>> it is fog to going to cost the taxpayer more so that is the difficulty in putting together the proposals. >> does it factor in there maybe less reliance on the government problems if there is more charity given? >> under the baseline assumptions that we operate under we don't assume there are other changes in government programs or other policies based from one change in this area. i understand the point you are making but the short answer is no, we don't assume there might

be saving to the government. >> but intuitively there might be. any other questions? any amendments in the nature of a substitute? the question is on the adoption in the nature of a substitute. all those in favor eye. ino those opposed say no. we have it and it is agreed on. >> hr 4691 be moved as amended to the house of representative. >> all those in favor i. those in favor no. the i's have it and the notion is agreed to. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. johnson? >>i.

>> mr. brady? >> i. >> mr. ryan? >> i. >> mr. nunez? >> i. >> mr. teeberry? >> i. >> mr. ryingert? >> i. >> mr. gustani? >> i. >> mr. rascum? >> i. >> mr. price? >> i. >> mr. bucannon? >> i. >> mr. shop? >> i. >> ms. jenkins? >> i. >> mr. paulson? >> i. >> mr. marchant? >> i. >> ms. black? >> i. >> mr. reed? >> i. >> mr. young? >> i. >> mr kelly?

>> i. >> mr. griffin? >> i. >> mr. remacey? >> i. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. wrangle? mr. mcdurmit? mr. lewis? mr. neal? mr. bassara? >> no. >> mr. doggit? >> no. >> mr. thomas? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. bloom? mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. crowley? ms. shorts? >> no. >> mr. davis?

no. >> ms. sanchez? >> no >> mr. mcdurmit? >> no. >> mr. lewis? mr. neal? mr. bloomenhower? mr. pascel? mr. crowley? chairman camp? >> i. >> care -- chairman camp, i.

>> 23 i's and 10 noes. >> it is agreed upon. without objections members have additional to days to provide other items. mr. teeberry? >> my bill will allow more companies to take advantage of bonus depreciation. it allows businesses to expense

50% of new equipment and bester invest for capital for create jobs most important jobs. extending bonuses is the biggest fact factor that allows businesses to grow. it has been allow today expire multiple times. by making this provision permanent businesses will have the certainty to invest, hire more people and higher wages. if a business or farmer knows they can expense necessary equipment he will have the certainty needed to built another factor he would not have built, buy another piece of

equipment he would not have otherwise bought or hire another worker at a time when he or she wouldn't. at a time spendings are at anemic levels this will increase investment. economic growth in the first quarter was in today and it is down for the first time during this recovery in the last three years. in fact since the 4th quarter to the 1st quarter we have seen a 12% decline for capital investment at the time when appreciation expired at the end of last year to the first quarter of this year. the recent economic situation is causing many companies to operate at a lost. this bill would lift restrictions and allow for more corporate credits which are

overpaid taxes. it will provide cash for business operations and again, job creation. a report by the tax foundation found 50 depreciation increases wages by 1% and create over 200,000 new jobs. as the economy grows and a permanent vote is put in place federal tax revenue will also grow. after an adjustment period the federal government will receive $20 billion in additional tax revenue and over the long term this policy would pay for itself. just talk to a farmer or manufacture on what this would do in terms of the investments that you would make and the people they would hire. i know we have heard this over and over again and let me take

it head on based on what i heard from my friends on the other side. the ranking member has voted for six times for voter deprecation over a ten year period and offering none of the benefits that perm nnancy allows. none of that has been given to job creators or farmers having the understanding this isn't going to expire. so we have had ten years of depreciation and multiple expirations and multiple recommitments within the budget window not paid for. this is so important for the growth of the economy. the budget window hasn't been paid for over the last 14 years and you will hear about that today. but the reality is making this

permit will have growth on the economy -- permanent. i yield back. >> mr. levins for an opening statement. >> i voted for bonus depreciation because by the definition bonus meant with was temporary. and that is why it was proposed and supported in the bush administration. and so i voted for it. and that is why the bush administration insisted that it no longer prevail. and insisted i take it and let it expire. so then when the economy turned down again we passed it and his temporary nature is critical to his effectiveness.

