respond to that. Have any
of your actions at the IRS implementing the Affordable Care Act
been motivated by any of your personal political views?
Ms. Ingram. Absolutely not. Those--there is no place for
personal political views in my work at the IRS.
Mr. Tierney. In your tenure at the IRS, have you ever
treated organizations differently based on their political
views?
Ms. Ingram. Absolutely not.
Mr. Tierney. Have you seen any evidence that political bias
has motivated the actions of any other IRS employee?
Ms. Ingram. I have not seen bias in the work at the IRS.
Mr. Tierney. Okay.
I mean, we should be troubled by the baseless and partisan
attacks that have been lobbed not just against you but others
during the course of this investigation. So, hopefully, the
record will be clear now and that it has been recognized that
your duties have been exemplary conducted on that. And I thank
you for your service.
I yield to Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. I am just sitting here listening to all of
this. And, you know, I was listening to what Mr. Jordan just
asked you. It is troubling.
Do you have a family?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Are you married?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Do you have children?
Ms. Ingram. Not my own.
Mr. Cummings. Uh-huh.
And the reason why I asked you that is sometimes I think we
forget that public employees are human beings simply trying to
do a job, people who could probably go out in the private
sector and make more money. And the idea that you gave 31
years--that 31 is just ringing in my head. That is a lot of
time.
And I want to go back to something Mr. Connolly said. I
want you to know, you may very well be attacked here today, but
this is really not about you. This is bigger than you. And I
want you to understand that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. And he
is exactly right. It is not just about Ms. Ingram. It is about
Americans who have to comply with this act.
And I would just point out this, too: Lots of people
underneath these redactions have families, as well, and they
had their personal information bandied about like it was
nothing. That concerns all of us.
The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
Mr. Walberg. I thank the chairman.
And, Ms. Ingram, I also thank you for being here to
testify. We need to ask questions of a lot of people, and you
are one of those.
I appreciate the fact of concern from my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle that we treat Federal employees like
human beings as well. And that is right; it ought to be that
way.
But I also think about the 59-year-old woman in Jackson,
Michigan, who calls my office in tears, a single mother,
single-parent mother, who was just informed by her employer
that she was being cut back from her part-time job of 35 hours
as a home caregiver to 25 hours. And the additional revenue she
made as a waitress on the weekends now would not come anywhere
near covering her mortgage. That is a human being, as well. And
that is why we are trying to get answers in hearings like this,
and that is why we appreciate you being here.
It is also the employer of 54 individuals, human beings, in
my district who was told by his insurance carrier that they
could not provide coverage for them anymore for their employees
because they wouldn't meet the requirements of Obamacare.
And so that is why we these hearings are important: to get
to the issues that get the human beings, citizens, taxpayers,
people that have dreams and aspirations just as you, Ms.
Ingram, and I and my colleagues have, as well. And that is
important to do this, and not to have a battle that continues
to go on about shutdowns. Though I believe, very clearly,
leadership on the other side of the aisle relishes this
shutdown taking place and the pain that it brings about for
political reasons.
I ask you a question, moving on, dealing specifically with
the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act and the
constitutional opinions that are out there all over the place
that the President did not have the authority to delay the
employer mandate. And we are asking for the individual mandate
to be delayed for fairness, so they can get it right.
But, Ms. Ingram, were you involved with discussions about
the employer mandate delay prior to the announcement of the
delay in a July 2nd blog post? Were you aware of that?
Ms. Ingram. I was asked during that early summer about my
views about the administrability of going forward with no
relief or going forward with various kinds of relief and
including the input that was coming in from the employer
community about wishing to have more time to analyze their data
and IT needs and from the insurer community and to consider
administrability, which I always do, not only from the point of
view of the IRS but from the individual and from the
information reporter.
Mr. Walberg. Do you know why the administration chose to
wait as long as July 2nd to post this delay in a blog, why that
decision was made?
Ms. Ingram. I was not in the decision-making process. I
provided administrability analysis.
Mr. Walberg. Were you involved in the discussions regarding
the administration's legal rationale behind the delay?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Walberg. So you don't know what factors were considered
for our President to ultimately make that decision?
Ms. Ingram. I was not involved in the discussion, and I was
told that the decision was made by the Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Walberg. Is it true that the IRS will collect
Obamacare's employer mandate penalty?
Ms. Ingram. In--when, sir? I am sorry. In what----
Mr. Walberg. When it is in effect. Will you, the IRS,
collect the employer's--Obamacare's employer mandate penalty?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. Once the information reporting commences,
there will be the sufficient information to be able to
calculate the tax.
Mr. Walberg. So the employer mandate penalty amounts to
$2,000 or $3,000 penalty per worker, as I understand what is in
the law. Can you explain why the penalty would be $2,000 per
worker and when it would be $3,000 per worker?
Ms. Ingram. The difference between the two parts of that
statute refer to whether the employer offers coverage at all.
And that is the smaller amount. But it is a multiple of the
number of workers, with some subtractions.
If the employer offers adequate insurance, then the only
question is whether an employee got a premium tax credit who
was entitled to it, despite the employer offer. And, in that
case, the number of people who get the premium tax credit would
be a multiple of the $3,000.
Mr. Walberg. Does the IRS have to offer the employer an
opportunity to review and contest the determination prior to
assessing the penalty.
Ms. Ingram. As we put in our Q&As on the Web and have
talked about publicly, the employer has very little ability to
calculate that themselves because it requires knowledge of the
1040s and who got a premium tax credit. So we will provide a
proposed bill for the employer, including the underlying
information, and let them help us correct the data.
Mr. Walberg. When does the correction take place? After the
payment of the penalty?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir. After we propose an amount and they
can work with us on correcting any errors in that calculation,
and then there would be a bill.
Mr. Walberg. Okay.
I thank the chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
I now recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Pocan. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ms. Ingram, thank you very much for being here. I want
to echo the comments of both people, and your patience has been
tremendous.
I don't really know where to begin, so let me start with,
are you of Libyan descent?
Ms. Ingram. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Pocan. Have you ever lived in Libya?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Pocan. Have you ever traveled through Libya?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Pocan. All right. How about, on the zodiac, are you a
Libra?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Pocan. Okay. You know, if you were at all involved with
Benghazi, we would have hit the GOP trifecta: the IRS, the
Affordable Care Act, and Benghazi. I mean, you would have made
anyone who is frowning on the other side of the aisle just
absolutely ecstatic. Unfortunately, I guess we don't have a
trifecta today.
I guess what we do have is a Whac-A-Mole hearing. We are
just going to keep pounding at different things, hoping we hit
something.
And I think it has been pretty clear from people on this
side of the aisle, Mr. Cartwright and our ranking member, but I
just want to verify: You were not in charge, your job was not
in charge of any targeting of Tea Party or progressive groups
that this committee has discussed.
Ms. Ingram. No. My functional assignments did not include
any of that.
Mr. Pocan. Okay. And we have seen lots of emails with
redacting. You are not in charge of redacting at the IRS, are
you?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Pocan. Okay.
They brought up some financial donations to Presidential
campaigns. Is your job at the IRS to oversee somehow financial
donations?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir.
Mr. Pocan. Okay.
They brought up your travel schedule a number of times, how
many you were at the White House. I assume we are going to have
some of the janitorial staff at the White House coming in
pretty soon, too, because they have been there an awful lot.
How about--a number of areas we have brought up in the ACA
you are not responsible for. Let's go to what specifically, I
mean, you are here for, which is your supervision within the
IRS of the Affordable Care Act.
Specifically, it has been 9 days into implementation. Have
there been any problems specifically in your area with the IRS
portion of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act?
Ms. Ingram. We have successfully taken in and turned around
all the requests that we have received from the hub. And as far
as we can tell--and we are looking on a daily basis--it is
operating well.
Mr. Pocan. Are there any areas based on, again, the
oversight from your department that you see as potential areas
that you are watching very closely that could have some issues?
Ms. Ingram. Having to do with the supporting services that
we are doing right now?
Mr. Pocan. Correct.
Ms. Ingram. Well, we have two kinds of activities that I
would refer you to in general, because I know about them in
general.
One is looking at transactions on a sampling basis to keep
reassuring ourselves they are working as intended and that
when--not only in the testing phase, but also now that we are
operational.
The other thing we are doing is that there are two parts of
Safeguard work. One is before data is--agreements are approved,
and the other is once data flows are operational, we go back
out and do operational reviews of practices. And that
operational review cycle has started this week.
Mr. Pocan. So just as a final, you know--ask the question
again, just because it is what--``Examining the IRS's Role in
Implementing and Enforcing Obamacare,'' what the headline of
this is, as of 9 days now, we don't have problems that you are
aware of at this point in your responsibilities within the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act?
Ms. Ingram. The IRS team is very comfortable that things
are operating well at the IRS.
Mr. Pocan. All right. That is great to hear.
Again, Ms. Ingram, we really appreciate your willingness to
field a wide variety of questions, both relevant and, more
often than not, not relevant.
And I just have to say one thing to the last committee
member who said Democrats relish the shutdown. Actually, we are
pretty disgusted by the shutdown.
You know, the fact that my small businesses can't get SBA
loans right now. About $80 million went into my community last
year. That is pretty disgusting, that they can't, you know,
grow jobs and grow the economy.
The fact that veterans may not get benefits because we are
holding our breath right now in Congress is pretty disgusting
to me.
The fact that Head Start kids in my district, including in
Beloit, Wisconsin, where, the day after I was there visiting, a
bullet went through their window--it is in a pretty tough
neighborhood. The fact that they are going to not have funds is
pretty disgusting.
The fact that I have so many Federal employees who are
furloughed and aren't working, I don't relish that, and I am
pretty disgusted by it.
And the fact that this country, it is costing $160 million
a day while we are in closedown is not something the Democrats
relish.
And I just think that--I just want to clear the record. I
don't think there is a single person here who would say they
relish the shutdown.
RPTS HUMISTON
DCMN SECKMAN
[11:35 a.m.]
Mr. Walberg. Would the gentlemen yield?
Mr. Pocan. Sure.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I thank the gentleman. Just to
clarify, my comments about that relishing go to the leadership
in the Senate as well as the White House, the President, who
are unwilling and made it very clear they will not negotiate.
We have worked together to pass bills to deal with all of
the things you mentioned. We passed them, sent them in a
bipartisan fashion over to the Senate. It is time for us to
stand together and ask the Senate and the President to show
leadership and negotiate to a solution, and I want to see that
as well.
Mr. Pocan. Sure. And all I would add to that, if I can, to
respond--thank you, Mr. Chairman--is the fact that, you know, I
believe--and I serve on the Budget Committee. For 6 months, we
have been asking people, since March 23rd, when the Senate
passed a budget, to sit down and have a conference. And when,
at 20 minutes to midnight on September 30th, finally, the idea
comes together to sit down, I don't know if the finger pointing
goes to the Senate leadership or the President.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentleman.
Now recognize the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lankford.
Mr. Lankford. Thank you, Ms. Ingram.
Thank you for being here. Give me a chance to walk through
some questions. I want to talk to you about some of the process
issues of the implementation on this.
Was the IRS ready to be able to implement the business
mandate, the employer mandate, as far as tracking through
penalties, tracking through whether they are covering
employees? Were they prepared for that?
Ms. Ingram. Because the transition relief mentions that we
will be ready to take in information returns from anybody who
would like to voluntarily try the--doing that in the transition
year, the work is the same for us either way.
Mr. Lankford. Okay. So, right now, the IRS is fully
prepared to be able to do what it needs to do? Obviously, you
are taking in voluntary information now or you will in the
months ahead----
Ms. Ingram. No.
Mr. Lankford. So----
Ms. Ingram. I am sorry.
Mr. Lankford. No. But I am saying the IRS was ready for it
either way. The administration made the decision, business
mandate, we are not going to do it this year, based on
businesses were not ready to do that, insurance companies were
not ready to do that, not because the IRS was not prepared?
Ms. Ingram. That is right. But it is--it would have been 15
months away in any case before anything was being filed.
Mr. Lankford. Correct, because of the forms and such things
coming out. Is the expectation from the IRS that, starting in
2015, let's go 2016, whatever year we've got full roll-out,
that individual businesses will have to list or report
individuals within their company that were offered qualified
health plans during the course of the year and what months that
they were offered those plans?
Ms. Ingram. If the business is of a sufficient size, yes,
sir.
Mr. Lankford. So if you're 50 or more, is that the size
we're dealing with?
Ms. Ingram. Roughly, yes.
Mr. Lankford. So if they're 50 or more, they're going to
have to report, starting in 2015 or 2016, whatever year that
may be when we're in full implementation, every individual that
was offered qualified health insurance, the months that they
were offered that?
Ms. Ingram. Every full-time employee, per the statute.
Mr. Lankford. So, again, going back to the $2,000 or $3,000
penalty, you said that business really won't know that until
the 1040s are in for the individuals. So there is an
expectation that the business will report what individuals are
there, if they were offered qualified health insurance. The
1040 from the individual will then show whether they got the
subsidies. Those come together, and then, at some months later,
it comes back to the business, you owe an additional amount of
penalty because an employee of yours received a subsidy and was
not eligible for that. Is that correct or not correct?
Ms. Ingram. We would provide them with the results of that
matching.
Mr. Lankford. How long do you think that would take?
Ms. Ingram. There are a number of different ways that we
might do it. We haven't settled on exactly how we would do it,
but we have heard from the business community that it would be
helpful to them to know relatively promptly.
