tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 9, 2017 9:00pm-10:07pm EST
scale. and some of you and many other republicans who worked with me and our side of the aisle to have that predictable path, to stop the boom and bust and get the short-term extensions. on a bipartisan basis, we thatiated a path forward would actually phase out the subsidy. we gave them five years to do that, to be able to follow through on this promise. energy industry, thanks , nowe part we have done employs over 100,000 americans in all 50 states. 500 american factors. this is why the renewable energy sector now employs 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 to the material i have entered into the record, to realize the promise of that. your bill retroactively repeal disagreement. jobs.t in jeopardy 50,000 you put in jeopardy up to 50 million of$50 investment, and you start spiraling best out of control. if we had ever had hearings that you could listen to the ,tilities, to the manufacturers and to the farmers and ranchers who are relying on these payments in kansas, in south dakota, missouri, and texas, i can't imagine you would put this in the bill and make it retroactive, risking this investment, reneging on the bill
that we have worked on on a to establish.is i cannot imagine what you are thinking. this represents a horrible failure of the process. i am sorry, mr. chairman. i am eating into five minutes instead of three. i will stop in case one of my colleagues will yield to me. chairman brady: thank you for self-regulating yourself. thank you, mr. pomeroy. mr. blumenauer. >> i think i am starting to understand my problem. [laughter] >> in defense of mr. pomeroy -- >> they have wind in north dakota too, mr. chairman. it just keeps getting better. about that. chairman brady: mr. neil, you are recognized. >> that part of it is right. i want to yield my time in support of mr. blumenauer. it is a good amendment and wherever mr. pomeroy is, he
supports this amendment. [laughter] rep. blumenauer: no doubt. mr. chairman, i have talked a lot in the course of this doceedings about trying to 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 make a difference. i have promoted the work of this committee in an open and thoughtful way to promoting hearings, finding where we can come together and get something done. where we have, i have celebrated. this amendment is trying to help you fix an egregious problem that symbolizes what is wrong with what you have done with this bill. we could have come together with
a tax credit, dealing with housing -- we could have taken the small business provisions on limit it to really small businesses, not hedge funds or sports buyers -- bars or donald trump. we could have done it on a bipartisan basis, and there would not have been a question about blowing a hole in the investment. but the choice is to go it alone with no hearings, without working with us, dropping on us written as is being we speak and will probably be rewritten in the rules committee. it has been a failure of the process. to say these words. i made your time into a bowtie bowtie tie into a celebrating ways and means.
i believe we can go back to trying to work together, not relitigate what happened to years ago or two 20 years ago. ago or 20 years ago. you would retroactively put in jeopardy billions of dollars of investment that many of us work together on a bipartisan basis to make this possible. probably you are going to vote it down, even though you will not be able to explain it to your farmers and left -- and ranchers that are waiting on that. example of things that will dog you, not just in the 2018 election but the 2020 election, whether it passes or not. i hope that it doesn't. i would request support for my amendment. chairman brady: mr. marcy is
recognized to speak. >> thank you, mr. chairman. many of my constituents believe that this credit, this wind reduction credit, has too much ink and way too much abuse it. some of these projects have been 5% ofd with a little as some of these projects have been put in the ground and just abandoned. so ranchers, who thought they would get the credit, thought they would have a stream of , inme, i looking out at the many cases just a slab sitting 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 decide to start back up
to a ten-year stream of credits. yet the bill generally, the bill that we put out for vote, generally preserves the intent of the 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. chairman brady: 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 to have a certain path to the free market. we continue to look for ways to improve the bill as we move forward, and we will continue to
work with members in other areas. thanks. else wish to speak on the amendment? >> mr. chairman. mr. speaker, mr. chairman? chairman brady: you would like to speak on the amendment? isi would like to note texas the leading wind energy producer in the country, and as my colleague mentions, some people may not immediately set up their wind generating station, it is no different than somebody has decided they have got oil or gas on the property, and they don't immediately drill. i believe wind energy is coming on fast in texas. it is going at a much reduced price from where it started 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.
