scrapped ashman strapped for money. can't do a doggone thing goes to the money. you are aware the irs has a studio that produced the famous star trek video that spent $5 million annually on the studio, are you not? >> no longer, the studio has been closed. we now have a review board and produce very dubious and they're not done in the fancy studio. that was all four years ago. since then our budget has been cut by $850 million. >> i arisen please use 521,000 hours in fiscal year 2013 at a rate of about $23.5 million for union activity, are you not? >> that's right. that's consistent. across rugged entrance of union voice and all federal agencies have a right to spend some portion of their time on official business for the kenya. the irs has a union and those employees pursuant to the process do spend time on union time. >> might be appropriate for them to spend time on something other than that.

thank you, mr. chair been spent as long as -- >> time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. commissioner, i want to thank you for your incredible patience and your testimony here today. mr. commissioner, what you are seeing is an expected reaction from an overzealous committee that is so desperate to find any type of evidence in any type of fact that may point to a cover-up that does not exist. point to a conspiracy that does not exist and have instead chosen to go after a public servant who by all accounts is a model of integrity, honesty and professionalism. i think you are the right person, the right place at the right time to turn around a troubled agency. this committee and this congress should be working with you. mr. chairman, i also want to ask unanimous consent to get to

articles inserted in today's record, one dated july 20, 2011, "new york times" article that's titled three groups denied break by irs are named. and another one by the center for public integrity titled irs liberal group to political or social welfare status. >> without objections ordered. >> the reason i want those answers today is to point out the extreme irony of this investigation. the only organization that were applying for 501(c)(4) status with the irs that was denied the application were organizations that were affiliated with democratic candidates for office. not conservative organizations. in the case of the three groups that were denied status they were emerging about it, emerge me, emerge messages that only supported democratic candidates for almost 30 of the article it was subtitle is agency rejects tax-exempt application of a pro-blanche lincoln arkansas to

commonsense. they were denied application because they reviewed its two political. and there's no evidence at all the rsa denied any conservative group applying for (c)(4) status during the entire course of this investigation. so the state raged across from the other side is just that. going after an irs because of political fodder there brings to the base and it's unfortunate that we're having to conduct yet another witchhunt here today. mr. commissioner, let me ask you some quick questions with many time to guess you are under oath and we want to make this explicitly clear with your testimony. to your knowledge, has anyone at the irs to liberally withheld in e-mails requested by this committee? >> no. >> has anyone had irs withheld any information specifically requested by this committee? >> no, no. i wouldn't we have a produce all the information we have because it's luminous but we have withheld no information. >> any attempt with an irs to to destroy any evidence to your

knowledge of? >> no attempt by anyone during the course of this investigation to destroy any evidence. as noted in the past e-mails were retained for six months. >> to your knowledge has been any attempt to data with any evidence or information requested by this committee? >> no,. >> since you been acting commission have you seen any evidence of any attempt to cover up information pertinent to this committee's investigation of? >> no. >> what about any information requested by the other investigations? i think you testified to six investigations that are still pending with the irs. >> were providing the same information to all investigators. the tax writing committees get unredacted information to the non-tax writing committees get redacted information so they have about 170,000 pages fewer than information in this committee and senate finance. >> have you seen any evidence of any direct involvement by the white house in the screening of (c)(4) applications that are

the subject and evolve in this investigation? >> i have seen none. >> has been any evidence of any white house involvement in the irs is responses to the information requested by this committee? >> i have seen none. >> could you just give us a quick status update on the computer system at the irs, that you encountered when you took over as commissioner of? >> our computer system as i said is somewhat antiquated. we've been updating as much as we can. as noted we have about a billion dollar infrastructure as a result of the budget constraint. we are spinning minimal amounts on that as i noted. we still can get all of the employers on the window seven. i heard a reference earlier someone going to windows 10. we should be so fortunate to get everyone on window seven. we are constrained. our budget has been significantly underfunded on a declining basis on the less for your. >> in regards to what we can do to assist the irs, and updated

more modern functioning computer system, what would that be? >> we have given you the president's budget would allow us to continue to make progress in that regard. we have at this .4 to $500 million of modernization and improvement activity that we would undertake. >> thank you. >> mr. smith's. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and/or witness here for your time today, thank you. i realize i think we have a large issue. i know it's been dismissed as an overzealous reach of the committee or a conspiracy similar to various others over history. political theater. i think you agree that this is a serious issue and i think that moving forward i would ask for full cooperation. it's been frustrating with the various responses that have been offered over the last i think 13, 14 months now. you mentioned contemporary

documentation. could you expound on that? i've an idea what that is but i would like you -- >> i'm sorry speak with contemporaneous documentation that you referenced earlier. spent hours talking about, if you wouldn't mind, in the middle of this to our glasgow giants at about what we knew when. as i know to -- >> time is limited. if you would answer my question. >> contemporaneous means that the e-mail traffic that we found in our search about the crash was e-mail traffic at the time of the crash in the time of attempted restoration three years ago. >> okay. and various documentation is recommended by the irs with tax filers, documentation is required to be retained how long? >> generally come as a general matter people are subject to audit for three years unless there's criminal activity and then we can go back actually in some cases a limited amount but as a general matter unless

you're a willful evader, we limit our audit to three years. >> now, shifting gears just a bit here. when you look at the size of the irs, 90,000 people, that we reminded $2.4 trillion revenue, many would say that the core of power in washington, d.c. is the tax code, 10,000 pages in length, various other descriptions, and it was noted earlier that a budget cut of 1 dollar in the operating costs of the irs results in costing revenues $7. would you agree with that assessment? >> could i what? >> that a 1 dollar budget cut would result in a $7 cost to reverend? >> it depends on who you ask of two of its four, six, $8 a dollar. but it's clear as i said, if with a greasy question 500 knowing that we were denied we were provided back over

$2 billion of revenue. so we do provide, we collect in our personal activities over four or five times the entire budget of the agency. >> obviously there are many opinions here, and i have to tell you that given the complexity of the tax code, and i think that's the main reason why we're trying to reform the tax code to come up with a simpler approach. my question -- i question how possible it is to either these issues out, that some dismissed, others find very serious. and i would hope that we could have the full cooperation as we do move forward. i would hope that you agree that this is not a finished case. would you agree with that? >> no. and where inches and delighted to operate. i think it's important for the record without a good relationship with your staff and we have followed leads they wanted us to follow and it's been a productive and we continued to help to do that and we will be as responsive as we

can to requests of the committee. i think it's important for us to do that. >> well, thank you i certainly hope we can continue to get this result. resolved. i know there are various characterizations here. it's disappointing that some have dismissed the situation today. i hope we can move forward. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. koskinen, i will go down the same length down the same unquestioned but if you want to highlight in a sample of a case in my district as well, small businessperson who went out on -- in minnesota, this individual small businessperson at the company have been involved and subject to for different irs audits over the past 10 years. most, the most recent is still going on. so for each of these audits has resulted in minimal or zero, zero changes to the compass income tax returns. the most recent audit is going on right now, has been going on for 18 months. the cost to the company about

$110,000. it's an audit that is done to help train iraq's employees, ironically at the cost of the company. the agency is asked the company to produce an inordinate amount of information even requesting a receipt or a $10 cab fare that occurred months ago. i'm curious, commissioner, if the company came forward tomorrow and said this information has been lost, $10 cab fare, we cannot find it, similar to the hard drives being undiscoverable, you would understand that, right? >> yes. >> you would understand that and you would hold him accountable. they would have to produce that record? >> i'm not an exam agent but if as in this case he said i don't have the receipt but i can, by other information, demonstrate pretty close to $10 is what i spent, that would be allowed just as our providing 24,000 low-slung in those from the time of the crash. >> if they had a system of hard drive crashes that went forward

and taking for and said there's nothing we can do, the servers are down, the hard drives argonne, we can retrieve the data, which ended the audit? >> as i say i'm not an exam auditor expert. i can tell you that trying to become compliant whether individuals or businesses we rejected him and trying and anxious to work with taxpayers trying to become a part. the ones we consider of the people willingly and consciously avoiding taxes especially those offshore. i'm happy to chase the end of the art and throw in jail but the people trying to become compliant we reach out to into the best we can do in fact work with them. >> this is following on the same situation mr. deberry identified with individual cases in the district but our constituents look to the irs for impartial judgment and understand but let me ask you, if an employee at the irs has a computer problem i,is there way to track when the employee called regarding the computer problem? >> yes.

