[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 113 (Thursday, July 29, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6355-H6368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    INVESTING IN AMERICAN JOBS AND CLOSING TAX LOOPHOLES ACT OF 2010

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1568, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5893) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
create jobs through increased investment in infrastructure, to 
eliminate loopholes which encourage companies to move operations 
offshore, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5893

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE; TABLE OF 
                   CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Investing 
     in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes 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; amendment of 1986 Code; table of contents.

                   TITLE I--INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES

Sec. 101. Extension of Build America Bonds.
Sec. 102. Exempt-facility bonds for sewage and water supply facilities.
Sec. 103. Extension of exemption from alternative minimum tax treatment 
              for certain tax-exempt bonds.
Sec. 104. Extension and additional allocations of recovery zone bond 
              authority.
Sec. 105. Allowance of new markets tax credit against alternative 
              minimum tax.
Sec. 106. Extension of tax-exempt eligibility for loans guaranteed by 
              Federal home loan banks.
Sec. 107. Extension of temporary small issuer rules for allocation of 
              tax-exempt interest expense by financial institutions.

        TITLE II--EMERGENCY FUND FOR JOB CREATION AND ASSISTANCE

Sec. 201. Extension of the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and 
              Assistance.

                     TITLE III--FOREIGN PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Rules to prevent splitting foreign tax credits from the 
              income to which they relate.
Sec. 302. Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income 
              not subject to United States taxation by reason of 
              covered asset acquisitions.
Sec. 303. Separate application of foreign tax credit limitation, etc., 
              to items resourced under treaties.
Sec. 304. Limitation on the amount of foreign taxes deemed paid with 
              respect to section 956 inclusions.
Sec. 305. Special rule with respect to certain redemptions by foreign 
              subsidiaries.
Sec. 306. Modification of affiliation rules for purposes of rules 
              allocating interest expense.
Sec. 307. Termination of special rules for interest and dividends 
              received from persons meeting the 80-percent foreign 
              business requirements.
Sec. 308. Source rules for income on guarantees.
Sec. 309. Limitation on extension of statute of limitations for failure 
              to notify Secretary of certain foreign transfers.

                     TITLE IV--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

Sec. 401. Paygo compliance.
Sec. 402. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

                   TITLE I--INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES

     SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 54AA(d)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting 
     ``January 1, 2013''.
       (b) Extension of Payments to Issuers.--
       (1) In general.--Section 6431 is amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subsection (a) and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2013''; and
       (B) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subsection (f)(1)(B) 
     and inserting ``a particular date''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Subsection (g) of section 54AA 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 
     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:


[[Page H6356]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``In the case of a qualified bond issued     The applicable percentage
           during calendar year:                         is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 or 2010..............................  35 percent
2011......................................  32 percent
2012......................................  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 bond' includes any bond (or series of bonds) 
     issued to refund a qualified 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. 102. 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. 103. 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. 104. 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 county or municipality shall be treated as 
     having waived any portion of an allocation made under this 
     paragraph which has not been allocated to a bond issued 
     before May 1, 2011. Any allocation waived (or treated as 
     waived) under this subparagraph may be used or reallocated by 
     the State.
       ``(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 county or municipality 
     shall be treated as having waived any portion of an 
     allocation made under this subparagraph which has not been 
     allocated to a bond issued before May 1, 2011. Any allocation 
     waived (or treated as waived) under this subparagraph may be 
     used or reallocated by the State.''.

     SEC. 105. 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 (ix) as clauses 
     (vi) through (x), 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 credits determined with respect to qualified 
     equity investments (as defined in section 45D(b) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986) initially made after March 15, 
     2010.

     SEC. 106. EXTENSION OF TAX-EXEMPT ELIGIBILITY FOR LOANS 
                   GUARANTEED BY FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS.

       Clause (iv) of section 149(b)(3)(A) is amended by striking 
     ``December 31, 2010'' and inserting ``December 31, 2011''.

     SEC. 107. EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SMALL ISSUER RULES FOR 
                   ALLOCATION OF TAX-EXEMPT INTEREST EXPENSE BY 
                   FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Clauses (i), (ii), and (iii) of section 
     265(b)(3)(G) are each amended by striking ``or 2010'' and 
     inserting ``, 2010, or 2011''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Subparagraph (G) of section 
     265(b)(3) is amended 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.

        TITLE II--EMERGENCY FUND FOR JOB CREATION AND ASSISTANCE

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY FUND FOR JOB CREATION 
                   AND ASSISTANCE.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``Emergency Contingency 
     Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 
     Programs'' and inserting ``Emergency Fund for Job Creation 
     and Assistance'';

[[Page H6357]]

       (2) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, and for fiscal 
     year 2011, such sums as may be necessary to carry out this 
     subsection'' before ``for payment'';
       (3) 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 paragraph (3), except 
     that the amounts shall remain available through fiscal year 
     2011 to make grants and payments to States in accordance with 
     paragraph (3)(C) to cover expenditures to subsidize 
     employment positions held by individuals placed in the 
     positions before fiscal year 2011.
       ``(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.'';
       (4) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``2010'' and inserting 
     ``2012'';
       (5) in paragraph (3)--
       (A) in clause (i) of each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C), by striking ``year 2009 or 2010'' and inserting ``years 
     2009 through 2011''; 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 
     family.'';

       (6) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) Limitations on payments.--
       ``(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.--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.''; and
       (7) 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 to a jurisdiction 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 the jurisdiction.

                     TITLE III--FOREIGN PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. RULES TO PREVENT SPLITTING FOREIGN TAX CREDITS FROM 
                   THE INCOME TO WHICH THEY RELATE.

       (a) In General.--Subpart A of part III of subchapter N of 
     chapter 1 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 909. SUSPENSION OF TAXES AND CREDITS UNTIL RELATED 
                   INCOME TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

       ``(a) In General.--If there is a foreign tax credit 
     splitting event with respect to a foreign income tax paid or 
     accrued by the taxpayer, such tax shall not be taken into 
     account for purposes of this title before the taxable year in 
     which the related income is taken into account under this 
     chapter by the taxpayer.
       ``(b) Special Rules With Respect to Section 902 
     Corporations.--If there is a foreign tax credit splitting 
     event with respect to a foreign income tax paid or accrued by 
     a section 902 corporation, such tax shall not be taken into 
     account--
       ``(1) for purposes of section 902 or 960, or
       ``(2) for purposes of determining earnings and profits 
     under section 964(a),
     before the taxable year in which the related income is taken 
     into account under this chapter by such section 902 
     corporation or a domestic corporation which meets the 
     ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section 
     902 with respect to such section 902 corporation.
       ``(c) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Application to partnerships, etc.--In the case of a 
     partnership, subsections (a) and (b) shall be applied at the 
     partner level. Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, 
     a rule similar to the rule of the preceding sentence shall 
     apply in the case of any S corporation or trust.
       ``(2) Treatment of foreign taxes after suspension.--In the 
     case of any foreign income tax not taken into account by 
     reason of subsection (a) or (b), except as otherwise provided 
     by the Secretary, such tax shall be so taken into account in 
     the taxable year referred to in such subsection (other than 
     for purposes of section 986(a)) as a foreign income tax paid 
     or accrued in such taxable year.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) Foreign tax credit splitting event.--There is a 
     foreign tax credit splitting event with respect to a foreign 
     income tax if the related income is (or will be) taken into 
     account under this chapter by a covered person.
       ``(2) Foreign income tax.--The term `foreign income tax' 
     means any income, war profits, or excess profits tax paid or 
     accrued to any foreign country or to any possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(3) Related income.--The term `related income' means, 
     with respect to any portion of any foreign income tax, the 
     income (or, as appropriate, earnings and profits) to which 
     such portion of foreign income tax relates.
       ``(4) Covered person.--The term `covered person' means, 
     with respect to any person who pays or accrues a foreign 
     income tax (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as the 
     `payor')--
       ``(A) any entity in which the payor holds, directly or 
     indirectly, at least a 10 percent ownership interest 
     (determined by vote or value),
       ``(B) any person which holds, directly or indirectly, at 
     least a 10 percent ownership interest (determined by vote or 
     value) in the payor,
       ``(C) any person which bears a relationship to the payor 
     described in section 267(b) or 707(b), and
       ``(D) any other person specified by the Secretary for 
     purposes of this paragraph.
       ``(5) Section 902 corporation.--The term `section 902 
     corporation' means any foreign corporation with respect to 
     which one or more domestic corporations meets the ownership 
     requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of section 902.
       ``(e) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this section, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provides--
       ``(1) appropriate exceptions from the provisions of this 
     section, and
       ``(2) for the proper application of this section with 
     respect to hybrid instruments.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart 
     A of part III of subchapter N of chapter 1 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 909. Suspension of taxes and credits until related income taken 
              into account.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to--
       (1) foreign income taxes (as defined in section 909(d) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) 
     paid or accrued after December 31, 2010; and
       (2) foreign income taxes (as so defined) paid or accrued by 
     a section 902 corporation (as so defined) on or before such 
     date (and not deemed paid under section 902(a) or 960 of such 
     Code on or before such date), but only for purposes of 
     applying sections 902 and 960 with respect to periods after 
     such date.
     Section 909(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as 
     added by this section, shall not apply to foreign income 
     taxes described in paragraph (2).

