bills were enacted, at the rate they are going, it would take until after christmas before the government is fully up and running. we could end the shutdown today. if republican we could end the shutdown today if republican leadership would allow a vote, vote. democrats have negotiated. we didn't just meet in the middle, in fact. we agreed to the republican spending level in the stopgap bill. how many times, how many more times will the majority discover an unintended consequence before they come to their senses and allow a vote to end the reckless republican shutdown? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from indiana reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: reserves as well. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentleman from indiana.

mr. visclosky: if i could ask my friend how many more speakers they have. mr. frelinghuysen: we anticipate through the chair. several more speakers. but we are both waiting perhaps for some additional -- mr. visclosky: that's what both of us are doing. we could continue doing it talking to each other. mr. frelinghuysen: i would be happy to. let me say i want to salute you and chairman young for sponsoring this legislation which is truly bipartisan. bringing it to the floor and giving members of both parties an opportunity to join together at a time when there's a lot of disjointment around here and lack of consensus on this. there's no argument at all. i'm highly appreciative of all that you have done to assist this process. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's remark, mr. young, who has announced his retirement at the end of this congress. you could find no finer person

in the world kinder heart or wanting to leave the world better than our chairman. i was going to close but would use this time while we are waiting to simply follow on chairman rogers' remark and remind all of our colleagues that we do continue to be a nation at war. and while we have lost 17 individuals since october 1, in fact this nation has lost 117 people since the beginning of this year. i do hope as we proceed with the united states congress and the administration people understand that we ought to fully fund not just the deps of defense for their -- department of defense for their important job but the other agencies of this government and certainly through the regular appropriations process. the speaker pro tempore: gentleman from indiana reserves. mr. visclosky: if the gentleman is prepared to close, i would be happy to close on this side. mr. frelinghuysen: would be happy to yield. mr. visclosky: i yield back my time. mr. frelinghuysen: our government has no greater responsibility than to take care of the families of our brave men and women who have fought and died for our country. this legislation will ensure as we have said earlier in this discussion without question in any ambiguity that the department of defense should provide payment of death gratuities and other benefits to families of our fallen men and women in uniform. i urge support for this bipartisan legislation.

i thank chairman young and ranking member physical claus can i for their -- visclosky for their leadership in making sure this bill gets to the president as quickly as possible. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to

joint resolution 91. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the joint resolution is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i would like a vote on the measure. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman asks for the yeas and nays? mr. frelinghuysen: yeas and nays please. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, further proceedings on the >>estion will be postponed. the house on wednesday approved a funding that would reopen the faa's registry office. passed 252-172. the white house said the president would veto the bill theuse it does not fund entire government. here is part of the house debate.

mr. latham: i thank you very much. today i present h.j. resolution 90, a bill providing the f.a.a. with critical funding to ensure safe air travel for the american public and providing critical support for the aviation industry, our nation's leading exporter. this bill funds the f.a.a. at the current fiscal year 2013 see quester level through december -- sequester level through december 15, or until enactment of the full year appropriation for the transportation-h.u.d. bill, which ever comes first. the bill would bring back over 6,000 aviation inspectors who are currently not working due to the shutdown. these safety ininspectors perform critical aircraft certification that is support american jobs by certifying new aircraft for sale in the u.s. and abroad. the f.a.a.'s aviation safety work force is also essential to ensuring the safety in the national airspace by reinspecting and recertifying the operation aircraft fleets that transport millions of americans every day. the bill would also reopen the aircraft registry service, assuring that american made aircraft could move off the

production lines and on to the markets in the u.s. and around the world. the bill would reopen the f.a.a. academy to resume the training of new air traffic controllers and ensure that our air traffic controller work force is fully staffed. the bill will ensure that our air traffic control modernization investments resume, ensuring that our nextgen development and deployment continues on schedule. this is not a comprehensive f.y. 2014 bill, rather c.r. to continue funding the f.a.a. at the current fiscal year 2013 sequester levels. this brings the f.a.a. back to work to ensure the safety of the flying public until we can come to an overall resolution on the f.y. 2014 funding levels. i urge the quick passage of this important legislation so we can send it on to the senate. let's get the f.a.a. back to work. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. pastor: thank you, mr.

speaker. mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. pastor: here we go again. this week the house has considered bill after bill to fund pieces of the federal government. we can open the entire government if the house would simply pass the clean continuing resolution passed by the senate nearly two weeks ago. instead, we are considering a bill to fund the federal aviation administration, but we are leaving many other agencies within the department of transportation in shutdown status. i strongly support the mission of the f.a.a., the comp trollers, technicians, and safety inspectors. %%%, 1:30 p.m. mr. pastor: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume, the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee of the

transportation infrastructure subcommittee, the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for as much time as he he may consume.

mr. larsen: as ranking member of the aviation subcommittee i know how important it is to end the shutdown of the f.a.a., but i do have to ask the question, if safety was so important, why wasn't this the first bill brought to the floor in this piecemeal approach that the republican side has taken? look, a safe and efficient aviation system isn'tous good for travelers, it's the lifeblood of the economy where i come from. in our state 131,000 people across ,200 companies work in the aerospace industry. they don't just depend on the f.a.a., is it safety to say that police departments who use federal grants for cops on the beat should have to wait? is it safety to say that our functioning transit systems have to wait for grants to make their transit systems more safe? is it safety to say that the e.p.a. can't issue grants in my district or around the country to make sure that we have safe

and clean drinking water? this bill funds none of these priorities. which should not be opening just parts of the government to serve just some of the people. we should open the entire government for all americans. the republican solution to the republican shutdown, this piecemeal approach, picking winners and picking losers, is no solution at all. it's great that this house wants to make sure air travel is safe, but why should we stop there? what about safety in our highways? in the last 10 days there have been three major fatal transportation accidents across this country. a plane crash in santa monica, california, killing four. a bus crash in tennessee killing eight, injuring 14. less than a mile from this building, one person died, two others injured during a metro repair accident this weekend. but the national transportation safety board can't investigate because this congress sent the investigators home on furlough. let's end this piecemeal approach and move on to a vote on a senate bill that opens all of the government for all americans. if it's about safety, let's do it that way. this continued unwillingness to allow one vote, just one vote, to open the government for all americans and not just some, this unwillingness needs to stop. one bill, one vote for all americans. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize for one minute, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. it troubles me that the administration is once again going out of its way to cause pain for the american people and at great risk to america's safety. we have seen this up close and personal in my district with this incomprehensible closure of the f.a.a. registry office. this is the office that allows air flights to be transferred, to be sold and bought and purchased and entered into service. in previous shutdowns this office was deemed essential. it was kept opened. and for good reason. it's the equivalent the d.m.v. for aircraft. you have to keep this pipeline moving. it's important for safety and workers. affecting thousands of families across this country who build these airplanes, engineers, workers, manufacturers, especially in the fourth district, the air capital of the world. thousands of families, many of them hardworking union families, that folks across the aisle tell me he they care deeply about.

