[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 14810-14823]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 SMALL BUSINESS TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2010

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 5982) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 
expansion of certain information reporting requirements to corporations 
and to payments for property, to eliminate loopholes which encourage 
companies to move operations offshore, and for other purposes.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5982

       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 ``Small 
     Business Tax Relief 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--REPEAL OF CERTAIN INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Sec. 101. Repeal of expansion of certain information reporting 
              requirements to corporations and to payments for 
              property.

                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Foreign Provisions

Sec. 201. Rules to prevent splitting foreign tax credits from the 
              income to which they relate.
Sec. 202. Denial of foreign tax credit with respect to foreign income 
              not subject to United States taxation by reason of 
              covered asset acquisitions.
Sec. 203. Separate application of foreign tax credit limitation, etc., 
              to items resourced under treaties.
Sec. 204. Limitation on the amount of foreign taxes deemed paid with 
              respect to section 956 inclusions.
Sec. 205. Special rule with respect to certain redemptions by foreign 
              subsidiaries.
Sec. 206. Modification of affiliation rules for purposes of rules 
              allocating interest expense.
Sec. 207. Termination of special rules for interest and dividends 
              received from persons meeting the 80-percent foreign 
              business requirements.
Sec. 208. Source rules for income on guarantees.
Sec. 209. Limitation on extension of statute of limitations for failure 
              to notify Secretary of certain foreign transfers.

                  Subtitle B--Other Revenue Provisions

Sec. 211. Required minimum 10-year term, etc., for grantor retained 
              annuity trusts.
Sec. 212. Crude tall oil ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer 
              credit.
Sec. 213. Increase in information return penalties.
Sec. 214. Treatment of securities of a controlled corporation exchanged 
              for assets in certain reorganizations.

                      TITLE III--PAYGO COMPLIANCE

Sec. 301. Paygo compliance.

     TITLE I--REPEAL OF CERTAIN INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

     SEC. 101. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION 
                   REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO CORPORATIONS AND TO 
                   PAYMENTS FOR PROPERTY.

       Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act is repealed. Each provision of law amended by such 
     section is amended to read as such provision would read if 
     such section had never been enacted.

                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

                     Subtitle A--Foreign Provisions

     SEC. 201. 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.

[[Page 14811]]

       ``(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. 202. 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,
       ``(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

[[Page 14812]]

     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. 203. 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. 204. 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. 205. 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. 206. 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.

     SEC. 207. 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

[[Page 14813]]

     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. 208. 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. 209. 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.

                  Subtitle B--Other Revenue Provisions

     SEC. 211. REQUIRED MINIMUM 10-YEAR TERM, ETC., FOR GRANTOR 
                   RETAINED ANNUITY TRUSTS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 2702 is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) as 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively, and by moving 
     such subparagraphs (as so redesignated) 2 ems to the right,
       (2) by striking ``For purposes of'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of'', and
       (3) by striking ``paragraph (1) or (2)'' in paragraph 
     (1)(C) (as so redesignated) and inserting ``subparagraph (A) 
     or (B)'', and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Additional requirements with respect to grantor 
     retained annuities.--For purposes of subsection (a), in the 
     case of an interest described in paragraph (1)(A) (determined 
     without regard to this paragraph) which is retained by the 
     transferor, such interest shall be treated as described in 
     such paragraph only if--
       ``(A) the right to receive the fixed amounts referred to in 
     such paragraph is for a term of not less than 10 years,
       ``(B) such fixed amounts, when determined on an annual 
     basis, do not decrease relative to any prior year during the 
     first 10 years of the term referred to in subparagraph (A), 
     and
       ``(C) the remainder interest has a value greater than zero 
     determined as of the time of the transfer.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to transfers made after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 212. CRUDE TALL OIL INELIGIBLE FOR CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL 
                   PRODUCER CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Clause (iii) of section 40(b)(6)(E) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subclause (I),
       (2) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) and 
     inserting ``, or'',
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subclause:

       ``(III) such fuel has an acid number greater than 25.'', 
     and

       (4) by striking ``unprocessed'' in the heading and 
     inserting ``certain''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1, 
     2010.

     SEC. 213. INCREASE IN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES.

       (a) Failure To File Correct Information Returns.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 
     (b)(2)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$50'' and inserting ``$100''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (a)(1), 
     (d)(1)(A), and (e)(3)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by 
     striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.
       (b) Reduction Where Correction Within 30 Days.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``$15'' and inserting ``$30''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(1)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(B) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
       (c) Reduction Where Correction on or Before August 1.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$60''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(2)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(C) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       (d) Aggregate Annual Limitations for Persons With Gross 
     Receipts of Not More Than $5,000,000.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 6721(d) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``$100,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``$500,000'',
       (B) by striking ``$25,000'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``$75,000'', and
       (C) by striking ``$50,000'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``$200,000''.
       (2) Technical amendment.--Paragraph (1) of section 6721(d) 
     is amended by striking ``such taxable year'' and inserting 
     ``such calendar year''.
       (e) Penalty in Case of Intentional Disregard.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 6721(e) is amended by striking ``$100'' and 
     inserting ``$250''.
       (f) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 6721 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:

[[Page 14814]]

       ``(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any calendar year 
     beginning after 2014, each of the dollar amounts under 
     subsections (a), (b), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(A) 
     thereof), and (e) shall be increased by such dollar amount 
     multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment determined under 
     section 1(f)(3) determined by substituting `calendar year 
     2011' for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Additional adjustments made only every fifth year.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of any calendar 
     year beginning after 2015 (other than every fifth calendar 
     after 2015), each increase determined under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the amount of such increase determined for 
     the preceding year.
       ``(3) Rounding.--If any amount adjusted under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) is not less than $75,000 and is not a multiple of 
     $500, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest 
     multiple of $500, and
       ``(B) is not described in subparagraph (A) and is not a 
     multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
     lowest multiple of $10.''.
       (g) Failure To Furnish Correct Payee Statements.--Section 
     6722 is amended to read as follows:

     ``SEC. 6722. FAILURE TO FURNISH CORRECT PAYEE STATEMENTS.