     SEC. 302. DENIAL OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT WITH RESPECT TO 
                   FOREIGN INCOME NOT SUBJECT TO UNITED STATES 
                   TAXATION BY REASON OF COVERED ASSET 
                   ACQUISITIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 901 is amended by redesignating 
     subsection (m) as subsection (n) and by inserting after 
     subsection (l) the following new subsection:
       ``(m) Denial of Foreign Tax Credit With Respect to Foreign 
     Income Not Subject to United States Taxation by Reason of 
     Covered Asset Acquisitions.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of a covered asset 
     acquisition, the disqualified portion of any foreign income 
     tax determined with respect to the income or gain 
     attributable to the relevant foreign assets--
       ``(A) shall not be taken into account in determining the 
     credit allowed under subsection (a), and
       ``(B) in the case of a foreign income tax paid by a section 
     902 corporation (as defined in section 909(d)(5)), shall not 
     be taken into account for purposes of section 902 or 960.
       ``(2) Covered asset acquisition.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `covered asset acquisition' means--
       ``(A) a qualified stock purchase (as defined in section 
     338(d)(3)) to which section 338(a) applies,

[[Page H6358]]

       ``(B) any transaction which--
       ``(i) is treated as an acquisition of assets for purposes 
     of this chapter, and
       ``(ii) is treated as the acquisition of stock of a 
     corporation (or is disregarded) for purposes of the foreign 
     income taxes of the relevant jurisdiction,
       ``(C) any acquisition of an interest in a partnership which 
     has an election in effect under section 754, and
       ``(D) to the extent provided by the Secretary, any other 
     similar transaction.
       ``(3) Disqualified portion.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `disqualified portion' means, 
     with respect to any covered asset acquisition, for any 
     taxable year, the ratio (expressed as a percentage) of--
       ``(i) the aggregate basis differences (but not below zero) 
     allocable to such taxable year under subparagraph (B) with 
     respect to all relevant foreign assets, divided by
       ``(ii) the income on which the foreign income tax referred 
     to in paragraph (1) is determined (or, if the taxpayer fails 
     to substantiate such income to the satisfaction of the 
     Secretary, such income shall be determined by dividing the 
     amount of such foreign income tax by the highest marginal tax 
     rate applicable to such income in the relevant jurisdiction).
       ``(B) Allocation of basis difference.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(i)--
       ``(i) In general.--The basis difference with respect to any 
     relevant foreign asset shall be allocated to taxable years 
     using the applicable cost recovery method under this chapter.
       ``(ii) Special rule for disposition of assets.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, in the case of the 
     disposition of any relevant foreign asset--

       ``(I) the basis difference allocated to the taxable year 
     which includes the date of such disposition shall be the 
     excess of the basis difference with respect to such asset 
     over the aggregate basis difference with respect to such 
     asset which has been allocated under clause (i) to all prior 
     taxable years, and
       ``(II) no basis difference with respect to such asset shall 
     be allocated under clause (i) to any taxable year thereafter.

       ``(C) Basis difference.--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `basis difference' means, with 
     respect to any relevant foreign asset, the excess of--

       ``(I) the adjusted basis of such asset immediately after 
     the covered asset acquisition, over
       ``(II) the adjusted basis of such asset immediately before 
     the covered asset acquisition.

       ``(ii) Built-in loss assets.--In the case of a relevant 
     foreign asset with respect to which the amount described in 
     clause (i)(II) exceeds the amount described in clause (i)(I), 
     such excess shall be taken into account under this subsection 
     as a basis difference of a negative amount.
       ``(iii) Special rule for section 338 elections.--In the 
     case of a covered asset acquisition described in paragraph 
     (2)(A), the covered asset acquisition shall be treated for 
     purposes of this subparagraph as occurring at the close of 
     the acquisition date (as defined in section 338(h)(2)).
       ``(4) Relevant foreign assets.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `relevant foreign asset' means, with 
     respect to any covered asset acquisition, any asset 
     (including any goodwill, going concern value, or other 
     intangible) with respect to such acquisition if income, 
     deduction, gain, or loss attributable to such asset is taken 
     into account in determining the foreign income tax referred 
     to in paragraph (1).
       ``(5) Foreign income tax.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `foreign income tax' means any income, war profits, 
     or excess profits tax paid or accrued to any foreign country 
     or to any possession of the United States.
       ``(6) Taxes allowed as a deduction, etc.--Sections 275 and 
     78 shall not apply to any tax which is not allowable as a 
     credit under subsection (a) by reason of this subsection.
       ``(7) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including to 
     exempt from the application of this subsection certain 
     covered asset acquisitions, and relevant foreign assets with 
     respect to which the basis difference is de minimis.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to covered asset 
     acquisitions (as defined in section 901(m)(2) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, as added by this section) after 
     December 31, 2010.
       (2) Transition rule.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any covered asset acquisition (as so 
     defined) with respect to which the transferor and the 
     transferee are not related if such acquisition is--
       (A) made pursuant to a written agreement which was binding 
     on May 20, 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.
       (3) Related persons.--For purposes of this subsection, a 
     person shall be treated as related to another person if the 
     relationship between such persons is described in section 267 
     or 707(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

     SEC. 303. SEPARATE APPLICATION OF FOREIGN TAX CREDIT 
                   LIMITATION, ETC., TO ITEMS RESOURCED UNDER 
                   TREATIES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (d) of section 904 is amended 
     by redesignating paragraph (6) as paragraph (7) and by 
     inserting after paragraph (5) the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Separate application to items resourced under 
     treaties.--
       ``(A) In general.--If--
       ``(i) without regard to any treaty obligation of the United 
     States, any item of income would be treated as derived from 
     sources within the United States,
       ``(ii) under a treaty obligation of the United States, such 
     item would be treated as arising from sources outside the 
     United States, and
       ``(iii) the taxpayer chooses the benefits of such treaty 
     obligation,
     subsections (a), (b), and (c) of this section and sections 
     902, 907, and 960 shall be applied separately with respect to 
     each such item.
       ``(B) Coordination with other provisions.--This paragraph 
     shall not apply to any item of income to which subsection 
     (h)(10) or section 865(h) applies.
       ``(C) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this paragraph, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provides that related 
     items of income may be aggregated for purposes of this 
     paragraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 304. LIMITATION ON THE AMOUNT OF FOREIGN TAXES DEEMED 
                   PAID WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 956 INCLUSIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 960 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Limitation With Respect to Section 956 Inclusions.--
       ``(1) In general.--If there is included under section 
     951(a)(1)(B) in the gross income of a domestic corporation 
     any amount attributable to the earnings and profits of a 
     foreign corporation which is a member of a qualified group 
     (as defined in section 902(b)) with respect to the domestic 
     corporation, the amount of any foreign income taxes deemed to 
     have been paid during the taxable year by such domestic 
     corporation under section 902 by reason of subsection (a) 
     with respect to such inclusion in gross income shall not 
     exceed the amount of the foreign income taxes which would 
     have been deemed to have been paid during the taxable year by 
     such domestic corporation if cash in an amount equal to the 
     amount of such inclusion in gross income were distributed as 
     a series of distributions (determined without regard to any 
     foreign taxes which would be imposed on an actual 
     distribution) through the chain of ownership which begins 
     with such foreign corporation and ends with such domestic 
     corporation.
       ``(2) Authority to prevent abuse.--The Secretary shall 
     issue such regulations or other guidance as is necessary or 
     appropriate to carry out the purposes of this subsection, 
     including regulations or other guidance which prevent the 
     inappropriate use of the foreign corporation's foreign income 
     taxes not deemed paid by reason of paragraph (1).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to acquisitions of United States property (as 
     defined in section 956(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986) after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 305. SPECIAL RULE WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN REDEMPTIONS BY 
                   FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (5) of section 304(b) is amended 
     by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by 
     inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(B) Special rule in case of foreign acquiring 
     corporation.--In the case of any acquisition to which 
     subsection (a) applies in which the acquiring corporation is 
     a foreign corporation, no earnings and profits shall be taken 
     into account under paragraph (2)(A) (and subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply) if more than 50 percent of the dividends 
     arising from such acquisition (determined without regard to 
     this subparagraph) would neither--
       ``(i) be subject to tax under this chapter for the taxable 
     year in which the dividends arise, nor
       ``(ii) be includible in the earnings and profits of a 
     controlled foreign corporation (as defined in section 957 and 
     without regard to section 953(c)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to acquisitions after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 306. MODIFICATION OF AFFILIATION RULES FOR PURPOSES OF 
                   RULES ALLOCATING INTEREST EXPENSE.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 864(e)(5) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following: ``Notwithstanding 
     the preceding sentence, a foreign corporation shall be 
     treated as a member of the affiliated group if--
       ``(i) more than 50 percent of the gross income of such 
     foreign corporation for the taxable year is effectively 
     connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the 
     United States, and
       ``(ii) at least 80 percent of either the vote or value of 
     all outstanding stock of such foreign corporation is owned 
     directly or indirectly by members of the affiliated group 
     (determined with regard to this sentence).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

[[Page H6359]]

     SEC. 307. TERMINATION OF SPECIAL RULES FOR INTEREST AND 
                   DIVIDENDS RECEIVED FROM PERSONS MEETING THE 80-
                   PERCENT FOREIGN BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) In General.--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) Grandfather Rule With Respect to Withholding on 
     Interest and Dividends Received From Persons Meeting the 80-
     Percent Foreign Business Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (B) of section 871(i)(2) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) The active foreign business percentage of--
       ``(i) any dividend paid by an existing 80/20 company, and
       ``(ii) any interest paid by an existing 80/20 company.''.
       (2) Definitions and special rules.--Section 871 is amended 
     by redesignating subsections (l) and (m) as subsections (m) 
     and (n), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (k) 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Rules Relating to Existing 80/20 Companies.--For 
     purposes of this subsection and subsection (i)(2)(B)--
       ``(1) Existing 80/20 company.--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `existing 80/20 company' means 
     any corporation if--
       ``(i) such corporation met the 80-percent foreign business 
     requirements of section 861(c)(1) (as in effect before the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection) for such 
     corporation's last taxable year beginning before January 1, 
     2011,
       ``(ii) such corporation meets the 80-percent foreign 
     business requirements of subparagraph (B) with respect to 
     each taxable year after the taxable year referred to in 
     clause (i), and
       ``(iii) there has not been an addition of a substantial 
     line of business with respect to such corporation after the 
     date of the enactment of this subsection.
       ``(B) Foreign business requirements.--
       ``(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iv), a 
     corporation meets the 80-percent foreign business 
     requirements of this subparagraph if it is shown to the 
     satisfaction of the Secretary that at least 80 percent of the 
     gross income from all sources of such corporation for the 
     testing period is active foreign business income.
       ``(ii) Active foreign business income.--For purposes of 
     clause (i), the term `active foreign business income' means 
     gross income which--

       ``(I) is derived from sources outside the United States (as 
     determined under this subchapter), and
       ``(II) is attributable to the active conduct of a trade or 
     business in a foreign country or possession of the United 
     States.

