decided to appreciate what the public servants do come and we do. but this is serious stuff. .. your job is to rebuild this trust. and with all due respect, the comments we've heard today, the processes that you've gone

through, haven't begun to rebuild that trust. you said that the work continues, the ongoing work continues. isn't it true that our friends who draw the conclusion of innocence is likely premature, is that not correct? >> are not sure who's i innocent you're worried about. i would like to note that the statistics we shared with this committee and happy to continue to work with you do not show that any donors were audited at a higher rate than people in the public generally. if they were it was a mistake but there's no evidence there was a systematic attempt. >> it's clear that the individuals -- and anecdotally there's no doubt about it, but the statistics will show that folks who donated to these groups were audited at a high rate. i want to get to a couple of specific questions. you said you learned about the crash of this hard drive in february of this year?

>> i don't there was a potential problem in february. we did not know and i was not advised there had been a crush in may when her i.t. people discovered it and it wasn't until the end of may we understood there were able to complete the investigation of what the revocations were, how many enough still existed and then started the investigation of how many other -- >> winless treasury informed? >> i don't know. i did not -- >> they had to have been informed by the irs the? >> my understanding is that sometime by mid-april any conversation between council, council of treasury their advice there was a problem with the lois lerner's e-mails and that -- >> the irs council that inform the treasury? >> that's my understanding. they were advised we were investigating. >> secretary lew is refused today to provide a mouse as relates to lois lerner and other items to this committee. don't you think would be appropriate given, or maybe his computer crashed. didn't know if secretary lose

crash -- computers has crashed, do you? >> my understanding, i haven't seen any of these documents. >> do you think it would be appropriate -- >> treasury department has provide all of their lowest learner e-mails. >> we have not reviewed them yet. >> none of us had had a chance to review those but that's my understanding. >> if there are any from lois lerner and secretary lew you will have those. >> to know if lois lerner headed back to larry -- a blackberry or an eiffel? >> i don't know spend i do not know. >> do employees of the irs kerry mobile devices issued by the government? >> the kerry mobile devices. the mobile devices running same e-mail system. people do not have on their office blackberries. if they have them or whatever mobile devices they have, ma they all run against the same e-mail account. >> can you find out if lois lerner had an iphone or a blackberry? >> i'd be happy to let you know. >> there's a notion on the other side this is the artist is

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

>> while the committee was in recess, irs commissioner john the irsnd -- commissioner spoke reached really -- briefly with reporters. our people in february were starting to pull her e-mails. by e-mails which had, subject matter and put them in order by date. in late february they discovered there were only a handful, a thel handful and then

luminous e-mails. her computer had crashed. the i.t. department had verified that. when we went -- we started retracing the issue of did we lose e-mails in our own production, was the gap so the system did not work so we ran that prices starting from scratch. in the course of pulling all the e-mails discovered the trail of hard drivet said my has crashed and what can you do? we pulled all of the 82 custodians who had been searched to see if there was anything in the lois lerner e-mails. 24,000 lois lerner e-mails from other accounts. at that point as we were pulling that to get it all done i

would like to know on the other 82 custodians because hard drives crash all the time. how many others had a hard drive i.t. was that is what reviewing and monday morning told the deputy i.t. person working with us and that afternoon we were doing rethinks with congress, you have to ask the same question. did anyone else have that problem, they responded we just learned this morning that there was one that failed and add two more since we are moving through this. this is what we found. that resulted in a press release and thismails are lost is part of who knows what, document destruction.

we will give everyone 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're in the middle of a production. i would say we need to find as much information as we can what happened. and how hard she worked to get them back. however -- how many other e-mails can we find if we had this meeting three or four weeks ago. we would not know that there were 24,000 lois lerner e-mails in this cap. our goal has been to provide as much information as we can and you try to help this committee gets a closure. at some point somebody is going to write a report which i have welcomed and said look at the facts and the recommendations and we will go forward. at this point it is an important

