[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE IRS CONTRACTS WITH STRONG CASTLE, INC. ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 26, 2013 __________ Serial No. 113-43 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://www.house.gov/reform U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 82-275 WASHINGTON : 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont DOUG COLLINS, Georgia TONY CARDENAS, California MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico RON DeSANTIS, Florida Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director Stephen Castor, General Counsel Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 26, 2013.................................... 1 WITNESSES Mr. Brad Flohr, Senior Advisor for Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Veterans Administration Oral Statement............................................... 7 Written Statement............................................ 10 Mr. Michael A. Chodos, Associate Administrator, Office of Entrepreneurial Developmnet, U.S., U.S. Small Business Administration Oral Statement............................................... 25 Written Statement............................................ 27 Ms. Beth Tucker, Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support, Internal Revenue Service Oral Statement............................................... 32 Written Statement............................................ 34 Mr. William A. Sisk, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration Oral Statement............................................... 39 Written Statement............................................ 41 Mr. Braulio Castillo, President and Chief Executive Officer, Strong Castle, Inc. Oral Statement............................................... 44 Written Statement............................................ 46 APPENDIX U.S. Small Business Administration, Notice of final Decertification................................................ 96 THE IRS CONTRACTS WITH STRONG CASTLE, INC. ---------- Wednesday, June 26, 2013 House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:04 a.m., in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Duncan, Jordan, Walberg, DesJarlais, Gowdy, Woodall, Meadows, Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings, Maloney, Norton, Tierney, Connolly, Duckworth, Kelly and Davis. Staff Present: Alexia Ardolina, Assistant Clerk; Jen Barblan, Counsel; Kurt Bardella, Senior Policy Advisor; Richard A. Beutel, Senior Counsel; Will L. Boyington, Press Assistant; Molly Boyl, Senior Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director; Ashley H. Callen, Senior Counsel; Steve Castor, General Counsel; Drew Colliatie, Professional Staff Member; John Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Carlton Davis, Senior Counsel; Kate Dunbar, Professional Staff Member; Adam P. Fromm, Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff Member; Christopher Hixon, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Justin LoFranco, Digital Director; Mark D. Marin, Director of Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Jonathan J. Skladany, Deputy Chief Counsel, Investigations; Rebecca Watkins, Deputy Director of Communications; Meghan Berroya, Minority Counsel; Susanne Sachsman Grooms, Minority Chief Counsel; Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Press Secretary; Elisa LaNier, Minority Deputy Clerk; Dave Rapallo, Minority Staff Director; and Donald Sherman, Minority Counsel. Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order. The Oversight Committee's mission statement is that we exist to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right to know that the money Washington takes from them is well spent; and second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn obligation 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. A few days ago the acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, issued a 30-day assessment on his plan of action for the future of the IRS. The report stated that in many instances across the IRS, we had efficient, effective management, or effective management that is leading positive organizational performance. Unfortunately, we are here today because failures within the IRS are not isolated to just Tax-Exempt Division. The revelation that a company called Strong Castle was able to acquire more than $500 million in potential contracts, or in contracts for potential sales, with no previous track record completely undermines the IRS narrative that just one branch or department within the IRS failed the American people. Our report, we believe, shows a cozy relationship between Strong Castle's president and the IRS Deputy Director for Information Technology Acquisitions, Greg Roseman, and it is the heart of this issue. Included in the--included in our report are exchanges of text messages that we believe are shockingly inappropriate, and in some cases offensive. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Castillo was able to successfully manipulate the system--and we are not alleging a crime--but successfully manipulate the system to acquire contracts exposes staggering vulnerability in the IRS's acquisition process and jeopardizes billions of taxpayer dollars in this situation. Quite frankly, we are not sure that we have criminal element here, that we have criminal violations. What we are sure of is that the intent of Congress and the stated intent of this and each administration before has been thwarted. The intention of, without a doubt, that disabled military veterans receive preference flies in the face of a small injury in 1984 while attending the Military Academy Prep School, one so minor that it had no effect on college football participation for years to follow, and that took 27 years to conveniently ask to have this put in as a disability not because of a true disability or inability to perform a job, but, in fact, in order to qualify for a preference statement. Additionally, the use of HUBZones, and in this case one that was a legacy HUBZone that actually the Verizon Center and the other parts of Washington, D.C., are moving out of that into thriving areas; the use of that in order to gain a contract and then creating absolutely no jobs within that district that were directly related to or in support of this $500 million contract. Our investigation is still in its infancy. Today we are working with the IG and hope to work with others within the IRS to end this problem. As we speak, many of these contracts continue to be in force. And perhaps that's the most distressing is that the IRS officials immediately--excuse me-- initially denied and then repeated their denial that there was a problem. They failed to take action after this was brought to their attention, and the IRS is still allowing a $266 million contract with Strong Castle to stand. The action by the inspector general when he was notified of these allegations almost a year ago was a lack of urgency that the American taxpayers deserve. In our evaluation we find no value added performed by Strong Castle. I repeat, no value added performed by Strong Castle, although profits flow to that company over and above the full payment to the companies who actually provide the IRS with those services. No hearing related to the IRS would be complete without mentioning that under Obamacare, the task of the IRS to implement at least 47 new provisions, including 18 new taxes expected to raise $1 trillion over the next decade, and the hiring of thousands of new employees, the need for computer systems to work and work accurately begs the question of can we afford to implement Obamacare if we cannot get the systems and controls in place for existing requirements. Just this year the IRS has requested nearly $500 million, the same amount of money the IRS plans to award to Strong Castle, to enforce Obamacare, including 2,000 new full-time employees. We are not trying to say that one is interchangeable with the other, but it's very clear this is a lot of money, and it's a lot of money that could for a fraction, 2 or 3 or 4 percent savings, be passed on to the American people. Often on this dais we applaud, appropriately, Federal workers. And I want to take a moment to make it clear the vast majority of people involved in contracting in the Federal workforce take contracting seriously. They scrutinize the contracts and most often try to get the best value for the taxpayer. Because the best value is not always the lowest price, this is a difficult job, and it requires absolute integrity. If we do not have full confidence in our procurement integrity, then we must choose the lowest price. The lowest price is not always the best value for the taxpayer, but the analytics of lowest price versus lowest value depends on an independent, non cozy relationship between the contracting officers and their superiors and the contractor. This committee has over the years applauded and will continue to applaud that most contracts have that characteristic. They are not always awarded the way contractors would like, but they are based on best value to the taxpayer. In this case, at least for this chair and our draft report, we don't believe that occurred, and that is the reason that we are continuing our investigation. Chairman Issa. I would now like to recognize and thank the ranking member for being my full partner in this investigation. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to, first of all, thank you for calling this hearing. It is indeed a very important hearing. And it is interesting, this hearing is to examine allegations against a company named Strong Castle, Inc., that has been awarded $51 million in obligations under information technology contracts with the Internal Revenue Service. The first allegation made against Strong Castle last December was that the company's owner, a local businessman from northern Virginia named Braulio Castillo, took improper advantage of the Historically Underutilized Business Zone program, the HUBZone, while setting up his companies here in Washington, D.C. Let me say from the outset that I have a tremendous interest in HUBZones. I have lived in what would consider to be a HUBZone for 32 years in the same house, where I would imagine that black unemployment, male unemployment, is probably 35 percent unemployment; where businesses struggle trying to become a part of this economy and trying to do well. And I have lived long enough and seen enough to be able to tell you that I have worked with a lot of those small business people who have felt quite often that they weren't on the playing field. As a matter of fact, they felt that they weren't even in the stadium. And they have lived long enough and struggled long enough, and now I have seen many of them die chasing a dream, trying to get there, looking for a playing field that is simply level, but they can't even get on the field. And so the purpose of the HUBZone program is to help small businesses increase employment, investment in economic development in historically underutilized business areas. As part of this program, which is overseen by the Small Business Administration, companies may receive preferred status when bidding on Federal contracts. In order to qualify, Mr. Castillo opened one small office in a HUBZone near Chinatown, the Chinatown neighborhood of Washington, D.C. He then worked with the head football coach at Catholic University, his former college roommate, to hire college students living in a different HUBZone near that school. Mr. Castillo's former employer and current competitor, Government Acquisitions, Inc., filed protests with SBA and the Government Accountability Office. The company accused Mr. Castillo of engaging in, ``shell game,'' with multiple businesses and employees. It also accused him of, ``manipulating the facts to gain the preferred status.'' SBA investigated these allegations and decertified Mr. Castillo's company as a HUBZone contractor on May 23rd, 2013. I ask unanimous consent that the SBA's decertification letter be placed into the hearing record. Chairman Issa. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SBA determined that Mr. Castillo's company submitted employee records that were, ``false and inaccurate.'' It also concluded that the company, ``does not have the adequate internal controls to independently verify employee records.'' Despite these findings, I credit Mr. Castillo for appearing before the committee today. He participated in a 9-hour interview with committee staff, he provided documents to us and to SBA, and he is here to explain his actions. A committee staff also conducted extensive interviews with almost all of his employees. Another major allegation involves Mr. Castillo's personal relationship with an IRS employee named Greg Roseman. Mr. Roseman did not disclose his relationship to the contracting officers who awarded contracts to Strong Castle, to his direct supervisor at the IRS, or to the IRS Office of General Legal Services. This certainly concerns everybody on this dais. Mr. Roseman was not the contracting officer ultimately responsible for awarding the contracts to Mr. Castillo's company, but he participated in the contracting process as a voting member of the Contracting Review Board for two of these contracts. No IRS officials reported having any knowledge of Mr. Castillo's relationship with Mr. Roseman. In addition, no contracting officials or other IRS employee interviewed by the committee reported any inappropriate influence by Mr. Roseman on the contracting process; nevertheless, the evidence obtained by the committee indicates at least an appearance of impropriety because Mr. Roseman did not disclose this relationship or recuse himself from the contracting process. Regarding their personal relationship, Mr. Castillo stated during his interview with the committee staff, ``Greg Roseman and I are friends'' In addition, on May 15, 2013, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration reported that Mr. Castillo and Mr. Roseman had exchanged text messages on their personal cellphones that, ``contained inappropriate language and lacked professional decorum.'' Three hundred of these text messages included both work-related and personal communications. They also included obviously inappropriate communications with juvenile and offensive homosexual slurs and mocking references to another IRS employee. Mr. Roseman has been reassigned pending the completion of the inspector general's review and is no longer overseeing procurement matters. Earlier this week his attorney wrote to the committee indicating that Mr. Roseman is invoking his Fifth Amendment right not to testify today. I am not here to defend his actions, but this is his right under the Constitution, and as Members of Congress we are bound to respect that right. And just one other note. The chairman talked about the tremendous responsibility that the IRS will now--has been facing with regard to the Affordable Care Act. And I have said it from this dais before, but I will say it again: We, all of us, everybody up here has fired people, all of us. And bad actors does not stop the show. This is the United States of America. We have problems in an institution, and if people are not doing their jobs, they have to go, but that doesn't mean that the law, the law, the Affordable Care Act, should not and cannot be administered by that agency. We are a can-do Nation. We are a can-do Nation, and it is part of our obligation, all of us, to make sure, as the chairman has said, that we put right this ship and make sure that it sails so that it can accomplish the things that the Congress had voted for, and that we have stood up for, and that is the law. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. Chairman Issa. All Members will have 7 days to submit opening statements for the record. Chairman Issa. And we now recognize our panel. Mr. Brad Flohr is Senior Advisor for Compensation Service for the Veterans Benefits Administration at the U.S. Veterans Administration. Mr. Michael Chodos---- Mr. Chodos. Yes. Chairman Issa. --is the Associate Administrator of the Office of Entrepreneurial Development at the U.S. Small Business Administration. Ms. Beth Tucker is the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support at the Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Gregory Roseman is the Deputy Director for Enterprise Networks and Tier Systems Support at the Internal Revenue Service. And I believe that is a previous title, but we will use it for now. Mr. William A. Sisk is the Deputy Commissioner for Federal Acquisition Services at the General Services Administration, or GSA. Welcome. And Mr. Braulio Castillo is the president and chief executive officer of Strong Castle. Pursuant to the committee regulations, would you please all rise, raise your right hands to take the oath. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Let the record reflect--please be seated. Let the record reflect that all witnesses answered in the affirmative. Before I continue, and because this committee is acutely aware that one or more on the panel may choose to assert their Fifth Amendment rights, and because this chair does not want to have anyone waive that right accidentally, involuntarily or in any other way, does anyone here at this time intend to evoke their Fifth Amendment rights? Mr. Roseman? Mr. Roseman. Yes, sir. I do intend to waive my Fifth--I intend to invoke my Fifth Amendment right to be silent. Chairman Issa. Mr. Roseman, you have not provided any written testimony today; is that correct? Mr. Roseman. Yes, sir. Chairman Issa. Okay. I understand from your counsel that you may want to assert your constitutional privileges, and you've already said that's correct. Mr. Roseman, today's hearing will cover topics including waste, fraud and abuse of government contracting set-asides. As Deputy Director, Enterprise Networks and Tier Systems Support at the Internal Revenue Service, you are uniquely qualified to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand information technology acquisition practices at the IRS. To that end, I once again must ask you to consider answering questions that will bear on that subject with us. Mr. Roseman, what is your title at the IRS? Mr. Roseman. Mr. Chairman, my title is what is--was Deputy Director of Enterprise Networks and Tier Systems Procurement. Chairman Issa. Mr. Roseman, to whom do you report at the IRS? Mr. Roseman. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any questions, and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. Chairman Issa. Would you do that once again? I apologize. Mr. Roseman. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any questions, and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. Chairman Issa. Mr. Roseman, when did you first become aware of a company known as Strong Castle, Inc.? Mr. Roseman. