i urge the quick passage of this important legislation so we can send it on to the enate. 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 onsidered 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. i strongly support the mission of the f.a.a., controllers and technicians and safety inspectors are highly skilled and dedicated public servants. however, i cannot support this piecemeal approach to funding our transportation system. for example, 94% of the federal transit administration's employees are furloughed. more than 1,300 transit agencies across the country are not receiving grants for capital and operating assistance. no funds are provided for the capital investment grant program which helps create construction jobs and relieves congestion in our major cities. the national highway traffic safety administration vehicle safety program is shut

down. defects in cars and trucks are not being investigated. crash tests and safety rulemaking have been suspended. what about the assistance to amtrak? operating and capital assistance is discontinued at a time when more than 30 million passengers rely on amtrak to get the -- to get to destinations all over this country. the maritime secure program gets no relief by this piecemeal approach. this program provides vital support by helping move the cargo that is necessary to support our national defense efforts overseas. finally, the national transportation safety board has furloughed most of its employees. and investigations into last week's tragic bus crash in ennessee will go undone. oday we reported a gas explosion in oklahoma, which

would be the responsibility of his agency to investigate. will it be investigated? probably not. only because of the shutdown. the reckless and irresponsible shutdown that has been master minded by a small faction of the house is disruptive for our nation's transportation system and for the programs that support our most vulnerable itizens. and for this reason, mr. chairman, i would ask opposition to this piecemeal approach, to this piece of legislation. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to now recognize the chairman of the full appropriations committee, the gentleman from kentucky, mr. rogers, four four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized for four minutes. mr. rogers: i thank the chairman for yielding me this time. you know, we've heard from the

other side of the aisle on all of these bills that attempt to reopen many aspects of the federal government. we hear them say, well, i'm in favor of that program, but i want to vote against it until they bring the entire government funding bill before us. well, i'd love to do that. i'd love to bring the entire budget here. in fact, we did. and we can't get the senate to act on it. but in the meantime, the other side is saying, i'll vote against this because i want to save and vote for the entire federal government. well, that may work in some of the agencies but this is safety. this is the safety of people flying the skies of this country. and the world. you don't want to delay safety until you can vote on a bigger bill. i think it's irresponsible not to support the safety of our people in the skies.

now this bill provides funding to resume operations within f.a.a. that are critical to the safety of our skies and our aircraft fleet. it would bring back 7,000 aviation safety inspectors currently not working, restarting aircraft certification activities, resuming training for air traffic controllers, reopening the aircraft registry service, and continuing air traffic control modernization. mr. speaker, you don't want to mess around with the safety of our people. and this bill cures that problem and i can't imagine anyone wanting to oppose this bill. the sum total of these efforts will help guarantee safe,

efficient and reliable air travel for the american public. this funding is provided as an annual rate of $12 billion, will last until december 15 or until the congress enacts the president and the president signs -- enacts and the president signs a full-year appropriations bill. the language in this bill is yet again nearly identical to what was included in the c.r. i offered back in september, nearly a month ago. once again we're calling on the senate to consider and pass this bill. our colleagues on the other side of the capitol continue to call for a clean c.r., yet they continue to act on these clean mini-c.r.'s. the house has put forward a plethora of options to fund the federal government. first, the four annual appropriations bills to fund he government in regular order

then three different continuing resolutions prior to september 30. and now these short-term c.r.'s to reopen parts of the federal government. in fact, more than 1/3 of it so far. but the senate is committed to inaction. they didn't pass any regular appropriations bills. they will not pass our clean short-term funding bills. and they so far have refused to join us at the negotiating table. mr. speaker, that completely puzzles me. it goes against the grain of what has gone on in this country since we've been a country, when the two bodies differ, the founding fathers said, if you can't agree, aupon the conference members from either -- appoint conference members from either body, from both bodies. it's always worked. xcept now the senate refuses

to do their duty. i hope they'll consider this bill as a stepping stone toward ending the shutdown. we need to come together in a productive way with open ears and open minds to find a way to clean up this mess. i urge my colleagues to preserve the safety of american skies. vote for this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from iowa reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. pastor: thank you, mr. speaker. it's interesting. i believe many months ago the senate, which no one thought that they would pass a budget, we persuaded them through our votes here in the house to pass a budget, and the house leadership refused to have a conference, to appoint conferees, so that we could have had regular order, done the appropriation bills, and i know the chairman of the appropriations wanted to do