       ``(a) Imposition of Penalty.--
       ``(1) General rule.--In the case of each failure described 
     in paragraph (2) by any person with respect to a payee 
     statement, such person shall pay a penalty of $100 for each 
     statement with respect to which such a failure occurs, but 
     the total amount imposed on such person for all such failures 
     during any calendar year shall not exceed $1,500,000.
       ``(2) Failures subject to penalty.--For purposes of 
     paragraph (1), the failures described in this paragraph are--
       ``(A) any failure to furnish a payee statement on or before 
     the date prescribed therefor to the person to whom such 
     statement is required to be furnished, and
       ``(B) any failure to include all of the information 
     required to be shown on a payee statement or the inclusion of 
     incorrect information.
       ``(b) Reduction Where Correction in Specified Period.--
       ``(1) Correction within 30 days.--If any failure described 
     in subsection (a)(2) is corrected on or before the day 30 
     days after the required filing date--
       ``(A) the penalty imposed by subsection (a) shall be $30 in 
     lieu of $100, and
       ``(B) the total amount imposed on the person for all such 
     failures during any calendar year which are so corrected 
     shall not exceed $250,000.
       ``(2) Failures corrected on or before august 1.--If any 
     failure described in subsection (a)(2) is corrected after the 
     30th day referred to in paragraph (1) but on or before August 
     1 of the calendar year in which the required filing date 
     occurs--
       ``(A) the penalty imposed by subsection (a) shall be $60 in 
     lieu of $100, and
       ``(B) the total amount imposed on the person for all such 
     failures during the calendar year which are so corrected 
     shall not exceed $500,000.
       ``(c) Exception for De Minimis Failures.--
       ``(1) In general.--If--
       ``(A) a payee statement is furnished to the person to whom 
     such statement is required to be furnished,
       ``(B) there is a failure described in subsection (a)(2)(B) 
     (determined after the application of section 6724(a)) with 
     respect to such statement, and
       ``(C) such failure is corrected on or before August 1 of 
     the calendar year in which the required filing date occurs,

     for purposes of this section, such statement shall be treated 
     as having been furnished with all of the correct required 
     information.
       ``(2) Limitation.--The number of payee statements to which 
     paragraph (1) applies for any calendar year shall not exceed 
     the greater of--
       ``(A) 10, or
       ``(B) one-half of 1 percent of the total number of payee 
     statements required to be filed by the person during the 
     calendar year.
       ``(d) Lower Limitations for Persons With Gross Receipts of 
     Not More Than $5,000,000.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any person meets the gross receipts 
     test of paragraph (2) with respect to any calendar year, with 
     respect to failures during such calendar year--
       ``(A) subsection (a)(1) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$500,000' for `$1,500,000',
       ``(B) subsection (b)(1)(B) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$75,000' for `$250,000', and
       ``(C) subsection (b)(2)(B) shall be applied by substituting 
     `$200,000' for `$500,000'.
       ``(2) Gross receipts test.--A person meets the gross 
     receipts test of this paragraph if such person meets the 
     gross receipts test of section 6721(d)(2).
       ``(e) Penalty in Case of Intentional Disregard.--If 1 or 
     more failures to which subsection (a) applies are due to 
     intentional disregard of the requirement to furnish a payee 
     statement (or the correct information reporting requirement), 
     then, with respect to each such failure--
       ``(1) subsections (b), (c), and (d) shall not apply,
       ``(2) the penalty imposed under subsection (a)(1) shall be 
     $250, or, if greater--
       ``(A) in the case of a payee statement other than a 
     statement required under section 6045(b), 6041A(e) (in 
     respect of a return required under section 6041A(b)), 
     6050H(d), 6050J(e), 6050K(b), or 6050L(c), 10 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of the items required to be reported 
     correctly, or
       ``(B) in the case of a payee statement required under 
     section 6045(b), 6050K(b), or 6050L(c), 5 percent of the 
     aggregate amount of the items required to be reported 
     correctly, and
       ``(3) in the case of any penalty determined under paragraph 
     (2)--
       ``(A) the $1,500,000 limitation under subsection (a) shall 
     not apply, and
       ``(B) such penalty shall not be taken into account in 
     applying such limitation to penalties not determined under 
     paragraph (2).
       ``(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any calendar year 
     beginning after 2014, each of the dollar amounts under 
     subsections (a), (b), (d)(1), and (e) shall be increased by 
     such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-living 
     adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) determined by 
     substituting `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992' in 
     subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Additional adjustments made only every fifth year.--
     Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in the case of any calendar 
     year beginning after 2015 (other than every fifth calendar 
     after 2015), each increase determined under paragraph (1) 
     shall not exceed the amount of such increase determined for 
     the preceding year.
       ``(3) Rounding.--If any amount adjusted under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) is not less than $75,000 and is not a multiple of 
     $500, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest 
     multiple of $500, and
       ``(B) is not described in subparagraph (A) and is not a 
     multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
     lowest multiple of $10.''.
       (h) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to information returns required to 
     be filed on or after January 1, 2011.