Mr. Lankford. I would assume that is--that is the
challenge, as far as business, to try and budget and plan for
the next coming year to see how that--see how it works. If an
individual starts receiving the subsidy, and I understand the
subsidy is going to the insurance company, not the individual,
I understand that; individual signs up, begins to get the
premium supports, that goes to the insurance company to help
provide for that, but the individual stops paying their
portion. How long will it be before the IRS is notified that
this individual has stopped paying their portion, whether they
got a job and they just didn't call the insurance company,
their new job provides insurance, or whether they just decided,
you know what, I don't want to pay this anymore. How long will
payments continue to move to that insurance company?
Ms. Ingram. So the entire process for the setting of those
credit payments and the process for what happens when somebody
stops to pay or the insurance goes out of effect is all a
process that goes on between HHS and the marketplaces and the
insurance companies. The IRS is not involved in that.
The information the IRS receives is from the marketplaces,
which will have the record of what amounts had been paid
appropriately, which is based on----
Mr. Lankford. So is Treasury notified at some point to stop
doing payments? They are notified by HHS; they're notified by
IRS, or how are they notified?
Ms. Ingram. They're not notified by IRS. We're not involved
in the advance portion, but, yes----
Mr. Lankford. All right.
Ms. Ingram. --the information will flow--is supposed to
flow up and down, and I refer you to HHS on the specifics.
Mr. Lankford. Okay. Let me ask you this question as well.
This $2,000 fee, penalty, tax, whatever you want to call it, if
an employer does not provide healthcare at all to an employee,
if an employer provides full healthcare, everything, except
some of the things on the preventative services list that's
been identified by HHS, that penalty, if I'm reading this
correctly, is $36,500 per employee.
So it's $2,000 if they provide nothing, but if they don't
provide any one thing on the preventative list, but they
provide everything else, it's $100 a day. That's $36,500. Is
that correct or not correct?
Ms. Ingram. I'm not entirely clear on what the second
amount is that you're referencing.
Mr. Lankford. Well, there's a $100-a-day penalty for not
providing everything on the preventative services list, and
that preventative services list is rather long for men, women
and children; here are the things that have to be provided in
your employer-provided healthcare.
So there's a lot of questions out there from a lot of
employers that if they miss one of those or if, for religious
reasons, they choose not to provide one of those, if they don't
provide it at 100 percent coverage, paid for by the employer,
they're not fined $2,000; they're fined $36,500. It's $100 a
day.
Ms. Ingram. I'm going to have to take the question back for
the lawyers, including the Justice Department.
Mr. Lankford. I would very much appreciate this, because
this same question has been asked by multiple employers in my
district. They can't get anyone at IRS to answer the question.
They continually ask this question, is this really $100 per
day, per person? In fact, it's actually per person that is
affected; it's not even per employee. So if that employee has
children, their assumption is also $36,500 per child as well.
No one will give them an answer from IRS on what that penalty
is and how it stacks up. All that they get is a stall from it.
And we've got to get some clarification, because there are
an awful lot of businesses that are out there that do have a
problem, whether for religious reasons or for other reasons,
and if they miss one, that's a pretty big hit. That's no longer
just a fee or a penalty; that's actually punitive, $36,500 per
person.
Ms. Ingram. What I can say, sir, from the perspective of my
planning, that's not in my current work plan to address that
issue. So that doesn't necessarily answer your question, and I
will take it back.
Mr. Lankford. We would--if we can get--any guess on timing
when we get that, because they've asked for months for
clarification on that? So can we get a time period when we
might get an answer to that?
Ms. Ingram. If it relates to matters that are in
litigation, there are a number of places I have to stop to get
the answer.
Mr. Lankford. So----
Ms. Ingram. I'm sorry.
Mr. Lankford. So do they. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. The gentlelady from California is recognized.
Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ingram, thank you for your incredible service to our
country for 31 years.
I am pretty disappointed in this hearing today, Mr.
Chairman. We have a shut--a shutdown, we have 800,000
furloughed Federal employees. At the IRS, 90 percent of the
staff have been furloughed. October 15th is the deadline for
all tax returns to finally be submitted, and we are talking
about Ms. Ingram, not how the IRS is going to process all the
paper that is going to be coming in in the next week. Instead
of having a hearing on the impact the shutdown on Federal
employees and the public, the committee majority has decided to
re-enact the movie ``Groundhog Day'', holding yet another
hearing to try and find political bias or wrongdoing by the
administration; only this version of ``Groundhog Day'' isn't
funny at all.
The committee has decided to bully a civil servant with a
long and distinguished career with the IRS. In fact, members of
this committee on the other side have made their intentions
clear, accusing Ms. Ingram of responsibility for a scandal and
political bias they have not been able to prove.
Let's be clear. Ms. Ingram is not a political appointee.
She received the Distinguished Service Award from President
George Bush in 2004. She was given the job of implementing the
ACA precisely because she is competent and able to get the job
done, a thankless task for sure.
So, Ms. Ingram, let's go to your credentials. You have been
a staff person within the IRS for 30 years. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Since late 1982.
Ms. Speier. And in 1982, you graduated from the
distinguished law school at Georgetown, correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. And you probably had the opportunity of going
to K Street for the big bucks, but chose, rather, to support
your country by joining the IRS. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. And you've served in that capacity since the
administration of President Reagan. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am
Ms. Speier. So every administration since then, Republican
and Democrat, you have been in service to this country at the
Internal Revenue Service?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. It has been charged that you are responsible
for targeting Tea Party organizations seeking tax-exempt
status. In fact, Republican House Member Tim Griffin accused
you of being: ``directly in charge of this targeting.'' He said
this: ``she provided horrendous customer service under her
watch, and now she's gonna do the same implementing
Obamacare.''
Ms. Ingram, I want to give you a chance to respond to that
attack. Were you directly in charge of targeting Tea Party
groups?
Ms. Ingram. No, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. Were you involved in any way, shape or form in
targeting of Tea Party or other groups at the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. No, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. So where would Mr. Griffin get that kind of
flawed information?
Ms. Ingram. I think the fact that on paper I was left on
the prior position confused many people, and the fact that, in
the spring of 2012, Steve Miller asked me to sit in on a few
meetings and listen has caused some confusion for some people,
but I had a more than full-time job at ACA starting in December
of 2012 and only on an occasional basis performed particular
tasks when requested by Mr. Miller, usually having nothing to
do with EO.
Ms. Speier. It was December 2010, was it not?
Ms. Ingram. I'm sorry. 2010, yes.
Ms. Speier. All right. So, in 2004, President George Bush
awarded you the Nation's highest, I repeat, highest civil
service award, the Distinguished Executive Presidential Rank
Award. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. And this award was for your outstanding tax law
leadership and highly effective efforts to combat terrorism
financing. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Speier. I think we have a picture of you with President
Bush. Can we put that up? Probably hard to see where you are,
but I've been told that you're right under the----
Chairman Issa. Would the gentlelady yield? Is that the
personal meeting that she had with the President? Who are those
people that are watching that one-on-one personal meeting?
Ms. Speier. I didn't say it was a personal meeting.
Chairman Issa. Oh. Okay. So----
Ms. Speier. I said she was being awarded this Distinguished
Service Award, the highest civil service award that you can
receive in national service.
Chairman Issa. Were all the other people receiving the same
award in that picture?
Ms. Speier. I am not sure.
Chairman Issa. Well, the gentlelady's lawyers provided it.
Maybe she could tell us. Were they all recipients?
Ms. Ingram. Every year rough--somewhere, but--I believe my
year, it was roughly 55 or 60 recipients.
Ms. Speier. Okay, 55 or 60 recipients out of how many
members of the Federal employment, or is this within the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. No, not just IRS.
Ms. Speier. So this was within the entire Federal
employment of 800,000 people, there are 50 that are selected,
and she was one of them. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. This is an award given to a small number of
people who are part of the Senior Executive Service. I don't
have the exact number of the total Senior Executive Service in
the Federal Government.
Ms. Speier. But it is an extraordinarily large number of
people, and you were recognized as one of a handful of people
who has done extraordinary work.
And while my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, I would like
us to explore maybe in greater detail her work in combating
terrorism financing, because we know that that is a profound,
profound risk that we are dealing with in this country.
I yield back.
Mr. Jordan. Thank the gentlelady.
We now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ingram, you know, in my district in Arizona, my
constituents are becoming increasingly concerned with the
Federal Government's overreach and their ability to keep their
personal information secure. In fact, earlier this year, the
Environmental Protection Agency leaked personal information of
hundreds of cattlemen and farmers in rural Arizona to special
interest groups, which put their financial security at risk.
Additionally, the IRS's political targeting of individuals
earlier this year just underscores our constituents'
skepticism.
Now, my question to you is, to implement the insurance
exchanges, the IRS will have to share taxpayer information much
more broadly than it ever has before. How do you plan to make
this information fully protected and not misused?
Ms. Ingram. Thank you, sir, for letting me clarify
something that was said earlier this morning, and that is, when
our information flows upon request of the applicant that it be
provided, flows to the exchange or the Medicaid office, it is
secured behind the scenes. It is not shown to anybody who is
applying or who is assisting them or to the general employees
in those two offices. It's a backroom data feed that is then
mixed with other data available to the entity to come up with
determinations that are then shared. And that is an arrangement
that we worked out quite specifically to reduce the risk that
unauthorized people might see the data.
Mr. Gosar. You know, the administration has recently stated
that the data hub is ready and finished in its security
testing, yet there were all kinds of technical problems when
the exchanges occurred last week. In fact, the Arizona
Republic, the largest paper in my State, actually wrote, but
despite years of planning, healthcare experts predicted some
consumers may experience temporary setbacks when applying for
coverage today through the new government-run Web site,
healthcare.gov, and they were right. Some Arizonian residents
discovered delays Tuesday when attempting to log on to
healthcare.gov. The Web site made users wait to access the
login page, siting a high volume of users on the nationwide
exchange. Users in other States reported a similar problem.
Given these technical struggles, why should we have
confidence in the IRS testing?
Ms. Ingram. I'm sorry. If I could get clarification. On the
IRS's testing of its own system or----
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Ingram. --on the security of the data that's going out?
Mr. Gosar. Yes. Why would we trust the IRS's testing on
their security mechanism?
Ms. Ingram. Well, the IRS historically has a very good
track record about our own systems. Again, I would emphasize
that when our data goes to the marketplaces and the Medicaid
offices, it does not interface with the Web site, which I
believe is what you were discussing, if I was listening
correctly.
Mr. Gosar. Yes. So when--let me give you a follow up. When
did the IRS finish its testings of Obamacare data hub prior to
October 1st? When did it?
Ms. Ingram. I have to take back the question of exactly
when, but testing continue--various types of testing went on
all year.
Mr. Gosar. And that was one of the many comments--that the
IRS has functioned very, very well in what they've been asked
to do. Can you tell me how many inquiries they actually--you
actually processed from the IRS's aspect to date?
Ms. Ingram. So remember these are inquiries for data, not
enrollments. So I would want to be very clear that those are
two different things, but we have----
Mr. Gosar. But they're tied to enrollment?
Ms. Ingram. Well, they're----
Mr. Gosar. In order to fully enroll, you have to go----
Ms. Ingram. If you want financial assistance----
Mr. Gosar. Yes.
Ms. Ingram. --then you--they have to ask us if it's--if
it's a marketplace, they must, by statute, ask us for the data.
If it's a Medicaid office, it's optional under the statute----
Mr. Gosar. So how----
Ms. Ingram. --however, in total, to date, we've processed
several hundred thousand requests.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. From all over the country?
Ms. Ingram. From all over the country.
Mr. Gosar. Okay. Now, at a hearing before this committee in
July, Alan Duncan, the assistant inspector general for the
audit at the Treasury inspector for the tax administration said
that TIGTA was concerned with lack of adequate testing that
could result in significant delays, errors in accepting and
processing ACA applications for healthcare insurance. Despite
having 3 and a half years to prepare for these exchanges, the
Web--for the Web site launch, was there adequate time to test
the system, to your knowledge?
Ms. Ingram. We're very comfortable that any of the testing
that was about our systems or our interface with the data hub,
we would not have turned on if we were not comfortable.
Mr. Gosar. I'm going to end with one real quick question.
I'm--I'm amazed at your detail. You're a very detail oriented
person, are you not?
Ms. Ingram. It depends on the topic, sir.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I'm a dentist, so I'm very detail
oriented. I'm amazed at your detail and your familiarity with
what I saw on these email tracks. I suspect with your dialogue
back and forth, you do know who--what's below 6103, do you not?
Ms. Ingram. I see hundreds of emails a day for most of my
career. I cannot remember what is in a particular one.
Mr. Gosar. And--but your recollection in regards to the
discussion back into this committee was very astute to
specifics within that documentation of email. You know who's
below 6103, do you not?
Ms. Ingram. I do not know who's below those blocks.
Mr. Gosar. Okay.
Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jordan. The gentleman from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Ms. Ingram, for appearing before
our committee today. I understand that the IRS had a number of
important steps that it needed to take in preparation for the
October 1st deadline that made the healthcare.gov Web site
operational. In addition to getting the technology ready so
that the IRS could share the data required to determine
eligibility for premium tax credits, the IRS also had to ensure
that the exchange of information would protect the privacy of
taxpayer information.
So I want to ask, you are one of four senior executives at
the IRS who run different parts of the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act, and you're one of them, correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. I'm one of four principal ones, but there
are people all over the IRS.
Mr. Horsford. And out of the four executives, one of those
executives is responsible for getting the technology
operational and another is responsible for ensuring that the
taxpayer information remains protected. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Horsford. So Ranking Member Cummings asked the chairman
to invite your counterparts at the IRS to attend this hearing
today to testify as to their responsibilities, but the chairman
declined that request. He also apparently directed them not to
attend the hearing or even sit behind you in case questions
came up. Nonetheless, I have questions, and I'm just going to
forge ahead and hope that you can answer some of them.