rep. blumenauer: i appreciate the courtesy in yielding to me. i listened to my friend from texas, and i am trying desperately to understand where he is coming from. the wind energy credit is being phased out. they don't get the full credit they used to have. it is being stepped down in increments to be able to smooth it out. they are getting close to the point where they can function without subsidy. that was our goal. and i would suggest maybe some of the reasons people went out and maybe put down some slabs and try to get a toehold is because congress keeps changing his mind. congress keeps having deadlines they pass. we have seen the energy shut down altogether because congress dropped the ball. that is why we on a bipartisan basis negotiated a five-year deal, so they would not be in
that. you are taking and actively denying to -- retroactively denying those benefits. i would welcome a hearing, and you can welcome all the people from texas you'd think have been cheated were shortchanged by wind energy. then line up the people who have benefited and work in it and an -- and are getting payments. it would not be close. you would be embarrassed to have a hearing like that. i am trying to spare the committee from embarrassment, not renege on a deal. keep pace with texans who have installed scale wind energy than anybody else, and i believe it or material i passed out, they have most at risk to lose if you clues -- pull the plug on it. vote for my amendment, get it out of the bill, then let's come back and have a hearing here on what you want to do to the wind
energy production tax credit. that would be a rational way of doing it. 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 feel back. chairman brady: mr. reid, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. mr. chairman. as the chairman knows, and many others know, i have been a strong voice for the energy policy. i appreciate the negotiates -- negotiations and discussions to get these industries from infancy to commercial viability. i appreciate the gentleman in oregon's commitment to this area, and i have enjoyed working with him and will continue to enjoy working with them as we go forward. i go back to the comments i made yesterday that if we are so inclined to support this amendment, my colleagues on the
other side have made it clear from public comments and issues from their leadership and statements 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 public. so i appreciate the chairman's comments. i join with my colleague to ask my colleagues to vote this down. i appreciate my chairman's commitment and his professionalism and his representation here today to continue to work in this area to find that area he is represented that some members are expressing concern about. i appreciate your leadership, and i believe this is an example of that leadership. i yield back. chairman brady: we will continue to work with you in this area. you are recognized to speak on
the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the problem is, you say you will continue to work with us, then you have a bill that deletes the provision. and that doesn't work. it doesn't make any sense. i was going to bring up the electrical, electric vehicle tax credit today because it has been so important for renewable begin and so important to to move away from the present. i decided not to do it because i think you would vote it down. my amendment. --id not want the president you the precedent of you voting it down and at this in time you say you will work with me -- at
the same time you say you will work with me. mr. blumenauer's passion stems from the belief that we need to have some limited role of thernment to try to change way energy works in this country. that is what you are doing. necessary to it is act the way you did in your bill foruse you need the money your overall bill, but you are sacrificing policies that are so vital. thegain, i did not bring up electric vehicle credit because i was afraid you would say you will continue to work with us at the same time you do the credit.
and the public cannot make sense of it. i will get my final minute to mr. moon. >> i am shocked by what my friend from new york said because he was one of the people that helped us do this. now if i understand him right, he is willing to hold when 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. when you are doing is, you are targeting something that is a bipartisan -- 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 fraud, that are not popular with the public, and don't relate to this bill. chairman brady: mr. thompson, you are recognized to speak on the amendment. >> i would like to yield my time to our renewable energy hero, mr. blumenauer. rep. blumenauer: thank you, and i will stop at this point. i appreciate your courtesy. i appreciate you allowing me to state this. the contradictions that i see here in terms of how the committee should work and could this to being out retroactively repealed, hurting in a one of your states bill that many of you worked on, how do you pick this out of the tryand hold it hostage to and get people to vote for something the american public feels uncomfortable with in
which you are changing by the minute? mr. reid has no idea what the final bill looks like. i don't think he has an idea of what will be dropped on us out of the rules committee. taking something like this from somebody in the problem solvers caucus, and taking a problem i thought we had solved, and holding it hostage for trying to jam through a bigger bill, that is what is 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 with nobody really knows the problems, and we will talk about some of them is, i think is a violation of the process. i said it will haunt everybody
who votes for it. i believe that is the case. you have had people lined up trying to find out what is in the bill and pleading to not have unintended consequences. i long for the day we returned to regular order when we could have a week's hearing on wind energy, and if mr. marchant wants to fix it, let's fix it. i long for the days we have two days of hearing on american infrastructure which is falling apart while america falls behind and states are raising gas taxes . we cannot even discuss it here even though the chamber of commerce and the afl-cio, many of your states would come up and testify why it is vital to do that and why it would help. that is the thing we could do. it is happening in states. of thatl is exhibit a process failing here. i yield back. chairman brady: thank you.
