>> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully inters my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. he testified, and i quote, she sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through -- i'll say it again, she sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multitier review and they will eventually have to go to ms. kindell and the chief counsel's office. why did you order tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. >> on the advice of my counsel i

respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in june, 2011, you requested that holly pawes obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by crossroads g.p.s. so that your senior technical advisor, judy kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you. ms. lerner, why did you want to personally order that they pull crossroads g.p.s., karl roves' organization's application. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner in june of 2012, you were part of an email exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on political speech for 501c4 groups and in trent sis your quote, off plan in 2013. ms. lerner, what does off plan

mean? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in february of 2014, president obama stated that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting. ms. lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting of conservatives? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, on saturday, our committee's general counsel sent an email to your attorney saying, i understand that ms. lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a one week delay in talking to the chairman -- excuse me. in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that was right. your lawyer in response to that

question gave a one-word email response. yes. are you still seeking a one-week delay in order to testify? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further. i have no expectation that ms. lerner will cooperate with this committee and therefore we shall -- >> mr. chairman, i have a statement. i have a procedural question, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a procedural question. mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this.

you just cannot do this. this is -- we are better than that as a country, we're better than that as a committee. i have asked for a few minutes to -- and now you're turning me off. i am a ranking member on this committee and i want to ask a question. what's the big deal? may i ask my question? may i make my statement. >> you're all free to leave, we've adjourned but the gentleman may ask his question. >> mr. chairman, i have one procedural question and it goes to trying to help you get the information by the way you just asked.

let me say what i have to say. i have one procedural question. >> ms. lerner, you're released. >> i'd like to take the time to make some brief points. for the past year, the central republican accusation -- >> we're adjourned -- >> before our committee -- [inaudible] [inaudible] >> shame, shame, shame. >> -- a president's political enemy. effectively lied about it during the election year in the fall. [inaudible] >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask a question, i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. >> well -- >> we have people here, each of who represent 700,000 people. you cannot have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that and this is

absolutely un-american. >> hear, hear. >> we had a hearing, it's adjourned. i gave you the opportunity to ask a question. >> do i have a question -- i do have a question. >> i gave you the opportunity. >> what are you hiding? >> he's pleading the fifth. [laughter] >> -- to discuss the republican staff report claiming that ms. lerner was, quote, at center of the effort to target conservative groups. although we provided a copy of this report to fox, he refused -- [inaudible] provided to the members of the committee. the fact however does not support these claims. we have now only 38 employees who have all told us the same thing. that the white house was not directed, subjected or even knew about it at the time it was

occurring. [inaudible] any political motivation. the inspector general, russell george, told us the same thing. he found no evidence of any white house involvement or political motivation. instead, the very first line of the results of his report says that it began with -- i quote, developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words tea party in their names, end of quote. our committee confirmed this fact when we interviewed a screening group manager from cincinnati. this manager explained that his employees were the ones who first came up with the inappropriate search terms in 2010. he denied any political motivation and he made his point by explaining that he is, a quote, conservative republican. i release this entire interview

transcript eight months ago for anyone who wants to read it for themselves. the inspector general's report also found that they did not discover use of this criteria until a year later, in 2011. which when he learned about them, and i quote again from the report, she immediately directed the criteria be changed, end of quote. mr. george's chief investigator also reviewed more than 5,500 emails from i.r.s. employees and, again, found no evidence of political motivation. over the past year, our committee has obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses. the i.r.s. has spent more than $14 million responding to congressional investigations. we have identified absolutely no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against conservative groups. what we have identified, however, is evidence of gross

mismanagement. ms. lerner failed to discover these employees were using these search terms for a year and even after she ordered them to stop, they returned to using similar inappropriate criteria and she failed to inform congress about what she knew. so i do have serious questions for ms. lerner and i'm very disappointed that i will not be able to ask them today. but i do not support the republican conclusion that she waived her constitutional right nine months ago when she invoked the fifth amendment and i do not believe a court would uphold that conclusion. now, the chairman's gone, but i'd like to ask him a few procedural questions involving having a proper -- \[inaudible]. as i said a little bit earlier, her attorney -- if she loses something, nobody gains anything. on february 26, her attorney

sent a letter to the committee saying that he met with the chairman's staff last month. at that meeting her attorney said, and i quote, the staff asked if i would provide a proper testimony she would give and i agreed to do that, end of quote. but that did not happen. as i understand it, accepting the proffer does not grant immunity to the witness it. does not bind the committee in any way. instead, it allows the committee to obtain information without requiring the witness to waive her fifth amendment rights. i was not invited to the meeting last month when her attorney and i have not been included in any negotiations but it seems to me that the committee loses nothing by accepting this proffer and in fact we may gain important information. as a matter of fact, the very questions that the chairman just asked ms. lerner when she invoked her fifth amendment rights, those are the kind of

questions that can be answered in a proffer. so i wanted to ask the chairman whether the committee can schedule a time, preferably this week, for all committee members to hear the proffer from ms. lerner's attorney and with that i yield back. yes, sir. >> i just want to note for the record i find it supreme irony that the chairman of this committee would unilaterally side -- [inaudible] that an american citizen has waived her fifth amendment rights while actually exercising his fifth amendment right not to answer your question to be asked of the minority of this committee. >> thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> inmate, the house debated a resolution to hold lois lerner and can hunt of congress. this portion of the debate against with john mica. it's probably nothing more sacred to americans, nothing than portant to protect the democratic electoral process which has made this by far the greatest country in the world, getting everyone an pportunity to participate. we're here today to hold lois lerner in contempt. it's been stated she didn't

have her rights recognized. she has the right to take the fifth. she's done that. under the constitution. may ught her in twice, 22, 2013, march, 2014. she began -- and you can see the tapes -- declaring her innocence. even before that, when it was pointed out that she was at the heart of this matter, in fact everyone and her employees, when she tried to throw them under the bus, they said she threw them under a convoy of mack trucks. every road leads to lois lerner. lois lerner held the congress of the united states in contempt and is holding it in contempt. lois lerner held the electoral process that is so sacred to his country in contempt.

lois lerner has held the american people and the process they cherish and the chief financial agency, the i.r.s., who we all have to account to, as a tool to manipulate a national election. this was a targeted, directed focus attempt and every road leads to lois lerner. she's had twice the opportunity to come before congress and to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth and she has failed to do that and i urge that we hold lois lerner in contempt. that's our responsibility. and it must be done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: with all due respect to the gentleman who ust spoke, even the i.g. found that lois lerner did not learn about the inappropriate terms until a year afterwards.

the i.g. that was appointed by the republican president with. that, i yield three minutes to the distinguished member from virginia a member of our committee, mr. conway. the speaker pro tempore: the -- mr. connolly. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. connolly: i thank my friend. i think if the founders were here today and had witnessed the proceed thonings government and oversight reform committee with respect to ms. lois lerner, they would have unanimously reaffirmed their commitment to this -- to the fifth amendment because rights were trampled on, frankly starting with the first amendment rights of the ranking member who was cut off and not allowed to speak even after the chairman allowed himself abopen -- an opening statement and no fewer than seven questions before cutting off entirely the ranking member. then we proceeded to trample on the fifth amendment.