       ``(iii) Testing period.--For purposes of this subsection, 
     the term `testing period' means the 3-year period ending with 
     the close of the taxable year of the corporation preceding 
     the payment (or such part of such period as may be 
     applicable). If the corporation has no gross income for such 
     3-year period (or part thereof), the testing period shall be 
     the taxable year in which the payment is made.
       ``(iv) Transition rule.--In the case of a taxable year for 
     which the testing period includes 1 or more taxable years 
     beginning before January 1, 2011--

       ``(I) a corporation meets the 80-percent foreign business 
     requirements of this subparagraph if and only if the weighted 
     average of--

       ``(aa) the percentage of the corporation's gross income 
     from all sources that is active foreign business income (as 
     defined in subparagraph (B) of section 861(c)(1) (as in 
     effect before the date of the enactment of this subsection)) 
     for the portion of the testing period that includes taxable 
     years beginning before January 1, 2011, and
       ``(bb) the percentage of the corporation's gross income 
     from all sources that is active foreign business income (as 
     defined in clause (ii) of this subparagraph) for the portion 
     of the testing period, if any, that includes taxable years 
     beginning on or after January 1, 2011,

     is at least 80 percent, and
       ``(II) the active foreign business percentage for such 
     taxable year shall equal the weighted average percentage 
     determined under subclause (I).

       ``(2) Active foreign business percentage.--Except as 
     provided in paragraph (1)(B)(iv), the term `active foreign 
     business percentage' means, with respect to any existing 80/
     20 company, the percentage which--
       ``(A) the active foreign business income of such company 
     for the testing period, is of
       ``(B) the gross income of such company for the testing 
     period from all sources.
       ``(3) Aggregation rules.--For purposes of applying 
     paragraph (1) (other than subparagraphs (A)(i) and (B)(iv) 
     thereof) and paragraph (2)--
       ``(A) In general.--The corporation referred to in paragraph 
     (1)(A) and all of such corporation's subsidiaries shall be 
     treated as one corporation.
       ``(B) Subsidiaries.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     term `subsidiary' means any corporation in which the 
     corporation referred to in subparagraph (A) owns (directly or 
     indirectly) stock meeting the requirements of section 
     1504(a)(2) (determined by substituting `50 percent' for `80 
     percent' each place it appears and without regard to section 
     1504(b)(3)).
       ``(4) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this section, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provide for the proper 
     application of the aggregation rules described in paragraph 
     (3).''.
       (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 within 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. 308. SOURCE RULES FOR INCOME ON GUARANTEES.

       (a) Amounts Sourced Within the United States.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 861 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Guarantees.--Amounts received, directly or 
     indirectly, from--
       ``(A) a noncorporate resident or domestic corporation for 
     the provision of a guarantee of any indebtedness of such 
     resident or corporation, or
       ``(B) any foreign person for the provision of a guarantee 
     of any indebtedness of such person, if such amount is 
     connected with income which is effectively connected (or 
     treated as effectively connected) with the conduct of a trade 
     or business in the United States.''.
       (b) Amounts Sourced Without the United States.--Subsection 
     (a) of section 862 is amended by striking ``and'' at the end 
     of paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end of 
     paragraph (8) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding at the 
     end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) amounts received, directly or indirectly, from a 
     foreign person for the provision of a guarantee of 
     indebtedness of such person other than amounts which are 
     derived from sources within the United States as provided in 
     section 861(a)(9).''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Clause (ii) of section 
     864(c)(4)(B) is amended by striking ``dividends or interest'' 
     and inserting ``dividends, interest, or amounts received for 
     the provision of guarantees of indebtedness''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to guarantees issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 309. LIMITATION ON EXTENSION OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 
                   FOR FAILURE TO NOTIFY SECRETARY OF CERTAIN 
                   FOREIGN TRANSFERS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (8) of section 6501(c) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``In the case of any information'' and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of any information''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Application to failures due to reasonable cause.--If 
     the failure to furnish the information referred to in 
     subparagraph (A) is due to reasonable cause and not willful 
     neglect, subparagraph (A) shall apply only to the item or 
     items related to such failure.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in section 513 of the Hiring 
     Incentives to Restore Employment Act.

                     TITLE IV--BUDGETARY PROVISIONS

     SEC. 401. PAYGO COMPLIANCE.

       The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 
     complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010, shall 
     be determined by reference to the latest statement titled 
     ``Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation'' for this Act, 
     submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the 
     Chairman of the House Budget Committee, provided that such 
     statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage.

     SEC. 402. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       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 
     percentage points.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 1568, the bill 
is considered as read.

[[Page H6360]]

  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 (Mr. Levin).


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative 
days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material 
into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  This is a bill to stimulate jobs here, not over there, to create 
American jobs and close tax loopholes that encourage companies to ship 
overseas. There is no excuse to vote ``no.''
  It is noteworthy that we are on pace to gain more private-sector jobs 
in the first 8 months of 2010 than were added in the full 8 years of 
the Bush Presidency. There has been private-sector job growth every 
month of 2010, but there is still a lot of work to do. There are five 
unemployed workers for every new job opening.
  This bill highlights infrastructure development and private-sector 
jobs. The Build America Bonds (BABs) are the cornerstone of this bill's 
infrastructure investments.
  When the recession hit, local governments could not get credit. BABs 
helped fill this demand by accessing corporate tax bonds and doing so 
very successfully. As of March 1, BABs have financed more than $115 
billion in local infrastructure programs, private-sector jobs.
  Also, we provide for an emergency fund for job creation. By extending 
this program that soon expires for 1 year at a cost of $3.5 billion, it 
will help States sustain low-income families and expand subsidized job 
programs that create jobs for the unemployed.
  I want to emphasize, this program has led to the creation of 247,000 
jobs, and that is why it has broad support. There is a letter from the 
National Governors Association, from the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties. Kevin Hassett 
of the American Enterprise Institute has said, ``It is hard to imagine 
how any sensible person could oppose it.''
  And we pay for it; we pay for it through closing a loophole. We have 
a Foreign Tax Credit, the FTC, to help businesses avoid double taxation 
of foreign-sourced income. Some corporations have found ways to use 
that credit to offset other income while leaving their foreign-sourced 
profits overseas sometimes permanently. As a result--and I emphasize 
this--American taxpayers are effectively subsidizing these companies' 
overseas operations.
  These provisions have been before us before--no excuse that you 
haven't seen them before--and you knew this was coming. This is coming 
because of the urgency of job creation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
  It's urgent. So this Invest in American Jobs Act of 2010 will create 
the jobs we need to keep moving America forward. To vote ``no'' is to 
vote America moving backwards.
  Mr. Speaker, I and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Camp have 
asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make available to 
the public a technical explanation of H.R. 5893, the ``Investing in 
American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010''. This technical 
explanation provides information on the Committee's understanding and 
legislative intent behind the legislation. It is available on the Joint 
Committee's website at www.jct.gov and is listed under document number 
JCX-39-10.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CAMP. It has been nearly 1\1/2\ years since the President signed 
the $1 trillion stimulus bill into law, and now the majority has come 
up with a new ``Make It in America'' agenda, which begs the question, 
if the stimulus was such a success, why don't we already make it in 
America?
  The facts are that, after stimulus, the unemployment rate continues 
to hover near 10 percent, well above the 8 percent we were promised. 
Instead of creating or saving 3.7 million jobs, over 2.6 million 
private-sector jobs have been lost, including over 707,000 
manufacturing jobs, and nearly 100,000 in my home State of Michigan. 
Overall, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs.
  Now we used to make it in America. And if Democrats would stop 
passing bills that spend more money on State and local governments and 
instead focus on small businesses, we might actually see the real 
sustained private-sector job creation Americans need.

                              {time}  1630

  In fact, I submit for the Record a letter here from the United States 
Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, 
representing more than 3 million businesses. They oppose this bill. Let 
me just read you what that letter says, what real job creators think 
about this bill.
  The Chamber says this bill ``would impose draconian tax increases on 
American worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease 
the competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic 
growth.''
  I want to repeat that.
  This bill ``would impose draconian tax increases on American 
worldwide companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the 
competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic growth.''
  That's right. This bill raises taxes on employers during a recession, 
making it tougher for Americans to find needed work. You cannot expect 
to increase jobs in this country when you are increasing taxes. It just 
doesn't work. That is exactly what the majority is proposing to do in 
this bill.
  Now, this bill does closely resemble a bill the majority has already 
pushed through the House once before, H.R. 4849, the so-called Small 
Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. At the time, I said 
the bill was more about small governments than it was about small 
businesses since most of the bill was about getting aid to State and 
local governments instead of helping small businesses.
  Like H.R. 4849, the vast majority of spending in the bill today--a 
whopping $25.6 billion over 11 years--goes to State and local 
governments through various infrastructure incentives. These include a 
substantial increase in spending on the Build America Bonds program, a 
heavily subsidized spending program providing direct payments to State 
and local governments that issue these bonds.
  Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create 
the kind of private sector jobs we need. Unlike H.R. 4849, however, the 
Democrats didn't even bother to provide token tax relief for small 
business in this bill.
  In case you need more evidence that this bill isn't about helping 
U.S. employers or about helping Americans find jobs, just look at the 
extra $5 billion in welfare spending in this bill. It is so much money 
that the CBO, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, says the 
States won't even be able to spend all of it. Democrats claim this 
spending is for jobs, but 75 percent of these welfare emergency funds 
that were already given to States have been spent on more welfare 
checks, not on jobs.

                                        Chamber of Commerce of the


                                     United States of America,

                                    Washington, DC, July 28, 2010.

       To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: The 
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business 
     federation representing the interests of more than three 
     million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, 
     and region, opposes H.R. 5893, the ``Investing in American 
     Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010,'' which would 
     impose draconian tax increases on American worldwide 
     companies that would hinder job creation, decrease the 
     competitiveness of American businesses, and deter economic 
     growth.
       This legislation contains numerous changes to longstanding 
     U.S. international tax law which are severely detrimental to 
     American worldwide companies. For example:
       Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income 
     not subject to U.S. taxation by reason of covered asset 
     acquisitions--This provision relates primarily to Sec. 338, 
     which allows taxpayers the ability to characterize stock 
     acquisitions as asset acquisitions for U.S. tax purposes. An 
     acquisition can be concluded as either a share acquisition or 
     an asset acquisition. Acquisitions by American worldwide 
     companies are good for the U.S.