i know that i do, too. i would urge these folks on the other side of the aisle to recognize the importance to our labor force, to keep america safe, to get the aircraft registry back opened, and to pass this piece of legislation across the floor today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize for one minute, the gentleman from michigan, mr. benishek. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute.

mr. benishek: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today in support of h.j. resolution 90, the flight safety act. this commonsense bill will restore funding to critical funding to the f.a.a. and help protect airports in northern michigan and throughout our nation. like so many people in our country, i'm deeply frustrated by this government shutdown. i don't want to see air travelers in northern michigan hurt because of the senate and president refuse to negotiate on a spending plan. all that has been done is for both sides to come -- all that needs to be done is for both

sides to come to the negotiating table. the senate refuses to talk to us. its ridiculous. we have already seen this mess in washington impact airports in my district. like the cherry capital airport in traverse city. just this past weekend dozens of flights were canceled because of this government shutdown. families shouldn't be stranded at the airport for hours because washington can't get its act together. but it doesn't have to be this way. we could fix this problem at our airports right now with this simple piece of legislation. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support the flight safety act today. i also urge our colleagues in the senate to take action and pass this measure as soon as possible. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: well, mr. chairman, i would ask my colleague that we could fund the entire government if my colleague could persuade his leadership to bring h.j.res. 59 to the floor and we could have a straight up and down vote and probably it would pass in a bipartisan manner and we could stop the shutdown and people would go back to work. mr. chairman -- mr. speaker, i yield -- i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: mr. speaker, i reserve my time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is reserving. mr. pastor: mr. speaker, it's interesting that we have talked

about bringing our employees back from the shutdown. we were told by the chairman of the appropriations that this is very important because here we are dealing with safety and the reality is that probably the majority of air traffic controllers and safety personnel as required by f.a.a.le is working -- f.a.a. is working. i can't imagine that the add martor -- administrator would put the american public in any kind of taker. -- danger. again f. we would have had a budget conference several months ago, we could have done the appropriation process and probably funded the entire government using regular order. but i keep hearing that if this vote was to come to the floor, that it would pass in a

unanimous -- not unanimous but it would pass in a bipartisan manner. so, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take h.j.res. 59 from the table and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: as recorded in section 956 of the house rules and manual, the chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it is cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships. mr. pastor: next time i bring it up i'll try to clear it since there is such enthusiasm to bringing the federal government back to work. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona yields back. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. at this point i urge the passage

of the bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa yields back. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 373, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution. so many as are in favor say aye, those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the aye vs. it. third reading. the clerk: joint resolution making continuing appropriations for the federal aviation administration for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the

gentlewoman opposed to the joint

resolution. the speaker pro tempore: >> i am. the clerk: ms. esty of connecticut moves to recommit the joint resolution, house joint resolution -- ms. esty: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading.

the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's motion. the speaker pro tempore: point of order is noted. pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from connecticut is recognized for five minutes in support of her motion. ms. esty: thank you, mr. speaker.

mr. speaker, this is the ninth day of the unnecessary government shutdown, and the 12th time we have made a motion to bring a clean continuing resolution to the floor.

fortunately many on the other side will support this bill. in fact, i think it's of note that with all the various c.r.'s, clean c.r.'s, that we have been passing since this shutdown began, all with no strings attached, all that have nothing to do with obamacare, we actually now have funded a large part, if not more than half, of the entire discretionary federal budget. unfortunately the president and the senate majority leader keep saying that they will not negotiate, they won't consider any of these things. i would urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this important funding bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from arizona.

mr. pastor: mr. speaker, i yield as much time as he may consume, the ranking member of the aviation subcommittee of the transportation infrastructure subcommittee, the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for as much time as he he may consume. mr. larsen: as ranking member of the aviation subcommittee i know how important it is to end the shutdown of the f.a.a., but i do have to ask the question, if safety was so important, why wasn't this the first bill brought to the floor in this piecemeal approach that the republican side has taken?

look, a safe and efficient aviation system isn'tous good for travelers, it's the lifeblood of the economy where i come from. in our state 131,000 people across ,200 companies work in the aerospace industry. they don't just depend on the f.a.a., is it safety to say that police departments who use federal grants for cops on the beat should have to wait? is it safety to say that our functioning transit systems have to wait for grants to make their transit systems more safe? is it safety to say that the e.p.a. can't issue grants in my district or around the country to make sure that we have safe and clean drinking water? this bill funds none of these priorities. which should not be opening just parts of the government to serve just some of the people. we should open the entire government for all americans. the republican solution to the republican shutdown, this piecemeal approach, picking winners and picking losers, is no solution at all. it's great that this house wants to make sure air travel is safe, but why should we stop there? what about safety in our highways? in the last 10 days there have been three major fatal transportation accidents across this country. a plane crash in santa monica, california, killing four.

a bus crash in tennessee killing eight, injuring 14. less than a mile from this building, one person died, two others injured during a metro repair accident this weekend. but the national transportation safety board can't investigate because this congress sent the investigators home on furlough. let's end this piecemeal approach and move on to a vote on a senate bill that opens all of the government for all americans. if it's about safety, let's do it that way. this continued unwillingness to allow one vote, just one vote, to open the government for all americans and not just some, this unwillingness needs to stop. one bill, one vote for all americans. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington yields back. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize for one minute, the gentleman from kansas, mr. pompeo. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kansas is recognized for one minute. mr. pompeo: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for bringing this important piece of legislation to the floor. it troubles me that the administration is once again going out of its way to cause pain for the american people and at great risk to america's safety. we have seen this up close and personal in my district with this incomprehensible closure of the f.a.a. registry office. this is the office that allows air flights to be transferred, to be sold and bought and purchased and entered into service. in previous shutdowns this office was deemed essential. it was kept opened. and for good reason. it's the equivalent the d.m.v. for aircraft. you have to keep this pipeline moving. it's important for safety and workers. affecting thousands of families across this country who build these airplanes, engineers, workers, manufacturers, especially in the fourth district, the air capital of the world.

