IRS OBSTRUCTION: LOIS LERNER’S MISSING 

EMAILS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2014 

Serial No. 113–129 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

IRS OBSTRUCTION: LOIS LERNER’S MISSING EMAILS 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–598 PDF 2014

IRS OBSTRUCTION: LOIS LERNER’S MISSING 

EMAILS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 23, 2014 

Serial No. 113–129 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

Vacancy 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

STEPHEN CASTOR, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on June 23, 2014 ............................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. John Koskinen, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 12 

APPENDIX 

Opening Statement by Chairman Issa ................................................................... 90 

Lerner emails submitted by Rep. Cummings ........................................................ 95 

Opening Statement of Rep. Cummings .................................................................. 98 

Opening Statement of Rep. Connolly ..................................................................... 100 

HR 1234 submitted by Chairman Issa .................................................................. 103 

April 7, 2014, Majority Staff Report ‘‘Debunking the Myth that the IRS 

Targeted Progressives,’’ submitted by Chairman Issa ...................................... 116 

July 4, 2013, NYT article submitted by Rep. Connolly ........................................ 163 

June 20, 2014 Reason Magazine ‘‘The IRS Had a Contract With an Email 

Backup Company,’’ submitted by Rep. Mica ...................................................... 167 

Supplemental IRS Statement regarding the Contractor’s software application 169 

Democratic Staff Report ‘‘No Evidence of White House Involvement or Political Motivation in IRS Screening of Tax-Exempt Applicants,’’ submitted 

by Rep. Cummings ............................................................................................... 172 

Majority Staff Report ‘‘How Politics Led the IRS to Target Conservative 

Tax-Exempt Applicants for their Political Beliefs ............................................. 240 

June 3, 2011, Letter from Ways and Means Chairman Camp to IRS Doug 

Shulman, submitted by Rep. Speier ................................................................... 317 

June 2008 GAO Report ‘‘National Archives and Selected Agencies Need to 

Strengthen E-Mail Management, submitted by Rep. Duckworth .................... 320 

Chicago Tribune Op-ed ‘‘More Smoke at the IRS-and not only from the hard 

drives,’’ submitted by Rep. Chaffetz ................................................................... 322 

June 18, 2014, letter from the White House to Reps. Camp and Wyden, 

submitted by Rep. Horsford ................................................................................ 323 

Feb 4, 2014, Washington Post article ‘‘IRS Reinstates employee bonuses, 

ending sequester-related hold on awards, submitted by Chairman Issa ........ 324 

IRS Policy book submitted by Rep. Meadows ........................................................ 326 

June 17, 2014, letter from the National Archives to IRS submitted by Rep. 

Meadows ............................................................................................................... 333 

Andrew Jackson’s Petition for Relief of the Whisky Tax, Feb. 12, 1803, from 

National Archives, submitted by Chairman Issa .............................................. 335 

(1) 

IRS OBSTRUCTION: LOIS LERNER’S MISSING 

EMAILS 

Monday, June 23, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 7:16 p.m., in Room 2154, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell E. Issa [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Issa, Mica, Turner, Duncan, McHenry, 

Jordan, Chaffetz, Walberg, Amash, Gosar, DesJarlais, Gowdy, 

Farenthold, Hastings, Lummis, Woodall, Massie, Collins, Meadows, 

Bentivolio, DeSantis, Cummings, Norton, Tierney, Lynch, Connolly, 

Speier, Duckworth, Kelly, and Horsford. 

Staff Present: Melissa Beaumont, Assistant Clerk; Molly Boyl, 

Deputy General Counsel and Parliamentarian; Lawrence J. Brady, 

Staff Director; David Brewer, Senior Counsel; Caitlin Carroll, Press 

Secretary; Sharon Casey, Senior Assistant Clerk; Steve Castor, 

General Counsel; Drew Colliatie, Professional Staff Member; John 

Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director; Adam P. Fromm, Director of 

Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Chief 

Clerk; Tyler Grimm, Senior Professional Staff Member; Frederick 

Hill, Deputy Staff Director for Communications and Strategy; 

Christopher Hixon, Chief Counsel for Oversight; Jen Jett, Staff Assistant; Michael R. Kiko, Legislative Assistant; Mark D. Marin, 

Deputy Staff Director for Oversight; Ashok M. Pinto, Chief Counsel, Investigations; Jeffrey Post, Senior Professional Staff Member; 

Laura L. Rush, Deputy Chief Clerk; Jessica Seale, Digital Director; 

Andrew Shult, Deputy Digital Director; Jonathan J. Skladany, 

Deputy General Counsel; Katy Summerlin, Press Assistant; Peter 

Warren, Legislative Policy Director; Rebecca Watkins, Communications Director; Aryele Bradford, Minority Press Secretary; Susanne 

Sachsman Grooms, Minority Deputy Staff Director/Chief Counsel; 

Jennifer Hoffman, Minority Communications Director; Elisa LaNier, Minority Director of Operations; Valerie Shen, Minority 

Counsel; Donald Sherman, Minority Chief Oversight Counsel; and 

Katie Teleky, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Chairman ISSA. The committee will come to order. 

The Oversight Committee exists to secure two fundamental principles: First, Americans have a right to know that the money 

Washington, through the IRS, takes from them is well-spent; and, 

second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that 

works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is, in fact, to protect these rights. 

2 

Our solemn responsibility is to hold government accountable to 

taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get 

from their government. Our job is to work tirelessly, in partnership 

with citizen watchdogs, to deliver the facts to the American people 

and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. 

Would you go ahead—hold on. I’ll do it this way. 

Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. 

Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess of 

the committee at any time. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

The committee meets today as we continue our effort to get the 

truth and the full truth on the obstruction by the IRS and the targeting of Americans because of their conservative political beliefs. 

When the IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen, appeared before 

this committee in March, he promised that he would produce what 

this committee had made its top priority: all of Lois Lerner’s 

emails. The Commissioner made these promises without any qualification or limitation. He even reiterated that statement to the 

ranking member when asked. 

Would you please go ahead and play the video for reflection and 

memory? 

[Video shown.] 

Chairman ISSA. The committee requested all of Lois Lerner’s 

emails. The Commissioner told us he would provide all of Lois 

Lerner’s emails. We requested them over a year ago. We, in fact, 

subpoenaed them in August in order to make it clear that we were 

not being complied with, and, again, a new one when you became 

Commissioner in February of 2014. 

Transparency clearly did not compel the IRS to tell the truth 

about Lois Lerner’s lost emails. You worked to cover up the fact 

that there were missing emails and came forward to fess up only 

on Friday afternoon after you had effectively been caught red-handed. 

I’m struck that your acknowledgment of missing Lois Lerner 

emails came just 2 weeks after we had found some of them at the 

Justice Department. When you were looking for emails, one of the 

questions today will be, did you look at the Justice Department, 

where she had sent over 1.1 million documents, including some 

that were 6103—in other words, prohibited-to-be-released documents? 

Did you ever give the committee the courtesy of a direct communication about missing emails after your false or misleading testimony? Instead, your staff shared a communication you made to a 

Senate committee controlled by the President’s party. 

In your previous testimony, you had said it might take years, I 

believe 2 years, to deliver all of these emails. Welcome back. It 

hasn’t been 2 years. 

Did you hope you could run out the clock on this scandal? Another question. Perhaps you thought Congress would never realize 

that there were missing emails until we found them at the Justice 

Department perhaps. 

Commissioner, I called you to testify tonight because the American people deserve answers about what happened to Lois Lerner’s 

emails and why the IRS hid this for years. 

3 

This hiding did not begin—and I repeat, did not begin—on your 

watch. Clearly, the missing documents were known by many people 

who have jobs at the IRS today under your predecessor and your 

predecessor’s predecessor. The fact that Lois Lerner’s emails were 

ever transferred out of the exclusive custody of the IRS so that 

they could be lost or destroyed by Lois Lerner should concern all 

of us. 

The Federal Records Act—and we will meet tomorrow with the 

Archivist—the Federal Records Act envisions that important documents will be maintained, not just for investigations of Congress, 

but, in fact, in perpetuity for the benefit of the American people. 

This event in history, like Watergate, like Teapot Dome, and like 

many other historic events, will be studied by future generations 

without the benefit of many of the thoughts and actions of Lois 

Lerner and others at the IRS as a result of your organization’s failure. 

I subpoenaed you here tonight because, frankly, I’m sick and 

tired of your game-playing in response to congressional oversight. 

You, Commissioner, are the President’s handpicked man to restore 

trust and accountability at the IRS. 

You testified under oath in March that you would produce all of 

Lois Lerner’s emails subpoenaed by this committee. Before you testified, you took an oath you will take again tonight to tell the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Mr. Commissioner, at a minimum, you did not tell the whole truth that you 

knew on that day. 

You gave your commitment to produce all emails to the committee. You gave your word, sir. And we are just a little questioning what your word is worth if, in fact, you cannot enlighten 

us about what you know that is germane to our inquiry, whether 

or not it is explicitly asked. Do we have to grill you for days or 

weeks or months with every possible question, every possible way 

something could be asked? Or will the meaning of a question mean 

that you will, to the best of your ability, give us a true and complete answer? 

The American people have no trust in the IRS by comparison to 

just a few years ago. The American people have never loved the 

IRS. No one does love the organization that takes your taxes and 

if they don’t feel you treated them right—if they don’t feel they got 

the right amount, they come back and have huge power over your 

lives. It’s hard to love the IRS. But it should not be hard to trust 

the IRS. The American people deserve this agency, which was previously believed to be nonpartisan—they need to be able to trust 

that it will once again become nonpartisan, nonpolitical. 

Your agency has a set of rules for taxpayers and, apparently, another set of rules for themselves. The American people understand 

that if they cannot prove that they did the right thing in their tax 

return 5, 6, and 7 years ago it will be disallowed and they will pay 

taxes with penalties. Well, in fact, you maintain only 6 months of 

records and then, apparently, count on people, good and bad, to 

maintain documents they think are important beyond that. And 

you do so without safeguards to protect the American people from 

the loss of those documents. 

4 

Commissioner, tonight you will say that you have produced thousands of documents; it will be an impressive number. Quite frankly, that production is pushing a button and printing documents out 

and then having people scratch out almost everything of value, in 

many cases. It is not producing the documents that you don’t want 

to produce, the documents that embarrass you. 

The fact is, it’s the last documents, not the first documents, that 

normally do us good. It’s the documents we receive the night before 

we’re going to depose somebody that often tell us things we’ve waited months or years for. 

I know tonight will be difficult, and it deserves to be difficult for 

both sides. We have a problem with you, and you have a problem 

with maintaining your credibility. Again, you promised to produce 

the documents; you did not. You promised to be forthcoming and 

candid; you were not. 

In our first meeting, my subcommittee chairman, who will also 

be making an opening statement, Mr. Jordan, irritated you because 

you felt he questioned your integrity. I defended you at that time, 

and I, quite frankly, gave you a bit of an apology that he meant 

no harm, it was just his style. Tonight, quite frankly, I wish I could 

take that back, and I wish I could say what I’ll say to you tonight: 

You believe you earned trust before you came here, and it was 

yours to lose. I believe you needed to earn our trust, and you failed 

at that task. 

Either way, the American people do not believe the IRS is dealing fairly with them in this investigation. 

With that, I recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I’m going to get right down to the heart of the 

accusation Republicans have been making for the past week. 

It is interesting, Commissioner, that you’ve been accused of false 

testimony or misleading testimony and been accused, actually, if 

it’s false testimony, of committing a crime. 

What are we really saying? And what are the Republicans here 

saying? They’re saying that Lois Lerner intentionally—intentionally—destroyed her emails and that IRS officials helped her 

cover it up. 

Chairman Issa has been leading the charge. Here are some of the 

accusations he’s made. June 13th, Chairman Issa suggested that 

this was, ‘‘a nefarious conduct that went much higher than Lois 

Lerner.’’ On June 18th, he said, ‘‘The emails of a prominent official 

don’t just disappear without a trace unless that was the intention.’’ 

On June 19th, he said Ms. Lerner, ‘‘made the decision not to have 

this drive recovered.’’ And just this morning, he said, ‘‘The Justice 

Department, the IRS, and the White House are interested in her 

succeeding in hiding what she’s hiding.’’ 

Chairman Issa has made these accusations on national television 

without first obtaining a briefing from IT officials at the IRS who 

could have explained what really happened, and he made them before hearing from the IRS Commissioner. 

Mr. Koskinen testified last Friday before the Ways and Means 

Committee, and now that we have the facts, they tell a vastly different story. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. 

5 

Our committee has obtained no evidence to support Chairman 

Issa’s claim that Lois Lerner intentionally destroyed her emails. To 

the contrary, we have now obtained contemporaneous evidence 

from 2011 showing the exact opposite, that this was a technological 

problem with her computer. Truth, whole truth, nothing but the 

truth. 

In Mr. Koskinen’s testimony last Friday, he walked through 

email after email from 2011 showing that Ms. Lerner sought help 

from IT staff at the IRS and that they went to great lengths to recover her data but at the end of that process they could not do so. 

Mr. Koskinen also testified last week that the IRS took extraordinary steps—the extraordinary step of sending Ms. Lerner’s hard 

drive to experts in the forensic lab at the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, but even they could not recover her data. The truth, 

the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. 

On August 5th, 2011, Ms. Lerner received an email with the bad 

news, and it said this, and I quote: ‘‘Unfortunately, the news is not 

good. The sectors on the hard drive were bad, which made your 

data unrecoverable. I am very sorry. Everyone involved tried their 

best,’’ end of quote. 

So if anyone wants the actual evidence of what happened in this 

case, now we have it. 

I ask unanimous consent that all of these emails from July 19th, 

July 20th, August 1st, and August 5th be entered into the official 

hearing record. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, any Lois Lerner emails that 

any Member wants to put in the record will be placed in the record 

in the next 7 days. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

These emails are all from 2011, well before any congressional investigation began. And they show that Ms. Lerner’s computer 

crashed before she was informed that IRS employees in Cincinnati 

were using inappropriate search terms, according to the inspector 

general. I didn’t say that; the inspector general. 

Now, we can certainly take issue with why the IRS did not have 

backup tapes for this data. As Mr. Koskinen testified last week, 

IRS policy in 2011 was to recycle backup tapes after 6 months to 

save money. He also explained that this policy was changed in 

2013 to save all backup tapes. 

The fact is that there are longstanding problems with electronic 

recordkeeping at Federal agencies. The Bush administration lost 

millions—millions—of emails relating to the U.S. attorney firings, 

the outing of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame, and other investigations—millions. In 2007, the White House spokeswoman, Dana 

Perino, admitted that they lost 5 million emails—5 million. And 

she said at the time, ‘‘We screwed up, and we’re trying to fix it.’’ 

There’s been some progress since then, but I’ve always believed 

we need to do more. I’ve always believed that we could do better. 

That is why, nearly a year and a half ago, I introduced the Electronic Message Preservation Act. My bill would have required Federal agencies to preserve emails, records electronically. Although 

this committee voted on a bipartisan basis to approve my legislation, it has languished since then, and the House Republicans have 

declined to bring it to the floor for a vote. 

6 

I believe our committee’s work should be a responsible effort to 

obtain the facts and a responsible effort to find the truth, the whole 

truth, and nothing but the truth. It should not be an unseemly race 

against other Republicans to hold the first hearing in front of the 

cameras. And it should not be a ludicrous competition for some hyperbolic sound bites based on the least amount of evidence. 

In this case, Republicans have been trying desperately and unsuccessfully for more than a year to link this scandal to the White 

House. Rather than continuing on this path, I sincerely hope that 

we will turn to constructive legislation with concrete solutions to 

help Federal agencies run more effectively and efficiently. 

And, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I might note for the record that, in today’s briefing, a briefing we 

asked for a week ago and were denied repeatedly, in today’s briefing, after we sent interrogatory questions to the Commission, they 

said they would answer orally, which they did not. 

However, in today’s briefing, when asked, can you assure us that 

Lois Lerner did not intentionally crash her hard drive, they could 

not verify that she did or didn’t; can you assure us that there was 

nothing nefarious in the loss by Lois Lerner of her emails, and your 

CIO could not answer definitively. So we still have a lot of—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman ISSA. —facts to do. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —may I be heard? 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just before today’s hearing, both the Democratic 

and the Republican staffs, as you said, had a briefing from the IRS 

Deputy Chief Information Officer, a career IT professional. While 

he was not involved in the original 2011 examination of Ms. 

Lerner’s hard drive, he has reviewed documents surrounding the 

hard-drive crash and the IT office’s response to it. 

He was asked, do you have any reason to believe that Ms. Lerner 

intentionally crashed her hard drive? And he responded, ‘‘I have no 

reason to believe it and haven’t seen anything that would say that 

she did that, no.’’ 

He also told the committee, ‘‘Ms. Lerner was insistent in trying 

to recover whatever documents she could.’’ He further stated that 

‘‘I have no indication that there was anything nefarious about the 

loss of Ms. Lerner’s emails.’’ 

And when asked whether he was, quote, ‘‘aware of anyone at the 

IRS intentionally destroying documents that are relevant to a congressional investigation,’’ he said, quote, ‘‘Absolutely not,’’ end of 

quote. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I might note for the record, as I go to the chairman of the subcommittee, that we sent you those interrogatories 48-hours-plus 

ago so we would not need to have an extensive, long hearing. It is 

likely that we will recess this hearing tonight and have you back 

after those interrogatories are fully answered, since the briefing 

today in no way addressed any of the interrogatories. 

With that, I go to the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Jordan. 

7 

Mr. JORDAN. First, they denied it, Mr. Chairman. Two years ago, 

Lois Lerner met with committee staff and said there’s no targeting 

going on. Doug Shulman came in front of a congressional committee and said there’s no targeting, I can assure you there’s no 

targeting. 

Then they tried to spin it. May 10th, in an unprecedented fashion, before the IG’s report went public, Lois Lerner at a Bar Association speech, with a planted question, tried to put her spin on 

this story. 

Then they tried to blame someone else. It wasn’t us, two rogue 

agents in Cincinnati. Then they attacked the messenger, the factfinder, that said the IG’s report is flawed. 

And now, Mr. Chairman, and now, they hide the evidence. 

This is as old as the hills. Any third-rate, B-actor crime drama 

follows this same script. The bad guy always says—he denies it, he 

spins, he blames someone else, he tells the police they got the 

wrong guy. And, of course, he always says, ‘‘Officer, I didn’t throw 

the gun in the river. I don’t know what happened to the murder 

weapon.’’ 

I mean, Mr. Chairman, this would be laughable if it wasn’t so 

serious. 

But here is one big difference between the common criminal on 

the street and this scandal—one huge, important difference: The 

bad guy on the street doesn’t get to have his friends run the investigation. And I will talk about this until we get to the truth. The 

fact that Barbara Bosserman, a maxed-out contributor to the President’s campaign, is running this investigation is a joke. It is wrong. 

The fact that the FBI leaks to the Wall Street Journal on January 13th of this year that no one’s going to be prosecuted is wrong. 

And the fact that the President of the United States, the highest 

official in the executive branch, goes on national television and 

says there’s no corruption, not even a smidgen, is wrong. 

The bad guy doesn’t get to have his friends run the investigation, 

like we see here. 

Here’s the important point, Mr. Chairman. I hope—I’ve been 

hoping that someone in this administration would have the courage 

to step up and say it’s time for a special prosecutor; in light of this 

fact pattern, it is time for a special prosecutor. Dallas Morning 

News said it today. They said it’s time for one. Five weeks ago, 26 

Democrats had the courage to step up and vote with every single 

Republican and say it’s time for a special prosecutor. 

I would hope, if nothing more happens in tonight’s hearing, I 

would hope that the guy who heads the agency where the targeting 

of people for exercising their First Amendment rights took place, 

I would hope that, at a minimum, that guy, to show his independence, to show us he really wants to establish some credibility back 

in this agency, would have the courage to do what 26 Democrats 

did 5 weeks ago and say it’s time for a special prosecutor so we can 

get to the truth and get past this sham of an investigation that the 

Justice Department is doing. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield to Mr. Turner? 

Mr. JORDAN. Oh, I would be happy to yield. 

Chairman ISSA. You’re good? Okay. 

8 

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Koskinen, you and those watching this hearing now understand that the stage is set. This is about theater. Fair play, presumption of innocence, civility, respect for an honored public servant who is serving his country yet again are out the window, because there’s an agenda that presupposes some guilt that is based, 

in part, on supposition, on paranoia, on conspiracy theory, all of 

which fires up the base of the other party and plays well on rightwing media outlets—at the expense, of course, of the truth, at the 

expense of any semblance of bipartisan cooperation, at the expense 

of trying to fix problems where we find them. 

You don’t think for a minute, Mr. Koskinen, that part of the solution here is to provide the IRS with more resources to address its 

IT problem. You don’t think for a minute that the solution contemplated might involve more resources for more IRS agents to try 

to deal with the backlog of tax-exempt applications, or to say nothing of money left on the table owed the government that could actually help reduce the debt. Because, for ideological reasons, those 

are beyond the pale. 

And then we come to your honor, Mr. Koskinen. 

I first met you when we were worried about something called 

Y2K back in 1999, 1998, and 2000. And it was an IT problem. We 

were worried that at the stroke of midnight 2000 our banking systems would collapse, red lights would go off, you know, all of our 

computer systems would go awry, and so we had to make investments to make sure that didn’t happen. And you were the Y2K 

czar. 

I saw then and I see now an honorable public servant who cared 

about his country. He served Republican as well as Democratic administrations and was cited explicitly, including in the Bush administration, for his exemplary service and for his integrity and 

personal honor. 

The fact that you would be subjected tonight to the barrage of 

innuendo and accusation, backed up by nothing, for the purpose of 

political theater is, to me, reckless and disgraceful and brings enormous dishonor on this committee. 

And I want you to know personally, Mr. Koskinen, that there are 

a number of us who still honor your public service, who still respect 

your integrity, and who understand this dynamic and are willing 

to call it out for what it is. So I hope none of that shakes your faith 

in your value and in your years of service. 

And I hope you will continue your tenure at IRS to clean up 

what problems there are and to try to make the IRS a more accessible, more accountable, and more efficient agency on behalf of the 

U.S. taxpayers and this country. That’s why you undertook a 

thankless assignment. 

Thank you for your service, Mr. Koskinen, and thank you for 

being here tonight. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I now ask unanimous consent that H.R. 1234 be placed in the 

record at this time. 

9 

Chairman ISSA. We now go to our one and only witness for this 

evening. John Koskinen is the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service. 

Pursuant to the committee, all members are to be sworn. Would 

you please rise to take the oath and raise your right hand? A little 

higher. Thank you. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give 

will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. Please be seated. 

Let the record reflect the witness answered in the affirmative. 

You’re the only witness. You certainly have some ’splaining to do. 

Take such time as you need. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN KOSKINEN, COMMISSIONER, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thank you. 

Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and members of 

the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

this evening to provide you with an update on recent IRS document 

productions to Congress. 

The IRS, over the past year, made a massive document production in response to inquiries from Congress relating to the investigation of the processing and review of applications for tax-exempt 

status, as described in the May 2013 report from the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration. 

This committee has received, as noted, over 600,000 pages of materials, redacted to protect taxpayer information. The tax-writing 

committees have received over 835,000 pages of unredacted material. As of last Friday, the tax-writing committees already had 

more than 27,000 emails from Ms. Lerner’s computer account and 

more than 18,000 emails from other custodians’ accounts for which 

Ms. Lerner was an author or a recipient. 