[[Page H6361]]

     economy--they provide additional jobs and broaden the U.S. 
     tax base. Section 338 recognizes the inherent challenges and 
     obstacles to asset acquisitions and, in effect, levels the 
     playing field, allowing taxpayers the ability to choose the 
     tax implications of an acquisition, regardless of the 
     willingness of a seller to agree to one form or the other of 
     a particular deal. Moreover, Sec. 338 unquestionably serves 
     to encourage acquisitions by American worldwide companies by 
     minimizing the competitive advantage that certain foreign 
     competitors enjoy due to the participation exemption systems 
     in which most are headquartered. This legislation would 
     significantly strip away the benefits of Sec. 338 and would 
     likely serve to further impede any competitive advantages of 
     American worldwide companies in their bids for foreign 
     targets.
       Limitation on the use of Sec. 956 for foreign tax credit 
     planning (i.e., the ``hopscotch'' rule)--Section 956, a 
     longstanding provision of the Code, allows companies to 
     repatriate cash to the United States in a tax-efficient 
     manner. Foreign business acquisitions generally result in a 
     series of intermediate foreign holding companies which block 
     the repatriation of earnings for a variety of reasons such as 
     local statutory earnings deficits or other local restrictions 
     on actual dividends. American worldwide companies have had 
     the ability to overcome such obstacles through the use of 
     Sec. 956. This provision was particularly beneficial during 
     the recent economic downturn and ensuing credit crunch when 
     it was necessary for American worldwide companies to 
     repatriate significant funds in order to meet the financial 
     needs of their U.S. businesses. The revenue raising estimate 
     for this provision seems to assume that taxpayers would 
     simply bear the additional cost of the provision. However, 
     the Chamber believes that most taxpayers, given the choice, 
     would choose simply to not repatriate the earnings. 
     Therefore, the legislation's proposed change to Sec. 956 
     would significantly reduce the repatriation of foreign 
     earnings that otherwise might have been repatriated to the 
     United States. That is a poor option if Congress seeks to 
     enact provisions which stimulate economic growth and drive 
     job creation.
       The Chamber strongly opposes H.R. 5893 because this 
     legislation would make significant changes to U.S. 
     international tax law which would stifle job creation and 
     stunt economic growth. The Chamber may consider votes on, or 
     in relation to, this issue in our annual How They Voted 
     scorecard.
           Sincerely,
                                                  R. Bruce Josten,
                     Executive Vice President, Government Affairs.

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on increasing taxes on American 
employers and on increasing taxes on American jobs and to vote ``no'' 
on this legislation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a letter of March 3, 
2010, from the National Governors Association, signed by a Republican 
Governor and by a Democratic Governor on behalf of the entire 
association.

                               National Governors Association,

                                                    March 3, 2010.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Speaker, Mr. Boehner, Senator Reid and Senator 
     McConnell: on behalf of the nation's governors, we are 
     writing to urge your support in extending the Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families Emergency Contingency Fund 
     (TANF ECF).
       Enacted as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment 
     Act, the TANF ECF is a $5 billion fund to help states provide 
     greater support to children and families during the economic 
     downturn. The fund reimburses states for 80% of their 
     increased expenditures, and is set to expire on September 
     30th of this year.
       As soon as the Department of Health and Human Services 
     finalized its rules for drawing down the fund and ensuring 
     transparency and accountability, states began utilizing the 
     fund to help speed economic recovery through subsidized 
     employment and training programs, and vital financial and 
     supportive service offerings for needy families facing 
     increased hardship. 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, and by allowing states more 
     time to access these funds, Congress can help maximize the 
     impact of the TANF ECF in providing crucial skill development 
     and training to our workers.
       We urge you to support extending the TANF ECF. This 
     extension will allow us to capitalize on the resources made 
     available in ARRA to best serve children and families, and 
     help rebuild our nation's economy.
           Sincerely,
                                       Governor M. Michael Rounds,
                       Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.
                                       Governor Chester J. Culver,
                  Vice Chair, Health and Human Services Committee.

  I yield 3 minutes to a Member who has been so invaluable in 
developing this legislation, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott).
  (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Investing 
in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010 because it does 
just that. It creates jobs and pays for them by creating a fairer 
playing field by closing down tax loopholes used by multinational 
corporations. We have taken aggressive action to do what is required of 
government--that is to work with the private sector and with State and 
local governments to repair an economy left in tatters by the previous 
administration.
  The goal of this jobs bill is simple. It is to bring much needed 
support to American families who desperately need it.
  Today's bill will extend job creation measures that we know will 
work, along with extending a number of highly successful bond programs, 
like Build America Bonds or Recovery Zone Bonds. This bill also extends 
the Emergency Fund for Job Creation and Assistance program that has 
successfully created 240,000 jobs. Under this program, employers 
receive subsidies to pay all or a portion of a new worker's wages if 
they have an unemployed worker, a welfare recipient, or a low-income 
youth. Without an extension, this fund will end on September 30.
  The Emergency Fund has been praised by Republican Governors, 
including Haley Barbour of Mississippi, the unlikely soul he is, who 
says it should be extended. The same praise and request for an 
extension has come from Republican legislators in States and local 
governments and from county leaders around the country. So you have to 
ask yourself why Republicans in the House are not supporting this job 
creation that Republicans outside of Washington are pleading for us to 
extend.
  Are congressional Republicans hopelessly out of touch with the needs 
of ordinary Americans?
  Well, maybe, but I fear the answer is that congressional Republicans 
want President Obama to fail at any cost, even if it means that 
struggling Americans have to suffer as a result.
  We saw this same strategy play out over the last 2 months in the 
other body where Senate Republicans blocked an extension of 
unemployment benefits to workers who had lost their jobs through no 
fault of their own. Today, Republicans in this House are, once again, 
opposing an effort to provide jobs to those same unemployed workers.
  Let's not forget that every job creation provision in this bill is 
fully, fully paid for by eliminating tax breaks for shipping jobs 
overseas. So the bogus talk we will hear about deficits and deficit 
creation is simply that. It is bogus.
  No help. No jobs. No hope. That is what Republicans are offering the 
American people.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said 
that these welfare emergency fund jobs only last as long as the funding 
does. Frankly, nearly half of the ``jobs'' Democrats claim have been 
created are summer jobs, which are either over or are about to be. Let 
me just say that it is pretty well-known here that Governors of every 
political stripe are obviously looking to the Federal Government for 
cash, but the fact is we are broke.
  At this time I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways 
and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. It 
has now been almost a year and a half since the stimulus became law, 
and the American people continue to ask: Where are the jobs?
  The American people have made it very clear that they want Congress 
to move in a new direction and focus on

[[Page H6362]]

creating stable, private sector jobs. Yet this majority continues to 
offer up more of the same.
  The bill before us does nothing to help small businesses. It actually 
raises taxes on the worldwide American companies that have created 
millions of American jobs. Instead, virtually all of the money--some 
$30 billion in total--is directed to State and local governments.
  There are a few provisions in this bill that have merit and that 
might be worth considering in a different context, but the basic 
premise of this bill is that we are going to take another $30 billion 
out of the private sector and use it to finance more government 
spending. That is not the path to economic recovery. It is the path to 
Greece.
  The American people are tired of this same old tax-and-spend agenda. 
It is time for Members of this House to stand alongside the people we 
represent and say, ``No more.''
  Let's vote down this bill and get to work on real private sector job 
creation.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure goes to States and to local 
governments for private sector jobs--like the highway bill. Small 
business: You voted against the small business bill. Summer jobs: You 
voted against summer jobs. Now you say this created summer jobs. It is 
so hypocritical.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to please 
direct their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. PASCRELL. I will make my comments directly to the Chair, Mr. 
Speaker.
  We have short memories here. Ten years is a long time to remember, I 
will admit that, but it took the last administration in 2001 and in 
2002--the first 2 years of that administration--to finally get us into 
the plus on private jobs.

