[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 2, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3457-S3461]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself and Mr. Booker):
  S. 1476. A bill to require States to report to the Attorney General 
certain information regarding shooting incidents involving law 
enforcement officers, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator Boxer to 
introduce the Police Reporting of Information, Data, and Evidence Act 
of 2015, PRIDE Act, a critical data collection bill designed to advance 
public safety, strengthen police-community relations, and foster mutual 
trust and respect. I thank Senator Boxer for her leadership on this 
issue.
  A critical issue in our Nation today is the issue of trust between 
law enforcement and the communities they serve. Tragic events across 
the country--in New York, Ferguson, North Charleston, Baltimore, and 
subsequent protests--remind us how critical trust is to the fabric of a 
democracy. These incidents raised the public's awareness and sparked a 
national debate about how police and citizens interact and how they 
should interact. But the issue is not unique now. The Kerner 
Commission's 1968 report on urban violence declared that minorities 
believed a ``double standard'' of justice and protection existed for 
whites and blacks. Sadly, that distrust continues today. It is contrary 
to who we are and what we stand for.
  Our nation was founded on shared and timeless values. Liberty and 
justice for all. Equal justice under law. The former was enshrined in 
our founding charter. The latter was written on the marble of Supreme 
Court. But when any American feels that they have not been treated 
fairly, we undermine those values. That makes the issue of police and 
community relations a problem for all of us--not just a specific city 
or a specific race. It is a problem for the Nation as a whole. We must 
do all we can to restore justice to our criminal justice system. That 
includes tracking when officers use deadly or serious force against 
people in the community.
  We must ensure that police officers feel respected and honored. Each 
day, law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to keep our 
communities safe. They deserve our respect. They should not feel 
attacked or undervalued. They routinely make split-second decisions 
every day that do not escalate into uses of force. As the senseless 
killings of NYPD Officers Rafael Ramos and Wanjian Liu remind us, 
officers often serve the public at considerable personal risk. We 
should provide them with the tools they need to do their jobs 
effectively and safely. That includes tracking the uses of force by 
civilians against our men and women in uniform.
  To bridge the wide trust gap between law enforcement and citizens, we 
must shine a light on the problem. The first step to solve any problem 
is to be honest about the facts. We need objective data. We need to 
study trends. We need to examine the evidence. That is why I am 
encouraged by the words of FBI Director, James Comey, who said ``We 
simply must find ways to see each other more clearly. Part of that has 
to involve collecting and sharing better

[[Page S3458]]

