Transcripts For CSPAN House Ways Means Tax Reform Markup -

That briefing earlier today. Before the passage in the ways and Means Committee this afternoon of the republican tax reform bill to mark the markup session wrapping up today, the vote was 416. Heres some of the Committee Debate ahead of the final passage vote this afternoon. Mr. Brady are there further questions . Mr. Neal will there be sufficient time to digest the document, understanding were going to the floor quickly to vote for the last series of the week and because of time constraints the obvious view we hold on this side that we want time, to be able to take a look at whats in the managers amendment based on whats happened as of monday evening and the short notice we received on thursday, it appears likely that we will at this schedule and pace have very little time to see the managers amendment and then to professionally react to it. I suppose the second question, based upon what weve seen this morning with the delay is, has there been a possibility for republicans to actually have seen and read and devoured the managers amendment . Mr. Brady as we laid out, mr. Neal, at the beginning of the week, we are convening today to finish the democrat amendments. Yesterday you indicated there were five or six more you wanted to have us consider. Well do that. We will then take up the managers amendment that brings the Committee Work under the 1. 5 trillion budget reconciliation. And then well conclude this markup later today. We will, as i said yesterday, even though it is beyond ordinary regular order, we will provide you that managers amendment just as soon as practicable and give you a chance to analyze it. But we will, as we do with your amendment, well take up on a timely basis, have full and open debate on it before the vote is called. Thank you. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman, id like to ask unanimous consent to have two letters put into the file, one from the county of napa regarding tax dream of fire victims and the other from the California Hospitals Association that explains in very good detail how the tax bill before us hurts not only the hospitals with california job growth and the economy, by messing with the bonding ability that hospitals use to not only build new hospitals but to retrofit old hospitals, something that as mr. Nunes knows in california is a big problem. Theres more cost associated with retrofitting the hospitals than there is equity in the hospitals in california. Id like to have these two letters put in the record. Mr. Brady without objection. Mr. Blumenauer . Mr. Blumenauer i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Mue necessary i reserve a point of order. Mr. Blumenauer while the clerk is distributing. Mr. Chairman. R. Chairman. While the clerk is distributing i would like to acknowledge you gave me a letter this morning in reference to the issue that i raised on monday. And you indicated that there would be an opportunity before we adjourn to be able to explore others h mr. Bartow and and im asking to have distributed to the committee a copy of the exchange that ive had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem so that i should have done it monday. To every Committee Member. To understand whats going on. But i would like to have that available to each Committee Member before we get into a discussion. So they know what mr. Brady great. Would you like mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes i withdraw my point of porder. Mr. Brady the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. Mr. Blumenauer for how many minutes . Mr. Brady three minutes. You should have take then first offer. Mr. Blumenauer no, i try to play straight with you, if you i want to take care of that. Before the time starts can i ask that some items be submitted for the record. From the hill magazine, Congress Turns its back on american workers. From the american wind association, house reneges on tax deals, puts american jobs at risk. Along with that, a map showing the distribution of all the major Wind Facilities across the country and the final map that demonstrates that every Single Person on this Committee Comes from a state that has wind anufacturing elements. Mr. Brady without objection. Mr. Blumenauer thank you, mr. Chairman. Im frustrated, im embarrassed these things take so much time and get to this point but i find this whole process an embarrassment. Especially as we dive into this hopelessly misdirected bill. Despite the best experts, pollsters, writers, lobbyists that money can buy this bill will give heart burn to every person who supported it for the ext 36 months. Im going to focus in my remaining time on one of the worst failures of process, the inability to set priorities and keep faith with what most of you would claim would be a core republican value. Treating taxpayers andest pearblely business consistently and honoring our word. If you make a deal, honor it. Especially if theyre acting upon this promise. Those of you who went to law school know this is first year law school. There are remedies, especially when you pull out of a deal. Except if youre dealing with republicans in congress. I have been working on wind energy since 1999. That was an industry that congress started because when it began it wasnt cost effective. We were a step behind other countries and still are. Those of you who have been to china and looked at what theyre doing with wind energy know this is not a static process. Were in a race to be able to protect our own industry. We went through boom and bust because congress refused to give the industry a steady, predictable path forward that they could count upon, refine the technology, and come to scale. Some of you worked with me to have that predictable path, to stop the boom and bust and get the shortterm extensions. In 2015 we fwoshted a way to do that, to follow through on this process. The Wind Energy Industry, thanks to work weve done on a bipartisan basis, now employs over 100,000 americans in all 50 states. 00 american factories. His is why the renewable mes more people than gas and oil and more people than coal. Wind is an important part of that the wind industry took us at our word. They began investing billions of dollars, reference the material ive entered into the record, to be able to realize the promise of that deal. But your bill rhett are actively epeals this agreement. If you could listen to the farmers and ranchers relying on these payments in kansas , in south dakota , in missouri and texas, i cant imagine you would have put this in the bill and make it retroactive, risking this investment, reneging on the bill, a deal, that weve worked on a bipartisan basis to establish. Im sorry, it looks like im eating into five minutes instead of three. Ill stop at this point in case one of my colleagues will yield to me. Mr. Brady thank you for selfregulating yourself. Thank you, mr. Pomeroy. R. Blumenauer i think im starting to understand my problem on this committee. Mr. Brady mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Neal youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Neal im glad that part of it is right. I yield my time in support of mr. Blumenauer. Wherever mr. Pomeroy is right ow he supports this amendment. Mr. Blumenauer mr. Chairman, ive talked a lot in the course of this proceedings about trying to do these things on a ooperative and thoughtful way. And many of my colleagues know that i have worked with them on things where we could Work Together and make a difference. I have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to pro promoting hearings, finding where we can come together, get something done. And when we have, i celebrated it. This amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes whats wrong with what youve done with this bill. We could have come together with a tax credit for dealing with housing that would have benefited everybody. We could have taken the Small Business provisions on passthrough and limited it to really Small Businesses. Not hedge funds. Not sports bar. Not donald trump. We could have done that on a bipartisan basis and there wouldnt be questions about blowing a hole in the revenue estimate. But because the choice is to go it alone, with no hearings, without working with us on a cooperative basis, dropping on us a bill that is being written as we speak and is probably going to be we written in the rules committee, it has been a failure of the process. It saddens me to say these words. I even took your tie and made it into a bow tie, celebrating ways and means. I believe in the work we do here. And i think at some point well come to our senses and go back to actually trying to Work Together. Not relitigate what happened two years ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Nothing symbolizes, i think, the failure of this process than the fact that you would retroactively put in jeopardy billions of dollars of investment that many of us Work Together on a bipartisan basis to make possible. And probably youre going to