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 and 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] >> coming up shortly u.s. ambassador to the u.n., samantha power, takes questions from house members about russia and

ukraine. then a panel looks into passport fraud after two iranians aborted the missing malaysian airlines flight using stolen passports. live coverage begins at 9 a.m. eastern here on c-span2. >> i think probably the most telling statistic out there has to do with procurement of metals. specifically purple hearts. united states made so many purple heart medals anticipating casualties in the invasion of japan that we are still giving out that same stock of purple hearts today. any american is wounded today in afghanistan received a purple heart that was forged for a soldier who's going to japan spent american and japanese strategies at the end of world war ii saturday night at eight eastern, part of american history tv this weekend on

c-span3. >> now come u.s. ambassador to the united nations samantha power is asked about iran, syria and russian intervention in ukraine. she testified at a house appropriations subcommittee hearing about the white house 2015 budget request. this is an hour 50 minutes. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> [inaudible conversations] >> the subcommittee on state and foreign operations will come to order. ambassador power, thank you for being with us today to testify on the fiscal year 2015 budget request for united nations and other international organizations. the direct appropriations requested goes up significantly why more than 25%. we need to hear why this is justified especially light of the fiscal challenges we face here at home. in a short time you've been ambassador at the u.n. many important issues have come before you that impact u.s. national security.

on iran, the u.n., and the iaea in particular have an important role to play both in terms of making sure iran follows through on its commitments and in keeping up the pressure as the final deal is negotiated. in syria the un's role is critical both in eliminating the chemical weapons stockpile and then getting humanitarian aid to people in dire need. on ukraine, the u.n. general a summit adopted a resolution last week that firms its commitment to ukraine sovereignty. however, the human has not been able to send and more powerful message because of russia's veto and the security council. on israeli-palestinian peace process, just yesterday president abbas announced the palestinians intend to be a party to 15 international conventions. this is very concerning and could jeopardize the peace process and possibly u.s. assistance since this has just happened, the ramifications are

unclear. the administration must send a clear message to the palestinians that the only path to statehood is to a negotiated agreement with israel, not through unilateral attempts at the u.n. but i hope you will update the subcommittee on these and other policy challenges that you face. there are a few other issues i want to mention. the first is a u.n. reform. during your confirmation hearing, you said you would aggressively pursue efforts at the u.n. to eliminate waste, improve accounting and management, strengthening whistleblower protection and end any tolerance for corruption. i'd like to know what processes you have made in these areas. uncertain what progress you made in these areas. fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill strengthens the transparency and accountability requirements. after all, these years there's simply no excuse for the unit not making these commonsense changes. the other issue is a significant fiscal year 2015 budget proposed

for viewing and its agencies. in addition to the funding requested, the subcommittee has learned that the u.s. intends to vote for a new peacekeeping mission in the central african republic. documenting situation is troubling and there's a clear need to protect civilians and ease their suffering. yet the cost of such a mission would be significant and the subcommittee would need to know what you plan to reduce to offset the commitment and whether you intend to submit a budget amendment to the congress. united states is by far the largest contributor to u.n. organizations in peacekeeping activities. more work needs to be done to ensure that the u.n. is making series of trade-offs and is getting its budget under control. in closing, i want to thank you and the u.s. delegation, to the u.n. in new york, and around the world for the work you do to promote our national anxious. now i'll turn it over to ranking member lowey for her opening remarks. >> ambassador power, it join chairwoman granger and walking

in you here today. i must begin also by raising today's media reports that palestinian president obama's applied for recognition from 15 u.n. conditions -- president obama's -- a breakdown in the peace process that is far-reaching with repercussions on the united states' relationship with the u.n. and specialized agencies. madam ambassador, i hope you begin your remarks today by discussing the administration's response to this news. this is distressing because the united nations plays an integral and indispensable role in maintaining international peace and security comparable the economic and social development, alleviating congress, champion human rights and supporting efforts to address humanitarian crises. conversely instances of the u.s. negligence or unwilling us to act by some members of the security council is unacceptable