you say this will pay for itself. we heard that song before and it was a sour song and the deficit increased dramatically. and one last point. there is no way to say this helps us. we know there is no way this is going to be made permanent. you have voted for $310 billion added to the deficit. when you add this $287 to what else you voted for it is $303 billion more. that comes to $614 billion dollars added to the deficit. that is irresponsible and inconsistent because the chairman said he excheweded it

from this -- excluded -- it is inconsiste inconsistent, irrational and irresponsible. >> as the name suggests this does present the question can this congress afford to hand out another bonus. the house has approved $310 billion unpaid business tax breaks for the chinese and wanting someone else to pay for them and we have the questions of should we have to add another $300 billion. this particular provision is one that has been considered on a temporary bases in the past. it changes the standard accounting principle that when a business by as machine tool or truck you spread out the cost of that over the useful life of the capital asset and it changes that with the hope if there is an incentive the business buys

it during the economic down turn. the only problem is it doesn't work. for every $1 we spent in the economic turn down we got 20 cents back. 20 cents for a dollar spent is a line item in the budget we claim is there that republicans will eliminate called waste and in efficiency. goldman sacs wrote that the absence of extended this credit had no effect. it works well in speeches. the ancient alchemist thought they would change straw into gold. that is what is proposed here. it isn't fact-based. in congress everyone is entitled

to their own facts and only interested in evidence when it works your way but it doesn't work your way this time. i am for a pro-growth government policy and that is one that focuses on the competitive of the workforce, investing in our students and schools, it would encourage a competitive transportation system and the folks advocateing -- advocating -- this proposal -- and the chairman rejected it and called for the appeal of the entire provision on page 52 of his summary of his bill. that provision is one we have to balance to make the workforce competitive and the tax code can be used.

i support giving the young people more opportunity and higher edge education from early childhood to grad school. what we don't need to do is waste money on tax benefits that don't work and don't generate jobs or accomplish their purpose and breaks that are olympicsed with borrowing billions of dollars that a time when we are told that we simply can't afford to invest in our children, protect our senior and retirement, meet the transportation needs of the coa country. it is a question of how to do that. >> the committee will proceed to consider the bill. the bill will be considered opened and read. i offered an amendment and

without objection the amendment will be considered as read open and considered base text were purposes of the amendment. i will turn now to the speaker. >> the members have before them jcx 57 which describes the text of hr 4718 and the green sheet describes the amendment. under the provision of law that expired december 13th 2013. businesses were allowed to have a 50% write off of the cost of placing in service qualifying property. the provision would make that an

internal part of the code. there was part that related to bonus appreciation under long-term contract property and that rule would be made permanent and there is a rule that applies to the deprecation under session 270-f related to vehicles purchased for business operation and there is an additional $8,000 that maybe permitted to be deducted as part of the bonus depreciation. that would be indexed by the provision before you. in addition, the proposal before you expands the definition of qualified property to include improvement property and it would provide bonus depreciation maybe claimed on the expenses related to planting or grafting

trees or vines that bare fruits and nuts. a tree or vine that bares fruit or not isn't considered placed in service until after it is productive and when you first plant them they are not productive. so this makes plants and trees apply for the bonus provision. they would be effective for all placed in service after the date. that concludes by description. >> we will turn to question. mr. barry >> how long thank you for bringing this to the committee. this is the weakest economic recovery in half a century. we are missing a trillion from the economy and five million

jobs that should be back in place. wall street is roaring but main street is suffering. a family of four is missing a thousand a week from the budget because of the weak recover. is the consumer spending? no. government spending? no. it is business investment. investment in building and software and that is what the heart of this provision does. temporary revisions create temporary results. permanent revisions create permanent results.

it is time to start putting the this provision to work. voting against it isn't what we should do. we should work in a bipartisan way and get people back to work. >> mr. larson. >> thank you mr. chairman. let me start by commending pat teaberry and his proposal for and for the opportunity to work with him along these lines because i do think much of what he said is vitally important. it certainly is important in my district. and especially in the manufacture base. and i do appreciate the president's remarks made in terms of mr. brady in terms of how this can stimulate and grow

the economy. i agree with all of that. i want to associate myself with the remarks of mr. levin in saying that this has always been a tool, however, that is viewed as one that is not permanent but focused on temporarily and reviewed consistently by this committee. thereby giving us the tools to sort out the studies and discrepancy that occur in terms of what kind of bonus deprecation works. i think that is an important role. and further, and i intend to introduce an amendment and as the day has gone i expect it will not be made in order, to make this a two-year proposal and it be paid for. but i do want to commend mr. a