vote it down. Even though you wont be able to go home and explain it to your farmers and ranchers that are relying on those payments. To the Wind Energy Manufacturers in your states. Its just one example of things i think thats going to dog you, not just in the 2018 election but the 2020 election. Whether this bill passes or not. And i hope that it doesnt. Thank you and i would respectfully request support for my amendment. Mr. Brady the gentlemans time has expired. Youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Many of my constituents believe that this credit, this wind production credit, has too much risk and way too much abuse in it. Some of these projects have been started as little as 5 of some of these projects have been put in the ground and then just abandoned. So ranchers who thought they were going to get a credit, thought they were going to have a stream of income, are looking out at the, in many cases just a slab thats sitting there in the ground because they were able to get the project started and let it sit there for years. Nonetheless, these facilities are still entitled, when they finally decided to start them back up, to a 10year stream of credits. Yet, the bill generally the bill that we put out for vote, generally preserves the intent of our phase out program that was agreed to. We continue to have reasonable discussions about this. Maybe theres room to amend this in the future. But for now, mr. Chairman, i think what we have in our bill draft is correct and i think we hould defeat this amendment. Will the gentleman yield . You make great points, we are listening to members in this issue. We certainly want over time Renewable Energy and others feel have a certain glide path to the free market. Mr. Brady we continue to look for ways to improve the bill as we move forward and will continue to work with members in these and other areas. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Speaker, mr. Chairman. Mr. Brady mr. Doggett, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Doggett texas texas is the leading wind producer in the country and the problem some the problem the gentleman mentions, that some may not immediately set up their wind generating station is no different than somebody who decided they have oil or gas on their property and dont immediately drill. I believe wind energy is coming on fast in texas. Its going at a much reduced price from where it started out because this credit has helped get our Renewable Energy moving there. I would yield to mr. Blumenauer so texas can stay number one in wind energy. Mr. Blumenauer i appreciate the gentlemans courtesy in yielding to me. I listened to my friend from texas. And im trying desperately to understand exactly where hes coming from. The Wind Energy Credit is being phased down. They dont get the full credit they used to have. Its being stepped down in increments to be able to smooth it out. Because theyre getting close to the point where they can function without subsidies. That was our goal. And i would suggest that maybe some of the reasons that people went out and maybe put down some slabs and tried to get a foot a toe hold is because Congress Keeps changing its mind. Congress keeps having deadlines that pass. Weve seen the Wind Energy Industry shut down altogether. Because congress dropped the ball. Thats why we on a bipartisan basis negotiated a fiveyear deal so they wouldnt be in that. But you are taking ant retroactively denying those benefits. I would welcome to have a hearing before this committee, and you invite in all the people in texas that you think have been cheated or shortchanged by wind energy and then line up the people who have benefited it who work in it and are getting payments. I dont think it would even be close. You would be embarrassed to have a hearing like that, i think. Im trying to spare the committee from embarrassment. Not renege on a deal. Keep faith with texans who have more installed Scale Wind Energy than anybody else and i believe in the material i passed out theyve got most at risk to lose if you pull the plug on it. Vote for my amendment. Get it out of the bill. And then lets come back and have a hearing here on what you want to do with the Wind Energy Production tax credit. That would be, i think, a rational way of doing it. And we used to do this on a bipartisan basis. I think it would be a very interesting couple of days of hearings so we can fine tune it. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields back. Mr. Reid, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Reid thank you. I think the chairman knows and many others know, i have been a strong voice for an all of the above energy policy. I appreciate the negotiation and discussions we had in regards to the phaseout to get these industries from infancy to commercial viability. I appreciate the gentleman from oregons commitment to this area and ive enjoyed working with him and will continue to enjoy working with him as we go forward. I do , hen back to comments i i do harken back to comments i made yesterday, if we are inclined to support this amendment, my threes on the other side have made it clear from Public Comments and statements from their leadership in the house and senate that they are adamantly opposed to any implementation of tax reform being driven from our side to the floor to get relief to the American People from the code thats represented here to my right. Mr. Reed i appreciate the chairmans comments. And i join with my colleague from texas, mr. Marchant, to ask my colleagues to vote this amendment down. But i appreciate my chairmans commitment and his professionalism and his representation here today to continue to work in this area, to find that area that hes represented, that some members are expressing concern about and i truly appreciate your leadership on that issue. I believe this is an example of that leadership being displayed. With that, i yield back. Mr. Brady thank you, we will continue to work with you in this area. Mr. Levin youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Levin thank you, mr. Chairman. The problem is, you say youll continue to work with us. But then you have a bill that deletes the provision. And that doesnt work. I mean, it doesnt make any sense. I was going to bring up the electrical electric vehicle tax credit today. Because its been so important for Renewable Energy and so important to begin to move away from what the president. I decided not to do it because i think you would vote it down. My amendment. And i didnt want the precedent of your voting it down while at the same time you might say youll work with us. Mr. Blumenauers passion really stems from the belief that we need to have some limited role of government that tries to change the way energy works in this country. Thats what youre doing. Nd you then say its necessary to act the way you did in your bill because you need the money for your overall bill, but youre sacrificing plcies policies that are so vital. So again, i didnt bring up the electric vehicle tax credit because i was afraid youd say, youll continue to work with us at the same time you delete the redit. And the public cant make sense of that. I think ill yield my final minute to mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Blumenauer thank you. Im shocked by what my friend from new york said. He was one of the people on a bipartisan basis that helped us do this. Now if i understand him right, hes willing to hold what he worked on in a bipartisan basis hostage to force people to vote against something they find egregious. Like repealing the inheritance tax for billionaires. I find that really fundamentally flawed. And i would be embarrassed to make that argument. Because what youre doing is, you are targeting something that is a bipartisan why punish, why punish an industry that i thought you were trying to help, that has much activity in new york because you want to force everybody here to vote for the inheritance tax for billionaires . Or to deal with problems with carried interest . We can go on on a number of things that are flawed that arent popular with the public and dont relate to this bill. Mr. Brady thank you. Mr. Thompson youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Thompson id like to yield my time to my Renewable Energy hero, mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Blumenauer thank you. I will stop at this point. I appreciate your courtesy, i appreciate you allowing me to try and state this and i the contradictions that i see here in terms of how the committee should work and could work, singling out this to be retroactively repealed, hurting every hurting every one of your states, and a bill that many of you worked on. How do you pick this out of the air to hold it hostage to try and get people to vote for something that the American Public feels uncomfortable with and which you are changing by the minute . Mr. Reed has no idea. But that final what that final bill looks like. I dont think he has an idea of whats going to be dropped on us out of