in the face of haunting images of victims of chemical weapons. gross violation of human rights. millions of refugees and other tragic and eminently avoidable suffering. while the u.n. is far from perfect, the collecting for refusing to pay our commitment leaves the united states any position of weakness, not strength. our robust engagement is necessary to better protect our credibility on the world stage as well as our national security. problems in remote areas now cross borders at alarming rates. we need to leverage the strength of this coalition of nations to prevent emerging threats abroad from reaching us here at home, and to ensure the human remains accountable and effective. nuclear proliferation, terrorism, drug trafficking, man-made and natural disasters, infectious disease, extreme poverty and suffering, environmental degradation, confronts the entire world community and no one nation should address them alone. burden sharing remains the most cost efficient use of our tax

dollars. for all these reasons the u.s. must pay its bills in full and on time. our responsibility both republicans and democratic administrations have consistently upheld. in an increasingly globalized world, the u.n. continues to serve as a critical important tool for advancing u.s. interests and augmenting our own response to many international challenges. for example, the u.n. security council imposed tough sanctions against iran, which played a critical role in bringing about an interim deal. the iaea is now monitoring and inspecting and verifying that the red is fully implement think the agreements requirements. given iran's history of deception, i would like to hear an update from you on the iaea mission and your assessment of iran's compliance thus far. with regard to syria, recent reports by the u.n.'s organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons indicate

that 50% of abbas' chemical weapons have not been removed, yet the syrians missed a march 15 deadline for destruction of its production facility. ambassador power, what timeframe can we now expect for their entire programs disposal? additionally please update us on the u.n.'s ability to deliver humanitarian aid, what options do we have should abbas continue to defy u.n. security council, and forbid aid workers to reach hundreds of thousands of innocent the syrians in need? finally, given the recent crisis over crimea, i'm deeply worried that russian president putin will never be a partner in ending this horrific war. what in your view can we do about russia's ever increasing intransigence? madam ambassador, i look forward to hearing from you, how the president's budget request will enhance u.s. global leadership at the united nations. i hope you will highlight the

successes center confirmation as well as your strategies for overcoming the many challenges ahead of us. thank you. >> ambassador power, please proceed with her opening remarks. i would strongly encourage you to summarize your remarks so we can leave enough time for questions and answers before written statement is of course placed in the record. >> thank you so much madam chairwoman, ranking member lowey, congressmen. thank you for the invitation to testify. i am really delighted to have this chance to talk with you about the pressing challenges that you have alluded to and our country's leadership at the united nations and beyond. madam chairwoman, at my confirmation hearing last summer, i pledged to work vigorously for a u.n. that would advance america's stake in global stability; operate with greater efficiency; eliminate anti-israeli bias; and contribute to universal human rights. my full statement outlines the steps that we have taken in each

of these areas, but to honor your time, i will today confine my remarks to five key points. first, i respectfully but strongly urge you to support full funding for the administration's request for a new peacekeeping response mechanism and for the cipa, cio and io&p accounts. i recognize, and you both have alluded to this, that your consideration of the fy15 budget comes at a time when both the administration and congress are committed, rightly, to fiscal restraint. i am acutely mindful of the very difficult budget climate we are in and, in particular, the extraordinary sacrifices being made by american taxpayers every day. you are making difficult choices about what to fund and what to cut. the united nations, and our financial support to it, must receive rigorous scrutiny. recognizing the need for restraint in spending, but also conscious of the very real value these resources provide, we ask for your support because the un

and other international organizations enable our country to address diverse problems around the world at a cost and a risk far lower than if we acted on our own. we are the world's leading power and the primary architect of the international system, which continues to benefit the united states and the american people. our citizens will do better and be safer in a world where rules are observed, prosperity is increasing, human suffering is alleviated, and threats to our well-being are contained. the united nations is an indispensable partner in all of this. and if you allow me in the discussion period, i will go into greater detail on the specific funding request. second, the state department and the u.s. mission will continue to press and press hard, in much the same way you have madam chairwoman, for u.n. reform. this past december, i personally presented the case for financial discipline to the committee that handles the organization's regular budget. i am pleased that the united