thousands of families, many of them hardworking union families, that folks across the aisle tell me he they care deeply about. i know that i do, too. i would urge these folks on the other side of the aisle to

recognize the importance to our labor force, to keep america safe, to get the aircraft registry back opened, and to pass this piece of legislation across the floor today. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: at this time i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'd like to recognize for one minute, the gentleman from michigan, mr.

benishek. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. benishek: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i come to the floor today in support of h.j. resolution 90, the flight safety act. this commonsense bill will restore funding to critical funding to the f.a.a. and help protect airports in northern

michigan and throughout our nation. like so many people in our country, i'm deeply frustrated by this government shutdown. i don't want to see air travelers in northern michigan hurt because of the senate and president refuse to negotiate on a spending plan. all that has been done is for both sides to come -- all that needs to be done is for both sides to come to the negotiating table. the senate refuses to talk to >> on the next "washington journal " --

in which you were cced and added to the chain. , which we were delivered under discovery, you refused those? >> i'm not sure whether i have seen the particular ones, but i'm reading it now. >> ok. take your time.

>> i have reviewed the document. as a few. do you recall it? >> i do not. think i recall what it is a discussion about. >> one of the area of interest, there is a redaction that quotes the statute. do you know what is underneath that? >> i cannot help you. i do not recall it. >> the subject -- let's go to a second one. would you give her the second document? we will pause and give you time to read it. >> thank you. this one is from you directly so hopefully you recall it.

to all members have the document? can we have the clerk distribute the document? do we have enough copies? they will be distributed of the gentlelady would just pause for a moment.

do all the members now have the document? i think some down in the front row. do you recall the second document, in which you are the author. >> i remember the conversation. since my name is on the e-mail, i assume it is from may. >> do you know the names underneath any of these? or any information. >> i could not remotely remember. >> as an expert of the irs, do you know what 6103 indicates? >> yes. i understand it. -- that true that you is sensitive information not to

be distributed by people within theo have it irs and a limited amount of people in congress? .> i understand the rules yes, sir. >> you understand you cannot distribute this information outside people authorized to sit. is that correct? >> groep. -- corrects. -- correct. >> why are people outside the office receiving this information? what -- on what basis would you be allowed to discuss the information, a form of classification under 6103, with political appointees at the white house? the irs is a nonpolitical organization. a political person. is it true they are not allowed to see this must specifically create -- cleared? >> i am not familiar what process was used to the markings on the document. i understanding looking at the

document is that these were names offered to us as examples -- >> i understand. you have been with the irish a long time. -- a long time. did you share this with the white house? >> i am not -- i cannot speak to what the process was for putting these labels on the document. >> her testimony today is you have never shared confidential information with political appointees at the white house. to in your 75 or 79 trips the white house meetings, small and not so small groups, with political appointees to the white house. i have to understand, either this is 61 information that the irs says it is, and you shared with the white house, or it is not, in which case, someone at the irs is abusing the it

redaction -- of the redaction. -- abusing the redaction. in the it -- participate reductions at all? >> i did not. >> this is a serious matter. from this you were part of the discussion at a time in which a controversial wool was going into effect, which included a number of conservative and religious groups. you were providing back and forth advice to white house personnel on that infant -- implementation. is that correct? >> my recollection had to do with what the current irs rules are under regulations under 60 33, in place -- in case policymakers wanted to use any already existing in the tax code

and that they understand what they would cover or not depending on which definition they chose to employ. it was not a discussion about their decision of what to use. >> you provided technical information on whether or not schools sponsored by churches and other affiliated groups, whether or not they could be compelled -- compelled on the affordable care act -- affordable care act. the question for political from what has to you, in your back and forth trips and a large amount of e-mails had to do with their desire to compel religious groups to do certain things and you were advising them as to what the law would be and how they might implement it, and in the case of one of e- mails, you said, hoping there is a quick answer while i took -- prep for something else. these copy me on the answer.

this is something you wanted to be aware of and participate by political appointees at the white house. is that correct? >> that portion of the e-mail is .ddressed to staff at the irs >> i was reading your quote. "hoping there is a quick answer while i prep for something else. please copy me on the answer. that is your portion of the e- mail? >> yes. >> so you have been intimately involved in aca implementation questions, including whether or not someone would see a waiver, whether or not somebody under current law could or could not be forced to do something they did not want to do. is that correct? >> i have an involved in answering questions about how the rules work. that is what this exchange is about. it was not about what role policymakers ought to adapt.

>> one last time. the information underneath your, if it is not 6103, you agree we should know what it is. if it is 6103, it is something you said we would never -- we had never done, to transfer the information to political appointees at the white house. >> i would have to refer you to the people who did the redaction spirit i do not know what is underneath. i'm sorry. >> neither do we we. i now recognize the ranking member. all of ourwatch programs in our video library. alsoessman jim jordan questioned about the affordable care act. she testified before the house oversight committee wednesday. >> thank you. you have been at the irs how long? >> i was adjusting the mike. over 31 years. >> i want to go back to where

the chairman was. you take the confidence -- confidentiality statute seriously? >> very seriously. >> let's put the definition. no officer or employee of united states should should enclose any return information that came by as such andanner officer or employee or otherwise or under the provision of the section. this is pretty straightforward. you cannot share personal taxpayer information, correct? >> yes. >> i cited in my opening statement you gave this where you highlighted it and were talking about the affordable care act. this is from the presentation you gave according to the minutes of the meeting from the oversight board. federal tax law imposes privacy protections that are the irs from enclosing federal tax information. this encompasses both the release of the data and the

safeguarding of the data in the hand of the recipient. you cannot pass this back and forth. you have got to protect it. this was the presentation you gave in front of the irs oversight board. let's go back to the e-mail the chairman had in front of you, if we could, where it is a dressed to jean lambro. who is that? my understanding is she is on the domestic counsel. i do not know her very well. >> according to the log, we do this all the time, in a 17 you visitedrame, her 75 times. .ore than once a week, age 26 deputy assistant to the president for health care. 75 different times it is that who you visited with. you say you do not know her? >> those were the times not necessarily i attended. >> do you know how many you did