issue. we were concerned as we tracked it down. i am pleased that we are able to find 24,000 e-mails from that time. i am pleased that it is clear that she worked hard and agency work hard to restore those e-mails. i am pleased that the white house and treasury have released all of their documents so that there is not an issue of what might be missing would be any lois lerner e-mail from that timeframe that when outside the agency because of she did not copy anybody that would not have internaled up in the issues. from april of 2011 on an e-mails beenent out would have found and would be part of the production we had. i think this is an important asue but it has got caught in political maelstrom. concerned that at the end of the dana matter what you say house republicans are going to think that you guys are covering this up? >> there will always be a group believe theo

government is up to no good. given the chance they will cover things up. in this case the evidence is very clear if not overwhelming that in 2011 before the investigation started there was destroy the hard drive and it was a great effort to restore the e-mails. someone on was trying to get rid of e-mails, that is not the way you would do it. [inaudible] you should print it out if it is federal record. quick she did print out e-mails and some of the production of her documents are hard copies. >> are you taking a look at the irs compliance with the federal records act and disciplinary action for employees? >> i have asked some time ago that we be -- when the dust

settles we take a look at our , antiquated as it is in try to figure out back to an earlier question how can we have a system that would be more easy to be searchable? it is not in our interest to spend $18 million that have thousands of employees desponding. more recently as i had asked questions about federal records i said we need to review what is our policy. part of our problem because of the antiquated system we have is our e-mail system is not a system of record. some agencies that have more modern systems automatically official records as part of the e-mail system. we do not do that. we are still -- the record act was passed in the 1950's so it was all paper then. told people we need to take a look at that and look at the entire system. the end of my at

2.5 years remaining in my term which i would like everyone to know i will complete i would like the irs to be a position if someone needed to do a search they were could do it efficiently. that would not create the time and effort it takes to respond. i understand the frustration that takes longer for us to respond and other agencies with more modern systems. thank you all. thanks very much. the program will continue soon. >> and your projections for the u.s.? >> [inaudible] has done a wonderful job developing this team and they could surprise people on sunday. the tie of not a win against portugal. i was there in 2002 when they beat portugal in the first game which 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 but as you watch the games we are at a level where we are competitive with anybody and after you get through the top eight or 10 teams, the rest of them look like those are teams that we could have a good result with. >> we will see if mr. ryan agrees with you. my credibility he will take another view. >> a few more comments from our facebook page. --rick says and rose says -- you can offer your thoughts as well at facebook.com/cspan. after the short races for house votes, the ways and means committee resumed its hearing on the investigation into the alleged targeting of

conservative groups. this portion is 30 minutes. 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 can tell you from past history that doesn't happen and in many cases i not going to tell you in all cases because you do have employees but in

some cases i've seen them prosecute three full extent of the law that isn't clear when an individual says i don't have it, i've lost it, i don't have the ability to get it and i don't have other information to bring it together. this is all about the american people and of them having an opportunity to get some full space back in the irs but at the same time how are they ever going to do that when you stand there and say we didn't do anything wrong. yet when the other side when the taxpayers it in front of you and says i don't have the information. they are always prosecuted to the full extent of the law. >> thank you very much. with that of the hearing is now adjourned [no audio]

>> keep in touch with current events at any time with c-span radio. every weekday listen to a recap of the day's events at five :00

eastern on washington today. here are the of the five networks on this program beginning sundays at noon eastern. >> the st. louis post-dispatch georgeed it was dropping will. he addressed the controversy in an interview on c-span q&a. college has become the victim of progressivism. the day we are recording this, --[indiscernible] >> they know how to perpetuate

the rabble. this is my job. dubious statistics. of abandonments of due process, to step in and say take a deep breath everybody. what has happened is the administration has said that one in five women in college experience a sexual assault. assaults are reported. 12% aret, only reported. take the reporting, extrapolate from that. you don't come to anything like one in five. the administrations statistics fall apart. beyond that, the office of civil rights and department education have said that school should adjudicate sexual assault

charges by a preponderance of evidence. there is serious due process problems here. , a lot going to result of young men and young women in this sea of hormones and alcohol that gets into some much trouble on campuses, you're going to have georges -- charges of sexual assault and men disciplines, their lives permanently and seriously plighted by this. don't get into medical school, don't get to law school, and you will have litigation of tremendous expense. as young men sue the colleges for damages done to them by abandonment of the rules of due process that we have as a >> they begin the letter