states has kept the u.n. budget to near zero real growth since the 2010-2011 biennium. we have also secured u.n. progress in reducing staff, freezing pay, cutting waste, increasing transparency, and strengthening oversight of peacekeeping operations. much more needs to be done and much more can be done. with your support, we will continue our work to make the u.n. more effective, efficient, transparent, and accountable. third, we are fighting every day, on numerous fronts, to end the bias against israel that has long pervaded the u.n. system. with our help, israel has in recent months become a full member of two groups from which they had long been excluded, the western european and others group in geneva and what is called the juscanz human rights caucus in new york. these groups are where much of the behind-the-scenes coordination takes place for u.n. meetings, leadership assignments and votes, and the united states and israel had

tried for years to break down the barriers that were blocking israel's entry to both groupings. these milestones would perhaps seem less consequential if they had not been so unjustifiably delayed. slowly, but surely, we are chipping away at obstacles and biases. israel's inclusion sends a powerful message to those striving to isolate or delegitimize the jewish state; and that message is you will not succeed. the united states will stand with israel, we will defend it, and we will challenge every instance of unfair treatment throughout the u.n. system. let me also add, given reports yesterday of new palestinian actions that both of you have referenced, that this solemn commitment also extends to our firm opposition to any and all unilateral actions in the international arena, including on palestinian statehood, that circumvent or prejudge the very outcomes that can only come about through a negotiated settlement. if i may, madam chairwoman, again, i would like to come back to this troubling issue in the discussion period, if i could.

fourth, i ask the subcommittee's full support for u.n. peace operations. from haiti to lebanon to sub-saharan africa, our country has a deep and abiding interest in restoring stability, mitigating conflict, and combatting terrorism. multilateral peace operations enable us to do so in a cost-effective manner in such strife-torn countries as south sudan, somalia, the drc, and mali as well as in transitioning counties critical to u.s. interests such as afghanistan, libya and iraq. since the president submitted his budget on march 4, owing to a sharply deteriorating security environment in the central african republic, secretary general ban ki-moon has in fact recommended the rapid deployment of a new u.n. mission to protect civilians. the emergency in the central african republic, and our view that a peacekeeping mission is, in fact, required because of the acute security needs, highlights the value of a peacekeeping response mechanism of the type that we have proposed to deal with contingencies arising

outside the regular budget cycle. but at the same time the real world is presenting catastrophic humanitarian emergencies like this one to which it is in the us national interest to respond. we are rigorously reviewing all u.n. missions, and urging the u.n. to do so as well. we know the importance of reducing or closing missions where conditions on the ground permit and when host governments have the capability, and must find the will, to manage their own affairs, particularly after many yearlong deployments by the united nations. in our view, peacekeeping activities are often essential, but they need not be eternal. finally, we are striving to mobilize the u.n. as a vehicle for the promotion of human dignity and human rights, and a forum in which the united states can continue to stand up to repressive regimes. with the strong backing of many in congress, including all of you here today, we have exposed russian duplicity in ukraine; fought back against the global crackdown on civil society;

provided a platform for the victims of repression in north korea, cuba, iran, syria, venezuela, and elsewhere; and pursued such vital objectives as universal access to education, an end to gender-based violence, support for religious liberty, and the defeat of hiv/aids. madam chairwoman, for almost 70 years, american leaders have found it in our interests to participate actively in the united nations and other international organizations. in this era of seemingly nonstop turbulence, diverse threats, and border-shrinking technologies, we can accrue significant benefit from an institution that seeks every day to prevent conflict, promote development, and protect human rights. for these reasons, i again urge your favorable consideration of our 2015 budget requests. to close on a personal note, i consider it both an enormous honor and a great responsibility to sit behind america's placard at the u.n. and a big part of that privilege and that responsibility is the chance to work closely with you, as the guardians of america's