the rules committee. But taking Something Like this from somebody in the Means Committee<\/a> this afternoon of the republican tax reform bill to mark the markup session wrapping up today, the vote was 416. Heres some of the Committee Debate<\/a> ahead of the final passage vote this afternoon. Mr. Brady are there further questions . Mr. Neal will there be sufficient time to digest the document, understanding were going to the floor quickly to vote for the last series of the week and because of time constraints the obvious view we hold on this side that we want time, to be able to take a look at whats in the managers amendment based on whats happened as of monday evening and the short notice we received on thursday, it appears likely that we will at this schedule and pace have very little time to see the managers amendment and then to professionally react to it. I suppose the second question, based upon what weve seen this morning with the delay is, has there been a possibility for republicans to actually have seen and read and devoured the managers amendment . Mr. Brady as we laid out, mr. Neal, at the beginning of the week, we are convening today to finish the democrat amendments. Yesterday you indicated there were five or six more you wanted to have us consider. Well do that. We will then take up the managers amendment that brings the Committee Work<\/a> under the 1. 5 trillion budget reconciliation. And then well conclude this markup later today. We will, as i said yesterday, even though it is beyond ordinary regular order, we will provide you that managers amendment just as soon as practicable and give you a chance to analyze it. But we will, as we do with your amendment, well take up on a timely basis, have full and open debate on it before the vote is called. Thank you. Are there further amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman, id like to ask unanimous consent to have two letters put into the file, one from the county of napa regarding tax dream of fire victims and the other from the California Hospitals Association<\/a> that explains in very good detail how the tax bill before us hurts not only the hospitals with california job growth and the economy, by messing with the bonding ability that hospitals use to not only build new hospitals but to retrofit old hospitals, something that as mr. Nunes knows in california is a big problem. Theres more cost associated with retrofitting the hospitals than there is equity in the hospitals in california. Id like to have these two letters put in the record. Mr. Brady without objection. Mr. Blumenauer . Mr. Blumenauer i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Mue necessary i reserve a point of order. Mr. Blumenauer while the clerk is distributing. Mr. Chairman. R. Chairman. While the clerk is distributing i would like to acknowledge you gave me a letter this morning in reference to the issue that i raised on monday. And you indicated that there would be an opportunity before we adjourn to be able to explore others h mr. Bartow and and im asking to have distributed to the committee a copy of the exchange that ive had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem so that i should have done it monday. To every Committee Member<\/a>. To understand whats going on. But i would like to have that available to each Committee Member<\/a> before we get into a discussion. So they know what mr. Brady great. Would you like mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes i withdraw my point of porder. Mr. Brady the gentleman from oregon is recognized for five minutes on his amendment. Mr. Blumenauer for how many minutes . Mr. Brady three minutes. You should have take then first offer. Mr. Blumenauer no, i try to play straight with you, if you i want to take care of that. Before the time starts can i ask that some items be submitted for the record. From the hill magazine, Congress Turns<\/a> its back on american workers. From the american wind association, house reneges on tax deals, puts american jobs at risk. Along with that, a map showing the distribution of all the major Wind Facilities<\/a> across the country and the final map that demonstrates that every Single Person<\/a> on this Committee Comes<\/a> from a state that has wind anufacturing elements. Mr. Brady without objection. Mr. Blumenauer thank you, mr. Chairman. Im frustrated, im embarrassed these things take so much time and get to this point but i find this whole process an embarrassment. Especially as we dive into this hopelessly misdirected bill. Despite the best experts, pollsters, writers, lobbyists that money can buy this bill will give heart burn to every person who supported it for the ext 36 months. Im going to focus in my remaining time on one of the worst failures of process, the inability to set priorities and keep faith with what most of you would claim would be a core republican value. Treating taxpayers andest pearblely business consistently and honoring our word. If you make a deal, honor it. Especially if theyre acting upon this promise. Those of you who went to law school know this is first year law school. There are remedies, especially when you pull out of a deal. Except if youre dealing with republicans in congress. I have been working on wind energy since 1999. That was an industry that congress started because when it began it wasnt cost effective. We were a step behind other countries and still are. Those of you who have been to china and looked at what theyre doing with wind energy know this is not a static process. Were in a race to be able to protect our own industry. We went through boom and bust because congress refused to give the industry a steady, predictable path forward that they could count upon, refine the technology, and come to scale. Some of you worked with me to have that predictable path, to stop the boom and bust and get the shortterm extensions. In 2015 we fwoshted a way to do that, to follow through on this process. The Wind Energy Industry<\/a>, thanks to work weve done on a bipartisan basis, now employs over 100,000 americans in all 50 states. 00 american factories. His is why the renewable mes more people than gas and oil and more people than coal. Wind is an important part of that the wind industry took us at our word. They began investing billions of dollars, reference the material ive entered into the record, to be able to realize the promise of that deal. But your bill rhett are actively epeals this agreement. If you could listen to the farmers and ranchers relying on these payments in kansas , in south dakota , in missouri and texas, i cant imagine you would have put this in the bill and make it retroactive, risking this investment, reneging on the bill, a deal, that weve worked on a bipartisan basis to establish. Im sorry, it looks like im eating into five minutes instead of three. Ill stop at this point in case one of my colleagues will yield to me. Mr. Brady thank you for selfregulating yourself. Thank you, mr. Pomeroy. R. Blumenauer i think im starting to understand my problem on this committee. Mr. Brady mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Neal youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Neal im glad that part of it is right. I yield my time in support of mr. Blumenauer. Wherever mr. Pomeroy is right ow he supports this amendment. Mr. Blumenauer mr. Chairman, ive talked a lot in the course of this proceedings about trying to do these things on a ooperative and thoughtful way. And many of my colleagues know that i have worked with them on things where we could Work Together<\/a> and make a difference. I have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to pro promoting hearings, finding where we can come together, get something done. And when we have, i celebrated it. This amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes whats wrong with what youve done with this bill. We could have come together with a tax credit for dealing with housing that would have benefited everybody. We could have taken the Small Business<\/a> provisions on passthrough and limited it to really Small Business<\/a>es. Not hedge funds. Not sports bar. Not donald trump. We could have done that on a bipartisan basis and there wouldnt be questions about blowing a hole in the revenue estimate. But because the choice is to go it alone, with no hearings, without working with us on a cooperative basis, dropping on us a bill that is being written as we speak and is probably going to be we written in the rules committee, it has been a failure of the process. It saddens me to say these words. I even took your tie and made it into a bow tie, celebrating ways and means. I believe in the work we do here. And i think at some point well come to our senses and go back to actually trying to Work Together<\/a>. Not relitigate what happened two years ago or 10 years ago or 20 years ago. Nothing symbolizes, i think, the failure of this process than the fact that you would retroactively put in jeopardy billions of dollars of investment that many of us Work Together<\/a> on a bipartisan