The committee will come to order. Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Might i request information as to how we intend to proceed today when we will see the managers amendment and will it be sufficient time to understand the document understanding that we are going to the floor pretty quickly and because time constraints and the view that we hold that we want time to be able to take a look at whats in the managers amendment based on whats happened as a monday evening and short notice that 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 to react to it. I suppose the second question based upon what we have seen this morning with the delay is has there been a possibility for republicans to have seen and read and devoured the managers amendment . So as we laid out at the beginning of the week, we are convening today to finish the democratic amendments. You indicated there were five or six more you wanted to have us consider. Well do that. We will then take up managers amendment that brings the Committee Work under the 1. 5 trilli 1. 5 trillion reconciliation and then we will conclude this markup later today. Even though it is beyond regular order we will provide you that managers amendment just as soon as practicable and give you a chance to analyze it. We will take it up on a timely basis, a full and open debate on it before the vote is called. Are there further amendments to the nature of the substitute . I would like to ask unanimous consent to have two letters put in the file. One is in the county of napa regarding the tax treatment of the fire victims and the other from the californias Hospital Association that explains in very good detail how the tax bill before us hurts not only the hospitals but california job growth and the economy by messing with the bonding ability that hospitals use to not only build new hospitals but to retro fit old hospitals. There is more cost associated with retro fitting the hospitals than there is equity in the hospitals in california. I would like to have these two put in. Without objection. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bloomen mr. Nunez. Mr. Chairman . Yes. Bliel the clerk is distributing i would like to knowledge 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 this with mr. Bartold and others . Yes. Im asking to have a copy of the exchange that i have had over the last four days that talks about this being a problem so that i 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 give into a discussion so they know what brought this forward. Gentleman from oregon is recognized on his amendment. For how many minutes, mr. Chairman . Three minutes. Three minutes . You should have taken the first no. I try to play straight with you. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Before the time starts mr. Chairman may i ask for items to be submitted to the regacord . Sure. They are from the hill magazine titled Congress Turns its back on american workers, from the American Wind Energy association, house reneges and puts american jobs at risk. And along with that a map showing the distribution of all of 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 Manufacturing elements. Thank you very much. I have been quite frustrated. Frankly i find this whole process an embarrassment especially as we dive into this hopelessly misdirected bill. Despite the best experts and lobbyists that money can buy this bill is going to give heartburn to every person who supported it for the next 36 months. Im going to focus in my remaining time on one of the worst examples of the failure of process. The inability to keep faith with what most of you would claim would be a core republican value, treating taxpayers and especially business consistently and honoring our word. If you make a deal honor it especially if they are acting on this promise. Those of you that went to law school know this is firstyear law school. There are remedies when you pull out of a deal especially dealing with republicans in congress. I have been working on wind energy since 1999. This was an industry that congress started because when it began it wasnt cost effective. We were dealing with new technologies. We were a step behind other countries and we still are. Those of you that have been to china know that this is not a static process. We are in a race to be able to protect our own industry. Well, 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 and many other republicans worked with me and our side of the aisle to have that predictable path, to stop and get the short term extensions. In 2015 on a bipartisan basis we negotiated a path forward that would phase out a subsidy, to be able to follow through on this pro promise. Thanks to the work we have done on a bipartisan basis now employees over 100,000 americans in all 50 states. 500 american factories. This is why the Renewable Energy sector now employees more people than gas and oil, more people than coal and wind is an important part of that. The Wind Energy Industry took us at our word. They began investing billions of dollars, reference the material i entered into the record, to realize the prols of that bill. But your bill retroactively repeals this agreement. You put at jeopardy 50,000 jobs. You put in jeopardy up to 50 million of investment and you start spiraling this out of control. If we had ever had hearings that you could listen to the utilities, to the manufacturers, to the farmers and ranchers who are 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 retro active reneging on a bill we have worked on a bipartisan bay says to establish. I cant imagine what youre thinking. This represents a horrible failure of the process. Im sorry. It looks like im eating into five minutes instead of three. Ill stop in case one of my colleagues will yield to me. Thank you for regulating yourself. Mr. Bloomenhour. I think im starting to understand my problem on this committee. They have wind in north dakota too. It keeps getting better. Mr. On the amendment. I am glad that part of it got right. I will yield my time in support, mr. Blumenauer. This is a very good amendment. Wherever mr. Pomeroy is right now, he supports this amendment. [ laughter ] no doubt. Mr. Chairman, i have talked a lot in the course of this proceedings about trying to do these things on a cooperative and thoughtful way. I have looked, as you know, to find ways to work across the aisle and many of my colleagues who have debated this issue today know i have worked with them on things where we could come together and make a difference. And i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way, to promoting hearings, finding where we can come together, get something done. And