gentleman yield back. mr. nunez is recognized. mr. nunez: mr. reid is a trusted member of our community, and those of you in the audience, you will notice those books in front of him. a man back can read that many books in four days, he has to know this tax code all the way through, in and out. i would yield to my good friend who is the tax expert from new york, mr. reid. >> mr. reid: i appreciate that, mr. nunez,oming -- and it took more than four days. dealing with tax reform, having hearings on the issues before us that set up this day for us to take this step, to move the bill forward to the floor and through the senate process, and through the entire legislative process. mr. blumenauer, at the end of the day, i anticipate the final bill that we will put on the
president asked -- the president's desk will be different because we have to go to colleagues on the committee. we have to work with colleagues in the senate to make sure their differences and our differences are reconciled rapidly through a conference committee. that is regular order. as i listened to the beat yesterday, i was reminded, you should have reached out to us. we should have been discussing this. they were insinuating we should have been discussing this where? in the back rooms, in the closed doors? >> [video clip] that [video clip] we were somehow going to come to an agreement in the sunlight today? i am not going to yield. if we are truly interested in this debate, and i agree with mr. blumenauer, when you reference my cochair of the problem solvers caucus -- do you know what the problem solvers caucus is all about? when we are trying to send a leadership message and to the
extreme bases on the left and the right -- on the left and the right, and i said both, because your leadership's, especially when i saw yesterday and what i seen the netlist seven days -- in the last seven days, your leader repeatedly has said, and the minority leader in the will not support any effort on tax reform. as was reported in very respected media outlets here on the hill, the calculation has been made from the other side's leadership. we have to do everything in their power to block tax reform and the relief that we will provide to the middle-class americans i truly believe this bill will deliver to them by allowing them to keep thousands of their own dollars. in order to achieve their political goal, they have become their emblem of success, majority and the u.s. house and
majority in the u.s. senate. that is appalling to me. with that i yield back. chairman brady: gentlemen yields back. mr. sewall can speak on the amendment. anyone else mr. speak on the amendment? you are recognized. chairman.ou, mr. can you help me -- just because i was not blessed to be a member of the committee with some of this was originally drafted, and looking at the gentleman of oregon's amendment, can you first walk me through right now what the actual change we are talking about right here in the definitions and mechanisms and timing on the work in progress? basic changeswo in hr one as was noted in the debate.
