Mr. Reid mr. President . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Reid ask con scene the call of the quorum be terminated. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed for a period of morning business and senators allowed to speak up to 10 minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i now ask unanimous consent that at 5 00 p. M. Tomorrow friday, april 11, all postcloture time be yielded back and the senate proceed to vote with no intervening action or debate on calendar number 574. Further, that following disposition of that nomination, the senate proceed to vote on cloture on executive calendar number 613. If cloture is invoked all postcloture time be yielded and the senate proceed to vote on confirmation of the nomination, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. No further motions be in order to the nominations that any statements related to the nominations be printed in the record, and president obama be immediately notified of the senates action and the senate then resume legislative session. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i now ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendars number 760 761 762 763, and 764 and all nominations on the secretarys desk in the coast guard. That the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations and that the president be immediately notified of the senates expaks the senate then resume legislative session action and the senate then resume legislative session. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i ask consent that we proceed now to s. Res. 422. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 422, to authorize written testimony document production and representation in Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks Foundation incorporated v. United states. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . Without objection. Mr. Reid i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid on the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i ask unanimous consent the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid i now ask unanimous consent that when the complete its Business Today it adjourn until 4 00 p. M. Tomorrow afternoon or evening. That following the prayer and pledge the morning hour be deemed expired the journal of proceedings be approved to date the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. That following any leader remarks, the senate resume executive session to consider the frees land nomination post low freidland nomination postcloture with the time until 5 00 p. M. Equally divided and controlled between the two leaders their designees. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Reid there will be up to three roll call votes tomorrow at 5 00. First vote will be on confirmation of Michelle Freidland to be United States circuit judge for the ninth circuit. The next vote will be a cloture vote on the nomination of david weil to be administrator of the wage and Hour Division of the department of labor department. And that the last vote will be on confirmation of the weil nomination. So, mr. President , if theres no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. The presiding officer the Senate Stands adjourned until 4 00 p. M mr. Leader. Mr. Reid were here this were here this afternoon because republicans are holding up confirmation of two important nominations. Earlier today, the senate voted to invoke cloture on Michelle Freidland, ninth Circuit Court of appeals. So the only question is, when will she be made a federal judge on the ninth circuit . There are some who say the 30 hours should run so they can speak for themselves on why they insist on doing so. Theres no question that its not to debate the nominations its just to do nothing stand around here and do nothing. Few, if any senators have come to the floor to express any reason to oppose this good woman woman. She was nominated nine months ago by president obama so its time to confirm this wellqualified nominee. Enough obstruction and stalling has taken place. She graduated second in her class at Stanford University law school. She clerked for Sandra Day Oconnor on the Supreme Court. Shes been a partner in a prominent California Law firm. Ninth circuit is the busiest circuit in the entire country. The Senate Confirmed 18 of president bushs Circuit Court nominees within a week of being reported out of committee. Now, this woman ive already indicated, that was 13 months ago. We have 30 other judicial nominees pending on the calendar calendar. We have 85 vacancies on the federal courts. Theres no reason to delay this nomination. Theres no reason to delay the nomination of david weil to lead the wage and hour combination at the department of labor. Division at the department of labor. He went to boston university, Harvard University researcher. So madam president its im sure a little difficult for people watching this to ngd to understand why the republicans demanding that we waste time because thats all it is. But i guess the American People have become accustomed to wasting time. Thats what theyve tried to do for five years. We have wasted because of stuff like this the staff has to be here weve wasted so much time that we could be working on important issues. The republicans come to the floor, we want amendments. Madam president , one reason we dont do that kind of stuff is because we spend so much time on this. Weve wasted thousands of hours during the five years and thats really unfortunate when theyve been so stalling so much. So i ask unanimous consent that the time until 4 00 today be equally divided and controlled in the usual form that at 4 00, that is really unfortunate when they have stolen so much. So we have until 4 00 oclock today to control the cloture and reform. And we have the further disposition of the nomination to vote in cloture number 613. In the Senate Proceeds to vote on the confirmation of the nomination. And if confirmed, the motion will be considered laid on the table for maximum debate and no for their motions being ordered been related to the original. Is there any objection . No. The senator from iowa. Hello come i would like to offer an alternative are you before i do that i would like to say to my colleagues in the United States senate that first of all there is controversy about this nomination. Lets make that clear. And the majority leader said that maybe people in the country dont understand what it going on. They understand what is going on and we are working under the rules that the majority changed by ignoring the rules of the United States senate in november. And so as the majority leader knows, we have not yielded back posts closer time on judicial nominations since the socalled Nuclear Option was triggered last november. And we have followed the rules of the United States senate. The regular order just exactly the way that the rules were changed in november. And therefore if i would ask if the consent could be modified so that the vote on confirmation work or at 5 30 p. M. , monday april 28 when we return from the april recess. This would allow a senate process the pending cloture nomination on the wage and hour nominees this afternoon and said that confirmation vote also for monday when we return on april 28. That is the alternative that i offer to the majority. Madam president , will the majority leader modify his request. I would like to reserve my right to object. Madam president this is not a dissertation on lott to. Because if it work were, why in the world would we want to waste 30 hours doing nothing. And that is what we are doing. And i know that my friend from i left has been on that Judicial Committee a long time and i shared all that he has done. But it is apparent that the only reason you started this right away. No other reason. I may have missed it in there couldve been someone come down and talk about what about mrs. And i mustve missed that and i have heard little if any opposition and possibly even nonand ive only heard obstruction or obstructions sake because this has been going on for five years. And it appears that they just say no and that is what they do. So madam president i object to the modification. Is there objection to the original. And president . Preserving the right to object, and i will object, just to remind everyone that nothing is being done, we have confirmed 233 judges only disapproved of two. So dont ever try to sell the American People on the idea that the senate is not doing its work on getting judges approved. I object. As i have indicated, this is a way of logic here. We have had a lot of judges approved after wasting hundreds of hours of time doing nothing and we have them unanimously led by our good friend, the senior senator from vermont. And republicans stall and delay and obstruct and then we have a building here that passes very easily. Their only purpose for the delay is for delays fake or they have obstructed this is they have extracted everything in the last five years. And i know people complain about this and that will change that was made. Where would we be in this country without having changed the . I have a letter today from the secretary of defense chuck hagel, outlining nine important people in the department of defense to be confirmed. And we have numerous ambassadors with important countries around the world and theyre not being confirmed because they are beings of. One is that you why couldnt we have these people go do their work . They have been nominated. Countries all over the world and ambassadors from the United States. We wouldnt be if we had not changed that rule . We are slogging through these roles in these nominations and its kind of slow because of the inordinate amount of time but the longer that my friend from iowa talks, maybe we should have changed the rules more than what we did so unless something changes with in a vote tomorrow at 5 00 oclock. President s next senator from kentucky. I think it is important of all of this in context and my good friend from the majority leader, he broke his word last year when he said that we had settled the issue of what the rules were going to be for the senate for this congress. He then took the senate rules setting a very unfortunate precedent and continues to abuse the senate rules by using this to prevent members of the senate from his party and from our party to offer alternatives. So despite this heavy handed behavior, he expects the minority to would expedite consideration in the matter that we are just discussing a lifetime appointment as senator grassley has pointed out. We are exercising our rights under the rules