next, house hearing investigating reports the irs targeted conservative groups applying for taxes and status. the cochairs of the 9/11 commission discussed the new reports on national threats. live at 7:00 a.m., your calls and comments on washington journal. this week on newsmakers, border protection commissioner will talk about the situation that the u.s. border were unaccompanied minors and others from central america are entering the u.s. newsmakers, 10:00 a.m. 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. eastern on c-span. on wednesday, house subcommittee get an update from irs commissioner about his agency's response to ongoing congressional oversight and inquiries into alleged targeting of conservative groups. this portion of the hearing is about 2.5 hours.

>> i appreciate you have been willing to persist but -- participate. as we continue to explore the timeline of the crash, the inconsistency of the probability of lost e-mails by multiple people with the government, we appreciate you are not in government. you were not doing this at the time. as you can imagine, not just the internet, not just fox but america is beginning to question how convenient so many e-mails of so many people at the heart of targeting conservative groups for their views and politics and for the fact that the citizens united was objected to by the president -- how many of them had loss of data and how much is not available to american people? a cover-up is normally described as something that happens during an investigation around here.

in other words, things go missing during an investigation. when it comes to the loss of data, it is clear that data began disappearing and not being able to be found at a time when congress was just beginning to look at wrongdoing that is now confirmed that began with the president objected to citizens united. that began with democratic members of the house and senate writing letters asking for investigation of people that were politically the opposite of their party. not asking for investigations about all people who may be involved in political activities in addition to the nonprofit work. it is clear they were driven within the irs and perhaps other areas by the lyrical bias -- political bias and the president wanted a fix in the fix had to

occur. commissioner, you are not in government at that time, but government -- it is their time and watched and responsibility. whether it is the fcc, the irs the department of justice, or any and all of government activities that led to the unfair treatment on the eu of campaign election of conservative groups, it is clear there was a convenient loss of far more data by four more people than is explained by the normal probability. today, we will explore not only the timeline for when this committee received that timeline. it was your watch to give us accurately and keep us up to date on developments related to other parts of our investigation. it is my view that you could've done better. you will and have paid a price

in public opinion for not being as forward and proactive as you could've been. that was yesterday. today, what we are asking you to do is to continue working with your i.g. and if we are fortunate enough to get a special prosecutor, work with him or her and work with the groups that now have federal judges ordering the irs to show particular information and bringing it all together back to this committee because this committee has an intent to make it public what we can find is being done on behalf of the american people to bring back the confidence in the irs. again, i appreciate your willingness to be here. these are not easy hearings. each time you come, you leave with more questions from austin you come with answers to us and that is the nature of the investigation that continues to evolve.

mr. chairman, i want to thank you for recognizing me. commissioner, you need to be a part of the solution. i believe you have to a certain extent and i believe you are committed to do more and for that, i thank you and yield back. >> the ranking member of the committee -- >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank you for testifying before this committee yet again. this is the third time in the past month you have appeared before us and that is not count the appearance before the ways and means committee. unfortunately, it appears that you and other irs employees are now collateral damage in a fight for the spotlight among the republican committee chairman.

this is unseemly, embarrassing. it is not a proper way to run an investigation or to spend millions of dollars in taxpayer funds. as the commissioner knows very well, when the chairman was informed about the crash of the hard drive, he announced he would be putting the hearing before the ways and means committee. there was a unilateral subpoena were crying -- requiring the commissioner justified before the committee. there was no holding of a debate. the hearing was moved up several days. it did not seem to matter to either chairman that the irs

provided numerous documents showing that during the computer crash there was a technological problem with multiple i.t. officials trying to remedy it. those were irrelevant. they have asked the inspector general to conduct an investigation into the hard drive crash which he has agreed to do. commissioner testified last time that he was here that the inspector general asked him to make his investigation the top priority. that was the id's request -- i. g's request. they demanded that the irs make

employees available to him now. the commissioner explained that the inspector general did want employees subjected to multiple invest theigative issues. he made the employees appear before the committee. republicans accused him of of trucks and claiming that he was hiding witnesses from the committee. when he again explained that the inspector general asked him not to subject employees to multiple interviews, he said he was going to file it directly. that did not happen. yesterday, i asked my staff to contact the inspector general's office and find out what is going on. i can report when he told us.

the investigation confirmed that his office is conducting the investigation that the chairman requested exactly what the commissioner told us which is the inspector general refers about the irs employees not be subjected to multiple interviews in order to avoid obtaining their testimony. without directly criticizing the chairman, the i.g. says as investigators working for the inspector general they want everyone to allow them to complete their interview first without distraction. there is no confusion of witness testimony and integrity. the investigation is not compared. contrary to these requests, the commissioners forcing employees to come to our committee. since he is excluding the chairman irs employees are

being forced to appear before the ways and means committee. there were dueling press releases with its of information and excerpts in an effort to compete for more headlines matter how on substantiated claims were. the investigation also told us else -- over the past year and a half, there has been no new evidence that would change the audit from 2013. there are simply no evidence whatsoever of any white house involvement in the applications. the irs has spent $18 million responding to the congressional investigation. the commissioners not testifying before congress for the fourth time in just over a month. yet, the chairman informed committee members at that he

will be holding another hearing next wednesday. we have the notice here. with that, i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. >> point of privilege. there were a number of words in the gentleman statement that disparage me and i object to his words. i ask them to withdrawal and modify them. among the terms that be withdrawn be not only unseemly statements but in fact when the ranking member disparaged me for a number of areas, including my intent and essentially said the items i said were not true. additionally, the ranking member while objecting to multiple -- objecting to multiple claims of

cherry picking releases for interfering with the i.g., in june of 2013 he release the entire transcript with -- which compromise the entire investigation saying they have reviewed the preparation for those. i would say well question the intent and some argument about republicans and not getting along the ranking member managed to go beyond the ordinary opening statement and claiming the intent. in fact, the ranking member of june of 2013 went on national television claiming the investigation was over. this investigation is not over. i would ask that such items, including unseemly be taken down. >> i object. >> the gentleman of jack -- objects.

>> i would reiterate that the decorum of this committee should not lead to personal attacks as to the intent of individuals on either side. the fact is this committee is conducting vigorous oversight. we do so as a matter of our obligations as a committee. i would make one last request. i ask unanimous consent that the staff place a time line into the record so the ranking members a roni us claims that our request -- erroneous claims that our request for the hearing came after the events when in fact the timeline will show that the subpoena had been served prior to the announcement from ways and means. as the ranking member would know if he ever carhaired, it would take a long time to write at

subpoena and then serve it. i would hope the ranking member once he sees that in the record we recognize that in fact he has been clearly erroneous in his claims. >> i think the gentleman. let us allow the timeline in and move to the next opening statement. >> mr. chairman? it certainly is satisfactory. i just wonder though -- would just a brief response? >> do we really have to? [laughter] >> no, i don't. i certainly associate with myself and my colleagues with the sentiments expressed by the distinguished chairman that we should always speak with respect. we should never question each other's intentions. that is not been the practice as often as i would like. i certainly hope this would

reflect a new dawning and we can proceed civally. ily. >> we will come back the witness, the commissioner. al qaeda questions need to be answered and that is why for the third time in a month we have him here to answer and address what those unanswered questions are. we were promised the irs would give the e-mails. then we learned of the e-mails were destroyed and there was absolutely no way he could produce all of the e-mails to congress. we were told of the irs had confirmed that all backup had been destroyed. then we learned last week from irs attorneys that a backup tape

may exist. we were told there was 1 hard drive crash. than the ways and means committees says there was seven or eight total crashes. then we learn that there may be as many as 20. think about this. the irs has identified 83 documents and information. they have identified these people associated with this targeting of conservative groups. now, almost a fourth of them may have had hard drive crashes. unbelievable. we were told the irs found out in april 2013 that the e-mails were lost. than we learned that the irs february knew on february 4 that the hard drive crashed and had it recycled and the contents were unrecoverable. that is why we have hearings. that is why we have the commissioner back for the third time in a month. after a month since the first

irs told congress that it lost the e-mails, there are still many unanswered questions. there are unanswered questions about why the irs delayed notifying congress, the justice department, and the people about the problems with the e-mails. attorney general cole told us last week the justice department learned the e-mails from press accounts in the media. imagine that. one of the highest profile investigations in years and the justice department has to learn about critical evidence by the central player in this investigation. they learn about that in news accounts, not directly from the internal revenue service and that is why last week sitting at this very table, the deputy attorney general told us he would've liked and known about the e-mails and he announced the justice department was investigating why the commissioner failed to disclose the missing e-mails in a timely matter. that may reiterate that.

james cole, deputy attorney general of the united states department of justice said last week to the same committee that they are investigating why the internal revenue service delayed months and telling the congress, the american people, and most important, the fbi and the justice department about the loss of the e-mails. rather than the irs coming to congress in informing us what they knew, they waited four months. the irs finally came for two dollars the e-mails when they had no choice. -- came forward to it knowledge the e-mails when they had no choice -- acknowledge the e-mails when they had no choice. it provides more questions than answers about the missing e-mails. remember this is an information they are offering willingly. it is taken almost a month before the have come clean and taking subpoenas to get people to talk. we tried for weeks to get mr. kane to talk and we finally had to subpoena him to get him to

come to the deposition last thursday. the american people have this information only because the committee has been asking questions. that is why the commissioners here today. he is the individual hand-picked by the president to clean up this agency and that is why he is here today -- to answer our questions. and so we clear up all the statements about the missing e-mails, the committee will press for the truth. that is why we meet today. with that, i yield to mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for coming in today. we schedule these things on these little things. it asks you if you want to make this a recurring entry. [laughter] when i see the commissioner, i want to say yes.

is the conduct responsible oversight of the legitimate critical issues within our jurisdiction. i believe these repeated hearings that we are seeing today are both and abusive authority and a dereliction of this committee's duty. i think it is abundantly clear that the chairman are in some kind of taxpayer-funded foot race over who can make the first headline about lthe lost e-mails.

we ought to look at that time line because it was on june 16 shortly after chairman camp of the ways and means announced he would be holding a hearing with you, commissioner, on june 24 that chairman issa of this committee issued a unilateral subpoena. chairman camp move his hearing up to june 20. it is something like a children's fairytale that we are looking at here. chairman issa is no longer allowed staff on the ways and means committee to participate in the oversight committee of interviews. his refusal to hold a joint interviews is resulting in wasted taxpayer money as irs employees, like you, are now being subjected to multiple interviews.

there is his government wide conspiracy that was made after this citizens united decision, including the president and the department of justice and other federal agencies. this committee has obtained at evidence linking these accusations to what we all know now were inappropriate criteria used by irs employees and cincinnati. some of my colleagues on the other side have chosen to overlook the funneling of dark money into the political system of the united states. the public have not demanded the same from corporation to influence our national elections. in january 2010, the supreme court decided for the citizens united allowed for the corporations, unions, nonprofit groups to raise unlimited funds

and register for tax-exempt status under the 501(c) designation and the irs got flooded for this kind of status. it is a clue civilly organizations whose primary activity is social where pharaoh -- is social where if -- social welfare. it is contributions to a community. while they are not barred from but is abating in political campaigns, it is stated plainly and clearly that political participation must be an in substantial of the groups overall activity accounting for less than 50% of expenditures. the irs's job is to make sure these groups are following the rules so they are not taking tax breaks meant only for groups contributing to the community not hiding the influence of the select few individuals have on the nation's electoral politics. as i said before this is about

groups doing everything they can do to hide where they get their money. and have undue influence on the political system tax-free. anonymous money in politics is something we do not need in this country. something that disrupts the democratic process and something that has to be changed. i commend chairman lee he -- lay eahy. a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the u.s. constitution which would negate of these damaging effects of citizens united. i have cosponsored the house companion to that bill introduced by representative ted deutch of florida. i will conclude my comments and you'll back to you, mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman. we are pleased to have the honorable john koskinen. you know how this works.

