then we subpoenaed the white house records and find he went there 113 times or something like that. but you had no contact with the white house during that period? >> actually you're jogging my memory. i want to use that as a footnote to just say i'm doing this completely by the fly off my memory. there -- >> was there some contact? >> yes, i'm going to tell you what it is. >> now you wind up in the white house. you had a subsequent job i guess helping with the obamacare situation. >> could i answer that question? >> yes, go right ahead. >> i feel like it's something important to finish the sentence. mr. werfel went to the white house in i think late june with secretary lew in the order to give the president his report. i went into the white house with him. i wasn't in their meeting. >> was this matter discussed at all? >> i wasn't in the meeting. i just accompanied him to the building. >> we would find that record. no other contact in the white house during that period? >> no. >> would you be aware that your activities were being reported to mr. werfel? and usually they have the counsel or someone it might have been treasury reporting to the

white house as to what of going on with say this report. you're not aware of what took place there? >> so in terms of the ig report, i have no idea what, if anything, was reported to the white house. the visit that i had with mr. wuerffel was to give his 30-day report to the president. >> again, what your activity was reported to wuerffel where you were in the investigation and compiling for congress, you weren't aware of it being transmitted beyond him? >> no. >> okay. thank you. >> we now go to the gentlelady from new york. miss maloney. >> thank you. i regret i was not able to join you last night for the hearing. we had a financial services committee or rather a bill on the floor that i had been working on and we were in debate on the floor. i just wanted to make a brief statement about the hearing that we had last night on the overall irs and this whole irs mess seems to flow directly from confusion over just how the irs should enforce a law that was

passed by this congress that gives tax exempt status to not for profits but only if they are essentially politically nonpartisan. and what the irs was looking at is whether these activities of these not for profits really merited being tax exempt because they're getting 100% deduction and putting a great deal of money into political campaigns. now, we don't have -- >> will the gentlelady yield? >> you probably were not here when this was discussed but 501 (c) (4)s do not get 100% deduction. you're not taxed -- >> not at all? >> not a penny. they are tax exempt in the money they receive from taxpayers who have paid their taxes and give them after tax income, they don't count it as profit. they simply spend it on their behalf, but they are not tax deductible the way a charity is. it's a very significant difference.

it is one of the reasons they can do up to half of their activities in these. these are social welfare groups, not charities. >> but they're social welfare groups,and they don't get a tax deduction. >> when you give to a 501 (c) (4), you do so without a tax deduction. it is taxable. you give your after tax. it's the same kind of deduction you get when you receive a political campaign. your donors pay their taxes and give you after tax income. it is not a charity. >> not at all. well, i stand corrected. i thought 501 (c) (4)s had a tax treatment that was favorable to them. and i was saying why not just have a rule that no one gets a tax deduction that gets involved in political activities. but i think getting back to the e-mails, when 22 million e-mails from the bush white house went missing in 2003 and 2005, which was only discovered under the

valerie plame affair, our colleagues across the aisle had a different take on how things should happen. and were there any provisions put in place after this loss of e-mails between 2003 and 2005 that made it less likely that e-mails could go missing again? i ask anyone who would like to answer that. what -- there was a terrible debacle in 2003 and 2005. what changes were put in place to prevent this from happening again? >> so i would suggest that that's an example of some of the challenges that all federal agencies across the government have as it relates to managing e-mail. and the instance we're talking about today with the irs is also another where agencies need to be able to understand how their e-mail systems work, how they're e-mail systems work in connection with the federal records act and how they're ensuring that preservation is occurring according to disposition schedules. that's been a wake-up call for

the entire federal government. >> i would also say that a wake-up call is that you need your infrastructure to be hi-tech in place. and mr. pharoah, as you may be aware, the irs has a 1 billion i.t. infrastructure but the federal times recently reported that sequestration and other cuts have imposed terrible restrictions on the irs including a reduction in the agency supplies and terms and budgets. can you -- so if you basically have andty equated i.t. system in addition to not putting reforms in place. can you discuss how maintaining antiquated i.t. system might impact an agency's records retention capability? what does this mean, these budget cuts and not having an updated i.t. system?

>> it certainly plays a role in this particular case in terms of the capacity of their hard drives to retain information. the number of e-mails they're actually able to capture at one time. the upside of the directive that we're -- that we're in the process of implementing is that it gives us the authority to work with the industry, the electronic mail industry,the hi-tech industry to create solutions that will work for the federal government. efficient, effective and cost of benefit solutions to this problem. so i'm optimistic about the future. >> well, has funding been a significant challenge to some of these agencies and modernizing their i.t. records and retention infrastructure. >> certainly have. >> the commissioner testified and i read his testimony they have proposed $400 million to $500 million to modernization and improvement activities but

this hasn't become a reality in the budget. others have complained the department still has not completed the switch from microsoft windows xp to windows 7. what kind of problem is that? can you elaborate a little further? >> this is a problem across the government in terms of the investment in technology. would my colleague yield? >> absolutely. >> at last night's hearing it was established that the irs has had over $800 million cuts in the last four years and is slated for an additional $350 million this year. you can't have it both ways. you can't be cutting the irs that kind of amount and then decry the fact that they've got antiquated i.t. systems. i thank my colleague for yielding. >> my time has expired. >> i thank the gentle lady and the gentleman for pointing out the 10,000 less workers but not a smaller i.t. budget. >> i know the chairman shares my concern about the i.t. investment. >> i really do. i wish you had stayed longer last night to hear the accolades from both sides of the dais for

the i.g. and his independence, his nonpartisan, the tigda's efforts and how much he's relied on as a nonpartisan. i think it would have been very, very insightful. >> i appreciate that. my wife is ill. and i have had to go home at night to -- >> you have our sympathies. >> i know that he would appreciate that. >> the gentleman from ohio, mr. jordan recognized. >> miss o'connor, in the six months you were at the internal revenue service, who was the person in charge of getting the documents congress wanted to this committee and to the ways and means committee? >> i guess i would say that that's mr. werfel because he directed the agency at the time and told us what his directives were to -- >> but the people working on document production, who was in charge? >> so i serve, as i think i was

describing, as the liaison -- was it you? >> as the liaison between him and the team of people. >> was it you? were you the person in charge. >> i wasn't working on it full-time. i had a number of other responsibilities. >> when we interviewed mr. wilkins, he said it was you. he said employees who have been responsible for collecting and producing documents, we asked him who was responsible for that process. he said it is tom kean and jennifer, the two identified. then he said miss o'connor and he said yes. he identified you as the chief person. in the six months you're there, this is a huge story. you got the key player in this who took the fifth. it's in the news every day. at that time, you're delling us you didn't have any inclination that a bunch of lois lerner's e-mails were lost? >> i did not know they were missing and uncoverable and a laptop crash had caused that. >> when you did learn, what was the date that the white house counsel's office learned? >> mr. koskinen told us he felt he had no duty to disclose. he knew in march there were lost e-mails. he didn't tell us at the end of march. someone at the white house learned in april. we didn't learn till june when

they sent us a letter a week and a half ago. when did the white house counsel's office learn that there were lost e-mails? >> so i just got there. >> i understand. >> i'm asking when the counsel. how -- there's only like 25 lawyers. >> i wasn't there in april. i have seen the same letter you've seen. it describes -- >> do you know the date? >> i don't. >> is it fair to say april? that's what your boss said. he said it was sometime in april when they learned from the treasury. is that accurate? >> i have no reason to doubt that it's true, i just wasn't there. >> do you know who from treasury told the white house counsel's office that e-mails were lost? do you know who that person was? >> i don't know. >> you don't know who was in that meeting or if it was a meeting or how it was communicated? >> i'd love to be helpful. i just started, so i'm unable to answer your question. i wasn't there yet. >> and do you know if anyone in the white house counsel once they got the information, did they tell anybody else? did your boys, white house

counsel office, did your boss tell the chief of staff at the white house in did they tell the president? who was that communicated to? >> again, i'm sorry. i don't mean to be a broken record. i wasn't there. >> we asked to you come to this hearing a week ago. in the week, you didn't ask like what happened here? we learned in april the congress didn't learn until june. you didn't ask any of your colleagues? how many lawyers are in the white house counsel's office? approximately 25? >> i'm sufficiently new that i haven't done a head count. >> i understand it's around 25. i would think you would think you would talk to those folks and get the details what you'll have to answer questions about. you didn't do that? >> so the letter i received from chairman issa said that the reason that you wanted to talk to me was to understand what i learned at my time at the irs. i did not have much time to prepare. but i prepared to come and tell you about -- >> you didn't think the to ask about the fact that the white house knew in april and the

people's house doesn't know until june? you didn't think there was a duty to figure out who gave you the information, who you may have shared that information with? seems like everyone knows this stuff still it's up to congress. we don't get it till months later. >> i'd like to be as helpful as i can with what i knew. >> it would have been helpful if you had the answers to those questions. do you know if the white house council's office that lois lerner's e-mails were lost, do you know if the white house council's office told the fbi and told the justice department? >> so what i can tell you is what i knew when i was at the irs. i wasn't at the white house. >> you work at the white house counsel's office. they knew this information in april. we didn't know it till june. there's a two-month time difference there. in that time, did the white house counsel's office tell the fbi? remember what the president said, he's angry about this. people have to pay. there's no place for this, all the things he said when the scandal broke. if you get important information like lerner's e-mails are lost, did share that with the agency doing the criminal investigation? did you say this is serious. we'd better get this information to the fbi and the justice department? did you guys do that? >> i'm happy to answer questions about my time at the irs.