attend? many fewer. you could have been there 75 times. in your testimony, it was that 60 10d not disclose any three information. correct? >> i did not. >> who then at the irs decided -- all and blacked out they blacked out on the e-mail? we got this from the irs. we did not blacked out. we want to know what is underneath. >> there is a difference between whether somebody gives me information about a taxpayer, to which i can respond, versus releasing an e- mail to other members, such as the members of congress. i defer. >> are you saying you are allowed to give this information to the white house? >> it is not that information. >> look at the e-mail closely. do you see where it is all blacked out? there is a number written on

each of those areas. what is the number there? release of the document? 6103. the irsmeone at decided this was confidential taxpayer information. when the committee got those documents, they said, that is information you are not a lot -- not allowed to see. yet it is fine for you to communicate to the white house and release that information and give the information. >> i would refer you to the people of the irs. >> we would like to know who the person is who made the decision. you certainly did not think it was and someone did. >> i believe the committee is interesting. >> this is your e-mail. put that back up, if we could. i want to ask you one question. if it is not 60 10, and it is your e-mail, let's go right below the line. there is one sentence. a large well known university. do you see that sent death sentence there? a large well known university. what is underneath that? >> i do not know.

>> you cannot renumber? >> i do not remember every e- mail. >> this is about the lawsuits, a number of christian affiliated universities had against the government regarding their religious liberty rights. that is the subject matter. definitionout the under 6033. >> you cannot tell me if that is a christian or catholic university? even though you wrote it? >> i do not know what is underneath. >> you cannot tell me what is underneath even though you wrote it? you cannot tell me who decided to back without so the committee could not get it, but your testimony is that you did not share any, national taxpayer information with the white house? totimes you were declared meet with -- clear to meet with her. all kinds of redaction's and they all say the same thing. the 103. it sure looks like someone broke the law here. >> i would refer the congressman to the team. theill you provide us

person or persons who decided this committee could receive this information and wrote 6103 on the e-mail? >> i will take the word back that the folks working on the committee on a production of documents. be able to give us the information. if it is not 6103, tell us. behind the individuals miss ingram or from the irs please identify yourselves for the record? >> i want to know if there is somebody there who can communicate to the irs we like these documents in an unredacted format so we can go forward and have a conversation. is there it -- anyone in the group who can correspond with the iraq? maybe danny should've been here. >> he should have. that is my point. is there anyone of you who has the ability to correspond to legislative affairs or to the irs to let them know we would

likely unredacted document so we can go forward and ask ms. ingram what her environ -- involvement was and what organizations were being answered? will one of you raise your hand if you can? >> we would be glad to take your questions. >> i will come back for the record. you will be back here if that is the case. >> i would instruct the clerk and recognized a gentleman. i would instruct the clerk to get a call into the irs. i would like the documents delivered before this hearing is over so we could at least can test the witness detailed about her own e-mail she does not seem to be able to recognize. >> jack lew will testify tomorrow morning about next week's debt ceiling. fromll take questions members of the senate finance committee. live coverage gets underway at 8:00 eastern on c-span two. on c-span three, the senate committee will hold a hearing on

the debt limit and the potential impact the u.s. default could have on the global economy. of theoklahoma governor american bankers association will testify. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> doing book tv's coverage of this year's national book festival, david spoke about joseph kennedy. >> finally, kennerly -- kennedy could not figure out churchill is playing this mind game with them. whether churchill was accusing him or so drunk he forgot from the day before kennedy did not drink. one another intensely but the war was over here they had intense suffering. , hechill said to kennedy held out his hand, and he said, i am so sorry for your loss. joe junior had died during the war.

churchill was sincere. he said to churchill, what good was it all? churchill looked at him, unbelieving, world war ii had destroyed, in churchill's mind, hitler and the dictators. it had saved democracy. it had saved western civilization, so churchill thought. blazed hatred at him. >> book tv is the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books every weekend. we are marking 15 years of the tv on c-span two. >> house democrats met with president obama. because of technical problems, we missed a short portion of this 12 minute reefing.

>> good evening. we just had a very positive meeting with the president of the united states. we expressed our appreciation to each other for standing strong for the american people, to open government and to honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. >> i want to say that the president emphasized over and over again what we also share and that is, he is willing to talk about all of the issues that our republican colleagues want to talk about and try to come to agreement but he's simply saying, we can talk while the government is open. the government doesn't need to be shut for us to talk. and we can talk while we make sure that the goth pays its bills. i think the american public agrees with that and we agree with the president on that issue. mr. clyburn?

>> well, i think, i can't add any more to that. this was a great meeting, very positive, very upbeat, our members were very, very pleased with the discussion and the president was very firm. and we believe very strongly that the president is open for discussions with anyone. the problem we've got right now is the american people, especially those who depend upon the federal government to work, ought to go back to work, we ought not keep them at bay while we have these discussions. >> the president reiterated that he -- >> we spent a good dole of timesharing story the president from his experience and our members from ours as to the hardships that the american people are feeling because of the government shutdown. but it was individual -- whether it was individually or in some cases furloughing of contractors , it's about jobs, it's act the

fact that our veterans make up a large percentage of the federal work force and a large percentage of those veterans are people with disabilities. so again, our emphasis is solving the problem, open government, negotiate, and honor the full faith and credit of the united states. we can take just a few questions. >> do you expect that to happen? >> i don't know what to expect. but i will say this. we have said that we are willing to give 200 votes as the distinguished whip said and others have said, 200 votes to open government, to go -- appoint conferees to go to the table to discuss the budget. and that is to say to the republican leadership in the house, we accept your number, we accept your path to the table, take yes for an answer. we haven't heard any offer of a short-term, one way or another. >> are you open to the idea of a short-term debt ceiling encrease in a matter of just a few weeks? >> first of all, just to go

become to the c.r., all we want is a short-term c.r. because we think the number is not acceptable. so we think that we need to take up that number, deal with it and when we go to the budget table is when we can resolve some of the issues that -- about the debt ceiling. that is to say the discussion will be a useful one. it shouldn't be any condition as to what happened with the debt ceiling. and there's no concession on the debt ceiling. the debt croling needs to be lifted. they're not getting anything for that. and we haven't seen an offer for that. when we see an offer for that, we'll make a decision about that. >> can i make a comment? i want to make a comment on that. democrats are prepared to make sure that the government pays its bills.