     SEC. 214. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES OF A CONTROLLED CORPORATION 
                   EXCHANGED FOR ASSETS IN CERTAIN 
                   REORGANIZATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 361 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(d) Special Rules for Transactions Involving Section 355 
     Distributions.--In the case of a reorganization described in 
     section 368(a)(1)(D) with respect to which stock or 
     securities of the corporation to which the assets are 
     transferred are distributed in a transaction which qualifies 
     under section 355--
       ``(1) this section shall be applied by substituting `stock 
     other than nonqualified preferred stock (as defined in 
     section 351(g)(2))' for `stock or securities' in subsections 
     (a) and (b)(1), and
       ``(2) the first sentence of subsection (b)(3) shall apply 
     only to the extent that the sum of the money and the fair 
     market value of the other property transferred to such 
     creditors does not exceed the adjusted bases of such assets 
     transferred (reduced by the amount of the liabilities assumed 
     (within the meaning of section 357(c))).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Paragraph (3) of section 361(b) 
     is amended by striking the last sentence.
       (c) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to exchanges 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (2) Transition rule.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall not apply to any exchange pursuant to a transaction 
     which is--
       (A) made pursuant to an agreement which was binding on 
     March 15, 2010, and at all times thereafter;
       (B) described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal 
     Revenue Service on or before such date; or
       (C) described on or before such date in a public 
     announcement or in a filing with the Securities and Exchange 
     Commission.

                      TITLE III--PAYGO COMPLIANCE

     SEC. 301. 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.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page 14815]]

  As this bill was just introduced seconds ago, is it in order to ask 
that the bill be read for the American people and for Members who are 
going to be required to understand and vote on this legislation in a 
short time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the Clerk reports the title 
of the bill.
  Mr. CAMP. And so is it in order for me to make a motion to ask that 
the bill be read for understanding by the American people?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That would not be a proper motion.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this 
legislation that indeed has been posted online.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 20 minutes.
  Again, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, again I urge all Members to support this 
legislation, which has indeed been posted online. This bill would 
eliminate a reporting requirement which has been identified as a 
potentially onerous burden for small businesses. The provision itself 
is not currently in place--it does not take effect until 2012--but 
recent studies have indicated that it could pose challenges for small 
businesses throughout this country.
  The Independent Taxpayer Advocate recently stated the provision, 
``may present significant administrative challenges to taxpayers and 
the IRS.'' The advocate is concerned that the reporting requirement for 
small business--and again I quote--``may turn out to be 
disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax 
compliance.''
  So here we are today to provide this House with an up-or-down vote on 
eliminating this requirement. This bill is fiscally responsible, 
covering the cost by reducing tax incentives that encourage companies 
to ship jobs overseas. This is a win-win for American jobs.
  This bill both provides relief to small businesses and reduces 
incentives for some large, multinational corporations to ship jobs 
overseas. It also closes an egregious loophole in the gift tax, the 
Grantor Retained Annuity Trust, that is only available for extremely 
wealthy individuals.
  So in a few words, all Members on both sides of the aisle have a 
choice today--to stand up for millions of American small businesses and 
their workers, or keep a tax loophole and side with those companies 
that ship jobs overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, in my 20 years in Congress, I don't think I have seen a 
more disappointing time for this House. I had great hopes when my 
colleague from Michigan, Sander Levin, assumed the chairmanship of the 
Ways and Means Committee after the ethical charges against a man I 
worked closely with, Mr. Rangel, who was the chairman. I know it's 
difficult to come into a leadership position partway through a 
Congress, but I have to say to a fellow colleague from Michigan, the 
lack of consultation, the lack of discussion, the lack of attempts to 
bring things to this Congress in a bipartisan way, which I believe has 
more balance than bills written alone, in secret by the Democratic 
Party late at night than are brought to this floor with maybe moments 
notice--I think this bill was given to us less than 10 minutes ago. I 
think that is regrettable. I think it is unfortunate. I don't think it 
needed to be that way. We have always had a great working relationship. 
Many delegation meetings over the years in working on behalf of issues 
common to Michigan, now I had hoped we would work together on behalf of 
issues important to America.
  It is unfortunate that the leaders of this Congress on the Democrat 
side have really taken control and not given the chairman the latitude 
he needs to really draft bills in a bipartisan way. I think it's 
unfortunate that control has been ceded to the leaders in such a way 
that make it impossible for us to work together on issues that I think 
the American people are crying out for to be worked on in a bipartisan 
manner.
  This was supposed to be the most open, the most transparent, the most 
ethical Congress. I think we have seen events of this week prove that 
otherwise. And I don't mean just the publicity events. I mean events on 
the way these bills are brought to the floor without any discussions or 
consultation.
  We have great staffs on both sides in the Ways and Means Committee. 
Our staffs do tremendous work. They are capable of working together if 
given the opportunity. And I think we could resolve these issues in a 
way that would benefit all Americans.
  Last night, I intended to offer a motion to recommit that we gave 
full notice to the other side about--unlike what we are seeing today--
that would have eliminated the new onerous job-killing 1099 requirement 
that's in the health care law. In addition to helping small business, 
the motion to recommit would have better protected taxpayers from 
erroneously paying too much in health insurance subsidies. And the 
motion would have cut taxes, cut spending, protected taxpayers, and 
reduced the deficit. But as we saw last night, because Democrat leaders 
were too afraid to let their Members vote on a pro-jobs, pro-small 
business, pro-taxpayer, pro-deficit reduction bill, they canceled the 
vote and pulled the bill from consideration by the House.
  Instead, we are here today, as we have been so often under the heavy-
handed tactics of the majority, voting on a bill that has not been 
reviewed by committee, that has not been posted online for 72 hours, 
has not been reviewed by the employers this bill will affect, and most 
importantly, has not been reviewed by the American public in any way. 
The result? The Democrats have created a bill that pits American 
employers against other American employers, worker against worker, 
neighbor against neighbor. With unemployment stuck at nearly 10 
percent, Democrats are again playing politics with American jobs. This 
is not the time for politics; this is a time to get serious about the 
economy and helping businesses create jobs. Frankly, it didn't have to 
be this way, and it should not have been this way. There is a way to 
pay for the repeal of the 1099 requirement without punishing job 
providers and their workers and their families.
  Additionally, we would have protected taxpayers by cracking down on 
fraud and abuse. And if someone received an erroneous or excessive 
benefit that they were not entitled to, they would have been required 
to repay it. The bill before us leaves that very important flaw in 
place. I have in my hands a way to do this without raising taxes and 
killing jobs: It is the motion to recommit I intended to offer last 
night but was not given the opportunity to do so. I will have it 
inserted into the Congressional Record so that everyone can see that we 
can save jobs without raising taxes.
  Small businesses supported the measure, Republicans supported the 
measure, and it's clear that rank-and-file Democrats would have 
supported the measure. Somehow, Democrat leaders are so opposed to 
helping small businesses--the real job creators in this country--that 
they wouldn't even allow a vote on a full repeal of the 1099 
requirement that also didn't include a massive job-killing tax 
increase.
  Why are Democrats so afraid to work with Republicans to help 
America's job creators? Why don't Democrats allow Republicans to offer 
amendments on behalf of small businesses? And why are they so bent on 
raising taxes?