there are tickets which is how we actually in favor discovered that there had been a computer crash. i misspoke the last questioner i said we didn't about the crash until the end of april. we do know about the ramifications of the crash assess it in my organist testament. it was the ticket in fact information from i.t. that said there was a crash which caused us to then take the time to figure out what to get me come after e-mails been lost. that's when we been discovered in the production of e-mails the track of the e-mails that confirm that, in fact, there had been a crash, there been a significant ever try to deliver the most. >> with the ticket with the irs be able to track with the issue was that was being have a? >> i don't know the details of the ticket are but i know from the correspondence in e-mails that it was a hard drive crash and from some of ms. lerner's e-mails that she was unable to get to her e-mails. >> could you check based on the ticket who handled that particular id issue and how it

was resolved, tracking mechanism within the irs of? >> i don't know what the ticket would show but we'll be happy to make sure you have the ticket and any information related. >> can you tell me who at the irs in the i.t. area handled ms. lerner's computer crashed issued in 2011? >> yes. it was a front-line, corresponds with within a front-line i.t. manager. what was not ordinary was when it could be retrieved by the normal i.t. experts to have scented expert at the criminal investigation division which was an additional step taken -- >> could you tell me what caused the crash itself? >> i do not know what caused the crash. in fact, my understanding, computers, three to 5% of them crashed as a general industry standard and there's no way to know why. >> can you rule out what you know are based on these tickets can you rule out that lois lerner destroyed her own computer? can you rule that out? >> there's no evidence that she did.

if she had -- >> can you rule that out? >> you can never rule a something you don't know but at this point they're so evidenced -- the evidence issue worked very hard to restore her e-mail. >> can you answer the questions about hard drive crashes for the other six in toys as well that were involved in the targeting? similar situation. can we make sure they were not intentionally -- >> we are investigating that right now. will give you all of the information we are able to determine about windows computers crashed, whether in the nose were lost, what's been done with a hard drive should extent they are still available. they will be made available. [inaudible] >> thank you. mr. pascrell is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me give you 15, 20 seconds -- i'm over here. spent you are behind the photographer. >> to answer one of the questions you were able to answer before, question, you wanted to correct the record.

>> i started to correct the record, as i said in my testimony, written testimony, we knew with the i.t. ticket in february there been a crash. what we didn't know until late april was what the implications were. had the e-mails been lost? if so, whether other e-mails that were from lowest in that timeframe. so i've been consistent except fofor the one point i don't. >> thank you. do you agree when the irs grants a group exempts status, that means that there's an advantage of one group as compared to another group and how they are taxed x. it's important. and i do know what the number is of how much money the federal government doesn't take in because we do exempt, i me, the total amount of money. that's not my question. conveys a significant tax advantage to a group, whether

they're left, right, north, south, doesn't matter. a significant tax advantage to that group. and its operations are being implicitly subsidized by you and me. you and i. >> that's correct. >> okay. is that correct of? >> that is correct. >> i'm not using hyperbole here, am i? that's exactly what happens. >> right. >> you actually think i'm going to ask your opinion. do you actually think they understand about what this is all about? i mean, this is not about what happened to the black box. this is about protecting the coverage that we have decided in our infinite wisdom to provide

certain groups that are social groups but not political groups. now, do you believe the irs has a responsibility to protect it the taxpayers of this country by ensuring that the groups that we allowed to operate as tax exempt are operating in a way that is consistent with the law? >> ideal, and that applies to all 501(c)(4) organizations. >> according to the law in this area, tax exempt 501(c)(4) groups are required to operate exclusively for social welfare and that that must be their primary purpose. am i correct or incorrect? >> that is correct. the regulation provides your primary purpose has to be social

welfare. >> let me ask you this. can you describe the process that the irs currently uses to determine a 501(c)(4) group is really a social welfare group, or is engaging in inappropriate amount of political activity? is that an intensive process that requires a lot of money, requires a lot of manpower? explained. >> it is a consultative process. we have 1,006,000 tax exempt organizations -- >> how many? >> 1,600,000 total of which somewhere in the range of 100 or one 50,000 rc for social welfare organizations. a lot of them, people of nothing to do that. women were stationed applies for exempt and, the historic process has been their activities or proposed activities will be

determined on a facts and circumstances test and then there are a long set of examples and complicated regulations that describe how to determine the amount of activity that is social welfare activity and what kinds of activities and the facts and circumstances are political activities. so it is a complicated process. >> but it is intensive? >> it is intensive. >> and it should be spent and it is what? >> it should be. >> yes. we -- >> in the last four years how many organizations went from 501(c)(4)s to like any other organization in the last four years? >> answer quickly please. >> i don't know the answer but i will get that spent mr. chairman? >> yes. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> yes. please take your parliamentary inquiry. inquiry. >> since we're being summoned to vote and not all members will be given a chance to ask questions,

i would like to know if those of us who do not have an opportunity to questio questione witness base of the comments and questions for the record speaks yes. and my plan is to recess and come back after votes, but -- >> some of us have travel plans. >> yes, but members will be able to cement questions. mr. marchant. >> -- to submit questions. >> microphone. >> i keep forgetting to turn mine on as well. >> this one is working. i'm privileged to have a district that has a vast number of people that are very high-tech, so mr. chairman, i'd like is a bit for the record a letter from one of my high-tech people that have some suggestions on how you may recover some of these e-mails that we are looking for.

>> without objection, so order ordered. >> can i have a copy of the letter as well speak as i can provided to you. >> that would be great. >> this entire inventory was started because their constituents in our district that were harassed and treated differently by the irs, and whether we get all the e-mails, ever get all the e-mails involved in this, i think it has already been established that it this, this committee is dealing with this issue today not because it's a witch hunt but because we, our citizens and our districts were discriminated against. and treated badly by the irs. so that is why we are here today. do you believe it's important for this committee to receive all of the e-mails from ms. lerner's e-mail account and all of the e-mails from all the

persons that have been identified of interest in this case the? >> i've always thought that was important. >> is the irs and its e-mails exempt from monitoring by the fbi or the nsa? >> i have no information about that, but i know indication that we are exempt from anybody's monitoring. >> so we don't know that the e-mails are not totally all recoverable in some process? >> if, if the nsa was monitoring all of our e-mails and collecting them and saving them someplace, then they might be there but i'm not aware that that was done. >> have you, as the commissioner, partially contacted the white house, the treasury, the federal elections commission in any of the possible federal agency that

lois lerner may have contacted by e-mail? >> i have not contacted any of those agencies about any of the issues involved in this investigation, including her e-mail. >> would you be willing to commit to this committee that you will contact these agencies and request from them that all females that they have on their records and can produce for lois lerner and all the people of interest and request of them that they furnish them to? >> is good at it is all requested. would have authority over them and i'm delighted to note that the white house and treasury already have produced those, but with the other committees i'm happy, on behalf of the committee make a request that they provide any e-mails that they may have. if you'll give me that, remind me in a list of the agencies again that would be helpful. >> i will submit it to you in writing. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. ms. black.

>> turn one. thank you commission, for being here today. i'm a bit confused about the timeline here and what was known of what was not known about ms. lerner's computer. and the crash of a computer and, therefore, the lack of our ability to be able to get all of the e-mails. this is, for about a year and half now and i have read in a test and before you came and that i know you read your testimony to us it appears that the first time you were made aware that there was actually a crashed computer was when you saw the date dissipation of e-mail was uneven. and i isn't that correctly that that is the first time at unit about the crashed computer was when you determine after all these files were given and went back to look at them, you did a limited search and you said there is something wrong here because there is an unevenness division. was that the first time you were made aware that there was a crashed computer? >> that's the first time i was aware. that pattern cause people to do an investigation and they found that had been a crashed so i

wasn't told to separate issues. i was told i was a pattern problem and i.t. have determined that had been a computer crash. >> during this period of time i think it very interesting that as we're asking for these e-mails and asking for them over and over and over again and they're not coming back to us in a timely fashion, this was prior to your even getting there, that all of the sudden you look and say wait a minute, we don't have e-mails from this time created, something else might of got on, that's when we find out where you find out or anybody in the agency that has been getting this request from us and other, from the oh, gee argument for him is, that's a first it's not that? i find that to be very curious. no one else knew? know what else would else knew? nortel's become a cynic with you to find this out because you saw that there was some kind of a given tissue vision and the dates. does that seem odd to you? >> no. the way the e-mails are pulled out of pool of e-mails that are in the server there is they're all pulled together in just a pool.