that and today here we are talking about safety when most of the air traffic controllers are already on the job. but i'd like to yield as much time as she may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations committee, mrs. lowey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for as much time as she may consume. mrs. lowey: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to this reckless republican shutdown. as if we need any more proof of a broken republican government funding strategy, today we are considering a fix to a sequester band-aid. this is deja vu, mr. speaker. and further admission that the republican budget strategy just is not working. while this bill puts furloughed f.a.a. workers back on the job, it does nothing for the rest of our transportation system. this shutdown affects our

transit, vehicle safety, railroads, pipelines, hazard materials and maritime programs too. for example, at the federal transit administration, 94% of he employees have been furloughed. no grants are being issued to ore than 1,300 transit agencies around the country. dditionally, at the national highway traffic safety administration, vehicle safety activities like consumer testing of new vehicles and investigations to identify defects in automobiles have been suspended. now, all of these points are -- aren't to say that democrats have no desire to avoid slight delays -- flight delays and cancellations because of urloughed controllers.

earlier this week, despite our opposition to the broader f.y. 2014 t-huud bill, we supported the -- t-hud bill, we supported the inclusion to prevent further furloughs. unfortunately that never advanced because the allocation for the t-hud bill under the republican budget forced cuts so deep to very important popular initiatives like the community development block grant and amtrak programs that not even republicans could upport the broader bill. and it was republicans that pulled the bill from the house floor. we could end f.a.a. furloughs and all other furloughs if the speaker allowed a vote on the clean c.r. to end the shutdown. democrats have negotiated, let's remember that. we didn't

just meet in the middle. we agreed to the republican spending level in the stop gap bill. look no further than a recent headline from "the national journal" yesterday. quote, 19 times, 19 times democrats tried to negotiate with republicans. the g.o.p.'s biggest talking oint of the shutdown is only rue if you ignore everything that has happened before last week. i want to make one other point. i woke up this morning listening to the voice of a furloughed worker. two kids in college, was talking about how in the world

he's going to pay his expenses, put food on the table, without the dollars that he and his wife count on in their accounts. let's look at the facts. let's listen to these stories in our districts. it's fine to be so cavalier here in washington and shut down the government, talking about getting rid of our mportant obligation to pay our debts, but let's look at the impact of this. let's look at what's happening back home in our districts. and think of how critical these workers are, these programs are. let's get the bill on the floor that would fund the entire overnment. this piecemeal effort may sound good, i don't know if it sounds good to your constituents, i don't know if you can fool them that way, but let's put the entire bill on the floor that was at your level, that passed the senate, and let's move

forward. vote no on this irresponsible bill, demand a house vote to immediately end the reckless republican shutdown. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from arizona reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. latham: at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to recognize for one minute the gentlewoman rom michigan, mrs. miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. miller: i thank the gentleman for yielding the time. mr. speaker, i rise in very strong support of this bill for the f.a.a. to fully -- f.a.a., to fully fund the f.a.a., the federal aviation administration. it is so absolutely critical, both to our economy, as well as our security in the airways. not only on commercial flights but general aviation as well. you know, mr. speaker, during this shutdown, we keep hearing a lot about obamacare. but this bill has nothing to do with obamacare. absolutely nothing to do with obamacare. it is no strings attached, it just funds the f.a.a.

i know that many of our colleagues on the other side will say, well, they can't vote for this unless they have an entire clean c.r., funding the entire government, because they want exactly what they want and nothing else will do. and yet they call republicans absolutists. 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. hairman. 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 ack 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. is working. i can't imagine that the administrator would put the american public in any kind of danger. again, if 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 ime. >> jack lew will testify this morning about next desk's debt ceiling deadline. he'll take questions from the senate committee. live coverage gets underway at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. on c-span3, the senate banking committee will hold a hearing on the debt limit and the potential impact a u.s. default could have on the global

economy. former oklahoma governor frank keating, who heads the american bankers association, will testify. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. during book tv's coverage of this year's national book festival, they spoke about joseph kennedy. >> finally kennedy couldn't figure out churchill had played this mind game with him whether churchill was teasing him or was so drunk that he forgot from the day before that kennedy didn't drink. they had disliked one another intensely, but the war was over. there had been intense suffering. and churchill said to kennedy, he held out his hand and he said, i'm so sorry for your loss. joe jr. had died during the war, and churchill was sincere, and he said to churchill, what