                              {time}  1040

  Isn't $670 billion alone in tax increases in this Congress enough? 
Why?
  It is because Democrats are more interested in protecting their $1 
trillion health care law than solving legitimate problems being 
expressed by the American people and American employers. So, while it 
is clear that Democrats have admitted that the burden imposed

[[Page 14816]]

by their health care law is a job killer, they are offering no solution 
today, because the bill before us will undoubtedly have the effect of 
killing jobs.
  Frankly, this is a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to 
fix a fundamental flaw in the health care law, and it is a missed 
opportunity to truly help American employers in the jobs they provide. 
A job is a job is a job.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for job providers by demanding a 
full repeal of the 1099 requirement that does not impose other job-
killing tax increases.

  Motion To Recommit With Instructions Offered by Mr. Camp of Michigan

       Mr. Camp moves to recommit the bill H.R. 5893 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AMOUNT OF OVERPAYMENT OF HEALTH CARE 
                   CREDIT WHICH CAN BE RECAPTURED.

       (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 36B(f)(2)(B) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``$400 
     ($250'' and inserting ``$2,000 ($1,000''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

     SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION REPORTING 
                   REQUIREMENTS TO CORPORATIONS AND TO PAYMENTS 
                   FOR PROPERTY.

       Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act is repealed. Each provision of law amended by such 
     section is amended to read as such provision would read if 
     such section had never been enacted.

     SEC. 3. BUDGETARY PROVISIONS.

       (a) 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 7.25 percentage 
     points.
       (b) 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.

[[Page 14817]]

     
     


[[Page 14818]]