and case law is what governs here. the court has said the self-incrimination clause must be interpreted in favor of the right it was intended to secure. since the respect normally accorded to prive sledge normally buttressed by the defendant in a trial, in other words it's the same. it's the equivalent of the presumption of innocence. madison said if all men, and he meant all men and women, i'm sure, were angels we wouldn't knead need the fifth amendment. lois lerner is not to be defended here. she's not a heroic character. but she is a citizen who has an enumerated right in the constitution of the united states. the relevant case, besides quinn vs. the united states, in the 1950's a u.s. citizen, diantha ho fwmbings ue was taken tpwhever permanent subcommittee, she also had a prepared statement declaiming her innocence, that she was not a spy, not engaged in

subversion and then she proceeded to invoke her fifth amendment. ms. hogue answered some questions yes or no that were put to her. she was found in contempt. the chairman of the committee jumped on it and said, aha, i got you. the court found otherwise. the court unanimously ruled that ms. hogue had not waived her fifth amendment right, she was entitled to a statement of innocence and that didn't somehow vitiate her invocation of the fifth amendment right and her fifth amendment right was upheld. this is a about trampling on the constitutional rights of u.s. citizens. and for a very crass reason. for partisan, political reason. we heard the distinguished majority leader, my colleague and friend from virginia, assert something that's absolutely not true, which is that only conservative grouped were targeted by the i.r.s. that's not true and we have testimony that's not true. words like occupy.

acorn. progressive. were all part of the so called bolo list. they too were looked at. this was an incompetent, ham handed effort by one regional office in cincinnati by the i.r.s. was it right? absolutely not. but does it rise to the level of a scandal or the false assertion by the chairman of our committee on television as the ranking member cited that somehow it goes all the way to the white house picking on political enemies? flat out untrue. not a scintilla of evidence that that's true. and to have the entire house of representatives now voting on the contempt citation and declaring unilaterally that a u.s. citizen has waived her constitutional rights does no credit to the this house and salo moment that evokes the spirit of joe mccarthy from a long-ago era. shame on us for what we're about to do i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. issa: nobody answered the debunking we put out this document this document makes it clear it was all about targeting and abusing conservative groups and the gentleman from virginia knows that very well. with that, it's my honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from oklahoma who has champion sod many of these issues in our investigation, mr. lankford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lankford: thank you, mr. speaker. about three years ago, all of our offices started getting phone calls from constituents. they were being -- said they were being asked unusualle -- unusual questions by the i.r.s. they were applying for nonprofit status. they were patriot groups, tea party groups, they were getting questions coming back new york questions like, tell us as the i.r.s. every conversation you've had with a legislator in the -- and the contents of those conversations.

tell us and give us cop dwhroifs documents that are only given to members of your organization. if there's a private part of your website that's only set aside for members, show us all of those pages and by the way, all of those questions were prefaced with the statement from the i.r.s., whatever documents you give us will also be made public to everyone. so the statement was, tell us what you privately talked about with legislators, tell us what only your members get because we're going to publish it. so of course we start to get questions about that. the inspector general starts an investigation on that. on may 10 of last year, 2013, lois lerner stands up in a conference, plants a question in the audience to talk about something completely irrelevant to the conference so she can leak out that this investigation is about to be burst out and four days later, the inspector general launches out this investigation and says, conservative groups have een unfairly targeted.

298 groups had their applications held, isolated. they were asked for all these things when they turneding to be yumets in, they were store the initial accusation is, this was a crazy group from cincinnati that did this so our committee happened to bring in these folks from cincinnati. they all said they wanted to be able to advance these applications and they were told no. we asked the names of the people in washington that told them to hold them. we brought those folks in. they said they wanted to move them. they were told by the counsel's office to hold them. as we continue to work through point after point, through person after person, all come back to lois lerner's office. lois lencher who had come in before us on may 22 of 2013, made a long statement professing her innocence, saying she'd done nothing wrong, has broken no law, and then said i won't answer questions. what's at stake here is a constitutional principle, can a person sit for a court or before congress and make a long statement, i've done nothing

wrong and then choose to not answer questions? this is a precedent before every congress from here on out and in front of every court. can this be zphone and we would say no. it's not just a statement about accepting that she's guilty. though all the evidence leads back to her and her office. it's, if you have the right to remain silent, do you actually remain silent during that time period? with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. mr. cummings: i would say to the gentleman, we are talking about the constitutional rights of a united states sint and we do not have the right -- united states citizen and we do not have the right to remain silent if those rights are being trampled on. i yield three minutes to the distinguished leader from hoyer from maryland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. if this is a precedent, it is a bad precedent. it is a dangerous precedent. it is a precedent that we ought not to make. read the constitution, i heard, over and over and over again. i've read probably the opinions of 25 lawyers whom i respect from many great institutions in this country. none of whom, as i'm sure the ranking member has pointed out, none of whom believe that the precedent supports this action. mr. speaker, what a waste of the people's time. for congress to spend this week on politics and not policy. we are about to vote on a resolution that is really a partisan political message. everyone here agrees.

everyone. that the i.r.s. should never target anyone based on anything other than what they owe in taxes. not their political beliefs or any other traits. other than their liability and their opportunities to pay the fair share to the united states of america. and in fact, during the exhaustive investigation into the i.r.s., chairman issa's committee, interviewed 39 witnesses, analyzed more than 530,000 pames and could not find the -- pages and could not find the conspiracy they were looking for. that they always look for. that they always allege. $14 million of taxpayer money has already been spent on this investigation.

and all that was found was that which we already knew. that the division led by ms. lerner suffered from fundamental administrative and managerial shortcomings that bore no connection to poll tirks or to -- to politics or to partisanship. independent legal experts concluded that chairman issa's efforts to hold ms. lerner in contempt of congress is constitutionally deficient. this resolution before us today is of course not meant to generate policy. it's nonet generate headlines. -- it's meant to generate headlines. republicans once again are showing that they are more interested in partisan election year gimmicks than working in a bipartisan way to tackle our country's most pressing challenges. we ought to turn to the important matters of creating jobs, raising the minimum wage, restoring emergency

unemployment for those who are struggling to find work. issues the american people overwhelmingly support and want their congress to address. i urge my colleagues to give this partisan resolution the vote it deserves. and to feed -- and defeat it so we can turn to the people's business. in closing, let me say this, mr. speaker. there are 435 of us in this body. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized, the gentleman from maryland is recognized for an additional 30 seconds. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. i urge all my colleagues, do not think about party on this vote. think about precedent. think about this institution. think about the constitution of

the united states of america. and if you haven't read, read some of the legal opinions. that say you have to establish a predicate before you can tell an american that they will be held criminally liable if they tobet respond to your questions. -- if they don't respond to your questions. that's what this issue is about. not about party. not about any of us. but about the constitutional protection this is a every american deserves and ought to be given and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. mr. couple spgs: may i inquire how much time is remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland has eight and a quarter minutes remaining, the gentleman from california has eight minutes remaining. mr. issa: i want to correct the record, earlier a minority member stated that with 35 words said by lois lerner, our count is 305.

hopefully the inaccuracy of their experts will be considered the same. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gosar: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in support of this resolution. the people's house has thor hi documented lois lerner's trespasses, including her history of targeting conservative groups as well as the laws she has broke . there's a 443-page committee reporting supporting these allegations. we know ms. lerner refuses to comply with a duly issued subpoena from the house oversight and government reform committee and without ms. lerner's full cooperation the american public will not have the answers it needs from its government. my friends across the aisle have continuously cried foul over this legitimate investigation. but where is there evidence -- where is their evidence to put this to rest? i do not enjoy hold anything federal official in contempt or pursuing criminal charges because doing so mean we was a

government run amok and a u.s. attorney general who does not uphold the rule of law and such a predicament is a lose-lose situation for all americans and our constitution. as uncomfortable as it may be, it is our job to proceed in the name of government accountability. i support this resolution and it is way pastime for contempt for lois lerner. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. welch. mr. welch: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, there's a reason that the american people hold the congress of the united states in such low esteem. we're providing them with some additional basis to have that opinion. and here's what it is. number one, this was an important investigation. we should do it. we should do it energetically and we should do it together.