I understand that this committee and the other investigators 

were provided, beginning last fall, with copies of emails indicating 

that Ms. Lerner had experienced difficulties with her computer 3 

years ago. So it should be clear that no one has been keeping this 

information from Congress. 

The IRS expects to complete its production of the remaining 

Lerner emails in unredacted form by the end of the month. As soon 

as possible thereafter, we will complete redaction of those emails 

and produce them to this committee. 

At that time, this committee will have all the emails, 43,000 of 

them, that we have from Ms. Lerner’s computer and email account 

for the period January 2009 through May 2013. In addition, this 

committee will have 24,000 Lerner emails from other custodians’ 

accounts, for a total of 67,000 Lerner emails. 

In the course of responding to congressional requests, the IRS in 

February reviewed the email available from Ms. Lerner’s custodial 

computer account, which was limited to search terms developed in 

cooperation with the investigating committees, and identified the 

possibility of an issue because the date distribution of the email 

was uneven. It was not clear whether Lerner emails were overlooked, missing, or had other technical issues involved. IRS inforVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89598.TXT APRIL
10 

mation technology professionals identified documents that indicated Ms. Lerner had experienced a computer failure in 2011. 

In mid-March 2014, the IRS focused on redacting materials for 

the non-tax-writers and processing the rest of Ms. Lerner’s emails 

for production. As we reviewed additional emails, the IRS review 

team learned additional facts regarding Ms. Lerner’s computer 

crash in mid-2011, which occurred long before these congressional 

investigations opened or when the TIGTA review began. 

During this review, we learned that, as noted, in 2011 the IRS 

information technology division had tried using multiple processes, 

at Ms. Lerner’s request, to recover the information stored on her 

computer’s hard drive. A series of emails available after all of Ms. 

Lerner’s email was loaded this spring recounts the sequence of 

events in 2011. 

A frontline manager in IT reported to Ms. Lerner in an email on 

July 20th, 2011, ‘‘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 HP experts, he still cannot recover the data.’’ 

Ms. Lerner was told by email on August 1st, 2011, ‘‘As a last resort, we sent your hard drive to CI’s,’’ the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, ‘‘forensic lab to attempt data recovery.’’ 

In an email already read on August 5th, 2011, Ms. Lerner was 

advised, ‘‘Unfortunately, the news is not good. The sectors on the 

hard drive were bad, which made your data unrecoverable. I am 

very sorry. Everybody involved tried their best.’’ 

In light of the hard-drive issue, the IRS took multiple steps over 

the past months to assess the situation, ensure that no emails had 

been overlooked or lost during this investigation, is producing as 

much email as they have for which Ms. Lerner was an author or 

recipient. 

As the search for and production of Lerner emails was concluding, I asked those working on this matter to determine whether computer systems of the other 82 custodians had experienced 

any similar difficulties. After the IRS public report was delivered 

on June 13 to Congress and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 

Administration, it was determined last week that several additional custodians may have experienced hard-drive failures during 

the search period. 

It’s not unusual for computers anywhere to fail, especially at the 

IRS, in light of the aged equipment IRS employees often have to 

use, in light of the continual cuts in the budget these past 4 years. 

Since January 1 of this year, for example, over 2,000 IRS employees have suffered hard-drive crashes. 

It’s important to remember that a hard-drive failure does not 

automatically mean that all or even any emails have been lost or 

cannot be reconstituted. We are still assessing what effect, if any, 

computer failures had on the emails of any other custodians, although some custodians apparently lost no emails at all. 

The question is, what emails outside the agency prior to April 11, 

2011, are not in the 24,000 Lois Lerner emails sent to other IRS 

employees during that period? Last week, I understand, the White 

House and the Department of Treasury stated they were providing 

11 

all of their Lois Lerner emails, which should help fill those gaps 

and answer that question. 

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has already begun an investigation of this matter, and his report will 

provide an independent review of the situation concerning Ms. 

Lerner’s computer crash 3 years ago. We are committed to working 

cooperatively and transparently with this committee and the six 

other investigations going on, and we will continue to provide you 

with updates. 

This concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to take your 

questions. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Koskinen follows:] 

12 


Insert offset folio 1 here 89598.001
13 


Insert offset folio 2 here 89598.002
14 


Insert offset folio 3 here 89598.003
15 


Insert offset folio 4 here 89598.004
16 


Insert offset folio 5 here 89598.005
17 


Insert offset folio 6 here 89598.006
18 

Chairman ISSA. Commissioner, do you remember the name 

Braulio Castillo? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not. 

Chairman ISSA. Did you ever hear the name Gregory Roseman? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, Castillo is now on trial for murdering his 

wife, but, before that, this committee discovered that he had 

wrongfully received $500 million in contracts, IT contracts, from 

the IRS. 

And Gregory Roseman took the Fifth. He was one of your employees who helped get him that contract. 

When you go home tomorrow or the next day, you might want 

to see Congresswoman Duckworth asking him how his ankle that 

he hurt at the prep school feels, because, in fact, he claimed to be 

a disabled veteran some 27 years later. And his old college buddy, 

a lifelong friend, helped him get that contract. 

At that time and now, we rely on the ability to recover emails 

as part of the chain of discovery. TIGTA Russell George, your IG, 

relies on that. Tomorrow we’ll hear from the head of the National 

Archives, the Archivist. He relies on your organization to comply 

with Federal law. 

The question I have for you is, how can we expect—you have 

servers that run Microsoft Exchange. It captures every email in 

and out. How can we sit here and expect to trust an organization 

in which the C drive, the local hard drive, of Lois Lerner is supposed to be the only place that email existed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That is not the only place that email existed. 

There is email on her email system in the server that has been 

found and produced. Any email that existed anywhere, even any 

hard copy of official records that existed anywhere, has been or will 

be provided to this committee. 

Chairman ISSA. Right. So, in 2011, when her hard drive failed, 

if you were properly backing up all the information required under 

the Federal Records Act, which would include the information she 

selected to have and apparently deleted from the exchange server, 

you would have had all of those emails in your backup, wouldn’t 

you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All emails are not official records under any official records act. Only emails are saved that reflect agency actions 

or—— 

Chairman ISSA. Would you put your mic pointed toward you so 

we could hear? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Sure. Sorry about that. 

Chairman ISSA. No problem. 

So the bottom line is that you apparently were not capturing all 

emails. You were allowing her to delete emails but retain emails 

on her C drive so that, 6 months after—I just want to make sure 

we get the record straight—6 months after she moved them to her 

C drive, you were no longer in possession of those. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, what is correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. What is correct is that each employee is limited 

to basically now 6,000 emails that they can hold on their email account which is stored on the agency’s server. 

19 

The reason there is a limitation is the agency does not have servers large enough to sustain the retention of all emails. A decision 

was made 2 years ago when people looked at that and it was determined it would cost anywhere from $10 million to $30 million to 

upgrade the system so that, in fact, all emails on the server would 

be preserved. Because of the budget constraints the agency was operating with 2 years ago, the decision was made not to proceed. 

Chairman ISSA. One-point-eight billion dollars in IT is your budget—$1.8 billion. On $1.8 billion, isn’t the retention of key documents that the American people need to count on, like whether 

or not they’re being honestly treated by your employees, especially 

somebody at such a high level, isn’t that, in fact, a priority that 

should have allowed for full retention? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If we had the right resources, there would be a 

lot of priorities we’d have. The budget for this year—— 

Chairman ISSA. So the American people should believe that if 

they don’t have the resources to pay their taxes, they shouldn’t pay 

their taxes, because if the IRS doesn’t have the resources, it won’t 

keep records. That’s pretty much what you’re telling us here tonight, is that resources are a question of whether or not you maintain key documents. 

Let me just go into one thing in my limited time. You came here 

and you said—put it up on the board—that, as you did today, you 

were going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth. 

You saw that montage in the opening. You knew there was a 

problem with some of Lois Lerner’s emails when you came to testify in March; isn’t that true? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I knew that I’d been told there was an issue that 

no one knew the ramifications of. 

Chairman ISSA. Did you reasonably believe that at least one 

email may have been lost? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I did not have any basis for knowing what 

the answer to that was—— 

Chairman ISSA. So you knew there was a problem, but you’re 

going to—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I knew there’d been a problem—somebody said 

there’s an odd development in the way the emails are showing up, 

we’re going to pull all of her emails and investigate it. The first 

time I knew that emails had been lost from her account was in 

April. 

Chairman ISSA. So when you knew in April that you said you 

were going to give us all of it, you said to Mr. Cummings and myself you were going to give us all, you went and told political appointees at Treasury, didn’t you—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not. 

Chairman ISSA. You did not? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not. 

Chairman ISSA. So who did you tell in April when you knew? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Who did I tell? I didn’t tell anybody. I was advised— I had no one I was going to tell. 

Chairman ISSA. You didn’t tell your IG that some of the documents weren’t going to be provided? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not—— 

20 

Chairman ISSA. Or did you cause someone to find out at the 

White House, at Treasury, or your IG? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not. And if you have any evidence of that, 

I’d be happy to see it. 

Chairman ISSA. I asked a question. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. And I answered it. 

Chairman ISSA. You did not cause anyone to find out. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I absolutely did not. 

Chairman ISSA. So you told us that all the emails would be provided. When you discovered that all emails would not be provided—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All the—— 

Chairman ISSA. —you did not come back and inform us; is that 

correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All the emails we have will be provided. I did not 

say I would provide you emails that disappeared. If you have a 

magical way for me to do that, I’d be happy to know about it. I said 

I would provide all of the emails. We are providing all the emails. 

The fact that 3 years ago some of them, not all of them, but some 

of them were not available, I never said I would provide you emails 

we didn’t have. And, in fact, we are going to provide you 24,000 

emails from the time—— 

Chairman ISSA. My time has expired, and I’ve lost my patience 

with you. 

We now go to the ranking member. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I want you to talk about resources. You were 

starting to say something about resources. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Resources. We have—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —a wide range—— 

Mr. CUMMINGS. How does that affect what you do? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. What it affects is that—we have a wide range of 

responsibilities. The IT budget has been cut by over $100 million 

over the last 4 years. This year’s budget for 2014 required $300 

million just for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but 

Congress provided us zero. That meant that that $300 million to 

implement a statutory mandate had to be taken from other IT programs. That’s been our challenge for the last 3 or 4 years. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, Commissioner Koskinen, last week, many 

Members of Congress, including our own chairman, suggested that 

Lois Lerner intentionally crashed her computer to destroy emails. 

But, last Friday, you testified about the facts. You provided Congress with evidence from 2011, contemporaneous, by the way, 

emails showing exactly the opposite and that this was a technological problem. Since some Members of Congress are still pushing 

this accusation, I want to walk through these emails. 

And let me ask staff to put up the slides. 

On July 19th, 2011, Lois Lerner emailed Associate Chief Information Officer at the IRS for help in recovering her hard drive. 

And it says, ‘‘I’m taking advantage of your offer to try and recapture my lost personal files. My computer skills are pretty basic, so 

nothing fancy. But there were some documents in the files that are 

irreplaceable. Whatever you can do to help is greatly appreciated.’’ 

Commissioner Koskinen, is that right? Is that accurate? 

21 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s an email that has been found and been 

produced, yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Next slide. 

Later that day, that IT employee sought help from the field director of the Customer Support Division. And he wrote, ‘‘If she 

can’t fix it, nobody can.’’ 

Is that a document that you—part of a document that you produced? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Next slide. 

The next day, the field director emailed Ms. Lerner and said, ‘‘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 HP experts, he still 

cannot recover the data.’’ 

Is that a part of a document that you supplied to—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. —our committee? 

Next slide. 

On August 1st, 2011, the IT field director wrote again to Ms. 

Lerner and informed her that, ‘‘As a last resort, we sent your hard 

drive to CI’s forensics lab to attempt data recovery.’’ 

Now, Mr. Koskinen, ‘‘CI’’ stands for Criminal Investigation Division at the IRS. And what do they do in the forensic lab in that 

division? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They’re an expert at, in that lab, taking hard 

drives in computers that have been seized by criminals, tax evaders, and others and reconstituting emails wherever necessary. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, is this a step typical when an employee 

computer crashes? Do you normally do that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. It’s extraordinary that we would—the IRS 

would send a hard drive to CI for their help. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And why did you do that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because Ms. Lerner, I am advised, insisted that 

all possible efforts be made. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, despite all of these efforts, the field director 

finally emailed Ms. Lerner with the results. 

Next slide, please. 

‘‘Unfortunately, the news is not good. The sectors on the hard 

drive were bad, which made your data unrecoverable. I’m very 

sorry. Everyone involved tried their best.’’ 

So the technical experts concluded 3 years ago that the sectors 

on her hard drive were bad. Is that accurate? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s what the email says. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, these emails are concrete evidence of what 

really happened back in 2011, but my Republican colleagues just 

want to ignore them. They want to pretend they don’t exist, those 

stubborn facts. But they do exist. And they show this was not intentional, this was not nefarious, this was not a conspiracy. 

Mr. Koskinen, are you aware of any evidence, documents, 

emails—and I remind you you are under oath; I also remind you 

you have been accused of false statements—are you aware of any 

evidence, documents, emails, or other information from IT profesVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89598.TXT APRIL
22 

sionals that calls into question the accuracy and the legitimacy of 

these emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And, finally, and just so everyone is clear, Mr. 

Koskinen, when you testified before this committee on March 26, 

did you know about this email claim? Did you know Ms. Lerner’s 

emails were lost forever? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Mica. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have known the Commissioner for many years, and I know him 

to be a good public servant. I’m a little bit baffled. 

I know, John, I think that you’re probably in a position of the 

guy at the end of the parade with the broom and shovel here and 

in a very difficult situation. 

Let me, if I can, just take people back to the history of this, and 

to you, Commissioner. This targeting began sometime in March or 

April of 2010. In June of 2010, Chairman Issa alerted IRS and it 

made an inquiry. In February of 2011, Lois Lerner sent an email 

to IRS employees stating that the Tea Party is a very dangerous 

matter. 

Then the chairman of the committee with jurisdiction, in June of 

2011, June 3rd, Dave Camp, who you spent time with recently, 

sent a letter to IRS the heat—it looks like the heat really started 

to come on at that point. 

Now, an entire administration and one of the biggest scandals in 

government was back during Watergate when, what, 18 minutes of 

tape was lost. And somehow, between June 3rd and June 13th, 

Lois Lerner’s hard drive crashes and is gone in 10 days. 

And it’s not just a couple of days or 18 minutes like Rose Mary 

Woods had the misfortune of losing, but 27 months, is that correct, 

of hard drive that’s lost? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. All the emails before June—— 

Mr. MICA. From June of 2009 to April of 2011. So it raises many 

questions. 

Now, you came on in December, right, John? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes, the end of December. 

Mr. MICA. And they briefed you. You were briefed about this 

whole situation the beginning, I guess, of January. 

In February, you testified today that you learned that there was 

a problem recovering some of the emails. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No, I—yes, I—what I learned was that there was 

an issue with her emails, that there was a problem with the dates. 

Mr. MICA. But then, in March, what troubles me is you came to 

us and you said—last week informed this committee and others, 

‘‘We believe we’ve completed our production to the Ways and 

Means Committee and all the documents that are asked for in light 

of these document productions.’’ This is to us here. ‘‘I hope the investigations can now be concluded in the very near future.’’ 

You went through and told us what you just started out with, of 

how much money you spent and how many documents you proVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89598.TXT APRIL
23 

duced. But nowhere did we hear, until just a few days ago, that 

the hard drive crashed and all of this was unrecoverable. 

But they—again, the information we have is they briefed you in 

February. You gave us this testimony in March and never spoke 

to this. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Right. In February, as I said, they briefed me 

that, with the emails that they had pulled subject to the search 

terms, they were concerned that there was an issue with the date 

issues. I did not, was not advised, did not know—— 

Mr. MICA. But—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —that there was a hard-drive crash. 

Mr. MICA. John, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I went back 

and looked through all of what you gave us in March. This is your 

testimony. And even what you gave us today conflicts. So that 

does—it raises questions, because it appears that you knew and 

others knew and—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Others knew—— 

Mr. MICA. —the Congress wasn’t informed until just recently. 

Now, I don’t have much time. I understand, I just learned a little 

about this Sonasoft backup, Sonasoft backup contractor. And they 

were retained—are you familiar with them—to back up emails 

and—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I was not familiar then, but I do have the information was provided me today. 

Mr. MICA. Well, I have the same information, and I understand 

that they were dismissed in 2011, and they had started 2005. And, 

actually, in their advertisements, they bragged about how they 

could retain emails. 

Do you know if they have a backup that exists? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They were under a contract with the Chief Counsel of the IRS for about 3,000 employees and an internal disaster 

recovery program that would allow you to move emails from one 

system to another as a backup. That contract was terminated when 

the IRS Chief Counsel upgraded to Outlook 2010 and that alternate system was no longer needed. 

Mr. MICA. But you don’t know if that backup exists. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If the backup before—— 

Mr. MICA. But they were in place, they had that responsibility 

for the backup between, I think, 2005 and 2011. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. But that’s for the Chief Counsel. That’s for 3,000 

employees in the Chief Counsel, not for anybody else in the entire—— 

Mr. MICA. So that might exist? That data may exist? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If any of the data exists, it’s been searched for, 

all of the emails. I’m told we’ve searched every word of every—— 

Mr. MICA. Did you ask that company for that information? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The company didn’t have any data on their servers. The data was all inside the IRS. 

Mr. MICA. And that’s gone, too? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No, everything that we have and all the—that 

was a disaster recovery system for the Chief Counsel. All of those 

emails across the system have been—any data that the Chief Counsel has or that the IRS has has been searched. 

Mr. MICA. Again, Mr. Chairman, many questions. 

24 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. 

Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Like Mr. Mica, John Koskinen, I have known you well before you 

came to Congress. Since coming to Congress, I have been impressed, not a little bit, by the confidence you have inspired in Republican and Democratic Presidents alike. It’s as if they saved you 

for jobs that others couldn’t do, didn’t have the guts to do, or didn’t 

have the integrity to do. You are well-known on both sides of the 

aisle as the government’s most versatile turnaround artist. When 

an agency is in trouble, turn to John Koskinen. 

Therefore, I begin my series of questions simply by offering you 

an apology. I believe you deserve one. You deserve one because of 

accusations designed to sacrifice the reputation of a public servant 

with a spotless reputation, for political advantage, without a scintilla—and I use my words advisedly—of evidence. 

It’s vile enough to look a man in the face and accuse him of perjury without submitting any evidence. It is much worse when all 

of the evidence supports the version of the facts of the man you are 

facing. Whether it is that the Lerner crash occurred well before 

this investigation began—she must be clairvoyant; whether it’s 

been confirmed by the decriminalization lab, all the evidence is on 

your side, Mr. Koskinen. 

And I want to point out for the record that the line of conspiracy 

hunting has shifted with the Lerner crash. For the longest time, 

the line of questioning was about one subject alone. So we’ve moved 

from one scapegoat to another. What we’ve just moved off of, the 

notion that this was all a conspiracy directed on behalf of the 

White House, that also without a crumb of evidence. Lacking evidence, the crash provides new fodder. 

Just for the record, Mr. Koskinen, have you identified any evidence since you have been Commissioner that IRS employees before you came or now were part of a conspiracy to intentionally target the President’s political enemies? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I have done no investigations. I have read the 

IG’s report that said inappropriate criteria were used to identify organizations for review. And the IG had nine recommendations, and 

we have accepted all of those recommendations. 

I think it’s important for the public to be confident that, whoever 

they are, they’re going to be treated fairly by the IRS, whether 

they’re Republicans, Democrats, belong to organizations of one kind 

or another. Wherever they show up, wherever they speak, they 

should understand they’ll be treated fairly. If there’s an issue, it’s 

because something in their tax return; if somebody else had that 

issue, they would get the same response from the IRS. 

I think it’s critical that the public have that confidence, and 

we’re doing everything we can to restore that confidence. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, 41 individuals have testified, just as you 

have, that there’s no evidence of the first conspiracy, now that 

we’re on to the second conspiracy. And so did the IG. 

Do you recall that the IG also testified, ‘‘The Inspector General, 

when asked by the Ways and Means Committee, was there any evidence of political motivation from the White House,’’ he said, ‘‘we 

25 

have no,’’ we did not have—we had no—‘‘Did you have any evidence?’’ ‘‘We did not, sir.’’ 

So I just want to say that your strong reputation, your character 

should hold you in good stead as you face baseless accusations. And 

when a man faces accusations and no evidence is put before him, 

I think he’s got nothing to worry about. 

Thank you very much for your extraordinary service to the people of the United States. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. NORTON. Be happy to yield. 

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate it. 

I just would wonder if that quote from March, ‘‘We can find Lois 

Lerner’s emails’’—would the Commissioner stand behind that 

statement or would he have to qualify it with, ‘‘We will find some 

of Lois Lerner’s emails’’? 

Ms. NORTON. I’m sure he was trying to find all of Lois Lerner’s 

emails. And they were lost—the crash occurred before we even 

began. 

Chairman ISSA. But not after Mr. Camp had sent letters, not 

after we had begun our investigation. Her crash came after we 

began investigating. 

Ms. NORTON. And therefore? And, therefore, what, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. And, therefore—— 

Ms. NORTON. And, therefore, she did what? 

Chairman ISSA. And therefore documents disappeared after—— 

Ms. NORTON. And, therefore, she did what or Mr. Koskinen did 

what? 

Chairman ISSA. I didn’t say Mr. Koskinen—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that’s what we’re here to learn. And I repeat 

there is no evidence that this man had anything to do with any 

malfeasance or that he should be accused of perjury before this 

committee. 

Chairman ISSA. Only that he said that he was aware that 

Lerner’s emails were overlooked, missing, or had other technical 

issues. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There was no evidence at that time to know 

whether they had been overlooked, missing, or had other issues. I 

did not say that we knew that. 

I said, at that time, we had no idea whether any of those applied. 

That’s why they were investigating. That’s what I was told then in 

April, when they came back with the findings as they had reviewed 

it all. 

I never said, at the time, that, in fact, we had any idea whether 

any of that was true. 

Chairman ISSA. And, Eleanor, that’s the inconsistency that we’re 

talking about here tonight. 

Ms. NORTON. What’s the inconsistency, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. If you know that you have a difference in the 

numbers and—— 

Ms. NORTON. What numbers? We don’t know the number yet, 

Mr. Chairman. 

26 

Chairman ISSA. The Commissioner knew that there was a problem, but he didn’t know the details. We were never told there was 

a problem—— 

Ms. NORTON. So he should talk before he knows the details? 

Chairman ISSA. When every person up on the dais, including the 

ranking member, wants to know if you’re going to get all and you 

know there’s at least some sort of a problem or concern—— 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Koskinen, what is your response to that? You 

said, ‘‘We’re going to get—we’re getting find them all.’’ Were you 

lying when you said, ‘‘We’re going to find them all’’? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Absolutely not. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to Mr. Turner. 

Mr. TURNER. Mr. Koskinen, you are touted as a man of integrity, 

and I’ve even heard you say it about yourself on television. So I’m 

going to ask you to use that integrity to help me understand a few 

things that have become confusing to me. 

Now, you said that you want to restore confidence to the Agency, 

and I have no question to question that. I have no basis upon 

which to think that that isn’t your goal. 

But you have to understand that this discussion of the missing 

emails goes right to the heart of the issue of confidence and of the 

issue of your ability to do that and of your integrity. 

So let’s start first with just some general concept of ethics, back 

to your integrity. 

