[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4749-4769]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         SMALL BUSINESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS TAX ACT OF 2010

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1205, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 4849) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
provide tax incentives for small business job creation, extend the 
Build America Bonds program, provide other infrastructure job creation 
tax incentives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. McCollum). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1205, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill 
modified by the amendment printed in House Report 111-455 is adopted 
and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 4849

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Small 
     Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

                 TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 101. Temporary exclusion of 100 percent of gain on certain small 
              business stock.

       Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties

Sec. 111. Limitation on penalty for failure to disclose certain 
              information.
Sec. 112. Annual reports on penalties and certain other enforcement 
              actions.

                      Subtitle C--Other Provisions

Sec. 121. Nonrecourse small business investment company loans from the 
              Small Business Administration treated as amounts at risk.
Sec. 122. Increase in amount allowed as deduction for start-up 
              expenditures.

                  TITLE II--INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES

Sec. 201. Extension of Build America Bonds.
Sec. 202. Exempt-facility bonds for sewage and water supply facilities.
Sec. 203. Extension of exemption from alternative minimum tax treatment 
              for certain tax-exempt bonds.
Sec. 204. Elective payments in lieu of low income housing credits.
Sec. 205. Extension and additional allocations of recovery zone bond 
              authority.
Sec. 206. Allowance of new markets tax credit against alternative 
              minimum tax.

                     TITLE III--REVENUE PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Limitation on treaty benefits for certain deductible 
              payments.
Sec. 302. Treatment of securities of a controlled corporation exchanged 
              for assets in certain reorganizations.
Sec. 303. Repeal of special rules for interest and dividends received 
              from persons meeting the 80-percent foreign business 
              requirements.
Sec. 304. Information reporting for rental property expense payments.
Sec. 305. Application of levy to payments to Federal vendors relating 
              to property.

[[Page 4750]]

Sec. 306. Application of continuous levy to tax liabilities of certain 
              Federal contractors.
Sec. 307. Required minimum 10-year term, etc., for grantor retained 
              annuity trusts.
Sec. 308. Increase in information return penalties.
Sec. 309. Crude tall oil ineligible for cellulosic biofuel producer 
              credit.
Sec. 310. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

 TITLE IV--EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUND FOR STATE TEMPORARY 
                 ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAMS

Sec. 401. 1-year extension of the emergency contingency fund for state 
              temporary assistance for needy families programs.

                 TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON 
                   CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Special 100 percent exclusion.--In the case of 
     qualified small business stock acquired after March 15, 2010, 
     and before January 1, 2012--
       ``(A) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `100 
     percent' for `50 percent',
       ``(B) paragraph (2) shall not apply, and
       ``(C) paragraph (7) of section 57(a) shall not apply.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     1202(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph and before January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``after 
     February 17, 2009, and before March 16, 2010'', and
       (2) by striking ``Special rules for 2009 and 2010'' in the 
     heading and inserting ``Special 75 percent exclusion''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to stock acquired after March 15, 2010.

       Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties

     SEC. 111. LIMITATION ON PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE 
                   CERTAIN INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 6707A is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Amount of Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amount of the penalty under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any reportable transaction shall be 75 
     percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a 
     result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from 
     such transaction if such transaction were respected for 
     Federal tax purposes).
       ``(2) Maximum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under 
     subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction for 
     any taxable year shall not exceed--
       ``(A) in the case of a listed transaction, $200,000 
     ($100,000 in the case of a natural person), or
       ``(B) in the case of any other reportable transaction, 
     $50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).
       ``(3) Minimum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under 
     subsection (a) with respect to any transaction for any 
     taxable year shall not be less than $10,000 ($5,000 in the 
     case of a natural person).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to penalties assessed after December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORTS ON PENALTIES AND CERTAIN OTHER 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate an 
     annual report on the penalties assessed by the Internal 
     Revenue Service during the preceding year under each of the 
     following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
       (1) Section 6662A (relating to accuracy-related penalty on 
     understatements with respect to reportable transactions).
       (2) Section 6700(a) (relating to promoting abusive tax 
     shelters).
       (3) Section 6707 (relating to failure to furnish 
     information regarding reportable transactions).
       (4) Section 6707A (relating to failure to include 
     reportable transaction information with return).
       (5) Section 6708 (relating to failure to maintain lists of 
     advisees with respect to reportable transactions).
       (b) Additional Information.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall also include information on the 
     following with respect to each year:
       (1) Any action taken under section 330(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, with respect to any reportable 
     transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986).
       (2) Any extension of the time for assessment of tax 
     enforced, or assessment of any amount under such an 
     extension, under paragraph (10) of section 6501(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Date of Report.--The first report required under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than December 31, 
     2010.

                      Subtitle C--Other Provisions

     SEC. 121. NONRECOURSE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANY LOANS 
                   FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TREATED 
                   AS AMOUNTS AT RISK.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 465(b)(6) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Qualified nonrecourse financing.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified nonrecourse 
     financing' means any financing--

       ``(I) which is qualified real property financing or 
     qualified SBIC financing,
       ``(II) except to the extent provided in regulations, with 
     respect to which no person is personally liable for 
     repayment, and
       ``(III) which is not convertible debt.

       ``(ii) Qualified real property financing.--The term 
     `qualified real property financing' means any financing 
     which--

       ``(I) is borrowed by the taxpayer with respect to the 
     activity of holding real property,
       ``(II) is secured by real property used in such activity, 
     and
       ``(III) is borrowed by the taxpayer from a qualified person 
     or represents a loan from any Federal, State, or local 
     government or instrumentality thereof, or is guaranteed by 
     any Federal, State, or local government.