the e-mails are extracted initially in 11,000 of them were provided in response to the search terms of don't get pulled out by -- >> i know how many e-mails to give talked about that so many times. spent i'm guessing they get pulled out initially by subject matter which -- >> let me just finish because i want -- this discussion, and you said you're a discussion of hard drive was made three years ago. the hard drive a finance of the ig. i'm confused. >> two hard drives. the hard drive that was recycled and destroyed was the har hard e the crash and 2011. a new hard drive was provided to ms. lerner and she used that from then on and that hard drive -- >> the crashed hard drive is going? >> it was going three years ago. the replacement hard drive was preserved and is in the hands of the inspector general. >> so we still do have a crashed hard drive that is not recoverable, that is missing that information and will never get it because it's somewhere,

on? >> three years ago. >> is it not to there are also a requirement by law that you keep paper records as well if computers do go down? do not have paper records that are required speak as we are required by law to keep paper records of official records, and as a definition of the federal records act whether official records offer agency transactions. and then the employee is to point them out, create a copy of it and preserve it. >> okay. so i find it all to be very curious that in all of these questions of us asking for these e-mails all of a sudden just recently someone comes up to say oh, by the way, lois lerner's e-mail our hard drive has crashed and we destroyed it, it is gone. can't reach with it. these six other computers that we talk about gore the other custodians, i find that really curious, too, that that would be limited to the. maybe you can help you. are there other computers that use down?

what percentage of total computers have crashed within the department? are there more than just the six? if there are six people that are connected with this, then you may have had a huge crash over there with this many computers being crashed inches will we are asking for. >> the industry standard is get three to 5% failures which may -- >> sound that spent across 95,000 employees. >> six of them that are related to this but -- >> the 82 we've looked at at this point we're looking at seven, which is within what the industry norm expects which is why -- >> i have one more question for you because my time is going to run out. have you had any information that is taxpayer information loss due to these crashes the? >> i've had no indication that taxpayer information -- >> so this information is lost but all of this information, millions of taxpayers have not crashed, not been lost, not been

destroyed? >> there have been thousands of hard drive crashes in the irs across the time spent but we haven't lost any taxpayer information? >> that i know. tax information is saved in separate files. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. commissioner, welcome. let me start by saying i understand suspicions of the majority upon hearing to years worth of e-mails just disappeared. put the shoe on the of the. when democrats were investing in the live lies and encompass of e bush administration, we would be in disbelief at this ineptitude as a. as we were, for example, when the learned the bush white house admitted that lost nearly 5 million, 5 billion e-mails between march 2003 and october 2005 related to the allegations of a politically motivated dismissal of then u.s.

attorneys. fofortune we can put suspicious minds at ease today. the inspector general for the irs, a man named j. russell george who was republican political appointee of president george w. bush has already testified that ms. lerner did not learn about the inappropriate criteria being used in local since the irs office until a meeting at june 29, 2011, least 16 days after ms. lerner's hard drive crashed. yes, her computer crashed more than two weeks before she was notified about the inappropriate actions happening in cincinnati. like those who continue to refuse to believe that the birth certificate from the state of hawaii is actually real, a conspiracy theorist will continue to rattle sabers, but really does anyone in this room want to be seen in that light? commissioner graham as i mentioned, welcome.

today, the irs has provided over 770,000 pages of documents involved in this investigation, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> included in those thousands of pages of e-mails, powerpoint presentations and notes deliver to congress over nine months ago. wasn't there information that specifically mentions the crash of ms. lerner's computer? >> yes. overtime starting in the fall and through the spring, the e-mails from lowest about her computer failure and e-mails about the attempt to restore it have all been provided to this committee. committee. >> so the crashed should come as no surprise. no surprise if the majority were actually reading the documents that the irs was sending up. you may not want to answer that question. do you think american taxpayers would be upset to know that this phony investigation has already cost them over $60 million counting when the republicans

aren't even doing the basic due diligence of reading the documents that you're providing and sending to congress? i would message want you to answer that question. commissioner, or could be the majority in their zeal for an academy award for the best outrage in the state drum are more said they were caught not actually reading the documents the rss set up, thereby providing, proving that they are more concerned with a show trial than an actual, that actually finding answers? once again i'm not going to ask you to answer that question. the democrats on this committee have been outraged as has been said over and over again from the first award about ms. lerner's apology to a tax conference. we are anchored by any singling out of a tax exempt application based on ideology whether it be for progressive groups or tea party extremists. contrary to what mr. ryan said, progressive groups were targeted as well. that's a full statement he made. we led the charge for hard to be

fired. we have agreed to oversight hearings over the finances. and for that reason, mr. chairman, an effort to get to the truth the next hearing on this matter should be with the inspector general of the irs who has not been before this committee for over a year. anything else would show that this committee is not using its time and resources seriously. without i think the commissioner for being here today and i yield back the balance of my time spent thank you. the commi -- the committee stands at recess.

>> as the hearing went into recess so voters -- members commissionerhe irs talked with reporters in the hearing room. >> our people in february as we got ready we were starting to pull all of our e-mails and response to requests of the other e-mails. but the e-mails which had come out by subject matter and put them in order by date. they discovered there were a handful, a small number of e-mails and no one understood quite what that meant. the i.t. department verified that. when we went into -- we started retracing the issue of whether

we lost e-mails, we ran all of process again studied from scratch. we then in the course of pulling all the e-mails in march discovered the trail of e-mails here that said my hard drive is crashing, what can you do about it at which point we then pulled all of the 82 custodians had been searched for the search terms and relevant information to see if there is anything in there beyond the relevant information. by the end of april we were able to determine that there were 24,000 e-mails from other accounts. at that point as we were pulling off that took us into made to get all that done. i would like to know on the other 82 custodians because hard drives crash all the time, how many have a hard drive issue and that was what i.t. was reviewing and monday morning told the

deputy i.t. person working with us who that afternoon we were briefings in the congress and got asked the same question. if anyone else had a problem. -- there is one that failed in february and two more that we since monday.nd that resulted in a press release lost, herails were e-mails are gone. this is part of who knows what, document destruction. we will give everybody the information but there is no indication that a single e-mail of note has been lost and part of the reason you have this kind of hearing is we do not know because we are in the middle of [inaudible]

if i had to do it again we would have to find as much information as we can about what happened to lois lerner's e-mails. to get hard she worked them back and how many other e-mails we could get them back as -- if we had this hearing or four weeks ago. we would not know that they work 25,000 lois lerner e-mails in this cap create our goal is to be transparent. to provide as much information as we can and help this committee get to closure. at some point somebody is going to write a report which i have welcomed and said look at the fact, we will look at the recommendations and go forward. at this point it is an important issue. we were concerned that we were able to find 23,000 liars from that time. you have worked hard in the agency worked hard to restore the e-mails. i am pleased the white house and

treasury have released other document southern is on a mission -- matter of what would be missed. from april of 2011 on any e-mail she sent out what have been part of theuld be production. this is an important issue but it has gotten caught up in the middle of a political maelstrom. >> are you concerned that at the end of the day matter what you say house republicans are still going to think that you guys are covering this up? rex it will always be a group of people do not believe the government is up to any good area given the chance they will cover things up. in this case the evidence is clear if not overwhelming. in 2011 before these investigations started there was no reason to defer your hard

target and there was a great effort to make to restore the e-mails. somebody was trying to get rid of e-mails and that is utterly would do it. is confined to the federal record. before deleting e-mail you should print it out. e-mailsprint any of her ? >> she did. some of the production of documents are hard copies. >> are you taking a look at the iris compliance with the federal records act or any disciplinary action? some time agoed that we would be prepared when the dust settles that we take a ,ook at our e-mail system antiquated as it is introduce figure out back to an earlier question. how can we have a system that would be more easily searchable. it is not in our interest to

spend $18 million and have thousands of employees responding if we had a system you could respond more quickly. also need to review what is our policy. part of our problem because of the antiquated system we had is our e-mail system is not a system of record. some agencies have more modern automatically collect official records as part of the e-mail system. we do not do that. we're still the record -- the record act was passed in 1950 so it was all paper then. we are still operating with people -- paper. we need to look at the system. going forward at the end of my 3.5 years remaining in my term which i would like everyone to would will complete i like the irs to be in a position if someone needed to search we could do it efficiently.