please stand and raise your right hand. do solemnly swear the testimony you will give is the whole truth so help you god? the gentleman answered in the a formative and now you are recognized for your opening statement. we will get to questions. >> chairman, ranking member, chairman of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity for appearing before you today. i will give a brief introductory statement and then give my testimony. i want to thank the subcommittee for its willingness to work around my travel schedule. in attempting to set the original hearing date, my understanding was you are interested in an overview of virus interactions with the department of justice. about let the touch on that subject which is covered in more detail.

our criminal investigation recommends them to the departments tax division for prosecution. think lewd abusive tax shelters, return repair fraud and international tax noncompliance. is a good illustration of what are coordinated efforts can accomplish. the recent examples include the guilty pleas of two major financial institutions that were found to be in violation of u.s. law. routine interactions between the u.s. -- the irs and doj which reviews all criminal tax cases developed by our division before those cases are recommended for prosecution. when the department of justice tax division litigates, the chief counsel authorities are collaborating on the arguments. i will turn to an update of the

efforts the irs has made to cooperate with the investigations into the use of inappropriate criteria to evaluate tax-exempt statuses. these include investigations by congress one by the department of justice, and one by the inspector general. there is been the reason new investigation by the inspector general of circumstances surrounding the crash of lois lerner's hard drive. we have now produced more than 960,000 pages of unredacted documents to the tax-writing committees in more than 700,000 pages of redacted documents to the house oversight committee. in addition, at the request of the oversight committee, the irs has been working on the identification production of lois lerner e-mails. the tax-writing committees have received 67,000 e-mails that found involving ms. lerner. we are giving redacted versions

of the oversight committee which have received 54,000 e-mails. were working to provide these documents as quickly as we can. collecting and producing her e-mails, the irs determined that her hard drive crashed in 2011. she asked i.t. professionals at the irs to restore her hard drive but they were unable to do so. nonetheless, the irs has or will produce 24,000 lois lerner e-mails from the time between 2009 and 2011 largely from the files of other individuals. the irs provided information about the hard drive crashed to all six investigating entities and a public report released. our june report and the extended focused on ms. lerner's hard drive crashed was based on e-mails we had already provided to the congressional committees the inspector general, and the doj. some of those e-mails were produced as early as last fall. those e-mails were provided

related to the search terms agreed upon previously. to all six investigators that had initial information about the hard drive crashes since last fall. also, additional e-mails about ms. lerner's hard drive crashed were produced this spring to investigators prior to the release of our june report. i want to point out that consistent with a bipartisan congressional request the inspector general has noted he is proceeding with his own investigation regarding the crash of this learner's hard drive. the inspector general has asked the irs not to do anything that would interfere with his investigation and we are honoring that request to the extent possible. in addition, july 18 we responded to a recent court inquiry with detail information regarding the crash of ms. lerner's hard drive. this information is consistent with was was -- with what was previously given. i am to stand that during last

weeks meeting with doj, there was a question about what information the irs gave to the department about the hard drive crash. we provided all investigating entities with the same information in the june report which we released to the public. doj did not receive any additional information. we have continued to cooperate with the investigation. since mid-june, we are produced of the oversight committee more than 100,000 pages of documents and made witnesses available for interviews with regret would -- with congressional staff. five of those interviews have artie occurred. there are three briefings for congressional staff, including one for the congressional committee. i have testified at for hearings, including this one today. i would be happy to take your questions. >> thank you. i will turn to the gentleman from florida. >> good morning, commissioner. are you aware that you currently are under investigation by the justice department regarding

your role in in determining when to produce lois lerner's e-mails? >> i am not aware of investigation. i did see the deputy attorney general's statement that he was interested and would be interested in why we have not provided new information in april as opposed to june. i have not received any notice of an investigation. >> he told us it was something the justice department to look into and said it was information that they did which they had at the time you discovered it. them he ask you this -- the committee interviewed the iressa deputy associate. he testified that senior iressa -- irs officials noticed that the e-mails were missing, there was a hard drive crash on february 4 2013. by mid february, they realize the e-mails would not be recoverable off that hard drive.

yet, you testified in front is committee on march 20 6, 2014, and after being asked numerous times if you would produce all of lois lerner's e-mails consistent with the subpoena you said you would. if the senior iressa officials knew in mid-february that the e-mails cannot be recovered off the hard drive, why did you tell this committee that you could produce them? >> when i testified at previous hearings, in march, i setaid we would provide all the e-mails. i do not mean to imply that it did not exist. we have provided you all the e-mails we had. with regard at the new the impact of the hard drive crash i was advised in february that when you took the e-mails that had already been provided to this committee and other investigators.

instead of looking at him through search terms and looking at them through date, it was clear there were fewer e-mails in the time between 2011 and subsequently. there had been a problem with list -- with ms. lerner's computer. i was advised new the end of february that we were now reviewing all of the production capacity to make sure nothing had been done in the production capacity that would've explained or caused the laws of any -- the loss of any e-mail. we were focused primarily on the request of this committee and the finance committee and the ways and means committee to provide all documents we had related to the process. in mid-march, we provided a letter saying we have now produced all the documents we had regarding the termination process. >> i appreciate that.

we asked mr. cole that someone response to discovery requests and they say they will reduce all of them, they cannot just do that and know, we cannot produce all of them. they have to come immediately and sell the opposing party, the congressional investigation. you guys sat on the information for several months and that caused the center -- this investigation to be obstructed on our end. the irs has told backup tapes no longer exist yet mr. king testified in terms the backup tapes may in fact exist. can you now definitively state that the relative -- and relevant backup tapes do not in fact exist? >> axes excuse me.

>> -- >> what's mr. kane reported was information that the inspector general has started to review tapes to see if there is additional information on them. he says there may be tapes that were recyclable and recoverable. i have no idea what the inspector general was doing with the tapes. he advised us he was reviewing them and asked us not to do any

further investigation, not to have conversations and i imagine he ask this committee as well and not to speak of their existence. i do not know if there's anything usable on those tapes. >> can you confirm today, we have been told there were as many as seven or eight additional individuals who are relatively to the information whose hard drives also crashed. now based on information from mr. kane, it could be as many as 18 or 19 different hard drives that crashed that would be relevant. can you definitively state to this committee the number of hard drives that crashed during the. of the investigation? >> in 2011, over 3000 hard drive crashes occurred and there were over 300 reports.

this year, -- >> i understand, we are talking about people who are relative. the number of hard drive crashes seems to be getting higher, the more we investigate. >> in may, i asked our people once we knew there was an issue with ms. lerner's crash, i asked what the industry standard was. i was advised 3-5 percent. i asked for a review of custodians, how many of those 83 had hard drive crashes. we reported on the monday, june 16, to the ways and means committee and a staff interview that we knew there were probably at least six or seven. the next morning, the ways and means committee issued an erroneous press release saying all the e-mails had been lost including the e-mails of nicole

plax. it turned out no e-mails for ms. flacks were crashed, because it was not the computer with her hard drive. >> i understand you mentioned the ways and means press release in numerous statements that you made before congress. i read your other statements. but the numbers. where are we on the numbers? >> the ig asked us not to do any further interviews or investigation, so we have not pursued further with the additional implications are. how many hard drives of custodians crashed and the inspector general is investigating that issue. so i cannot give you an answer as to how many custodians had crashes, or if they did, how many lost e-mails will stop because i would emphasize, not

all the crash lose e-mails. >> thank you for testifying before the committee today. when you testified on june 23 2014 and july 9, 2014 you told us the ig was investigating circumstances surrounding the crash. on june 11, 20 14, you were to this committee reiterating the ig was conducting an investigation into the loss of ms. lerner's e-mails and that, as you previously testified, you would honor the in spread their generals request to prioritize his investigation. as the inspector general is concerned, you are about to release a nonpublic information

about an ongoing ig investigation. >> when the inspector general for spoke to me and asked to do a priority investigation and not do any further investigation or witness investigation ourselves he explained they did not want to muddy the water. they wanted to have their ability to talk to witnesses, and then go back and talk to them again, without anyone having information -- conversations in between. they wanted to proceed with the inspector general only. >> do you know when it was you had that conversation? >> the conversation was shortly after they were asked by the finance committee and congress to make the investigation. i do not remember, mid-june. on july 2 2014, committee staff held a conference call with the inspector general, and which the ig described in of lewis

lerner's hard drive as -- of lois lerner's hard drive as "very public, very open. the ig's investigation -- is the ig's investigation still open and active? >> yes, to my knowledge. >> was your staff presented at the meeting in which the ig discussed this? >> yes. >> inspector general called our counsel yesterday and he said they had talked to you but did not express any of these comments you made in your opening statement, or in fact any of the statements you are

making now. i wanted that on the record. >> let's see what he has to say. we can go back on fourth -- back and forth on this. i want to be very clear as to what he said. when we are talking about, he say, she say we should have a meeting and we will do that if you so choose. the ig has expressed similar concerns to the committee. it is your understanding that the ig investigation is still ongoing. >> yes it is. >> so, in spite of the inspector general's request a press released was issued saying that based on the interview of thomas kane, new developments have created uncertainty regarding

the existence of backup tapes. commissioner, is it your practice to release nonpublic information about an ongoing ig investigation? >> no. >> why not? >> because we made a commitment to the ig that we made a commitment we would not do anything to interfere with his investigation. they could do whatever they wanted, look at whatever they wanted, and we would not have ongoing discussion with any of the witnesses because we did not want to interfere. >> the press release from mr. kane and other witnesses undermined the partisan narrative. mr. kane told the committee he was aware of a potential issue in backup tapes, but he did not know any additional details. when asked if he had seen "any

evidence that any irs employee intentionally destroyed documents or e-mails to avoid their disclosure", mr. kane said, and i quote, "i have not seen every -- i have not seen anything to that effect." yesterday the committee interviewed leonard --, he told the committee that based on the information available, that the june 2014 letter to the sinensis -- to the finance committee stating that backup tapes had been recycled was accurate. is that right? >> i do not know what he said but i understand from the press release by mr. kane that he said the information we provided on june 13 was accurate and that is

what everybody know the time. >> we were also told that earlier this month there was an issue with a backup tape. he did not know if the backup tape from 2011 was from 2011 or was mislabeled. he said even if the on recycled backup tape exists from 2011 the irs does not know whether they contain e-mails for ms. lerner not review asleep reduced to the committee -- not previously produced to the committee. do you know anything about the backup tape the ig is currently looking at? >> know. all i know is what mr. kane said, that no one had any information about what was on the tapes, or whether they were relevant. >> and until -- --