Now, you agree, as Commissioner, that you can’t both be the 

manager of the Agency, the investigator of the Agency, judge, jury, 

and prosecutor of matters that are being undertaken under and by 

the Agency. Right? 

There’s inherent conflict and bias in those positions. You, by 

basic concepts of an ethics with integrity, can’t fill all of those. Correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not sure I understand that question. 

I’m in charge of the Agency, I’m responsible for its activities, and 

I’m accountable for its activities. 

Mr. TURNER. So you believe that you can testify under oath today 

that no crime has been committed by Lois Lerner at the IRS? 

Chairman ISSA. I can testify I have seen no evidence of a crime. 

Mr. TURNER. I understand that. 

And that is the question that has been bantered back and forth 

here. I can tell you I have no evidence that Lois Lerner has committed a crime. 

But I don’t have it within—I don’t have the Agency and I certainly don’t have the ability to go to the FBI and others and have 

them take things from you that can give that. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All right. 

Mr. TURNER. Just because you haven’t seen all the evidence 

doesn’t mean that you have the ability to just blanketly say no 

crime was committed. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I didn’t say no crime. I said I’ve seen no evidence. 

I would note again—— 

Mr. TURNER. And that’s the distinction. 

Mr. KOSKINEN.—that the Inspector General—— 

27 

Mr. TURNER. Because you can’t testify here under oath that no 

crime was committed. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The Inspector General has started an investigation—— 

Mr. TURNER. I’m asking you. Do you have any ability to say no 

crime has been committed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have the ability to say I have seen no evidence 

of any crime. 

Mr. TURNER. Of course. But you cannot say what I’ve asked you, 

that no crime has been committed. 

So let’s go to Lois Lerner. She came before this committee and, 

under—while she was placed under oath, she evoked the Fifth because she indicated that she wanted to assert those rights, albeit 

that she did that incorrectly, because she had fear of prosecution. 

Let’s say that again. Prosecution. Fear of criminal prosecution. 

Now, you can’t testify today that Lois Lerner has no need for a 

fear of criminal prosecution because you can’t testify that Lois 

Lerner didn’t commit a crime. 

Now, here’s what I’m concerned about, since you are a man who 

is placed before us with integrity. 

If in the process of these emails being destroyed there were those 

in your Agency that knew that it was a possibility that a crime was 

committed, then they committed a crime because destruction of evidence of a crime is, in fact, a crime. 

And you can’t testify today that no one—that there was no crime 

committed in the destruction of her emails. Right? You can only 

say you have no evidence of a crime having been committed in the 

destruction of these emails. Right. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no evidence whether she beat her dog, 

whether she beat children. I have no evidence of a whole series of 

things. 

Mr. TURNER. Right. 

That’s why it’s so important, getting to what Jim Jordan has said 

about a special prosecutor, and that’s what my question is to you 

today. 

If you are truly a man of integrity and you know the difference 

between you—you—there’s no—that you have—you don’t have any 

evidence that a crime has been committed versus you know no 

crime has been committed, you have to understand that the whole 

integrity of your Agency is at risk. 

You possibly have people at the IRS who are committing crimes 

and they’re not being held accountable. The only way you can know 

that is to—by pick up the phone, call the FBI and ask them to 

come in and do an investigation on the disappearance of these 

emails. 

So my question to you is: Will you call the FBI and ask them to 

come in and investigate these missing emails that their destruction 

could possibly have been a crime? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At this time, the Inspector General, an independent agency not controlled by us, started an investigation—— 

Mr. TURNER. They’re not a criminal investigating agency. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They are actually capable of doing criminal investigations as well as civil. They make recommendations—— 

Mr. TURNER. Will you call the FBI? 

28 

Because the integrity of your Agency is absolutely at stake. It 

is—we have Lois Lerner having invoked the Fifth in front of this 

committee, indicating that she’s fearful of criminal prosecution, 

which should be enough for you, a man of integrity, to pause and 

think, ‘‘Maybe crimes were committed within my Agency and, now 

that these emails are missing, maybe someone not of integrity committed a crime in destroying them.’’ 

You should call the FBI. You should call for a special prosecutor. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I cannot enter into Lois Lerner’s mind—I’ve 

never met her—as to what she—— 

Mr. TURNER. I asked you to pick up the phone and call the FBI, 

not enter Lois Lerner’s mind. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I am not going to call the FBI. The Inspector 

General has started—when the Inspector General has completed 

its—— 

Mr. TURNER. Then, that is an issue of your personal integrity, because the integrity of this Agency and the concern that Americans 

have of it is at stake. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I reject the suggestion that my integrity depends 

upon my calling the FBI. The Inspector General will issue a report. 

We will all get the benefit of that report, and then we can determine what the appropriate action is. 

Mr. TURNER. I have always believed that what happened in your 

Agency with Lois Lerner is a crime. I believe that there were others involved. 

I believe the emails that are missing are the ones that would 

probably give us an ability to establish that. And I believe that 

somebody undertook a criminal act in its destruction. 

And I believe that, since you can’t tell me I’m wrong and it’s 

enough of a doubt in your mind, as the Commissioner of that Agency, you should call the FBI. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s an interesting set of—— 

Chairman ISSA. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —with no facts behind them. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Koskinen, good evening. And thank you for being here night. 

I don’t think I’ve seen a display of this kind of disrespect in all 

the time I’ve been here in Congress, and it’s unfortunate that anybody would have to be subjected to it. 

This is an incredible thing, a public servant being—— 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. TIERNEY. No. I will not yield. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. The gentleman will suspend. 

Is the gentleman—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. No. I won’t suspend either. I’m in the middle of my 

time—— 

Chairman ISSA. Is the gentleman asking—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. —and I will continue to ask questions—— 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will suspend—— 

Mr. TIERNEY. I won’t suspend. 

Chairman ISSA. Please stop the clock. 

The time is suspended. 

29 

I would caution all Members not to characterize the intent or the 

character of your fellow Members here on the dais. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. But it’s fair game to question the integrity of the 

witness? 

Chairman ISSA. With all due respect, the rules of the House do— 

excuse me—the rules of the House speak to questioning the integrity of Members. 

I would caution all of us that, while the chair has questioned the 

testimony earlier as to whether it was the truth or the whole truth, 

that, in fact, to question the motives of the witness should be done 

only on evidence. 

But to question the motives of your fellow Member is, in fact, 

within the rules of the House, an action for which the floor can 

take down words. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. Yes, of course. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. 

You talk about the rules of the committee and the rules. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry, please. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Has the chairman violated the rules of the committee and the rules of the House? 

Chairman ISSA. Please state your point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. HORSFORD. When the chairman cut off—— 

Chairman ISSA. If the gentleman will state a point of parliamentary inquiry. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Has the chairman violated his own rules in 

the—— 

Chairman ISSA. That’s a question. 

Do you—— 

Mr. HORSFORD. —in the process of conducting—— 

Chairman ISSA. Do you have a question of parliamentary inquiry 

to ask? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. May he ask the question, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. You’ll state it as a point of order. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just let him ask the question, please. 

Chairman ISSA. I will not. 

State a point of inquiry. If not, we will go on. 

The gentleman may continue. Mr. Tierney. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I think the understanding is the rules of the House 

say that Members should conduct themselves in a way that reflects 

credibility upon the House. I think people watching this hearing 

today can decide whether or not that’s been followed on that. 

Look, I think what you’re trying to tell people at one point is that 

it’s the Inspector General’s responsibility to review this matter and 

file a report and, in that report, make recommendations as to what 

action might be done or, upon reviewing that report, you or others 

might make recommendations of what might be done, such as refer 

to a—another body like the FBI or somebody else. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So we’re not even to that point yet. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

30 

Mr. TIERNEY. I guess, you know, as opposed to shoot and then 

aim, we might be trying to first gather some information and then 

decide where we go from there. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Have you testified tonight to anything that was not 

discussed at last Friday’s hearing? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m sorry. What? 

Mr. TIERNEY. Have you discussed tonight with this committee 

anything—any matter pertinent to this subject that was not discussed last Friday? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thus far, no. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So just to get it right, you—you were scheduled to 

testify originally in front of Chairman Camp’s committee tomorrow, 

on the 24th. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Had they been in touch with you or your staff before scheduling that date? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. They actually had asked whether I would be 

available in the morning on Tuesday, and I was not. Then we 

agreed that I would testify in the afternoon. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So you agreed to testify voluntarily? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ve always agreed to testify voluntarily over the 

course of the last 20 years. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So after you discussed and agreed to testify before 

Chairman Camp, you received a unilateral subpoena from Chairman Issa. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And that subpoena asked you to come here—in 

fact, it compelled to you come here tonight? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Did Mr. Issa ever call you and ask you to come voluntarily? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Did any of his staff ever call you and ask you to 

come voluntarily? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Did he ever explain to you why it was so urgent 

that you come here at 7:00 on Monday night when you were already scheduled to appear voluntarily before a different committee 

of jurisdiction on Tuesday, the 24th, the following day? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, I won’t ask you to speculate, but I think some 

might speculate either people don’t think that Mr. Camp could do 

the job, which I would sort of think is suspect—he’s been known 

to be a pretty good Member—or that there’s some sort of competition going on here. I don’t know. Some might speculate that. 

But when Chairman Camp heard that Chairman Issa had subpoenaed you for tonight, you were all of a sudden notified that 

there was going to be a hearing in Chairman Camp’s committee on 

Friday of last week. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. How were you notified of that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Staff asked if I was avail—would be available on 

Friday. They had to get the approval—or agreement of the minorVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89598.TXT APRIL
31 

ity, since I understand there’s a 7-day rule. I told them that I could 

make myself available on Friday. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, how long did you testify on Friday? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Total length of the hearing was 4 1/2 hours with 

a recess for about 45 minutes in the middle. 

Mr. TIERNEY. I would think that, having testified all that time 

on the subject matter, that tonight’s hearing might be somewhat 

redundant on that. And, so far, it has been. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It has similarities to Friday. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And I am looking on this. I think the only thing 

that might be different in the sequence of what’s going on is now 

I understand that Chairman Issa has invited Ms. Jennifer O’Connor to testify tomorrow. 

Do you know Ms. O’Connor? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Do you know whether or not she worked at the IRS 

from May to November of 2013? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do understand she did. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Now, she left in November of last year. Is that 

right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s my understanding. 

Mr. TIERNEY. And that would have been well before there was 

any discovery of Ms. Lerner’s emails gone missing. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. TIERNEY. Do you know where Ms. O’Connor works now? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. My understanding is she works at the White 

House. 

Mr. TIERNEY. So I think some would speculate that maybe people 

on this committee think that now trumped Mr. Camp on his committee and maybe that gets some cameras in the action here, but 

nobody would want to speculate like that. 

Again, I will just end my questioning here by saying that I think 

it’s unfortunate that you have to be subjected to this after having 

gone through it last Friday, and I hope that Members will reflect 

the credibility of the House from here on in, at least, if hasn’t been 

done so far. 

Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much. 

And, first, Mr. Chairman, let me thank you for pursuing this investigation the way you have because, in a free country, no individual—no group of individuals should be targeted for their political beliefs. And, certainly, I think almost everyone who has looked 

closely at this feels that that happened in this situation. 

Although, on March 26th, when Mr. Koskinen was here before 

us, he said there had been no targeting, just inappropriate criteria, 

the Washington Post said Mr. Koskinen fell ‘‘back on 

bureaucratese.’’ And the Washington Post, of course, is probably 

the main defender of the Federal bureaucracy. 

And their Fact Checker said that Mr. Koskinen should be given 

three Pinocchios for that testimony. And they—in their classification, three Pinocchios is one Pinocchio under what they call whoppers. 

32 

So I don’t know if what the—what his opinion is on that. But I 

will say this: All over the country people are saying that there’s 

one—there’s a double standard being applied here. They’re saying 

there’s one standard for everybody else and one standard for the 

IRS. 

And I can tell you that—you know, I’ve been following politics 

and government ever since I was in high school, and I can tell you 

that I believe there’s more anger and resentment and disgust toward the Federal Government today than anytime in my lifetime 

because everybody seems to feel today that we’ve ended up with a 

government of, by, and for the bureaucrats instead of one that’s of, 

by, and for the people. 

Mr. Koskinen was given a chance on Friday to apologize on behalf of the IRS, and he didn’t do so. But I can tell you that I think 

the people of this country deserve at least an apology that a different standard has been applied by the IRS than would be applied 

to individuals who were having problems on their taxes. 

And this—it seems that every time the Federal Government 

screws up, which is often, they always fall back on one or both of 

two excuses. They always say they’re either underfunded or their 

technology is out of date. And, of course, that’s what we’ve heard 

today. 

But I can tell you the people of this country are sick and tired 

of the arrogance within the Federal Government. And this hearing 

and others that will follow about this I think will help assure that 

this does not happen again. 

And so I commend you for it, Mr. Chairman. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Yes, sir. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I’d like to go through the question one more time, Commissioner. 

When—you testified that, in fact, you knew there was this problem when you were here last time, but you didn’t know that, in 

fact, emails were lost. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Chairman ISSA. But you knew there was a problem. You knew 

that there was this sequence problem or numbering problem. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Chairman ISSA. Did you take any steps to find out what that sequence or numbering problem is? I mean, people tell you there’s a 

problem. Almost always, at least in my experience as a CEO, you 

say, ‘‘Well, tell me about the problem. What does the problem 

mean?’’ Did you do that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I asked to be kept updated. There were 200 

people working on this issue, and they said they would let me 

know. And they did let me know. 

Chairman ISSA. So there’s 200 people working on the problem of 

delivering emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Chairman ISSA. And it took this long to find out that there were 

missing ones from Lois Lerner? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It took until—— 

33 

Chairman ISSA. It’s almost a year. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, that’s right. From the time there was—anybody thought there was a problem, it took about 2 months. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Nobody knew there was a problem last year. 

Chairman ISSA. But you knew there was this inconsistency when 

you came before us. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. I knew it’d been identified—that a problem 

had been identified and was under investigation. 

Chairman ISSA. Why is it you did not answer when asked a 

dozen times, really, on both sides of the aisle, ‘‘Will you deliver?’’ 

‘‘We can find Lois Lerner’s emails’’? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Right. That was my assumption at the time. 

Chairman ISSA. But you knew there was some problem with 

some part of her emails; you’d been briefed on that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. But we had no idea—at that time, nobody understood what the ramifications were, were there emails that—was it 

part of the production process. 

They ran the whole production process again. They searched all 

the files again to make sure that the production process itself 

hadn’t caused emails to be lost. 

So at the time I testified, no one had any idea whether there 

were any emails missing or not. 

Chairman ISSA. Right. 

But were you aware when you testified the last time that there’d 

been a crash in Lois Lerner’s disc drive some years before? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. When I testified here? 

Chairman ISSA. Yes. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Chairman ISSA. Were the people reporting to you aware of that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The IT people apparently were. I’m advised that 

they knew that—discovered there was an issue with her computer 

in late February. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

We now go to the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch— 

Mr. Stephen Lynch. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I do want to raise the issue that, while the IRS is not held in 

very high repute these days, neither—neither is the United States 

Congress. And I want to thank you for your willingness to testify. 

I would like to refocus on the evidence here. You know, I’m a little bit surprised at the chronology that Mr. Tierney has laid out 

here where you originally were invited by Mr. Camp and the Ways 

and Means Committee to testify and then it seems like, when Mr. 

Issa found out about that, you were subpoenaed—unilaterally subpoenaed here to testify before you were going to testify tomorrow 

at that other hearing, and then Mr. Camp jumps in front of him. 

And now I have billboards and I had a video clipped up there 

earlier. Great showmanship. And I’m just worried I’ll come in here 

tomorrow, there’ll be a 16-piece orchestra to sort of cap out the 

show. 

That’s not the way this is supposed to happen. That’s not the 

way this is supposed to go down. I think there are some serious 

34 

issues here that we have to get to. But all of this fanfare, all of 

this showmanship, is clouding it over. 

I think we’re doing a disservice to the people that we represent, 

and I think we are failing greatly in meeting the high expectations 

of the American people. I think that’s probably an understatement. 

I would like to focus on the evidence. And going back to the heart 

of this issue, we did have a situation where there was evidence and 

an admission on the part of the IRS that they were using search 

terms such as ‘‘Tea Party,’’ ‘‘patriots,’’ ‘‘9/12 Project,’’ in terms of be 

on the lookout for—for groups that were applying with those characteristics. 

They also were looking for any issues in an application that included government spending or government debt or taxes. They 

were also looking for statements in the case file criticizing how the 

country was run. 

That’s evidence. When the IRS goes after citizens of the United 

States because of this criteria, that is evidence of their state of 

mind. That is relevant evidence. 

Now, that’s not all they looked for. They also looked for any 

search terms regarding progressives or these emerge groups, which 

were also very progressive groups, 501(c) applications. They also 

went after any successor organizations to ACORN because they 

were highly progressive. 

So there was—there was a widespread—it’s not just going after 

conservative groups, but it’s—it’s going after American citizens who 

have various political views. And that is evidence. That’s hard evidence. 

Would you agree? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They’re evidence. Exactly. 

Mr. LYNCH. Right. Okay. 

So when these emails go missing for 27 months on Lois Lerner’s 

account, you realize how that—that just feeds into the suspicion 

that there’s something going on here? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I understand that. That’s why I think it’s important to understand we were able to find 24,000 emails in that period. 

Mr. LYNCH. I know what you found. I appreciate that. And I 

think you went at it legitimately and honestly. 

Let me ask you: When the—when Mr. Russell, the IG for the 

IRS—when he looked at it, he was looking at the search term issue 

for us. 

Did he look at the other issue of the missing emails? Did he do 

any of that or was that known to him? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It was not known to anyone at that time. 

Mr. LYNCH. So we didn’t look at that. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. LYNCH. We didn’t look at that. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The IG, to my understanding, did not look at 

that. He has started an investigation of that now. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. Well, I think that’s—that’s something we 

might want to revisit, then. 

Do you think that it would be worthwhile to have the Inspector 

General go back and look at the way these emails went missing? 

35 

And I also know that there are some allegations—unfounded allegations about six other employees about their emails going missing. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. He should look at it and he is looking at it. I expect that, when they complete that investigation, they’ll provide a 

report to the public, us, and this committee and other investigators. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. My time has expired. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

The gentleman just said it was unfounded. Are there other drives 

that led to other emails not being available, to your knowledge? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At this point there aren’t. We noted last week— 

I had asked—because I said in my testimony in May, as we were 

finally getting our arms around Lois Lerner—I said could we look 

at the other 82 custodians and determine whether there are other 

hard drives that would affect this. 

As I noted, we now have found several custodians. It is not clear 

what emails, if any, were lost. Again, that was part of what we had 

hoped to complete in our full review of all of this, at which point 

we would have provided you with that information. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. As we find it—— 

Chairman ISSA. So we don’t know today about others. There may 

be others because there were other crashes. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There may be others. Yes. We have provided information on what we know. We just learned about that last Monday. 

Mr. LYNCH. Just a follow-up on that? 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. 

Mr. LYNCH. I’m trying to remember her name. Nikole Flax. 

There was a story last week that her emails were missing. 

Have we made any progress on trying to figure out her email—— 

Chairman ISSA. I think that was cleared up, that it was just one 

of her two computers. 

Mr. LYNCH. Are her emails missing? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There’s no evidence now any email is missing. 

Mr. LYNCH. Okay. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. 

I now ask unanimous consent that the 141-page staff report from 

April 7, 2014, be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

The title of it is ‘‘Debunking the Myth that the IRS Targeted Progressives.’’ 

Chairman ISSA. We now recognize the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. McHenry. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Mr. Koskinen, there’s a lot of discussion, and 

you’ve been through multiple hearings related to this Lois Lerner 

targeting of conservative groups. 

Do you understand what the fuss and fury is about this week? 

Do you understand the reason why many folks are really upset 

about this? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I understand, having been around Washington in 

a long time. 

Mr. MCHENRY. Yeah. I mean, you’ve had a long career. 

36 

Mr. KOSKINEN. And one of the reasons we’ve taken it seriously 

is that, if there has been a hard drive crash and emails disappear, 

that’s a matter that should be reviewed. 

As I say, we’ve provided all the information we have about the 

emails and, in fact, it appears that Ms. Lerner was working very 

hard to retrieve the emails, not to lose them. 

Mr. MCHENRY. But you had the ability to share with Congress 

in realtime and share with the American people in realtime what 

you were finding. 

Why didn’t you do that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because my judgment was that what we should 

do is produce all of the information when we had it and not dribble 

it out. We actually provided—— 

Mr. MCHENRY. Even if that meant along the way people are 

questioning how you answered Congressional inquiries? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We answered a Congressional inquiry completely 

and totally—— 

Mr. MCHENRY. No. I understand that. 

But, for me, this is really not about you. It’s not about anybody 

up here on the dais. It’s not about a hearing. It’s about the American people. 

Your Agency sends fear up the spines of every American when 

you contact them. And if there’s one receipt missing, a small business person goes—searches far and wide for that one last receipt. 

And, yet, we have evidence that—and you’ve testified that, you 

know, Lois Lerner’s hard drive crashed and that, you know, erased 

emails from January 2009 to April 2011, just the time period that 

Congress was most concerned about with the targeting of conservative and Tea Party groups. 

So, look, I mean, I understand. And you can answer very reasonably. But when you see that type of thing happen, it almost defies 

anyone’s sense of capacity that that could happen. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Congress is very interested in what happened 

from April of 2011 until May of 2013. And we have produced all 

of those—or are in the process of producing all of those emails. 

So we have significant amounts of emails—— 

Mr. MCHENRY. I understand. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —not lost that we determined from Lois Lerner 

email—43,000 unlost Lois Lerner emails. Plus, we’ve been able to 

find another 24,000. 

But the point, I think, is important, as I have said. The question 

is: In the period in which we found the 24,000, what are the emails 

that she sent outside the Agency that would not be reflected in 

anybody’s accounts and—— 

Mr. MCHENRY. Right. And how are they going to magically come 

forward. 

The other thing—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They are going to come forward because the 

White House and Treasury have provided this committee and other 

committees a response to those emails—— 

Mr. MCHENRY. So that means she didn’t email outside the White 

House or Treasury. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

37 

Mr. MCHENRY. That means she didn’t email outside of the White 

House or Treasury. 

Okay. But the point about this—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m sorry. But that’s what I thought was a big 

issue, was whether, in fact, this was all part of her—— 

Mr. MCHENRY. It is. But it’s not the question I’m asking you, sir. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. MCHENRY. And I’ve been very respectful of your time and 

giving you an opportunity to answer. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MCHENRY. So the reason why I’m asking this question is I 

just want you to be able to convey to the American people that running the IRS, a very frightening Agency—right?—a very frightening Agency for my constituents at home, that you get it, that you 

understand why the American people look at this and say, ‘‘This 

is so far beyond my ability to reason. An Agency that has a more 

than billion-dollar—nearly $2-billion IT budget lets a hard drive 

crash.’’ 

It just seems absolutely ridiculous and beyond comprehension 

that this would happen in such a convenient context and, yet, we 

have Lois Lerner, who’s been a major focus of this inquiry—and 

she’s the one who’s searching desperately to make sure that we recover her hard drive that may incriminate her. We won’t know, 

though, because this has been recycled. 

So I’ll yield the balance of my time to Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

I just have one question in the few seconds we have. 

What date did you learn that you could not get all of her email? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I learned that in April. I don’t recall when. 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t know the day? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not know the day. 

Mr. JORDAN. Early April? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no recollection. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mid-April? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. April. 