>> i'm asking did your boss, the folks you worked for at the white house counsel's office, when they got the critical information, did they share it with the justice department? >> mr. eggalston started the same day i did. our tenures are the same. >> he wrote the letter to dave camp saying they learned of it in april from the treasury's chief counsel. when he got that important information, did he get it to the folks running the criminal investigation? that's important. >> or do you think there's no duty for the white house when they got critical information, there's no duty, no obligation to share that with the justice department who is running a criminal investigation? you don't think they have to do that? they can sit on the information. >> the gentleman's time has expired. you may answer. >> may i answer the question? >> i'm happy to work with you and with your staff to try to get you information as we can. to answer your questions about my time -- >> that wasn't the question. the question was, do you think the white house counsel's office has a duty to share critical information about lost e-mails with the justice department when

you knew that two months ago? >> okay. i think the question is now understood. can you answer that question, please. >> and my answer -- >> could she not be interrupted. >> my answer would be that i'm here as a witness about the facts that i learned at the irs. to the extent you have questions about activity at the white house, i'm happy to work with you and see what we can ondo to get you answers. that's not what i'm prepared to talk about today. >> from the chair i need to advise when a question is asked and you're an attorney and he's asking if you have an opinion as to whether or not knowledge of a crime should be referred or the knowledge of something you think is a crime should be referred, it really is a yes or no or i do not feel -- >> i'm happy to answer that. i think knowledge of a crime should be referred to the fbi, yes. >> thank you very much. i thank you. the next is the patient

gentlelady from illinois, miss duckworth. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss o'connor, has it been determined that the crashed hard drive was a crime? >> not as far as i know. >> thank you. so when the white house -- let's go back. last night, commissioner koskinen testified that he found out about the crashed hard drive in april of this year. were you working at the white house at that time? >> i was not. >> when did you start at the white house? >> just about a month ago. >> about a month ago. middle of may? >> yes. >> so you would -- would you have any information in the prior to the middle of may or in would the white house have called you and told you they receive information or did not receive information from the irs before you started working there? >> nobody called me from the white house to tell me they had received information from the irs. >> so you would not have known. the current commissioner

testified that he only learned in april that the crash had happened and that in many that will process, they were still trying to recover some of the lost e-mails. in fact, they have managed to recover some of the e-mails that were lost because even though they were crashed and lost from the from account, miss lerner's account, they were actually found not to accounts of the 82 custodial accounts confident people that received the e-mails and they were sort of going lieu that process. it's by no means complete but they were going through the process. this happened in april. would you have had any knowledge of of that? >> i didn't have any knowledge of that in april. i do think that the measures that they described that they went through the sound exhaustive and appropriate. >> let's go back to the five months worked at the irs. my colleague indicated that there had been previous testimony, you were identified as the person in charge of the

employees whose job it was to produce the documents that had been requested by the various committees. did you write the evaluations for all of those employees? >> none of them directly reported to me. my rowe was as an advisor. i did my best to advise them and help them and work with them and work with the committees and essentially make sure that the team that was working day to day all day long you know to do this all night long, i mean they worked very, very long hours knew what the priorities were for which employees' material was going to be produced, what the search terms were supposed to be. many of the investigating committees including this one had specific requests, please get me the bolo spreadsheets or please get me the training materials or what not. i tried to facilitate that and help the team figure out how to prioritize what reviewerers were looking at what materials it could move quickly. so i played a role but i didn't write any performance evaluations because none of them directly reported to me. >> you played an advisory role

but had no direct responsibilities in terms of evaluation them, directing them how they should go about doing the data gathering. you simply advised them as they were going through the process and then your job was to report back to mr. werfel how on the progress of the effort. is that correct? >> i don't want to leave the impression i didn't work closely with them. i did. i was not their direct supervisor. >> thank you. mr. ferriero, i would like to get a little bit more -- i'm interested in the capstone process. i want to make sure we give that enough of a attention. one of the things that really astounded me last night was when i learned that only records that irs employees determine relevant would ob printed out and then those would be archived. but it was up to the individual employees to decide what would be and what would not be.

i'm looking at the national archives and record administration pull bulletin 2013-02, titled "guidance on a new approach to managing e-mail records," which talks about capstone and mr. chairman, i'd like to have this entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you. point eight it actually says talks about preaccession and policy that talks about how preaccessioning, if that were to be conducted, would mean that you would actually assume physical custody copy of all the records usually well before it is time to assume legal custody. can you describe that process and how that would interact with the individual employees or whether that takes them out of the picture? >> i will take that. >> i'm sorry, thank you. >> with the preaccessioning policy, we want to offer agencies the opportunity to transfer physical custody of e-mail records to us so that we can ensure their preservation at

the national archives so that they are not you know, in any kind of danger or anything in an agency. so this is a way to ensure adequate preservation of archival records 2 to 3% of records that agencies create that have permanent value that would come to the national archives, we'd bring them in through that policy and maintain them physically and then at the time of transfer,which may be in 15 or 20 or 30 years after that date of their creation, then they become available through the national archives access programs. >> so once you have it, then those irs employees, for example or whatever agency it is couldn't delete the copy that you have, correct? >> they would be entrusted to the national archives itself,in our physical custody,even though they would still be in the legal custody of the irs. >> that would be useful. >> my time's up mr. chairman. i yield back. >> i'd ask unanimous consent that the press release from the treasury inspector general for tax administration tigda dated november 21st, 2013, be placed in the record without objection,

so ordered. it's entitled "increased oversight is needed of the internal revenue services information technology hardware maintenance contract," and it goes into the tens of millions of dollars that were spent in 2012 fiscal year on maintenance that was neither needed nor was it performed. we now go to the gentleman from michigan, mr. wahlberg. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. ferriero, just just to review a bit in your testimony, you state that when agencies become aware of unauthorized destruction of federal records that they are required to report the incidents to the archives. at any time. 2011, through last monday, did the irs report any loss of records related to lois lerner?

>> no. >> is it fair to say that the irs broke the federal records act? >> they're required, any agency is required to notify us when they realize they have a problem that will could be destruction or disposal,unauthorized disposal. >> but they didn't do that. >> that's right. >> did they break the law? >> i'm not a lawyer. >> well, you adminster the federal records act. >> i do. >> if they didn't follow it. can we safely assume they broke the law? >> they did not follow the law. >> mr. walberg, i think you've got a witness who is smart enough to know that he knows he would have liked those records. he'd like to have gotten those records. he was entitled to those records but he'll let the lawyers argue out. >> let the lawyers argue out. general american public who wouldn't get away with that if they were before irs themselves

and said they didn't report a specific page or a specific document. i mean, that's the frustration. i hope those that are watching understand we're dealing with a law here that was broken. that was broken by an agency that has the power to tax which is also the power to destroy. mr. ferriero, in general, i guess could you briefly describe for us the print and file recordkeeping process and how it works? >> i would like to take that question for you. first of all, i need to apologize about intimating that the federal records act itself says print and file. >> so the federal records act is the archivist just said does not stipulate that you have to print and file but it is a practical activity that most agencies have adopted as part of their policy so as to ensure that federal records as defined in the federal records act are identified and put into official

recordkeeping systems within agencies. the connection to the federal records act is that it is based on an analog and paper model for managing records and as a practical matter, most agencies if not all agencies across the government have had print and phi policies where individual employees are required to identify what the federal records are and put them into the recordkeeping copy within their agency for retention according to records control schedules that the united states approves. what we're trying to do with the capstone policy and the activities with the directive on managing government records is to automate this process so that we can eliminate the human intervention and the likelihood or the possibility of humans making errors and us and agencies losing control of records. so print and file has a long history of human intervention whether it's printing it on paper and putting it into a file folder or clicking and dragging

electronic file into an electronic file folder. >> the irs has that policy? >> their official policy,as we understand it, is the print and file. >> in general, do you think it would be sufficient for the federal records act for employees to save e-mails that are federal records to a local folder on their computer's hard drive instead of printing those e-mails out? >> it's inconsistent with the guidance that the irs has given to their employees and their official guidance is to print and file e-mail records in this case to paper and put them in the official recordkeeping system. >> if an employee were to deliberately not comply with the fra by not printing out their e-mails, would they be subject to any sanctions under the fra? if so, what sanctions? >> i am also not a lawyer but it's not an enforcement statute. what we do with agencies when these sorts of issues arise is have them report to us what has

occurred in the instance where e-mails or other kinds of records have been alienated or destroyed and then what are their plans for reconstructing those records or putting plans in place to make sure this sort of activity does not happen again in the future. >> let me just complete account questioning here. if a federal employee's hard drive crashes with no warning and no backup of the e-mail exists, do you believe it's proper for an agency to assume that no records were lost? >> no. >> that's the question. 100 million billion dollar question that mr. chairman, we hope we ultimately can get an answer to. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair would now recognize the gentleman from nevada,

mr. horsford. >> thank you, mr chairman. last night, the actual chairman, chairman issa took an extreme action by issuing a unilateral subpoena to the white house. he demanded that miss o'connor show up here today within 24 hours and under threat of contempt. there was no vote on this subpoena. the committee did not debate it. members did not have the opportunity to weigh the gravity of what the chairman did in the committee's name. now, we find out how misguided that subpoena really was. miss o'connor, let me just confirm what we've heard here this morning. you were not at the irs when employees were using inappropriate search terms. is that correct? >> i was not at the irs during the period covered by the inspector general's report. >> you joined the irs after the inspector general issued his report. is that correct? >> yes, i joined on may 30th, 2013. >> and you left the irs in 2013 which was long before the irs made these recent discoveries this spring about miss lerner's e-mail. is that correct?