purse and representatives of the american people, to ensure that our national interests are well served. i would be pleased to answer any questions you may have, including some you already posed. thank you madam chairwoman. >> thank you so much. thank you for that. i'll begin the questions, and ms. lowey and i both came in with our question we want to ask first. and that concerns president abbas' actions yesterday. as you know the provision of u.s. law that restricts funding if the palestinians obtain member status at the u.n., and its agencies such as unesco outside of an agreement with israel but as i said, it's unclear the ramifications now because of what they have done. but please give us your interpretation of what happened and why it happened. and explained impact on the peace process and whether the

palestinians actions will trigger a cutoff of aid to any u.s. agencies of economic aid for the palestinians. >> thank you for that question. we are all completely seized with this issue, and i think you've heard secretary kerry speak to it already. but let me suggest a few things. first, as i said in my opening statement and as we've discussed privately as well, the united states opposes all unilateral actions anywhere that may occur in the international system, including where i work every day at the united nations. there are no shortcuts to stated, and we have made that clear. efforts that attempt to circumvent the peace process, the hard slog of a peace process, are only going to be counterproductive to the peace process itself and the ultimate objective of securing stated them the check to the palestinian authority of course has. we have contested every effort,

even prior to the restart of negotiations, spearheaded by secretary, every time the palestinians have sought to make a move on an agency, a tree, we have opposed it. by the same token, given this apparent move on a number of treaties, secretary and all of us have made clear again that we oppose your lateral actions and that they're going to be tremendously disruptive and they will not achieve the desired end. so that's the first point, i think, which is in keeping with our traditional position. in terms of its impact on the peace process, which is a question you is a question you've also raise, i think what secretary kerry has said, and this is a very fluid situation, it just came about as you know yesterday. he is working it probably as we speak, certain working all day yesterday and this morning. it is i think premature to make a final judgment on what impact this will have on the peace

talks and on the prospects for a negotiated settlement so i wouldn't want to prejudge that. as you mentioned, the palestinians have pursued in this instance, it seems, a treaty membership. we will need to see again what it is they have submitted before being able to speak to what the ramifications are. if i could just continue to work with you in the days ahead, and then finally on the question of the u.n. waiver. as you know, the united states has pursued a national interest waiver, notwithstanding our strong and relentless opposition to unilateral efforts at enhancement of status and unilateral efforts to stated. the reason we have sought this waiver, and it's so critically important, is that in the event that the palestinians seek and obtain membership in a u.n. agency, the last thing we want to do is give them a double win.

and it would be a double win for them to secure a win at an agency on the one hand and then the exclusion of the united states from the very agency. leading the agency at the mercy of leadership from russia, china, cuba, venezuela, the countries that tend to fill the space when we depart. so again our goal is to use the u.n. system to advance the interests of the united states and the american people, being excluded from this agencies does not allow us to do that. and, of course, and we can go agency by agency if you like, but you were as my with these organizations as i am, vaccinations for children, weapons inspectors and the iaea, the postal system. this is the international system and it strongly in the u.s. national interest to be a part of it. but that in no way detracts from the firmness of her opposition to palestinian unilateral moves. >> thank you. before i go to ms. lowey, i'd like for all the members, this is a very active subcommittee

and the membership and the subcommittee will have many questions. these we can stick to the timeline, i think we can make more than one round of questions. i will turn to ms. lowey now. >> thank you, madam chair. and again, welcome. i'm going to move to another issue but i just want to associate myself with the comments of the chair. as one who has been very optimistic about a potential peace process and has strongly supported secretary kerry's efforts and his determination to bring the parties together, it was extremely disappointing to me that they chose to take this action at the u.n. it is counterproductive, doesn't move them closer to any final resolution, and i think it was wrongheaded and very, very disappointing. but i want to move on to another issue. and, frankly, i wonder whether secretary kerry can say the

process in light of this action. but move on to iran for a moment. we understand that iran now faces domestic pressure and international isolation. while i believe the pressure of sanctions and the demand for better economy pushed the supreme leader to allow for the election of president rouhani. i'm not convinced there's been a change in heart and i'm very concerned about that in the over all iranian leadership. i remain concerned that the election of rouhani and his subsequent charm offensive was nothing more than a political maneuver or a façade to break the unity of international sanctions by making iran appear to be cooperative. and we have every reason to believe and to question iran's real intentions given their track record and history of deception. so a couple of questions.