                              {time}  1640

  You don't know what you're talking about. Mr. Speaker, we have 
selective memory here. This legislation is about private jobs.
  They voted ``no'' on everything. They voted ``no'' on the stimulus. 
And yet the reports in the last 2 days indicate without that stimulus 
we would have been deep in, not only recession, but depression. Not our 
economists on this side of the aisle, our economists have concluded 
that.
  There now have been six straight months of private sector job growth. 
I'm not making these numbers up. It's the truth.
  Challenge them. I'll wait 10 seconds.
  Now that I've waited 10 seconds, the data is clear. We all know that 
there is more work to be done. No one's saying that this is a perfect 
place for us all to be. That is why I strongly support the Invest in 
America Jobs Act. This bill will directly contribute to private-public 
partnerships that create American jobs.
  Why don't you be for something? Come up with your own idea.
  While this entire bill has seen many critical job creating 
provisions, I'm going to talk about just one part of the legislation, 
excluding water and sewer bonds from State volume caps.
  This year the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the Nation's 
water and wastewater systems the worst grade of any infrastructure 
category. They gave it a D minus.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 additional seconds to the gentleman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. As a former mayor, Mr. Speaker, I understand that a 
strong water infrastructure is essential. Municipalities don't have the 
money. This portion of the legislation aims to repair our crumbling 
water infrastructure, while leveraging private capital to create jobs.
  Every dollar invested in public water and sewer infrastructure adds 
$8.97 to the national economy. It's currently estimated there will be 
$2.5 trillion to $4.8 trillion in water and waste systems.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Mean Committee.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the full 
committee for yielding time.
  I rise in opposition to the bill. And while a few of the tax 
provisions in this bill may not be unobjectionable, let's be clear, 
this bill is a continuation of the same failed economic policy that has 
given us an atmosphere of uncertainty for families and American 
businesses with the unemployment rate still hovering around 10 percent.
  The bill raises taxes $31.8 billion over 11 years. Now, let's look at 
how it raises taxes. I just want to look at one of these tax increases 
here. What it does is it raises taxes in a weakened economy, but in a 
way that threatens American competitiveness. It threatens the 
competitiveness of U.S. businesses that are trying to compete overseas 
with foreign-owned companies. These are businesses that employ U.S. 
workers in the private sector. It's going to kill jobs.
  This bill contains a series of international tax changes that could 
have far reaching consequences on the competitiveness of U.S. 
businesses trying to compete overseas. These provisions will kill jobs. 
It's very clear.
  Now, if we're going to do this kind of tax policy, these kinds of 
changes should be done in a broader context as part of a comprehensive 
tax reform bill. That's the responsible way to do this.
  And I know our Democratic colleagues on the Ways and Means Committee 
should understand that, that what we really need to be doing is a 
comprehensive approach to tax reform and not this piecemeal, ad hoc and 
mischievous tax reform in little bitty pieces and bits that basically 
are wrecking our Tax Code.
  Now, I would submit that what we really need to do is get back to 
some basics here. We need to lower the corporate tax rate down to the 
average of what our major trade partners are looking at to really 
enhance U.S. competitiveness. That's going to help us create jobs and 
stop this assault on U.S. businesses that are trying to work within the 
constraints of the U.S. Tax Code.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. These changes are actually hurting the competitiveness 
of U.S. businesses.
  Again, we don't need to do this kind of ad hoc, harmful tax reform. 
We need a comprehensive approach. The responsible approach is what I 
think we probably all agree on, a comprehensive approach that's going 
to promote economic growth, promote American competitiveness and 
private sector job growth.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 2 valuable minutes to the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer), an active member of our 
committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the chairman's courtesy for these 2 
valuable minutes, and I want to use them to focus on three basic 
points.
  First and foremost, it is true that the administration advanced an 
economic recovery package that we had hoped would be able to hold the 
unemployment rate lower than it ultimately went. The Administration was 
guilty of, frankly, accommodating Republican wishes by pushing more in 
tax reductions that all the economists say do not create as many jobs 
as the infrastructure investment. And of course my Republican colleague 
conveniently ignored the fact that 95 percent of the American public 
got tax cuts last year, and they will get tax cuts again this year. 
Ignored.
  Look at the Bush administration job record over 8 years. The Obama 
administration, in less than 2 years, has already created more jobs 
than the Bush administration in its entire 8 years.
  We have before us today specific provisions that are going to make a 
difference in everybody's community. The reference has been made to 
lifting the volume caps for water infrastructure, a program in every 
State in the Union that will create jobs and have a multiplier effect 
on an ongoing basis.
  The adjustment in the new market tax credit that will allow it to be 
offset against the alternative minimum tax means that the leverage for 
the new market tax credit, a very valuable mechanism to help create 
jobs in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, is going to be 
magnified.

[[Page H6363]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is important business. There is nothing here in 
terms of the pay-fors that already hasn't passed the House. There was 
an important adjustment to give the business community more time to 
adjust so it is later in nature.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. This is where we heard feedback, the chairman in the 
committee responded to make it easier for businesses to accommodate the 
change in the future, while still making the basic objectives.
  I strongly urge our colleagues to listen to the local communities, to 
local government, to businesses that are involved with rebuilding and 
renewing America, and approve this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Look, 47 out of 50 States have lost jobs. If there was such great job 
creation because of the stimulus bill, why have we seen the 
unemployment rate continue to hover around 10 percent?
  And, frankly, any minor reductions in it are because people have 
stopped looking for work.
  I 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.
  Mr. Speaker, in his opening remarks, the chairman said that there was 
no excuse to vote ``no'' on this bill. Well, I want us to revisit that 
assertion because I think there might be. I think the excuse might be 
when the job creators themselves, Mr. Speaker, say that we need to be 
watchful and wary and oppose this.
  When the job creators use words like, this will jeopardize the jobs 
of American manufacturing employees, we have an excuse to vote ``no.'' 
Or when they say this will stifle our fragile economy, we have an 
excuse to vote ``no'' or that these tax increases are Draconian, or it 
will hinder job creation or decrease the competitiveness of American 
businesses, or deter economic growth, or harm our worldwide American 
economic competitiveness, all excuses to vote ``no.''

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the committee said that we had seen 
these ideas before and there is no reason to vote against them because 
we've seen them before. And that's true. We've seen them before. We've 
had hearing after hearing after hearing in the Ways and Means Committee 
on substantive sideshows, comparatively, that don't address the 
fundamental question of the difficulty of the American economy.
  On Monday morning of this week, Mr. Speaker, I hosted a job fair in 
Addison, Illinois, and in 4 hours' period of time 2,000 of my 
constituents walked through those double doors looking for work. They 
are underserved by this Congress, they are underserved by a tax code 
that we are 7 months into that is completely ambiguous.
  I have business leaders in my district, Mr. Speaker, who have said 
we're not going to put money into this economy, Congressman, because we 
don't know what the ground rules are. We don't know what the ground 
rules are that are in the tax code, we don't know what the ground rules 
are on all the health care rules that are going to be promulgated.
  Mr. Speaker they say they don't know the ground rules on cap-and-
trade, where the EPA is doing an end run around this Congress, and they 
certainly don't know the ground rules as it relates to a whole host of 
other issues that are pending before this Congress.
  Uncertainty is as bad as bad news comes. And what we've got to do is 
make sure we're not throttling worldwide American companies. And this 
bill will have an adverse impact disproportionately on American 
companies, Mr. Speaker, American companies that are trying to compete 
in the worldwide marketplace.
  There are plenty of excuses to vote ``no.'' There are plenty of 
excuses to turn to certainty and not create an albatross on companies 
that we need to make sure thrive, and are dynamic, and create jobs in 
our economy. We should vote against this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished member of our 
committee, Mr. Davis of Illinois.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, in the Illinois that I come from 
there is no excuse to vote against this bill. Of critical importance to 
Chicago and Illinois is the extension of key safety net programs, 
including the TANF Emergency Fund. The TANF Emergency Fund has provided 
significant relief to Illinois, especially for creating jobs programs 
that benefit individuals and small businesses.
  To date, Illinois has been approved for $72.4 million in funds. With 
this Federal support, the State has launched its subsidized employment 
initiative called Put Illinois to Work, and is anticipating placing 
22,000 low-income parents and young people in subsidized jobs. Passage 
of this bill will guarantee this much-needed assistance to low-income 
working families through the end of the year. State and local 
government will receive assistance for infrastructure through Build 
America Bonds that will aid in subsidizing the rebuilding of schools, 
sewers, hospitals, and transit projects.
  Since the passage of the Recovery Act, Illinois has received over $7 
million for these job creation efforts. In addition, critical 
transportation projects authorized will continue to move forward with 
the guarantee to sustain $119 million in Federal construction projects. 
This bill is critical to Chicago, it's critical to Illinois, and it's 
critical to the Nation. I urge its passage.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to listen to this debate. It's almost 
as if those on the other side haven't been home and haven't seen what's 
really occurring. The folks back home know that when you are talking 
about the effects of the stimulus package, it has created government 
jobs, but we have lost considerable jobs in the private sector. In 
fact, the overall employment numbers are down in terms of people even 
seeking jobs by more than a million. And that's progress?
  If you really want to do something, get rid of this whole bill and 
instead pass a bill that gets rid of one of the most destructive things 
we have with respect to small business. That is section 9006 of the 
health care bill. It has nothing to do with health care. It has 
everything to do with adding tremendous new burdens of paperwork on 
businesses. It requires anybody involved in a business or trade, any 
time they purchase over $600 from any entity or individual, cumulative 
over a year, they have to file a 1099. A 1099. Not because you have any 
obligation to pay payroll tax, but because somehow we think everybody 
cheats. Because somehow we want to have a paper trail for every 
purchase you make.
  It is the universal snitch act. We don't trust fellow Americans. A 
government that doesn't trust its citizens is a government that the 
citizens will not trust. What we ought to do is just get rid of this 
bill and instead eliminate 170 words out of the 340,000 words in the 
so-called health care bill. Talk to your small business people. Ask 
them what they think would help them increase the opportunity to 
provide jobs. They will tell you this is number one on their list. We 
ought to bring it to the floor immediately, and we ought to get rid of 
this nonsense where we don't trust fellow citizens.
  Just to give you one example, one person who actually deals in the 
sale of gold coins said that he will have to file between 10,000 and 
20,000 1099s next year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Every single business person you 
will talk to will tell you how incredibly stupid this is, number one. 
And number two, it will create a disincentive for people to go to small 
businesses. Because if you want to diminish the number of 1099s you 
file, you won't go to your local restaurant, you won't go to your local 
hardware store, you will only go to the big chains. It is absolutely 
destructive.
  If you want to really do something, get rid of this bill and instead 
support the repeal of that section of the health

[[Page H6364]]

care bill that has nothing to do with health care, but has everything 
to do with damaging small business and jobs in this country.
  Mr. LEVIN. It's now my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to another 
distinguished, indeed a very distinguished member of our committee, 
from the State of Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  You would think, listening to our colleagues on the Republican side 
of the aisle, that the great recession began after President Obama was 
sworn in, not recognizing the fact that the day President Bush lost 
office this country was losing jobs at the rate of 700,000 jobs a 
month. And in fact, during the entire 8 years of the Bush 
administration we ended up losing over 600,000 private-sector jobs.
  We have been working very hard to dig ourselves out of that hole for 
a long period of time since then. The last 6 months we have seen 
private-sector job growth in consecutive months. Not as much as anybody 
would like to see, but positive growth. And it's interesting to listen 
to my colleagues, many of whom are showing up to ribbon-cutting 
ceremonies and groundbreaking ceremonies, taking credit for jobs that 
have been created by investments made that would never have happened if 
they had their way, if their votes had been the ones that carried the 
day.
  Now, this legislation is an effort to change a perverse tax policy. 
We do two things in this legislation. Number one, we make important 
investments in the Build America Bonds program, an investment in 
infrastructure and jobs here at home. And we pay for it by cutting 
down, eliminating these perverse loopholes. Yes, there are lots of 
corporations out there that don't like this legislation. You know why? 
Because they will no longer be rewarded by American taxpayers for 
shipping American jobs overseas. Because that's what this bill does.
  Right now our tax code penalizes American taxpayers and creates these 
incentives for certain corporations to ship American jobs--not American 
goods, but ship American jobs--overseas. And I think most taxpayers 
would be outraged if they knew that in addition to paying their own 
taxes, they would be required to pay the taxes that U.S. multinationals 
owe to foreign countries for income those corporations generated 
overseas. That's what's going on.
  Through a process called credit splitting, U.S. multinationals are 
able to use their foreign tax credits to reduce their tax liability 
here at home even though they may not have repatriated that income back 
to the United States. That's what this particular loophole does. You 
can talk about reforming our international tax code, and you are right, 
there are lots of complicated issues. But this issue is not 
complicated.
  This issue is very simple. Do you want to reward American 
corporations who are shipping American jobs overseas? And those that 
are opposing these provisions understandably are benefiting from it, 
because right now American taxpayers are paying the tab for the taxes 
that those corporations are paying overseas.

