about reports that they have been targeting tea party and other conservative groups and i would like to play the video of his response. could we have the video? [video clip] this was march 22, 2012. was the commissioner's response to a full? incorrect?

thatat happened here is somebody saw tea party patriots come through and they knowledge they would be engaged in politics. this is the timeframe in 2010 when citizens united was out. there was a lot of discussion 4's.t the use of c- someone says let's centralize these cases. not turning people in that sense. we are making sure we bring them in -- >> you said incorrect but not untruthful. was he not informed of this process? was.do not think he >> you said there were letters dating back to 2011.

clearly, there was congressional interest in this issue, press reports. you are saying he was not ?nformed of this >> let's divide the world in a couple of pieces. used is the list that was and the processing of the case since. .- of the cases i ask for us to go in and take a look because i thought there were problems in processing of the cases. there were problems with the processing and the listing. completere given a briefing. this briefing was made 3 of 2012. is that correct? will we characterize your question. i was informed of what we were

notified of. i was told there was the use of the list. the list seems obnoxious to us as it does to you. .e were going to take actions that was in may. only one side of the .olitical spectrum singled out >> people looked at the groups so that those can technical fix them up and some go through substantive questions. it is our obligation under law to do so.

>> we have received letters discrepant process. we are trying to get to the heart of this matter. in may of 2012 you were told that applications were being targeted if they contain terms of test tea party, patriots, and we the people. -- you sent letters to congress and knowledge of our investigations of these allegations, but consistently omit the such discriminatory .ractices were taking place why do mislead congress and the american people on this? >> i did not mislead congress and the american people. i answered the questions as they asked.t -- as they were gentleman's time has

expired. >> you are the inspector general of the treasury. generalthe inspector exclusively focused on the irs. >> you were appointed by president bush, is that correct correct? that >> you are not aware of targeting of not-for-profit organizations it? your findings are that no .utside groups were involved >> that is correct. >> who was the last presidentially appointed er?mission and it chulman.as s

>> he was present when these .ctivities were committed is the correct? >> yes. >> the last political appointee everson, is at ?orrectable

he was also appointed by president george w. bush. it is believed that groups like the naacp, progressive churches and environmental groups were targeted by the irs. mr. miller, while you were appointed acting commissioner at the irs, you are a career civil servant. is that not the case? >> yes. >> you are not a political appointee. >> i am not. >> what i'm trying to basically the blanc is the notion or idea -- tryin gto debunk are the nonfactual statements by chair camp to link these candles to the white house or solely targeting of conservative groups -- link these scandals to white house. i asked the questions of ms. lerner last week as to whether or not the irs was investigating

political not for profit organizations. she got involved after she was asked a question at a press event and that is simply understandable. important, think is at least at this point in time, i would hope is in a bipartisan context because we want to find the facts. we want to find out who knew what and when and what steps were or were not taken. i was just as outraged when i was learned when she was asked the question why she did not tell congress. i asked her and she did not answer. we are outraged. i did not believe any political organization should be targeted because of their thoughts. that's on both sides of the spectrum. i would dare say during the prior administration by mr. shulman and mr. everson that there was targeting a political entities as well.

it has to end on both sides. the president has been very forthright and very strongly condemning that type of action. the entire administration has as has mr. lew. let's get the answers. ask the questions, get the facts, and then we will draw our own conclusions. i yield back the balance. >> mr. green. >> thank you for getting to the truth in this scandal. let's look at one of the tea party groups in my community. the founder, a small businesswoman, applied for tax exempt status in july 2010. in february, 2012 she received a letter with numerous follow- up questions that were intrusive but she answered every one of them and return them well within the two week time frame. three years to the day that she first filed, her application is still pending.