basis to make possible. And probably youre going to vote it down. Even though you wont be able to go home and explain it to your farmers and ranchers that are relying on those payments. To the Wind Energy Manufacturers<\/a> in your states. Its just one example of things i think thats going to dog you, not just in the 2018 election but the 2020 election. Whether this bill passes or not. And i hope that it doesnt. Thank you and i would respectfully request support for my amendment. Mr. Brady the gentlemans time has expired. Youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Many of my constituents believe that this credit, this wind production credit, has too much risk and way too much abuse in it. Some of these projects have been started as little as 5 of some of these projects have been put in the ground and then just abandoned. So ranchers who thought they were going to get a credit, thought they were going to have a stream of income, are looking out at the, in many cases just a slab thats sitting there in the ground because they were able to get the project started and let it sit there for years. Nonetheless, these facilities are still entitled, when they finally decided to start them back up, to a 10year stream of credits. Yet, the bill generally the bill that we put out for vote, generally preserves the intent of our phase out program that was agreed to. We continue to have reasonable discussions about this. Maybe theres room to amend this in the future. But for now, mr. Chairman, i think what we have in our bill draft is correct and i think we hould defeat this amendment. Will the gentleman yield . You make great points, we are listening to members in this issue. We certainly want over time Renewable Energy<\/a> and others feel have a certain glide path to the free market. Mr. Brady we continue to look for ways to improve the bill as we move forward and will continue to work with members in these and other areas. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Speaker, mr. Chairman. Mr. Brady mr. Doggett, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Doggett texas texas is the leading wind producer in the country and the problem some the problem the gentleman mentions, that some may not immediately set up their wind generating station is no different than somebody who decided they have oil or gas on their property and dont immediately drill. I believe wind energy is coming on fast in texas. Its going at a much reduced price from where it started out because this credit has helped get our Renewable Energy<\/a> moving there. I would yield to mr. Blumenauer so texas can stay number one in wind energy. Mr. Blumenauer i appreciate the gentlemans courtesy in yielding to me. I listened to my friend from texas. And im trying desperately to understand exactly where hes coming from. The Wind Energy Credit<\/a> is being phased down. They dont get the full credit they used to have. Its being stepped down in increments to be able to smooth it out. Because theyre getting close to the point where they can function without subsidies. That was our goal. And i would suggest that maybe some of the reasons that people went out and maybe put down some slabs and tried to get a foot a toe hold is because Congress Keeps<\/a> changing its mind. Congress keeps having deadlines that pass. Weve seen the Wind Energy Industry<\/a> shut down altogether. Because congress dropped the ball. Thats why we on a bipartisan basis negotiated a fiveyear deal so they wouldnt be in that. But you are taking ant retroactively denying those benefits. I would welcome to have a hearing before this committee, and you invite in all the people in texas that you think have been cheated or shortchanged by wind energy and then line up the people who have benefited it who work in it and are getting payments. I dont think it would even be close. You would be embarrassed to have a hearing like that, i think. Im trying to spare the committee from embarrassment. Not renege on a deal. Keep faith with texans who have more installed Scale Wind Energy<\/a> than anybody else and i believe in the material i passed out theyve got most at risk to lose if you pull the plug on it. Vote for my amendment. Get it out of the bill. And then lets come back and have a hearing here on what you want to do with the Wind Energy Production<\/a> tax credit. That would be, i think, a rational way of doing it. And we used to do this on a bipartisan basis. I think it would be a very interesting couple of days of hearings so we can fine tune it. Thank you very much. I yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields back. Mr. Reid, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Reid thank you. I think the chairman knows and many others know, i have been a strong voice for an all of the above energy policy. I appreciate the negotiation and discussions we had in regards to the phaseout to get these industries from infancy to commercial viability. I appreciate the gentleman from oregons commitment to this area and ive enjoyed working with him and will continue to enjoy working with him as we go forward. I do , hen back to comments i i do harken back to comments i made yesterday, if we are inclined to support this amendment, my threes on the other side have made it clear from Public Comments<\/a> and statements from their leadership in the house and senate that they are adamantly opposed to any implementation of tax reform being driven from our side to the floor to get relief to the American People<\/a> from the code thats represented here to my right. Mr. Reed i appreciate the chairmans comments. And i join with my colleague from texas, mr. Marchant, to ask my colleagues to vote this amendment down. But i appreciate my chairmans commitment and his professionalism and his representation here today to continue to work in this area, to find that area that hes represented, that some members are expressing concern about and i truly appreciate your leadership on that issue. I believe this is an example of that leadership being displayed. With that, i yield back. Mr. Brady thank you, we will continue to work with you in this area. Mr. Levin youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Levin thank you, mr. Chairman. The problem is, you say youll continue to work with us. But then you have a bill that deletes the provision. And that doesnt work. I mean, it doesnt make any sense. I was going to bring up the electrical electric vehicle tax credit today. Because its been so important for Renewable Energy<\/a> and so important to begin to move away from what the president. I decided not to do it because i think you would vote it down. My amendment. And i didnt want the precedent of your voting it down while at the same time you might say youll work with us. Mr. Blumenauers passion really stems from the belief that we need to have some limited role of government that tries to change the way energy works in this country. Thats what youre doing. Nd you then say its necessary to act the way you did in your bill because you need the money for your overall bill, but youre sacrificing plcies policies that are so vital. So again, i didnt bring up the electric vehicle tax credit because i was afraid youd say, youll continue to work with us at the same time you delete the redit. And the public cant make sense of that. I think ill yield my final minute to mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Blumenauer thank you. Im shocked by what my friend from new york said. He was one of the people on a bipartisan basis that helped us do this. Now if i understand him right, hes willing to hold what he worked on in a bipartisan basis hostage to force people to vote against something they find egregious. Like repealing the inheritance tax for billionaires. I find that really fundamentally flawed. And i would be embarrassed to make that argument. Because what youre doing is, you are targeting something that is a bipartisan why punish, why punish an industry that i thought you were trying to help, that has much activity in new york because you want to force everybody here to vote for the inheritance tax for billionaires . Or to deal with problems with carried interest . We can go on on a number of things that are flawed that arent popular with the public and dont relate to this bill. Mr. Brady thank you. Mr. Thompson youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Thompson id like to yield my time to my Renewable Energy<\/a> hero, mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Blumenauer thank you. I will stop at this point. I appreciate your courtesy, i appreciate you allowing me to try and state this and i the contradictions that i see here in terms of how the committee should work and could work, singling out this to be retroactively repealed, hurting every hurting every one of your states, and a bill that many of you worked on. How do you pick this out of the air to hold it hostage to try and get people to vote for something that the American Public<\/a> feels uncomfortable with and which you are changing by the minute . Mr. Reed has no idea. But that final what that final bill looks like. I dont think he has an idea of whats going to be dropped on us out of the rules committee. But taking Something Like<\/a> this from somebody in the Problem Solvers Caucus<\/a> and taking a problem that i thought we had solved and holding it hostage or try for trying to jack through a jam through a bigger bill, thats whats wrong with this process. We ought to be able to take individual items, debate them on their merits, find areas of agreement, like we could have done in health care, and which we still could do, i hope. But to wrap everything together, make it a moving target, which nobody really knows what the problems and well talk about some of them in a minute, i just think is a violation of the process. I said that its going to haunt everybody who votes for it. I absolutely believe thats the case. Youve had a parade of people lined up trying to find out whats in the bill and pleading to not have unintended consequences. I long for the day that we return to regular order. When we could have, for example, a weeks hearing on wind energy and if mr. Marchant wants to fix it, lets fix it. I long for the day where we have two weeks of hearings on american infrastructure. Which is falling apart while america falls behind. And states are raising gas taxes. We cant even discuss it here. Even though the u. S. Chamber of commerce, the truckers, the aflcio, many of your states, would come up and testify why it is vital to do that and why it would help. Thats the sort of regular order that we could do. Its happening in states. Nd this bill is exhibit a of ow that process is failing here. I yield back. Mr. Brady mr. Nunes, youre recognized. Mr. Nunes mr. Reed is a trusted member of the committee. For of for those of you who have been in the audience for four day, hes had those books in front of him. A man that can read that many books in four days, he has to know this tax code all the way through, in and out. I will yield to my good friend who is the tax expert from new york, mr. Reed. Mr. Reed i appreciate that, mr. Nunes. It took much longer than four days to go through the u. S. Tax code. As weve been on the committee for seven years. Dealing with these issues, dealing with tax reform. And having hearings on the issues before us that have set up this day for us to take this step to move the bill forward, hopefully to the floor and through the senate process. And through the entire legislative process. To mr. Blumenauers point, at the end of the day irk do anticipate the final bill we will put on the president s desk is obviously going to be different than the bill we put out through the committee because we have to go to our colleagues off the committee. We have to work with our colleagues in the senate. To make sure that their differences and our differences are reconciled. Probably through a conference committee. Thats regular order. And as i listen to the debate yesterday, i was also reminded many times from my colleague the other side you would have reached out to us. We should have been discussing this. Essentially they were say, we should have been discussing this where . In the back rooms . In the closed doors . Would the gentleman yield . Mr. Reed the that we were going to somehow come to an agreement not in the sunlight of today . Will the gentleman yield. Mr. Reed im not going to yield. Im not going to yield. If we are truly interested in this debate and i agree with mr. Blumenauer. When you reference my cochair, the Problem Solvers Caucus<\/a> you know what the Problem Solvers Caucus<\/a> is all about . What were trying to send a message to our leadership and to you are extreme bases in our party on the left and right, on the left and the right, and youre right, i said both. Because your leadership, especially what i saw yesterday in the public news and what was reported and what i have seen over the last seven days where i have seen your leader repeatedly say, and the minority leader in the senate repeatedly say we are not going to support any efforts at tax reform. As was reported in a very respected media outlet here on the hill, the calculation has been made from the other sides readership that you know what we have to do . We have to do everything in their power to block tax reform and the relief that were going to provide for the middle class americans that i truly do believe this bill will deliver to them by allowing them to keep the thousands of their own dollars in order to achieve their political goal. What has become their emblem of success here in d. C. The majority and the in the u. S. House and the majority in the u. S. Senate. Thats appalling to me. And with that, i yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields back. Ms. Sewell, youre recognize t. D. Speak on the amendment. Oh, the next excuse me. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Schweikert, youre recognized. Mr. Schweikert thank you, mr. Chairman. Can you help me just because i was not blessed to be a member of the committee when some of some of this was originally drafted, looking at the gentleman from oregons amendment, could you first walk me through right now what the actual change were talking about here in the definitions and mechanisms and timing on work in progress . Theres, mr. Schweikert theres two basic changes in h. R. 1. As was noted in the debate, theres a phase down under present law of the value of the production credit, or the value of the investment credit if the taxpayer elects the investment credit in lieu of the i want to double emphasize, thats current law. Current law. And the reductions are 20 reduction, 40 in 2018. 60 reduction in 2019. Relative to the base proposal thats been in the law for 20plus years. That the value of the credit for projects, the construction of which blins begins in those years, the inflation indexes is remove thsmed ecredit itself is indexed, currently has a value of 2. 4 cents per kilowatt hour without indexing, the value reverts to 1. 5 cents per kilowatt hour. Are you saying the inflation indexing is 1. 5 . The base voofl the credit established in 199 was 1. 5 cents behr kilowatt hour. Thats base value plus currently because of indexing, since 1992, the current value is 2. 4 cents per which watt hour. The inflation adjustment would be repealed meaning future projects would revert to the base value of 1. 5 cents per which watt hour. Not projects currently in service but new projects the construction of which begins after the enactment. Mr. Schweikert but projects under construction right now. Not all because the rule established four years ago now more d from the traditional investment rule of property placed in service to a commencement of construction. And theres regulations that define what commencing construction mr. Schweikert that was actually, can you help me on that . The longtime rule under the production tax credit and under a number of other investment proposals, investment tax credits, appreciation is property placed in service by a certain date. I believe it was five years ago, the congress changed the rule to property placed in service to property, the construction of which commenced by a certain date. Thank you. That definition of commenced construction is also modified by the legislation. Mr. Brady the gentlemans time has expired. Does anyone else which to speak . Mr. Crowley youre recognized to speak. Mr. Crowley i think its interesting direction the focus the change of direction and focus on debate as to the motivation of leadership on either side of the house my good friend, the gentleman from new york, one of the cochairs of the Problem Solvers Caucus<\/a> is create manager problems with the passage of this bill and to question the motivations of the leadership, lets be clear. Our leadership wants to see this bill defeated because it is not reflective, not reflective of the values of our country. Thats why we want the bill defeated. It is not in the interest of our constituents nor do we believe in the interest of our country to see this bill move forward. Terms of bookroom deals, is it a backroom deal to include democrats and speak to them about a bill and give it the light of day . Sit a backroom deal when we ask the majority to have hearings on the issue, so the American People<\/a> understand fully whats in the bill . Aside from sitting behind stacks of books of material, can we have an open discussion about that here on the house floor . Its very clear in terms of motivation as to why you wall ant you all want to pass the bill. Your colleague from new york, mr. Collins, made it clear just the other day when he said and i quote, my donors are basically saying, get it done or dont ever call me again. It couldnt be more clear as to what the motivation is in terms of getting this bill rammed through the house of representatives before christmas. Its all based on the dword. Donors. And thats what in terms of a backroom deal, thats what youre putting together a boomroom deal for your donors. Its wrong, its not the way legislation should be