>> my point is that we are honoring the ig's investigation. i look forward to the completion. to see what the facts are, what he determines happened three years ago and we will respond accordingly. >> you were asked earlier about computer crashes, and you said you were not aware of the folks who may have some relevance to this investigation -- concerning their crashes. would you normally have that kind of information? >> normally, if things proceed as they like to, when i asked in may for the answers to this question, that is how many custodians of had crashes in light of the industry says they crashed regularly. i had asked for a review of how many crash to what the

implications were. we had not completed that review would we made our june report. we had that morning, the following monday, our i.t. people had been advised -- i had not been advised -- we knew there were six or seven custodians that had hard drive crashes. that information was provided to the ways and means committee. we have not been able to pursue whether there were 6, 12, or 15 because once the ig started we agreed we would not pursue until they completed their investigation. >> when the g -- when the doj was here the other day, and you asked about this earlier they talked about the fact that they had not gotten information about the crash back in april. they got it in june i think. like everybody else. why is that? >> when we, in april, determined

in fact there'd been an hard crashed -- a hard drive crash and some e-mails may been lost. our next step was to see how many e-mails had been lost and we could find, so we pulled it all together including information about custodian, and make a public recitation, including why it takes so long to respond to request for documents. we provided that information in june 2013. we did that before the complete production of lois lerner e-mails, which is when we originally contended. the senate finance committee asked us for an update on the documents and the other searches we were doing. we gave them that. we noted we had found nothing beyond what we had noted in our march letter with regard to the determination process but we

had not completed, at that time, the review of the custodians full stop -- of the custodians. we were moving towards producing the redacted versions to this committee. our plan was, when we pulled it all together we would be able to explain our process, the difficulties, what we learned about lois lerner's e-mails, what we learned about others, and what we had been able to determine. we were able to recover 24 thousand lois lerner e-mails. without that was important information for people to have, rather than saying there is a problem with her computer and now we are trying to figure out how many there were. that would've triggered an earlier hearing, but we would not have known what we do now. the we do not know everything because we have stopped doing it while the ig is doing it. i have full confidence that he is independent of us, pointed by

a different administration, he has 15 people working on it according to filings made last friday. i told him personally, whatever he needs, whatever documents whatever people, he can have access to and we will stay out of the way. we have gone out of the way not to talk to anyone. potentially, he may want to interview about the crash. >> russell george told you he did not want this committee in congress interviewing the same witnesses he was interviewing? >> no. he told me he did not want as interviewing any witnesses. >> that is fine. why do we have to subpoena mr. kane? >> because the ig said he did not want us to cut -- do anything that would cause any of our employees to be interviewed before he had a chance. >> for the record, the ig did not tell you would hinder his investigation of congress interviewed the same people he

was interviewing. >> no. the inspector general told us if we started providing names, it would interfere. i testified two weeks and said we were trying to cooperate with the ig. as i recall, that was understood. -- you have conveyed to this committee that the inspector general told you he did not want this committee interviewing the witnesses he was interviewing. and he did not say that to you. that is all i need. the gentleman from north carolina's recognize. >> mr. commissioner, i want to go back to one thing that the gentleman from maryland just asked you and make sure i heard you correctly. do you know the testimony you have given to congress is not correct, you are not going to correct that a until we get a final report from the ig? and i hear that correct? >> no. what i said was, the testimony i had given in the past was accurate at the time.

i testified to what i knew. right now, the question is do i know anything more about backup tapes? i do not know. all he know is the ig is investigating on whether or not there are backup tapes, and whether or not they're recoverable. >> so if you discover what you have told congress is incorrect you will come right back and tell us? within 24 hours, a few finding the you have given us incorrect testimony, you will come and let us know? >> yes sir. >> in fact, when lois lerner talked about what you do with records, i was sent a letter saying here's what she said, here's what you said, take a look and corrected. i appreciate that. >> i appreciate that you're coming back to us. what you said was -- >> >> the answer is, in terms of how many custodians -- >> but you won't know what they found until they come back.

are you saying you're not talking to mr. kane or anybody? you are not talking to anybody in the irs about any of this? >> i am not talking to any potential witnesses or the inspector general about what happened three years ago in the investigation -- >> so when you read the investigation reports about mr. kane digit talk to him and say it did not jive? >> no. he would be talking about what we know, and when we know. >> or did you talk to him? >> no. i read the report this committee came out. >> did you read the press release from the ways and means about a scratched hard drive? >> i read that this morning. the debt can -- >> did that concern you that it was scratched, and not correct? does that concern you? if that is accurate?

>> i do not know the gentleman, i do not know what he said -- >> but would it concern you, that it was scratched. let me tell you why it concerns me, and this is a in hp laptop. to get to the hard drive, it is not an easy task. you have multiple screws that have to be taken out to get to it. once you get to that, you you actually have a hard drive inside that has seven more screws that have to be taken off to get to the hard drive in order for it to be scratched. would that concern you, that if it were indeed scratched there might be some other motive? >> it would be a piece of information that i assume -- >> when it concern you? yes or no. >> i would not know whether to be concerned or not. as i understand, from the press release -- >> >> well it concerns me.

and i am going to have to ask my staff how long it takes to get to that hard drive. >> there are a lot of ways a hard drive get scratch. >> i would not know anything about that. >> i am sure the ig is going to look into that, i'm sure is going to talk to that witness or would like to. wax you said you had 2000 hard drive crashes this year. is that correct? let me ask you about numbers and you know i am a numbers guy because i just did the numbers roll quickly. if you look at your entire body of some 84,000-90 thousand irs employees, depending on which year. let us take that. that is a to point to percent fail rate. >> correct. in the people that are truly involved in this, in that sphere of 80 people, if indeed we have 16-8 teen hard drive crashes. why would the hard drive crash of that are both people be 10

times greater than what you have at the agency? can you explain? what is the probability? >> first of all, i have no information to know. >> let us take the number you do know, seven that you testified. that still would be four times greater than your overall average. can you explain that? when i ask for the interest -- no -- >> lois lerner's laptop was a new laptop, it was not an old one. the probability of her hard drive failing at that time was at the lowest, according to industry standards. does that surprise you? >> no. >> but it does surprise you that her hard drive failed? >> my understanding about that from the industry, is 2-5% are

regularly -- >> so out of the circle, if you have 10 times that amount, would you say that is an anomaly? i am giving you the numbers. >> if you stipulate you have 10 times the industry average, that would be an anomaly. >> thank you. i yield back. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> the very first question you got in your testimony today, was something to the effect of mr. desantis my colleague, put the question to you, whether you are aware you are aware you were under investigation by the department of justice will stop this is a very public airing. this is a very, very public hearing. we invite members of the press to come to these hearings. these areas are televised. i think it is important we do not lead to the public down the

wrong path on what the truth is. have you received a target letter from the department of justice to say you are under investigation? >> no. >> has anyone told you verbally you are under investigation by the department of justice? >> no. >> has anyone said to you, verbally, anything that would hint to you that you are under investigation by the department of justice? >> no. >> has anyone, anyone, said anything to you to hint to you that you might be the target of a justice department of investigation sometime in the future? >> no. >> another thing you have been trying to get out, and you are continually interrupted in your answers, were comments about it industry statistics about computer failures.

i want to give you a chance to make full sentences. >> inmate, when i was advised -- in may, when i was advised, and i was trying to figure out how many lois lerner e-mails we could find. i asked about failures. i was told somewhere between 2% and 5%. if you have older equipment and we do, it was between 10-15%. i then asked about the custodial equipment, and whether they had had crashes or lost e-mails. i was told we had 2000 crashes this year, but not all that e-mail us. and in fact, you can lose your hard drive and not lose e-mail. so i was looking for exactly what were the situation in production of documents. that has stopped from coming to

closure because the ig himself was looking at that. >> thank you. >> on june 20, you testified before the ways and means committee, that even after discovering this learner's 2011 hard drive crashed, you said " the irs took multiple steps over the past months to assess the information and produce as much in -- e-mail as possible to which ms. lerner wasn't it recipient or sender of e-mail -- ms. lerner was a recipient or sender. there were 80 two other custodians. the irs had identified the 24,000 lois lerner e-mails between january 2011 and april 2011. why did the irs take the steps to recover ms. lerner's e-mails? >> that was an attempt on our part to produce as many e-mails

from her accounts or other accounts as possible to the request of this committee and the ways and means committee to produce all of lois lerner's e-mails. so we are trying to make sure that there were no e-mails anywhere in the system to or from lois lerner that we had located and not provided. >> so despite the hard drive crashed, the irs has still produced 24,000 plus additional e-mails from his lerner. is that right? >> that is correct. >> witnesses have told this committee that in february 2014, irs employees discovered there were fewer of lois lerner's e-mails from 20 09 to april 2011 than there were for other periods. upon this discovery, irs officials immediately took steps to determine the reasons for this discrepancy and whether they could locate additional e-mails from ms. lerner during that time. . the question there is, why did

you not inform us about the discrepancy in ms. lerner's e-mails when you testified before this committee in march? >> is in march i did not know, and we did not know whether we had lost e-mails or not. one of the first things that was investigated in february and into march am a was to review all of our production processes to see if anything in the way we had reached into the system to produce the e-mails, put the mentor search method, i caused us to infect misplace the e-mails. it was not -- caused us to in fact misplaced the e-mails. the determination process was to make sure that we had not ourselves, done anything to cause e-mails from that. to be lost. we determined ultimately in april or may, then nothing went on in the search process had caused the e-mails to be not producible.

>> all right. thank you, mr. commissioner. i yield back. >> i think the gentleman. commissioner, thank you for taking the time to come up and be with us again today. i know you came here before, and i know we're going through a lot of detailed testimony. to the best of your knowledge when you testified before that the e-mails were not available from ms. lerner during the. that they had been, to the best of your knowledge destroyed because they had been recycled on the tape. i'm not questioning that. but i think what has people interested is mr. kane came up here, not so long ago, and he is a pretty sophisticated guy. his job is to produce documents for investigations and litigations, and other kinds of

things. therefore, he not only has a very detailed of the process but a deep appreciation of the implications. including, exposure for failure to do things. he also has a very sophisticated understanding of how to answer questions with respect to this. appreciating that when he is under oath, and anything he says will put him in a particular position that if it is known to be wrong, would expose them to further scrutiny. let's put it that way. so i am curious, as to why he would come and testify that the -- i don't know if this is his words -- i don't know if there's a backup tape with information on there or there is not. he was now unsure about whether there was some backup tapes from the time that may not have been decreased. using his direct testimony

there is an issue as to whether or not there is a -- that all of the backup recovery tapes were destroyed on the six-month retention schedule. i do not know whether they are, or they are not. that is an issue that is being looked at. what do we know about this issue ? why would he have made that statement? >> what i know about that issue is, i was advised by the inspector general that they had taken the tapes that they had found, i do not know how they had found them, they were reviewing those tapes to see if they had been totally recycled or were not recycled and usable. i was advised about that because the inspector general, again one of us to not do any -- he knew that however they had found them -- somebody knew the ig had found them, he did not want us to do anything to investigate further what those tapes were, where there is found, who found them what they did with them. i said that was fine.

i have not spoken to mr. kane about this, but according to his testimony, what he knows this, because as you say is been involved in it, -- the inspector general is looking at some tapes. i do not know which ones. to see if any of them turned out to be not recyclable, or if any had information that is recoverable. at this time, it is not clear whether they do or do not. >> possibly there is information, when he gave you that identification -- as you said -- it was the week that they had produced, maybe some of been found. were you not concerned about what the siege are they used to potentially come up with new tapes? >> when the -- when the inspector general told her that, we had been advised they were recycled, but i did not cross examine the inspector general. i agreed they would do the

investigation, we would not interfere with that. none of our people would talk about it. so i cannot tell you how they found them, what they are, and whether mr. kane said there was something on them or not. at this point, we are supporting the inspector general. >> do have any idea what was he referred to? there is an issue as to whether all of the backup tapes have actually been recycled. >> the issue i just said is that he is obviously aware of what the inspector general advised me. the inspector general has taken some tapes. i do not know which ones. he is reviewing them to see if they've been recycled, if there is information on them that can be found her use. that is all i know. i assume that is all he knows. i have not spoken to anyone, because again, our position with the inspector general -- >> why are these not available from a third party vendor who

in the event of a fiber attack, would protect us against destruction of all records that would put our government in a remarkable parallels situation. we take steps to make sure essential documents are preserved, i having them in a third-party data storage situation. why would the documents relevant to this time, particularly the documents relative to the 2000 9-2011 area, why were they not act up and available today? >> that is an important question. as i testified earlier there has been no loss of information and no action taken that's the started with regard to any information and production of documents. we have frozen, saved, backed up all e-mails from six months before the investigated started forward. we're talking about three years