we are trying to respond but i understand the frustration that takes longer for us to respond than any other agencies with modern systems. thank you and the program will continue soon. for theour predictions u.s.? >> i think [inaudible] has done a wonderful job developing this team and they could surprise people on sunday and come away with a tie if not a win against virtual. i was there in 2010 when they beat torture goal in the first was surprising and exciting and there is a possibility they will do that. we're not at a level where we will win the world cup and as you watch the games we are competitive with anybody. after you got through the top eight or 10 teams the rest of them looked like those are teams

we could pretty well have a good result with. >> we will see if mr. rijn agrees. -- mr. ryan agrees. >> he will horribly take another view. -- probably take another view. e-mails. the committee will resume. mr. reid is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, commissioner, for being here today. and thank you for allowing us to go vote and come back and continue the hearing, mr. chairman. this is a really important issue. obviously. and now here the loss of some critical e-mails to me is something that i don't understand how that could happen

him why that could happen, but i want to get to the bottom of it as much as possible. one of the things i found in your testimony that was intriguing was the actual referral of lois lerner's hard drive, and how she went about to try to recover quote-unquote these e-mails. so my understand is that she asked the i.t. representative, my hard drive failed, there's a problem with it, can you take a look at it. that makes sense to me. but then there's another step. there's a step or it was referred to your criminal investigation department, your forensic experts in the irs. those are the folks that are well-trained in the air of criminal investigations and these are top notch forensic people, correct? >> correct. >> okay. so there's about 11 day, maybe 12 days like july 20 where the technician, the i.t. guy goes to

lois lerner supposedly to lois lerner supposedly and says we can't do anything about it and then all of a sudden she told about 12 days later as a last resort were sending your hard drive to the ci, the criminal investigation irs division for the forensic lab. who was involved in any of those decision makings that you're aware of during the third of time to send it to the forensic lab? >> i don't know any of the names of people caused it to go there. as i noted in my testimony, it's an extra in her step in the sense normally if a hard drive is the retrievable it would simply be destroyed. >> that's my question because you are referencing your testament is an extraordinary effort and to we deal with a hard drive situation for three years from three years ago, and yet there's an extraordinary step taken to senate to the forensic laboratory interest into who made that decision, why the decision was made and also

the follow-up questions in writing so -- >> that would be fin fine but my understanding to some e-mails that end that, it was reflection of ms. lerner's strong attempt to try to recover e-mail. >> you think ms. lerner is what you asked it to go to the criminal investigation and? >> i don't know whether she was not. i wish of pushing very hard to get the e-mails. on occasion criminal investigation would be the but it's an extraordinary step because as you note they are very good at this. there's been a most of the time with speed and i know i am running on limited time. on the fringe, these are the well-trained people. when i've ever dealt with criminal investigations, people like david reichert, police officer, there's reports that they go through. have you seen reports that the criminal investigation forensic report people provided as they did their review of lois lerner's hard drive? >> i have not. >> are there any reports that exists that the criminal invested passionate investigation forensic unit

would have? >> i don't know. >> do they typically? they are your criminal investigators. you referred this matter three years ago supposedly to the criminal investigation unit to be complete forensic. these are the guys that we watch on tv. >> that's right. >> also they're doing an investigation as to why this hard drive failed is my understanding. isn't that correct? >> there are any number of reason us what a drive fails. they would dash mess option would be they wouldn't care why it failed to the art, the request was -- >> no, no, no. they are criminal investigators but if there's malfeasance -- >> also several investigators. >> criminal too designed to catch criminals. they are trying to figure out what criminal behavior potentially, if i get a referral, if you send a hard drive for criminal investigator in the ir irs mindset is a lookg for illegal activity. did somebody potentially damage this hard drive on purpose? what caused the damage? isn't something they would do in normal course of business?

>> they all did civil cases. all of our civil prosecutions and cases are investigated by -- >> would you agree the criminal investors are looking for criminal activity and if someone is trying to hide evidence, destroyed evidence that is relevant to a tax receding that they are the guys who look into the forensics of the computer program to figure out what's going on? >> they will do that on occasion. there's no indication they were doing anything other than -- >> they receive this hard drive on something as critical as this. that's what i'm asking this question. very interested in a what those forensic folks, who they were -- do you know who they were? >> i don't who they were. >> who they were, when they completed it, the documentation for chain of evidence purposes that they evidence purposes that they're trendy but i would like to know what those records are and have them provided to our office. i guess my time has expired. without i yield. >> that's fine. >> thank you. >> visteon is recognized. >> mr. commissioner, -- mr. young is recognized.

>> you mention a number of times today that the irs learned of certain things at certain periods of time, that perhaps even your office learned of certain things in different periods of time. i'd like to know, and you correct me if you've only spoken to this, when you knew personally as commissioner of the irs, when you knew that we had a problem, the e-mails were lost or destroyed, that that constituted a larger issue and so forth. >> when i first was devised about it we did know whether any e-mails have been lost or destroyed. but in february speech when we first advised of it, just so i'm clear? >> in february i was advised there was an issue with her e-mails, and subsequently in the same time i was advised about that and there was evidence that they been a hard drive crash but nobody knew what the implications of that were in terms of whether any enough said the loss or whether the hard drive had been recovered but all i knew was advised and if edward

was that there was an issue with the initial production review of e-mails once we've started looking at all of her e-mails, and that there was a hard drive crash and we need to investigate what that meant. that's what preceded going forward by mid-march, we are determined, found the fact that there've been an attempt to constitute a hard drive unsuccessfully, then started reprocessing all of her enough to make sure that when i missing and reprocessing all of the custodial enough to see what e-mails of ms. lerner's were unavailable. >> okay. so you thought it was presumably premature at that point, given the opportunity offer all the context you wanted to. premature to notify this committee or anyone else of your knowledge, personal knowledge? >> might approach was we needed to know, a., what this meant, what they been the result and bill dudley with e-mail if anyone failed and what e-mails

we could find which were not available. we gave a fulsome report that would be more productive and, in fact, that's been my normal -- >> and others have spoken to the fulsome nest of that report so i won't get into that. we've invoke the federal record-keeping act. you can result in voted on at least one occasion, federal records act that requires agencies to store and preserve certain documents are applied to the irs change its document retention policy in may of 2013, the same month lois lerner announced this targeting initiative? >> irs, i wasn't about my understanding they changed their document retention policy in may in response to this investigation. in other words, once the investigation started, the instructions went out to save all e-mails of everyone, that we would no longer recycle them every six months, that we would, in fact, -- nothing was changed. >> please expend why the irs did

not instead -- please explain why the irs do not instead change its document retention policy when tigta initiated its investigation and started working with the irs whereupon it presumably became clear that there was a document retention problem. >> i wasn't there, and started the tigta but if we don't there is no evidence at this point we know of that any e-mails were lost after that point in time. time. >> okay. >> i would stress as i've noted several times the final request i made was to review all custodians and that process has been going on, we got it inefficient of those this weekend we are reviewing that and will share all of that information with you as well. >> okay. it's my understanding that ms. low, the new head of the tax exempt and government entities division has resumed audits of

501(c)(4) organizations that were selected for examination during the targeting and due to political activity. these audits were suspended after the acting commissioner warfel express concerns they may have been tainted by targeting. given these concerns and evidence lois lerner improperly influence the audit selection of right wing group and why would the irs choose to reopen these audits the? they were actually left as painting is my decision that those organizations deserve the right to get the closure on that. we made it clear to them that whatever kuester documentation in the past which may or may not have been overreaching would not apply. we would do this in a straightforward way. my that was it was important to let them know that they could get to closure. we expect that we will. >> but these groups were targeted, we now know, and resumed audits among a body of different groups that may have been improperly targeted, and

that seems not only counterintuitive but certainly televised. >> if you could answer briefly. >> to the extent that an audit had begun it seemed to me better for them and better for the process to close those so there was no implication that we completed the audit they might've actually been decertified or had a problem. so we are moving toward closure and we don't have any reason to assume that they won't all be cleared and that they will be able to operate properly. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. kelly. >> thank you for having him. good to see you again. we had about an hour's conversation earlier this week. the one thing we both agreed on is that i believe there's almost irreparable damage done to the agency, and the process continues to unwind, makes it harder for the american people. i'm talking about average everyday people who are held to an entirely different set of

standards when it comes to what the irs means for them, document, information they need to keep for a long, long time. and when you're on the other side of the table you are not allowed to say, my hard drive crashed, you know this stuff goes. i just can't get to it. but one of the things i think that really makes this important, this is nothing to do with the irs by the way and you and i agreed on that tuesday. but we do agree on is that they didn't the irreparable damage come and kind of building back again what he went off a couple hundred years but if you go back to i think daniel webster and chief justice marshall. they say the power to tax is the power to destroy. so for over two inches this has been in the back of peoples peos minds. i sat in the private sector and watched the irs coming. there's nothing more chilling than to get that letter or that call or that visit because you know right away it's going to be a tough day for you.