done. But youve chosen this path and i guess well see it through. I yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields back. Mr. Cur bell he, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Curbelo i want to thank the gentleman for raising this issue. Weve done a lot of work to support renewables in our legislation, a lot of colleagues, i think, on both sides are very supportive of leveling the Playing Field<\/a> really Playing Field<\/a>. Really treating all the different sectors fairly. And this wind issue is critical. And i think we can Work Together<\/a> to do more to strengthen the provisions as they relate to wind and im open to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle here and with you, mr. Chairman, to continue that dialogue. So i just wanned to make that point. Thank you and i yield back. Mr. Brady thank you, well continue to do that. Mr. Rice youre recognized to speak on the amendment. I yield to mr. Schweikert. Mr. Schweikert thank you. I know im belaboring this, but i want to make sure i have my head around this. You just before we ran out of time, work in progress. So lets just do, paint a quick scenario. I have a facility in texas, northern arizona, oregon, wherever it is, and all weve done is engineering and weve laid the first parts of the massive foundations that are required because of the loads. And then weve stopped for a while. Were working on our financing, something else. Its already begun. Would that be receiving the 2. 4 Going Forward<\/a> or the 1. 5 Going Forward<\/a> . Under present law the commenced construction rules totaly satisfied if 5 of project costs have been incurred. Foundation depends on the area. Under the proposal, it adds a rule for determining the beginning of construction and under the proposal the construction facility or modification or anything is not treated as beginning before any date unless theres a Continuous Program<\/a> of construction which begins before that date, ends on the date in which the property is placed in service. So the scenario youre describing, and which mr. Marchant noted earlier, if you did work today, even if its a substantial amount of work and then the project were in abeyance for a year, it would not be an eligible project. It would not be begin construction because it was not continuously. So what were working on is also the definition of what is continuous. Youre defining continuous. Youre saying that work in progress. You have continuance progress on your project in order to say that you began the construction by whatever date youve designated in the past. That language or mechanism, i know, look, in the real estate assessment world and that is different but we had a lot of what is work in progress. You fall into certain percentages of completion for assessment purposes. Is there its not a percentage completion. Its not a percentage completion its continuation. Its show continuous construction work. So we havent created huge barriers, as long as if you keep plugging along, working on it, then then they retain the benefit. So the present laws for what constitutes beginning construction is satisfied. I understand there may be a cleanup in definition but it wont be that onerous. Mr. Brady mr. Meehan, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Meehan we often spend too much time in the issues because i think theyre the ones that score political points. Working on all the parade of horribles that are suggested to be raining down as a result of what is being proposed and i have Great Respect<\/a> for mr. Blumenauer and mr. Pomeroy, whoever it is this particular issue, to be sure. But i dont want to lose sight of what youve done, what has been done in this bill with the commitment to Renewable Energy<\/a>. And the continuing commitment to not only allow these industries to develop and flourish in the united states, but to compete against countries like china who are trying to come in and usurp the great progress thats been made and whereas there has been significant progress in the wind and solar area, and i go again with solar continuing to be supported in a very dramatic fashion as we look for alternative energies that are competing with the new development of shale which has created cleaner Energy Solutions<\/a> across the country. That great effort was made to correct a problem that has o that had occurred in the past. So orphan technologies like wind turbines, fuel cells, geothermal, the kinds of things allowing us to continue to stayen the forefront of alternative Energy Solutions<\/a> for our country are being supported in this bill. Given the chance to have the same opportunity that wind and solar are asking for. And i think that thats a significant accomplishment that will allow us to diversify our energy portfolio, create real and meaningful jobs, and in many ways work in concert with the efforts on the part of solar, the Battery Storage<\/a> thats necessary to make a solar or even a wind Energy Solution<\/a> even all the more efficient. So im grateful for my colleagues that are raising the issue but do not want to lose sight of very significant and important things that are included in this bill that i think receive, will not get the vote, it certainly receives the support of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Thank you, mr. Chairman, i yield back. Mr. Brady thank you. Mr. Larson, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Larson thank you, mr. Chairman, i strike the last word and my dear friend and colleague, mr. Blumenauer, has just been informed that we have to kill it in order to save it. We have to kill your initiative in order to save it. We have to go back against the commitments we made because the most important thing here is states that tax make deductions, individually, states that are donor states, we have to tax success amongst people, we have to make sure at people that currently get to deduct medical expenses no longerer able to do that, as much as the aarp pointed out yesterday. We have to do that so we can assist, mr. Blumenauer youre just going to have to wait because the people who get more than 11 million to begin with, having gotten enough from the estate tax provision havent gotten enough from the estate tax provision. So mr. Blumenauer, were going to have to kill your bill and your initiative, because they havent gotten enough. And when they say they have to kill it to save it, when you look at the chain c. P. I. Theyve put in this bill as well, as we said to the aarp yesterday, stay tuned. Because the same thing is coming for Social Security<\/a> and medicare and medicaid. Were going to have to cut it in order to save it. Stay tuned, americans, for the next step in this show. Were going to have to kill it in order to save it. Youre going to hear this over and over again. In order to save your benefits, were just going to have to kill the program. With that, i yield to mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Blumenauer if we were to have the hearing that mr. Marchant and i want to have and have a dozen people from the industry, from the association, from people in your states, a dozen people testify, we can document, clearly, for mr. Schweikert why this is a disruptive change and puts at risk hundreds thousands of jobs, and billions of dollars of investments, which he could have found out if he would talk to the people in the Wind Energy Industry<\/a> from his own state without speculation. We dont have to do this on the fly. And i hope that we have that earing soon. Mr. Brady thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on the blumenauer amendment . The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by mr. Blumenauer. Those in favor say aye. Those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes have it. Pursuant to Committee Rule<\/a> 19 further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. Are there additional amendments to the amendment in the nature of a substitute . Mr. Chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. Mr. Brady the gentlelady has an amendment at the desk. Mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes i reserve a point of order. Mr. Brady the clerk will distribute the amendment and i ask the gentlelady to suspend while the clerk distributes. Mr. Brady mr. Mue necessary is recognized. Mr. Nunes i withdraw my point of order. Mr. Brady the gentleman withdraws. The gentlelady is recognized to speaken her amendment. My amendment will restore the his and expand the historic tax credit. Its been a key redevelopment tool in districts across america, helping to revitalize cities, towns and Rural Communities<\/a> by encouraging private Sector Investment<\/a> in rehabilitation and reuse of Historic Buildings<\/a>. Nationwide its helped renovate more than 42,000 Historic Buildings<\/a>. In my state of alabama alone, since 2002, 128 his foric tax credit projects resulted in 280 million in the tall Economic Development<\/a>. Ms. Sewell just in my district, there have been 48 historic tax credit projects since 2002. In cities with civil rights histories like birmingham, selma, marion and montgomery. The federal historic tax credit creates jobs, mr. Chairman. It is a good investment for local communities, individual state, and the nation. The cumulative im of the Program Since<\/a> 1978 includes 2. 