ago. three years ago, the process was to use backup tapes for disaster recovery purposes, and recycle them every six months. i was the protocol of process that it gone on for some years. it used to be they only kept them for one month. it was increased to six months. that was the process three years ago. whatever e-mails were lost three years ago, were lost then. nothing has been lost, as far as i know since this investigation started. we've gone out of our way to protect all of the data and all of the documents. books i have further questions, but my time has expired. they do. >> you are an attorney. you talk about these documents having been missed. at the. of june 20 9 2011, lois lerner is informed that some of the activities that she has been associated with a have been

involved with discriminatory practices. you are a gale lawyer. -- you are a yale lawyer. you understand the potential for litigation. and the requirements that when there is a potential for litigation, that there is a requirement consistent with recordkeeping responsibilities to preserve documents which may be relevant. all of this occurred before the time that we are now looking at some years down the road. if you were informed that somebody was holding your agency, or you in particular as having potentially engaged in discriminatory precht disses -- discriminatory practices would you preserve the documents from that era? >> anytime there is an inquiry we have litigation document hold policies and procedures. we have done our best to protect

every document for the last year and a half, two years now. anytime anyone raises a serious question about the production of evidence, we go out of our way to protect it. i do not know what the circumstances were three years ago. >> these were discriminatory practices, she was informed she was -- there were discriminatory -- there were discriminatory and plaints about the practices of the irs. would that be the kind of information you would reserve and anticipation of potential litigation? >> if there is a serious issue raised, we protect and preserve documents. as i testified, one of the things i asked about earlier this investigation was we need to have an e-mail system of record, so that it would be easier to protect official records, preserve them, and search them. we should not have to spend $18 million answering

straightforward questions about documents. if that is the system we have. the constraints on the budget have been significant over three or four years. going forward, we are looking at again is there a way to get out of the late 20th century and into the early part of the 20th century, because we should have an e-mail system that is much more searchable, and a system of record. >> thank you very much. these questions cut right to the chase. she was on notice there was a problem, and suddenly her computer crashed. and it is worse than that. the irs has identified 82 relevant to this investigation. up to 20 may have had computer hard drive crashes. this is way beyond the 3%-5% the commission or keep citing. this is approaching 25% of the relevant people they identified with computer problems and we may not be able to get the documents. i recognize the gentlelady from illinois for her time.

>> take you, mr. chair. good morning, mr. commissioner. you testified that since you were confirmed in december of 2013, the irs has "probably provided 300,000-40,000 -- 400,000 documents. " how many further documents have they provided in relation to the tax-exempt applications? >> as i testified earlier 960,000 documents. redacted documents, 700,000 pages to this community -- committee. >> i would imagine a document collection of that negative takes -- of that magnitude takes a significant amount of time and money. >> yes. 18 million dollars spent responding. we continue to produce

documents. we hope shortly to be able to complete the reductive lois lerner e-mails to this committee. in an era of declining resources, there are 500 fewer people and the chief counsel's office and there were four years ago. it has been a significant strain on our chief outsole's office. >> how many employees are involved in this process, how many hours have been logged in to comply to all of these requests to comply with congress? >> 250 employees at various times, 100 thousand -- 100 thousand two 120,000 hours. >> many of the staff have other responsibilities and have been tasked with documents. >> that is correct. we have interviews being -- we

have witnesses being interviewed as we go. the c4 investigation and the c4 investigations involve about 800 employees. that means we have 80 9000 other hard-working, dedicated, irs employees working on matters of importance to the government and taxpayers. >> the individuals working on this, i would imagine they had to put their current workloads aside. >> yes. particularly, lawyers. they have obligations to represent the agency in tax cases. they have to continue to work for the treasury on rules regulations, and procedures. so it is a constraint. >> thomas came the deputy for procurement was interviewed by committee staff on july 17, 2014. he said that the irs currently exists, and i quote with an increased workload and a reduced staff from where we were several

years ago. we have taken these people from their day jobs. there are no replacements for them because there are no replacements. we pulled together people from all parts of the organization to contribute to the project on a full-time basis. but there's no one to backfill the work that continues to exist and pileup. that is particularly critical when you're dealing with people in the field that ordinarily are trying cases at deadline. that type of staffing commitment and resource commitment has been a drain on the entire office of the chief counsel. commissioner, would you agree with mr. kane's assessment of the impact on your workload? >> i would. >> also, mr. kane was also asked about the impact of chairman isaacs subpoena on the morale of his team. he said his employees have been working tirelessly to help the irs comply with congress and

they have been visibly impacted in a very negative way. i would like an opportunity to address any concerns you have about the impact of various congressional investigations on your agency in its ability to perform its core functions. >> as noted, we have a large number of people who have day jobs who have been totally devoted to this, who have been trying to be responsive, when they then are subject to depositions and recorded interviews. these are career people. it has a negative effect on morale because they thought they were doing what they were asked to do. they were trying to provide information. most of them has never had a deposition of theirs taken. i have never spent 6-8 hours under cross-examination. everybody else working on this project, they are now looking over their shoulder wondering if they are going to called next, and all they have been doing is

producing documents. >> thank you very much. >> i was sitting here listening to some questions that the chairman asked you, and i got convinced that you are dimmed if you do, and dammed if you do not. this is what i am talking about. the ig appointed by a republican asked you not to engage in -- i do not want to take words out of your mouth but what did the ig ask you not to do? >> not to do any further interviews discussions, with employees having to do anything with the hard drive crashed while they did their investigation. >> and then, the chairman went on to say that he did not tell

you that this committee was under the same restrictions. that's accurate, isn't it? the ig did not say to you the committee, what i am telling you, but your restrictions does not have anything to do with the committee. do you understand my question? because i am trying to find out, how do you obey the law and obey the wishes of the ig? >> the question was, and i answered it, was he did not give me any instruction to the committee. the only instruction i had about the committee, was when he told me about the existence of the backup tape and asked me not to do any further questioning.

he said he had provided that information to the investigation committee and ask them to treated confidentially while the investigation was going on. >> so, if something came up now, where we contacted you and said we want to meet with a certain person in the irs because we think -- the committee thinks that person has something relevant to our investigation -- is there any way you would treat that differently now than you would have if you had never had the conversation with the ig? do you know what i am saying? >> actually, we have tried to be responsive as best we can to the wide range of requests we have. we have six investigations and a number of requests for interviews. we have tried, with more success in some areas than others, to figure out what the priorities

are so that we can do it in the right order. in march we agreed the next priority after we -- was to provide all of the lois lerner e-mails. we had discussion back and forth that that would be our next priority. we're getting close to completing that. >> what i am getting at, i assume you would not have a discussion, based on what the ig told you, you would not have a discussion with an employee of the irs now, because the ig told you not to? >> that is correct. so when we have had witnesses coming to testify, and give depositions. ways and means, we have not spoken to them beforehand -- we have not spoken to them before hand. we do not want to do anything that would in -- interfere with the ig's investigation, or this committees investigation. they have come on their own.

>> the lady just asked about the irs. the irs is in a tough as it should because nobody seems to like the irs. on the other hand, if you do not get revenue you have a problem. we have a problem as a nation. though when you think about the reduction in employees, and based upon what mr. kane said, that the gentlelady just read, it seems like something has to give. i am curious as to what is giving. do you follow what i am saying? tased on what mr. kane said, if you employ people from different areas to do certain things, you said that some of them have responsibilities and deadlines. the point is, something has got to give. something. can you tell us what we are losing? >> obviously, we have 10,000 fewer employees that we had five

years ago. we have 500 fewer in the office of chief counsel. what happens is, people either have to spend a lot longer working -- at some point you run out of things you can do. we have done our best, taken people around the agency will stop put people on the production effort. to do that, work they would otherwise have done does not get done because we have no capacity to hire more people. we are only replacing one and every five people who leave. we continue to shrink rather than expand. with not complained about it. we basically, simply produce documents as fast as we can. we explained our biggest problem and obstacle is that we have an archaic system, where you have to search each hard drive to pull out data and get it into a search machine. we would like to change going forward. what that means, in the office of chief counsel, they are under more stress. it makes it that much more

difficult for the ongoing day job they have. >> for the three and a half years i have here, we have other questions here. if they become subjects of depositions and cross examinations, it is going to be harder to get people to decide they want to leave their day job and help us respond to congress. we think it is appropriate and we are happy to cooperate with the committee as best we can. >> i will make one point. witness testified they do not talk about this issue. that is not accurate. we interviewed mr. or slur yesterday. he told us specifically about the ways and means committee there were prep sessions done for mr. manning to get ready to come in front of congress. it is not accurate. regarding the morale issue, if the irs would have been willing

to let tom kane come and be interviewed, we would not have had to issue the subpoena. one thing that affects morale, it you cause the subpoena. we did not. we tried for weeks to get them to come and be interviewed. you said no, can't do it. so we had to issue the subpoena. we got all kinds of information that contradicts what you have said in front of congress. walking about morel you could've helped. the very employees you represent, if you had let him be interviewed with us. >> we actually agree. they subpoena sounds different. when they come for an interview it is still a transcribed interview and it looks just like a deposition. and that's, why people have never done it before, get nervous. >> my concern is that you, making it that we had to subpoena, that only adds to the anxiety. that is your creation, not ours. >> that is why we are delighted

to work out a schedule where there will not be subpoenas. >> the gentleman from south carolina -- oh, i'm sorry. >> we have a tendency to ask questions and to not let him answer. i want to understand this. why did mr. kane have to be subpoenaed? why is that? >> because -- >> i did not ask you. i am asking him. >> we were in the process of discussing production of witnesses. we are concerned about interviewing with the ig's investigation. while we were doing that, as the chairman said, then mr. kane got a subpoena which did allow him to appear without any further ado, and didn't allow us to have a conversation about setting up a production schedule of

witnesses. so if the chairman is right, we were in the process of trying to do this but we'd take some responsibility for the fact that we had to do a subpoena. >> you take all of it. mr. kane, because of his deposition because he had to be subpoenaed, he told the committee he was not even notified by you, mr. costa can do we had requested an interview. all he knows he got the subpoena. you did not even tell him we were trying to interview him. that is what he he told us in the deposition last thursday. it is all on you. you are the reason we had the subpoena the individuals to get testimony. >> after he hired private counsel. mr.'s -- the gentleman from mr. south carolina is recognized. >> thank you. good to see you again

commissioner. i have a quote from 2014. "we confirmed the backup tapes from 2011 no longer existed because they have been recycled pursuant to the irs policy." to you know who said that? >> yes. it was me. >> can you tell me who we is in that quote? >> the we is the irs. people had talked to everyone in the agency to ensure that in the course of our several months of looking for the backup takes -- >> so we is the royal we? speaking on behalf of the entire irs? how about the word confirmed? you confirmed the backup tapes no longer exist. >> what i read that, i ask the question and was told -- >> my home? -- >> -- by whom?

>> i do not remember. there were a lot. somebody went back and looked and made sure any backup tapes that had existed had been recycled. >> are you still confirmed? >> at this point, i have no basis to not be confirmed. the irs advised me they have been looking at tapes. i do not know -- >> confirmed is a pretty strong word. are you still confirmed that no backup tapes exist? >> at this point i know the ig is looking and he has not found anything, so as far as i know -- >> >> i'm glad you mentioned the ig. i find it vexing. once the ig is involved, nobody else can do anything. that is not supported by the law. can there be a criminal investigation while there is an ig investigation? >> there could be all sorts of investigations.