of the and i might say that many of these nominees wouldve been can confirmed last december had we not experience this event perpetrated by the majority any heavyhanded attempt to change the nature of the senate with a simple majority. It is unfortunate decision that those kinds of decisions have consequences and all we have done this exercise what senator grassley pointed out the right dissenters have under the rules of the senate. If the majority leader doesnt like it, i recommend that he changes into her and we dont have a rule problem but a behavior problem. And we have had a couple of examples of trying to edge back this year where we brought up the bill and amendments were actually processed from both sides. But it seems of late that we are back into the old senate and we are just about scoring partisan points denying them the opportunity to offer amendments and i think most of our members on both sides of the aisle have involved having their Committee Work taken seriously in the opportunity to offer amendments to be taken seriously. This body operating the way it should under the majorities of both parties has been a more civil place in which the rights were respected. So the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, the senator from iowa was we exercise our rights under the rules of the senate. Thank you spent the majority leader . Im a patient man. I try to be. For my friend to come here and have the audacity to talk about breaking my word the trouble with that statement is that we have the full senate see what happened. He said something, i said something to and we wont have all of these filibusters pursued. For the viewing audience we wasted so much time just trying to get on a bill to get on the bill, and they object hundreds of times and it takes two days to get on the bill. And then we are only on the bill and then we have to go through that process all over again and we have done that hundreds of times. There are more filibusters on president obamas judicial nominations than entire history. We have been in country for a long time. Roughly 240 years. As for that entire time there are more filibusters in five years than the entire history of the country. I had the good fortune of watching a play in new york and its a wonderful play about lbj. And that good man are in chinese majority leader for six years had overcome one filibuster. As majority leader in the senate because of this performance that we have over here i have had to overcome over 500 filibusters. This is for the country. It is not for me. We have tried this and everything we have tried to do. Everything. Now, we know it is Public Record now. Three days after obama was elected the first time a meeting was held here in washington. Karl rove called the meeting in the meeting was made and the decision is to make sure this man never gets reelected. To the credit of the republican leader he said our goal is to make sure that he is never reelected or well obama surprised everyone except for us and was overwhelmingly elected. And in that same meaning as they believe it stop them from being reelected is to object to everything and that is what we have done. And i have been hearing while. I know how people used to Work Together. But you cant Work Together if one side says no to everything. And we have been able because of the good fortune to piece together some work with the republicans. Its getting harder and harder to do but we have been able to get it done a few times rated somatic president , to waste this time of the American People and that is what it has done there are some objections and we need come to the floor and talk about what is wrong with this. As the battle goes on every year, whether harvard or elsewhere, they flip back and forth. Shes a very fine academic. Shes one of the finest justices weve had in the country and so what is wrong with her . What do we gain by holding this up . The country gains nothing. As i have indicated we have about 140 nominations that are being held up over here in my and my friend the republican leader said we will include this in december anyway. So please madam president , please, who in the world thinks there is a bit of credibility to that. So everyone, i am sorry. We can come h. We can come here and vote on this and all we need is a majority and thats the way it is. Im cesario for the inconvenience of everyone. But republicans know that for them it is pretty easy. They can just walk out of here and they dont have to be here. We do. Because it is our burden to run the country. They can walk away tickets and go home and we are not going to be able to do that. We are going to vote and approve these two people. We have the goods judge that we need to approve and someone from the department of labor. It has been vacant for long time. Im sorry for the inconvenience of members, but we have been elected as United States senators. On president . A senator from kentucky. Just a couple of brief observations are relevant to the point. We have approved more judges at this point than president bush have approved at the same time in his presidency. And the majority leader has a curious definition of filibuster. The reason the majority letters and translators have the is because as soon as we get on the bill there are no amendments allowed. Once you get past the motion to proceed i would say to the people who would be listening there is a twostep process. When once we get on the bill the majority leader has made it impossible for members of his party or our party to offer more amendments often than the last leaders combined. In other words he gets to decide whether anyones amendments are considered either on his site or our side. That is what has degraded the senate. That is what has turned it into looking more like the house and im told that the house has more votes than the than it does in the system majority leader used to say at the time but if you want to have a chance to go, come to the senate and that is what the senate is about. And so all it really requires to get the senate back to normal as for number of the senate has prior recognition and the right to that the agenda to open up the senate and let members of both parties offer an amendment. The price of being in the majority is enough to give them their votes and it is an unpleasant thing for us but that is the way the senate operates in the way that you move the bill to completion. I have thought and there were a couple of times this year and it looks like we would get back to normal, i hope that it is not too late for that. It would be in the best interest of the institution of the majority and the minority to restore the institution and the way it needs to operate. Better president . Die before . We yield to the floor. The republican leader had not yet yielded to the floor. I apologize. Madam president , i will be happy to yield for a question for the majority leader has said that there is urgent work that the senate needs to turn to which is why we ought to amend the ordinary rules of the senate which calls for a 30 hour postcloture. Ive just asked the leader is he aware of any urgent work with the majority leader has planned for us to turn to that would be a reason to expedite this particular nomination . Im sure the majority leader will announce a point what we will do next. Im not quite sure what that is at this particular point. Yield for another question and i would just ask the republican leader, is he aware and im confident that he is that the majority leader and other leaders of his party had a press Conference Last Week i believe it was, announcing their agenda from november which involve things like the vote that we had yesterday in the vote on the increase in minimum wage in the vote on extending longterm unemployment and the like. I believe there is a quote in the article if the senator will remember like i do that basically said we are not interested in legislating that interested a sickly and posturing and politics to help distract the American People from the unpopularity of this president s policies and his partys policies. The whole agenda was crafted at the Senate Campaign committee and the getting an outcome sort of irrelevant. It was more about scoring political points here on the florida senate. So that is the urgent item to the majority leader has in mind that with somehow the president we had a vote on the on the monday after the recess it is perplexing to have reached the conclusion that this is a matter of great urgency for the American People. If there is no interest whatsoever in getting an outcome. I yield the floor. And president. Majority leader. I have heard my friend come to the floor and say why dont we work on fridays. Well madam president most people work on fridays. Now come i want to make sure that i was right there has not been a single individual saying a single word about this. Positive or negative. So a lot of words are being thrown about here and im wondering if someone who is longterm unemployed and out of work a long time and theres a profile where someone is 55 years old and laid off because of the recession and cannot find a job overqualified, over educated and they cant find work. We decided that it was important that they get a benefit extension. About 2 Million People agree with that for sure because theyre the ones that lost out. I dont think thats posturing. And so because of some very strong willed republicans, i admire those as well. They said something we did yesterday not by name. Thats something that we did yesterday. But if the woman works the same job the man works, that woman should be paid the same as a man. Now, is that posturing . I dont think so and my daughter doesnt think so. They think its pretty fair because we have more than half the people going to college so is that posturing . I dont think so. But again and they wanted to offer amendments on this it covered everything and i said even the kitchen sink and they are not serious about this. So do we have anything urgent and we didnt have to go through this nonsense and that is what it is great we will be voting today on minimum wage to bring more than 20 Million People out of poverty. Giving a Million People the chance to get out of poverty and that is what we do. So why did we pick this . Because that gets people out of poverty. And its really important that we understand this is part of the program that others decided they would do and that is to oppose everything that president obama has done. You cannot talk about what went on before. We have had a mite mike morley party that has been determined to do nothing. Hoping that it will give them