whether it's solar or wind or natural gas been refined petroleum from the middle east or other places. this would help us along those lines so i look forward to working with my colleagues especially senator burr and the chairmen and ranking member to get into the highway trust fund in a discussion to see whether we can fix this inequity and give a shot in the arm to american produced fuel in this case lng. >> senator burr thank you and i plan to work very closely with u.n. senator bennett on the highway trust fund bill which of course is also coming up very quickly. you and i served together on the energy committee and we always

said let's try to get to a level playing field and that is what u.n. senator hatch have talked about and then to have comparable measures. i'm going to work closely with you and i appreciate you're not offering it today. senator nelson is back. >> i applaud the excellent work in the leadership of hatch and wyden and if you are from pennsylvania, utah, to west virginia, you are underrepresented as we are in florida on the new markets tax credit. for example it serves the poor population encouraging investment in low income areas. an example in my state we have 6.3% of the poverty resides in

florida in the country and yet our new markets tax credit share is only 2%. those other states are similar that i mentioned. and so what it does this tax credit is incentivize investment of commercial projects to create jobs in low income areas. and since the program was established back in 2000, $36 billion has been invested in eligible communities and it needs that little tweak to get to the poverty so i want to work with you mr. chairman, senator hatch on tweaking it. thank you. >> thank you senator nelson. we have had excellent success with the new markets tax credit at home and i want to work with

you. their other colleagues that want to talk about the new markets tax credit? senator nelson is not asking for a vote today and that takes us to senator thune and senator roberts to discuss a subject that they know there's a lot of interest in and that is the permanent internet tax freedom bill. >> mr. chairman i would like to call up amendment number three which is committee amendment number 76 and just to speak to this issue. the amendment would incorporate in the bill before us the internet tax freedom forever act which is legislation that is sponsored by you mr. chairman, me and 35 other senators including senators roberts burr isakson and grassley on this committee and essentially what it would do is make herman at the existing moratorium on state and local taxes on internet access as well as multiple discriminatory taxes on internet commerce. i don't intend to ask for a vote on this but i'm raising it to cassette believe it's a

critically important issue and an issue that we need to address very soon. the reason for that is the existing tax moratorium known as the internet tax freedom act is due to expire on november 1 of this year. first enacted in 1998, this moratorium has been extended three times with broad bipartisan support most recently in 2007 when it was extended for seven years. keeping consumer access to the internet free from taxation use of the internet a critical gateway to jobs jobs education health care and entrepreneurial activities and as ranking member of the commerce committee one of my top priorities along with the senator from west virginia is expanding high-speed internet access to burr america a rule that will be impeded if that expires and consumers are burdened with new taxes on internet service. because this has been such a long-standing policy if it expires the vast majority of americans with internet service

will like we see taxes imposed on internet access for the first time. that is because their states with laws in place which if the federal moratorium would expire some of those taxes would kick in. that is why i think we need to move on this extension is in this possible. consumers are like you begin to hear about the possibility of their internet access becoming subject to the tax in the late summer and that is why i think we need to take action before the august recess to provide certainty both two providers as well as to consumers and i think there are other what i would call consumer friendly legislation bills that we need to advance as well when being visual goods and services tax fairness act that you and i mr. chairman introduced which would set the rules of the road for taxing digital downloads and services. as you know it's also a piece of legislation that has been referred to this committee. i want to work with you and with their colleagues on the committee to make it terminate

as soon as possible and i want to raise that issue as i said knowing full well perhaps it won't be included in this particular piece of legislation. i know my colleague from you know what to talk about the marketplace fairness act is something i also support. that is something that came out of the senate that my state has been working on for several years but the thing i will point out about this item is it has a sense of urgency about it as this does expire november. >> let's finish up with the internet tax freedom act because i know later we are going to talk about the marketplace fairness act. i'm happy to do that. did you want to talk about that now? >> mr. chairman i just modify that amendment number three so i could address it and at this point is to point out that this bill does not affect marketplace fairness. this is to make sure people cannot access the internet and and -- tax the internet. it's a states rights bill so

products that are sold in other states can collect the sales tax and it's up to the states to do that. i just wanted to make that clarification so we wouldn't get it confused because i don't think the inept -- internet ought to be taxed. i don't want people to think this would preclude marketplace fairness. 17 people on this committee voted for marketplace fairness on both sides of the aisle and it is critical to a lot of the states out there. i want to make sure it was not being precluded but i didn't intend to make it a part of this. >> i think my colleague for his thoughtfulness and he and i know that this is a topic that generates a lot of spirited discussion and we are going to have it in the days ahead. let's have senator roberts and senator hatch on the internet tax freedom act. senator roberts did you want to comment on this?

i thought it was a finn roberts amendment. >> i thought senator thune put it very well. >> even better. senator hatch. >> i will be very short too. if no action is taken come november 1 with the prospect of internet tax increases on internet access. i think the internet is critical to our national economy. the access is vital to ensure americans can participate in the national and global economy. i want to complement you for the work you're doing and i appreciate it. >> senator thune thank you and i have the awkward challenge of essentially saying i is something i was the original author of the 1998. riffs respect to the substance

of this matter you had me at hello and we will continue these discussions and senator hatch is right we face an expiration date. this is something we all feel very strongly about. after that original authorization will work together to get it reauthorized and we are going to get it done and i thank you for that. senator brown is next with manufacturing communities tax credit. >> thank you mr. chairman i call up amendment number seven for a vote. mr. chairman this amendment seeks to provide support for new manufacturing investment in our communities. we all know the numbers over 2,002,010. we lost some 5 million manufacturing jobs with some 600,000 may be that more than that to come back in the four years since. this amendment will help to refine the new tax credit. it will make it simpler in the sense that oftentimes it's

fairly expensive for someone in those census tracts for the new market tax credit to find a way to go through the process into manufacturing. i hear all the time time as nl senator portman does from groups like the development coalition that business wants to invest in communities. they are not sure they can do it to the new market tax credit in the census tracks but that would get them there if they had just a little more help. so i ask for support of the amendment mr. cherry. >> are there other colleagues that would like to be recognized? senator portman. >> this is not an expense because senator brown's amendment is actually paid for by an act from the new americans tax credit that argues. as i recall it is one to 3% of that allocation so it's a relatively small amount targeted to areas where help is needed. it goes to the same treasury agencies so it's not creating a bureaucracy and it goes to the

same community development entities that have to be qualified under new markets tax credit. this is a good amendment and i would encourage my colleagues to support it. >> i strongly support it. senator stabenow. >> i would like to ask that my name be added as a co-sponsor and i indicate my strong support. >> i too support the amendment and i support the offset in the underlying provision. i think it's important to clarify the inequity in the tax code and it's clarified. see all those in favor will say aye. although suppose will say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes have it and the amendment is passed. passed by voice vote. the next set of amendments are senator toomey three through

nine that i gave there he will not seek a vote on involving the permanent bonus. >> mr. chairman i think what we worked out was that i'm going to discuss two amendments right now. one is number six which would be making permanent the bonus depreciation which is my intention to offer and withdraw for reasons i will mention that the second would be toomey number three which i intend to bring to a vote so if it's appropriate i will proceed with those. >> please do. >> thank you mr. chairman. the point i want to make with my amendment number six which would make the -- the point i want to make is to distinguish between the several very truly powerfully unambiguously pro-growth provisions we have in this underlying bill and several items many unfortunately which are not pro-growth. the bonus depreciation here are the ones that are powerfully probe growth.

it's section 179 for small businesses. the act of finance provision in the cfc. the latter two provisions are a matter of equity and fairness in uniformity in the code. the previous, the first two that i mentioned are sensible way to achieve the cost recovery that has to happen in one form or another. especially the bonus depreciation is very pro-growth. this encourages investment and are widely applicable. there's no picking up winners winners and losers. we don't favor one industry or activity over another and i think he should be the goals of pro-growth tax policy. the bonus depreciation encourages investment and growth in the u.s. and available to accompany to the extent that investment is made. i think it's very important to point out this is not some kind of a gift. we should look at this as a tax expenditure. this is not a handout. the corporate tax code is meant to apply to net income revenue

minus expenses. expenses incurred in purchasing equipment have to be recognized. it's a question of winds at timing matters. it doesn't frankly reduce revenue to the government to do on this depreciation. it delays the revenue and that delay is not terribly important to the government. it's very constructive to business for cash flow and other reasons. this would create jobs without a doubt. if i think the single best feature in this bill mr. chairman. my understanding is that if i ask for a vote the chair would rule this is nongermane and if i'm correct in that understanding mr. chairman then i will withdraw the amendment. i will urge my colleagues to work with me to try to make this very constructive pro-growth feature permanent as soon as we can. >> the does go beyond the scope of the markup and for that reason it's not germane. >> thank you mr. chair. fica proceeds number three.