First, the ACA requires the IRS, HHS and other Federal
agencies to share taxpayer information. Can you explain why
that data sharing is necessary?
Ms. Ingram. My understanding, but I--my understanding is
that the reason that the IRS was put into that process of the
enrollment process was to provide a data foundation for most
recently filed tax returns to start the conversation at the--at
the marketplace about what the best prediction of the following
year's income would be, but the statute also contemplates that
marketplaces would have--might have multiple sources of income
data and also take into account what the individual says. All
of--all we have--are required to do is when asked, provide the
limited data points.
Mr. Horsford. So given the different agencies involved,
what measures has the IRS implemented to ensure that taxpayer
information is protected?
Ms. Ingram. Well, I'm going to stay very high level, and if
there are more detailed questions, I will have to take them
back and would be glad to provide the committee with more
detail.
In general, the IRS has a safeguarding program that has
been around for decades and does--does and oversees agreements
having nothing to do with ACA with over 300 or something State
and Federal entities, and that program was brought as it--as
normal to a new data sharing mandate in the statute. And in
addition, I understand the safeguards people were involved in
conversations with HHS and the states very early on to ensure
that what they needed to see before they certified would be in
place, a lot of educational stuff, helping them build stuff
into the design of their systems, onsite visits, whatever, but
for--there's a whole lot of stuff, and further detail, I would
prefer to take the question back to get a fuller response or
something.
Mr. Horsford. On one of my other committees, the Cyber
Security Subcommittee of Homeland Security, we've learned that
the data hub will not actually store information but, instead,
will essentially be a pass-through that routes information to
authorized users. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. That's right. Think of it as an envelope being
carried by a mailman.
Mr. Horsford. So will the applicant or the person on the
other end of the computer screen be able to see the taxpayer's
information, or do they just get a ruling on eligibility of
income?
Ms. Ingram. The agreement that we insisted on for anybody
receiving this data was that the tax data would not be
displayed. Exactly--and we have looked at how the Web sites at
the recipient level are being built in order to assure
ourselves of that. I can't answer the question of whether--
there's a variety of how the bottom line determination is
communicated on the screen.
Mr. Horsford. Are there----
Ms. Ingram. It's----
Mr. Horsford. --criminal penalties for the misuse or
wrongful disclosure of personal tax information in regards to
the ACA?
Ms. Ingram. My understanding is that the tax safeguards,
including sanctions, travel with the data, so whoever receives
that data is subject to the same provisions.
Mr. Horsford. So there are civil and criminal----
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Horsford. --penalties for----
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Horsford. --misusing.
So, Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by just saying that I hope
that members on the other side will avoid reckless and, in my
opinion, irresponsible assertions that personal information
will be compromised under the Affordable Care Act. Just as
current tax law requires, individual and corporations share
this information with the IRS every day, and there are
professionals at the IRS who handle this information with the
care and caution that they should each and every day, and if
they fail to do so, there are criminal and civil penalties that
they can be held against them for any breach of that
information.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Horsford. No. I'd like to conclude my comment. And so
the point I'd like to make is that it's irresponsible and
reckless to somehow suggest that this personal information is
going to be compromised. You all file your tax returns every
year. It's information that these professionals handle with
care. And we need to not raise these alarmist concerns when the
data doesn't support the assertion.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Jordan. Yeah. I would just say this. We don't know that
it will be compromised. What we do know is that someone at the
IRS thought it already was.
And I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHenry. I thank the gentleman for making that
important point. I appreciate my colleague going very far out
on the line to pledge to the American people that their
personal data will not be breached, and I hope the gentleman's
right. I hope the gentleman's right, but I fear that it is not
going to be right.
The question with data security is a very major one for--
not just for government, but private corporations in America
and around the globe. The question of data security is a
complex one, obviously, and it's oftentimes not a question of
if you'll have a data breach, but when, and the depth and the
breadth of that data breach.
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield for just a
question?
Mr. McHenry. Sure.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
You know, the other gentleman wouldn't--wouldn't yield,
but, you know, I couldn't help but remember the National
Organization for Marriage that saw their donors list released
by the IRS, and the answer was it was inadvertent. And my
understanding is no civil or criminal penalties occurred;
nobody was punished for inadvertently releasing and then those
contributors being contacted and harassed. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McHenry. Thanks.
You know, recent media reports reveal that the health
insurance exchanges, I mean, for--the words I get from my
constituents about how long it takes to first log on to even
get a Web site available so they can log on--I tried for 3 days
to actually get to a log-on page and was unsuccessful. But once
they get in, there--there's a concern about whether or not the
rates and the subsidy amount are correct. Do you have concerns
about that?
Ms. Ingram. The IRS does not have a role in that part of
the operation, so I'd have to refer you to HHS.
Mr. McHenry. So, in terms of the subsidy amounts, you would
not have any role?
Ms. Ingram. Whether our responses when we are queried are
correct, I have a high confidence level. I don't know exactly
what part of the----
Mr. McHenry. Does the IRS----
Ms. Ingram. --is being referred to.
Mr. McHenry. Does the IRS calculate the subsidy amount?
Ms. Ingram. We offer a service that the marketplaces are
not required to use to, based on anonymous inputs, do a math
calculation as a service. That's all we do.
Mr. McHenry. Oh, you don't--you have--so, in my State in
North Carolina, we're under the Federal exchange because we
chose to not create one at the State level. So the calculations
that they're receiving, my constituents are receiving, after
they log on and give all their personal identifying
information, the IRS has no role in that?
Ms. Ingram. I believe that the Federal exchange is using
our computation service.
Mr. McHenry. Oh, so you are involved----
Ms. Ingram. But we are not--we get anonymous set of data
points, provide the math and give it back. We're not part of
either the citizen selection of how much of that they want to
take or how that interacts with the actual premiums on the
policy they select. So I just want to be clear about what part
we do and what happens after we respond.
Mr. McHenry. Okay. So--all right. So--so if you're saying
you're not involved, it sounds like you are somewhat involved
in this.
Ms. Ingram. I don't under--I don't--I'm not familiar with
what part of what you are discussing is not working, so I can't
speak to whether our part----
Mr. McHenry. Okay.
Well, then--then let me just give you a few stories----
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Mr. McHenry. --as a result, because I--I----
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Mr. McHenry. I didn't find that--your answer in any way
satisfying, but there--here are the stories from my
constituents. Michael from Conover waited for hours to first
log on, and then it took him hours to set up an account on the
Federal exchange and, then, unfortunately, with the repairs
over the weekend, saw it deleted, so he had to start over again
this week.
Mike from Hickory saw his premiums rise from $388 to $650.
Phil from Forest City saw an increase, even though the
policy was unchanged, saw an increase of 42 percent; Phil from
Forest City. And he's determined that the policy may actually
be worse than it was previously.
Erica and her three kids saw their premiums rise from $481
to $847.
Matthew from Ashville saw his premiums rise 285 percent.
Curtis from Shelby saw his premiums double from--
essentially double from $549 to $1,077.
So, when people talk about Obamacare and all the rhetoric
here in Washington and what we see out of the IRS and
implementation here, I'm more concerned about the families that
are impacted in my district. We don't--we want people to have
access to affordable health insurance, but these rates are
simply not affordable, and the fact that the IRS is a huge
implementing agency does not actually give my constituents any
great deal of reassurance about the Federal role here.
And so, with that, I yield back.
Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] I thank the gentleman.
Recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Under the Affordable Care Act, the Federal Government----
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman turn his mic on,
perhaps?
Mr. Davis. I think I just turned it off rather than on.
Thank you very much.
And let me thank our witness for being here.
Ms. Ingram, under the Affordable Care Act, the Federal
Government, State governments, insurers, employers and
individuals are given shared responsibility to improve the
availability, quality and affordability of health insurance
coverage in the United States.
Starting in 2015, the individual share of responsibility
provision calls for each individual to have minimum essential
health coverage. Individuals will report on their tax returns
whether or not they have health insurance in 2014.
Let me ask you this: Suppose I have employer-provided
insurance that I have enjoyed for over 5 years. I like my
coverage. I have no desire to change my coverage. When I file
my taxes, will it be easy as checking a box on the form to say
that I have employer coverage and am therefore in compliance
with the requirement?
Ms. Ingram. Like most Americans, you'll be able to just
check a box.
Mr. Davis. So, many individuals in the United States have
health coverage today that would count as minimum essential
coverage and will not need to do anything more than continue
the coverage that they have. For those who do not have
coverage, who anticipate discontinuing coverage or who want to
explore more affordable options, the health insurance
marketplace has opened this month for every State and the
District of Columbia. Can you explain what qualifies as minimum
coverage?
Ms. Ingram. If somebody does not have employer coverage or
does not have coverage through a government program, like the
Veteran's Administration or Medicaid or Medicare and--I would
suggest they do two things. I would suggest they check out the
marketplace that they have access to, depending on where they
live, what kind of marketplace that is, and see whether
something there works.
I think the other thing that is worth noting is that there
are a series of exemptions from the individual shared
responsibility requirement, and before somebody worries about
paying a penalty, they ought to--I would recommend they try to
have insurance to hedge their personal economic liabilities and
also to check out, if they cannot do that, make sure they
understand the exemptions. And the information that's on our
Web and as part of our continuing education process reaching
out to people through lots of channels, and in our work with
HHS in their operations and materials, we want to make sure
people understand those three pieces. If they have something
now, they're fine. If they want to access something, here's
some opportunities. If they meet one of the exemptions, then
they should consider--they should still consider having
insurance, but they should understand that. And only the very
small number of people, according to the CBO, who need to worry
about the penalty, they'll have what they need to meet their
obligations on their return.
Mr. Davis. And let me ask you. If an individual receives
their insurance through their spouse's employer, are they
considered to have minimum coverage?
Ms. Ingram. Insurance is insurance no matter where you get
it.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. And----
Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Davis. Yes.
Mr. Cummings. The--let me ask you, when you--you talk a lot
about education and how important it is in this first stage to
do that. Can you just tell us what role you all play with
regard to educating?
Ms. Ingram. Certainly. We've--we've approached the
education path in a number of time periods. And certainly for
2013, a great deal of the cross-Federal agency education has
had to do with the opening of the marketplaces, but we have
worked closely with our colleagues to make sure that any
discussions about tax provisions and tax rules were correctly
and accurately portrayed in their materials or their Web sites
or their public presentations, and we have partnered with the
Small Business Administration and HHS on a number of outreach
events, including tax practitioner forms, Chamber of--local
Chamber of Commerce events, and Webinars since we've been
leveraging the Webinar format.
As we go into 2014 and certainly as we approach the 2015
filing season, a great deal of the education is specifically
about tax provisions and specifically about the tax returns
that would be filed in early 2015, and so the focus shifts over
time about which pieces of topic and which avenues of outreach
and the volume of educational efforts. So it evolves over time.
I just want to be clear, there are phases.
Chairman Issa. Okay. The gentleman's time has expired.
We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Ingram, for being here today. I want to ask
you some questions about to the healthcare exchanges, but first
if you would indulge me for a second. We've had a lot of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle praising your service
and defending your integrity at the IRS, and I--I'm not sure I
have any reason to doubt that. I don't know you very well.
Do you believe, just as an American--I know you've worked
for the IRS for 31 years, you're probably proud of the
organization that you work for and serve. Do you believe that
Tea Party groups were indeed targeted?
Ms. Ingram. From what I understand at this point, and I
have not followed all of the discussions or certainly not the
press and so forth, I am--I do not ever think it is okay to use
people's political viewpoints in the managing of inventory in
the tax agency. I am not familiar enough with exactly what had
happened, but when I sat in on a meeting in the spring of 2012
and when I skimmed the TIGTA report this past spring, I was
upset at the way activities were described.
Mr. DesJarlais. So you think it's appropriate, then, that
this committee continue to pursue investigation and find out
who is responsible, if this indeed happened?
Ms. Ingram. I would never voice an opinion about the
prerogatives of this committee, sir.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, that's probably fair. But
nonetheless, it seems like we're under fire today for wanting
to get answers for people for just what you said; it's never
right for the IRS to target anyone for political reasons.
President spoke out against it. Now it's being called a phony
scandal. Do you think it's a phony scandal, or do you think it
warrants further investigation, as an American?
Ms. Ingram. Sir, I don't personally engage in the public
debates either about investigations or----
Mr. DesJarlais. Do you have an opinion?
Ms. Ingram. Over my career, when there have been any
questions or allegations about something not going right and
particularly if there is a whiff of any kind of personal bias,
which I have not heard, but any concerns about allegations
about the appropriate handling of cases, I have always thought
that TIGTA was the appropriate place for me to turn to ask them
to look into things, and I understand that they are part of
this process.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, let's talk about some of the
problems that we're encountering with the roll-out of the
healthcare exchanges.
I'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter a Wall Street
Journal article, dated September 19th, 2013, into the record,
``Pricing Glitches Affect Rollout of Online Health Exchanges.''
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. DesJarlais. This article references the fact that less
than 2 weeks before the launch of insurance marketplaces
created by the Federal health overhaul, the government software
can't reliably determine how much people need to pay for their
coverage, according to health insurance executives and people
familiar with the program. Four people familiar with the
development of the software that determines how much people
would pay for subsidized coverage on federally run exchanges
said it is still miscalculating prices. Test calculators
initially scheduled to begin months ago only started this week
at some insurers, and there was a statement that there's a
blanket acknowledgement that rates are being calculated
incorrectly. According to a senior health executive, who didn't
want to be named, said, Our tech operations--our tech and
operations people are very concerned about the problems they
are seeing and the potential of them to stick around.