information about encounters between police and citizens, especially 
violent encounters.''
  For too long, the way we have collected information and data from 
States and local governments on violent encounters between law 
enforcement and civilians has been inconsistent. Under current law, 
demographic data regarding officer-involved shootings is inconsistently 
reported to the FBI under the Uniform Crime Reporting Program. 
According to a study by the Washington Post this month, since 2011, 
less than three percent of the Nation's 18,000 State and local police 
agencies reported fatal shootings by their officers to the FBI. That is 
unacceptable. Incomplete and unreliable reporting makes it tougher to 
get a true scope of the problem and more difficult to obtain a policy 
solution.
  The PRIDE Act would fix that problem and increase accountability for 
law enforcement by creating a comprehensive national data collection 
program. It would require law enforcement at the State, local, and 
tribal levels to report to the Attorney General information regarding 
police-involved shootings and any incident in which use of force by or 
against a law enforcement officer or civilian results in serious injury 
or death. By making the voluntary reporting of uses of force by, and 
against, police officers mandatory, we ensure that more accountability 
and transparency will exist between the police and the citizens they 
protect.
  I have worked closely with Senator Boxer on crafting this 
legislation, and appreciate my friend and colleague welcoming several 
recommendations to strengthen the bill, including clarifications that 
use-of-force policies for law enforcement officers be made publicly 
available. I believe this change would promote transparency. It shines 
a spotlight on the scope of shootings and uses of force involving 
police and civilians, which in turn enhances public confidence in our 
justice system.
  I also appreciate that the bill includes grant funds for public 
awareness campaigns designed to gain information from the public on 
uses of force against police officers. This was a recommendation drawn 
from being a former mayor. I have seen first-hand how helpful tip 
lines, hotlines, and public service announcements can be in helping law 
enforcement capture dangerous people. When someone uses violence 
against our men and women in uniform, we must respond quickly. That 
means we should do all that we can to ensure that information on the 
suspect gets out to the public in a timely manner. That way, the 
offender can promptly be caught and brought to justice.
  Lastly, I recommended the bill include grant funds for use of force 
training for law enforcement agencies and personnel, including de-
escalation training. Officers deserve to receive the best and most up 
to date training we can offer. They must feel confident that they are 
trained to use force in a way that allows them to safely come home to 
their families. Equally, the public deserves to have confidence that 
when an officer uses force he or she does so appropriately. That means 
training officers to ensure that force is a last resort and officers 
know how to de-escalate a situation to avoid using force at all.
  Many of the bill's provisions were recommendations from the 
President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing. It put forth a series 
of recommendations aimed at rebuilding trust between the law 
enforcement officers and the communities they protect. Its 
recommendations included use of force data collection, de-escalation 
training, transparency, and officer safety measures. I am glad that 
many of the task force recommendations were included in this bill.
  It is time we address the plague of shootings by and against police 
officers in our country. We must come together to ensure that we do see 
each other clearly and restore public confidence in our system of 
justice. The first step is to shine a light on the problem and collect 
accurate data. I thank Senator Boxer again for her leadership, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the PRIDE Act and work towards its speedy 
passage.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. Whitehouse):
  S. 1481. A bill to direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency to enter into an agreement with the National Academy 
of Sciences to conduct a study on urban flooding, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1481

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Urban Flooding Awareness Act 
     of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. URBAN FLOODING DEFINED.

       (a) In General.--In this Act, the term ``urban flooding'' 
     means the inundation of property in a built environment, 
     particularly in more densely populated areas, caused by rain 
     falling on increased amounts of impervious surface and 
     overwhelming the capacity of drainage systems, such as storm 
     sewers.
       (b) Inclusions.--In this Act, the term ``urban flooding'' 
     includes--
       (1) situations in which stormwater enters buildings through 
     windows, doors, or other openings;
       (2) water backup through sewer pipes, showers, toilets, 
     sinks, and floor drains;
       (3) seepage through walls and floors;
       (4) the accumulation of water on property or public rights-
     of-way; and
       (5) the overflow from water bodies, such as rivers and 
     lakes.
       (c) Exclusion.--In this Act, the term ``urban flooding'' 
     does not include flooding in undeveloped or agricultural 
     areas.

     SEC. 3. URBAN FLOODING STUDY.