mr. chairman my amendment number three is the opposite of the one i just discussed. this is the one in my view -- what this would do is strike a number of provisions in which we are simply picking winners and losers. we are going through economic activities in deciding which it a favorite and showered with gifts from the taxpayers and which should not. this is bad economic policy. it's bad policy and it's not fair. what will i amendment do would strike a few of the most egregious provisions. it would strike the tax credit subsidize companies that produce from politically favored energy and biofuel and renewable diesel. eliminate the credits for electric water cycles and fuel-cell vehicles and eliminate the credits for electric car chargers and other forms of alternative fuel refueling properties. let me be clear. i have nothing against alternative forms of energy.

i just think they ought to compete on a level playing field i don't think we should force taxpayers to subsidize an efficient and competiticompetiti ve sources of energy. the provisions we are talking about here will cost almost $17 billion over 10 years for a two-year extension. this is real money in only mr. chairman that may be lear. these provisions destroy jobs. we can certainly point to individual jobs that are created in any field when we throw money at that area but mommy systematically force our society to pay more for energy than it needs to cost we are wasting money that could otherwise be spent on productive things that could be invested. under some circumstances i understand. under some circumstances when and so it can be competitive in to that extent wonderful. let it turn its own market share but we shouldn't be subsidizing this the way we are. mr. chairman my amendment would strike these provisions. i know it's completely noncontroversial and i assume we will just accept it.

>> thank you senator toomey. let's start with senator grassley i believe would like to comment on this. >> i used to be called the father of two wind energy tax credit and now i suppose i'm the grandfather of the wind energy tax credit. i'm sympathetic to the tax code being too cluttered with tax provisions and that's the reason many of us have been clamoring for tax reform for years now. just because we have it cleaned up the tax code in a comprehensive way doesn't mean we should pull the rug from under our domestic in and renewable energy producers. doing so would cost jobs and harm our economy the environment international security. the wind energy today supports 80,000 american jobs, 7000 in my state of iowa. a tax incentive has spurred

$105 billion of private investment since 2005. the proponents of this amendment want to have this debate. it shouldn't be held in a vacuum. we ought to do it with regard for many incentive and subsidies that exist for other sources of energy and our permanent law. for example this is what i would ask senator toomey to pay attention to because he and i had a private discussion on this yesterday. the 100-year-old oil and gas industry continues to benefit from tax preferences that benefit only their industry. the list i'm going to give you does not include general business tax policies such as tax preferences for domestic manufacturing or also depreciation stuff that we talk about throughout the entire economy. we have expensing for intangible drilling. we have deductions for cursory

in jackson's. we have percentage depletion for oil wells, special amateurization for geological costs. these for tax preferences for this single industry results in a loss of more than $4 billion annually in revenue. nuclear energy is another great example. the first nuclear power plant came on line in 1958. 56 years ago. nuclear receives special tax treatment for interest for decommissioning trust funds. congress created the production tax credit for this mature industry in 2005. quite frankly i've was part of that. it was a bill i helped develop and that is available until 2020. nuclear also benefits from price anderson federal liability insurance. talk about temporary measures becoming permanent, that was a temporary measure in 1958 and

it's been renewed through 2025. nuclear energy also has received $74 billion in federal research and development dollars since 1950. now are these crony capitalist handouts? why is repealing a subsidy for oil and gas or nuclear energy production a tax increase on energy producers and consumers while repealing an incentive on alternative renewable energy is not. this is all part of intellectual dishonest argument. i authored this in 1992 and then we did it we knew it was not going to be forever. it's going to be phased out when it's a mature industry and its getting close to that now. in 2012 the wind energy was the only industry to put forward a phaseout plan but any phaseout must be done in the context, get this, in the context of

conference attacks reform are all energy tax provisions are on the table and it should be done responsibly over a few years to provide a viable industry so i oppose the amendment. >> thank you senator grassley. colleagues it's my intent to just keep on going because we are very close to being able to wrap this up. certainly not much longer than 1:00 is doable to me. senator stabenow let's recognize senators stabenow. senator toomey asked for a recorded vote and that of course is within the rules so senators stabenow. >> i does want to associate myself with senator grassley's comments and also just indicate that we have had special provisions in the tax code since 1916 for oil. they are not hard of extenders. they are not required to be renewed every year or every two years. whenever we talk about picking winners and losers in energy i

would argue that congress has picked a winner in the oil industry and they won. but we are trying to do is level a playing field and give other american energy opportunities to be able to compete for home-grown energy here at home so i would strongly oppose the amendment. >> thank you senator stabenow. a recorded but it's been requested so please call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call]

roe. [laughter] >> thank you senator grassley. >> senator grassley was a no. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the clerk will report is the results of the vote.

>> mr. chairman the final tally is six ayes -- eight nose. >> mrs. amendment number two and would simply do it's a minor amendment would add my chair membership to transportation benefits. as you know the code allows employers to provide compensation for transportation costs for their employees on a tax-free basis. they include taxes who see it with parking en masse transit and since 2008 associated with storage at the employee regularly bikes to work however last summer at the irs move to costs associated with memberships were not eligible as part of the draft and indicated legislative action is necessary to broaden the definition even though they had accepted that definition for previous years. all the men would do is just that. it would send the 20 dollar

amendment available to bike owners for those participating in a bike share program. many employers across the country could offer a tax is a benefit to their employees. obtusely this is important to new york city. it's hardly new york city. there are bike share programs in places like colorado in boulder denver and houston pittsburgh seattle northern virginia in north folk des moines baltimore charlotte and probably the biking capital of america portland oregon. a few of the areas that would benefit and i hope we will pass it. i want to thank senators warner. he is my co-sponsor here. >> it other colleagues like to be recognized on the schumer amendment? all those in favor will say aye. any opposed will say no. the ayes appear to have it.

the ayes have it. i have a list of amendments. the next amendment will be senator roberts. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] after senator roberts we will have stabenow five and nine casey one, to, three and four in

brown number two. now we have senator roberts. senator roberts your amendment amendment -- you are amendment number one. >> amendment number one and i have here number 12 on the handout and if we are still trying to find it number 62 on your top deck of 52. mr. chairman i call up a roberts amendment number one. everybody calm down a little bit the amendment concerns the ongoing investigation of the internal revenue service activities relating to social wealth where organizations and investigation that is still being conducted by this committee and i want to thank senator hatch and his staff and i want to thank senator wyden in the majority staff are continuing this investigation.

this committee has not decided to go into public hearings but trying to get to the bottom of this which was described by the president as an outrageous event it has now turned into a smidgen better i believe it is certainly the correct assumption. contrary to what some content targeting of social welfare groups the intrusive questions asked to applicants, the delay in processing applications all of which continue as i speak by the irs is not the result of poorly drafted regulations. after all the regulations in question have been in operation for about 50 years. nor are these issues the result of errors and misjudgment by lower-level staff in a satellite office. and i don't say this often but i do agree with the "washington post" that this isn't just the

use of inappropriate criteria. this is a deliberately designed abuse of federal resources and enforcement powers for purely political purposes. as part of a larger pattern. unfortunately i believe this administration is using their -- to shut down its critics and opponents. it's all about campaign politics in an effort to shape the coming election. this was used to shape the elections of 2010 and 2012. i've made it very clear before and i intend to keep pushing on this. the deliberate scheme to abuse the first amendment rights of social welfare organizations is beyond the pale. it's morally wrong. it's ultimately destructive to our system of government. these practices show clearly that the irs has no business regulating constitutionally guaranteed free-speech rights and we have to move today to get the agency completely out of this role.

now this is why i offer this amendment, to stop the irs from proceeding with new rules that would formalize the suppression of the free-speech rights of social welfare groups. it is not up to the government mr. chairman to tell these organizations what they can say to their members. the irs has no confidence in judging whether the group's political views and activities are appropriate. the irs is the nation's tax collector because of its rolled the irs should be seen as politically neutral at best. it currently is engaging in overt political action is a very big problem. my amendment is straightforward. senator jeff flake from arizona has joined me as a co-sponsor. i want to tell my friends across the aisle that right now we have over 50 co-sponsors.