>> that's correct, yes. >> and you joined the white house less than a month ago? >> about a month ago. >> and according to a letter we received from the white house, that was after the treasury department informed the white house in april about potential problems with miss lerner's e-mail. is that right? >> right, i've seen that letter and it refers to in april, an april referral or inforing in -- informing in april, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. i quite honestly do not understand how chairman issa was able to be rush to issue this subpoena to force you, miss o'connor to be here today within 24-hour notice. your connection to this topic of today's hearing is at best a stretch.

and all of these questions could have been answered by simply picking up the telephone and asking. it's just a continuation of the same charade that unfortunately this chairman continues to use this committee to perpetuate. and what's further insulting about this is that the chairman promised to use the authority of this committee responsibly. let me read what the chairman said backing in 2011 and i quote, "i'm going to take the thoughts on why you on the seriously -- to be honest, i will ask other members of my committee am i doing the right thing? i will also undoubtedly talk to other members on your side and say am i nuts? am i wrong? is this somehow a subpoena that is outside the mainstream? so i don't intend on simply writing subpoenas endlessly. but that's exactly what chairman

issa has done. since he became chairman four years ago, he has issued more than 50 unilateral subpoenas. he has never once allowed a debate and he has never allowed a vote. not only do these actions contradict the promises that he made four years ago as the chairman, but they result in unwarranted and abusive subpoenas like the one he issued last night. now, many constituents do care about the issue of the wrongdoing that occurred at the irs. and there are members on the other side of the aisle who i have listened to to try to understand the concerns about the lack of accountability of those individuals who should be held responsible. but unfortunately, that is not what the chairman has allowed us onto focus on in any of the hearings that we've had dealing with this matter.

in fact, he's used this process to politicize the process and to not focus on the proper oversight or government reform function of the committee. but perhaps this should not be a surprise. because during an interview on august 19, 2010, before chairman issa became committee, he was asked what he planned to do with the ability to issue subpoenas and his response was, and i quote, "cabinet officers, assistant secretaries, directors, i will be able to take on everybody that the president hires and relies upon." well, he has certainly made good on that promise. i yield back my time. >> i thank the gentleman from nevada. the chair would now recognize the gentleman from the arizona, gozar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the ranking member brings up new legislation about electronic preservation. mr. ferriero, that's pretty much immaterial if you don't uphold the rule of law, right?

>> well, the hope is that you -- >> the hope is, but i mean if you don't uphold the rule of law, you can pass all the legislation you want to. it doesn't make a hill of beans about it, right? >> that's true. >> how about you, miss oh conner? would you agree with that statement? >> the importance of upholding the rule of law? >> yeah. >> it's very important. >> i want to read former supreme court justice brandeis made a comment. in a government of laws, the existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law. if government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law and invites every man to become a law unto himself and advance anarchy. following the rule of law is very important, would you agree? >> absolutely. >> mr. fierro, you found out about the potential loss of documentation by the irs or

through a letter to senators widen and hatch. >> through the letter in june. >> you are aware that federal regulations 36 cfr point 14 states the agencies must report promptly any unlawful or the accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody of that agency. true? >> true. >> that's what i thought. so once again, we've got a problem. last night i cited the articles of impeachment for president richard nixon, cited the inference about the irs. people are scared of the irs because the power to tax is the power to destroy, wouldn't you agree? >> i know that people are afraid of the irs, yes. >> yeah. missing documents kind of similar to missing tape minutes, wouldn't you agree, mr. ferriero? >> i'm not sure they equate. >> whoa, whoa, whoa. missing material, missing material, missing records, missing records. the same? agreed? >> missing material. >> yeah.

>> and then we haven't followed the rule of law. so everybody is scared to death there's one application to bureaucrats and there's another application to the regular lay people on street. you know, it defies me. miss o'connor, i mean you've been in the clinton white house. you used to help with the clinton administration with the teamster union strike. in fact, you've been quoted as being a veteran of washington battles. would you agree with that? >> i've been here a long time. >> so you know the process, right? >> i'm not sure which process you're referring to. >> the bureaucratic inside the beltway politics process, you know about these recordkeeping and aspect of that, as well? >> i'm not a recordkeeping expert. certainly i -- >> but you're an attorney. you have to know when there's a problem and you don't have record or there is a problem with records, you know to report it, right? >> i know that if you discover that records have been lost and they're not recoverable, it needs to be reported, yes. >> let's go back through this again.

the accidental removal, defacing, alteration, or destruction of records in the custody. so it's not just loss, it's potential problems with it. so in your tenure over at the irs, there was nos inferences, miss o'connor, that there was some sequencing problems or some problems with the e-mails out of miss lerner's office? none? >> nobody raised to me what i understand to be the issue that arose here which is an identification that some of the e-mails were -- >> there were some problems with the e-mail because even the commissioner said that there was known there was problems with that with her records. >> i don't recall knowing that there were problems. >> so no one reported to you that there was any problems? >> i don't recall anybody telling me that there were problems. >> could you consider the conduct of miss lerner normal? >> which conduct? >> the conduct in front of this committee and her conduct in front of you know, supplying a

question to the audience ceding a question to the audience. i mean, as an employee and somebody supervising records and looking, would you say the conduct of miss lerner is being normal? >> just to break it out, the question at the conference doesn't -- wouldn't be something i would advise. in terms of the laptop situation, my understanding from the material that's become public in the last week or so is that she took quite a number of efforts to have the laptop reconstructed. that seems to be appropriate. >> you could also look at it from the standpoint of america looking at it as covering up for a crime, too. >> i have no evidence that that's what -- >> from the inside out, it's pretty interesting that you could actually try to cover that up in regards to the way that you look like you're coming off on disclosure. let me ask you one last question. so the way she took the fifth, is that normal, miss o'connor? >> i don't have point of reference for that. >> you've seen plenty of taking the fifth, have you not? >> i have not.

>> you have not. okay. i yield back. >> thank you, gentleman, from arizona. the chair would onnow recognize the gentlelady from illinois, miss kelly. >> thank you, mr. chair. mr. ferriero, the national archives and records administration is required by law to ensure the investigation of all allegations of unauthorized disposal of federal records. is that correct? >> we don't actually do investigations but we are charged with ensuring that we follow up on any reports that we have and urge the agencying to conduct such an investigation. yes. >> so you just said you don't investigate the allegations yourself. you but you do instruct the entity to conduct on their own and report back. okay. during the bush administration from 2001 to 2008, the national archives reported that they opened 92 cases into whether agencies improperly disposed federal records. does that sound correct?

>> i believe it. >> it does. >> if you do the math, that was a little more than 11 years ago or almost one per month. is it fair to say that such allegations are relatively common? >> you have the data. >> yeah, the allegations are common. i would suggest that it's not unique to administrations but it's reflective of the challenges that all federal agencies have with this issue. >> okay. on june 17th, the national archives and record administration sent a letter to the irs chief in the office of records and information management indicating that the loss of some of miss lerner's e-mails may constitute an unauthorized disposal of federal records. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> do you think that records retention is a problem exclusive to the irs? >> no. >> a 2008 government accountability office investigation found evidence that several federal agencies including the department of homeland security and the

department of housing and urban development admitted at least one requirement of national archive regulations related to proper management of electronic records. it certainly appears that federal agencies across administrations have struggled with the records retention. what is the nra role in developing a long-term solution to this problem that will endure even after this administration is over? >> let me start with just describing the state as has been self-identified over the past five years, four years, we have been working with each of the agencies to develop a self-assessment of where they stand in terms of their control over especially electronic records and the data shows that a high percentage of the agencies self-report that they are at high risk. so that's why we have created the directive and are moving

ahead to create the solutions to those problems. >> and what can agencies do to mitigate this long-standing problem? what ideas? >> there are a number of idea most of which are captured within the managing government records directive as we've talked about earlier, agencies feed to identify ways to automate these processes to take the human intervention out of the activity because that is where the highest risk for error to occur or other things to occur that do not ensure good recordkeeping. so to the extent that we're able to have industry days and identify private sector developed doors and get their ideas about how this auto categorization and automation can take place with e-mail and other electronic records and identify what the minimum electronic records keeping are that the national archives needs to promulgate to the community and to federal agencies so they

can better manage this electronic content. so we're able to meet the deadlines within the directive. those are things we're working on. >> because it would seem as though our technologies continue to improve, the amount of information that agencies must manage and appropriately store increases. so how important is it for agencies to make improvements to information systems to ensure full compatibility with new technologies? >> it's very important. they need to think about this in several kind of sectors. one is the policy piece which the national archives is most responsible for and getting that piece organized so they're thinking more creatively and differently about how to manage records in automated sorts of ways with our support and thinking about the technology issues working with the vendor community and the private sector to understand how automation can be added and cost effective ways to make this happen. then identify ways that agencies can in a fiscally responsible kind of way add this technology

and implement these policy changes so that agencies are managing their records to meet their business needs, protect the rights and interests of the government. and then from the national archives perspective, make sure they're able to get the records in the national archives so he we can make them available to be future generations. >> there are a couple aspects of this directive that are very important. the directive calls for the identification of a senior agency official, not the records official but senior agency official who takes responsibilities for records management within that agency, raises the profile of records management in the agency. at the same time, we're working with the office of personnel management to create for the first time in our government the job family records manager. there's no such thing right now in the records management environment. so we have a variety of credentials that are in operation across the federal government. >> thank you. my time's up.