       ``(iii) Qualified sbic financing.--The term `qualified SBIC 
     financing' means any financing which--

       ``(I) is borrowed by a small business investment company 
     (within the meaning of section 301 of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958), and
       ``(II) is borrowed from, or guaranteed by, the Small 
     Business Administration under the authority of section 303(b) 
     of such Act.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     465(b)(6) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``in the case of an activity of holding 
     real property,'', and
       (2) by striking ``which is secured by real property used in 
     such activity''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to loans and guarantees made after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 122. INCREASE IN AMOUNT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FOR START-
                   UP EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 195 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Increased limitation for taxable years beginning in 
     2010 or 2011.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in 
     2010 or 2011, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `$20,000' for `$5,000', and
       ``(B) by substituting `$75,000' for `$50,000'.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

                  TITLE II--INFRASTRUCTURE INCENTIVES

     SEC. 201. EXTENSION OF BUILD AMERICA BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 54AA(d)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``April 
     1, 2013''.
       (b) Extension of Payments to Issuers.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (a) of section 6431 is amended 
     by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``April 1, 
     2013''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Subsection (g) of section 54AA 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``April 
     1, 2013'', and
       (B) by striking ``Qualified Bonds Issued Before 2011'' in 
     the heading and inserting ``Certain Qualified Bonds''.
       (c) Reduction in Percentage of Payments to Issuers.--
     Subsection (b) of section 6431 is amended--
       (1) by striking ``The Secretary'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary'',
       (2) by striking ``35 percent'' and inserting ``the 
     applicable percentage'', and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Applicable percentage.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `applicable percentage' means the 
     percentage determined in accordance with the following table:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ``In the case of a qualified bond issued     The applicable percentage
           during calendar year:                         is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009 or 2010..............................  35 percent
2011......................................  33 percent
2012......................................  31 percent
2013......................................  30 percent''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       (d) Current Refundings Permitted.--Subsection (g) of 
     section 54AA is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(3) Treatment of current refunding bonds.--
       ``(A) In general.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
     term `qualified build America bond' includes any bond (or 
     series of bonds) issued to refund a qualified build America 
     bond if--
       ``(i) the average maturity date of the issue of which the 
     refunding bond is a part is not later than the average 
     maturity date of the bonds to be refunded by such issue,
       ``(ii) the amount of the refunding bond does not exceed the 
     outstanding amount of the refunded bond, and
       ``(iii) the refunded bond is redeemed not later than 90 
     days after the date of the issuance of the refunding bond.
       ``(B) Applicable percentage.--In the case of a refunding 
     bond referred to in subparagraph (A), the applicable 
     percentage with respect to such bond under section 6431(b) 
     shall be the

[[Page 4751]]

     lowest percentage specified in paragraph (2) of such section.
       ``(C) Determination of average maturity.--For purposes of 
     subparagraph (A)(i), average maturity shall be determined in 
     accordance with section 147(b)(2)(A).''.
       (e) Clarification Related to Levees and Flood Control 
     Projects.--Subparagraph (A) of section 54AA(g)(2) is amended 
     by inserting ``(including capital expenditures for levees and 
     other flood control projects)'' after ``capital 
     expenditures''.

     SEC. 202. EXEMPT-FACILITY BONDS FOR SEWAGE AND WATER SUPPLY 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) Bonds for Water and Sewage Facilities Exempt From 
     Volume Cap on Private Activity Bonds.--
       (1) In general.--Paragraph (3) of section 146(g) is amended 
     by inserting ``(4), (5),'' after ``(2),''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraphs (2) and (3)(B) of 
     section 146(k) are both amended by striking ``(4), (5), 
     (6),'' and inserting ``(6)''.
       (b) Tax-exempt Issuance by Indian Tribal Governments.--
       (1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 7871 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Exception for bonds for water and sewage 
     facilities.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an exempt 
     facility bond 95 percent or more of the net proceeds (as 
     defined in section 150(a)(3)) of which are to be used to 
     provide facilities described in paragraph (4) or (5) of 
     section 142(a).''.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 7871(c) 
     is amended by striking ``paragraph (3)'' and inserting 
     ``paragraphs (3) and (4)''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION FROM ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN TAX-EXEMPT BONDS.

       (a) In General.--Clause (vi) of section 57(a)(5)(C) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subclause (I) and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``and 2010'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``, 2010, and 2011''.
       (b) Adjusted Current Earnings.--Clause (iv) of section 
     56(g)(4)(B) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``January 1, 2011'' in subclause (I) and 
     inserting ``January 1, 2012'', and
       (2) by striking ``and 2010'' in the heading and inserting 
     ``, 2010, and 2011''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to obligations issued after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 204. ELECTIVE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOW INCOME HOUSING 
                   CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 65 (relating to abatements, 
     credits, and refunds) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subchapter:

               ``Subchapter C--Direct Payment Provisions

``Sec. 6451. Elective payments in lieu of low income housing credit for 
              bond-financed buildings.

     ``SEC. 6451. ELECTIVE PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF LOW INCOME HOUSING 
                   CREDIT FOR BOND-FINANCED BUILDINGS.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person making an election under this 
     section with respect to any qualified bond-financed low-
     income building originally placed in service by such person 
     during the taxable year shall be treated as making a payment, 
     against the tax imposed by subtitle A for the taxable year, 
     equal to the direct payment amount with respect to such 
     building. Such payment shall be treated as made on the later 
     of the due date of the return of such tax or the date on 
     which such return is filed.
       ``(b) Qualified Bond-financed Low-income Building.--For 
     purposes of this section, the term `qualified bond-financed 
     low-income building' means any qualified low-income building 
     to which paragraph (1) of section 42(h) does not apply by 
     reason of paragraph (4)(B) of such section.
       ``(c) Direct Payment Amount.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `direct payment amount' means, with respect to any 
     building, 25.5 percent of the qualified basis of such 
     building.
       ``(d) Special Rules for Certain Non-taxpayers.--
       ``(1) Denial of payment.--Subsection (a) shall not apply 
     with respect to any building placed in service by--
       ``(A) any governmental entity, or
       ``(B) any organization described in section 501(c) or 
     401(a) and exempt from tax under section 501(a).
       ``(2) Special rules for partnerships and s corporations.--
     In the case of property originally placed in service by a 
     partnership or an S corporation--
       ``(A) the election under subsection (a) may be made only by 
     such partnership or S corporation,
       ``(B) such partnership or S corporation shall be treated as 
     making the payment referred to in subsection (a) only to the 
     extent of the proportionate share of such partnership or S 
     corporation as is owned by persons who would be treated as 
     making such payment if the building were placed in service by 
     such persons, and
       ``(C) the return required to be made by such partnership or 
     S corporation under section 6031 or 6037 (as the case may be) 
     shall be treated as a return of tax for purposes of 
     subsection (a).