>> that's right. and there can also be a congressional investigation. and there can be an irs investigation. if there were sexual harassment, or discrimination the workplace are you telling this committee he would wait until the ig investigated before you would stop some insidious practice? >> we would take whatever action was necessary. >> precisely. you would not wait for an ig to finish third investigation. >> and i answer that question? >> sure. >> my understanding, when i chaired the council of inspector general's across the government, is that if an ig starts an investigation, the agency will not run a competing investigation to try to get there first. the ig is advises us about the investigation, we allow them to proceed. >> let me give you possibly an alternative, commissioner.

people cite ongoing ig investigations when it suits them to not cooperate. they do not cite ongoing ig investigations when it does not suit them. >> that is not my policy. >> what you can certainly understand why a cynic might view it that way. right? because there's nothing about an ongoing ig investigation that would keep you from doing your job. just like there's nothing about an ig investigation the keeps the department of justice from an investigation. there's nothing talismanic about an ig investigation. >> in this particular case, as a general matter, my particular policy is if an ig is doing an investigation we will not interfere. we do not want -- >> words have consequences. nobody is asking you to interfere. you can have a dual investigation without it for -- without interfering, can't you? >> i think it is very difficult. what's so you're saying if there

was an allegation of sexual harassment or racial discrimination, you would not look into it until the ig had completed his or her investigation. is that what you're telling me? >> i am telling you as a general matter, that is not what the ig would investigate. those claims would come to our personnel department, and would be immediately investigated. >> the ig does not have jurisdiction over appropriations those are important areas. there should be ongoing, even while an ig is doing his or her investigation. correct? >> actually, the ig does do criminal investigations. >> no sir, they referred to an entity which actually has the power to indict. which does not include the ig. >> my understanding -- >> you should go back. it might be the same people who gave you the idea that the tapes were confirmed as to not exist. you should watch it you take your advice from i will say

this in conclusion. i cannot believe the colloquy that you have with one of our colleagues about the morale at the irs. it takes a lot to stun me. but that stunned me. here is my advice, if the folks like lois lerner and others would've spent more time working on the backlog working on the caseload, and less time targeting groups and trying to overturn supreme court decisions they did not agree with, maybe more out would be better. they be their backlogs would be lessened. >> with the gentleman yield? >> i'd be thrilled to. >> i want to summarize what he was asking you with a question. do you have full faith and trust that your ig is doing a thorough investigation at the same level as would be done if you were doing it as the commissioner? >> i do. as i said earlier, i have a lots of cap -- confidence in the inspector general.

they have 15 people working on this. i am very comfortable and confident they are doing a thorough job. i have told them whatever we can -- >> at least to your own investigation, you consider the investigation to be your investigation? >> i do not. he is doing an independent investigation. i am satisfied that when he gets done we will have an independent investigation and review of what went on. >> thank you. the gentleman from virginia. >> with the gentleman from virginia yield for just one question? ask -- >> if you yield i will give you some additional time. i think the gentleman from virginia. i want to follow-up on the gentleman from south carolina's point. what you just said is that your belief is that it is wrong for you to do an investigation at the same time as an ig is doing

an investigation. is that correct? >> if we were doing an investigation, it would interfere -- >> you are saying that your predecessors who did that in 2012, were wrong. when the ig started, under sworn testimony, they did their own investigation. what they did was not right? >> everybody has their own policy. i do not know what they did or did not do. >> in your opinion, that would not be right? >> i did not -- >> >> i just want to show the hypocritical point, it is not consistent with what the irs has already done. >> my point is that it is consistent with how i have behaved in the past, and how i will he haven the future. the ig is an important source of independent investigation. i think it is important to cooperate, and not interfere. >> i think the gentleman from virginia for conceding. i asked was time to be -- >>

welcome back. >> always a >> that is a different matter. the morale, we will keep flogging people until morale has improved. that seems to be the philosophy

of semi-friends of the other side of the aisle. i am amazed that they thought it wise or prudent to omit from the audit report any mention of a critical and astonishing analysis conducted by the head of investigation. i would like to enter that into the record. it was sent in a may 3 e-mail to take it. it is just the one page. this astounding e-mail concluded that after obtaining and

reviewing 5500 irs e-mails from staff members in cincinnati, in addition to their being no e-mail directing staff to target tea party or other political organizations and no conspiracy or effort to hide e-mails. review of these e-mails revealed there was discussion between employees and how to process the tea party and other political applications. there was a be on the lookout list naming those groups. the e-mails indicated the organizations needed to be pulled because they were not sure how to process them. not because they wanted to stall the application. there was no indication that polling these applications was politically motivated. the e-mail traffic indicated

there were unclear processing directions and the group wanted to make sure they had guidance so they pulled them. this is a very important nuance here in would you agree with that? >> it sounds right to me. >> why would the inspector general not include such a critical finding after all of this drama and drama? in this is a critical piece of information. this is from the head of investigations in tig's own office. why would that not be in the final audit? is it worthy of your time to ask that question? >> i would not ask that

question. he has done is reporting investigation. when they do in investigations there any number of them going on. if most of the time we disagree with recommendations. we do that in the course of responding to their report. we don't lack -- go back and question them. >> this is your third time here and your reputation and that of your organization has been called in the question. there is a charge that has not been critically examined as often as i would like by the media. here is the head of investigations in the organization that says otherwise. it directly challenges the propounded thought that only tea

party and conservative groups were challenged and it was deliberate and targeted. he says otherwise. and they don't put it in the final audit report. and inspector general has been questioned by a number of us up here and we have requested an investigation into his conduct. he is under a cloud himself. i have heard the chairman question other employees of the irs because of their political giving. he was a republican staff member of this committee. he is a bush appointee. he met solely with the republican side of the aisle in getting ready for his audit. that raises serious questions. this is a critical piece of

information. i can't imagine you could be ok with its omission from this critical audit report for your organization and your leadership. >> it is an interesting piece of information that is useful for people to review. i do have confidence in mr. george that he is an dependent. he is the treasury department inspector. we have supported him in the past. i think we will give an independent review of look forward to his response in finding about what happened in regard to the hard drive crashed. >> how about why he did not include this important missive from his head of investigations in the final audit report of may

14? >> that is a question i am probably not going to ask him. >> i would ask which way we want it. >> there are a number of us who have raised that question. we have both filed a formal complaint. i would be glad to share it with the chairman. >> you should be advocating we get the witnesses. >> maybe a new inspector general is really the answer. >> relative to this idea that it was mismanagement 80% were filed by conservative groups.

the irs to not -- they approve dozens of liberal and progressive groups. if it was mismanagement it would be in a targeted way. but the treatment to conservative groups was given. >> mr. chairman, i have a memo from gregory kurtz saying that targeted is not accurate. i also materials that were presented to irs that have elephants and donkeys and tea parties and patriots and progressive. >> no progressive group was denied status. hundreds of tea party conservative groups were.

some are still waiting. >> i guess you and i could argue that all day. we need to get on with this hearing. >> yg entertainment? -- why june 13? why not february 2? one at february 4? you know mr. kane. >> i do know mr. kane. >> is he a solid lawyer? >> he certainly is. why not february 4 when he said they knew her hard drive had crashed. why not come and disclose that

to someone on february 4? how about mid february? we knew in mid-february that the data on her computer was unrecoverable. or how about the hearing we have talked a lot about. why not on march 26? everyone asked you about her e-mails and you assured us that you would produce all of her e-mails. according to mr. kane, you knew in mid-february her e-mails were unrecoverable. >> that is what mr. kane new that is not what i knew. >> that is something you should have known. he is a high-ranking official. >> i did not know.

>> do you know kate devault? >> i do know. >> what is their responsibility? >> she is counselor to the commissioner. >> she is your lawyer. she knew in mid-february. >> what she told me and i testified at some length. what i have told you in mid-to-late february i knew that we had taken the e-mails that had been produced and instead of looking at them -- >> she did not tell me they were unrecoverable. >> why not tell us on april 4

when she briefed this committee? it was about how we would deal with committee requests for concerns about the e-mails? why didn't you tell us on april 4? >> i have testified at some length in the past. >> here is the key question. why not in mid april when you knew? why not when you knew? when did you know you could not get her e-mails? >> my judgment was we needed to find out what e-mails we did have.

we needed to put it together in a full report which we did. >> someone told someone at treasure who told someone at the white house. if it was good enough to pass on to the treasurer why not tell us sometime in april? >> at that point we did not have the full information. >> you learned in april that they were unrecoverable. your chief lawyer new in mid-february. you wait until june 13. >> all those e-mails that determine whether they had a hard drive crash or not were provided to this committee and the tax writers knew as early as the fall that she had a hard drive crash. the materials were produced in april and to this committee in may. there was no secret that we were

hiding. >> you did not tell us there were e-mails you could not get. why didn't you tell us that you destroyed e-mails? >> e-mails may or may not have been lost. they were not destroyed by the irs. >> at some point they're destroyed. why did you not tell us you could not produce those e-mails? >> this is an update. i have given you -- >> why june 13? why did you have to wait two more months. >> we are going to be a long time. to me just answer this question and i have answered before.

this is in the testimony i have given before. we were reducing her e-mail. our thoughts were to complete the action so we would know how many e-mails we had from her account and we had been able to retrieve from other accounts so you have a full idea what the universe was. i hope we would be able to find comedy other problems we had and we would produce all of those to the committee. it would explain what the e-mail process is and why it is so complicated. it would be a full report. june 13 was a friday. i should've known friday the 13th is going to be an interesting day. we were asked to come to closure with a finance committee report. they asked for an update.

this was the start of the investigation. that is what the ig was focused on. we said we would do that. we were going forward. they called and said they would like that report no later than that friday. we pulled the document together at that point. we had not completed the the review of how many custodians were involved with hard drive crashes and what the impact was. one of the custodian hard drive crashes was in february of this year. to meet the friday deadline, we produced that document and share it with everybody on friday june 13. it was to meet a request to me finance committee. >> the finance committee froze the timing of when you lost the

e-mails. >>i think it is something different. we are going to disagree. i think you're ever going to tell us. you have to remember what happened. they learn on april 18 that the irs and the department of justice had been working on possible ways to bring false claims against tea party groups. there was an e-mail from that request. they had an exchange in 2013 after a senate hearing. it we saw that e-mail. we're going to talk to him who is meeting with her days before the report went public. on may 6 week interviewed him.

we learn in his opening statement -- in the fall of 2010 we did not know they were meeting back in 2010. at the direction of the justice department i contacted the irs. when i contacted them they directed me to lois lerner. we met once at the office for about an hour with some of her staff. now we learn that in 2010 the justice department with the fbi is meeting with lois lerner. we subpoenaed documents from the justice department.

we want any communications with lois lerner that you have. we get this e-mail. we get this communication from lois lerner. did you give us this e-mail? >> i don't know. >> you didn't. we got from the justice department. we contacted you on june 9. we said how come we did not get this e-mail from you? this is an e-mail from 2010. we contacted you. we are wondering why the irs has not sent us this e-mail from four years ago. and then four days later you

tell the finance committee and the congress and the american people that we lost her e-mail. if we have lost a bunch of e-mail from that time. you were never going to tell us until we cut you. we cut you because we did a request. we found out there was this collaboration going on. oh we took that e-mail. mr. pilger told us that he met with her in 2010. they complied with our subpoena and gave us the e-mail. you knew you were caught. you did not tell us this. now we have to tell the whole world that we lost it. what better time to do it them on friday. you send in the letter and put

it on page seven of the third addendum and say we may have a problem with her e-mail. that is what i think. i think people are going to this would say that is what prompted these guys. >>you told us that you knew in april that you lost them. we had better do it june 13. justice and the irs were working together in 2010. >> when you find any direct evidence to support that assertion i would be happy to see it. if you think that this organization in four days to produce that report, you don't understand how large organizations function. you can ask anybody who worked on that report. it was under production for a

long time. >> i am not saying that it wasn't. including the statement about losing the e-mails. >> it was in that report. >> look at the timeline. you knew in april and you didn't tell us until june. one key event was the request from judicial watch and find this elaboration. we supplanted the justice department. suddenly you say they got us. we have got to come clean. >> can i respond? there are senior staff people on the finance committee who will dispute this. if you have any evidence of people who worked on that report in terms of the timing or if we

were not deliberate i would be surprised i would be astounded. there is no such evidence. i've been very patient about this. before you make that claim you should have other evidence than a single e-mail dated june 9. >> would you yield for one moment? >> last week thomas cain told us that the irs intended to alert us about her lost e-mails. i know you have all of these theories. our committee has been one we put out these headlines and then we go chasing facts. i am just saying to include everything when you're asking a question.