by saying having your thesis and statistics fly in the face of everything we know about this issue more egregiously, you trivialize the scourge of sexual inault, putting the phrase scare quotes. that legitimizing the myth advocates have worked tirelessly to combat. >> have you seen my letter i wrote? what i say and there is i take sexual assault more seriously than i think they do. i agree that society has correctly said that rape is second only to murder as a serious felony, and therefore when someone is accused of rape it should be reported to the criminal justice system to deal with this, not with campus

processes. second, i think sexual assault more seriously than senators do because i think there is a danger of defining sexual broadly, so capacious leak, it begins to trivialize the seriousness of it. when you can have remarks become sexual assault, improper touching, should be dumb but it is not sexual assault. we begin to blur distinctions that are important to preserve. if you believe as the senators purport to believe this is a serious matter. >> to give any idea you would get the feedback you got from this? and you have a lot of people calling for your head. >> sure. i dreamt about it. it was a lot of passion involved. that is what you're supposed to do. calling for my head, no.

reason,or some indignation is the default position in civic discourse. start torom a standing theory in 30 seconds. it has lowered any race the barriers to entry into public discourse. that is a good thing. unfortunately the downside of barriers, youe don't have to be able to read, write, or thing. you can just call names and shall. we have interest groups who think they are only going to get are at maximumey decibel level. don'ty shout and say i just disagree. fire him and sent him to jail. like summer storms.

they dissipate fast. stuck by you. why do you think they did? likes i don't think they have covered themselves. >> over the years and he had this reaction? >> no. on some occasions when it gets a lot of people angry. that is part of my job. back theuld not take words you use? >> no. >> watch the entire interview in the coming weeks on c-span. >> next, carl levin talking with reporters about u.s. military options in iraq. after that, a chance to see a house ways and means committee on the investigation of the irs alleged target of conservative

groups. >> american history tv is live from the civil war institute. you will hear historian peter carmichael on robert e lee followed by arizona state university brooke simpson. this weekend, on american history tv. >> the chair of the armed services committee, carl levin, told reporters he supports sending military advisers to assist iraq army against the militants but that he does not support air strikes against iraq. his remarks are 15 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. >> is it time for maliki to go? >> 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? >> one point i make is 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] what did you 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. you have an army of 380,000 afghani's who are the united army, shown a willingness to fight against the common enemy. we have 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. on these 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] >> i do not think the 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 congressional.

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. that requires 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 notice would be provided as well as continuing consultations before that notice which have already been committed by the president. and then if our troops remain in harms way for a specified length of time under the war powers act, then the president under the war powers act would need to come to congress for a resolution. an authorization. follow the steps in though war 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 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 test is not whether are not it 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. sunni, shia, kurds, religious minorities including the christians. if having that kind of a vicious enemy, a common enemy, cannot produce at least a clear, formal request for assistance, then i would say that at that point and

is nothing we could do. to help them, to help them overcome those kind of divisions 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. history shows it likely to be true. but history can always change. history has changed in afghanistan. after 12 visits, afghanistan is 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

be what forces iraq, the iraqis to come together. they may have 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. that today find a way to come up with some kind of government with the national unity. yeah? >> you seem to be with the administration on iraq. but with syria -- [indiscernible] they unity as they are called for in iraq. >> i am now using this as a way

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. i think we have to focus on -- i know the administration is focused on what are the proper next step in iraq. there 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? what is -- has isil done our 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. you base it on history and what you are doing now and what they say their purpose is. you base it on their words and deeds. thank you.