     For purposes of subparagraph (B), rules similar to the rules 
     of section 168(h)(6) (other than subparagraph (F) thereof) 
     shall apply.
       ``(e) Coordination With Low Income Housing Credit.--In the 
     case of any property with respect to which an election is 
     made under this section, no credit shall be determined under 
     section 42 with respect to such building for any taxable 
     year.
       ``(f) Other Definitions and Special Rules.--For purposes of 
     this section--
       ``(1) Other definitions.--Terms used in this section which 
     are also used in section 42 shall have the same meaning for 
     purposes of this section as when used in such section.
       ``(2) Application of recapture rules, etc.--Except as 
     otherwise provided by the Secretary, rules similar to the 
     rules of section 42 shall apply, including the recapture 
     rules of section 42(j).
       ``(3) Provision of information.--A person shall not be 
     treated as having elected the application of this section 
     unless the taxpayer provides such information as the 
     Secretary may require for purposes of verifying the proper 
     amount to be treated as a payment under subsection (a) and 
     evaluating the effectiveness of this section.
       ``(4) Exclusion from gross income.--Any credit or refund 
     allowed or made by reason of this section shall not be 
     includible in gross income or alternative minimum taxable 
     income.
       ``(g) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to any building placed in service during a taxable 
     year beginning after December 31, 2010.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Subparagraph (A) of section 6211(b)(4) is amended by 
     inserting ``and subchapter C of chapter 65 (including any 
     payment treated as made under such subchapter)'' after 
     ``6431''.
       (2) Subparagraph (B) of section 6425(c)(1) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the credits'' and inserting ``the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) the credits'',
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (i) thereof 
     (as amended by this paragraph) and inserting ``, plus'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) the credits allowed (and payments treated as made) 
     under subchapter C.''.
       (3) Paragraph (3) of section 6654(f) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the credits'' and inserting ``the sum 
     of--
       ``(A) the credits'',
       (B) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (A) 
     thereof (as amended by this paragraph) and inserting ``, 
     and'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) the credits allowed (and payments treated as made) 
     under subchapter C of chapter 65.''.
       (4) Subparagraph (B) of section 6655(g)(1) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``the credits'' and inserting ``the sum 
     of--
       ``(i) the credits'',
       (B) by striking the period at the end of clause (i) thereof 
     (as amended by this paragraph) and inserting ``, plus'', and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(ii) the credits allowed (and payments treated as made) 
     under subchapter C of chapter 65.''.
       (5) Paragraph (2) of section 1324(b) of title 31, United 
     States Code, is amended by inserting ``, or from the 
     provisions of subchapter C of chapter 65 of such Code'' 
     before the period at the end.
       (6) The table of subchapters for chapter 65 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new item:

                subchapter c. direct payment provisions

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to buildings placed in service after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 205. EXTENSION AND ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS OF RECOVERY 
                   ZONE BOND AUTHORITY.

       (a) Extension of Recovery Zone Bond Authority.--Section 
     1400U-2(b)(1) and section 1400U-3(b)(1)(B) are each amended 
     by striking ``January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     2012''.
       (b) Additional Allocations of Recovery Zone Bond Authority 
     Based on Unemployment.--Section 1400U-1 is amended by adding 
     at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) Allocation of 2010 Recovery Zone Bond Limitations 
     Based on Unemployment.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall allocate the 2010 
     national recovery zone economic development bond limitation 
     and the 2010 national recovery zone facility bond limitation 
     among the States in the proportion that each such State's 
     2009 unemployment number bears to the aggregate of the 2009 
     unemployment numbers for all of the States.
       ``(2) Minimum allocation.--The Secretary shall adjust the 
     allocations under paragraph (1) for each State to the extent 
     necessary to ensure that no State (prior to any reduction 
     under paragraph (3)) receives less than 0.9 percent of the 
     2010 national recovery zone economic development bond 
     limitation and 0.9 percent of the 2010 national recovery zone 
     facility bond limitation.
       ``(3) Allocations by states.--
       ``(A) In general.--Each State with respect to which an 
     allocation is made under paragraph (1) shall reallocate such 
     allocation among the counties and large municipalities (as 
     defined in subsection (a)(3)(B)) in such State in the 
     proportion that each such county's or municipality's 2009 
     unemployment number bears to the aggregate of the 2009 
     unemployment numbers for

[[Page 4752]]

     all the counties and large municipalities (as so defined) in 
     such State.
       ``(B) 2010 allocation reduced by amount of previous 
     allocation.--Each State shall reduce (but not below zero)--
       ``(i) the amount of the 2010 national recovery zone 
     economic development bond limitation allocated to each county 
     or large municipality (as so defined) in such State by the 
     amount of the national recovery zone economic development 
     bond limitation allocated to such county or large 
     municipality under subsection (a)(3)(A) (determined without 
     regard to any waiver thereof), and
       ``(ii) the amount of the 2010 national recovery zone 
     facility bond limitation allocated to each county or large 
     municipality (as so defined) in such State by the amount of 
     the national recovery zone facility bond limitation allocated 
     to such county or large municipality under subsection 
     (a)(3)(A) (determined without regard to any waiver thereof).
       ``(C) Waiver of suballocations.--A county or municipality 
     may waive any portion of an allocation made under this 
     paragraph. A State may by law treat a county or municipality 
     as waiving any portion of an allocation made under this 
     paragraph if there is a reasonable expectation that such 
     allocation would not otherwise be used.
       ``(D) Special rule for a municipality in a county.--In the 
     case of any large municipality any portion of which is in a 
     county, such portion shall be treated as part of such 
     municipality and not part of such county.
       ``(4) 2009 unemployment number.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `2009 unemployment number' means, with 
     respect to any State, county or municipality, the number of 
     individuals in such State, county, or municipality who were 
     determined to be unemployed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
     for December 2009.
       ``(5) 2010 national limitations.--
       ``(A) Recovery zone economic development bonds.--The 2010 
     national recovery zone economic development bond limitation 
     is $10,000,000,000. Any allocation of such limitation under 
     this subsection shall be treated for purposes of section 
     1400U-2 in the same manner as an allocation of national 
     recovery zone economic development bond limitation.
       ``(B) Recovery zone facility bonds.--The 2010 national 
     recovery zone facility bond limitation is $15,000,000,000. 
     Any allocation of such limitation under this subsection shall 
     be treated for purposes of section 1400U-3 in the same manner 
     as an allocation of national recovery zone facility bond 
     limitation.''.
       (c) Authority of State to Waive Certain 2009 Allocations.--
     Subparagraph (A) of section 1400U-1(a)(3) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``A State may by law treat a 
     county or municipality as waiving any portion of an 
     allocation made under this subparagraph if there is a 
     reasonable expectation that such allocation would not 
     otherwise be used.''.

     SEC. 206. ALLOWANCE OF NEW MARKETS TAX CREDIT AGAINST 
                   ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 38(c)(4) is 
     amended by redesignating clauses (v) through (viii) as 
     clauses (vi) through (ix), respectively, and by inserting 
     after clause (iv) the following new clause:
       ``(v) the credit determined under section 45D, but only 
     with respect to credits determined with respect to qualified 
     equity investments (as defined in section 45D(b)) initially 
     made before January 1, 2012,''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to qualified equity investments (as defined in 
     section 45D(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) 
     initially made after March 15, 2010.