that means under the new rules of the majority leader would allow the admin met to be brought to the floor of the senate it could pass. it calls upon the irs to suspend rule-making into 501(c)(4) area until the investigations are completed. this is just common sense. we have an investigation by the ig. we have an investigation on the house ways & means committee. we have an investigation ongoing in this committee. it's my understanding on this committee there are thousands and thousands of pages that have been made available to the staff that is doing this job to work through this is rather incredible. we have not had in my opinion enough information from that so-called satellite office to the treasury or to the white house or to anywhere else.

this is just common sense that while we are having an investigation the irs should stop promulgating these regulations so at this point mr. chairman while i think we should move this of mammon today i know the you will rule it as nongermane. it do not want to hold up this hearing any more than we have. i do request its withdrawal but rest assured this issue in my amendment and that of senator flake and many others is not going away. >> senator roberts first evolved i do appreciate your withdrawing it. it is not germane today number one. number two the other reason i think it's important that this be withdrawn is this committee to a great extent because senator hatch and senator bachus focus on what is still the only bipartisan investigation into this, we are moving to complete our work. senator hatch has been very collegial in terms of bringing

me into this and colleagues i think it would be premature for us to ask before we have a chance to complete what is the only right partisan inquiry into this matter. so it has been withdrawn. senator hatch would be like to make a comment? >> if i could just make a few comments on this. mr. chairman i think you are doing a good job. i have been working as a grassroots conservative with five folks -- 501(c)(4) groups special attention during the application process. i fully support what my friend from kansas is talking about here today. i just want to add that republicans have good reason to call this the quote stop targeting political beliefs acts despite inappropriate criteria

unquote was used. few local federal workers pressed to move on. not so fast. the treasury inspector general said that targeting by the irs has proven to be true. just yesterday when the irs commissioner john ruskin and who i regard highly gave a speech in which he said he had not called the targeting. the fact checkers is the -- the post said it is counterproductive and silly for the commission to deny that the phrase quote targeting end quote has been used. i agree. targeting by the irs is sadly what happened and must never be allowed to happen again. let me just say this. there are a lot of people out there in hollywood who want to get a 501(c)(3) through. these are conservative people who basically take a lot of flak

in hollywood for being conservative. it took three years to get their 501(c)(3) application through. it should never take much more than a month if it's a decent application. all i can say is that there's something really wrong there and we have to get straightened out. if we don't get it straightened out the american people are going to straighten us out and they should. i commend this is a -- distinguished senator from kansas for bringing this up. i also commend him for withdrawing it since it is not germane. i commend the distinguished chairman for being able to do what he is doing here in this process. i personally appreciated appreciate it very much. he is doing a great job but i think this needed to be said and i'm glad he didn't senator roberts. i feel deeply about it and i'm not going to let go. >> i think i colleague for

withdrawing and i would only say we will go right to senator stabenow's amendment. senator murkowski tills with this issue very well for what she calls the even stevens proposal. the same rules apply to the sierra club ought to apply for the nra it be put in the bill to do that. we will keep working with you senator roberts and let's go now to senator stabenow. >> thank you. i have two amendments. the first would extend stabenow number nine extend the rule in section 451 for the sale of electric transmission assets from utilities to independent transmission companies. the rule expired last year and i would just indicate that when the system works well people can turn their lights on that in order to do that you have to have a robust transmission grid to make sure electricity is available and affordable. over the last decade regulators at the federal and state level

have required or encouraged utility companies to sell or transfer control of their transmission assets to independent transmission organizations. they have done this to promote new investment however when the utility considers selling its transmission property they could likely face a huge tax bill that would encourage the sale. in 2004 we created a rule to encourage these sales and the reinvestment back into the utility property was put in place to qualify. it has no cost. it simply spreads the utilities gained over eight years and i would ask support to continue this from the committee. >> i think it's a very good idea jcat scored it as having no cost. all those in favor say aye. any opposed? the ayes have it. my understanding is senator roberts would like to speak on a couple of his other proposals.

>> mr. chairman if i might there was actually second one. >> oh i'm sorry. that is my omission. let's hear your second one and then we will have senator roberts in the queue. >> no problem. amendment number five simply would extend the empowerment zone program for two additional years. we have studies by the american economic review at yale university has studied the effectiveness of the empowerment zones. i would argue mr. chairman and tax reform in each take a at how we might reform modernize and strengthen this policy but we certainly want to continue and until we get to that discussion next year. i would have support for a two-year extension. >> i would also support this. are their colleagues who would like to speak on this? all those in favor will say aye. all those opposed will say no. the ayes appear to have it read

the amendment is passed. senator roberts. >> thank you mr. chairman and i call up robert amendments numbers three and four. mai two amendments have one thing in common. they reveal to egregious tax provisions in the affordable health care. to that and roberts amendment number three would repeal section 9003 of the affordable health care act. here's the practical effect of section 9003. it creates a disincentive for consumers to shop for the cheapest over-the-counter medication and instead may encourage them to turn to prescriptions that are covered by insurance. my amendment would reverse the requirements to have a prescription for your over-the-counter medications in order to be reimbursed through your flexible savings account for health savings account. the prescription requirement limits consumer choice is onerous for everyone involved

including working families doctors pharmacists d employers. in this overburdened health care system that we have now we can't afford this provision that wastes time and money and puts people back into the health care system they don't need to be there. in addition i would like to point out this amendment is identical to my stand-alone legislation restoring access to medication act senate will 1647. i look forward to working with our chairman on my commonsense solution supported by patient groups aarp, ama, chamber of commerce and many groups supporting patient providers and employers. next i would like to turn to roberts amendment number four mr. chairman. >> is that one withdrawn? >> i was going to withdraw both of them. >> i want you to know just on that last one i very much share your view with respect to the policy. isn't germane and i want you to know i want to work with you. >> i really appreciate that. maybe i should drive.

>> i think that would not be the way to proceed. >> i see. i yield to the advice of the chairman. next i like to turn to roberts amendment number four which would reap repeal the health insurance tax, they hit tax included in section 9010b, bravo of obamacare. and forcefully many of the provisions including and obamacare make health care more expensive for individuals and small businesses. in particular the 145 billion dollars health insurance tax will hit directly small business very hard. the hi teeth provision is assessed on all health insurance coverage based on the national aggregate health insurance premiums. this new tax on small businesses will raise insurance costs for already struggling small businesses and is contrary to the goals of health care reform.

they hit was clearly included for the sole purpose of being a revenue raiser. this burdensome tax will raise eight al-youm dollars in 2014 increasing to 14.3 billion in 2018 and creates premium trend thereafter. the congressional budget office and the joint committee on taxation have reported that this tax will be passed along to individuals, fancy that and small business in the form of a higher health insurance premiums increasing the cost of health care coverage for small business and families. furthermore the national federation of independent businesses actually projects they hit tax will add an additional $475 per year for the average individually purchased family policy. that's nearly $5000 over the course of a decade. at this time i will withdraw both of my amendments or this last amendment but i firmly

believe these tax provisions are badly hurting our economy and need to be revealed immediately. thank you. >> i thank my colleagues for with drying. we could have a debate for hours on the aca and of course just this week the administration announced that over 7 million people have enrolled. this debate is going to be continuincontinuin g and we will add plenty of opportunities to do that here in this committee. i appreciate i collect with drying. senator hatch. >> all i can say is i hate to see this tax continue because it's just pass on to consumers and frankly the senator made a good case on this. i hope you all look at this more carefully. i'm not sure we should categorize it in the context of criticizing the aca but nevertheless it is a criticism. >> let's go do the casey proposals. >> thank you mr. chairman. i will speak on all four and start with the adoption of the tax credit.

mr. chairman the credit as we all know and this is a high partisan concern is critically important to support families giving vulnerable children as some might say a forever home. congress made the right decision when we made this tax credit permanent last year. that was a good moment for the congress. the next step and i think the central step is to make it not only be permanent credit that a credit that is refundable. for two years in 2010 and 2011 tax credit was refundable but is no longer. this provided an economic benefit to many of the families who adopted children around that time. data from hhs tells us that approximately 46% of families who adopt children from foster care have incomes that place them at or below just 200% of the federal poverty level.