       (a) Agreement With National Academy of Sciences.--The 
     Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of 
     Sciences under which the National Academy of Sciences will 
     conduct a study on urban flooding in accordance with the 
     requirements of this section. The primary focus of the study 
     shall be on urban areas outside of special flood hazard 
     areas, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
       (b) Contents.--
       (1) General review and evaluation.--In conducting the 
     study, the National Academy of Sciences shall review and 
     evaluate the latest available research, laws, regulations, 
     policies, best practices, procedures, and institutional 
     knowledge regarding urban flooding.
       (2) Specific issue areas.--The study shall include, at a 
     minimum, an examination of the following:
       (A) The prevalence and costs associated with urban flooding 
     events across the United States, with a focus on the largest 
     metropolitan areas and any clear trends in frequency and 
     severity over the past 2 decades.
       (B) The adequacy of existing federally provided flood risk 
     information and the most cost effective methods and products 
     to identify, map, or otherwise characterize the risk of 
     property damage from urban flooding on a property-by-property 
     basis, whether or not a property is in or adjacent to a 1-
     percent (100-year) flood plain, and the potential for 
     training and certifying local experts in flood risk 
     characterization as a service to property purchasers and 
     owners and their communities.
       (C) The causes of urban flooding and its apparent increase 
     over the past 20 years, including the impacts of--
       (i) global climate change;
       (ii) increasing urbanization and the associated increase in 
     impervious surfaces; and
       (iii) undersized, deteriorating, and otherwise ineffective 
     stormwater infrastructure.
       (D) The most cost-effective strategies, practices, 
     technologies, policies, standards, or rules used to reduce 
     the impacts of urban flooding, with a focus on decentralized, 
     easy-to-install, and low-cost approaches, such as 
     nonstructural and natural infrastructure on public and 
     private property. The examination under this subparagraph 
     shall include an assessment of opportunities for implementing 
     innovative strategies and practices on government-controlled 
     land, such as Federal, State, and local roads, parking lots, 
     alleys, sidewalks, buildings, recreational areas, and open 
     space.
       (E) The role of the Federal Government and State 
     governments, as conveners, funders, and advocates, in 
     spurring market innovations based on public-private-nonprofit 
     partnerships. Such innovations may include smart home 
     technologies for improved flood warning systems connected to 
     high-resolution weather forecast data and Internet- and 
     cellular-based communications systems.
       (F) The most sustainable and effective methods for funding 
     flood risk and flood damage reduction at all levels of 
     government, including--
       (i) the potential for establishing a State revolving fund 
     program for flood prevention projects similar to the 
     revolving fund programs under the Federal Water Pollution 
     Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act;
       (ii) stormwater fee programs using impervious surface as 
     the basis for fee rates and

[[Page S3459]]

     providing credits for the installation of flood prevention or 
     other stormwater management features;
       (iii) grant programs; and
       (iv) public-private partnerships.
       (G) Information and education strategies and practices, 
     including nontraditional approaches such as the use of 
     community colleges and social media, for community leaders, 
     government staff, and property owners on--
       (i) flood risks;
       (ii) flood risk reduction strategies and practices; and
       (iii) the availability and effectiveness of different types 
     of flood insurance policies.
       (H) The relevance of the National Flood Insurance Program 
     and Community Rating System to urban flooding areas outside 
     traditional flood plains, and strategies for improving 
     compliance, broadening coverage, and increasing participation 
     under the programs.
       (I) Strategies for protecting communities in the lower 
     elevations of a watershed or drainage area from the flooding 
     impacts of development in upstream communities, including a 
     review of--
       (i) potential standards for watershed-wide flood protection 
     planning; and
       (ii) cost-effective and equitable legal options for a 
     downstream community when upstream communities act in a way 
     that increases flooding downstream.
       (J) Cost-effective strategies for reducing infiltration/
     inflow into combined and separate sewer systems.
       (K) Opportunities to increase coordination between 
     stormwater management programming under the Federal Water 
     Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and flood risk 
     management and mitigation programming under various laws, 
     including the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) and the 
     National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4001 et 
     seq.).
       (c) Consultation.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency shall carry out this section in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Army (acting through 
     the Chief of Engineers), the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
     Development, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, the Director of the United States 
     Geological Survey, the Chief of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service, the Small Business Administration, 
     State, regional, and local stormwater management agencies, 
     State insurance commissioners, and such other interested 
     parties as the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 
     Management Agency considers appropriate.
       (2) Cooperation.--The head of each Federal agency referred 
     to in paragraph (1) shall cooperate with the Administrator of 
     the Federal Emergency Management Agency in carrying out this 
     section as requested by the Administrator.
       (d) Report to Congress.--Not later than December 31, 2016, 
     the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
     shall submit to the Committee on Financial Services and the 
     Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives 
     and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and 
     the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate a report 
     containing the findings of the National Academy of Sciences 
     based on the results of the study, including recommendations 
     for implementation of strategies, practices, and technologies 
     relating to urban flooding by Congress and the executive 
     branch.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Lee):
  S. 1482. A bill to improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the 
application of the antitrust laws to the award of need-based 
educational aid; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Need-Based 
Educational Aid Act of 2015, a bill that extends the Section 568 
antitrust exemption for higher education institutions. I am pleased 
that Senator Leahy and Senator Lee are cosponsoring this bill.
  The Section 568 exemption enables colleges and universities to 
collaborate on need-blind financial aid policies. It allows these 
institutions to collaborate on a common formula for calculating a 
family's ability to pay for college, by permitting certain specific 
activities. The exemption was enacted in 1994, and since then has been 
reauthorized by Congress on three occasions. In addition, a 2006 GAO 
report found that the activities permitted by Section 568 did not 
result in harm to competition.
  Our bill would provide a 7-year extension for this exemption, and 
also remove one of the four previously permitted activities under the 
exemption that no school has ever used. By allowing financial aid 
professionals to work together in these ways, Section 568 provides 
increased access to higher education to low-income students, while 
preventing needless litigation over the development of principles for 
determining financial need.
  I am proud to introduce this important, bipartisan bill, which will 
ensure these benefits remain available for students and will encourage 
access to higher education for years to come.
  I thank my colleagues, Senators Leahy and Lee, for their support of 
this effort.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1482