>> next a house hearing on the investigation of the irs alleged targeting of conservative groups. on the next washington journal, faith and freedom coalition ralph reed discusses the road to majority coalition. the web edition morning the president against military action in iraq. and, the decision this week to expand a protected marine area in the pacific to 10 times its current size. we take your calls and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

>> and-a-half on transparency. transparency. this administration has perfected the stall, the delay, the excuses. it is shocking. i feel strongly the information they withhold and protect many times belongs to the public. we own it. there is no sense of that when they ask for it. defend their trade secret rather than understanding what they hold as information they have gathered on our behalf. >> cheryl atkinson on the changing face of news. representative dave camp of

michigan shares the committee. this is 2.5 hours. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the committee will come to order. well, good morning. over three years ago this committee started asking the irs, was a targeting conservatives for the belief?

wasn't asking groups inappropriate questions? was it harassing conservative donors? the irs assured this committee and even testified before congress time and time again that no targeting was occurring. then as we all recall one year ago when a signature new stuff, then head of exempt organizations at the irs lois lerner admitted to the american people that the irs targeted conservative organizations. the irs lied to congress and the american people. in fact, this committee has found there's ample evidence to suggest the irs violated constitutional rights of taxpayers. as of today the investigation into the irs intentional organize targeting of americans for the belize has been ongoing for over a year. what we have found so far is outrageous. the i arrest spent over three years responding to top democrat complaints and calls to action

to stop all activities of conservative groups. the i arrest in washington, d.c. took their marching orders and subjected americans to harassment going so far as to question the content of their prayers and their political beliefs while subjecting them to audits and making a personal taxpayer information. when the scandal first broke out the president vowed that his administration would work adequate hand-in-hand with congress to get this thing fixed, end quote. and the spring commissioner koskinen can you said your goal was to quote find problems quickly, fix them probably to make sure they stay fixed and be transparent about the entire process, end quote. well, since my time in congress i've never seen and i arrest so broken. late last friday the irs admitted to congress that the agency had lost over two years worth of lois lerner e-mails and blame the loss on a computer crash. my committee staff later learned in an interview that it wasn't

only ms. lerner's e-mails, e-mails of six other individuals relevant to this investigation including the former acting commissioner chief of staff. and just two days ago we found out the irs and white house have known for months and kept it secret from congress. this is not the most open and transparent administration the president promised. this is about as far as you can get from getting this thing fixed. now, what does this really mean? it means the irs has claimed that ms. lerner's hard drive is really unrecoverable, the public will never know the full extent of the abuse of americans for exercising their first amendment rights. let me give you an example. ms. lerner told to do investigative she first learned about the two-party targeting in july of 2011. that wasn't true. instead were 2011 ms. linda told subordinates by e-mail quote tea party matter dangers come into court and discuss ways to deny the applications. we only have this e-mail because

they came from another employees in box. had ms. lerner e-mailed this to the treasury department or justice, for example, it would be gone for ever according to the irs. we are missing a huge piece of the puzzle. the years between 2009-2011 are the very peak of an irs organize and gentlemen it's targeting schemes. how convenient for the irs and the administration. i find it hard to believe that i don't believe they either as through every possible exercise to recover these documents. we are missing the e-mails of seven irs officials during periods critical to this investigation. how is this possible? making matters worse the irs kept all this secret while informing political set in the administration account all the of destruction either this congress and the american people cannot take the irs at its word. one thing is for certain. you can blame it on a technical

glitch. it is not a technical glitch to mislead the america the america. usage of lost e-mails of what you've lost is all credibility. the irs is in charge of hundreds of millions of taxpayers information. and you are now saying your technology system was so poor that years worth of e-mails are for ever unrecoverable. how does that put anyone at these? how far would the excuse of i lost it did with the irs for an average american tried to file their yearly taxes and have lost a few receipts? oddly enough, this seems a satisfactory answer for the attorney general. as far as i can tell this administration has done nothing to investigate what truly happened, not withstanding this committee sending the department of justice a detailed referral letter of nearly 100 pages. they have repeatedly tried to keep this under a rug and quote -- never looking for the facts. the american people have no reason to trust the irs or

frankly the administration on this issue. to wait years to reveal the fact the arrest was targeting the american people and then wait months to reveal your conveniently missing years of documents. it's know what i've heard the word cover-up thrown about a lot this week at the time for denial, delay, obstruction and intense to -- attempt to blow this off is over. this committee is set up and we expect some answers. not only from the irs but the whole administration but it's time we restore the american people's trust in the government but i fear with recent events that may not be possible. and now, mr. levin, i recognize you for an opening statement. >> thank you. on september 11, 2013, internal revenue service provided this committee with one of the 770,000 pages of documents it has turned over since ways and