i yield back. >> thank the gentle lady from illinois. dr. desjarlais. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss o'connor, i just wanted to ask you a few questions. what was the reason you were hired in may of 2013 to join the irs? >> so mr. werfel called me the day after he started and said that he had undertaken this significant challenge and was trying to add a few extra people to help him a chief of staff, a risk officer and a counselor. and our project was to help him as needed in various ways to run the irs, which at that point was facing new leadership and had the problems that i know your committee knows about. >> your chief counsel lane wilkins testified before this committee that you were a key supervisor of the irs's document review and production process.

would you think mr. wilkins was correct? >> i don't quibble with what he said. as i was trying to explain earlier, i wasn't working on that full time. there was a large number of people working very hard full-time. i worked with them. >> at your time from may 2013 to november, did you coordinate the irs's response to congressional requests for documents? >> i worked with the staff of the committees to make sure i understood what they needed. i was certainly a part of the process of making sure what they were asking for was delivered to them. >> did you review e-mails related to irs targeting? >> so the review process involved an enormous number of people who were in sort of tiers. >> did you review e-mails? >> i wasn't in the, you know, set of employees who were doing the first level review or the second level review, that sort of thing. >> did you redact e-mails related to the irs targeting? >> i didn't do any redacting, no. >> none at all? >> no. >> did you determine the

schedule of making document production to the committee? >> the schedule is basically as quickly as we can. and so -- >> so you did that? >> -- it was determined by the calendar. >> so you did make the schedule? >> it was determined by the calendar basically. we looked at how quickly we could amass -- >> who decided when the irs would make a document production? who specifically? >> it really was the calendar. the effort was to do it as quickly as could be when there was enough to produce. >> did you interact with the treasure department while at the irs? >> yes. >> how? >> how? >> telephone call in person. >> what did you discuss with the treasury department. >> it was a variety of things. the irs is obviously part of the treasury departments. mr. werfel reported to secretary lew. there were a variety of different things at any meeting >> did you update them about the response to the congressional investigation targeting? >> i did provide updates when we were going to produce documents that we would be doing it and

things like how many documents were in it and that kind of thing. >> did you interact with the white house while at the irs? >> as i explained earlier i had the one interaction where i went with mr. werfel as he presented his 30-day report to the president. >> so just one time. >> i didn't have communications with the white house about my irs work when i was at the irs. >> who was your point of contact at the white house. >> for what? >> when you were interacting with them? you said you interacted once. >> i didn't have one. >> when you joined the irs, were you given training on preserving federal documents? or federal records? >> there was an enormous amount of training right in the on boarding. i think it did include records management. there's so much, it's hard to remember now. >> it included preserving e-mails? >> i think so. >> federal records. who provided the training for you? >> i think it was computer based. >> did you back up your e-mails or official records while at the

irs? >> i think that my computer, office, was being backed up. and when i left my records were all copied by the i.t. staff in the counsel's office. >> were you ever aware of an attempt not to preserve irs records by any irs employee while you were there? >> no, i'm not aware of that. >> do you know, did you store your e-mails on your hard drive? >> i don't know. >> do you know what the size of your e-mail box was? >> i don't know. >> that's fair enough. i have no further questions. >> thanks. >> thank you. i would just like to point out

that the speaker of this house today admonished all of us that we need to show respect to all the witnesses who come before us. in fact, he said we invite people to come and provide testimony and frankly, they should be treated with respect. and i believe respect includes asking a question and then allowing a witness to fully answer the question and not cutting them off. so i'm hopeful that as this hearing and other hearings move forward, we will continue to show respect as the speaker of the house has recommended to us. let me ask miss o'connor a question or two. chairman issa issued a report entitled "how politics led the irs to target conservative tax exempt applicants for their political beliefs." the report alleged that the president's political rhetoric, quote unquote, is what, quote, led the internal revenue services targeting of tax exempt applicants." miss o'connor, did you see any evidence that irs employees were

motivated by politics or political bias in screening applicants for tax exempt status? >> so as i said earlier, i joined the effort after it started at the end of may and i left mid stream. at the end of november. but and so i didn't see all the documents that were produced even while i was there. and more continued to be produced after i left. i didn't talk to witnesses. all that said, i didn't see any evidence of that, no. >> are you part of a government wide conspiracy to target president obama's political enemies? >> absolutely not. >> are you here voluntarily and not a hostile witness? >> i'm not his to. i did receive a subpoena. >> would you have come had you not received a subpoena last night? >> well, the initial response that we gave pointed out that i didn't have a lot of relevant information because i had only been at the irs for six months after miss lerner's material was collected and it was before the

discovery that she had e-mails that were not recoverable connected to a computer failure. i think the initial reaction was that there would be many better witnesses to assist the committee. >> now, mr. ferriero, for a long period of time, the irs did not back up their records. and in fact, it was incumbent on each of the employees to print a copy of any e-mail that they thought was relevant for historical perspective which is alarming in and of itself. it's also pretty alarming that they are still using windows xp which was first used in 2001, and microsoft does not even support that anymore. so i think for every american who pays taxes, there's a great sense of insecurity in not

knowing that any communication they have with the irs may, in fact, be lost. and if there is one agency that we want to have comprehensive backup, it would be the irs, is that correct? >> i agree, but i also can testify that this issue about outdated technology exists in many agencies across the government. >> so this is a problem we should be looking -- maybe this committee could undertake something that was constructive in nature and look at all of these agencies and whether or not there is sufficient backup of documentation. as i understand it, when mr. werfel came to the agency in may of 2013, he made a decision implemented irs wide that would require that there would be a daily backup of its e-mail servers. is that correct? >> i don't know that. >> so you don't know that.

do you know that, miss o'connor? >> he did. >> so now we can have confidence in knowing that at the end of every day there is a backup all e-mails that transpired during the day are backed up within the irs, is that correct? >> that was my understanding when i was there. >> all right. so my only question is, on one hand last night the commissioner said we have had all these cutbacks and we need more money to be spent to be able to have the kinds of servers necessary to retain all this information. mr. werfel did take steps to back up everything. are we at a point where everything is backed up or do we still need more technology and mr. fee air ferriero, maybe you can answer that. >> actually, what i'd like to -- the point i'd like to make about that is having a backup system inform place is not a record keeping system. and that's part of the discussion about what kinds of technologies do agencies need to have to have effective

electronic record keeping? >> the action that is have been described that the irs have taken meet the needs of being able to produce e-mails and other electronic records for inquiries for committees like this one. it does not deal with the electronic record keeping issue that is they deal with around this position and preservation and access for business needs with agencies necessarily. >> all right. mr. chairman, i know my time has expired, i just wanted to point out on behalf of our colleague that her point was that 501 c 3s an 4s are tax exempt. not that the donors' contributions necessarily are tax exempt, but that the 501c3s and c4s are tax exempt for purposes of collection of taxes. >> well, you know, i appreciate you pointing that out. i think the point and i received a text from the ways and means who thanked us for helping point

that out because it's one of their frustrations with that committee. the fact is that corporations in america, if they take in let's just say that they're providing a computer service, if they take in $1 million and spend $1 million doing support and they have nothing left over at the end, they also pay no toxs. >> that is correct. >> so a 501c4 who takes in $1 million from people who want it to do some service and pay spends it all, pay nos difference, the difference is a 501c 3, people may give a million dollars and avoid half a million dollars in personal taxes. so the difference in skrut nigh for a 501c3's activities, no not being political because political contributions are not tax deductible, the 501c4s follow the same rules as your pac. >> except that my pac has to disclose who makes donations to me. >> and i truly --

>> and a 501c4 does not. >> and i truly appreciate that. the fact is congress in its wisdom has not legislated that disclosure. we did not put it under the federal election commission, a place where lois lerner worked for many years. we did not empower that. so the president's ofa does not have to disclose. that's just simply the law as it is. i just wanted to make sure and i think miss loney was very surprised that people do not get a tax writeoffs for giving to 501c4s, therefore the term tax exempt doesn't have the meaning most people it does when they lump together charities, 501c3s and i think it is extremely important. the american heart association, the american cancer association cannot engage in 49% of its activities in favor of promoting candidates because it's a charity, and there is a huge difference, and it's a difference i think the ways and means is sensitive to because

legislating changes is serious busine business. 501c4s do not enjoy that just as your homeowner's association doesn't. >> except that 501c4s are supposed to be exclusively for social welfare purposes. >> i appreciate that but the court -- >> and they are not. >> -- standing is majority. i now recognize mr. cummings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i want to ask the chairman to admit into the record a letter dated june 23rd, 2014, from the white house, counsel to the president. this is a follow-up on what was just -- >> the letter from the white house will be placed in the record without objection. >> to explain what miss o'connor was saying with regard to a hostile witness. >> noncooperative witness. they refused to provide her. she has been informative. >> you admitted it. >> it's in the record. >> thank you. >> the gentleman from texas is

recognized. oh, would the gentleman yield me ten seconds? >> certainly. >> i just want to put it in perspective for mr. webster and if you agree you can answer on the gentleman's time. if we continue to collect data the way they're describing, what you're doing is effectively taking all the data at the end of six months and throwing it in a trash heap, and then the difference if you just collect a bunch of tapes is the equivalent of owning the yard that your trash is hauled to and saying it's all there. if i understand correctly, what you're trying to achieve is, in fact, to have the meaningful data retained so it's searchable and usable while recognizing that the vast majority of data is likely not to be of any value and certainly you would not want to search through it to find the important data that is effectively being thrown out today. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. farenthold. >> thank you. i want to follow up on some questions dr. desjarlais asked.