[[Page 14819]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Number one, you received more notice about this than we did about 
your motion to recommit.
  Mr. CAMP. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. That is just simply an untrue statement, and it is beneath 
the dignity of the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to assert 
that.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.
  Mr. Camp, you may not like the bill----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All Members will suspend.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. LEVIN) controls the time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Camp, abide by the rules of the House. I did not yield 
to you to rant and rave.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlemen will direct all remarks to the 
Chair.
  Mr. LEVIN. We received a couple-minutes' notice of the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will continue and then I will yield.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.
  Mr. LEVIN. It was handed to us as it was being submitted. So, if 
there is an effort for bipartisanship, then a motion to recommit can be 
submitted early on, without any effort to surprise, and we can see if 
we can work it out. That's the fact.
  Number two, in terms of worker against worker, what you don't like 
about our proposal is that we protect and safeguard the workers of the 
United States of America, and we make sure that jobs are not shipped 
overseas that may help workers in other countries but not workers in 
the United States of America. That is what our bill provides.
  Number three, in terms of added taxes, the taxes on the very wealthy, 
closing the loophole is something that should be done. You are not 
protecting the typical taxpayers in this country. They don't use these 
annuity provisions. They don't try to escape gift taxes through this 
device. The administration has pleaded with this Congress to close this 
loophole, and you, today, are essentially saying you don't want to vote 
for this bill because it addresses outsourcing and because it addresses 
a tax loophole. You don't like that. All right. Then vote ``no.''
  We find a way to eliminate the 1099 requirement and pay for it by 
making sure companies don't have an inducement to ship jobs overseas 
and the very, very wealthy to escape gift taxation. So that is really 
what this is all about. Everybody here has a choice: eliminate the 1099 
and not use a hammer on millions of families in this country and 
eliminate it in a way that saves jobs in this country.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee and as the ranking member 
on Oversight, I was sitting in my office. This debate began, and the 
bill was not even in electronic form for us to review.
  Mr. LEVIN. Okay. I reclaim my time.
  I told you that it was placed on the Internet, number one. Number 
two, every provision in this bill in terms of the pay-for has been 
before this Congress before--every single provision. So don't say 
you're surprised by these provisions.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Again, Members are reminded that all remarks 
must be addressed to the Chair.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to correct the Record, I would just say the motion to 
recommit that I tried to offer last night was available for several 
hours to the majority. They pulled the bill and didn't allow me to 
ultimately offer it. That's why I introduced it in the Record today.
  At this time, I yield such time as he may consume to a distinguished 
member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, again, I am in my office. This debate 
begins, and we can't find the actual bill language in electronic form. 
I understand it is now available, but to have the debate begin I don't 
think is very fair to Members of this House, and it is not what the 
American people would expect of us.
  I think it is entirely regrettable that--we are dealing with an issue 
of national importance. This body can act. This body can act in the 
national interest if we work together, but these kinds of trust-
destroying measures are not in the interest of this body or in the 
interest of the American people.
  My objection to the bill still stands. Even though there is a move to 
incorporate the repeal of the 1099 provisions, I still have a 
significant objection because we are talking about some very 
complicated international tax provisions for which we really have not 
had the kind of hearings necessary to understand the consequences. We 
should not be doing this type of ad hoc tax tinkering.
  We ought to be taking a more comprehensive approach in understanding 
the economic consequences. These tax provisions, from what I am hearing 
from those who are trying to engage in international business to create 
American jobs, will be a job killer. They will destroy American jobs. 
What we need to do is look at this in a more comprehensive way.
  Now, if we haven't had the kind of hearings to vet this, to explore 
this, how can we expect the American people to understand the 
complexity of the nature of these tax provisions?
  What we ought to be doing is creating jobs. What we ought to be doing 
is promoting American competitiveness. What we ought to be doing is 
promoting economic growth and private sector job growth. That is the 
problem with the bill.
  Now, if you have U.S. companies that are trying to compete against 
foreign-owned companies in a very complex economic environment and if 
U.S. companies are subject to double taxation, you can call it a 
loophole. I call it hurting American competitiveness.
  The bottom line is we want a Tax Code that promotes private sector 
job growth. We want a Tax Code that promotes American corporations and 
businesses that are going to be competitive worldwide to create jobs at 
the highest standards possible, and we want to see economic growth, 
which we know will lead to private sector job growth.

                              {time}  1050

  So my objection to the bill still stands based on the policy. But I 
am deeply, deeply regretful and distressed at the way this bill has 
been taken to the floor of the House this morning.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise today supporting House 
bill 5982, the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2010. This bill is 
incredibly important for us to pass. As I travel around my district in 
upstate New York, I hear consistently, all the time from my small 
business owners that they need regulatory relief, and they need support 
if they're going to invest and expand our economic recovery that we 
have going on.
  As somebody who has been a small business owner, who has started 
small businesses and has been building them up all of my life, I know 
what a burden regulatory hurdles can be for small businesses. This bill 
is going to repeal what could potentially be a huge hassle for a lot of 
small businesses. This 1099 reporting was a well-intentioned provision 
to try to catch people who were cheating on their taxes; but it has 
some unintended consequences, in my opinion, that will create a lot of 
extra work and hassle for our small businesses.
  This is something I hear about every day when I travel my district. I 
am

[[Page 14820]]

