lois lerner says i can't do anything right now. she couldn't fix it before the 2010 midterm election. what she could do is start a project to deal with in the future and that's exactly what she did. again, weeks before the midterm election, lerner tells her colleagues let's do a c-4 project next year. she also says we need to be cautious so it is in a per se political project. in fact, the chairman put this e-mail up at our last hearing. per se political project means code for a political project, we have to make it look like it's not a political project. in early 2011, lerner orders a multitiered review of c-4 applications. you know what that is? code for we are going to delay, harass them and make it difficult. that is part of the c-4 project. and make no mistake, she put washington in charge. this e-mail is also won the chairman put up that i left needing where lois lerner 72011, tea party matter very dangerous should not have these cases. this is the cincinnati doing this is completely false. she ordered them to not have these

>> just lois lerner's alone? >> just lois lerner. >> it would take a while. >> how long? minutes? >> there are millions of e-mails -- i don't know. i don't think it would be minutes. >> that's one of the brilliance of the e-mail system. you go in and check the sent box and the inbox and you suddenly have all the e-mails. correct? >> right. they get taken off and stored in servers and you have 90,000 employees. >> i'm asking to find one. they type in her e-mail address. >> we could find and we are, in fact, searching -- we can find lois lerner's e-mails. >> how long would that take? >> i have no idea how long. >> would it take a day? >> as i said, i have no idea. >> well, i just don't understand. you have a duly issued subpoena. if you were in the private sector and somebody was issued a subpoena and you didn't comply with it, what would happen to you? >> for this subpoena, the court would actually rule that it is far too -- >> oh, so you're going to make the determination? >> you asked the question. let me answer the question. in a court of law, if you had provided that subpoena,

>> of lois lerner e-mails? >> as i said in january we will continue because we party started the process and its import to get the e-mails in the areas i talked about them will find out about january and will continue to work as the order and priority and what is noted, let you know how many e-mails there are in the process will be. are delighted to do that. >> i don't buy that personally. i've heard from a number people talk about constituents being concerned and i assume and i believe those are accurate representations. whether they represent the entire public to me is that important. every individual member in every organization in the country deserves to feel comfortable to be treated fairly by the irs. my view is whether it be part of it is not the question. everyone feels confident comfortable dealing with the irs. >> when i go home as other members have stated including mr. lynch, what i hear is there is a deficit of trust. people feel they are being targeted not only for the tax-exempt organization, but

e-mail from lois lerner referring to the wealthy coke. that is where it all started. >> everything you see from the democrats on the koch brothers is really a template for this. do not like donor anonymity. they don't like dark money. they want these people to be named. 501(c) fours to not have to publicly name their donors. you see with chuck schumer and several democratic senators from al franken to max baucus whole number of them call on the irs to change 501(c) four regulations, and that is what the agency itself has proposed. a number of these groups would have to start naming their donors if they were shifted out of 501(c) four status. it would result in a lot more people being treated the way the koch brothers are, which, the people associated with them now or associated with other groups really don't want because they see what is happened to them in terms of the notoriety they have of their a result political donations. >> let me just clarify one thing. like ourals don't undisclosed donors. they have plenty of undisclosed donors o

the second time lois lerner came before the committee. the first time, she pled the fifth. the president was saying there is not one smidgen of corruption leader ofhave the this division of the irs saying i cannot talk about it because i could incriminate myself. host: what happens next? guest: we're still putting together information at the government oversight committee. we are having to use the subpoena power to get information. this isd think something that both sides of the aisle in all four corners of america would be concerned about. and yet we still have a tough time getting information. my counsel to everyone who gets in trouble is be honest about what is going on. let's clear the air as soon as we can and deal with it and move on. the irs has not been as candid with the committee as we would have hoped. you are not going to see the committee give up. redirect theo focus, but i tell you our chairman is laser focused on getting the american people answers they deserve. host: representative woodall, what is next on the budget committee? guest: working through the num

i call on lois lerner and the i.r.s. to be forthcoming so we can assure this never happens again. i yield back. the speaker: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. today is world plumbing day, it is easy to take for granted that we can simply -- simpley turn on water. and enjoy clean we should not take for granted what it represents. it is imperative to keep improving water infrastructure to guarantee every citizen access to clean water. it is important to clab rat with groups such as the association -- and ing and mccall mechanical officials that have developed standards that are used around the world as well as ensuring america's public helicopter for our communities. mrs. negrete mcleod: i reck news how -- i recognize how efficient water systems and those highly trained professionals who work in the industry save our country money and precious resources and enhance our quality of living, keeping people safe and healthy each and every day. i yield back.