                     TITLE III--REVENUE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. LIMITATION ON TREATY BENEFITS FOR CERTAIN 
                   DEDUCTIBLE PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 894 (relating to income affected 
     by treaty) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(d) Limitation on Treaty Benefits for Certain Deductible 
     Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any deductible related-
     party payment, any withholding tax imposed under chapter 3 
     (and any tax imposed under subpart A or B of this part) with 
     respect to such payment may not be reduced under any treaty 
     of the United States unless any such withholding tax would be 
     reduced under a treaty of the United States if such payment 
     were made directly to the foreign parent corporation.
       ``(2) Deductible related-party payment.--For purposes of 
     this subsection, the term `deductible related-party payment' 
     means any payment made, directly or indirectly, by any person 
     to any other person if the payment is allowable as a 
     deduction under this chapter and both persons are members of 
     the same foreign controlled group of entities.
       ``(3) Foreign controlled group of entities.--For purposes 
     of this subsection--
       ``(A) In general.--The term `foreign controlled group of 
     entities' means a controlled group of entities the common 
     parent of which is a foreign corporation.
       ``(B) Controlled group of entities.--The term `controlled 
     group of entities' means a controlled group of corporations 
     as defined in section 1563(a)(1), except that--
       ``(i) `more than 50 percent' shall be substituted for `at 
     least 80 percent' each place it appears therein, and
       ``(ii) the determination shall be made without regard to 
     subsections (a)(4) and (b)(2) of section 1563.

     A partnership or any other entity (other than a corporation) 
     shall be treated as a member of a controlled group of 
     entities if such entity is controlled (within the meaning of 
     section 954(d)(3)) by members of such group (including any 
     entity treated as a member of such group by reason of this 
     sentence).
       ``(4) Foreign parent corporation.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `foreign parent corporation' means, with 
     respect to any deductible related-party payment, the common 
     parent of the foreign controlled group of entities referred 
     to in paragraph (3)(A).
       ``(5) Regulations.--The Secretary may prescribe such 
     regulations or other guidance as are necessary or appropriate 
     to carry out the purposes of this subsection, including 
     regulations or other guidance which provide for--
       ``(A) the treatment of two or more persons as members of a 
     foreign controlled group of entities if such persons would be 
     the common parent of such group if treated as one 
     corporation, and
       ``(B) the treatment of any member of a foreign controlled 
     group of entities as the common parent of such group if such 
     treatment is appropriate taking into account the economic 
     relationships among such entities.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF SECURITIES OF A CONTROLLED CORPORATION 
                   EXCHANGED FOR ASSETS IN CERTAIN 
                   REORGANIZATIONS.

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

     SEC. 303. REPEAL OF SPECIAL RULES FOR INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS 
                   RECEIVED FROM PERSONS MEETING THE 80-PERCENT 
                   FOREIGN BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS.

       (a) Repeal of Special Rule Treating Interest as United 
     States Source.--Paragraph (1) of section 861(a) is amended by 
     striking subparagraph (A) and by redesignating subparagraphs 
     (B) and (C) as subparagraphs (A) and (B), respectively.
       (b) Repeal of Exception to Tax on Dividends Received by 
     Nonresident Aliens.--Paragraph (2) of section 871(i) is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (B) and by redesignating 
     subparagraphs (C) and (D) as subparagraphs (B) and (C), 
     respectively.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 861 is amended by striking subsection (c) and 
     by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as subsections 
     (c), (d), and (e), respectively.
       (2) Paragraph (9) of section 904(h) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(9) Treatment of certain domestic corporations.--In the 
     case of any dividend treated as not from sources with the 
     United States under section 861(a)(2)(A), the corporation 
     paying such dividend shall be treated for purposes of this 
     subsection as a United States-owned foreign corporation.''.
       (3) Subsection (c) of section 2104 is amended in the last 
     sentence by striking ``or to a debt obligation of a domestic 
     corporation'' and all that follows and inserting a period.
       (d) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2010.
       (2) Grandfather rule for outstanding debt obligations.--
       (A) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     not apply to payments of interest on obligations issued 
     before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (B) Exception for related party debt.--Subparagraph (A) 
     shall not apply to any interest which is payable to a related 
     person (determined under rules similar to the rules of 
     section 954(d)(3)).

[[Page 4753]]

       (C) Significant modifications treated as new issues.--For 
     purposes of subparagraph (A), a significant modification of 
     the terms of any obligation (including any extension of the 
     term of such obligation) shall be treated as a new issue.

     SEC. 304. INFORMATION REPORTING FOR RENTAL PROPERTY EXPENSE 
                   PAYMENTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 6041 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new subsection:
       ``(h) Treatment of Rental Property Expense Payments.--
       ``(1) In general.--For purposes of subsection (a), a person 
     receiving rental income from real estate (other than a 
     qualified residence) shall be considered to be engaged in a 
     trade or business of renting property.
       ``(2) Qualified residence.--For purposes of paragraph (1), 
     the term `qualified residence' means--
       ``(A) the principal residence (within the meaning of 
     section 121) of the taxpayer, and
       ``(B) 1 other residence of the taxpayer which is selected 
     by the taxpayer for purposes of this subsection for the 
     taxable year and which is used by the taxpayer as a residence 
     (within the meaning of section 280A(d)(1)).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to payments made after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 305. APPLICATION OF LEVY TO PAYMENTS TO FEDERAL VENDORS 
                   RELATING TO PROPERTY.

       (a) In General.--Section 6331(h)(3) is amended by striking 
     ``goods or services'' and inserting ``property, goods, or 
     services''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to levies approved after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 306. APPLICATION OF CONTINUOUS LEVY TO TAX LIABILITIES 
                   OF CERTAIN FEDERAL CONTRACTORS.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 6330 is amended 
     by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (2), by inserting 
     ``or'' at the end of paragraph (3), and by inserting after 
     paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) the Secretary has served a Federal contractor 
     levy,''.
       (b) Federal Contractor Levy.--Subsection (h) of section 
     6330 is amended--
       (1) by striking all that precedes ``any levy in connection 
     with the collection'' and inserting the following:
       ``(h) Definitions Related to Exceptions.--For purposes of 
     subsection (f)--
       ``(1) Disqualified employment tax levy.--A disqualified 
     employment tax levy is'', and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) Federal contractor levy.--A Federal contractor levy 
     is any levy if the person whose property is subject to the 
     levy (or any predecessor thereof) is a Federal contractor.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--The heading of subsection (f) of 
     section 6330 is amended by striking ``Jeopardy and State 
     Refund Collection'' and inserting ``Exceptions''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to levies issued after December 31, 2010.