instead, information was constantly withheld from the minority. our own ranking member was cut off with really quite a bold gesture by the chairman at a certain point, and it created an impression that it was going to be a one-sided affair rather than a balanced cooperative approach. that's essential to having any credibility. the second thing is, what do we do about mrs. lowey: who took the fifth -- will lois lerner who took the fifth? and the manner which she did that took her to waive that. your side think she waived it and therefore should be held in contempt. our side, and we have the side of legal opinion, said she didn't waive it. you know, that's a legal question and there is a document called the constitution that separates the powers. whether this person crossed the line or didn't

the idea that a congress, this time run by republicans, next time by democrats, can have a right to make a determination about the rights of a citizen is in complete conflict with the separation of powers in our constitution. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i thank the gentleman from vermont in advance for his yes vote on this because the only way to send this to the court to be decided is to vote yes. in fact, we are not try lois

lerner. we are determining that she should be tried. the question should be before a federal judge. with that, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from wyoming a member of the committee, mrs. lummis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. lummis: thank you, mr. speaker. i contend that in the interest of protections the -- protecting the constitutional rights of this country from the behavior of the i.r.s., from lois lerner, herself a lawyer, who understands that you can waive your right to remain silent as to matters to which you chose to testify. and that she did that. she said, i've done nothing wrong, i have broken no laws, subsequently, we find out that she blamed the rimplet s. employees in cincinnati for wrongdoing that was going on here in washington, d.c. that she was targeting conservative groups and only conservative groups, thereby

violating their first amendment constitutional rights. the oversight committee needs to find the truth and to that end, we need answers from lois lerner. the committee has sought these answers for more than a year. lerner's refusal to truthly answer these questions posed by the committee cannot be tolerated. i urge a yes vote. following that swift action by the justice department to ensure that lois lerner provides answers on exactly what she i.r.s. was up to. mr. chairman, i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california reserves. on the time remain, the gentleman from california has 11 -- has 12 minutes left. the gentleman from maryland has 6 1/4 minutes left. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: i yield two minutes to mr. davis of illinois. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. davis: i agree that one of the responsibilities of our committees is to investigate, to try and make sure that the laws are carried out the way we intended and to try and make sure that the money is being spent the way we intended for it to be spent. that we spent $14 million up to this point investigating this one issue, and while i think the investigations are designed to tell us something we don't know , we have not learned anything new. we have not learned of any kind of conspiracy. we have not learned of any kind of underhandedness. the only thing that we know is that we have said to a united states citizen that you cannot invoke the fifth and say that i

have a right not to answer questions if i think it's going o damage me. i'd rather see us spend the there are 14 million creating jobs, providing educational opportunities for those that need it, doing something that will change the direction and the flavor of the economics of our country rather than wasting $14 million more on continuous investigations. i vote no and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: at this time it's my distinked honor to yield two minutes to -- distinct honor to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. >> you know, it is amazing. the american people still have not received answers that they deserve, i believe, from lois lerner. i think sitting here on the

floor and listening to the last few minutes, it just really amazes me about what's being said. it said if the chairman had done this and if we had not done this then maybe we would have had more time and maybe we'll find out the truth. mr. collins: she did talk. she said a lot of things, including making 17 different factual assertions and then decided, oops, don't want to take anymore. here's the problem. no one has said or even implied that you can't assert your fifth amendment right. that's never been said on this floor. it's never been asserted by any member of the republican party. what has been asserted is you can't come in and you can't say, i've done nothing wrong, i'm clean, and oh, by the way, quit asking because i'm not going to answer any of your questions. when do you that, then you're taking advantage of a system

that you are not supposed to be taking advantage of. you could have -- she could have said, mr. chairman, with all due respect, i am not going to answer your question. i am asserting my fifth amendment right. she did not do that and what we have now is not a waste of time. i believe there's a lot of things. the republican majority is working on economic development. one thing we have to reassert in this country is trust, and right now the american people do not trust us and they do not breeb the government is in their favor. and incidents like this when they are being asked inappropriate questions, when they are trying to fulfill their right and freedom of speech, this is why you're here. you can't keep doing it. ms. lerner needs to be held in contempt. i have heard arguments that reminds me the song from pink floyd, i am comfortably numb, because at this point the facts don't matter. she chose to say, i didn't do anything wrong. that's not the way this process works, ms. lerner. it's time to testify. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the remaining time for the

gentleman from california is 10 minutes. the gentleman from maryland has 4 3/4 minutes. mr. cummings: i'd say to the gentleman who is leaving the floor, the arguments do matter this is still the united states of america. there are still constitutional rights which we declare -- mr. collins: if the gentleman will yield? mr. cummings: no. i'm about to yield to ms. norton, it's her time. i yield two minutes to the gentlelady. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from the district of columbia is recognized for two minutes. ms. norton: if the point is of the contempt resolution is to find out what ms. lerner knows, what the committee wants to know, deliberately here, of course, is whether there was deliberate targeting of citizens for political reasons. the fact is that the committee passed up the opportunity to

learn this information. it asked her attorney, would you tell us what she will tell us? t's called a prover. indeed, her attorney sent a letter to the chairman offering to provide a prover. that's the information -- a proffer. that's the information we want to know. this proffer would detail what ms. lerner would testify. instead of accepting that proffer, the chairman went on national television and claimed that this written offer never happened. the chairman, therefore, never obtained the proffer that the attorney was willing to offer. the information which is the only reason we should be on this floor at all and when the ranking member tried to ask about it at a hearing in march,

the chairman famously cut off his microphone and closed down the hearing in one of the worst examples of partisanship the committee has ever seen. the chairman did something similar when mrs. lerner's attorney offered to have her one-week h a simple extension, mr. speaker. since the attorney had obligations out of town. rather than accepting this offer to get the committee the information that is at the ttom of this contempt matter today, the chairman went on national television and declared inaccurately that she would testify without the extension. of course, that meant nothing could happen. there was no trust left. clearly what the committee wanted was a fifth amendment show hearing in violation of ms. lerner's rights. hey wanted a contempt citation

vote. that's an example of a political contempt citation vote. it will never hold up in the courts of the united states of america. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from maryland reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. issa: i work long and hard with the gentlelady from the district of columbia, and she's a good person but her facts are simply 100% wrong. in every single one of her assertions -- and every single one of her assertions was simply not true. you can go to every page and see that none of those statements are true. we would have accepted a proffer from the attorney. we were not given one. although i will say he did tell one time we wouldn't like what she would say if she said something. i went on national television to say she would appear and testify. additionally, the gentlelady did make one point that was

very good. it was very good. the attorney told us that she needed a week to prepare, which we were pg willing to give her. when we learned it was actually inconvenient for the attorney to necessarily prep her, we said if he would come in with his client and agree she was going to testify we would recess and give her the additional week. when they came in that day, no such offer was on the table from her attorney but in fact he said she had decided that she simply didn't want to speak to us. not that she was afraid of incrimination because you can't be afraid of incrimination and not afraid back and forth. that's pretty clear. her contempt for her committee was in fact contempt for the body of congress while she was happy to speak at length apparently with the department of justice, perhaps with that $6,000 or $7,000 contributor to

president obama that is so involved in that investigation. and with that i yield two minutes to the gentleman from michigan, mr. bentivolio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for two minutes. mr. bentivolio: thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i stand in support of this resolution recommending that the house of representatives find lois lerner in contempt of congress. our pledge of allegiance ends with the words, for liberty and justice for all. lois lerner's actions have made it nearly impossible for us to follow those ideals for the victims of the i.r.s. targeting scandal. she has placed obstacle after obstacle in front of our pursuit for the truth, worrying that her ideology and actions of a corrupt federal agency will be exposed. i ask my colleagues to join our effort in promoting transparency in our government. as members of congress, it is our job to protect rights, not take them away. and with that i yield back. .

