[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.
____________________