U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

86–195 PDF 2014

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

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 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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 

3 

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, in- cluding 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.’’ 

4 

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 

5 

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 

6 

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 taxexempt 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.’’ 

7 

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. 

8 

‘‘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 

9 

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. 

10 

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 

11 

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 

12 

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 impleVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Jan 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86195.TXT APRIL
13 

mented, 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, 

14 

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:] 

15 


Insert offset folio 1 here 86195.001
16 


Insert offset folio 2 here 86195.002
17 


Insert offset folio 3 here 86195.003
18 


Insert offset folio 4 here 86195.004
19 


Insert offset folio 5 here 86195.005
20 


Insert offset folio 6 here 86195.006
21 


Insert offset folio 7 here 86195.007
22 


Insert offset folio 8 here 86195.008
23 


Insert offset folio 9 here 86195.009
24 

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. 

25 

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 

26 

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 

27 

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. 

28 

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 

29 

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 

30 

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? 

31 

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. 

32 

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. 

33 

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. 

34 

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 thirdworld 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 

35 

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. 

36 

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? 

37 

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. 

38 

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 

39 

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. 

40 

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 

41 

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? 

42 

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 

43 

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 inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Jan 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86195.TXT APRIL
44 

mation—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 socalled 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 taxexempt 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. 

45 

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. 

46 

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 

47 

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. 

48 

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. 

49 

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. 

50 

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. 

51 

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 emVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Jan 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86195.TXT APRIL
52 

ployer 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. 

53 

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? 

54 

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. 

55 

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. 

56 

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. 

57 

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, 

58 

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. 

59 

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 logon 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. 

60 

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. 

61 

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 

62 

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 

63 

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 

64 

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 

65 

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-tomonth 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 

66 

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. 

67 

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. 

68 

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 requireVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Jan 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86195.TXT APRIL
69 

ments 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. 

70 

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 

71 

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. 

72 

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? 

73 

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 organiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Jan 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86195.TXT APRIL
74 

zations. 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? 

75 

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 

76 

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 

77 

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, 

78 

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—— 

79 

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 

80 

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? 

81 

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. 

82 

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. 

83 

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 beVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Jan 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\86195.TXT APRIL
84 

yond 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. 

85 

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. 

86 

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 

87 

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 

88 

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 

89 

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. 

90 

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 

91 

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? 

92 

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.] 

(93) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

94 


Insert offset folio 10 here 86195.010
95 


Insert offset folio 11 here 86195.011
96 


Insert offset folio 12 here 86195.012
97 


Insert offset folio 13 here 86195.013
98 


Insert offset folio 14 here 86195.014
99 


Insert offset folio 15 here 86195.015
100 


Insert offset folio 16 here 86195.016
101 


Insert offset folio 17 here 86195.017
102 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 18 here 86195.018