good was it all? d churchill looked at him, unbelieving, world war ii had destroyed, in churchill's mind, hitler, mussolini, dictators, it had saved democracy. it had saved western civilization, so churchill thought. and kennedy blazed hatred at him. >> book tv is the only national television network devoted exclusively to nonfiction books, every weekend. and this fall, we're marking 15 years of book tv on c-span2. >> house oversight chairman darryl issa questioned sarah hall ingram of the i.r.s. about the healthcare law. ere's part of that exchange. >> i'd like to bring your attention to an email chain dated friday, july 20, 2012, in

which you were c.c.'ed and added to the chain. in preparation for the delivery of these documents, i assume, which we were delivered under discovery, you've reviewed those, is this correct? >> i'm not sure whether i've seen the particular one, but i'm reading it now, sir. >> ok. ake your time and read it. >> i've reviewed the document, thank you. >> thank you. do you recall this document? >> i do not recall the document. i think i recall what it is a discussion about. >> well, one of the areas of interest is there's a significant redaction that quotes the statute 6103. do you know who's underneath that blackout? >> i don't recall the document,

so i can't help with you what's underneath the redaction, sir. >> ok. the subject of this -- let's go to a second one. would you give her the second document and we'll pause and give you time to read it. > thank you. this one is from you directly, o hopefully you recall it. do all members have the document in front of them? can we have the clerk distribute the documents? i want to make sure everyone has them in front of them. do we have enough copies? ok, they'll be distributed, if the gentlelady will just pause or a moment.

>> do all the members now have the document? i think in the front row they'll need more. ms. ingram, do you recall the second document in which you're the author? >> i remember the conversations. since my name's on the email, i assume it's me. >> ok. do you know the names underneath any of these black

boxes? or the information. >> no, i'm sorry. i couldn't remotely remember what might have been underneath. >> so you don't know what's underneath there. as an expert at the i.r.s., many times awarded by both republican and democratic administrations, do you know what 6103 indicates? >> yes, i understand 6103, yes, sir. >> ok. and is it true that is, in fact, sensitive information that is not to be distributed outside people permitted to have it within the i.r.s. and a very limited amount of people here in congress? >> i understand the rules of 6103, yes, sir. >> well, you understand that you can't distribute 6103 information outside of people authorized to see this, is that correct? >> correct. >> so why are political appointees in the office of the president receiving 6103 information? on what basis would you be allowed to discuss the

information, which is a form of classification under 6103, with political appointees at the white house? the i.r.s. is a nonpolitical organization. you are not a political person. but isn't it true that political appointees are not allowed to see this information unless specifically cleared, correct? >> i am not familiar with what process was used to put the markings on this document. my understanding from looking at the document is that these are names that were offered to us as examples of how the -- >> yeah, no, i understand, but you've been with the i.r.s. a long time. 6103 information, did you share 6103 information with people at the white house? >> i'm not conscious of ever sharing 6103 information at the white house, but i cannot speak to what the process was for putting these labels on this document. >> ok, so your testimony today is that you have never shared confidential information with

political appointees, the white house, but in your 75 or 79 trips to the white house, meetings in small and not so small groups with political appointees at the white house, then i have to understand, either this is 6103 information as the i.r.s. has said it is and you've shared it with political appointees at the white house, or it's not 6103, in which case someone at the i.r.s. is abusing the redaction and keeping this committee from getting the information it needs for its proper and lawful discovery. i think we will have danny wuerffel back here on this subject. did you participate in redaction decisions at all? >> no, sir, i did not >> ok. now, i guess one of the -- this s a serious matter, but it appears from this that you were part of the discussion at a time in which a controversial rule was going into effect that

included a number of conservative and religious groups and that you were providing back and forth advice to white house personnel on that implementation, is that correct? >> my recollection of this exchange had to do with what the current i.r.s. rules are under regulations, under 6033, in case policy makers wanted to use any definition that existed already in the tax code and that they understand what they would cover or not cover depending on which definitions they chose to employ. it was not a discussion about their decision about what to use. >> so you were providing technical information on how the administration could determine whether or not church and nonchurch groups, schools sponsored by churches and other affiliated groups, whether or not they could be compeled under the affordable care act to do certain things, is that correct? >> it was a discussion about what the current definitions under 6033 mean and have been for some decades. >> but the questions from political appointees at the