>> when they knew that in april. they waited two months. when they decided to tell us was four days after we knew there was e-mails that we weren't getting from the irs. that timing is suspect. particularly in light of the other things we heard from the irs. now there may be 20 computers the crashed. there may be one available. when you start looking at the timeline, it looks suspect. i am not sure they are going to tell us. >> you have -- this is been very

interesting. one member on your side said that the man was under investigation. i was in that hearing. he never said that. the justice department never said that. you have made some strong accusations. we make these kinds of accusations, i would appreciate it if you would give the witness an opportunity to answer. these allegations can tarnish a reputation. you have come up with this theory. it is what it is. he ought to be able to answer. that is all i am asking. >> as i said. i have not seen his testimony.

it does not surprise me that we're been producing the report for some time. you can talk to people. we will give you those contacts who did have a meeting the following week and asked us for an update. they asked for it no later than that friday. i am confident and very confident that no one working on his report had any idea of it other than we were going to produce it and provide the information to the public. any other assumption is not based in fact. >> are you going to make those witnesses available? when the commissioner new that the e-mails were lost we were planning on telling the congress as soon as we got all of the information. will they come and testify? >> adamek you will find anybody

who will make that testimony. >> are you willing to have those people come testify? >> would be happy to talk with you. you have already talked to some of them and you have others on your schedule. >> i do share concerns by some of my colleagues on the other side about why the irs delayed providing congress with notification regarding the unrecoverable e-mails. it raises questions. i don't share in the chairman or other members conspiracy and

rush to judgment about any motives as to why there was a delay. i feel again as i have said in previous meetings that we failed to get all of the facts in order to make a proper decision. i am not a defender of the irs. i have said from the beginning that i believe there was wrongdoing. the chairman and others want to conclude or make conclusions about that wrongdoing without justification or evidence to support their assertion. you just read into the record some comments by mr. pilger that i had asked to be entered into this record, the full

transcripts. i am going to ask for unanimous consent that the transcribed interview opening statements of doj officials richard pilger and jack smith be allowed to be entered into the record particularly since you just handpicked certain statements. i am asking the full transcript the entered. will that courtesy be provided for this to be entered into the record of unanimous consent? >> i read from the opening statement that -- >> that is what this is. >> just the opening statement we would be happy to do that. >> i also want to follow up to

some of the claims of the been made by my republican colleagues and give you an opportunity to respond. it has been stated twice today that mr. kahan testified during his july 17 interview that amid february the irs realized her e-mails would not be recoverable. i don't want mr. kayne's statement to be taken out of context. it is true that they had discovered the hard drive had crashed and that the contents of the hard drive was unrecoverable. that does not mean that he said that the irs would never be able to produce those e-mails to congress. he was asked as of march 2014 you are not aware that you would be unable to recover the documents. he answered, that is correct.

he further explained as you have that the irs was engaged in extensive ross us to find her e-mail from other sources at the irs. those efforts were successful and yielded the production of an additional point 4000 e-mails. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> he explained that the whole with the document production to congress was to fully comply with those requests as expeditiously as possible. he stated, i have tried my best. do you share that belief that every effort was made to provide this committee and others with those e-mails? >> i do.

>> beyond the issue of failing to notify us and a timely manner what can be made of why that timeline was delayed. >> of the e-mails in question have been provided in the normal course to this committee and other investigators. there was no attempt to not reduce information that showed there had been a problem with her hard drive. none of us noted that there were e-mails saying she had lost or had problems with her hard drive and last e-mails. it is not as if these e-mails were withheld or not produced in a regular manner. we were pulling information together in april and may.

we were producing e-mails. they were the basis of our june 13 report. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the chair. >> i really wish we had your i.t. guys instead. it is hard when we're asking you some questions and not related to your experience. i appreciate your coming up. a lot has been done to talk about this. a drive this large went so bad that not a single piece of information to be saved.

you asked us to believe that your experts could not save one piece of data from this drive. >> that's what i was advised. i testified at that previous hearings. >> the american people don't believe that. the idea that we can recover the less 17 or 18 seconds from the challenger exploding above our atmosphere and falling into the sea and being left in the sea for a year that we could recover the voice from that makes people wonder why a product that is in the office suddenly not one piece of data can be recovered. >> i don't know if they do or not.

i understand that when our criminal investigation division say they could not recover any e-mail that seems -- >> do you think it is reasonable for us to check with them. to see if that passes the reality check in spite of what the american people may think. >> yes. those interviews are being scheduled. some of those people have already been interviewed. >> it is fair for us to do an interview and to investigate in order to bring the credibility that we bring as a doubting thomas to the process. >> i've never had any concerns or objections to the oversight.

i'm a big believer in the congressional oversight. >> the existence of ocs. this chat capability that exists. >> that is correct. i spent some time testifying about that. >> you wrote me a letter. in the letter it said that no records were kept because it was the equivalent of visits or phone calls. >> yes. >> would surprise you to know that we disagree with you? >> unless you can train or guarantee that no policy decisions unless you can assure

us it is not doing the equivalent. i will explain something. president bush was in office. we investigated the management service. they had systematically signed wrong and cost the american public billions of dollars. we could find not a shred of evidence in e-mails to show the absurdity of how this came to pass. we discovered that only the cover sheet was brought to them. they never read the leases. one mistake was passed through multiple signatures. as we read through the process we discovered they had a policy.

lawyers had no paper trail of things they did in their consultation. i will tell you today that has to end. the american people expect that the federal records act is not something to be avoided. you should not be bypassing the future oversight. maintaining data so that it can be analyzed by your inspector general who is conducting your investigation, activities are going on. our activities are hampered. by policies of any part of government that allow the use of

something that bypasses future oversight. i hope today that you will recognize that your letter is not acceptable. e-mail is a substitute not just for the old-fashioned letter but a visit. it is a substitute for a phone call. the phone call and the visit in the old days, you would have done a memo for the record. that is not being done. e-mails and these chats are important. i like to have a second round. >> i have a point of information. yesterday we inform committee members that we will hold

another hearing on this topic next wednesday. could the chairman and form us who will be testifying at that hearing on wednesday? >> we will inform at the appropriate time. they have not sent anything out. i appreciate your inquiry. >> you don't know or you won't tell us? >> we will do regular order. we will recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you very much. if any of my constituents were not as forthcoming as the irs there would be a presumption of guilt. they would have their wages garnished. when i go back to the district i

have the opportunity to talk to many irs former employees. they are now retired. i asked him what they thought about what was going on at the irs. i heard despicable behavior every step of the way. the irs is no longer credible. i would like to yield back. >> i appreciate that. commissioner it is been approximately a year of the production of e-mails. i remember you said it might take two years. let me ask you a question. have you reviewed the timeline from when this committee issued lawful demands for e-mails?

who did what and when? >> no. >> would you be prepared to deliver a timeline, calendar activities of people who were charged with going out and finding those e-mails what they did and when they did it. >> we have 250 people doing network. >> you have had people reviewing and rejecting. who got in the information. if you stimulated the e-mails and gathered them? >> that is a set of people. we would be happy to provide you with the information in any form that would be usable. >> this is the inquiry i will ask you today. you're not the i.t. guy. it is clear now from this side of the deus that we asked

requests. the moment we issued our first letter it required the you preserve information. there is a question if that was preserved. the tapes that your own people have admitted they are not sure if they exist or not nobody would have to say where are the tapes. additionally in order to not know that lois lerner had this cap -- gap you are not looking extensively all at once or people just didn't want to admit that they were going out and looking for e-mails like we expected. to do a keyword search on a

server and deliver the data. for months before you came on board we were being told some keywords. the irs was adding keywords that allowed them to deliver the false narrative that aggressive's were being targeted. they were adding self serving words and they were searching them. this committee had a reasonable expectation that you were searching the entire database. not 6000 e-mails or less of it been preserved. you were searching the historic e-mails. not until recently, did we understand that if that was how you are getting your information you were knowingly looking for a small fraction of the historic two or three year e-mail selection. we now understand.

it is now appropriate for us to understand that your employees search techniques and what they did. at some point they must've started searching. did they send out one of these? the key word search would imply that they were accumulating pst's. it they were searching them. if that process did not begin in earnest in the first week or month, if your predecessor was delivering selective data from what was the last six months of things still preserved, we need to know that. it does appear as though in this

long investigation that there has been an absence of or willingness to disclose problems or an absence of real fact-finding and getting these e-mails quickly or deliberate obstruction. we would like to know. who went looking for what when? not interested in who read them or who edited them or redacted them or who released them. that information would be equally valuable whether it was pursuant to the house or senate's request. giving us that gives us a timeline of who was involved in going and looking so we know who knew that something like her e-mail on her personal hard drive was of any relevance. we did not know there was a lack

of a central database for the first year of this investigation. >> the chair recognizes the lady from wyoming. >> thank you. i have no doubt that morale at the irs is low. i want to tell you about morale. the people of wyoming who i work for all feel targeted. they think the irs is out to get them. they are lower than a snakes belly about the irs. they know that lois lerner was brought into the irs from the federal elections committee where she had a history of political targeting. they know that she was tapped to

enforce the largest tax increase in history. after she targeted conservative groups while overseeing tax-exempt organizations. they saw her come to this committee. they saw her take the fifth. they know that we found out that she did break the law. she provided confidential information to another federal agency. they know that she is gotten away with that. the just apartment isn't doing in thing about it. they know that when they get letters from the irs that they are being targeted.

i have a constituent who got a letter that has cost her $50,000 just to close her estate. they keep asking her about her bed. they think are bed is some expensive antique. she is a very active member of the republican party. she feels targeted. morale is low in wyoming. our government has turned against us. this is a legitimate investigation. i hope it continues at length. i hope it goes on until we get to the truth. the people we work for feel like the government is getting away with their tax dollars.

they feel like the government is denying them tax-exempt status. they feel like they can't trust the irs. that is why this investigation. i'm sure it is frustrating. we are frustrated. it is because our constituents are mortified. they are scared and going to take matters into their own hands. they don't feel we have the ability to do that ourselves. with no apology for the morality irs and no apology for how may times we are asking you the same

questions over and over. i thank you for your attendance. i do yield back. >> i will yield. >> some people just don't have enough questions for you commissioner. i mentioned the timeline in my interest in that. let me ask you one of the question. when you look at this investigation and you look at the fact that a federal judge is ordering you to show certain things. you look at the investigations. are you aware and you recognize the three separate channels are perceived as very different as to what your responsibilities are in how you approach them? >> my response is the same.

if people have questions we have an obligation to respond to them. >> the ig does in fact work under you. he has limited authority. >> absolute not. >> i understand his independence. >> he works for the treasury department he does not work in the irs. >> when he wants information he asked to ask for it and he may not always get it. there is a process and it is frustrating to get information. he does not have the authority to demand things automatically and >> i have never had an experience with an ig not been able to get information he needs. i am committed that whatever information he wants he is welcome to have. >> we will hold you to that. >> we will do that.