So, according to the GAO, the Federal Government spent $400
million to develop the Federal exchange data hub. After 3 and a
half years and $400 million, why did the Web site fail so
dramatically last week?
Ms. Ingram. The IRS isn't part of any of those activities,
sir. I'm sorry.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Are there any plans to provide relief
from the individual mandate for individuals who are unable to
access the Federal exchange and obtain minimal coverage or
essential coverage?
Ms. Ingram. I would posit that it's a little early to even
have that conversation.
Mr. DesJarlais. Well, let me ask this. Do you think that
you could have been better prepared to implement all of this if
you had another year?
Ms. Ingram. The IRS? No.
Mr. DesJarlais. Do you think everything's as good as it's
going to get right now?
Ms. Ingram. I think the IRS--the responsibilities that were
assigned to the IRS, we planned, we built, we turned it on, and
it's working.
Mr. DesJarlais. What will you do to people who can't pay
their portion? If you subsidize a family, say an average family
of four that gets $5,000 and they have to pay, let's say,
$5,000, what if they can't pay that? What are you going to do
to them punitively?
Ms. Ingram. What is--the only thing that is of interest to
the IRS in administering the individual responsibility payment
is which months that family has insurance in effect. We are--
we're not directly involved in whether the individual is behind
on their payments to the insurance company. What we get told is
which months are their insurance in effect, and that's the only
question that's relevant for us.
Mr. DesJarlais. Does that determine the penalty that they
pay or the extra taxes that they pay?
Ms. Ingram. That's the underlying piece of data that goes
into that calculation.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentlelady from New Mexico for 5 minutes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you very, Ms.--Ms. Ingram. I'm going to focus on
the Affordable Care Act components and some of the statements
about implementation made by my colleagues.
Today, every Federal employee that is furloughed or
government program that is disrupted as a result the government
shutdown is a casualty in my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle's effort or their war to kill the Affordable Care Act
and prevent millions of Americans from signing up for
affordable healthcare insurance. And today I've listened to the
focus really on the HHS component of the Web design and whether
or not people can get on.
And I'm just going to go back to a couple other issues.
One, while I wasn't here in Congress, I'm clear that there had
been several congressional mandates and significant, in the
billions, appropriations to both DOD and VA. And as part of
those investments, they're required to share information that
would address the backlog. They're supposed to do electronic
medical records. And they have not and, as far as I know, are
really nowhere close to getting that resolved, but I've not
seen this sort of effort to repeal or pull back any efforts to
make sure that you're assisting veterans in that regard.
As part of the stimulus package in 2009, all public and
private healthcare providers have to adopt electronic--
electronic medical records if they're going to participate in
Medicare and Medicaid, and that is virtually every healthcare
provider, and they have to do that by 2014. And, in fact, if
hospitals don't do that, as an example, they will be penalized
in 2015.
And I can tell you that as recent--as a new Congress Member
having to navigate my healthcare from my district in
Albuquerque and here, I still had to go get a hard copy, if you
will, of an x-ray to get it here, despite these mandates and
the incentive payments made available to these healthcare
providers to be able to share electronic medical information
and to provide it to me. So, like the Forbes article, I can be
in a third world country and access my bank records, but I
still can't get an electronic medical record or my personal
medical records.
The point being--one more, maybe. Medicare, the enrollment
for Medicare Part D was a nightmare. I was running the
Department on Aging in New Mexico, and I got hundreds of phone
calls a week from seniors who were dismayed, who were upset,
who couldn't figure out which plan that they had to enroll in.
They got limited enrollment phases. It was difficult to enroll.
They got kicked off. They picked a plan; then that plan changed
their formulary, so the drugs that they needed were not on.
Folks that were getting benefits from their States and their
Medigap plans were dropped from those benefits. It was really
awful.
And the big complaint still is the donut hole, which is now
being addressed in the Affordable Care Act. Point being, we
ought to repeal Medicare Part D. Enrollment is tough, and I
expect that this committee and others will make sure that the
IRS and HHS get their jobs done, do it well, and that we ask
you what we can do to assist in the best possible
implementation and to deal with all of the glitches that have
been identified to date and make sure that the millions of
people who have attempted to enroll can enroll.
And so my last, with just--because I've made a statement
that's way too long trying to make sure that this anomaly that
my colleagues identify with just the Affordable Care Act exists
in almost every large reform that we have done, but I have seen
no effort to pull back and repeal.
Is it your understanding typically that most Americans are
happy when they know they can get a tax credit of any kind?
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. And when they're applying for those tax
credits, that they're pretty effective at figuring them out and
contacting you or their accountants and getting whatever help,
or going even to AARP to make sure that they get their access
to that credit or that subsidy?
Ms. Ingram. We try to make sure that everybody knows what
obligations and what benefits they may be eligible for. And we
try to equip them and their advisors to make that process as
easy as we can, just like the rest of the tax return, that we
make a similar effort.
Mr. DesJarlais. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. Lujan Grisham. I will.
Mr. DesJarlais. Do the taxpayers ever see any of that
subsidy, or does it go directly to the insurance companies?
Ms. Ingram. There are two ways the taxpayer can access the
assistance. If they need help meeting their premiums on a
month-to-month basis as they go along, then they may find the
advance payments convenient. Those payments go to the insurance
company, and they are billed by the insurance company only for
the balance. If for some reason somebody thinks from whatever
source that they can make their payments themselves, there's
also an opportunity to--if they qualify when they file their
return, to ask for the credit at that point. It'll depend on
someone's personal economic decision which way they want to do
it.
Mr. DesJarlais. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Absolutely.
Mr. Chairman, with your--thank you--permission, I'll just--
and I'll be brief.
And so given that, and recognizing that the benefit will go
towards the premium, but now my premium's reduced, and I ran
the high-risk pool, so in the State, we were one of the only
States, maybe the only State, that provides a low-income tax
premium benefit to individuals with pre-existing conditions
today who couldn't otherwise afford insurance, my experience
was they were genuinely happy about paying less for their
premium regardless of the effort to make that happen.
Is that what you expect to occur by those Americans, and--
and thousands of New Mexicans, who will have access to that
benefit under the Affordable Care Act?
Ms. Ingram. We understand that one--that the principal
purpose of the credit is to make it possible for people to get
insurance who couldn't otherwise afford it.
Ms. Lujan Grisham. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Ms. Ingram.
What is the legal authority by which a President can sua
sponte decide to enforce or not enforce certain provisions of a
law?
Ms. Ingram. I'm not in the--in the group of people who
analyze the legal underpinnings of that, but it is--I will say
as an administrator, it is not uncommon when there are large,
new, particularly information reporting related things.
Mr. Gowdy. I'm actually asking for the legal basis. Can you
site a case?
Ms. Ingram. I'm probably the wrong person. I understand----
Mr. Gowdy. Well, you're an attorney.
Ms. Ingram. There has been--but I have not done the
analysis in these cases.
Mr. Gowdy. Well----
Ms. Ingram. I haven't----
Mr. Gowdy. Let's simplify the analysis. Can a President
unilaterally increase a fine that Congress set?
Ms. Ingram. I'm sorry. I'm confused by----
Mr. Gowdy. It's not a----
Ms. Ingram. --the question.
Mr. Gowdy. It's not a trick question. Can any chief
executive unilaterally increase a fine or a statutory maximum?
Ms. Ingram. I don't know of any example of that.
Mr. Gowdy. So the answer would be no.
Ms. Ingram. I hesitate to respond for all of the agencies
and all of the statutes on the books.
Mr. Gowdy. Just, despite the fact that I'm a lawyer, too,
I'm going to say, trust me. The answer to that question is no.
You can't. You can't decide that we think the maximum for
burglary should be life instead of 30 years, so we're going to
sentence somebody to 40 years. You can't do that.
Ms. Ingram. Right. I understand, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. All right. And you would also agree a President
cannot unilaterally suspend a mandatory minimum. If the law
says you have to spend 5 years in prison for a 924(c)
violation, the President can't just decide he doesn't like that
law and suspend it. Correct?
Ms. Ingram. Again, I----
Mr. Gowdy. Again, it's not a trick question. It's not even
a legal question. It's more of a civics question.
Ms. Ingram. I'm trying to get my head around the
parameters.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Gowdy--Mr. Gowdy, would you let a
layperson intersect for a moment?
Mr. Gowdy. If the gentleman would be gracious enough to
toll my time.
Chairman Issa. I'll do my best.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. As a layperson----
Ms. Ingram. Yes. Thank you.
Chairman Issa. --in your 31 years at the IRS, have you ever
looked at the letter of the law on which you are executing IRS
requirements and then seen an executive order that is
inconsistent with that and gone with the executive order? In
other words, do you ever consider, as a lawyer and as a 31-year
professional, that the President can usurp IRS law or
regulation through executive order? I didn't say, fill in the
gaps. I said usurp, go--contravene existing law.
Ms. Ingram. Would the chairman indulge me in taking that in
two parts?
Chairman Issa. That would be the gentleman from South
Carolina's decision.
Mr. Gowdy. My time is being tolled.
Chairman Issa. Not anymore. I'm done.
Mr. Gowdy. Well----
Ms. Ingram. May--may I respond?
Mr. Gowdy. You--you may.
Ms. Ingram. Thank you. The executive order President part,
I don't understand in the question, but let me put that aside.
I will say it is not uncommon in my 31 years, particularly
when a statute is new or particularly when the constituency is
having logistical, operational problems meeting their
obligation under a statute, that the IRS has given people
either additional time, an additional year, or tried to tailor,
on a temporary basis, what people have to do with that statute.
Mr. Gowdy. And my question is----
Ms. Ingram. It's not uncommon.
Mr. Gowdy. --what is the legal basis for that? What is the
legal basis--have you ever seen an instance when an executive
unilaterally increased the marginal tax rate?
Ms. Ingram. No. In--increase? No.
Mr. Gowdy. So you will agree that there are certain
categories where the executive can't change the law even if the
executive may not agree with the law?
Ms. Ingram. It's never a question of whether we agree with
the law. The law--that's not relevant to the decision. The
question is, particularly in the information reporting area,
that----
Mr. Gowdy. I'm not talking about information reporting. I'm
talking about a statute passed by Congress. And I want the
legal authority by which an executive can decide which portions
of that law he or she wants to enforce and which provisions of
that law that executive sua sponte decides not to enforce.
Ms. Ingram. If there is any variation from the bare letter
of the statute, it is never a single person and it is--always
includes legal analysis by someone, not me.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, the most recent legal analysis from the
Department of Justice is only if a--an executive believes that
a law is unconstitutional, i.e., DOMA, can he or she refuse to
enforce it.
I want to read an exchange to you back when the President
from time to time did get difficult questions from the media,
so let's go--we're going to go back a while, but I want to read
an exchange where he was asked this question: People question
your legal and constitutional authority to delay the employer
mandate. Did you consult with your lawyer?
And this was the President's response: If you heard me on
stage today, what I said was I will seize any opportunity I can
to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve
their prospects, improve their security, but where Congress is
unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps I
can in order to do right by the American people.
I did not hear a legal authority for suspending the law. I
heard a political justification. Did you hear a legal authority
in his response?
Ms. Ingram. I don't know anything about his response, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Well, I just read it to you.
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. Did you hear a legal justification for
suspending certain provisions of the law?
Ms. Ingram. I only heard what you read. It speaks for
itself. I can't really interpret it.
Mr. Gowdy. Can you cite me a legal justification for
determining which portions of a law you want to summarily turn
off and turn on?
Ms. Ingram. I--I'm not familiar with anything in the way
that we administer the Tax Code where we would be changing
things in the way that you previously mentioned, changing a tax
rate, increasing a tax amount, reducing a tax amount.
The situations in which I've been involved, both in ACA and
prior to ACA over the years, have had to do with taking into
account requests from the community who need more time or more
logistical help in meeting their obligations under----
Mr. Gowdy. So your testimony is there is no provision of
the ACA, which was passed by Congress, that is not being
implemented precisely as it was passed by Congress? Is that
your testimony?
Ms. Ingram. As we understand it to be passed by Congress.
Mr. Gowdy. What does that mean, ``as we understand it''?
Ms. Ingram. I----
Mr. Gowdy. Have--have you failed to meet any deadlines? Has
any portion of the ACA as passed not been implemented on the
timetable under which it was passed?
Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired. The
gentlelady may answer.
Ms. Ingram. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are several provisions where at the request of the
taxpayer community, we have taken into account their need to
have a delayed phase-in of provisions passed by Congress. I
would point you to the W-2 provisions, which were logistical,
administer-ability requests from the community, and the
information filing requirements for employers and insurers were
based on extensive and persuasive requests from them that they
needed more time to arrange their data and build their systems.
The actual employer tax can't be figured out without some of
that reporting.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to
ask just one more question, because something in her response
prompted another question.
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Gowdy. You said you had heard from the taxpayer
community. I'm not familiar with that entity in our--in our
tripartite branch of government. How about Congress? My
question is, what is the role of Congress when the executive
decides he or she wants to sua sponte not enforce a provision
of the law heretofore passed? Not the taxpayer community.
What's the role of Congress?
Ms. Ingram. Congress from time to time will enact statutes,
with due respect to this body, that the community tells us are
difficult to administer on that exact time frame. We try to
listen to the community. We do not always do what they ask, but
where it's reasonable to us and we think that it's a temporary
accommodation and does not do lasting damage to the actual
enactment of Congress and the ongoing implementation and phase-
in of the law, we will take their views into consideration. And
we take very seriously our obligation to listen to that
community as part of our job.
Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time.
Chairman Issa. Yes.
Mr. Gowdy. I just find it stunning, I literally found that
answer stunning, and it's hard to stun me, that--that a--that
an executive branch entity would not enforce the law because
some constituency group decided it was hard to implement it.
That is not the way this works. Either Congress changes it, or
you live with the consequences of it. But can you imagine the
community just deciding they didn't like some other provision
of our criminal code being enforced? Can you imagine that, Mr.
Chairman? I just found that response----
Chairman Issa. Mr.----
Mr. Gowdy. --stunning----
Chairman Issa. Mr. Gowdy----
Mr. Gowdy. --but I'm out of time.
Chairman Issa. Mr. Gowdy, you are out of time.
And I guess one of the problems is that unions, large
companies are a community, and the individual taxpayers
apparently not getting a delay when they can't even get on the
Web site are not a community.
With that, we go to the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms.
Duckworth.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have great concerns about the data-sharing network that
was created by the Department of Health and Human Services that
just became operational a few days ago.
Ms. Ingram, I understand that you don't run this data
sharing network and that its head does not report to you. Is
that correct?
Ms. Ingram. That's right.
Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. I wish we could have those folks
here so we could actually ask them some questions about how
that program is running.
With that, I yield my time to the ranking member.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
You know, I was just listening to yourexchange with Mr.
Gowdy, and I--you know, I guess I'm--I'm--I hear all the
complaints about IRS. And I remember when I practiced law, one
time I was audited for 5 years in a row. I mean, at one time.
And it was----
Chairman Issa. Will the gentleman suspend for a second?
I ask unanimous consent that the remaining time be fully
yielded to the gentleman. You're now recognized for the
remaining time. She can't actually yield and then leave under
the rules.
Mr. Cummings. All right.
Chairman Issa. So it's now your--your time.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I represented a number of people, and they--when they
got a notice of audit from the IRS or they got certain letters
from the IRS, they base--would get very upset and very nervous.
And I was listening to what you just said, and it sounds like
you're talking about a situation where sometimes it can be an
IRS that may try to work with folk, the community, as you call
them, to show some consideration. Is that--is that what you're
trying to say? I mean----
Ms. Ingram. Yeah. I'm trying to distinguish between whether
somebody likes or doesn't like a law, which is irrelevant to
our work, but whether there are logistical, practical problems
with people's ability to do the mechanics of what they need to
do, and I would just like to distinguish those two points.
Mr. Cummings. Yeah. You know, you--I guess sometimes you're
damned if you do and damned if you don't. We've heard a lot
about IRS, and certainly we've had some bad actors, and, you
know--and I know that Members have applauded you for what
you've done, but the word on the street is that you're a
superstar. I know. You don't have to shake your head. I'm
telling you what I heard. And that they get you to take on the
tough assignments. Did you ask for this one?
Ms. Ingram. No, sir, I did not.
Mr. Cummings. The--and the reason why I mention this is
because, you know, the more as I listen, and I say to myself,
it sounds like the IRS has put it--I mean, the piece that you
have, you've been able to put it together. And could you kind
of tell us about how that came about? In other words, did you
have timelines and were you constantly hitting those timelines
and--you know, because there are some other problems in some
other areas. Maybe some people need to listen to what--how the
IRS did this. And I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm
just--I mean, in my office, I constantly say two words:
effectiveness and efficiency. I tell them we've got one life to
live. It's a limited amount of time on this Earth. We've got a
limited amount of time where we are. We've got to get things
done; we've got to get them done well. So I'm just--I'm just
curious. Can you talk about the process of getting to where
you've gotten to?
Ms. Ingram. I think a very basic part of our success to
date and our confidence in our planning going forward is that
we recognized that we needed talent from across the IRS, and we
identified that talent. We set up a governing committee that's
chaired by the two deputy commissioners and to which we all
report in. And if somebody wants more detail about that, there
are a couple of GAO reports from 2011, 2012, that go into that
in more detail.
But we tried to set up very early on the best governing
mechanism and project management mechanisms that we could to
ensure that the various phased implementation--implementation
of the various phases of the ACA, depending on effective dates
and when it would hit tax administration, could be well
organized, scheduled and simultaneously worked on in parallel
paths. And I think personally that our effort to get that
organized well has meant everything about our collective
ability as a team to be ready for October 1st and for our
confidence going forward towards the 2015 filing season.
Mr. Cummings. And just one other question. These furloughs,
how does that affect--when you're talking the subject matter of
these hearings, where we are with regard to IRS and your
relationship to all this, how does this--these furloughs, if at
all, affect the things that you're doing, you know, the
process--well, we forgot--I mean, your shop. I'm just--I'm just
curious.
Ms. Ingram. Well, what we've paid attention to is the need
to have our computer systems be operational on 10/1 and the
minimum number of people needed to either operate them or, from
my shop, business people in order to support that work, so
there is a small number of people from my shop who have been on
duty to support the operations of the IT portion.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. Thank the gentleman.
Because we can never tell how many members are going to
come and go and we have up to 10 additional members who may ask
between both sides, Ms. Ingram, would it be appropriate to take
about a 5-minute break or----
Ms. Ingram. I'm happy to. Yeah.
Chairman Issa. Why don't we go ahead and do that just so
that we not take you in a--because I can't tell you how much
longer beyond the people sitting here. So we'll stand in recess
for just a few minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Issa. The committee will come back to order.
We will now go to the gentleman from Texas, who has been
patiently waiting. The gentleman, Mr. Farenthold, is
recognized.
Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Ms. Ingram, I appreciate you being here. I know that
is not the most comfortable seat to be in, in Washington, D.C.
I want to take a step back and take a 30,000-foot view of
what's going on right now. Now, when people think about the
IRS, I would imagine their primary responsibility is to collect
taxes, the bulk of which is income tax. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. That's the primary purpose, yes.
Mr. Farenthold. And the IRS relies on people who
voluntarily comply with the income tax. Sure we have the audits
here and there, but the vast majority of what the IRS does is
based on the public complying with the laws, correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. That's a cornerstone of our democracy.
Mr. Farenthold. Now, with the current scandals that--that
are going on, it is my feeling that the American public is
losing confidence in the government. You had the--some of the
leaks within the IRS with respect to member lists of
organizations. You had the whole targeting scandal. Do you
think these mis-cues, and I'm--I'm trying to pick a benign word
here, have a negative impact on how the Americans perceive the
entire government and the IRS in particular?
Ms. Ingram. Without speaking to particular examples, I am
deeply saddened, as a veteran of the civil service, at anything
that damages the confidence of the American people and the tax
administration of the----
Mr. Farenthold. And would you agree it's inappropriate for
the IRS to share information with anybody for political
purposes and--would you agree with that?
Ms. Ingram. I don't think political purposes should ever be
part of our work.
Mr. Farenthold. And, in fact, that was one of the articles
of impeachment against President Nixon was--that eventually led
to his resignation was a--was a charge that he was improperly
using that information.
Let me go to--so I think we've got a problem here that
needs to be addressed in a big picture way. I also want to talk
for a second about data security. As a former computer
consultant, I know no matter how good a job you do at securing
your own network, once you open up a hole for somebody else to
get in and share data with them, you can no longer really have
control over the ultimate security there.
So despite--assuming the IRS were perfect, in this age, I
don't think there's such a thing as perfect in cyber security,
but as you start sharing personally identifiable information,
including potential medical information, with third parties, is
there any--anything in place to where if somebody's not being
careful with that, you can cut them off? I mean, how do you
deal with the security from your third party folks that you're
sharing data with?
Ms. Ingram. I think there are a couple of pieces to keep in
mind about the situation. One is I think we'd be glad to
provide a more detailed briefing later on the whole data
security at the IRS piece, and I think that could be arranged.
Mr. Farenthold. And that's something I would like to do.
Ms. Ingram. That's----
Mr. Farenthold. You do agree that as more people have
access to the information, the more difficult security gets?
Ms. Ingram. Which is why in the arrangement of how we were
going to share data in this instance, we insisted that the data
not be displayed outside of the machine----
Mr. Farenthold. Okay.
Ms. Ingram. --to individuals looking at a screen or the
people helping them.
Mr. Farenthold. All right. And I want to get to something
the ranking member said. He was talking about the government
shutdown, and you mentioned that you furloughed quite a few
people in yours. And my understanding is 91 percent of the IRS
has been furloughed. Does that sound right to you?
Ms. Ingram. I'm not an expert on the details. It sounds
roughly right.
Mr. Farenthold. And my understanding, again, is that the
people who take the checks and cash them for people who will be
filing on the last minute, October 5th, are there, but the
people who process the refunds for the people who are owed them
are not. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Ingram. I'm not an expert on the criteria for which
people stay or not, but there is a life and property----
Mr. Farenthold. All right.
Ms. Ingram. --aspect to that.
Mr. Farenthold. I appreciate it.
And I promised Mr. Gowdy, I would give him my last minute,
because he didn't get everything, so I yield to Mr. Gowdy. And
thank you very much.
Mr. Gowdy. Thank the gentleman from Texas.
Ms. Ingram, we're told from time to time on this side of
the aisle that the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land,
it's been affirmed by the Supreme Court, and that we ought to
just get used to it. You may from time to time have seen some
of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle sharing that
sentiment with us.
I want to read another quote to you. And this is not from
you, so I'm not going to ask you when you said it, but the
quote is important, I think. ``Everyone is up in arms, because
they don't like it. They can't do anything about it. They want
the IRS to fix the problem, so everybody is screaming at us
right now, fix it before the election.''
Do you know who said that?
Ms. Ingram. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. Gowdy. Lois Lerner said that before she invoked her
Fifth Amendment privilege, and she said it in connection with
Citizens United. The President's been very vocal himself in
calling for the overturning of Citizens United. So, in
conclusion, I guess some of our frustration is this: If the
President doesn't like Citizens United, Lois Lerner doesn't
like Citizens United, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle doesn't like Citizens United, so they can advocate for
its repeal and its legislative remedy and not following it, and
they're not called arsonists or terrorists or anything else,
but those of us who may think the Affordable Care Act is
costing people jobs or may be offended that the HHS would
mandate people violate their religious views, somehow the
analysis is different when we ask that it all be changed or
repealed or not enforced. So the duplicity of that, of Citizens
United versus the Affordable Care Act, I think is what's
fueling some of the frustration.
With that, I would yield back.
Chairman Issa. And I thank the gentleman.
We now have the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Kelly.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair----
Chairman Issa. I think your mike, please.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Ms. Ingram, for being here today.
I would like to ask you about the allegations that have
been lodged against you. Republican Congressman Tom Price
accused you of systematic harassment of conservative and
religious organizations. He also argued that your employment at
the IRS should be suspended.
I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to those
comments directly, because Congressmen and women can say a lot
of things to the press and smear your name, and never give you
a chance to respond.
Did you engage in systematic harassment of conservative and
religious organizations?
Ms. Ingram. No, ma'am.
Ms. Kelly. Throughout your 31-plus-year career at the IRS,
have you ever treated a taxpayer differently based on your own
political or personal beliefs?
Ms. Ingram. Absolutely not.
Ms. Kelly. And I want to again talk about the timeline. I
know we've discussed your move from the commissioner of Tax
Exempt and Government Entities to your new position at the ACA
in December 2010. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. I'm sorry. I was distracted by the sign. If you
could ask me again.
Ms. Kelly. That you moved from the commissioner of Tax
Exempt Government Entities to your new ACA position in December
2010. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Kelly. And during your transcribed interview with
committee staff, you said that during your tenure as
commissioner, Ms. Lerner never told you about the allegations
related to the Tea Party cases.
Ms. Ingram. I have no memory of hearing about them while I
was there.
Ms. Kelly. And you became aware of the general allegations
in 2012 really from press releases. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. I heard some things in the press, which is--you
know, I heard that. And then, in the spring, my boss asked me
to sit in on a couple of meetings he had called.
Ms. Kelly. So that's Deputy IRS Commissioner Steven Miller?
Ms. Ingram. Mr. Miller, yes.
Ms. Kelly. Right. Asked you to attend a meeting about the
allegations in 2012?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. In the spring.
Ms. Kelly. And that's when he decided to send the team to
Cincinnati to conduct an internal review of what happened. Is
that right?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. That was what I was observing going on
when I sat in on the meeting.
Ms. Kelly. And were you on that team?
Ms. Ingram. No, ma'am.
Ms. Kelly. Did you conduct any internal review?
Ms. Ingram. No. I had no role in between the few meetings I
attended other than to help persuade Ms. Marks to participate
in the team.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. But when the review was completed, you
were informed by the internal review team that some
applications for tax-exempt status had been screened using
inappropriate criteria and experienced delays?
Ms. Ingram. Mr. Miller asked me to sit in on a meeting
where they reported back, and I heard at that time that there
were serious concerns based on their on-the-ground review about
the delays in cases, the handling of cases, the filter criteria
for organizing inventory.
Ms. Kelly. Were you involved in any way in the action plan
to address the--these problems? Were you involved in any way?
Ms. Ingram. I sat in on a couple of meetings that Mr.
Miller asked me to join that--at which the team presented their
proposal of what they would recommend happen next in terms of
analyzing and moving cases, educating staff and so forth. So I
sat in on some of those meetings, and that was kind of my role.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. But you weren't a part of developing or
overseeing or implementing----
Ms. Ingram. No. I did--I never developed nor supervised the
execution.
