[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 47 (Wednesday, March 24, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H2281-H2299]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SMALL BUSINESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS TAX ACT OF 2010
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1205, I call
up the bill (H.R. 4849) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the
Build America Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation
tax incentives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Pursuant to House Resolution
1205, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill
modified by the amendment printed in House Report 111-455 is adopted
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 4849
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small
Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; etc.
TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Sec. 101. Temporary exclusion of 100 percent of gain on certain small
business stock.
Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties
Sec. 111. Limitation on penalty for failure to disclose certain
information.
Sec. 112. Annual reports on penalties and certain other enforcement
actions.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
Sec. 121. Nonrecourse small business investment company loans from the
Small Business Administration treated as amounts at risk.
Sec. 122. Increase in amount allowed as deduction for start-up
expenditures.
TITLE II--INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES
Sec. 201. Extension of Build America Bonds.
Sec. 202. Exempt-facility bonds for sewage and water supply facilities.
Sec. 203. Extension of exemption from alternative minimum tax treatment
for certain tax-exempt bonds.
Sec. 204. Elective payments in lieu of low income housing credits.
Sec. 205. Extension and additional allocations of recovery zone bond
authority.
Sec. 206. Allowance of new markets tax credit against alternative
minimum tax.
TITLE III--REVENUE PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Limitation on treaty benefits for certain deductible
payments.
Sec. 302. Treatment of securities of a controlled corporation exchanged
for assets in certain reorganizations.
Sec. 303. Repeal of special rules for interest and dividends received
from persons meeting the 80-percent foreign business
requirements.
Sec. 304. Information reporting for rental property expense payments.
Sec. 305. Application of levy to payments to Federal vendors relating
to property.
Sec. 306. Application of continuous levy to tax liabilities of certain
Federal contractors.
Sec. 307. Required minimum 10-year term, etc., for grantor retained
annuity trusts.
Sec. 308. Increase in information return penalties.
Sec. 309. Crude tall oil ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer
credit.
Sec. 310. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.
TITLE IV--EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUND FOR STATE TEMPORARY
ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAMS
Sec. 401. 1-year extension of the emergency contingency fund for state
temporary assistance for needy families programs.
TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON
CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Special 100 percent exclusion.--In the case of
qualified small business stock acquired after March 15, 2010,
and before January 1, 2012--
``(A) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `100
percent' for `50 percent',
``(B) paragraph (2) shall not apply, and
``(C) paragraph (7) of section 57(a) shall not apply.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section
1202(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph and before January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``after
February 17, 2009, and before March 16, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``Special rules for 2009 and 2010'' in the
heading and inserting ``Special 75 percent exclusion''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to stock acquired after March 15, 2010.
Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties
SEC. 111. LIMITATION ON PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
CERTAIN INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 6707A is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Amount of Penalty.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amount of the penalty under subsection (a)
with respect to any reportable transaction shall be 75
percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a
result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from
such transaction if such transaction were respected for
Federal tax purposes).
``(2) Maximum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction for
any taxable year shall not exceed--
``(A) in the case of a listed transaction, $200,000
($100,000 in the case of a natural person), or
``(B) in the case of any other reportable transaction,
$50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).
``(3) Minimum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any transaction for any
taxable year shall not be less than $10,000 ($5,000 in the
case of a natural person).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to penalties assessed after December 31, 2006.
SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORTS ON PENALTIES AND CERTAIN OTHER
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate an
annual report on the penalties assessed by the Internal
Revenue Service during the preceding year under each of the
following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
(1) Section 6662A (relating to accuracy-related penalty on
understatements with respect to reportable transactions).
(2) Section 6700(a) (relating to promoting abusive tax
shelters).
(3) Section 6707 (relating to failure to furnish
information regarding reportable transactions).
(4) Section 6707A (relating to failure to include
reportable transaction information with return).
(5) Section 6708 (relating to failure to maintain lists of
advisees with respect to reportable transactions).
(b) Additional Information.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall also include information on the
following with respect to each year:
(1) Any action taken under section 330(b) of title 31,
United States Code, with respect to any reportable
transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986).
(2) Any extension of the time for assessment of tax
enforced, or assessment of any amount under such an
extension, under paragraph (10) of section 6501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Date of Report.--The first report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than December 31,
2010.
Subtitle C--Other Provisions
SEC. 121. NONRECOURSE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANY LOANS
FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TREATED
AS AMOUNTS AT RISK.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 465(b)(6) is
amended to read as follows:
[[Page H2282]]
``(B) Qualified nonrecourse financing.--For purposes of
this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `qualified nonrecourse
financing' means any financing--
``(I) which is qualified real property financing or
qualified SBIC financing,
``(II) except to the extent provided in regulations, with
respect to which no person is personally liable for
repayment, and
``(III) which is not convertible debt.
``(ii) Qualified real property financing.--The term
`qualified real property financing' means any financing
which--
``(I) is borrowed by the taxpayer with respect to the
activity of holding real property,
``(II) is secured by real property used in such activity,
and
``(III) is borrowed by the taxpayer from a qualified person
or represents a loan from any Federal, State, or local
government or instrumentality thereof, or is guaranteed by
any Federal, State, or local government.
``(iii) Qualified sbic financing.--The term `qualified SBIC
financing' means any financing which--
``(I) is borrowed by a small business investment company
(within the meaning of section 301 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958), and
``(II) is borrowed from, or guaranteed by, the Small
Business Administration under the authority of section 303(b)
of such Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) of section
465(b)(6) is amended--
(1) by striking ``in the case of an activity of holding
real property,'', and
(2) by striking ``which is secured by real property used in
such activity''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to loans and guarantees made after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 122. INCREASE IN AMOUNT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FOR START-
UP EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 195 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Increased limitation for taxable years beginning in
2010 or 2011.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in
2010 or 2011, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be applied--
``(A) by substituting `$20,000' for `$5,000', and
``(B) by substituting `$75,000' for `$50,000'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
TITLE II--INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES
SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 54AA(d)(1) is
amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``April
1, 2013''.
(b) Extension of Payments to Issuers.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 6431 is amended
by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``April 1,
2013''.
(2) Conforming amendments.--Subsection (g) of section 54AA
is amended--
(A) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``April
1, 2013'', and
(B) by striking ``Qualified Bonds Issued Before 2011'' in
the heading and inserting ``Certain Qualified Bonds''.
(c) Reduction in Percentage of Payments to Issuers.--
Subsection (b) of section 6431 is amended--
(1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--The Secretary'',
(2) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the
applicable percentage'', and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `applicable percentage' means the
percentage determined in accordance with the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``In the case of a qualified bond issued The applicable percentage
during calendar year: is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 or 2010.............................. 35 percent
2011...................................... 33 percent
2012...................................... 31 percent
2013...................................... 30 percent''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Current Refundings Permitted.--Subsection (g) of
section 54AA is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(3) Treatment of current refunding bonds.--
``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the
term `qualified build America bond' includes any bond (or
series of bonds) issued to refund a qualified build America
bond if--
``(i) the average maturity date of the issue of which the
refunding bond is a part is not later than the average
maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue,
``(ii) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the
outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and
``(iii) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90
days after the date of the issuance of the refunding bond.
``(B) Applicable percentage.--In the case of a refunding
bond referred to in subparagraph (A), the applicable
percentage with respect to such bond under section 6431(b)
shall be the lowest percentage specified in paragraph (2) of
such section.
``(C) Determination of average maturity.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(i), average maturity shall be determined in
accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A).''.
(e) Clarification Related to Levees and Flood Control
Projects.--Subparagraph (A) of section 54AA(g)(2) is amended
by inserting ``(including capital expenditures for levees and
other flood control projects)'' after ``capital
expenditures''.
SEC. 202. EXEMPT-FACILITY BONDS FOR SEWAGE AND WATER SUPPLY
FACILITIES.
(a) Bonds for Water and Sewage Facilities Exempt From
Volume Cap on Private Activity Bonds.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 146(g) is amended
by inserting ``(4), (5),'' after ``(2),''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraphs (2) and (3)(B) of
section 146(k) are both amended by striking ``(4), (5),
(6),'' and inserting ``(6)''.
(b) Tax-exempt Issuance by Indian Tribal Governments.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 7871 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Exception for bonds for water and sewage
facilities.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an exempt
facility bond 95 percent or more of the net proceeds (as
defined in section 150(a)(3)) of which are to be used to
provide facilities described in paragraph (4) or (5) of
section 142(a).''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 7871(c)
is amended by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (3) and (4)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION FROM ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX
TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.
(a) In General.--Clause (vi) of section 57(a)(5)(C) is
amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subclause (I) and
inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
(2) by striking ``and 2010'' in the heading and inserting
``, 2010, and 2011''.
(b) Adjusted Current Earnings.--Clause (iv) of section
56(g)(4)(B) is amended--
(1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subclause (I) and
inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
(2) by striking ``and 2010'' in the heading and inserting
``, 2010, and 2011''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2010.
SEC. 204. ELECTIVE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOW INCOME HOUSING
CREDITS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 65 (relating to abatements,
credits, and refunds) is amended by adding at the end the
following new subchapter:
``Subchapter C--Direct Payment Provisions
``Sec. 6451. Elective payments in lieu of low income housing credit for
bond-financed buildings.
``SEC. 6451. ELECTIVE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOW INCOME HOUSING
CREDIT FOR BOND-FINANCED BUILDINGS.
``(a) In General.--Any person making an election under this
section with respect to any qualified bond-financed low-
income building originally placed in service by such person
during the taxable year shall be treated as making a payment,
against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the taxable year,
equal to the direct payment amount with respect to such
building. Such payment shall be treated as made on the later
of the due date of the return of such tax or the date on
which such return is filed.
``(b) Qualified Bond-financed Low-income Building.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified bond-financed
low-income building' means any qualified low-income building
to which paragraph (1) of section 42(h) does not apply by
reason of paragraph (4)(B) of such section.
``(c) Direct Payment Amount.--For purposes of this section,
the term `direct payment amount' means, with respect to any
building, 25.5 percent of the qualified basis of such
building.
``(d) Special Rules for Certain Non-taxpayers.--
``(1) Denial of payment.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
with respect to any building placed in service by--
``(A) any governmental entity, or
``(B) any organization described in section 501(c) or
401(a) and exempt from tax under section 501(a).
``(2) Special rules for partnerships and s corporations.--
In the case of property originally placed in service by a
partnership or an S corporation--
``(A) the election under subsection (a) may be made only by
such partnership or S corporation,
``(B) such partnership or S corporation shall be treated as
making the payment referred to in subsection (a) only to the
extent of the proportionate share of such partnership or S
corporation as is owned by persons who would be treated as
making such payment if the building were placed in service by
such persons, and
``(C) the return required to be made by such partnership or
S corporation under section 6031 or 6037 (as the case may be)
shall be treated as a return of tax for purposes of
subsection (a).
For purposes of subparagraph (B), rules similar to the rules
of section 168(h)(6) (other than subparagraph (F) thereof)
shall apply.
``(e) Coordination With Low Income Housing Credit.--In the
case of any property with respect to which an election is
made under this section, no credit shall be determined under
section 42 with respect to such building for any taxable
year.
``(f) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of
this section--
``(1) Other definitions.--Terms used in this section which
are also used in section 42 shall have the same meaning for
purposes of this section as when used in such section.
``(2) Application of recapture rules, etc.--Except as
otherwise provided by the Secretary, rules similar to the
rules of section 42 shall apply, including the recapture
rules of section 42(j).
[[Page H2283]]
``(3) Provision of information.--A person shall not be
treated as having elected the application of this section
unless the taxpayer provides such information as the
Secretary may require for purposes of verifying the proper
amount to be treated as a payment under subsection (a) and
evaluating the effectiveness of this section.
``(4) Exclusion from gross income.--Any credit or refund
allowed or made by reason of this section shall not be
includible in gross income or alternative minimum taxable
income.
``(g) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with
respect to any building placed in service during a taxable
year beginning after December 31, 2010.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subparagraph (A) of section 6211(b)(4) is amended by
inserting ``and subchapter C of chapter 65 (including any
payment treated as made under such subchapter)'' after
``6431''.
(2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6425(c)(1) is amended--
(A) by striking ``the credits'' and inserting ``the sum
of--
``(i) the credits'',
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (i) thereof
(as amended by this paragraph) and inserting ``, plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) the credits allowed (and payments treated as made)
under subchapter C.''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 6654(f) is amended--
(A) by striking ``the credits'' and inserting ``the sum
of--
``(A) the credits'',
(B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (A)
thereof (as amended by this paragraph) and inserting ``,
and'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(B) the credits allowed (and payments treated as made)
under subchapter C of chapter 65.''.