i will take it off and recognize myself. a lot of the things that happened were before you were there. it is worth mentioning that there are a lot of taxpayers who have had their morale hit. when they see some of the spending that has gone on. that really irks a lot of people. i think the same goes for the targeting. when people feel like they were being targeted or were targeted from exercising their constitutional rights, that hurts their morale. it is important that we mention that. a lot has been going on about what you knew. why you delayed telling congress. i think it is the case that the standard that would be applied

to an official such as yourself is not simply what you actually knew but what you should have known. you can't bury her head in the sand and not know what people in your organization know. that is going to be a question. there were people at the leadership level early in february new but the problems are more substantial than what you indicated to us. why did you not know more? that goes into what this is being investigated by the justice bremen. i want to be lobbying charges. this is a transcript. the commissioner at the irs delayed telling congress is a

matter that you're going to investigate. we are going to look into what the circumstances were around that. we are concerned about it. the doj seems concerned about it. that is important to know. you mentioned that you have seen the ways and means test release about their interviews with different irs technical witnesses about what happened to the hard drive. they told ways and means that the hard drive was scratched and data was likely recoverable from it. the irs just last week has filed a declaration saying the hard drive was destroyed. no data was recovered. what is the american people to think when a witness tells a

committee something may be recoverable but yet the irs is representing in federal court that it was destroyed? >> i have not talked to those people. i don't know what that interview -- >> the technical people would be the ones we most want to talk to? >> there were efforts made by ms. lerner and the id -- i.t. department to restore them. they were not able to retrieve information. that is all i know and what the e-mails showed. the experts had tried. they were unable to recover any information. >> i read the pleadings. i take that point. we are getting conflicting information. it is going to be information that that be resolved. you can be telling the court one

thing and having people in the organization telling the congress the other thing. i am almost out of time. the d c circuit issued an opinion about the irs's regulation. given that there is a split for you have the fourth circuit saying it is an error or they did not have the authority to issue that ruling, are you going to put and resend that rule until this can be resolved? >> the rule about that tax credit is run by hhs. we have our regulation.

it was appropriate and acceptable to go through the federal marketplace. we have no plan until the issue is resolved in court to change that. >> you construe that to be that there might have been a drafting error in the statute that the intent was it should go in? >> i am supportive of the justice department opinion which was upheld in the fourth circuit. i don't have a different view of the legality. i think the justice department puts it very well. i think it is enforceable. >> next to the cochairs of the 9/11 commission. live at 7:00, "washington journal." >> 40 years ago the watergate

scandal led to the only resignation of an american president. this weekend the house judiciary committee considers impeachment of the president. >> what you have here are questions about what the framers had in mind. you have questions about the activities that had been found out by the committee and by the senate were impeachable. can we prove that richard nixon knew about them and even authorized them? >> watergate, 40 years later on american history tv. >> the 9/11 commission has released a new report. the report comes 10 years after the commission issued

recommendations for reforming intelligence community. commission leaders offered their reflections on the commission and the new report. this is one hour.

>> good afternoon, everybody. it is my pleasure to interrupt your conversation for the this last conversation of the day. i am jason grumet, and a great pleasure to be here today. once we founded the bipartisan policy center in supports of senators goals, our goal was to create the kind of infrastructure and expertise that would support advanced light today. i want to thank again our terrific partners from the policy center for the substantive and intellectual engagement and the financial support to make today possible. when i am out describing the bipartisan policy center and our effort to restore collaboration, i tend to get two responses, some combination of "sounds like tough sledding," and "at least you have job security." and it is a fair understanding. we have deeply dysfunctional government and we can only describe it as a target rich environment for a very big problem.

one of the best part of the work for me is i get to work with a variety of different fascinating people, with many issues in terrific leaders. but i can say in my seven years, there's been no more compelling effort than the opportunity to work with the 9/11 commission. i really obviously want to thank lee and tom. an unique aspect of working with lee and tom is that everyone wants to talk to them. the report that we released today was informed by dozens of interviews and reflections on experts, inside and outside of government. most of those interviews were not -- there is one reflection that i am pleased to share with you today. >> congratulation to the 9/11 commission on its 10 other cursory of the release of your historic's. as we gather in washington, we

pay tribute to the leadership of two great americans. tom kean and lee hamilton. 10 years ago the 9/11 commission. together on a bipartisan basis to help the american people understand one of the darkest days of our history. and to provide recommendations about how to keep our country safe. the power of your report, your commitment to transparency, and your dedication to preventing future attacks brought our country together. from the leadership of the director of the national intelligence to the analysis of the national counterterrorism center, the coronation of our federal, state, and local agencies, i rely on your recommendations every day. none of that would've been possible without the leadership provided by tom manley. tom's a proud citizen of the garden state and lee is a quintessential hoosier who first made his name on the basketball court. this is what americans woman

their public servants, integrity, humility, intelligence, and commitment to what the interests of our country before partisan or personal interest. you have made your mark. i speak for some many americans when i say that our country could use a lot more public servants fight tom kean and lee hamilton. you are also tireless and you're still providing recommendations to my administration and congress about how to protect our country. so thank you. the 9/11 commission and those who provided such an ordinary leadership. you have made our country safer. and you have not only my thanks, but the thanks of a grateful nation. [applause] >> as you can imagine, it is a real honor to share the stage with two leaders who have demonstrated what bipartisanship can provide. that there is no question that

we are deeply divided today, but it would be in overrepresentation to suggest that the commission was operating during a gentle time or that members of congress were holding hands in the national interest. but still there were incredibly high-stakes. time and lee united five democrats, five republicans in a consensus report that obviously resulted in dramatic policy change and help heal our nation from the tragedy of 9/11. having spent the morning focused on policy discussions, we want to close today with a reflection on the commissions process, a little bit of the behind the music review. what we can learn about functioning partnering ship in the processes that have guided us through motion -- through most of our nations 200 year history. i am going to join -- look at that transition -- i am going to join these two leaders and pose

a couple of questions. so first off, as we mentioned in two different ways today, the fundamental essence of politics is some amount of trust. now you two have worked so effectively together. and i think a lot of people thought you knew each other before this process. that you had been intimate and trusted friends and my understanding is that is not the case. i thought it would be useful to share how did you meet each other and frankly what were your first impressions if you would be so bold russian mark lee, do you want to -- >> jason, you are correct. i knew about tom kean as governor and not a lot about new jersey. he was always recognized and thought of as one of the more successful governors in recent history. so i knew him by revocation.

i may have shaken his hand once or twice before we met to head up the 9/11 commission. it's worth remembering that both of us were substitutes. the original nominees were henry kissinger and george mitchell. and both of them had to step aside because of conflict of interests. so tom and i were second stringers. tom and i met and i told the staff last night, almost the first thing he said to me substantively was, lead, we are going to make every decision jointly. well, having come from the

congress where the chairman has all the power and the ranking member has none of the power among and where partisanship is very strong and staffs are chosen on a partisan basis, i was somewhat flabbergasted. it was an extraordinary gesture on tom's part. just extraordinary. and i look back on and as one of the most import and decisions in government that i have encountered. because when you think about all the things that flowed from the fact that we had a unanimous report, and were able to work together and all the legislation passed in all of the changes in the institutional structures of government, of all the budget changes, all of that flowed from tom's initial offer. and i think it was quite extraordinary. so i became acquainted with the man who had vision of where he wanted to go home and how to get there, and he taught me patience, which is never been

one of my great qualities. he taught me how to listen. and the most important skill in politics and government which is the ability to build consensus behind a solution. it is a very -- excuse me from wandering, jason -- a very easy thing to go into a room where you have differences of opinion, and blow it apart. i know it is easy because i've have done on any number of occasions. but what is really hard, really hard, is to go into that room and get people to work together. it usually takes more than what it means. tom has that skill to an extraordinary degree. and so he deserves the credit

for putting the commission on a consensusbuilding posture. >> tom, some early memories of the process? >> yes, i remember that meeting, but the thing about lee, his reputation march before him. i knew it a lot about lee hamilton and everything i knew about him was good. i thought to republican friends of mine congress, a light lee hamilton. democrats said he is a wonderful guy to work with. i talked to people who are usually very partisan and he's was someone who could work between the parties. i am not sure, lee, i would have said that to many other people. but your reputation was so good in the area of -- everyone trusted you in this town and very few people trust anybody in this town, but they trusted lee hamilton. and so when i walked in and say we were going to work together i had understanding that this was someone i would have a great deal of leisure working with and

not only that, but somebody who filled in so many gaps that i hadn't in the commission. because i was the outsider, i came from new jersey, i had never worked in washington. and this was a washington institution dealing with washington problems of government in the congress and all of that. and so please long experience and trusted experience in both administrative and in the congress, was something that i totally lacked. without lee i would not known what the hell i was doing. but i could go to him with total trust and get his opinion and no it was based on intelligence long experience, and absolute integrity. and so that was not hard. but the answer if your question really in one way is that lee and i worked on it hard. we worked on it very hard to be

bipartisan. the first time meet the press asked me to come on the show and i said i would appear if you let lee hamilton appear with me. they said, we don't let guests pick guests. i said to get somebody else. two hours later they called back and we would be delighted to have you and lee. and then the way the other commissioners, with their own dedication to bipartisanship started going like noah's ark, two by two, so that each and republican invited would ask a democrat, and a democrat would ask a republican and so we got known through the town as people who were working together on a bipartisan manner. but we worked everything from the seating arrangements on the hearings and in private, republicans and democrats sitting next to each other, just

every thing we could do to emphasize bipartisanship from the beginning. and the other thing i would say that is important and lee and i work together on it, you cannot be bipartisan unless you get to know each other. and recognize each other as people. people who are there to do a job and who care very much about what they are doing. that was the saying -- that have the same motivation. we would meet with dinner -- we would meet for dinner without any agenda sometimes. we would invite commissioners to our house, and they did the same thing in new york. we got to know each other as people. and gradually the ours and the d's started to disappear. the answer is, lee hamilton was a normatively important in that process because he came from a background of dealing with people in both parties that was rare in this town. >> i think that is really a

tremendous reflection that has been our experience in almost any aches access full effort that we have undertaken. very important if you have that kind of unity at the outset. i has a number of people have mentioned, it wasn't all rosy when this process started and in fact tom, i read that you actually said that one point that the commission was set up to fail. so if you would, think that 12 years and talk a little bit about how did the rest of the world embrace your commitment to collaboration -- do you feel like you had to overcome frameworks that were designed not to help? >> i made that comment and i think it was true because the congress voted for us to be set up an awful lot of the members of congress did not want us in the members of the family know that better than anyone else. the president didn't want us. he thought he could do an investigation in the administrative branch.

they did not give us enough money. they gave us less money than any other commission they had done. they didn't give us enough time. and it was in the year of the presidential election, so it was the most partisan time in washington. we looked at all those factors and figured, my god, we have been set up to fail. so we had to fight to get more money. we had i to get more time. we had the fight to get access to documents we needed. we had to fight to get people to testify to make our cases. nothing was easy. and without the kind of bipartisan group that we had with us, without the work of all of these commissioners, we would never have been successful because i do a lot of people thought we had been set up to fail and it would have been sad if we had. >> i would say that there is no such thing as instant credibility. we did not have credibility when we started as a commission. commissions are a dime a dozen in this town.

and you have to overcome a certain skepticism about commissions if you are part of one. you have to work and earn credibility. and it took us months, maybe a year or so before we really had credibility. but people began to understand that we were serious, that we were not a highly partisan body, that we had an enormously important mandate, given to us by the families of the victims and an important mandate from the congress itself. the individual commissioners -- their reputations, their credibility as professionals -- was an enormously successful to establishing the credibility of the commission.

and as we performed our job and the people began to understand the importance of what we were doing, our approach to it, our credibility began to build. you could just feel it. i sensed it as we did our work through a periodic very -- every year. we were building credibility as we went along so that when we got to the end and issued the report, we had standing among the american people. and among the media. this is a tough town, the media people -- i can give you quite a lecture on that. but we had earned their respect, i believe in the process. and we began to see his commission as unusual.