Ms. Kelly. And why do you think you weren't a part of it?
Ms. Ingram. Because I had a more than full-time job. I know
many people in this room work long hours, but 60 or 70 hours
seems like a full-time job to me, and that job was ACA. And I
was not having any of my ACA duties taken off me. So when I
could sit in when I was requested, I tried to cooperate, but it
was only a few times, and I didn't make a lot of the times I
was invited.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. And did you play any role in Lois Lerner's
decision to reveal the IG's findings at the ABA meeting?
Ms. Ingram. None.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. So let me just see if I have this right.
You were not responsible for conducting the internal review.
You were not charged with implementing the corrective measures.
And you had no interaction with Lois Lerner about her decision
to discuss the allegations at the ABA meeting.
Ms. Ingram. Correct.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Chairman Issa. Thank the gentlelady.
We now go to the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Meadows.
Could you yield me just 30 seconds?
Mr. Meadows. I'll--I'll be glad to, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I just want to shake sure I follow up on Ms.
Kelly. Let's understand this, for the first 10 months of the
targeting of conservative groups, you were there, and it was
your job between February and December of 2012. And then until
May of 2013, you held the title, meaning that you had a
responsibility even if you were doing another full-time job.
So, for 10 months, you were Lois Lerner's boss and in
residence; for the next 2 years, you were Lois Lerner's boss,
but not in residence, but still, ultimately, if she--she or her
people were doing something wrong, it was still something that
you should have either relinquished the title or taken some
action. And in May of 2012, when you--when you knew that,
having regularly come up here, you never informed Congress of
the targeting even after you described it.
I just want to make sure that Ms. Kelly's statement that
you were somehow not part of it be understood that for 10
months, you--you owned it as the boss; for the next 2 years,
you owned it by title and did not relinquish the title; and for
a period of time after you discovered the scandal, you did not
reveal it. And that--that just--I find that concerning.
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, ask unanimous consent that the
gentleman be given an additional 3 minutes and she be allowed
to answer the allegations that you just made against her.
Chairman Issa. These are not allegations. These are facts.
Mr. Cummings. Well, why won't you let her answer?
Chairman Issa. These are the dates.
Mr. Meadows. I--I object.
Mr. Cummings. You object to a lady defending herself?
Chairman Issa. The gentleman----
Mr. Cummings. I mean, you guys are sitting here----
Chairman Issa. The gentleman----
Mr. Cummings. --making allegations that the lady----
Chairman Issa. The gentleman asked for a----
Mr. Cummings. --a 31-year employee. You're making----
Chairman Issa. The gentleman will suspend.
Mr. Cummings. Let her answer it. That's not right.
Chairman Issa. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman--
--
Mr. Cummings. I'll suspend.
Chairman Issa. You asked for unanimous consent because of a
statement that there had been allegations. I stated a
chronology of facts. The chronology of facts are for 10 months,
she was on the job during the period of this scandal.
Additionally, for the next several years, she had the title but
was not in residence, and she, by her own testimony, testified
that she became aware of it; however, did not inform the
Congress or take measures to make it public, and it became
public through other means. That--none of that is in
controversy nor is it an allegation.
Mr. Cummings. But she's sitting here and she's shaking her
head, and I just want to her to have an opportunity to say
whatever she was thinking. I--maybe she doesn't have anything
to say, but the whole time she's shaking her head like this,
and I'm just trying to--I'm just trying to be fair to the
witness. That's all I'm asking. I want the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Chairman Issa. I'm sure--I'm sure you want the truth if, in
fact, it vindicates somebody who for 10 months----
Mr. Cummings. This is not vindicating. It's about allowing
someone--when you make allegations like that, when you make
allegations, a person should have an opportunity to defend
themselves. That's why I asked unanimous consent that she--that
he be given more time and that she simply have an opportunity
to respond. Now, if she does not want to respond, fine.
Chairman Issa. I thank----
Mr. Meadows. If the rank----
Chairman Issa. --the gentleman.
Mr. Meadows. If the rank----
Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman please suspend. Reset it
to 5 minutes.
If the gentlelady would like to respond as to the
chronology, particularly as to the first 10 months, in which
you were on the job while conservative groups were being
targeted, that's fine. I'd be happy to have it. I was
responding to Ms. Kelly's essential statement that, well, you
didn't, you didn't, you didn't, when in fact the timeline is
different. It's not the subject of today's hearing, but if you
have some further input, we'd certainly be glad to hear it.
Ms. Ingram. Well, with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I
just would like to put a few points on the record, one of which
is during the 10 months that I was--more than 10 months. During
the 2010 year, before I went to ACA, at TEGE, I had five
discrete areas that I was responsible for and a lot of very big
things going on, including EEO, that had nothing to do with the
determination letter program as it relates to 501(c)(4)'s.
I have no recollection of hearing about the incidents that
are contained in the TIGTA report. We were very busy with some
issues that affected tens of thousands of exempt organizations,
such as the statutory requirement that after 3 years of non-
filing, organizations become non-qualified. That was taking a
lot of time. We were working on the implementation of the
charitable hospital rules that the ACA imposed on the
charitable hospital sector. That was a great deal of work.
There were a lot of other things going on, and I just want to
put that in context, for 2010.
When I was assigned to go to the ACA, in the same
announcement, the commissioner announced an acting commissioner
in charge in my absence, and it was made quite clear to me that
my responsibilities laid at the ACA project. And since that was
a more than full-time job and there were people in charge of
operating the TEGE division, that is where I was told to
concentrate, and I did.
From time to time, where, because of my previous
experience, such as in Indian tribal governments, I could be
helpful by very briefly helping out with a particular task, I
was asked to do that. I--it was always on top of my ACA duties.
So if you talk about 60 or 70 hours when I had to do that, it
was on top of that.
In the spring of 2012, the few meetings I was asked to sit
in on, I saw in those meetings people, including my own boss,
who were focused on the issues that they were learning about,
upset about what they were hearing, wanting to get to the
bottom of it, wanting to make sure they understood what was
going on, and I assured myself that TIGTA had become involved.
And knowing that that team was in charge of it and driving it
and having very clear instructions that my job was ACA, and
knowing that TIGTA was in the mix, who I trust to get to the
bottom of these kinds of questions or allegations of this
nature, I continued to work on ACA.
So although I understand that the fact that my title on
paper was not changed for some time and despite the fact that I
repeatedly offered to my bosses, you know, put me wherever you
need me to be to do the work I come in every day to do as an
impartial civil servant, the fact that the title did not
change, I understand sometimes confuses people, but I would
like people to understand the nature of what my
responsibilities were and my knowledge were at those various
periods.
Chairman Issa. Well, I appreciate that.
Ms. Ingram. Thank you for the opportunity.
Chairman Issa. And I appreciate that. And hopefully, you'll
appreciate that what you said, and I take it as completely
accurate, 100 percent, is not inconsistent with the three
statements I made, that you were in charge for the first 10
months, in which this scandal was going on without your
knowledge; that you had the title for the next 2 years; that
you became aware of it, and, by your own statement, you felt
that TIGTA was taking care of it, so you felt no responsibility
to inform Congress or in any other way go public with it. I'm
not faulting you. I'm saying you didn't know it was going on
while this bad service was going on for the beginning of it.
You maintained the title. That's not a disparagement of you.
The fact that you said maybe somebody else should get the
title, in fact probably is part of the challenge is that an
acting should have been a confirmed, if you will, individual so
that you would get past the question of--of somebody handling
this. And then, of course, lastly, while many people at the IRS
knew about this well before the election, as it was being
asserted, it was kept private.
Not blaming you, but as Ms. Kelly was going through her--
her series, I saw these three timelines that I thought I could
accurately state, and I believe I did. I think you've
accurately confirmed, through no fault of yours, that these
were accurate timelines, and that part of what is an
investigation of this committee is, in fact, all the various
elements that went into people at 501(c)(4)'s,
disproportionately conservative groups, from 2000--well, before
2010 until today, many of them have not received an approval or
a denial. And that's what I think some Members of Congress have
called bad customer service. I wouldn't call it bad customer
service. I have other terms for it. But hopefully, we've--we've
settled that.
Mr. Meadows, I appreciate your patience. You're recognized
for the full 5 minutes.
RPTS BLAZEJEWSKI
DCMN SECKMAN
[1:05 p.m.]
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to give you a chance, because earlier in the
testimony, Mr. Cartwright was asking a question; you responded,
and I think you misspoke briefly because his question was, were
you employed during the time in that particular position while
targeting was going on? And your answer was no, and I believe
that we know from the timeline that was just shared that,
indeed, you were there for at least 8 to 10 months while the
targeting was going on, according to what has been reported
with the TIGTA report. Is that correct?
Ms. Ingram. May I state that I have not studied the TIGTA
report?
Mr. Meadows. I have.
Ms. Ingram. I respect that.
Mr. Meadows. I have read it probably five times.
Ms. Ingram. I respect that, sir. So----
Mr. Meadows. Assuming that the TIGTA report is correct and
the targeting began in February to April of 2010, were you
indeed employed and in direct management capacity at that
particular time?
Ms. Ingram. If that's the time frame that you're----
Mr. Meadows. That's what they report, yeah.
Ms. Ingram. Okay. Then I was----
Mr. Meadows. Because in that report----
Ms. Ingram. --formally and functionally the commissioner
until December.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Because in that report they gave a
chart----
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. --that was not just a chart in name only. It
actually--that's where I first learned of your name was from
the TIGTA report.
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Mr. Meadows. And so, in doing that, they put in that there
was systemic management failures or lack of management that
would directly implicate you, and so today you are correcting
your testimony, you were there during that first part of 2010
while targeting was going on?
Ms. Ingram. If that's the period you're talking about, I
was at TEG as commissioner, yes.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. Were you upset that Lois Lerner prior to
your meeting that you were brought back in with, with Mr.
Miller, were you upset that she never told you about any of
this targeting? Because she was right in the middle of the
storm. You had a personal relationship, not just a professional
relationship. Were you not upset that she didn't share any of
this?
Ms. Ingram. So once I was on ACA, I wouldn't have been
necessarily a logical person for her to turn to. I wish I had
been.
Mr. Meadows. But it happened under your watch. So you
wouldn't be upset with her that she didn't share it with you?
Ms. Ingram. If I may finish, sir. I wish I had known
information during 2010 that I could have helped deal with that
in a better way, but I don't recall ever knowing about the kind
of stuff that I understand the TIGTA report covers, and after I
went to ACA I would not have been the right person.
Mr. Meadows. So what did you know? You say the kind of
stuff. So what did you know during that period of time? Those
are carefully chosen words.
Ms. Ingram. No, sir, I'm sorry, they weren't particularly
carefully chosen. I apologize. I was aware that there was a lot
of noise out in the public about the Citizens United case. I
was aware that there were a lot of other critical EO projects
that affected lots and lots of EO's and some of which had
mandatory implementation dates from the legislation, and I know
that traditionally the kinds of cases in which questions would
arise about political activity or campaign intervention had
come up in the (c)(3) area and had come up in the exam stream
and the process for selecting cases for exam based on letters
that members of the public write to us all the time suggesting
that we look at their opponents.
Mr. Meadows. So let me ask you this: If you were called to
testify back then, would you have given the same statement that
you have today with regards to the implementation of ACA that
everything is good, it's copacetic, everything is going along
the way it should? Because obviously, I guess you were under
that belief then. So could you be wrong today, as you were
wrong in assuming that everything was going well under your
previous management?
Ms. Ingram. The oversight of the division involves a
different management process and set of reporting up and
division of labor than a project management office does. In a
project management office----
Mr. Meadows. So you are definitely sure you are right
today, and that's because your role has changed?
Ms. Ingram. Because in a project management office, my role
is very hands on because of the structure and nature of the
project.
Mr. Meadows. Okay.
Ms. Ingram. I have more personal knowledge.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Well, let me ask you then, with
Obamacare and the data hubs, I know a lot of that is HHS, are
you involved in the nature of their testing from a security
standpoint on going back and forth? Is the IRS involved in
that, or is it all on the HHS side of things?
Ms. Ingram. My understanding is that our testing with them
is as to their connection, the handshake between their machine
and our machine to make sure that the handshake works. We are
not involved in the testing they do with others.
Mr. Meadows. I am out of time. I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the ranking member as well. I just have one
matter that I want to just address. A number of speakers ago,
one of the gentlemen from the other side suggested that it was
comparable, what the Republicans were doing in attacking the
Affordable Care Act, to the President's opposition and
Democratic opposition to the Citizens United decision. And it
is true that the President and many Democrats, including
myself, have called for the repeal or the overturning of the
Citizens United decision.
However, importantly I think, it is important to say that
neither the President nor I have shut down the government in
pursuit of our goals. And neither the government--neither the
President nor Democrats in Congress have suggested that we
default on the national debt in pursuit of our goals, and I
think that is an important distinction that has to be made.
Ms. Ingram, thank you very much for your willingness to
come before this committee and help us with our work, and I
appreciate your patience. I do have some questions regarding
the role of the IRS's privacy governmental liaison and
disclosure office and your role in implementing the ACA.
Ranking Member Cummings earlier requested that a representative
from this office appear as a witness today. However, that has
not happened. The chairman refused that request, and so I'll
direct these questions to you.
According to the IRS organizational chart that I'm reading,
the Office of Safeguards has the responsibility for monitoring
nearly 300 Federal and State agencies that currently are
permitted to receive taxpayer data to ensure that they are
complying with privacy laws. Under the Affordable Care Act, the
IRS, HHS, State and Federal exchanges, and other Federal
agencies will share taxpayer information in order to determine
an individual's eligibility for the premium tax credits.