     SEC. 307. REQUIRED MINIMUM 10-YEAR TERM, ETC., FOR GRANTOR 
                   RETAINED ANNUITY TRUSTS.

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

     SEC. 308. INCREASE IN INFORMATION RETURN PENALTIES.

       (a) Failure to File Correct Information Returns.--
       (1) In general.--Subsections (a)(1), (b)(1)(A), and 
     (b)(2)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$50'' and inserting ``$100''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (a)(1), 
     (d)(1)(A), and (e)(3)(A) of section 6721 are each amended by 
     striking ``$250,000'' and inserting ``$1,500,000''.
       (b) Reduction Where Correction Within 30 Days.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(1) is 
     amended by striking ``$15'' and inserting ``$30''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(1)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(B) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$75,000'' and inserting ``$250,000''.
       (c) Reduction Where Correction on or Before August 1.--
       (1) In general.--Subparagraph (A) of section 6721(b)(2) is 
     amended by striking ``$30'' and inserting ``$60''.
       (2) Aggregate annual limitation.--Subsections (b)(2)(B) and 
     (d)(1)(C) of section 6721 are each amended by striking 
     ``$150,000'' and inserting ``$500,000''.
       (d) Aggregate Annual Limitations for Persons With Gross 
     Receipts of Not More Than $5,000,000.--Paragraph (1) of 
     section 6721(d) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``$100,000'' in subparagraph (A) and 
     inserting ``$500,000'',
       (2) by striking ``$25,000'' in subparagraph (B) and 
     inserting ``$75,000'', and
       (3) by striking ``$50,000'' in subparagraph (C) and 
     inserting ``$200,000''.
       (e) Penalty in Case of Intentional Disregard.--Paragraph 
     (2) of section 6721(e) is amended by striking ``$100'' and 
     inserting ``$250''.
       (f) Adjustment for Inflation.--Section 6721 is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) Adjustment for Inflation.--
       ``(1) In general.--For each fifth calendar year beginning 
     after 2012, each of the dollar amounts under subsections (a), 
     (b), (d) (other than paragraph (2)(A) thereof), and (e) shall 
     be increased by such dollar amount multiplied by the cost-of-
     living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) determined 
     by substituting `calendar year 2011' for `calendar year 1992' 
     in subparagraph (B) thereof.
       ``(2) Rounding.--If any amount adjusted under paragraph 
     (1)--
       ``(A) is not less than $75,000 and is not a multiple of 
     $500, such amount shall be rounded to the next lowest 
     multiple of $500, and
       ``(B) is not described in subparagraph (A) and is not a 
     multiple of $10, such amount shall be rounded to the next 
     lowest multiple of $10.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply with respect to information returns required to 
     be filed on or after January 1, 2011.

     SEC. 309. CRUDE TALL OIL INELIGIBLE FOR CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL 
                   PRODUCER CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Section 40(B)(6)(E) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(iv) Exclusion of certain processed fuels with a high 
     acid content.--The term `cellulosic biofuel' shall not 
     include any processed fuel with an acid number greater than 
     25. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term 
     `processed fuel' means any fuel other than a fuel--
       ``(I) more than 4 percent of which (determined by weight) 
     is any combination of water and sediment, or
       ``(II) the ash content of which is more than 1 percent 
     (determined by weight).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1, 
     2010.

     SEC. 310. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       (a) Shift From 2015 to 2014.--The percentage under 
     paragraph (1) of section 202(b) of the Corporate Estimated 
     Tax Shift Act of 2009 in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act is increased by 4.5 percentage points.
       (b) Shift From 2016 to 2015.--The percentage under 
     paragraph (2) of section 561 of the Hiring Incentives to 
     Restore Employment Act in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act is increased by 3.5 percentage points.
       (c) Shift From 2020 to 2019.--The percentage under 
     paragraph (3) of section 561 of the Hiring Incentives to 
     Restore Employment Act in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act is increased by 1.25 percentage points.

 TITLE IV--EXTENSION OF EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUND FOR STATE TEMPORARY 
                 ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAMS

     SEC. 401. 1-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE EMERGENCY CONTINGENCY FUND 
                   FOR STATE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 
                   FAMILIES PROGRAMS.

       (a) In General.--Section 403(c) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 603(c)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), by inserting ``, and for fiscal 
     year 2011, $2,500,000,000'' before ``for payment'';
       (2) by striking paragraph (2)(B) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(B) Availability and use of funds.--
       ``(i) Fiscal years 2009 and 2010.--The amounts appropriated 
     to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 
     2009 shall remain available through fiscal year 2010 and 
     shall be used to make grants to States in each of fiscal 
     years 2009 and 2010 in accordance with the requirements of 
     paragraph (3).
       ``(ii) Fiscal year 2011.--Subject to clause (iii), the 
     amounts appropriated to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph 
     (A) for fiscal year 2011 shall remain available through 
     fiscal year 2012 and shall be used to make grants to States 
     based on expenditures in fiscal year 2011 for benefits and 
     services provided in fiscal year 2011 in accordance with the 
     requirements of paragraph (3).
       ``(iii) Reservation of funds.--Of the amounts appropriated 
     to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph (A) for fiscal year 
     2011, $500,000 shall be placed in reserve for use in fiscal 
     year 2012, and shall be used to award grants for any 
     expenditures described in this subsection incurred by States 
     after September 30, 2011.'';
       (3) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ``2010'' and inserting 
     ``2012'';
       (4) in paragraph (3)--

[[Page 4754]]

       (A) in clause (i) of each of subparagraphs (A), (B), and 
     (C)--
       (i) by striking ``year 2009 or 2010'' and inserting ``years 
     2009 through 2011'';
       (ii) by striking ``and'' at the end of subclause (I);
       (iii) by striking the period at the end of subclause (II) 
     and inserting ``; and''; and
       (iv) by adding at the end the following:

       ``(III) if the quarter is in fiscal year 2011, has provided 
     the Secretary with such information as the Secretary may find 
     necessary in order to make the determinations, or take any 
     other action, described in paragraph (5)(C).''; and

       (B) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iv) Limitation on expenditures for subsidized 
     employment.--An expenditure for subsidized employment shall 
     be taken into account under clause (ii) only if the 
     expenditure is used to subsidize employment for--

       ``(I) a member of a needy family (without regard to whether 
     the family is receiving assistance under the State program 
     funded under this part); or
       ``(II) an individual who has exhausted (or, within 60 days, 
     will exhaust) all rights to receive unemployment compensation 
     under Federal and State law, and who is a member of a needy 
     household (regardless of whether the household includes a 
     child).'';