you mentioned and you said you had gone through extensive training with the irs on their document retention records policy and that you felt like your laptop was probably automatically backed up. but the actual document retention policy doesn't have to do with backup or saving files. it has to do with printing out things you believe fall under the records act. how many in your tenure at the irs -- do you have an idea how many things you printed out to keep for the archives? >> i have no volume, but just to get back to -- i just want to make sure it was clear what i said. i went through extensive computer-based training. i don't think that much of it was on records retention. all that said -- >> did you print out any to save? >> oh, absolutely. >> would it be more than one or two a day? >> i don't have a recollection, but what i explained is that what happened with my electronic material when i left is that the

i.t. people in the chief counsel's office collected that and copied it. they made a copy of it, and my paper records were all transferred so that they could continue to be used by my suck ceasor. >> so when you printed them out, was it just like a inbox type thing on your box? what did you do with them after you printed them out? >> i had files in my office. >> is it one big file or was it broken up under files based on subject matter or do you recall how that was done? >> it was in different categories. i can't really remember. >> i guess what i'm getting at is i'm trying to imagine the amount of work necessary to go in and recover say something from miss lern elerner and the are work that goes in when the documents get to the national archi archive. >> i don't have a good answer. >> let's talk about the records. assuming you got your cap stone

project, would you rather have more records or less records? >> i'd rather have the right records, and the identification -- the work that goes on between the records manager and the agency and my records management staff is the creation of schedules. >> but you don't always know what's going to be an important record at the time you get the e-mail. i mean, if there was an e-mail about what parking place somebody is going to get assigned, that probably isn't an important record until maybe, you know, god forbid an employee comes with a car bomb and parks in that parking place. all of a sudden it becomes relevant. so trusting an individual at the time it's happening to decide what's a federal record probably is not a very good way to do it. >> i agree and that's why the cap stone takes that part of the process completely out. it captures everything for the senior executives of the agency. >> so what's the cost of implementing it?

i mean, does it work just like something that plugs in to the network and captures an e-mail? that in a broad, general term? >> so in general when agencies look to deploy a capstone sort of solution to manage they're e-mail, they're usually doing it in the context of upgrading that are e-mail system. at the national archives we've transitioned e-mail systems and part of what we've done is rolled out this capstone technology implementation along with the policy -- >> so you've got it, it's off the shelf. if somebody wants it they can buy it for their agency. >> it's not quite that simple, but it's a product that has to be integrated by the i.t. shop. >> again, i used to work in i.t. i mean, is it as simple as plugging in a server and loading some software and making sure you have enough storage space on it? is there much more -- obviously configuration and stuff but i can't believe -- the irs commissioner testified $10

million to put in a solution like that last night. is that accurate number? >> i don't know if it's an accurate number or not. what i would say is that as agencies are moving to the cloud and as they're trying to identify solution that is can make capstone work, it's not a free activity. there are costs associated with doing integration -- >> but certainly saving it digitally is cheaper than printing it out when industry standards say each page you print out is between 8 and 10 cents. >> there are probably massive savings moving to electronic record keeping and it's easier to provide access l electronically. >> i see my time has expired. >> i thank the gentleman. we now go to the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay. >> i'm in shock, mr. chairman,

but thank you anyway. >> wait a second. miss norton, i apologize -- >> it's miss norton. >> they said clay but you have returned and i am thrilled to see the delegate from the district of columbia, miss norton. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i just thought you were looking through me. you know, we have been asking about backups here and, by the way, the last member, my friend from texas, was -- indicated, and i couldn't agree more, about electronic backup as opposed to paper. of course, it costs money, new hardware and to get those things in. so when you already have the old-fashioned stuff, you go with the more costly old-fashioned stuff and that's been the story of the irs and of many of our federal agencies because it takes money to do things like that. it takes money to save money. before i go any further, we've been talking about federal records of the kind that

congress would subpoena. those are not the records that the average american would be most concerned about. the federal records they'd be most concerned about, for example, are their own taxpayer documents. could i ask if there is backup for taxpayer documents when you file your income taxes, for example, mr. webster? >> i do not know the answer to that question. that would be most appropriately brought up with the irs. >> mr. ferriero? >> i agree that that's an irs question. >> if the gentle lady would yield? >> i would be pleased to yield. >> we earlier had an oversight of ibm's role of subcontracts. at that time i became aware that, yes, the electronic data for filing of taxpayer records which is the vast majority of filing today which is far greater and far more vast than the e-mails we're discussing

does have a system and a backup and it is a big part -- a significant part of the $1.8 billion spent on i.t. that's actually one of the interesting points of this is the small back end of the irs compared to their massive spending in that database. >> mr. chairman, could i ask you at the same time did we discover at that time whether this backup for the health care data that's coming into the irs since these witnesses apparently don't have that -- >> you know, my confidence is high that it does exist in that data trove, but that was -- came in after our investigation, but it is a significant part, hundreds of millions of dollars of the irs' new budget going forward is the maintenance of those transactions. >> i just -- as the chairman said, this is kind of the back end and it doesn't come up very often. it's very important. and let me say because there's been a lot of back and forth and contentious not testimony,

contention among members, so let me just say for the record whenever maybe lo-- anybody los e-mails, there's always going to be a suspicion. i just want to say that for the record. my concern was that nothing that lois lerner did contemporaneous e-mails, and the question is if you do lose -- if you do crash, could i ask both of you, if you crash, if you're in the old irs because that's where these people are now, what should you do when you know that you may be called before a committee of congress. what should you do when they tell you they couldn't retrieve your e-mails? what precautions should you take? >> so what we counsel agencies to do is to make sure that i.t., the legal counsel, and the records management and records officers are all working

together on the different aspects of the federal records act to make sure records are identified and preserved and policies are being followed. if there were a crash of a -- >> apparently there have been a great number of crashes. >> yes. so a crash in and of itself doesn't necessarily mean that reco federal records have been lost but it means there are issues that need to be addressed with the i.t. organization, with the records organization -- >> i'm now assuming the records have been lost. obviously that's catastrophic, and somebody is going to be accused as has occurred here because there's hardly any way to prove that negative. so i want to know what precautions can be taken. they tell you your records are lost. it's a crash. what should be done? because we may have this situation again, and now we know that suspicion will come up and

i don't regard the suspicions a unfounded. i just think that the suspicion needs to be shown, so i need to know what you should do since i don't see any way we can avoid this happening again until we get new software and new computers. >> so the first step is to notify the national archives that there's a problem so that we can start the process -- >> do you know whether this was done in this case? >> it was not done. >> so that's the first thing, to notify the national archives, even before you try to retrieve it, just say, look, i lost something and want you to know it. go ahead. >> and we would as we did in this case, write a letter to the records manager -- >> when did you find out in this case? >> we found out when you did, that letter to senators biden and hatch, and we submitted our letter three days later. >> so what's the point of notifying you, just for

credibility sake? >> no, we're demanding they investigate and report back to us in 30 days -- >> of course, they were already doing that. it must be for more than that. they weren't just sitting there. >> this is the first indication we had that there was a problem, so we snap into action when we're notified. >> but you were convinced they were already trying to do that? >> what was going on at the time, it was clear that activity was going on. what was not clear to me until that letter appeared was that there were e-mails that potentially were not able to be reprogduced and lost. that's the difference for us. there are a lot of activities that go on across the government every day to recover crashed hard drives or other kinds of i.t. issues but it becomes a serious concern of ours when it becomes increasingly clear that records may have been lost, and that's when we do get into action. >> yes, sir.

>> go ahead -- >> when it becomes clear. it either is clear or not clear. it can't be increasingly clear. someone has to look, and it may take some time. at the end of that search, then you can conclude it's lost or not lost. >> you can answer, if you would. >> actually i wanted to make a couple points related to this if it was okay. >> sure. >> when an individual in an agency should be working with their records officer to make sure their managing their records within the official record keeping system. i am not familiar with too many official record keeping systems that entail saving records on a hard drive to maintain them. you would do that for access purposes or reference purposes or things like that, but not as an official record keeping system. part of what we would counsel agencies to do is be in contact with your records office or be in contact with your i.t. staff,

be in contact with your counsel so when these issues happen you can figure out what needs to be done from a federal records perspecti perspective. going forward with a directive and having agency manage e-mails in automated ways by the end of 2016 and pursuing capstone and other policy ideas they have promulgated, we anticipate a day where we will be able to remove human intervention from this sort of activity and then be able to manage these records more effectively. >> thank you. we now go to the gentleman from north carolina for five minutes. i'd ask for just ten seconds if i may. mr. webster, would it be fair to say that when you should have been informed if lois lerner knew that there could be federal records on the lost drive, it would have been at the point that she discovered her drive was broken and/or at the point they were convinced they couldn't recover it, at that point would it have come to the national archives as now you get to try to recover them if there

are known fob federal records on them. that would have been the time frame. >> it would have been 3preferre for us to know about it when there was an issue that indicated e-mail was lost. >> and hundreds of other places lois lerner could have helped you look for and find the records that would existed in real time rather than years later. >> that's -- the reason i'm having difficulty answer that question, it's more of an operational issue within the irs as opposed to -- >> but prompt reporting to you makes a difference. >> yes, because the proper reporting to us allows the agency itself to be on notice to itself that they need to take action. >> mr. chairman, can i ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from north carolina -- >> without objection. so ordered. >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman from utah and i thank you, miss o'connor. it's good to have you back, good to see you again. in your testimony you talked