(4) Subparagraph (B) of section 6655(g)(1) is amended--
(A) by striking ``the credits'' and inserting ``the sum
of--
``(i) the credits'',
(B) by striking the period at the end of clause (i) thereof
(as amended by this paragraph) and inserting ``, plus'', and
(C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(ii) the credits allowed (and payments treated as made)
under subchapter C of chapter 65.''.
(5) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United
States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or from the
provisions of subchapter C of chapter 65 of such Code''
before the period at the end.
(6) The table of subchapters for chapter 65 is amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
subchapter c. direct payment provisions
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to buildings placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 205. EXTENSION AND ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS OF RECOVERY
ZONE BOND AUTHORITY.
(a) Extension of Recovery Zone Bond Authority.--Section
1400U-2(b)(1) and section 1400U-3(b)(1)(B) are each amended
by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1,
2012''.
(b) Additional Allocations of Recovery Zone Bond Authority
Based on Unemployment.--Section 1400U-1 is amended by adding
at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) Allocation of 2010 Recovery Zone Bond Limitations
Based on Unemployment.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate the 2010
national recovery zone economic development bond limitation
and the 2010 national recovery zone facility bond limitation
among the States in the proportion that each such State's
2009 unemployment number bears to the aggregate of the 2009
unemployment numbers for all of the States.
``(2) Minimum allocation.--The Secretary shall adjust the
allocations under paragraph (1) for each State to the extent
necessary to ensure that no State (prior to any reduction
under paragraph (3)) receives less than 0.9 percent of the
2010 national recovery zone economic development bond
limitation and 0.9 percent of the 2010 national recovery zone
facility bond limitation.
``(3) Allocations by states.--
``(A) In general.--Each State with respect to which an
allocation is made under paragraph (1) shall reallocate such
allocation among the counties and large municipalities (as
defined in subsection (a)(3)(B)) in such State in the
proportion that each such county's or municipality's 2009
unemployment number bears to the aggregate of the 2009
unemployment numbers for all the counties and large
municipalities (as so defined) in such State.
``(B) 2010 allocation reduced by amount of previous
allocation.--Each State shall reduce (but not below zero)--
``(i) the amount of the 2010 national recovery zone
economic development bond limitation allocated to each county
or large municipality (as so defined) in such State by the
amount of the national recovery zone economic development
bond limitation allocated to such county or large
municipality under subsection (a)(3)(A) (determined without
regard to any waiver thereof), and
``(ii) the amount of the 2010 national recovery zone
facility bond limitation allocated to each county or large
municipality (as so defined) in such State by the amount of
the national recovery zone facility bond limitation allocated
to such county or large municipality under subsection
(a)(3)(A) (determined without regard to any waiver thereof).
``(C) Waiver of suballocations.--A county or municipality
may waive any portion of an allocation made under this
paragraph. A State may by law treat a county or municipality
as waiving any portion of an allocation made under this
paragraph if there is a reasonable expectation that such
allocation would not otherwise be used.
``(D) Special rule for a municipality in a county.--In the
case of any large municipality any portion of which is in a
county, such portion shall be treated as part of such
municipality and not part of such county.
``(4) 2009 unemployment number.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `2009 unemployment number' means, with
respect to any State, county or municipality, the number of
individuals in such State, county, or municipality who were
determined to be unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
for December 2009.
``(5) 2010 national limitations.--
``(A) Recovery zone economic development bonds.--The 2010
national recovery zone economic development bond limitation
is $10,000,000,000. Any allocation of such limitation under
this subsection shall be treated for purposes of section
1400U-2 in the same manner as an allocation of national
recovery zone economic development bond limitation.
``(B) Recovery zone facility bonds.--The 2010 national
recovery zone facility bond limitation is $15,000,000,000.
Any allocation of such limitation under this subsection shall
be treated for purposes of section 1400U-3 in the same manner
as an allocation of national recovery zone facility bond
limitation.''.
(c) Authority of State to Waive Certain 2009 Allocations.--
Subparagraph (A) of section 1400U-1(a)(3) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``A State may by law treat a
county or municipality as waiving any portion of an
allocation made under this subparagraph if there is a
reasonable expectation that such allocation would not
otherwise be used.''.
SEC. 206. ALLOWANCE OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT AGAINST
ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) is
amended by redesignating clauses (v) through (viii) as
clauses (vi) through (ix), respectively, and by inserting
after clause (iv) the following new clause:
``(v) the credit determined under section 45D, but only
with respect to credits determined with respect to qualified
equity investments (as defined in section 45D(b)) initially
made before January 1, 2012,''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to qualified equity investments (as defined in
section 45D(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986)
initially made after March 15, 2010.
TITLE III--REVENUE PROVISIONS
SEC. 301. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN
DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 894 (relating to income affected
by treaty) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(d) Limitation on Treaty Benefits for Certain Deductible
Payments.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of any deductible related-
party payment, any withholding tax imposed under chapter 3
(and any tax imposed under subpart A or B of this part) with
respect to such payment may not be reduced under any treaty
of the United States unless any such withholding tax would be
reduced under a treaty of the United States if such payment
were made directly to the foreign parent corporation.
``(2) Deductible related-party payment.--For purposes of
this subsection, the term `deductible related-party payment'
means any payment made, directly or indirectly, by any person
to any other person if the payment is allowable as a
deduction under this chapter and both persons are members of
the same foreign controlled group of entities.
``(3) Foreign controlled group of entities.--For purposes
of this subsection--
``(A) In general.--The term `foreign controlled group of
entities' means a controlled group of entities the common
parent of which is a foreign corporation.
``(B) Controlled group of entities.--The term `controlled
group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations
as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--
``(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at
least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
``(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to
subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.
A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation)
shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of
entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of
section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any
entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this
sentence).
``(4) Foreign parent corporation.--For purposes of this
subsection, the term `foreign parent corporation' means, with
respect to any deductible related-party payment, the common
parent of the foreign controlled group of entities referred
to in paragraph (3)(A).
``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such
regulations or other guidance as are necessary or appropriate
to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including
regulations or other guidance which provide for--
``(A) the treatment of two or more persons as members of a
foreign controlled group of entities if such persons would be
the common parent of such group if treated as one
corporation, and
``(B) the treatment of any member of a foreign controlled
group of entities as the common parent of such group if such
treatment is appropriate taking into account the economic
relationships among such entities.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
[[Page H2284]]
SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES OF A CONTROLLED CORPORATION
EXCHANGED FOR ASSETS IN CERTAIN
REORGANIZATIONS.
(a) In General.--Section 361 (relating to nonrecognition of
gain or loss to corporations; treatment of distributions) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Special Rules for Transactions Involving Section 355
Distributions.--In the case of a reorganization described in
section 368(a)(1)(D) with respect to which stock or
securities of the corporation to which the assets are
transferred are distributed in a transaction which qualifies
under section 355--
``(1) this section shall be applied by substituting `stock
other than nonqualified preferred stock (as defined in
section 351(g)(2))' for `stock or securities' in subsections
(a) and (b)(1), and
``(2) the first sentence of subsection (b)(3) shall apply
only to the extent that the sum of the money and the fair
market value of the other property transferred to such
creditors does not exceed the adjusted bases of such assets
transferred (reduced by the amount of the liabilities assumed
(within the meaning of section 357(c))).''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 361(b)
is amended by striking the last sentence.
(c) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to exchanges
after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(2) Transition rule.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply to any exchange pursuant to a transaction
which is--
(A) made pursuant to an agreement which was binding on
March 15, 2010, and at all times thereafter,
(B) described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal
Revenue Service on or before such date, or
(C) described on or before such date in a public
announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
SEC. 303. REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULES FOR INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS
RECEIVED FROM PERSONS MEETING THE 80-PERCENT
FOREIGN BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Repeal of Special Rule Treating Interest as United
States Source.--Paragraph (1) of section 861(a) is amended by
striking subparagraph (A) and by redesignating subparagraphs
(B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
(b) Repeal of Exception to Tax on Dividends Received by
Nonresident Aliens.--Paragraph (2) of section 871(i) is
amended by striking subparagraph (B) and by redesignating
subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) and (C),
respectively.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 861 is amended by striking subsection (c) and
by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections
(c), (d), and (e), respectively.
(2) Paragraph (9) of section 904(h) is amended to read as
follows:
``(9) Treatment of certain domestic corporations.--In the
case of any dividend treated as not from sources with the
United States under section 861(a)(2)(A), the corporation
paying such dividend shall be treated for purposes of this
subsection as a United States-owned foreign corporation.''.
(3) Subsection (c) of section 2104 is amended in the last
sentence by striking ``or to a debt obligation of a domestic
corporation'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
beginning after December 31, 2010.
(2) Grandfather rule for outstanding debt obligations.--
(A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to payments of interest on obligations issued
before the date of the enactment of this Act.
(B) Exception for related party debt.--Subparagraph (A)
shall not apply to any interest which is payable to a related
person (determined under rules similar to the rules of
section 954(d)(3)).
(C) Significant modifications treated as new issues.--For
purposes of subparagraph (A), a significant modification of
the terms of any obligation (including any extension of the
term of such obligation) shall be treated as a new issue.
SEC. 304. INFORMATION REPORTING FOR RENTAL PROPERTY EXPENSE
PAYMENTS.
(a) In General.--Section 6041 is amended by adding at the
end the following new subsection:
``(h) Treatment of Rental Property Expense Payments.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), a person
receiving rental income from real estate (other than a
qualified residence) shall be considered to be engaged in a
trade or business of renting property.
``(2) Qualified residence.--For purposes of paragraph (1),
the term `qualified residence' means--
``(A) the principal residence (within the meaning of
section 121) of the taxpayer, and
``(B) 1 other residence of the taxpayer which is selected
by the taxpayer for purposes of this subsection for the
taxable year and which is used by the taxpayer as a residence
(within the meaning of section 280A(d)(1)).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.
SEC. 305. APPLICATION OF LEVY TO PAYMENTS TO FEDERAL VENDORS
RELATING TO PROPERTY.
(a) In General.--Section 6331(h)(3) is amended by striking
``goods or services'' and inserting ``property, goods, or
services''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to levies approved after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 306. APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS LEVY TO TAX LIABILITIES
OF CERTAIN FEDERAL CONTRACTORS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 6330 is amended
by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2), by inserting
``or'' at the end of paragraph (3), and by inserting after
paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) the Secretary has served a Federal contractor
levy,''.
(b) Federal Contractor Levy.--Subsection (h) of section
6330 is amended--
(1) by striking all that precedes ``any levy in connection
with the collection'' and inserting the following:
``(h) Definitions Related to Exceptions.--For purposes of
subsection (f)--
``(1) Disqualified employment tax levy.--A disqualified
employment tax levy is'', and
(2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Federal contractor levy.--A Federal contractor levy
is any levy if the person whose property is subject to the
levy (or any predecessor thereof) is a Federal contractor.''.
(c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of subsection (f) of
section 6330 is amended by striking ``Jeopardy and State
Refund Collection'' and inserting ``Exceptions''.
(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to levies issued after December 31, 2010.
SEC. 307. REQUIRED MINIMUM 10-YEAR TERM, ETC., FOR GRANTOR
RETAINED ANNUITY TRUSTS.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 2702 is
amended--
(1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as
subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and by moving
such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) 2 ems to the right,
(2) by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting the
following:
``(1) In general.--For purposes of'', and
(3) by striking ``paragraph (1) or (2)'' in paragraph
(1)(C) (as so redesignated) and inserting ``subparagraph (A)
or (B)'', and
(4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(2) Additional requirements with respect to grantor
retained annuities.--For purposes of subsection (a), in the
case of an interest described in paragraph (1)(A) (determined
without regard to this paragraph) which is retained by the
transferor, such interest shall be treated as described in
such paragraph only if--
``(A) the right to receive the fixed amounts referred to in
such paragraph is for a term of not less than 10 years,
``(B) such fixed amounts, when determined on an annual
basis, do not decrease relative to any prior year during the
first 10 years of the term referred to in subparagraph (A),
and
``(C) the remainder interest has a value greater than zero
determined as of the time of the transfer.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to transfers made after the date of the enactment
of this Act.
SEC. 308. INCREASE IN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES.
(a) Failure to File Correct Information Returns.--
(1) In general.--Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and
(b)(2)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by striking
``$50'' and inserting ``$100''.
(2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (a)(1),
(d)(1)(A), and (e)(3)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by
striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.
(b) Reduction Where Correction Within 30 Days.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(1) is
amended by striking ``$15'' and inserting ``$30''.
(2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(1)(B) and
(d)(1)(B) of section 6721 are each amended by striking
``$75,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
(c) Reduction Where Correction on or Before August 1.--
(1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(2) is
amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$60''.
(2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(2)(B) and
(d)(1)(C) of section 6721 are each amended by striking
``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
(d) Aggregate Annual Limitations for Persons With Gross
Receipts of Not More Than $5,000,000.--Paragraph (1) of
section 6721(d) is amended--
(1) by striking ``$100,000'' in subparagraph (A) and
inserting ``$500,000'',
(2) by striking ``$25,000'' in subparagraph (B) and
inserting ``$75,000'', and
(3) by striking ``$50,000'' in subparagraph (C) and
inserting ``$200,000''.