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Need-Based Educational Aid 
     Act of 2015''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE 
                   ANTRITRUST LAWS TO THE AWARD OF NEED-BASED 
                   EDUCATIONAL AID.

       Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 
     (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and inserting a 
     period at the end; and
       (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
     ``2022''.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, today I am joining with Senators Grassley 
and Lee in introducing legislation to extend for an additional 7 years 
the antitrust exemption permitting colleges and universities to 
collaborate on issues of need-based financial aid. This exemption, 
which was first enacted by Congress in 1994, allows colleges and 
universities that admit students on a need-blind basis to collaborate 
on the formula used to determine how much families can pay for college. 
The Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 2015 is the fourth 
reauthorization of this exemption, which is set to expire this year.
  Congress must always carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of 
creating exemptions to the antitrust laws. These laws serve as an 
important bulwark to protect consumers from anticompetitive conduct. 
The Government Accountability Office has studied the effect of this 
particular exemption in the past and concluded that allowing 
universities to talk among themselves about financial aid policies and 
procedures has not caused any harm.
  Antitrust exemptions should not be a blank check, however, which is 
why this exemption is not permanent. Our legislation will sunset the 
exemption once again in 2022 and we have removed one of the permitted 
activities that no school has ever used. A time-limited exemption 
ensures that Congress will continue to conduct oversight in order to 
assess the impact on consumers. I have long been skeptical of permanent 
antitrust exemptions and the effect they have on the marketplace. For 
example, I have worked for years with a number of Senators from both 
parties to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act, a permanent exemption for 
the insurance industry in place since 1945.
  Allowing covered universities to focus their resources on ensuring 
the most qualified students can attend some of the best schools in the 
nation, regardless of family income, is a bipartisan and bicameral 
goal. I thank Congressmen Smith and Johnson for introducing this bill 
in the House and urge the Senate to pass this narrow legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Brown, Mr. Reed, Ms. Warren, Mr. 
        Sanders, and Ms. Baldwin):
  S. 1486. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 
a tax credit to Patriot employers, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Finance.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1486

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Patriot Employer Tax Credit 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. PATRIOT EMPLOYER TAX CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of 
     chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new section:

     ``SEC. 45S. PATRIOT EMPLOYER TAX CREDIT.