about when you got to the irs on may of 2013 that all of lois lerner's e-mails were in this area to be redacted and worked on. is that correct? that's what -- >> they were still in the processing part where they were being flattened and decrypted but they had been gathered already. >> so they had all been gathered. was there not anybody who looked and saw this huge hole between 2009 and 2011 and says, man, this is really strange that the e-mail activity during this period, a lot of it disappeared. was there anybody that look the at it like you would looks like like a counterfeit dollar and say, gosh, this is a cake. was there not anybody that raised that concern? >> so, it wasn't brought to my attention, and -- >> would you be mad about that since you were overseeing that? wouldn't you be mad if somebody saw that and didn't bring it to

your attention? >> if somebody had seen it i would have hoped it would have been brought to my attention. >> you think somebody didn't see it? >> i have no reason to think anybody saw it ant didn't tell me about it. >> mr. chairman, could i ask the witness please to speak into the microphone? miss o'connor? >> if you could speak into it. >> sorry about that. >> so who is responsible for making sure that all the documents and materials are complete to submit to this committee or any other committee? who is responsible to make sure that that body of work is complete? >> i think it's probably the head of whichever agency has been asked for -- >> so we just trust them to make sure that it's complete. so there's no really oversight within the irs to make sure that what we get is complete. >> i mean, within the irs we had a whole number of different layers of sort of quality checking to make sure that the

materials that were being reviewed were appropriately redacted and were then produced. >> all those layers, there was really nobody that was there saying, well, we've got everything we need? >> the thing that i think is challenging about the situation is that i believe that the people who collected all of miss lerner's material most likely believed they had it all because they got successfully what was on their hard drive. i think the missing piece was not knowing there had been a crash. >> when they were going back to 2009, they didn't see there was a whole big hole of where all of a sudden the e-mail volume picked up in june of 2011 when she got her new hard drive. they wouldn't have seen this unbelievable anomaly of additional e-mails. >> nobody brought it to my attention. >> here is the bombshell in all of this. every one of us have been counting on the report for a chronological of who knows what

when. over 65% of what they reported was solely based on e-mails. so if we have a whole lot of e-mails that are listing -- missing, wouldn't that suggest that the whole time frame is at best incomplete? >> so one of the things that i think is important in this is that my understanding is what the irs has done is provided all the e-mails -- >> but that's after the tigda report. during the tigda report, what they reported, because this is new since then, wouldn't you agree that at best it is incomplete? yes or no. you're a smart person, i have dealt with you before. yes or no, wouldn't you agree that it would be incomplete? >> i can't answer and i can tell you why. the reason why is because my understanding of the tigda report is it was based on interviews -- >> it was based on 30% interviews, 6 5% -- i have read

the tigda report. it's put me to sleep a number of times. in that if most of it is based on e-mails, wouldn't you same that if you didn't have all the e-mails that the tigda report might not be the full story? it's a real easy answer. >> if there were -- >> if there were -- >> -- any relevant e-mail that were missing then that might be true. >> now we know there were thousands of e-mail they never got to see from lois lerner and maybe several others. i'm n >> i'm not sure we know there are thousands. >> let me go on quickly to my good friend with the national archives and i say na in a sincere fashion. now that we found last night that not only is it lois lerner's hard drive but it's a number of other people at the irs, do they call you on a regular basis to say, listen, we may have this problem. have you gotten a number of

notifications from those higher officials? >> not to date. >> neither of you? >> no. >> so we have a federal law that is being ignored by the irs. i'll yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from missouri, mr. clay, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and let me provide is recent history lesson to my colleagues. during the administration of president bush, government officials lost millions of e-mails, including significant numbers of white house e-mails in the midst of congressional and criminal investigations. in one instance the bush administration lost nearly 5 million e-mails. at the time a white house spokesman stated, quote, we screwed up and we're trying to

fix it. mr. ferriero, your predecessor, alan weinstein, write to the white house counsel and said this, it is essential that the white house move with the utmost dispatch both in assessing any problems that may exist with preserving e-mail and in taking whatever action may be necessary to restore any missing e-mail. those bush era documents were also pertinent to criminal and congressional investigation. in '06, special prosecutor patrick fitzgerald hit a road block when e-mails relating to the valerie plame leak investigation went missing. fitzgerald explained, and i quote, not all e-mail of the office of the vice president and the executive office of the president for certain time periods in '03 was preserved through the normal archiving

process on the white house computer system. in '09, the department of justice investigated a so-called torture memo, but one key bush administration official's relevant e-mails had been, quote, deleted and reportedly were not recoverecoverable. i understand you were not the archivist in the previous administration but i assume you agree that the irs is not the only agency to have lost e-mails related to congressional investigation, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> i assume you also agree that the federal has had significant and long-standing challenges with records retention, especially that of e-mails. >> from the very beginning of the government. >> from the very beginning. >> and using paper.

this is not just an e-mail problem. this is a records management problem. >> according to the general counsel of the archive at the time, the archivist's request to the bush white house went largely inanothered. how a few years changes things. you know, the general counsel reported that national archives knew "virtually nothing about the status of the alleged missing white house e-mails." can you discuss some of the policy changes president obama has made to improve records retention throughout the federal government? >> as i described earlier, he's issued a memorandum on records management, the first time since the truman administration that the white house go involved, recognized an issue around records management and authorized the creation of a directive by the office of management and budget and myself that went to all the agencies

outlining what we need to do to get our act together as well as a set of promises about how the archives are going to support that work involving industry partners in creating new tools. creating more visibility, credibility within all of the agencies around records management. professionalizing records management across the government. doing a better job of training every member of the federal government in terms of their records responsibilities. there's been a huge focus on records management. >> so you have seen a change in how i.t. managers at the different agencies archive. >> there's been a great deal of interest, support, and collaboration for the first time that i can see between the records management community and the cio community in the federal government. >> and do you believe that

president obama has made retention of these records a priority of his administration? >> the administration certainly understands the problem and has authorized the direction for us to implement new ways of solving this problem. >> thank you. >> would my friend yield for a question? >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i would ask the chair for a little leeway given the fact that the chair of the full committee has many times been granted -- >> i have been patient -- >> -- time throughout this hearing. >> -- all morning. >> i simply have a question for my colleague if the chair would allow it. >> proceed. >> i thank the chair. is it not true, you brought up the bush administration experience. is it not true that many of the 5 million e-mails that were lost that you described were, in fact, deleted. it wasn't because of crashed computers. they were actually deleted? >> sure, intentionally deleted in order to hide whatever it is they didn't want the public to

see. >> i thank my friend. >> out of the vice president's office of all places. >> i thank my friend. i think the chair for its courtesy. >> gentleman's time is expired. i would recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. meehan, for five minutes. >> i remind my dleticolleagues, fitzgerald was a colleague of mine. there were people who were investigated and convicted as a result of that matter. we have gone a long way in this without even getting close to that particular issue. miss o'connor, i have great respect for your history as an attorney and you yourself have identified that you manage complex litigation matters before you came here, so i'm asking for some of your insight even though this may have been prior to your actual involvement, but in june -- early in june 2011, in fact, june 3rd, chairman -- ways and

means chairman dave camp sent a letter to the commissioner in which he identified alleged discriminatory practices on the part of the irs, very specifical specifically. from your perspective when somebody alleges discrimination, do you think that there's ever a chance that that matter gets to litigation? >> allegations of discrimination do sometimes get to litigation, yes. >> yeah. so they do sometimes get to litigation. >> mr. chairman, could i please -- could i please -- >> around -- >> ask the witness to speak into the microphone. >> i'm very sorry, sir. >> around 2011, in fact, very similar to the same time, there were a series -- there had only been 2,000 pages of responsive materials when niece originthes

asks had come in, but hundreds of those 2,000 page that is came from the irs were materials and e-mails that were purportedly showing that the efforts were being directed not just to conservative organizations but at liberal organizations as well. so we have in my mind a very responsive body on the part parsing the materials that are being returned in response to a ways and means subpoena. so knowing that there are discriminatory allegations and knowing that the irs and those who are advising the irs in the very limited return are using great degrees of discretion in the form of the materials they are returning. how do you comport with the responsibility under the law of what is e-mails which may be subject to electronic discovery?

this is not ambiguous. certain electronic records may need to be identified and preserved when litigation is anticipated. why was there not an evident undertaken on the part of people to preserve those records as far back as 2011? >> which records in particular? >> the records of lois lerner, and she was advised in january of 2011 very specifically that her communications were potentially the subject of discriminatory practices, and by your own admission, there is a recognition that those e-mails may be subject to litigation. by the requirements in preparation for litigation as an attorney, i used to receive those. you are required to maintain those. why weren't those e-mails

retained in 2011 when she had notice that she was potentially subject to discriminatory practices? >> i don't know. i wasn't at the agency then. >> well, i do have a question about that, and that's one of the problems because it appears that that also happens to be just the same time frame, just the same time frame within weeks in june 2011 that seven people from irs had their computers crash. pardon me for being suspicious about the timing. now, in terms of response, and response to e-mails that have actually been sent to us here -- well, i'm sorry. my time is expired. i had one more follow-up question but i'm 23409 going to be -- >> you still have 15 seconds.