teaberry and add this: i would hope we would be open to this. and i take the chairman at his world that he would like to see us convene. i would love to see us at a conference commit and i would like to see a house hand strengthen and deal with the senate but in my 16 years in congress i have not seen a year end in regular order. so as my grandfather says the rational for my proposing amendment that is paid for is trust everyone but cut the cards. >> we have about two minutes left in the time for vote. we can go to vote on the bill. i expect the votes on the floor will last an hour or come back.

i have two people left to talk. you are recognized. yeah. >> thank you. i wanted to make a couple comments on this because it is the biggest provision of the six we are looking at today. i supported bonus depreciation. i think it has been important particularly as we have come through the recession to help the business and manufactures make the investment and right them off. but the way this is being done right now and the way it was done in april is to pick up six provisions and then another six when it was the chairman's position to look at the provisions in a way that had several criteria. did they work? did they grow the economy and are they worth the tradeoff?

they are a cost to the american people. we have to find $600 billion to borrow from a foreign country and take it from the taxpayers. so we should look and see what should be temporary and permanent. i will say that as someone who supported bonus deprecation it no on this provision in terms of making it permanent. it isn't the way to do serious tax reform that grows the

economy, meets our responsibilities as a government and nation and makes sure we do it in a way that is fair to the american taxpayers. this is violating that rule of the chairman which is why i am not for permanent extension. >> this would add $287 billion to the deficit so the total of the pass of $304 billion that

the taxpayer would have heaped on them through cutting services or increasing taxes. if you could provide us with the information on the number of filers that claim deprecation. and finally, as said to us, the value is temporary in nature and it is critical to making it effective and making it permanent you kill the benefit. johnny doesn't want to eat desert but you tell him eat the vegetables and you will get desert but this would tell johnny you will get the desert even if you don't eat the vegetables. so we are telling people don't worry about the tough stuff to

create jobs you will get the desert at a $300 billion price tag that is lot to ask. barerra >> i would reserve point of order. >> point of order has been reserved. >> go ahead, mr. larson. >> it is straightforward. it follows the widened version in the senate and pays for two years for the bonus extension. let me add, i think we can anticipate this, concerns for restaurants which have been left out of this proposal are taken in. i believe once we get to a form of conference that a number of

colleagues will conform because of the obvious things that el e eluded to this. i feel because of the deficit we are work under we have a vote on the bill. >> the gentlemen from texas is going to be heard on the point of the order. >> it violates house rule clause six because the offset to oil companies is not of the same subject matter as the substitute. >> given the time i am not going to ask for a roll call vote. you can move the vote. >> i am prepared to rule. the amendment isn't jermaine because it violates and included subject matter that is not the same as the subject matter in the nature of the substitute.

all theiose in favor say aye. those say no. aye's have it. >> hr 4718 as amended. >> all those in favor say aye. those in favor no. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mr. brady? >> aye. >> mr. ryan? >> aye. >> mr. none? >> aye. >> mr. gurlock? >> aye. >> mr. price? >> aye. >> mr. bucannon?

>> aye. >> mr. shock? >> aye. >> ms. jenkins? >> aye. >> mr. pullson? >> aye. >> mr. marchant? >> aye. >> ms. black? >> aye. >> mr. reed? >> aye. >> mr. young? >> aye. >> mr. kelly? >> aye. >> mr. griffin? >> aye. >> mr. runasey? >> aye. >> mr. levin? >> no. >> mr. lewis? mr. neal? mr. doggit? >> no. >> mr. larson? >> no. >> mr. kind? >> no. >> mr. crowley?

ms. schwartz? >> no. >> mr. davis? >> no. >> ms. sanchez? >> no. >> mr. wrangle? mr. lewis? mr. neal? mr. crowley? >> chairman camp? >> aye. >> chairman, aye. the clerk will report the vote. >> 23 ayes and 11 no's. >> the motion is agreed to. it is amended to the house of representative and staff is authorized to make technical changes to the bill and members will have two days to file so ordered. the committee stands adjourned.