       ``(a) Determination of Amount.--

[[Page S3460]]

       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of section 38, the Patriot 
     employer credit determined under this section with respect to 
     any taxpayer who is a Patriot employer for any taxable year 
     shall be equal to 10 percent of the qualified wages paid or 
     incurred by the Patriot employer.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The amount of qualified wages which may 
     be taken into account under paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     employee for any taxable year shall not exceed $15,000.
       ``(b) Patriot Employer.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term 
     `Patriot employer' means, with respect to any taxable year, 
     any taxpayer--
       ``(A) which--
       ``(i) maintains its headquarters in the United States if 
     the taxpayer (or any predecessor) has ever been headquartered 
     in the United States, and
       ``(ii) is not (and no predecessor of which is) an 
     expatriated entity (as defined in section 7874(a)(2)) for the 
     taxable year or any preceding taxable year ending after March 
     4, 2003,
       ``(B) with respect to which no assessable payment has been 
     imposed under section 4980H with respect to any month 
     occurring during the taxable year, and
       ``(C) in the case of--
       ``(i) a taxpayer which employs an average of more than 50 
     employees on business days during the taxable year, which--

       ``(I) provides compensation for at least 90 percent of its 
     employees for services provided by such employees during the 
     taxable year at an hourly rate (or equivalent thereof) not 
     less than an amount equal to 156 percent of the Federal 
     poverty level for a family of three for the calendar year in 
     which the taxable year begins divided by 2,080,
       ``(II) meets the retirement plan requirements of subsection 
     (c) with respect to at least 90 percent of its employees 
     providing services during the taxable year who are not highly 
     compensated employees, and
       ``(III) meets the additional requirements of subparagraphs 
     (A) and (B) of paragraph (2), or

       ``(ii) any other taxpayer, which meets the requirements of 
     either subclause (I) or (II) of clause (i) for the taxable 
     year.
       ``(2) Additional requirements for large employers.--
       ``(A) United states employment.--The requirements of this 
     subparagraph are met for any taxable year if--
       ``(i) in any case in which the taxpayer increases the 
     number of employees performing substantially all of their 
     services for the taxable year outside the United States, the 
     taxpayer either--

       ``(I) increases the number of employees performing 
     substantially all of their services inside the United States 
     by an amount not less than the increase in such number for 
     employees outside the United States, or
       ``(II) has a percentage increase in such employees inside 
     the United States which is not less than the percentage 
     increase in such employees outside the United States,

       ``(ii) in any case in which the taxpayer decreases the 
     number of employees performing substantially all of their 
     services for the taxable year inside the United States, the 
     taxpayer either--

       ``(I) decreases the number of employees performing 
     substantially all of their services outside the United States 
     by an amount not less than the decrease in such number for 
     employees inside the United States, or
       ``(II) has a percentage decrease in employees outside the 
     United States which is not less than the percentage decrease 
     in such employees inside the United States, and

       ``(iii) there is not a decrease in the number of employees 
     performing substantially all of their services for the 
     taxable year inside the United States by reason of the 
     taxpayer contracting out such services to persons who are not 
     employees of the taxpayer.
       ``(B) Treatment of individuals in the uniformed services 
     and the disabled.--The requirements of this subparagraph are 
     met for any taxable year if--
       ``(i) the taxpayer provides differential wage payments (as 
     defined in section 3401(h)(2)) to each employee described in 
     section 3401(h)(2)(A) for any period during the taxable year 
     in an amount not less than the difference between the wages 
     which would have been received from the employer during such 
     period and the amount of pay and allowances which the 
     employee receives for service in the uniformed services 
     during such period, and
       ``(ii) the taxpayer has in place at all times during the 
     taxable year a written policy for the recruitment of 
     employees who have served in the uniformed services or who 
     are disabled.
       ``(3) Special rules for applying the minimum wage and 
     retirement plan requirements.--
       ``(A) Minimum wage.--In determining whether the minimum 
     wage requirements of paragraph (1)(C)(i)(I) are met with 
     respect to 90 percent of a taxpayer's employees for any 
     taxable year--
       ``(i) a taxpayer may elect to exclude from such 
     determination apprentices or learners that an employer may 
     exclude under the regulations under section 14(a) of the Fair 
     Labor Standards Act of 1938, and
       ``(ii) if a taxpayer meets the requirements of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i) with respect to providing differential wage 
     payments to any employee for any period (without regard to 
     whether such requirements apply to the taxpayer), the hourly 
     rate (or equivalent thereof) for such payments shall be 
     determined on the basis of the wages which would have been 
     paid by the employer during such period if the employee had 
     not been providing service in the uniformed services.
       ``(B) Retirement plan.--In determining whether the 
     retirement plan requirements of paragraph (1)(C)(i)(II) are 
     met with respect to 90 percent of a taxpayer's employees for 
     any taxable year, a taxpayer may elect to exclude from such 
     determination--
       ``(i) employees not meeting the age or service requirements 
     under section 410(a)(1) (or such lower age or service 
     requirements as the employer provides), and
       ``(ii) employees described in section 410(b)(3).
       ``(c) Retirement Plan Requirements.--
       ``(1) In general.--The requirements of this subsection are 
     met for any taxable year with respect to an employee of the 
     taxpayer who is not a highly compensated employee if the 
     employee is eligible to participate in 1 or more applicable 
     eligible retirement plans maintained by the employer for a 
     plan year ending with or within the taxable year.
       ``(2) Applicable eligible retirement plan.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `applicable eligible retirement 
     plan' means an eligible retirement plan which, with respect 
     to the plan year described in paragraph (1), is either--
       ``(A) a defined contribution plan which--
       ``(i) requires the employer to make nonelective 
     contributions of at least 5 percent of the compensation of 
     the employee, or
       ``(ii) both--