the majority and we will find out if this noble experiment works and i dont think that that is going to work. And i will also say this. We are here to do the work of the American People. Is it right that we have more than 100 people are being held up for no reason other than they want to make sure that if someone is going to be a Circuit Court judge we have to file cloture and not two hours in todays numbing of 30 hours in moving to a piece of legislation because of the obstruction and delay. So it is unfortunate that my friends talk about all the great things they have done. I will tell you the great things that they have done. I can give you lots of examples. We try to do a highway bill which is important for this country. We have a deficit and the structure of 3 trillion. So we brought that bill to the lord with this great amendment process. They want to debate amendments and they also want to stop women from getting contraceptives. That held us up for a month before they finally got some sense. So the republicans made the ocean more than five years ago to oppose everything the president obama wanted or tried to do. Its not very good for the country and we have situations just like we have here. Is your president , with the senator yield for a question . Sure. Mr. President , the majority leader says there is work for the senate to do and i can think of one urgent thing that we can do today that the majority leader would consent. The house has passed reauthorization of the debbie smith act which reminds colleagues that this is money that congress has appropriated for grants to test unprocessed cases for this is a National Scandal unprocessed retreads that prevents Law Enforcement from identifying a perpetrator of sexual assault, not only adults but also involving children. The house has passed the reauthorization of that bill and all it takes is for the majority leader and the senate to consent to take that bill up to get into the president s desk. I can think that is perhaps the most important and urgent thing that we could be doing right now. I would just ask the majority leader he would consent to take that bill of and pass the senate right now. Mr. President , the Supreme Court justice of texas, they have reported a bill in part of what they reported out has this language in it. But it has been stuff in it. Sorry be happy to take a look at that when you talk about the Ranking Member who is on the floor here today. And hoping they would be able to separate the stuff here the senator was here on the floor and hes not here now and id be happy to take a look at that. If i may ask one further question of the majority leader. One followup question. Mr. President , a vast majority leader if he would yield for one last question. Before during, ive just been informed that was reported out of the committee which my friend from texas serves. All they have to do is put it here. If i can as majority leader if there is the justice for all act and includes things other than the debbie smith act and that would be a positive development and it is a separate bill if this is not clear which would reauthorize this we can take up just this today, which i would urge the majority leader to consider and think we i would be happy with either one. If we could just do this i think we could call that great progress for some of these people who have been waiting for the Law Enforcement community. This is a bill to be a part of the dna testing with local crime laboratories and this includes the dna evidence to provide testing of dna evidence to improve the performance for other purposes. We have that right now and we are happy to do it. Mr. President , if i may respond to the majority leader the bill that he is referring to is justice for all act, which is something that i support but there has been some reason why that bill has not come to the floor i am worried that the passage of the debbie smith act which is a component of that we can take that up today and then deal with the justice for all act in due course. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Reid this is what we deal with here. We have a piece of legislation thats been reported out of the committee. Its been cleared by the democrats here in the senate and the republicans now are saying, well we like that but we dont want you to do it that way. Lets do it some other way. The point is the committee met and reviewed the house legislation and decided that they wanted to do more than what the house did. I think we should go along with the committee system. I hear my friend the pleerpd and other republican senators talk about lets have the committees do their work. Theyve done their work. We approved their work. Were ready to pass this right now which is it includes the debbie smith language but does a lot more. Mr. Cornyn mr. President . The presiding officer the republican whip. Mr. Cornyn i ask the distinguished Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee to remind me what the challenges with the justice for smith act justice for all act. We have a member on our side who was, unfortunately not here today because of medical concerns that has concerns about that bill so we cannot pass that bill by unanimous consent over that senators objection. So what we can pass is the debbie smith act which is a piece of this, which there is no objection to that i know of. And then we can get this rape kit issue addressed today while we take up the concerns of the absent senator whos necessarily not here because of medical issues when he returns and when the senate returns. So i would l reiterate my unanimous consent request that the senate take up the debbie smith act. Reserving the right to object, mr. President. More delay. The Judiciary Committee reviewed it and said we could do better, and its here on the floor right now. And now theyre saying well, even e though the Judiciary Committee did it which were being told all the time let the committees do their work we dont like what they did, we want to do something else. The debbie smith legislations important. But the justice for all act is more important. Mr. President , is there objection . Yes i object. The objection is heard. Mr. President . Republican whip. Mr. President the majority leader thinks this is a zero sum game. This is, could be a win win. Debbie smith, who ive met and i dare say virtually every member of this body has, knows is a passionate advocate for this cause and hence, the naming of this statute, this law on her behalf. Because she recognized that these unprocessed rape kits was a National Scandal and that people like her who had needed help from the federal government to help provide funds for local Law Enforcement agencies to test and process these kits so as to identify the perpetrator and get them off the street. What debbie smith has asked me and, i dare say, the majority leader and all of us to do is to take up this piece of the bill. We can do that, and i think we will have done a good thing to do. If we cant take up the justice for all act because of other concerns people have, this shouldnt be a zero couple game. We could pass the debbie smith act today, and then we could take up the justice for all act when we return following the recess. It doesnt have to be a zero sum game. Mr. President . Majority leader. This has been cleared on this side for more than two weeks. More than two weeks. This is whats going on in the senate. The republicans basically, oppose everything. Thats what they decided they were going to do, and they do it. And they come back and say, well, we reported this out of the committee. I read it, its a very good piece of legislation. They said we dont like that, lets forget about the Committee Process and do what the house did. We have a Committee Structure here that ive tried to follow. I admire the work done by senator leahy, and he led this piece of legislation out of this committee, and i accept it, and i approve it. It has to do with all 54 of the democratic senators. I think what we need is something akin to the Grace Commission during the Reagan Administration or the brat commission base realignment and Closing Commission an outside group with integrity former members of congress, no current elected politicians to come in and do a complete audit of government from top to bottom. Every agency of government juan, has a piece of legislation or a charter that created it. It has a purpose. If its not fulfilling that purpose or not doing it within a reasonable budget, it should be cut or eliminated. Lets just take head start. I mean, this came in with the highest motivation. Do you know and i didnt until i researched it there are now three head starts. Theres early enhanced and regular. Why do we have the other two . Is because the first one wasnt working. Why do we have the third one . Because the second one wasnt working. Cal thomas on fixing a broken washington, saturday night at 10 eastern and sunday night at 9. And immediately following after words, a Heritage Foundation book party for mr. Thomas as he signs his book and chats with guests. Also this weekend on booktv this Years National black writers conference sashed at noon eastern with panels on race power and politics, literature and shifting identities in africa. And sunday at two, strengthening communities, the historical narrative. Plus, a panel on publishing. Booktv, every weekend on cspan2. We just learned that health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, and the New York Times reports that president obama will announce tomorrow that Sylvia Matthews burwell, who is currently white house budget director will replace her. Again, hhs secretary Kathleen Sebelius is resigning. Shes been head of the agency since president Obama Took Office and has overseen implementation of the Affordable Care act. She was on capitol hill today saying that 7. 5 million americans have signed up for Health Insurance in federal and staterun exchanges under the president S Health Care law. Were going to watch part of that now. Departments mission is to help our fellow americans secure the opportunity to live happier, healthier lives and reach their fullest potential. Although the hard work of our employees is often times unheralded, their efforts benefit millions of americans. Our nations seniors benefits from the hard work of mows at cms and the administration on community level. Children benefit from the acfadministered initiatives like head start, and all of us benefit from work on Mental Health and Substance Abuse treatment and from the efforts of employees across all our departments operating and staff divisions. Another area that is benefiting all americans is the implementation of the Affordable Care act. Even prior to open enrollment in the marketplace millions of americans and their families obtained new rights and new consumer protections. Now, during these past six months millions have obtained the security and peace of mind of Affordable Health coverage. Many of the people ive met have told me that theyve been able to get covered for the first time in years, and some have insurance for the first time in their entire lives. Last week we announced that 7. 