Mr. JORDAN. Your—well, Mr. Chairman, I’ll yield back the time. 

Wait for my 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. JORDAN. Be happy to. 

Chairman ISSA. You only know within a month? Could you provide the committee with some evidence from the calendar that 

would indicate what day you were briefed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’d be delighted to. There’s going to be nothing on 

my calendar that shows that, but you can look at the entire month 

of my calendar—— 

Chairman ISSA. Well, but who briefed you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Chairman ISSA. Who told you that email had been lost? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t recall who. I’ve addressed all of the people 

doing the work. I’ve talked to people as it goes along. There’s not 

a—— 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. So your testimony today is you don’t remember the name of the person that told you sometime in 

April—— 

38 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All I know is that by—sometime in April I was 

aware, A, that there had been emails lost, B, that we were reconstituting emails to the extent we could from other custodians. And by 

mid-May, we were able to determine—— 

Chairman ISSA. But you don’t remember the name of the people 

who told you that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not remember when I was told or by whom. 

I just know it was that time frame. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. ‘‘I don’t remember’’ is an answer. 

We now go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’d ask unanimous consent that an article dated July 4, 2013, by 

Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times, taking direct issue 

with your staff report that you entered it into the record with 

unanimous consent, be entered into the record at this time. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman state the date of that article, please. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. July 4, 2013. 

Chairman ISSA. So somebody disputes my April 7, 2014, with a 

July 2013 article? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, he kind of lays out a pretty good 

case. But I think it should be in the record just like your staff report. 

Chairman ISSA. I certainly think that it’s fine for somebody to determine almost a year ahead of a report that the report is invalid. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chair for his courtesy. 

Mr. Koskinen, from your testimony, the IRS does not permit all 

of its 90,000 employees to store all of their email in their active 

inboxes. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why is that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because we do not have the server capacity to absorb all of those emails. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why don’t you have the server capacity to absorb 

all those emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because of the expense. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What would be the cost of expanding that capacity? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The estimate made when the IRS considered expanding or—its system was it would cost somewhere between 10- 

and $30 million. That was an estimate 2 years ago. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. IRS employees instead move their emails 

when they want to store into archive files on their hard drives. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would one alternative be the cloud? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There’s no way of the emails on the IRS go into 

the cloud at this time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because we’re very sensitive to security of taxpayer information. And so, thus far, the IRS has not moved any information to the cloud, although my understanding is that the IDT 

department continues to look at that issue. 

39 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Hard drives crash especially in older computers. 

Industry experts say that businesses should replace their employees’ computers every 3 to 4 years. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s the general industry standard. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And how often does the IRS meet that standard? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We refresh them over time. Sometimes it takes 

as long as 5 to 7 years. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So could part of the problem be we’re dealing 

with an aging set of PCs in IRS because we haven’t invested in 

new equipment? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There’s no doubt about that. As I noted on Friday, we have thousands of employees still running Windows XP. 

We’re trying to move on to Windows 7. Windows XP is no longer 

supported by Microsoft. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, surely this concern we have up here with 

hard drives crashing and emails not being properly archived or 

stored and all kinds of other problems and given precisely the sensitivity of the data that the IRS possesses—surely the Congress has 

provided an investment portfolio, a set of resources for you to 

quickly update your computer technology—your information technology in the IRS. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We are provided significant amounts of money, 

but significantly less than we need. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Has your budget gone up or down in the last 

4—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Budget has gone down regularly every 4 years. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. How much has your budget declined? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Budget has declined over the last 4 years $850 

million. The number of taxpayers has gone up by 7 million. And 

we’ve been asked to implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act and the Affordable Care Act. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Your budget’s gone down $800 million in real dollars? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Nominal dollars, not including index for inflation? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s right. That’s the actual dollar number. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Huh. That’s amazing, given our concern, that we 

wouldn’t be providing you with resources to try to turn this around 

and make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen again. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The House mark for this year’s upcoming fiscal 

year 2015 cuts us by another $350 million. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. $350 million in one fiscal year? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, surely that will change in light of our deep 

and profound concern for what happened to Lois Lerner’s hard 

drive. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We have high hopes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, surely you’ve been called to these midnight 

sessions to try to see what help you need, right, you’ve been asked? 

Have you been subpoenaed or voluntarily requested before any 

committee of the House of Representatives to testify as to what 

your needs are and why the $350-million cut on top of an $800-million cut in the last 4 years might do to your Agency? 

40 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ve testified before the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee, and we have provided updated information to the 

House and Senate appropriators about the negative impact of a 

$350-million cut. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And there are—— 

Chairman ISSA. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And their heart bled for you, undoubtedly. Thank 

you, Mr. Koskinen. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. For what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? 

Mr. MICA. A quick unanimous consent request. 

I’d like entered in the record without objection, if I may, the Reason magazine article from the weekend of June 21st that IRS had 

a contract with email backup service from vendor Sonasoft starting 

in 2005. 

And then I’d like to also put in the record the motto of Sonasoft 

from an email they have, which said: If the IRS uses Sonasoft products to back up their services, why wouldn’t you choose them to 

protect their services? 

And then they had this service—way to have a second—a third 

article. The Daily Caller on June 21st, this weekend, said Sona— 

it’s an article that cites Sonasoft 6 years’ relationship with IRS 

came to an abrupt close at the end of fiscal year 2011 as Congressional investigators began looking into IRS conservative targeting 

scandal. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, it will all be placed in the 

record. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Koskinen, I want to go to your testimony. IRS in February 

of 2014 identified documents indicating Ms. Lerner had experienced a computer failure in 2011. 

In mid-March 2014—again, your testimony—the IRS focused on 

Lerner email for production. During this review, i.e., during the 

mid-March review, the data stored on her computer hard drive was 

determined at the time to be unrecoverable. 

So mid-March you knew the data was unrecoverable. Late March 

you came in front of this committee and did not tell us that—you 

didn’t tell us her computer failed. You didn’t tell us, ‘‘We can’t recover emails.’’ You said, ‘‘We’re going to give them all to you.’’ Fine. 

Your testimony is, you know, ‘‘I was still checking. I wasn’t quite 

sure we’d lost them all. Even though the IT professionals said we 

lost them all, I wasn’t quite sure.’’ Last round, I just asked you 

when did you learn and you said sometime in April. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. I want to focus on when you did officially learn, according to definition. 

The chairman asked you who told you this information. You can’t 

remember? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I do not remember. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did someone tell you in person? Did they send you 

an email? How did you get the information? 

41 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t recall. I do not get emails on these subjects. So I’m sure—I’m sure it was someone in person. 

Mr. JORDAN. Someone in—this has been a major news story for 

the last 13 months and you don’t remember who came up to you 

and said, ‘‘Hey, boss, we lost Lois Lerner’s emails?’’ You don’t even 

remember anything about that situation? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I remember being told in April. 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t remember who told you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not recall who told me. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Something that’s been a front-page story, you would 

think that would be significant enough to remember how it happened, when they told you, what the actual date was. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Got to remember—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You might even remember where you were standing. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Remember, I’m running an Agency with 90,000 

people. We are dealing with all—— 

Mr. JORDAN. This has been the biggest issue in front of your 

Agency for the last year. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We’re in the middle of filing season as all this is 

going on. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. So here we go. Here we go. 

So you find out sometime in April. You don’t know who told you. 

What did you do then? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I was advised—I didn’t do anything. I was advised that they were reconstituting as many emails as they could 

from other—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No. No. No. 

Who did you tell? Did you tell the White House? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I never told the White House. 

Mr. JORDAN. Politico reports you told the White House in April. 

You didn’t tell anyone at the White House? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t think that’s what Politico reported 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you tell anyone at Treasury? Did you tell any 

of your bosses? Did you tell the Treasury Secretary? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not tell anybody at Treasury either. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you talk to anyone about this? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Talk to anyone outside the Agency about when 

you—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Not outside the Agency. I talked in the Agency 

about it. I get the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. When did you tell Congress? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. JORDAN. When did you tell Congress? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We produced the public report 10 days ago. 

Mr. JORDAN. So you knew in April and you waited 2 months to 

tell this body—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. JORDAN. —the body that’s been looking into this? 

Why did you wait so long? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because we actually were going to wait until we 

produced all of Lois Lerner’s emails—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No. No. No. No. 

42 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —had reviewed all the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No. No. No. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m telling you. 

Mr. JORDAN. Hey. Hey. Hey. You can’t give us all her emails. 

You done lost some. So don’t give me that statement. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Can I give you an answer? 

Mr. JORDAN. I want to know why you didn’t tell us you had lost 

some of her emails. Because that’s what we care about. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Can I give you the answer? 

Mr. JORDAN. Sure. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All right. Our program was to complete the production of all Lois Lerner emails, complete the review of all 

custodians, and provide—— 

Mr. JORDAN. But it’s kind of important, Mr. Commissioner, to tell 

us when you lost emails for the person that we’re focused on, don’t 

you think? 

Let me ask you this. Let me ask you a more important question. 

Did you tell the Justice Department? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. Why not? There’s a criminal investigation going on. 

Don’t you think that’s a pertinent fact that they’d like to know? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We have no evidence that there’s any criminal 

violation involved. 

Mr. JORDAN. I didn’t ask you that. 

There’s a—the President of the United States said on May 15th, 

‘‘We’ve got to get to the bottom of this.’’ 

The Attorney General said, ‘‘We’re going to do everything we can 

to find out what happened here.’’ 

And you have information you still—have you talked to the FBI 

at all? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have never talked to the FBI about it. 

Mr. JORDAN. Don’t you think it’s incumbent upon the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service when he gets a—think 

about this. Think about the average citizen out there. 

FBI is investigating some citizen and they lose documents over 

a 2-year time period that are crucial, critical, to the investigation 

and they say, ‘‘You know what? We’re not going to tell the FBI’’ 

and then the FBI learns later. Do you think that person’s in trouble? Heck, yeah, they are. 

But you as a—you said, ‘‘I don’t need to tell anybody.’’ You didn’t 

tell—did you tell the Inspector General? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We issued a public report—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No. No. No. No. 

Back in April. You told us just a few minutes ago you learned 

in April. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. In April. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you tell the Inspector General in April that you 

lost Lois Lerner email? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. Because we didn’t know how many—whether 

we’d lost any. We were—— 

Mr. JORDAN. How long were you—here’s what I’d like to know. 

If you wait—you waited 2 months to tell anyone. At what point 

does it become obstruction of justice? 3 months? 4 months? 2 

weeks? 

43 

When you got that kind of critical information, you say, you 

know, ‘‘I’m going to hang on to this. We got to wait and make sure 

we can spin this better, do’’—whatever it was. 

The fact that you—you didn’t tell us and we’ve been after this 

for 13 months. We subpoenaed 6 months ago for this. 

You had a hearing on the 26th where everyone on this dais went 

after you and said, ‘‘We want all the emails.’’ And you assured us 

you’d get them all to us, and then you learned you can’t. 

And you don’t tell anybody? And you give us a report that you 

sent to Senator Hatch and Senator Wyden. And on page 9 of some 

report you say, ‘‘Oh, by the way’’—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Actually, I have the report. 

Mr. JORDAN. —‘‘we lost the emails.’’ 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It starts on page 5. It’s half of the 7-page report. 

Mr. JORDAN. Page 5. Imagine. I’d like for you to tell us, not send 

us in some 37-page document on page 5 on a Friday afternoon, for 

goodness sakes. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It’s a 7-page document. 

Mr. JORDAN. 7-page document on page 5. 

This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, that we did not know this 

when he first knew and that he almost knew everything on the 

26th and wouldn’t tell us—wouldn’t tell us the computer crashed, 

wouldn’t tell us, ‘‘We think we might have lost them all. We’re not 

quite sure. We’re 99 percent sure.’’ And he wouldn’t tell us and 

then waits 2 months before he does. Ridiculous. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank the gentleman. 

For the record, Ways and Means Committee referred four criminal charges to Justice against Lois Lerner months ago. 

Ms. SPEIER. Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I implore you to enforce the rules of 

this committee. Rule XI(k)(4) asks that you control this committee, 

that we operate with decorum and professionalism and order. 

Badgering witnesses is inappropriate and shameful for this committee to conduct itself in that manner. And I would implore you 

in the future to rely more heavily on this rule. 

I would now like to ask unanimous consent—— 

Chairman ISSA. Is the gentlelady making a motion? 

Ms. SPEIER. No. At this point I just want us to get back to basics 

and to run this committee as it should be run, with respect and decorum. 

And badgering this Commissioner, as virtually every Member on 

the Republican side has done, is shameful. And it’s got to stop—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Ms. SPEIER. —or else I’m telling you one Member here is going 

to walk out and not return. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. It’s the gentlelady’s time. 

Ms. SPEIER. And I’m not yielding. 

Mr. JORDAN. Would the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. SPEIER. No. The gentlelady is not yielding. 

Mr. JORDAN. Gentlelady please yield? 

Ms. SPEIER. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. JORDAN. I said would the gentlelady please yield? 

44 

Ms. SPEIER. That was better. But, no. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to put into the 

record the Democratic staff report of May 6, 2014, ‘‘No Evidence of 

White House Involvement or Political Motivation in IRS Screening 

of Tax Exempt Applicants.’’ 

Chairman ISSA. Absolutely. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. Thank you. 

Commissioner Koskinen, why you are serving our country at this 

point in time is beyond me. But thank you on behalf of all of us. 

Because you are a sterling example of what we do need in this 

country in government, and that is someone who knows exactly 

what they’re doing, is not going to be bullied, and is going to state 

the facts as they see them. 

Now let us start from the very beginning in this time line. 

Based on the emails we have obtained, Ms. Lerner’s hard drive 

crashed on June 13, 2011. Is that not so? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. June 13, 2011. 

Her first indication—the first time she was informed by IRS employees in Cincinnati that they were using inappropriate search 

terms did not happen until after her computer crashed. Is that not 

true? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. And what date was that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That is a week or two thereafter. I don’t 

know—— 

Ms. SPEIER. It was June 29, 2011. 

So June 13 it crashes. June 29th she is informed that they may 

be using inappropriate search terms. 

And the Congressional investigation and the Inspector General’s 

audit also did not start until after the computer crashed. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. So I just want to make sure I have this clear. 

Ms. Lerner’s computer crashed before she was informed that the 

IRS employees in Cincinnati were using inappropriate search 

terms and before there was no Congressional or Inspector General 

investigation? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

And we also have emails from April 11 in 2011 forward. Because, 

apparently, she archived materials on her hard drive, but kept 

emails in her email account which did not go down with her hard 

drive. 

Ms. SPEIER. Along with my colleague to my left, who was talking 

about the system that exists now, when you archive in the IRS 

right now because you don’t have the data ability because you don’t 

have the $30 million invested, you actually have to print emails. 

It has to be determined that an email is appropriate and necessary to be archived and it has to be printed. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Ms. SPEIER. That’s how archaic it is. 

All right. So let’s move on to the hearing last Friday. 

Some of the Republican Members there sprung a document on 

you that you had not reviewed beforehand. They argued that 

45 

Chairman Camp had sent a letter to the IRS on these exact issues 

10 days before Ms. Lerner’s computer crashed and, therefore, as 

Representative Roskam said, Chairman Camp sent a letter on this 

whole issue and then 10 days later—so think about the duration 

of 10 days. 10 days is the ability to panic within the IRS, reflect, 

plan, talk, and execute. And there was a crash 10 days after the 

chairman’s letter. 

Now, I have a copy of the chairman’s letter here. You’ve probably 

had an opportunity to review it. June 3, 2011. And, as I understand it, the question that was asked by the chairman of the Ways 

and Means Committee to the then-Commissioner was whether donations to a 501(c)(4) were taxable gifts and if a gift tax return 

should be filed. 

So there already is law that says and asserts the applicability of 

gift taxes to 501(c)(4) donations. And in his own letter he says it’s 

unsettled area of tax law, but he further notes that it has been applied in some cases. 

Is that not what the gist of that letter was all about? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That is correct. It was about the application of 

the gift tax laws to (c)(4) organizations. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. So the letter had nothing to do with the 

issue of 501(c)(4)s and inappropriate terms being used to identify 

certain organizations? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It did not mention inappropriate terms at all, as 

far as I recall. 

Ms. SPEIER. All right. I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the lady for yielding back. 

We now go to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the chair—— 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman hold off on the time. I 

apologize. 

I’d like to ask unanimous consent so that it’s in with Ms. Speier 

that the June 16, 2014, majority staff report be placed in the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

Chairman ISSA. It is titled ‘‘How Politics Led to the IRS to Target 

Conservative Tax Exempt Applicants for Their Political Beliefs.’’ I 

think it’ll go well with the minority report. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, can I—— 

VOICE. This is going to be some record. 

Chairman ISSA. It is going to be some record. 

Actually, Mr. Commissioner, we looked at the Rule XI, and it 

turns out what was cited was the audio-video in proceedings. So 

we’re going to have to figure out how that applies, too. 

Ms. SPEIER. Rule XI(k)(4), Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. That’s what we’re looking at. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, could I ask that this letter from the 

Chairman of Ways and Means to Doug Schulman be—— 

Chairman ISSA. Of course. That will be placed in the record. 

Mr. Chaffetz is recognized. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank the chairman. 

My understanding is that the backup of emails was only—only 

lasted for 6 months. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. It’s actually a disaster recovery system, and 

it backs up for 6 months in case the entire system goes down. 

46 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And that was in place in 2011? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That was the rule in 2011, policy. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So when Lois Lerner figured out on June 13 that 

her computer crashed and you’ve—there have been emails showing 

that she was going to great lengths to try to get that recovered, 

why didn’t they just go to that 6-month tape? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because that 6-month tape is a disaster recovery 

tape that has all of the emails on it and is a very complicated tape 

to actually extract emails for. 

But I have not seen any emails to explain why they didn’t do it. 

So I—it would be difficult, but I don’t know why they didn’t. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But you said that the IRS was going to extraordinary lengths to give it to the recovery team. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But it’s backed up on tape? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. For 6 months. Yes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And that was within the 6-month window. 

So why didn’t you get them off the backup? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All I know about that is that the backup tapes 

are disaster recovery tapes that put everything in one lump and extracting individual emails out of that is very costly and difficult 

and it was not the policy at the time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did anybody try? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea—indication that they did. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you have multiple emails showing that she 

was trying to recover this. 

The testimony of the IRS that they were trying desperately—in 

fact, you got a forensic team to try to extract this. You went to 

great lengths. You made a big point over the last week about all 

the efforts you were going through. 

But they were backed up on tape and you didn’t do it? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. As far as I know, they did not. But they did have, 

as I noted the email, she had 3 months’ worth of emails at that 

time going from April—or 2 months from April to—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. That would have been fortuitous with the 6- 

month month backup available. 

And we need to explore this, Mr. Chairman. 

Did I hear you right in the answer to Mr. Lynch, that when the 

Treasury Inspector General was doing their work, that they were 

unaware that her email had crashed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. This is last summer? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. No. The question that Mr. Lynch just asked here. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yeah. He asked whether the Inspector General, 

when they did their review of the determination process, was 

aware that her email had cashed. 

And I said I do not think they were, I wasn’t around at the time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So the Inspector General is trying to get to the 

bottom of this matter, and nobody informs them that her computer 

had crashed and there were emails lost? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Not to my understanding. No. I’m not—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Were they withholding information from the Inspector General? 

47 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what—the Inspector 

General has access to all emails. He has access to any records he 

would like. And I have no indication that anybody did not provide 

him all of the records. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did they ask for the Lois Lerner emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea. I was not there then. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you think it’s unreasonable for us to ask that 

question? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I beg your pardon. You can ask the Inspector 

General. That would be fine. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We plan to. 

June 3, 2011—I am glad you brought this up, because Dave 

Camp did ask on page 2 the names, titles, and divisions and/or officers of any and all individuals who were involved or contributed to 

the decision to investigate whether taxpayer contributions to 

501(c)(4) organizations should be subject to gift rules. 

It goes on and talks about—actually, before that, organizations 

will trigger an IRS audit based on the political activities of an organization. 

May 14—that was in 2011. He’s asking for all these emails. 

Why wasn’t it brought to the attention of the committee that all 

of her emails were not available back then? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At that time? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Yeah. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea. I was not there at that time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. May 14, 2013, also asked for those emails. Didn’t 

get a response. 

You have a—you have a subpoena from the United States Congress. And I recognize you personally weren’t there. But I don’t understand why the IRS wasn’t diving into this to figure out—this is 

August of 2013. This committee issues a subpoena asking for her 

emails. 

It was known years before that some of her emails were gone. 

Correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. Obviously, people knew in 2011 that there 

had been a crash. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. When you came and testified on March 26, did 

you know or should you have reasonably known that you did not 

have all of her emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not know. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did you think you had all the emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At that point, my understanding was that they 

were reviewing the entire process to find out where the emails 

might be. I had no idea whether we had more or less. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. So you didn’t know if we had them all? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At that time. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. At that time, March 26. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All I knew was that they were investigating and 

we were going to provide all the emails we have. And that’s what 

we’re in the process of doing. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But did you or did you not know that you had all 

the emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not have any idea one way or the other. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Then, why did you say, ‘‘We can find’’—— 

48 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Lois Lerner’s emails. And we did find them and 

we are producing them. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Did you find all—what percentage of them? 

Are we supposed to ask you what percentage? I mean, is that not 

clear what I asked you—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At that point, I would have told you we’re going 

to give you 100 percent of the emails we have, and that’s what 

we’re going to do. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Now you’re qualifying. 

You had reason to know—for years you had reason to know—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I haven’t been there for years. I’ve been there for 

5, 6 months. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You had reason to know—this is a hot investigation. You had reason to know that there was a problem, and you 

did nothing to indicate there was a problem. Correct? 

Chairman ISSA. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

You may answer. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Chairman ISSA. You may answer. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. I did not indicate at that time because I did 

not know the nature of the problem. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But you thought that there might be a problem. 

Chairman ISSA. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If the chairman—if he will please answer that 

question. 

Did you or did you not think that there was a problem? 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Commissioner, you may answer that last question. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I have testified before that, at that time, I 

did not know the nature of the problem. All I knew, there was a 

question being investigated. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. And I apologize, but time 

is up. 

We now go to the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Duckworth. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Commissioner, good to see you here. Thank you for coming 

on such short notice. 

You know, it’s really amazing to me to read that IRS requires 

employees to print and file emails that they decide are relevant to 

the official record or that the IRS does not necessarily think that 

all emails are part of the official record that’s relevant to the Federal Records Act. 

Email is critical, and I really feel like it’s absolutely unacceptable 

that a government Agency with such a critical public mission cannot produce emails requested during an investigation. 

But what’s troubling to me is that this is not an issue with just 

the IRS, but is, in fact, government-wide. It’s also not just with this 

administration. 

I’m looking at a report—a GAO report from the—that is entitled 

‘‘National Archives and Selected Agencies Need to Strengthen 

Email Management,’’ dated June of 2008, that basically addresses 

the inadequate email preservation procedures across government. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask unanimous consent that this 

report be inputted into the record. 

49 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

Mr. Commissioner, I’d like to hear what steps you’ve taken or 

plan to take to ensure better electronic records-keeping at the IRS 

going forward. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Long before this arose, I asked earlier this spring 

when I arrived for us to take a look at what it would take to develop an email system that was much easier to search. 

Right now, as I’ve noted, if you want to see anything from 90,000 

employees, you’ve got to go to 90,000 hard drives. 

I was told more recently that we had looked at creating, in effect, 

a broader-based server that would allow us to preserve emails, and 

that’s the 10- to $30-million cost. We are reviewing that. 