(e) Penalty in Case of Intentional Disregard.--Paragraph
(2) of section 6721(e) is amended by striking ``$100'' and
inserting ``$250''.
(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 6721 is amended by
adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--
``(1) In general.--For each fifth calendar year beginning
after 2012, each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a),
(b), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(A) thereof), and (e) shall
be increased by such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-
living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) determined
by substituting `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992'
in subparagraph (B) thereof.
``(2) Rounding.--If any amount adjusted under paragraph
(1)--
[[Page H2285]]
``(A) is not less than $75,000 and is not a multiple of
$500, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest
multiple of $500, and
``(B) is not described in subparagraph (A) and is not a
multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next
lowest multiple of $10.''.
(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply with respect to information returns required to
be filed on or after January 1, 2011.
SEC. 309. CRUDE TALL OIL INELIGIBLE FOR CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL
PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Section 40(B)(6)(E) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the
following new clause:
``(iv) Exclusion of certain processed fuels with a high
acid content.--The term `cellulosic biofuel' shall not
include any processed fuel with an acid number greater than
25. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term
`processed fuel' means any fuel other than a fuel--
``(I) more than 4 percent of which (determined by weight)
is any combination of water and sediment, or
``(II) the ash content of which is more than 1 percent
(determined by weight).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1,
2010.
SEC. 310. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.
(a) Shift From 2015 to 2014.--The percentage under
paragraph (1) of section 202(b) of the Corporate Estimated
Tax Shift Act of 2009 in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act is increased by 4.5 percentage points.
(b) Shift From 2016 to 2015.--The percentage under
paragraph (2) of section 561 of the Hiring Incentives to
Restore Employment Act in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act is increased by 3.5 percentage points.
(c) Shift From 2020 to 2019.--The percentage under
paragraph (3) of section 561 of the Hiring Incentives to
Restore Employment Act in effect on the date of the enactment
of this Act is increased by 1.25 percentage points.
TITLE IV--EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUND FOR STATE TEMPORARY
ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAMS
SEC. 401. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUND
FOR STATE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY
FAMILIES PROGRAMS.
(a) In General.--Section 403(c) of the Social Security Act
(42 U.S.C. 603(c)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, and for fiscal
year 2011, $2,500,000,000'' before ``for payment'';
(2) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the
following:
``(B) Availability and use of funds.--
``(i) Fiscal years 2009 and 2010.--The amounts appropriated
to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph (A) for fiscal year
2009 shall remain available through fiscal year 2010 and
shall be used to make grants to States in each of fiscal
years 2009 and 2010 in accordance with the requirements of
paragraph (3).
``(ii) Fiscal year 2011.--Subject to clause (iii), the
amounts appropriated to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph
(A) for fiscal year 2011 shall remain available through
fiscal year 2012 and shall be used to make grants to States
based on expenditures in fiscal year 2011 for benefits and
services provided in fiscal year 2011 in accordance with the
requirements of paragraph (3).
``(iii) Reservation of funds.--Of the amounts appropriated
to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph (A) for fiscal year
2011, $500,000 shall be placed in reserve for use in fiscal
year 2012, and shall be used to award grants for any
expenditures described in this subsection incurred by States
after September 30, 2011.'';
(3) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``2010'' and inserting
``2012'';
(4) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in clause (i) of each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C)--
(i) by striking ``year 2009 or 2010'' and inserting ``years
2009 through 2011'';
(ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (I);
(iii) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II)
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iv) by adding at the end the following:
``(III) if the quarter is in fiscal year 2011, has provided
the Secretary with such information as the Secretary may find
necessary in order to make the determinations, or take any
other action, described in paragraph (5)(C).''; and
(B) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iv) Limitation on expenditures for subsidized
employment.--An expenditure for subsidized employment shall
be taken into account under clause (ii) only if the
expenditure is used to subsidize employment for--
``(I) a member of a needy family (without regard to whether
the family is receiving assistance under the State program
funded under this part); or
``(II) an individual who has exhausted (or, within 60 days,
will exhaust) all rights to receive unemployment compensation
under Federal and State law, and who is a member of a needy
household (regardless of whether the household includes a
child).'';
(5) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
``(5) Limitations on payments; adjustment authority.--
``(A) Fiscal years 2009 and 2010.--The total amount payable
to a single State under subsection (b) and this subsection
for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 combined shall not exceed 50
percent of the annual State family assistance grant.
``(B) Fiscal year 2011.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the
total amount payable to a single State under subsection (b)
and this subsection for fiscal year 2011 shall not exceed 30
percent of the annual State family assistance grant.
``(C) Adjustment authority.--If the Secretary determines
that the Emergency Fund is at risk of being depleted before
September 30, 2011, or that funds are available to
accommodate additional State requests under this subsection,
the Secretary may, through program instructions issued
without regard to the requirements of section 553 of title 5,
United States Code--
``(i) specify priority criteria for awarding grants to
States during fiscal year 2011; and
``(ii) adjust the percentage limitation applicable under
subparagraph (B) with respect to the total amount payable to
a single State for fiscal year 2011.''; and
(6) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or for expenditures
described in paragraph (3)(C)(iv)'' before the period.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2101 of division B of
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public
Law 111-5) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(2)--
(A) by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2011''; and
(B) by striking all that follows ``repealed'' and inserting
a period; and
(2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``2010'' and
inserting ``2011''.
(c) Program Guidance.--The Secretary of Health and Human
Services shall issue program guidance, without regard to the
requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code,
which ensures that the funds provided under the amendments
made by this section for subsidized employment do not support
any subsidized employment position the annual salary of which
is greater than, at State option--
(1) 200 percent of the poverty line (within the meaning of
section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1981, including any revision required by such section 673(2))
for a family of 4; or
(2) the median wage in any jurisdiction operating a program
with funds provided pursuant to the amendments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
General Leave
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. LEVIN. In addition, the Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp
and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make
available to the public a technical explanation of the modifications
that were made to H.R. 4849 by the rule.
This technical explanation supplements the Committee Report 111-454,
with information on the Committee's understanding and legislative
intent behind these modifications. It is available on the Joint
Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov and is listed under document
numbered JCX-21-10.
It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our most distinguished
majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I congratulate him
for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Camp as well for his work.
In the fall, Madam Speaker, of 2008, America did not know whether it
was heading for the second Great Depression. Those weren't my words.
Those were the words of Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve.
Since then, the work of the Obama administration and the Democratic
Congress has headed off disaster. Most important has been the Recovery
Act, which cut taxes for small businesses and 95 percent of families,
funded thousands of job-creating projects across America, provided
emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved
States from laying off teachers, firefighters, police officers, and
much more.
No matter what its partisan critics say, the facts say it clearly:
The Recovery Act is working.
The Recovery Act created some 2 million jobs. And since President
Obama took office, monthly job losses are down 96 percent, from 726,000
over a 4-month average during the latter part of the Bush
administration, to 27,500 over the last 4 months, a 96 percent
improvement of job loss. That is not success, but it is progress.
Success will be when we grow jobs, as we did in November.
Our economy is growing again. In the most recent quarter, it grew by
5.9 percent. That is the fastest rate in 6 years,
[[Page H2286]]
and the second straight quarter of growth under President Obama. In
addition, it is a 12.3 percent turnaround from the last quarter of 2008
to the last quarter of 2009.
The Dow is up some 60 plus percent from the low it hit shortly after
President Obama signed the Recovery Act, the S&P 500 is up 72 percent
from its low, and the NASDAQ is up 87 percent now, since we passed the
Recovery Act. That is progress to be proud of.
But as long as millions of Americans remain out of work, through no
fault of their own, we have not reached the goal. We have not had the
success we want.
We know that, to a family struggling through chronic unemployment,
all the positive economic numbers in the world must look like they bear
little relation to reality. That is because, time and again, employment
numbers are the last part of a recession to turn around.
The families who are struggling and suffering right now did not
create this economic collapse, but they are bearing its brunt. So it is
imperative that we act for them.
This month, the President signed the HIRE Act, which eliminated the
payroll tax for every employed worker who is hired. Now, the good news
by that is that we don't pay anything unless we accomplish the
objective. If they add the jobs, they get the credit, which the
nonpartisan CBO calls one of the most effective methods of job
creation.
The HIRE Act also gives businesses tax credits for keeping new
employees on the payroll, helps small businesses finance their
expansion, and extends job-creating and much-needed highway programs.
When the House passed the HIRE Act, Democrats made it clear on this
floor that it was an important step, but by no means the last one. That
is why we are back here today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to
support the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act.
This bill expands the successful Build America bonds and Recovery
Zone bonds, which helps State and local governments fund needed
projects and put people to work. As of this month, Build America bonds
helped State and local governments pay for $78 billion in
infrastructure programs, projects that were needed but did not have the
funds. Build America bonds assured that they had the funds and created
the jobs.
This bill also contains provisions to help small business innovate
and grow. It increases the deduction for business startup expenses, so
enterprising Americans all over our country will have stronger
incentives to open the books of new businesses, an important measure we
owe to my Maryland colleague and friend, Congressman Frank Kratovil.
And, it excludes 100 percent of small business capital gains from
taxation, which will lead to a new influx of investment, the investment
small businesses need to expand and hire new workers.
For Democrats, job creation is our single-most important job. I
think, frankly, Republicans share that sentiment. I think that is a
bipartisan sentiment. This bill carries that work forward, and I
believe it will provide significant relief to the Americans who are
still feeling the recession's harsh effects.
Again, I congratulate Mr. Levin for the work of his committee on
bringing this to the floor. I also want to congratulate my friend,
Charlie Rangel, who has been so instrumental in working on these jobs
bills for so long. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly
support this legislation.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
It's tough to see this bill either as a small business bill or as a
jobs bill, and, specifically, I have three concerns:
One, it raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it
tougher for Americans to find needed work.
Two, roughly 80 percent of the so-called tax relief in the bill is
dedicated to State and local governments.
{time} 1315
Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create
the kind of private sector jobs that we need.
Three, the limited and very narrow tax provisions, even if well-
intentioned, will not do enough to help employers create jobs.
Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed. That's the simple truth
regarding the provision limiting treaty benefits for certain deductible
payments. This is very similar to a provision offered previously by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and accounts for about 40 percent of
the $19.4 billion in tax increases in the bill.
There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American
workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be
the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48
States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3
million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill
passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work.
In case you need more evidence that the Democrat stimulus bill
failed, just look at the $2.5 billion in ``emergency'' welfare spending
that was added to this bill. This money will be paid out in the third
fiscal year since stimulus money first started flowing. That's the
third year. This bill increases spending, it increases taxes and will
not create private sector jobs. In that respect, this is the ``Mini
Me'' of the Democrats' stimulus bill.
I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this
Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4
million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life
in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an
extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective
tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local
governments looking to advance infrastructure programs.
Mr. Camp talks about the number of States--I think you referred to
47--where jobs have been lost. I think every one of those States--it's
47--has benefited from the Build America Bonds program. The money goes
to local communities for infrastructure, and that creates jobs. That's
what finance experts have said about BABs. It's one of the economic
recovery effort's biggest successes. As I mentioned, as of March 1,
2010, State and local governments have used BABs to finance more than
$78 billion in infrastructure programs.
Now, as to small business. The legislation excludes 100 percent of
capital gains on small business stock to help encourage immediate
investments in growth. It will, in turn, help our small businesses hire
new workers and continue fueling our economic recovery. Also included
are provisions to remove onerous penalties from small businesses so
they can create more jobs. Also, there's a provision, an important one,
to reduce the barrier of startup expenses on new businesses.
The bill would also extend, for 1 year, the TANF emergency
contingency fund. The Governors Association has said this fund helps
``speed economic recovery through subsidized employment and training
programs.''
This bill is completely offset and will not add a dime to the Federal
deficit. The bill is offset with provisions to ensure compliance with
our tax laws, close down a loophole that allows paper companies to
claim a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for highly corrosive fuel waste
products, and it does crack down on foreign tax haven corporations that
are taking advantage of the U.S. tax treaty network in order to dodge
U.S. taxes. And to just say you're opposed to any tax increases? Tax
increases on people who are avoiding paying legitimate taxes. I have a
chart here, in very simple terms, that spells out how these companies,
these foreign corporations that are not part of a tax-treaty country,
how they evade taxes through a gimmick. And to oppose this because of
that, I think, is very, very inappropriate.
So, in a word, this bill is another significant step towards helping
our country continue down the path of economic recovery and job
creation. It should be a bipartisan bill. In the markup that we held,
there wasn't a single amendment offered by the minority to strike a
specific jobs provision here. This Congress will continue to take
additional targeted and effective steps to accelerate economic recovery
for American families. And I
[[Page H2287]]
say with sadness, as I hear Mr. Camp speak, that it looks like it will
not receive the bipartisan support it so fully deserves.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Herger).
Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, Republicans have been arguing ever since
the debate on last year's failed stimulus bill that we need real tax
relief to get our economy going and to create jobs. Today, the
Democratic majority has brought forward a bill that offers $3.5 billion
in tax relief for small businesses. Unfortunately, it also includes $19
billion in new taxes, including a major tax aimed directly at companies
that invest in the U.S. and hire American workers. This comes just days
after the Democrats rammed through a health care bill that raises taxes
by $569 billion. And if Congress does not extend the tax relief that
expires at the end of this year, Americans will see their taxes go up
by another $3 trillion. So while there are some good things in this
bill, it's hard to see how a collection of minor tax relief measures
will spur job creation when small businesses are staring down the
barrel of unprecedented tax increases in the year ahead.
When the Ways and Means Committee considered this bill last week, I
offered an amendment to make permanent the $250,000 expensing allowance
under section 179; however, Democrats voted down this and every other
effort to provide real, permanent tax relief for small businesses. What
has been added to the bill is a new $2.5 billion bailout for State
welfare programs. This has nothing to do with creating jobs; yet it was
mysteriously added to the bill after we marked it up in committee. I
hope that this was not a deliberate plan to avoid having a vote in
committee on the merits of this funding. After the public outrage over
backroom dealmaking in the health care bill, it is disappointing to see
the majority party again bypassing regular order to make last-minute
changes to the bill reported by the committee.
Madam Speaker, the American people still want to know: Where are the
jobs? This bill fails to answer that question, and the House should
reject it.
Mr. LEVIN. It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my colleague
and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
(Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really can't understand how this discussion is dealing with
Republicans and Democrats. When someone loses his job and loses his
health care, loses his dignity and pride and ability to take care of
his or her rent or pay the mortgage or tuition in school, when they
make applications for unemployment compensation, I really don't think
that people ask: Are you a Republican or a Democrat? And this is true
of health insurance as well as it is for education and job training.
This is what makes America great, not the majority or minority party.
At the end of the day, what have we done as Congress and a part of
government to allow people to put their hopes and dreams together so
that we can get a full recovery?
For those who are critical of this bill for what it hasn't done, it's
only one step as we attempt to move forward to get America back to
work. That's what we all want. For those who say that too much is given
to government, my God, we're talking about putting people back to work
so that they have the ability to buy from small business people.
We eliminate taxes for capital gains if you invest in small
businesses. We provide incentives for startup funds so that people can
have the small businesses. And there's not a mayor, there's not a
Governor, who doesn't truly believe that putting people to work on
infrastructure, building schools, getting involved in low-income
housing--we're talking about jobs. Not Democratic jobs, not Republican
jobs, but jobs that can put money in people's pockets to fulfill their
obligations and their dreams.
So let's get away from this partisanship. Why don't we just ask: Is
it good for America and not just good for our party?
Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member
of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Brady).
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Another week, another stimulus. This
ministimulus, the third or fourth such effort--I've lost count--is more
proof of the failed economic policies of Washington Democrats and an
acknowledgment that the massive $860 billion stimulus bill has fallen
far short of its debt-driven, wastefully spent promises to revive
America's recovery.
From a jobs standpoint for small business, this bill does next to
nothing. In fact, by increasing taxes on global companies that invest
and create jobs here in America, this bill may actually kill more jobs
than it creates.
This bill wrongly breaches longstanding tax treaties and increases
taxes by more than $7 billion on global companies with subsidiaries
here in the United States. We want America to be the place Americans
choose to put their workers. Why punish them, especially thousands of
Americans without jobs?
This measure also expands the heavily taxpayer subsidized Build
America Bonds, which are popular but are taking shape as a long-term
entitlement to which our local governments are quickly becoming
addicted. That's bad news for America's taxpayers.
Finally, much has been made of the centerpiece of this bill. It's a
100 percent cutout of capital gains on small businesses. But who
qualifies for this? I can tell you who doesn't qualify as a small
business. Look closely at the section that says, if you're in health,
in law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science,
performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage
services, or any trade or business where the reputation of your
employees counts. You're not eligible if you're in banking, insurance,
financing, leasing, investing, or similar business. You're not eligible
if you're a farming small business, a business involving extraction of
commodities like energy or mining. You can't be a hotel, a motel, a
restaurant, or similar business. You can't have ownership or dealings
in or renting of real estate property or rental property.
The question is: Who does qualify for this?
{time} 1330
The answer is nobody. That's why this does so little for small
business, so little for our economy. The truth of the matter is, the
reason businesses aren't hiring back workers or hiring new ones is
they're scared of the policies in Washington. Cap-and-trade, new health
care mandates, new taxes, new regulation, the scary debt. That's what's
keeping small businesses on the sidelines. That's what's holding our
economy back. This bill does not deserve our support. We can do better.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another senior member of our
committee, Mr. McDermott of the great State of Washington.
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California asked
where the jobs are. Well, this 1-year extension of the TANF Emergency
Contingency Fund will produce more than 160,000 subsidized job
placements in clerical, health care, maintenance, human service, and
customer service jobs in 35 States; and many of them are already up and
running. Even Haley Barbour down in Mississippi thinks it's a good
idea.
My office has received a tremendous increase in calls from out-of-
work Americans who are reaching the end of their UI benefits. The long-
term unemployed need help transitioning back into the changing job
market, and they also need jobs right now. Proven programs like the
Emergency Contingency Fund are already creating jobs at a lower cost
than virtually any other program. If States are uncertain of the fund's
extension, they will begin ramping down their subsidized employment
programs beginning next month. It is critical that we pass this
extension immediately. We have already received strong bipartisan
support from the National Governors Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association
[[Page H2288]]
of Counties, all of them urging the Congress to extend this program.
Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said,
``Given the state of the labor market, it is hard to imagine how any
sensible person could oppose extending this emergency fund. If they are
to be more than the party of `no,' Republicans need to rally around the
Democrats who have shown such reserved pragmatism.''
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have heard that this welfare expansion is about jobs. Frankly, it's
not. Democrats propose to expand the welfare emergency fund that was
contained in last year's failed stimulus bill by $2.5 billion. They
just extend it for another year and add that money. But since this
legislation doesn't really alter how the money is spent, we can only
assume the new spending will be a lot like the current spending. So
what has the money been spent on so far? Almost none of it has been
spent on jobs. Almost all of it has been spent on more and larger
welfare checks.
I would like to insert in the Record from the recent Congressional
Research Service report on how the welfare emergency funds have been
spent to date. As of March 18, 2010, only 13 percent of those funds
have been spent on subsidized employment. Instead, 87 percent was spent
on short-term aid and basic assistance. That is, on welfare checks.
[From the Congressional Research Service, Mar. 23, 2010]
The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund
(By Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy)
State and Tribal Use of TANF Emergency Funds
As of March 18, 2010, states and tribes have been awarded
$1.8 billion of the total $5 billion appropriated. Figure 1
shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of spending. The
figure shows cumulative grant awards through March 18, 2010.
It shows that $848 million, a little less than half of the
total grant awards of $1.6 billion was to help finance
increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $726
million, 40% of the $1.8 billion, was for non-recurrent
short-term aid and $231 million, 13% of the total, was for
subsidized employment.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
During the markup on this bill, Mr. Rangel of New York was very
magnanimous in his concern for our emotional well-being on our side of
the aisle. And he said that no matter how sincere they are in their
argument, it must be awkward and embarrassing just to say no. I really
do appreciate that gesture and his concern for how we're feeling. But
the good news for Mr. Rangel is, we don't feel embarrassed, and this
isn't awkward. In fact, it is with a sense of duty that we stand up and
say, You know what, this bill is a classic underperformer.
If you notice something, we're hearing echoes of the exact same
rhetoric that we heard during the stimulus debate. The stimulus, as you
will remember, was $750 billion, plus or minus, plus interest, so you
are at a trillion dollars worth of commitment and a stampede argument
of spending that said, If we would only do this now, only do this
quick, only do this right now, unemployment was going to peak at 8
percent. Well, that didn't happen in my home State of Illinois. In
fact, The Chicago Tribune recently quoted a civic leader, the Civic
Federation of Chicago, and this is what they said regarding the State
of Illinois' budget morass, notwithstanding all the help that the
majority has claimed that they've foisted on these States. They've
said, This is historic. It is epic. It is impossible to overstate the
level of peril.
That's with the majority's help.
So now the argument comes, ``Well, you Republicans talk about small
government all the time. Let's help small government here.'' I think
that's an inherently flawed argument because what we're doing is
borrowing and then foisting more spending.
Look, I think ultimately the most difficult and troublesome component
of this is the overriding of 60 bilateral trade agreements. I have over
3,400 employees in my district alone in suburban Chicago. That's not to
mention another over a quarter of a million employees who are employed
by companies that are insourcing jobs.
I think the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce got it just right when they opposed this bill for
all the right reasons.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, my friend John Lewis.
Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, my
friend, for yielding.
Madam Speaker, not long ago, the American economy was headed toward
disaster. In the past year, businesses have closed their doors, and
more and more of our sisters and brothers have joined the unemployment
line. In my district, unemployment is still over 10 percent. That is
unacceptable. And with this bill, with this piece of legislation, we
can do better.
While this Congress and this administration have brought our economy
back from the brink of depression, there is still so much left to do.
Today with this bill, we can take another step down that long road to
recovery. This bill will create jobs, it will save jobs, and it will
save our small businesses. Is it possible? Is it too much to ask for?
Is there someway and somehow that we all could come together and create
jobs to put our people back to work?
This bill will help the family-owned restaurant that has served our
community for years. It will help businesses that are facing cutbacks,
and it will help people follow their dreams to open their own
businesses.
I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, for all of our small
businesses, and to pass it now.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, you can't tell the people in Rockford,
Illinois, whose unemployment is at 20 percent that all these stimulus
bills are working. In fact, even before the President was sworn in,
because he mentioned a carbon tax, near the city of East Dubuque over
on the Mississippi River in the congressional district that I
represent, Rentech, which makes anhydrous ammonia and urea, was all set
to make an $800 million investment to substitute coal for natural gas
in the Fischer-Tropsches process resulting in the production of
aircraft fuel. So 1,000 manufacturing jobs, an $800 million investment,
was wiped out because even the threat of cap-and-trade had the
investors pull the plug on it.
And now we come up with still another bill, still another government
program, this one to tax foreign direct investment, many of those
people involved in the manufacturing sector. There are 240,000 jobs in
Illinois that directly depend upon foreign direct investment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. MANZULLO. We just passed the health care bill, the cap-and-trade.
Every time we pass these bills, the people in the congressional
district that I represent lose more jobs. We don't need help from
Congress. We need Congress to leave the people alone.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr.
Neal) who is such an active member of this committee on the issues
before us.
Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of our
committee, and I rise in support of the Small Business and
Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act. As a former mayor, I am pleased that this
bill contains a number of infrastructure tools to lower the costs for
State and local development.
Let me put to rest the argument here that there was no cooperation on
this bill. Mr. Ryan, a prominent Republican on the committee, and I
supported legislation that would exempt private activity bonds from
AMT. And it's working. The U.S. Department of Transportation cited this
provision as saving $635 million for construction projects at 38
airports around the country, including Cleveland, Milwaukee and
Houston, among others. We don't check those airports to find out if
they have a Republican Congressman or a Democratic Congressman. We
think they are worthwhile undertakings.
These construction projects have created thousands of jobs nationwide
at a time that our economy really needs
[[Page H2289]]
them. In my office, if you want to secure the information, we would be
happy to provide you with the information about airport expansion which
in many communities is a public and private partnership, but they have
taken advantage of this initiative. These bonds are also used for
student loans, and protection from AMT means lower rates on borrowers.
In Massachusetts alone, 26,000 students will benefit.
The bill we are debating today also includes a provision offered by,
yes, my friend Mr. Tiberi and I. We want to protect the New Markets Tax
Credit from the AMT, a reasonable undertaking, a reasonable provision.
Since its inception, this program has generated over $15 billion of
private sector investment in some of the poorest communities in this
country. I will repeat. Mr. Tiberi and I sponsored this provision. Mr.
Ryan and I have cosponsored provisions here. Protection from AMT means
financing costs are lowered, freeing up greater investment for
struggling neighborhoods.
And I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, and to the Speaker as well, there
is not a Republican mayor in America who would be against the
provisions that are offered here.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support a
provision in the bill allowing a tax deduction for small business
startup expenses. This is one of the most significant things we can do
to encourage entrepreneurs. That's why last year I joined with a
colleague of mine from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil) to introduce legislation
that increases the tax deduction from $5,000 to $20,000. Designed to
motivate entrepreneurs to act now, this provision serves as an added
incentive for entrepreneurs to get off the sidelines and create new job
growth in the private sector.