sure that our colleagues across the aisle hear this from their small 
business owners as well. And everyone in this body who knows what's 
going on with our economy will know how important it is to stimulate 
activity and to get people back to work. The best way we do that is to 
support our small businesses. They're the ones who create new jobs. 
Sixty to 80 percent of the new jobs are created by small businesses--in 
particular, new small businesses. That's where the economic activity 
comes from in our country. That's who we have got to be supporting. 
This bill does a great job of doing that.
  I know that many of my colleagues on the other side know that this 
hurdle that we have out there, with this 1099 reporting, needs to be 
repealed. They've been talking about it. We've been talking about it. 
There's bipartisan consensus there, but this bill does something else 
that's very valuable for the American public as well. It closes some 
foreign tax loopholes. Some of these are very egregious. Companies are 
getting the United States Government to refund foreign tax credits 
they're paying on income that they had never reported in the United 
States. This is something that should be fixed. We need to make sure 
our corporations have incentives to invest here, not incentives to 
invest overseas based on complex tax schemes that keep them from paying 
taxes.
  I want to be building stuff in America. I want to be making stuff in 
America. I want our tax policy to encourage corporations to make stuff 
here in America. That's what I hear from big companies. They want to 
build it here, but our tax rules make it so that it's better for them 
to build it somewhere else. This is how we solve that. This will bring 
American jobs back here. It will bring American investment back from 
American corporations, and it will help our small businesses get some 
regulatory relief. This is a win on both sides. This is a bipartisan 
kind of solution because we're helping our small businesses by getting 
government out of the way. We're fixing our Tax Code to make it so that 
American companies will have incentives to invest here in America, not 
in China and not anyplace else around the world.
  This is the kind of policy that will help get our economy moving. 
This will put Americans back to work. This will help our middle class 
folks who are struggling all over this country, looking for good jobs. 
This is the way that we do that. I think this is a great piece of 
legislation. I expect we'll have good bipartisan support for it.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say I agree with a portion of what the previous speaker 
said. I agree, there is a serious flaw in this health care bill. This 
is one of many, and this serious flaw is a job-killer. So I commend the 
majority for their recognition of these serious flaws in the health 
care bill and that there are job-killing provisions in it that many of 
us warned them about before the bill came to the floor but weren't 
really allowed to be part of the process to try to correct those before 
they came. And, frankly, not many people here were able to do that 
either, as it was just rolled out.
  But the answer isn't to hurt other job providers. We're in a 
recession. Unemployment isn't getting better. We know the stimulus 
didn't work. We're still at a national rate of about 10 percent. But 
let's look at what job providers say about the way that they pay for 
this fix. The fix we're for--and we had a legitimate way to do it, as I 
said, without raising taxes, without hurting other job providers, and 
by actually helping to prevent the potentially fraudulent way this 
provision was drafted.
  And let me just tell you what an association of employers that 
promotes America's Competitive Edge Group said. They represent more 
than 63 million American jobs, and they say the $12 billion imposed in 
the proposed international tax increases would further disadvantage 
U.S. companies, harming their competitiveness. We are competing around 
the world, like it or not, and that would reduce U.S. earnings. That 
would reduce U.S. earnings and thereby reduce investment in U.S. plant 
and equipment research and expanding U.S. payrolls.
  Let me read to you what the National Association of Manufacturers 
says about the way they pay for this bill. Why not use the anti-fraud 
corrections that we had in the motion to recommit last night? They 
represent about 22 million people in the United States, U.S. workers. 
Manufacturers feel strongly that imposing this $11.5 billion tax 
increase on these companies will jeopardize the jobs of American 
manufacturers. We've already lost 700,000 American manufacturing jobs. 
Why impose a greater burden on them? It's not necessary, and it would 
stifle our fragile economy.
  The United States Chamber of Commerce, they represent more than 3 
million businesses and millions more U.S. employees. They say this 
legislation would impose Draconian tax increases on American worldwide 
companies, would hinder job creation, decrease the competitiveness of 
American businesses, and deter economic growth. If there's one thing 
this country needs, it's economic growth and the jobs that provides.
  I don't know why they're so bent on increasing taxes when we could 
fix this flaw in the health care bill--which I commend my colleagues on 
the other side for recognizing the flaw in the health care bill, and 
there are others that we need to fix as well--but it is not a fix when 
we have these reputable employers and businesses say that this is going 
to hurt our recovery, hurt job creation; and, frankly, the record on 
job creation in the last year has not been a good one. We need to do 
better. We can do better, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.
  With that, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the ranking member of 
the full committee.
  I want to respond to a couple of things the gentleman from New York 
brought up. This 1099 provision, we agree on it. It's an egregious 
issue. It needs to be repealed. We need to do it in the right way, 
along with many of these other issues in the health care bill.
  But with regard to small businesses, the President himself has said 
that he wants to double exports in 5 years, and the best way to do that 
is to expand export opportunities. And if we're going to do that for 
small businesses and mid-sized companies, we have to do this in a way 
that allows them to partner with large corporations and have the 
infrastructure. These tax provisions in the bill will subject our 
companies, who are doing this type of work, to double taxation, making 
us less competitive, inhibiting economic growth, and reducing our 
ability to export. It's clear.
  Secondly, we haven't had the hearings to actually flesh all this out. 
I think it's critical that we really look at this if we're going to 
promote American competitiveness. My fear is that, yes, we might double 
exports in 5 years, but it will be the export of American jobs.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 3 minutes to a very distinguished colleague of 
ours from New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan, Chairman Levin.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 5982, the Small Business Tax Relief 
Act. This legislation repeals the new 1099 reporting requirements that 
impose a flood of new tax paperwork on small businesses. This bill 
evidences our commitment to listening to our constituents and acting to 
resolve their legitimate concerns. We, on our side of the aisle, are 
listening. We are acting.
  I have heard from numerous constituents, farmers, manufacturers and 
other small businesses, about this issue. Repealing these requirements 
is critical to protecting small businesses and family farms from having 
to mail hundreds of forms to vendors each year. H.R. 5982 is fully paid 
for by eliminating $11.6 billion in tax breaks for companies that ship 
jobs overseas.

                              {time}  1100

  We hear constantly about the need for regulatory reform. This bill 
provides regulatory relief. Foreign tax

[[Page 14821]]