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. is is with that, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, member of the committee, mr. farenthold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. farenthold: i'm here today because i believe lois lern waived her fifth amendment rights to testify and by so ing in not answering our questions. the other side makes a big deal about this. but the way the system is supposed to work, we will find mrs. lerner in contempt. there will be a full hearing in the court and this may well make it to the united states supreme court. her rights will be protected. but we have also got to protect the rights of the people. we are the people's house. it'sure job to get to the bottom

of the scandals that are troubling the american people so we can regain the trust to the american people. you know, it's healthy to be skeptical of your government but if you don't believe a word that comes out of the mouth of the administration, there is a real problem. i don't think the justice department is going to pursue this. the same thing that is going to ppen to ms. lerner and we've got to do our job. we've got to deal with these people that are in contempt of congress. for that reason, i have h.r. 4447 that is pending before this house that would withhold the pay of anyone in contempt of congress. we have to use the power of the purse and everything we've got to reclaim the power of the purse and the power that the constitution gave this body to get to the truth and be the representatives of the people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from maryland is

recognized. mr. cummings: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is ecognized. the gentleman from california has 5 1/2. the gentleman from maryland has 2 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california is recognized. is is i yield a minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert, who is, in fact, a constitution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: i was struck by the comments by the minority whip instructing us to check the constitution. that really struck me, because i believe i recall him standing up and applauding in this chamber when the president said if congress doesn't do its job, i'll basically do it for them. so someone that would do that doesn't need to be giving lectures on the constitution.

we have powers under the constitution we got to protect. and when someone stands up and exerts their innocence repeatedly and then attempts to take the fifth amendment right, it's not there. this is the next step. it will preserve the sanctity and the power of this body whether it's democrats or republicans in charge for anyone who attempts to skirt justice and provide truth. and with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california reserves? is is i reserve subject to the close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. cummings: mr. speaker, as i close, i want to remind all of my colleagues several references have been made to the oath that

we take every two years in this chamber. and every two years we extend in this chamber and say i will swear and support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. the first words we say. but it's interesting that in the beginning of that swearing-in is that we will defend the constitution of the united states of america. and yesterday, we had a very interesting argument in rules when one of the members of the rules committee questioned whether when one becomes a public employee, whether they then lose their rights as an american citizen. and it is clear that those rights do stand no matter whether you are a public servant or whether you are a janitor at

some coffee shop. and we are in a situation today where we need to be very clear what's happening. not since mccarthy has this been tried, that is the stripping away of an american citizen's constitutional right not to incriminate themselves and then holding him in contempt criminally. mccarthy. we are better than that. we are so much better. and the idea that somebody can come in after their lawyer has sent a letter in saying they are going to take the fifth, then the lawyer comes in and sits behind them while they take the fifth, then that person said they are taking the fifth, and then suddenly when they say i

clare my innocence, we say gotcha. the supreme court has said this is not a gotcha moment. it is not about that. the supreme court has said these rights, no matter how much we may not like the person who we are talking about, no matter how much we may think they are hiding, they have rights. and this is what this is all about. with that, i yield back and i urge my colleagues to make sure that they vote against this, because this is about generations yet unborn, how they will view us during our watch. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california is recognized. is is mr. speaker, i regret that we have to be here today. and if it is within my power, if at any time lois lerner comes

forward to answer our questions, i'm fully prepared to hear what she has to say. and at that point, i would certainly ask that the criminal prosecution be dropped. it may not be within my power after today, but for more than a year, our committee has sought to get her testimony. for nearly a year we have sought to get her to testify honestly. it was shocking to us on the ommittee that a lawyer represented by a distinguished lawyer would play fast and loose with the fifth amendment assertion. it's a pretty straight-forward process to assert your rights and in fact, her attorney may have planned all along to have a controversy. i'll never know. what i do know is we asserted that she had waived because we were advised by house counsel, an independent organization, that she had. we continued to investigate and

only today, nearly a year after a subpoena was issued, the treasury, the i.r.s. gave us like 12,000 emails and earlier emails, they indicate a deeply political individual, partisan in her views, who apparently was at the center of deciding that when the president in this well objected to citizens united, that it meant they wanted us to fix it and she was prepared to do it. that's for a different court to decide. the only question now is did she, in fact, give testimony and then assert the fifth amendment and then give some more testimony and can we have that kind of activity? we have dismissed other people who came before our committee, asserted their fifth amendment rights after enough questions to know they were going to continue to assert, we dismissed them. we have a strong record of

respecting the first, the fourth, the fifth, the sixth amendment and so on. that's what this congress does and we do it every day and our committee does it. rather than listen to debate here which was filled with factual inaccuracies, refuted in documentation that is available to the american people, rather than believe that the minority's assertion should carry the day because the gentleman from georgia said, if about eight different ifs, thans, they would vote for this. the gentleman from vermont said, we shouldn't be doing this or finding her guilty, this should be before a judge. he may not have understood because what we are doing is putting the question did she properly waive or not and should she be back before us or be held in contempt and punished for not giving it? this won't be my decision, this

will be a lifetime appointment nonpartisan federal judge. the only thing we are doing today is sending it for that consideration. and if the court rules that, in fact, her conduct was not a waiver, then we will have a modern update to understand the set of events here. but we'll still have the same problem, which is lois lerner was at the center of an operation that abused americans for their political beliefs. asked them inappropriate questions, delayed and denied their aprovals. the minority asserted well they could have self-selected. maybe they could have, maybe they should have, but it wouldn't change the fact that der penalty of perjury the i.r.s. was asking inappropriate questions. the i.r.s. is an organization we don't have confidence in.

we need to re-establish that and part of that is understanding how and why a high-ranking person at the i.r.s. so blatantly abused conservative groups in america that were adverse to the president, no doubt, but that shouldn't be the basis under which you get scrutinized, audited or abused and yet it clearly was. it is essential we vote yes on contempt and let the court decide but more importantly let the american people have confidence that we will protect

>> this weekend, friday night on c-span, native american history. live all-dayday, coverage from the national book festival science faville young. from bbcevening scotland, a debate on scotland's upcoming decision on whether to en its political union with england. a and the chief justice of the second court after peels. on c-span 2 friday at 8:00 p.m., congressman former ron paul. then on saturday, all-day live coverage of the national book festival from the history and biography pavilions, speakers, and viewer call-ins with authors, and sunday at after wordsstern, with william burroughs, talking about his book, the asteroid threat.

american history tv on c-span 3 friday, a nasa documentary the 1969 apolicy row 11 -- apollo11 moon landing. electionght a look at laws and supreme court case of bush versus gore. television schedule at c-span.org and let us know what you think about the programs watching. call us. use twitter or e-mail us. join the c-span conversation, like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. >> our issues spotlight program concludes with i.r.s. commissioner john koskinen. he testified in june on his agency's missing e-mails and the status of targeting investigate. house waysn of the and means committee hearing is about 50 minutes. hand.