                              {time}  1700

  That's not fair, and it creates an inducement to ship those jobs 
overseas. Let's stop this loophole and use those funds to invest in 
jobs here in America.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with my friend. It's not complicated. American employers say 
this bill will kill jobs. Look, the Democrats promised the stimulus 
would create millions of jobs. It hasn't. They promised it would create 
3.7 million jobs. Well, that hasn't occurred.
  Instead, since the stimulus, through June of 2010, the U.S. has lost 
2.6 million more private sector jobs, leaving Americans to ask: Where 
are the jobs? Forty-seven out of 50 States have lost jobs. No wonder 
more Americans think Elvis is alive than believe the stimulus created 
jobs.
  Democrats promised the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 
percent. It hasn't. Instead, unemployment has reached 10 percent and 
remains stuck near at that level today.
  And in addition to that high official unemployment, over 3 million 
other Americans are simply dropped out of the labor force, what some 
call the missing unemployed. And the flood of deficit spending from 
Democrats' policies have driven the debt to an astonishing $13 
trillion. The debt is so huge, it is already hurting job creation.
  Using the administration's own forecasts, the surge in debt caused by 
the stimulus and other Democrat policies has already destroyed 1 
million jobs. Unemployment and debt have soared by a combined 60 
percent since the President took office. That's an Obama misery index 
that reflects current and future damage caused by Democrats' failed 
policies.
  And while the job situation seems to have finally stopped getting 
worse, the trickle of private sector job creation in 2010 is so anemic 
that, at the current rate, it would take until 2017 to recover the jobs 
lost during this recession. That's longer than it took to recover jobs 
during the Depression in the 1930s. Others say it could take as long as 
until 2021 to get employment back to prerecession levels
  However, the Democrats' agenda has helped one industry--government. 
Managing all of that spending helped government jobs grow by 201,000 
since the stimulus, helping to make Washington, D.C., and the area the 
Nation's strongest job market. Meanwhile, construction, loss of 
853,000; manufacturing, loss of 707,000 jobs. Jobs across the U.S. have 
plummeted despite promises they would grow by 1.1 million.
  I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. The gentleman from Michigan is right. This bill 
is more proof of failed economic policies of Washington Democrats, and 
I think they've acknowledged and they've admitted that that massive 
$860 billion stimulus bill has failed. It's failed the American public. 
It's failed 15 million American workers who are out of work, and about 
a third of them who've almost given up on ever finding a job.
  And we were promised, when that huge stimulus bill was passed, that 
unemployment would go down--it went up--that we would have 7 million 
more jobs than we do today. They promised the jobs would come from Main 
Street from small businesses. It turns out, as Mr. Camp said, all of 
the new jobs are in government. And government jobs only last as long 
as you're paying out of your pocketbook to keep them on that job.
  That's why this recovery is one of the slowest in America's history 
because consumers, they're scared to spend because they see all of this 
debt in Washington and they wonder who's going to have to pay it all 
back, and they know it's them. Businesses aren't bringing back new 
workers, aren't hiring new ones because they're afraid of the types of 
proposals like this they see in Washington, D.C.
  I remember the President standing at the White House saying, If you 
pass the stimulus bill, it will jump-start the economy and restore 
consumer confidence.
  Well, the economy certainly isn't jump-started. And today, 90 percent 
of Americans believe this economy is in bad shape. Most of them think 
it's not going to get any better any time soon.
  And from a jobs standpoint, this bill may actually destroy more jobs 
than it creates, and this is why:
  America has one of the worst tax codes in the world. You know that if 
you've had to pay taxes. It's even worse when American companies try to 
sell our American goods and services around the world, when you try to 
compete around the world. We double tax our American businesses--we're 
one of the few countries that do that--so, oftentimes they lose out on 
contracts. They can't sell their products because of this horrible tax 
code.
  What this bill does is ensure that they are double taxed. In the 
past, what we said is we'll try to help you, American business, by 
removing one of those layers of tax. This puts it back.
  So, at a time when we need to sell more U.S. goods and services, 
create more American jobs, this bill actually does the opposite. It 
taxes our U.S. companies more when they try to sell and compete. That 
means our workers lose out. That means our workers lose their jobs. 
That means other foreign countries gain and America loses.
  This bill is, again, one of the reasons this antijob, antibusiness, 
antigrowth Congress and White House are holding this economy back, 
keeping us from recovering, holding our hopes, I think,

[[Page H6365]]

hostage to this ``let's tax everyone'' mentality.
  I'm convinced Americans are genetically disposed to bouncing back 
from recessions.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. This recovery is different. America's not 
bouncing back because government's in the way, because this Congress is 
the obstacle, this White House is the obstacle.
  Stop passing tax increases. Stop standing in the way of our jobs, of 
our growth, of our prosperity. This bill kills more jobs than it 
creates. It doesn't deserve to go any farther.
  I will vote ``no'' and urge Members to vote ``no'' as well.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the very 
distinguished majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, 
Steny Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I'm amused sometimes when I stand on the 
floor and I hear my Republican colleagues debate the economy.
  Frankly, the Bush administration, of course, did not happen, you 
understand. That 8 years really wasn't their economic program, and the 
dire consequences of that economic program are all Mr. Obama's fault. 
Hoover probably could have blamed it on Coolidge. Maybe Coolidge could 
have blamed it on Harding.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  July 29, 2010 on Page H6365 the following appeared: on Hardy.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: on Harding.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Now, we can throw these assumptions back and forth and generalities 
about this job-stopping Congress and President, but every time I get up 
and I start talking about the facts, the statistics, I rarely get 
somebody standing up on your side of the aisle saying, No, that 
statistic is wrong.
  Now, I've been here long enough, unfortunately for some of you, to 
remember where we've been, where we've come, and where we are. I was 
here in 1993 when we debated the economic program that was put on this 
floor by the Democratic Congress and President Clinton. And although I 
don't know--it was one of you who recently spoke or who has spoken on 
this floor--your leaders said if we adopted that program, it would 
destroy the economy, the deficit would explode, and unemployment would 
explode. And as you are today, you are 180 degrees wrong. 
Statistically, you cannot deny it.
  Statistically, you cannot deny that during the 8 years under which we 
had the economic program in place, which you could not put aside--and 
I'll explain that we couldn't put it aside either in 2007 and 2008--
that program created more jobs for American workers in the private 
sector than Mr. Reagan did, than Mr. Bush I did; and under Mr. Bush II, 
of course, we essentially lost jobs in the private sector.

                              {time}  1710

  Almost 21 million jobs were created under the Clinton economic 
program, which your side indicated would result in high unemployment 
and deep deficits. And with respect to deficits, Bill Clinton's 
economic program and the program put in place in 1993 led to the only 4 
years of surplus that anybody in this Chamber or in the gallery has 
lived under. Four years of surplus. Bill Clinton is the only President 
in the lifetime of anybody in this Chamber who ended his term with a 
net surplus--$62.9 billion. Now how does that compare with the economic 
program that was put in place in '01 and '03? Not rhetoric but 
statistically?
  Well, as opposed to those 216,000 jobs per month created under the 
Clinton economic program put in place by the Democratic Congress of 
1993, the economic program that you put in place created, not 216,000 
jobs per month but 11,000 jobs per month. Now you need about 125,000 
jobs to stay even in America; new people coming into the job market. 
And if you don't create those 125,000, then there aren't jobs for 
people coming into the market and you start having unemployment rise.
  Clinton: 216,000 jobs per month. Now, ladies and gentlemen of the 
House, if I'm wrong on that statistic, I'm sure somebody will call my 
attention to it. They haven't in the past. And 11,000 under the 
economic program frankly that you put in place and is still in place 
from a tax standpoint. Tax rates are still where you set them and where 
you said it would explode the economy.
  And you were worried about paying off the deficit too soon. Well, you 
took care of that. The national debt was about $5.8 trillion when you 
took over. It was about $10.4 trillion when you left. You almost 
doubled the national debt. Bill Clinton, of course, didn't borrow any 
money from foreign governments during his last 4 years. We rolled the 
debt. It came up a little bit, no doubt about that; 37 percent as 
opposed to 87 percent under your economic program.
  And I say to my friend who was worried about jobs, Your economic 
program hasn't changed yet. The tax rate is the same as you set it and 
you said if the tax rate was there, we would explode jobs. And then you 
say, ``But business is doing really badly.'' $1.8 trillion cash on hand 
in American business as we speak today; $1.8 trillion, which I tell my 
friend is more than it's had in four decades. Cash on hand. Cash on 
hand. So that apparently business is doing pretty well, which is why 
the stock market has gone up 60 percent. Sixty percent, I tell my 
friends. Those of us who have a 401(k), since shortly after the passage 
of the Recovery Act, the Dow went up from 6500 to approximately 10-3 or 
10-4 yesterday. I think it's about, close to 10-5 today. That is 4,000 
points up.
  Now, ladies and gentlemen, I rise in support of this bill. This bill 
has passed here before, I tell my friends, and we're going to have to 
pass it again. When it passed the first time, people were still not for 
taxing people who were sending jobs overseas. They still take that same 
position.
  Yesterday saw the publication of a significant report on the Federal 
Government's response to the greatest economic crisis of our lifetime, 
totally contrary to the promises made when we adopted your economic 
program in 2001 and 2003, which I did not vote for. But you were in 
charge. You had the House, you had the Senate and you had the 
Presidency; and you put it in place. It led to the worst economy this 
country has seen in the lifetime of anybody who is not 90 years of age.
  There was an article, as I said. It was written by Mark Zandi, a 
former economic adviser to the McCain Presidential campaign, and Alan 
Blinder, a former vice chair of the Federal Reserve. The report found, 
and I quote, that ``the U.S. economy has made enormous progress since 
the dark days of the early 2009.'' Enormous progress, says Mark Zandi, 
adviser to John McCain.
  It goes on to find in this article that the effects of the government 
response since the height of the crisis, quote, are huge and probably 
averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. Without the 
government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 6\1/2\ percent lower. 
That's not me saying that. It's Mark Zandi saying that. And payroll 
employment--I know my friend from Texas wants to hear this figure. 
According to Mark Zandi, payroll employment if we hadn't passed that 
bill--which I know my friend did not support--he was opposed to that--
Mark Zandi says that payroll employment would be less by some 8\1/2\ 
million jobs.
  My friend from Michigan says, Where are the jobs? Let me tell you, 
it's unfortunate. We misconstrued and made a bad estimate. We didn't 
think you could put the economy possibly as low as you put it. We 
didn't think it could possibly be that deep. But it was. Much deeper 
than even we thought. We knew it wasn't doing well. The American people 
knew in 2006 it wasn't doing well and they knew it wasn't doing well in 
2008, so they changed horses to ride. But it was so deep that we have 
been working very hard to get it out and we are trying to get there.