many people have argued in the congress that the threat of additional sanctions is necessary to pressure iran to stay at the negotiating table until we have an acceptable final deal. it you can share with us your opinion on that, maybe i'll just group these because you are keeping the time pretty tight, and then you can respond in any way you choose. how will the security council respond if iran does not agree to a final deal? and the secretary of state has said that no deal is better than a bad deal. and i wonder what you would consider a bad deal? now, one of my concerns, the preamble to the joint plan of action states that under no circumstances will iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapon. so i've been very distressed to learn that the iaea cannot

inspect or gain access to parchin, which has been rumored as the facility where they do weaponization testing. if you can comment on the whole deal, and you can speak to why the jpoa does not allow iaea to inspect the sites where delivery mechanisms are made, it seems to be that such sites are in an integral part of nuclear capability. so easy to just comment in general, i'd be most appreciative, and specific on the parchin issue. >> thank you, congresswoman. let me just make a few comments if i can. you've certainly put your finger on some core issues. first, we share your skepticism. we share your lack of trust. there's no way no one can look

at the u.s.-iranian relationship over the course of the last three decades and bring anything other than great skepticism and a lack of trust. i think that's the mindset that our diplomats have brought at every turn to our engagements with the p5+1, and, of course, with iran. i think president obama has been cleared in the event that these talks break down and iran and this agreement does not provide a foundation for a long-term agreement that we believe will shut down iran's nuclear weapons program and deny them the prospect of obtaining a nuclear weapon, as he put it he will be leading the charge of your for additional sanctions in order to impose further pressure on the regime. right now we are seeking to take advantage of a diplomatic window that again as the president has said will not remain open for long. and talks are opening again, i believe next week, where undersecretary sherman i think

is already on her way, or will be soon. >> can i comment, and you can respond on the sanctions issue. because i know it's been an issue with is a great deal of difference of opinion on the part of the administration. the six to $7 billion in sanctions could be brief, put in place in a nanosecond, but you and i know and it administration knows any additional sanctions can take 180 days to put in place. i just want to add that for the record. >> okay. well, to underscore again that the overwhelming majority of sanctions remain in place. and that the iranian economy is still in the vise of sanctions put in place. not only here by the congress and by the executives, but also this crippling round, four rounds of multilateral sanctions through the u.n. security council. and that international sanctions regime which was your second question has been a critical

complement and force multiplier shall we say of what we have done ourselves here at the united states. so you asked where will the u.n. security council be? one of the reasons it's important to keep the p5+1 together, which is not always easy but is critical, is that on the back end of, you know, either a comprehensive agreement at some later stage when all of our conditions are met, or in the event of a collapse of talks, that we would then be in a position to act together at the security council. the other thing i want to say because i don't think it's as evident because of all of the focus on the jpoa is that we still have not only the robust multilateral sanctions regime in new york but the sanctions committee, the panel of experts, you know, we are as the united states at the very sometimes we're engaging, testing this diplomatic window seeking to end this, what is a crisis

diplomatically, we are enforcing the sanctions that are on the books and is seeking to close any loopholes that may exist in this multilateral sanctions regime. i mention this because of course israel just interdicted a ship that was carrying weapons from iran to militants in gaza, and that's something that we are now demanding that the sanctions committee take up in new york and we figure out what the implications of that are. so again, in addition to the additional bilateral sanctions that the united states, sanctions designations of individuals and entities that have happened since the jpoa, we in europe are also looking to take further action on the basis of again very crippling regime that exists. i'm well over time so let me just if i could speak to the parchin issue. the jpoa made clear that the p5+1 and iran must work with the iaea to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern. this is the formula that is used