white house to you, in your nearly 80 trips back and forth and apparently a large amount of emails, had to do with their desire to compel religious groups to do certain things under affordable care act 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 the emails, you said hoping there is a quick answer, while i prep for something else, please copy me on the answer. so this was something where you wanted to be aware of and participate in the decision process by political appointees at the white house, is that correct? >> i think that portion of the email is addressed to staff at the i.r.s., hoping that they could take care of answering the questions about -- >> i was reading actually your quote, "hoping there is a quick answer while i prep for something else, please copy me on the answer." that's your portion of that first email. >> yes, it was an a.t.a.-related question and i wanted the staff to do the analysis. >> so you have been intimately involved in a.c.a.

implementation questions, including whether or not somebody would receive 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've been involved in answering questions about how the rules work, and that's what this exchange is about. it was not about what rule the policy makers ought to adapt. >> and one last time, the information underneath here, if it's not 6103, you certainly would agree that we should know what it is, and it is 6103, then it is something you said you've never done, which is to transfer 6103 information to political appointees at the white house. >> i'd have to refer you to the people who did the redactions. >> no, i just -- >> i don't know what's underneath, sir. i'm somplee >> neither do we. neither do we. i now recognize the ranking member. >> you can watch all of our programs in our video library.

go to.org.org. congressman jim jordan also questioned sarah hall ingram about the affordable care act. she testified before the house overnight committee on wednesday. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. ingram, you've been at the i.r.s. how long? >> i'm sorry. i was adjusting the mic, sir. >> you've been at the i.r.s. how long? >> over 31 years. >> and i want to go back to where the chairman was. you take the 6103 confidentiality statute pretty seriously at the i.r.s.? >> very seriously. >> let's put up the definition here, just the statute itself. there's no officer or employee of the united states shall disclose any return or return information obtained by him in any manner in connection with his or her service as such an officer or employee or otherwise or under the provisions of this section. this is the statute he was. it's pretty state forward. you can't share personal taxpayer information, correct? >> true. >> ok. and then in my opening

statement, you gave a presentation to the i.r.s. overnight board where you highlighted this as you were talking about the affordable care act. we can put that slide up. this is from the presentation you gave, according to the mepts of that meeting in front of the i.r.s. oversight board, and i want to show federal tax law imposes prove are you protection that is bar i.r.s. from disclosing federal tax information down to the final sentence, this encompasses both the release of the data and the safeguarding of the data in the hand of the recipient. so if you're conveying -- you can't pass this back and forth. you got to protect this. this was a presentation you gave in front of the i.r.s. oversight board. now let's go back to the email the chairman had in front of you, if we could. 's addressed to ms. jean lambrow. >> my understanding is that she's on the domestic policy council. >> your understanding? you don't know this lady very well? >> no, i don't know her very well, no. >> according to the white house

visitor's log, we do this all the time, we grab the white house visitor's log, and in a 17-month time frame, you visited with her 75 times. that's more than once a week. it says sarah h. ingram, jean lambrow, deputy assistant to the president for healthcare, 75 different times. it's in the log book that's who you visited with, and you'd say you don't really knower? >> those are the times i was cleared to attend, not necessarily the times i actually attended. app you know how many times you did attend of the 75 were cleared? >> many fewer. >> many fewer, ok. but potentially you could have been there 75 times. and your testimony to mrs. issa was that you did not disclose any 6103 information, correct? >> i have not. >> ok. so who then at the i.r.s. decided that you did and blacked out -- all they blacked out on that email? we got this from the i.r.s. am we didn't black it out. we actually want to know what's underneath. >> there is a difference between whether somebody gives

me information about a taxpayer, to which i can respond, versus releasing an email to other members such as the members of congress, but i defer to the people at the i.r.s. -- >> are you saying you're allowed to give 6103 information to the white house? >> at any time t is not 6103 information -- >> just look at that email real closely -- see where all the black present is -- see where it's blacked out? there's a number written on each of those blacked-out areas, and what is the number written there? can you just say what the number is? >> for the release of the documents -- >> no, no, what's the number. >> 6103. >> 6103. so someone at the i.r.s. decided this was confidential taxpayer information, and when we got these documents, when the committee got the documents, they said that's information you're not allowed to see, but yet it was fine for you to communicate to the white house and release that information and give that information. >> i would refer you to the people at the i.r.s. -- >> we want to know -- that's great. we'd like to know who that person is who made that