many of these families tax burdens are so low that they cannot benefit from the adoption tax credit at all unless it is in fact refundable. i would urge my colleagues to consider making this important at tax credit fully refundable to help families to welcome children into their homes. mr. chairman alan next move twos casey number two which as i mentioned before is involving a 15 year cost recovery for restaurants and retail establishments. senator cornyn and i introduced a bill that contained this provision. it has tremendous bipartisan support making the 15 year cost recovery provision permanent instead of providing a depreciation benefit over many years. we want to keep it at 15 years. you get a much bigger benefit in one particular year. faster cost recovery is directly

reflected in the company's bottom line and it does free up cash for that particular company. maximizing certainty in the tax code is something we all share and the national restaurant association found uncertainty about depreciation is an issue and other provisions provisions have force restaurants to forgo improvement projects that would produce some 200,000 jobs. it's about small business and particular restaurants and retail establishments. next i will move to amendment number three which involves important provisions that also relate to small businesses. first and foremost the amendment increases -- i should say increases and makes permanent the tax deductions for start up expenses and clarifies cash counting rules for small business. both of these measures will ease

the tax burden on small and emerging businesses. small businesses as we know drive economic growth. we all know that. we have got to make sure that our policy reflects that. congress i believe must tour thing you can to encourage small businesses to grow and invest. these provisions relating to the permanent doubling of the deduction for start up expenses organization expenses and syndication fees and the provision to clarify cash accounting rules are critical for our small businesses. finally mr. chairman amendment number four in the inland waterways trust fund. the fee that is the driver of that fund has not been increased since 1994. what i have proposed and we have tremendous bipartisan support for this as well is raising that

user fee by only 9 cents. strangely enough unlike a lot of things in our society the ones who will have to pay the higher user fee supported overwhelmingly. over 300 users of this fund will in fact -- have in fact supported this mind-set or gallon barge fuel feed. it's endorsed by 250 national state and local organizations. as i mentioned is a huge benefit to any state that moves commerce or commodities on waterways. it's a huge driver of economic growth. without it there's there is not just uncertainty but real danger that that part of our economic and infrastructure system could be compromised. so mr. chairman on amendments number one, to come for three and four i appreciate the

opportunity to speak on them but i will straw them at this time. >> thank you. it is a set of amendments. senator brownback a. >> thank you mr. chairman. calling up brown number two. thank you mr. chairman. today along with my co-sponsors senators bennett schumacher casey and menendez offering to index the child tax credit for inflation. nothing is more important than what we are elected to to create opportunities to expand the middle class. that is what ctc takes a step towards. we are extending the series of tax provisions in this bill to prevent a tax increase on business get each year that we fail to index the child tax credit or inflation we raise taxes on 50 million children. worse yet at the end of decade a million more children will live in poverty.

the ctc is unfinished business taxes on our wealthiest estate owners and ask for inflation. children deserve the same and i've introduce an amendment to make the current edi tc nctc law permit. these are elements of the bill i mentioned with senators durbin and chairman wyden and 33 others. this bill would strengthen the itc for workers without children , something that has been sort of a separate and sort of ignored by the house and senate over many years what happens with childless low-income workers. when they're working hard we should reward them is with them with other elements of the itc. these are by -- elements that promote work and responsibility. we should be a will to support these commonsense ideas and mr. chairman i wanted to offer it and withdraw them. >> thank you senator graham. let's recognize senator rockefeller and i wanted to know i want to work closely with you

on this issue as part of the broader tax reform issue. this whole question of how we are going to make sure that young people kids have that latter of edward -- upward economic mobility is very important. senator rockefeller. speedo wanted to congratulate mr. chairman senator brown something which i have always been reluctant to do but which i will do because he's truly has earned it and he certainly has. it's interesting how pieces of legislation which appear to be relatively new or obscure the child tax credit didn't exist until 1991 when we came out of the national commission on children. but when you add the child tax credit to the earned income tax credit just those two things both somewhat obscure to the average american goes to constitute the largest and type poverty program in our country.

>> well said senator rockefeller. senator kcc few can top that. >> i can't. two reasons for seeking recognition. one is to reiterate or endorse what was said. there are very few things we can do here that have that kind of direct impacts on poverty and number two i have failed in speaking about my adoption of the tax credit amendment or proposal to recognize senator rockefeller's work on this for many years. grateful for his help on this and thank you for that support. >> thank you. so that has been with drawn and we are going to continue to work on that as part of the conference of tax reform. colleagues we are now in the home stretch. we just have a handful left in the first item is a colloquy with senators schumer menendez

and rockefeller about disaster assistance. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to take a few moments to talk about amendment number three. i'm not going to ask for a vote. number of us to want to discuss this. i offer this amend to urge the committee to make consideration of a disaster tax package atop priority this year. as my fellow committee members know we have enacted packages like this in the past for disasters like katrina midwestern floods tornadoes. in the wake of hurricane sandy and other disasters that my unfortunately experienced in their own states it is time for congress to step in and aid recovery and affected regions. the affected regions in my state are still recovering from sandy's impact and targeted relief like this is a huge lifeline for americans as they rebuild their houses combat their businesses and their lives for it and please a number of colleagues in the senate and her committee are working with us on new legislation that would do

just that. i hope this committee will move to hold hearings and the markup as soon as possible and with that i would like to recognize senator menendez. >> thank you senator schumer. look, of course as i know many of our colleagues know we are still feeling hurricane sandy's impact throughout the northeast. entire communities were completely, completely devastated and it takes time to recover from a disaster like that. and though the people of new jersey are facing that challenge with courage and determination they still have many obstacles before them. extending to them and to others the same type of tax relief for extended to victims of past disasters is the least we can do and i certainly support the committee moving forward on this issue this year and looked forward to working with my colleagues who understand that that is why we call ourselves the united states of america.

we are all in this together. >> thank you. >> i would like to continue on that front. i mentioned earlier in my opening statement about the communities of zero so dearington in arlington. this is one of the worst disasters in our state's history the death toll is now 30 washingtonians with still many missing. not only does taking out homes and damaged structure but it is basically cut off the community of dearington because of the mudslide and a major arterial connected to the cascades. these businesses which usually commuted and did business with commerce may be a 50 minute commute so we have teachers who were teaching their and communities back and forth. now they have a two-hour commute one-way. not only does it have an impact on major businesses and the major employer in the community

so i want to work with my colleagues that face similar issues with sandy and make sure we are updating our code as relates to disaster relief. >> you started talking to me a few hours after it hit the northwest. we will be work in with you. senator rockefeller would you like to comment on this? okay that colloquy is completed. senator thune. >> you mr. chairman i want to call up thune amendment number two which is committee amendment number 75. what this does is it proposes a five-year phaseout of section 45 production tax credit as it relates to electricity from wind the chairman's modified mark dessing cruise -- include the -- which i support that but i intend to withdraw this amendment because i think it's time with an earnest conversation about the wind pct going forward and while we intend to do and i would point out it has been very successful

since father or grandfather grassley offered this back in 1992. we have now the winds generated in this country 35% of it in the last year of all-new power issues in the last five years has been from wind. in my state south south dakota we rank only second to iowa. 6% of our electricity generated is from wind energy. according to the american wind energy association there are 550 u.s. facilities that manufacture for the wind industry in this country an average investment in wind has been $18 billion annually over the past five years. so it's not a nascent industry. it is maturing. it's generating billions of dollars in revenue empowering the equivalent of more than 15 million american homes which is something we have to celebrate but we also have to ask we also have asked the question now on the federal subsidy is necessary and how do we begin to transition away from

more than two decades of taxpayer support? one may consider in august of 2012 it to your extension of the pct with the second largest tax extender of 12 billion dollars and this year it's 13 and we know that will row as we go poured forward my view on this is straightforward. rather than seeing a subsidy and the roughly due to cook cost concerns as we have seen with past renewable credits let's come up with a predictable and sensible phaseout plan that applies certainty to win developers and utilities with a better value for the taxpayer. this amendment is a five-year phaseout going from 100% of the credit in 2014 reducing every year by 10% down to 60% in 2018 and it would expire for projects thereafter. the approach is similar not exact but similar to the sixer phaseout the wind industry has acknowledged as a viable and she capable of cost reductions in

the price of wind energy. the amendment also freezes inflation to the credit for new projects but doesn't negatively impact the projects placed in service. mr. chairman the amendment affects only energy generated from wind. doesn't affect other sources but when does 90% of that credit and a five-year phaseout approach was estimated last october when we submitted a joint tax committee at $6 billion which is less than actually half of the cost of a two-year extension we are talking about today. so the supplement does stretch beyond the scope of this. i acknowledge it's a multiyear phaseout a more appropriate for tax reform or a conference of energy bill but i wanted to raise the issue. i hope we can start this discussion about how we transition away from perpetual federal subsidies both for wind and other energy technologies a

longer needed subsidies or special tax breaks. the wind energy industry does deserve it and support and we get away from his on-again off-again two-year retroactive extension of the expiring credit and its important to the american taxpayers that they won't be on the hook for a multibillion dollar tax credit forever as well. mr. chairman i offer this and i withdraw it but hope we begin it serious discussion about how we create a phaseout glide path that allows for transition away from what has become a very sizable subsidy. mr. chairman i yield back. ..