       (5) by striking paragraph (5) and inserting the following:
       ``(5) Limitations on payments; adjustment authority.--
       ``(A) Fiscal years 2009 and 2010.--The total amount payable 
     to a single State under subsection (b) and this subsection 
     for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 combined shall not exceed 50 
     percent of the annual State family assistance grant.
       ``(B) Fiscal year 2011.--Subject to subparagraph (C), the 
     total amount payable to a single State under subsection (b) 
     and this subsection for fiscal year 2011 shall not exceed 30 
     percent of the annual State family assistance grant.
       ``(C) Adjustment authority.--If the Secretary determines 
     that the Emergency Fund is at risk of being depleted before 
     September 30, 2011, or that funds are available to 
     accommodate additional State requests under this subsection, 
     the Secretary may, through program instructions issued 
     without regard to the requirements of section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code--
       ``(i) specify priority criteria for awarding grants to 
     States during fiscal year 2011; and
       ``(ii) adjust the percentage limitation applicable under 
     subparagraph (B) with respect to the total amount payable to 
     a single State for fiscal year 2011.''; and
       (6) in paragraph (6), by inserting ``or for expenditures 
     described in paragraph (3)(C)(iv)'' before the period.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 2101 of division B of 
     the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public 
     Law 111-5) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)--
       (A) by striking ``2010'' and inserting ``2011''; and
       (B) by striking all that follows ``repealed'' and inserting 
     a period; and
       (2) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``2010'' and 
     inserting ``2011''.
       (c) Program Guidance.--The Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services shall issue program guidance, without regard to the 
     requirements of section 553 of title 5, United States Code, 
     which ensures that the funds provided under the amendments 
     made by this section for subsidized employment do not support 
     any subsidized employment position the annual salary of which 
     is greater than, at State option--
       (1) 200 percent of the poverty line (within the meaning of 
     section 673(2) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
     1981, including any revision required by such section 673(2)) 
     for a family of 4; or
       (2) the median wage in any jurisdiction operating a program 
     with funds provided pursuant to the amendments.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I ask that all Members may have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert 
extraneous material in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. In addition, the Ways and Means Ranking Member Dave Camp 
and I have asked the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation to make 
available to the public a technical explanation of the modifications 
that were made to H.R. 4849 by the rule.
  This technical explanation supplements the Committee Report 111-454, 
with information on the Committee's understanding and legislative 
intent behind these modifications. It is available on the Joint 
Committee's Web site at www.jct.gov and is listed under document 
numbered JCX-21-10.
  It is now my pleasure to yield 1 minute to our most distinguished 
majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding and I congratulate him 
for his leadership, and I thank Mr. Camp as well for his work.
  In the fall, Madam Speaker, of 2008, America did not know whether it 
was heading for the second Great Depression. Those weren't my words. 
Those were the words of Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve.
  Since then, the work of the Obama administration and the Democratic 
Congress has headed off disaster. Most important has been the Recovery 
Act, which cut taxes for small businesses and 95 percent of families, 
funded thousands of job-creating projects across America, provided 
emergency assistance to those hit hardest by the recession, saved 
States from laying off teachers, firefighters, police officers, and 
much more.
  No matter what its partisan critics say, the facts say it clearly: 
The Recovery Act is working.
  The Recovery Act created some 2 million jobs. And since President 
Obama took office, monthly job losses are down 96 percent, from 726,000 
over a 4-month average during the latter part of the Bush 
administration, to 27,500 over the last 4 months, a 96 percent 
improvement of job loss. That is not success, but it is progress. 
Success will be when we grow jobs, as we did in November.
  Our economy is growing again. In the most recent quarter, it grew by 
5.9 percent. That is the fastest rate in 6 years, and the second 
straight quarter of growth under President Obama. In addition, it is a 
12.3 percent turnaround from the last quarter of 2008 to the last 
quarter of 2009.
  The Dow is up some 60 plus percent from the low it hit shortly after 
President Obama signed the Recovery Act, the S&P 500 is up 72 percent 
from its low, and the NASDAQ is up 87 percent now, since we passed the 
Recovery Act. That is progress to be proud of.
  But as long as millions of Americans remain out of work, through no 
fault of their own, we have not reached the goal. We have not had the 
success we want.
  We know that, to a family struggling through chronic unemployment, 
all the positive economic numbers in the world must look like they bear 
little relation to reality. That is because, time and again, employment 
numbers are the last part of a recession to turn around.
  The families who are struggling and suffering right now did not 
create this economic collapse, but they are bearing its brunt. So it is 
imperative that we act for them.
  This month, the President signed the HIRE Act, which eliminated the 
payroll tax for every employed worker who is hired. Now, the good news 
by that is that we don't pay anything unless we accomplish the 
objective. If they add the jobs, they get the credit, which the 
nonpartisan CBO calls one of the most effective methods of job 
creation.
  The HIRE Act also gives businesses tax credits for keeping new 
employees on the payroll, helps small businesses finance their 
expansion, and extends job-creating and much-needed highway programs.
  When the House passed the HIRE Act, Democrats made it clear on this 
floor that it was an important step, but by no means the last one. That 
is why we are back here today, and that is why I urge my colleagues to 
support the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act.
  This bill expands the successful Build America bonds and Recovery 
Zone bonds, which helps State and local governments fund needed 
projects and put people to work. As of this month, Build America bonds 
helped State and local governments pay for $78 billion in 
infrastructure programs, projects that were needed but did not have the 
funds. Build America bonds assured that they had the funds and created 
the jobs.
  This bill also contains provisions to help small business innovate 
and grow. It increases the deduction for business startup expenses, so 
enterprising Americans all over our country will

[[Page 4755]]

have stronger incentives to open the books of new businesses, an 
important measure we owe to my Maryland colleague and friend, 
Congressman Frank Kratovil.
  And, it excludes 100 percent of small business capital gains from 
taxation, which will lead to a new influx of investment, the investment 
small businesses need to expand and hire new workers.
  For Democrats, job creation is our single-most important job. I 
think, frankly, Republicans share that sentiment. I think that is a 
bipartisan sentiment. This bill carries that work forward, and I 
believe it will provide significant relief to the Americans who are 
still feeling the recession's harsh effects.
  Again, I congratulate Mr. Levin for the work of his committee on 
bringing this to the floor. I also want to congratulate my friend, 
Charlie Rangel, who has been so instrumental in working on these jobs 
bills for so long. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly 
support this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It's tough to see this bill either as a small business bill or as a 
jobs bill, and, specifically, I have three concerns:
  One, it raises taxes on employers during a recession, making it 
tougher for Americans to find needed work.
  Two, roughly 80 percent of the so-called tax relief in the bill is 
dedicated to State and local governments.