there is a phased out law of the values of the production credit or value of the investment credit if the taxpayer does this instead of the investment credit. i want to emphasize, that his current law. are 20%, 40%tions 2018. 60% 2019, relative to the proposal that has been in the law for 20 years. credit or thehe projects construction of which begins in those years, the inflation indexing is removed. the credit itself is the index that has a value of 2.4 cents per kilowatt hour without indexing the value that refers to the base value which is 1.5 cents. >> are you using the inflation indexing is 1.5? >> the based on you of the
credit established in 1992 was 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. >> its base value -- >> currently. because of indexing since 1992, the current value is two point percent per kilowatt hour. the adjustment would be repealed, meaning future projects would revert to the base value of 1.5 cents per kilowatt hour. currently in service, but new projects where construction begins after the enactment. products -- project under construction right now, -- >> not all because the rules established four years ago now changed from more traditional investment role of properties placed in service to a commencement of construction, and there is regulations that define what is commencing
construction. >> in the last 20 some seconds, i know that was -- >> only on that. under theme rule production tax credit and under a number of other investment isposals and tax credits property placed in service by a certain date. i believe it was five years ago, the congress changed the rules of property placed in service to property that it construction of which commenced by a certain date. >> thank you. >> that definition of construction is modified by the legislature. chairman brady: gentlemen's time has expired. anyone else wish to speak. mr. carl can speak. >> i think it is interesting direction of folks is in terms of debate and motivation as to
the leadership of either side of the house. my good friend from new york, one of the cochairs of the problem solvers caucus is creating more problems for new yorkers and our country with the passage of this bill. and to question the motives of the leadership, let be clear. no leadership wants to see this will defeated because it does not reflect, it is not reflective of our values, of our country. that is why we want this bill defeated. it is not in the interests of our constituents, nor do we believe in the interests of our country to see this bill move forward. , is ams of backroom deals a backroom deal to include democrats to speak to them about the bill and give it the light of day? we ask for people to have hearings on this issue so the american people can understand only what is in the bill, aside from sitting behind stacks of
, could we haveal an open discussion about that here on the house floor? it is clear why you want to pass the bill. your colleagues from new york, mr. collins, made it clear the other day when he said, my daughters are basically saying, get it done or don't ever call me again. it could not be more clear as to what the motivation is in terms of getting this bill rammed through the house of representatives before christmas. it is all based on the d word, donors. that is what some of the backroom deals, that is what you are putting together, a backroom deal for your donors. it is not the way legislation should be done. you have chosen this path, and i guess we will see it through. chairman brady: gentlemen yields. mr. carvalho is recognized to speak on the amendment. chairman.ou, mr.
i want to thank the gentleman for raising this issue because we have done a lot of work to support renewables in our legislation. a lot of colleagues on both sides are very supportive of leveling the playing field and treating all of the different sectors fairly. critical.ind issue is i think we can work together to do more to strengthen the provisions as they relate to wind. i am open to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle here and with you, mr. chairman, to continue that dialogue. i wanted to make that point. chairman brady: mr. rice, you are recognized. >> thank you, i recognize mr. schweiger. >> thank you, mr. chairman and mr. rice. i believe bring, but i will -- belaboring, but i want to make sure. before we ran out of time, a
work in progress. let's just do a scenario. texas,a facility in arizona, wherever. all we have done is engineering, and we have laid the first parts of the massive foundations that are required because of loads. then we have stopped for a while. we are working on our financing, something else. it has already begun. without be receiving the 2.4 going forward or the 1.5? with thepresent law commence construction rules, 5% of totalsfied if project costs have been incurred. >> foundations are like the third of the cost. >> depends on the air. under the proposal it determines the beginning of construction,
and under the proposal, the construction of the facility or modification or anything is not treated as beginning for any date unless there is a continuous program of construction which begins before that date and the scenario you were workibing, if it did today, it is a substantial amount of work and if it were in advance for a year, it would not be moved ahead. >> we are working on the definition pof what is continuous. it is work in progress. >> we have continuous progress on your project to say you have begun construction by whatever
date you have specified in the past. mechanism,guage of and a real estate assessment about whatsked a lot his work in progress. this wouldme of bl -- >> we have not created huge barriers. it, only to keep working on then the present law rules for what constituted construction will be satisfied. >> i understand it may be a cleanup and definition but it is not that onerous. > mr. chairman, we often
spend too much time on these issues because they are the ones that score the political points. the rain of horrors that is raining down on what is proposed. i respect them on that particular issue to be sure but i do not want to lose sight of what has been done in this bill with a commitment to do renewable energy and the commitment to not only allow these industries to flourish in the united states but to compete against countries in china and him great and him and that -- usurpthat come in and
support solar panels but ps across thee lea[ country. technologies, the kinds of things that allow us to stay on the forefront of alternative energy solutions for our country are being supported in this bill. given the chance to have the same opportunity that wind and asked and that is a significant accomplished that will allow us to diversify our energy portfolio, create meaningful jobs and work with solar. the battery required to make the
moreenergy solution efficient. colleagues do not want to lose sight of things in this vote that will not get the boa of both colleagues. myi strike the last word and friend and colleague has been informed we have to kill it to save it. back and again that we may have been as important thing is we don't all
caps states that make deductions individually, we have to tax success amongst people. we have to you are currently we have to -- we have to do that -- you are just going to have to wait because the people who have gotten $11 million to begin with have not gotten enough. so we are going to have to kill your bill and your initiative because they say they have not done enough.