let's look at what happened to her in the three years since she replied. shenning in december 2010, was visited by the fbi domestic terrorism unit. her personal and business returns were both are edited by the irs -- both audited. she received four inquiries and business received unsolicited audits, and questioned audits by osha and the atf twice. this is a citizen and a small business woman who had never been audited by the irs or any of these agencies until she applied to you for tax-exempt status. here's a broader question -- is this still america? is this government so drunk on power that it would turn its full force, its full might to

harass, intimidate, threaten an average american who only wants her voice and their voices heard? mr. miller, who in the irs is responsible for targeting conservative organizations? >> i cannot speak to a given case. we talked about 6103. >> this is not just one case. you know we are talking about the whole list the inspector general put up there. who was responsible for targeting these groups? >> again, i take exception to the context of targeting because it is a loaded term.

the listing was done -- >> this is not a listing. you created a beyond the lookout list. it is not a centralized or mandated listing. you had a "be on the lookout" list and the inspector general already verified. who was responsible for targeting these conservative organizations? >> again. if you read the report, it answers your questions. >> there are no names in the inspector general's report. so i'm asking you not only of the acting commissioner bud the deputy commissioner of this organization who is responsible for targeting these individuals? >> i do not have names for you. i'm willing to try to find thatt outfindigta = = finding out. tigta is looking into it. ." >> you have no knowledge of who is behind this? >> ipad knowledge what tigta has put out as a fact. ofcan you of knowledge none

this shared or given to many other federal agency? >> that would be a violation of law and i do not believe it happened. >> you can assure us there was no sharing of this information? >> tigta will look into it, but i would be shocked. aref your earlier answers any indication, we will all be reading about it in the media. we are to be getting the truth from you. >> mr. rangel is recognized. x. we are all out raged by what has occurred under the bush as well as obama appointees. obamare were no appointees. i apologize. i'm not sure -- water talking about? thatce it was discovered people were put on a book out list, that type of thing, regardless of what you call it, were the people responsible in the treasury department appointed by president bush as well as continuing service under president obama?

it is basically the question have already been asked. >> at the irs, the commissioner was appointed under the bush administration. at the treasury, those individuals would be obama appointees. >> the outrage is not democrat and republican. the president has indicated outrage. you have indicated outrage. i would assume we are on the same side in trying to determine how this happened, who was responsible, how far does the cancer go, how quickly can we cut it out?

so that tens of thousands of irs employees have this stigma of corruption taken away from them that you, mr. miller, a career employee, does not have to explain to your kids and that you are not involved in a scandal, that all the people who serve the government -- it's too late for the congress, but it's not too late for the government to try

to get its reputation cleaned up for america. i don't want to see anchor, but i certainly hope before this hearing is over that you share with us how you intend to have your voice is heard so that america would know that whether this was criminal activity or a mistake, i don't know, but we have to get on with it. under 501c4, you can make political donations and without saying how much and who made the donation, right? >> under 501c4 organizations, donors and their contributions are not public intermission, is that is the question. >> you can make political contributions? tobeacon make a contribution a 501c4 for political purposes. >> and can do that as long as it did not the primary purpose. it can do that for 49% of whenever the activities are without technically violating the law. is that correct? >> the text -- the test is whether your primary activity is social welfare in nature.

>> you could be 49% political. >> we have never been that precise. >> you could say that. after the supreme court decision in citizens union -- united, whenever. the application for this type of corporation increased dramatically, did it not? >> they did double. >> he did not have to be a political expert to realize there was an increase in political donations given to 501c4's. >> if you look at the reporting on forms 990 on political activities, it will show an explosion of money there as well. >> again, it's almost an invitation as the law is written for abuse in terms of political activities for corporations are primarily are supposed to be doing social service work. is that not correct?