do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? >> i do. > let the reported reflect the witness answered in affirmative. you will have five minutes to present your testify with your full written statement submitted to the record. you're now recognized for five minutes. >> chairman camp and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide you with an update on recent i.r.s. document productions to congress. the i.r.s. has over the past year made a massive document production in response to inquires from congress. in march, the i.r.s. advised this committee and the senate finance committee that we had completed the production of documents identified as relating to their investigation of the processing and the review of applications for tax exempt status as described in the may 2013 report from the

treasury inspector general for tax administration. those production efforts included 11,000 e mays from lois lerner. this committee and the senate finance committee has now pages. more than 770 we are sendsing another e-mail of additional e-mails. you already have 25,000 e mays from her commuter account an more than 5,000 from other custodian's account from which she was an author or recipient. the i.r.s. expects as noted earlier in my conversation to complete the production of the remaining learn every e-mail at that time you will have all of the e mays, 43,000 of them that we have from ms. lerner's computer from the period 2009 through may 2013. in addition as noted you will ave 25,000 lerner e-mails from

other custodial accounts during the period that her computer was crashed. in the course to ponding, the i.r.s. in february reviewed the e-mail vacation from her cuss tole today y'all account which have been limited we have searched out with investigators and investigated the e-mail because it was uneven. it was not clear whether her e-mails were overlooked or had other technical issues involve ed. they identified documents that identified a exuer failure in 2011. me of those e-mails had been provided last fall to this committee. in 2013 the i.r.s. redacted materials for nontax writing committees an processing the rest of her e-mails for production. as we reviewed additional

lerner e-mails not limited to search terms, relevance or subject matter, in other words all of her e-mails the i.r.s. review team learned additional facts regarding her computer crash in mid 2011 which occurred before these investigations opened or the i.g.'s report began. we learned that in 2011, i.r.s. technology division had tried using multiple processing division at her request to recover the information stored on her commuter's hard drive. a series of e-mails was loaded recounts the sequence of events in 2011. a front line manager and i.t. ported to ms. lerner and i quote, i checked with the technician and he still has your drive. he wanted to exhaust all avenues to recover the data before sending it to the hard drive cemetery. unfortunately, after receiving assistance from several highly skilled technicians including h.p. experts he still cannot

recover the data." she was told on august 1st on 2011, and i quote. a last resort we sent it to c.i., forensic lab to attempt data recovery, the end of that quoth quote. in an e-mail in 2011 after three weeks o attempts the trieve her e-mails at lois lerner's request. she said unfortunately, the news is not good. data is unrecoverable. everybody involved tried their best, end of that quote. the committee has been provide earlier of this e-mail, earlier this spring. in light of the hard drive issue the i.r.s. took multiple steps to assess the situation and produce as much e-mail as possible through which she was an author or recipient. we located processed and included e-mail from an unrelated 2011 data collection

from ms. lerner. we confirmed the backup tapes from 2011 no longer exist cause they have been recycled. from mid march to late april, the i.r.s. review team concentrated on all of the e-mail and repeating the entire process for quality control and to insure that no new e-mails were missing. we were identifying and reviewing lerner e-mails from 82 other custodians. identified they had he 24,000 e-mails from january 2011. as the search was concluding, i asked those working on this matter to determine whether computer systems of the other 82 custodians had experienced

any similar difficulties especially in light of the equipment that the i.r.s. had been using. after it was delivered last friday to congress, it was determined earlier this week actually on monday that seven additional custodians had experienced hard drive failures. a hard drive failure does not automatically mean that any or all e-mails have been lost or cannot be reconstructed. given the extremely broad scope of our connection effort it's not surprising that some employees had encountered some technical issues especially of these aging technology infra structure. the i.r.s. talked about their efforts. we are still assessing what effect if, it had on the hard drives. we are committed to continuing

to working cooperatively and transparently with you, this committee and we this concludes my testimony. what i didn't hear was an apology. >> not a single e-mail has been lost. you don't think the time. between january 2009 and 2011 is relevant? >> no. the e-mail we received admitted that e-mails were lost for this. . >> i'm not finished with my question. fail to explain the timeline of events that led to that omission.

, from then to you interviews we have had with the deputy chief information officer, i'm told that the irs knew as early as february that her computer crash supposedly caused the loss of her e-mails during the time of january 2009-2011. >> so in february you knew the e-mails were missing? no in february we are looking at the timeframe in which the e-mails appeared. why didn't the irs notify congress at that time that there was a problem with the potential e-mails we were investigating? decision, i thought it was important that we

complete the investigation to fully advise you what the situation was. >> i got a letter from the white house, that says the treasury contacted them in april of this year about the e-mails. who told the treasury department? >> pardon? >> who told the treasury department. the letter i got was from april of 2014. who told the treasury department? >> my understanding is the letter does not say the e-mails had been lost, it says that someone from the general counsel had informed the department of treasury that there was an issue the irs was investigating. >> know the letter says, the treasury was told, who told treasury? and you know who and treasury told the white house? >> i have no communication with the white house. irs.u are the head of the you don't know something this important?

of the executive branch, we have regular communications with treasury to my we review them, we are in the process of reviewing regulations on the 501 c issue. knew in february, maybe march, and treasury knew at least in april, congress and the american people didn't find out until june, were you purposely not telling us? thought wasriginal to complete the review, and to produce a report laying it all out. did the irs in form the executive branch agency, but kept it secret from the congress who is conducting an investigation? >> we were not keeping it a secret, our public report to you provided this information. or has been no attempt to keep it a secret area my position has

been that when we provide information, we should provide it completely. so that there is not an attempt to leap -- leap to the wrong conclusion. >> so it is ok for the white house and treasury to leap to a conclusion six weeks before congress, my question is have there been discussions within the irs about when to reveal this information to congress? >> certainly. so there were discussions about when to reveal this to treasury? >> no. >> that is completely unacceptable. you're not giving me an answer, i will move on to another topic. your answer described the lois lerner e-mails as being unrecoverable? >> correct. >> you know where the actual hard drive is?

that when it was determined without function, and there was no -- and no e-mails could be retrieved, it was destroyed. >> was it physically destroyed? >> yes. >> was it melted down? >> i have no information as to the process. does someone there have a serial number for that hard drive? >> i do not know whether they do or not. advised that when there is a normal hardware failure, and e-mail cannot be recovered, it is turned over to recyclers. >> it seems to me that if it was recycled, government robert he would have been tracked. or people could walk away with

robert he from the irs. i assume there is a tracking system. tracking system, my understanding is that lois lerner's computer continued to be functioning with a new hard drive. i'm not aware of whether hard drives have identifiers. the serial number of this and all other employees whose hard drives have been lost? >> if they have serial numbers, you are welcome to them. >> i want that hard drive, and i want the hard drives of every computer that had them. the only way i can see any hope of restoring confidence is to establish a special prosecutor, with the authorities, powers, and resources to uncover the truth. for the sake of the agency, will you support the appointment of a special prosecutor. there are six investigations

going on, the ig is already go -- >> can you give an answer to this committee? do you support the appointment of a special prosecutor? >> i do. i'm asking a question that can have a simple yes or no answer. >> i think the appointment of a special prosecutor, would be a monumental waste of taxpayer funds. >> is that a yes or no? >> that is a no. you know, i think witnesses deserve some respect. i think it is in the tradition of this committee to give witnesses respect.