theyook at the changed cpi put in this bill as well. as we said to the aarp yesterday, stay tuned because the same thing is coming for social security, medicare and medicaid. going to cut it in order to save it. stay tuned for the next step. we're going to have to kill it to save it. save hear this -- to the benefits, we have to kill the program. >> if we were to have the wouldg that he and i
peoplef we had a dozen testify, we could show this is a disruptive change that puts at risk hundreds of thousands of jobs. he would know that if he talked to the people from the wind industry in his state. i hope we haven't hearing soon. -- i hope you have that hearing soon. >> no's have it. further proceedings on the amendment will be postponed. there additional amendments? >> mr. chairman, i have a amendment at the death. -- at the desk.
just in my district, there have been 48 historic tax credits project since 2002. civil rightsh hi montgomery and selma. it is a good investment for local communities, individual states and the community. the cumulative impact includes 1.5 million jobs and billions of dollars in economic gains. the positive impact on the economy speaks for itself. 271ayers have generated -- $106.6llars, billion in income and $41.6 billion in taxes. the historic tax credits is a great return on investment.
$25.2 billion in historic tax credit costs encourages five times greater amount of investment in renovation. a great return on investment. i say to my republican colleagues, repealing incentives for key investment in economic development like his story tax credits will raise less than 50 billion in revenue and decrease the amount of economic rehabilitation i wondered $31.8 billion. -- when hundred $31.8 billion. the rebalance elation -- revalidation of our historic main street in downtown required investment where it is needed most. 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 a force for economic good sense. i asked my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment. let's send a message to towns and cities across america that we will lead with them. >> mr. new. you are wrecking nice. nunez, you are recognized. >> one of the challenges of tax reform is going through the code and eliminate the credit and reductions that have built up in the code. there are a lot of folks who get this credit but the problem is you cannot have lower rates if you keep special deals in the code for picking some winners over some losers.
one of the careful considerations that we took in this legislation is that the bill provides for transition currentlyr taxpayers claiming the credit to complete their full two timeframe -- two year time frame to finish the use of the credit. we have sufficiently taking care of this issue. credit thata good we have to get rid of them. >> mr. chairman, this is a superb credit. this has been a transformative investments will for cities across the northeast.
i came back from south carolina in the spring and if there's a better evidence of the historic tax credit used, i'm not aware of it. nes have been restored. people who began the out migration of urban america, they have come back to the old city and the millennial class continues to change how the cities are lived in. they invest and are sending their children to public schools. once they come back, they support the arts and neighborhood associations. i cannot imagine anyone from the south opposing the historic tax credit. the areas surrounding old civil war battlefields, which is an important part of our considerations. the gentleman from california
said there are some good credit with this is a great credit. this gets people to do what we want them to do in terms of incentive. but without the credit, the investment would not occur. investment back --ins story buildings terms of the architecture, in terms of this great italian artisans they came to new england and appreciate the destiny of those old buildings and town halls. this beautiful old congregational churches that adored green spaces and town squares across all of his england. the founders had enough sense to say we're going to build the church, the minutes of full building and the public library building andpal then the public library.