1 million americans have signed up for private insurance through the marketplace. As of this week, 400,000 additional americans have signed p, and we expect up and we expect that number to continue to grow. Between october and the end of february an additional three million americans enrolled in medicaid coverage, a total of 1 11. 7 Million People were determined el gym for medicaid eligible for medicaid and chip. Now, we know if more states move forward on expansion more uninsured americans will be able to get covered. Affordable Health Coverage Accessible Health care, Mental Health Substance Use treatment food safety, Early Childhood and Health Security, all of these issues connect to president obamas goal for expanding opportunity, strengthening our security and growing our economy. That was some of what hhs secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today. The news organizations reporting that shes resigning and that president obama will announce tomorrow that Sylvia Matthews burwell, who is currently the white house budget director, will replace her as head of the agency. Earlier in the week the house ways and means subcommittee on health care held a hearing on the Affordable Care act requirement that employers provide Health Insurance to their workers. The subcommittee heard from a Treasury Department official responsible for setting guidelines for the Employer Health plans. The subcommittee will come together. Today hes hearing will examine complex concern todays hearing will examine the Affordable Care act, mandates on local businesses and workers. These regulations are long overdue. Businesses have been forced to wait for four years for the treasure are i department to Treasury Department to finalize these rules. In the meantime controversy has been set off political firestorms and executive delays. Most importantly, this process is again raising the question of fairness. Why has big business received better treatment than individual americans . Why is it fair to enforce some of the law, some to comply while others get delays . Another significant question that needs asking and will be, hopefully, answered today what does any of this have to do with True Health Care reform . For all the problems that did exist in our Health Care System prior to the Affordable Care act, the voluntary, employerbased system was working. 160 million americans received coverage from their employer, the largest source in america. The worst part of about these regulations, they do nothing to lower the cost of health care. Reported purpose of the Affordable Care act. Instead, this law adds layers upon layers of new costs, burleds and concerns about burdens and concerns about the privacy of government, forcing businesses to gather and report private information about workerS Health Care. Workers i know arent really comfortable with the irs gathering and holding data on their personal Health Care Insurance decisions and their families for their lifetime. Why does the government need to know and track that . Survey after survey of companies and Health Benefit experts show employers believe the aca will add to their costs not lower them. Unfortunately, local businesses must now keep track of such new terms as lookback periods, stability, aggregation rules and minimum value. To insure they follow these burdensome government requirements theyll worry if their Health Care Plan meets the federal governments definition of affordability. They must now develop reporting systems, invest in new Information Technology systems and worry about security of personal data about their workers and their workers families theyll be required to entrust to scandalprone irs. And they must grapple with the reality that the information will be the main proof of the irs the irs uses to enforce the wildlyunpopular mandate that workers must buy governmentapproved health care. Our witness today is a Senior Adviser to the treasury secretary and acknowledged expert on Employee Benefits law. I appreciate you coming back to the committee to discuss these important issues and am confident that mr. Avery will be able to answer any questions about the Technical Details of both regulations. But heres my practical concern. I believe you are the only person in america who is capable of understanding these regulations. Im confident you understand how theyre related to specific employer employee relationships and arrangements but i seriously doubt Many Companies do. I know the Business Owners in my district with multiple franchises hoe Profit Margins and high worker turnover have little idea how all this is supposed to work. I know they most likely dont have the extra money lying around to invest in the i. T. Required to comply with the information reporting requirements. These are complex issues and thats why the white house delayed the mandate on companies, but a oneyear delay does not make any of this less complex for the businesses in my district or anyone else. So i ask, what does this have to do with True Health Care reform that lowerS Health Care costs . Finally, the American People still have not been given an adequate answer about questions of fairness. I understand the mandate on business is costly thats why you gave big business a break. Why is it not fair to give the same break to individual americans and their families . Many families are frightened by the Affordable Care act, the new plans they didnt want, the higher premiums, the doctors and hospitals they can no longer see. They are not alone. Eight million americans are going to lose their Health Care Insurance at work as a result of the Affordable Care act. That isnt fair and it certainly isnt health care reform. These are the questions surrounding these controversial reporting regulations. We hope to gain more insight today. Before i recognize Ranking Member dr. Mcdermott for the purpose of an Opening Statement i ask unanimous concept that all members written statements be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize Ranking Member dr. Mcdermott for his Opening Statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As the gnashing thies from republicans from teeth from the republicans today. Of course, this is all fantasy. This is another stunt cooked up by the republicans to satisfy the extremists of the Koch Brothers and the producers at fox news. Lets start with some facts. Thanks to aca every american now has Health Security because they can no longer be locked out of the market or discriminated against because of a preexisting condition. More than seven Million People have signed up for Health Insurance through the federal and statebased marketplaces. More than 11 million have been determined eligible for medicaid between october and february of this year. And three million adults are now covered by their parents coverage. These are real people, real stories, real progress. Not actors paid via extremist pac money to appear in fraudulent gop attack ads. Sorry, the fights been lost for the republicans on aca. The law is succeeding. And all the focused hearings about the aca arent going to change that. These bogus hearings, like todays proceedings, only delay the inevitable. What youre hearing argued today is the government shouldnt have given time to business to implement it. If we had run ahead and done it, then the claim would have been we ran too fast. So its sort of like is the porridge too hot or too cold or just right . This day is coming when the republicans will attempt to destroy the aca by spinning and turning to fix it, loving it to death. But today the cries are about employer responsibility regulations which were designed by the treasury to help employers transition to the aca requirements. Certainly, you ought to be able to acknowledge that truth that the economy has improved since the aca became the law. Weve got eight million new jobs since the aca came in and you could say its because of aca. I wont, but some could. Todays republican cry certainly wont acknowledge that this weeks gallup poll confirmed that the uninsured rate in america is the lowest since 2008. This reduction to an uninsured rate to 15 is driven by the coverage enrollment under obamacare. Declines were largest among low income and black people in this country. Instead, republicans will surely offer up again a series of mistruths and halftruths and misinformation. So be clear, the cbo has definitely stated that there is no compelling evidence that parttime employment has increased as a result of aca. We can also be clear that the aca eliminates job lock. Empowering americans to change jobs, to become entrepreneurs and to leave work to take care of a child or a sick loved one. But most importantly republican misinformation has nothing to do with the story of a constituent of mine named ingrid. In 2008 she had a terrible fall in her home. She was rushed to an emergency room where she was cared for and her life was saved. Yet ingrid was struck with a 23,000 hospital bill which she didnt have. She couldnt afford Health Insurance. A few months later she was forced to sell her home to pay off the hospital bill. Today shes happy, healthy and covered because of aca. She no longer has to choose between food on her table or lifesustaining medicine. She doesnt have to make that choice due to the Health Security act. She has both. So before republicans who have to plan who have no plan to replace aca join the real world and inevitably drop this sad effort to kill a law that saves lives and saves money, they will stage a few more repeal votes, im sure, on the floor. This wont be the last one. Well have hearings because they will not give up the attempt to deny that its the law of the land and its working. Theyll likely expend a little more elbow energy trying to throw ingrid off and the millions of others back into the cold harsh winter of no health care coverage, no peace of mind and no protection. I cant wait for the day when we can fete to work can get to work actually fixing the things in the law that need to be fixed. And that day will come as sure as im sitting here. I yield back the balance of