>> it is something we have to look at closely. >> you should have wanted to look at this earlier before what my friends are calling a scandal. it's wrong to abuse the tax system. this screams out for tax reform, does it not? >> it is an area ripe for redefinition and reform. >> regardless of whether republicans or democrats did something like this, the outrage should still be there. >> outrageous to -- yes. >> this law has been abused by government employees. not by all of them, but by some come and our job is to find out who they are. all i want to get from you, mr. miller and mr. george, because it is your integrity on the line, the president, the administration, the irs

employees who work hard each and every day. congresstunately the is involved. people are losing confidence and i hope that you feel the same sense to find out what caused this, how could happen, and to help us restore confidence that americans should have in their government. i yield back the balance. >> mr. ryan is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. miller, we have now established and you have the knowledge that you were briefed on may 3rd that there was improper criteria used for tax- exempt applications. you were told that tax-exempt applications were being targeted the they contained terms like tea party, we the people, bill of rights, and how theiticizing country was run. after that, you sent letters to congress of knowledge in our investigation of the allegations but omitted that discriminatory practices were allegedly taking place. this briefing was made in 2012. then, you came here to a subcommittee hearing on this issue on july 25th where we were investigating the discriminatory filters to hold up the 501c4 applications of

groups, specifically told that these groups fell like they were being harassed and you're asked this question. "what kind of letter or action is taking place at this time that you are aware of?"knowing full well these were used to target certain groups you said, "i am aware that some 200501c4 applications fell into the category. we did a group these organizations together to ensure consistency, to ensure quality. we continue to work those cases." that was your answer to this committee after you had received a briefing that the targeting was occurring, which you of knowledge was

outrageous. mustaw governing how he respond to congressional inquiries requires you to tell not only the truth but the whole truth. you cannot conceal or cover-up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact. how is that not misleading the committee? unity terms tea party and patriots were being used. you just admitted they were outrageous, yet when you're asked about it after you were briefed, that was the answer you gave us? how can we not conclude that you misled this committee? >> there were a lot of questions there. >> its one. how can we conclude you did not mislead the committee? >> i stand by my answer is then and i stand by it now.

that implies political motivation. there is a discussion going on. there is no political motivation. >> let me ask you again. >> may i answer the question? >> let me give you some clarity. hear the question you are asked. what kind of action is being taken place at this time that you are aware of? >> the discussion of the context of that, and again we need to go back to look at the context. there with a listing and the treatment of cases. mine understanding is that the treatment of the cases, because all the letters that they were talking about, i'm hearing that people are complaining about letters. we have dealt with them as have been explained and we went to them to talk about the ways they could answer it and we

delta, i think, fairly and successfully with this issue. >> union of our concern with the targeting in the allegations reported to the committee. we brought you here to talk about it. -- you knew of our concern. you said in your answer that you were aware of some that fell into the category to ensure consistency and quality. you did not miss -- you did not mention targeting based on of buzz words like tea party, patriots, or 912. do you not think that is a very incomplete answer. >> i answer the question truthfully. other give us a list the day of approved tax exempt applications for advocacy organizations through may 2009. thesenot know how long

applications sat or how long it took to process them. question mr. rangel's in earlier testimony, the irs was doing this because they're concerned about political actions by nonprofits. some of these approved art chattanooga organize for action, aggressive leadership alliance, and progress of usa. if you were concerned about political activity, did you have targeting lists that less like "progressive" for "organized" in their name? >> let's take a step back and i walk you through the process. we centralize cases based on political activity. we take a shortcut on some of it, but we collect, to be more than a tea party cases. mr. george's own report --

>> there were no progressive buzz words used. >> we collected more people because any time it was seen the political activity was part of the file, -- >> time has expired. >> thank you mr. chairman. congress cannot seem to agree whether the sun is shining these days but this issue has brought together in the way unlike anything we have seen here. we all agree these applications were poorly handled and that the irs stiffed on this at best. public service ought to be held at a higher standard. the irs is an easy target and everybody wants to get a pitch for when the taxman comes. when our 24 media cycle is getting hundreds of different tax -- when our 24 hour media cycle is getting hundreds of different?