We are also going to review whether we can move for the National Records Act from a paper system to an electronic system, but 

that’s part of the upgrade of the email system. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

On June 17, the National Archives and Records Administration 

sent a letter to the Office of Records and Information Management 

at the IRS regarding the loss of Ms. Lerner’s emails. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s my understanding. I have not seen the letter. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. So what they—what they’re required to 

do, the National Archives and Records Administration, is required 

to request a report of investigation from any agency that has an 

unauthorized disposal of Federal records. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s my understanding. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. It turns out that these requests from the 

Archives are very commonplace among Federal agencies and, according to the National Archives, they sent 92 similar requests to 

Federal agencies during the Bush Administration. 

Were you aware of that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I was not. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. You know, I believe that the Federal agencies 

should take these inquiries from the Archives very seriously. 

Will you cooperate with their request for the IRS to further investigate this matter? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We would be delighted to do that. We cooperate 

with all investigations. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. And what steps has the IRS already taken to 

understand the circumstances around the loss of Ms. Lerner’s documents? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ve testified at some length that we’ve reviewed 

all of the emails of Ms. Lerner and all emails subject to the search 

terms of the custodians that we’ve been working with to reconstitute as many emails as possible, and we’ve provided—or will provide 24,000 of those emails. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So would it be accurate to say that, when—in 

April, when you found out that some of the emails had been lost, 

that your understanding was that the team was still going to try 

to recover as many of those emails that had been lost from her 

crashed hard drive, but that they would be located in other people’s 

systems’ hard drives, for example, if she sent an email from her to 

50 

another IRS official, that you could probably recover that email 

that was lost when her hard drive crashed because it still existed 

somewhere else. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct, if it was in the other email of one 

of the 82 custodians and those were selected because they were the 

most—they were the operatives working in the exempt organization area. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. So in April, when you found out that her hard 

drive had crashed and it was unlikely that you would be able to 

recover from the lost emails, the IRS and the appropriate people— 

technical people in the IRS were still trying to recover as many of 

those lost emails as possible in one of those 82 other repositories. 

Correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. And we’re also continuing to produce her 

emails post the crash, the 43,000 that we’re committed to produce. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Okay. Thank you. 

The IRS previously proposed reallocating $180 million in agency 

funds to sustain and replace its IT infrastructure. 

Is it fair to say that these long-standing financial and budgetary 

issues have contributed to the current records retention challenges 

at the IRS? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It is true. It’s our challenge of—as I say, we’re 

still moving people off Windows XP onto Windows 7. 

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Thank you. 

I’m almost out of time. I just want to thank you so much for your 

continued public service. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentlelady. 

We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Walberg. 

Mr. WALBERG. I thank the chairman. 

And, Mr. Koskinen, thank you for being here. 

You said several times that Lois Lerner was very concerned that 

her emails be found and was attempting to do above-and-beyond efforts to achieve that. Am I correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. WALBERG. You probably then could understand why there 

are some who might conjecture that Lois Lerner pled the Fifth 

wrongly, but pled the Fifth because she felt to answer might incriminate her and that incrimination could possibly come from the 

information that were in those emails. 

Could you understand that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. But I have no way of knowing what her concerns are as to what exposure she might have. 

Mr. WALBERG. And we never will, at least at this point, unless 

some of those emails can be found, because it’s interesting that 

that took place. 

Let me ask you: Have you fired anybody on your staff that didn’t 

give you enough information so that you would have made that 

statement more accurate for us about information contained in 

emails that you couldn’t provide to us, but now we find out that 

people knew that emails had been lost, but didn’t tell you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have not fired anyone. No one in my staff, that 

I’m aware of, has committed any—— 

51 

Mr. WALBERG. Nobody’s been fired for not giving adequate information? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Mr. Walberg, there’s no reason and there’s no 

basis for considering firing. 

Mr. WALBERG. Answer accurately and correctly and fully the 

Oversight Committee of Congress. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. And, in fact, the purpose of that hearing was 

to talk generally about the investigation. Great lengths of that 

hearing were spent about productions in response to the subpoena, 

and the chairman and I talked at length about that. The Lois 

Lerner emails were then ultimately agreed upon as the next priority. 

Mr. WALBERG. Can you understand why there’s anger out there 

about this situation? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I can understand people’s concerns about the fact 

that we do not have—— 

Mr. WALBERG. All the information. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —knowing whether we have all of her emails. I 

think we—as I say, last week the White House and Treasury provided emails. 

Mr. WALBERG. And why it’s so difficult for us to get to the bottom 

of it, because there isn’t much help coming. 

The President himself on May 15th said: It’s inexcusable and 

Americans are right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it. 

I will not tolerate this kind of behavior in any agency, but especially in the IRS, given the power that it has and the reach that 

it has into all of our lives. And he said: I’ll do everything in my 

power to make sure nothing like this happens again by holding the 

responsible parties accountable. 

Someone much more astute than I once said that the power—the 

ability or the power to tax is the power to destroy. 

We’ve seen that, Mr. Koskinen. Before you came and took your 

position, we’ve seen people with First Amendment liberties being 

targeted by the IRS, the Agency with the power to destroy, and 

they attempted to do it. And now we can’t get answers completely. 

Let me go on further—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Sure. 

Mr. WALBERG. —with something that you said to me back on 

March 26th in a hearing where you had indicated that you were 

trying to get to the bottom of the controversy. 

And you said, ‘‘Congressman, just to make you comfortable’’—and 

I don’t know if we can have that up on the screen—‘‘Just to make 

you comfortable, if there is a problem that I don’t know about, then 

that is my fault, because that means that I haven’t created a culture where problems and issues get raised from frontline workers 

and go easily and freely to the top.’’ 

Do you stand by your earlier statement to me on March 26th? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do. 

Mr. WALBERG. Are these issues still not getting raised to the top 

or are you withholding them from us? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. These issues were raised over time. I’ve told you 

about that. And we reproduced a public record discussing all of 

those. 

So I’m satisfied that, in regard to this issue the—— 

52 

Mr. WALBERG. How many hard drives fail annually at the IRS? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I noted that, since January 1st, 2,000 have failed 

this year alone. 

Mr. WALBERG. In your professional career, how many times has 

your hard drive failed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. My hard drive failed once. 

Mr. WALBERG. Once. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The average for hard drive failures is 3 to 5 percent. That would mean, that with 90,000 employees, we would expect that we would have between 2 and—at 5 percent, we’d have 

15,000—— 

Mr. WALBERG. Can it be really understood by our people, then, 

involved in this greatest investigation in the IRS’s history that all 

of these people, several people, in fact, and especially the one at the 

center of this investigation, has a mysterious experience of a hard 

drive crash on this information, information that probably caused 

Lois Lerner to plead the Fifth? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know if you can say probably or not. And 

I will tell you it’s not a mysterious crash. As I say, we’ve had 2,000 

thus far this year. 

Mr. WALBERG. This is mysterious for the American people. They 

don’t understand it. They’re angry. We need to get to the bottom 

of it. 

And, frankly, I think there is all sorts of prevarication going on, 

stonewalling, and I’m very disappointed in that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman ISSA. We now go to the—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent to 

simply enter into the record the op-ed from the Chicago Tribune 

yesterday, ‘‘More Smoke at the IRS and Not Only From the Hard 

Drives’’? 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

We now go to the gentleman from Nevada for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HORSFORD. This hearing has been quite an embarrassment. 

For over a year now, Republicans have alleged that the IRS was 

engaged in a conspiracy directed by or on behalf of the White 

House to target its political enemies, but neither this committee 

nor the Inspector General has identified any evidence to back up 

this allegation. 

The whole charade—and, Mr. Chairman, you say that we’re not 

allowed to ask about the motives of other members. Then, how 

about asking about the motives of the hearing itself—the integrity 

of the hearing itself, the fact that the chairman has continued to 

conclude the outcome without allowing the information to be presented in an impartial and complete way so that the members can 

do our job as we are elected to do? 

And this is a serious committee that has serious responsibilities. 

And I have said before that I want to get to the bottom of things, 

that there was wrongdoing at the IRS and that we should fix it, 

but we can’t fix it when the House Republicans continue to establish unfair, unsubstantiated, and unfounded allegations against 

53 

what we do have, which are the facts. So you may be entitled to 

your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. 

Commissioner, have you, since you’ve been in this position, identified any evidence that IRS employees were part of a conspiracy 

to intentionally target the President’s political enemies? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not aware of any evidence. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you. 

This is the same answer that we’ve received now from 41 other 

witnesses interviewed by this committee, including senior officials 

at the IRS, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Justice. 

The senior group manager in Cincinnati told us that it was his 

employees who first came up with the inappropriate screening criteria in an attempt to treat similar cases consistently. 

Is that your understanding of how that process came about? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s my understanding, although I would say 

I haven’t done any independent investigation. 

Mr. HORSFORD. This employee told us that he is a conservative 

Republican. In fact, none of the 41 individuals told the committee 

that the White House directed, suggested or even knew about their 

conduct when it was going on. 

The Inspector General, Russell George, told us the same thing, 

that he identified no evidence of White House involvement. He confirmed that IRS employees in Cincinnati, ‘‘developed and implemented inappropriate criteria.’’ 

Is that your understanding as well? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s my understanding from what I’ve read in 

the newspapers and heard in hearings. I have not myself independently determined that. 

Mr. HORSFORD. When the Inspector General testified before the 

Ways and Means Committee on May 17, 2013, the Inspector General was asked by Ranking Member Sandy Levin whether he had 

found any evidence of political motivation in the selection of the 

tax-exempt applicants. 

In response, the Inspector General answered, ‘‘We did not, sir.’’ 

Commissioner, do you have any reason to doubt the Inspector 

General’s findings? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not. 

Mr. HORSFORD. In addition to all of these findings, on June 18, 

2014, the White House sent a letter to Ways and Means Chairman 

Dave Camp. 

This letter explained that the White House also searched its 

records and did not identify any emails between Ms. Lerner and 

any member of the Executive Office of the President from January 

2009 to 2011. 

I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter from the White 

House dated June 18, 2014. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Allegations that the White House directed or 

subliminally coerced the IRS to target applicants for tax-exempt 

status are unfounded, and I hope that we put these reckless accusations to rest and finally begin focusing on the facts. 

I agree—one statement that I agree with the other side about, 

the public is upset. Part of the reason they’re upset is the behavior 

54 

of the chairman and this committee of how they have politicized 

this issue. 

When I listen to my constituents—— 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. HORSFORD. —what they tell me, Mr. Chairman, is that 

they’re—— 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. HORSFORD. —sick and tired of this process being used 

against them. We are one Nation, and it’s time for us to act like 

it. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

I now ask unanimous consent that the article dated February 4th 

of this year by Josh Hicks be placed in the record, in which it 

shows that the bonuses paid to IRS employees in fiscal year 2012 

were $89 million as opposed to $10 million it would take to maintain critical documents. 

With that, we go to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar. 

Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the gentleman’s comments prior to me. 

I really want to ask you: Do you understand, really, the gravity 

of what America feels in regards to the IRS? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. I think, if the question goes—and the earlier 

one—about people being upset about the IRS using inappropriate 

criteria, any indication that the IRS is anything other than apolitical are issues that are serious that we need to address and that 

I am committed to addressing. 

Mr. GOSAR. I love that. 

Are you aware that, in the articles of impeachment of Richard 

Nixon, in Article II, item number 1, ‘‘He has actingly, personally 

and through his subordinates and agents endeavored to obtain 

through the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law and to cause, 

in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted 

in a discriminatory manner.’’ 

Are you aware of that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do recall that from years ago. 

Mr. GOSAR. That’s why it’s serious, I mean, because this is—I 

mean, if there’s one thing I can tell you, that’s a dark light on our 

history. 

And we talked about missing data, once again, missing data in 

the Richard Nixon data tapes. Some similarities. Once again, getting information. 

So another investigation that we have here, it takes Judicial 

Watch to get information that was supposed to be given to this 

committee, yet not given to it. 

So you’re aware of all this. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not aware of the Judicial Watch problem. 

Mr. GOSAR. Do you read the paper? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do read the newspaper. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Then, you should be aware of it because that’s how 

we came about in regards to Benghazi and the select committee. 

55 

That was the kicker because we didn’t have that information until 

we had Judicial Watch get it for us. 

So let’s go back to the mindset here. Because I’m a dentist impersonating a politician. 

And you’re an attorney. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m an attorney. Right. Gave up practice years 

ago. 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, but, you know, the fundamentals never leave 

you. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. One would hope so. 

Mr. GOSAR. And you’re also a businessman? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. Spent 20 years in the private sector. 

Mr. GOSAR. So when we have a problem—and you came into this 

forest fire, I’m going to call it—you had your eyes wide open. 

Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes, I did. 

Mr. GOSAR. So you knew you were going to have lots of scrutiny? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. I understood that this was a high-profile 

challenge. 

Mr. GOSAR. So you’d really want to dot your I’s and cross your 

T’s. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. GOSAR. Dot your I’s and cross your T’s. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s always actually been my approach to everything I’ve done in 45 years. 

Mr. GOSAR. So—and a big problem. 

You’ve also said that you have 90,000 employees. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. GOSAR. So, obviously, you divide and conquer the problem. 

Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not sure I’d approach it quite that way. 

Mr. GOSAR. So what you do is you have people that you trust formulate battle plans in a consensus aperture and then you hold 

them accountable. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Actually, I spent a lot of time going to the 25 

largest offices, talking to 10,000 IRS employees, primarily frontline 

workers, to hear from them as well. 

Mr. GOSAR. So let me ask you a question coming into this. 

Were you bothered by Lois Lerner’s conduct? I mean, you had to 

know about it. Here’s a lady that seeds a question in an audience. 

That’s kind of odd, wouldn’t you say? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It’s not the normal way people would behave. I 

would think that’s right. 

Mr. GOSAR. Once again, you know, we’re talking about the IRS 

and we’re seeding a question out there. That’s really kind of odd. 

And what was your, what did you take for her comment sitting 

here where you sat and taking the Fifth, but not really taking the 

Fifth? What did you think about that? Was that kind of odd? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I didn’t have any thought. She’s got her own lawyers. I don’t know her—— 

Mr. GOSAR. Well, let me ask you this as an attorney: Is that typically how the Fifth Amendment is taken? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not aware of the Fifth Amendment practices, 

whether that’s the way it’s done or not. 

56 

Mr. GOSAR. Have you seen anybody else take the Fifth that way? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Actually, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anybody else 

take the Fifth. 

Mr. GOSAR. Wow. That’s kind of a nice scapegoat. 

Because that’s really odd. I mean, I’m just a dentist and I’ve seen 

a number of people take the Fifth and I’ve never seen anybody take 

the Fifth like that. And that’s pretty contentious. 

In fact, my good friend over here, Trey Gowdy, had a problem 

with the way she took the Fifth, and I trust his interpretation of 

the Fifth pretty well. 

But it seems to me that, if you had this management style, you 

would know exactly the precipitant person who told you about the 

problem with the hard drive. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There are at least five different people who report 

to me about this situation. We have a major effort going on. 

Mr. GOSAR. Oh. But, once again, it seems, if they’re reporting to 

you, you’re asking them a question and holding them responsible. 

Right? So you should know. 

Do they all have the same task? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There are four or five people who are actually involved regularly in this production effort. I get information from 

several different people. 

Mr. GOSAR. My time has expired, and I’ve run out of time. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Koskinen, for appearing before us today. 

I know it’s getting late and there’s been a lot of repetition, but 

let’s talk a little bit about revenues again. 

You had a discussion earlier about the problem with backing up 

emails in the IRS. And it was because why? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The problem is because, basically, the server— 

IRS servers can only hold so much data. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. And the reason they haven’t been upgraded? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because, I understand, the cost. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. And you had a number earlier that it 

would take to upgrade those systems. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. To actually turn it into an electronic system with 

a broader server, it would be somewhere between 10- to $30 million, depending on, you know, the software and what you wanted 

to do with it. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Now, the chairman mentioned earlier how 

many bonuses were given by the IRS to its employees in 2012. 

Did you know what that number was? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not until I heard the chairman say it. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So $89 million were given in bonuses to employees at the IRS just in 2012 alone. 

You’ve talked about how the IRS has been underfunded now for 

at least 4 years. If you want to extrapolate that math, I would say 

that we probably could have upgraded the equipment so the IRS 

could do a better job. 

Would you agree? 

57 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There are 90,00 employees. So at $89 million, it’s less than $1,000—or about $1,000 an employee. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Did you know that the IRS—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We could fund a lot if we didn’t pay any bonuses, 

we gave no pay raises, actually continued to shrink the organization. We’ll have more money, but that’s not exactly what you would 

design as the best way to organize the Agency. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Did you know that a million dollars in bonuses 

were given to IRS employees who owed back taxes? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That issue has come up more recently. And we 

actually have a program. And we’re negotiating an agreement with 

the union because we have a commitment that every IRS employee 

will be current in their taxes. And even if you’re 3 or 5 days late, 

you get a letter of admonishment. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. You probably wouldn’t do that for the rest of 

America, though, would you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. What? Hold everybody to—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. The same standards as yours. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —paying their taxes on time? 

Pardon. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. The same standards as yours? You would give 

bonuses to people for not paying taxes? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. As we go forward, anyone who willfully doesn’t 

comply with—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Oh. Going forward. All right. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Okay. 

— won’t get a bonus. And we’ve negotiated that with the union. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Okay. I don’t think that necessarily sets well, 

but that’s fine. 

Do you think that the IRS improperly targeted conservative 

groups? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. My understanding is what I know. And I support 

the IG’s report. It said in his report improper criteria were used. 

The issue has been whether that then turns into targeting or not, 

the earlier reference to the Washington Post. 

But the report itself says improper criteria were used. And we 

have taken all of the IG’s recommendations, accepted them, and 

are implementing them. So our goal is for this not to happen again. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. During the hearing in March, you testified that 

you had never referred to the IRS as targeting. The Washington 

Post found that this statement was also not true. 

Do you want to revise that statement? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. They found an occasion once in the past 

where I had used the word ‘‘targeting’’ once. They also noted that 

the IG Had himself used the word ‘‘targeting.’’ 

And my point was the IG Report says improper criteria. But once 

I did use the word ‘‘targeting’’—I’ve now mentioned it in this criteria again, but, again, the IG’s report was improper criteria. 

Either way, my point very strongly has been from the start, the 

American public deserves to feel that there will not be improper 

criteria used, that people will not be selected for—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Were you ever coached on how to say that? Did 

anyone ever coach you to say it that way as opposed to targeting? 

Does it sound more palatable? 

58 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. That’s what the—— 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. No one ever coached you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. That’s what the IG Report says. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So no one at all ever told you not to call the IRS 

conduct ‘‘targeting’’? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Nobody tells me what to say. I actually am responsible for what I say. People talk about a lot of different things. 

The IG Report said inappropriate criteria were used. That’s why I 

referred to it in that hearing. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So you’re the kind of guy that believes leadership starts at the top? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I believe it starts at the top, and I believe the 

leader is held accountable for what happens in his Agency. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. So the IRS acted inappropriately. We can’t get 

to the bottom of this. We have lost emails. 

Do you think it’s time that we ask for a select committee or a 

special prosecutor? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. You wouldn’t? Why not? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There are six—now seven investigations going on. 

My position has been that, once we get somebody to write a report—and particularly in this case where the IG Completes his review and issues a report on this very issue—we can all then decide 

what the appropriate next step is. 

To have yet another investigation start, especially while the IG 

Is going forward, seems to me a waste of money, as I’ve said in the 

past. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Well, you’re the face of the IRS right now, and 

right now that face doesn’t look too good. 

Don’t you think it would be better to clean the image of the IRS 

for the people who are sitting—watching this hearing tonight? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We’ll clean the image of the IRS when we hear 

from the Inspector General and see whether he finds that there 

was any malfeasance at all. 

Mr. DESJARLAIS. Yeah. Okay. Well, my time has expired. And I 

think that we owe the people a little better than what we’re seeing 

here. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Gowdy. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner, you’re an attorney. Can you explain for our fellow 

citizens what the phrase ‘‘spoliation of evidence means.’’ 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea what that means. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I’m going to help you with it. Okay? 

‘‘Spoliation of evidence’’ is, when a party fails to preserve evidence, there’s a negative inference that the jury can draw from 

their failure to preserve the evidence. 

You with me? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Gotcha. 

Mr. GOWDY. If you destroy documents, the jury can infer that 

those documents weren’t going to be good for you. If you fail to 

keep documents, the jury can infer that those documents were not 

going to be good for you. 

You’ve heard the phrase ‘‘spoliation of evidence,’’ haven’t you? 

59 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I can’t recall ever hearing it. 

Mr. GOWDY. It’s true in administrative hearings, civil hearings, 

criminal hearings. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I practiced law once 45 years ago, gave it up for 

Lent one year and never went back. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. Well, let me tell you what you would have 

found if you had stuck with it. 

When a party has a duty to preserve evidence or records and 

they fail to do so, there is a negative inference that is drawn from 

their failure to preserve the evidence. It’s common sense. Right? 

If you destroyed something, the jury has a right to infer that 

whatever you destroyed would not have been good for you or else 

every litigant would destroy whatever evidence was detrimental to 

them. Agreed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not sure. I think, if you destroy the evidence 

and people could prove it, it wouldn’t be a good thing for your defense. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, no. It’s worse than that. 

The jury can draw and they’re instructed they can draw a negative inference. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All right. 

Mr. GOWDY. And that’s true if a taxpayer is being sued by the 

IRS administratively, civilly or prosecuted criminally and they fail 

to keep documents. The jury can draw a negative inference from 

the fact that they didn’t keep receipts or emails or documents. 

So if it’s true and it applies to a taxpayer, it ought to apply to 

the IRS as well. Agreed? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Is this a trial? Is this a jury? Is that what you’re 

referring to? 

Mr. GOWDY. I said administrative, civil or criminal. If you want 

to go down that road, I’m happy to go down it with you, Commissioner. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I just—— 

Mr. GOWDY. In fact, I’m glad you mentioned it. 

You have already said multiple times today that there was no 

evidence that you found of any criminal wrongdoing. I want you to 

tell me what criminal statutes you have evaluated. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have not looked at any. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, then, how can you possibly tell our fellow citizens that there’s no criminal wrongdoing if you don’t even know 

what statutes to look at? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because I’ve seen no evidence that anyone consciously—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, how would you know what elements of the 

crime existed? You don’t even know what statutes are at play. I’m 

going to ask you again. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think—— 

Mr. GOWDY. What statutes have you evaluated? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think you can rely on common sense that nothing I have seen looks like—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Common sense? Instead of the Criminal Code, you 

want to rely on common sense? No, Mr. Koskinen. You can shake 

your head all you want to, Commissioner. 

60 

You have said today that there’s no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and I’m asking you what criminal statutes you have reviewed to reach that conclusion. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have reviewed no criminal statute. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. So you don’t have any idea whether there’s 

any criminal conduct or not because you don’t know the elements 

of the offense? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ve seen no evidence of wrongdoing. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, that’s very different than no evidence of criminal misconduct, Commissioner. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, it seems to me, if you haven’t done wrongdoing, it’d be pretty hard to argue that you’ve had some criminal 

violation if you did nothing wrong. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, what did Lois Lerner mean when she said, 

‘‘Perhaps the FEC will save the day’’? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea what she meant. 