now, whether people actually do that or not is another question. it's what people believe because perception israeli. israeli. i would yo just say to you on t. the only thing i look at -- perception is reality. we knew well investments learners e-mails were not going to be available. years ago we knew they weren't going to be available at a think the thing that bothers people on the committee is that we are told you will get everything, just give us a little more time. just give us a little more time. how much more time do you think not just this committee but the american people can withstand? i think we've reached a point where they are exhausted of waiting. is not an indictment of you because i think you're trying to do the right thing, but the agency right now is tainted. and it's kind of reaffirmed what most of us believe that we are guilty until we prove ourselves innocent but in this case of looking at this information. i can understand why, with all the knowledge we knew going back as far as 2011 that this stuff

was a retrievable until ms. leonard results of sort, can't get it for you. as a last resort we sent your hard drive to ci, cruel investigation forensic lab to attempted data recovery. on august 2011 after three weeks of attempt to retrieve her e-mails, ms. lerner was but, unfortunately, the news is not good. the sectors on hard drive were bad which major data unrecoverable. i'm sorry to anyone tried to do the best. the irs new this. you see where i'm coming from the if you knew it so long ago why is it so difficult to just tell people the truth? not make using you but this is a very dangerous slope we're on. when do we tell the american people the truth? that truthfully right now we're not going to get an answer to what you're asking us. i just don't get it. what is the strategy as you move

forward? how do you restore the faith and confidence of the people of the united states in this agency and in this body? we've all taken an oath to defend the constitution and yet there are two sets of rules. one for the general public, one for your agency. general public is not allowed to keep that record. general public is not allowed to have hard drives crash. the general public is not allowed to do some of the same things we've allowed the agency to do, which they don't understand. i can going back to our conversation on tuesday, where do you see this going because i does the upright into this anywhere along the way. at the very least it's going to come out of that some of people knew about this but refuse to be forthcoming about it. that's the best you can do in this. >> record should note that no one knew in the irs about this at the time we've been working on and to actually in february discovered it at the e-mails involved in fact are provided to skimming along the way a normal production and nobody -- >> no, no, no. that's not too.

you knew in august, not you because you are there. the agency knew in august when leavitt they could retrieve this information yet we were told will get you everything. and the fact you have been forthcoming, not you but your agency as to the dilemma that now we face. we have reinforce the people's greatest fear that the irs is working with a completely different set of rules than the general public. people's constitutional rights been violated that we've chosen to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the american people and have continued to stonewall them hoping that somehow we can run out the clock. this is not a partisan issue. this is bipartisan and i don't to anybody say about an election but is it about an election? i was the it is but it's not the way they ended. i appreciate you being you. i admire what you're trying to do. i've got to tell you this is a long uphill climb to restore faith and confidence the american people have to have because -- >> the gentleman's time has expired. spin they don't trust us as much as they used to.

>> mr. griffin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, commissioner, for being here. i just want to follow up on a few of the issues. when asked by my colleagues why the timing of the disclosure regarding the hard drives june as opposed to me or april or march or earlier, you indicated that you thought it made sense to just wait and see you got all the information or did your analysis, or what have you and sort of want to do all that figured out, then let us know. i would just tell you having been a council on the house government reform committee, having served on this committee, having served in the white house and the department of justice, i wouldn't take that approach anymore. that's not the way this city works. when you know and anyone at the

irs -- in fact i would say you were deserved by the legislative folks at the irs, if they did not tell you when you started, they should've walked in and said, this is a hot topic. there are numerous hearings on the hill. senators and members of congress, particularly the ways and means committee, is going to want to know what's going on with this lois lerner situation. by the way, we have some hard drive problems and we never told anybody. let's not wait. it's in everybody's interest to tell the hill. i know about the 770,000 documents and all that stuff. i used to be the guy on the house government reform committee who on a friday night got a box, got 10 boxes from the white house in the late '90s. i was the guy who actually went through those thousands. i can tell you the numbers are misleading. it is you get a bunch of blank sheets, a bunch of nothingness,

not a lot of substance they're usually. yes, i understand your producing them, a bunch of them, but the number in and of itself doesn't tell you a lot. but the bottom line is i would have just, i would approach this committee differently, and if they do get a different response for talented because people here feel like they need to know and they wanted to be a conversation. they don't want it to be a situation, and i know how this works, where the left folks say of the white house as don't answer that unless they ask you specifically. if they don't ask the right question, don't give them that answer. i can tell you that happens all the time. and i know for a fact that it happened to one of my colleague here who is telling me earlier, not necessarily with you but with someone else. i'll give an example. so you interviewed in march of this year in a fellow committee and were interviewed by

dr. boustany and there were numerous times when asked about the lois lerner e-mails. and you would say things like, we're going to produce them, we are working on reduction, we are looking at this, looking at that. there was never one mention of an issue as you describe it. never one mention of a glitch. and you know with all due respect, my daughter is here with me this week. that's like when she, i don't ask the right questions about what she ate, and then i find out that she ate a box of cookies, and she didn't tell me because i didn't ask the right question but she didn't tell me because she knew i would be mad. and i think you had numerous opportunities in these transcripts to just say, hey, we'll get you all the e-mails we have but i want you to know, we've got some problems, and you should know about the hard drive.

and could never happen. we face this was lois lerner when we asked about the (c)(4)s. we never asked them the precise right questions so we never got our answer. i know how that game is played. i've been up here long enough and i'm saying if you want to get a different attitude from this committee, go ahead and share what the political people are telling not to share. just tell us. just tell us, share it, and if it's for plus it, we will ignore. one more thing, to have a question. you know if anyone in the irs has gone before a grand jury on this issue or do know of any grand jury subpoenas that have been issued on this investigation? >> i know of none. >> nine whatsoever. do you know of the department of justice investigation on this at all, criminal investigation? >> i don't have anything about that investigation. i got into the with anybody's investigation. >> thank you spent thank you. mr. renacci. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, commissioner, for

being here and thank you for sticking around. just a couple of things to try to wrap up some things i heard. you testified earlier that three to 5% as a normal crash rate for hard drives. >> that's what i'm advised. >> there were 82 irs employees with some potential political role in political targeting, seven hard drives filled. that's approximately 9%. can you get me some information as to what the normal crash rate is for the irs computers? >> be delighted to get the. i'm advised what you get outside the were defeated the failure rate goes to 10 to 60% but we will get you that information. >> i appreciate that. the other thing that concern me based on what i'm hearing today is that there was a hard drive failure. it was realize. is being investigated, at some point in time someone said we can't get the information off of it. and then it was destroyed. is that a normal process to destroy, special in the of an investigation to destroy a hard

drive? >> i would stress again that hard drive was never destroyed during the investigation. nothing has been destroyed during this investigation. that hard drive was destroyed three years ago after it was a retrievable in terms of e-mail and it had nothing to do with this investigation. -- after it was irretrievable but i would also tell you i've practice in front of the irs for about 25 years as a cpa. i've had come off as a very unusual. i will tell you, had some information that wasn't around, had the hard drives lost, had a lot of things occurred and had to listen to the irs say to them, why did you destroy, even though you weren't being audited back then, why would you destroy something that has information that might be needed? i know you talked about the three years and the 10 years but have also seen the irs bring a guy down on his knees in tears because they said we are going to prosecute you to the full extent of the law because you don't have the proper information. now, when did the standard

change that the individual that you are auditing has to do certain things but the irs doesn't have to keep information or have to keep hard drives are have to make sure that their documentation is a? >> as the record will note from all the indication we have missed longer worked very hard in the i.t. department worked very hard to restore that information, not to lose it. >> i understand that, but when did it change that it would be a destruction of a document which is a hard drive, knowing that it could potentially, there's data onto that might be needed speak with nobody at the time use the data as being related to an investigation. as a general matter if an employee's hard drive fails and information cannot be retrieved, it is recycled and destroyed. >> i will also to you that it's interesting how you answer those questions. in your answers, i think you've heard people saying we have to restore trust to the american

people. your answers probably should be that we're going to make sure that we look at our processes in the future. i wasn't here three years ago, and we're going to make sure we are not destroying hard drives until we fully know that they're not going to be an issue for the future. that would be what something i think the american people would rather hear and, well, it was destroyed, especially in this situation that we have today. >> it's a very good suggestion. .. >> i am here. i wonder how it would be taken if sitting in front of an irs agent.