there is a difference between stupid mistakes and militias mistakes. examiners took a shortcut which they clearly regret, deeply regret. the report says, in black and white on page 7, the determination of employees stated that they considered the tea party criteria as a shorthand term for all potential political pieces. these applications were singled out for their names and policy positions, not for the activities, which they should have been singled out for. some of these political groups are delaying getting their taxpayer status. that is wrong. as much as i dislike the right think it is and wrong to be

on evenhanded in government application. the inspector general report said no one acted out of malice or political motivation. i want to know if you still stand by that. >> we have no evidence to contradict that assertion. >> we want to root out the causes of this. it all started right after citizens united. people saw the door open, we could get in and to political advertising. we will not have to report anybody's name. applications for secret money, political organizations, increased by four full after that supreme court. this small group of people in the cincinnati office grew up. nobody is quite to deny that. they simply screwed up. not committee messed up by giving any clear criteria for what a real charitable

organization is. the law is not clear and people have to make judgments. that means we have to collect a lot of data to try to figure out what people are actually up to. a. miller, there is clearly problem in our current way of determining what a primary purpose of an organization is. i want you to think about what i am talking about. as i watched this conversation shift from what is right and wrong to the irs's problem. we could have appealed that along with obamacare yesterday. republicanabout storyline in this agenda. we need to find some truth here. i have heard members of this committee now talk about it. the irs cannot access your medical files, is that true? >> correct. >> they cannot find out your

private medical information. >> that is correct. totheir job in obamacare is simply collect paid financial information on which a determination is made on whether somebody can get a subsidy for their premium. is that correct? >> it is not a fascist takeover of what is going on here of the health-care system. let us not forget that the virus is one of the hardest and most hated jobs and there are thousands -- the irs is one of the hardest and most heated jobs and there are thousands of hard-working americans who work every day to run the system. a couple of people make a problem. that does not damage the organization, in my view. you get rid of the people who make the problem. i would like to hear, mr.

miller, what he believed would make it so that this would not have happened before? >> there are two things, sir. i appreciate the kind words. we are a hard-working and honest group, frankly. that seems to be forgotten in all of this. with respect to political activity, it would be a wonderful thing to get better rules, to get more clear rules. in terms of our ability to get to this work, it would be good to have a little budget that would allow us to get more than the number of people we have to do 70,000 applications and do our job in looking at whether or not an organization is tax exempt. >> time is expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. miller, do you know the director of the irs is presented as the position of lois lerner? were you aware she did not acknowledge the investigation at the time?

>> i did not know that. >> were you aware that the irs was preparing a statement to put out during this time last week? >> yes. i did not know whether we knew it at that time not. >> what did ms. lerner know when she testified before the committee? what i do not know that. >> did you know that ms. lerner was going to appear last friday, may 10, on a panel called "news from the irs and treasury of the american far association conference." >> i did not know the topic. yourd you or any of support and its director to make any of the public statements acknowledging that targeting of groups? >> it was a prepared q&a. >> do you know the member of the irs is advisory council on

tax amenities? >> i do. >> was she questioning mr. lerner about targeting conservative groups. >> i believe we talked about that. contact,u have any either by e-mail, phone, or in person, with the white house regarding the targeting of tax- exempt groups from 2010 to today? >> i did not. >> how about the department of treasury? >> i would have had some conversations with treasury in my role as acting commissioner because i reported to them. on this topic it would have been -- i have to look back. i believe that conversation would have taken place. >> how about president barack obama's reelection campaign? >> no. >> did you have any contact with organizing for action? >> no. >> did you have any contact with anyone associated with pro-publica?