>> i look forward to joining the disutionz with senators on what i think is a very thoughtful approach. >> very good, and it also fits the longer term tax reform, and versus the level playing field we talked about. let's have colloquy with the medical device act, and then we'll go to the amendment. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. i wanted to address the amendment that senator tiewmy introduced regarding the medical device tax. this industry is critical to pennsylvania's economy. according to the most recent

data, more than 20,000, by one estimate, more than 23,000 people, employeded in the industry, high quality jobs in our state and so many other, and pennsylvania is third in the number of medical device tax, medical device industry employment, and i'm concerned about the potential economic impact of the medical device tax, particularly of the fact that the tax is applied to all revenue and not just profits, and that's why it's supported a wide range of medical innovation including repealing of the tax itself. a number of my colleagues proposed delaying the device tax for two years as part of the bill we market up today. i fully support the delay, but i cannot support today's efforts. i respect the chairman's authority to define the scope of the markup. it's -- i think it's plainly evident that the medical device

tax issue is outside the parameters defining limiting the definitions was markup to the provisions that expired at the end of 2013 and will expire at the end of 2014; therefore, i support the scope of the markup. >> thank you, senator casey, and i very much appreciate your leadership on this extremely important issue. your concerns about this whole matter, in my view, are well-founded. this has great implications, and there's great implications, and it is noted that it is not germane today because the medical device tax is not an aspiring tax provision. i want you to know i'm interested in working on you on a host of issues vowbding this topic. the device tax is based on sales, and, certainly, there's

issues with respect to the transparency question and all of the issues that shed light on how the industry works, but i want it understood that i think your concerns are well-founded, implications innovating, implications for jobs, and it's my intention to work on a variety of the issues sortessed with it, so with that -- >> sir, thank you, and i look forward to working with you as well. >> thank you. let's go now then to the senator. >> senator reports has been a great help and great championship for the repeal of this tax. i'd like to ask consent to add

senator thune and ensi as co-sponsors. i would like to add them p p >> without objection. >> thank you. for the record, it is my strong preference we firmly repeal the medical device tax rather than delay implementation for two years, but in keeping with the structure of the mark, i offer the two-year delay. senator casey pointed out there's no question the medical device industry is a huge and a very important part of our economy, our growth, and improving the quality of our lives. that's from pacemakers, orthodontics, knee replacements, joint replacements, and the list is endless. this employed over 400,000 people, an industry that exports 33 million dollars worth of products a year, and we have a trade surplus, and there's an

innovative industry, and unfortunate ly, it was hit with a completely inprompt and very badly designed tax. first of all, i don't think the industry should have been singled out for this tax, but what's worse is that it is a tax on revenue, completely irrespective of profitability. every company that's subject to the tax has to pay a tax on revenue, whether they make money or not, which is really one of the worst ways to design a tax, and so not surprisingly, it's costing us jobs, costing us jobs today. koch medical in pennsylvania completely abandon plans for five new facilities. they were going to build across the midwest. colorado base striker corp. laid off a thousand people and downsized factories in michigan, new york, and the industry estimates the medical device tax cost us last year 33,000 jobs. well, the senate has at least, at some level, acknowledged this. a little over a year ago, 79

senators voted to repeal the tax during debates op the budget resolution. in addition to every single republican, 34 democrats, of whom on this committee, voted to repeal this tax. now some are guessing this is not the right vehicle for repealing the tax now, this tax that is harming the industry and costing us jobs. i would point out, mr. chairman, it's my understanding, anyway, they will exceed the scope of tax extenders for health care coverage credit. my understanding is that that would otherwise fall outside the ordinary germane, and in any case, be clear, it's in part to keep this amendment out, so the question is are we serious about getting rid of the tax or not? 21 snorts, 88% voted to get rid of this last year, scores of 3.4 billion dollars, and this amendment is not offset. i don't think we need to offset

the repeal of the tax. i don't think we should. however, if my colleague on the other side object to the repeal of the tax, i have another amendment which offsets it. it offsets it by ending the subsidies we provide to millionaires in the purpose of their medicare benefits. we could do this is number of ways, many open to a variety ways to do this, but i just hope we're serious about repealing a tax that's very, very harmful and dmon straybly so. this will determine whether we get this done. i want to, again, thank my colleagues who supported this and urge my urged support. >> well, senator toomey, as i indicated in the decision with senator casey, a, i voted for repeal. second, i'm sympathetic to the implications for innovation, for jobs, and, colleagues, today we vote on a bill that extends tax

provisions, medical device tax is not an expiring tax provision, and, in fact, there was a reference to the matter of senator brown is interested in, and that's an expiring provision, and that's why it is germane. i'm going to rule now that senator toomey's amendment is not germane. >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> mr. chairman? >> senator hatch. >> look, we all know that this was an ungodly, terrible, stupid do you -- dumb ass tax. [laughter] i shouldn't have said that. [laughter] poor mormon boy that i am, you know, but let me tell you, we can play around with this thing for the next five years because you needed $30 billion or thereabout for the affordable care agent, and we need to get rid of this. it's costing us our companies.

they are going overseas, and i don't blame them. when you have a stupid tax like this, a gross sales tax, my gosh, it's hard to believe we would do that to one of the most growing innovative small businesses in our country today. i have to say, this may be the last time we have in this congress to be able to do something about it. admittedly, it's not germane, but i think it's one of the few times we really have a chance to make something really work well. >> i ruled it's not germane. senator toomey? >> i move the committee consider the amendment notwithstanding the committee of the chair. >> under the committee rules, for them to have the ruling of the chair, two-thirds of the

members present have to agree, and thus, proxies are not in order. the question before the committee is, shall the committee consider the amendment notwithstanding the ruling of the chair? a yes volt would allow consideration of the amendment, and a no vote would sustain the ruling of the chair. i believe that a recorded vote is appropriate, and the clerk will now call the roll. [roll call]

[roll call] [roll call] >> the clerk will announce the results of the vote. >> mr. chairman it's nine as 13 nays. >> it's not agreed to, and, colleagues, we are done with the extended pack yag here, certainly under ten minutes. all colleagues stay -- >> mr. chairman? >> yes? >> recognized for 30 # seconds, if i may? >> please. >> senator casey and senator

toom eric y made a great pitch for the economic impact. i think what's missing here is the health care impact, and i just want to drive with my colleagues if we are not going to solve a debate, which we're not, doangt think we can delay this longer. the impact is the loss of innovation, and we've gone through decades where we have seen bypass surgery replaced by catheters, and the cost of the procedure better, attempt that was bypass, and what is at risk right now? people are looking at the united states system that's always nurtured innovation, and it's found its way into better outcomes that last longer, wellness perceived faster, and that's what's at risk. what finds a way soon to come back together because i believe

we have to do away with this so we make sure there's not permanent damage to our health care system and to the outcomes frustrate american people. >> senator, i share your concern about innovation, which is what i indicated in the colloquy with senator casey, so we are going to continue this institution. now we have senator toomey to speak on the orphan drugs matter, another area where i'm very interested to work with my colleague, and i understand we don't have a vote on that. senator toomey? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the bipartisan members of the committee who are supporting this effort, senators casey, roberts, cia poe, and others. i think people are well aware of the affordable care act created a fee op pharmaceutical companies in that legislation. there is a provision that examines often drugs if there's an fda indication solely for one or more rare diseases, but, unfortunately, in the mechanism by which they achieved that,