with that, i yield back my time. thank you, ranking member o'neill. i look to respond to the discipline from california. -- the gentleman from california. i understand that to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, we have to figure out what to cut. i don't like you would pull a fast i don't know why he would pull revalidatio --why he would om citiestalization fr around the country. i know in this debate about tax reform, we are making valuable choices but i'm saying choose cities and towns across america. for the record, we submit to
the record from the connecticut department of team development and state historic preservation, a letter that underscores what has been said. hemr. oneil woke me up when talked about a tie in architecture --italian architecture in new england. with respect to the historic tax cut, i had a constituent involved in a project in west virginia
he used to the historic tax renovateo rebuild and a large project for housing in west virginia. he was told by the banker that the project, which is has to close in january, will now be at risk because the effective date of the bill is before the project is supposed to close. does that make sense to you? >> no. under the transition rule, 180 for projects under way. >> so they should be fine if they are closing on january 31. >> sounds like it. >> you are the expert. >> our staff would be happy to take material from your constituent and see what the situation is. >> i'm going to urge the
rejection of this amendment. knows iing member who support the historic tax credit and we have seen the beauty of it in rural parts of the district where private investment has not, for decades quite frankly, has not gone into these areas, the historic tax credit has been used to to do that. have had conversations to find out how we can preserve some of these tax credits that has had life-changing aspects. >> your recognized to speak on the amendment. >> i want to speak in support of this amendment. the historic tax credits has been a powerful economic force that has played out in every
city of america. in buffalo, new york, 500 milli on in projects has restored york.ngs in western new as a driver of investment to restore historical buildings in america. credittoric tax restores more revenue to the federal government that the tax credit costs. the government receives $1.25 for every dollar put into the tax credit. generated $4.2 billion for historic rehabilitation projects. please consider the value of the
project for the local communities of america but also the positive impact it has on the federal budget. it is a net contributor to the federal budget. i yield the remainder of my time. >> thank you for the gentleman from new york for yielding and for the eloquence about how historic tax credits have helped buffalo, new york. it turns out that the cost of repealing the historic tax credits would actually only raise $50 million, not billion dollars. i want to stand corrected. it will generate 131.8 billion dollars in economic revitalization. the math does not add up. all across america, we have
districts that will benefit from this tax cut. no area benefits more than the deep south. in my historic city of selma, alabama, there's so many beautiful antebellum homes that have been revitalized all across my district and i am baffled that we are making these kinds of value judgments that do not yield without much revenue they get are decreasing the amount of economic revitalization by billions of dollars. it makes no sense. this is a no-brainer in my opinion. it is something that should go back into the code and i would hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, who i know their districts have benefited, will see the value in making sure we side with local government and our lovely municipalities. -- local municipalities. well want to thank mrs. s
for bringing this amendment before us today. i do not understand. it is difficult for me to understand when those of you who have traveled to the south, other part of america, who grew up in the south. andew up in rural alabama lived in tennessee. the historic tax credit has --thed many town, cities historic tax credit health to churches,chools, historic buildings, remaking our towns and neighborhoods. money toall amount of help change america, to save our
history and preserve it for the generation unborn. >i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman, this is a historic moment. i applaud the amendment. it is in the overall context of this bill a very modest if even this i modest amendment is opposed, it gives us some indication of the way this week has gone. here we are on the fourth day of hearings and everything will democratic amendment has been rejected. absolutelyes with amazing surface level contortion from some of our republican friends saying they are voting against something their constituents support in order to get it somewhere in this process. are, 11:40 with
votes about to happen without being provided the manager's amendment, we need to understand this historic moment. hearing,h day of this there is only one bill that has been adopted and it added a big gift to multinational corporations and now it exceeds the budget limit. that is the excuse for having another manager's amendment, to notect what we were told the first manager's amendment does. i wouldn't yield to ask you, since you are rejecting every single idea we advance, i have some amendments, other people have amendment. if we withdrew every other amendment that we have got and knowing you're going to reject them anyway, are you ready to