>> when this whole thing came out i think the irs might have talked to them. >> something that would probably clarify your involvement in this would be if you submitted to this committee your e-mails, phone records, and 2010 schedule until you resigned. >> i will see what is appropriate. >> we could subpoena those records. myi will have to talk to agency. you are asking me and we will talk. >> i would suggest that we work hard to get those records. i would also encourage you to

contact your colleagues to testify before this committee at their earliest possible time. question,e one last mr. miller. you really are not taking any acknowledgment that you knew anything or did anything wrong. you said that numerous times on the record today, you did nothing wrong. i find it hard to believe -- why are you resigning? >> i never said i didn't do anything wrong. what i said is contained in the questions. i resigned because as the acting commissioner what happens in the irs, whether i was personally involved or not, stopped at my desk. i should be held accountable for what happens. whether i am personally involved or not -- those are very different questions. >> i hope you would be willing to submit all of your e-mail,

phone records, any personal meetings you have had in the past four years, i think that would really keep your reputation in good standing with this committee and the american people. >> we will have to talk about that. i am not saying no. >> thank you, mr. miller. >> mr. mcneal is recognized. >> thank you. your referenced an article from "usa today." there were democratic leaning organizations that were the focus of the irs as well. >> without objection. >> thank you. when i woke up this morning i went to my phone and i was curious about what the word of the day would be. you have rejected the term

"targeted." >> i think it is a term that implies something that did not exist. >> by sheer irony this morning, they used the term "litmus test," which it defined as a single factor as an attitude or event that is decisive in choosing these organizations. would you say this was a litmus test? >> if it was a litmus test it was political activity. >> i have one of my constituents who contacted my office yesterday, outlining a pretty egregious situation. he is treasurer of a small nonprofit in massachusetts, a volunteer organization. their association was told by the irs employees that they were not required to file a 49- 90. this past november they received a letter saying their tax-exempt status was revoked without the proper forms without

any defense notice. the irs told and they no longer needed to file the forms but instead of notifying them first of the problem and allowing them to fix it, especially in light of the id by steeper given, the irs went ahead and revoked the tax-exempt status. they now have to reapply and pay. this is a nonprofit that has been around for 60 years. a taxpayer should not be intimidated by the irs. there is broad agreement by that. the american people should not be afraid if the irs. there is broad agreement on that today. we should rely on the advice they apply. i hope we will have the

opportunity to work in this specific and central issue. i want to turn to the topic of recent focus by the irs. that is obviously the question today, the allegation that there are political views that have cost them to be that focused. we all know that is outrageous and acceptable and a thorough review will get us to the bottom of this to ensure that never happens again. let us not forget something this morning, even with the egregious actions that have been acknowledged by the irs there is still an underlying problem here, and that is 501(c)(4) being engaged with politics. the irs was flooded with applications seeking 501(c)(4) status. why is that? it is in large part because super pacs must disclose their donors. we have many disagreements on this committee between this and the parties. we should be able to agree on that whole notion of disclosure.

the case that unleashed a torrent of money in public life was in 1976, which the court held that money was enabled in speech. "the suggestion -- the most efficient policeman." as part of our scrutiny as think we all ought to be able to agree based on this problem here today that the simple act of transparency and disclosure would alleviate much of what has happened here. they weren't this rest because they wanted to join the sisters of mercy in common cause. it was not to hide the donors. claude i am hopeful we can get to the bottom of this. anyoneask you this, has been disciplined directly related to this development review approval and use of inappropriate criteria? and have any corrective actions and ticket is to ensure this

does not happen again? >> the answer to that is yes. in may when i was told this i asked the management there to reassign an individual who had been involved in these letters that were objection. i also was aware that -- as i mentioned in my statement now that they are out with the facts will be able to look again.

i should not just because -- i have to be careful here. the oral accounts may not have been involved so what was done in lieu of that was all the managers in that group were brought in and walked through the new processes and explained that this was no way to behave at the irs. in terms of the future, the listing cannot be done and cannot be changed. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in january 2010 an organization

called lowhip key party in ohio applied for tax- exempt status. there is no resolution to their application. they received 35 questions that i have in front of me in march 2011. there were 94 questions when you look at all of these of questions. copies of all activity on facebook and twitter, estimates of all past and present employees, whether a past or present employee or their family members plans to run for office in the future. i would like to submit a copy of the article from yesterday that references this. in the article, and i quote a board member from the liberty township party. "we are an educational staff. we cannot endorse candidates, we do not man phone banks. we do not do any kind of political activities." >> without objection, the article to be placed in the record. >> question 26 of the questionnaire to the tea party group is as follows, "provide