by the iaea and iran and addressing possible military dimension which is of course what you're so concerned about parchin, and that includes parchin. so what the gpoa says is that a comprehensive solution requires not just final step also resolution of concern which is understood again to hit the military dimension. more plain english way to put it is the interim, the gpoa a dress some subset of issues as we only offered very, very modest reversible and temper sanctions releasing return. parchin is it likely they can issue that is on the table now in terms of the longer-term negotiation. >> i'll call on members now alternating between majority and minority based on arrival time, which we've done before. i want to remind members that you have five minutes for questions and the response.

so when you have two minutes remaining, it will go into a yellow light. and again, i think this will allow us to have multiple rounds. will call first on mr. diaz-balart. >> thank you very much madam chairwoman. ambassador, thanks for being here. i would be remiss without first thanking you. i have a written letter in which respondent reported by the way, nobody has been more forthcoming on support and solidarity with those who are struggling for freedom around the world. you've done so repeatedly on social media, which is crucial. whether it was for, for example, and issuing cuba or the students in venezuela who are trying to recapture democracy and had been exceedingly forthright. and i want to publicly do so now, thank you for that.

three issues i'm going to throw out quickly and then you can respond. in march, a u.n. panel of experts provide a report to the u.n. security council concluding that the july illegal shut in of weapons to north korea from cuba, in fact, violated sanctions and constituted by the way the largest amount of weapons interdicted going to north korea since the adoption of the resolution 1718 in 2006. i don't have to talk about the details about that. they were clearly trying to hide it. so given the discovery of cuba and north korea as regime, quote frankly pollution to violate u.n. sanctions, what action is under way to hold those two regimes responsible for violating, for obviously violating u.s. sanctions? point number one.

if i can then jump to venezuela. where a game like you've been in cuba, you've been very vocal, very, very vocal. and by the way, i cannot address the importance of the statements you've been making on twitter. for those who are repressed and oppressed. it's a huge do. i don't have to tell you about what's going on in venezuela. you're very familiar, but what is it administration or what can or are you doing specifically through the united nations to bring attention to frankly the horrible situation in venezuela where students are being arrested, where frank one of the main opposition leaders have been in prison for over a month, and although the human rights violations in venezuela? and again i encourage you and i know you will continue to do your part publicly, but what is the u.n. looking at that and what can be done there? and lastly, to a fiscal issue that you talked about, and i think i still have a little bit of time. specifically concerning the

issue of the peacekeeping funds. so the president's budget request is more than 800 million for peacekeeping. and a new peacekeeping contingency again. the concern is that the assist rate for the united states continues, continues to rise above what is frankly authorized by u.s. law. so the meanwhile, the u.n. approves new and expanded peacekeeping missions that are frankly very costly, and then we don't see a lot of reductions or proposals for the elimination or reduction of missions that have been around for decades. for example, such as the one in the western sahara. so what is the administration doing to reduce or to eliminate hopefully outdated u.n. peacekeeping missions? why should the committee, this committee support a contingency fund when there is very little if any discipline being shown in budgeting are those he's keeping missions, current peacekeeping

missions? and what is being done to help bring a resolution to some of those, specifically like the western sahara? ambassador, i know it to a bunch of issues after. i apologize for that we have a very strict chairwoman, so we tried to be very cooperative. [inaudible] exactly. i know my place, madam chairwoman. >> given how important each of the questions are, i'm very nervous about the 54 seconds i've left to answer them all. so i hope the chairwoman would give me just a little bit of indulgence so i can at least seek to do some justice. i suspect the issue of a fiscal climate and the peacekeeping funds will come up and will be raised by other members maybe i can elaborate in greater detail. let me start with that if i could. you rightly note that the peacekeeping requests that we are making with the peacekeeping funds were asking for them,