present the manager's amendment and tell us what secret you are hiding? >> you will continue to abide by regular order. i know last night there was a great to do about not having time to get to your amendments. we are going to offer that in full and open debate. >> if we withdrew every amendment that i have got and everyone else has got, we can put in recess or will he have an opportunity to see your speaker proposal you worked down in the back room amongst yourselves and with the washington special interest that one out with them in the number one with the big amendmento --with number one with the big giveaway to multi-corporations -- multinational corporations. chairman brady: we will continue with regular order. we will continue with full and open debate on all amendments,
democrat or republican. >> i appreciate that and i assume that you are still not ready to present the manager's amendment to correct the fiscal irresponsibility of the first giveaway to corporate america and we would just go into recess so it is supposedly reasonable for us to continue offering amendments to a bill -- >> the time is expired. michigan, your recommended to speak on the amendment. >> i would like to yield my time to the chairman. texas gentleman from makes a fascinating point. fascinating for you in the audience who were not here in 2009. remember the affordable health
every amendment we offered was dismissed. an amendmente until 12:00 a.m. in the morning. every single one of our business was --every single one of our amendments were turned down. the chairman did not even know that i was a member of the committee. when he figured it out, he did not pronounce my right name. so much for inclusiveness. i love his replay of this. the chairman has been more than fair as you compare it to when the minority within the majority. as one who loves many members of again, history is
difficult job and none of us, quite frankly, understand how difficult it is and the chairman is trying his darn best and i think he's done a better job than past chairmans of trying to high wire a very difficult act and i appreciate it. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. tiberi. >> if i may in order, we have mr. crowley and dr. davis as well. mr. crowley, you're recognized. >> i want to say for the record that the former chairman of the committee used to refer to me as mr. crawley so it wasn't just the motor, charles, ok? thank you, mr. chairman. i want to enter, if i can, a colonel kauai with my colleague from the great state of alabama. ms. sewell, i know there's an effort, certainly in the south to preserve antebellum
architects and structures. i reeled recently, i don't recall what article it was in, the attempt to preserve slave quarters, which primarily is on private property throughout the south. that they're crumbling and withering. would this tax credit help to preserve those structures as well? >> thanks for the question, the gentleman from new york. as long as the buildings are certificated by the department of interior and usually that's because they are on some sort of historic registry, if these slave quarters, which i think some of them are, do qualify, yes, they would be able to take advantage of the historic tax credit. once again, it has to be a certified building and the certification is done through state preservation organizations as well as through the national park service. >> i know there are many
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 as well. is that not true? >> that is true. >> i appreciate the gentle lady's amendment and i think it's important for our colleagues to understand just what the impact will have on future generations if this tax credit is not maintained and will yield the balance of my time to the gentle lady from alabama. >> thanks. not only will it affect our history of slavery but it will affect every aspect of our history. these are historic buildings that tell the story of america, frankly, and that is what the national park service is there for, to make sure that next generations understand the history, the fullsome history that is america. everything from slave quarters
to civil rights sites such as e a.g. gadston hotels in birmingham, alabama, where the gathering of kivel rights leaders, kline choo, including our own john lewis had meetings that took place in the 1960's. as well as confederate sites. i grew up in selma where we have a very complicated history of not only civil rights but also civil war. that history lives side by side in many parts of the south. rull -- all of our communities can benefit from historic tax credits because it's really about the preservation of the american experience and every district has a story to that he will is uniquely american that has builtings that would qualify. >> dr. davis, you're recognized to speak on the amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and as we've already heard this country is replete with
structures, buildings that are not just buildings but they really speak to the history and development of this country. heard john lewis mention rosenwal, a man who lived in my community but who developed more than 500 schools in the rural south for african-american communities who at that time did not have a school. my district has more frank lloyd wright buildings in it than any other place in the world. it also has the tremendous bronzeville area, where scores of african-americans -- african-american entertainers and actors, joe louis and others lived during the 19 30's and 1940's and 1950's. plus, we have structures,
downtown chicago that were there when the chicago fire took place. they survived. it's not just a matter of reconstructing. these buildings have reached on is a lessens and unless there's tall, local cap developers, -- capital, local cannot do local -- it alone. philanthropists got do it alone. so we need the faith and credit of our country to stand behind so i'm please told 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.
>> the gentleman yields back. we will recess the committee for votes. return. a vote on the pending eafments and continue and finish discussion on this amendment. the committee is recessed until following floor votes. dd [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]