credits do not incentivize production or manufacturing in the United 
States, as my colleague, Mr. Murphy, amply and adequately pointed out. 
We need to focus on incentivizing U.S.-based production by focusing on 
appropriate tax incentives and reduction in regulatory activity by the 
government.
  We have an opportunity today to continue to improve on the health 
reform law by passing this bill, by helping to create U.S. jobs, and 
focusing and incentivizing companies to grow the American economy.
  I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5982.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the very vigorous gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Perriello).
  Mr. PERRIELLO. Give America a chance and America will outcompete the 
world. Give American business a chance, and it will outcompete China 
and the world. Give American workers a chance, a level playing field, 
and we will outcompete the world. We can build things, make things, and 
grow things better in this country than anywhere in the world if we 
give a level playing field. We have a chance once again today to level 
that playing field and let America win again.
  We can do that by closing this outsourcing loophole that rewards 
companies for sending jobs overseas. And we can do it in a way that 
also provides relief to our small business owners, who are trying to 
work hard and play by the rules. Well-intentioned efforts to make sure 
people were not cheating on their taxes, to make sure people were 
paying their burden, can also be done in a way that doesn't cost those 
who have been working hard and playing by the rules.
  We have a chance to do two great things today. We have a chance to 
level that playing field so that America can win in manufacturing, in 
agriculture, in forestry, in farming. These are things we can do better 
than anyone when we don't have the trade deals and the tax code that 
rewards all the worst things of sending those much-needed American jobs 
overseas. And we can do so at the same time by reducing that regulatory 
pressure on small business.
  We worked hard this year to support our small businesses, with the 
Small Business Lending Fund that is dying in the Senate, with tax 
credits for small business, too many of which have died in the Senate. 
Here is a chance today to provide relief to small business, and most 
importantly, to level that playing field so that we can make it in 
America again, so that we can have those good jobs that make the middle 
class and working class in this country thrive, that reward 
entrepreneurship and innovation, that reward people who work hard and 
play by the rules. This is an opportunity today that is beyond Democrat 
and Republican. It's just about common sense and making a difference in 
the economy.
  Washington should have the same sense of urgency I feel back home 
every weekend when we talk to small business owners. This is a chance 
for us to come together, to do good things to let America win again. 
This is important for American business, for American workers, and for 
American families.
  I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to be part of 
the solution.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this bill never went through committee, never was 
marked up in committee. And you know what, it's awfully good to hear 
the other side finally admit that they messed up in the health care 
bill, that it is going to have a tremendous impact on small businesses. 
You know, you can't raise taxes on small businesses in the health care 
bill, use that revenue to say ObamaCare will reduce the deficit, and 
then turn around and remove those same business tax increases and tell 
small businesses that you are doing them a favor. That's known as a 
shell game in a carnival. That's shameful. You know what, you are not 
doing them a favor.
  Representative Lungren introduced the Small Business Paperwork 
Mandate Elimination Act to remove that huge burden on entrepreneurs 
that was found in the health care bill. That language was here 
yesterday, and it was not allowed to be voted on. Rather, the majority 
pulled the bill so that we could not have that very meaningful vote. 
This morning it was turned around and added to language that raises 
taxes elsewhere. And ironically, it's called the Small Business Tax 
Relief bill. And Members are going to be forced to vote on that. This 
is totally unacceptable.
  The majority first needs to make up its mind whether or not it really 
wants to help small businesses. Then I think that the majority needs to 
be honest about that decision. There is a reason, Madam Speaker, why 
Members on the opposite side of the aisle are afraid to go home and 
face election, and it's exactly this kind of chicanery that causes that 
fear.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, could you please give us the time remaining 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Loretta Sanchez of California). Mr. 
Levin of Michigan has 7 minutes remaining, and Mr. Camp of Michigan has 
3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. Madam Speaker, this bill is very simple. It 
does two things. There has been a lot of talk here to confuse people, 
but it's very simple. One, it provides regulatory reform to our small 
businesses so they can get busy putting Americans back to work. And 
two, very important, it closes a tax loophole that encourages 
businesses to invest overseas. The other side is claiming somehow 
that's a bad thing. It's exactly what we should do.
  I want the tax code to be set up to encourage businesses to invest in 
America. Because if we do that, we will see more investment in America. 
We will see American workers back to work. We will see our middle class 
back to work and feeling their incomes rising, and we will see the 
greatness that has made this country, the innovation, the forward 
thinking. It comes from doing our manufacturing, our agriculture, our 
mining here in the United States. But we've let our tax code incent 
businesses to go away. So this does two things. One, it helps our small 
businesses with relief. Two, it turns our tax code in the right 
direction so that businesses have incentives to be here.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a very 
distinguished member of our committee, Mr. Xavier Becerra from 
California.
  Mr. BECERRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My friends, when was the last time you picked up a product that you 
just purchased at a store, turned it over, and took a look at where it 
was made? When was the last time you saw that product say ``Made in 
America''? Well, this legislation is all about making sure the next 
time you buy something in a store in America that product will have 
been made in America. Because guess what? Not only do we have to face 
unfair competition by some of our very fierce competitors who are using 
tactics that are unreasonable to somehow defeat American business and 
American workers, but we even have things in our tax code that 
encourage American companies to ship jobs abroad and get paid by the 
taxpayers through tax credits for doing so.
  This legislation is all about getting rid of that unfair competition 
for America's workers so we can make it in America. That's what this is 
all about. This is also about making sure that small businesses have a 
chance to compete without bureaucratic regulation. And so there is 
bipartisan agreement on removing the burden under 1099 tax return 
filings that would make it difficult for small businesses to compete. 
And that's in this bill as well.
  What is not in this bill is the process, is the frustration that 
American workers are feeling. Some people it sounds like in this 
Chamber would like you to vote ``no'' on a good bill because they

[[Page 14822]]

are complaining about a process. The only folks in America who have a 
right to complain about process right now are Americans who are trying 
to pay their mortgage and keep their jobs. And they are sick and tired 
of a process where people say ``no'' to good legislation. It is time 
for us to say ``yes'' to good legislation.
  Let us once again make things in America and make them by Americans. 
Pass H.R. 5982 and make sure that we can tell Americans when they turn 
over that product that they just bought it was made in America.