we're asking for more this year than we did last year. that is owing to a couple key issues. the first is mali, last year occurred after a regular budget cycle. by mali i'm in the takeover of two-thirds of the country but violent extremist. and as a result portable were asking for here is funny to make up for a nation that was authorized outside of the regular budget cycle. the other reason is that south sudan tragically, devastatingly has degenerated into a horrible ethnic conflict just since december of this year. we've had to expand the number of peacekeepers in sout south s. in addition all that was not reflected in the residence budget request because it has just come up, we're going to be requesting funding for the central african republic for peacekeeping mission there in all likelihood and this is something which is beginning to consult with you all. at some point i hope i will have a chance to speak to the devastation of what's happening

there. but you're right, it's not inefficiently say to the real world is presenting these emergencies and we have to respond to them because we live in a fiscally challenged climate. and so what we have done over the course of the last five years and is actively involved in this one is working at the white house as the u.n. the president advised him we have brought down the cost per peacekeeper. the cost now 60% lower than when it was when we started seeking cause. but it is bigger because the real-world emergencies, you only have to read the newspapers see that the world is presenting successes, challenges to us, but per peacekeeper would bring down the cost and that has involved eliminating duplication. i won't go into the details but i hope we have a chance to elaborate on some of the measures we've taken. just last week we close down the mission in sierra leone but in my opening statement you heard me say that these peacekeeping missions, many of them would find essential that they need not be eternal. i think there is a habit so when commission gets set up to not be

sufficiently assessing the original reason that the congress and the u.s. came to support a nation, and assessing whether that mission is a properly configured in the evolution of circumstances on the ground. the our reductions happening, but in a responsible way in haiti, liberia, ivory coast i think were tremendous gains have been made. again, i can speak more to the. on venezuela, we have a responsibility, of course, as the united states to speak up on behalf of those who are seeking their freedom. and i really appreciate the tremendous leadership you have shown always in standing up to repressive regimes. i think nearly 40 people have been killed in these protests, these peaceful protest where people are airing their legitimate aspirations and their legitimate grievances. you mention the criminalization of dissent. is something we have been outspoken about.

we have called for third party to get involved in mediation in some fashion because it's in everybody's interest for this crisis to end, that third party media needs to be credible to both sides and that until recently had been a sticking point the little progress has been made in mediation. at the u.n., we issued a joint statement on venezuela, enlisted a number of countries to join us. it will not surprise you that given that the u.n. is held more than half of u.n. member states on non-democratic, it is not always easy for us to pull together the kind of coalition of the willing, shall we say, within the u.n., across regional coalition. but that is what we seek to do. we seek even if we can't get overwhelming vote counts, we seek to create kind of a line with the people who share the same democratic values speaking out on behalf of venezuela. i would welcome any ideas you have about further steps we can take in the u.n. system, and

agree that it's incredibly important to raise it there into multilateralized the human rights concerns are at the heart, meant to be at the heart of the u.n. charter. lastly, if i could, just on the dprk in cuba, sanctions violations, the are sort of a lot of very. at things i could say the thing things we're doing at the u.n. on this particular case but it was the largest arms seizure. we are very grateful and thank them all for stepping up in meeting its responsibilities. as it is doing in a remarkable way, really across a whole host of issues, including venezuela. we have come to the sanctions committee, issued or sought to issue a public implementation assistance notice to share lessons learned with member states and correct cuba's claims about how they are interpreting and the reporter came back was very strong but it basically

rejected the cuban arguments which we felt was her important, again, and given that human reporting can sometimes be an even is important to stress. we are seeking to impose sanctions on entities we can prove are responsible for the violation. this is challenging because u.n. sanctions of course come by consensus. so we will need to get china, russia, and other members of the security council to come a long board but that is a work in progress. we are seeking to release publicly the panel of experts incident report which you can we think rejects frontally cuban and north korean claims on this issue. thank you, madam chairwoman,. >> thank you very much. thank you very much for this hearing. ambassador power, good to see you again. congressional rep -- i had the great -- [inaudible]