                              {time}  1315

  Small governments are not small businesses, and they do not create 
the kind of private sector jobs that we need.
  Three, the limited and very narrow tax provisions, even if well-
intentioned, will not do enough to help employers create jobs.
  Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed. That's the simple truth 
regarding the provision limiting treaty benefits for certain deductible 
payments. This is very similar to a provision offered previously by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and accounts for about 40 percent of 
the $19.4 billion in tax increases in the bill.
  There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American 
workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be 
the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48 
States have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3 
million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill 
passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work.
  In case you need more evidence that the Democrat stimulus bill 
failed, just look at the $2.5 billion in ``emergency'' welfare spending 
that was added to this bill. This money will be paid out in the third 
fiscal year since stimulus money first started flowing. That's the 
third year. This bill increases spending, it increases taxes and will 
not create private sector jobs. In that respect, this is the ``Mini 
Me'' of the Democrats' stimulus bill.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this 
Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4 
million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life 
in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an 
extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective 
tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local 
governments looking to advance infrastructure programs.
  Mr. Camp talks about the number of States--I think you referred to 
47--where jobs have been lost. I think every one of those States--it's 
47--has benefited from the Build America Bonds program. The money goes 
to local communities for infrastructure, and that creates jobs. That's 
what finance experts have said about BABs. It's one of the economic 
recovery effort's biggest successes. As I mentioned, as of March 1, 
2010, State and local governments have used BABs to finance more than 
$78 billion in infrastructure programs.
  Now, as to small business. The legislation excludes 100 percent of 
capital gains on small business stock to help encourage immediate 
investments in growth. It will, in turn, help our small businesses hire 
new workers and continue fueling our economic recovery. Also included 
are provisions to remove onerous penalties from small businesses so 
they can create more jobs. Also, there's a provision, an important one, 
to reduce the barrier of startup expenses on new businesses.
  The bill would also extend, for 1 year, the TANF emergency 
contingency fund. The Governors Association has said this fund helps 
``speed economic recovery through subsidized employment and training 
programs.''
  This bill is completely offset and will not add a dime to the Federal 
deficit. The bill is offset with provisions to ensure compliance with 
our tax laws, close down a loophole that allows paper companies to 
claim a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for highly corrosive fuel waste 
products, and it does crack down on foreign tax haven corporations that 
are taking advantage of the U.S. tax treaty network in order to dodge 
U.S. taxes. And to just say you're opposed to any tax increases? Tax 
increases on people who are avoiding paying legitimate taxes. I have a 
chart here, in very simple terms, that spells out how these companies, 
these foreign corporations that are not part of a tax-treaty country, 
how they evade taxes through a gimmick. And to oppose this because of 
that, I think, is very, very inappropriate.
  So, in a word, this bill is another significant step towards helping 
our country continue down the path of economic recovery and job 
creation. It should be a bipartisan bill. In the markup that we held, 
there wasn't a single amendment offered by the minority to strike a 
specific jobs provision here. This Congress will continue to take 
additional targeted and effective steps to accelerate economic recovery 
for American families. And I say with sadness, as I hear Mr. Camp 
speak, that it looks like it will not receive the bipartisan support it 
so fully deserves.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CAMP. At this time I yield 3 minutes to a distinguished member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Herger).
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, Republicans have been arguing ever since 
the debate on last year's failed stimulus bill that we need real tax 
relief to get our economy going and to create jobs. Today, the 
Democratic majority has brought forward a bill that offers $3.5 billion 
in tax relief for small businesses. Unfortunately, it also includes $19 
billion in new taxes, including a major tax aimed directly at companies 
that invest in the U.S. and hire American workers. This comes just days 
after the Democrats rammed through a health care bill that raises taxes 
by $569 billion. And if Congress does not extend the tax relief that 
expires at the end of this year, Americans will see their taxes go up 
by another $3 trillion. So while there are some good things in this 
bill, it's hard to see how a collection of minor tax relief measures 
will spur job creation when small businesses are staring down the 
barrel of unprecedented tax increases in the year ahead.
  When the Ways and Means Committee considered this bill last week, I 
offered an amendment to make permanent the $250,000 expensing allowance 
under section 179; however, Democrats voted down this and every other 
effort to provide real, permanent tax relief for small businesses. What 
has been added to the bill is a new $2.5 billion bailout for State 
welfare programs. This has nothing to do with creating jobs; yet it was 
mysteriously added to the bill after we marked it up in committee. I 
hope that this was not a deliberate plan to avoid having a vote in 
committee on the merits of this funding. After the public outrage over 
backroom dealmaking in the health care bill, it is disappointing to see 
the majority party again bypassing regular order to make last-minute 
changes to the bill reported by the committee.

[[Page 4756]]