my time. Today well hear from mr. Markey Senior Adviser to the assistant secretary for Retirement Health policy u. S. Department of the treasury mr. Avery, youre recognized for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Ranking member merck dermott members of the subcommittee i appreciate the opportunity to testify on the recentlyissued final regulations regarding the employershared responsibility provisions and the information reporting provisions of the to Affordable Care act. The employer responsibility provisions are contained in section 4980h of the Internal Revenue code. Final regulations under section 4980h were published in february. Excuse me. To comply with the employer responsibility provisions and provide flexible and practical means of doing so. Before developing the proposed regulations treasury issued for success of notices describing potential approaches to implementing the employer responsibility provisions and invited Public Comment on each. The comments and comments on the proposed regulations from a wide range of stakeholders were considered carefully in developing the final rules. The rules contain various simplifications including an optional look back measurement to make it easier and more practical for businesses to determine whether employees are fulltime if their hours vary between fulltime and parttime and if they are seasonal employees. This look back measurement was designed based on existing Employer Health care practices to be helpful and administrable. The rules also provide three optional alternative safe harbors that make it easy for employers to determine whether the coverage that they offer is affordable to employees. And the final rules provide guidance largely prompted by comments on the proposed regulations on whether employees of certain types or in certain occupations are considered full time including volunteers such as volunteer firefighters and First Responders seasonal employees and adjunct faculty. While about 96 of u. S. Employers are exempt from the employers share responsibility provisions because they have fewer than 50 employees for the 4 of employers to him the provisions to apply the rules provide a gradual phasein which is described in my written statement. With respect to information reporting, many of the comments received before and after issuance of proposed regulations urged that the final rules provide streamlined ways to comply especially for employers offering and affordable coverage to all or virtually all of their fulltime employees. Many comments requested that the rules permit use of a single form for self insuring employers that are reporting of the above section 6056 and 6055. Accordingly the final regulations were issued with a view to simplifying and streamlining the proposed reporting rules to make them as practical and workable as possible consistent with effective implementation of the law. That include the need to provide individuals with the information that they need to complete their tax returns accurately for purposes of the individuals shared responsibility provisions and potential eligibility for the premium tax credit and providing the irs with the information it needs for effective and efficient Tax Administration. Final rules contain several key simplifications. Employers that selfish or will have a streamlined way to report under both the employer and the insurer reporting provisions using a single, consolidated form. In addition employers that make a qualifying offer to any of their fulltime employees up provided a simplified alternative to reporting monthly , employees specific information on those individuals. Together with the other agencies in the executive Branch Treasury is implementing the Affordable Care act to provide affordable quality Health Coverage for millions of american families. We welcome the opportunity to continue our work with the committee, to achieve those objectives. Thank you mr. Chairman. I look forward to answering the committees questions. Thank you. And the u. S. Trade flows with businesses to implement the mandate on companies in their reporting requirements. Treasury has received compliments from employers on the work on the mandate. Not so much about the reporting requirements. The employer groups you work with most closely that of the most upset about these new reporting requirements. In other words they are not misinformed. They understand the rules. The reek of industry has called these regulations mindboggling for businesses of all sizes. They describe the regulations as overwhelming and will create a lasting confusion. Typical Small Businesses in our communities. I believe he did the very best you could. So is the problem the Affordable Care at the knees to the chance to make this workable, or did treasury get the regulations wrong . Mr. Chairman, first of all i would suggest that the employer reporting regulations are not excessively complex. The final regulations to provide simplified reporting methods that we expect Many Employers especially when they have time to study and digest the rules will be able to use. For example an employer making a qualified offered to fulltime employees would be able to report in a very summary fashion. Employers that ourself ensuring would be able to use a single, consolidated form for the 6056 and 6055. Reporting and for employers that dont qualify for the simple fly reporting of this low we dont think that, in fact the reporting rules are asking for more than is reasonably necessary to administer the statute. At the employer level name and address and employer id number, Contact Person for a basic and permission necessary to check compliance at the employee level generally the individuals offer of coverage whether they received an offer of affordable minimum value coverage from the employer, whether they took the author, whether they enrolled in a. The individual is going to apply for a premium tax credit when they know whether the employer did make them an offer that would preclude them from eligibility for the premium tax credit. Mr. Chairman, since these are these credits are available on a monthly basis the information reporting is monthly. But we made the most the greatest effort in the kid to simplify into charges streamline talking to a lot of employers Employer Organizations in the process. Where its possible not to use month by month reporting we provided an option to just have one code for the whole year. Information is sufficiently uniform. If its possible to avoid detailed information such as ball was the dollar amount of the offer to the employee which the statute asks for because the employee would not be entitled to the premium tax credit if they had an offer from the employer that was affordable, that was not more than nine and a half percent of their household income. We have looked for ways to help employers avoid having to do any work that could be avoidable. To incur any cost that might be avoidable or might be reduced. If an employer makes an offer that is sufficiently affordable to the individual that would not have to indicate what the dollar amount the individual would have to pay is as long as its below an amount that would. We are just trying to look to the bottom line mr. Chairman in order to streamline things as much as possible for the business. That includes of course small as well as larger businesses. I dont question your intention of the hard work you did to put things together. Thats not the issue here. Ive read this simplified approach. From the chamber of commerce background working for local businesses have had to file these myself. Even the simplified form approach is extremely complex. It is burdensome. So limiting. I pretty very few businesses will be will to use that approach. I tell you that is my view point. So couple quick points. You last testify before this committee on july 17th in the wake of the treasury delaying the mandate on businesses. Explain have the authority says to delay the employer mandate. He and several times and lost it for a question you know if that gives you the authority to delay the employer mandate is and also give you the authority to let the individual mandate . At the time he said we have not analyzed the question and we have had nine months to look at this issue. So at this. 9 months later what was the result of your analysis . To you have the authority to delay the mandate on individuals and families . Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. What weve done has been to take back the comments of the committee at that hearing raising the question should the individual and their responsibility provision be the subject of Transition Relief as well . We had thought about that carefully before the hearing, of course. Because the committee was interested in that it raised the question again. We considered for an and concluded that there is not a good reason to delay individual shared responsibility. If i could share our thinking with you, mr. Chairman first of all the me ask you this. I think we recognize that you have decided not to provide that same fairness for individuals. I know you have a list of reasons why. The question is, do you have the authority to delay that mandate . Mr. Chairman, if we dont believe that it is appropriate to be delaying that provision, if we believe that it is actually fair to individuals to keep the provision in place because it helps protect them from preexisting condition exclusions from various aggressive practices that used to be possible in the Insurance Industry in the market then we dont reach the question whether we have Legal Authority. There are a lot of things that we dont think we should do. We cant be and would be considering whether we have the same authority that we have the perspective the employer responsibility where there is good reason to have given stakeholders additional time that they very much as four. There is good reason there to consider whether we have authority to do what was necessary. In the case of the individual responsibility individuals who cannot afford to pay that dont have to pay it. As you know sir, there is hardship exemption that hhs can provide for people who cant afford it. People who cant afford the coverage but want to coverage, they can get that through premium tax credits or medicaid. We did not see reason to provide more. You have chosen not to for the reasons you outlined. The question still is do you have the authority to . Did have the authority to extend tax credits to those outside the exchanges. You did that. And have the authority to extend the red line for signing up but you did that. So the basic question