this is not the committee of decades ago, led by people who disrespected witnesses. mr. koskinen, you have had a long career. what have you done in your long career, briefly? >> my career has been 20 years in the private sector, turning around large troubled organizations. i started my career as the chief of staff for a senator in the united states senate. i served on a presidential commission as a staff member in the late 1960's. i represented new york city here for a year and a half. i was the deputy director for management at omb for three

years. i was the chair of the presidents council on the year 2004 two years, adding the country through the year 2000 transition. i was asked by the bush administration to take over freddie mac as the chairman of the board when the government took over those enterprises, and i was asked to come to the irs last january, when i was confirmed to steer the agency through these difficult times. >> the letter that went from the council to the president, mr. cap, and mr. wyden spelled this out and indicated when the treasury was notified, or when the treasury counsel informed the white house counsel about this problem with the computer. it also has indicated, contrary to this effort by the committee on the republican side to connect the problems, and they were serious problems, to the

white house -- that there is no such connection. they are desperate to find a connection. they have never found it. they will keep looking, because i think it makes sense for them politically. i do not think, whatever our political affiliations are, we should be disrespectful. so, will you repeat again what happened these last months after you found out about the computer crash, and why you decided to conduct yourself the way you did? >> we learned in february there was a potential issue with the hard drive. that was investigated through march, into march and into early april. the i.t. people uncovered the e-mail train that talked about the effort to restore her computer. the e-mails have been provided

some time ago to this committee. they were not hidden or covered up. thereafter, we decided we would look at all the other custodians, to produce as many e-mails as we could that were within our system, the 24,000. i also asked that we review all the 82 custodians, to see what, if any, failures have happened then. when we completed the production of all of the e-mails, at the end of the month, we would provide a full report, and know what the situation was with the custodians. why i did not advise congress earlier -- we do better to have a rational discussion when you know all the facts. it is shown by the fact that on monday, there were limited difficulties with a handful of custodians. that was passed to the staff on monday afternoon. immediately thereafter, a press release went out from this committee, identifying the coal

flax as a particularly interesting person, compared to this committee. had the committee waited to issue that relates until we knew further information, they would have discovered that nicole flax at her office computer, which he used during the day, and a portable computer. the portable computer crashed. it was on the same e-mail system as her office system. there is no indication that a single e-mail has been lost. those press releases with regard to nicole flax were misleading. it demonstrates why we will provide a full report about the custodian review. when it is completed, we are not going to dribble out the information and see it played out in the press. >> thank you for holding this hearing. learning about the loss of the e-mails is troubling. we received that information

with great skepticism. americans have been waiting for the whole truth, and we hope to get it today. it is past time to hold all of those responsible accountable for targeting americans for their beliefs. mr. commissioner, welcome. i have some questions for you. you have argued that the irs practice of destroying employee e-mails after six months was a cost-cutting measure. in fiscal year 2011, the irs enacted budget was $12 billion, a high water mark of spending. can you tell me whether in 2011, the irs was accused of

destroying its backup tapes. >> in 2008, when our new i.t. director came, the retention policy was only for less than three months. in 2008, he increased the retention backup policy to six months. it is a disaster recovery system. if the system goes down, you can reconstitute the e-mail. those systems are usable. if there is no disaster, you continue to back up the e-mails so they are available. since the start of this investigation, every e-mail has been preserved. nothing has been lost. nothing has been destroyed. >> you have plenty of computer space. i wondered at the time how you could keep track of everybody's irs requirements when you lose your own. didn't the irs estimate that keeping and storing those tapes would only cost $200,000 annually? >> $200,000 annually every year, but it grows. we have trillions of terabytes, hundreds of millions of e-mails stored over six months. the disaster recovery program --

the e-mail system is not a system of record. the system of record is for the records act, to produce hard copies and file those in the records, so the irs has historically only preserved backup tapes for six months. we are reviewing all of this. when we get through with this, we need to take a look at what we can do to create a more searchable e-mail process. the problem right now is, anytime anybody wants a piece of information, we have 90,000 employees. we have to pull their e-mail accounts, hard drives, load them into a search machine. that is an antiquated system. i fondly refer to it as a model t with a nice gps system with a sound system and a redundant engine, but still a model t. >> my constituents and i refuse

to accept that in years of record irs budgets, you would not let us refuse to give you information on our tax returns. the irs destroyed employee e-mails every six months just to save $200,000 annually. i am far too familiar with the rampant wasteful spending at the irs during that time. to date, the committee has uncovered wasteful spending from the star trek videos to the spending on lavish conferences, to an irs estimated $23.5 million in spending on salary and benefits due to union time, and to bonuses going to workers who go back taxes. -- who owe back taxes. you and i both know this happened before any budget cut's happened to that agency. there is simply no excuse for what happened. i yield back. >> today, we are here listening

to a myth that there was a conspiracy by ms. lerner and whoever else to get rid of some data. before i came to congress, i was a physician. one of the things you always did with the patient was take the history. i would like to review the history again with you. on june 13, 2011, lois lerner's hard drive failed, meaning all her e-mails were lost at that point. is that true? >> that is correct. >> 16 days later, she was briefed that inappropriate criteria had been used in miss management in cincinnati, according to the ig's report. >> that is what the report reports. but the question is, did lois lerner preemptively crash her hard drive? >> all the evidence is to the contrary.

the e-mail string shows that at her request extraordinary efforts were made to retrieve the e-mails from her crashed hard drive. >> do you think she could foresee something happening in the future and make the decision to destroy her own hard drive? >> the record shows quite the contrary. also, after the crash on april 11, she continued to send and archive e-mails on her computer. we will produce 40,000 of those. there is no indication in the record that her performance generated that. >> is there any evidence to suggest that she called the white house or the white house called her and said, get those right wing organizations? >> there is none we have been able to produce, and i understand that the white house did not find any e-mail to or from lois lerner. >> and the inspector general did

not find them? >> the report stated there is no evidence of political involvement. >> in fact, as you talked about on july 19, 2011, lerner wrote to the field director of customer service support for informational technology, saying, whatever you can do is helpful, would be greatly appreciated. in mid-july, 2011, she learned about cincinnati. for a couple of weeks, the i.t. division tried to repair her hard drive, bringing in experts inside i.t., and also the forensic division of the irs. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and they failed. >> they failed after three weeks of efforts. the e-mail trail is clear. i will note the criminal

investigation division is expert, in seizures from civil and criminal cases, at seizing hard drives and restoring e-mail. we had great confidence if you could find those e-mails, they would find them. and they were unsuccessful. >> finally, she wrote, thanks for your efforts. i really do appreciate the effort. sometimes, stuff happens. is this a woman rejoicing over losing her hard drive and saying, thank god that thing is gone, they are never going to get me? no, this is a woman who is resigned to the fact that the thing was lost. in my office, we upgraded to windows 2010, and my staff director in washington state lost her hard drive. they fried it. i do not know how it happened. nobody knows. she lost all her records.

she did not rejoice over that experience, i can tell you. we fast forward to february 24, 2014, and the chairman asked for all, and i emphasize all, lois's e-mails. is there anything you can see in the time you have been there that you have seen that the irs did not do to try to get all? >> we have gone to great lengths, as i said. we retraced the process for producing her e-mail twice, just to make sure no e-mail was missing. we understand the importance of this investigation. we have gone to great lengths, spent a significant amount of money to make sure there is no e-mail that is required that has not been produced. >> i understand you backtracked and went to people in the agency she had contact with and retrieved their e-mails to try to get the e-mails for the committee. >> that is why rather than

having lost lois lerner e-mails, as if there are none of them, we have been able to produce 24,000 lois lerner e-mails from the timeframe in question. >> time has expired. i would ask unanimous consent to put into the letter from this committee from me as chairman to then commissioner doug shulman on june 3, 2011, asking for the names, titles, and divisions of any individuals involved in investigating taxpayer investigations into 501(c) four's, sent days before the e-mail crash. they let her, without objection, is put into the record.