but good policy, good economics, and building confidence for the american people would be extending it for a substantial period of time so the markets will have the confidence of where we're going to be next week, next month, and next year. so that although i think the answer to your question is, we're not going to vote against making sure that america pays its bills, we think it ought to be a longer term for the economy and the growth of jobs. jobs, after all is really what we ought to be working on. >> how would you structure it to have the republicans confidence that once they give you what you want, that you truly would bar gain in good faith over the other issues? >> wait a minute. we're giving them what they want. they want 986, none of us wants 986. we said yes to them for their number which we don't like. >> once those c.r.'s are -- >> ok, so once they accept, take yes for an answer to their bad number, then what? >> then how are they -- what do you do to convince them that once the c.r.'s are passed, you will return to the table to bargain.

>> wait a minute. let's put this in perspective, very briefly. the beginning of march in the oval office, the republican leadership of the house and senate, mr. boehner and mr. mcconnel, said they wanted regular order. that means you pass a budget in the house, pass a budget in the senate, go to conference. that happened a few weeks later in the house and senate. then they said we don't want regular order anymore. and for six months we've been saying, that's what you said you wanted. now we're saying, ok, you've shut down government, which is totally reckless and irresponsible. we're accepting your number of 986. for the next six weeks. to go to the regular order of going to the budget table to discuss our budget priorities.

and that is the path that is regular order. >> leader pelosi, what was your assessment of the president's mood as to whether or not a deal could be struck. even today republicans said we're not going to send everybody over, we're only going to send over a few. >> that's a problem. our entire caucus was here. everybody was here. everybody was invited as far as we know, everybody was here. there may have been one or two people who didn't get in out of the rain. but everybody was invited. i don't think we can emphasize enough the fact that when we accepted their 986 number, the number we accepted to start the negotiations. and boehner himself on sunday said that he did agrow to that in exchange for a clean c.r. however, he later found that his

people wanted the affordable care act to be into this mix. but he agreed that we would have a short-term c.r. and fwoshte somewhere between our number of 1058 and their number of 986 over a six-week period. and if that's not negotiating, i don't know what is. >> let me just say this point, though, following up on my distinguished colleague's -- on my distinguished colleague, the assistant leader said. this number is the number speaker boehner offered to leader reid. leader reid accepted this number. president obama accepted this -- accepted the republican house number. house democrats accepted the republican house number.

the only people who are not accepting the republican house number are the republicans house leadership. and there are enough members in their peard who want to vote for a clean c.r. at that measure to open government at that number, we have given them 200 names on a piece of paper, people who don't believe that number is good enough but in order to open government they're willing to do it. what they're doning now, moving goal posts and changing views, taking back their commitment, is a luxury our country cannot afford. >> [inaudible] >> yes. the short-term c.r., there are two different things. there are two different things. the short-term c.r. we're willing to agree to because the number is not sufficient as the chairman of the appropriations committee has said that number is not sufficient to conduct government. that's one of steny's favorite hooks, perhaps you'd like to make that one. that's a different story. a short-term debt limit is -- it doesn't restore confidence.

when we see them offer one, we will see what path they think that takes us down. >> [inaudible] toif the alternative is -- as i said, it might be humorous to you, it is only the global economy. is anot think it responsible place to go. i hope that our colleagues would not do that. >> [inaudible] >> you would have to talk to him

about that. we have made every concession. if this makes you feel more comfortable, we will smooth the path for you to go to the table. -- let's see what they are offering. is only connection they have the budget conference table. that is where this negotiation should be taking place. businesses are not having the customers they need because people are out of work and other people are uncertain. this is a sad scenario for our country. >> [inaudible]

>> more about the government shut down and the upcoming debt ceiling deadline. us.h ellison will join we will also talk with arizona republican, who is a member of the house small business community -- committee. we will also take your calls, e- mails, and tweets. washington journal comic each morning on c-span at 7:00. , eachhington journal morning on c-span at 7:00. murray tried to bring up

the measure to go to conference with the house on the federal budget. republicans object did. here is part of that debate from the senate floor. the reasonable thing to do is to end the crisis, steer away from the next one, and work together on a long-term plan to avoid this crises in the future. week ofow in the second this absolutely unnecessary

government shut down. >> the senate is not in order. >> the senate will be in order. >> every day, we are hearing more and more about the tremendous impact this is having on our families and our communities across the country. it is only going to get worse. today.end this it does not have to continue. we are holding the door open for our republican colleagues to join us in putting a stop to this madness. madam president, senate democrats have spent the last six months trying to get republicans to join us at the table and a budget conference.

we knew there were two options, conference or crisis. working together towards a bipartisan budget deal or lurching separately into a completely avoidable government shut down. a number of republicans have joined us and a push for negotiations, but no matter how many times we tried, we were blocked. we were pushed to this point by our refusal to negotiate. and now the only path forward is for the house to end the crisis and join us at the table that we have been waiting to sit out for six months. negotiate.ant to we want to have a conversation. we think the only way out of the cycle of constant crisis is for the two sides to work together to make some compromises and get to a fair and responsible long- term deal.

it just does not make sense to do that while our families and communities are being hurt by this government shut down and while the threat of a default hangs over their head. i served on the supercommittee, i worked with my colleagues to write and pass our budget here in the senate. i know of republicans and democrats have some serious differences when it comes to our budget values. i absolutely believe we owe it to the american people to try to bridge that divide and find common ground. are we really going to asked them to wait patiently, continue suffering through the shut down, keep watching as we cruise toward an economic calamity? that does not make sense.

let's have those conversations, let's have those negotiations, but let's end this crisis and get to work. yesterday i heard something from the speaker, he said he did not want to end the shut down now because that would be up and vote -- "unconditional surrender to the president." have we really come to the point where simply allowing the government to open is considered by one party to be a political loss? are we really in a place where the majority of one chamber in one branch of government believes allowing the united states of america to pay its bills is a major concession? i say to my republican friends who are here today, can you imagine if our roles were reversed? i have been working very hard this year to write an early childhood education bill.