>> i can take from past history, it does not happen. i will not tell you in all cases the cuts you have good employees. the seen them prosecute to full extent to the law. it is not there was somebody said i have lost and and i do not have other information available. again, this all about to the american people and them having an opportunity to get the full faith back in the irs. how are they ever going to do that when you stand there and say, we do not do anything wrong? it was not part of the process. on the other side, when the shoe is on the other foot and the individual, the taxpayer sits in front of you and says i do not

have the information, they are always prosecuted will stop i yield back. >> thank you very much. that is our last question or. this hearing is now adjourneded. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> on tomorrow's washington journal, guests include ralph reed, bill on the situation on iraq. post to the washington talk about the expansion of the pacific remote islands. comments byour phone, facebook, and twitter. "washington journal" live at 7:00. dr. oz appeared on capitol hill

this week to talk about the false advertising a weight-loss drugs. a senateied before commerce subcommittee and we would show it as saturday. campaign 2016 is heating up. martin o'malley travels to iowa. towill show you his remarks the iowa democratic convention starting at 8:00 p.m. on c-span. >> now you can keep in touch with current events using any phone, anytime with c-span radio on audio now. congressional covers, public affairs and washington journal program and every weekday, list a recap of today's events. of can also hear audio public affairs program beginning sundays at noon. call. radio,

>> carl levin told capitol hill reporters today that he supports the administration's plan to send advisers to iraq to assist the army against militants but would not support air strikes unless three conditions are met. first u.s. commanders must ensure him in the air be effective. second the airstrikes of must have brought support within iraq. and to the airstrikes must have the support from u.s. allies in the region. his remarks are under 20 minutes.

>> good morning. i support the strategy that president obama outlined yesterday and here's why. here's also the factors that i believe should govern our approach moving forward. the decision to send a small number of u.s. nonmilitary advisors is a prudent decision. they can help assess the situation on the ground, support iraqi efforts to defeat the islamic militants that iraq faces, and help iraqis make best use of the ample intelligence support we are already providing. the president is right to say that u.s. troops will not return to ground combat in iraq. the president is also right to say that it is not our place to choose iraq's leaders. that would be wrong on principle

and bad policy to boot. picking and choosing iraqi politicians would only be likely to feed distrust and suspicion and there's already too much of that in iraq. what we can do is promote moves toward the political unity that is absolutely essential for iraq to weather the crisis and to make progress towards a stable society. the problem in iraq has not been a lack of direct u.s. military involvement. but rather a lack of inclusiveness on the part of iraq's leaders. and that's why i believe that

air strikes on our part should only be considered if three very specific conditions have been met. first we should only consider such action if our military leaders tell us that we have effective options that can change the momentum on the ground in iraq. in other words, only if our military leaders believe that we can identify high value targets, that striking them could have a measurable impact on the situation on the ground, and that we can strike them with minimal risk to civilian casualties and without dragging us further into the conflict. second, while it may not be realistic to expect a unity government to be formed in the near term, particularly since the parliament is not even in session, we must expect iraqi leaders to take concrete steps in that direction before we undertake any air strikes. in particular, and this is really my key point, we should

only act if leaders of all elements of iraqi society, shiia, sunni, kurds, and religious minorities and also leaders of some of the tribes only if all of them act in this way together, and that is that they join in a formal request for additional military support. there is an obvious need for iraqi leaders to form an inclusive unity government for their country's long-term success. but that process is likely to take some time. many weeks or even months. but a unified statement requesting further military assistance would be an important

signal that iraq's leaders understand the need to come together. the united states has national security interests in iraq, but further military involvement there would not serve those interests unless iraq begins moves toward the inclusiveness and unity that are necessary if our involvement is to have a positive impact. put another way, we cannot defend iraqis from themselves. only if iraq's leaders begin to show evidence of unity can we help them. finally, any additional military action on our part should come only with the clear public support of our friends and allies in the region, particularly moderate arab leaders of neighboring countries as well. the isil is a vicious enemy.

the isil is also the common enemy of all iraqis and of iraq's neighbors. if this vicious common enemy cannot unite iraqis in a common cause, then our assistance, including air strikes, will make no difference. and i would be happy to try to answer a few questions. maliki to go?for >> it's time for the iraqi leadership to make a decision it as to whether or not his continuing presence is consistent with it pulling iraqis together in this common cause. for the iraqis to decide who their leaders are. but it's for us to determine whether or not any assistance can make a difference. it's for us to determine whether anything that we can do will

make a difference. that's our decision. and it can only make a difference if iraqis pull together in some kind of a government of national unity. who leads that government has got to be up to the iraqis, but it's very clear to me that unless there is some clear evidence that they are moving in that direction, and that's why this common formal statement of a request to us, for instance, for air strikes, is so essential. without at least that much of a showing of unity is made, i don't believe any assistance on our part can make a difference. yes? >> how do you measure the evidence? what are the metrics? the step that is critical before we even consider airstrikes is for there to be a formal, public statement by the leaders of all of the groups in

iraq, shia, sunni, religious minority, kurds, tribal leadership and at least a public , formal statement requesting assistance. that would be a major step towards and an indication of a willingness to move towards national unity. it may be too much to expect the government to actually be formed in the next few weeks. there is no parliament. the less elections until a new one is sworn in. it is not too much to expect and we insist upon this kind of a formal statement of leaders from all of the groups, all of the elements before we even consider having sending airstrikes. yes? >> some of your colleagues have tried to warn that something similar happened -- [indiscernible]

make of these and what might it mean for afghanistan? >> these situations are so totally different, i do not even have time to leave numeral rate all of the differences. they are very different similar wage -- and situations. you do not have a historical major explosive, violent difference in afghanistan the way you do in iraq. of 380,000 army united's who are the army, shown a willingness to fight against the common enemy. years and years of progress now in afghanistan. we had an election which is so far at least has been successful and protected by an afghan army. there are so many differences between afghanistan and iraq, again, it would take quite a long time to even rate --

enumerate all of the differences. >> [indiscernible] hasn't the administration offered any -- how much they think it would cost and how to pay for this year? should cost be considered like airstrikes and further action? >> costs are always a factor. so, i do not think they decided yet whether to take the next step which would be the airstrikes. three clear requirements, until the decision is further along, i would think it is probably premature to decide to attach a cost to it. >> what is the president's view on -- [indiscernible] the do not think administration of any president

would acknowledge you have to have congressional authority. with that dozens of presidents who said they can act in particular limited ways without .ongressional secondly, we have a war powers resolution. the war powers resolution sets forth the steps which congress really should be taking in a situation where we are going to put men and women in harms way. discussing the matter with congressional leaders, requires notice -- prompt notice of such action by the president which i assume if you decide on airstrikes, that would be provided as well as continuing consultations before that notice which have already been committed by the president. our troops remain in harms way for a specified length of time under the war powers underhen the president

the war powers act would need to come to congress for a resolution. an authorization. warow the steps in though powers act, so far the president has not done anything inconsistent with the war powers act. like all other presidents, he will say he has article to powers in any event which cannot be taken away by congressional legislation. >> the trainers you keep talking about -- >> i do not think so because they are not clearly intended to be in combat. it is very specific in the president's statement yesterday that they are not for combat missions. they do not even trigger the war powers act. let me get somebody else. >> the history of sectarian violence in iraq since the fall

of -- [indiscernible] and in the inability of malik he -- maliki to unify the country, do you think perhaps iraq is not viable? as a construct of western powers -- [indiscernible] >> that is a possibility but the itt is not whether are not is after an assessment. it would be the test i lay out that i set forth. that the test would be that here you have a common enemy. every body, all of the elements as we can understand in iraq to tested this enemy. kurds, religious minorities including the christians. if having that kind of a vicious enemy, cannotn