Ms. Ingram, is the sharing of Federal taxpayer information
with State and Federal agencies a new task for the Office of
Safeguards?
Ms. Ingram. Well, for a more complete answer, we can
provide that through that office, but we have decades of
experience with the sharing of tax data under the long list of
exceptions to 6103 that Congress has from time to time added to
that section. This is a new one, and we've taken the same kind
of care, if not more, in making sure that the safeguards are in
place and that our oversight is launched.
Mr. Lynch. Very good. So it sounds like this office has a
longstanding experience in overseeing the transmission of
taxpayer data?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. And what kind of policies and procedures
must State and Federal agencies have in place in order to
receive taxpayer information? Could you describe that?
Ms. Ingram. So I'm going to give you a high level answer
because I am not an expert on the details of it. For example,
the oversight board document, those pages were prepared by the
Disclosure Office, but in general, there are very detailed--
it's a very detailed publication, pub 1075, that sits on our
Web site. There's an extensive multi-page template that is the
foundation for the safeguards procedures report, there are also
a number of other kinds of data sharing agreements under
various statutes. Those have all been implemented with the
appropriate entity, whether that entity, as I said in my
testimony, is HHS or whether the entity is the ultimate
recipient of the data.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Now, these Federal agencies and State
agencies, do they have to get a, go through a certification
process in order to receive this information?
Ms. Ingram. Yes. We do not release any data to anybody that
we are not comfortable that they have sufficient safeguards in
place following all the detailed procedures in those
requirements.
Mr. Lynch. Okay, and were the State and Federal exchanges
certified pursuant to this process prior to October 1st?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, the data hub, the federally facilitated
exchange, the individual exchanges at the State level, and
several of the Medicaid offices had also asked to be certified
by October 1st.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. Well, my time is short. I do want to thank
you for your service, and I appreciate you coming to this
committee and helping us. Thank you.
I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentleman from Michigan for 5 minutes, Mr.
Bentivolio.
Mr. Bentivolio. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
important hearing today.
Since I came to Congress, I have heard from every sector of
the economy, and they all tell me the same thing: Obamacare is
making it difficult to create more jobs and making it more
costly to buy insurance. From the city manager of Plymouth,
Michigan, who told my staff that he's unsure if the city parks
can be maintained because it might put the city over 50
employees to nearly every single business owner who comes into
my office worried about the insurance they currently provide
their employees skyrocketing in price. Obamacare is hurting a
lot more people than appear to be helped by it.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter for the
record, if I may, today's Washington Post, a particular
article, ``Many Foresaw Health Site Jam.''
Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you. It says basically two allies of
the administration, both of whom spoke on the condition of
being anonymous because of the controversy surrounding the
rollout, said they approached White House officials this year
to raise concerns that the Federal exchange was not ready to
launch. In both cases, Obama officials assured them there was
no cause for alarm.
Outside the White House, people familiar with the setup
efforts had been warning of chaos in the days and months
leading up to October 1st.
On September 18th, Louisiana's Health and Hospitals
Secretary Kathy, if I get this right, Kliebert, testified
before Mr. Lankford's subcommittee that the administration was
giving confusing information and making last minute changes
that left the States scrambling.
John Engates, chief technology officer at service provider
RackSpace, said the government should have been able to prepare
for the type of traffic that the site has experienced. I think
that any modern Web company would be well prepared for a launch
of this scale, said Engrates. We're not talking about hundreds
of millions of people and we're not talking about complex
transactions; this isn't downloading full movies off of
NetFlix. The question I have is, did they have enough time to
prepare, and did the people doing the work know what they were
doing, end of quote in the newspaper.
My question today, your testimony today, Ms. Ingram, sounds
like testimony this committee heard earlier this year from CMS
Administrator Marilyn Tavenner and Director of the Center for
Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight Gary Cohen that
everything was fine and that the administration would be
prepared for October 1st. We now know that the administration
was not prepared for October 1st. How can we know that the IRS
is adequately prepared and that there was enough time for IRS
to conduct the checks and make sure the safeguards were in
place to protect all the sensitive information flowing through
Obamacare data hub?
Ms. Ingram. So I think one piece of that question, if I
understood it correctly, sir, could be answered by the fact
that our systems have come up on time and operated as planned
and are turning transactions around when they reach our door as
the IRS.
The other part of the question, having to do with ensuring
that data safeguards are adequately in place and that we have
reassured ourselves as to that point, we would be glad to
arrange a separate briefing to take you through more detail of
what that team did, but that team started, as I understand it,
very early on in implementation working with States and the HHS
about what would be required, how the design of their systems
could take the safeguards into account, and again on limiting
where that data can go and how it has to be walled off and
protected. I am not an expert on all the pieces that they did,
but we would be glad to provide a separate briefing if that
would be of help.
Mr. Bentivolio. Okay. Recently it was reported that the
Minnesota exchange accidentally released the names, addresses,
and Social Security numbers of over 2,400 brokers. Exchanges
will store significant amount of sensitive data, including
income and employment information. If it comes to IRS's
attention that an exchange improperly handles sensitive data,
data like Minnesota has done, what steps will the IRS take to
ensure sensitive taxpayer data is protected?
Ms. Ingram. Two pieces. One that because it's restricted
from view to so many people that might raise your concern, we
think we have greatly reduced the likelihood, but if it comes
to our attention, we actually can turn the switch off on the
computer within minutes to cut off a feed to a particular
recipient if we have reason to think that that recipient
doesn't merit the approvals they received previously.
Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you.
I think my time has expired. I yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now go to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia
who I was with earlier working on the issues of reopening the
District of Columbia, and I want to personally thank her for
her efforts.
Ms. Norton. Well, Mr. Chairman, you have stolen my thanks,
because I wanted to thank you for coming to the swamp site,
taking a respite from the hearing, which you, of course, are
obligated to chair and considering that the District of
Columbia's local budget, which is fast--where we are fast
running out of contingency funds, was important enough to leave
a hearing that I know you have shaped, and I very much
appreciate that you did.
I want to--and of course, the chairman, as he spoke and had
to leave, so I didn't get a chance to thank him in the manner
to which he deserves, was quick to tell me that the hearing is
going on, and I realized I was AWOL.
I did want to attend this hearing because the gentleman's
question about being adequately prepared is--goes to my
question.
Ms. Ingram, you are a senior civil servant of considerable
intelligence and long experience. If anything, I have great
fears that we will lose people like you as civil servants are
going through the issues that now confront all of you.
Now, here is a new function. I imagine that you were given
this function because of that long record, because of your
great ability. We have a major change in the Tax Code, in the
tax laws of the United States. In your experience, have you
ever seen a change as major as the change that you now
confront, where you have everything from your regulations to
your IT infrastructure, new tax forms--that is not unusual--to
come forward with?
Ms. Ingram. I think people debate whether this or the Tax
Act of 1986 or the 1974 passage of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, how those would all stack up. I will say
that this is certainly one of the largest pieces of legislative
implementation that the IRS has tackled in recent years, but we
are confident that we have it organized and we're on track.
Ms. Norton. Now, with respect to those other two large tax
overhauls that you mentioned, were you given increase in
funding beyond your normal funding in order to handle the new
workload in those two instances?
Ms. Ingram. I will confess I was not employed in 1974, so I
don't know what was done then, and in 1986, I was not in a
position to know that, so I'm not----
Ms. Norton. Well, let me know that. I have information that
between 2010 and 2012, the budget of the IRS was cut by 3
percent. Now, that is one thing you would wonder, if you have a
major new function on the order of the two you discussed, why
cuts would be in order rather than some increase, particularly
given concerns, I think quite legitimate concerns that have
been raised here about privacy, not to mention difficulty.
Let me ask you, then--well, first, let me tell you, I
happen to be sitting in the financial services appropriation--
no, in the Appropriations Committee when the financial services
appropriation went through, and I was just stunned because the
Appropriations Committee passed a 24 percent reduction in the
IRS budget for 2014. I need to know, particularly in light of
concerns, privacy and other concerns that have been raised
here, whether you will be able to meet your benchmarks, the
internal ones that you say have thus far been met, and to
afford the protections with a quarter of your budget being cut
at a moment when you're seeing--we're seeing one of the most
major increases in responsibility ever given the IRS?
Ms. Ingram. Well, I would like to leave the budget
discussions to Acting Commissioner Werfel and his budget team,
so I am a little hesitant to opine on the elements that
Congresswoman----
Ms. Norton. But I am not asking about the elements. I am
just asking whether or not here--I am speaking as a layman. Can
an agency which is given a major new responsibility simply move
forward, absorb that major responsibility, change the
infrastructure, issue new guidance, acquaint all the employees
with new IT and regulations? Is that a fair, is that a fair or
reasonable mandate to give an agency of the United States
Government?
Ms. Ingram. Our agency has a great deal on its hands,
including the legislative implementation that we are required
to do. Tough budgets require tough choices, and folks beyond me
will be involved in those, that choice making, depending on
what budget is available at any given time.
Ms. Norton. You can be assured of this, Ms. Ingram, that
your effectiveness in carrying out the ACA and your other
responsibilities under the Internal Revenue Code will be
scrutinized by this committee and others, and if it does not--
notwithstanding whatever the cut is, if you do not meet up to
those, none of the blame will be laid here in the Congress of
the United States, which instead of increasing your budget to
accommodate changes, it has mandated has reduced your budget,
making it very difficult, assuming the budget gets out at all,
for you to meet the very demands we are making on the agency,
and I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady, and the gentlelady
makes a very good point, which is that if you manage to live
with 24 percent less, we won't call you. If it doesn't work
out, undoubtedly, somebody will be in front of many committees.
We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for having this hearing, I'm sure this is going to
be a subject that is going to have a recurring importance,
given the huge expansion of the authority of the IRS under the
so-called Affordable Care Act. I heard some of the colleagues
on the other side of the aisle almost just mocking the hearing,
and it really struck me because it is almost as if somehow we
are just not supposed to talk about Obamacare anymore, and I
think as we have seen it become implemented, the more and more
apparent it has been that the promises that were made to
justify the law's passage are essentially null and void. They
were essentially false pretenses.
I mean, for example, the President said the only change for
people with insurance is that you will pay less, and that
estimate was $2,500 per family. That Americans are finding out
is totally not going to be the case.
If you like your plan, we were told you can keep your plan,
but yet we see stories of spouses losing their coverage,
employees losing their employer-based coverage, getting put on
the exchanges. And then we said if you like your doctor, you
get to keep your doctor, but if you lose your current plan, you
end up on the exchanges, you may not have access to the same
doctor that you did before, and so the issue is not going to go
away, given that what was promised is not being delivered.
I think it is also just interesting to compare the passage
of the health care law with some other major pieces of
legislation. I just looked this up, it is amazing. Social
Security got 96 percent of Democrats in the House, 81 percent
of Republicans. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System got 93
percent of Democrats in the House, 98 percent of Republicans.
Civil Rights Act 1964, 61 percent of Democrats in the House and
80 percent of Republicans in the House. Reaganomics, 1981, 78
percent of Democrats in the Senate supported that and 98
percent of Republicans. And even welfare reform in 1996, broad
bipartisan agreement. You didn't have any bipartisan agreement
here, and so I think that that also contributes to the
controversy.
I keep hearing that this is the law of the land as if it is
somehow sacrosanct, that you can't actually advance legislative
changes to it, and that just--we have the authority to do that.
Of course, we are able to suggest changes, delays, repeals,
whatever is in our Article I authority, but the thing about
this notion that somehow it is the law, full stop, you can't
even talk about it is, if this is such a sacred piece of
legislation, then why isn't the President implementing it as
written? I mean, we have talked today about the delay in the
employer mandate, which was supposed to start in January with
no statutory basis for the delay. We know there was a delay on
the cap on out-of-pocket costs, which were supposed to take
effect this year. We know subsidies were granted to Members of
Congress without having a statutory basis. Income verification
requirements for exchange subsidies suspended. And then the use
of subsidies on these Federal-based exchanges, and that is what
I want to talk about now, just in terms of whether this
implementation is being done with the law.
The law, under the Affordable Care Act, says, Section 1401,
subsidies can go to an individual, quote, enrolled in through
an exchange established by the State, under Section 1311 of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And of course, we
have seen most States have rejected creating exchanges, as the
law contemplated, and so then the IRS has had to determine,
well, what about these Federal exchanges. And I don't see any
statutory basis for those subsidies to flow to Federal
exchanges.
Nevertheless, on May 23, 2012, the IRS finalized a
regulation which actually allows subsidies to flow to Federal
exchanges, even though there is no provision in the law to
allow that.
So my question for you is, just were you consulted when
they were devising this rule about whether the IRS should issue
guidance allowing subsidies to flow to people who were enrolled
in federally run exchanges instead of exchanges instituted
under Section 1311?
Ms. Ingram. I was in--I was present for a number of
different topics that were covered by that reg. For that
particular topic, I was not particularly involved. I was
probably in a briefing or two where other people discussed it,
but it wasn't my decision.
Mr. DeSantis. So they weren't asking you your thoughts
about whether you thought that these subsidies should flow to
people in federally run exchanges?
Ms. Ingram. I am about administrability, not about the
legal policy calls.
Mr. DeSantis. Now, were you, prior to this regulation being
instituted, were you guys going forward with your
implementation assuming that the subsidies would be available
for the States that declined to create a State exchange?
Ms. Ingram. The proposed regs included the same position,
and there were many comments that were filed, as is always the
case after proposed regs. It is part of my job to keep track of
what is in the proposed reg stage, ask about whether, what is
coming in, in comments and the likelihood that something would
change so that we don't go too far in implementation steps if
something is going to change and we would have to change our
work. That is my role.