5 million jobs and billions of dollars in economic gain. The positive impact on the economy speaks for itself. His toric tax credits have enerated 291. 7 billion in output. 144. 9 billion in g. D. P. 106. 6 billion in income. And yes, 41. 7 billion in taxes. Mr. Chairman, the historic tax credit is a great return on investment. 25 month 2 billion in historic tax credit costs encourages five times greater amount of investment in renovations. 131. 8 billion. A great return on investment. I say to my republican colleagues repealing incentives for key investments in Economic Development<\/a> like historic tax credit will raise less than 50 billion in revenue and yet decrease the amount of economic rehabilitation by 131. 8 billion. Mr. Chairman, this is a no brainer. The economic revitalization of our downtowns from core urban areas to main street towns requires investments like the historic tax credit to focus investment where it is needed most. Mr. Chairman, in closing, no one makes the case for historic tax credits better than president reagan who in 1984 said, our historic tax credits have made the preservation of our older buildings not only a matter of respect for beauty and history, but of course but a course for economic good sense. So i ask my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. Lets send a message to towns and cities across america that we believe in them. Please vote for my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time. Mr. Brady the gentlelady yields. Mr. Nunes. Mr. Nunes ill be real quicken this on this i rise in opposition to the amendment. One of the challenges with tax reform is trying to go through the code and eliminate a lot of the credits and deduction that was been built over the code for the last three or four decades and theres there are a lot of folks who get this credit but the problem is, you cant have lower rates if we keep special deals in the code for picking some winners over some losers. I would say that one of the careful considerations we took in this legislation is that the bill provides for Transition Relief<\/a> over taxpayers currently claiming the credit to complete their full twoyear time frame for receiving the benefit. Taxpayers who have not yet begun claiming the credit have 180 days from the date of enactment to begin the twoyear period of benefit. So i think we have sufficiently taken care of this issue. And i hope that ms. Sewell will the gentleman yield . Mr. Nune necessary i think its consistent to get rid of many of these credits even though this may be a good credit, like a lot of credits, but we have to get rid of them. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields. Mr. Neal. Youre recognized to speak. Mr. Neal a superb credit. Its been a transformative investment tool for cities acrts the northeast. I just came back from charleston, south carolina, in the spring and i want to tell you if theres a better example of how the historic tax credit has been used in america im not aware of it. Brownstones have been brought back to life. Neighborhoods have been transformed. Investment has occurred. Property taxes have gone up. People that at one time began the outmigration from urban america found new sustenance and opportunity by coming back to these old cities. And again, the millenial class continues to change how these cities are lived in they invest by sending their children to the public schools. Once they come back they support the arts. Once they support they support once they come back they support neighborhood associations. I cant imagine anyone from the south opposing the historic tax credit. What hat it has done, Civil War Battlefields<\/a> is an important part. One of the gentleman from california said, this is a great credit. This gets people to do what we want them to in terms of incentive but for the credit, the investment wouldnt occur. We attempt on that basis to lure investment back to Historic Buildings<\/a> that again in terms of the architecture and great italian artists that came to new england that reshaped the destiny of those Old Buildings<\/a> and town halls and the churches that adorn town squares and the founders had enough sense to say we are going to rebuild the church and the Municipal Building<\/a> and we build the Public Library<\/a> which is the envy. This is a good amendment. It should be maintained and i want to include in the record a letter from the largest taxpayer until southbridge, massachusetts. And i yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. Ms. Sewell thank you, Ranking Member<\/a> neal. I wanted to respond to the gentleman from california. You know, i do understand in order to provide this hooge tax cut to the wealthy, we have to figure out what to cut. I dont understand why you would cut an incentive which would only give you 50 billion and yet decrease the amount of revite lization across this nation by 131. 5 billion. Five times more help would go to job creation than it would actually hurt. I know that in this debate about tax reform, we are making value choices. Choose cities and towns across america. Thank you. For the record. Unanimous consent to submit to the record from the connecticut Economic Development<\/a> of historic preservation, a letter underscores what mr. Neal and ms. Sewell has said. Mr. Brady mr. Tiberi. Mr. Tiberi mr. Neal woke me up when he said about italian architecture in new england. Thank you. I associate myself with the gentlemans remarks. [laughter] mr. Neal this is an opportunity to say how great we are but to vote with us. Mr. Tiberi how did you know i was going to tell you how great you are. I had a constituent involved in a project in West Virginia<\/a> using the lowincome tax credit as well as publicprivate city bond and the historic tax credit to rebuild and renovate a large project for housing in West Virginia<\/a>. And he was told by the banker im not sure this is correct, so maybe you could clarify this, the project which is supposed to close in january will now be at risk because the Effective Date<\/a> of the bill is before the project is supposed to close. Does that make sense to you . I think not, mr. Tiberi, under the traps is rule that mr. Nunes described the transition rule, 180day period for projects that are under way. Mr. Tiberi they should be fine for closing on january 31 . Sounds like it. But would be happy to im sure the staff would be happy to take materials from your constituents and see what the situation. Mr. Tiberi the historic tax credit has seen the beauty of it. A private investment hasnt quite frankly for some time, in decades gone into some of these areas and the historic tax credit has been used to do that. As we have had conversations and try to figure out a way to in the end, preserve some of these tax credits that have had lifechanging aspects. I just want to speak in support of this amendment. This historic tax credit has been a powerful Economic Force<\/a> playing itself out and throughout every city in america including mine in buffalo, new york. Mr. Higgins 500 million in projects have restored 70 Historic Buildings<\/a> in western new york sm the historic tax credit is essential driver of private investment to restore physically and financially challenged buildings throughout america. It returns more in revenue and returns more in revenue to the federal government than the tax credit actually cost. The federal government receives 1. 25 for each dollar invested. 23 million in federal tax credit nationally generated 28 billion in federal tax revenues for historic rehabilitation projects. I ask the committee to please consider the value of the projects, the local communities throughout america, but also the positive impact it has on the federal budget. Its a net contributor to the federal budget. And i yield the remainder of my time to ms. Sewell. Ms. Sewell thank you to the gentleman from new york for yielding and also for the eloquence how tax benefits have helped buffalo, new york. The cost of repealing the historic tax credit would actually only raise 50 million not billion dollars. I can tell you that it will generate 131. 