, formalat least a clear request for assistance, then i would say that at that point and is nothing we could do. to help them, to help them of divisionse kind which they have so deep in their society. nothing we can do if they cannot make a formal agreement which they have in isil. that will be the test in which you hypothesize is true. betory shows it likely to true. but history can always change. history has changed in afghanistan. , afghanistan -- after 12 visits, afghanistan is on a different, they can change the direction. it can not be dramatic and sudden, but surely when there is

this kind of a common enemy as violent and vicious as it is and a threat to all of the groups in iraq that there may be able to iraq, the iraqis to come together. done it without this kind of common enemy. it is very possible. take this kind of a vicious alternative for them to see what kind of in the best they are in -- abyss they are in. upt today find a way to come with some kind of government with the national unity. yeah? be with theto administration on iraq. but with syria [indiscernible] -- [indiscernible] -- the but with syria -- [indiscernible] they unity as they are called

for in iraq. a waym now using this as to call for greater action in syria. i called for that on his own terms and the reasons i set forth. i feel that there should be greater support vetted opposition in syria. the vetted part is an important word in that sentence as any other word in that sentence. i do not want to use this as a way to try to persuade the administration to do something which frankly i think they are unwilling to do anyway in syria. there is no border. they are physically linked, geographically linked. there's no boundary between the 2. there are elements which are similar. -- ink we have to focus on know the administration is focused on what are the proper

next step in iraq. ,here are impacts on syria relationships to syria, but i think the key issue here in iraq is the issue of the political leadership in iraq. as that is what the focus is got to be on. >> how do you explain to americans the national security strategy? ne ours -- has isil do plans to do? >> they are a group which is allowed to keep on the course they are on and we will provide a threat to america and the allies the way al qaeda has. and whatit on history you are doing now and what they say their purpose is. you base it on their words and deeds. thank you.

>> irs commissioner john koskinen appeared on capitol hill to talk about the investigation into the targeting of political groups seeking to tax exempt status. what have it tonight at it -- and we will have a tonight at 8:00 p.m.. webbing covering the face and freedom coalition road to majority conference and well several speeches from today's session. here is a preview with remarks from senator minority leader mitch mcconnell and steve king. i run into people to say what can i do. there's only one thing you can do in 2014 -- only one thing. begin to take the country back. that is to change the senate. i am currently the defensive coordinator. [laughter]

are a sports fan, you know you can occasionally score on defense but it is harder. if you are the office of core nader, you can call the plays. what that means in the senate is you get to decide what we debate. the office of coordinator decides what we vote on. i would wager to say it is not a single issue that brought you to washington that you care about that harry reid is ever going to schedule a vote on. tofriends, there is wanting be done in 2014, just one thing, there are other things to be done in 2016 but only one thing to be done in 2014. hope youleave here, i aspire to go out and help us begin to take back america by taking back the senate 2014 in having a new offensive coordinator. thank you very much. >> i am going to go up and running amendment of their and

this long, legal language i will read to you. be used to funds may transfer weapons to the palestinian authority. [applause] we are going to the team to defend israel and we are going to attempt to defend freedom and we have a feckless president that seems to be out on the golf when he is watching what is happening, the calamity in iraq. he gave his speech last friday and said things are not working so good in iraq, there are not going to be boots on the ground and several other options will be deliberating. it would not be any boots on the ground and we will work choir that the iraqis reduce a situation he formal provide aid to them so we know it is not going to be a day or two or three, it is going to be a long time because political solutions

do not come overnight. they do not, on emergency is like the black flag marching across a right which is taken over the lead refinery and has threatened to surround baghdad. they do not wait for that but our feckless president waits. why he ways, thousands of people are being killed. the sectarian violence that has swept across iraq in a way that it realized that have been lost in the treasure been spent and sent certified by our warriors has been desecrated by some the worst heathens we have seen in our lifetime. and he president golfs waits and he stalls and we know he is going to do that. we know that. we do not expect to the act and neither do they. >> there's a whole group of people in america, a big swath of america that is being ignored, left behind, not included in the discussion.

particularly, i will argue the republican party and i called the blue-collar conservatives. that are out there working people, most of them do not have college degrees. folks that still understand the value of work and the responsibility and people who understand the importance of family and faith and believe in freedom and limited government. you say those are conservatives, republican voters. and in many cases, they are not. a lot of them are not voting at all because they do not see either party talking to them about concerns they have in creating an opportunity for them to live the american dream. argues thatorum working americans have been abandoned by both political parties and offers conservative answers to their problems on after words, part of book tv on

c-span 2. we're discussing "the forgotten man." start reading and join others in our chat room. book tv, television for serious readers. over 35 years, c-span brings event directly to you putting you and the room at congressional hearings, white house events, and covers an offering gavel-to-gavel coverage to the u.s. house all is a public service of private industry. there c-span crated by cable tv industry 35 years ago and brought as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. house joshhite earnest who takes a for jay carney took questions on the increasing number of immigrant

children crossing the u.s./mexico border and the investigation into iran's political targeting. this is just over one hour. >> nice to see all of your smiling faces this afternoon. it is friday, there are so many smiles. briefing asfinal the press secretary. chris what are you going to do -- chris what you going to do -- >> what you going to do? [laughter] time.are so on jay he didou mentioned him, his last briefing on wednesday. he is somebody who devoted a portion of the last three years working hard to serve as president and all of you and we are sad to see him go, but wish him all the best as he pursues

the next chapter in his career, and ostensibly will be spending more time with his family. josh, i will let you do the first question today. >> thanks, josh. i risk jumping the gun, but want to welcome you behind the podium. an official welcome. >> thank you. >> if we could start on ukraine. poroshenko has declared a unilateral cease-fire for the next week, but the russian troops along the border we have seen look like they are heading back to the border. is the u.s. concerned about the buildup of forces along the border? >> the short answer is, yes, we are. the united states has been very

clear in our support for president poroshenko's efforts to bring peace to ukraine. he has been clear since he has taken office that he is committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis, and has offered amnesty and providing safe passage to russia to those militants operating in ukraine. he is committed to operating a dialogue and undertake constitutional reform to address legitimate concerns of the ukrainian people. we have been clear that there are some asks of president putin as well. we have called on putin to promote stability to the security situation in ukraine, but we have all also asked them to halt the provision of arms across the border from russia to ukraine. we are also wanting them to stop supporting the militants who are fomenting so much violence and instability in that country.

there is mounting evidence that shows a buildup of russian military forces near the border of ukraine, contrary to the statements by kremlin officials. we do not see any evidence the russian military units arriving are connected to any type of border security mission, and further reports from moscow that the defense ministry is considering creating military cordons is troubling. we will not accept military force under any pretext, as ukraine is a sovereign country, and interference by outside countries is a violation of their sovereignty and territorial integrity. there is one other point i want to raise here that is also important and of concern. inflammatory statements such as those by foreign minister lavrov earlier this week in which he

described ethnic cleansing taking place are simply false. responsibility for the deterioration in the human rights situation in ukraine, multiple reports by human rights monitors over the past several months have indicated separatists groups are perpetrating increasing numbers of violent abuses in eastern ukraine. the same is happening in crimea under russian occupation. what the president said in europe and communicated directly to putin was there is an opportunity for russia to play a constructive role in this process. there is no reason for the people of ukraine to relations with russia and good relations with the west. there is an opportunity for them to have both. they are only going to have those solid relations if russia

respects the sovereignty of ukraine and works in a cooperative fashion to bring stability to the security situation there. >> [indiscernible] >> that is correct. >> in iraq, the top shiite is now calling for a new government. considering maliki's religious group, does that leave the u.s. to think that it is time for new government there to take over? >> the views of the administration have not changed, that the leadership should be determined by the iraqi people. that is the policy of this administration. it is something that president reiterated yesterday. it is also the belief of the obama administration and of the president personally that a successful iraqi government, an

iraqi central government that has control over the country and can bring stability, will be a government that governs in an inclusive fashion. pursuing an inclusive political agenda is critical to the success of that country, and it is critical to demonstrating to all the people of iraq that they have an interest in that country's prosperity and that country's future. we are going to continue to support the iraqi people and government as they consider pursuing a diplomatic or a political agenda along these lines. >> a program announced today to deal with child immigration programs. where is the money going to come from? >> let me back up to make sure everybody is up to date in terms of what we are talking about.