       ``(I) includes an eligible automatic contribution 
     arrangement (as defined in section 414(w)(3)) under which the 
     uniform percentage described in section 414(w)(3)(B) is at 
     least 5 percent, and
       ``(II) requires the employer to make matching contributions 
     of 100 percent of the elective deferrals (as defined in 
     section 414(u)(2)(C)) of the employee to the extent such 
     deferrals do not exceed the percentage specified by the plan 
     (not less than 5 percent) of the employee's compensation, or

       ``(B) a defined benefit plan--
       ``(i) with respect to which the accrued benefit of the 
     employee derived from employer contributions, when expressed 
     as an annual retirement benefit, is not less than the product 
     of--

       ``(I) the lesser of 2 percent multiplied by the employee's 
     years of service (determined under the rules of paragraphs 
     (4), (5), and (6) of section 411(a)) with the employer or 20 
     percent, multiplied by
       ``(II) the employee's final average pay, or

       ``(ii) which is an applicable defined benefit plan (as 
     defined in section 411(a)(13)(B))--

       ``(I) which meets the interest credit requirements of 
     section 411(b)(5)(B)(i) with respect to the plan year, and
       ``(II) under which the employee receives a pay credit for 
     the plan year which is not less than 5 percent of 
     compensation.

       ``(3) Definitions and special rules.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Eligible retirement plan.--The term `eligible 
     retirement plan' has the meaning given such term by section 
     402(c)(8)(B), except that in the case of an account or 
     annuity described in clause (i) or (ii) thereof, such term 
     shall only include an account or annuity which is a 
     simplified employee pension (as defined in section 408(k)).
       ``(B) Final average pay.--For purposes of paragraph 
     (2)(B)(i)(II), final average pay shall be determined using 
     the period of consecutive years (not exceeding 5) during 
     which the employee had the greatest compensation from the 
     taxpayer.
       ``(C) Alternative plan designs.--The Secretary may 
     prescribe regulations for a taxpayer to meet the requirements 
     of this subsection through a combination of defined 
     contribution plans or defined benefit plans described in 
     paragraph (1) or through a combination of both such types of 
     plans.
       ``(D) Plans must meet requirements without taking into 
     account social security and similar contributions and 
     benefits.--A rule similar to the rule of section 416(e) shall 
     apply.
       ``(d) Qualified Wages and Compensation.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) In general.--The term `qualified wages' means wages 
     (as defined in section 51(c), determined without regard to 
     paragraph (4) thereof) paid or incurred by the Patriot 
     employer during the taxable year to employees--
       ``(A) who perform substantially all of their services for 
     such Patriot employer inside the United States, and
       ``(B) with respect to whom--
       ``(i) in the case of a Patriot employer which employs an 
     average of more than 50 employees on business days during the 
     taxable year, the requirements of subclauses (I) and (II) of 
     subsection (b)(1)(C)(i) are met, and
       ``(ii) in the case of any other Patriot employer, the 
     requirements of either subclause (I) or (II) of subsection 
     (b)(1)(C)(i) are met.
       ``(2) Special rules for agricultural labor and railway 
     labor.--Rules similar to the rules of section 51(h) shall 
     apply.
       ``(3) Compensation.--For purposes of subsections 
     (b)(1)(C)(i)(I) and (c), the term `compensation' has the same 
     meaning as qualified wages, except that section 51(c)(2) 
     shall be disregarded in determining the amount of such wages.
       ``(e) Aggregation Rules.--For purposes of this section--
       ``(1) In general.--All persons treated as a single employer 
     under subsection (a) or (b) of