go ahead. >> yeah, i need a document. wait a second. i have it right here. the question is responding to all e-mails. there have been numerous requests from this committee and others for all of lois lerner's e-mails, and yet in a letter that just came only probably a week or two ago, we have the irs telling us that fulfilling the request would require that you go beyond the search terms that were originally loaded for review. so let me ask, why are there search terms for e-mails when every e-mail is being requested? and this is only weeks ago that we're finding this response.

what is ambiguous about every e lerne r lernee e-mail. >> i believe many of the pieces of correspondence that accompanied the documents that were produced referred to the fact that they were produced according to the terms that we had talked with your staff and other staffs about, the committee staff. i mean, there are four different committees doing investigations. we met with all four staffs, asked them to provide search terms. the staff of this committee provided -- >> but you're saying it's their responsibility. what's ambiguous -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. you may complete your answer. >> the reason that in any large document production search terms are applied is that it enables the people who are seeking the material to get what they want faster. that's the reason for the use of search terms. >> the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, is now recognized

for five minutes. >> i thank the chair. mr.f er -- ferriero, there are 90,000 employees in the irs, is this corrected? >> to the bust of est of my kno. >> how many of them have computers? >> i don't know. >> i don't know either. >> we had testimony last night from the commissioner, so far this year, and it's only june, 3,000 irs computers have already crashed. were you aware of that fact? >> from the testimony last night, yes. >> so that's a pretty high percentage. let's assume we have -- let's assume therefore if we stay on that projectory we will have 12,000 computers crash on the irs alone if you double the number -- excuse me, six

thousand. that's a pretty high percentage every year if you assume 90,000 computers, the maximum number, that's a lot. my friend from massachusetts sees some conspiracy. it's just coincidental that right after lois lerer in's computer crashes seven people in cincinnati go rogue on us and create bolos that seem to be nefarious but the fact of the matter is there's no evidence that because of one thing happening in cincinnati it is related. i mean, that's a logical fallacy that is taught in law schools and in logic courses. the two are not necessarily related. in fact, there's no evidence the two are related unless one wants to treat lois lerner's computer crashing as a unique event in the irs which is indisputably not true. would you agree with that? >> i agree with that. >> and this isn't unique to the

irs, is it? i mean, we're dealing with an aging set of i.t. investments in the federal government because we don't keep up with investment. the chairman and i -- chairman issa have introduced a bill otherwise known as issa/connolly which thank god is being marked up in the senate. passed the house three times unanimously, and it is designed to try to upgrade our investments. we spent $82 million a year on i.t. investments. $20 million at least is inefficiently used for just maintenance of legacy systems. and that's got to be of enormous concern and if congress wants to do something about it, wouldn't it be a wise thing to try to make some prudent and targeted investments to we're not dealing with this kind of issue? >> it sure would and you'd have a lot of friends in both the cio

and records management community if this gets passed. >> right. i heard you say earlier ha the federal records act requires print and save. >> and i misspoke. that language is actually not in the law but that's the guidance that many agencies are following. >> so based on that law, some guidance was issued that says at least for now print and save. i assume the reason for that guidance is because with antiquated systems we don't want to take the risk of backup that could crash. >> well, actually, the guidance game before -- >> why not use the cloud. our legislation would consolidate data centers

throughout the federal family. why not move to the cloud? do you have security concerns with respect to the cloud such that we shouldn't do that as an alternative to paper backup? >> we are using the cloud in the national archives. we're using a federal cloud. >> because we heard last night that there was concern about security and i understand that concern but one could make the argument, especially after the lois lerner computer crash that actually security might be better in the cloud in the private sector management cloud than, frankly relying on these old, cranky, obsolete, hard to maintain systems in the federal government. mr. wester? >> i would say that the 6103 issue that is were brought up last night are very serious concerns and we have them as well for irs records that we work with the irs to maintain and provide access to, but your point is well taken that -- and it's one of the items within the directive to move the federal government to the cloud and ensure that as the agencies move

to the cloud that an effective records management policies and practices are implemented. >> i just want to say, mr. chairman, in closing, i understand some who want to pursue a conspiracy theory and try to use an isolated -- well, not such an isolated event, the crash of a computer at irs and ascribe to it all kinds of nefarious reasons. i prefer to say from an i.t. perspective unfortunately this is par for the course. this is what happens when we allow the degradation of our i.t. investments throughout the federal government and i don't know how we can be surprised, and the fact there were 3,000 computer crashes already this year in one agency, the irs, i think makes the point that sadly what happened to lois lerner's computer is hardly unique. i thank the chair. >> thank the gentleman. recognize the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy, for

five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. archivist, thank you for coming to south carolina. you are and remain a big hit with everyone who had a chance to hear you. i have had a number of people ask that you come back to south carolina and that i not come back to south carolina. so with respect to the retention of documents, can you give us not as an expert, just 35,000-foot level, why is it important that we as a republic retain documents? >> so the american people can -- so that the american people can hold their government accountable, so that they can see for themselves how decisions were made so that they can learn themselves from the original documents about our history. >> right. it strikes me there's a historical component. there's a constitutional x component, so you can have checks on the separation of powers and there's also a legal component and you were gracious enough to brag about not being a lawyer earlier. we have an expert lawyers

sitting beside you, so i am going to ask miss o'connor what spoliation of evidence is. >> so i encountered that once in a case, and what happened was that after the case had begun, somebody who worked for one of the parties without realizing the material was supposed to have been kept destroyed it, burned it is what happened, and then it wasn't available for the trial -- >> and from an evidentiary standpoint what happens? there's a presumption that whatever you destroyed or altered would not have been good for you, right? >> so the judge had to go through an effort of evaluating whether or not there should be a negative inference from that. >> well, the jury can decide that. the judge decides whether or not to charge that, but the jury ultimately determines whether or not to draw that inference, and it's important for us to note that the reason we have that spoliation of evidence in the law is so that people don't destroy evidence that would not be favorable to them.

i mean, it's commonsensical. if you can get away with destroying evidence that's not favorable to you, everyone would do it, so we have to have a presumption built in, and with respect to my colleague, the former united states attorney from pennsylvania, you talked about search terms. i got to be candid with you. i don't know what search term you would use if you're looking for an e-mail where lois lerner respond responds, yoo-hoo. >> i'm pretty sure democrat and republican were on the list. >> but what if democrat and republican weren't in the e-mail. what if they use the name and her response was yoo-hoo. >> most of the terms came from the majority staff and it included many politicians. >> but what's wrong with the search terms being to and from? >> that would get you

everything. >> right. that's my point. >> defeat the purpose of reducing -- >> but why reduce it? if you want access to all of the information, if you want access to all of the truth, why are you reducing the search terms? why not just to lois lerner and from lois learner? >> right. as i explained earlier, i can't remember if you were here, at the beginning of the project we met with the staffs of the four committees -- >> right and it's important to note that was your request to meet with them because you thought the original request was too voluminous, and my response is when any administration, republican, democrat, whig, bull moose, don't care, but when you come to a committee of congress and you try to negotiate a reduction in the search terms because of time constraints or resources and this happens, let me tell you the next subpoena you're going to get is going to be simply to and from and you can save yourself a trip to come over and try to negotiate the terms. it was done to make life easier for you, not for congress,

agreed? >> honestly, honestly, it was done order to get you the material you wanted faster. >> well it didn't wind up happening. shame us on if we let it happen again. what negative inference would you draw from the failure to retain the documents in this particular case? >> you're talking about miss lerner's hard drive kra shacras? >> whether it's intentional or just negligent, you have someone who said maybe the fec will save the day. you had someone who said we need a project but we have to make sure it's not per se political and then the e-mails disappear. what negative inference if you were one of our fellow citizens watching this. you know initially there was a denial of targeting. you know that she picked a very obscure aba conference to disclose that targeting had taken place. you know that initially it was blamed on two rogue agents. information, jay carney perpetuated that myth.

you nolo wiss learner took the fifth amendment. you know the president of the united states said there's not a smidgen of corruption and now you're told the evidence doesn't exist. e-mails don't exist. if you were just a regular citizen sitting at home watching this and you've got that litany of failed defenses, those false exculpatory statements and now you're told that evidence doesn't exist, what negative inference would you draw? >> one of the things that i found instructive in the material that became public in the last week was that miss lerner had sent her hard drive to the criminal jeth guy tiff unit for them to attempt to recover it. the inference is if she wanted intentionally to destroy the material she would not have sent -- >> did she ever use her personal computer? >> i don't know. >> she did. >> the gentleman's time is expired. now recognize the gentleman, mr. welch. >> thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. a couple things.

first of all, i want to thank you all for being here, subpoena or not. appreciate the work that you do. second, i want to say a couple things. one is i am a strong supporter of congressional oversight, and i do believe that when congress requests information, it should be provided, but i have some significant concerns about the way we've proceeded on this hearing. when you go back to the basics here, there is a very serious question about what happened to the e-mails and we're investigating that. the ig has investigated that, but there's also a very serious question about the abuse of the 501c4 status, and that in my view is a worthy topic of investigation. no group should be targeted because of their political affiliation whether they're conservative or liberal. i totally agree with that.

but no one should be allowed to abuse the 501c4 status. that's worthy in my view of investigation. it's not a tax exemption as mr. issa mentioned, but it's a way of funneling money under the cover of doing social welfare work, which is really about political advocacy. and political advocacy is fine, but do it in the daylight, not in the dark. and don't undercut the merits in the elelegitimacy by turning th into political operations. and, frankly, i'd like to see our committee giving equal weight to that investigation. this dark money that's going into politics in my view is really pernicious for democracy, and it's terrible if we have any agency of government that's not providing requested information. there's always a fair question if there's been a computer crash, how did that happen, was it intentional.