  This bill moves us forward. That article went on to say, ``The 
stimulus has done what it was supposed to do: end the great recession 
and spur recovery.'' That is progress. But we understand that all 
Americans know it's not success. And success will not come until we 
create enough jobs that there is not unemployment in America above a 
figure, which is usual for the transition from job to job, which is 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 4\1/2\ percent.
  This bears repeating. Democrats have fought to rebuild the economy 
and put middle class Americans back to work, in the face of efforts to 
grind our economic recovery to a halt.
  Let me say something to my friends. They have been opposing 
Democratic plans to create jobs and grow the economy. Tragically, the 
Republican obstructionism's collateral damage has

[[Page H6366]]

been those who remain out of a job. This legislation seeks to respond 
to that pain, that dislocation, that family fear that they won't be 
able to pay the next bill, the next mortgage payment, the next grocery 
bill. That's the case with the legislation we're debating today, which 
puts our common interests above corporate interests and which can 
continue our economic recovery.
  The Investing in American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act ends tax 
breaks that encourage companies to outsource American jobs overseas. 
You ask Americans whether they think that's a good policy and I'd be 
surprised if you got any less than eight out of 10 who said, ``Yeah, 
that makes sense to me.'' Those loopholes help ship jobs and 
investments overseas, and Democrats wants to close it. This bill also 
extends the Build America bonds program which helps States and 
localities fund essential, job-creating infrastructure projects. So 
far, Build America bonds have been one of the most effective 
contributors to our recovery, supporting nearly 2 million jobs across 
the country.
  This bill also helps States create or extend jobs programs that help 
low-income families find work. They are the most stressed out. They 
lost their jobs first. They had the least to rely on when they lost 
that job.
  And I want to point out that this bill supports all of those jobs 
without raising the deficit. I urge all of my colleagues to support 
this jobs bill. Will it solve the problem? It will not. But will it 
move us forward? It will. I congratulate Chairman Levin and the Ways 
and Means Committee for the work that they have been doing, and I urge 
my colleagues, take this additional step to help those folks in America 
who want to work, who have worked, who want to put food on their tables 
for them and their families.
  Pass this bill and send it to the Senate. Let's keep fighting for 
jobs in America.

                              {time}  1720


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to please 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the look-back. I think it's odd so many speakers today 
have begun all their remarks with a look-back and attempt to re-
litigate history and are sort of picking selective parts of history. 
The fact is, when this budget was balanced there was a Republican 
Congress, yes, with a Democrat President. Maybe we ought to try that 
combination again.
  But let me just say, the people back home are concerned about today. 
They're concerned about the problems today, not re-litigating what may 
have been or might have been. Back home in Michigan, unemployment is 
nearly 14 percent; nationwide, nearly 10 percent. The fact is now, 
today--not in the 1980s, not in the 1990s, not in the Bush 
administration--today we've lost 700,000 manufacturing jobs, and the 
fact is employers in America have said this bill will hurt jobs; this 
will not help us create private sector jobs. And we have group after 
group that has come forward and said this bill hurts jobs.
  That's why I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 30 seconds to the majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would simply say to my friend--and he is my friend and I believe 
him to be a very positive Member of the Congress of the United States. 
I would say to him, I don't want to re-litigate. I do not want to 
repeat the mistakes of the past, and I believe, very frankly, my 
friend, that the economic policies that you want to pursue have not 
worked, and I don't want to pursue them again. It's not a question of 
re-litigation. It's a question of learning from the failures of the 
past that brought this economy so extraordinarily low. It is time to 
invest in the creation of jobs. I believe this bill does that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Build America Bonds, 62 issues as of 6/30/2010 totaling $2 billion, 
creating all kinds of private sector jobs. We look backward to learn 
lessons. We have also look forward, and the minority will do neither.
  I now am privileged to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), a distinguished member of our committee.
  Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  To my friends on the other side, I do think it's instructive to have 
the discussion about Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. I think it's very 
helpful to America because we tried the Bush years, and the argument 
now is to return to the Bush years.
  Now, let me point out in this legislation, that Mr. Rangel and I 
worked to develop Build America Bonds. More than 800 cities and States 
have taken advantage of those bonds. In Massachusetts alone, we have 
issued $1 billion worth of Build America Bonds, and we saved $170 
million in interest costs, which means that you can invest in 
education, health, and public safety.
  Mr. Frank and I worked to allow small banks to hold more municipal 
bonds by expanding the small issuer exception, thereby lowering the 
costs of these bonds.
  Now, to show you the success of bipartisanship, in the development of 
this legislation, Mr. Ryan and I worked to exempt private activity 
bonds from AMT, a pretty good piece of initiative. With that, 38 
airports around the country, including Cleveland, Milwaukee and 
Houston, have taken advantage of that opportunity. Thousands of jobs 
have been created nationwide when the country really needs it. These 
bonds are also used for student loans, and protection from alternative 
minimum tax means lower rates on borrowers. In Massachusetts alone, 
26,000 students will benefit.
  Now, Mr. Tiberi, a Republican, and I worked on the New Markets Tax 
Credit exemption from the alternative minimum tax. Since its inception, 
this program has generated over $15 billion of private sector 
investment in some of the poorest communities in America. I want to say 
that there are Republican Members of Congress who have communities who 
have taken advantage of the New Markets Tax Credit initiative. We have 
freed up investment in struggling neighborhoods, Mr. Speaker. With 
Build America Bonds, we have offered tremendous opportunities for local 
projects.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), a most active member of our committee.
  Mr. DOGGETT. I thank the gentleman.
  After 12 years of Republican rule, our tax code is riddled with 
loopholes. The small businesses on Main Street, the families that are 
struggling to get by with both spouses as wage earners, they all 
continue to shoulder a much heavier tax burden proportionately than the 
giant multinationals that operate around the world, that have operated 
here in Washington to lobby their way into one bit of special treatment 
after another. And many of these loopholes serve only to encourage 
multinationals to invest overseas instead of investing here at home to 
create American jobs. For some of them, their number one export is the 
export of American jobs instead of creating things here in America that 
we can then export to the world.
  This particular bill promotes jobs in America in two ways. First, it 
recognizes that there is important work that needs to be done here in 
America, hard work that is worth doing. In Austin, Texas, Build America 
Bonds were used to build a police substation, to build a public safety 
training facility, public facilities that we need to protect our 
neighborhoods, built by private contractors, putting food on the table 
of private employees. This bill would encourage more of the same for 
America.
  Second, this bill represents the next step in a long-standing effort 
that I've been a part of to crack down on multinational corporations 
that get Federal tax breaks only to ship their jobs offshore. It's long 
past time to stop letting these folks play games with our tax system 
that actually encourage the export of jobs. It's unfair to small 
businesses, it's unfair to families, those who are following the rules 
and paying their taxes in order to finance the tax breaks for those 
that dodge their fair share of responsibility for our national 
security, for our homeland security. And making these large 
corporations pay their fair share, stop the kind of

[[Page H6367]]

dodges that aren't available to our small businesses, is pro-
competition. This bill helps to level the playing field for small 
businesses across America.
  I think you can assess this particular piece of legislation by its 
friends and by its foes. Those who build America, groups like the 
engineers, have endorsed this measure. Those who want to keep dodging 
their taxes and shifting jobs overseas, they're counting on Republicans 
to do the same thing they always do, and that is, assure special 
treatment for special folks.
  It is the same kind of thinking that got us the Republican bank 
bailout. It's the same kind of thinking that's being used here today to 
defend loopholes that are indefensible when what we ought to be doing 
is focusing on creating American jobs.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thompson), another very vigorous member of our committee.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I came down to the floor to speak about this bill because it's 
incredibly important to jobs in America, jobs in my district, jobs 
across this country.
  My good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Camp--and I say ``good 
friend'' because we work together on a lot of things in a bipartisan 
manner and are able to accomplish a lot--mentioned that what's 
happening today is what's important to Americans, and what's happening 
today is important to this bill.
  Right outside of my district, Sacramento International Airport was 
able to get $480 million worth of bonding authority because of the AMT 
provision that's in this bill, and they were able to put that into that 
airport reconstruction/renovation that they're doing, a $1.1 billion 
total job that created 1,200 jobs in that immediate area.