>> so important to second, just as the sense of the trans atlantic slave trade, current human rights discrimination both in -- [audio difficulty] thank you very much for your support for human rights and civil rights. the united nations is a critical body in our world community, and we -- [inaudible] engage the united nations and the international community to ensure a safer world, and we get a huge bang for our buck. [inaudible]

next year, the bill, the omnibus bill underfunded significantly our peacekeeping -- [inaudible] in many ways in an average position, so could you explain this -- [inaudible] really affect our ability -- [inaudible] >> inspired in large part by our nation's own landmark disability law. i can't for the life of me understand why we would not our why the senate would not, you know, pass the treaty, the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. so we need to know why this is

so important to support this vote rights around the world so we can -- i don't know if we can figure out a way to move on this or not from this site, but i think hearing about this and having this on record is extremely important. south sudan, the security council's decision to deploy reinforcements of course will enhance the ability to carry out civilian protection mandate. so can you kind to discuss the u.n.'s efforts to ensure the safety of displaced civilians who have sought refuge at the united nations compounds over the last several months? and then of course afghanistan. what the u.n. role going to be after 2014? if any. could you just explain that. and again thank you very much. good to see you again. >> thank you. let me start if we can where you started, which is on the peacekeeping issue and that allows me to add a little more balance to the response i offer

the congressman. i mean first, your point, peacekeepers are going places and protecting civilians and combating extremism so we don't have to. and it's incredibly important for us to bear in mind that for instance, when mali gets taken over by extremist groups and militants in the way that they were, the french of course staged an intervention and the african union initially stepped up in an important way, but in order to consolidate those gains and ensure that militants remain vanquished, we have to support u.n. peacekeeping. that's what those peacekeepers are there to do. in south sudan you mentioned the effort to protect civilians were gathered in u.n. basis. south sudan is a country, a newly independent country, has a historic relationship with us, with college students around the united states, even high school

students now are exercised about the plight of people in that country. the united states led the effort with many people here in this committee including you and frank wolf and virtually all of the members to bring about this country. now it's the united nations affair at the time were we are winding down our mission in afghanistan and, of course, it into our mission in iraq. it is incredibly important to u.s. interests that peacekeepers be doing that work. the gap between what we all the u.n. in terms of peacekeeping and what was appropriated i think is explicable in a couple ways. one, i mentioned already that mali -- the multimission get on the books after a regular submission day but second, our assessment right now is 28.4%. there's a cap and that i would appeal to this committee to lift that only allows us to pay a share of 2721%. and again i think reflected in

the numbers comments so far, the reason we don't want to be more is because we think an awful lot and that makes a huge amount of sense. the formula on which this percentage is negotiated is based on an ability to pay. and i've made it a huge priority up in new york to try to ensure that others are paying their fair share. in the recent skills negotiations which were before my time, the assessment went up to 28.4, russian and chinese assess rates also went up. our challenge with some of the emerging economies, the brazils and india's which have also gone up marginally, brazil's case quite substantially, is that this formula is calculated on the basis of per capita gdp, and so when -- and debt burden. so you get a discount if you're a country that is growing much faster huge amounts of poverty

that you do with in your country. now, we are seeking to change that methodology, but the next skill negotiation is in 2015. again while it is the 20.4%, it's not ideal. we will fight to get it back down. it has been much higher in the past. in the '80s and '90s it was at 31%. at various times it was synthetically lower than where we once were. we are trying to find savings within the peacekeeping missions that exist. but i would ask you if you could lift the cap in order to give us the resources we need to fund these really, really important missions. and please know that i will work with your hand in glove begin to try to bring this back down. on your other questions raised on the disabilities convention, the great champion of this is senator bob dole who has made this is a great passion, and for him, and the fact that veterans come home from war in iraq and

afghanistan, so many more veterans now suffering the loss of limbs and so forth and rehabilitating here, getting to big events of the accommodation we have here in this country, let in effect until the protections and at the nation's sure. while you're able-bodied counterparts can imagine jobs overseas, only the ada extends only across the continental u.s. and in the global marketplace that's not fair to the veterans warfare to person with a disability generally. ..