Mr. DeSantis. So the answer to that is, yes, you guys had
assumed that there would be Federal subsidies for federally run
exchanges?
Ms. Ingram. I kept track of the likelihood that the
position in the proposed reg would change so I could adjust, if
necessary, the administrative work.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. I think the gentleman
brings up a good point since CBO never scored that subsidy.
At this point we have concluded our first round. I am going
to ask the gentleman from Maryland, the ranking member, to
close, and then I will close.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Ingram, I want to take a moment to thank you again for
being here. But I want to thank you for something else. I want
to thank you for having a can-do attitude, and I really mean
that. You know, I am the son of two former sharecroppers with
only a second grade education each. One of the things my father
used to say to us as kids, and they educated all seven of their
kids on a domestic's salary and a laborer, and their attitude
was always there is no such word as can't. I thank you for,
first of all, believing that you can get something done, get it
done well, and then doing it, and I do believe that you are an
exemplar of so many of our Federal employees. Many of them are
sitting home right now, wherever they may be, possibly watching
this or they will watch it later on, and they, too, have those
can-do attitudes.
And, you know, we hear a lot about the Affordable Care Act,
and clearly, there are things that should be done to make it
better. I think they tell me when Medicare started, they had a
lot of problems and issues, but I think what you have shown is
that the piece that was, you know, that you had to deal with,
obviously good planning, targeted dates, I guess, some kind of
timetable, making sure the tasks were done, and always saying I
am going to reach that goal, I am going to get there. And so I
thank you, I really do for--you know, I was--you shook your
head a little earlier when I said, ``The word on the street was
that you're a superstar,'' but that is what I have heard. You
don't have to shake your head again.
But it is the people like you and the people that sit
behind you that give so much, they give so much because you
realize it is so much bigger than you. And I look at the people
who come to work for us. Most of these folks could be doing
something else, but they come--I am talking about Republican
and Democrat. They come to work every day, they believe in what
they are doing. And they give everything they have got. And so
I know you said that you feel comfortable. You are on target,
and I would just ask you to maintain that, and I am saying this
for a reason, because I want people to know that they are
appreciated; they really are. They are appreciated for what
they do because they are touching millions upon millions of
Americans, and a lot of times I am sure they sit at their desks
and say, you know, ``What am I doing this for? Why have I got
to go through this? The problems keep coming and whatever.''
But I do believe that deep in their hearts people like you, for
31 years, this apparently must feed your soul. It must.
And I think that when people have a passion for something,
that is where their strength is, and if we as the public are
beneficiaries of your passion and of your purpose to make this
society a better society, and I am convinced that once we work
out the kinks in Obamacare, that we will have something that
will benefit society long after we are dead. That, to me--I
mean, I can't think of too much more, when you think about, you
know, looking back at your life and if someone were to write a
book, and for you to be able to say, ``Well, I did my part, I
did it well,'' and I am not just talking about you, but I am
talking about all the team that are making it happen for IRS
and Obamacare, if they want to call it that, I want to thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman.
Quick announcement: I spoke to Acting Commissioner Werfel,
and he was not able to get us the documents that we presented
to you. Additionally, obviously, he--well, not obviously, but
he stated that in fact, he wouldn't be able to determine
whether you were correct or not correct about that being 6103
documentation. So I will work out with the committee and the
commissioner how we can go through and get properly redacted
material going forward, how we can get the discovery we did
not. And we will try to resolve some of those questions,
hopefully without having you back, even though I desperately
would like to know the details underneath these communications
and others. And from our oversight, it appears as though there
are hundreds, if not thousands, of documents that have been
claimed to be 6103 that are not. Again, you are not in the
redaction business, neither is the commissioner directly, so we
will work that out with him.
I am going to go through just a couple of short things. You
talked about the community. Under the Affordable Care Act,
there is a 1 percent tax, going to 2.5 percent, if somebody
doesn't buy insurance, and as the President has said, you know,
and many have said, that has been held, that law has been to
the Supreme Court. But let me just run through the numbers for
a moment and ask you with your experience of working with the
community if this makes sense. Warren Buffet makes a couple of
billion dollars in a bad year, so under the Affordable Care
Act, as a single individual, his penalty would be in the
millions if he did not buy insurance, and yet the required cap
for insurance would be less than that. Do you find it
interesting that there is no provision of the Affordable Care
Act for somebody to self-insure or to in some other way meet
the financial responsibility, and therefore they are being
mandated to buy a profit-oriented insurance package, in many
cases?
Ms. Ingram. Well, I want to--if I could speak first to the
comment about Mr. Buffett, the actual calculation of the tax is
capped at what it would cost to go get insurance. So it
wouldn't be just simply a multiple of his income. But, I am
sorry, I was--I apologize, I was distracted.
Chairman Issa. Would that be the minimum plan? Because
right now, they set a minimum in the law, but there is no
maximum dollar set. So is that the high deductible, $4200,
$5,000, $10,000?
Ms. Ingram. I am not going to have the exact, which premium
it is, but it is capped at the cost it would otherwise take
someone to go get insurance, and there is a definitional thing
in there. I can give you a more precise answer----
Chairman Issa. Okay. So if Mr. Buffett would have a $10,000
plan----
Ms. Ingram. Let's say.
Chairman Issa. That would be the minimum he could have, and
he would be penalized $10,000, taken from him, but he would get
no health care. Is that right?
Ms. Ingram. That would be his economic choice at that
point.
Chairman Issa. So he cannot insure and pay the same amount
as for insuring under the law?
Ms. Ingram. I think there is a more sophisticated answer to
that, so I would like to be able to respond more fully in----
Chairman Issa. Yeah, no, please respond in writing, because
from what we read is, if you pay the fine--if you self-insure,
you will be charged the amount of having insured, you will have
no coverage, but you, in fact, can self-insured. So you can pay
all of your own charges, not be covered, and yet pay the same
amount as if you were covered. I just--I find that sort of an
interesting one.
Let me switch to another part. In most of your 31 years of
Federal service, I presume, and I am not trying to be overly
personal, but I think it is for 2.1 million workers and 8
million covered, we are in FEHBP. Are you?
Ms. Ingram. Yes, I am.
Chairman Issa. So you are familiar with the 300 or so
choices available and certainly the 11-plus that are available
to you in any of the communities around the District of
Columbia? You are in an FEHBP plan?
Ms. Ingram. I am.
Chairman Issa. But you have looked at the array of ones
available?
Ms. Ingram. I am in a plan for that program, yes.
Chairman Issa. And does it meet the minimums under the
Affordable Care Act requirement for insurance?
Ms. Ingram. My understanding is that it does.
Chairman Issa. And employees of the House and Senate,
including employees of this committee, are in that plan also.
Is there any reason, any logical reason that they should be
thrown out of that plan, other than it was mandated in the law?
Ms. Ingram. I haven't been involved in any of the
discussions about what should or should not be done about the
coverage of folks on the Hill----
Chairman Issa. Okay.
Ms. Ingram. --and I would defer to those people.
Chairman Issa. Okay. Yeah, no, there are really stupid
things done by the Members of the House and Senate to the
employees who work for us, probably are something for you to
stay out of as long as you get to stay in FEHBP.
The next question is one that does fall to you. If Congress
tomorrow declared that FEHBP was a Federal exchange, would
there be any inconsistency with Federal exchanges, small
business Federal exchanges, such as the D.C. exchange?
Ms. Ingram. I am not sure what the inconsistency question
is. Your question immediately started my brain working on the
logistics and the wiring, so I am sorry that's where my brain
went.
Chairman Issa. Right, but currently, FEHBP covers over 8
million people. It covers COBRA for people who have left the
Federal workforce. It covers the vast majority of retired
Federal employees. And it covers virtually every current
Federal employee and their families. So you have a plan that
has over 300 options, you yourself in the District area get
dozens and dozens of choices, HMOs, PPOs, conventional. You
have a non-age-discrimination single price point that you can
shop online prior to making your decision. Does it look like an
exchange to you when you go into it or like an exchange you
would like to have look?
Ms. Ingram. I am sorry, my particular enrollment has rolled
over consistently for so many years, I don't know what the
experience is at the moment for new enrollees, so I can't
really respond to the extent to which the policymakers or this
Congress wishes to look across those fact patterns and equate
them.
Chairman Issa. Well, let's just go through. You have been
studying the Affordable Care Act and its implementation and the
exchanges, so you're familiar with what we are offering.
Ms. Ingram. Yes.
Chairman Issa. It doesn't surprise you that Mr. Cummings or
I can go online during open enrollment, and we can look through
policy after policy, find out how much it costs and choose.
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Chairman Issa. It doesn't surprise you that there is no age
discrimination, that 31 years into your career you pay the same
amount as somebody who is starting tomorrow, that it is a flat
fee within FEHBP?
Ms. Ingram. I will take your word for it, sir. I am not an
expert in FEHBP.
Chairman Issa. Well, I am a little surprised, 3 years
working the Affordable Care Act. Let's continue.
Doesn't it surprise you, though, that FEHBP, you are able
to move from plan to plan and any preexisting condition is not
a problem, right?
Ms. Ingram. That is my understanding.
Chairman Issa. And I am taking you through this.
Ms. Ingram. I am not sure, though.
Chairman Issa. It is true.
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Chairman Issa. Take Trey Gowdy and my word for these
things.
Ms. Ingram. Okay.
Chairman Issa. So it is portable, as long as you are within
the Federal workforce. There is no age discrimination. It
doesn't care about preexisting conditions. And you have huge
amount of different choices, HMOs, PPOs, and conventional. And
you can be covered by 96 percent of all doctors in America and
in all 50 States.
In your opinion, if all that be true, is there any reason
that the health care plan that you have, that I have, that the
President and Vice President and every member of the Cabinet
are eligible for shouldn't be made available to the American
people?
Ms. Ingram. That is a policy choice that I leave to people
in policy positions.
Chairman Issa. If you were not in the Federal workforce,
would you like access to the program you are in now, or would
you like to go to an exchange?
Ms. Ingram. I would want to understand the, my options at
the exchange at a personal level, depending on where I lived.
Chairman Issa. But is there any exchange that has as many
choices as FEHBP or even close?
Ms. Ingram. I am not familiar with the array of choices in
the various exchanges. That is HHS. I am not sure what question
you are asking me, sir.
Chairman Issa. I am just asking you for the common sense of
since FEHBP doesn't have age discrimination, meets all the
requirements that were anticipated in the Affordable Care Act,
why the President and Members of Congress in the House and
Senate never opened up the plan they were in. In fact, the
President has more choices than any exchange in America, so
people being forced into the exchanges, Federal exchanges,
including my staff and Mr. Cummings' staff, will be given less
choice than FEHBP.
I would hope you would be able to answer that. But let me
just review one thing that I heard here today because I think
it is important. The IRS is ready. They met their deadlines.
They were timely, and in fact, there are no known flaws in the
IRS's performance as of today.
Ms. Ingram. True.
Chairman Issa. So we need to get Secretary Sebelius in here
because basically HHS has screwed this whole thing up. The
delays, the inability to get on, all of that comes out of HHS.
It is not your end of the business.
Ms. Ingram. That is not the part that we have been working
on, no.
Chairman Issa. Okay. Does it surprise you that if you go
online, you deliver your Social Security number, as you are
required to do, in order to get a calculation and look at
plans, and then you decide not to accept any of the plans, and
you go to exit, because they have made you give your Social
Security number, they have made you, they have looked up your
database, your tax information, and they have your email, they
send you back an email telling you how much you are going to
have to pay if you don't take, sign up for the Affordable Care
Act?
Ms. Ingram. I am not familiar with the way they've
sequenced their enrollment process, other than I know that some
of our folks have looked carefully at the questions that are
asked to ensure that any tax-related items are correct and to
ensure that no tax data is displayed on the face of the
machine.
Chairman Issa. I just find it interesting that they use
your taxpayer database, even if somebody might have insurance,
and they are just looking at what the exchange would be,
because they don't know whether they will have insurance, they
go through the process of checking--in order to check for a
hypothetical enrollment, they give that information; they then
get an email basically threatening them with the fine if they
don't sign up. That is just an observation of people who were
signing up, who are calling our offices and saying, I didn't
know I would be told how much I would have to pay if I didn't
enroll.
Ms. Ingram. The only time that we are sent a query is when
somebody has gotten to a point in whatever exchange it is to
say, I would like to learn about possible assistance. The way
in which those questions are sequenced may not be uniform
across the exchanges, but we do not receive a query for every
person entering those Web sites, only if they decide they would
like to learn about their assistance options.
Chairman Issa. Can you imagine--you had this question
earlier--did you ever get a complaint by somebody who got a tax
credit? Did you ever find somebody that didn't want their taxes
reduced or eliminated? Can you imagine anyone not finding--not
checking to see, hey, can I get a subsidy? That is going to be
almost universally asked by virtually everybody that goes
online is, am I eligible for a tax credit or a subsidy? It is
human nature. I think we established that earlier. Don't you
agree?
Ms. Ingram. I think that is their economic interest or
curiosity. They are told that for the income information, the
queries will include asking us about their tax data. If they
don't wish to check that box at that point, they can make that
choice.
Chairman Issa. Well, Ms. Ingram, here is the good news. You
have literally been saved by the bell. We have run out of
inquiries. You have been very generous with your time. We will
make every effort to not have you have to come back over the
items that you have offered for the record and the items that
we were not able to read. And with that, again, I thank you for
your 31 years of service, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:49 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 86195.018