[[Page S3461]]

     section 52 shall be treated as a single taxpayer.
       ``(2) Special rules for certain requirements.--For purposes 
     of applying paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) of subsection (b)--
       ``(A) the determination under subsections (a) and (b) of 
     section 52 for purposes of paragraph (1) shall be made 
     without regard to section 1563(b)(2)(C) (relating to 
     exclusion of foreign corporations), and
       ``(B) if any person treated as a single taxpayer under this 
     subsection (after application of subparagraph (A)), or any 
     predecessor of such person, was an expatriated entity (as 
     defined in section 7874(a)(2)) for any taxable year ending 
     after March 4, 2003, then all persons treated as a single 
     taxpayer with such person shall be treated as expatriated 
     entities.
       ``(f) Election To Have Credit Not Apply.--
       ``(1) In general.--A taxpayer may elect to have this 
     section not apply for any taxable year.
       ``(2) Time for making election.--An election under 
     paragraph (1) for any taxable year may be made (or revoked) 
     at any time before the expiration of the 3-year period 
     beginning on the last date prescribed by law for filing the 
     return for such taxable year (determined without regard to 
     extensions).
       ``(3) Manner of making election.--An election under 
     paragraph (1) (or revocation thereof) shall be made in such 
     manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.''.
       (b) Allowance as General Business Credit.--Section 38(b) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking 
     ``plus'' at the end of paragraph (35), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (36) and inserting ``, plus'', and by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(37) in the case of a Patriot employer (as defined in 
     section 45S(b)) for any taxable year, the Patriot employer 
     credit determined under section 45S(a).''.
       (c) Denial of Double Benefit.--Subsection (a) of section 
     280C of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by 
     inserting ``45S(a),'' after ``45P(a)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2015.

     SEC. 3. DEFER DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EXPENSE RELATED TO 
                   DEFERRED INCOME.

       (a) In General.--Section 163 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 (relating to deductions for interest expense) is 
     amended by redesignating subsection (n) as subsection (o) and 
     by inserting after subsection (m) the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(n) Deferral of Deduction for Interest Expense Related to 
     Deferred Income.--
       ``(1) General rule.--The amount of foreign-related interest 
     expense of any taxpayer allowed as a deduction under this 
     chapter for any taxable year shall not exceed an amount equal 
     to the applicable percentage of the sum of--
       ``(A) the taxpayer's foreign-related interest expense for 
     the taxable year, plus
       ``(B) the taxpayer's deferred foreign-related interest 
     expense.