-- that letter, without objection, is put into the record. >> was that circulated to members of the committee? >> that letter was by me to the head of the irs. >> some on bus have seen it? >> he may have seen it. -- >> so none of us have seen it? >> you may have seen it. i will get a copy to you. >> when were you told about problems with the learner e-mails? >> in february, i was told there had been an issue with her e-mail. >> in february? why did you choose to withhold that information from this congressional investigation? our plan was to find out what the details were. at that point, we did not know whether there had been a crash that affected her e-mails or not. >> you testify that you gave your agency three weeks to determine if it would be retrievable or not. they were not successful. giving you the benefit of the doubt, in march, you knew the e-mails were not available. why didn't you inform this congressional investigation then? >> my goal was to determine all

of the facts, so we could give you a full report. i noted earlier this week -- >> you informed the treasury. >> can the witness answer the question? >> regular order, mr. levin. the gentleman from texas has the time, and he is questioning appropriately. pease, no more interruptions. >> regular order allows the witness to answer a question. >> regular order allows questioning as fit. the commission has given latitude to members of both parties to do that. >> parliamentary inquiry, mr. chairman. ask the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. inquiry.bucs under the rules of the house, every member has five minutes to pose questions to the

witness, and the witness is given the opportunity and right to respond. is the chairman saying the witness does not have a right to respond to the questions? ask the gentleman has had plenty of time to respond. that is not parliamentary. >> does the witness have a right to respond? >> the gentleman has not stated a parliamentary inquiry. >> you withheld the information from a congressional investigation. and in may you assure this committee that all of ms. lerner's e-mails would be provided to us. yet you knew that that was not possible. >> no, in fact, i knew we would provide you all the lois lerner e-mails that we had. >> you already knew in march they were not retrievable. you did not inform the congressional investigation. b, two months later you told us you would provide all the e-mails, without limitation. and you knew you did not have them. >> by march i did not know they were not retrievable. in fact, we have retrieved 24,000 of those e-mails. >> you knew that was the case. you knew. and in april, your agency informed treasury about the problem, and treasury agreed with you that congress should be told as soon as it was able to.

yet you did not provide the information. and you assured us you would provide all the e-mails without limitation, with no mention that you then new, three months into this they were not retrievable. >> all of this is a result of our providing you a public and fulsome document about this matter. we have not been hiding. >> months after you knew the e-mails were supposed to be lost, holding the information -- you are aware this was a congressional investigation. you withheld the information. you misled congress in may, when you said the e-mails would be provided. >> we have provided you the information, and you have had the information for some time. >> mr. commissioner, you did not tell me under oath that you told

us in february and march and april and may that the information would follow. that was just what you said. tell us that again, that we knew that. >> until april, i did not know if any information was lost. >> yet your agency had already, in april, communicated with the treasury department about the problem, and the letter we had from treasury says we agreed with the irs that it should inform congress as soon as it is able. that is the letter today that exactly disputes what you just told us under oath. exactly disputes. >> that letter from treasury reveals and provides to you all of the lois lerner e-mails, so that there is no issue that any lois lerner e-mail -- >> the assistant secretary for legislative affairs. quote, treasury agreed with the irs that it should inform

congress as soon as it was able. yet you did not. >> we actually have provided you the information. >> you have not provided us any information. in fact, we did not learn until last week. then, this week, that you had you supposedly lost the e-mails not just from ms. lerner, but other persons of interest. >> there is no evidence that any of those e-mails have been lost either. my process has been to make sure we had all of the information provided to you. >> at this point, why should anyone believe you? the irs denied for two years targeting of americans based on their political beliefs. that was not the truth. i said it was a few rogue agents in cincinnati. that was not the truth. you said you were targeting liberal organizations. that was not the truth. you are telling us out of thousands of irs computers, the

one that lost the e-mails, was a person of interest in an ongoing congressional investigation, and that is not the truth either. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. lewis is recognized. >> mr. commissioner, first of all, i want to thank you for your service. thank you for your patience. and i want to apologize to you for the way you have been treated this morning. i thought this was a hearing and not a trial. i want you to take the five minutes that i have, and use it to say anything that you have not had an opportunity to say.

>> i think between my full testimony and my oral testimony and my response to the questions, i hope it is clear that we have not, in this investigation, lost any e-mail from the start of the investigation until now. i hope it is clear that by the end of this month we will have provided all of the lois lerner e-mails we have, that those will number 67,000. it should be clear that in the hard drive crash, we have located 24,000 e-mails that lois lerner sent or received. it should be clear, on the basis of the e-mail track, the lois lerner was not trying to destroy e-mail, in fact asked for extraordinary efforts to try to restore her e-mail at that time, so there does not appear to be any attempt to rejoice over the loss of those e-mails. it should be clear that when we did provide this committee with preliminary information reporting, the net result was a press release, erroneously

leaping to conclusions that e-mails had been lost. it turns out, on further investigation, and we are continuing, that none of nicole flax's e-mails have been lost. we will provide a full report on the other custodians as we complete that work. it has been demonstrated that piecemeal information about the problem simply results in press releases and angry letters to me. we will, as we have, continue to keep the committee fully informed of the facts as we find them. if there are situations, we will give you all the information about them. i did not come out of retirement to run an agency that did not create transparency, responsiveness to congressional letters, and otherwise. this is an important agency that collects 93% of the money the government uses to run.

more importantly, it touches virtually every american. they are going to be treated fairly, whether they are rich or poor, republicans or democrats, whoever they voted for in the last election. to say this is the most corrupt irs in history seems to me again to be a classic overreaction to a serious problem which we are dealing with seriously. i am comfortable and confident about it, and have received that in the six months i have been the irs commissior. >> i place into the record a june 18 letter by the council president, as well as a june 20 letter of this year by the assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the department of the treasury. >> without objection, so

ordered. >> may i reserve my right to object? >> you may. >> and i will tell you why. i hope everybody will read the letter from mr. fitzpaine. >> that is the purpose of placing it in the record. >> i want to continue with my reservation. and i want to tell you why. it says, in response to your questions, irs informed treasury in 2014 ms. lerner's custodial e-mail box appeared to contain very few e-mails prior to 2011. treasury agreed with the irs that it should inform congress as soon as it was able to provide accurate and complete information, although treasury ultimately deferred to the irs on how to handle the matter. >> those letters being

distributed -- >> we are making copies now. the committee received these recently. copies will be made available to every member of the committee. mr. ryan is recognized for five minutes. >> this is unbelievable. the apology that ought to be given is to the american taxpayer, not to a government agency that is abusing its power. i am sitting here listening to this testimony. i just -- i do not believe it. that is your problem. nobody believes you. the internal revenue service comes to congress a couple years ago and misleads us and says no targeting is occurring. then it said it was a few rogue agents in cincinnati. then it said it was also on progressives. all of those things have been proven untrue. this committee sent a criminal referral of possible criminal wrongdoing just a month ago to the justice department. we have heard nothing.

you bury it in a 27 page letter to the senate, asking for them to conclude the investigation, that you have lost lois lerner's e-mails because of a hard drive crash. monday, our investigators ask your agency whether any other hard drives crash. we learn six other hard drives of the people who were investigating were involved. you did not tell us that. >> we told you on monday. because we asked you. >> and what did you do with that information? >> we asked you whether any other hard drives were crushed. this is unbelievable. you told us you are going to give us all of lois lerner's e-mails, and you learned in february that this crash. >> i did not learn in february there was a crash. >> i am not asking a question. i am making a statement. you are the internal revenue service. you can reach into the lives of hard-working taxpayers, and with a phone call or letter can turn

their lives upside down. you ask taxpayers to hang on to seven years of their personal tax information, in case they are ever audited. and you cannot keep six months of employee e-mails? and now that we are seeing this investigation, you do not have the e-mails. hard drives crash? you learned about this months ago, you just told us, and we had to ask you on monday. this is being misleading again. this is a pattern of abuse, a pattern of behavior, that is not giving us any confidence that this agency is being impartial. i do not believe you. this is incredible. >> i have a long career. this is the first time anybody has said you do not believe me.