"the communicators" ... from house democratic leader nancy pelosi the departure of secretaries and secchi will not solve the systemic challenges within. it is up to all of us in congress and the administration to review the facts, fix the problems, and improve our efforts to ensure veterans receive the care they need. you can see president obama announcement of the resignation of secretary tonight on c-span

at 8:00 eastern. here on c-span2 at 8:00 book tv in prime-time with an interview with radio talk-show host and author a trip to the new york transit museum. >> so what has been the result when you have this classic economic all about problem with three transmission for video? you have companies doing this game of chicken where they cut off service to customers. they are starting to block traffic on the internet services for customers, and the ultimate result of programming costs spiral up and up. you wonder why your cable bill keeps going up? one big reason is there a resolution of the transmission or the fcc is really hamstrung by the rules and the way it is interpreted, the congressional mandate, the easy result is these parties eventually agree

to deals with have prices that don't really want. to say that interconnection happens in a private way is great, and it definitely should be room for private deals. will we get to that point i think it would be a tragic outcome. >> the impact of an open and cut from the aggressive policy is to add 79. on c-span book tv alive 3-hour program and up would offer and columnist at man on sunday. american history tv real america features u.s. government bonds made during world war ii by academy award winning director sunday afternoon at 4:00. >> on the next washington journal we will talk about the resignation of veterans affairs secretary with lean muscle and

chris carroll, a pentagon reporter with stars and stripes. new york times reporter derek well as on his recent article finding of the current congress is drafting the fewest flaws with the proposals in nearly two decades. the conversation with gerry goodman on his group's efforts to limit certain hunting practices. right now my conversation with congresswoman sheila jackson lee. bookseller. -- add your favorite bookseller. >> >> from the 18th congressional district. >> good morning. very nice to be with you and your viewers. >> well over 100 members of congress. calling for the secretary to step down or be fired. what is your view this morning?? american is a great

and he has served his country and served his country well. i had the opportunity to sit in on a veterans committee hearing. i have a veterans hospital in my region. think the general should come on behalf of this country that he loves, step aside. on behalf of the president that he serves, step aside. is that this is at a crisis moment that really needs a crisis response. that has not occurred. that is not a reflection on his love of his work and the veterans. there is no doubt that he has worked for them, loved his nation. battle, you find, and that you need a different

strategic response in order to accomplish the goals to win the war, then not being a military person, but being engaged over the years as a member of the united states congress, it comes to me that you change leadership, you change strategy, and you seek to win the war. we have a war on a system that is broken. if anything proves that, it is the mounting numbers of those who may have lost their lives, in addition to the 40 in phoenix and this very strange number of 1700 veterans on a mysterious, non-existing list thinking they were going to get service, needing the care, and not getting it. i have been for stan to my veterans hospital and i was a -- firsthand to my

veterans hospital and i was there one week ago friday. i will be going back. i believe it is important for members to be in veterans , aretals and understanding any veterans needing care in this area not getting it? is added to the list of those calling for eric shinseki to step down. is it a problem with the secretary? it is a leadership problem in the white house? is it a culture problem in the department? the inspector general proceeds, we are seeing this report. it is a systemic, systemwide problem. as i indicated, it is regrettable that i believe it is

important that we have new leadership at the top. president008, the promised to create a 21st-century department of veterans affairs. 5.5 year later is, what fell short? when the president decided to do that, he picked an excellent leader. followed a leader to through on his promise and commitment. i have no doubt that the president has not stepped away from that commitment. he put in place in leadership team that should have immediately begun to look at the ailments, the fractures in the system and begin using technology -- there is no divide , the budget has increased come of the desire to help has increased. the question has to be, what ,appens within the leadership

not only just the secretary, but in the immediate surrounding leadership on attacking that problem? let me be clear that i have talked to veterans. we were around a lot of veterans on memorial day. services.m using the meeting them in the airports, talking about the service. they love the veterans hospital and the veterans affairs, in terms of it being there department. they love that idea and they love the service, the doctors and providers. i do want to make mention of those dedicated professionals. ,he president chose a leader the leader came to that cap deposition understandings there were serious problems -- cabinet position understanding there were serious problems.