again do you have the authority, whether you choose to use and not to extend the individual mandate. Congressman. I know nine months ago you assured us you had analyzed it and get as back and answer. What is the answer . Congressman we did analyze whether there was any reason to extend the time for the individual responsibility provision beyond the statutory phase in or extension that is provided for 2014 and for 2015 suggest that the provision does not apply fully until 2016. So on top of the statutory phasein, as you know, one person to pay this year 2 2015, 2 and a half these are the maximums. So the statute has phase that in. We dont see a reason to and administrative kazins on top of the statutory phase in. Indeed, we do think mr. Chairman, sincerely that this individual shared responsibility provision makes possible the Key Insurance reforms which have had even bipartisan support in congress. Sure. So do you have the authority should you choose to, to extend the individual mandate . Mr. Chairman that is a question that we dont reach because we do not believe the we have any cause to or that we should delay it and therefore we dont have the predicate for entering into the analysis of whether there would have Legal Authority. There are so many of the things the we do not believe we should do. We certainly dont reach the question in those zero areas of the we have the Legal Authority it is something that we believe is necessary. Says he chose not to have begun the announcement jack. Mr. Chairman again, what we did was to i recognize. The good news is youre telling the committee is following the new order costly. Did you go back and give the analysis on the authority to extend . We dont think that we have the authority to extend something that is a provision of that where there is no need. There is no need in terms of the minister ability. Individuals can fill out their tax forms to indicate very readily whether they have paid their whether they have coverage and if they dont whether they are exempt. Of than non exempt, to make the payment. The tax forms will be easy for individuals to complete in that regard. This particular task for the individuals is not a difficult task. Employers by contrast, and comply with the employer responsibility rules have more to deal with with providing the plans for all of their employees. I just want to give you time to answer. You cant do this and a very clear way. Your answer is you do not have the authority to extend the individual mandate because you dont see the need to . Mr. Chairman, let me make clear the i am not one of the practicing lawyers at the Treasury Department. My role is not to do the legal analysis. Another policy person. But he did do the analysis. Make sure our understanding will we undertook. Obviously were happy to help and to be cooperative in your important oversight work. If i am misunderstanding what we agreed to do in july and thats on me. Absent that were going to do that. Simple question, did you do the analysis . I did not to a legal analysis of the authority to extend the provision that we double the and it would not be good for the American People. If youd done the analysis please forward that to us. Its been done as of this state police share that with the committee. Mr. Chairman, on the happy go back to my Legal Counsel. Colleagues at treasury, we have an excellent legal team very experienced, very knowledgeable. And take this question back to them and see what they have to say in and get back to thank you. Im a little puzzled by the questioning. It sounds like the way you operate in treasury not a lawyer vehicle. And then you look to see if you have authority to do that. Rather of our good girl. Dr. Mcdermott it by me just clear something up. I am a lawyer. A recovering one. And i am not part of the Legal Counsel team at treasury. Im more involved in the policy. But if you could clarify your question for me. The question is i ask you about seven different ways like a good reporter or a lawyer about whether or not you have done the analysis about whether you had the authority. But your answer was over and over again i never got to that point because we did not think it was something that needs to be done or even looked at. It was something we thought needed to be done we would have done the analysis. Is that fair . Mr. Mcdermott i am in general agreement with the way you are approaching this. The authority to provide regulations and in general under the tax code including to provide transitional relief on those occasions where transitional relief is worth considering is contained in the statute section 7805 a of the Internal Revenue code. And the statutory language reads as follows. It says that the secretary of the treasury, and i quote shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of the tax code including all rules and regulations as may be necessary by reason of any alteration of law in relation to the Internal Revenue. In other words, rules that are necessary including Transition Relief that may be called for. And the authority has been used to postpone the application or to provide new legislation to provide Transition Relief with respect to the effectiveness timing of legislation on various occasions across administrations of both parties from more than two decades. I am not aware of any assets with the Treasury Department provided a Transition Relief in a case where they believe that it was not appropriate to provide Transition Relief. I should hope not. And the cases the list of examples which is not a complete list that we provided to the committee in our testimony last year in july and then again in letters to the committee, examples of past exercises of this well established authority under 7805 a of the tax code exercises and treasury discretion to give Transition Relief. That list of instances. Again, i am sure there are more than that. That was intended to be illustrative they are all instances where the treasury concluded that there was a legitimate need for more time. Stakeholders you are effecting affected, taxpayers are affected by the law would be able to implement it effectively if they had more time and in some cases the tax system as a whole would need more time. I dont mean to our rescue. My time is almost gone. I want to enter something in the record from the National Retail federation which represents 42 million americans. And their tax counsel says the administration this is a quote should receive a gold medal for recognizing enormous complexities of the Affordable Care act and its agility and flexibility in working with retailers and others in crafting these much needed commonsense reforms and revisions. Continuing simplicity streamline the entire 55 clarification of the affordable character in the best interest of the employers and employees and administration of the congress. The National Retail federation will continue its constructive conversations with the congress and the administration. It sounds like at least one business organization, a fairly large one, thought you did a good job been working out what needed to be done. And i think that is really what is necessary for people to understand. You talk about 5 of employers are covered by this says 95 percent have less than 50 employees. 95 percent of those already give coverage to their employees. Were talking about a very small number of people who apparently the chairman hears from. I do not. Thank you. Without objection a letter will be introduced. Votes are occurring. I would like to ask chairman johnson to ask his questions and then we will recess after those and reconvene. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Mark iwry as you know chairman of the Social Security subcommittee, and one of my long standing priority system to protect americas Social Security numbers. This new health law requires the irs to collect massive amounts of personal affirmation, including Social Security numbers on identifying the draft and privacy as growing concerns of all americans. How Many Americans will have their Social Security numbers collected and stored and reported . Says. All of them that are involved in health care, right . Well let me ask you another one if you cant answer that. Who will collect the Social Security numbers . Employers, insurers, but . Regarding your first question, i believe that the Social Security numbers are now collected as part of the 1044 that applies to but is filed by tens of millions of american taxpayers. Were happy to get the sack number. My recollection is that there are more than 100 million tax filing units, and they provide taxpayer id numbers typically Social Security numbers currently to the irs. Well, how are we going to protect them . You know we are losing them. Sir, we share very much that concern. The importance of maintaining the security and privacy of the information is a high priority. The irs has been a very vigilant about that. Over its history and we all i think recognize as youre suggesting, sir that recent events in the private sector for example underscore the importance of the point youre making that privacy and security arkie. We dont think that we are taking risks with privacy and security in the case of these reporting provisions. Well, under this law you are given those numbers to your employer. Now we just give them to the irs when we file our tax return. How are you going to protect those numbers . Mr. Johnson, Many Employers to have a Social Security number typically employers, so you dont have the Social Security number of employees. We recognize that there is a legitimate balancing here and that we agree with your concern that privacy and security of the personal data be treated with the utmost care and seriousness. And these reporting provisions are intended to give effect to that concern. One way that they do that one way that they do that sir, is that when taxpayer identification numbers are provided as part of the Affordable Care act reporting for the purpose of making sure that the tax system is coming in fact more running the way it should and that people are not being charged with individuals greece individual responsibility payments when, in fairness, they should be because they did have coverage or the people get in order to make sure that people dont get premium tax credits that there not entitled to under the law. The Social Security numbers the other taxpayer identification numbers that are collected for the purpose of making sure that the Tax Administration is proper and appropriate those are provided by the employer or the reporting into the. Could the insurance company, to the address. In this statement is provided to the individual to the employee as well. That statement, which is the document that might otherwise present more of an issue here because its not going through that existing save channel from employers to the irs the statement would have a truncated a truncated taxpayer id number. In other words, those of the numbers that many of us now see on our documents that have some of the digits of the Social Security number and then the rest next out for security so that if that statement falls into the wrong hands the Social Security number is still secure. Well thats not very convincing. You know, i think its going to be tough to assure every american that their most private information is safe from criminals. They are attacking as every day. Thank you. Thank you. We are short on votes time. We will recess. [inaudible conversations] lets reconvene the hearing. Thank you for being patient. We appreciate it very much. The chair recognizes mr. Pascal. Thank you mr. Chairman. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Open enrollment began october the first more than 7 million american seven role in private coverage and 3 million have enrolled in medicaid or the childrens Health Insurance program. Yesterday gallup announced for the fourth straight time that the rate of uninsured americans has declined and it is not the lowest level recorded since 2008. Before the hca many people were paying for plans that did not provide them with the covers in need. The plans they purchased are high out of pocket cost an artificially low catch on coverage. Tonight coverage for preexisting conditions and Insurance Companies arbitrarily increase their premiums to the point where they could not afford insurance. My colleagues on the other side refused to a knowledge any benefits that have resulted from this long. Let me interject back nine years ago when we passed part de in an excruciating 3 00 4 00 in the morning at that time if you remember what happens after democrats mostly butter begins your votes. Most of this had campaigned against it before the vote. What did we do . We went back into our districts. The first three times up when. In my district at that time. Stockton said look, i was against it. This is going to be a good benefit down the road. It has some kinks and problems but we will work those things out over the years. My brother said at the time the beginning of the party rollout most American People heard only about what was wrong with the program. Doesnt that sound familiar . My good friend sam johnson who are worked very closely with this year said to cms officials, you guys have done a super job. So despite what had happened automatic enrollment of dual eligibles took us into three, four five months after the passage. There were serious, serious problems. The beneficiaries were not receiving the payment assistance that there were eligible. The big confusion. States have this debt been to pay for seniors drugs affecting new jersey. They had to come up with 26 million because the rollout was not working. The aroma was not nearly what it needed to be, what they expected to be. By february late february to a dozen sex only 5 million seniors have signed up. Nearly 20 million seniors or without charge coverage. Now let me say this, mr. Mr. Chairman this hearing is simply another attempt by your colleagues to spread misinformation chip away at the dca to distract from the fact that this law has already helped millions of americans did quality affordable. You dont admit that some things are right. He admitted that some things are wrong. Can you bring yourself to that so that if we Work Together think of many more people would be enrolled . If the governors would have not been complicity of cooperative think how many more people have been involved . If the governors he chose not to accept medicaid money into their coffers of their own state to help the poor think how many more people have been enrolled in medicare over the three half million and arnold says this program went into effect. The most disappointed to see delays related to the Affordable Care act. I appreciate treasurys desire to make sure the employer responsibility provisions are well crafted. Incorporating the feedback of the Business Community and other stakeholders before moving forward with implementation. From my perspective the final rule published by treasury in february addresses a number of concerns that i have heard from the Business Community. Mr. Mark iwry, can you please discuss treasurys process for soliciting feedback from the Business Community and other stakeholders . Number two can you tell the committee was some of that the back was and how treasury addresses takeover concerns . Thats the bottom line. We have about five seconds left. Perhaps you could do it by letter says the co. Happy to do that. Time expired. I want to refer back to our colleague, mr. Mcdermott said Opening Statements when he said that it is pure fantasy that the republicans can contend that the ac a is unworkable. If that is the case why did you do these delays . We do not believe that the hca, Affordable Care act is unworkable. The reason that we did provide Transition Relief in accordance with treasurys authority to do so under the tax code with respect to the employer shared responsibility provisions is that stakeholders made the case to us that it was unworkable to them . Made the case to us sir that with more time why did they need more time . Myth with more time there would be able to better adapt there reporting systems. Under the time for and that the law allowed they did not have the time to conform their systems to what was be required of them . Thats why the requested more time . Congressman the Business Community started out in dialogue with us on what their Top Priorities would be. Im just asking, why did they solicit and seek more time that these delays now allow them . Why did they seek more time . Says you assented to that and give them more time. We did sir. The reason this some more time as it was explained to us on many occasions was not generally that they thought they could not comply but that they thought it would be much more effective much less difficult if they had the time to study the rules, to digest them to adapt their systems, whether for collecting information or expanding there plan . Of the average plan that they would have to put more manpower into complying with the regulations . Did they explain to you that it costs more money for them for Information Technology changes connected a touchy about the increased cost of they have experienced for legal charges and accounting changes . Did they explain all of those items that would make it very very difficult for them to comply with the law the way it was written . Congressman starting as long as three years ago when we began an intensive dialogue with stickle is that the points were made that if the rules were not made simple and administrable enough then they would impose costs that might otherwise be avoidable. Did you ever see to try to independently assess what the implication, what the increased cost would be on the Employer Community that is affected by this employer mandate . Did you gotta do an independent study, something similar to the American Health policy Institute Study on employers, large employers that the hca over ten years is going to increase their costs by 1501,000,000,000 to 196 billion . Did you do any independent assessment as a department about the increased burdens fan. Congressman throughout the treasurys incumbent rulemaking process. Did you do a study sir. We assessed sir did you do a study independently to determine what the increased cost would be on those over 50 employees to determine what they would experience under these mandates . It is a very simple question. Congressman, we talked and listened i know you talked and listen. He said that over and over again did you do an independent study . Would you please answer the question . Congressman, would be happy to answer it. Please do. I am not aware thank you. You are not aware of any independent study. That is your answer . I am not aware of the Treasury Department study of the cost. Why do you think that was not done . With the employer responsibility what you think that was not done . Why did you do that to independently determine what the impact of this law was going to have on those employers . Congressman, we were getting a considerable amount of specific feedback from employers was that necessary . Was that necessary . All time has expired. I will followup with additional questions. I appreciate your very specific response to the questions. Happy to respond. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Appreciate you being here. Dr. Mcdermott opened his comments by saying that he felt this was a bogus hearing. Do you think this is above his hearing . Congressman, i think the committee has an important oversight to rule to play with respect to Treasury Department. Then i very much respect and i know that Treasury Department and the address very much respect the committees prerogative and the committees Important Role and function in the oversight. And when requests are made of members of the executive branch it is incumbent upon the executive branch to comply with those requests. Congressman certainly the executive branch, the administration, and i can only speak for of course, treasury in my case, but we view them requests of this committee with respect of course. And we take the committees requests seriously and you the committees role as not only legitimate but important. Thank you. You mentioned that this employer reporting requirement only hits 4 of employers out there. Is that an accurate statement . Mr. Price the employer responsibility requirements including the employer reporting requirements applied to employers that have at least 50 fulltime employees or fulltime equivalent employees and that that is about 4 percent of the total number of employers in the United States. And how many employees is that . It is a considerable number of employees. I did not know offhand as i sit here the exact number. I have seen the data, sir and we would be happy to give you the exact number and the best data that we have. I think its around 90 million, i think. I look forward to that response. I want to followup. You mentioned and that think this quote is accurate. The request of the employers as to get the basic information to check compliance. Did you all to find you did not to a study. But did you estimate what that costs . Congressman you are asking whether we estimated what it would cost the employer to