decision, because you certainly didn't think it was. someone did. >> i believe the committee is interacting with people -- >> let me ask you a question. this is your email. put that back up, if we could. i just want to ask you one question. if it's not 6103 and this is your email, let's just go right below the line. the large, well known blank university. see that little sentence right there? the large well known blank university. what's underneath that? >> i don't know, sir. >> you wrote it and you don't know. you can't remember? >> i don't remember every email. >> this is about the lawsuit a number of christian-affiliated universities had against the government regarding their religious liberty rights, correct? that's what the subject matter of all these emails are. >> it is the definition under 6103 -- >> you can't tell me is that christian academy, catholic university, even though you wrote it? >> no, sir. >> you can't tell me what's underneath the blank, even though you wrote t. cause can't

tell me who decided to redact this, but your testimony is also i did not share any confidential taxpayer information with the white house, even though 75 times you were cleared to meet and thud correspondence back and forth with all kinds of redactions, and they all say the same thing, 6103. it sure looks like someone -- e the law here, ms. inin ingram. >> i would refer the congress to the people -- >> if i could, please, will you provide us the person or persons who decided that this committee couldn't see this information and wrote 6103 on this email? >> i will take the word back that the folks who are working with the committee on the production of documents clarifies -- >> you should be able to give us the information. if it's not 6103, then just tell us the clean email. >> would the gentleman yield? >> be happy to yield. >> the individuals behind who are from the i.r.s. please identify yourselves for the record.

i just want to know if there's somebody there that could communicate back to the i.r.s. that we'd like these documents in unredacted formats that seo that we can go forward and have a conversation. is there anyone in that group who can correspond with the i.r.s.? i apologize. maybe danny wuerffel should have been here. >> he should be here. that's my point. >> is there anybody here who has the ability to respond to legislative affairs or to the irtoirs let them know that we would like the unredacted documents and we could go rward and ask ms. ingram was and organizations were being targeted or answered in this case. will one of you raise your hand, if you could? >> we'd be glad to take your questions -- >> no, i will come back for the record. you'll be back here in that's the case. ok, i would instruct the clerk -- recognize the gentleman a second -- i would instruct the clerk to get a call in to the i.r.s. i would like those documents

delivered before this hearing is over so that we at least can task the witness details about her own emails she doesn't seem to be able to recognize. >> treasury secretary jack lew will testify this morning about next week's debt ceiling deadline. he'll take questions from members of the senate finance committee. live coverage gets underway at 8:00 eastern on c-span2. and on c-span3, the senate banking committee will hold a hearing on the debt limit and the potential impact a u.s. default could add on the global economy. former oklahoma governor frank keating, who now heads the american bankers association, will testify. live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. house democrats met with president obama about the government shutdown and the debt ceiling. because technical problems, we missed a short portion of this 2-minute briefing.

>> 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 to the american people, to open government, and to honor the full faith and credit of the united states of america. >> well, i want to say that the president emphasized over and over again what we also share, and that is that 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 to us talk, and we can talk while we make sure the government pays its bills. i think the american public agrees with that, and we agree with the president on that issue. >> well, i think i can't add

any more to that. it 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 he's got right now is the american people, especially those who depend upon the federal government for work, ought to go back to work. we ought not keep them at bay while we have these discussions. >> we spent a good deal of time sharing stories, 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, whether it was individually or some cases furloughing of

contractors and about jobs. it's about the fact that our veterans make up a large percentage of the federal workforce and a large percentage of those veterans are people with disabilities. so, again, our emphasis is on to solve the problem, open government, negotiate, and honor the full faith and credit of the united states. we can take just a few questions. 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 -- to appoint conferees, to go to the table to discuss the budget, and that is to say 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 short term one way or another.

>> are you open to the idea of a short-term debt ceiling increase in a matter of just a few weeks, or do you think that's something that wouldn't work? >> well, first, just to go back 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 about the debt ceiling. that is to say the discussion will be a useful one. it shouldn't be any condition as to what will happen with the debt ceiling. and there's no concession on the debt ceiling. the debt ceiling 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. >> i want to make a comment on that. democrats are prepared to make sure that the government pays

policy, , but good 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 will you structure it to have the republican confidence that wants to give you what you want, that you truly would bargain in good faith over these other issues? >> wait a minute, wait a minute, we're giving them what they want. we want 986. none of us want 986. we gave them -- we said yes to them for their number, which we on't like.