details regarding your relationship with justin thomas," an american citizen in the audience today who does not know why he was question no. 26. the dispatch article goes on to say he was shocked when he found out that the irs is asking questions about him of a group that he barely knew. he was involved in a cincinnati tea party and served as a spokesman. the obvious question that comes to mind are why am i being targeted amongst all of the others? where does this information go? does it get shared with other government agencies? do i get an audit? is it against my business? all of those things go through your mind.

he does not know why his name was question no. 26 for an organization who still hasn't received approval since january 2010. the article goes on to say the democratic gov. ted strickland, a former governor of ohio, filed for tax-exempt status in august 2011. they were approved nine months later. mr. miller, another organization in ohio, the ohio liberty coalition. this is their documents in response to irs request. this is only part of it. all of these documents were not enough for the irs to approve their application. in fact they applied in june 2010. they finally received approval in december 2012. one month after the november election. another young lady i met in the group indicated her group had a book club and the irs listed all the books they had read and a book report from the group.

you cannot make this stuff up. this is unbelievable. i do not know how you can defend any of this and i do not know how you can say this is not political when the liberal group got a tax-exempt status and three did not mention for over two years. in was mr. lerner's boss 2011? >> i believe it would have been -- >> ingram?

>> another gentleman. >> he has since submitted his resignation? >> when she did today? >> she works in the affordable care act? >> who approved her to that position? >> i approved that position. >> why would you move her to a position which was in charge of the extent division or as station, which certainly has had some controversy over the couple of years? what she was an approved single certain -- and approved civil certification -- an approved civil servant. we did horrible customer service. politicallyas motivated or not is a different question. >> time is expired.

>> thank you for your testimony. let me tee off with something you just said. he said foolish mistakes were made. i think the president said it better, "the handling of those tax applications at the irs was outrageous and intolerable." no excuse. as much as we know that the folks at the irs have a thankless job because they have to go and tell their fellow americans that they may be audited, they do this work understaffed, we have to maintain confidence in the system. you are right, it was a foolish mistake. the president is even more correct in that it is outrageous and intolerable.

let me focus on something you said. when you're asked if there was any finding or evidence of political motivation you said no. >> that is correct. --would find is a situation what we find is a situation where inexcusable activity took place. i think it is unfortunate for those who are in positions of authority. the book have to stop somewhere. that cannot diminish the work that has been done by anyone in the irs. i hope you understand it you are here today talking to us because we need to get to the bottom of this. we need to clean up and clear some can go back to the

business of making sure people respect the fact that we have a voluntary system of paying taxes. let me ask the question of mr. george. in your report you indicated, that "there appeared to be some confusion by the determination cnet specialist and applicants on one activities are allowed by internal revenue code or by 501(c)(4) organizations. we believe this could be due to the lack of specific guidance of primary activity a 501(c)(4) organization. they should have social welfare as the primary activity of their mission. however, the regulations do not define how to measure whether

social welfare is an organization primary activity. the question, could some of these delays have been avoided if there were clear guidance on sex 501(c)(4) organizations -- on section 501(c)(4) organizations? >> the direct answer is yes. theould note that determination to it did seek clarity from washington headquarters and it took months before they received a response. >> that is a great way to leave it to mr. miller. what we have been saying for quite some time, many of us, is that there is not clarity in what is social welfare. you have many see for organizations, these non-profit organizations, who are trying to do good work. they are being painted by some

of these organizations doing nothing more than political activity. the supreme court gave the license to use a nonprofit status to do politics. is the law clear in your mind on what is political campaign activity? >> it is very difficult, sir. >> can you distinguish between sections 501(c)(4) and a 527 political organization? >> that is difficult. presumably the level of political activity and expenditures needs to be less in the 501(c)(4) area. >> let me suggest to you to go back in your opportunity with fellow employees at the irs and mr. george your capacity as inspector general, thank you for your service, to please communicate that you need to