                              {time}  1110


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. I ask that all Members have leave to enter 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. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the 
Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  If you're Peyton Manning, the football great for the Indianapolis 
Colts, and you come to the line of scrimmage, you have the right to do 
an audible call at the line of scrimmage. I mean, Peyton's a champion. 
Time and time and time again he's come out, he sees the play, he 
recognizes that the play has to change, he shouts out the play to the 
team, and they score and they're famous and they're successful.
  Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, we don't have any Peyton Manning's on 
the other side of the aisle who are driving this process. In other 
words, there is nobody that has the breadth and the depth and the 
comprehensive understanding--there's, frankly, nobody in this Chamber 
that has that--to come in and say, You know what? New plan. We're going 
to do something completely different.
  Last night, ironically, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee 
was on this very floor in that very seat and said, There are no excuses 
to vote against this bill. He said that once or twice or three times. I 
jotted it down. And I reminded him of that during the debate last 
night, and yet, ironically, within that very short period of time, it's 
my understanding that the chairman, himself, found that there was a 
reason to vote against the very bill that moments before he was arguing 
for.
  And why is that? Because the Founders have a process in place that is 
a process of deliberation. The Founders understood that this process is 
one that is made better by robust participation.
  Now, the majority has known about this 1099 requirement since 
November of last year, and what have they done? They have stifled the 
minority. They have said, No, no, no, no. We've got this all figured 
out. You Republicans, you just continue to press your nose up against 
the glass and look in and mouth suggestions, but we're really not 
interested in what you have to say. All right.
  Then there's a revelation. The public gets to see this 1099 
requirement, and they recognize this is a disaster. We had friends on 
the other side of the aisle minutes ago recounting about how bad this 
is going to be for farmers and small businesses. And you know what? 
They're right.
  The 1099 requirement is absurd. The 1099 requirement, I would submit 
to you, is the result of line of scrimmage audible calls by the 
majority.
  Now, it doesn't have to be this way. Mr. Camp laid out a very 
articulate process moments ago about how best to improve this. And this 
is an underperformance. The chairman said that we shouldn't be 
surprised by things that are in this bill. And, frankly, I'm not 
surprised by anything the majority does. I've seen the majority run 
roughshod over process in the name of a better product, and time and 
again, it has fallen short.
  So here we are basically with an admission that ObamaCare is 
fundamentally flawed in this sense, a mandate on business. I promise 
you there will be efforts in the future to revisit other parts of 
ObamaCare--the individual mandate, the employer mandate, health savings 
account taxes, and on and on and on, all things that the American 
public has been speaking out--they're even calling right now, they're 
so upset about it.
  Madam Speaker, the reason Republicans are opposed to this is process, 
but, fundamentally, bad process yields a bad product. This is a bad 
product. It creates a Hobson's choice. It says we're going to remove 
the 1099 requirement and, instead, we're going to jeopardize job 
producers in exchange. We should vote ``no.''
  Mr. LEVIN. First, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY of New York. I just wanted to add one thing that didn't 
come out in the debate yet. There's a lot of talk about this being a 
bill from our side, and the Republicans seem to disagree that it's 
going to be helpful for business. The National Federation of 
Independent Business has endorsed this bill and is asking people to 
vote in favor of it. I wanted to make sure all the Members knew that.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Is there any rule, under the 
House, that requires notice being given to the author of a bill when it 
is being brought up without any notice whatsoever, since I am the 
author of the 1099 repeal bill and have had it before this House since 
April of this year and given no notice? Is there any requirement under 
the rules that we at least be notified that this bill is going to come 
up?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair notes that the motion before the 
House is a motion to suspend the rules.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Further parliamentary inquiry, 
Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. The Speaker has just told us 
that because this is a bill being brought up under suspension of the 
rules that all rules are, therefore, suspended. My parliamentary 
inquiry is under regular rules, is there any requirement that the 
author of a bill be at least given notice that that bill is to be 
brought up to the floor for consideration before it is considered?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no such rule.
  The gentleman from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, there's obvious discomfort on the side of 
the minority. There's a claim about procedure.
  What I said before about our notice to motion on the motion to 
recommit is exactly correct. Now, you say we should act on elimination 
of 1099? That's exactly what we're doing, exactly what we're doing. 
Then you say you don't like the pay-fors. You act as if this is a new 
issue. We have debated these provisions time and time and time and time 
again, and you know it.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Will the gentleman yield on 
that?
  Mr. LEVIN. No. I'm going to finish my statement.
  The outsourcing provision has been before us a number of times.
  And you keep talking about workers. We talk about having workers in 
the United States having work. That's what this is all about. And 
essentially what the provision does in the Tax Code is to help those 
companies that ship jobs overseas, and what we're saying is that that 
should be prevented, period. We've been saying it time and time and 
time again.
  We've also discussed another loophole that's here that you don't seem 
to discuss, and that is for a relatively few very wealthy people taking 
a loophole in the Code and setting up a gift to others in the family, 
taking back the money, hoping that there will be an increase and no 
gift tax paid. That is a grievous loophole that should be closed, and 
we provide payment for this bill by closing it.

[[Page 14823]]

  Now, I want to finish about outsourcing.
  We have lost so many jobs in this country. If it comes through 
competition that's fair, so be it. If it comes, however, from companies 
using a provision that says you get a foreign tax credit on income, 
you're supposed to bring that income back here and not use the foreign 
tax credit to avoid taxation.

                              {time}  1120

  It's not an issue of double taxation. It is an issue of companies 
avoiding any taxation.
  So essentially everybody who comes to the floor to vote on this has 
the opportunity to eliminate the 1099 provision and to close loopholes 
and to stop some of the outsourcing of American jobs. There could not 
be stronger reasons to vote for a bill.
  So I close: Vote for it.
  Madam 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. 5982, the 
``Small Business Tax Relief 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-43-10.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Small 
Business Tax Relief Act of 2010, and I commend my colleagues 
Representative Scott Murphy and Representative Bill Owens for bringing 
it to the floor today.
  Simply put, this bill does two things: It provides information 
reporting relief to small businesses--and it closes loopholes in 
current law that encourage U.S. multinationals to invest overseas.
  The question members must ask themselves is this: Do we want jobs in 
America, or do we want a tax code that rewards companies for shipping 
jobs overseas?
  For every small business seeking to expand and create jobs, and for 
every American looking for work, I urge a yes vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 5982.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________