>> i do not believe you. >> we have a disagreement. our record was not buried in 27 pages. most of the 27 pages is exhibits. when asked about the custodians, we told you what we knew, which we knew for one day. >> congress is investigating -- >> will you let him answer the question? >> i did not ask him a question. if yes, you did. >> i control the time. >> i realize disrupting a hearing sort of -- >> come on. -- come on. >> i am not yielding time. i control the time. regular order. >> if we are investigating criminal wrongdoing, targeting people based on political beliefs, and the e-mails in

question are lost because of a hard drive crash that is apparently unrecoverable, which a lot of i.t. professionals question, and you do not tell us and how we ask you about it, that is not being forthcoming. i yield back the balance of my time. >> that is not true. >> the gentleman has yielded back his time. >> thank you. mr. neale is recognized. >> i am going to let you answer mr. ryan's question. >> mr. ryan tried to leave the question -- the impression that only when asked did we reveal information about the hard drive crash. >> the next morning the committee put out a release,

leaping to the conclusion that e-mails have been lost, particularly nicole flax's e-mails. there is no evidence that any of her e-mails were lost. we are trying to do as the treasury letter suggested. as soon as we were able to give you a whole picture, we are providing that. it is not an response to a question, that was a public report. 770,000 pages, you will have 67,000 e-mails, or the 4000 of her e-mails from the. of the crash have not been lost, they will be produced. >> at this point, may i ask a question here in your time? there is a distinction, the committee did know about the hard drive, but we did not know about the server. there is a distinction. we did not know about the server. what came inr, is

the carbon copy of the letter. the server means they are lost forever. a hard drive crash doesn't necessarily mean that e-mails are lost forever. if there is a significant distinction here that has not been made yet -- >> can i respond? >> you may. >> that is one of the reasons we did not immediately say we had discovered a hard drive crash. as you say, it does not mean they are lost forever. in the case of lois lerner, 24,000 of her e-mails have not been lost. you will have them by the end of the month. when a hard drive crashes, e-mails do not necessarily disappear. h

yesterday accusations by house republicans that prosecutors at d.o.j. may have potential conflicts of interest. >> one of the hearings earlier this year an article in politico just as the i.r.s. probe includes lois learner and reports that they're also looking at erased e-mails on her blackberry. >> they're looking at a computer crash that the i.r.s. says happened in 2011 and the i.r.s. has provided e-mails showing her contacting computer services seeking help to fix her computer.

the i.r.s. says that a broad swath in the early two years of e-mails are gone and that they don't have backup tapes but people are still looking into it. the treasury inspector general has ms. learner's blackberry although in a court filing the i.r.s. said that it will simply have e-mails that were in outlook on her main computer. so that's still ongoing. >> you mentioned and the headline in politico reflects this, republicans are pushing for a special council in the i.r.s. tea party probe saying that -- writing that darrell issa and jim jevereds are not happy -- jim jordan are not happy with the status of the investigation calling on justice to appoint a special counsel. >> i think that's pretty unlikely. attorney general holder has said he does not think that this case merits a special counsel.

it is unclear whether these alleged conflicts of i want rest really would push it to that level. one of the women that they focused on had given some money to obama. she is one of many people at the justice department looking into this and a couple people had previously worked on i.r.s. ssues had relationships. it doesn't seem like that's going to change. but the view of the secretary -- attorney general holder. >> what about the issue of tax exempt status?

that is coming. it's expected sometime next year the initial version of the draft changed to these so-called social welfare organizations got pretty heavy criticisms. >> a reminder to our viewers all of the hearings we covered are available at c-span.org and you can read more. thank you so much.

>> we're spending in some communities on education and incarceration more than we're spending on anything else. we're dropping a lot of money at the back end. in some communities, 30, 40, 50,000 a year to incarcerate. just imagine if some of these preventative programs that you mostly work in or want to start, just imagine if you had $50,000 a client. you could buy them a house per year. but that money is just poured down a hole. because what happens is we allow the political forces going on in our country to come up and say lock them up. three strikes, you're out. and then wonder why they're vag bonds when they come out and can't get a job.

can't get a student loan. can barely even get access to their own children. and then we wonder why the kids don't have anybody in their life. you see it. you see how this thing happens. it's a couple of small decision that is become big. >> this month c-span presents debates on what makes america great. evolution. and genetically modified foods.

>> two federal immigration judges will discuss the influx of children into the u.s. and the courts dealing with these cases. then congressional budget office director will talk to reporters about the release of the budget outlook for the next 10 years. next, a conversation about iran what president rohani and he future holds. the foundation for defense of democracy hosted this event.

the authorities do not take umbrage at this reporting i think it's getting very difficult to get a sense despite all the media we have of what's actually going on within these countries right now. so to discuss this and related subjects let me start with the immediately to my right. he is a highly regarded expert iran's green movement and retains clouse ties inside iran. he is the author of more than 20 books. next to him david keys pleased to welcome.

also with us is the senior fellow at the foundation for defense of democracies, and the inner workings of its regime. he worked as a resident fellow specializing on military in iran and guard corps the author of iran unveiled how the revolutiony guard is transforming iran. he grew up in tehran but moved to denmark with his family in

1988 written extensively on the regime. i'm going to ask a few questions to kick this off then i will turn to you. signal if you want to ask a question. if you have a cell phone, turn it off. we have others recording. and when you do speak, please introduce yours, your name, your affiliation and do it into the microphone so we get it on tape. what is your sense of what's going on in iran right now? people think it's wonderful, we have him as president, he's making things much better? what do we know and what don't

we know? >> we have to remember iran is not like north korea. the censorship is at play with the press. however, if you are an iran specialist you have the opportunity to get ahold of information through different media. if we look at the magazines, journals. iran in that sense is just like america. most people do not read economic newspapers so what do you do? as an iran expert the first thing you do is read newspapers o get information. we look at magazines particularly of the revolutionary guard.

it expresses the political line of the leadership of the revolutionary guard and then you have the newspaper daily iran which expresses the viewpoints of mr. ro mani and all the other newspapers somewhere in the middle. so there are different sources of information. they do not reflect the opinion of the broader public but they give us extremely important insights into the thinking of different elite groups within the mafia family of the ruling clans of the islamic republic of iran. so those of you who are fans of god father, think of the rohani group of the corlyoneies who are trying to outmaneuver other groups. read their newspapers, take a look. and what you find out is it has nothing to do with liberalizing the political system, it has nothing to do with democracy. it has absolutely notsding to do with opening up the economy of iran but a lot to do with taking

prilidges away from the revolutionary guard and back to the first generation of the revolutionary republic. their clan around him. >> you might want to discuss a little bit in this regard, it's related, your confrontation with foreign minister czar reef. >> sure. >> use that as a jumping off point. >> sure. a few months ago, i attended a lutch with foreign minister czar riff and a few other people. after the lunch i approached him and asked him if he thought it was iranic posting on facebook when his government bans it in iran. to which he replays hah hah that's life. that's word for word what he said. and then i said, when will one of iran's most famous political prisoners be free in and he