give us your sense of what is the best guidance. we do not have this proliferation of organizations that are abusing the nonprofit status at taxpayer expense so that we will not run into this situation again and the american people can have confidence in their system and government. i yield back. >>mr. reichardt is recognized. >> thank you. i have about 15 minutes to question me but i only have five. i am disappointed. you did not even know who investigated the case but he said it was investigated. i am puzzled by that. you are not instilling a lot of confidence in this panel and the people across this country. i want to go back to your version of the word "target" or "targeted." he said there was no carpeting

because there was no intent. would you not agree that certain groups were treated differently because of their name or policy position? >> i believe -- >> where they treated differently? that is the question. >> no. >> no one was treated differently? >> may i answer? i would like to be broader than a yes or no. my understanding is that the cases that went into this queue is that it included elements for a political spectrum. that of the 300 cases that were looked at by the treasury inspector general 70 of the 300 had "tea party" in the name.

>> i am going to take my time back. i am not going to be delayed him. your answer was no one was treated differently. to take back to mr. ryan's question, you knew the groups with the term "tea party" had automatically been suggested to extra scrutiny. you would acknowledge your investigation as to whether groups were being treated differently. didn't this committee have the right to know? >> i added all questions truthfully. havedn't this committee the right to know that groups were being treated differently? you had this group of 200 or 300 -- did not this committee have the right to know.

the answered all of questions i asked. >> your answer is a non-answer once again. it is an easy question. congresst think the has the right to know all the information? does this committee have the right to know the information that you knew it? yes or no? you testified before this committee. mr. miller, you testified before this committee and you did not provide the information. you did not share the information you need. my question is do not believe -- this is the united states congress that you are accountable to which is accountable to the people and american citizens across this country -- do you not believe that it is your job to provide us with the information that you knew so that as you said

the people of this country can be properly served honestly? enforcementw agency. i was a cop for 33 years. you raise your right hand today. did this committee have the right to know what you knew? yes or no. >> i answered all questions truthfully. i will also tell you -- >> i am going to mr. george if you are not going to cooperate with me. you have been not cooperating with us. mr. george, we heard in the early draft of your report indicate you are unable to determine who cost the irs to target groups based on their political beliefs. you are the commissioner, who is responsible? >> i do not have that me.

>> why not? have asked anybody? >> yes. >> who did you ask? >> i did not have that name. >> it is the gentleman from washington state's time. >> who did you ask? >> i asked the senior technical adviser. >> what was their name? >> nancy. >> what did nancy tell you? who is responsible? >> i do not remember. >> you do not remember again? >> time has expired. the committee will recess for 15 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013]

>> next, live, your calls and comments on "washington journal ." budgetssion on the request for the national institutes of health. we do question is, why do it? why take the risks? is it for fun or adventure? no. is it for the money? there are easier ways to make a living than this. we do it to understand the world and how it changes. the world tends to move like the earth's. snap with violent political change. we go to where the cracks are. we do it so the innocent have a voice. we do it to show the tv pundits that they are usually wrong. we do it because we have decided

this is what we want to do with our slice of time on this planet. >> this weekend on c-span, 8:35 d engel, live at eastern follow by a panel on media coverage of war. and a former clinton special counsel, lanny davis on handling scandal of all kinds. on. american's history tv, oral histories. morning, a reporter for the center for public integrity looks at the tax-exempt unit at the irs and revolutions -- revelations that the agency targeted conservative groups. and a look at the relationship presents have had with the irs.

and later, the executive director of the workers' rights consortium. "washington journal" host: hearing shows obama administration officials were june 2012 about the two- party region about the tea party targeting. -- about the tea party targeting. we are going to be talking about yesterday's hearing. testimony from the outgoing acting irs commissioner as well as the treasury inspector general for tax of ministration. but want to see your thoughts of what