congress linked the ability to be exe. to receipts of the orphan drugs tax credit or that product. that leaves out a number of companies that have orphan drugs, but which for perfectly legitimate reasons do not obtain the tax credit. one is, in some cases, manufacturers choose to take other tax credits that include the drug tax credit even though they qualify for it, and second thing is one is only eligible for the credit if you're the first to market, and i don't think it was intended that only first to market medicines have this provision available, but rather any medicine designed for the rare disease, so, mr. chairman, it's my hope that we work together to correct this, and i think my amendment would be in keeping with the intent of the except built in for the affordable care act, and that's

what i hope we can achieve, and i will not ask for a vote op this, but i would like to, if i could, very briefly, ask if you and senator hatch are willing to commit to markup on the medical device field who are not able to get it into this. >> we're going to leave the medical device section where we just left it, but i will tell you i'm going to keep working with you. you raised important issues op the medical device issue, and you also raised important issues on the orphan drug question, and i share your view with respect to what this means for innovation. these are areas where we are on cutting edge, but i think we covered this pretty well in terms of where we are, and i think we can leave it at that, work together in a cooperative way to look at the totality of these. senator carper? >> i welcome what you just said, and, mr. toomey, my friend in northern delaware, we -- support you on earlier amendments,

number of supported, support you on this one, so let's keep working on it. thank you so much. >> we'll work with senator toomey, and as he knows, i'm a cosponsor of the underlying proposal with respect to orphan drugs, and so with respect to the innovations, we'll keep at it. we're now just a couple away from being able to pass this out. senator menendez and senator toomey, you have amendment one, section 179. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to add on the orphan drug issue, and i'm equally supportive, and there is one wrongful causing the consequences of some companies who did have a permanent bar, and that was never intended, and i look forward to working with you and others in that regard as well, amendment one of senator toomey to speak about a simple cost effective, fully often

bipartisan way to help small businesses across the u.s., and i hope we can move this by voice vote. the amendment we offer help small businessst increasing the amount and phaseout threshold of 179 to inflation. that allows millions of small businesses to expense or write off equipment in the year that's purchased. it helps small businesses manage the cost of buying equipment they need, but as my colleagues are well aware, inflation can erode values of provisions if left up chucked. that's why we have tax bracket, and we are just trying to extend the same treatment to a critical tax provision, without tieing to inflation, the value of 179 for small business expensing erodes as the years go we. we pay for this amendment, what we believe 1 a very appropriate offer of the president's budget,

with tax punishments, and tagging these penalties to inflation, the value, and thus the effort the punishment remains the same as the day congress end acted it and removes the need for the code to june date penalty values, and i hope we can do this in helping small businesses be a part of it. >> colleagues, i'm prepared to accept this on a voice vote, and would that be acceptable to the spot sores? all in favor of the menendez toomey amendment signify by saying "eye," and any oppose? the ayes have it. that mean the last amendment before we vote on final passage is senator brown. >> mr. chairman, i was going to offer withdraw briefly another amendment if i get the csc look through. >> yes, that's my understanding. would you like to offer -- >> i'll do that, get it over with, and then the acdc. >> okay. those will be the last two

amendments, and them we'll have a vote on final passage. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm not asking for a vote on this amendment. i filed amendment to strike the controlled foreign corporations look through modified marks of the look through rules, helps small companies reduce tax liability by billions of dollars, in and of itself, following the law, paying fewer taxes, of course, it's not a bad thing, but this look through rule serves no purpose other than to facilitate aggressive tax strategies designed to defer taxation to the nation's most profitable corporations and always that shifts the burden of taxation on the domestic companies on to small companies on to individual taxpayers. the committee engages in much needed corporate tax reform, and we'll take the steps as we talk about lowering the tax rate and broadening the base. this is an opportunity to broad p the base, and i hope we take steps to address schemes like

the ssc look through, and i withdraw the amendment and ask the chairman's discussion and support and work. >> we will certainly be working on this. >> mr. chairman? let me note for the record that senator crapo should be listed on the medical device issue. >> without objection. >> okay. >> senator brown, your health care. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for putting this forward and your support. we all have constituents who have lost jobs, who have lost jobs in the trade agreement, becoming eligible for trade adjustment, lost jobs for other reasons, lost pension, something happened to far too many people in senator portman's and my state. in these issues, the pbg stepped in to remain the pensions and the health coverage tax credit

helps make health care accessible for those workers. it's not a substitute for attention, of course, but earned over a lifetime, and it's important we extend the health coverage tax credit for workers and retirees who lost their jobs and benefits. the circumstances are beyond their control. tax credits expire at the end of the 2013, and now tens of thousands of retirees are plagued by salaries hire es in lauren, ohio, and dayton ohio, they are in limbo. we could remove the up certainty, and extend the tax credit for tw years to get a permanent extension. we're promoting investment in clean energy and a host of other things. it's just as important, special thanks to senator port mapp working with us on the amendment, and senator rockefeller worked on so many issues like this for his entire career, and senator schumer, stabenow, and casey worked on this. i ask voice votes are fine,

whatever people want. >> here's where we are. i strongly sport senator brown. we'll have a couple other speakser. the senator would like to make a correction on a matter involving the toomey amendment. >> yes. let me just make a correction that senator crapo should be aye, not no. >> okay. >> mr. chairman? >> let's go to senator portman with respect to the brown amendment on the health care tax credit, and senator rock rockef, stab now, and then the final vote. mr. chairman? >> i offered the amendment on the health care tax credit and told it was not germane at the time, but we'd take up in future vehiclesment i think this is the appropriate vehicle to take it up. it did expire on the same day as the other credits we talk about today, despite what you hear earlier. it is appropriate to be in the markup, and this is for folks who are over 55 and pensions were terminated and being

administered, and it affects a lot of us in our states, and senator brown has a letter that five members of the committee signed, a bipartisan issue in that sense, and it's particularly important to the salary retirees who lost health care and lost up to 70% of their pensions in the gm bankruptcy. in this case, frankly, mr. chairman, the government picked winners and losers, and one was the salary for the employees. the others get a bailout, and others did not, and while some employees received full pensions and health care including unionized employees, the salaried employees lost nearly everything. this credit helps to pay for a portion of their health bill, at least, some of it, and i think that's the best we can do, rather than take legal defense against the government that took aware their financial security. 5,000 of the retired salary employees, and dayton youngstown, sandusky, throughout the state, this is important to thousands of workers around the country. i will say some have said to me, well, why do this because obamacare, the affordable care

agent was supposed to hook these folks up, but the health care group plan is different than the affordable care act, and cost on average is $4600 more for individual under the affordable care act, and so that is not a solution for these folks. hope we take this up on a bipartisan basis again and pass it by a voice vote to provide these folks with the kind of help they deserve. >> that's the plan. we'll hear from senator rockefeller, stabenow, voice vote, and final passage. >> mr. chairman, i just congratulate senator brown. this is one of those amendments which a long time ago you feflt would never make it because it was too obscure, too difficult, and it's one of the joys of serving on this committee that something like this because of the support of the chairman, because of the support on the bipar san basis, just really does help people who have been laid off. i mean, it just really does

good, and it just, i'm proud to support it. >> thank you. >> i just want to lend support as well for folks for the employees who have been hit so hard as well as many other, and i'm pleased to see the great bipartisan support. >> mr. chairman? one final observation. this is hot been historically, traditionally part of the tax. it's an add-on. it's normally done in the context of trade adjustment assistance, which typically goes along with trade promotion authority, and i would say if we move trade bills and trade promotion authority like we should be, that would be a very appropriate way to address this too, and i just want to point out that it's really important, really important for our economy and for our country to get trade promotion authority going, and then all these other things that go with it would have been necessarily file from that. the reason i think we're doing this today is because on this

particular piece of legislation and because we have been slow and reluctant and resist tent in moving the trade bill. >> only thing i say with respect to senator brown is the rule was we take up internal revenue code expired in 2013 and 2014, and that's senator brown's and that's why it's appropriate. let's go to the voice vote. after we complete extenders, if colleagues could stay for no more than five additional minutes, we have what are called deadwood provisions that have to be eliminated and then the finalize committee assignments for people like senator warner, so, mr. chairman -- >> what category? >> no. [laughter] let's now, with respect to senator brown's on a voice vote, all in favor of senator brown's amendment, please signify by saying "aye," and opposed? the brown amendment passed, and

now with respect of the extenders bill, if there's no further amendment, i intertape a motion to expire prosalaciouses improvement proefficiency act original bill consistenting the chairman's marks as modified and amended. >> i happily second that. >> thank you, senator rockefeller. so, colleagues, the vote is now with respect to the extender package. all those in favor are say "aye," and all those oppose will say "no." the ayes have it. the bill is reported. >> provisions make other nonpolicy changes of a technical nature, reviewed extensively by the bipartisan staff and joint