As someone who has actually run a manufacturing company up until I
came to Congress last year, it's very disappointing for me that I
cannot support the underlying bill. This bill without a doubt will
raise taxes on U.S. manufacturing and jeopardize jobs here at home.
American manufacturing workers are also facing an unfair playing
field against our Chinese competitors. And according to the National
Association of Manufacturers, this bill will ``make it more difficult
for them to compete in the global marketplace and, in some cases, will
threaten U.S. jobs and economic growth.'' I believe we should be
strengthening U.S. manufacturers, not saddling them with job-killing
taxes. This will further impede efforts to grow our economy and create
jobs right here in the good old United States.
Madam Speaker, it is past time that the House finally move through
true pro-growth legislation. Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of
the small business startup deduction, the underlying bill just isn't
it.
{time} 1345
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, regarding these ill-considered arguments
against the treaty-shopping provisions that allow a handful of firms to
dodge their responsibilities to fund our national and homeland
security, let's get the facts straight.
First, there is not one company headquartered in the United States
that will pay one cent of additional taxes as a result of these
provisions. Number two, there is not one company that is headquartered
in a foreign country with whom we have a tax treaty that will pay one
cent of additional taxes. And that covers, by the way, over 90 percent
of all foreign investment in the United States that we were just
hearing about, over 90 percent not touched whatsoever if they are
headquartered in a country with a tax treaty.
What it does touch is the minority, defended by the Republican Party,
that are determined to dodge their fair share of the cost of running
America. Those are companies that are headquartered in tax havens that
set up their operations specifically to dodge their tax responsibility.
We believe they ought to follow the same rules as American-owned
companies, as American-headquartered companies.
It is amazing to me that the same folks who would defend the flim-
flam artists at Enron from dodging their tax responsibilities, that
would defend the American corporations that renounce their American
citizenship to move to some sunny tax haven, are now defending this
small minority of firms that will not pay their fair share of American
taxes.
And what of this phony argument that we are somehow violating our tax
treaty responsibilities: well, it is just that, it is phony because
this measure is actually an incentive to support the tax treaty system.
That is where over 90 percent of the investment already is; and so we
are saying, as the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation concluded,
this provides an incentive for any responsible foreign investor to
locate in a treaty country. The treaties are set up to help American
companies. That is what these companies should do.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I place in the Record a letter to Mr. Levin and myself from the
Organization for International Investment, a large association
representing over 5 million Americans. It is an association of U.S.
subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad which also accounts for
one-fifth of all exports which says that the language in this
legislation would override many of our bilateral income tax treaties
and could lead to retaliatory actions by other countries.
I would also note that during the markup of this legislation in
committee, even the Obama administration's own witness, the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy stated that the Treasury Department
has, and I quote, ``Concerns about the specifics of this provision and
whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.'' She also
stated the administration prefers a more targeted approach.
Organization for
International Investment,
March 15, 2010.
Hon. Sander Levin,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Dave Camp,
Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp, On behalf of
the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am
writing to express concern with a tax provision included as
Section 401 of the discussion draft of the Small Business and
Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. While we recognize the
need for revenue, we must oppose Section 401 as an offset
because it represents a clear and harmful override of our
existing U.S. income tax treaties. Although positive changes
were made to this proposal since it was originally introduced
as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), OFII remains
opposed because it still uniquely discriminates against U.S.
subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad and clearly
violates many of our international agreements.
OFII is the largest association of U.S. subsidiaries of
companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an
important role in the growth and vitality of the U.S.
economy. They provide high-paying jobs for over five million
Americans and account for almost one-fifth of all U.S.
exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative
signal to international investors and may dissuade these
companies from choosing the United States as a location for
job creating investment.
As drafted, Section 401 would unilaterally override many of
our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to
retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our
treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting
international business transactions. The Senate has opposed
this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for
these reasons.
Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue
and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address
any perceived concerns. In this regard, there is no evidence
that existing safeguards, including the substantial and
restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called
``Limitation on Benefits'' (LOB) provisions) contained in
most of our current U.S. income tax treaties, are
ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident,
the Treasury could implement changes to the U.S. Model Tax
Treaty which would avoid the negative consequences of
violating our international agreements.
Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the
Treasury has taken great strides to update the three
bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland,
Hungary, Poland). A protocol adding an LOB provision to the
Iceland treaty was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the
Senate in 2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been
negotiated and initialed and could be ratified
[[Page H2290]]
this year. Treasury is expected to pursue a similar amendment
to the treaty with Poland during 2010-2011.
Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that
was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse
of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of
existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more
appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this
provision and we urge you to oppose including Section 401 in
the final version of the Small Business Jobs Bill. We would
be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in greater
detail.
Sincerely,
Nancy McLernon
President & CEO.
Organization for International Investment
OFII is the only business association in Washington D.C.
that exclusively represents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign
companies and advocates for their non-discriminatory
treatment under state and federal law.
members
ABB Inc., ACE INA Holdings, Inc., AEGON USA, AgustaWestland
Inc., Ahold USA, Inc., Airbus North America Holdings, Air
Liquide America L.P., Akzo Nobel Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon
Laboratories, Inc.
Alfa Laval Inc., Allianz of North America, ALSTOM, AMEC,
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Anheuser-Busch, APL Limited,
AREVA, Inc., Astellas Pharma US, Inc., AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals.
BAE Systems, Barclays Capital, Barrick Goldstrike Mines,
Inc., BASF Corporation, Bayer Corp., BIC Corp., Bimbo Foods,
Inc., bioMerieux, Inc., BNP Paribas, Boehringer Ingelheim
Corp.
BOSCH, BP, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Brother
International Corp., Brunswick Group, BT, Bunge Ltd., Case
New Holland, CEMEX USA, Cobham.
Covidien, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Daiichi Sankyo,
Inc., Daimler, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Deutsche Post World
Net USA, Deutsche Telekom, Diageo, Inc., EADS, Inc., EDF
International North America.
Eisai Inc., Elbit Systems of America, LLC, Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Ericsson, Evonik Degussa
Corporation, Experian, Finmeccanica North America,
Flextronics International, Food Lion, LLC.
France Telecom North America, Garmin International, Inc.,
GDF SUEZ Energy North America, Inc., Generali USA, Givaudan,
GKN America Corp., GlaxoSmithKline, Hanson North America,
Hitachi, Ltd., Holcim (US) Inc.
HSBC North America Holdings, Huhtamaki, Hyundai Motor
America, Iberdrola Renewables, ING America Insurance
Holdings, InterContinental Hotels Group, John Hancock Life
Insurance Co., Lafarge North America, Lenova, Logitech Inc.
L'Oreal USA, Inc., Louisiana Energy Service (LES),
Louisville Corporate Services, Inc., LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis
Vuitton, Macquarie Aircraft Leasing Services, Macquarie
Holdings Inc., Maersk Inc, Magna International, Marvell
Semiconductor, McCain Foods USA.
Michelin North America, Inc. Miller Brewing Company,
Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics, Munich Re, Nestle USA,
Inc., The Nielsen Company (US), Inc., Nokia, Inc., Novartis
Corporation, Novelis Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals.
Oldcastle, Inc., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Pearson
Inc., Pernod Ricard USA, PetroBras North America, Philips
Electronics North America, QBE the Americas, Randstad North
America, Reed Elsevier Inc., Rexam Inc.
Rio Tinto America, Roche Financial USA, Inc., Rolls-Royce
North America Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, SABIC Innovation
Plastics, Saint-Gobain, sanofi-aventis, SAP America,
Schlumberger Technology Corp., Schott North America.
SGL Carbon LLC, Shell Oil Company, Siemens Corporation,
Smith & Nephew, Inc., Sodexo, Inc., SolarWorld USA, Solvay
America, Sony Corporation of America, Square D Company,
Sumitomo Corp. of America.
Sun Life Financial U.S., Swiss Re America Holding Corp.,
Syngenta Corporation, Takeda North America, Tate & Lyle North
America, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Thales USA, Inc.,
The Tata Group, Thomson Reuters, ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc.
Tim Hortons, Toa Reinsurance Company of America, Tomkins
Industries, Inc., TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Toyota Motor
North America, Tyco International (US), Inc., Tyco
Electronics, UBS, Umicore USA, Unilever.
Vivendi, Vodafone, Voith Holding Inc., Volkswagen of
America, Inc., Volvo Group North America, Inc., Welspun,
Westfield LLC, White Mountains, Inc., Wolters Kluwer U.S.
Corporation, WPP Group USA, Inc., XL Global Services, Zausner
Foods Corporation, Zurich Insurance Group.
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Kingston).
Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I have to say I am confused. Now I am confused maybe because I am not
on the Ways and Means Committee--I'm on the Appropriations Committee--
and on March 16 at 10 o'clock we had a hearing, and our special guest
at the hearing was Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, Secretary of OMB
Orszag, and the President's Economic Adviser, Ms. Romer. All of them
said to the full committee the stimulus program is working. It is the
greatest program. In fact, I thought they were going to start high-
fiving and hugging each other right there in the committee, they were
so excited about it.
But now I am like you. You Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee,
I kind of agree with you. It ain't working. We know that it is not
working. That is why we are now debating the third stimulus jobs bill
in the House. We had one a couple of weeks ago, we had one in December,
and all it is is spend, spend, spend. The $862 billion stimulus program
was supposed to keep unemployment from getting to 8 percent, and it is
now pushing 10 percent. Of course it is not working.
But does this work? It is just more spending, more money for
municipal governments. I keep hearing the mayors like it and the county
commissioners like it. Oh, yeah, we are sending them more money; I
guess they do like it. They envy us because we can print it, and we can
borrow it. In fact, we borrow a lot of money. In fact, if you look at
it, every dollar that we spend, we actually borrow 40 cents. Now you
would never do that back home, but that is what is going on. We borrow
to pay for the military, to pay for education, to pay for
transportation, to pay for the National Park Service. We borrow foreign
aid. Can you think of the absurdity of that: we borrow money to give it
to other countries. That's what is going on. And here comes this bill
with more borrowing.
You know, if you look at what has gone on, May of 2008, a $168
billion stimulus bill failed. I voted ``no.'' It was a George Bush
bill. All of these stimulus bills, all of this spending does not create
jobs. We need to vote this down.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
To the gentleman who just spoke, this bill is paid for unlike bills
you voted for. And also let me say to the distinguished gentleman, you
are opposed to this bill because it isn't big enough or it is too
small. It's not clear. The recovery program is beginning to work. This
will make it work better, and yet you are standing here opposed to it.
I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and
just to correct the record once again, this bill, unlike previous bills
passed by our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, is
completely paid for. There is not a cent that would be added to the
deficit. You have to make some tough decisions when you pay for things,
but this bill is completely taken care of and paid for. So the tax cuts
we give to small businesses, we take care of that. We don't do it in an
irresponsible fashion. That is why we should vote for this legislation.
We need to put this country back on track and back to work, and this
bill continues a series of legislation that have come through this
House, gone to the Senate and been signed by the President which put
America back to work. The economic recovery package which too many of
our colleagues rail against, the independent, nonpartisan Congressional
Budget Office has told us has already created at least 2 million jobs
in America; and we still have more of the economic recovery package
effects to take place over this coming year.
What we do know is if we keep at it and do it responsibly, we can put
America back to work. That is what this is all about. That is why we
should support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this
bill.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means
Committee.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Camp for yielding
me this time.
We are talking about jobs, and this bill purports to be a job-
creation bill, but I have deep reservations about one of the pay-fors
in the bill. It is in section 301. It raises $7.7 billion in taxes, and
where do these taxes come from? Where does this tax increase come from?
Well, it comes from U.S. companies who happen to be headquartered
[[Page H2291]]
overseas. What does that mean? These are companies that employ U.S.
workers. These are companies that are in every one of our communities
that also stimulate business activity that help create jobs in other
businesses that affiliate with these and do business with them.
So what are we doing here? We are basically hurting U.S. job growth.
We are hurting U.S. workers. Furthermore, this provision would
basically abrogate some 60 bilateral tax treaties that we currently
have. We know that the Senate has opposed these types of provisions in
the past. So why are we doing this?
Secondly, in the course of the hearing, we had the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Tax Policy and she had questions about this approach and
said that this was not the preferred approach of the administration and
also expressed concerns that this could invite retaliation upon U.S.
companies doing business overseas, further hurting U.S. jobs.
Now if we are going to create jobs, let's try to be sensible and make
sure that our tax policy is coordinated with trying to create jobs.
What do we know about these jobs in the U.S. by these U.S. companies
who happen to be headquartered overseas? Well, they pay better wages.
In fact, their compensation packages are roughly one-third more. These
are high-skilled jobs so why on the one hand do we want to say we are
going to create jobs and on the other hand focus on policies that will
kill jobs? I just don't understand the logic here, and for those
reasons I oppose this bill.