8 billion in economic revite lization. The math doesnt add up. And i know all across america, all of us have districts that would benefit from this historic tax credit. And as Ranking Member<\/a> neal said no area benefits more than the deep south. Can tell you in my city of selma, there are so many homes that have been revitalized in downtown areas all across my district and im baffled by the fact that we are making these kinds of value judgments that dont yield that much revenue but are taking away, decreasing the amount of revite lization and makes no sense. This is a nobrainer and something that should go back into the code and i would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who i know have benefited, their districts have benefited will see the value and making sure that we side with local governments and local municipalities. Mr. Brady mr. Lewis, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Mr. Lewis i thank ms. Sewell for bringing this amendment before us today. I really dont understand it. It is difficult for me to understand those of you who have traveled to the south, other parts of america, whoville grown up in the south i grew up in rural alabama. Lived in tennessee. And i live in georgia. Have toric tax credit changed many of our towns, our cities. Historic tax credits save old schools. Churches, Historic Buildings<\/a> we make in our towns and our neighborhood. Only a small amount of money. They have changed america to save our history and preserve it for generations yet unborn. I yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yield back. Mr. Doggett, you are recognized. Mr. Doggett thank you very much. This is a historic moment. I applaud the amendment. It is in the overall context of this bill a very modest amendment and even if this modest amendment is opposed, gives us some indication of how the week has gone. We are on the fourth day. Every single democratic amendment has been rejected in circus s with amazing level contortions saying that they are voting against something that their constituents support to get it to somewhere within this process. So given where we are, 11 40, with votes about to happen, with our not having been provided the managers amendment, we need to consider this historic point. Understand that on this fourth point of the hearing, the only thing that has changed is the amendment that the chairman offered. Thats the only amendment. And it added a big gift to multinational corporations and exceeds the budget limit and that is the purported skews for having another managers amendment. And so in that circumstance, i would yield, mr. Chairman, to ask you, since you are rejecting every single idea we have advanced, i have amendments, i have not conferred with them about how they feel, but if we withdrew every other amendment that weve got and knowing that you are going to reject them, are you going to tell us what secrets you are hiding . Mr. Brady we will continue to abide by regular order. And last night there was a great todo not having time to offer your amendments. It will be your decision. Mr. Doggett if we withdrew every amendment that i have got, would we just be put in recess or have an opportunity to see your secret proposal that you worked out in the back rooms amongst the colleagues and giveaway to Corporate America<\/a> ol multinational tax offshoring and hiding their money. Mr. Brady we will continue with regular order. Mr. Doggett does that include calling a recess or calling your amendment . Mr. Brady we will continue with full amendment republicans and democrats that the Committee Rule<\/a>s require. Mr. Doggett i assume what that means you are still not ready to present the managers amendment to correct the fiscal irresponsibility of the first giveaway to Corporate America<\/a> and that we would just go into recess. I suppose its reasonable to continue to continue offer amendments. Mr. Brady you are recognized to speak on the amendments. I yield my time to mr. Tiberi. Mr. Tiberi it would be even more fascinating for those of you in the audience who werent here in 2009 to remember the obamacare debate which the gentleman from texas sat through and watched and watched as every single amendment that we offered was dismissed and this chairman has been more fair than that chairman. We did not see an amendment until 12something a. M. In the morning to a 2,000something page bill. Every single amendment was rejected. The chairman didnt know i was a member of the committee, it was so pathetic. No kidding. And he didnt pronounce my right name. And so isnt that amazing . Thats true. Its absolutely true. So much for inclusiveness when you dont know who the minority amendments are. I love mr. Doggetts replay. Chairman brady has been more than fair when you compare when the minority was in the majority and one who loves many members of the minority, again, this is an amazing thing to look at. My wish would be me and bill screll or richie neal or larson, and the rest of us [laughter] the chairman, whether its chairman rangel, levin or brady, have a very difficult job and none of us quite frankly understand how difficult it is and the chairman is trying his darn best and he has done a better job than past chairmans of trying to high wire a very difficult act. And i appreciate it. Yield back. R. Brady mr. Crowley, you are recognized. Mr. Crowley the former chairman of the committee was mr. Crowley. It wasnt just the minority, charles. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I want to enter into a colloquy with my friend from the great state of alabama. Ms. Sewell, i know there is an ffort in the south to preserve architecture and structures. I read with great interest recently and i dont recall what period call it was in, the attempt to preserve slave quarters which is on property throughout the south and they are crumbling and withering. And would this tax credit help to preserve those structures as well . Ms. Sewell thanks for the question, the gentleman from new york. As long as the buildings are certified by the department of interior and usually thats because they are on some kind of historic registry, if these slave quarters, which i think some of themr do qualify, yes, they would be able to take advantage of historic tax credit. It has to be a certified building and the certification is done through state preservation organizations as well as through the National Park<\/a> service. Mr. Crowley there are many who are concerned that the state of life as it existed for those who were held in bondage prior and during the civil war, that if these buildings were to be lost, that much of that story would be lost, is that not true . Ms. Sewell that is true. Mr. Crowley i appreciate the gentleladys amendment and what the impact this will have on future generations if this tax credit is not maintained. And i yield the remainder of my time to the gentlelady from alabama. Ms. Sewell not only will it affect our history of slavery. These are Historic Buildings<\/a> that tell the story of america. And that is what the National Park<\/a> service is there for to make sure next generations understand the history that is america. So everything from slave quarters to civil rights sites such as the hotel in birmingham, alabama where the gathering of civil rights leader, including john lewis that took place in the 1960s that led to the Civil Rights Movement<\/a> as well as confederate sites. I grew up in selma, we have a complicated history of civil rights and civil war. That history lived side by side in many parts of the south. So all of our communities can benefit from historic tax credits because its really about the preservation of the American Experience<\/a> and every district has a story to tell american. Iquely r. Brady time is expired. Mr. Davis this country is replete with structures, buildings, that are not just buildings, but they really speak to the history and development of this country. I heard john lewis mention rosen wa lmp d, a man who lived in my community but who developed more than 500 schools in the rural south for africanamerican communities who at that time did not have a school. My district has more flank lloyd wright buildings in it than any other place in the world. Also has the tremendous bronze field where africanamerican entertainers and actors, joe lewis, and others, lived during the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s. Plus we have structures in Downtown Chicago<\/a> that was there when the chicago fire took place. They survived. O its not just a matter of re constructing. These buildings have reached object solens and unless there is an infusion of capital, local developers, local governments cannot do it alone. Fill and throw pifts cannot do it alone. So we need the faith and credit of our country to stand behind. So im pleased to join with representative sewell and the others who have spoken in favor of the retention of these credits, because they, indeed, would be a credit to america. And i yield back. Mr. Brady the gentleman yields back. We will recess the committee for votes and return and vote on the pending amendments and continue and finish discussion. The committee is recessed until following floor votes. [captions Copyright National<\/a> cable satellite corp. 2017] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org they approved the house g. O. P. Tax plan and kevin brady","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia600405.us.archive.org\/7\/items\/CSPAN_20171109_210700_House_Ways__Means_Tax_Reform_Markup_-_Part_1\/CSPAN_20171109_210700_House_Ways__Means_Tax_Reform_Markup_-_Part_1.thumbs\/CSPAN_20171109_210700_House_Ways__Means_Tax_Reform_Markup_-_Part_1_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240629T12:35:10+00:00"}