>> one more question reflecting back on the process. we often find in our negotiations that it comes down to a small number of issues, often not the most important issues, they become the crucible of the debate. that the group has to work its way through that issue, and once it breaks through that issue just about everything else is possible. do you remember situations like that question mark another these were private discussions. share what you feel comfortable with. anything come to mind that help to build? >> yes. a number of them. and lee hamilton had a mantra. we have had some heated discussions about particularly the language of the report and the recommendations, and then there would be a hesitation, and lee would say, let's go back and look at the facts. and then gradually we started

moving the adjectives from the report. and just stating the facts. and if you look at that report there were not a lot of adjectives in it. it was a report with plain and clear writing because we got rid of the adjectives. the adjectives are what people got excited about. and i think you are the one, lee, every time, let's look at the facts. an enormous contribution. once we looked at the facts and got rid of the adjectives, we found agreement. >> that is the key point. i am looking at the washington monument outside the window, and it brings back a memory of mine. i would drive home to at 3:00 in the morning sometimes across the 14th street bridge into virginia. and on several occasions i remember thinking to myself, oh, we are never going to get agreement on that issue. we had been talking about it for several hours and hadn't reached it.

but we would come back, now here's where tom's patience paid off, we would come back and start all over in. and what came to me very strongly was that consensus can be reached on most issues, not all issues, most issues if you approach it properly. you have got to have time, you've got to have patience, you have got to try to understand the other guy's point of view, you got to ask yourself, what are the commonalities in our views and what are the dissimilarities in our reviews? and how can we reconcile those in views? and that was the approach we tried to take. now, jason, you said specific issues. i am not sure i can answer that. i don't have a specific issue in mind that really hung us up.

tom, do you -- think of one? >> the intelligence community was one of the long discussions. we had every point of view people came in and testified him even from great britain and how is they did it. that took a long time to get consensus, i think, on the dni and how to do that. >> are probably right. we had an extra ordinary access to the judgment from all kinds of people, former officials, i don't know how many we interviewed. we interviewed scores and scores of them. and people wanted us to succeed. that became an important factor, inthat became an important factor, too. the country -- this event of an him him him him

9/11 was the most tragic a in our history, probably. and it had a huge impact on the american people. so early on we sensed that they were rooting for us. and that he made a big difference. they wanted us to come up with something that would be useful for the country. when you have that kind of support behind you, and you feel it. you feel it. and i think the commissioners understood that the country was depending on us. they really wanted us to succeed here. and they fully supported us. it was not just a matter of the families. the families led the way, but they captured the attention of the american public. the politicians, incidentally, that led the city were not initially enthusiastic about us. and it was only after the people

became enthusiastic about us that the politicians began to change. >> a dynamic in our democracy. >> one more thing, the staff. we had a very short time to hire a lot of good people. but a lot of good -- a lot of good people wanted to work for us because of the tragedy. and we, lee and i, had one common thing. we did not care if they were republican or democrat. we did not even asked that question. but we did not want someone who was heavily partisan for a republicans and democrats. we looked over things pretty carefully and no partisan, we did not care. but if they had been very active in campaigns and very active for one party or the other, then we did not want you because we did not want that kind of partners -- partisanship seeping into our discussion. >> i don't think we estimate about a that was political. >> we didn't. >> we had some excellent people in that staff.

we have the deputy director. the work that they did for us. and marcus, i think i saw earlier, he was their legal counsel. and the top strata of the staff were really outstanding people. they shared, i think, our vision of the importance of what we were doing. and tom and i relied enormously on them throughout the process. and i think the rest of the staff did too. incidentally, one of the things that the commissioners called upon us to do was -- which we refused to do, i won't name any names of the commissioners here, but i could. they came to us and said, i want you to assign a staff person to help me on this issue. tom and i refused that.

we did not want to give up any staff people and the others, i guess, we were selfish at that point. but the staff work for the commission and for tom and me. they were totally nonpartisan and they have a high degree of medical expertise. we had a via, what, seven members of the staff. if you look at the way they were allocated, and you have a lot of expertise in different areas. we looked at a lot of complicated stuff, technical stuff, and we had to have highly qualified staff to help guide us through it. >> tom, you referred to the report and its clean prose. one of the interesting things about this commission is that a government report as you all know was a bestseller. and let me quote john updike who knows a little bit about writing, in the new yorker he

says, the king james bible was our language's lone masterpiece written by committee at least until the 9/11 commission report. and so that was a pretty significance and consequential choice. and in addition to just removing the adjectives -- that fire he adjectives, how did you decide to write a report design for the american public? and was that hard? >> as you know, we had right away a decision to make when we picked our staff in that regard. and a lot of people recommended it to us, a budget generals, a bunch of other people. and we pick to lead the staff historian and we picked -- and i got a call, i don't think i've said this before, i got a call from the white house. he said, we don't want him. and i said, why not?

and they said, because he is a historian. well, this is history. no, we are going to tell you everything. we're not going to tell you where we got it. and historians footnote. so lee and i are probably going to pick a historian. and we got three on the staff as well as some wonderful providers like john former and people like that. so we had on the staff people who could write and who knew how to write history read that is what this was. but in addition to that, the amazing thing to me is a commissioner, at those last meetings, all the commissioners went over every sentence of that report. and made changes. >> more than once. and so the idea of 10 people going over every word of a report in making changes and still having something come out that is readable was to me

absolutely remarkable. >> i think that first chapter of the report is a classic. an absolute classic. it just tells you the story of what happened on 9/11. and it was put together by a very -- by very good writers simple, direct, candid. and i think it is going to be a long, long time before you see another government report on the bestseller list. that is among our more notable achievements, i believe. >> you know, lee, i think it was one of the commissioners, i don't remember which one, but the original report was starting with a history of al qaeda. and one of the commissioners, i don't know that was, said, you know, we shouldn't do that. we should start with the history of the event. and how it happened. it was absolutely the right decision, a suggestion made a --

made by a commissioner, i don't remember which one, but it was absolutely the right decision. >> that factual recitation of what happened on that day is now the starting point for anybody who looks into 9/11. we all know that 9/11 would be looked at -- would be looked at for centuries to come in this country. we are quite a ways away from the writing of that report but it is held up pretty well. indeed, i think actually, i think we got the story right basically. and that was one of our mandates. we had a couple of mandates. number one, tell the story. number two, set up the recommendations to make us safer. and we've had a lot of people challenge -- i still get a call, probably, once every couple of

weeks from people who disagree strongly with the report. and if i speak on a college campus, i can absolutely assure you that there will be people in the audience who have conspiracy theories about what happened on that day. some believing for example that the united states air force maneuvered the whole thing, flew the planes into the tower, and all kinds of stories. they even had a convention on this out in los angeles, attacking the 9/11 commission report and it drew 3000 people i am told, who thought we were nuts. so you run into that element. there is a large segment of the american people, larger than you might think, who believe that anything that comes out of government is wrong. and we encountered some of that as we issued the report. >> there were a lot of unique

dynamics that you all were affected by, but one was clearly the role of the families. it was terrific yesterday and today to have leaders of the families with us here today. talk a little bit about how you engage the families and what opportunities and also challenges their work, because there were depths of emotions from this tragedy. rex it was -- that was one of the most humbling and one of the most, to me, life changing experiences, working with the families. i think i was maybe the only commissioner who lived right in the middle of the area where most people lost their lives. and so i knew a number of people who paris that day. i knew their families, i went to funerals for months, six months maybe, who recognize their loss at different times. i was on the board of companies

that lost people in the towers. for that reason, i think i saw more of the families than almost anybody else. than maybe tim roemer, who worked very closely with the family. but there passion, their righteous anger, even their rationality sometimes, some of them, spoke out of their deep grief and their problems, it was a driving force in our word. people of said, there would not have been a commission without the families. and as we moved along, every time we hit a huge boulder, not enough money thomas the families were there to push for more money. not enough time, the family push for more time. the president refused to testify, families pushed and made that happen. so they were absolutely unethical part of our work.

-- they were absolutely an important part of our work. and they were very welcome. >> there wouldn't be a 9/11 commission report without them. it's as simple as that. they had the credibility and the standing which we did not have. to put this forward. keep in mind that neither the executive nor the legislative branch were very anxious to do this early on. congress looked at it as an intrusion. we were doing something they were qualified to do. the executive branch had deep reservations about it. but change the politicians was not tom and me, but the families. and the other lesson of these families for me -- and i often cited when i talk to people about citizen participation -- in the amazingly short. of time, they learn to be very

sophisticated people in dealing with government. this lace is a complicated city. a very complex place. the levers of power here, people spend a lifetime trying to understand them. they picked up the rudiments of politics very quickly to push forward their ideas. and it is about as good an example of citizen participation as i know. what they did. i don't think any of them would claim to be experts on the american government, prior to 9/11. all of them can claim to be experts now. they got results. and there are a lot of lessons in their activity. i hope incidentally, maybe it is

already happened, i hope that the active it makes -- academics delve into what you all did because i think it is a marvelous example of civic participation and the details of it. it would be very instructive in the future. >> as you can tell, these are tough guys to moderate. and i can ask a lot more questions but i want to open this up. one more question and we're going to take all of your questions as we have time for. my last question really builds on a lot of this conversation. you have identified a number of different things that are essential for functioning government trust, the ability to have private conversations, the commitment the facts, the outside pressure from an engaged citizenship. one of the things that we were so enthusiastic about bringing the commission back together is the proof of how it can work. my question is, what do you see

is the legacy of the commission beyond its recommendations? >> well, you know, tom brokaw said to me that you wrote it rate report an important recommendations, but i think the reason the american people embraced you was the first important bipartisan thing that had been done in this town in a long, long time, and it was unanimous. that has got to be an important part of our legacy. the ideas that republicans and democrats can come together. and the idea, when i first learn about lee, that he had been working with republicans democrats, my history was that i was speaker of a legislature in new jersey that had no majority. i had to maneuver that and get some pretty good accomplishments. i was governor of the state is a republican that didn't have a democratic legislature.

-- that had a democratic legislator. i had to learn to work with them. but i got a deep respect for a number of people on the other party and the idea that their views were legitimate, that they were working with her constituency, and was better to work with them than against them. i don't know if we've lost that in this town, but the idea that people who come to washed and come they're generally for the right reasons. i mean, these are people who really want to serve the american people. and just as much as you do. and there is no reason therefore, that you cannot value that and work with people and come the bipartisan resolutions and i think, i hope that is a lesson that we get from the commission. >> i think one of the greatest ideas in the history of mankind, to be very modest about it, is representative democracy.

but no one ever said that representative democracy was easy. it is very hard work. and i think what the commission achieved was an example of representative democracy working. not perfectly, we had a few bumps and bruises along the way. and several of our recommendations were ignored. but a lot of good things happen because of it. so i think the ability to develop a consensus behind the solution, which is why government is all about -- government is really about us search for remedy. -- a search for a remedy. that is not my phrase. some scholars said that. but that is exactly right. there is an awful lot of politics, a lot of noise, there

is a lot of diversion out there. which we focus on a great deal. but underneath it all, what you are really trying to do in the political system is to find a remedy to problems that in or mostly difficult to solve. -- that are in nor mislead difficult to solve. -- in nor mislead -- enormously difficult to solve. when i went to high school, low, many many decades ago, we had 130 million people in this country. today, whatever it is, 315 million, 320 million. so on my working lifetime and tom's, we far more than doubled inside is a country. -- in size as a country. and we have become much more

diverse. so the consensus holding process which has become much harder and it takes terrific energy and skill to make it work. this is an example where it did work. representative democracy can work, not easily, but it can work. >> we would like to open up to some questions. we have mike runners. matt. stand up. >> my name is matthew sellitto. my son matthew c sellitto was on the 105th floor in tower one when it was hit and we lost my son matthew that day. i was asked by the commission back in the beginning, my wife and i, to be part of the families that the commission could use to bounce off information before they went to the public. i remember back then that there were 28 pages that were classified. the commission did not want these pages to be classified.

but the executive branch of our government cap them classified. going forward, former senator bob graham, representative lynn chen, representative jones tried to get them declassified. and they even brought hr 428 and tried to get a ruling to get them declassified. to this day they are still declassified. they are still classified, i'm sorry. they are still classified. i was like to know from the gentleman up on the dais, what of your feelings to this day and do you still think they should be classified?