It. And i guess my second question, based on what weve seen this morning with a delay, is there a possibility for republicans to actually have seen and read amanda chus amendment. As we laid out, to finish the amendments. Yesterday, you indicated there are five or six more you want to have us consider. Well do that we will then take up the managers amendment to bring the Committee Work under the 1. 5 trillion budget reconciliation and then we will include this markup later today. We will, as i said yesterday, even though its beyond ordinary regular order, we will introduce to you the managers amendment, as soon as practical, and we will give you a chance to analyze it. But we will, as we do with your amendment, we will take it up on on a timely basis. Have full debate on it before a vote is called. Mr. Chairman, i have to ask for unanimous content to have two letters put in the file. One is from the county of napa regarding the tax treatment of the fire victims. And the other one is from the California Health association that explains in very good detail how the tax bill before us hurts not only the hospitals and the california job growth and economy by messing with the bonding about the that hospitals use to not only build new hospitals but to retrofit old hospitals. Something that mr. Nunez knows in california is a huge problem. Theres more cost with replicating the hospitals than equity in the hospitals in california. Id like to have the two letters put in. Without objection. Mr. Chairman . Yes, mr. Blumenauer. Mr. Nunez. I reserve an order of court. While the clerk is distributing, mr. Chairman, mr. Chairman. Yes, mr. Blumenauer. While the clerk is distributing, i would like to acknowledge that 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. Barthold and others. Yes, sir. 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. The Committee Members understand whats going on. Id like to have that ability for each Committee Member before we get into a discussion. Thank you very much for that. I draw the point of order. The gentleman from oregon is recognize for five minutes on this amendment. For how many minutes, mr. Chairman . Three minutes. Three minutes. You should have taken the first no, mr. Chairman, my time plays straight with you. I made a mistake, i wanted to clarify. The gentleman is recognized for three minutes. Before the time start, mr. Chairman, may i ask for some items to be submitted to the record . Sure. They are from the hill magazine titled Congress Turns its back on the american workers. From the American Wind Energy so, house reneges on tax deal buts america at risk. Not only 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 element. Without objection. Thank you very much, mr. Chairman. I have been quite frustrated as evidenced a little yesterday. Im embarrassed that these things take so much time and get to this point. But, frankly, i find this whole process an embarrassment, especially as we dive into this hopelessly misdirected bill. Excite the best experts, pollster, writers, lobbyists that money can buy, this bill is going to give hueartburn for every person who supported on it. Im going to focus on one of the worst examples of failure to process. The inability to set priorities and keep faith with 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. Those of you who went to law school know this is first year law school. There are remedies, especially when you pull out the deal. Instead of when youre tealing 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 technology. We were a step behind other countries and we still are. Those of you who have been to china and look at what theyre doing with wind energy know that this is not a race. And were in the industry to foreour get. We went boom and bust because congress refused to give them a steady path forward. Some of you, and many other republicans worked with me in our side of the aisle to have that particular path. To stop the boom and bust. To get the shortterm extension. On 2015, on a bipartisan basis we negotiated a path forward, that would actually phase out the subsidy. We gave them five years to do that. To be able to follow through on this promise. The Wind Energy Industry thanks to the work weve done now employed over 150,000 americans in all 50 states. 500 factories. And the result of this this is why the Renewable Energy sector now employs more people than gas and oil and more than coal. And wind is an important part of that. The Wind Energy Industry has taken us by our word. Theyve invested billions of dollars into the record to be able to witness the promise to that deal. But your bill retroactively appeals this agreement. You put in jeopardy 50,000 jobs. You put in jeopardy up to 50 million 50 million of investments and you start spiraling this out of control. If we had ever had hearings that you could listen to the utilities, to the manufacturers, and 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 retroactive, risking this investment, reneging on the deal, that weve worked on a bipartisan basis to establish. I cant imagine what youre thinking. This represents a horrible failure of the process. Im sorry, mr. Chairman. 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. Thank you for selfregulating yourself, thank you mr mr. Pomeroy mr. Blumenauer. I think im starting to understand my problem. In defense of mr. Chairman, in defense of whether pomeroy. They have wind in north dakota too, mr. Chairman. It just keeps getting better, doesnt it . Mr. Neal, youre recognized. Im glad that part of it got right. I want to yield my time and support mr. Blumenauer. This is a very good amendment, and wherever mr. Pomeroy is right now, he supports this amendment. No doubt. Mr. Chairman, i talked a lot in the course of this proceeding about trying to do these thing on a cooperative and thoughtful way. I have looked, as you know, to find ways to work across the aisle. And many my colleagues who have debated this issue today know that 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 a way to come together. To get something done. And when we have, ive celebrated. This amendment is trying to help you fix an aegregious problem that symbolizes what is wrong with this bill. We could have come together with a tax credit, dealing with housing that would have benefits the rich. We could have taken the Small Business provisions on passthrough and limited to Small Business. 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 and 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 ten years ago or 20 years ago. Nothing symbolizes, i think, the failure of this process and the fact you that 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. And its just one example of things, i think, thats going to doing y dog you, not just in the 2018 election but the 2020 election. Whether this bill passes or not. And i hope it doesnt. Thank you, id respectfully request support for my amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Many of my constituents believe that this credit, this wind production credit has too much risk and way too much. Some of these projects have started as little as 5 of some of these projects have been put in the ground and jut 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, in many case, just a slab thats sitting there on the ground because they were able to get the project started. And then let it sit there for years. Years. Nonetheless, these facilities are still entitled when they finally decide to start them back up to a ten year stream of credits. Yet the bill generally the bill that we will 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 should defeat this amendment. 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 will continue to work with members in these and other areas. So thank you. Anyone else wish to speak on the amendment . Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Would you like 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. I would yield to mr. Bloomenaeu rerks. I listen to my friend from texas. 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 subsidy. 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 all together because congress dropped the ball. Thats why we on a bipartisan basis negotiated a five year 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 lineup the people who have benefited, who work in it, who are getting payments. I dont think it would even be clo 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 texas texans who have more wind energy than anybody else. Theyve got most at troirisk toe 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 can fine tune it. Thank you very much. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Mr. Reed, youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Thank you, mr. Chairman. As i think the chairman knows and many others know, i have been a strong voice for an all of the above Energy Policy and i appreciate the negotiations and discussions we had in regards to the phase out to get these industries from infancy to commercial viability. I appreciate the gentleman from oregons committeemement to thia and ill continue to enjoy working with him. I do harken back to some of the comments i made yesterday. 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 and 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 get 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, 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 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, youre 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. 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 ghost overnment to try to ch 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 youd 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. Im shocked by what my friend from new york said because he was one of the people on a bipartisan basis that helped us do this. And 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. 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. Youre recognized to speak on the amendment. Id like to yield my time to my Renewable Energy hero, mr. Blumenauer. Reporter thank yo 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 one of your states. In 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 in 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 Problem Solvers Caucus and taking a problem that i thought we had solved and holding it hostage for trying to jam through a bill 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 in many areas 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 that the case. Youve had a parade of people lined u