comply with with which requirement . With the employee reporting requirement on their employees and what theyre not it had been provided . Says. We have not to my knowledge. I am not aware that treasury and then maybe some other the executive branch that did this but im not aware that treasury went beyond the very intensive dialogue. The fact gathering from the Business Community. Justin think it was important enough. Congressman, we felt it was very important to take the constant lookout. What other costs . Certainly. Congressman depending upon the specific provision depending on how particular rules are simplified or the degree to which their simplified the cost is going to vary. The businesses themselves did not have generally i have just a little the time. There will be credits and subsidies provided to employees based on misinformation. There will be some errors made. Just because of the nature of the beast. When an error is made an employee gets a subsidy or credit that there not eligible for in hindsight. The iras would go back in get that money back . Congressman let me address that this way. The Affordable Care act provides that if an individual obtains a premium tax credit based on information that turns out to be minor not correct or not kern and mesa based on the current final information such as the income of that household for the year in which the coverage and therefore the premium tax credit was provided the law provides for reconciliation process set in connection with the individual filing their tax return with the iras. Getting that money back. There could be. There could be either an additional tax credit that the person is entitled to. If they planned less than they were entitled to for example it might turn out that there income was actually lower than was anticipated. I look forward to providing some questions. Very brief for your time. Many have expressed their concern to me that many of the changes made to the Health Care Law have been made without congressional approval. And i was wondering if the administration is working on legislative that they would propose before congress to codify any of these changes that have already been made . Congressman are you referring to the Transition Relief with respect to the employer shared responsibility . Really any of the provisions. Can you agree that there have been many changes made or delays in time friends and so forth that have been issued . Is an Administration Working anything to propose that . Congressman the Treasury Department, and i can speak for only with respect to treasury since that is where i work the Treasury Department has exercised its authority to provide various safe harbors for businesses and other stakeholders Transition Relief for stakeholders wellestablished and long held a party under section 78 of five we have authority to interpret the tax cut and particularly when theyre is new law with the statute refers to as an alteration of the law relating to the Internal Revenue a party with respect to a new law to issue rules and regulations to give effect to it and win we get the kind of credible comments from staples that we received regarding the need for more Transition Relief or as much simplification and tin mining is possible. China best in the case of the reporting is best to about as well as the reporting responsibility. The executive authority is not be used appropriately. And with the administration be open to from your perspective be open to opposing legislation that would codify any of these changes . Congressman, that kind of practical common sense interpretations of the tax statutes at issue that treasury has provided in connection with the employer responsibility regulations and the reporting regulations are consistent with treasurys existing statutory authority. That statute exists in the form of section 7805 in a of the Internal Revenue code as it has been in effect not only recently but for years and for more than two decades. The legislation would be necessary. No legislation will be necessary since we have a legislative authority on 78058 to issue the rules and regulations that we have issued with respect to employer responsibility and employer and insurer reporting. That legislation is already on the books and we have exercised it in much the same way that previous Treasury Department under previous administrations both republican and democrat have exercised that existing statutory authority. Okay. Following upon mr. Johnsons questions relating to the information contained associated with the Social Security numbers and of the reformation as the iras tested if they have the ability to process and protect the gathering of the information that certainly i would think would be shared at a much greater velocity as there is there are more questions being asked on the tax returns related health care. Congressman, this is not a matter of personal Health Information being shared with the irs. Were talking about but has the virus tested the security of that information . I believe to your knowledge. To my knowledge sir en un treasury. I dont work in the harrisburg say, but my understanding is that the irs constantly checks its systems to make sure that the kind of security of the information on privacy that the committee is expressing concern about and that the administration is likewise extremely concerned being kept maintained. The irs continually makes sure that its systems are secure and to protect individual taxpayer in formation from breaches of security or breaches of privacy. Indeed the Current System where employers obtain Social Security numbers from individuals and where Social Security numbers are placed on the tens of millions of 1040 returns that are filed every year the Social Security numbers on millions of to 99 reports numbers collected by financial restitutions and submitted to the guys irs on those reports that is all part of that system. I know the irs takes the utmost care with that. Thank you. Your time has expired. Thank you mr. Chairman. Mr. Mark iwry thank you for coming to provide a little bit of clarification. Take us back if you will as far as the treasurys termination for a oneyear moratorium on employer reporting requirements under section section 7805, the transitional discretion authority. It just seems to me that when i heard the administration make the announcement for the oneyear delay it was based on the feedback that the administration was getting from the Business Community. In essence there were saying, its not that we dont want a report. Its that we need more time to upgrade our systems and software so that when we do report were going to be able to report as accurately as possible. I think to the administrations credit they heard that feed back and said kamal right. We understand that this could be difficult in the initial stages. We will exercise 7805 discretion with this and give you a little bit more time to upgrade your system so that you can report accurately. Is that close to the finding or determination that the administration used . I agree with you. The factual predicates for the exercise of our well established authority under the tax code to issue rules and regulations including ones that would provide appropriate Transition Relief in connection with that change in law that was very much a part of the factual predicate. There were a whole variety of organizations from the plan sponsor community including Employer Organizations with numbers that did not sponsor or have yet to sponsor health plans for their employees. I asked for additional time. As you say many of them indicated, we are prepared to comply with this. Many of them said frankly, we think this is a good law. We think that this will help the American People. Obviously there is diversity of opinion on that in the Business Community, but many of them did say in any event we know this is the law of the land. We are prepared to comply with it. Please just give us additional time. And that is not unusual. One major legislation is enacted , one thing that probably everyone can agree and i would imagine that this legislation is major. This is big. When something is when a significant reform is enacted major legislation is enacted. It is very common, very typical for treasurys notice and comment will making process to illicit very detailed thoughtful informative comments from the stakeholders from the taxpayers including the Business Community that sheds more light on how the statute is to be applied, that sheds light on the practical concerns or challenges that any major piece of legislation poses. Just so were clear, this is clearly not the First Administration that has invoked section 7805 authority for transitional relief. In fact i had an opportunity to review in the past the lead of the treasury did submit to the chairman of this committee highlighting some of the specific instances where the previous administrations have been about this authority as well. Is that correct . That is very true. We submitted a list of instances that illustrate that for more than the last 20 years the Treasury Department has exercised its authority under 7805 a of the tax code to provide Transition Relief of various kinds of to a limited degree, limited in scope limited in time with respect to a variety of new tax related legislation. And it has been very typical for the taxpayer community to say you know we have studied this law and we now realize particularly to the process of proposed regulations and comments that everything is more complicated than it first appears. Not just the Affordable Care act i ask unanimous consent that that record be submitted for the record for the purposes of this hearing. Without objection. This seems like this is in a tough position given the political debate. Youre damned if you do and damned if you dont. You dont provide transitional relief you criticized for doing that. You provide relief youre criticized for not helping make the program collapsed because things just arent right yet or timely and compliance. So i would encourage the administration to continue using the pragmatic discussion that you have, working with the Business Community to try to make this work for all americans thank you. Thank you for being here. There are continued concerns about the causes for these regulations. We will continue to dialogue going forward. Secondly, please do check on the analysis that was done on the authority. Like to have that to the committee. I will follow the letter to you to that effect. Again thank you very much. Thank you for being patient during the votes. Thank you very much mr. Mr. Chairman. [inaudible conversations]