Mr. LEVIN. I am glad to now yield 1 whole minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, everyone in this body is entitled to
their own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. I wish
some of our colleagues would read this bill. It does not add one penny
to the deficit.
First, we have a speaker on the other side of the aisle complaining
about the fact that it adds to the deficit when it doesn't; because the
next speaker then complains about how we want to pay for it. Which is
it?
This bill is paid for. This bill will help small businesses just like
the economic recovery bill has helped stabilize the economy. Just a
little over a year ago when President Obama was sworn in, our economy
was in free fall. We were headed from recession to depression. Now we
are here 14 months later, the economy has begun to stabilize. We went
from 5.7 percent negative growth to 5.6 positive growth, the biggest
swing in growth, 10 points, in 30 years. People are beginning to go
back to work. Obviously, we have not turned the corner there, but it is
a vast improvement from where this country was a little over a year
ago. This is another important step by assisting small businesses to
keep the engine going.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this
important jobs bill in general, and two provisions in particular.
The SBA provision makes a change to the Tax Code to encourage private
investment in the Small Business Investment Company program, which in
turn will help small businesses hire more employees.
The extension of the AMT exemption for private activity bonds is
critically important to creating jobs and growing our economy. Bonds
have been one of the economic recovery efforts' biggest successes, and
they are responsible for creating jobs and funding important projects
in nearly every State in our country.
One example can be seen at the Sacramento International Airport in my
district. They sold bonds to complete their terminal renovation. This
money was directly responsible for preserving 1,200 construction jobs
and generating over $1 billion in the surrounding community.
We must do everything we can to put Americans back to work. Today's
jobs bill is paid for. Today's job bill is paid for and is one more way
to spur economic development.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of irony
hearing our friends on the other side of the aisle talking about a
recovery package that hasn't worked as well as all of us would like
because it was deliberately scaled down in an effort to try to secure
Republican support. More of it was put in tax cuts than we would have
liked rather than in infrastructure to rebuild and renew America. We
know if it would have been done the way the Democrats wanted, it would
have worked better. Nonetheless, I hate to think what would happen in
the State of Michigan without economic recovery money, in the State of
Oregon without this money.
I have three brief points. One, by putting more money in
infrastructure, we are going to be putting people to work. Second, this
is fully paid for, unlike what we have seen with the efforts of our
friends on the Republican side of the aisle when they were in charge.
And, third, the pay-for is incorporating recommendations that came from
the Bush administration Treasury that recognized there were
corporations that were not meeting their obligations to the United
States Treasury.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. These provisions will affect companies in a small
number of countries--there are less than 10 percent of the countries
that don't have a tax treaty with us--they will be encouraged to have a
relationship to avoid tax avoidance. It will be an opportunity for
people who are not paying their fair share now to put some money behind
renewing and rebuilding America.
It is a good bargain for the taxpayer, it is a good bargain for
revitalizing our communities, and I appreciate the committee bringing
this bill forward.
{time} 1400
Mr. CAMP. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Boustany).
Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to respond to what was just said about these tax
provisions, and that is, the previous administration actually wanted to
work through these treaties and recognized that there were some
problems but did not just simply want to abrogate 60 tax treaties.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. The last Administration offered proposals to address
this time after time, and a Republican Congress wouldn't approve them.
That is one of the reasons we need to take this firm action today. We
see the benefits of doing that in the almost $8 billion that are raised
not from American companies but from companies that are located in
these tax-haven locations.
Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just say to the gentleman and to those on the floor, to say
this is the same proposal that occurred in the previous administration
is really an oversimplification. The previous administration really
wanted to have a more targeted approach to this. They wanted to,
certainly through treaty amendments, targeted domestic law provisions,
that would address the problem of potential abuses under this area of
law. But they didn't want to damage our treaty relationships with all
of the other countries.
And as the gentleman from Louisiana has said, this would damage our
treaty relationships with over 60 countries. We have a letter in the
record from the organization overseeing nearly 5 million U.S. workers
and companies headquartered abroad. The Treasury testified at the
committee that this is not the approach they want to take. They would
much prefer to take similar approaches to the Bush administration. So
in terms of tax policy, we actually have the Treasury Department
wanting to do the same thing.
This is outside of that. This is overbroad. It would hurt our
relationships.
I reserve my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. We are in no way saying that this is the same
legislative language that the Bush Administration recommended. We are
saying it addresses the same problem and that you
[[Page H2292]]
didn't like the Bush Administration approach any better than you liked
the Obama Administration approach, any better than you like this
approach. And the only beneficiaries of this obstruction to a
legislative answer are the same tax dodgers in these tax havens that
have been avoiding their responsibility. We want to level the playing
field. We don't want to shirk treaty responsibilities. We want an
incentive to encourage every one of these companies to go to a tax
treaty country.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
No more loopholes. No more sheltered tax havens. No more privileged
class perks. Period. That is how we're paying for this bill.
Mr. Speaker, once again, the day after significant legislation has
been passed, we're back at our greatest priority--putting people back
to work. There are many sections of this bill that do that. I want to
highlight just one of them: the Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Investment Act. I hope you support that part of the legislation.
As it was introduced, this provision will generate significant
investment through the use of tax-exempt bonds, and if we don't go that
way, our communities are going to have to find the money to fix their
infrastructure, to fix their sewer systems, to fix their water systems,
and you know that is not going to happen. Our communities look to us
for help. Our infrastructure is in disrepair, and it's just not our
roads and it's just not our bridges.
Earlier this year the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the
nation's water and water system the lowest grade of any infrastructure
category, a D minus. This legislation aims to repair our crumbling
water infrastructure while leveraging private capital to create jobs.
Every dollar invested in public water and sewer infrastructure will add
$8.97 to the national economy. Economists estimate a $1 billion
investment----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. PASCRELL. Economists estimate a $1 billion investment in water
infrastructure will create 28,500 jobs.
For anybody to stand up here and say that this particular legislation
does not specifically face off against the job lag in this country,
they haven't read the bill.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve at this time.
Mr. LEVIN. Now it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ to the gentlewoman
from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
This legislation is yet another strong step towards economic recovery
for Las Vegas, the State of Nevada, and the Nation. The provisions of
this bill will spur the creation and growth of small businesses and
help State and local governments make critical job-creating
infrastructure investments that are essential to long-term economic
recovery.
Build America Bonds have been an essential source of funding for
critical infrastructure projects in my district. That includes millions
for investments by McCarran International Airport, millions for
essential upgrades to water and sewer systems by the Las Vegas Water
Authority, millions in highway and transit improvements by Clark
County.
The extension of Recovery Zone Bond programs will make my district
eligible for yet another source of financing for infrastructure
projects that will spur economic growth and help bring down one of the
highest unemployment rates in the Nation. Fifty percent of the building
trades in Las Vegas are idle. Families are suffering.
Speaking of families, families and small businesses are going to
directly benefit from this legislation. The increased deduction for
small business start-up expenses will provide new opportunities for
business creation and help create jobs we so desperately need.
And Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, this is incorporated in
the bill and will help many Nevada families who struggle daily to help
make ends meet.
The people of my district are struggling with difficult economic
times. This Congress continues to focus on policies that will create
new opportunity for growth and investment in Las Vegas and help
entrepreneurs build job-creating small businesses.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
Mr. LEVIN. I now have the privilege of yielding 1 minute to the
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.
Ms. SCHWARTZ. Democrats are committed to rebuilding America's
economy, putting our workers back to work and ensuring our businesses
can compete in a global 21st century economy.
Today we will vote on the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax
Act, which makes smart investments, including: expanding Build America
Bonds, which have been used by State and local governments across the
country, including 21 times in my own home State of Pennsylvania, to
finance $2 billion in essential infrastructure projects; excluding
capital gains taxes on the sale of small business stock; exempting
water and sewer facility bonds from State volume caps initiating new
infrastructure water projects which will improve the quality of our
drinking water; and ending unfair tax penalties for small businesses
that offer certain pension plans.
Let's be clear. This bill means voting for lower taxes for small
businesses, for new infrastructure, and for new jobs. And it does not
add to the deficit. In fact, it is paid for by collecting taxes from
corporations located in tax havens.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve, Madam Speaker.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from
Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
I note that the State of Illinois has received $4.853 billion in
bonds up through January of this year. Many of those have gone to
communities that are represented by individuals who certainly are not
described as Democrats. As a matter of fact, they've gone to
communities throughout the State.
These bonds are about building schools, roads, hospitals, creating
jobs. There is no way under the sun that I could imagine not voting for
this bill. It stimulates the economy, it builds jobs, it puts people to
work.
Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. Etheridge).
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise to support this bill for our small businesses and local
communities. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and right
now they need help in order to grow, expand, and hire new workers.
Research shows that almost every ``new job'' in this country is created
by entrepreneurs who simply have an idea and the energy and the vision
to make it a reality. We should support them, and this bill does so.
This bill also invests in our local communities by expanding
successful Build America Bonds and water and sewer bonds which our
communities badly need to restore our infrastructure and, more
importantly, create jobs.
I met recently with a North Carolina housing finance agency, and
yesterday I received a letter from the National Association of
Counties, who both support this bill. Helping our small businesses,
investing in infrastructure, and creating jobs should be a nonpartisan
issue. We must come together to fix our economy. And as a former small
business owner, I support this legislation for creating jobs on Main
Street.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CAMP. I reserve my time.
Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) a member of the committee.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I would like to thank the
chairman.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4849,
legislation that invests in affordable housing, infrastructure, and
small businesses.
I want to speak today about two provisions in the bill that are
particularly important to the constituents I represent. I'm very
pleased that the bill incorporates legislation that I wrote to
[[Page H2293]]
strengthen the low-income housing tax credit. A stable roof over a
child's head contributes to his or her education, emotional well-being,
and overall physical health.
In California alone, 4 percent low-income housing credits have been
responsible for 125,000 new housing units in the last 20 years. By
reviving the value of these credits, we will revitalize the housing
sector, creating not just affordable homes but new jobs.
Additionally, this bill extends the Recovery Act's successful Build
America Bonds program. These bonds are responsible for almost 25
percent of the current municipal bond market. As of the end of
February, $78 billion in Build America Bonds have been issued by State
and local governments to build roads, bridges, and schools. And the
jobs that are created pay a living wage. They are an investment in our
community.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. They are an investment in our
community and an investment in our workforce, investments that are
going to pay dividends for years to come.
I want to thank the chairman and the committee staff for their hard
work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
{time} 1415
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. From this debate, I think
it's difficult to see whether this legislation is either a small
business bill or a jobs bill. Frankly, it's neither one. The reason is
the tax increases in this bill will hurt an already weak economy. To
raise taxes on employers during a recession makes it even harder for
Americans to find work.
Second, roughly 80 percent of the tax relief in this bill goes to
State and local governments and to pay State and local governments. To
borrow more money, as this bill does, is not what America needs right
now.
Lastly, I would say there are some tax provisions, very small ones,
that have received bipartisan support. But, frankly, those good things
are outweighed by the structure of the bill and the way the bill is
drafted, because even those well-intentioned measures will not do
enough to help employers create jobs; and, particularly, the provision
that would override our tax treaties with 60 countries, that even the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, when testifying before the
committee, said she had concerns over, and also which has been rejected
by the Senate, which means the almost $7 to $8 billion they are using
to fund this bill will not see its way across the floor of the United
States Senate. So I think we would do better to come back and try to do
something that would actually potentially do something about job
creation and see its way to the President's desk for signature.
With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this. I really urge my colleagues
on the minority side to think not twice, but to think thrice before
voting against this bill. I don't think everyone has to march in a
partisan way in this place, especially on a bill that will help create
jobs.
I have a letter regarding the contingency fund from a Republican
Governor and a Democratic Governor, which states that, ``currently, 23
States are drawing down the fund for subsidized jobs, with several more
State applications pending approval. Many of these programs take time
to develop and implement. By allowing States more time to access these
funds, Congress can help maximize the impact of TANF ECF in providing
crucial skill development and training to our workers.''
Regarding the Build America Bonds, almost every State has taken
advantage of these. It's for local communities and States to build--to
build. Who builds roads? Who builds bridges? Not robots. Basically,
it's human beings. So if you come here and vote ``no,'' you are voting
against jobs for human beings.
In terms of the pay-for, the only entities that will pay taxes will
be those who are evading them, who are essentially using tax havens to
avoid paying taxes.
I think the Senate will take a second look at this. I think this can
become law, and we should join together to help make this become law.
We owe it to the people of this country. This is a jobs bill.
Vote ``yes.''
Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation.
Since the Democrats' 2009 stimulus law, 3.3 million jobs have been
eliminated, not the 3.7 million jobs they forecast it would create.
Unemployment has risen to 10 percent, not the 8 percent peak Democrats
promised. And 16 million Americans are currently unemployed, an all
time record.