i don't think they can stop at the president's doorstep. he has stood up and said he is angry, he is outraged, he wants to fix it immediately. he has also been responsible with his own leadership. he wants to hear all of the facts to see if there is an opportunity for that leader to go forward. he has not made any statement asking general shinseki to resign. i think that is an appropriate head of state that wants to make sure that he has given his selected person every opportunity. us inst of -- those of congress believes that the president did what he should have done. in the initial appointment of general shinseki, a very responsible american and someone who has served his nation and battle, i don't think the president made a mistake when he selected him. i do think now, regrettably, we

need another taskmaster. in the hearing, i asked the witnesses come aware of the swat teams? orre of the swat teams targeted to go out with and hit everylls problem to find the issues and begin to fix it? host: let me follow up on one point. is the system to generous? are we providing too much care for veterans who are aging that might have served in world war ii or in south korea or in vietnam and now are getting care 40-50 years later because of normal ailments, not as a direct result of military service? guest: absolutely not.

waning years the of world war ii veterans, korean war veterans. we made a promise to them. now, we can be efficient in our service. underpinnings of the affordable care act is to be efficient in service, whether it is geriatric care or returning who have different conditions, ptsd, loss of limbs. i don't think so. i think we can be efficient. that is part of fixing the system. being efficient, but never breaking the promise to our veterans. they have put on the uniform. without question, without asking, and they are willing to risk their lives for the freedom of this nation. fix it. make it more efficient. never and the promise we made to our veterans. the promise we made to

our veterans. our conversation with representative sheila jackson-lee, democrat from houston. to be here.grateful hello to houston and hello to the best country in the world. us fromhn is joining port charlotte, florida. independent line. caller: good morning. disagree respectfully about the comment. it is to generous. my brother-in-law served 40 years ago on a navy ship. , he got disability on hearing loss. he worked at a bar with loud music. he worked construction. now he has full disability benefits and icy veterans down e veterans down here

and i think that system is to generous. that is one way we can fix the problem. i don't think we're too generous in continuing to provide the care for veterans who have served in wars of years gone. in -- i think we can be efficient in the way we provide. --the question of the caller there is a way of providing those services with greater efficiency and less cost. that is the responsible of the veterans administration. look at the health care. make sure you give the veterans the health care that he or she needs. the best care.

that is the responsibility of technology. the responsibility of analyzing the economics of medicine and care. i don't think that is a difficult issue to do. you need to focus in. you need to bring expertise in to do so. i don't think the right approach "too use the term generous." not the be too often, right program, not the right care profit and -- program. our veterans deserve the care. we have made a promise to them. william is next. a veteran himself. caller: good morning. i want to say congratulations.

i think general shinseki has done a wonderful job. he has improved the system. yes, there are errors within the system. but he is greatly improved it. the districts need to be going through the va hospital's. they need to see what is going to it being ased congressman from georgia as people in washington receiving health care. focus on your district and your personnel and that will help general shinseki. thank you for your time. guest: thank you very much. for yourank you service. all of the veterans and those now serving in faraway lands.

i truly appreciate your comment. this has been difficult for all of us. me.n't know if you heard i have been in my veterans hospitals quite frequently. i was just there last friday. i do interact with our veterans and i have a great respect for the general. you have made a valid point. he has respected his work. he has shown himself committed to the veterans. the president has the last word on this. the president is listening too many people. i believe it is not a personal comment about general shinseki when many of us have said maybe it is time to step aside. i would hope he would do it on his terms. the real issue is that the system is broken and there has not been a crisis focus on getting fixed. to answer difficult why there was a mysterious list of 1700 veterans and no one has

any answer. just imagine those veterans sitting on a 1700 mysterious list where you are going nowhere. those kinds of questions loom whether ore wonder not their academic across the system. the inspector general's reports say they did. unless there are answers quickly , then we have not done what we need to do for veterans and those who are coming back from iraq and afghanistan. host: kevin has this to eat. -- this tweet. i'm not going to run away from any failure that may have occurred in the leadership in the united states congress. certainly, we are facing sequester.

processbudgeting included the veterans -- excluded the veterans administration because commitment. hadainly the war in iraq different perspectives. as it went on and on and on. but now as they are coming home, we hope to provide for them. i introduced legislation to equate the work of veterans done in service to the work done in civilian settings and for employers to give them the equal pay that would equal the amount of expertise that they have based on the work in the united

states military. we try to make sure we are responsive. when congress does not meet its task, i can assure the caller that we work in a bipartisan manner to ensure that we try to fix that and overcome it. ,ever perfect, but we own it and we try with legislative for theve to provide g.i. bill that came out. i have seen it work. backe seen veterans coming and finishing their education, families finishing education, engaging in job training. do better.ys we may not be able to do more, but we can always do better. we can always be more efficient. robustt facebook.com, a conversation is now underway. jimmy says to privatize the entire system.