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any questions, and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. Chairman Issa. Mr. Roseman, are you currently employed by the IRS? Mr. Roseman. Mr. Chairman, on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer any questions, and invoke my Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent. Chairman Issa. Lastly, Mr. Roseman, are you prepared to answer any questions here today about your role in the IRS acquisitions and information technology products and services from Strong Castle, Inc.? Mr. Roseman. Mr. Chairman, no. Chairman Issa. Mr. Cummings, do you have any--any questions before I dismiss the witness? Mr. Cummings. No, I have no questions. And I--as we respect the witness' right to remain silent, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Chairman, so I have no objections with the chairman dismissing this witness. Chairman Issa. Given that the witness has indicated that he does not intend to answer any questions, and out of respect for his right under the Constitution, I will now ask the committee to excuse the witness, take away his name, and we'll take a short recess so that we can reset the table. Mr. Roseman, you're excused. [recess.] Chairman Issa. The committee will come to order. I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their forbearance. The chair would like to make sure we allow sufficient time, and even though we're slightly smaller now, there's still a large panel, so I'd ask you to recognize that your entire opening statements will be placed in the record, and to stay within the 5 minutes or very close to it. And with that, you're recognized, Mr. Flohr, for 5 minutes. WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF BRAD FLOHR Mr. Flohr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Cummings and members of this committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this morning to discuss the Department of Veterans Affairs' processes for granting service connection for disabled veterans and verifying Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses and Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. VA is committed to making accurate decisions in claims for disability compensation, as reflected in our goal of 98 percent accuracy by 2015 and monitoring the VOSB program. Oversight for these programs ensures that qualified veterans receive the benefits and business qualifications they have earned through their service to our Nation. Disability compensation is a monthly benefit payable to veterans who have a disability or disabilities resulting from injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by Active military service. Such service includes Active Duty, Active Duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, and in that Inactive Duty for training during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty. Service consisting solely of attendance at any one of the preparatory schools of the service academies may constitute Active Duty or Active Duty for training for VA purposes, depending on the circumstances of the individual service. VA's Office of General Counsel held in a precedent opinion issued in 1994 and 1995 that characterization of an individual service at a United States academy preparatory school for purposes of entitlement to veteran's benefits depends upon the status in which the individual enters the school. Service by a person entering the school as a reservist called to duty for the sole purpose of attending the school or by one who is enlisted from civilian life or National Guard duty to attend the school constitutes Active Duty for training. In contrast, persons who enroll directly from Active Duty under a prior enlistment remain on Active Duty within the meaning of Title 38 during their attendance. Those individuals selected for enrollment in these preparatory schools are in the military. They wear the uniform, are paid based on their military rank, are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and upon release from that period of training, they are issued a DD-214 with either honorable service or other than honorable, or whatever the characterization may be. In November of 1995, the VA amended its regulations to reflect our general counsel's statutory interpretation concerning this type of service. VA's statutory authority to compensate veterans for disability resulting from service, stated in 38 United States Code section 1110 is not limited to providing compensation for disabilities caused by military service. VA's statutory authority is to compensate veterans for disability incurred in or aggravated by service. Once an individual takes the oath to serve and protect the United States, they are on duty 24 hours a day 7 days a week. If he or she is injured or develops a chronic disease, whether in combat or during routine activities, VA claims processors prepare a disability rating decision that determines entitlement to service connection and the amount of any disability benefits that may be payable. In determining whether a disability is related to military service, there must be evidence of an injury or disease or an exposure in service; medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of a current disability; and evidence of a medical or scientific nexus or link between the current condition and the in-service event. VA has a statutory duty to assist claimants in gathering the required evidence. This includes obtaining certain supporting evidence and ordering a VA examination or requesting a medical opinion as necessary. VA reviews documents pertaining to military service and service treatment records obtained from the particular military service. VA also requests evidence identified by the claimant that may be pertinent to the claim and medical records from any private providers that we are made aware of. VA carefully evaluates all available evidence to determine if entitlement to service connection is established and, if so, the level of severity of the disability. VA's standard of proof in making these determinations is reasonable doubt. In addition to requesting and revealing records from military service departments, newly hired claims processors are provided training on military records, which includes identifying any noted alterations or suspected fraudulent records. Each regional office also has a military records specialist with expertise in military records who serves as a liaison with other government agencies. VA employees are aware of their responsibility to ensure that benefits are awarded to those who are entitled to them. Upon a determination that fraud has occurred, a preliminary decision is made with respect to adjusting or terminating an award. The beneficiary is provided due process rights, including notice of the action to be taken, the reason for the adjustment, the right to representation, and the right to present evidence to rebut the evidence serving as the basis for the proposed adjustment. If no evidence is presented, the award is adjusted, and the case is referred to the Office of the Inspector General for review and any further action that office may deem necessary. The Office of the Inspector General coordinates investigation with the United States Attorney's Office, State and local prosecutors---- Chairman Issa. Mr. Flohr, could you summarize, please? Mr. Flohr. Yes, sir. That actually summarizes my statement on service connection. Chairman Issa. Thank you very much. Mr. Flohr. You're welcome. [Prepared statement of Mr. Flohr follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.015 Chairman Issa. Mr. Chodos. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CHODOS Mr. Chodos. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the Small Business Administration's, or SBA's, role in the awarding of certain contracts to Signet Computers, Inc., and its successor, Strong Castle, Inc., a firm recently decertified by SBA as a Historically Underutilized Business Zone, or HUBZone entity. Before discussing the specifics of the SCI case, I would like to briefly describe the HUBZone program and some of its recent successes. Its aim to is help small firms in underserved communities gain access to Federal contract opportunities. Generally HUBZones are urban or rural areas with very low median household incomes and/or very high unemployment. The program requires certified companies to have their principal office in a HUBZone and to employee individuals who reside in HUBZones, with the intention of spurring economic growth within the community. As of May 31, 2013, there were 5,029 certified HUBZone small businesses. In fiscal year 2012, over 8 billion--over $8 billion were awarded to certified firms for work performed in all 50 States, including D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. In the case of the SCI, the firm applied for HUBZone certification on March 11, 2012, and was certified on June 22, 2012. SCI was awarded a blanket purchase agreement by the IRS on or about December 7th, 2012. A HUBZone status protest was filed with SBA by a competing firm on December 19, 2012. SBA could not process the protest, based on applicable jurisdictional rules; however, SBA believed the information contained in the protest called into question SCI's HUBZone eligibility. As a result SBA promptly began its investigation into the eligibility of SCI for the HUBZone program in late December of 2012. Based on the facts and evidence found during this investigation, SBA proposed SCI for decertification on January 31, 2013. It is important to note that this investigation and the resulting proposed decertification took place before and independent of the committee investigation of SCI. After a thorough review of the information provided to SBA in response to the proposed decertification, SBA decertified SCI on May 23, 2013. SBA takes very seriously its duty to root out fraud, waste and abuse in all of the Federal small business contracting programs, including HUBZone. Our top priority at SBA is to ensure that the benefits of our programs flow to the intended recipients. Our government contracting programs are a critical and effective toolkit for small businesses; however, we have no tolerance for fraud, waste and abuse in those programs. For this reason we have implemented a comprehensive three- pronged strategy to identify, prevent and pursue noncompliance or fraud across all our government contracting programs. First is effective certification processes. Clear and comprehensive eligibility screening on the front end ensures that only qualified, eligible firms participate in our programs. Second, continued surveillance and monitoring. Targeted and thorough examinations, reviews and on-site visits identity potentially fraudulent firms or those that no longer qualify. And three, robust and timely enforcement. Prompt, proactive enforcement removes bad actors, deters wrongdoing, and provides integrity to our contracting programs. We are especially proud of our core partnership with the SBA's Office of Inspector General, whose assistance is critical to the excess--to the success of our improvement efforts. Through ongoing and proactive collaboration with the Government Accountability Office and our stakeholders, SBA intends to protect the Federal Government commitment to aid and assist small business. The strategy and efforts described in my testimony reflect an integrated approach that utilizes resources across our Office of Government Contracting and Business Development, our General Counsel's Office and our 68 district offices and others. As demonstrated by the initiatives and efforts described in this testimony, SBA has taken great strides to strengthen the small business contracting programs and implement a robust strategy to combat fraud, waste and abuse. Work remains to be done to completely eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in our programs, as bad actors, regretfully, still attempt to take wrongful advantage of government benefits. While we have made significant progress, we continue to look for ways to identify further opportunities for improvement and to maximize small businesses' access to this important source of revenue so they can do what they do best: start, grow and create jobs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Chairman Issa. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Chodos follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.020 Chairman Issa. Ms. Tucker. STATEMENT OF BETH TUCKER Ms. Tucker. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Beth Tucker, and I'm the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support at the Internal Revenue Service. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. I have been an IRS employee for 29 years. I started my IRS career in 1984 as a revenue agent. I am very proud of my government service, and it is an honor for me to work alongside the dedicated men and women of the Internal Revenue Service. Our agency is vital to the functioning of government and keeping our economy strong. In our role as tax administrators, we collect 92 percent of all Federal receipts, and last year we issued more than $330 billion in refunds to individual taxpayers. In my role as Deputy Commissioner, I oversee the support functions of the Internal Revenue Service, including technology, human capital, budget, real estate, physical security and procurement. In February, the committee sent the Department of Treasury a letter raising questions about two contracts that the IRS awarded in December 2012 to Strong Castle, one of the thousands of vendors that IRS does business with. One of the contracts was for computer equipment. Let me be clear: We have made no awards or purchases under that contract. The other involves licensing and product support for IBM software that is in use across the enterprise at IRS. Upon receipt of the committee's letter, I immediately referred the matter to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. It's important to note that investigation is still ongoing. In mid-May, I was informed by TIGTA about inappropriate and unacceptable personal text messages sent by one of our procurement managers, Greg Roseman, to contractors doing business with the IRS from his personal phone. As soon as I became aware of this situation, I took steps to have Mr. Roseman reassigned to a nonsupervisory position that does not involve the awarding or administration of contracts, pending the outcome of the TIGTA investigation. And then just yesterday the committee released information related to this matter that the Internal Revenue Service had not been previously apprised of. This new information is deeply troubling, and it raises additional questions that TIGTA and the Internal Revenue Service must investigate. Let me be clear: These types of communications should not, should not occur between a procurement employee and a contractor. We expect all of our employees to act with professionalism and integrity. We are taking steps to separate the IRS from any ongoing business relationship with Strong Castle, subject to our need to safeguard our mission-critical resources. Under the teaming agreement with IBM that has been talked about in the days since the report was mis---was issued, there's a number that--that's rolling around about Strong Castle receiving $500 million potentially in award from that contract. Let me be clear: Strong Castle has not received anywhere near that amount of money from the software teaming arrangement. In fact, 98 percent of the value of that contract, if--if it was awarded, would go direct to IBM. But as I mentioned, we are taking steps to sever this relationship with Strong Castle. In response to the committee's February letter, I also directed officials within our procurement office and Office of Chief Counsel to review the documentation and correspondence related to these two contracts. In addition, as a result of the issues that have surfaced from the committee inquiry, we're doing a top-to-bottom review of procurement policies and procedures, everything from internal controls to business processes and staffing practices. I've also asked the Department of Treasury to expand its routine assessment of IRS procurement to include a review of small business programs. Based on the troubling information that we have received, we will also further enhance employee training with regard to ethics, with a focus on gift rules, conflicts of interest, impartiality and the appearance of impropriety, and issues of official position. Let me be clear that I have not seen anything within our procurement organization, and I think this is also backed up by the extensive interviews the committees have done with a host of IRS procurement officials, inappropriate behavior on the part of any other IRS procurement employee. These are 400 hardworking--and, Mr. Chairman, as you mentioned, our procurement community has a strong ethics and wants to support our agency. Bottom line, we will continue to work with the committee to provide you with updates on the results of our continuing review in partnership with TIGTA. And we also--we also would implore the committee to please share with us the full set of information that you have obtained in your interviews, because I do believe it would greatly assist the Internal Revenue Service as well as the Treasury inspector general in bringing this matter to conclusion. With that, I conclude my statement, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Chairman Issa. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Ms. Tucker follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.025 Chairman Issa. And I will break with tradition just to note, since you made a direct request, that it is our intention to share fully with the IG this information. I must admit that it's been a one-way street. We're still waiting on an awful lot of documents from the IRS that are long overdue. Mr. Sisk. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. SISK Mr. Sisk. Good morning, Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings and members of the committee. My name is Bill Sisk, and I am the Acting Deputy Commissioner of GSA's Federal Acquisition Service. I have spent over 20 years at GSA. I started at GSA's regional office in Atlanta in 1990, and I have served in a number of management positions, including Assistant Regional Administrator and Regional Commissioner. In my capacity as Regional Commissioner, I represented GSA's Assisted Acquisition Services, Network Services and Personal Property. I have also served as Assistant Commissioner in the Office of General Supplies and Services within the Federal Acquisition Service and was appointed to the U.S. AbilityOne Commission, which is a unique program that provides employment opportunities for individuals who are blind or other--or who have other significant disabilities. I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to discuss GSA's information technology Schedule 70 program and the process by which GSA reviews Schedule 70 applications. IT Schedule 70 is the largest, most widely used acquisition vehicle in the Federal Government. Schedule 70 is an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity multiple award schedule, providing direct access to IT products and services from private-sector partners around the country. There are currently 4,853 businesses under Schedule 70, and 4,172 of these, more than 85 percent, are small businesses. Many of these small businesses have socioeconomic designations: 720 are 8(a), 128 are HUBZone, 381 are Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned, 333 are Veteran-Owned, and 1,027 are Women- Owned. Through June of fiscal year 2013, about $11.5 billion worth of procurement has gone through Schedule 70, and $4.5 billion of that, 39 percent, went to small business. Schedule 70 has helped Federal agencies save time and money while ensuring a good value and the avail--in the available goods and services. In addition, Schedule 70 is one of the two schedules that is available to State and local governments through the cooperative purchasing program, allowing them to leverage the buying power of the Federal Government to procure IT goods and services at competitive prices. By allowing our partner agencies to purchase from preapproved vendors, they can receive goods and services faster. While having a schedule contract is not the only way to do business with the government, having a schedule contract allows both vendors and agencies to cut down on administrative costs. Cost savings are also generated through prenegotiated price ceilings, which provide significant discounts from commercial pricing and serve as a starting point for additional competition and negotiations. GSA has an established process by which to evaluate applications and make a determination of whether or not to approve businesses to get on schedule. Over the past 3 years, GSA has processed appropriately 2,800 applications for Schedule 70. Currently the average application processing time is approximately 110 days. Contractors can apply through GSA's eOffer system. eOffer provides an online, paperless contracting environment and a step-by-step process that complies with the Federal acquisition regulation. After an offer package is submitted electronically in your system, it is then assigned to a contracting officer or contract specialist who reviews the package for completeness. After the initial review, the contracting officer or contract specialist sends the offerer an administrative letter identifying any areas for which additional information is required. When a package is complete, the contracting officer or contracts--contracting specialist conducts a responsibility determination using FAR Part 9, together with GSA's in-house pricing tool, or by submitting a Standard Form 1403 to GSA's Office of Credit and Finance for review and approval. In the review the contracting officer or contracting specialist will also utilize the system for award management to review an offerer's representations, certifications, past awards and performance, and to ensure that all information is correct, accurate and complete. After the responsibility determination is complete, the CO or CS prepares a prenegotiation memorandum outlining negotiation strategy and any remaining deficiencies. If negotiations are successful, a final proposal revision letter is sent to the offerer. If the offerer accepts the FPR, the CO or CS conducts a final review of the offer and prepares and finalizes the price negotiation memorandum. After all the required forms and additional information are completed and signed, the CO or CS enters the offer into our system and prepares a package to send to the vendor. GSA's Schedule 70 can be an important tool in meeting the IT needs of Federal agencies, and GSA has an established process to thoroughly review these applications in a timely fashion. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I would be happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Chairman Issa. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Sisk follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.028 Chairman Issa. Mr. Castillo. STATEMENT OF BRAULIO CASTILLO Mr. Castillo. Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings and members of the committee, my name is Braulio Castillo. I am president and CEO of Strong Castle, Inc. In January 2012, my wife and I purchased a small company called Signet Computers, Inc. At that time Signet had over 15 years of experience as a government contractor. Because I have significant experiencing serving the IT needs of IRS, our plan was to transform Signet into a small business that initially focused on IRS IT procurements. When we considered how we could best position the company to support the agency, we came to learn that the IRS desired to award contracts to small businesses, and decided to pursue HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business credentials. We have never received any improper preferential treatment, and we have competed fairly for every IRS contract that we have received. In the short time frame that we've owned Strong Castle, our company has made meaningful contributions to the IRS mission and offered the government cost-effective solutions to very difficult problems. We've also been instrumental in forming teams with large software and hardware suppliers and the IRS. In order to improve the company's competitive posture, in early 2012, as we began working with the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Small Business Administration to have Strong Castle qualified as a Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concern and a HUBZone Business Concern. We understood that these credentials were important because the IRS's increased focus on awarding contracts to small business. In order to achieve small business participation goals, the IRS drafted some solicitation to give favorable consideration to qualified SDVOSB and HUBZone concerns. In order to compete, we approached the VA and the SBA to apply for SDVOSB verification and HUBZone certification. We worked closely with the VA and the SBA throughout the application process. For example, we attended multiple HUBZone boot camps, presentations at which representatives of the HUBZone office were speakers. After meeting them, we continued to communicate frequently and regularly with them, often on a daily basis. The SBA advised us on all aspects of our HUBZone qualification, including the establishment of our principal office in a HUBZone and the hiring of college student employees. Because we believed the HUBZone status would be a significant benefit to the company, we consulted with the SBA on every detail of our application and plans. We worked diligently, at enormous personal and financial expense, to cooperate with the investigation and to respond to all of the committee's requests for documents. So far we've produced over 20,000 documents, including business records, email communications, text messages and personal information. The cost of our effort to cooperate with the committee has been tremendous. The mischaracterization of the facts have caused Strong Castle to lose contracting partners, lines of credit, and goodwill among our important customers. It has hurt our reputation. Having responded to the committee's request for documentation, I believe that we've addressed the central issues of the interests of the committee. First, it is not true that Strong Castle received $500 million in IRS contracts. Strong Castle successfully competed for blanket purchase agreements, pursuant to which the IRS may or may not issue subsequent orders. In reality, Strong Castle's received from the IRS valued contracts of approximately $50 million, for which, as Ms. Tucker previously mentioned, 49 million went to the large business providers. Of that amount--and approximately 1 million to Strong Castle. Last year, our company lost approximately $140,000. Second, it is simply not true that Strong Castle had no track record of past performance on government contracts. The company that we purchased had experienced contracting with the government, and I personally had worked with the IRS for almost 15 years. My prior experience is directly relevant to the work that we perform at the IRS. As a company, Strong Castle is uniquely qualified to serve the IRS based on our years of past performance. Third, Strong Castle has not received inappropriate preferential treatment from the IRS. We competed fairly for each blanket purchase agreement and any contract order that we received. To my knowledge, Strong Castle has never received any contract award to--as a result of inappropriate preferential treatment. Fourth, Strong Castle has been entirely open, truthful and forthcoming with the SBA. Because obtaining HUBZone status was significantly important to the company, we took extreme care to work closely in consultation with the HUBZone office and sought approval and guidance throughout the certification process. Strong Castle has not sought, nor has it received, unfair advantage in its pursuit of any government contract. We are a responsible small business. Unfortunately, other companies are able to use status challenges as competitive weapons against us. Despite these challenges, Strong Castle remains committed to delivering results as a valued small business partner to the United States and the IRS, as I have done for nearly 15 years. Thank you. Chairman Issa. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Mr. Castillo follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.032 Chairman Issa. Mr. Castillo, you talked about the experience of your company in 15 years. How many common employees do you have? In other words, how many employees at the--at your firm have been there 15 years? Mr. Castillo. No one has been there 15 years. Chairman Issa. Ten years? Mr. Castillo. Of the employees? Mr. Issa. Ten years? Mr. Castillo. None of them have been there 10 years. Mr. Issa. Five years? Mr. Castillo. I don't believe anyone--well---- Chairman Issa. One year? Mr. Castillo. One year? All of them have been there 1 year or less. We have---- Chairman Issa. Wait a second. Mr. Castillo. --January of---- Chairman Issa. No, no. You made an assertion of prior experience. The fact is, the company you bought and the employees of your current company have nothing in common. So where--I ran a company. I built a company over 20 years. Where is that legacy experience that you are claiming your company has? Name an employee that, when you bought the company that had never done more than $250,000 in contracting, name the employee that is part of that experience that is with you here today. Mr. Castillo. Of what timeline, sir? Chairman Issa. Well, you claimed 15 years. You bought the company a year and a half ago. How many employees came when you bought the company? Mr. Castillo. Two employees and the owner at the time. Chairman Issa. And where are they today? Mr. Castillo. The owner left in September of last year, and one of the two--we bought a small company with two employees. One of them is still there. One---- Chairman Issa. Okay. Well, I just want the public to understand. You are claiming this experience and legacy, and now you are claiming that, in reality, three employees gross, one was the employer, only one of which is with you today. So, quite frankly, you swore an oath to tell the truth and the whole truth. That is shading the truth pretty close, to claim 15 years of experience with essentially no employees, for all practical purposes. Ms. Tucker, our committee, back when we sent the letter to you, or to the Acting Treasury Secretary, and you got involved in it back in February and March, we asked you about this. And, at that time, you said there was no ``there'' there. Do you stand by that today, in the case of this investigation? Ms. Tucker. No, sir, I don't. Chairman Issa. Turn your mic on, please. Ms. Tucker. No, sir, I--let me just be clear. The information that we have seen about the personal relationship with Mr. Roseman and Mr. Castillo is inappropriate. Mr. Roseman should have recused himself immediately from any involvement whatsoever in any IRS interactions with Strong Castle. Let me be clear also, and I think as your staff members interviewed extensively IRS procurement officials, that they all stated on the record that they were unaware of any relationship with Mr. Roseman. Chairman Issa. No, I understand. And, you know---- Ms. Tucker. And---- Chairman Issa. Ms. Tucker, you can't have it both ways. You can't say you don't know what our people said while your lawyers were in those interviews and then start saying what your people said in our interviews. So let me use my time more briefly. Just this past Monday, you indicated you were not going to cancel the $266 million contract to Strong Castle. My understanding a few minutes ago is you now are going to cancel that and put it on hold; it is not so important as to not be reworked. Is that correct? Ms. Tucker. Mr. Chairman, what I told members of your staff on Monday was that we were exploring options. Chairman Issa. Okay. Well, now, let's get to this part about the money. When you provide a contract, when the Federal Government--and your other witnesses hopefully are helpful--you provide a contract to a disabled veteran, like Mr. Castillo, and in a HUBZone, the IRS, as I understand it, took full credit for this hundreds of millions of dollars as though they went to that company. Isn't that true? You didn't take credit for 1 percent of it going to a disabled veteran and a small business in a HUBZone; you took credit for $500 million. Isn't that correct? Ms. Tucker. Mr. Chairman, Internal Revenue Service followed the---- Chairman Issa. Ma'am, you're not a witness that I'm terribly thrilled at today because you did ignore this until we pressed and pressed and pressed. The fact is--and I will go to either of the other two witnesses, Mr. Flohr or Mr. Chodos. When the IRS awards $500 million, they don't do it on the net that might go, if you will, the skimmed-off-the-top profit, for absolutely no participation in the actual delivery of services. They take the gross amount, don't they? This is scored as hundreds of millions of dollars going to a HUBZone. Isn't that correct? Mr. Chodos. Mr. Chairman, the ultimate credit for the contract is for the dollars incurred. And the dollars incurred are gross, so---- Chairman Issa. Okay. So for the American people here today, one of the frauds on the American people and for us on the dais is we get these report cards talking about hundreds of millions and billions of dollars going to our disabled veterans, hundreds of millions and billions of dollars going into these blighted zones that we are trying to encourage--I call them enterprise zones; HUBZone happens to be one form of it. We are scoring $500 million. And then somebody comes here--Ms. Tucker, I'm picking on you for a reason--and tries to say, well, it is minuscule. Our indication is that this contract cost more than it would have cost if it had been competitively bid to the principals. And, clearly, every cent that Mr. Castillo got, from what we can tell, without having a true principal operation--and the witnesses did make it pretty clear they don't go there. The people who had real money don't go there. A few college students show up and surf the Internet looking for potential new contracts. That, in fact, was scored as hundreds of millions of dollars to help people in blighted areas and to help a disabled veteran, who it turns out played college ball for years and didn't limp or have a problem until he got ready to apply for this special status. I have a scoring problem here today, and I think my ranking member and everyone on the dais--and, Mr. Flohr, you didn't get a chance, and I'm going to go to the ranking member now. But bear in mind, it's not about Mr. Castillo per se. He may not have broken a single rule. That's for others to determine under the law. But we were shocked to discover that we are scoring as though we are doing a lot of good for disabled veterans, not people who turn their ankle and have no problem for 27 years until it's time to conveniently become a disabled veteran. And we were scoring impact to blighted communities, when, in fact, that score is at best fraudulent. We are scoring apparently $1 million but writing it in as 10 times or 100 times that. So that is part of what this hearing is here today. That is why the ranking member and I are teammates on this. This is an example of an agency that conveniently had a large contract, may or may not have gotten the best value for the American taxpayer. But, certainly, for the two gentlemen to your left, or your right, Ms. Tucker, they're in a position where, complying with the law, they're, in fact, not seeing you deliver the value appropriately to the American people for these set-aside-type events. Mr. Cummings? Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tucker, I'm going to just pick up where the chairman left off. Help me with this. You apparently had not made a decision on an IBM contract on Monday. Is that right? Ms. Tucker. That's correct. Mr. Cummings. And---- Ms. Tucker. We were exploring options. We were troubled, but we had not immediately canceled the contract because the IBM software is critical to our mainframe operation. Mr. Cummings. I understand. So what happened, what information came to you between Monday and this morning that caused you to say what you said? And when was that decision made to sever the relationships? If I'm misstating it, tell me. I think that's what you said. Ms. Tucker. Yeah. So, yesterday afternoon when we received the report from the committee, the procurement executive team and I met. And based on the email exchanges that we're seeing in the report that we had not been made privy to--and, candidly, based on the fact that Mr. Roseman was repeatedly asked by his superiors if he had a personal relationship with Mr. Castillo and Strong Castle and he denied it. And I believe the detail that we saw excerpted in the report has raised considerable concern, that we are in the process of separating our relationship with Strong Castle. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield for a second? I will give him additional time. Mr. Cummings. Sure. Chairman Issa. Ms. Tucker, I only want to make sure that the ranking member understands the email you're so horrified about you gave us. That was part of the discovery. Your organization reads them before they deliver them to us. Ms. Tucker. No---- Chairman Issa. Thank you, Mr.---- Ms. Tucker. No, sir, that's incorrect. That's not the email that I'm referring to. We did provide emails from the Internal Revenue Service system. The emails---- Mr. Cummings. So the emails that you provided did not lead you--were not enough to get you to feel that there should be a severing. Is that right? Ms. Tucker. Correct. Mr. Cummings. Now, some additional emails came in. Ms. Tucker. It's actually text messages. Mr. Cummings. Text messages, right. Ms. Tucker. As I said in my opening statement, it's text messages from---- Mr. Cummings. In the report. Ms. Tucker. --Mr. Roseman's personal phone to Mr. Castillo that had not been shared with the Internal Revenue Service and that we were unaware of. Mr. Cummings. So that basically was the straw that broke the camel's back. Is that correct? Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chodos, tell me, just very briefly because I've got to talk to Mr. Castillo, tell me how many decertifications you have done, you all have done--do you know?--over the last 4 or 5 years. Can you give us any idea? I'm trying to figure out how unique this is, decertification. Mr. Chodos. Thank you, Representative Cummings. I can get you a full spread for the last 5 years of all decertifications. I believe we decertified approximately 1,500 or 1,600 firms over the course of the last year. Some of those have been due to changes in the HUBZone-qualified census tract maps. Some of those have been due to specific issues with particular companies. Mr. Cummings. Now, Mr. Castillo, I reviewed your testimony, and I have to admit that I'm troubled because you seem to take no personal responsibility for any of your own actions. In fact, you criticized everyone else but yourself. You even blame your current problems on--let me quote this--``the volatile business and political environment of the day,'' whatever that means. I would like to read from the letter that SBA sent to you on May 23rd, about 1 month ago, formally notifying you that your company's HUBZone status was revoked. Then I would like to get your response. The SBA letter says that you, ``admitted that records provided were false and inaccurate.'' I want you to put a pin on that. It says you, ``did not provide SBA with reliable and accurate payroll records.'' It says you do not have, ``adequate internal controls.'' It says that you tried to claim that your program manager, ``is not an employee at all but rather a contractor.'' It says you have, ``a facetious attitude with regard to accuracy of records.'' You know, Michael Jackson had the song, ``Man in the Mirror''? You need to look in the mirror. It says your employees, ``can record time worked as they please.'' Wouldn't we all like to have that job? So with all of that, Mr. Castillo, let me now give you a chance to respond. Do you admit that you submitted false records to SBA? Mr. Castillo. SBA did decertify us based on the records, and we have put measures in place to address some of those concerns. Mr. Cummings. That's not what I asked you. Do you admit that you submitted false records to SBA? Mr. Castillo. Yes. Mr. Cummings. How do you respond to the other allegations? The SBA letter states that you only corrected these errors, ``after being confronted with conflicting evidence presented by SBA.'' So they weren't problems you were identifying, were they? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. They identified them, and we corrected them. Mr. Cummings. And so, Mr. Chodos, let me turn to you. You are here representing SBA, so what is your response to Mr. Castillo? Do you stand by your findings? Mr. Chodos. Yes, Representative Cummings, the SBA stands by its findings that the decertification was justified under these facts. Mr. Cummings. And so, going back to you, Mr. Castillo, what do you say about the SBA saying that you did not have adequate internal controls? I mean, what is your response to that? I want to give you an opportunity to respond---- Mr. Castillo. Sure. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. --because you--there's some problems here. Mr. Castillo. Yeah. Yes, sir. So they pointed out some inaccuracies, and we've put some corrections in place from a time-recording perspective. Mr. Cummings. And so you admit that there were some problems with internal controls? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. Now, let me get to something that the chairman talked about that is extremely troubling to me. You know, I told you in my opening statement that I live in an area where black male unemployment is probably 25, 30 percent. I live in a HUBZone-type area where businesses are struggling. So I want the programs to be work properly, as I know the chairman does. The question is, can you tell me, outside of the Catholic University students and faculty, tell me how many other people outside of those that you employed from the HUBZone? Mr. Castillo. Of our 10 employees, sir, not counting the college students, we have 1 other HUBZone residence. Mr. Cummings. So you had 10 employees---- Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. --and are you telling me 9 of them were from Catholic University? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. What I was saying, we have approximately 10 employees. About five of them, per your count, are from Catholic University. One of them is from--not counting the Catholic students, is from a HUBZone. Mr. Cummings. When did you hire that person? Mr. Castillo. May of this year. Mr. Cummings. Oh, so you--oh, you just hired her? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. We disclosed that to the committee during---- Mr. Cummings. Okay. Mr. Castillo. --my transcribed interview, yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. Then I guess if you were in my district, the folks that I'm talking about would not--they wouldn't get a job from you unless they were at Catholic University, huh? Hello? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, I would not agree with that characterization. Mr. Cummings. All right. Let me ask for a moment, just one other question, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Of course. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Castillo, it seems clear from the evidence that you wanted to take full advantage of the HUBZone program, and not to help D.C. residents or underutilized neighborhoods but to maximize your own profits. During your transcribed interview with the committee staff, you said this, ``I knew that HUBZone was important, being from the industry. And so we went at it that way.'' That's what you said; is that right? Mr. Castillo. It's--I don't recall saying it, but, yes, I stand by that. Mr. Cummings. And now, finally, what does that mean? What did you mean by that? Mr. Castillo. We moved our operations from northern Virginia to Washington, D.C., in a certified HUBZone and established our principal office there. That's what I mean by that, sir. Mr. Cummings. All right. Thank you very much, Chairman. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield for just one moment? Mr. Cummings. Of course. Chairman Issa. Mr. Castillo, just straight yes or no, because we have your interviews, your wife's interview, and so on: Isn't it true that all the Type A people who potentially sell or work on that contract live and effectively work elsewhere, that the testimony of yours, your wife, and other principals is that they don't often go to that principal location, that in fact it isn't manned full-time and that when it is manned it was mostly by college students who were looking for other contract potential and not executing in this contract, that your accounting operation and all those sort of key operations somebody would think as corporate headquarters were never located in that building? Mr. Castillo. So there was a few things in there, so I will try to address them, sir. So you're right, the principal workers, I think you'd say Type A workers, all work onsite, at the government site. They don't report to an office like in many other companies---- Chairman Issa. Right. So the--maybe I will cut this down because I'm really on borrowed time. Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Chairman Issa. You don't work out of that office. Your wife doesn't work out of that office. Those previous individuals that were from the previous company don't even live in the area. One lives in Boston; one lives in Florida. That, in fact, when we really look at it, the college--during the execution of this contract thus far, until a few day ago, basically, college students showed up there and surfed a few sites, which was not a direct part of any execution of this contract. Isn't that true, that the HUBZone headquarters was in name only, it was not your principal place that you did business executing these contracts? Mr. Castillo. By ``you'' do you mean me, sir? Chairman Issa. I mean you, your wife, or anybody other than these college students. Mr. Castillo. Yeah, I work out of our Leesburg HUBZone location, and my wife works out of our home as her---- Chairman Issa. In the richest county in the country, Loudoun, right? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir, I think I read that--tending to our five children, four of them which are under the age of 10 or under. The college students and any other worker that reported to an office reports to the Washington, D.C., office, which is why SBA established that as our principal office. We did have, as you mentioned, an employee from Florida, a former IRS executive, who lived there, who retired to that area. And the gentleman that you're referring to in Boston actually works on a Top Secret facility in Hanscom Air Force Base. So that is located in Boston and onsite at the client site. Chairman Issa. Yeah. Mr. Cummings. Can I ask just one last question---- Chairman Issa. Of course. Mr. Cummings. --Mr. Chairman? Just based on what the chairman just said, I want to remind you that you're under oath, and I want to ask you this question: Don't you think you manipulated this process and frustrated the true purpose of this program? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. Mr. Cummings. And why do you say that? Mr. Castillo. I don't feel I manipulated it. That's why I said that. Mr. Cummings. You just admitted that you lied with regard to accuracy of the information. Mr. Castillo. Well, to your point, in a direct yes/no, we provided inaccurate information on our timesheets, not on our payroll statements, which we shared and have corrected since and put processes in place to correct them, sir. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Mr. Jordan? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Mica is here. Mr. Mica. Thank you. Ms. Tucker, your title is Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support. So you oversee the procurement process for IRS and personnel involved in that? Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. Mica. Uh-huh. And you gave a statement I guess pretty much waving the flag in support of some of IRS actions. And I'm sure there are thousands of people who every day get up and do a good job for IRS. But representing people in a district in Florida, and just anywhere I go, I hear more complaints about the IRS. I think you have been in sort of a meltdown of scandals: the targeting of certain political organizations. We held a hearing a few weeks ago on conferences gone wild, spending with the IRS. I think on the wire today there is a story about credit card abuses. I don't know if you oversee that. Do you see that too? Ms. Tucker. Yes. That's part of our procurement organization. Mr. Mica. Yeah. Well, that, again, is just an embarrassment. This hearing on the procurement process that, again, has gotten out of hand. I think we have lost great confidence, and probably for very good reason. It sounds like Mr. Castillo has sort of gamed the system, would you agree? Ms. Tucker. Based on my understanding---- Mr. Mica. Well, okay, let me ask you a question. Let's go back to--before the committee contacted you about this, had you or any employees of IRS, had you all been contacted about what was going on with Mr. Castillo and Mr. Roseman? Ms. Tucker. Sir, let me--let me---- Mr. Mica. But wait. My question was, before the committee contacted you on the matter of this relationship, were you or any of the employees, if are you aware of them, notified that something was going on with Mr.---- Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Mica. Absolutely no? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Mica. Okay. And since then, you have been rather reluctant until you've had the awakening just in the last few days that something was going wrong, had gone wrong here. Mr. Chodos, does it sound like SBA was gamed by this player? Mr. Chodos. Congressman, it appears, from what we know---- Mr. Mica. Well, he just told you he provided you inaccurate information. Mr. Chodos. Yes. And as a---- Mr. Mica. Thank you. Mr. Chodos. --result of learning that the information was, in fact, inaccurate, I mean, it's a pretty fundamental---- Mr. Mica. All right. Mr. Chodos. --principle that we have certified---- Mr. Mica. So you---- Mr. Chodos. --they have to provide us accurate information. Mr. Mica. --you agree, he gamed you. Now, Mr. Castillo, it appears you also gamed the Veterans Administration. We want our veterans with disabilities to have some special preference and standing. The only incident of disability was in--was it prep school, was it? Was there anything in active military service where you sustained a disability or injury? Mr. Castillo. The injury that I sustained was during my time at the prep school. Mr. Mica. But that wasn't my question. My question, did you sustain an injury, again, in active military service, or were you disabled during that time? Mr. Castillo. So I--I'm not sure---- Mr. Mica. In active military service. Were you in combat and had an injury where---- Mr. Castillo. No, my injury is not combat-related, sir. Mr. Mica. Okay. Mr. Castillo. It was during my---- Mr. Mica. Mr.---- Mr. Castillo. --Active Duty with the---- Mr. Mica. Mr. Flohr, it sounds like he's gamed the system. Would you agree? Mr. Flohr. Sir---- Mr. Mica. Come on, tell--yes or no? Has he gamed the system? Mr. Flohr. Based on discussions, sir, that we had with your staff last week, we are not able to provide specific information regarding this claim without the release---- Mr. Mica. Okay. It sounds to me, Mr. Flohr, like he has gamed the system. That's not what we intended--what Congress intended. I'm sad that VA can't make that determination and say so publicly. Let me just also say, Mr. Castillo, you had a few contacts or a number of contacts, either by phone, by text, cell phone text, or other contacts, with Mr. Roseman. How would you--cell phone contacts, were they a few? Many? Texts, a few, many? Meetings, a few, many? Mr. Castillo. I probably have met with him over the last 5 years about 10 times or so. And there were--there were text messages where we provided to the committee as part of the investigation. Mr. Mica. Well, Mr. Chairman, he just testified, again, a few times--between May and October, you and Mr. Roseman exchanged over 100 telephone calls. Don't you think that that is in excess of what you just testified to? Mr. Castillo. I don't believe they were telephone calls. I think you're referring to text messages; is that right? Mr. Mica. Well, again, we have phone calls or, through the texting, over 100 messages. And then, in particular, you had a 21-minute telephone conversation between Mr. Roseman and yourself on the 7th of June, 2012. And to refresh your memory, that was the night before Mr. Roseman sent you the request for a quote for an $80 million laptop-desktop acquisition. So, one, you testified or you just indicated you had very few contacts, contrary to over 100 contacts by phone that we have. And, secondly, did you want--and, finally, do you want to comment on your 21-minute conversation with Mr. Roseman prior-- -- Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired, but would you please answer? Mr. Castillo. I believe I testified that I met with him about 10 times or so for the last 5 years. I didn't comment on the number. I think I stated that I believe you're referring to text messages versus--that we turned over versus telephone---- Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, may I---- Chairman Issa. Briefly. Mr. Castillo. --cell or phone, text, and meetings--three different. Chairman Issa. Duly noted. Mr. Castillo. So I don't know the number of telephone calls. I believe the text messages I'm very much aware with because I met with committee staffers and counsel last week or so and we went over them, or the ones that we'd provided. And I don't recall what the conversation was about on June 7th, sir. Chairman Issa. As I go to Ms. Norton, Mr. Castillo, I know Mr. Roseman said there wasn't a friendship. I believe you have repeatedly said there was. You haven't been quite as--you've been on the opposite side of that. So these texts are not unexpected, in that you said you do have a long relationship with Mr. Roseman. Mr. Castillo. I've worked in support of the IRS for about 15 years or so. The last 10 years, I mean, since---- Chairman Issa. But since 2003 he has been what you would characterize as a friend? Mr. Castillo. I would say a customer. I met him through my previous employer, where they were very, very good friends. And we held a contract there at my previous employer, which was a small business---- Chairman Issa. Okay, so customer, not friend, is your testimony today. Mr. Castillo. No, sir, I didn't say that. Because I think I'm on record as saying--so we have a business relationship, but I believe he is--that we're friendly or friends. So I'm not changing my testimony that I believe that---- Chairman Issa. Well, I think Mr. Mica was trying to get to the question based on this communication, because we do have a witness, not here today, who has said to the IRS that you were not friends. Yes or no, are you friends under your definition of ``friends''? Mr. Castillo. Yes, I would think I've been clear--I mean-- or I've stated that several---- Chairman Issa. Thank you. I just want to make sure because I know the Treasury wants to understand the disparity in interpretation of friends between an individual who did not disclose and yourself. And I'm not trying to put anyone on the spot. I just think Mr. Mica deserves a yes or no on that. Mr. Castillo. I'm not sure he asked me if we were friends or if I characterized it. So based on my 10 years of working with him, I would say we have a good business relationship and I would consider him a friend under my definition. But to be clear, I wish he was here to testify. I'm a small-business owner of 10 or so folks, and I'm here willingly, and I've actively participated. I've attended everything that you've asked me to attend. We've made every employee available to you. We've turned over an immense amount of documents, including the text messages that you reference. And I would say that we fully have cooperated or have tried to do so. Chairman Issa. Well--and this is not my time, so, Ms. Norton, if you'd be indulgent for one more moment. We have no objection to exactly that. From the get-go, you have come in and asserted that you believe you did nothing wrong. One of the reasons for this hearing today is we believed, from an IRS execution of the contract, it was not appropriate. And, you know, we intervened when we believe that. And, obviously, we have the SBA here today and the Veterans here today because we believe that there needs to be a reform in a portion of the process under which you were given these statuses. And those are the three points here today. But I do appreciate and I want to note for the record that, yes, from the get-go, you've come in and said, ``I don't believe I did anything wrong, I will cooperate,'' and you have. Ms. Norton, thank you for your indulgence. Ms. Norton. Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me preface my question by indicating that when this program was initiated in the late '90s, I think 1997, it was done without hearings. The Republican Senator from Missouri, Chris Bond, inserted it into an SBA reauthorization. And it seemed like a good idea. It seemed to bring together really some of the visions of one of my good friends, the late Jack Kemp, to marry his notions of the market system and capitalism with his concern for the inner city. By the time the Democrats took control of the Congress, its chair, Nydia Velazquez, was so disgusted with the program because there had been hearings in all of the major cities showing terrible abuse by large companies of the HUBZone program. And some of us went to Nydia and said, well, you know, it's a new President, give him a chance to clean it up. I don't have any evidence that the program is still like it was when those hearings were held throughout the United States showing that big companies had wholesalely abused the notion, but, obviously--and so I do think the program must have improved or else we would've heard more about that by this time. But I can't say the same for what I'm hearing today. I have to tell you, Mr. Castillo, that this hits a bit close to home. You, of course, don't live in D.C. That's allowed. You're from a wealthy Virginia suburb. That's allowed. You rented a tiny office in Chinatown, and then you recruited students from Catholic University to do the work after you received the contract. Why didn't you go to Wards 7 and 8, which, of course, is the part of the city--if you were not going to do it in your own HUBZone, which is a part of the city where unemployment is high, it's classically a part of the city where you could've found people to do the work, and fully met the notion embodied in the HUBZone, that people who live in disadvantaged areas would have some investment in the area and could get employment whereas they could not before, why didn't you go to Wards 7 and 8 instead of going to Catholic University? Mr. Castillo. So, ma'am, I don't know the wards very well. I apologize. I'm not well---- Ms. Norton. Well, you know it well enough to go to Catholic University. Mr. Castillo. Yeah. So--and, ma'am, just to state, the college employees that we hired were hired before we--the awards. We put together two initiatives. One---- Ms. Norton. Whether they were hired before or after the awards, the purpose of the HUBZone is to hire disadvantaged people. Were these Catholic University students disadvantaged people? Mr. Castillo. They were residents of a HUBZone that we employed. Ms. Norton. You say in your testimony, all of our actions were taken in consultation with the SBA, and we have never sought to deceive the government. Do you believe that hiring college students who go to an expensive private university is in keeping with the goals of this program? Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Norton. Mr. Chodos, do you believe that hiring students who go to a private university, an expensive one at that, is in keeping with the goals of the program? Mr. Chodos. Thank you, Representative Norton. The answer to your question is this: The HUBZone program, as you have said, is designed to spur investment in and economic development in place-based---- Ms. Norton. Do you believe that the hiring of students at a private university meets the goals of the HUBZone program? Mr. Chodos. We have seen many entities throughout time that hire students. Many students, of course, take on great debt in order to better themselves and their families---- Ms. Norton. He had hired no students except, until recently--he had hired no employees except students from this zone. And then we learned in May that he did, in fact, hire someone who was not a Catholic University student. Now, I love Catholic University. I'm trying to marry what the zone is about with the actions that were taken here. And I want to know whether you believe and whether SBA believes this is in keeping with the goals of the program. Mr. Chodos. So long as they are residents of the community and---- Ms. Norton. So, as far as you know, throughout the United States, people are going and finding--people who are, by definition, advantaged because they've gotten to college, which most Americans do not, and they may be hiring college students all over the United States, rather than bona fide residents. You don't even know that these Catholic University students were residents of the District of Columbia. While they live here, they of course are residents. They eat and live in the dormitories or in a surrounding neighborhood. We're glad to have them. But you don't even know that they are residents of the city or that they meet the notions of ``disadvantaged'' embodied in the HUBZone itself. Mr. Chodos. Well, what we know is what they certify to us, which is that they are residents and are planning to live in the HUBZone---- Ms. Norton. Well, I'm going to have to ask whether or not you'd be willing to ask HUBZone recipients, HUBZone contract recipients, whether they hire college students so that we will know how widespread this practice is. Mr. Chodos. Well, let me say this: We agree with you completely. The purpose of the program is not to focus upon college students; it's to focus upon employment in these places. And---- Ms. Norton. But you can't say today that that isn't the practice not only of Mr. Castillo but of many like Mr. Castillo across the United States. Mr. Chodos. I can say that the practice occurs in various places at various times. I do not have the data, and I can see if the data is available, about exactly how many employees---- Ms. Norton. I would very much appreciate your seeing if the data is available. I think a simple questionnaire, how many of your employees are college students, would help us to make sure that--the chairman said we wanted to have the needed reforms, but there may be no sense until this case came up that that could amount to an abuse. Look, I'm not against the college students. I'm saying if it is a systematic practice, you can see what the effect would be if the purpose was to make sure that disadvantaged people in the neighborhood were employed. So I ask that you submit within 30 days whatever you can find on that. And one more question, if I may? Chairman Issa. Briefly. Ms. Norton. Mr. Castillo, you indicated something about most of the money went to the parent company or to the large company, that you made $1 million, your company made $1 million. What's the value of your company? Mr. Castillo. Last year we reported $8 million in sales, and we lost $140,000 based on those sales. Ms. Norton. But you just testified that $49 million, but your company got $1 million of that. Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am, in gross profits, not in net profits. So---- Ms. Norton. I would just submit, for an $8 million company, $1 million from one contract is very lucrative or, as you said in one of your emails to your wife, pay dirt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Thank you. And I might note for the record that, as a small-business man for many years, if I chose to pay myself no salary, I might make half a million dollars, and if I chose to pay myself half a million dollars, I might make no money. So with Mr. Castillo and his wife as principal employees, I wanted to be clear that the balance sheet and the income statement are somewhat not the same as, let's say, a Fortune 500 company's interpretation of its profits. Ms. Norton. That's why I wanted to know the worth of the company. Chairman Issa. Yeah. Well, you know, clearly, without these contracts, it will be less. With that, we go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. Mr. Jordan. Ms. Tucker, you've been at the IRS 29 years? Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. And you're Deputy Commissioner; is that correct? Ms. Tucker. Deputy Commissioner---- Mr. Jordan. How many Deputy Commissioners are there? Ms. Tucker. Two. Mr. Jordan. Is there anyone between the Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner? Ms. Tucker. No. Mr. Jordan. So you're right near the top? Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. One month ago, Inspector General Russell George gave the committee information that he informed the IRS on May 30th, 2012, that targeting of conservative political groups was taking place. And, in fact, if we can put that up on the screen. This is from the TIGTA timeline he gave this committee. And he says in that meeting, these terms were used, ``Tea Party,'' ``Patriots,'' ``9/12,'' that there were three people in that committee, or in that meeting: Mr. Shulman, who is no longer with the IRS; Steve Miller, who has been fired; and you. Now, Mr. Shulman testified a month ago in this committee that that was the first time he knew targeting was taking place. Was that the first time you knew about the targeting at the IRS? Ms. Tucker. That was the first time I was aware of the situation, yes. Mr. Jordan. Now, Mr. Miller has also--we've also been informed, the committee, through talking with Nan Marks, an employee at the IRS, that there was an internal investigation launched by Mr. Miller in March of 2012. Did you know about that internal investigation? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Jordan. And the results of that were Mr. Miller knew about what was going on May 3rd of 2012. Did you know the results on May 3rd? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Jordan. So the earliest you knew about it was the same time Mr. Shulman testified and what you're testifying to today, was May 30th of last year. Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. Jordan. And you're familiar with the fact that Mr. Shulman testified in front of the Ways and Means Committee in March of last year, where he said this. First, Mr. Boustany asked him, ``Can you give us assurances that the IRS is not targeting political groups?'' Mr. Shulman said, ``Yes, I can give you assurances. We pride ourselves on being a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization.'' So just 2 months prior to learning that targeting was going on, he gave assurances. Now, there's usually, when you give assurances, there's some basis for assurances. Were you part of the basis for assurances that Mr. Shulman gave the Ways and Means Committee in March of 2012? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Jordan. You did not have any conversation with Mr. Shulman before he went and testified in front of the Ways and Means Committee? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Jordan. In the meeting that took place on May 30th, the meeting that's highlighted there on the TIGTA timeline, when you learned that the targeting was taking place, what was the reaction in that meeting? Was it, ``Oh, sugar, we've got to do something here?'' Was it, ``We've got to correct the record?'' What was the reaction when the three top people at the IRS learned that this was going on? Ms. Tucker. So, if I might, TIGTA, the Treasury Inspector General, comes in once a month to meet with---- Mr. Jordan. Cut to the chase. What was the reaction? You find out there's targeting of political groups 6 months before a Presidential election. What was the reaction from the top three people at the IRS? Ms. Tucker. TIGTA reported the information that they were looking into the audit. And then, at that point in time, IRS waits for TIGTA to complete their investigation. Mr. Jordan. That's not what they told you. They told you ``Tea Party,'' ``Patriot,'' ``9/12'' were identifying terms used to put groups on a list who were never given the tax- exempt status they sought. In some cases, they'd been trying to get it for 3 years. You learned that May--or, excuse me, May 30th, 2012. And your reaction was, oh, we'll just kind of let it keep going and see what TIGTA comes up with? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. Mr. Jordan. I mean, earlier in your testimony, you said to the chairman, you know, it would be helpful if this committee would share information with us at the IRS about the issue that's in front of the committee today. Well, it would've been helpful if, once you got that information, you'd have shared it with this committee. We would've liked to have--and, in fact, we are the committee who asked for the audit in the first place. We would've liked to have known 6 months before an election, May 30th of last year, that targeting was going on. Did you instruct Russell George to share this information with the House Ways and--Ways and Means Committee and with the House Oversight Committee? Ms. Tucker. Sir, my---- Mr. Jordan. Well, that's a question. Did you tell Mr. George, ``You know what, this is pretty important information. We just now learned today,'' according to your testimony, ``that this is going on.'' Did you tell Mr. George, you know, ``You might want to share that with the Oversight Committee,'' specifically since Mr. Issa is the one who requested the audit? Ms. Tucker. No, sir, that was not my responsibility. I have responsibility at Internal Revenue Service for---- Mr. Jordan. Well, let me ask you this. What---- Ms. Tucker. --operation. Mr. Jordan. But the point is, you were in the meeting. The other two guys are gone. Mr. Shulman's gone, Mr. Miller's been fired. You're the highest-ranking official at IRS in that meeting. You knew about it a year ago. Didn't you think it was incumbent upon you to set the record straight? Your boss, Mr. Shulman, had just testified 2 months earlier and told Congress nothing was going on. He finds out 2 months later, in fact, it is going on. You're the highest-ranking official still at the IRS. You didn't think it was appropriate to come tell Congress what was taking place? Ms. Tucker. The TEGE organization does not report to me. Mr. Jordan. Why didn't you correct the record? Why didn't you just come--why didn't you come to Mr. Issa and say, ``You know what? What Mr. Shulman''--did you tell Mr. Shulman he should correct the record? Ms. Tucker. No, sir, I did not. Mr. Jordan. And--well, let me ask you this. Have you been disciplined by Mr. Werfel for not correcting the record? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. It's not in my purview. Mr. Jordan. Well, you're Deputy Commissioner. You're in the meeting. You learned about it that day, right? Ms. Tucker. Mr. George told us in his routine monthly meeting that they were doing an investigation of TEGE. Mr. Jordan. We understand that. All I'm asking is, there's got to be some reason why--you didn't feel any obligation, any reason that you should come forward and set the record straight? The Inspector General told the IRS what was going on. You didn't feel like he should tell us or you didn't feel incumbent--that it was incumbent upon you to tell the committee? Ms. Tucker. Sir, at the Internal Revenue Service, we have two Deputy Commissioners that have very clearly delineated---- Chairman Issa. The gentleman's time has expired. Ms. Tucker. --roles and responsibilities. Chairman Issa. The gentlelady may finish. Ms. Tucker. At the Internal Revenue Service, we have two Deputy Commissioners with very clearly delineated responsibilities. I do not have responsibility---- Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chairman? Ms. Tucker. --for the service and enforcement programs, as Mr. Miller would not have---- Mr. Jordan. Well, then, Ms. Tucker, why were you in the meeting? If it has nothing to do with you, why did Mr. Russell George think it's important to tell us that you were in the meeting? Ms. Tucker. Mr. George and his deputies come into Internal Revenue Service every month and brief on all of their investigations, some of which are service and enforcement---- Chairman Issa. Okay, well, the gentleman's time has expired. I'm sure we'll get back to this. I would ask unanimous consent the man have 30 additional seconds. Mr. Cummings. I don't mind the 30 seconds, but I want her to be able to answer the question. I mean, he's like a machine gun, and she can't even get her answer out. Chairman Issa. Okay. The gentleman may have 30 additional seconds. The gentlelady may then answer. Mr. Jordan. In that meeting, did you discuss with Mr.--so what you're saying is Mr. Miller had--that was his area of jurisdiction. Ms. Tucker. That is correct. Mr. Jordan. Did you tell Mr. Miller he should come forward and tell Congress what was going on? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. At this meeting---- Mr. Jordan. Was that discussed? Ms. Tucker. If I could, please. The meeting--TIGTA comes in once a month to Internal Revenue Service to brief the Commissioner and the two Deputies about their audits, their open audits. On any given meeting that they come in, they could be talking--I mean, there are lots of oversight investigations that happen at Internal Revenue Service. Those meetings are typically TIGTA coming in and saying, we've opened an investigation on X program; we've opened an investigation on another program. If it's an issue that is under my jurisdiction, like procurement, like the IRS budget, like our real estate portfolio, then I am the responsible party. What I'm trying to convey to you is I do not have oversight responsibility for the TEGE program. Chairman Issa. Thank you. The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Duckworth, please. Ms. Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this hearing is very troubling to me because this case really shows how things can go wrong. I want to support our small-business owners as much as possible. I want these set-asides to be successful. But I am absolutely appalled by the advantages that have been taken of the system. Mr. Flohr, I know you cannot discuss Mr. Castillo's case because you would need his permission to discuss his particular case. That's why you could not answer the question earlier. My understanding also is that the VA, or VBA specifically, is bound by legislation that says a certain condition has a certain disability rating. For example, a below-knee amputation is 40 percent. It just is, correct? Mr. Flohr. That is correct, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. So it seems like there is an opportunity here for some legislative fixes to the system. Mr. Chodos, is it true that any rating, even if it's just 5 percent, would qualify someone for a service-connected disability--service-connected disability-owned business? Mr. Chodos. So long as they qualify under the VA's rules for service-connected disability, that is adequate for the self-certification. Ms. Duckworth. Thank you. Mr. Castillo, how are you? Thank you for being here today. Mr. Castillo. I am not well, but you're welcome. Ms. Duckworth. All right. So does your foot hurt, your left foot? Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. It hurts. Yeah, my feet hurt, too. In fact, the balls of my feet burn continuously, and I feel like there is a nail being hammered into my right heel right now. So I can understand pain and suffering and how service connection can actually cause long-term, unremitting, unyielding, unstoppable pain. So I'm sorry that twisting your ankle in high school has now come back to hurt you in such a painful way, if also opportune for you to gain the status for your business as you are trying to compete for contracts. I also understand why--you know, something can take years to manifest themselves from when you hurt them. In fact, I have a dear, dear friend who sprayed Agent Orange out of his Huey in Vietnam who--it took 40 years, 40 years for the leukemia to actually manifest itself, and he died 6 months later. So I can see how military service, while at the time you seem very healthy, could 40 years later result in devastating injury. Can you tell me if you hurt your left foot again during your football career subsequently to twisting it in high school? Mr. Castillo. Ma'am, I don't understand the high school comment---- Chairman Issa. Would the gentlelady---- Ms. Duckworth. Prep school. Chairman Issa. Prep school. Mr. Castillo. I apologize. Chairman Issa. Post-high school. Mr. Castillo. I'm not---- Ms. Duckworth. Post-high school. Okay, post-high school, prep school, before college, prep school. Did you injure your left foot again after prep school? Mr. Castillo. I'm not sure I understand the question, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. You played football in college, correct? Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. As a quarterback? Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am, I did. Ms. Duckworth. Did you hurt, did you injure that same foot again subsequently in the years since you twisted it in prep school? Mr. Castillo. Not to my recollection, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. Not to your recollection. Okay. Why didn't you, Mr. Castillo, tell the VA that your doctor's note to them was inaccurate when you knew that it was? Mr. Castillo. I don't feel that it's inaccurate, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. Okay. Mr. Castillo. Would you like me to address that? Ms. Duckworth. Yes. Go ahead. Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am. So one of my doctors that submitted letters--so as part of the injury you have to establish that it's chronic and reoccurring. So when I returned home to San Diego, my doctor from San Diego had also--had said that he treated me for the foot injury that I suffered on Active Duty. When I moved to Las Vegas a couple of years later, that doctor submitted that he continued to treat me for that left foot, broken foot injury. Finally, when I moved to Virginia, I went to a doctor, and it continued to hurt. And he established that--so Dr. Sam Wilson, who, ironically, was also stationed at Monmouth---- Ms. Duckworth. Okay. I have to cut you off because I'm running out---- Mr. Castillo. Okay. Ms. Duckworth. --of time. I'm sorry. Mr. Castillo. Well, I just want to--so let me finish. So in talking to Dr. Wilson, who himself was a disabled veteran and very familiar with Fort Monmouth in that his son had went there, as well, and played football, he actually was the one that talked to me about, hey, this may be something that is connected. And I believe I told him---- Ms. Duckworth. So let me---- Mr. Castillo. --that I was first---- Ms. Duckworth. Let me--I have to cut you off. I have to cut you off. This is not an argument. I'm talking. I'm up here. Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Duckworth. Let me ask you this. Do you feel that the 30 percent rating that you have for the scars and the pain in your foot is accurate to the sacrifices that you've made for this Nation? That the VA's decision is accurate in your case? Mr. Castillo. Yes, ma'am, I do. Ms. Duckworth. You know, my right arm was essentially blown off and reattached. I spent a year in limb salvage, with over a dozen surgeries over that time period. And, in fact, we thought we would lose my arm. And I'm still in danger of possibly losing my arm. I can't feel it. I can't feel my three fingers. My disability rating for that arm is 20 percent. In your letter to a government official, I think it's the SBA, ``Attention: Gina Mou,'' you said, ``My family and I have made considerable sacrifices for our country. My service- connected disability status should serve as a testimony to that end. I can't play with my kids because I can't walk without pain. I take twice-daily pain medication so I can work a normal day's work. These are crosses''--these are crosses--``that I bear due to my service to our great country, and I would do it again to protect this great country.'' I'm so glad that you would be willing to play football in prep school again to protect this great country. Shame on you, Mr. Castillo. Shame on you. You may not have broken any law; we're not sure yet. You did misrepresent to the SBA. But you certainly broke the trust of this great Nation. You broke the trust of veterans. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans right now are waiting an average of 237 days for an initial disability rating. And it is because people like you, who are gaming the system, are adding to that backlog so that young men and women who are suffering from post-traumatic stress, who are missing limbs, cannot get the compensation and the help that they need. And I'm sure you played through the pain of that foot all through college. Well, let me tell you something. I recovered with a young man, a Navy corpsman, who, while he was running into an ambush where his Marines were hurt, had his leg knocked off with an RPG. He put a tourniquet on himself and crawled forward. He is who played through the pain, Mr. Castillo. You did not. You took advantage of the system. You described these statuses just today, that other companies were using these special statuses as competitive weapons against you. You, who never picked up a weapon in defense of this great Nation, very cynically took advantage of the system. You broke the faith with this Nation. You broke the faith with the men and women who lie in hospitals right now at Walter Reed in Bethesda, at Brooke Army Medical Center, in Landstuhl. You broke the faith with them. And if this Nation stops funding veterans' health care and calls into questions why veterans deserve their benefit, it is because cases like you have poisoned the public's opinion on these programs. I hope that you think twice about the example that you're setting for your children. I hope that you think twice about what you are doing to this Nation's veterans who are willing to die to protect this Nation. Twisting your ankle in prep school is not defending or serving this Nation, Mr. Castillo. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I've gone--you've been very indulgent. I yield back. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. And the time was well-spent. And I cannot add on to that, except I want to make sure the record is clear, since you are under oath, you said the word ``broken'' in your testimony just now, but my understanding from staff is that the X-ray taken at the time of your injury did not show a break. Additionally, I want to make this clear for the record, and you can clear the record up if we don't understand it correctly. In your VA application and with a doctor's support, you claim that your twisted ankle came from football, as the gentlelady just said. However, in your transcribed interview before this committee, you said you slipped on a rock while orienteering. For the record today, which one is the truth? Mr. Castillo. So I believe that Dr. Wilson submitted that I was hurt playing football, that I told him that. And so, when meeting with the committee, I told them--and in preparation for meeting with them, I noticed that the date of injury noted on the--on my--from Patterson Hospital at Fort Monmouth was November 19th, which was after football season. So my response was that it could not have happened, that specific injury, during football. The letter that was submitted stated that he had said that I had told him, and I think I told Mr. Davis that I would check. I did go back to Colonel Wilson and asked him, you know, what was his recollection of a conversation we'd had in 2005 that led him to write the letter in support of the VA application, which was to be submitted by doctors who treated me for my injury. And he'd said, to his best recollection, I told him I was hurt playing football. So I believe that he submitted that in truth. And, in preparation, as I mentioned, the dates did not line up. So I did suffer a subsequent injury. And so I believe that what he had said is that, based on the injury I had suffered, it was probably a relapse or it caused an aggravation of the injury. So I think that answered one of your questions. I think you had three in there. Did you have others? I apologize, I don't remember all three of them. Chairman Issa. VA, football, orientearing, and whether it was a break. You said in your testimony just a few minutes ago to the gentlelady that it was broken. Mr. Castillo. Yes, and not--so, first and foremost, your service to this great country is well-known. And so, just to let you know, I didn't set my 30 percent disability or your 20 percent disability. And I think that---- Ms. Duckworth. But you're taking advantage of it. And you went after that disability rating for the benefit of your company because, as you said, other companies were using these statuses as a competitive weapon against you. You said that today. Mr. Castillo. Ma'am, when I said that, I meant that they were using the protest process of the procurements as competitive weapons, not my disability. So I apologize if I at all stated that they were using my disability as a competitive weapon. I meant that they were protesting awards as competitive weapons against our company. So thank you for allowing me to clear that up. And, again, I don't set the ratings. And in it was in keeping and speaking with Dr. Wilson, Colonel Wilson, retired, who was at Monmouth Hospital on Fort Monmouth, that he had said that I may be able to qualify. And---- Ms. Duckworth. You made the decision to apply for a disability rating for a twisted ankle from either football or orienteering. You can't--you haven't even answered the chairman's question. You were there. Did you twist your ankle or did you break--or did you twist it playing football? Do you not remember? Was it orienteering or was it football? Which was it? Mr. Castillo. Well, to answer your question, it was not a sprained ankle. It was a broken foot. And I believe that the X- ray technician wrote that there was a much--I don't--I'm not a doctor--or that led to it. But it was--in essence, they X-rayed it, and they showed a sufficient change in the malformation. I forget exactly. So, in speaking with the doctor, I said, can you really just simplify that for me? He says, ``You broke your foot.'' That's what he told me. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. And I would trust that the VA can take note of testimony here today and reopen the case to at least get to an accurate record and then an accurate determination. We now go to a medical doctor from Tennessee, Dr. DesJarlais. Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And as a former VA physician and someone who had the privilege of treating many of our great veterans, both service- connected and not, I do think that one thing that is very important is a good history. When did your injury occur? Mr. Castillo. Around fall of--the initial injury, fall 1984. And the second injury, November 19th, 1984. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. So in 1984, how did the first injury occur? What were you doing, and what was your title? Mr. Castillo. I believe I was an E-2 enlisted soldier, sir, and---- Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, in prep school. And how did the injury happen? Mr. Castillo. I believe the initial injury happened playing football. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. So you were playing football, you went and got an X-ray, and that's when they told you it was broken? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, the initial injury was not X-rayed, and that's not when they named it broken foot. I was treated by trainers---- Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And when was the second injury? Mr. Castillo. November 19th, 1984. Mr. DesJarlais. How many months apart was that? Mr. Castillo. Probably not a month. Mr. DesJarlais. A month apart? Mr. Castillo. Thereabouts. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, so you had a second injury, and you were playing football at that time? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, I was hurt in the field during an orienteering exercise. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And you got an X-ray at that time? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And that's when they thought it was broken? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And so it healed in 6 to 8 weeks. You were put in a cast, you were on crutches. Mr. Castillo. On crutches and, well, orthotics or wrapped up or whatever---- Mr. DesJarlais. Sure. Mr. Castillo. I don't know---- Mr. DesJarlais. And by 8 weeks you were walking on it again. And then when did you play football again, the next year? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. DesJarlais. And how many years did you play football after that? Mr. Castillo. Four years after---- Mr. DesJarlais. Four years of football. What about your athletic career after that? Did you play golf, any other sports, tennis? Mr. Castillo. I play golf very poorly---- Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Mr. Castillo. --but I played some softball. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, softball. Do you still play golf? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. When's the last time you participated in sports? Mr. Castillo. A couple weeks ago, I went out with some buddies and played some---- Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, so you can still get around on it okay, despite having a 30 percent disability service connect for this injury. Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir, I have--since you're a doctor, you probably--I have a fused, I think, navicular area that was fused. Mr. DesJarlais. And so, 27 years later, you decided that this must've been from the original injury? That's what the doctors decided? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. After suffering for 20-plus years, I went and saw a doctor, and he---- Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Mr. Castillo. --and he established the broken foot and did the fusion--the three-fusion exercises--fusion surgery. Excuse me. Mr. DeJarlais. I'm sure that doesn't make you feel much better, Ms. Duckworth, but thank you for updating us on the history. Ms. Tucker, at the beginning of the hearing this morning, Gregory Roseman invoked his Fifth Amendment right against incrimination, did not testify. As the Deputy Commissioner of the IRS, is it your expectation that an IRS employee will appear before the committee to testify about official action taken within the scopes of his duties at the IRS? Ms. Tucker. So we expect all IRS employees to cooperate with Members of Congress. Mr. DeJarlais. But he didn't. Ms. Tucker. He did not. And---- Mr. DeJarlais. Ms. Lerner didn't. Ms. Tucker. Each of these individuals, as Mr. Cummings said, invoked their constitutional right. Mr. DeJarlais. Okay. And this is an agency you've been with 29 years, and you stated in your testimony you're very proud of your service there and very proud of this agency, despite, you know, the multiple black eyes they have right now. Has the IRS taken any disciplinary action against Mr. Roseman as a result of this committee's investigation or TIGTA's investigation? Ms. Tucker. So when I became aware from the Treasury inspector general of investigations in mid-May of hard evidence that they had found regarding inappropriate texting by Mr. Roseman, I directed the procurement organization, his superiors, to reassign him from a management position. Mr. DeJarlais. But you agree that he would be uniquely qualified to testify about what we are wanting today? Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. DeJarlais. Okay. So the fact that he invoked his Fifth Amendment, that's his right, but the fact that Lois Lerner did, too, and the American people wanting answers, what's going on with the IRS? We've got targeting of conservatives, we've got excessive spending, we've got situations like this. And I understand you want to be proud of who you work for, and you should be, but how are we going to get justice? Do you think that the IRS needs to bring people to justice? You were in on these meetings. Mr. Jordan asked you why you were in on those meetings, and he asked you what was the initial reaction. And nobody's given us a reaction, nobody was shocked, but we--you agree that targeting conservative groups was wrong? Ms. Tucker. So what I was told---- Mr. DeJarlais. Do you agree that targeting conservative groups was wrong? That's a yes or no. Do you agree it was wrong? Can someone in the IRS admit that this was wrong? Ms. Tucker. I think the information that was released this week by our Acting Commissioner shows that BOLO lists were inappropriately used across multiple, multiple criteria. So, yes, that criteria was incorrect. Mr. DeJarlais. So the IRS is screwed up. Somebody needs to be held accountable. Who--who is in charge of appointing the Commissioner of the IRS? Ms. Tucker. That's a Presidential appointment. Mr. DeJarlais. Okay. All right. Well, somebody needs to be held responsible; do you agree? Ms. Tucker. All of us at IRS have to be responsible for the administration of our agency. Mr. DeJarlais. Okay. The American people are going to be very relieved when they get this news of who might be held accountable. Do you have any idea as to who might be held accountable? Do you think you should be? Ms. Tucker. I think the investigation that's under way, that's exactly what this is intended to do. As our Acting Commissioner Danny Werfel has stated numerous times, we all want to get to the truth. Mr. DeJarlais. Well, the American people want us to get to the truth, so thank you for being here today and helping us on--in that process. I yield back, Mr. Chairman Chairman Issa. Ms. Tucker, the gentleman asked you did you think it was wrong to target conservative groups, and you said it was incorrect. Could you answer the gentleman's question, was it wrong? Ms. Tucker. So, Chairman Issa, I feel--I feel compelled that I need to make sure that everyone understands the meeting that I was in when Russell George and his team came in to share just their routine, here are the audits we have under way, Mr. George at that time basically said, we are initiating an audit---- Chairman Issa. No, no. That's not the question. And I apologize. The doctor asked you a fairly straightforward question, which is, as one of the highest career professionals in the IRS, you are now aware that these BOLOs were used to target and delay for up to 3 years a legitimate answer to people's applications based on their ideology. Do you think that was wrong? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. What I'm trying to tell you is that's not what I was told in that meeting. In---- Chairman Issa. I'm not asking about the meeting. I'm asking about what is now known. Ms. Tucker. So when the--when TIGTA issued their final report, what, in April, early May of this year, yes, I think all of us at IRS that saw the report are troubled; thus the investigation to get to the bottom of exactly what transpired. Chairman Issa. Ms. Tucker, I'm just asking about right or wrong, and that's what the doctor was asking about, not was it incorrect. This is--this is virtually a simple question for almost every citizen to answer. Was it right or wrong to do what you now know from the IG's report? Was it right or wrong? Ms. Tucker. Sir, I--here's--here's what I know based on what was told to---- Chairman Issa. Okay. I'm not going to get an answer, and I don't have any time. I think, Mr. Davis, you are next up. Mr. Davis. I think I am, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you very much. And I want to thank all of the witnesses. But I also want to thank you and the ranking member for holding this hearing. I think we've learned a great deal, or we've had, for some of us, reinforcement of thinking and thoughts. Especially do I want to relate myself to the question, and of the ranking member and that of Delegate Norton, whose questioning revealed that so often in communities that are designated to benefit from program activity, that there are ways to manipulate, to scheme and get around to the point where the designation means absolutely nothing to the community or neighborhood that is supposed to benefit. And for those who have helped create HUBZones, been advocates for them, they look for the benefit that's to come. Didn't see much benefit from this particular business transaction. So, Mr. Chodos, let me ask you about the finding in the SBA decertification letter that Mr. Castillo and his company tried to pass off employees as contractors to skirt the HUBZone rules and collect or earn millions of dollars. On May 23rd, 2013, SBA sent a decertification letter to Mr. Castillo, and in that letter the director of the HUBZone program found that Mr. Castillo erroneously characterized individuals as contractors rather than employees in order to maintain the 35 percent eligibility requirement for the HUBZone program. Mr. Chodos, how would you classify someone as a contractor rather than an employee help Mr. Castillo's application? Mr. Chodos. If I understand your question, Representative Davis, it's when the facts came to our attention that the people who were running the company essentially or in managerial charge of the company were listed as independent contractors rather than as employees, we look to the substance rather than the form of whether or not they are actually employees of the company, and we were able to determine that under a totality test, that, in fact, they were, for all meaningful purposes, employees of the company, and thus the test was not met. Mr. Davis. Well, let me read from the SBA certification letter, if I might, and it says this: SCI is telling the government two different stories. To the Internal Revenue Service, the individual is a valued and key member of Signet's management team and its proposed program manager, and to the SBA she is merely an independent contractor. In SBA's view, a firm's management team and its program manager are not roles that are normally subcontracted out to third parties. Ms. Tucker, let me ask you, why is it important to procurement officials that they know who the proposed program manager is for a particular contract? Ms. Tucker. So from--from the folks in our procurement organization, from--from what they tell me, as we are interacting on contracts like the one that we're talking about today, the project manager is indispensable in communicating with the Internal Revenue Service business owners to make sure whatever service or product we are contracting for is--is being delivered appropriately. So that--that is very important. Mr. Davis. Mr. Castillo, let me--and I agree with you that you didn't make the rules, you didn't write the regulations, you didn't pass the bills, so you did not create the opportunities that existed for you to try and do business under these arrangements. But let me ask, how do you explain telling the Internal Revenue Service that someone would be the key program manager for the contract, and then telling the Small Business Administration that that person is an independent contractor? Mr. Castillo. So the person was--is an independent contractor in that she works in support of several companies. I think she supported our company and SAIC at that time and was a 1099 employee. A program manager, while I understand that it's important, it doesn't necessarily make that person an employee. And I will tell you, being in the consulting field, that a program manager can be contracted out and is often contracted out. As we serve as a contractor on the IBM contract that Ms. Tucker---- Mr. Davis. But you knew that. But you knew that before it was brought to your attention by either the SBA or the Internal Revenue Service. I'm saying you knew that as a result of your knowledge and experience and the work that you've done, but yet you described it two different ways. Mr. Castillo. Well, I think they're both consistent. I think that they're an important member of the team, and we bid them as a program manager on the job, as we bid programmer on other jobs through other companies. And the distinction we made with the other ones was that one was a--the other person actually owned a company, supported five other companies, and the other one didn't even work for us, she supported us during her maternity leave. She did it as a favor to me during her maternity leave. Mr. Davis. My time has expired, so thank you very much. But nevertheless, you described two different ways when you were dealing with the procurement opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. Bentivolio. [Presiding.] Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding me his time. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague from Illinois for her service to our country. Her moral standing to discuss service and sacrifice is unimpeachable. So I want to publicly thank you again for your service to our country. Ms. Tucker, more people have invoked their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in this job than they did my former job, and I was a prosecutor, so that's saying a lot. And two of them are current government employees. And just so there's no misunderstanding, they're invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege in connection with their official duties. We're not discussing bank robberies or narcotics trafficking; we're discussing their official duties, and they feel the need to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege. So I want to ask you to do something for me. Okay? Have you seen the texts from Mr. Roseman? Ms. Tucker. Yesterday when the committee released the report---- Mr. Gowdy. Okay. Ms. Tucker. --yes, sir, I have seen the text. Mr. Gowdy. So you have seen these despicable homophobic slurs. Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. I saw the information in the committee report. Mr. Gowdy. Well, here's what I'm going to ask you to do for me and, frankly, for our fellow citizens: Before the close of business today, if you can, issue a statement on behalf of the IRS as to why he's still employed and still drawing a paycheck. If you've seen the texts that I have seen, I would like an explanation as to how you can keep your job if you say things he said in your official capacity. Can you do that? Can you explain to us how you can keep your job and your paycheck despite these homophobic slurs? Ms. Tucker. Sir, if I might, as I said in my opening statement, based on the information in the committee report yesterday, I am--I am sickened---- Mr. Gowdy. All right. Ms. Tucker. --not only as---- Mr. Gowdy. I appreciate that, Ms. Tucker. Ms. Tucker. --not only as an IRS official---- Mr. Gowdy. I---- Ms. Tucker. --but also as a citizen. Mr. Gowdy. I appreciate that. My question was actually a little more specific. Can you issue a statement by 5 o'clock today as to how someone who used this language in their official capacity as a government employee is still employed and drawing a paycheck? Can you explain that to us by close of business today? Ms. Tucker. Sir, if I might, we are having discussions at Internal Revenue Service---- Mr. Gowdy. And how long do you anticipate those discussions are going to last? Because I just read the texts this morning, and I have already reached my conclusion. So how long do you think it's going to take y'all? Ms. Tucker. So we are having discussions with our general counsel. Mr. Gowdy. How about close of business tomorrow? Ms. Tucker. So we're going to do our very best to follow due process, but, candidly, to also make sure we do this appropriately, because I think the committee's aware of the Federal personnel rules, and we want---- Mr. Gowdy. If this doesn't violate them, Ms. Tucker, then we need to change them. Ms. Tucker. Yes. So we are doing everything we can to make sure---- Mr. Gowdy. All right. Well, rule---- Ms. Tucker. --that we follow the proper procedures. Mr. Gowdy. I will be anxiously awaiting an explanation as to how you can say what this person said in your official capacity and keep your job and keep your paycheck. I will anxiously await that explanation. Ms. Tucker. Yes. Mr. Gowdy. Mr. Castillo. Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. Gowdy. Why did Mr. Roseman invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege? Mr. Castillo. I'm--I have no idea, sir. Mr. Gowdy. You don't know? You don't know what conduct he could be worried about? Mr. Castillo. Well, I think you spoke about one of them, but, no, sir, I don't know why he did, and I wish he was here to speak about some of these things. Mr. Gowdy. Well, we do, too, Mr. Castillo, but he's not, so I'll direct my questions to you. Mr. Castillo. Okay. Mr. Gowdy. Did you discuss his invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege with him before today? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, I did not. Mr. Gowdy. When's the last time you talked to him? Mr. Castillo. Before February 20th. Mr. Gowdy. Do you know what criminal exposure he's concerned about? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, I don't. Mr. Castillo. You don't have any idea? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. Mr. Gowdy. Did he ever solicit gifts from you? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, he did not. Mr. Gowdy. Did you ever offer gifts to him? Mr. Castillo. I think it's noted in the---- Mr. Gowdy. Well, humor me and answer it again. Mr. Castillo. So we went to a ballgame around the 2005 time frame when I worked at Government Acquisitions that he paid for. I gave him a receipt. And---- Mr. Gowdy. Has he discussed employment with you post-IRS? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, he has not. Mr. Gowdy. Will you describe the nature of your relationship with Mr. Roseman to us? Mr. Castillo. I would say that it's centered on my doing business with the IRS and his--for 10 years or so. Mr. Gowdy. Did you discuss contracts that you were competing for or interested in with Mr. Roseman prior to the issuing of those contracts or the awarding of those contracts? Mr. Castillo. Not to my--well, I'm not sure I understand the question, sir. Did we discuss contracts beforehand? Mr. Gowdy. I'm trying to figure out whether or not you violated any of the bidding procedures, whether or not he gave you an unfair advantage if you were seeking work that other people were also seeking. Mr. Castillo. No, sir. I'm not aware that I have an unfair advantage in any of them. Mr. Gowdy. How about any advantage, unfair or fair? Did his relationship with you give you an advantage? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. Mr. Gowdy. You've never discussed future employment with him? Mr. Castillo. No, sir. Mr. Gowdy. Well, this is my last question, because my time has run out. Mr. Castillo, have you read the texts from Mr. Roseman? Mr. Castillo. I have--I have read them. Sir, I provided them to the committee. Mr. Gowdy. All right. And you still say he's your friend? Mr. Castillo. So to be clear---- Mr. Gowdy. No. I want you to be clear, because--because I just read them, and I--and I want you to be clear. You've read them. Mr. Castillo. I have---- Mr. Gowdy. You know what's in them, the homophobic slurs in his official capacity. Y'all still friends? Mr. Castillo. I'm deeply offended. As you're aware, those were targeted toward--towards me---- Mr. Gowdy. Yeah. I---- Mr. Castillo. --towards me. Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, I am. That's why I'm asking you. Mr. Castillo. So I am offended. If you can appreciate that he's the customer, and it's not my job to go around correcting what the customer does or doesn't say. And I--and so---- Mr. Gowdy. Do you think it's appropriate for a government employee to say those things about--about someone---- Mr. Castillo. No, sir. Mr. Gowdy. --in their official capacity? Mr. Castillo. No, sir, it's not. Mr. Gowdy. How long would it take you to get rid of an employee that said that? Mr. Castillo. Well, I think it's well noted of the--some of the employees that we've terminated, it would not take me---- Mr. Gowdy. Yeah, for a lot less. Mr. Castillo. It would not take me until 5 o'clock time---- Mr. Gowdy. You did it a lot quicker for a lot less. Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Ms. Tucker. Mr. Gowdy, if--if I might, my folks that are here in the room believe that the specific text message that you're referring to we actually have not seen yet at IRS. Mr. Gowdy. Would you like me to walk them down to you? Ms. Tucker. I would--I would like to at some point receive those. But let me just be clear, when I said that I was deeply disturbed, that was based even on the mess---the text messages that were already in the report. Mr. Gowdy. Well, here. Let me make sure that you get them before you leave---- Ms. Tucker. No. I---- Mr. Gowdy. --because if you had thought you were deeply disturbed, you may reach a whole 'nother level of disturbia. Ms. Tucker. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois Ms. Kelly. Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This committee serves two purposes, oversight and reform, and I'd like to get to what reform your agencies are looking at. We have seen how a contractor has been able to game the HUBZone system to get an advantage on his competitors for millions in government contracts, and I want to know how we're going to prevent this from happening in the future. Mr. Chodos, is the SBA taking any remedial steps in light of the findings of this case? Mr. Chodos. Thank you, Representative Kelly. Let me say that the agency did take an immediate step when it found out that there was a problem back in December and January at the end of last year and the beginning of this year, which was to decertify this firm after duly looking into the facts and getting the correct facts. So in terms of moving forward, the agency is always looking for opportunities to make the program more effective and to identify ways to work closely with our colleagues at VA and at GSA to align and coordinate our different rules about procurement so that they all work in the same direction. So we have proposed rules under the JOBS Act that are in process now as we speak that seek to make issues involving use of the HUB--HUBZone program clearer, more straightforward, and which will improve our opportunities for straightforward oversight. Ms. Kelly. Mr. Davis read the decertification letter already, but is SBA considering asking applicants to provide information identifying not only employees, but all other individuals who work on behalf of the company, such as contractors? Mr. Chodos. Yes. And I believe that change has already been instituted. Ms. Kelly. Great. As committee staff interviewed IRS procurement officials, they also identified that those personnel needed additional training about procurement ethics generally, as well as specific training about the types of relationships that IRS procurement officials are prohib---prohibited, excuse me, from having with contractors. Ms. Tucker, can you please describe the steps the IRS has taken to improve its procurement ethics training? Ms. Tucker. Yes, ma'am. We have a whole host of actions under way, including an annual ethics training that will be provided to all of our procurement employees in addition to what they already have. It will be delivered by our chief counsel organization. And, in fact, we're doing an all-employee meeting today with our workforce to reemphasize that the positions we hold, ethics is of the utmost importance. And so I can assure you and give you personal assurance that our training programs will be significantly enhanced in the days and weeks ahead. Ms. Kelly. Is there any other remedial action that you're taking that you would like to share? Ms. Tucker. You know, the--the--the findings of--regarding the, what I believe, totally inappropriate relationship between one of our procurement employees and Mr. Castillo, while I--I believe at my core that the men and women of our procurement organization are operating with the highest ethics and integrity every day, I know that one bad actor can--can cast disparity on our organization, and so as a result, we're doing a top-to-bottom review of our entire procurement organization, just reassuring ourselves that we're following proper policy and procedures. I've also asked the Treasury Department procurement executive--they do routine reviews of IRS--I've asked them to come in. I've also launched an independent review. And in addition, I think, you know, that the focus that we're going to be putting on, you know, more routine briefing-- we do a quarterly performance review of the procurement organization--I think all of our existing internal controls we just need to double down on to reassure ourselves that this-- this type of behavior is not prevalent. And I have no reason to believe, ma'am, that it exists beyond what--the unfortunate situation with Mr. Roseman. Ms. Kelly. All right. Thank you. How about, Mr. Sisk, anything to add? Mr. Sisk. We are currently continuing our review of this particular case to make sure all proper rules and regulations were followed. In addition, we're taking a look at our internal management controls to make--see if they need to be strengthened in any particular areas in light of some of the questions that came out of the committee. Ms. Kelly. Okay. Mr. Flohr? Mr. Flohr. Thank you, ma'am. In my particular area of expertise is veterans benefits, and so I don't have a lot of information about the SP--Veteran- Owned Small Businesses, but I would be glad to take any questions for the record and provide them to you. Ms. Kelly. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Kelly. Thank you. And I hope we continue looking at this issue and make improvements to gain the public's trust back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Issa. [Presiding.] Thank you. Mr. Meadows. Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Tucker, some of the testimony you've given recently is very troubling, because it's in direct conflict with testimony we've heard in this very room from Mr. George. And so with that, to make sure that we have a continuity, I'm going to yield some of my time back to Mr. Jordan at this particular point. So I yield to the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. Jordan. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Tucker, so you're number two at the Internal Revenue Service. You learn on May 30th from the inspector general that political targeting of conservative groups is taking place. You know the number one at the IRS 2 months prior to that testified in front of Congress to just the opposite. And you told me in my first round of questioning that because it didn't fall under your jurisdiction, you didn't feel obligated to set the record straight? Ms. Tucker. Sir---- Mr. Jordan. I mean, what--how does that encourage whistleblowers to come forward when they know something's been done wrong, if you're the number two career professional at IRS, and you don't come forward and set the record straight? Ms. Tucker. Sir, if I might just--and maybe I'm not making myself clear. The meeting that I was in, what Mr. George told, to the best of my recollection, in the meeting was that his team was opening an audit on the TEGE organization, and that part of that audit is that they were looking at the--the BOLO list. Until--to the best of my recollection, sir, until Mr. George issued the report in April where he revealed that inappropriate targeting had appeared to have taken place based on the BOLO list, sir, that was--that was the first time that I actually had seen the results of Mr. George's investigation. Mr. Jordan. Well, if--if I could, and if the gentleman would cut me off when you need to, Congressman--according--this is from the hearing. The chairman asked inspector general May 30th, IG function has briefed the IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, Deputy Commissioners Miller and Tucker specifically the criteria targeting Tea Party Patriots, and 9/12 and other words were used to--in reviewing applications for tax--you briefed, and that was your notes. Mr. George response: Yes, that's correct. So it was very specific. You were briefed on it that day, and yet you didn't feel compelled to do anything. Ms. Tucker. Mr. George was briefing on the start, to my recollection, of their audit. And obviously, as he talked about that they were looking at these words being used, yes---- Mr. Meadows. Will the gentleman yield? Ms. Tucker. --that seems to be inappropriate. Mr. Jordan. Be happy to yield back. Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Tucker, that's in direct conflict with what Mr. George said sitting on this end right here. What he said, that May 30th meeting he went over preliminary results of the investigation that they've had and let you, Mr. Shulman and Mr. Miller know in that meeting. It was not the start of an audit. It was the preliminary results where targeting actually happened. You don't recall that? Ms. Tucker. Sir, I--to go back---- Mr. Meadows. Because I'm finding that a lot of members of the IRS have very great detail on recalling things at certain times, and at other they lack the memory. So you don't recall that he said that? Ms. Tucker. Sir, I recall the meeting, the monthly meetings that we have with Mr. George and his team---- Mr. Meadows. And there was nothing unusual about this May 30th meeting? There was nothing unusual. This--it was a normal routine update that he saw fit to go 4 days later to chief counsel and let them know about it? That was Mr.--Mr. George's testimony. Your testimony and his are not matching up. Ms. Tucker. Sir, I--I'm--I do not recollect. And I have to keep going back to this. In our monthly meetings with Mr. George and his team, they cover a whole host of IRS audits---- Mr. Meadows. So there's nothing unusual about this particular time? That May 30th meeting, there was nothing unusual about that? This was just a normal routine update that you get every month? Ms. Tucker. Sir, obviously when Mr. George conveyed to the Internal Revenue Service that in the course of their examination, or their audit, that they were looking into---- Mr. Meadows. It wasn't--it was preliminary results, Ms. Tucker, not looking into. It was preliminary results where targeting was identified. Ms. Tucker. And, sir, based on the testimony that I've seen from Mr. Miller, following that discussion, to the best of my recollection, is when he took action to ask for an independent review. Mr. Meadows. No. That happened actually before. So let me-- because we--you earlier on--if the chair will indulge me for just a second. You earlier on said that this committee needs to continue to give you information, but yet you're the one that's paid for managing this whole organization. You're the one that gets paid for it. We have oversight, and yet what we're finding is we're having to discover and manage the process of which you're getting paid for. And--and here we are, you've said eight times, let me be clear. So let me be clear that the internal investigation at the IRS happened actually before May 30th. It was concluded the first part of May. It was started the day after Mr. Shulman gave testimony to the Ways and Means Committee saying that there was--he could give assurances that there was no targeting, and y'all started an internal investigation the very next day. So your timelines don't match up, Ms. Tucker. So how do you--how do we respond to the American people, because all they want, the ranking member has said it, they want truth so then yet again they can trust. So how do we respond to that? Ms. Tucker. Sir---- Chairman Issa. The gentlelady may answer. The time is expired. Mr. Meadows. I thank the gentleman. I yield back. Ms. Tucker. Sir, I am--I am trying to share with you the truth from what I know and what programs I have responsibility for. IRS is an organization of 100,000 people and multiple programs. I am the Deputy Commissioner for Operations Support. I do not have responsibility, sir, for oversight and administration of the service and enforcement program. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentlelady. We now go to the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Connolly. Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might say to my colleagues, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Jordan, that if we're going to cite the testimony of the inspector general, I would cite the question-and-answer period between the inspector general and myself in which I directly asked the inspector general whether, in fact, progressive groups could also have been targeted in the unidentified 202 organizations that were looked at. And his answer, in light of recent facts, is at best elusive. And I certainly think that if we want to cite the inspector general, we ought to have him come back here under oath, as he was that day we had him, and allow him to clarify his answers, because they certainly look strange to some of ours. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Connolly. If the clock will stop. Chairman Issa. Just--just if you could answer, what are you asking to have the IG come back and answer? Mr. Connolly. I--Mr. Chairman, I'd--I'd ask the clock to stop. Chairman Issa. We'll hold the clock, but I just want to know---- Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman---- Chairman Issa. --if you're making a request what the request is. Mr. Connolly. Yeah. The request is that there is now serious confusion about the answer the inspector general gave to my direct questioning whether he knew that, in fact, progressive groups, not just conservative groups, were also in the filtering of the BOLO. Did he know that when he answered my question? Because he inferred from his answer that he did not, that the--that they--that those were all unidentified. We now know that's not true. Now, did he know that, and did he know it when he testified under oath before this committee---- Chairman Issa. Okay. We'll---- Mr. Connolly. --because---- Chairman Issa. We'll--we'll look at how we can do that. Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Mr. Jordan. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. Connolly. I'm afraid my time is running out, so I'm going to proceed with questioning, but I thank--thank my colleagues. During the course of the committee's investigation, it's become clear that Strong Castle provided inaccurate information to SBA on multiple occasions. Mr. Castillo, according to the SBA's letter decertifying Strong Castle, the company provided inaccurate payroll records for two employees. SBA's decision stated that Strong Castle, ``admitted that the records provided were false and inaccurate.'' Is that correct? Mr. Castillo. They were inaccurate, yes. Mr. Connolly. They were inaccurate? Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. Connolly. And the SBA decision goes on to explain, SCI confirmed the one instance identified by SBA and identified another. The corrections were only made after being confronted with the conflicting evidence presented by SBA. Strong Castle's former C--COO, Michelle Castillo--I guess that's your wife---- Mr. Castillo. Yes, sir. Mr. Connolly. --said that when she discovered errors in the payroll records, she did not check to see whether there were additional errors in other months. When she was asked, how do you know there weren't other errors for the previous 6 months, she replied, I don't. Is that the kind of recordkeeping you kept at your company, Mr. Castillo? Mr. Castillo. Sir, I don't know of her testimony, but rest assured, I am aware of the two that you're talking about where a student worked 6 hours in 1 day and 8 hours in the other and transcribed those in that week, and that student employee had written that he had worked 8 hours on 1 day when he meant that he worked the other day. So I'm aware of those. And--and so we have put steps in place, including the person that you'd mentioned, my wife, resigning from the company. I've taken over that. We've put steps in place to ensure that we have tighter recordkeeping around that---- Mr. Connolly. Well---- Mr. Castillo. --including assigning people on a day-to-day basis that log in hours and report and supervise hours. Mr. Connolly. Thank you. Mr. Chodos, how can SBA base certification decisions on payroll records from companies when they can't verify actual employment, by their own admission? Mr. Chodos. Companies have a duty to provide accurate information to the SBA because, of course, the SBA needs accurate information on an ongoing basis in order to originally certify and then to decide if a company is still in compliance. Mr. Connolly. So is there sort of an honor system? We rely on them to be--to verify and to tell the truth? Mr. Chodos. Well, we always expect folks to act in an honorable way, but the regulations require that they provide accurate information on an ongoing basis. So this is a regulatory requirement, not just a trust system. Mr. Connolly. In this case the certification provided previously was the difference between, well, qualifying for a HUBZone, but also the 35 percent residency requirement. Is that right? Mr. Chodos. I'm sorry, Representative, I just didn't understand the question. Mr. Connolly. The information provided by former employee Michelle Castillo meant that Strong Castle made the difference with the 35 percent residency requirement; is that correct? Mr. Chodos. Yes. The--well---- Mr. Connolly. So this wasn't just an error; this was sort of dispositive. Mr. Chodos. Well, this went to two issues. It went to whether--the status of employees and whether or not employees were actually spending their time at the principal location, as represented. Mr. Connolly. Is SBA looking into the issue in this case of fraud? Mr. Chodos. The SBA is continuing to receive information, and has had a number of communications with the committee, and welcomes all information on this topic. And also, as we have indicated to the committee, since at least March, the SBA has been in regular communication with our inspector general and has shared all of the information available to us with our IG. So it's an ongoing process of evaluating information as it becomes available. Mr. Connolly. Thank you. My time has expired. Chairman Issa. Thank the gentleman. We now recognize the gentleman from Michigan for his round of questioning. Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of Congress are elected by the American people. We are expected to answer to our constituents, and every 2 years they have the ability to fire us. The American taxpayers do not have the ability to do this with IRS officials, who have repeatedly let them down. We saw this with the targeting of tax-exempt groups, with the egregious waste of taxpayer dollars on conference spending, and now again with the discovery of an improper relationship between an IRS procurement official and a contractor. It is not very common for witnesses to assert their privilege not to testify before Congress, but today, again, we have an IRS official who has refused to answer questions about actions he took in his official capacity. This is the second time in the last month that an IRS official has refused to answer this committee's questions. How many more IRS officials are going to come before this committee and refuse to answer to the American people? As it is, we are not learning all of the necessary facts because of these refusals to testify. This problem is not just about Strong Castle and Mr. Roseman's refusal to testify today; this problem is bigger than Strong Castle. This problem is about IRS mismanagement, the agency's failure to the American people, and the agency's refusal to answer for what it has done. And the American people deserve better. Mr. Chairman, I served in Iraq and Vietnam, and I am 50 percent disabled for a neck injury I suffered in 2007 in Iraq. Mr. Castillo, I think Congresswoman Duckworth said it all for me, so I'm just going to ask you one simple question: Mr. Castillo, I understand that you have produced text messages between yourself and Mr. Roseman that you have access to. There are, however, text messages that you have stated were lost in the iPhone migration. Will you agree to work with the committee and with AT&T in an attempt to recover these messages? Mr. Castillo. Yes. And I have. Mr. Bentivolio. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield? Mr. Bentivolio. Yes. Chairman Issa. I thank you. And thank you for helping us with AT&T, and we'll work on that after the--this meeting. I want to sort of dwell just a moment on--with Mr. Flohr on the veterans' standing. In the transcribed interviews, which we'll make available to VA, Mr. Castillo has some--little bit of confusion in his statement, but essentially, and I'll paraphrase, that he was aware that the doctor's view that this was a football injury was inaccurate, but didn't think it was material. If we provide that transcript to you, does that empower you to review and get accurate the original filing so that you can make an assessment as to whether or not the sequence of events, the injury and the doctor's opinion, would support all the elements necessary for a 30 percent disability? Mr. Flohr. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. We would certainly be willing to look at anything that you might want to share with us. I'm not saying it would make a difference. And as I said earlier in my testimony and written and oral statement, it's--a veteran who suffers an injury in service, and regardless of what type of injury or what caused it, as long as it wasn't from willful misconduct, and it was in line of duty---- Chairman Issa. No. I understand the line of duty. It's really--I think Ms. Duckworth made it very clear that she looked at a 30 percent and a $500-a-month or so payment for life and questioned whether or not, in light of so many severe injuries--and she was incredibly severely injured in--in the line of duty--whether or not the assessment was correct. And I think her view, and rightfully so, is there's a lot of veterans on long waiting lists, and there's a lot of veterans who see a 30 percent disability for what appears to be a rather-- relatively minor injury a long time ago, and they question that. That's the only reason that--in light of the testimony and the confusion, that we would expect that the VA would reopen, reevaluate and then make a second accurate assessment based on, if you will, reevaluating the doctor's statement, which apparently was inaccurate. Having said that, I served for 10 years on Active Duty and 10 in Reserves. Every one of us got something broken or bent, so I'm very aware that, for better or worse, almost all of us have a hearing loss or have something. Most people who served as veterans are, in fact, to at least some small extent, and the gentleman from Michigan is to a fairly large extent from a serious accident in Iraq, service-connected disabled. And I think that's the point you were making is Congress has left you little wiggle room. If you're at the prep school, if something occurs, and you were not in a criminal relationship, or you were in the line of duty, you're not AWOL, that, in fact, that is service-connected-disability-eligible. We're not asking you to rewrite the law, that's our job, but we do think that--that getting it right as to percentages are important to so many veterans who essentially say, I can't work, but they also often find themselves far below 50 percent. Mr. Flohr. As I stated, sir, yeah, we'll be glad to look at anything you have that you want us to look at, and we certainly will--will make you aware of what we find. Chairman Issa. I appreciate that. We now go to the other gentleman from Michigan Mr. Walberg. Mr. Walberg. I thank the chairman. And, you know, I--just responding to one of our colleagues who questioned whether we would be getting information from the IG on targeting, certainly I think we've come to realize that there were targeting BOLOs dealing with conservatives and religious groups and also progressives. The difference is progressives got their certifications; they were approved. The issue with the targeting of the nonprogressive, supposedly, the conservative, the religious organizations is they're still waiting for approvals, and that's unconscionable. Ms. Tucker, does Strong Castle's HUBZone decertification affect the IRS contracts currently in place with the organization? Ms. Tucker. Sir, as I mentioned earlier, IRS is in the--the process of separating ourselves from Strong Castle. Mr. Walberg. So you plan to end--end the contracts with Strong Castle? Ms. Tucker. It's our--it's our intention to begin the proceedings to separate ourselves from Strong Castle, yes. Mr. Walberg. What would keep you from separating with Strong Castle? Ms. Tucker. I'm--I'm not aware of anything that would prohibit us. That's what our folks in our--our counsel organization are reviewing today. Mr. Walberg. So we can expect that there will be a separation? Ms. Tucker. That is our intention, to separate ourselves from a relationship with Strong Castle. Mr. Walberg. So do you plan as well to stop ordering from the $266 million IBM contract that was awarded to Strong Castle in December of 2012? Ms. Tucker. So as I--I mentioned earlier, the--the contracts in question, the one with laptops, IRS has never placed an order on that one, nor do we have any reason to do so. And our team has already begun the process to separate ourselves, the relationship with Strong Castle, on the IBM contract as well. Mr. Walberg. Will any of the dollars obligated to Strong Castle count toward the IRS's small business goals? Ms. Tucker. So as I believe my--my colleague from SBA indicated earlier, the--the only time, and this is to my understanding, that those obligations go against the goal is if dollars are ultimately awarded to the contract. So, no, based on the decertification, I'm looking to my colleague from SBA, it's my understanding that, no, based upon the fact that Strong Castle has been decertified. And this is just my understanding, so I'm--I'm going to need some help from SBA---- Mr. Walberg. Mr. Chodos? Ms. Tucker. --that they would not count toward a small business award. Mr. Chodos. So ordinarily, Congressman, the decertifications are prospective. From the date of the certification, no further contract actions can occur with the entity as though it's certified, but contracts which have already been awarded or are being performed beforehand remain in effect unless there is an independent reason to terminate them. So if an award had been made and was performed, then they will--it will be listed as a small business contract if it was before the certification. That also occurs with suspension and debarment when wrongdoing comes to our attention. Ordinarily those actions are prospective. Mr. Walberg. Ms. Tucker, the Treasury Department recently recognized Strong Castle as the 2012 small business prime contractor of the year. In light of recent developments, should this award be reconsidered? Ms. Tucker. So---- Mr. Walberg. Just for the record. Ms. Tucker. So the recognition was given by the Department of the Treasury. Strong Castle was not nominated by Internal Revenue Service, but I believe--this is my personal opinion, because I cannot speak for Treasury--I do think what has been revealed does cast doubt in my mind. Mr. Walberg. Well, I would hope so. And, Mr. Chairman, you know, I would say these hearings that continue with the type of egregious culture of moral vacuum, I think I'd call it, going on is just another example of the--of big government and what we can expect to go amok when we see a government so large that it is willing to allow these types of things to happen, in fact, foster things like this happen, foster things because of friendships or otherwise. I mean, we've even seen it in the most recent Supreme Court decision where we think more about personal desires than we do about the best good for children, or the best good for taxpayers, or the best good for our economy. We deal with promoting entities like this, and this is a perfect example of the worst case that can go on with big government. I see my time has expired. I---- Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman for his---- Mr. Walberg. --yield back. Chairman Issa. -- his time and his comments. We now go to the gentleman from Florida Mr. DeSantis. Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got to tell you, just the upshot of these past couple months, the IRS, to me, is an institution that is--that is terminally ill. We had admission that the agency abused its power by targeting conservative groups, which effectively silenced a substantial number of Americans for the 2012 election. We had the IRS Commissioner at that time come before us; when asked if he accepted responsibility for the malfeasance said, well, it happened on my watch, but I'm not responsible. Now, that would not fly in virtually any other aspect of American life. I'm a Navy guy. If a Navy ship runs aground, and the captain of the ship were to say, well, yeah, we ran it aground on my watch, but that's actually some E-5's responsibility because he messed up, you'd be gone immediately. Lois Lerner came in front of the committee, invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination rather than answering questions for the American people. Now, I think she waived her Fifth Amendment right. I think the committee's going to have something to say about that this week. But she's been placed on leave, but she's still with the agency. We had an interesting hearing in which an IRS official was crit---questioned about lavish spending at conferences, suites $3,500 a night, $50,000-plus for a Star Trek parody video. And it's interesting, they didn't know exactly how much the video cost because they didn't keep receipts for the expenses, and all we got was an apology tendered. If the IRS were investigating an American, and the American said they just didn't bother to keep receipts or offered an apology, that probably would not be the end of it. I think the IRS would hold them accountable and demand more, but yet, to my knowledge, we haven't gotten any accountability for this lavish spending and waste of taxpayer funds. It's, oh, we need more--better procedures, more training, this and that. And so here we are another day and another invocation of the Fifth Amendment. We see, to me, a clear example of cronyism and waste of taxpayer money, but again, as my colleague from South Carolina Mr. Gowdy pointed out, no accountability. Ms. Tucker, I appreciate when you mentioned due process, but it seems to me, where's the due process for the American taxpayer? You know, why does the taxpayer always have to take the back seat? Why is there so little accountability in this incredibly powerful bureaucracy? It's almost as if the IRS has all this power, but some of their officials are held to a lower standard than what we would expect in private business or people even in other aspects of the government, such as the military. And to me, that is not acceptable. And if that means we need to change some of the laws that govern this, then I think we absolutely have to do it. So I think this is a profound culture of arrogance in the IRS, and I think the American people are sick of it. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back---- Mr. Meadows. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DeSantis. --the balance of my time. Mr. Meadows. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. DeSantis. Yes, I will. Mr. Meadows. I think we have a video that I would ask that we queue up. It's a follow-up of some of the questioning, line of questioning, that we had from Mr. Jordan and myself earlier. And if we have that, if we can queue that up. I thank--I thank the chair. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman, and I think the gentleman from Florida. I would now recognize the ranking member for a closing statement. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Hold it. Could you pause for a moment? I'm being told--oh, I'm sorry. If the gentleman--if the remaining time can be given to Mr. Meadows. It's a minute and 40, and go ahead and use it as a close. [Video shown from previous hearing.] Issa: ``Based on the timeline you gave us, on May 29, 2012, the audit briefed the IG in advance of the IRS Commissioner's meeting. May 30th IG and function heads briefed the IRS Commissioner, Doug Shulman, and the Deputy Commissioners, Steve Miller and Beth Tucker, on the audit, comma, specifically that criteria targeting Tea Party Patriots or 9/12, another keyword, and other policies issues were being used to--used to in reviewing applications for tax-exempt status.'' ``You briefed, and that's your notes?'' George: ``Yes. That's correct, sir.'' Issa: ``And so what--what you say on May 30th is, yeah, they're targeting these groups. That's confirmation you reached the conclusion they're targeting using these keywords.'' George: ``Yes. Now, just to be rec---clear, I didn't take these notes, but these are accurate.'' Issa: ``Right. And I'm just using these because they were delivered to us from your staff. So on May 30th, there was a ``there'' there, and you briefed Mr. Shulman and two others. On June 4th, you went up--" [conclusion of video.] Mr. Meadows. So, Ms. Tucker, your--your testimony does not agree with that testimony. So who--who is right? Ms. Tucker. Sir, when you asked me the earlier question, you asked me was I present at the briefing that Mr. George gave the Internal Revenue Service. I recalled being at that briefing. Mr. Meadows. Your testimony---- Ms. Tucker. I---- Mr. Meadows. What your testimony said, Ms. Tucker, was that this was a normal briefing talking about an audit. This was obviously results of which you said there were--that they were just talking about going to conduct an audit. Ms. Tucker. Sir, if I could, TIGTA comes in to Internal Revenue Service monthly. Mr. George--and we will be glad to try and produce this. Mr. George briefs the Internal Revenue Service on multiple topics at each one of those meetings. To the best of my recollection, his discussion of their investigation of TEGE was only one of the topics that I recollect from that briefing. Let me also be clear. When Mr. George communicated to the Internal Revenue Service, to the best of my recollection, about concerns with the BOLO list and that--the terms that he was talking about, it was then the agency's response, as the investigation is under way right now, to say, yes, yes, use of those BOLO terms are inappropriate. That's why there's an investigation under way, to get to the bottom of what the facts are, sir. Mr. Meadows. But--but you had already had an internal investigation that already indicated that that concluded on May--the first part of May, so why would that be a surprise? Ms. Tucker. Sir, I was not privy to any of the internal investigation. Mr. Meadows. But Mr. Miller was. Ms. Tucker. Mr. Miller is the Deputy Commissioner--or was the Deputy---- Mr. Meadows. My time's expired. I appreciate the indulgence. Chairman Issa. Would the gentleman yield for just a second? Mr. Meadows. Yes. Chairman Issa. Ms. Tucker, hopefully I can bring a common answer here. So I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but let me try to paraphrase. The IG said there was a ``there'' there in that meeting. You saw the video. You were in the meeting, you heard it, but your testimony today seems to be primarily that, regardless of that, you said to yourself, there's a process, it's going to go forward, and it's not my job, because it's not within my lane. Is that a fair paraphrasing of the series of answers-- questions and answers? Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir, because the Deputy Commissioner structure at the Internal Revenue Service, just as if TIGTA was there giving feedback on an audit or a report that's about to be issued, then the responsibility for the follow-up actions, just like the report someone referenced earlier today, the--the purchase card audit. TIGTA briefed IRS a couple of months back in one of these monthly meetings and said, we have done an audit of the purchase cards. Here is what our findings show, that 99.75 percent of the purchase cards used at IRS are correct, but there are some concerns. That is my take-away. I own that in my role at IRS. It is my job to then follow up and---- Chairman Issa. Okay. Ms. Tucker. --make sure corrective actions take place. Chairman Issa. Go ahead, Mr. Cummings, with---- Mr. Cummings. Yeah. I just want to--just to clarify, I just want to be real clear. First of all, Ms. Tucker, I--I have been sitting here watching you, just listening, and I just want you to know I believe you. I don't know what that means to you, but it means a lot to me. I believe---- Ms. Tucker. It means a lot to me, sir. Mr. Cummings. I believe you. And the reason why I say that is, as I understand it, IRS, you got a top person, and then you've got two deputies. And I think you tried to explain it to us probably 10 times now is that you are on one side dealing with IT and all this stuff, and I guess more like the nuts and bolts--is that---- Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. Mr. Cummings. And the other side deals with things like what? Ms. Tucker. Like the---- Mr. Cummings. Tax exempt---- Ms. Tucker. --administration, audits, collections. Mr. Cummings. And so I just--just going back to what the chairman was just asking you, so when you hear--even when you hear this stuff that's regarding tax-exempt and stuff like that, I'm just--I'm just guessing, I guess you're sitting there saying, okay, you know, that is not good, but let me--I'm zeroing in on what I'm supposed to do. How many employees come under you? Ms. Tucker. Roughly 11,000. Mr. Cummings. Eleven thousand, your 11,000 employees and all your responsibility. So I just--so it's not that you didn't care; is that right? Ms. Tucker. No, sir. And I--I'm troubled if that is the impression that some on the committee are taking away from this. To the best of my recollection--and, again, IRS is a very large organization. TIGTA and GAO do multiple oversight audits for Internal Revenue Service. They are in briefings, the Commissioner and the two Deputies, monthly, if not more often. In light of recent events, Mr. George and his team are now coming in weekly to brief on issues. Based on my recollection of what was shared at that meeting, Mr. George was talking about an audit of TEGE. He also was talking about concerns. It was my takeaway based on that meeting that IRS would then be taking appropriate action to deal with that, not that it was something that was in my responsibility to leave the room and begin working with folks in TEGE or elsewhere to take any action. And I don't--I implore you, that is not me trying to shirk responsibilities. That is me focusing on what my responsibilities are at Internal Revenue Service. Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Thank you. Mr. Jordan, does that answer your question, or do you have further follow-up? Mr. Jordan. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I'd appreciate---- Chairman Issa. The gentleman is recognized for a last round. Mr. Jordan. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I appreciate what the ranking member said, but the gravity of what took place here, it seemed to me everyone in a position of influence would want to come forward and set the record straight. If I could quickly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to put up one email that--this is an email from March 9th, 2012, Mr. Floyd Williams, in response to an inquiry from Senator Hatch about the 501(c)(4) situation. And the FYI--it's copied to all these folks, but it says, ``Latest volley in the 501(c)(4) battle.'' And I think it's important to note who was copied on this email. Ms. Tucker was copied, Sarah Ingram, Nancy Marks, Lois Lerner, Steve Miller. Ms. Tucker said she had no--this is not her area. She had nothing to do with it. And yet, 2 months prior, she is getting the latest in the battle about the 501(c)(4) scandal that's going on. And yet today she continues to say it had nothing to do with her. If it had nothing to do with her, why is she copied in on an email that focuses in on this very issue 2 months prior to when she said she first heard about it? And, with that, I'd yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Issa. Well, the gentlelady may answer. I think there was a question there. Ms. Tucker. Yes, sir. So our legislative affairs function routinely copies the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners on correspondence that is under way between Congress. That is not an unusual situation. Mr. Jordan. Why is the term ``battle'' used? Ms. Tucker. I have no idea, sir. Mr. Jordan. Okay. Thank you. Chairman Issa. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Cummings? Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. Mr. Castillo, I must tell you that your testimony is alarming, and it concerns me greatly, and I'm sure as it does other members of this committee. While I said it in a kind of joking way when I referred to Michael Jackson's song, ``Man in the Mirror,'' I really--and when I read your testimony and then I listened to what you said, I've got to tell you, you've got to look closer in the mirror. And, you know, I tell my kids, I tell them, whenever you're constantly complaining that people are doing you wrong, I said, sometimes you need to look at yourself if you consistently find yourself in that position. And so I--but the main thing is that I think we need to try to straighten this mess out. And I'm glad, Ms. Tucker, that you all are taking the steps that you all are taking. Our country is--I think we deserve a strong program. I was just telling the chairman about how much I admired his ability to do business and come from a small company and to make it successful. And I want everybody to have those kinds of opportunities to open the door, but they will never get there if we abuse programs that are to help them get there. And so I just hope that when you go back, Ms. Tucker, you will reiterate that to your people looking at all of these procurements, so that we can have that balance, so that we can actually help people achieve their great dreams and not be like the people that I talked about in my opening statement who worked so hard for so long, pushing, knocking at doors, trying to get to opportunity, and then they die before they get there, and so their dreams are locked up in the casket with them. And so, with that, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think it was a good hearing. Chairman Issa. I thank you, Mr. Cummings. In closing, often a hearing is about a specific action. And, Ms. Tucker, it appears as though a great deal will come as a result of the preparation for this hearing and the report we put out. I'm going to work with the ranking member to turn it into a full committee report. It's essentially a staff draft at this point. And we will follow on with some of what we learned here today. But I'm going to include, in all likelihood, in that report or an additional series of letters a number of things that I could not help but recognize today. Ms. Tucker, I think to say that the IRS is an organization currently in crisis is a given. I have some confidence and a lot of hope that the new Commissioner, Acting Commissioner, will, in fact, be able to bring that about. And for the 100,000 or so career professionals that work at the IRS, I wish you well in doing that. It's important to the American people. Mr. Castillo, this is not about you, but, in fact, this hearing, I believe, was illustrative of some problems that our government has. Mr. Flohr, I believe that our committee is going to be sending a number of things, and Ms. Duckworth will undoubtedly be working on it with us. And that is that, in a time of limited resources, we do need to define service-connected disabled in a way that doesn't automatically trigger virtually every American who served, myself included, from qualifying. We also need to be better and more consistent on whether or not--and we can legally empower you to be more accurate. Ms. Duckworth was correct that a strain, a crack, a twisted ankle 27 years later that clearly didn't impair the performance of somebody going through their life--if we were dealing with workers' comp, we would not be as generous as to turn that into $6,000 a year for the rest of their life and other benefits. There's no question this is far greater in the current dollars than I think the taxpayers believe for what the record appears to show. That's not to take away from the legitimacy of an application, but Congress has an obligation to work with the Veterans Administration to get these numbers better. At the same time, I know you're acutely aware that we are dismayed at how long our Iraq veterans and Afghanistan veterans are waiting to get a determination. Mr. Chodos, the fact is you got a little bit of a pass here today, but I must tell you that I'm disturbed that the process and the numbers are such that, without either regulation changing or coming to Congress with a series of changes that you need, we are not accurately reflecting HUBZones, we're not accurately reflecting the real benefit that is going to the people that Mr. Cummings and I want to see get it. Now, much of it may be legislative, but I would charge you to go back to your Cabinet Secretaries and say, you know, we owe Congress some proposed changes. Whether it's cost savings or it's benefit being more targeted, you know, I believe that this is part of what this hearing is showing. There may have been--there clearly were some violations of the rules, some incorrect statements made. But I think even if none of those were made, we still would probably, from this side of the dais on a unanimous basis, have seen a travesty of what was intended versus what was allowed, what was achieved versus what was scored. So I would hope that as you go back today, recognize that we will send, at a minimum, letters asking you to be part of the process of getting the reform. I thank Mr. Sisk. The GAO is our partner in our branch, and it's critical that we have your support. You're constantly bringing us some of these items and high risk. Perhaps you will be and your organization, on behalf of those of us in Congress, will be a hub for a lot of this. But it's the intention of this chairman to bring to the committees of jurisdiction specific recommendations for change that could narrow or prevent this from happening in the future. I want to thank you all for your testimony today. Ms. Tucker, I'll close only with one thing: a message, I think for the IRS, and it's a message for the IRS, for the State Department, and for every part of government. This committee, over my short tenure as chairman, has a consistent frustration, and that is: Messages are received that should alert people. Often it's not within their lane, it's not their job, but it still bothers us that every single American worker in the Federal Government doesn't say, ``Well, but we've got to get the truth out there.'' The world is seeing this NSA crisis right now with a vague suggestion that somehow it's because nobody was listening. This committee is listening. We want to hear. Every Federal employee owes it to Congress and to the American taxpayer to be a whistleblower if they see something wrong, even if it's as benign as an Acting Commissioner saying we're not targeting, and then they become aware in some way that there's a likelihood that they are targeting and that Congress is not aware that they've been misled. That was true for 10 months with Fast and Furious. It was true for a similar period of time here with the IRS and the targeting. And I believe that we're still dealing with trying to get to the whole truth with Benghazi. So those are outside of today's hearing, but I think you get the point, that I'm calling on every Federal worker to recognize that this Congress passed a major new whistleblower legislation so that we could invite people to call your Congressman, write your Congressman, or come to the committees and tell us if you have some doubt. It's okay to be wrong as a whistleblower; it's really wrong to keep a secret you think is wrongdoing. Lastly, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that every part of government has an Inspector General. And the IGs are the first and most logical report to by Federal workers, and I hope they will always do that. And, with that, I thank Mr. Cummings, and we stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2275.061