but there's also this fundamental question about the money and politics and the use of the 501c4 organizations by liberal or conservative groups basically to hide the money that's going into political advocacy. the second thing, mr. chairman, is that, yes, we have to examine these questions, but i do not think that jumping to conclusions and assuming the worst possible interpretation is a way to, a, give respect to folks who dedicate their lives to public service, whether it's in the irs or any other agency, and, b, anyway to educate the american people about what the problems may be in an organization because the whole point of accuse first and examine facts second is to attack the very legitimacy of the organization that's been investigated. and i'd point out that when you

lose information, it does raise a question, but i know mr. issa, our chairman, during the bush administration had to explain that often times that can happen with computers. was it innocent? was it deliberate? we don't know. and one suggestion talking to mr. lynch who may discuss this, why not have the ag take a look at this? why not have the ig do it? we have a partisan situation going on that's getting in the way to what is a shared goal of getting to -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i will yield. >> this won't surprise you. the way this investigation started is i went to the ig, tigda, because they had the ability to look at 6103 and we were interested and they began that investigation. one of the problems is thei g was never given that drive nor were any entities independent and outside the irs which is one of the reasons that as an i.t. background guy i have never seen

a disk drive that has zero left on it. >> may i -- i'll reclaim my time. thank you, and i thought that was a good move on your part. i think we're getting a little off the rails now because i think if we got thei ig to look into this question, there's a motivation issue that both sides without the facts can come to their own conclusions and usually we all come to conclusion that is suit our political bias. i think it just creates a swamp. you know, this function that we have in this committee, mr. issa, as you know, and i appreciate your aggression, but there's got to be in my view a balance where, yes, we investigate real hard, but it doesn't so overwhelm that this fundamental question about the 501c4 abuse in my view suddenly is not an issue. i mean, i was one of the people who was concerned and wrote a letter to the irs saying, what's going on? do your job.

investigate. and, you know, there's no free ride around here. if you're a taxpayer and you're not paying your taxes, i think the irs should investigate you. i think if you're a 501c4 organization and you're essentially a cover for a liberal or conservative political ideology and you're not doing social welfare work you should lose your 501c4 investigation. and thank you, mr. issa, for doing that with thei g initially and i'd like to see us get back on track here and maybe they can help us out with the specific question we're dealing with now and i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i'll now recognize myself for five minutes. miss o'connor, the ig, the inspector general, issued their report on may 14th, 2013. you were then appointed i believe on may 30th of 2013. what did you do? what's the first thing you do when you walk into this new role? >> i got a badge. i had some training. i think the 6103 training --

>> but how did you organize? who did you bring into the room and say i need to move forward? >> well, it wasn't like that. it really was the first and most important thing was the 6103 training because -- >> so after you got trained, then what did you do? >> and then i believe i met with mr. werfel to see kind of what was on the plate and what the marching -- >> after that, yeah? >> i can't remember the sort of play-by-play honestly. >> who did you gather around you to get your job done? >> i didn't gather anybody around me to get my job done. >> there was nobody -- you just did it all by yourself? >> no. i mean, my job, as i explained earlier, was to advise the commissioner on a variety of things. one of the things that i did was to work with the -- a team that was fairly small at that time but got very large later. >> who was on that team? >> it's a whole number of irs people and it changed. >> go ahead and start with

somebody. i'd like a list please. >> i think the best way to get you accurate information would be to ask the irs. >> i'm asking you. you were the irs at that point. you were the person in the room they were reporting to, so you come with great title. tell me who you were interacting with. >> the team had some 6103 experts on it. it had some tax litigators on it. >> who? who? name a person. i want actual names. >> honestly, i would like to be able to have accurate and complete testimony and it's going to be hard for me to recreate it. >> can you name even one person that you interacted with? >> well, i certainly interacted with mr. werfel quite a lot. >> okay. mr. werfel. who else? >> mr. wilkins was the chief counsel and i interacted with him. >> we assumed that. those are the people you reported to. i want to talk about who reported to you. name some people that reported to you.

>> why are you being so elusive? who interacted with you? you haven't named a single person. >> i named deputy chief -- >> you named three people that you report to. i want to hear people that you ask questions to that ran and got the information and came back and gave you information. name one person in that category. >> people who i asked questions of who ran and got me the information. i don't even think i can characterize anybody that way. >> do you ever ask anybody in the irs to provide you information?

>> sure, yes. >> give me one example. >> in the tax exempt organization, the person who replaced miss lerner whose name is ken corbin is somebody i would call to ask for information about how the unit was working and -- >> okay. there's one. >> -- questions -- >> how many people do you think you asked information of? >> probably a lot of people. >> can you name more than one? >> i have named a couple now. >> why are you being so elusive? >> i'm not being elusive. i haven't been there for -- >> how long would it take you to get that information and provide that information to me? >> the irs can provide that information to you. >> why can't you provide that information? >> because i'm not there anymore and i don't have any records from when i was there. >> mr. chairman -- >> yes. >> you know, i think you may be unfair to the witness. the fact is that last night the commissioner could not remember 60 days ago who told him about the importance of losing those documents. last night he could not narrow

60 -- less than 60 days ago within 30 days when he was told. i think that, in fact, the ability to remember at the irs is simply limited. >> do you know thomas cane? >> i do. >> who is that? >> i think his title was associate deputy chief counsel. >> and you did interact with him? >> i did. >> i think my time is ex tipire here and in deference to what this committee does, i can't believe that you're not more candid with us and just telling us who you interacted with. a simple, easy question. it's hard to believe to took five minutes to try to extract out a dude named ben and one other person. i yield back. i will now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think sometimes the search for

conspiracy is interfering with the meaningful oversight that we should be doing. i think sometimes my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are just -- are reaching for the most grandiose conspiracy theory and forgetting that we do have some evidence of wrongdoing here that we should be going after. and i want to try to refocus on that. in spite of all the conspiracy allegations, there is some evidence here before us, and i have been hearing from some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle that there's no evidence of wrongdoing and, look, i'm not here to make excuses for the irs. i'm not here to protect the irs or to down play what they've done here, but let me try to refocus here. there was serious wrongdoing on the part of the irs here.

there's evidence that they used improper search terms. they used, quote, unquote, tea party search terms, patriot search terms. if you had a complaint in your file about government spending or taxation or if your case file in applying for 501c4 status included statements that criticized how the government was run, the irs targeted you. the irs also asked inappropriate -- asked for inappropriate information. they asked for the names of donors. they asked for the list of issues that the applicant cared about and what their positions were on those issues. they asked whether the applicant or officer intended to run for office. they asked the political affiliation of the applicant for the 501c4. now, miss o'connor, are you

aware -- i know you weren't at the irs when this analysis was going on but you went there later and i think you might have been on some interviews with some witnesses we had from the irs, are you aware of an irs bolo, be on the lookout listing for groups with progressive in their name? >> yes. >> okay. are you aware of evidence that the irs employees treated progressive organizations in a similar manner as conservative groups? >> certain, yes. >> okay. i ask unanimous consent, we actually have a report here of the irs entitled "inappropriate criteria were used to identify tax exempt applicant for review." we also have a letter here from commissioner -- acting commissioner werfel that indicates the progressive group that is were also targeted. ask unanimous consent that they be entered into the record. >> without objection, so ordered. i would ask unanimous consent to enter the report from the staff

debunking the myth that the irs targeted progressives. >> my information is more accurate. >> i would stand behind the accuracy of this report as well. i'm saying wre're going to ente this and you can enter yours. >> let them fight it out. thank you. the irs subsequently released information that the irs targeted emerge america, a.c.o.r.n., affiliated group. i'm not saying this to mitigate the wrongdoing or the misconduct of the irs. this makes it worse. it makes it worse that the irs was actually violating the constitutional rights of progressive groups and conservative groups. this is wrongdoing. it doesn't help the conspiracy theorists, but it certainly indicates wrongdoing -- serious misconduct on the part of the irs. a very, very -- probably our

nation's most powerful agency. it's got information on health care, finances, knows everything about you. so they're violating the free speech ever our citizens, violating the freedom of association, violating the freedom to petition the government of our citizens, and violating, i think, constitutional right against search and seizure because of the way they're conducting themselves, and this isn't just evidence. the irs has stipulated this in their report. they said, yeah, we did this. so we have some serious wrongdoing, and now in the pursuing the evidence of that wrongdoing, we have 27 months of e-mails disappear, and i'm asking you, how do we restore the trust in this? how do we pursue this in a way that -- look, i'm not going after president obama here, but i am going against the irs because of their misconduct, and that's the thing we're overlooking here. in going for that grand

conspiracy theory, you're overlooking the stipulated fact that the irs conducted misconduct here and i think we're missing what we should truly be going after. can you suggest what we should be doing? any of the witnesses here in terms of getting to the bottom of this? getting to the irs misconduct? >> witnesses, if someone wants to respond, great. if not, we'll move to our next -- >> okay. that's great. thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. >> thank you. i appreciate mr. lynch's statements that this was wrongdoing and misconduct. the issue we have that we're all struggling with, which is how mr. lynch ended his question, is what do you do to pursue that wrongdoing and misconduct? we're still sitting here without a complete understanding of the basics of an investigation which are who, what, when, where. everybody knows the four "w"s, who, what, when, where, and we know the miss