cummings about lois lerner. says talking about potentially moving forward with the charge of contempt. i'm wondering if he has spoken to you at all about that. if he does go ahead and move to hold her in contempt, what will be the response from the >> one of the things that came up yesterday that we found out while chairman issa was asking the questions of ms. lerner was that apparently there had been negotiations and talks between she, the chairman, and her attorney. they have asked for a postponement. that is what we found out yesterday. it sounded like she was willing to come forward in one week. reason, the chairman would not grant that postponement. is he afraid of what she might say? i'm not sure. as far as content is concerned, all along, keep in mind, what happened is her attorney from shevery beginning said that was going to assert the fifth. she came in, made a statement, asserted the fifth. because she made that statement, she claimed that she had waived it. again, i think her attend -- intention was

secretary after lois lerner disclosed last summer that the irs had been targeting conservative organizations for more than a year both you and the president stated that you were in that quote outraged by that behavior. do you stand by that comment today? >> senator i have stood by my comments that actions taken reflected bad judgments and they were unacceptable and they couldn't happen again. we put in place and acting director of the iras who did a fine job to bring things into order and we have -- we are committed to running the best irs we can possibly run. equally i'm convinced there was not any kind of malicious action there. it was bad judgment and that bad judgment is unacceptable. >> i ask you because what you express seems odd with the current attitude. if you and the president have referred to the iras persecution is those that disagree with you as a phony scandal to be quoting. i would suggest you were even going further than that in attemptinattemptin g to codify the bad behavior in the law. how can we interpret this new rule is anything other than an attempt to achieve the same

lerner was in fact doing? >> senator, i continue to believe that the attempts to turn this into a scandal do not reflect the nature of the bad judgment involved. >> mr. secretary, 100 appearance of the 501(c)(4)s that had tea party in their name were referred for extra scrutiny. progressive the word 0 progressive did not appear on the bolo for extra scrutiny. of 298 political cases only 6 had progressive in their name. what do you conclude from that? >> senator, i think bad judgment was equal opportunity. it addressed concerns of the right and the left. it was not good judgment and unacceptable. it was not politically motivated. >> 298-6. >> you asked about the regulations. i want to point out about the proposed changes and regulations. after the situation was evaluated by the inspector general and treasury, there was a report that laid out actions to be taken. i made a commitment to keep all those recommendation, follow through on all those recommendations. one of them was to clarify the rules where the confu

lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the i.r.s. ms. lerner appeared for the may 22, 2013, hearing under a subpoena, and that subpoena remains in effect. before we resume our questioning, i am going to briefly state for the record a few developments that have occurred since the hearing began nine months ago. these are important for the record and for ms. lerner to know and understand. on may 22, 2013, after being sworn in at the start of the hearing, ms. lerner made a voluntary statement under oath discussing her position at the i.r.s. and professing her innocence. ms. lerner did not provide the committee with any advanced notification of her intention to make such a statement during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement. ms. lerner spoke in detail about core issues under consideration at the hearing when she stated, i have not done anything wrong. i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. ms. lerner

secretary, after lois lerner discovered the irs had been targeting the conservative organizations both you and the president stated that you were, and i quote on outraged by that behavior. do you stand by that comment today? >> i have stood by my comments about the actions taken in the reflected that judgment and they were unacceptable. they couldn't happen again. we put in place and acting director that did a fine job to bring things into order. we have a new commissioner in the irs who is equally first-grade and we are committed to running the best irs we can possibly run. i would equally convinced that there wasn't any kind of a malicious action. it was bad judgment, and that that judgment is unacceptable. >> i ask you because what you'vu expressed them seems at odds with the current attitude. ot win at the president has gone far to refer to those that disagree with you as a scandal, to be quoted. i would suggest you are either going further to codify that bad behavior into law. how can we interpret this new rule as anything other than an attempt to achieve the same stifling of the

above reports that the former irs officials lois lerner does not disclose the use of the appropriate criteria until 2011 the year after it began. they issued the practice stop and stated that employees began using different inappropriate criteria," without management, knowledge. in contrast to the instructor general never found any evidence to support the central republican accusations in this investigation. this was directed on behalf of the white house. before the committee received a single document or interviewed one witness onto national television and said, and i quote, this was the targeting of the president's political enemies can effectively it lies about it during the election. similarly to the representative rogers, the chairman of the committee on the appropriations stated on the national television and i quote the lists out of the white house the irs was engaged in shutting down or trying to shut down the political viewpoint across the country as enemies list some time ago. the representative of the ways and means committee says, and i quote, this appears to be just the

lerner in attempt to congress the way he adjourned the hearing legally. do you still plan to move forward on contempt of congress vote on miss lerner? what is your response to mr. coupling. >> i and house counsel reject premises of mr. cummings letter. i do not agree with that analysis in any way, shape or form. i made clear more than one occasion miss lerner should testify or be held in contempt. >> will house counsel made available to press his opinion or her opinion? >> you will have to ask the appropriate people. >> you're the appropriate person though. they work for you. >> i'm sure that we will see an opinion at some point. >> mr. speaker, wouldn't, imf reforms allow ukraine to increase borrowing from the imf by $600 million which would be about 60% more than it could under the current regime. >> that may be the case but it doesn't have anything to do with the money that people are looking for. >> last question. >> on policy, cbo says that the sgr thing you're looking at would increase the number of uninsured by 13 million, increase premiums by 10 t

yesterday, lois lerner went before congress and yet again pleaded the fifth. of course, president obama told bill o'reilly during the super bowl there is not a smidgen of corruption with the irs. it reminded me of one of my favorite movies. you keep on using that word. i do not think it means what you think it means. [laughter] somehow my understanding of smidgen was a little different than his. i want to thank you all for being here. you are here today at cpac because you understand the stakes in this country have never been higher. you are here because you understand our country is at a crisis point. we are at the edge of a cliff. liberty is under assault. and what i want to talk to you all about this morning is how we win. there are a lot of d.c. consultants who say there is a choice for republicans to make. we can either choose to keep our head down, to not rock the boat, or we stand for anything can stand for principles carried and they say, if you stand for principles, you lose elections. the smart way, the washington way is don't stand against obamacare