i am passionate about it. i suspect there are a few people in this chamber today who could see themselves in the white house. what would my republican colleagues do if i said to them, if they did not pass my bill to all ofpre-k, i would get the democrats together and we would refuse to pass any spending bill until we got what we wanted? if that led to a government shut down because they refuse to let my bill pass, what would they do if i commanded a supercommittee to discuss ways to invest in our children before i allowed to vote to open the government back up again? i would humbly suggest that my republican colleagues would say exactly what democrats are saying now.

this is not a legitimate way to negotiate. the only path forward is to end this crisis and have a conversation. system thaterican we hold so dear, our democracy that is the envy of the world minoritynnot work if a of members can threaten to shut down the government or devastate the economy is they do not get their way on an issue, any issue . that is not what democrats do but we were in the minority and it is not what we should do should that day come again. our system was designed to push both sides towards negotiations in a divided government, to encourage negotiation and movement towards common ground. down when one side

refuses to negotiate in advance -- itrisis and it stalls falls apart when a minority refuses to allow the basic functions of our government to perform unless their demands are met. i know all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, came here to fight for their constituents to solve problems, to make this country work better. i know there is nobody here today, not a single senator who was sent here to shut the government down or to push this country towards an unprecedented default. i know so many of my colleagues crises. of the constant they hate seeing their constituents get hurt. a way toe should find

sit down and find a way out of these dead ends. i am here today to offer, a way out, a path forward. it is not a defeat of one side or the other, it is not any kind of surrender, but it would allow us to get out of this mess that has been created and open up the path to negotiations so we can avoid the next one. i am going to asked for consent to start a budget conference as soon as the current crisis has ended. democrats have made it clear that we want to negotiate. made it not have clearer. we will sit down and negotiate over anything the republicans want and we pledged to work as hard as we can for as long as it takes until we get a fair and end-term budget deal to

these constant crises. this current crisis needs to end and the threat of the next one needs to be lifted. republicans do not need a hostage. i urge my republican colleagues to please consider today taking us up on this offer. we can into this today, we can do the right thing for our families and the communities we represent our we can get back to work helping people solving problems and working together. respectfullynt, i asked unanimous consent that when the senate receives a theage from the house, senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number

,3, the amendment at the desk the budget resolution passed by , theenate be inserted motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, the senate proceed to a vote on the motion to insist on its amendment, request a conference with the house on the disagreed vote and authorize the chair to appoint conferees on the part of the senate. >> is there objection? objectrving the right to , we agree it is good to negotiate and we should. i would only hope the president would be part of the negotiation in order to make it successful. on passageontingent

of the house continuing resolution? we happen to think it is a problem when the debt ceiling , we would see the debt go up by 68% under this president.

we think that is a bad idea. the senator from washington whether she would consider an amended unanimous consent request and we would senatehe senate that the proceed to the consideration of calendar 33 that the amendment be inserted that 20 5 p.m. ended and agreed to and the motion -- and so did that 25 p.m. ended and agreed to. that 25 be amended and agreed to.

i would further asked consent that it not be in order for the senate to consider a conference that includes reconciliation instructions to raise the debt limit. senator so modify her request? think those who have been objecting 21 times have forgotten who i will be conferencing with, which is the republican house majority. for will beght represented in a conference committee. that is the point of a conference committee. having a conference committee to work out our budget agreement is exactly what i have asked for. i will object because what the say,ors requested does is

we will keep our government closed. we will not allow people to do the function so desperately needed. we will hold that hostage. we need to open the government, we need to pay our bills, and we need to negotiate. that is what our request does. >> objection is heard. >> i object. >> asking republicans to join us in a conference committee to resolve our budget differences between a house and the senate, totimes the senator has come

this floor simply asking to negotiate. the republicans, who have been arguing that we do not negotiate , turned her down 21 times. the junior senator from texas shut down the government over the notion of defunding obamacare. the senior senator from texas has said he objects to going to a conference committee to resolve our differences. if we're are going to restore this senate, what the senator from washington has asked for is very basic. open the government. the chaplain of the senate --rted by a knology the 5 acknowledging the five families who were notified after they lost a military member, a son, husband, brother in afghanistan over the weekend.

the chaplain noted that in their bereavement, they were being denied the basic benefits. the chaplain of the senate set up this morning, enough is enough. this notion that closing down our government and keeping it closed is somehow acceptable political conduct is outrageous. we just left a press conference where the senator mikulski of impactd, spoke about the on the local economy of the loss of these jobs. i could tell stories of illinois come of 50,000 federal workers. we were in the midst of a terrible accident last week right before october 1, a train ran into one of our metro trains

coming back from the airport. 30 people were sent to the hospital. the national transportation safety board would not to investigate the accident. -- went out to investigate the accident. at midnight onve october 1. we will pick out the vital functions of government. so far, all of the bills passed by the house of representatives represent only 18% of the domestic as cautionary budget of the united states. all of those combined. each day, as another tragedy occurs, another embarrassment to this republican strategy occurs, they will try and to find a way

to fix that problem. open the government, pay our bills, while we negotiate. for the for -- for the 21st time, the republicans have come to the floor and denied the to sit down and negotiate. 21 times. >> the senator from alabama. >> it is a good thing the for the first time after four years, passed a budget, at least brought one to the floor. that, they not only did

not pass one comment they did not bring one to the floor for four years and refused to do so even though the specific provision of the code called on them to do so. them to do so. it was a stunning development. conrad wanted to bring budgets up, said he was going to bring the budget up, but senator durbin and others in the leadership had a vote and voted against him. senator murray got a budget , which was ayear good thing. i suspect senator murray was one of those who blocked senator conrad. aggressiveis a bit

to say republicans are blocking a budget. the legislation necessary to raise the debt ceiling again should be passed like legislation should be passed on the floor of the senate and it would require a 60 vote point of order. they are -- they're concerned is that an conference -- they're concern is- their that an conference, a raising of the debt ceiling will be put in conference. goy will allow the budget to to conference, but they want a commitment from our democratic

colleagues. they have indicated they do not intend to put that on the budget . senator durbin said he did not think it was appropriate. it is a time of great

importance, the american people understand it. they want us to take action to place this country on a sound financial path. we are heading to the debt ceiling. we limit the amount of money congress can borrow. how much money we can spend we are now spending -- think about it. out is what we are doing every year. are doing what we every year and it is unsustainable. the american people told congress, we want to clip back on your credit card. you will not continue to borrow this much money every year.