>> once they take yes for an answer to their number, then what? >> then what do you do to convince them that once the c.r. is passed you will return to the table to bargain with -- >> 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. mcconnell, said they wanted regular order. that means you pass a budget in the house, you pass a budget in the senate, you go to conference. that happened a few weeks later in the house and in the senate. then they said we won't want regular order anymore, and for six months we've been saying, well, that's what you said you wanted. now we're saying, ok, you've shut down government, which is totally wreckless and irresponsible. we're now 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. >> even today, house republicans said, well, we're not going to send everybody over, we're just going to send certain people. that was want received well at the white house. you can't even agree on who goes to these meetings. >> how about you take this? >> that's a problem our entire caucus was here. >> everybody was here? >> everybody was here. well, everybody was invited as far as we know. 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 9 6 number -- 986 number, that was a number that we accepted to start the negotiations, and boehner himself on sunday said that he

did agree to that in exchange for a clean c.r. hufere, 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 we'll negotiate 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. >> well, let me just say this point though, following up on my distinguished colleague, the assistant leader said. this number is the number that speaker boehner offer leader reid. leader reid accepted this number. president obama 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 republican house leadership. and there are enough members in their party 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, who don't believe that that number is good enough, but in order to open governments, you're willing to do it. what they're doing now, moving goal posts and changing views and taking back their commitments is a luxury our country cannot afford. yes, yes, the short-term c.r. -- they're two different things. they're two different things. the short-term c.r., we're willing to agree to, because the number is not sufficient as their chairman of the appropriations committee has said. that number is not sufficient to conduct numbers. that's one of steny's favorite

quotes. perhaps you'd like to make that one. that's a different story. a short-term debt limit, as i said, it doesn't restore confidence. it isn't a place to go. well, when we see them offer one, we'll see what path they think that takes us down. well, if the al fern active is to renege, the default, then -- well, as i said, when we see -- now, you know, it might be humorous to you, but it's only the global economy. it's only your 401-k if you have one, interest rates on car payments. no, there is. i don't think it's a responsible place to go. i hope that our colleagues would not do that. we're just at the same place as we were. excuse me? well, you have to talk to him

about that. but in any event, what we are saying is we have made every concession. we've conceded per rag actives that were never conceded to the speaker to say, if this makes you feel more comfortable, we'll smooth the path for you to go to the table. we accept your number. so, you know, to talk about hypotheticals, if they offer, what would you do, well, let's just say what they are offering. but the only connection they have is the budget conference table, because that's where this negotiation should be taking place, and with government open, the american people feel more confident about their jobs. businesses are not having the customers that they need, because people are out of work and other people are uncertain. so this is -- this is a sad scenario for our country. thank you all very much.

>> the president had us all down at the white house last week, only to remind me that he was not going to negotiate over keeping the government open or over the looming need to increase the debt limit. >> democrats agree, we're willing to negotiate, we won't negotiate with a gun to our head. we see our republican colleagues and this irresponsible government shutdown. air we're not going to negotiate under the threat of further harm to our economy and middle-class families. we're not going to negative under the threat of a prolonged shutdown until republicans get 100% of what they want. >> 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.

>> my deal with the shutdown is that the republicans are playing stupid games, and that if everybody played these games in the long term, the entire government would shut down, so it's a little bit less than something resembling treason. >> join the conversation on our continuing coverage of the government shutdown on c-span. >> with the october 17 debt ceiling deadline approaching, senator patty murray, who chairs the budget committee, tried to bring up a measure to go to conference with the house on the federal budget. republicans objected. here's part of that debate from he senate floor. >> mr. president, when a house is on fire, the reasonable thing to do is put it out and then figure out what happened so you can prevent the next one. when a ship is headed towards rocks, the reasonable thing to do is to steer away and then work on charting a better

course. when a government is shut down and it's headed toward a default that economists say is catastrophic, the reasonable thing to do is end the crisis, steer away from the next one, and work together on a long-term plan to avoid these crises in the future. we are now in the second week of 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.

we can end this today. 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. emocrats want to negotiate. 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 eal. 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 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 "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