what was announced earlier by the department of homeland security was a commitment of an additional judges, officers, and immigration attorneys to deal with what we are seeing in terms of the increasing flow of adults who are showing up at the border between the united states and mexico. in addition, we have committed resources to opening up facilities in this country to deal with the growing problem of adults who appear on the border with children, that is, adults from other countries who are seeking to illegally enter this country and have children with them. then once those facilities are up and running, we will then deploy a similar surge of judges, officers, and attorneys to more quickly and efficiently deal with those immigration cases. in many cases these are asylum requests, and that is why we will have officers and judges

there to process them quickly and efficiently. in terms of paying for this, i do not have any details to offer specifically here. i will point out that in recent weeks we have seen comments from democrats and republicans in congress expressing concern about this situation, about this influx we are seeing along the southern border, mostly in the rio grande valley. it would be our hope and expectation that those members of congress who are expressing concern about the situation will work collaboratively with the administration to make sure we have resources necessary to do with this. >> there's no information about how many officers, judges, and how it is going to be paid for? >> no, but in terms of paying for it we would want to work

with congress to make sure that the necessary resources are available to deal with the problem that exists. >> about the irs, i was wondering whether the white house would consider appointing an independent prosecutor, and if not, why not? >> i think many republicans in congress, particularly in the house, have demonstrated a pretty aggressive appetite for investigating this issue. you have seen extensive cooperation by the internal revenue service and members of the obama administration with that investigation. there have been 750,000 pages of documents provided, 64,000 different e-mails from one specific irs employee. our willingness to cooperate with this investigation is evident from the numbers.

the thing that is also true is that there have been a large number of claims and conspiracy theories floated about this process by republicans that have not panned out, frankly, and we have demonstrated our willingness to collaborate with legitimate oversight. we will continue to cooperate, and that is why there has been the testimony that you have seen today because they are officials going there and answering all these questions. >> so there will not be an independent person coming in and looking at it. wouldn't it help to have a different person look at it? >> no, because a politically

motivated investigation has not come up with evidence. interviews with irs employees, 750,000 pages of documents, there is zero evidence to support republican claims. these are investigations that have a transparent political motive. i am not sure there is a lot more to be discovered here. there has been an independent ig investigation here, and he found no evidence that anybody

in the irs had any involvement. we have cooperated extensively with a large number of congressional hearings, many of which were independently -- did not find evidence that supports republican claims. frankly, we prefer that republicans would devote this kind of attention and energy on policies that would create jobs, as opposed to partisan fishing expeditions. let's go around the room a little bit. >> i was wondering if i could get your reaction to the republican leadership elections yesterday, specifically your opinion -- [inaudible] how you think you're going to work with him. >> i would first begin by congratulating mr. mccarthy and others for being voted in by their peers in the republican congress.

as the elected leaders of one party and one house of congress, the administration will seek to find common ground. there is no doubt -- there are different policy views. there are plenty of differences. what we hope we can focus on are the common -- are that there is common ground. we will see if they are willing to do that. if there is a willingness by those members of republican leadership to try to find common ground with the administration on a range of policies that would better support middle-class families all across the country. they will find willing partners on pennsylvania avenue. >> it was suggested that mccarthy's election opened a window of opportunity. i wonder if you guys have reached out to him in any way or had discussions about immigration reform.

second, conventional wisdom -- [inaudible] >> i do not have specific phone calls or meetings with mr. mccarthy to react to. i have expressed what i think about the political analysis that has reached a conclusion that a candidate for office who was strongly opposed to immigration reform was somehow the key to the passage of immigration reform. i just moved to virginia. not the seventh congressional district. but i saw the mailers cantor's campaign distributed, and it was clear that he was opposed to immigration reform. he was promising to do

everything he could to block it. that is unfortunate, and i think it is an open question whether or not the prospects for immigration reform's passage are enhanced by mr. mccarthy ascension to higher position of republican leadership. i know that there are many in mr. mccarthy district in california that strongly support immigration reform. that is not actually unique. there are a lot of people across the country who are strongly in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. there are plenty of good economic reasons to support immigration reform. it has been found that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in deficit reduction over the next couple of decades that would be enjoyed by this country of immigration reform were to pass. again, this will have to be a decision that mr. mccarthy makes

as he gets settled into an office in the capital. >> i know the vice president is in central america today. the white house and the dream act, comprehensive immigration reform, are not the reasons why people are crossing the border. in fact, that may be true. we are hearing their coming here not because of that, but because they realize that once they get here -- [inaudible] the bureaucratic system in this country allows them to stay. we cannot get answers from this administration about the numbers. we have asked repeatedly -- how many people who were given these promises to appear notices, the mothers who give promises to appear notices, and they are allowed to stay with relatives. how many of them are going to

court versus how many are disappearing into the fabric of the country? a related question is, how many of the unaccompanied minors are released to foster homes or relatives in the country and are allowed in the states? isn't that the real reason they are coming across? why won't the administration answer those questions? >> i want to make something really clear first of all. so much of what we are seeing on the southern border is the result of a deliberate misinformation campaign that is propagated by criminal syndicates in central america. that misinformation is causing some people who are in a rather desperate situation to risk their lives to come to the united states border expecting that they will be able to stay in this country. that is simply not true.

it is important for people all across this country and for people in mexico and central america to understand what the facts are. the reason is simple. what we are seeing there is a very serious humanitarian situation, one that is the source of significant concern to the president. so his administration is trying to deploy a lot of resources to deal with that. now, that has manifested itself in a number of different ways. the president had a phone call with president pena nieto in mexico yesterday in which they discussed the situation. the vice president is traveling in central america, meeting with leaders in el salvador and guatemala them as well as government representatives from honduras and mexico. the state department and dhs

officials have been engaged with their colleagues and their counterparts. i think countries throughout the hemisphere are talking about this issue. what we are trying to do is to address this problem in two ways. the first is to address the needs of those who have been apprehended on the border. i was mentioning to roberta that dhs announced they were going to open up additional detention facilities that can accommodate adults who show up on the border with their children. we are going to deploy some resources to work through their immigration cases more quickly so they are not held in that facility for a long time and can hopefully be quickly returned to their home country. what we are also doing is working in a collaborative fashion with countries in central america to try to address the problem at its root. some of that is an informational campaign and countering this intentional misinformation campaign that is being propagated by criminal syndicates. but also working through a range of usaid programs and the governments in these countries to try to meet some of the citizen security needs that are so acute in those countries right now.

>> is it really a misinformation campaign? >> it is. >> here is why i am asking -- what is happening now is border patrol is taking those mothers and kids, putting them on a bus, and taking them to a bus station in mcallen, texas, and they are buying tickets to go stay with relatives in this country. all they have to do is promise that they will appear in court, and the administration will not tell us how many of them are really going to court, and how many are disappearing into the fabric of american society? the bureaucracy in this country is allowing them to stay, that is what they are telling people. >> a couple things. it is hard for me to make a blanket statement about our immigration policy.

other than this administration has a commitment to enforcing the law. the law is very clear about this. those individuals who want to show up on the border, whether they have their children with them are not eligible for the deferred action the administration announced a year or two ago. and what we are doing is we are mobilizing additional resources to try to deal with this problem more effectively and in a more humanitarian fashion. and in this case -- >> [inaudible] those promising to appear, are they appearing or not? are the unaccompanied minors who are then given to foster homes are allowed to stay with the families in this country while waiting for a court appearance, how many of those are actually showing up? why won't the administration tell us those numbers? >> i do not have those numbers here. what i do have is a clear commitment from this administration to do with what is an emerging humanitarian situation. it is important for your viewers to understand and for the consumers of information in central america to understand that showing up at the border illegally is not a ticket into this country.

one of the reasons that the president is a strong and powerful advocate of the kind of commonsense immigration reform that we are discussing, in response to an earlier question, is that it would streamline our illegal immigration for a variety of reasons, some economic and some humanitarian. there should be stronger support for streamlining this process. democrats and republicans have both acknowledged that this legal immigration process is not where it could be. better resources devoted to that system can mitigate some of this problem, but it does not change the fact that it is not a good idea for people to make the trek through mexico and to appear at the southern border in the rio grande valley of united states and think that once they are

detained by customs or border patrol personnel, that they will be allowed into the country. they will not. >> back to russia, earlier this morning on the conference call with senior administration officials, they described potential sanctions that could sectoral, bute rather something more along the lines of a scalpel, the weight is described during that conference call. the that mean administration is now backing away from that? >> sectoral sanctions are made on the table. this is something that the administration is working in cooperative fashion with our partners and allies in europe to present a united front. more, that