Mr. GOWDY. What did she mean when she said, ‘‘We need a 

project, but we need to be careful that it doesn’t appear to be, per 

se, political’’? You don’t think that’s a potential violation of 18–242? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea if it—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Because you haven’t looked at 18–242. And you 

don’t have any idea, Commissioner—you don’t have any idea 

whether there’s any criminal wrongdoing or not. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. With regard to the production of the evidence, the 

production of Lois Lerner emails, I have seen no evidence of wrongdoing. 

What else went on—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, if there were, that would be a separate criminal offense. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. What else went on with Lois Lerner I said in the 

past—— 

Mr. GOWDY. So what you’re saying is you don’t have any idea 

whether she engaged in criminal wrongdoing? You’re just saying 

that you did not engage in any with respect to the emails. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I haven’t seen any wrongdoing with regard to the 

production of Lois Lerner emails. 

Mr. GOWDY. But you are not saying there was no criminal wrongdoing with respect to the targeting of conservative groups? I want 

to be very clear. You are not saying that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ve made no judgments about that. 

Mr. GOWDY. So you disagree with the President when he says 

there’s not a smidgen of corruption? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There are people who have been making judgments both sides about whether there were—— 

Mr. GOWDY. And you know what? I’m not one of those. 

I’m just simply saying we will never know because you didn’t 

keep the evidence. The evidence was spoliated. And whether it’s 

negligent, whether it’s intentional, whether it’s reckless, we still 

don’t have the evidence, Commissioner. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, you have the evidence that there’s no 

emails from the White House. You have all of the Treasury emails. 

So the basic premise that this was an argument and a conspiracy 

driven by the White House does not—— 

61 

Mr. GOWDY. No, sir. You’re wrong about that. You’re wrong 

about that. You’re repeating a talking point from our colleagues on 

the other side that we’re obsessed with the White House. 

It was Jay Carney who perpetuated the myth that, ‘‘It was two 

rogue agents in Ohio. It wasn’t any of us.’’ 

Was that accurate? Was that first initial line of defense that this 

is just two rogue agents in Ohio—was that accurate, Commissioner? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Not that I know of. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. So that wasn’t accurate, and that came 

from the White House. 

Who says there’s not a smidgen of corruption? Who said that, 

Commissioner? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. My understanding is that was the President. 

Mr. GOWDY. It was the President. 

So that’s Jay Carney and the President both inserting themselves into the IRS scandal. 

And you want to blame us for bringing the White House into it? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I haven’t blamed you at all. 

Mr. GOWDY. You just did, Commissioner. You just did. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, it’s a good argument. 

All I said was the White House has revealed there were no Lois 

Lerner emails. Treasury has given you all of their emails. 

So to the extent that the argument was that Lois Lerner was 

conspiring and emailing back and forth, thus far, I haven’t seen 

any—— 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, you can be engaged in a conspiracy that 

doesn’t include the White House. 

Mr. JORDAN. [presiding.] Gentleman, time is up. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, I was wanting to let him go, but the guy beside me kept grabbing me. 

The gentleman from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you very much, Mr. Commissioner. 

And there’s a lot of passion on this, especially on my side of the 

aisle. I was at home this weekend and it’s all anybody was talking 

about. 

The American people don’t believe for a second that this stuff 

was lost accidentally. Mike Richline, a friend of mine who used to 

work at my computer consulting company, still in the business, 

emailed me, ‘‘Blake, there’s no way this could happen. You’ve got 

to do something about it.’’ 

And that’s the frustration that I’m getting from the American 

people. And if we came back to you and said, ‘‘Oh, I don’t have the 

resources to save all the records to comply with the IRS tax law,’’ 

we wouldn’t—I wouldn’t—y’all wouldn’t let me skate. 

So I don’t think you guys ought to be able to skate on the resource issues. And I’ll get back to that in a second. 

In the Clinton Administration, you worked in the OMB, didn’t 

you, and part of your job was to oversee the executive branch recordkeeping and these Federal Records Act-type requirements? Did 

you not do that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That was actually done by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. 

62 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But were you involved in that when you were 

with the Clinton Administration? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I was not involved personally, but I was the deputy director for management. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. So are you familiar with the Federal 

Records Act? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I am familiar with the Federal Records Act. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It says the head of each Federal agency shall 

make and preserve records containing adequate, proper documentation of the organization functions, policies, decisions, procedures, 

and essential transaction of the agencies and goes on along those 

lines. 

Your IRS manual says the way y’all do that is to print out the 

emails. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The official records—any official record. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Anything that’s an official record. 

Who decides what’s an official record? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The employees are provided background information, and then they make a judgment as to whether it’s an official 

record or not. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And so, if you’re doing something 

that you might believe is questionable, you might lean toward not 

deciding that—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It’s possible. But we’ve trained over 2,000 information resource coordinators across the Agency to continue to oversee and encourage and make sure that we comply. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So in response to some earlier questions, you indicated in going through Lois Lerner’s emails that you 

used search terms. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There were—search terms were used for all of the 

searches in response—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. So how do you use search terms on 

the hard-copy emails that she would have been required to print 

out from that lost hard drive? 

Has somebody gone through all of her files or the files of people 

she routinely corresponded with to search those hard-copy records? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Don’t you think it would have been 

easier and saved some money if you’d have had that in electronic 

form? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No doubt. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. Let me—we heard from the other 

side that there’s an issue with respect to the resources there. 

Now—all right. I did this on my cell phone. And let me find my 

notes here. Because you’ve got to—you guys got a lot of people good 

at math at the IRS. So I’m going to assume you guys could figure 

this out. All right? 

So let’s say your procedure is to print the records out. All right. 

So I went on to—did a Google search, said, ‘‘What’s the average 

size of a Word document?’’ 

And they said: Well, you can get 64,782 Word documents of 

about 9 pages per gigabyte. A terabyte is 1,000 gigabytes.So that’s 

64.8 million documents. All right? 

63 

Now, I went on Amazon and saw you could buy a terabyte hard drive for $59—about $59. Buy two of them. So, you know, $120. 

The statistics in the industry, average cost to print a page of documents, it’s about 5 to 8 cents when you include paper and toner 

and wear and tear on the printer. 

So if you do that math and multiply it out, it looks to me like, for every terabyte of storage you added to the email, you’d save $21 

million in printing fees, not to mention the greenness of it. 

How come some of the mathematicians at the IRS didn’t realize, 

‘‘Hey, we go out and’’—all right. Let’s say you’ve got to buy a computer and hook it up. All right. So let’s spend 5 grand on a backup 

system for our email and save $21 million? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. You’ve got 90,000 employees. Get one of those for 

each employee. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, each employee is not going to have millions of pages of emails and documents. You could do it on a system-wide basis. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Not in our system you can’t. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. It’s not stored on an exchange server? Can’t 

you get a Barracuda email backup that you see advertised on TV 

that captures all the email? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, that’s one of the things when we looked at it I’m told the estimate was $10- to $30 million to create a server 

that would hold all of that. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. $10 million. $21 million to print. You’ve already saved $10 million. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If we’re printing 21 million dollars’ worth of stuff, 

probably. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Well, if you’re—and you’d be—no question 

you’re complying with the Federal Records Act because you’re saving everything. You wouldn’t be relying on the judgment. So this 

lack of resources thing doesn’t fly. 

I’m sorry. I ran out of time. I had some other questions. 

But I will yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chaffetz asked why the 6-month backup wasn’t applied to 

Lois Lerner’s emails, and you suspected that it was too much effort. 

Do you have any emails to indicate there was a discussion about 

going to the backups to try and get hers? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. There’s none that I know of. 

Mr. MASSIE. Have you looked for any—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not—— 

Mr. MASSIE. —to see what the IT staff—what sort of effort—you 

mentioned they made an effort to retrieve the hard drive, but what 

about the software effort on the servers? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They actually—as far as I understand, her email 

was in her—from April on, she had—— 

Mr. MASSIE. Right. But there was some on the servers. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —in her email account, she had that email. They 

then were focused primarily on the hard drive, which is where she 

had archived her emails. 

Mr. MASSIE. Right. 

64 

Well, that hard drive, you’re saying, is gone. And I’ll accept that 

it’s gone. 

But what about the software backups? You don’t see any evidence of an email trail where the IT department was trying to go 

to the servers to get those emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. No. They went—they had on the server 

emails from April forward. In terms of whether they went and actually went to the backup—— 

Mr. MASSIE. I understand that. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —backup tapes, I haven’t seen anything about 

the backup tapes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Her hard drive crashed in April 2011. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m sorry. 

In June 2011. We have emails from April 2011. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. All right. I’m on to another question. 

Was that hard drive replaced? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Are you in possession of that hard drive? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The Inspector General has it. 

Mr. MASSIE. So could we look at that hard drive to see if she was 

in the habit of deleting emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. You’re welcome to ask the Inspector General for 

it. He’s got it. 

Mr. MASSIE. But, I mean, wouldn’t it be possible? Because you’re 

collecting emails from her associates. So you know which emails 

she sent and retrieved. 

Did it occur to you to look on her hard drive to see if she purposely deleted any? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. We haven’t looked at that. But we do have— 

as I say, we’ve produced all of these emails. It’d be possible to take 

a look at that. 

Mr. MASSIE. So next question. 

You said there’s about a 3 to 5 percent chance that a hard drive 

will fail. That’s in a year. You testified to that last week and, also, 

tonight. Right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s right. That’s what I’m advised is the industry standard. 

Mr. MASSIE. So that’s about a 1 in 30 chance if it were 3 percent. 

But let’s see. Chairman Camp sent a letter to the IRS demanding 

the IRS explain allegations of targeting Tea Party and other 

groups, and her hard drive failed within 10 days, just doing a little 

math here. 

The probability of that failing in 10 days instead of a year is actually 1 in 1,000. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, that’s not the way—that’s not the way probability works. 

Mr. MASSIE. I understand. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Every day—— 

Mr. MASSIE. A lot of bad things could have happened. So maybe 

it was 1 in 100 or 1 in 10 that something bad happens. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The way probability works is it’s the same probability every day. It’s like, when you flip a coin, if it lands heads 

10 times in a row—— 

65 

Mr. MASSIE. Yes. You can tell me how probability works. I took 

the class at MIT. It’s about 1 in 1,000 that it would fail within the 

10 days that she received that letter. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We must have taken a different probability class. 

Mr. MASSIE. I think so. 

So can you tell me the timing of the other hard drives that failed 

that were her associates? Were there any that failed in that same 

time period or near that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know. But we’ve got—they’re pursuing 

that, and I haven’t—I don’t know what the list looks like. 

Mr. MASSIE. Because if another one failed, one of her associates 

within that same 10 days, that means it’s a 1 in 1 million probability that two hard drives failed with somebody dealing with this 

case in that 10-day window if there’s a 3 percent annual probability. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. As I said, we’re investigating that. We’ll provide 

you a full report, including the names and hard drives, when they 

failed and whether emails were lost as a result of the failure. 

Mr. MASSIE. Correct. 

And notice I am not questioning your integrity. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MASSIE. We’re talking about numbers here. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Right. 

Mr. MASSIE. I do, though, sort of question your judgment a little 

bit about not sharing this bad information with us. 

You had some suspicion in February and then in March that 

maybe all the emails might not be retrievable. There’s a saying 

that bad news never gets better with age, never improves with age. 

And what I want to ask you now is: Are there any other anomalies in the data or in the retrieval of emails that you can think of 

now so we can avoid having a second hearing on this in 6 months? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s a fair question, a good question. 

I’m not aware of any. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. So there’s nothing like somebody came to 

you—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Other than we’re pursuing the other custodians. 

Mr. MASSIE. Right. The other eight hard drives that have failed. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Right. That’s what we knew last week. We’re still 

looking. I don’t know what the final number will be. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. So you understood my question? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I understand your question. 

Mr. MASSIE. A hint of bad news that was similar to the bad news 

you had in February, I’m asking you to just share it now. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. And I’ve said I do not know of any other bad 

news, as you put it. 

Mr. MASSIE. Okay. One final question. 

If we had a flat tax or a fair tax, would we be here today? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I’m a big supporter of tax simplification. I 

support Chairman Camp’s attempt to move that dialogue forward. 

I’m prepared to be as helpful as I can. 

Mr. MASSIE. I do, too. Thank you very much. 

Mr. JORDAN. The gentleman from Kentucky with several patents 

and a degree from MIT in engineering made some great points. 

We’ll now go to the gentleman from Georgia. 

66 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate that. I am not a student of MIT. I have three degrees ranging from a bachelor’s degree, to a theology degree, to a 

law degree. 

And this has been an amazing story. I sat here in front just a 

few weeks ago, relative time frame, and I asked you, you know, 

and just said without any definition can we provide all the things 

you agreed to. 

But when you just take a step back, this has just got to be—I 

have a 15-year-old that I love dearly. He’s different than my other 

two children because my 15-year-old has an active imagination. His 

active imagination can lead you on some pretty amazing trips. 

And let’s just think about this for just a moment. You have an 

agency, supposedly, in Cincinnati that decides on its own, just sua 

sponte—just say, ‘‘We’re going to start looking into certain files. By 

the way, then, we don’t tell Washington. We don’t let anybody else 

know,’’ all those pretty well set the fact that that was probably not 

accordance to good policy. 

When the chairman of our—one of our committees makes an inquiry concerning this kind of information, a hard drive fails. 2 

weeks later all of a sudden then Cincinnati decides to tell that we 

have an issue. 

We move forward in this progression, and we have seen the Fifth 

taken, we’ve had evidence come here when you said we’re going to 

have— you know, all the evidence, all of the facts, presented. And, 

again, it’s still sort of hard to believe that even it should have at 

least come up, ‘‘I’ll produce all that I have. But, oh, by the way, 

we’ve got a problem.’’ 

It also seems hard to believe, as you go through this whole story, 

that when the Inspector General was going through this whole 

thing, nobody seems to have told him, ‘‘Oh, by the way, we’re missing some emails.’’ 

According to him—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s right. But nobody that I know knew that 

was dealing with the Inspector General they were missing emails. 

Mr. COLLINS. But we’re investigating—but, at that time, it was 

investigating this whole thing, which Ms. Lerner was a big part of. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. So, again, I guess, as I go back to my 15- 

year-old here, at a certain point in time, I have to just look at him 

and I have to say, ‘‘Cameron, at a certain point in time, the load 

you’re carrying in the bull in the back of the truck don’t add up 

anymore and nobody believes it.’’ 

It’s a bad position for you. I would hate to be in your position. 

You’ve had an extended life of great service to this country. 

But what is really troubling and—for the people in the 9th district of Georgia, whether you figure probabilities or not, they have 

a pretty good meter, and the meter right now on both—really, on 

both Democrats I know and Republicans I know has just gotten 

full. 

This story is just becoming more implausible as it goes. It crashes at a certain time. We can’t find it at a certain time. No one was 

told about it at a certain time. 

67 

I’m going to take you seriously that you really take responsibility 

for your job at the IRS. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. And you take responsibility for the custodians of 

the records because you’re the man at the top, as you said before? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

Mr. COLLINS. Then, did you notify the archivist when you 

learned of the destruction of Ms. Lerner’s emails earlier this year? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It was not a destruction of her emails. It was—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Or loss of. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It was a loss of emails. I did not. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. And that is supposed to be. 

Now, let me ask you this. In Ms. Lerner’s emails that you found 

out that we may not be able to obtain—you’ve talked about this before. Some things are supposed to be kept. Some things are not 

supposed to be kept. 

If you knew that there were some emails you might not could 

have found, there probably or possibly could have been emails in 

there that should have been kept under the Records Act. Correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If there were emails to be kept under the Records 

Act, they would have been printed out. The responsibility is, if you 

have an email that’s a record, you print it out in hard copy. It’s 

an archaic system, but that’s the system. 

Mr. COLLINS. But you can’t say—especially if there was a possibility of something not right, you can’t have—you cannot sit here 

and say that Ms. Lerner would have kept or printed off emails she 

would not have wanted to be kept. Correct? If you can, then there’s 

a whole line of questions a whole lot of people are going to start 

coming back for. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. My understanding is every employee is supposed 

to print records of—that are official records on hard copy and keep 

them. She had hard-copy records. I don’t know whether anything 

that was lost was an official record or not. 

Mr. COLLINS. So it would be a matter of then just caution—or 

prudence that you should have probably told the archivist this? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I’m supposed to tell the archivist if there’s 

been a destruction of records. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, a hard drive destroyed, would that not qualify as destruction or are we back to parsing terms again? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. This is about her—her archives for record 

purposes are hard copies printed out of emails. 

Mr. COLLINS. That you know of. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know—you know, that’s what she was 

supposed to do. 

Mr. COLLINS. But, again—but, again—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Whether she did it or not I don’t know. 

Mr. COLLINS. —I’m trying to take it off of you. 

What you know of, but in a sense, where you’ve lost it and it’s 

since been destroyed, no way to go back and find—the hard drive 

was destroyed. Only what was printed was left. 

There’s no way for you to tell if you should or should not have 

told the archivist. Correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Correct. 

68 

Mr. COLLINS. So, in prudence, you should have told the archivist. 

Would that not be true? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I could do that. Yes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Koskinen, again, this is a long story. The people are just looking for the truth. And there are a lot of, probably, 

parents and nonparents and grandparents out there who’ve trailed 

the story this long together and they just don’t understand. 

They don’t get it because they don’t get the same—they can come 

with a story at the IRS and the IRS would just basically say, ‘‘We 

don’t want the story. We don’t care how much you’re broke. We 

don’t care how much you couldn’t afford to keep it. We just want 

the records that you’re supposed to provide.’’ 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Right. And—— 

Mr. COLLINS. This is a sad trail down a wrong road. 

Mr. Koskinen, your service has been good. Unfortunately, you’re 

running into a dead end, and the American people are tired of it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back. 

We now go to the gentleman Mr. Massie. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We’ve had him already. 

Chairman ISSA. You’ve already gone? 

Mr. MASSIE. Yep. 

Chairman ISSA. Thank you. My order here—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It was an interesting conversation, but we’re 

done. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, he may say again. You never know. 

We now go to Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

your patience. 

So let me follow up on Mr. Collins’ line of questioning. 

The Federal Records Act requires emails to be part of the record 

to be printed out. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yeah. If the email is a record, it should be printed out in hard copy, is the IRS policy. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what is your definition of a record? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The record is, as the Act provides, any record of 

Agency actions or policies. If you’re just sending emails conversing 

back and forth, those aren’t records. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Conversing back and forth with regards to what? 

Because that’s not what your manual says. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not what your manual says. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The manual says any record of Agency actions, 

policies or anything that would reveal important Agency policies. 

Mr. MEADOWS. It says specifically emails are records when they 

are created or received in the transaction of agency business. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. So if we’re doing an exam or we 

have a litigation, all of the information about that exam and that 

information is—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you’re saying is that none of Lois 

Lerner’s emails are part of Agency business? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Lois Lerner printed hard-copy emails which have 

been provided to you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Hard copy of how many emails? 

69 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Of all of them? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. All of her emails were not official records. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And under what definition? Because I pulled the 

definition because, you know, really, all I have to go by is the law. 

And that’s what you would have to go by. And I pulled the definition out of your policy book. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I would assure you I have not read very many 

Lois Lerner emails. But of the 67,000 you’ll ultimately have, I will 

guarantee you a reasonable number of them are not going to be official records. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Under what definition? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Under the definition in that brochure. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, this definition says that they need to be machine-readable materials. That qualifies to almost every single 

email. ‘‘Machine-readable’’ is what this said. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. In terms of—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I would like to ask that we put this in the record, 

if we could. 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if I’m following your manual and there has 

been no wrongdoing, I think is what your testimony says, there’s 

been no wrongdoing—isn’t that what you said? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. No wrongdoing in terms of the destruction— 

potential loss of these emails. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So when someone did not notify the National Archives, was that wrongdoing? When you lost these, when 

you automatically said, ‘‘Golly, we can’t find the emails. There 

might be just one email in there that’s a record,’’ would that be a 

wrongdoing or breaking the law? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If we didn’t advise the archivist that we lost 

records we knew—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you didn’t advise them because I have—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We did not have any evidence at this point 

whether they were official records or not. As stated by Mr. Collins, 

we could have called and said, ‘‘We’ve lost some emails and we 

don’t know whether they’re records or not. We thought we’d let you 

know,’’ but we did not do that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Can I submit for the record a letter from 

the National Archives expressing their concern over the fact that 

there may be official records that were not—— 

Chairman ISSA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So all of this in not following up is really, according to the Democrats—really a money problem, and you’ve concurred with that. 

Is that what you would indicate? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We would be in much better shape if we had an 

electronics records system that was an official record. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And the reason you don’t is because of money? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m told that 2 years ago, when they considered 

trying to do that, that they didn’t have the funds to do it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So can we tell the American taxpayers, then, that 

if they just don’t have really the money to comply with IRS statVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:15 Sep 15, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\89598.TXT APRIL
70 

utes, that that’s okay, that it’s okay to break the law as long as 

they don’t have the money to comply? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t think we’ve established that the IRS broke 

the law. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, there is wrongdoing in terms of not keeping 

all the records according to the Federal Records Act. 

All of the records—would you agree some of the records are missing? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea whether official records are missing or not. I have no idea—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So your testimony today—let me make sure. 

Your testimony today is that you do not know whether there are 

missing emails? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. You just asked about missing official records. I do 

know there are missing emails. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Would a normal person assume there may be one 

record in all of those emails that are missing? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We don’t know how many are missing. We—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. A reasonable person. No. You’re an attorney. A 

reasonable person. 

Wouldn’t a reasonable person think that, in thousands of emails, 

there would be one official record? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We don’t know if thousands are missing or not. 

We are producing 24,000. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t ask you that. 

I said: A reasonable person, wouldn’t they agree? Are you a reasonable person? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Last time I checked. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Wouldn’t you think that there might be one 

record in there? 

All right. Let me finish out. 

Because you say it’s a money issue, are you aware that $49 million were spent on conferences during this same time period? $49 

million? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That was in—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Between 2010 and 2012, $49 million, according to 

the TIGTA report. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. A substantial number of those are training conferences, bringing—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t ask you that. 

Were you aware that $49 million was—yes or no? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I was not aware of the number. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. $49 million. Some of that, $3,500 a night. 

We’ve already talked about a Star Trek video. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That was all in 2010. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you think you could have moved some of that 

$49 million to pay to make sure that the Federal records were really preserved? 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

You may answer. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know the details of those events and 

which were training and what were wasted funds. It’s all 3 and 4 

years ago, long before I arrived. 

71 

Chairman ISSA. That wasn’t the gentleman’s question. The gentleman’s question was: Do you think any of the ‘‘money’’ on those 

conferences, including the one for making a Star Trek video— 

whether or not that could have been used properly for this purpose? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Well, you needed 10- to $30 million. Whether 

there was $30 million there, $10 million in that or not, I don’t 

know. If there was money wasted, they certainly could have used 

it for this purpose. That’s clear. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We now go to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Bentivolio. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Nice to see you again, Commissioner. 

Before I forget, I have two questions—or two lines of questioning. 

You said four to five people report to you regularly. Who are 

they? Can we have their names and titles. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Of the people who report to me? I actually have 

about 30 people who report to me regularly. There have been four 

or five who report to me in this area. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. Can we have their names and titles. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ll be happy to provide those. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Great. Great. 

Do you believe there’s a difference between objectivity and neutrality? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s an interesting question. 

I suppose you could be objective—I don’t know. I think most of 

the—both terms would imply that you’re not involved personally in 

an issue. You’re objective about it or you’re neutral about it. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. So they’re synonyms? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I would think they could be viewed as synonyms. 