committee staff, all provisions agreed to by all staffs, and provisions have no revenue affect. there is a modification, and it's agreed to by staff and modification is deemed incorporated, is there discussion about the correction proposal? hearing none, entertain a motion, deadwood provisions as proposed and modified as a single bill connections act of 2014. all those in favor say "aye," and all those opposed say "nay," and the ayes have it. i ask unanimous consent the staff has authority to make changes to the bills we voted to report today for tech technical conforming and budgetary reason. without objection, consent is granted. we're now finally going to turn to some committee organization matters with senator baucus' departure from the committee and senator warner's arrival. we have to reorganize the sub

committee. there's a complete list. principle changes are senator stabenow chairs the subcommittee on speer national somehow. senator bennet on energy and resources and infrastructure, and senator casey on taxation and irs oversight, and senator warner on fiscal responsibility and economic growth, and we'll also make a few other changes to democratic subcommittee assignments to provide appropriate assignments for senator warner. also, we have to replace senator baucus on other important assignments. we're beginning to point senator schumer, member of the congressional oversight group, national trade adviser, and we appoint senator stabenow as a member of joint tax. i have a motion these changes and appointments be approved. is there a second? all in favor vote aye. all opposed vote nay. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. hearing none, the motion approved. the markup is adjourned, and i thank all my colleagues for their patience.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> what are the details in the legislation? >> caller: this legislation would reauthorize federal unemployment insurance for people who have been unemployed long term. those federal benefits last in december, and more than 2 million people have been missing out on the compensation since then. >> the vote to advance the bill was 61-35, six republican senators joined the senate democrats in the vote. who were they, and how is the senate democratic leadership able to gape support? >> caller: well, they had the support from the get-go after

several months of just total standoff because the legislation actually comes with some republican priorities. it denies benefits to people who had million-dollar incomes in the previous year, and it's also paid for, meaning its cost will not be add to the deficit. we've known all along that democrats had enough votes to do this, but there's still been the holdup with republicans encysting we go through the full cloture process, and that's why rather than finishing the bill today, it's going to take all the way until monday. >> about how many unemployed individuals would be affected by the legislation if it becomes law? >> caller: so there's about 2.2 million unemployed claimants, and then probably another 2 million in their families who would receive retroactive lump sum payments if this becomes law, and a lot of people are following this closely because they're missing

represent, car payments, due to that nature, but for them, it's unlikely that this gets to the president's desk because house speaker boehner is not all that interested in it. >> tell us more about that, about boehner's interest and what's the future there? >> caller: well, even though it's a bipartisan bill and meets most republicans' demands and even though the congressional budget office says unemployment insurance spending boosts the economy, creates jobs, it does not create jobs in ways that house republicans like. they have been saying that all along, and the thinking among democrats is, well, boehner doesn't like this now, but if we get this through the senate, maybe he'll change his mind because there's more pressure from some of his senate republican colleagues. a while ago, it was not even the senate would do this, and i was saying there's no chance this is going to happen, so it makes me

red sent to say boehner would change his mind even though it seems up likely. >> you wrote a story about how people feel about up employment benefits. what's that about? >> caller: well, we're a news bs -- website and notice people googled the term "unemployment extension," and we checked google analytics, a thing anyone can do, and we saw that people are searching for the terms "unemployment extension," and "unemployment extension 2014" more, and the interest spiked? january and steadily rising since then, and our theory is this really reflects up employed people trying to find out through the news what's going op and whether they might ever be able to, in fact, extract some checks they have been missing, and i hear from a lot of people, and that's what they tell me, you know, google it, unemployed people, of course, are doing their whole job search online, so they are baseically at their computers for a lot of the day.

>> i appreciate your time. >> caller: thank you so much for having me. >> on the next "washington journal," former chairman of the federal election commission and brenda wright discuss the future of campaign financing after this week's supreme court decision. peggy car of the national center for educational statistics and steven of education week look at the recently assessment of math and reading skills in 4th and 8th grayers in urban school districts. plus, your comments and tweets. "washington journal" is live at 7 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> chuck hague l spoke in a news conference about the latest fort hood shooting and security concerns. here's part of what he said. >> i know we are all following the event in fort hood, texas. i've been staying in touch with army leaders and our senior dod

leaders and will continue to do so. we have to let investigators do the work and understand how exactly this happened. as you well know, the department is in the process of implementing recommendations of the reviews that follow the navy yard shooting last year. as the investigation unfolds, we'll continue to take a close look to identifying any new lessons learned, and implement those as well. in the meantime, we stay focused on the victims and the families in the fort hood community who yet, again, are experiencing a terrible tragedy and much grief. thank you. >> [inaudible]

>> thank you, mr. secretary. i wanted to ask you more about fort hood, if i could. as you know, in 2010, secretary gates dahled for dozens of changes in defense policy to deal with the insider threat from the first attack, and two weeks ago, you issued your own report that found that many of the recommendations had not been implemented. since that time, there's. two shootings on military facilities exposing even new gaps in security procedures, and i'm wondering why does it take four years and four reports to address these security problems, and isn't that unacceptable? why should people believe that what you're saying now means that the pentagon takes this challenge seriously? >> well, first, let me assure our country, the people who serve in our armed forces and

their families, we do take this serious hi. there's nothing that we take more seriously than the safety of the people who work for our department. we recognize the imperfections. we recognize the risks. everyday risks in the job that these men and women do for our country, but there is no mistaking the fact that the priorization among our service leaders, commanders, leaders is the safety of the men and women. now, obviously, something went wrong. we have made recommendations based on the reviews, and we have implemented those recommendations in almost every case. going back to 2009, and as you know in 2010, and we'll continue to make adjustments and implement the recommendations. obviously, we have a gap.

any time we lose an individual, something's going wrong, but i also noted, and i think it's important here that we all keep in mind, let the investgat organization r do the work much. we don't know all the facts. we know things 24 hours later, but we don't know everything. what happened? what motivated the person to do this? where was the gap? why did we have a gap? why did it happen. let me stop there because i think we are going to find out, and we will do everything possible to implement reforms and fill the gaps and assure the security of the men and women who work for our armed # forces and assure their families. >> watch this entire news conference with secretary hagel and all the programs at c-span.org.

>> attorney general holder talked about heroin use and prescription drug use in a senate budget hearing. attorney general holder also spoke briefly about the recent conviction of bin laden's son-in-law and wednesday's shooting in fort hood.

senatormy mikulski chairedded ts subcommittee hearing. >> good morning. the subcommittee on commerce justice science will come to order, and, today, we'll take testimony on the budget request from the department of justice. today, we'll be listening to the attorney general, eric holder, testifying in behalf of the justice department, and after that, we hope to hear from the justice department's inspector general, michael h organization rowitz. one important oversight issue, this is a committee of not only making sure we spend the right money in the right way, but also to make sure we have the wonderful advice of the inspector general. at the -- we want to alert

everyone, though, there could be the possibility of votes beginning at 11:30, so we're going to kind of move it, and, so this is a hearing today one of 60 hearings in six weeks where we're doing our due diligence in taking a look at the requests from the agencies and the president's budget. today, we really take testimony from i think one of the most important agencies in the government copslation. the department of justice. who really has very key job in making sure they keep america safe and from whether it's from federal law enforcement, federal prosecution to terrorism, but also enforcement of other issues, end forcement of white collar crime, whether it's antitrust or mortgage fraud to also civil rights and hate

crimes and these things. it is the department of justice. it is not the department of crime, anticrime or whatever, and we're really proud of them. mr. attorney general, we want you to know we really salute the the 112,000 employees who work for justice, the 25,000 federal agents, the roughly 18,000 prison guards and correctional staff, the 13,000 prosecutors and invs. gaiters, and those wonderful support staff, you know, the g is 5 seven to nines that keep the government going while you and i get headlines, they make sure they keep it all going. we know we've had app amazing year with arresting over 11,000 fugitive sex offenders. the fbi dismantled 42 # 1 criminal enterprises. dea, 3400 drug trafficker

organizations out of business, and charged u.s. attorneys with charging over 83,000 defenders in criminal court. all that while facing sequester and slamming down government shutdown. just imagine, now, what you can do with certainty and funding. for 14 and 15, we have the top line. we now really want to take a look at what your requests are, and my goal is for the hearing are three priorities. unity, security, and in terms of state and local, national oversight and accountability in terms of spending dollars wisely. uphold the rule of law, protect civil liberties in communities. there is a request in here for 2.2 billion for state and local governments that puts cops on the beat, puts away chide

abusers, processes rape case, all the thing at the local leveling and we'll be getting your views and insight about how those partnerships are working and what's with the funding process that we can actually strengthen that do get better, better results and better enforcement. we also want to know that that thin blue line in the local community that protects us like our local police officers have equipment that we need. we also want to take a look at some issues related to the prison. we know you are awaiting a review on appropriate sentencing in how we can reduce the prison populations without nancy gracing risk to the community, and you look at everything from compassionate parole to the prisoners now in their 70s and 80s to other creative things.