before you raise the debt ceiling, we want you to show that you are going to be more frugal. after a time, there was an agreement reached. this is what we agreed to. years, we would raise the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion. and then we agreed on the next 10 years that we would reduce the projected growth of spending i $2.1 trillion. by two point $1 trillion. it gave the congress 10 years to find the cuts.

we have artie borrowed another $2 trillion and we hit the debt ceiling cap again -- we have already borrowed another to trillion dollars and we have hit the debt ceiling cap again. by the way, these are not really cuts. when you look at the united states budget, it was projected to increase spending from 37 to $47n over 10 years trillion over 10 years. with the budget control act, spending when increase from 37 trillion to $45 trillion over 10 years. that is not really a cut in spending, is it?

the president of the united states, after signing that theement in august, sequester was all part of the in january, he proposed a budget that would increase spending another trillion dollars and would raise taxes a trillion dollars. that is basically what our colleagues passed in their budget this year. a trillion dollars more than the budget control act says we should spend an raise taxes another trillion dollars. total abdication of

the promise we made to the american people. ok, we will vote to raise the debt ceiling. anypeople did not like raising of the debt ceiling. we promised we would not spend so much. we promised we would reduce and a lot.1 trillion of synnex said, -- a lot of cynics said congress would not adhere to that. that is exactly what the president did in january of 2012.

anothersed to spend trillion dollars above the amount of money we agreed to spend six months before. i did not really want to sign that agreement. i have taxes i want to increase. this is what is occurring. we have got to stand firm. adhere, at least, to the containment of the growth of spending that was in the budget control act.

failure to do that is a in our promises to the american people, a total abandonment of any contention that we would be fiscally responsible. it is unthinkable that we would abandon the limits. the truth is, the sad truth is the budget control act reductions in the growth of spending do not come close to putting us on a firm financial footing. we are on an unsustainable debt course as our cbo has told us. we are seeing a reduction in the deficits this year.

we have never come close to that kind of deficit before in the history of the republic. saysis the budget say that we want to taxi blood trillion dollars more and spend more aney under these -- tax billion -- a trillion dollars more and spend for money under these circumstances?

there is no way we can save any more money. we have a problem, though, and you know who is responsible for? you are. you the american people. it is your fault. you will not give us enough money. ,f you would send us more money we could solve all of our problems. send us more money. by the way, we will use that money to create government programs, government bureaucracies that are -- that impose great cost on the american economy and have resulted in the declining wages of american workers to the degree that is not acceptable.

the size of our debt is so large, we have never had anything like it. it is already beginning to diminish our prospects for growth in our economy and reduce job creation and wages. madam president, i know that we are in a tough time. we need to work our way out of this. overresident negotiated the debt ceiling in august of 2011 and we made a step forward. it was the most significant fiscal step this country has taken in decades. for the last two years, we have spent less money than the year before.

we need to strengthen and save medicare. we cannot afford the affordable care act. -- we have a total misrepresentation on the affordable care act regarding its cost. it does not pay for itself, nowhere close. it is as unstable financially as social security is. >> the senators time has expired.

>> let's keep working. maybe we can develop some ways to confront our financial problems. it is absolutely critical that we do. we have a more open -- a moral responsibility to do that. i think the president needs to back off his statements that he will not negotiate. oregon.enator from [inaudible] president, i have one unanimous consent request for a committee to meet during today's session.

this request be printed in the record. >> without objection. >> through the chair, i wanted to pose a question about the budget conference committee. i think it is something that has puzzled a lot of people across america. we hear some folks standing up and giving speeches. my understanding is that anything that comes out of the budget conference committee would have to have agreement from the team of delegates from

the house side and the team of elements -- delegates from the senate side. >> the senator from alabama. >> that is correct. i understand the speaker has indicated that there is no that the increase in debt ceiling would not be a part of a conference report that came out of conference committee. we have independent senators in this body who simply said we do not think we should be subjected to having the debt ceiling debatee without a full and the normal processes of 60 votes in the senate. that is where the disagreement lies. people can have disagreements about the validity of their

concern. .t is a legitimate concern if there is no intention to move that is the disagreement that now exists. >> the senator from oregon. why not without concern -- , why not concern simply asked the house delegates to carry that concern rather than blocking the start of the conference committee? alabama.nator from it is very simple.

senators have rights and they to assert those privileges on the floor of the senate. we have senators who say, you should not do this because you should not raise the debt ceiling on the budget bill and we do not want to go to conference unless you do. agreed to. snake that through without a full vote -- agreed to sneak that through without a full vote. it is a budget deal that is huge and would have a lot of interest in it and would make it more difficult to separate that question out. that is their view. problem.see any

after four years of not even bringing a budget to the floor that we now have the majority passing a budget so we can try to do something with it and conference. i have to tell you all of our colleagues, there is a big difference in the budget.

commit to try to not sneak the debt ceiling increase under budget. >> the senator from oregon. >> the thing that puzzles me is there is a process on this floor

for giving instructions to a conference committee. the question i would have followed up with is given that there is a specific process in the senate for doing budget instructions to a conference committee, why not utilize that hold a vote ons, the conference committee instructions rather than blockading the conference committee from starting? i guess i will have to rhetorically answer the question. there is no good explanation. no good explanation for why not going through the normal process of proposing a budget committee instructions for conferees. could we resolve this today? have a proposal put forward to instruct the conferees, it

passes or does not? isn't the whole budget process designed to be a simple majority process so that we can get the job done and not be paralyzed? i think, madam president, i believe the story and i would've liked to have the perspective of my colleague, i think the story is a determination to not allow a majority determination of the budget instructions. i believe that is an unprecedented situation and i wanted to clarify that and understand whether there was a precedent for this determination that in a simple majority process, a minority would blockade the process.