Yes. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Objectivity is the ability to judge fairly despite 

bias, and neutrality is to have no stance regarding a particular 

issue. 

Do you think that employees at the IRS have any self-interest in 

who’s elected as President of the United States? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think, as individuals, every American has an interest in who’s elected President of the United States. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Would you say they’re trying to be nonpartisan, 

IRS, nonpartisan? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. IRS is nonpartisan. It doesn’t mean they can’t 

have an interest in understanding the importance of the presidential election. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. But they’re not supposed to have—to 

back one party or another, are they? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The Hatch Act does not prohibit IRS employees 

on their own time—— 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. In their official duty. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. In their official duty. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. In their official duties, it’s absolutely prohibited. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Okay. So my question is about self-interest. 

72 

Do you believe that employees of the IRS can remain objective 

when analyzing the tax implications of groups and people that 

want them to lose their jobs? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Want them to lose their jobs? 

I think so. I think that they are professionals. They’re dedicated 

to—— 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. I have no doubt in their professionalism. I’m not 

asking you about that. I’m asking you about their neutrality and 

how it affects their objectivity. 

Do you believe that any person can sustain objectivity towards 

someone that they perceive as a threat to their livelihood? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think they could be objective about it. I’m objective about continuing to hear—this is my eighth hearing, and I’m 

objective about it. 

I have good friends on all the committees. Even though some of 

these hearings are a little more contentious than others, but I can 

be objective about it. It comes with the territory. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. So what are they afraid of? 

I mean, the emails just provide all the information. It seems to 

me that, if it was just, let’s say, somebody got carried away, you 

could have said, ‘‘Well, we apologize. We’ll fix it. It will never happen again.’’ 

But the IRS isn’t doing that, are they? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thus far, since—as I recall, Commissioner Werfel 

and I have said it. There—people were unfairly selected. That was 

a mistake. 

I’ve apologized to anyone who was actually discriminated 

against, and I’ve said I am committed that that won’t happen 

again. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. But we’re concerned about where it comes from. 

Because it wouldn’t be this big of an issue if there was really just 

some loose cannons in the outfit, so to speak. I mean, it seems to 

me that you could’ve said they made a mistake, they shouldn’t 

have done it, we’ve punished them, let’s move on. But they didn’t 

really do that. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The people involved in the chain of command in 

this issue are all gone. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. I think there’s—or retired? 

Chairman ISSA. They were—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They’re no longer with the agency. 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Right. Except the ones in 1600 Pennsylvania 

Avenue. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. JORDAN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. BENTIVOLIO. Yes. I yield to—— 

Mr. HORSFORD. Would the gentleman yield to the gentleman—— 

Chairman ISSA. He’s already yielded to the gentleman from Ohio. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Koskinen, earlier you said that you did not tell Treasury— 

when you learned in April, from who you can’t remember, when 

you can’t remember, sometime in April, you said you did not communicate with the White House or with Treasury; is that accurate? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

73 

Mr. JORDAN. Here’s a story from last week in Politico. It says, 

‘‘In April of this year’’—this is from Neil Eggleston, the White 

House Counsel. ‘‘In April of this year, Treasury’s Office of General 

Counsel informed the White House Counsel’s Office that it appeared Ms. Lerner’s custodial email account contained very few 

emails.’’ 

So they were informed in April, the White House Counsel, from 

the Treasury’s Chief Counsel. So how did the Treasury Chief Counsel find out? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you tell people in the IRS, don’t go tell anybody 

this stuff until we get all the information? Did you give that instruction to your folks? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. So someone—did you—so someone at IRS told 

Treasury’s Chief Counsel? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I assume that must be what happened. 

We meet with the Treasury regularly. I meet every 2 weeks—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Why you didn’t you them, then? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. JORDAN. Why didn’t you tell them? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because I’m not reporting to the Treasury about 

this investigation. It’s under our—it’s our responsibility, and we’re 

taking responsibility—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t know who told them? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. JORDAN. You don’t know who told them? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no ideal who told them. 

Mr. JORDAN. Did you tell someone else to go tell Treasury just 

so—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. —you wouldn’t have to? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. JORDAN. You have no idea how the White House and how 

Treasury learned that this happened, that Lerner emails were lost 

in April and we didn’t know till June. You have no idea how that 

happened. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. I’ve not had any discussions—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, we’d like to know who at IRS told the Treasury Chief Counsel, who then told the White House Chief Counsel, 

and they knew 2 months before we did. So we’d like to know who 

that person at the IRS is who informed them about something that 

important and you didn’t feel it was incumbent upon you to tell us. 

Can you find us that person? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I thought I was—I don’t know who it is, but—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, find out. You run the agency. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Fine. I was going to say, the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Why don’t you send an email to all the employees 

in the IRS saying, ‘‘Whoever told the White House Counsel that we 

lost Lois Lerner emails or that at least there was the potential that 

we were going to lose them, I want to know who that person is so 

I can tell—I can tell the chairman of this committee and we can 

question them’’? Can you do that for us? 

74 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. You may answer. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Can I—so you can question them. And what will 

you—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Of course. We want to know why they told them. 

You didn’t want to tell them. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I didn’t not want to—I told you, we run the investigation. I have not talked to—and the production of documents. I 

am not—Treasury doesn’t tell me what to do. I don’t tell Treasury 

what we’re doing—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I’m not talking Treasury. I’m talking IRS. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m telling you about the IRS. 

Mr. JORDAN. Someone from the IRS told Treasury. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. I want to know who that person is. Because it 

wasn’t you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Regular order, please. Regular order. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Mr. Chairman, point of order. You’ve gone over 

a minute—— 

Chairman ISSA. State your point of order. 

Mr. HORSFORD. The point of order is that the—— 

Chairman ISSA. State your—— 

Mr. HORSFORD. —gentleman is over 1—— 

Chairman ISSA. State your point of order. 

Mr. HORSFORD. The point of order is the gentleman is over his 

time. 

Mr. JORDAN. The real point of order is he won’t answer the question. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Point of order. The chairman cut me off 

when—— 

Chairman ISSA. I’m cutting you off again. We will maintain decorum. 

Mr. HORSFORD. There is no decorum. 

Chairman ISSA. The parliamentarians will provide anyone with 

the proper way to state a point of order, which is, as Ms. Speier 

did, to cite within the rules a point of order as to whether rules 

are being properly adhered to. Congresswoman Speier did a very 

good job of citing a point of order. And I would ask all folks to 

please use the parliamentarians before they cite a point of order. 

We now go to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Commissioner, have you reviewed Dave Camp’s 

letter from June 3rd, 2011, that he sent to the IRS? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have not reviewed it. I only saw it this afternoon briefly. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, this is one of the—so he writes a letter. Lois 

Lerner’s hard drive crashes 10 days later. You’re supposedly now 

in charge of writing the IRS. And you haven’t looked at that letter? 

You haven’t reviewed that letter? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I scanned that letter. I’m not doing the investigation of what happened around—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, that letter requested that email records be 

preserved and turned over to the committee, the Ways and Means 

Committee. 

75 

And, according to your testimony, when her hard drive crashed, 

they never went to the backup servers to retrieve her emails, correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. No. They never went to the backup tapes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Exactly. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The backup server is very different. There is no 

backup server. There’s a server that operates the emails. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Right. And then the tapes that they’re stored on 

offsite, they never got the emails back. So even though—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. —the Congress requested it, the IRS didn’t care. 

They just decided they’re not going to go the extra mile to get 

those. 

Now, you testified last week in the Ways and Means Committee 

that you knew there was a problem February 2014 with Lois 

Lerner’s emails, correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I was advised there was an issue. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Right. And in mid-March, the IRS, according to 

your testimony, review team learned additional facts about her 

mysterious computer crash, correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And then you testified in this committee at the 

end of March. And you promised this committee—they played the 

montage. Gowdy, Chaffetz, Jordan, Issa, everyone: Get us Lois 

Lerner’s emails, get us Lois Lerner’s emails. You said, yes, we’ll do 

it. 

You never mentioned, you never disclosed that there were real 

problems about whether you were, in fact, going to be able to turn 

over those emails, correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. At that time, I did not know they were real problems. At that time—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, here’s what you told Dave Camp. You said, 

‘‘In February’’—and this is page 6 of your testimony last week. ‘‘In 

February, what we knew was there was a problem because we 

were looking at from it the standpoint of where—what timeframe 

it was in which her emails appeared, and it appeared that there 

were not enough emails in that timeframe.’’ 

So in mid-February you had reason to believe that you were 

short of emails in that critical timeframe, per your testimony last 

week, correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. When I say ‘‘we,’’ the review team did that. I 

knew simply that there was a problem in the way the emails were 

spread throughout the timeframe. I did not know the details of it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, your testimony said ‘‘we,’’ meaning the IRS. 

So I guess—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The IRS, that’s correct. 

Mr. DESANTIS. —now you’re saying that you did not know that, 

that you were somehow, even though the Commissioner—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. 

Mr. DESANTIS. —you’re not in the loop. 

Now, here’s the issue. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Good. 

76 

Mr. DESANTIS. Jason Chaffetz was going back and forth with you 

at the March hearing, and you basically told him, ‘‘We will get 

Lerner’s emails. They are stored in servers,’’ is what you said. 

Now, my question for you is, why say that if you knew, one, 

there was a problem with Lerner’s email, and, two, you knew that 

the backup tapes were only saved for 6 months? Why tell Chaffetz 

that you were going to be able to retrieve it when you had reason 

to believe that that may not be the case? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because, at that time, we had pulled all of the 

emails out of her hard drives and others and had put them into a 

server system known as Clearwell, is my understanding, which is 

the way we search them. 

Now, they have to be searched—it’s a pool. You have to then pull 

out—it’s got video—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. No, I understand that. But, again, your testimony—there was reason in mid-February that there were not 

enough emails. So whatever pool you had, there was a time period 

in question with the computer crash, you testified that there was 

a possibility that this was coming up short. 

So the question is, you made a choice, as you testified, not to disclose this fact to Congress. Now, you’ve been asked, when did you 

know for sure there were emails missing? You said April. When in 

April? You said April. You wouldn’t get any more definitive from 

that. 

And then you said you were advised not to disclose it. Who advised you—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Nobody. 

Mr. DESANTIS. —not to disclose it? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I did not say I was advised not to disclose it. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Then why didn’t you disclose it? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because my sense was what we needed to do was 

find out the facts and the details, and when we found those, we 

would give you all of the information. 

My experience, as I explained to Congressman Camp, is last 

Monday we did provide information that we had just learned that 

day, our staff did, that we had custodians who had lost—who had 

hard-drive crashes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. I understand that. But you’ve acknowledged—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. And, immediately thereafter, people leaped to 

conclusions in the public with press releases which, 3 days later, 

turned out to be wrong. 

So my point is—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. I think that you have a duty of candor to Congress and the American people. And you certainly had some reason 

to believe that there were going to be issues with producing her 

emails in your March testimony—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. —because you’ve admitted it with Ways and 

Means, that there were issues. 

Now, maybe you weren’t kept up or maybe you weren’t following 

closely enough. I don’t know. But I think this is very important, because the average taxpayer looks at this, and if they are ever in 

a situation where they can’t produce documents, they are presumed 

guilty, period, end of story. It’s not even a question. And yet the 

77 

IRS is in a situation where they can say, well, we had a computer 

crash. 

The probability of that is very small, as Mr. Massie indicated. 

Just so happened to happen 10 days after Dave Camp asked for information. 

And so I don’t think that the American people are satisfied with 

this. And, with all due respect, I don’t think your testimony is 

going to be satisfactory to those who have real concerns about 

whether we’re going to get to the bottom of what happened with 

the IRS. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Can I make just one point—— 

Chairman ISSA. It is the practice of the committee to always let 

a witness answer a question if there’s a question pending. The gentleman may answer. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I appreciate it. This is just a statement I want 

the public to be confident about, and that is: When we’re dealing 

with taxpayers, and if they can’t produce a record, we are open to 

their producing other evidence that would be consistent with that. 

So if somebody said, we’ve lost some emails but I’ve reconstructed 24,000 of them, we would take that into consideration. 

And, in fact, there’s a legal precedent that says, if your actions and 

the evidence generally produces support for what you say happened, even if you don’t have the documents, that’s acceptable. 

So the idea that if you’ve lost a document it means you’ve lost 

the case with the IRS, that’s incorrect. We actually will work with 

taxpayers, trying to make sure that they’ve got supporting information of any kind. 

Our notices out to corporations say: Here’s what we’d like in documents, but if you haven’t got them all, if you’ve got something 

close to that, if you can give us other information, we’ll take that. 

So I just want the record to be clear—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, we’d be happy to accept whatever alternatives you could produce to show what Lerner did. 

Chairman ISSA. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Commissioner, the good news is there aren’t as many Members 

left for the second round, so this should be fairly brief. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I liked it in the old days where you only had one 

round. 

Chairman ISSA. How old is that? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Oh, it must be very old. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, we’ll try to be fairly short. 

Mr. Cummings? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Commissioner, let me say this. I really thank 

you. I thank you from the depths of my heart for taking on this 

task. 

I cannot begin to tell you how pained I feel listening to all of this. 

You know, when you’ve got a person who has given what you’ve 

given and have been brought into difficult circumstances—and I 

don’t know how old you are, but, you know, at my age, I begin to 

think about my own mortality and think about my reputation. 

First of all, I want to thank you for being who you are. I want 

to thank you for giving a damn and caring about our country. 

78 

Some of the statements that have been made here today make 

it look like, you know, you’re just coming up here trying to fool people, when under Republican and Democratic administrations you 

have been highly regarded. 

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: We’re better than that. 

We are a better country than that. And we are a better committee 

than that. 

You know, when I re-reviewed the IRS employees’ interviews, 

you know what they said? It was very interesting; they said something similar to what you said. They said they were constantly 

asked about their party affiliation and that kind of thing. Some of 

them were Republicans; some were Democrats. One even described 

himself as a very conservative Republican. But you know what 

they said? They said they left their party hats at the door. You 

know why? Because they wanted to make sure, when they went in 

there and did their job, that they did it in a way that was fair to 

all Americans. 

And so, yeah, there are issues, but I don’t—you know, sometimes 

I sit here and I listen to all this—and somebody asked me about 

this committee the other day, and they said that if you were to 

leave the committee today, what will you most regret? I said, I 

would mourn for what could have been. I would mourn for what 

could have been. 

We are a Committee of Oversight and Government Reform. And 

I am glad that the IRS took the nine recommendations of the IG— 

who, by the way, was appointed by a Republican, the same IG that 

said no White House involvement. But we just push the facts over 

there, say, oh, he’s coming up here, let’s see what we can do to him. 

But you know what? After the hearing is over, I care about your 

reputation. I care about what people think of you. And I really 

mean that. And I don’t want a moment to go by without you knowing that I appreciate you coming into this institution, giving it the 

best you’ve got, and then having to come in here and go through 

this hell. 

And that’s not to say everything was done perfectly. I don’t think 

anybody up here is perfect. All of us have had problems. As I say 

to my constituents, all of us are the walking wounded, and if we 

aren’t the walking wounded, we just keep on living. 

And so, again, I want to thank you very much. 

And, by the way, if there was any kind of inappropriate criteria, 

I’ve said it before, I have a problem with that with regard to conservatives, I also have a problem with regard to progressives and 

anybody else. 

And I’m sure I speak for all our Members when I say thank— 

I really do thank you. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Thank you. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Ohio is next in seniority. 

Mr. JORDAN. I thank the chairman. 

Look, I agree with the ranking member; we’re all imperfect, we 

all are in need of God’s grace. And we do appreciate the public 

servants who work hard every day on behalf of the American people. 

79 

But I will tell you something. I also care about the thousands of 

people who were denied their First Amendment rights when this 

targeting scheme took place. I care about people like Catherine 

Englebrecht, who was visited six times by the FBI after she applied 

for tax-exempt status, who after she applied had her personal and 

business finances audited by the IRS for the previous 2 years, who 

got visited by ATF, OSHA. I care about those people, too, and 

that’s why we’re so concerned about getting to the truth. 

And so I just have one question, and I’ll be quick. 

Mr. Koskinen, you’ve testified several times here tonight, answered many questions where we talked about, you knew there 

were problems in February, you knew there were more problems in 

mid-March, you came in front of this committee in late March, you 

didn’t disclose to us, but then someone—and the reason you said 

you didn’t disclose to us was because this was so important, so critical that you get all the information, get all the facts, get all the 

information, and then give it to us, correct? You wanted to get the 

full story before you went public with any of this, correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. And I would remind you, when I testified here in 

March, I had no idea whether there was a serious problem or not. 

I just knew there was an issue. 

Mr. JORDAN. You knew there was an issue, you knew there was 

problems. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. Based on your testimony, you knew that there had 

been a crash of her computer. I mean, that’s in your testimony. 

But your testimony is you wanted to get all the facts before you 

went public, right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. You thought that was important. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. To get all the information. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. JORDAN. And yet, one of your employees told the Treasury 

and the White House in early April—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. One of our—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. So all I’m asking 

is, if it was so important, so critical to get the full picture before 

this information got out, why didn’t—why didn’t you tell all the 

people who work in your agency, we’re not going to say anything, 

we’re not going to communicate about this until we get the full picture? 

Why didn’t you give that instruction to—if it’s so critical that you 

can’t share with Congress—you waited 2 months after you knew in 

April that there were lost emails. If it’s that important, then why 

didn’t you tell your employees, don’t talk about this, don’t tell the 

White House Counsel, don’t tell the Treasury Counsel? Why didn’t 

you give that instruction? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because I didn’t think that—if somebody actually 

told anyone—I didn’t tell them they shouldn’t tell this committee. 

I was not telling people what not to do. I set forward a program 

in which I said, we need to find all of the facts, we need to pull 

it all together, and we will make a public disclosure of it, which 

we did. 

80 

Mr. JORDAN. But that’s not what happened, Mr. Koskinen. The 

Chief Counsel at Treasury knew about it and talked to the Chief 

Counsel at the White House in April, right after you found out 

about it. That’s what we’re concerned about. 

All I’m saying is, if it’s so important, I think a proactive leader, 

a good manager would say, hey, let’s get to the truth first, let’s get 

all this, let’s not communicate this, let’s tell everyone at the same 

time, let’s tell Congress the same—if it’s okay to tell the White 

House, why isn’t it okay to tell the people’s house? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Because the White House is not going to do what 

the Ways and Means Committee did with the piece of information 

we gave them piecemeal—that is, they’re not going to make a big 

issue about it—until all the facts out. 

Mr. JORDAN. Maybe it’s because the White House is the same 

party. Right? Maybe that had—could that have anything to do with 

it, Mr. Koskinen? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea. But I would stress again in your 

earlier statement—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Oh, well, you may not have any idea, but the facts 

are the facts. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. The facts are the facts. 

Mr. JORDAN. Treasury knew—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No one in the—— 

Mr. JORDAN. —White House knew in April. We didn’t know till 

late June. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No one in the IRS talked to the White House. 

You—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Then how’d they find out? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Pardon? 

Mr. JORDAN. How’d they find out? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I am told by the people who’ve read the White 

House letter the White House found out from Treasury. Nobody 

from the IRS talked with the White House. 

Mr. JORDAN. Someone from the IRS talked to Treasury, then. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s what I understand. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, and, as I’ve said before, we’d like to know who 

that person is. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Fine. 

Mr. JORDAN. I hope you’ll find out. Can you make a commitment 

to this committee tonight that you’re going to go find out who that 

individual was, who those individuals were, who talked to the 

Treasury Chief Counsel, who then talked to the White House, 2 

months before the people’s house got that same information? Can 

you make that commitment? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’ll do my best. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, let’s hope it’s better than that. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. JORDAN. I’d be happy to yield. 

Chairman ISSA. And I appreciate your trying to find out. It would 

save us a lot of trouble of going through all the people to find out. 

But you just said something that I wanted to make sure I understood. You said, and I’m phrasing, maybe the White House 

81 

wouldn’t release it the way Ways and Means released a document. 

Is that right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. In other words, my experience has been in 

this issue that any information that comes out piecemeal immediately gets an overreaction to it. 

Chairman ISSA. So, I—well, ‘‘overreaction’’ is your statement. I 

guess the question I have is, hasn’t the White House selectively 

leaked documents in the past? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no—I’m not involved in any of those issues 

if they have. 

Chairman ISSA. You’ve probably read the Wall Street Journal, 

the New York Times, or the Washington Post. Isn’t it true the 

White House does put out piecemeal documents that favor them 

when they get them and hold back ones when they don’t? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not familiar with what the White House activities are. 

Chairman ISSA. I guess I’ll wait for my own time. But I must 

admit, I’m a little insulted to hear that the White House is trustworthy and Congress isn’t, in your opinion. 

The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford, is recognized. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It’s kind of interesting how positions change over time, because, 

looking back on some of the record, it appears that when the Bush 

White House lost millions of emails related to the leak of covert 

CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity and the U.S. attorney firings, 

this same committee held a hearing in 2008. At that hearing, 

Chairman Issa said this: ‘‘I think it is fair that we recognize that 

software moves on and that archiving in the digital age is not as 

easy as it might seem to the public.’’ 

At the same hearing, Chairman Issa discussed how Congress 

needs to provide more funding to help agencies improve their 

archiving technology. He said this: ‘‘The House of Representatives 

needs to begin making sure you are funded. And that is part of 

what we do in oversight, fund it to deal with ever-evolving technologies, where archiving isn’t just putting them away, it is being 

able to retrieve it.’’ 

Now it appears that Chairman Issa’s perspective has changed. 

With respect to the loss of Ms. Lerner’s emails, he believes the loss 

of her emails is evidence of, ‘‘nefarious conduct.’’ Chairman Issa 

has repeatedly stated this assertion, but yet said something completely different in a previous hearing. 

Commissioner, as far as you can tell, the only difference between 

the statements Chairman Issa made in 2008 and the statements he 

made now is that there was a Republican administration then and 

that there is a Democratic administration now. The fact is that the 

IRS and many other Federal agencies have struggled to improve 

their electronic record retention for years. GAO, the National Archivist, and others have been reporting on these problems repeatedly. 

So I have a main question that I’d like to ask, Commissioner, 

and that’s, what can you do to explain to this committee the steps 

that are being taken to restore the public’s trust in the IRS and 

the function that it provides to the American people in this regard 

to the data and the protection of that data? 

82 

Mr. KOSKINEN. We are reviewing all of our activities—I’ve asked 

for this some time ago—to see if, at a minimum, we couldn’t create 

an electronic records system that would be more searchable. We 

have spent, as everybody now knows, between $18 million and $20 

million trying to produce documents as quickly as we can and 

emails as quickly as we can because of the archaic system that requires us to go to 90,000 individual hard drives or, in this case, 83 

custodian individual hard drives. We’re going to continue to do 

that. 

The Archivist last year made a recommendation that, as a way 

to begin to do this, we take the top 35—it’s called the capstone proposal; I’m sure he’ll testify tomorrow about it—that, as a start, recognizing the cost, that we develop systems with the top 35 people 

in the agency, where their records are automatically electronically 

put into a records system as the first step. And we’re going to take 

a look at that, which would obviously be less expensive than trying 

to archive the entire agency’s records. 

But I do think it’s important for us to preserve official records. 

It’s important for history. It’s important for people to understand 

the basis on which we make decisions. And we’re going to continue 

to do that. 