we are here to hear about that, but we want to talk about what it is that we need to fund our prisons, and we need to make sure that we keep our prison guards safe. we met with the family and other correction officers related to eric williams who is one of our prison guards murdered in the federal penitentiary in pennsylvania. i -- it was just wrenching to hear what they do. they have ideas that they need for training, what they need to carry in the prisons, how they have to keep themselves safe with increasing violent criminals and increasingly mentally ill prisoners. we'd like to hear your thoughts on that. about this time last year, we were all gripped with the boston marathon. it really showed us what and how important national security is. the national security is not in the crimea or in the middle east or in iraq and afghanistan.

it was in the streets of the boston marathon. we had marathoners injured, one of our beloved preschoolteachers lost a leg there. they are back in boston. she's back on her feet, but we want to make sure that never happens again, and we'd like to know way we can do in terms of national security. the other threat i have is cybersecurity, and, mr. attorney general, i hope you join with us in drawing the distinction between cybersecurity and surveillance. as you know, a lot of people are are spook because of the snowden revelations. they talk about 215. what i will tell you, my constituents are spooked by cybersecurity. you go into a target and you go into a michael's, the famous craft store, some go into neiman marcus, but most americans are in places like target, and the

loss of cybersecurity breach has been phenomenal. the cybersecurity breach now at universities. my own university of maryland hopkins, they, themselves, prime time schools are hacking, stealing identities, and from steals our trade secrets to the kind of thing that's going on, we need to know what do we need to do and what are the resources in cyber security? every day we count on the justice department to fulfill its mission and to protect our lives and protect our way of life and to protect our constitution. we need to hear from you, what is the right funding that we need to make sure we do justice to the justice department. i turn to my vice chairman, a strong advocate of the national security and also in supporting our local law enforcement and

particularly appreciative of his efforts op behalf of women and children. >> thank you, madam chair. welcome to the committee again, attorney general holder: today we'll hear about the department of justice, justice in the 2015 budget request. michael harowitz, part of the chairperson, already said, will testify about his work, and the difficulty he has encountered in executing this oversight responsibility. today, i welcome you folks. the 20 # 15 budget request and the department of justice was 27.44 billion, and i'm concerned while the 2015 budget purports to recognize the multifaceted nature of the department's work, it fails to prioritize anything about the pet projects. programs situation smart home crime, now is the time in nearly

12 new grant programs, i believe take center stage. meanwhile, law enforcement and national security priorities, the main mission central mission, of the department, i believe, take a backseat. this approach is evidence in the indisci's crime nant cuts required of nearly every component within the department of justice. the 2015 budget requires cuts totaling more than 500 million. these cuts are characterized as miscellaneous programs in administrative reduction, and we'll be identified once funds are appropriated. in short, it is the department's own version, i believe, an arbitrary sequester. mr. attorney general, congress made a conscious decision to put a stop to, as you know, the indiscriminate cut that your budget requires. a budget proposal that uses smoke and mirrors does not

provide a stable foundation to safeguard national security, reduce violent crimes, prosecute criminals, or support our state and local partners, calling into question the department's commitment to the requirements. i do not support the approach this budget has taken, an i look forward to working with you, madam chair, to ensure the department of justice is appropriately funded to carry out its central, important missions. i also want to touch briefly on a topic of concern that's the chairperson is already mentioned that directly impacts the inspector generals' ability to conduct much needed oversight of the department of justice. throughout the course of the investigations, however, the inspector general encountered significant roadblocks.

specifically, he's not been provided unfettered access to materials. that is essential to ongoing investigations. unless the attorney general applies that, think about that. this is the inspector general, you should provide him materials to see what's going on in your department, good and bad. i believe the work is essential to the well-functions government agency. they are independent and should not be encumbered by individuals in positions of power, even the attorney general of the united states. mr. attorney general, yesterday, the chair and i sent a letter on this matter and expect you move swftly to address our questions and resolve this froafers, but without an end opinion, office was inspector general to carry out oversight responsibilities, i'm concerned that the integrity

of the whole department could be called into question, and that's something none of us want. madam chair, i thank you for the time, and i look forward to hearing more from the attorney general and also the inspector. >> senator conley, did you want to say anything or go right into -- >> madam chair, thank you very much. first of all, i welcome the attorney general to the subcommittee today, which has had such great leadership fund on both sides of the aisle. i'm going to be directing my questions to you today on several top ignition keys. one has to do with our broken asylum granting system which the department of justice has jurisdiction with the department of homeland security over. another is the testing of the boundaries of the executive power by this administration.

in particular, the aggressive position of the administration has taken with regard to the president's enforcement discretion, and, third, i hope that if you don't do so in your testimony, i will be asking you for app update on the department of justice's activities to bring to justice of the inspectors in the benghazi case, so, thank you, madam chair. >> thank you. good morning, thank you ranking chair mikulski, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 2015 budget for the justice department and to provide the department's recent achievement and ongoing priorities. now, as we cop vein this

morning, i know we're findful of yesterday's mass shooting at fort hood. being regularly briefed on the situation, and i directed the full resources and department of justice, and in particular, the fbi be available made to ensure the security of everyone on that base. we are working with those at the department of defense with assistance who need it to conduct a full and thorough investigation. as the investigation unfolds and as we work to determine exactly what happened and why, my thoughts and prayers will be with all those whose lives have been impacted by this terrible tragedy and with the entire fort hood community, which has displayed such extraordinary strength and resilience since the horrific event of five years ago. as president obama said yesterday, it is heart breaking that something like this happened again, and we owe it to our men and women in uniform, and also to their families to see the justice done to ensure

that they are safe here at home and to everything in our power to prevent the tragedies from happening again. my colleagues and i are firmly committed to doing just that, and we are determined to succeed building on the exceptional work the justice employees performed over the last yearment going forward, your support enables us to build on results that my colleagues have obtained and to perform the vital mission with which we are entrusted. many of the accomplishments over the past year are notable and even historic, but none have been more important than our ongoing work to protect the american people from terrorism and other threats to our national security. just last week, the department achieved a major milestone securing the conviction of the son-in-law of bin laden and senior member of al-qaeda on tornado watch-related charges. this proves that proceedings such as these can safely occur in the city i'm prod to call

home as in other locations across our great nation. it was appropriate this defendant who very publicly rejoiced over the attacks on the world trade center face trial in the shadow of the buildings. we never doubted our ability of the court system to administer justice quickly in this case as it has in hundreds of other cases involving defendants. this outcome vindicates, i believe, the government's approach of securing senior al-qaeda leaders and a good thing, i believe, for the country if this case as a result has a political debate, butt that political debate to rest. president's budget request strengthens our national security work investing a total of $4 billion in the didn't's cutting edge program to maintain and operate the first's new terrorism explosive device analytic center facility in alabama. fiscal year 20 # 15 budget invests other key priorities

providing 273 million dollars to bolster the department's vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights laws, $8 million in new resources. also allocate 1.1 million to support administration's work to reduce gun violence, enhance the department's ability to go back to crimes on humans and sex trafficking as well and provide 173 million dollars to support our efforts to strengthen the federal criminal justice system as a whole through the ground breaking smart crime i announced in august. now, this initiative is a range of targeted common sense reforms like modifications to the department's charging policies with regard to mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolence low level crimes as well as renewed focus on evidence based diversion, rehabilitation, and reentry programs. the fiscal year 2015 budget sustains investments in the

bureau of reend try program like the drug abuse program, residential, centers, and reentry specific education programs. these and other really proven programs help to make the criminal justice system not just more effective, but frees up resources for police and prosecutors as well as other vital liermt priorities to make our system significantly more first time. ..