That stimulus legislation created numerous welfare expansions,
including a new $5 billion welfare ``emergency fund.'' This fund
directly undermines the successful 1996 welfare reforms by paying
States more money if they increase welfare dependence instead of work.
The legislation before us would extend and expand that welfare
emergency fund, costing taxpayers another $2.5 billion.
Democrats claim this welfare expansion will create jobs, as they
claimed their stimulus bill would. The facts show stimulus didn't
create jobs, and this won't, either.
Why are we doing this? According to the latest MIS figures, States
have not spent over $3 billion in the current welfare emergency fund.
By the end of year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates one-third
of the fund--about $1.5 billion--will remain unspent.
But instead of letting this ``emergency'' fund expire, or even just
giving States more time to spend current funds, Democrats insist on
shoving another $2.5 billion in welfare out the door. This will cost
taxpayers billions of dollars more, and benefit especially those few
States that spent all of what Democrats promised in last year's
stimulus bill. So the more you spend, the more you get. All on top of
last year's trillion-dollar stimulus bill, and the trillion-dollar
health takeover bill the President signed yesterday.
But it's not enough, because it's never enough.
Two weeks ago, in a hearing on welfare spending, one expert testified
to the subcommittee on which I serve as Ranking Republican that
government will spend $953 billion on means-tested welfare programs
next year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2007. I asked the Obama
Administration witness, who supported the welfare expansion before us
today, whether her testimony was that $953 billion is not enough. She
responded: ``Who's to say what is enough?''
The reality is we are the ones elected to represent the American
people in saying what is enough. And after a trillion dollars in failed
stimulus spending, and a trillion dollars for the government health
care takeover yet to come, I say enough. Oppose this unnecessary
welfare spending increase.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4849, the
``Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010.'' Today's
legislation would provide much needed tax relief to small businesses,
as well as assistance to states for infrastructure projects, housing
tax credits, and direct aid for communities hit the hardest by job
losses. This is a very timely bill and will provide a real benefit to
States suffering through periods of unemployment, like my own State of
Michigan.
As we are all too aware, states have been struggling with staggering
budget deficits and have painfully cut back on many vital programs. One
of the important proposals within the Act would extend $2.5 billion
funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Emergency Contingency Fund through 2011. TANF gives a one-time aid for
needy families and subsidizes employment programs
I also support provisions in H.R. 4849 that would allocate over two
billion dollars in additional funding for Recovery Zone bonds and
extend the popular Build America Bonds initiative. Recovery Zone bonds
are low interest bonds aimed at funding investment in economically
depressed areas, such as my congressional district. Build America
Bonds, lauded as one of the most successful parts of the Recovery Act,
are bonds with tax exemption on interest and will be extended for three
years under this bill. Build America Bonds will allow for the
construction of new schools, roads, environmental projects, public
safety facilities, and government housing projects.
Madam Speaker, this. Congress has passed sweeping legislation such as
the Recovery Act, health insurance reform and fair pay for women. These
actions have shown the American people that we can act in times of
crisis. In this vein, I believe tax relief, coupled with aid to the
States, can spur substantial job creation. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation.
[[Page H2294]]
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
support of H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax
Act.
Specifically, I am pleased one of the provisions of this bill is the
text of H.R. 537, The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act,
of which I am a cosponsor.
This provision will help our local communities by removing the
federally mandated State Volume Cap on Private Activity Bonds for water
and wastewater projects.
Lifting this cap will allow additional private investment through the
use of tax exempt bonds to address our critical water infrastructure
needs.
Other infrastructure projects, such as airports, intercity high-speed
rail, and solid waste disposal sites are already exempt from these bond
caps.
Removing state volume caps on Private Activity Bonds for water and
wastewater facilities is expected to reduce the cost of water projects,
increase the number of water projects that communities initiate,
improve our Nation's water infrastructure, and encourage public-private
partnerships.
I am proud to support this bill that will enhance our water
infrastructure, create local jobs, and encourage private capital
investment in our communities.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of
H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010.
This bill is another important step forward in helping small
businesses create jobs in our communities and in assisting state and
local governments to crawl out of their financial holes.
I agree with Secretary Geithner that by extending the Buy America
Bonds program we are providing an important financing tool for state
and local governments and investing in our country's long term economic
growth in a cost-effective way.
As local governments continues to struggle financially, local
officials can look forward to using the Buy America Bonds to build
bridges, fix roads, and upgrade schools--all while creating jobs in our
communities.
Snohomish County, in my district, is about to utilize the Buy America
Bonds to fund public and private capital improvements that promote
economic development and job growth throughout the county.
In addition, this bill includes provisions that will help small
businesses obtain additional capital and encourage the formation of new
businesses.
Small business is the engine that drives our economy, having created
65 percent of all new jobs in the last decade, and continues to play an
important part of our economic recovery.
I will continue to do all I can to support our small businesses and
create jobs.
Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4849, the
Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act. First, I would like to
commend my friend and colleague from Michigan, Chairman of the Ways and
Means Committee, Sander Levin, for sponsoring this legislation. As all
economists note, any true recovery must contain healthy and sustained
growth in our small business sector. Fortunately, the Small Business
and Infrastructure Jobs Act will spur growth among our small
businesses, provide incentives to invest in small businesses, and
encourage small businesses to hire workers and entrepreneurs to take
risks and start new businesses. Moreover, the bill does this without
increasing the deficit.
The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act contains several
small business tax provisions to spur investment, such as excluding
capital gains taxes for those that purchase stock in small businesses,
providing relief from burdensome tax penalties, and increasing the
amount that can be deducted for expenditures made for starting a small
business.
I am also pleased to see that this legislation emphasizes the job
creation potential through local rebuilding. By extending the Build
America Bonds program, state and local governments will be able to
continue rebuilding our schools, hospitals and transit in an affordable
manner. More importantly, extending this program through 2013 would
allow our state and local governments to plan further into the future
the necessary rebuilding projects. The Small Business and
Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act also extends the Recovery Zone bonds for
economically distressed areas through 2011, which will ensure areas
like Southeast Michigan, now struggling with over 16 percent
unemployment, can continue to invest in infrastructure projects, job
training programs, education and economic development in our
communities.
In addition, this legislation extends the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Fund. This fund was created in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to help States handle increasing expenditures on
assistance for families and to help create jobs programs that
subsidizes employers or small businesses that hire unemployed workers.
With the Fund already helping to employ 160,000 workers, this one-year
extension will allow this good work to continue.
Finally, the bill will help to save American jobs by cracking down on
foreign tax haven corporations that are taking advantage of the U.S.
tax treaty network to dodge paying taxes and gain an advantage over
American companies that play by the rules.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this
job-creating legislation.
Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, helping North Dakota business create jobs
is my top priority and today, Madam Speaker, Congress takes another
step forward with a sharp focus on small businesses.
Small businesses are a proven engine of job creation. During the last
economic expansion, companies with less than 20 employees accounted for
40 percent of the job growth while accounting for only 25 percent of
all jobs.
One of the lingering difficulties of this recession is that many
small businesses have limited access to the capital they need to
operate, grow, and create new jobs. By providing small business tax
relief, Congress can free up money and help small businesses feel they
can afford to hire new employees and make investments that will build
demand for goods and services.
In rural America, small business is business. For example, nearly 80
percent of North Dakotans are employed by companies with less than 500
employees and nearly 60 percent work for companies with less than 100
employees.
These small businesses are the companies on our small town Main
Streets. Across numerous towns in North Dakota, ambitious business
persons are finding opportunities to start up business, and the ranks
of these new businesses are growing. A recent article in the Dickinson
Press, reported that a number of small, North Dakota towns are seeing
several new businesses starting up during the year. I ask permission to
enter the article into the Record.
The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act, H.R. 4849, will help
new start-up businesses like KZ Photography, a company launched by Kim
Zachmann last August. The bill would allow her to deduct from income,
up to $20,000 in expenses she might have incurred to set up her
photography studio and get her business up and running in the town of
Beach, North Dakota. Without the bill before us today, her deduction
from income for those start up costs would be limited to only $5,000.
The 100 percent exclusion from tax of gains on small business stock
and the change to enable Small Business Investment Companies to deduct
the investment losses would expand the access to capital for small
business across the country.
While the Internal Revenue Service must act to stop abusive tax
shelters, Congress today will vote to eliminate a disproportionate
effect that some tax penalties have on small businesses. We have heard
from individuals facing outlandish penalties. Under the bill, the tax
penalty for failing to disclose on their taxes reportable transactions
would be brought into proportion with the underlying tax savings for
small businesses and not put the small business owner out of business.
These are provisions that have bipartisan support and will make a
difference and spur job creation among small businesses. My colleague
across the aisle, Jerry Moran from Kansas, agreed that these provisions
were needed to help small business and we introduced the ``Small
Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.''
I thank Chairman Levin for including small business tax incentives
and relief that I authored the bill we are considering today. I also
appreciate that we will also extend the highly successful Build America
Bond program so that payments for the bonds to state and local
governments would last through 2013.
When I held a roundtable with small businesses in Fargo, North
Dakota, sharp and savvy business owners told me that Recovery Act
funding is making a big difference and that they were vying with new
national competitors. So, I urge my colleagues to pass the extension
and expansion of the successful Build America Bonds, which have made it
cheaper for state and local governments to finance the rebuilding of
schools, sewers, hospitals and transit projects.
Communities like West Fargo and Rugby have used these bonds to launch
projects and the bill also opens this funding opportunity to tribal
governments for funding of water and sewer infrastructure improvements.
The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act is good for North
Dakota small businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R.
4849.
[[Page H2295]]
Number of Businesses Growing in Area Towns--Officials: Younger People
Moving in
(By Beth Wischmeyer)
The number of businesses starting or being taken over by
new owners is growing, officials in the communities of Bowman
and Beach said Thursday.
Deb Walworth, executive director of Prairie West
Development Foundation in Beach, said eight new businesses
started in 2009, many of which were started by people in
their 20s and 30s.
``We're seeing more young people,'' Walworth said. ``I
think this is just the tip of the iceberg, it's just
beginning.''
In 2008, Walworth said there were three new businesses that
started.
Since 2004, Sentinel Butte has had three new businesses and
the community of Golva has had two new businesses and one
existing business come under new ownership, she said.
``These are really small communities that are seeing
positive growth,'' Walworth said.
Ashley Alderson, executive director of the Bowman Economic
Development Corp., said there have been about 10 new business
counsels last year, some that have started, some that are
starting and others that will open in the future.
``We've had quite a bit of new interest lately,'' Alderson
said. ``We've noticed it's been a really busy year for small
business.''
Alderson said she's been with the corporation for about two
years, and said the past year was busier than her first year
with new businesses.
The Beach area is seeing people moving back of all ages,
Walworth said.
``I'm just really excited about the young families that are
moving back, because if they don't have kids now, I think
they plan to have families in the future,'' Walworth said.
``We're also seeing the result of that coming through the
schools, with kids coming through kindergarten and first
grade there. That's a benefit to the school system too.''
Kim Zachmann, who owns the photography business KZ
Photography in Beach, said while photography has been an
interest and a hobby for a number of years, she started
pursuing it as a business last August.
Zachmann, who grew up in the Beach area, said she purchased
a studio recently in town and now does photography full time.
``We haven't had a photographer here (in Beach) since about
'03, so I knew there wasn't anyone in the Beach surrounding
area, the closest one would be Dickinson, so I knew Beach
could benefit from one,'' Zachmann said. ``Beach is really
good about supporting local businesses. I like the Beach
area. I would like to live here the rest of my life if it was
possible with a job and family and stuff like that.''
Ed Gold, executive director of the Adams County Development
Corporation, was out of the office Friday.
Walworth thinks the Beach area is a ``good place to raise a
family,'' a draw to many young families, she added.
``The cost of living isn't as much as it is in some of the
larger places,'' Walworth said. ``These people are coming
from Las Vegas and the West Coast. They graduated from school
here; one or the other of them, or both; and I think they're
going for the safer communities to raise their family.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1205, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. CAMP. In its current form.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the
gentleman's motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point
of order.
The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Camp moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4849 to the
Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the
same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax
Incentives for Small Business Growth and Health Care
Corrections Act of 2010''.
(b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly
provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is
expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; etc.
TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--General Provisions
Sec. 101. Temporary exclusion of 100 percent of gain on certain small
business stock.
Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties
Sec. 111. Limitation on penalty for failure to disclose certain
information.
Sec. 112. Annual reports on penalties and certain other enforcement
actions.
Subtitle C--Preservation of Health Savings Accounts and Health Flexible
Spending Arrangements
Sec. 121. Repeal of limitations on medicines.
Sec. 122. Repeal of dollar limitation on health flexible spending
arrangements.
Subtitle D--Other Provisions
Sec. 131. Nonrecourse small business investment company loans from the
Small Business Administration treated as amounts at risk.
Sec. 132. Increase in amount allowed as deduction for start-up
expenditures.
TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Exclusion of certain low-quality fuels from the cellulosic
biofuel producer credit.
Sec. 202. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.
TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES
Subtitle A--General Provisions
SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON
CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.
(a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Special 100 percent exclusion.--In the case of
qualified small business stock acquired after March 15, 2010,
and before January 1, 2012--
``(A) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `100
percent' for `50 percent',
``(B) paragraph (2) shall not apply, and
``(C) paragraph (7) of section 57(a) shall not apply.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section
1202(a) is amended--
(1) by striking ``after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph and before January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``after
February 17, 2009, and before March 16, 2010'', and
(2) by striking ``Special rules for 2009 and 2010'' in the
heading and inserting ``Special 75 percent exclusion''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to stock acquired after March 15, 2010.
Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties
SEC. 111. LIMITATION ON PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
CERTAIN INFORMATION.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 6707A is amended
to read as follows:
``(b) Amount of Penalty.--
``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this
subsection, the amount of the penalty under subsection (a)
with respect to any reportable transaction shall be 75
percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a
result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from
such transaction if such transaction were respected for
Federal tax purposes).
``(2) Maximum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction for
any taxable year shall not exceed--
``(A) in the case of a listed transaction, $200,000
($100,000 in the case of a natural person), or
``(B) in the case of any other reportable transaction,
$50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).
``(3) Minimum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under
subsection (a) with respect to any transaction for any
taxable year shall not be less than $10,000 ($5,000 in the
case of a natural person).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to penalties assessed after December 31, 2006.
SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORTS ON PENALTIES AND CERTAIN OTHER
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
(a) In General.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit
to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate an
annual report on the penalties assessed by the Internal
Revenue Service during the preceding year under each of the
following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
(1) Section 6662A (relating to accuracy-related penalty on
understatements with respect to reportable transactions).
(2) Section 6700(a) (relating to promoting abusive tax
shelters).
(3) Section 6707 (relating to failure to furnish
information regarding reportable transactions).
[[Page H2296]]
(4) Section 6707A (relating to failure to include
reportable transaction information with return).
(5) Section 6708 (relating to failure to maintain lists of
advisees with respect to reportable transactions).
(b) Additional Information.--The report required under
subsection (a) shall also include information on the
following with respect to each year:
(1) Any action taken under section 330(b) of title 31,
United States Code, with respect to any reportable
transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986).
(2) Any extension of the time for assessment of tax
enforced, or assessment of any amount under such an
extension, under paragraph (10) of section 6501(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
(c) Date of Report.--The first report required under
subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than December 31,
2010.
Subtitle C--Preservation of Health Savings Accounts and Health Flexible
Spending Arrangements
SEC. 121. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON MEDICINES.
Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, section 9003 of such Act (relating to
distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed
drug or insulin) is hereby repealed and any provision of law
amended by such section is amended to read as such provision
would read if such section had never been enacted.
SEC. 122. REPEAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE
SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS.
Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, section 9005 of such Act (relating to
limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under
cafeteria plans) is hereby repealed and any provision of law
amended by such section is amended to read as such provision
would read if such section had never been enacted.
Subtitle D--Other Provisions
SEC. 131. NONRECOURSE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANY LOANS
FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TREATED
AS AMOUNTS AT RISK.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 465(b)(6) is
amended to read as follows:
``(B) Qualified nonrecourse financing.--For purposes of
this paragraph--
``(i) In general.--The term `qualified nonrecourse
financing' means any financing--
``(I) which is qualified real property financing or
qualified SBIC financing,
``(II) except to the extent provided in regulations, with
respect to which no person is personally liable for
repayment, and
``(III) which is not convertible debt.
``(ii) Qualified real property financing.--The term
`qualified real property financing' means any financing
which--
``(I) is borrowed by the taxpayer with respect to the
activity of holding real property,
``(II) is secured by real property used in such activity,
and
``(III) is borrowed by the taxpayer from a qualified person
or represents a loan from any Federal, State, or local
government or instrumentality thereof, or is guaranteed by
any Federal, State, or local government.
``(iii) Qualified sbic financing.--The term `qualified SBIC
financing' means any financing which--
``(I) is borrowed by a small business investment company
(within the meaning of section 301 of the Small Business
Investment Act of 1958), and
``(II) is borrowed from, or guaranteed by, the Small
Business Administration under the authority of section 303(b)
of such Act.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) of section
465(b)(6) is amended--
(1) by striking ``in the case of an activity of holding
real property,'', and
(2) by striking ``which is secured by real property used in
such activity''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to loans and guarantees made after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 132. INCREASE IN AMOUNT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FOR START-
UP EXPENDITURES.
(a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 195 is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) Increased limitation for taxable years beginning in
2010 or 2011.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in
2010 or 2011, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be applied--
``(A) by substituting `$20,000' for `$5,000', and
``(B) by substituting `$75,000' for `$50,000'.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31,
2009.
TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS
SEC. 201. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LOW-QUALITY FUELS FROM THE
CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT.
(a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 40(b)(6) is
amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
``(iii) Exclusion of certain low-quality fuels.--The term
`cellulosic biofuel' shall not include any fuel if--
``(I) more than 4 percent of such fuel (determined by
weight) is any combination of water and sediment,
``(II) the ash content of such fuel is more than 1 percent
(determined by weight), or
``(III) the acid number of such fuel is greater than 25.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section
shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1,
2010.
SEC. 202. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.
Notwithstanding section 6655 of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986, in the case of a corporation with assets of not less
than $1,000,000,000 (determined as of the end of the
preceding taxable year)--
(1) the amount of any required installment of corporate
estimated tax which is otherwise due in July, August, or
September of 2010 shall be 100.75 percent of such amount, and
(2) the amount of the next required installment after an
installment referred to in paragraph (1) shall be
appropriately reduced to reflect the amount of the increase
by reason of such paragraph.
Mr. CAMP (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask that the motion
be considered as read.
Mr. LEVIN. I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is an objection.
The Clerk will continue to read.
{time} 1430
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, today we begin to repeal some of the most
troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. This Republican
motion is straightforward. It strikes troubling tax increases, it
maintains tax relief for small businesses, repeals unpopular provisions
of the health care bill that force middle class families to pay more
taxes and more for their health care, and is fully paid for in
compliance with the PAYGO rules.
To meet the PAYGO rules, the motion eliminates the so-called
emergency welfare spending and closes the Black Liquor tax loophole
that's repeatedly passed the House but has yet to become law.
Here's what we keep: the few provisions that directly help small
businesses, including an exclusion from capital gains tax on
investments and qualifying small businesses; new protections for small
businesses from excessive penalties if they unknowingly fail to
disclose certain information related to their participation in tax
shelters; and a temporary increase in the amount of small business
start-up costs that can be immediately expensed.
In addition to this tax relief, we begin today to repeal some of the
troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. Today we seek to
eliminate two of the tax increases in the health care bill that would
hit middle class families and violate the President's pledge that you
can keep the health care plan you have and like.
First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution
to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year
under the health care bill starting in 2011.
FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage
consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care
goods and services. Approximately 7 million Americans put more than
$2,500 into their FSAs. According to the Employers Council on Flexible
Compensation, the median income of an FSA holder in 2008 was just
$55,000 a year. Repealing this provision would provide Americans with
$15.6 billion in tax relief.
Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health
savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as
HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban
discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing
cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available. By repealing
this provision, we'll not only provide $5.5 billion in tax relief, but
we'll also help American families lower their health care bills.
This motion offers Members a clear choice. A vote against this motion
is effectively a choice to close the Black Liquor loophole to pay for
billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending. A vote in favor of
this motion is a vote to close that Black Liquor tax loophole to pay
for small business tax relief that will actually help create jobs and
undo some of the harmful tax increases on American families passed by
the House in the dark of night on Sunday.
[[Page H2297]]
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. LEVIN. Well, I guess here we start. You know, what's interesting
here is the following: Mr. Camp says that they pay for the small
business provisions. They're already paid for in this bill. And so how
inconsistent can he be?
He wants to continue to pay for them when they're already paid for,
but he intends to vote against the bill. That is the height of
inconsistency, and I think that's a reason to object, even if this
turns out to be a motion to recommit that's in order.
And then let me just talk a bit about Black Liquor so we know what's
going on. Talking about inconsistency, that's a charitable word. The
Black Liquor provision is now in the health bill in the Senate,
awaiting action. You know precisely that. So what you're now suggesting
is, take it out of that bill that's being considered in reconciliation,
and put it in here, and you're claiming you're paying for it.
``Inconsistency'' is charitable. There could be other words used for
that, including the unwillingness of the minority to face up to the
need to pay for bills.
We pay for the bill that is now before us. We pay for the bill in
ways that are more than defensible; they are necessary. And so a reason
to object to this on its substance is that, essentially, this approach
here is a sleight of hand.
I suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that you walk
over to the Senate, ask them what's in reconciliation. It's not a very
long distance from here. Just walk over there and whisper to the
majority leader, or, if you want, you can whisper to the minority
leader, is Black Liquor in the bill that's over there that is now being
considered under reconciliation? And I think both of them will tell you
it is.
So, essentially, what you're saying is we want to take something out
of the bill that is being considered under reconciliation and claim to
be paying for the small business provisions that you're going to vote
against.
Now, my suggestion is that nobody is going to be fooled by that; and
that what you ought to be doing is to tackle these issues straight on,
and also to tackle the pay-for straight on and not pretend that you're
paying for something when you're not.
So I don't know what's worse, the majority, the then-majority, now
the minority, having refused to pay for bills that came through here
year after year, bills that came before the Ways and Means Committee
that you never dreamed of paying for, whether that's worse than what
you're now doing. I guess they're both as bad.
Yet what you're now doing is saying, well, we'll pay with something
that's in a bill that's in the Senate that's soon going to become law.
Point of Order
Mr. LEVIN. So as a result, not only do I think that that motion to
recommit deserves to be defeated on its substance, but I now want to
press my point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the
Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in fiscal year 2011
before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, before being recognized, would the gentleman
please state his point of order.
Mr. LEVIN. You want me to restate it? You're getting more notice on
the restatement than you gave to us on your motion to recommit. I'll be
glad to repeat it once or twice.
I make a point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the
Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in FY 2011 before a
budget resolution for that year has been adopted.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, my point would be that we actually raise
revenues in years 2010 and 2011. We do not reduce revenues, so I would
suggest that the point of order is without merit.
Mr. LEVIN. If I could speak briefly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. It makes a change. That's all that's necessary to violate
section 303.
I ask that the point of order be upheld.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard further on the
point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I am informed that the underlying bill has a
Budget Act problem, and the waiving of all points of order against the
consideration of the bill in the full House, including 303, would make
the gentleman's point of order unacceptable and would make his point of
order invalid.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, if I could respond briefly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I think that trying to do this through a
motion to recommit is inappropriate. And I suggest that before they
bring up motions to recommit, that they very much should look at what
the rules of the House are.
Therefore, I insist on the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the
Chair is going to consult the precedents before ruling.
{time} 1455
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been much consultation,
and I now withdraw the point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
The gentleman from Michigan may proceed for the 1 minute that was
remaining.
Mr. LEVIN. I have withdrawn the point of order after there has been
consultation with the parliamentarian, and so now we are back to the
substance of the motion to recommit.
I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to
recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we
passed. And also, what it does by a trick of hand is to pretend to pay
for this motion to recommit by taking a provision that is in the bill
that is now in the Senate, subject to reconciliation, and that I trust
will pass fairly soon.
That is reason enough. I don't think it is appropriate for this body
to vote for a motion to recommit pretending it is paying for it by
taking a provision that we have included in a bill that we have passed
and now is in the Senate for its consideration.
So I would urge every single Member on the majority side to vote
``no'' on this motion to recommit.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered, and motions to
suspend the rules with regards to H.R. 4098 and H.R. 1879, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184,
nays 239, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 181]
YEAS--184
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
[[Page H2298]]
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Owens
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--239
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--6
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Davis (AL)
Gutierrez
Hoekstra
Kilpatrick (MI)
{time} 1528
Messrs. PALLONE, BARROW, HOYER, KILDEE, MILLER of North Carolina,
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona, Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. BOREN, SHULER,
CLEAVER, Ms. RICHARDSON, Messrs. ACKERMAN, ISRAEL, WELCH, TIERNEY,
KUCINICH, RAHALL, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, CARNAHAN, CAPUANO, Mrs.
MALONEY, Mr. HOLT, and Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. COLE, LAMBORN, GINGREY of Georgia, HUNTER, EDWARDS of Texas,
and CAO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246,
noes 178, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 182]
AYES--246
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Cao
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--178
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
[[Page H2299]]
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Owens
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Brown (SC)
Cleaver
Davis (AL)
Hoekstra
Kilpatrick (MI)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in the vote.
{time} 1537
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________