when we have, i have celebrated it. This amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes whats wrong with what you have done with this bill. We could have come together with a tax credit dealing with housing that would have benefited everybody. We could have taken the Small Business provisions on passthrough and limit 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 rewritten 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, we will come to our senses and go back to actually trying to Work Together, not relitigate what happened two years ago or ten 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 worked 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. The Wind Energy Manufacturers in your states. And 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. Time has expired. Mr. Marks, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you mr. Chairman. Many of my constituents believe that this credit, of 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 on the ground because they were able to get the project started and then lit et it sit there fo years. Nonetheless. These facilities are still entitled, when they finally decide to start them back up, to a tenyear stream of credits. Yet, the bill generally the bill that we will put out for vote generally preserves the intent of our phaseout program that was agreed to. We continue to have reasonable discussions about this. Maybe there is 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 should defeat this amendment. Thank you. Will the gentleman yield . Yes. I think you make great points. We are listening to members in this issue. We certainly want, over time, Renewable Energy and others to be able to have a certain glide path to the free market. We continue to look for ways to improve the bill as we move forward and well continue to work with members in these and other areas. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Chairman . Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman . Yes, sir. You wish to speak on the amendment . I would just note that texas is the leading wind Energy Producer in the country and that the problem my colleague mentions that some people may not immediately set up their wind generating station is no different than somebody who has decided that theyve got some oil or gas on their property and they 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. And i would yield to mr. Blumenauer so texas can stay number one in wind energy. I appreciate the gentlemans courtesy in yielding to me. I listened to my friend from texas, and i am trying desperately to understand exactly where he is coming from. The Wind Energy Credit is being phased down. They dont get the full credit that 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 subsidy. That was our goal. I would suggest that maybe some of the reasons that people went out and maybe put down some slabs and tried to get a toehold is because Congress Keeps changing its mind. Congress keeps having deadlines that pass. We have 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 and 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, who work in it, who are getting payments. I dont think it would even be close. You would be embarrassed to have a hearing like that, i think. I am trying to spare the committee from the 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 to 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 days of hearings so we could finetune it. Thank you very much. I yield back. Gentleman yield backs. Mr. Reed. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As the chairman knows and others know i have been a strong voice for all of the Renewable Energy discussion. I appreciate the attempts to get the industries from infancy to commercial viable. I appreciate the gentleman from oregons commitment to this area, and i have enjoyed working with him and i will continue to enjoy working with him as we go forward. I do harken back to some of the comments i made yesterday, that if we are so inclined to support this amendment, my colleagues on the other side have made it very clear from Public Comments and issues from their leadership, statements from their leadership both 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 give relief to the American People from the code thats represented here to my right. And so i appreciate the chairmans comments, and i join with my colleague from texas, mr. Marchant, to ask my colleagues to vote this amendment down by 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 he has represented that some members are expressing concern about, and i truly appreciate your leadership on that issue, and i believe this is an example of that leadership being displayed. With that, i yield back. We will continue to work with you in this area. Mr. Levin, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. Yes, 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 the present. I decided not to do it because i think you would vote it down, my amendment. 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 to try to change the way energy works in this country. Thats what youre doing. And 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 policies that are so vital. So, again, i didnt bring up the electric vehicle tax credit because i was afraid you would say youll continue to work with us at the same time you delete the credit. And the public cant make sense of that. I think ill yield my final minute to mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. I am shocked by what my friend from new york said. He was one of the people on a bipartisan basis that helped us do this. And now, if i understand him right, he is willing to hold what he worked on on 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 inheritance tax for billionaires . Or to deal with problems with carried interest . I mean, we can go on on a number of things that are flawed, that arent popular with the public, and dont relate to this bill. Thank you, mr. Thompson. You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Like to yield my time to my Renewable Energy hero, mr. Blumenauer. Thank you. And i will stop at this point. I appreciate i appreciate your courtesy. I appreciate you allowing me to try and stake 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 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 what that final bill looks like. I dont think he has an idea of what is going to be dropped on us out of the rules committee. But taking Something Like this from somebody in the problemsolvers caucus and taking a problem that i thought we had solved and holding it hostage for trying to 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 cou