it is very strange that they should become a central issue. i want americans to understand that it boils down to this. we have been trying to start a budget conference committee that a small group has wanted to instruct the budget committee, but to do so without going through the normal process on the floor. it is that precedent that seems unacceptable. if the tables were turned, it it would be felt strongly on the other side. i hope to keep exploring these questions. this obstruction of getting a budget is damaging. bes body absolutely has to able to do with fundamental work in determining the budget and getting the conference and doing

the spending bills because we are careening from crisis to crisis. what do the seeds of this come from? 2009,turn back to april, shortly after i came to the senate, there was a memo put out by an individual. he was providing a roadmap on of to block any sort improvement in our health care system. instructing my colleagues across the aisle that it does not matter what is in the health not matterit does what good it does, what ever it

is, call it a government takeover. of poisonous partisanship rather than problem solving has been with us since at least april of 2009. yths wereof m generated. reform, weth care have a process by which small businesses can join together and get the marketing clout of a large group, negotiate lower rates, and get a better deal. demonize and's deceive strategy, instead of -- there has been an assertion this with hurt -- this would hurt small businesses.

togetherls can band and did a much better deal. we are seeing drops in rates for individuals across this country. under the deceive and demonize strategy, it became, let's tell people insurance rates will go up instead of down. , ahave a bill before us health care reform law coming into effect that ends abuses in , a insurance industry situation where you could not get a policy if you had a pre- existing condition, it if you had insurance and got sick, you would be thrown off the policy. these bill of rights are reforms that are deeply sought by

americans across this country, but under the frank lutz strategy, there was an assertion that this would be -- would destroy the insurance system. under the marketplaces, insurance companies will have to compete. strategy,frank lutz they decided to say this would hurt competition, even though it strengthens competition. we're saying that competition from private companies -- seeing that competition from private companies.

>> the senators time has expired. >> thank you very much. thank you for coming to the floor. continue the conversation. it is so important that we put our government back on track and quit careening from crisis to crisis. >> jack lew will testify tomorrow morning about next week's that ceiling deadline. he will take questions from members of the senate finance committee. the senate banking committee will hold a hearing on the debt limit and the potential impacts the u.s. default could have on the global economy. let's coverage at 10:00.

>> the president reminded me that he was not going to negotiate over keeping the government open or over the looming need to increase the debt limit. >> we are willing to negotiate but we will not negotiate with her on -- with a gun to our heads. >> we will not negotiate under the threat of further harm to our economy and middle-class families. >> stay with c-span for coverage of the government shutdown and your input into the conversation. >> i am disgusted that obama cannot compromise. he refuses to negotiate. >> the republicans are playing stupid games.

if everybody played these games, it is something resembling trees and. -- treason. >> president obama nominated janet yellen to head the federal reserve. if confirmed, she will take over for an bernanke. -- ben bernanke. >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states accompanied by ben bernanke and vice chair, janet yellen. >> have a seat, everybody. good afternoon. over the past five years, america has fought its way back from the worst recession since the great depression.

we have passed historic reform to prevent another crisis and protect consumers. for the past three and a half years, our businesses have created 7.5 million new jobs. our housing market is rebounding. manufacturing is growing. the auto industry has come rolling back. we have cut the deficit in half. i think everyone understands we have a lot of work to do to rebuild the middle class, but we have made progress. we should not do anything to threaten that progress. this has made a difference to millions of americans. we can thank the extraordinary resilience of the american people. we can think that dynamism of our businesses. a lot of it has to do a choices we have made to create more jobs and growth. one of the most important contributors to this whole process has been the fed reserve under the strong leadership of

ben bernanke. for nearly eight years, ben has led the fed through some of the most daunting and economic challenges of our lifetime. he has made it clear that he intends to finish his service as chairman at the end of his term, which is this january. i want to take a minute to pay tribute to ben for his extraordinary service. i want to announce my choice for the next chair of the fed reserve. one of the nation's foremost economists and policymakers, current vice chairman, janet yellen. after i became president, i was proud to nominate ben for a second term. the fed is and must always be independent. i want you to know that i am very grateful to you for being such a strong partner in helping america recover from the recession. it is no surprise as the son of a pharmacist and schoolteacher that ben bernanke has the

opinion of home. he has been a voice of wisdom and a steady hand. at the same time when faced with potential global economic meltdown, he has displayed tremendous courage. he took old action that was needed. he helped us stop the freefall and stabilize financial markets. get credit flowing again. a lot of people are not sure what the federal chair does. but more families were able to afford new homes and businesses could hire workers. more people could pay their mortgages and car loans. it meant more growth and more jobs. i would add with his commitment

to greater transparency and clarity, he is also allowed us to better understand -- he has lead a new era of fed speak. it is good for our democracy. the job of the fed chair is not just our top monetary policymakers. the world looks to the american fed chair for leadership and guidance. the degree to which he is admired and respected and the degree to which central bankers all across the world look to him for sound advice and smart

policymaking is remarkable. he has truly been a stabilizing force not just for our country, but the entire world. i could not be more grateful for his extraordinary services. you and your wife and your children, thank you for your outstanding service. [applause] as i said, the decision on who will succeed ben is one of the most important economic decisions as president. one of the most important appointments any president can make.

the chair of the fed is one of the most important policymakers of the world. i have considered a lot of factors. we need sound monetary policy to make sure we keep inflation in check. we need to increase employment and create jobs. it remains our most important economic challenge. i have found these qualities in janet yellen. she is a proven leader. she is tough, not just because she is from brooklyn. she is well qualified for the role. she served in leadership positions at the fed for more than a decade. as vice chair, she has been exemplary and the driving force of policy and helped boost our economy recovery. she doesn't have a crystal ball, but she has a keen understanding of how markets and the economy work, not just in theory, but in the real world.

she calls it like she sees it. she also knows how to build consensus. she listens to competing views and brings people together around a common goal. she is the kind of person who makes everyone around her better. not presently, she is held in high esteem by colleagues across the country and around the world who look to the united states and the fed for leadership. she is committed to both sides. she understands the necessity of a stable financial system were removed ahead with the reforms that we have begun. protect consumers. ensure no institution is too big to fail. make sure that taxpayers are never left held holding the bag because of mistakes of the reckless few. at the same time, she is committed to the appointment and understands the human costs when americans cannot find a job. these are not the statistics. the toll is terrible on the mental and physical health of workers, their marriages, and their children. she understands this. they will have a champion in janet yellen. thank you for taking on this new assignment.

i urge the senate to confirm janet without delay. she will be an exceptional chair of the fed reserve. i should add that she will be the first woman to lead the fed in its 100 year history. america's men and women thank you for not only your example and excellence, but also being able model for a lot of folks out there. it has been said that janet was at the fed reserve literally.