                              {time}  1730

  It gave us the type of infrastructure and public airport facility 
that will go on to create jobs today and tomorrow and on into the 
future. It's very, very important.
  The Build America Bonds part of this bill is extremely important. 
There were two areas in my district that relied on this. It has created 
jobs, and it has improved the area.
  The Napa County school system was able to use $22 million worth of 
Build America Bonds to do important work in the schools, renovating the 
classrooms, expanding the campuses to be able to have a good spot for 
students to be able to learn, creating jobs today as they go forward.
  UC Davis, University of California, Davis, in my district, they were 
able to use Build America Bonds to create $48 million worth of 
expansion, renovation and deferred maintenance on that campus. They 
have done everything from deferred maintenance to the expansion of the 
physical sciences building, creating jobs and improving the campus and 
the infrastructure for many generations to take advantage of.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. So today when this bill is up, say 
``yes'' to American jobs, say ``yes'' to important American 
infrastructure and say ``no'' to the tax dodge that would preclude us 
from being able to put good jobs on the forefront today.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear: with unemployment stuck at nearly 
10 percent and millions of jobs lost, the Democrats' trillion-dollar 
stimulus bill has failed.
  So what is the majority's response? Raise taxes on American jobs and 
give more money to State and local government. That won't create the 
private sector jobs Americans need.
  You don't have to take my word for it. Here is what some of the 
Nation's leading and largest employers say about this bill and the tax 
increases in it.
  The National Association of Manufacturers says: ``Manufacturers 
believe strongly that imposing $11.5 billion in tax increases on these 
companies as proposed by H.R. 5893 will jeopardize the jobs of American 
manufacturing employees and stifle our fragile economy.''
  The PACE Coalition, which represents employers who provide over 60 
million American jobs, says: ``The $12 billion in proposed 
international tax increases in H.R. 5893 would further disadvantage 
U.S. companies, harming their competitiveness.
  ``At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract 
business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite message, with the 
effect of discouraging business investment and job creation in the 
United States.''
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the NAM and PACE Coalition letters for the 
Record.

                                           National Association of


                                                Manufacturers,

                                                    July 29, 2010.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives: The National Association of 
     Manufacturers (NAM), the nation's largest industrial trade 
     association representing small and large manufacturers in 
     every industrial sector and in all 50 states, urges you to 
     oppose H.R. 5893, the Investing in American Jobs and Closing 
     Tax Loopholes Act of 2010.
       An estimated 22 million people in the United States--more 
     than 19 percent of the private sector workforce and 53 
     percent of all manufacturing employees--are employed by 
     companies with operations overseas. Manufacturers feel 
     strongly that imposing $11.5 billion in tax increases on 
     these companies as proposed by H.R. 5893 will jeopardize the 
     jobs of American manufacturing employees and stifle our 
     fragile economy.
       Many of the tax increases proposed in H.R. 5893, which are 
     mischaracterized as closing tax loopholes, actually represent 
     significant changes to the pro-growth tax policy supported by 
     Congress and the Administration. For example, the proposed 
     anticompetitive limitation on the use of Sec. 956 loans 
     removes a greatly needed source of U.S. cash for worldwide 
     American companies--a source that Treasury and the Internal 
     Revenue Service (IRS) sought to facilitate in guidance issued 
     as recently as last December. As we continue to work through 
     one of the greatest credit crunches in U.S. history, taking 
     away a source of cash for U.S. companies to grow, build and 
     create jobs puts our fragile recovery at risk.
       We are disappointed that many of the bill's proposed tax 
     increases have not been adequately scrutinized during 
     congressional hearings. In many cases, taxpayers have relied 
     on these longstanding tax provisions in structuring their 
     businesses. Changing the rules without fair and adequate 
     hearings will cost in terms of jobs, investment and 
     manufacturers' ability to compete overseas.
       Manufacturers believe strongly that changes to our 
     international tax laws should be considered in the broader 
     context of tax reform that makes the United States more 
     competitive--not as ``pay fors'' for unrelated policy 
     initiatives. Moreover, targeting some international tax law 
     changes in advance of the tax reform debate would make the 
     goal of pro-growth, pro-competitiveness reform that much more 
     difficult, if not impossible, to achieve.
       The NAM supports provisions in the legislation that would 
     extend Build America Bonds and lift the state volume cap for 
     private activity bonds for water and waste water 
     infrastructure, but our support for these provisions is 
     heavily outweighed by the significant costs imposed on 
     manufacturers by the bill's tax increases. Manufacturers urge 
     your opposition to the bill.
       The NAM's Key Vote Advisory Committee has indicated that 
     votes related to H.R. 5893, including votes on procedural 
     motions, may be considered for designation as Key 
     Manufacturing Votes in the 111th Congress.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Jay Timmons,
     Executive Vice President.
                                  ____



                           Promote America's Competitive Edge,

                                                    July 29, 2010.
       Dear Member of Congress: The PACE Coalition--a broad-based 
     organization dedicated to promoting and increasing the more 
     than 63 million American jobs that depend on the 
     international competitiveness of worldwide American 
     companies--opposes inclusion of the proposed international 
     tax increases in HR 5893, released on July 28, 2010, as 
     ``payfors'' for expanded infrastructure incentives.
       The members of PACE, including the undersigned trade 
     associations, advocate that the United States should provide 
     a level playing field for taxation of international 
     operations of U.S. businesses. U.S. tax law already 
     disadvantages worldwide American companies and their 
     employees. U.S. companies face the second highest corporate 
     tax rate among developed countries and an international tax 
     system that impedes the ability of U.S. companies to expand 
     into new markets and reinvest foreign earnings at home. The 
     $12 billion in proposed international tax increases in HR 
     5893 would further disadvantage U.S. companies--harming their 
     competitiveness and reducing the earnings U.S. companies 
     bring back from their foreign operations, thereby reducing 
     reinvestment in U.S. plant and equipment, funding U.S. 
     research, and expanding U.S. payrolls.
       At a time when other countries are taking steps to attract 
     business, this legislation sends exactly the opposite 
     message, with the effect of discouraging business investment 
     and job creation in the United States.

[[Page H6368]]

       PACE urges policy makers to consider comprehensive tax 
     reform designed to increase the competitiveness of U.S. 
     companies both at home and abroad. Changes to our 
     international tax system that fail to consider the 
     competitive global marketplace will further disadvantage U.S. 
     workers. When worldwide American companies become less 
     competitive in their ability to serve foreign markets, demand 
     for U.S. produced goods and services will decline.
       PACE looks forward to working with Members of Congress to 
     modernize our international tax system to improve the 
     competitiveness of the U.S. economy and create jobs at home. 
     If HR 5893 is not amended to remove the international tax 
     increases, we respectfully request that you vote against this 
     bill.
           Sincerely,
     Business Roundtable,
     Information Technology Industry Council,
     National Association of Manufacturers,
     National Foreign Trade Council,
     U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

  As I noted earlier, the United States Chamber of Commerce says this 
bill imposes Draconian increases on American worldwide companies that 
would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of American 
businesses, and deter economic growth.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to these job providers and job 
creators, to reject these job-killing tax increases, and to vote ``no'' 
on this bill.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of our time.
  It's really so important to look at the facts. This bill does not 
basically create government jobs. That is a total myth, and you know 
it.
  The infrastructure money goes to State and local communities like 
highway monies do. These orange barrels, orange and white in Michigan, 
Mr. Camp, are put up by private contractors with Federal money.
  So why demean the Build America Bonds provisions by calling it money 
to State and local governments when everybody knows it's for 
infrastructure that goes to private contractors and their employees?
  You mention the number of construction workers out of work; that is 
very true. And then you vote against the legislation that will give 
them jobs.
  You say where are the jobs? Then you come down here and vote against 
bills to create jobs.
  It doesn't make any sense. Instead, we get the same political speech 
aimed at November 2, instead of aiming at creating jobs for the 
thousands and thousands of people who are unemployed in the United 
States of America.
  I want to say something about the double taxation so people 
understand what this is really all about. We have a foreign tax credit, 
as there should be, at least in this structure. This is a credit that 
is supposed to relate to the income by American companies created 
overseas.
  So what has been happening under this loophole is that the credit has 
been used, not in relationship to that income, but has been used 
relating to other income. So it isn't double taxation; it's an effort 
to avoid any taxation, and the rest of us pick up the bill.
  Now, one company that has objected to this has dramatically increased 
their investment offshore and diminished their jobs in the United 
States and diminished their R&D. So they say close the loophole and we 
will pay more taxes, yes. What we are saying is follow the rules, like 
small business does in this country, and like all of us individual 
taxpayers do in this country. You can come here and say closing a 
loophole increases taxes. By definition it does, because it says to 
people who are skipping paying taxes, pay your fair share.
  So this is a two-fer, jobs in the U.S. and stopping the shipment of 
jobs overseas.
  And if people come here and vote against this bill, they can expect 
to hear from constituents, that you have voted to help people and 
entities that ship jobs from this country elsewhere. We should vote 
resoundingly for this legislation.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, some Democrats have said the welfare 
expansion in this bill is about jobs. It's not. It's about more 
welfare.
  This bill would expand the welfare emergency fund Democrats created 
in last year's failed stimulus bill. That fund made available up to $5 
billion in new ``welfare emergency funds'' over fiscal years 2009 and 
2010. The bill before us would make available another up to $5 billion 
for just fiscal year 2011, which starts in October.
  So they propose to double the welfare funds for this program, all in 
just one year.
  That is so much new welfare money that CBO estimates States wouldn't 
be able to spend it all. Still, the $3.5 billion CBO estimates States 
would spend next year would almost match the $4 billion States have 
spent in the last two years.
  No matter how you slice it, spending out of this welfare emergency 
fund would accelerate rapidly under this bill.
  What would this money be spent on? The same things it is currently 
spent on--almost exclusively more and bigger welfare checks.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service has prepared a report 
on how the welfare emergency fund has been spent so far. As of July 22, 
2010, only 25 percent had been spent on ``subsidized employment,'' or 
the salaries of what are short-term positions.
  And data from liberal advocates for these programs admit that nearly 
half of those positions have been summer youth jobs. Since summer is 
just about over, many of the jobs the other side talks about are nearly 
over, too.
  And the other side's own rhetoric admits these jobs in general are as 
temporary as the Federal funding--which must be extended, they say, or 
else the ``jobs'' will end.
  The fact is, despite the other side's newfound but empty ``jobs'' 
rhetoric, a full 75 percent of this money has been spent on basic 
assistance--that is, on welfare benefits.
  But these are not just any welfare checks. States have had to be 
creative to spend this welfare emergency fund money.
  Last summer New York State used its share of welfare emergency funds 
to provide one-time $200 ``back to school checks'' to families already 
on welfare. Instead of spending the money on back to school supplies, 
many recipients used the money, as CBS News put it, to purchase ``flat 
screen TVs, iPods and video gaming systems.'' Convenience stores in 
low-income areas ``noted marked increases in beer, lotto and cigarette 
sales.''
  Perhaps our colleagues think that creates jobs.
  I disagree.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1568, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill.
  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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 1(c) of rule XIX, further 
consideration of H.R. 5893 is postponed.

                          ____________________