We are constrained. The issues are how we spend our money. It’s 

an important issue as to how we do it, but it is in a situation where 

we have substantially fewer funds than we had 4 years ago, 10,000 

fewer employees, and substantially increased responsibilities. But 

it is an important issue for us to consider, and we’re going to do 

that. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you, Commissioner. 

And, again, I want to commend you. You know, I say often on 

this committee, we are the Oversight Committee, but we’re also the 

Government Reform Committee. And I would like to hear your recommendations as we move forward on how we put those recommendations in place and what this committee can do to support 

you in those endeavors. 

It’s one thing to have as many hearings as we’ve had without 

any substantiated evidence to suggest continuing. But to not have 

one hearing on how we can implement any of the recommendations 

to improve the system, I think, is a flaw in the way this committee 

is managed. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but under rule 9, sub 

A, I think that the chairman needs to ensure that there is equal 

time given to each side and that Members should not have their 

mics cut off and then Members in the majority allowed to speak 

well over their permitted time. 

Chairman ISSA. We now go to Mr. Massie for 5 minutes or such 

time less that he may consume. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you. We could probably—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s right; he’s not required to use the full 5 

minutes, right? 

Mr. MASSIE. And I’ll try and—— 

Chairman ISSA. He is not required, but seldom yielded back. 

Mr. MASSIE. It really depends on the answer. I’m going to try 

and be short. And I really appreciate your patience and your stamina here tonight, so I’ll be short with this question. 

83 

On June 3rd, 2011, Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp sent 

the IRS a letter demanding to explain the allegations of targeting 

Tea Party and other conservative groups. He also requested that 

emails be provided or preserved. Within 10 days, Lois Lerner’s 

hard drive crashed. 

Now, we know her hard drive crashed because there was a—we 

know this for sure because there was a ticket filed with the IT department, is that correct, for a repair? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Mr. MASSIE. Could you provide us with all of the tickets filed in 

the month of June 2011 at the IRS for failed hard drives? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. Yes. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back. 

Chairman ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MASSIE. Yes. 

Chairman ISSA. I thank the gentleman. 

We are nearing the end, but there will be—I’ll need a few more 

minutes. So I want to be—I want to be brief, but I want to be thorough. 

Ms. Lerner you didn’t know. You say you never met her. My understanding is from the reports that the hard drive that failed was 

on her laptop; is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m not familiar. I know Nikole Flax’s travel computer is where the hard drive failed, not her office computer. 

Chairman ISSA. Right. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I’m assuming, in light of where the archives 

were, that it was her office computer where the hard drive failed. 

Chairman ISSA. So I want just to understand, from a procedural 

standpoint, employees of the IRS download emails, which may include 6103 information, to their laptops and leave the building with 

them. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s right. Most of—a number of employees, 

their office computer is, in fact, a laptop. 

Chairman ISSA. And, as a result, when they leave the office, they 

take with them emails that may include 6103 information. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s possible, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. To your knowledge, are laptops in the IRS universally limited so they may not employ USB drives? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. They are now. There was, as I understand, a situation some years ago in which they were—well, I guess what I 

should say is, years ago, USB drives, thumb drives were usable 

that were not encrypted. And there was an issue that came to my 

attention 3 or 4 months ago where, fortunately, no information was 

misused by the public. Since that time, which is several years ago, 

all thumb drives are encrypted so that if a thumb drive is lost nobody can access the data. 

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate that. Congress has implemented a 

similar thing. But we also can go buy at Best Buy normal thumb 

drives. 

So if Lois Lerner’s laptop was, in fact, or any of these other people’s laptops or office computers, in fact, had a USB on any of them 

that downloaded information, including 6103 information, to their 

84 

local drives, could have, in fact, moved them to USB-based external 

drives or to thumb drives of their own purchase. Is that correct? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That sounds right. I don’t know what the equipment looked like 3 years ago, but I would assume that that sounds 

right. 

Chairman ISSA. So, for the American people, it is very possible 

and, in fact, probable that every day individuals leave the IRS with 

personally identifiable information covered under 6103 on their 

hard drives inside laptops that they take home, on trips, to conferences, and the like. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I think that’s correct, to the extent of my knowledge. I may be corrected when I get back, but that sounds correct. 

Chairman ISSA. So that means that, in fact, Lois Lerner, an attorney, may have made a copy of the information on her hard drive 

that died and she could have it on a USB product or, you know, 

any kind of product but normally a USB-based thumb drive or external hard drive, to your knowledge. You have no reason to know 

that she couldn’t have done that. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct. 

Chairman ISSA. So, in fact, Lois Lerner may have made copies 

of this before the failure of her computer. 

To your knowledge, when the Department of Justice questioned 

Lois Lerner, was she asked any of those questions? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no idea. 

Chairman ISSA. To your knowledge, did she have a USB or any 

other product that could’ve taken copies off of her computer? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I have no knowledge that she did. 

Chairman ISSA. To your knowledge, did she also have a laptop 

or dual-purpose computer that she took home with her or left the 

building with? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I don’t know. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. 

I would now ask unanimous—or let me rephrase that. Let me 

just do one more. 

You have 90,000 computers that basically use their local hard 

drives to store information, emails, instead of on the server, because after so many days it disappears off of—after half a year, 

they disappear off the server. Is that right? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. No, no. The server will keep your emails 

until you get to 6,000, and then you’ll get a notice saying you have 

to either archive them or delete them. 

The backup tapes that preserve information for 6 months are 

separate. The server—you may have emails on your server for 5 

years if you’ve—— 

Chairman ISSA. If you don’t hit that number. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. If you don’t hit the 6,000. 

Chairman ISSA. Okay. Obviously, Lois Lerner, with tens of thousands, did. 

I now would recognize myself for my own time. 

Continuing on, I spent a lot of time in the electronics industry, 

and so I have a bit of a passion for this. 

Are you aware that if you back up your systems every 6 months, 

that the cost that we would be looking at for what it would’ve cost 

to have backed them up essentially once a month would be cost of 

85 

the tape drive that, in fact, those tapes or cartridges that would be 

retained. And my understanding, pretty obviously, is that wouldn’t 

be $10 million, would it be? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No, I don’t think so. 

Chairman ISSA. So, with your limited budget, if instead of throwing away or recycling after 6 months the cartridges and simply 

reusing them, because you’re only using them for disaster recovery, 

if you bought 12 sets of cartridges so that every month you made 

a backup and then, in fact, used the incremental backup systems 

that exist, you could’ve backed up your systems and retained them 

for 7 years for a fraction of $10 million, couldn’t you? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. That’s correct, but you would simply have a capacity to—as a disaster recovery system, that process is not a 

searchable email system. 

Chairman ISSA. I appreciate your telling me that, because I 

served on this committee in this room in that position when Henry 

Waxman—because the Bush White House, in conversion from 

Lotus Notes to Windows Exchange Server, or Microsoft Exchange 

Server, failed to have good backups and they used their image 

backups at a cost of a great deal of money to restore countless 

emails so that the Presidential Records Act and the Federal 

Records Act would be fully maintained. 

Do you have any recollection of those hearings or that activity? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. I do not. 

Chairman ISSA. To this committee, it’s pretty famous. Mr. Wax- man did not care that it cost an estimated $24 million to recover 

every single one of those emails. This committee aggressively said 

they had to do it, and they did image backup restorations. 

Had you done image backups and retained them, prior to your 

arrival, but had the IRS done it, it would have cost probably tens 

of thousands of dollars to maintain 6 or 7 years’ worth of those, 

and we wouldn’t be having the same discussion today, would we? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. No. It would’ve cost a lot of money, as you know, 

to then get emails off of those recovery tapes. But that’s right; if 

we had—if we had them, we could then send the millions of dollars 

it would take to pull it off the disaster recovery tapes. But that’s 

not what the disaster recovery tapes are meant to do. 

Chairman ISSA. What’s interesting is the images, or disaster recover tapes, the reason it cost so much with the White House is 

they wanted every email retained or recovered. We only wanted 

Lois Lerner’s. 

I’d like to enter in the record now a document given to us by the 

National Archives. 

And I’ll show it, because it’s a little hard to see, but—there we 

go. 

Mr. KOSKINEN. A little hard to read from here. 

Chairman ISSA. Well, I’ll read you just a piece of it. 

Andrew Jackson of the State of Tennessee, the first day of December, 1799, is still burned. And he’s complaining through Congress—this is from—this is essentially a Congressional Record, 

where he petitions the United States Congress in 1803 to recover— 

and he started in 1801 with an affidavit—for his loss of revenues 

paid in 1799 because his stills burned after they collected the revenue in advance for his hundreds of gallons of liquor. 

86 

And I only put that in the record for one reason. The National 

Archives and the Archivist, who will be with us tomorrow, maintains an amazing amount of documents and recovers documents. 

Now, Andy Jackson, General Jackson, wanting his money back 

on his still may not be anything other than humorous this late at 

night, but it’s part of the wealth of information the American people have access to just across the street. Your agency came here and said, on a $1.8-billion budget—you 

did this tonight—that, in fact, you needed more money if you were 

going to maintain records. I would certainly hope that when you go 

back and you scrub that $10 million in order to do X and more to 

do Y that you go back and you really ask, within the best practices, 

whether or not to meet—for your CIO to meet the requirement of 

the National Archives having access to the kind of information, the 

wealth of information they need. Working with the National Archives, you can do it and do it for a reasonable price. 

Mr. Horsford was correct. I have been a big believer that, in fact, 

maintaining for the American people the transparency not just of 

what Mr. Cummings and I are doing here tonight but for the next 

generation, the generation beyond, as much information as we possibly can is an obligation. 

Earlier, Mr. DesJarlais, maybe cynically, maybe just doing the 

arithmetic, looked at that, sort of, nickel a page to print out and 

stick in a file drawer and later turn over to the National Archives 

paper. I strongly suggest that this committee and you, you for your 

agency, this committee for all of government, really take a look at 

how much less expensive it is to maintain it digitally, to deliver it 

digitally, so that it can be machine-searchable for the next generation and, in fact, be of a benefit to all of us. 

Lastly, I’m going to guess that on the $111 per employee’s com- puter—because that’s what $10 million is—you could easily have 

covered that expense, that $10 million expense, by simply downgrading those local drives. Because, in fact, there’s very little reason for them to have large local drives. 

Lastly—and I’m going to close with this, and this is really not 

as much questions—you’re familiar with the interrogatories we 

sent, some 50 questions? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. On Saturday afternoon, yes. 

Chairman ISSA. Yes, 48 hours before the hearing. You’re aware 

that, for the most part, there was no response, other than a short 

oral briefing this afternoon in which presentations were made that 

were not part of the interrogatories, in some cases? 

Mr. KOSKINEN. It’s a little hard to get everybody together on a 

Sunday, even though it is counted as the 48 hours. We got—— 

Chairman ISSA. No, I understand—— 

Mr. KOSKINEN. —your email, or your request, at about 4:30 Saturday afternoon. 

Chairman ISSA. No, I understand that. But there was 8 hours of 

workday today. 

The questions we have, for the most part, are the questions that 

you should’ve already asked. They should’ve been answerable immediately. 

There will be some additional questions that I will send interrogatories to you. They will ask you to please see if you can figure out 

87 

whether it was the 1st of April that you learned about the real loss 

of documents, 7 days after you testified, or 30 days after, to narrow 

down the April and to narrow down who told you—who told you 

about it. 

There obviously is the question of how the White House came to 

know, while Congress was never informed about these losses of 

documents until your seven-page letter. 

So, for that purpose, we will now recess. If I’m able to get the 

interrogatories and the follow-up calls done in a timely fashion, I 

will be pleased to adjourn this. But for now, we are recessing subject to recall. 

We stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 10:53 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 

at 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, June 24, 2014.] 

(89) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

90 


Insert offset folio 7 here 89598.007
91 


Insert offset folio 8 here 89598.008
92 


Insert offset folio 9 here 89598.009
93 


Insert offset folio 10 here 89598.010
94 


Insert offset folio 11 here 89598.011
95 


Insert offset folio 12 here 89598.012
96 


Insert offset folio 13 here 89598.013
97 


Insert offset folio 14 here 89598.014
98 


Insert offset folio 15 here 89598.015
99 


Insert offset folio 16 here 89598.016
100 


Insert offset folio 17 here 89598.017
101 


Insert offset folio 18 here 89598.018
102 


Insert offset folio 19 here 89598.019
103 


Insert offset folio 20 here 89598.020
104 


Insert offset folio 21 here 89598.021
105 


Insert offset folio 22 here 89598.022
106 


Insert offset folio 23 here 89598.023
107 


Insert offset folio 24 here 89598.024
108 


Insert offset folio 25 here 89598.025
109 


Insert offset folio 26 here 89598.026
110 


Insert offset folio 27 here 89598.027
111 


Insert offset folio 28 here 89598.028
112 


Insert offset folio 29 here 89598.029
113 


Insert offset folio 30 here 89598.030
114 


Insert offset folio 31 here 89598.031
115 


Insert offset folio 32 here 89598.032
116 


Insert offset folio 33 here 89598.033
117 


Insert offset folio 34 here 89598.034
118 


Insert offset folio 35 here 89598.035
119 


Insert offset folio 36 here 89598.036
120 


Insert offset folio 37 here 89598.037
121 


Insert offset folio 38 here 89598.038
122 


Insert offset folio 39 here 89598.039
123 


Insert offset folio 40 here 89598.040
124 


Insert offset folio 41 here 89598.041
125 


Insert offset folio 42 here 89598.042
126 


Insert offset folio 43 here 89598.043
127 


Insert offset folio 44 here 89598.044
128 


Insert offset folio 45 here 89598.045
129 


Insert offset folio 46 here 89598.046
130 


Insert offset folio 47 here 89598.047
131 


Insert offset folio 48 here 89598.048
132 


Insert offset folio 49 here 89598.049
133 


Insert offset folio 50 here 89598.050
134 


Insert offset folio 51 here 89598.051
135 


Insert offset folio 52 here 89598.052
136 


Insert offset folio 53 here 89598.053
137 


Insert offset folio 54 here 89598.054
138 


Insert offset folio 55 here 89598.055
139 


Insert offset folio 56 here 89598.056
140 


Insert offset folio 57 here 89598.057
141 


Insert offset folio 58 here 89598.058
142 


Insert offset folio 59 here 89598.059
143 


Insert offset folio 60 here 89598.060
144 


Insert offset folio 61 here 89598.061
145 


Insert offset folio 62 here 89598.062
146 


Insert offset folio 63 here 89598.063
147 


Insert offset folio 64 here 89598.064
148 


Insert offset folio 65 here 89598.065
149 


Insert offset folio 66 here 89598.066
150 


Insert offset folio 67 here 89598.067
151 


Insert offset folio 68 here 89598.068
152 


Insert offset folio 69 here 89598.069
153 


Insert offset folio 70 here 89598.070
154 


Insert offset folio 71 here 89598.071
155 


Insert offset folio 72 here 89598.072
156 


Insert offset folio 73 here 89598.073
157 


Insert offset folio 74 here 89598.074
158 


Insert offset folio 75 here 89598.075
159 


Insert offset folio 76 here 89598.076
160 


Insert offset folio 77 here 89598.077
161 


Insert offset folio 78 here 89598.078
162 


Insert offset folio 79 here 89598.079
163 


Insert offset folio 80 here 89598.080
164 


Insert offset folio 81 here 89598.081
165 


Insert offset folio 82 here 89598.082
166 


Insert offset folio 83 here 89598.083
167 


Insert offset folio 84 here 89598.084
168 


Insert offset folio 85 here 89598.085
169 


Insert offset folio 86 here 89598.086
170 


Insert offset folio 87 here 89598.087
171 


Insert offset folio 88 here 89598.088
172 


Insert offset folio 89 here 89598.089
173 


Insert offset folio 90 here 89598.090
174 


Insert offset folio 91 here 89598.091
175 


Insert offset folio 92 here 89598.092
176 


Insert offset folio 93 here 89598.093
177 


Insert offset folio 94 here 89598.094
178 


Insert offset folio 95 here 89598.095
179 


Insert offset folio 96 here 89598.096
180 


Insert offset folio 97 here 89598.097
181 


Insert offset folio 98 here 89598.098
182 


Insert offset folio 99 here 89598.099
183 


Insert offset folio 100 here 89598.100
184 


Insert offset folio 101 here 89598.101
185 


Insert offset folio 102 here 89598.102
186 


Insert offset folio 103 here 89598.103
187 


Insert offset folio 104 here 89598.104
188 


Insert offset folio 105 here 89598.105
189 


Insert offset folio 106 here 89598.106
190 


Insert offset folio 107 here 89598.107
191 


Insert offset folio 108 here 89598.108
192 


Insert offset folio 109 here 89598.109
193 


Insert offset folio 110 here 89598.110
194 


Insert offset folio 111 here 89598.111
195 


Insert offset folio 112 here 89598.112
196 


Insert offset folio 113 here 89598.113
197 


Insert offset folio 114 here 89598.114
198 


Insert offset folio 115 here 89598.115
199 


Insert offset folio 116 here 89598.116
200 


Insert offset folio 117 here 89598.117
201 


Insert offset folio 118 here 89598.118
202 


Insert offset folio 119 here 89598.119
203 


Insert offset folio 120 here 89598.120
204 


Insert offset folio 121 here 89598.121
205 


Insert offset folio 122 here 89598.122
206 


Insert offset folio 123 here 89598.123
207 


Insert offset folio 124 here 89598.124
208 


Insert offset folio 125 here 89598.125
209 


Insert offset folio 126 here 89598.126
210 


Insert offset folio 127 here 89598.127
211 


Insert offset folio 128 here 89598.128
212 


Insert offset folio 129 here 89598.129
213 


Insert offset folio 130 here 89598.130
214 


Insert offset folio 131 here 89598.131
215 


Insert offset folio 132 here 89598.132
216 


Insert offset folio 133 here 89598.133
217 


Insert offset folio 134 here 89598.134
218 


Insert offset folio 135 here 89598.135
219 


Insert offset folio 136 here 89598.136
220 


Insert offset folio 137 here 89598.137
221 


Insert offset folio 138 here 89598.138
222 


Insert offset folio 139 here 89598.139
223 


Insert offset folio 140 here 89598.140
224 


Insert offset folio 141 here 89598.141
225 


Insert offset folio 142 here 89598.142
226 


Insert offset folio 143 here 89598.143
227 


Insert offset folio 144 here 89598.144
228 


Insert offset folio 145 here 89598.145
229 


Insert offset folio 146 here 89598.146
230 


Insert offset folio 147 here 89598.147
231 


Insert offset folio 148 here 89598.148
232 


Insert offset folio 149 here 89598.149
233 


Insert offset folio 150 here 89598.150
234 


Insert offset folio 151 here 89598.151
235 


Insert offset folio 152 here 89598.152
236 


Insert offset folio 153 here 89598.153
237 


Insert offset folio 154 here 89598.154
238 


Insert offset folio 155 here 89598.155
239 


Insert offset folio 156 here 89598.156
240 


Insert offset folio 157 here 89598.157
241 


Insert offset folio 158 here 89598.158
242 


Insert offset folio 159 here 89598.159
243 


Insert offset folio 160 here 89598.160
244 


Insert offset folio 161 here 89598.161
245 


Insert offset folio 162 here 89598.162
246 


Insert offset folio 163 here 89598.163
247 


Insert offset folio 164 here 89598.164
248 


Insert offset folio 165 here 89598.165
249 


Insert offset folio 166 here 89598.166
250 


Insert offset folio 167 here 89598.167
251 


Insert offset folio 168 here 89598.168
252 


Insert offset folio 169 here 89598.169
253 


Insert offset folio 170 here 89598.170
254 


Insert offset folio 171 here 89598.171
255 


Insert offset folio 172 here 89598.172
256 


Insert offset folio 173 here 89598.173
257 


Insert offset folio 174 here 89598.174
258 


Insert offset folio 175 here 89598.175
259 


Insert offset folio 176 here 89598.176
260 


Insert offset folio 177 here 89598.177
261 


Insert offset folio 178 here 89598.178
262 


Insert offset folio 179 here 89598.179
263 


Insert offset folio 180 here 89598.180
264 


Insert offset folio 181 here 89598.181
265 


Insert offset folio 182 here 89598.182
266 


Insert offset folio 183 here 89598.183
267 


Insert offset folio 184 here 89598.184
268 


Insert offset folio 185 here 89598.185
269 


Insert offset folio 186 here 89598.186
270 


Insert offset folio 187 here 89598.187
271 


Insert offset folio 188 here 89598.188
272 


Insert offset folio 189 here 89598.189
273 


Insert offset folio 190 here 89598.190
274 


Insert offset folio 191 here 89598.191
275 


Insert offset folio 192 here 89598.192
276 


Insert offset folio 193 here 89598.193
277 


Insert offset folio 194 here 89598.194
278 


Insert offset folio 195 here 89598.195
279 


Insert offset folio 196 here 89598.196
280 


Insert offset folio 197 here 89598.197
281 


Insert offset folio 198 here 89598.198
282 


Insert offset folio 199 here 89598.199
283 


Insert offset folio 200 here 89598.200
284 


Insert offset folio 201 here 89598.201
285 


Insert offset folio 202 here 89598.202
286 


Insert offset folio 203 here 89598.203
287 


Insert offset folio 204 here 89598.204
288 


Insert offset folio 205 here 89598.205
289 


Insert offset folio 206 here 89598.206
290 


Insert offset folio 207 here 89598.207
291 


Insert offset folio 208 here 89598.208
292 


Insert offset folio 209 here 89598.209
293 


Insert offset folio 210 here 89598.210
294 


Insert offset folio 211 here 89598.211
295 


Insert offset folio 212 here 89598.212
296 


Insert offset folio 213 here 89598.213
297 


Insert offset folio 214 here 89598.214
298 


Insert offset folio 215 here 89598.215
299 


Insert offset folio 216 here 89598.216
300 


Insert offset folio 217 here 89598.217
301 


Insert offset folio 218 here 89598.218
302 


Insert offset folio 219 here 89598.219
303 


Insert offset folio 220 here 89598.220
304 


Insert offset folio 221 here 89598.221
305 


Insert offset folio 222 here 89598.222
306 


Insert offset folio 223 here 89598.223
307 


Insert offset folio 224 here 89598.224
308 


Insert offset folio 225 here 89598.225
309 


Insert offset folio 226 here 89598.226
310 


Insert offset folio 227 here 89598.227
311 


Insert offset folio 228 here 89598.228
312 


Insert offset folio 229 here 89598.229
313 


Insert offset folio 230 here 89598.230
314 


Insert offset folio 231 here 89598.231
315 


Insert offset folio 232 here 89598.232
316 


Insert offset folio 233 here 89598.233
317 


Insert offset folio 234 here 89598.234
318 


Insert offset folio 235 here 89598.235
319 


Insert offset folio 236 here 89598.236
320 


Insert offset folio 237 here 89598.237
321 


Insert offset folio 238 here 89598.238
322 


Insert offset folio 239 here 89598.239
323 


Insert offset folio 240 here 89598.240
324 


Insert offset folio 241 here 89598.241
325 


Insert offset folio 242 here 89598.242
326 


Insert offset folio 243 here 89598.243
327 


Insert offset folio 244 here 89598.244
328 


Insert offset folio 245 here 89598.245
329 


Insert offset folio 246 here 89598.246
330 


Insert offset folio 247 here 89598.247
331 


Insert offset folio 248 here 89598.248
332 


Insert offset folio 249 here 89598.249
333 


Insert offset folio 250 here 89598.250
334 


Insert offset folio 251 here 89598.251
335 


Insert offset folio 252 here 89598.252
336 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 253 here 89598.253