, give themike veterans a health card that can be used at any clinic or hospital, public or v.a. duke is joining us from summerville, south carolina. a veteran himself. welcome to the program. caller: good morning. thank for c-span. all right. i am a vietnam era veteran. i feel them now at this point in time the truth is coming out is what i think is happening right now. i think that both sides, the house and the senate at this present time, is kind of procrastinating, pontificating, manipulating the agency of the veterans affairs, as well as the nation a large. it must stop. we must come to terms with our commonsense and try to move

forward. there are many veterans suffering at this present time. we give billions of dollars away to the u.n. to send around the world. ownannot take care of our responsibilities. we must not look at it as democrats and republicans. we need to look at it as a unification party at this point and get this great empire back on track again. host: the issue of foreign aid. your response. foreign aid is less than one percent of the nation's budget. foreign aid complements the idea of peace. i think it is extremely important for the united states be engaged in the world. the public servants engaged in the foreign service are dedicated and committed to making great strides on behalf of the american people.

think that foreign aid undermines our commitment to the united states military. i can assure him we are on one page when it comes to fixing the system. let me thank him for his service and his analysis. unity is important. we are hearing more unified voices. it is very important to empathize. shinseki is an enormous, important american. his service is without question. his love of veterans is without question. i really hope it would be his decision. hopefully, the president and the general can come to some resolution. we need a targeted response to this crisis. the inspector general has emphasized a systemic problem

that it is important that we look at leadership. a look at the 38 year iseer of general shinseki available in "the wall street journal." there is this from bill, who says i have no idea why you don't mention putting era vets into managed care like medicare to reduce the v.a. workload. republican leaders are trying to turn nation seki problem into an obama problem. leaders have made the calculation that feeding any public perception that eric shinseki is to blame is ill advised and shortsighted. the publicans want to but the onus on the president. they will have a more potent political perspective by keeping the v.a. scandal at the four. -- fore.

guest: there has been a lot of talk about the private system and combining the tri-care system, the active-duty system. i think we are looking at a variety of options. the private system should be a temporary tried. immediatelynt to adopt the private system as a permanent fix for the veterans affairs system. i do believe during this period of time, rather than traveling 100 miles in being on a waiting ist, the private system ready to take care of them. i think we need to look at all of those options. in this stinks. it frankly stinks. to think that you can make this a long-term issue for president does a terrible disservice to the terrible -- to the men and women who put on the

uniform. i think it is important to call that what it is. the president is outraged. the president has relied upon a great leader. none of us are commenting on the enormous service that the general has given. the system is broken and we need to find someone who can fix it. that is the bottom line. any republican and democrat , if youave no quarter will, and conversations about politics. i would caution any of my i would caution any of my colleagues, whether they be democrats or republicans, to make this a political football. nasa and the caution my republican friends and all the consultants, talking heads the may think this is something they can put the feet of president obama. he has shown himself to be a commander in chief with great and affection for this grant military. he has been to afghanistan and made the point that it recognizes those that are on the

front lines and those who have served and i know how. his record of passing, initiating in working with congress on major legislation for veterans evidence is that this will be a poor story. >> host: let me conclude with this question, who would be inappropriate and it? >> guest: well, a number of names. i would like the general, the lead that provided the lead during hurricane katrina. admiral mullen does been mentioned, and there are probably many others. certainly i think the president will work, if it comes to be and would start out by saying this is the president's choice as to what happens to the journal. for all we know, a rebirth of solutions can come up. and he remains. it will be the president's choice. all i'm asking for is that we

move into crisis mode. i think that it's to a bill as quickly as possible. >> host: representative sheila jackson lee, a democrat from texas. thank you for being with this year. >> guest: it's been a pleasure . >> book tv in print ad. next, in depth with author and radio personality mark levin. .. sprite, liberty and security and is 2013 release, liberty and