     For purposes of the paragraph, the applicable percentage is 
     the percentage equal to the current inclusion ratio.
       ``(2) Treatment of deferred deductions.--If, for any 
     taxable year, the amount of the limitation determined under 
     paragraph (1) exceeds the taxpayer's foreign-related interest 
     expense for the taxable year, there shall be allowed as a 
     deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the lesser 
     of--
       ``(A) such excess, or
       ``(B) the taxpayer's deferred foreign-related interest 
     expense.
       ``(3) Definitions and special rule.--For purposes of this 
     subsection--
       ``(A) Foreign-related interest expense.--The term `foreign-
     related interest expense' means, with respect to any taxpayer 
     for any taxable year, the amount which bears the same ratio 
     to the amount of interest expense for such taxable year 
     allocated and apportioned under sections 861, 864(e), and 
     864(f) to income from sources outside the United States as--
       ``(i) the value of all stock held by the taxpayer in all 
     section 902 corporations with respect to which the taxpayer 
     meets the ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of 
     section 902, bears to
       ``(ii) the value of all assets of the taxpayer which 
     generate gross income from sources outside the United States.
       ``(B) Deferred foreign-related interest expense.--The term 
     `deferred foreign-related interest expense' means the excess, 
     if any, of the aggregate foreign-related interest expense for 
     all prior taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015, 
     over the aggregate amount allowed as a deduction under 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) for all such prior taxable years.
       ``(C) Value of assets.--Except as otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary, for purposes of subparagraph (A)(ii), the value of 
     any asset shall be the amount with respect to such asset 
     determined for purposes of allocating and apportioning 
     interest expense under sections 861, 864(e), and 864(f).
       ``(D) Current inclusion ratio.--The term `current inclusion 
     ratio' means, with respect to any domestic corporation which 
     meets the ownership requirements of subsection (a) or (b) of 
     section 902 with respect to one or more section 902 
     corporations for any taxable year, the ratio (expressed as a 
     percentage) of--
       ``(i) the sum of all dividends received by the domestic 
     corporation from all such section 902 corporations during the 
     taxable year plus amounts includible in gross income under 
     section 951(a) from all such section 902 corporations, in 
     each case computed without regard to section 78, divided by
       ``(ii) the aggregate amount of post-1986 undistributed 
     earnings.
       ``(E) Aggregate amount of post-1986 undistributed 
     earnings.--The term `aggregate amount of post-1986 
     undistributed earnings' means, with respect to any domestic 
     corporation which meets the ownership requirements of 
     subsection (a) or (b) of section 902 with respect to one or 
     more section 902 corporations, the domestic corporation's pro 
     rata share of the post-1986 undistributed earnings (as 
     defined in section 902(c)(1)) of all such section 902 
     corporations.
       ``(F) Foreign currency conversion.--For purposes of 
     determining the current inclusion ratio, and except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, the aggregate amount of 
     post-1986 undistributed earnings for the taxable year shall 
     be determined by translating each section 902 corporation's 
     post-1986 undistributed earnings into dollars using the 
     average exchange rate for such year.
       ``(G) Section 902 corporation.--The term `section 902 
     corporation' has the meaning given to such term by section 
     909(d)(5).
       ``(4) Treatment of affiliated groups.--The current 
     inclusion ratio of each member of an affiliated group (as 
     defined in section 864(e)(5)(A)) shall be determined as if 
     all members of such group were a single corporation.
       ``(5) Application to separate categories of income.--This 
     subsection shall be applied separately with respect to the 
     categories of income specified in section 904(d)(1).
       ``(6) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations or other guidance as is necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including 
     regulations or other guidance providing--
       ``(A) for the proper application of this subsection with 
     respect to changes in ownership of a section 902 corporation,
       ``(B) that certain corporations that otherwise would not be 
     members of the affiliated group will be treated as members of 
     the affiliated group for purposes of this subsection,
       ``(C) for the proper application of this subsection with 
     respect to the taxpayer's share of a deficit in earnings and 
     profits of a section 902 corporation,
       ``(D) for appropriate adjustments to the determination of 
     the value of stock in any section 902 corporation for 
     purposes of this subsection or to the foreign-related 
     interest expense to account for income that is subject to tax 
     under section 882(a)(1), and
       ``(E) for the proper application of this subsection with 
     respect to interest expense that is directly allocable to 
     income with respect to certain assets.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2015.

                          ____________________