means undertook its investigation into the irs in may 2013. in total, more than 250 irs employees has spent over 120,000 hours working to produce documents at a cost of at least $16 million to taxpayers. that document received a lot of september, last september, included an e-mail from lois lerner to other irs personnel dated june 14, 2011. it began, my computer crashed yesterday. we now know the full extent of that equipment failure. despite an exhaustive effort by forensic i.t. professionals at the irs, they were unable to save her hard drive, and are

e-mails between january 1, 2009, and april 2011. although her e-mails from june 1, 2009, through april 2011 our unrecoverable from her hard drive, the irs will produce 67,000 e-mails related to lois lerner. the irs has or will be producing 24,000 e-mails that have been recovered from the carried before her computer crashed. they recovered these e-mails from other irs employees. that is on top of more than 43,000 e-mails involving ms. lerner after april 2011 that have already been produced. there is absolutely no evidence, absolutely no evidence to show

that ms. lerner's computer crash was anything more than equipment failure. at the time of the incident in june 2011, irs computer experts reviewed the issue and inform lois lerner that, and i quote, unfortunately, the news is not good. the sectors on the hard drive were bad which made your data unrecoverable, and quote. -- end of quote. was your computer crash a conspiracy? no. was the internal revenue service's system for backing up the system entirely underfunded and wholly deficient? clearly, yes. in fact, congress has cut the irs budget for operations, which includes what it spends on computers and other information technology every year for the last five years. house republicans are proposing

to slash it once again next year. commissioner koskinen, whom we welcome here today, has informed this committee that the irs has $1 billion worth of computer equipment, and that the agency should be spending $150 million, to $209 on maintenance for that equipment. instead, the agency spends virtually nothing because he cannot afford to properly maintain what it has. it is important to remember that e-mails were routinely lost during the bush administration. in one instance in 2007, according to report by democrats on the oversight and government reform committee, the bush white house acknowledged having lost nearly 5 million e-mails between march 2003 and october 2005,

related to allegations of the politically motivated dismissal of u.s. attorneys. lost data under the bush administration, coupled with a number of computer crashes at the irs, clearly demonstrate the need for government agencies to have adequate budgets to invest, upgrade and maintain information technology. my colleague's on the other side of the aisle have taken this opportunity to rehash well-worn allegation, allegations of white house involvement. allegations that republicans have made from the very moment the inspector general released his report more than a year ago. on the day the report was released, before a congressional investigation into the issue had even begun, chairman issa accused the white house of him

in quote, targeting his political enemies. three days later, our chairman, mr. camp, in your opening statement during the first hearing on this matter, you accused the white house of a culture of cover-up. congressional republicans are so determined to find a needle in the haystack that they seek desperately to add to the haystack, even though no needle has been discovered. it was in that vein that chairman camp this week said that this entire case started with the white house, and sent a letter to the president requesting all correspondence between lois lerner and the executive office of the president between january 2009 and may 2011, the period before ms. lerner's hard drive crashed. the white house has conducted a search, and what have they found? there was not a single e-mail correspondent sent to or from

ms. lerner and the white house. this committee has been involved in this investigation for over a year. here is what we have learned. the 501(c)(4) applications of both conservative and progressive groups were inappropriately screened. they were long delays in processing applications. there was serious mismanagement, and i was among the very first to call for ms. lerner and then commissioner miller to be relieved of their duties. in all of the 770,000 pages of documents that the irs has supplied congressional committees, including ours, there has not been any evidence of political motivation or of white house involvement. now there have been computer failures at the irs, and republicans, conspiracy theories

have started a new. the evidence today reinforces this long evident truth, the prevailing conspiracy in this matter is that of the republicans desire to stir their base, tied the problem to the white house, and keep up this drumbeat until the november election. i'm glad that you, commissioner koskinen, is here with us today to set the record straight. we are glad you are here. you started at the irs last december, after distinguished career in the public and private sectors. at omb, at freddie mac, as the chair of president clinton's y2k computer consult. so again we welcome your testimony. we are glad you are here. we look