  Madam Speaker, the American people still want to know: Where are the 
jobs? This bill fails to answer that question, and the House should 
reject it.
  Mr. LEVIN. It's now my privilege to yield 2 minutes to my colleague 
and friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).
  Mr. RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I really can't understand how this discussion is dealing with 
Republicans and Democrats. When someone loses his job and loses his 
health care, loses his dignity and pride and ability to take care of 
his or her rent or pay the mortgage or tuition in school, when they 
make applications for unemployment compensation, I really don't think 
that people ask: Are you a Republican or a Democrat? And this is true 
of health insurance as well as it is for education and job training. 
This is what makes America great, not the majority or minority party. 
At the end of the day, what have we done as Congress and a part of 
government to allow people to put their hopes and dreams together so 
that we can get a full recovery?
  For those who are critical of this bill for what it hasn't done, it's 
only one step as we attempt to move forward to get America back to 
work. That's what we all want. For those who say that too much is given 
to government, my God, we're talking about putting people back to work 
so that they have the ability to buy from small business people.
  We eliminate taxes for capital gains if you invest in small 
businesses. We provide incentives for startup funds so that people can 
have the small businesses. And there's not a mayor, there's not a 
Governor, who doesn't truly believe that putting people to work on 
infrastructure, building schools, getting involved in low-income 
housing--we're talking about jobs. Not Democratic jobs, not Republican 
jobs, but jobs that can put money in people's pockets to fulfill their 
obligations and their dreams.
  So let's get away from this partisanship. Why don't we just ask: Is 
it good for America and not just good for our party?
  Mr. CAMP. At this time, Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a member 
of the Ways and Means Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Another week, another stimulus. This 
ministimulus, the third or fourth such effort--I've lost count--is more 
proof of the failed economic policies of Washington Democrats and an 
acknowledgment that the massive $860 billion stimulus bill has fallen 
far short of its debt-driven, wastefully spent promises to revive 
America's recovery.
  From a jobs standpoint for small business, this bill does next to 
nothing. In fact, by increasing taxes on global companies that invest 
and create jobs here in America, this bill may actually kill more jobs 
than it creates.
  This bill wrongly breaches longstanding tax treaties and increases 
taxes by more than $7 billion on global companies with subsidiaries 
here in the United States. We want America to be the place Americans 
choose to put their workers. Why punish them, especially thousands of 
Americans without jobs?
  This measure also expands the heavily taxpayer subsidized Build 
America Bonds, which are popular but are taking shape as a long-term 
entitlement to which our local governments are quickly becoming 
addicted. That's bad news for America's taxpayers.
  Finally, much has been made of the centerpiece of this bill. It's a 
100 percent cutout of capital gains on small businesses. But who 
qualifies for this? I can tell you who doesn't qualify as a small 
business. Look closely at the section that says, if you're in health, 
in law, engineering, architecture, accounting, actuarial science, 
performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services, brokerage 
services, or any trade or business where the reputation of your 
employees counts. You're not eligible if you're in banking, insurance, 
financing, leasing, investing, or similar business. You're not eligible 
if you're a farming small business, a business involving extraction of 
commodities like energy or mining. You can't be a hotel, a motel, a 
restaurant, or similar business. You can't have ownership or dealings 
in or renting of real estate property or rental property.
  The question is: Who does qualify for this?

                              {time}  1330

  The answer is nobody. That's why this does so little for small 
business, so little for our economy. The truth of the matter is, the 
reason businesses aren't hiring back workers or hiring new ones is 
they're scared of the policies in Washington. Cap-and-trade, new health 
care mandates, new taxes, new regulation, the scary debt. That's what's 
keeping small businesses on the sidelines. That's what's holding our 
economy back. This bill does not deserve our support. We can do better.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 2 minutes to another senior member of our 
committee, Mr. McDermott of the great State of Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California asked 
where the jobs are. Well, this 1-year extension of the TANF Emergency 
Contingency Fund will produce more than 160,000 subsidized job 
placements in clerical, health care, maintenance, human service, and 
customer service jobs in 35 States; and many of them are already up and 
running. Even Haley Barbour down in Mississippi thinks it's a good 
idea.
  My office has received a tremendous increase in calls from out-of-
work Americans who are reaching the end of their UI benefits. The long-
term unemployed need help transitioning back into the changing job 
market, and they also need jobs right now. Proven programs like the 
Emergency Contingency Fund are already creating jobs at a lower cost 
than virtually any other program. If States are uncertain of the fund's 
extension, they will begin ramping down their subsidized employment 
programs beginning next month. It is critical that we pass this 
extension immediately. We have already received strong bipartisan 
support from the National Governors Association, the National 
Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of 
Counties, all of them urging the Congress to extend this program.
  Kevin Hassett of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said, 
``Given the state of the labor market, it is hard to imagine how any 
sensible person could oppose extending this emergency fund. If they are 
to be more than the party of `no,' Republicans need to rally around the 
Democrats who have shown such reserved pragmatism.''
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have heard that this welfare expansion is about jobs. Frankly, it's 
not. Democrats propose to expand the welfare emergency fund that was 
contained in last year's failed stimulus bill by $2.5 billion. They 
just extend it for another year and add that money. But since this 
legislation doesn't really alter how the money is spent, we can only 
assume the new spending will be a lot like the current spending. So 
what has the money been spent on so far? Almost none of it has been 
spent on jobs. Almost all of it has been spent on more and larger 
welfare checks.
  I would like to insert in the Record from the recent Congressional 
Research Service report on how the welfare emergency funds have been 
spent to date. As of March 18, 2010, only 13 percent of those funds 
have been spent on subsidized employment. Instead, 87 percent was spent 
on short-term aid and basic assistance. That is, on welfare checks.

        [From the Congressional Research Service, Mar. 23, 2010]

                  The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund

              (By Gene Falk, Specialist in Social Policy)


              State and Tribal Use of TANF Emergency Funds

       As of March 18, 2010, states and tribes have been awarded 
     $1.8 billion of the total $5 billion appropriated. Figure 1 
     shows the TANF ECF grant awards by category of spending. The 
     figure shows cumulative grant awards through March 18, 2010. 
     It shows that $848 million, a little less than half of the 
     total grant awards of $1.6 billion was to help finance 
     increases in expenditures for basic assistance. Another $726 
     million, 40% of the

[[Page 4757]]

     $1.8 billion, was for non-recurrent short-term aid and $231 
     million, 13% of the total, was for subsidized employment.

  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Roskam), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. ROSKAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  During the markup on this bill, Mr. Rangel of New York was very 
magnanimous in his concern for our emotional well-being on our side of 
the aisle. And he said that no matter how sincere they are in their 
argument, it must be awkward and embarrassing just to say no. I really 
do appreciate that gesture and his concern for how we're feeling. But 
the good news for Mr. Rangel is, we don't feel embarrassed, and this 
isn't awkward. In fact, it is with a sense of duty that we stand up and 
say, You know what, this bill is a classic underperformer.
  If you notice something, we're hearing echoes of the exact same 
rhetoric that we heard during the stimulus debate. The stimulus, as you 
will remember, was $750 billion, plus or minus, plus interest, so you 
are at a trillion dollars worth of commitment and a stampede argument 
of spending that said, If we would only do this now, only do this 
quick, only do this right now, unemployment was going to peak at 8 
percent. Well, that didn't happen in my home State of Illinois. In 
fact, The Chicago Tribune recently quoted a civic leader, the Civic 
Federation of Chicago, and this is what they said regarding the State 
of Illinois' budget morass, notwithstanding all the help that the 
majority has claimed that they've foisted on these States. They've 
said, This is historic. It is epic. It is impossible to overstate the 
level of peril.
  That's with the majority's help.
  So now the argument comes, ``Well, you Republicans talk about small 
government all the time. Let's help small government here.'' I think 
that's an inherently flawed argument because what we're doing is 
borrowing and then foisting more spending.
  Look, I think ultimately the most difficult and troublesome component 
of this is the overriding of 60 bilateral trade agreements. I have over 
3,400 employees in my district alone in suburban Chicago. That's not to 
mention another over a quarter of a million employees who are employed 
by companies that are insourcing jobs.
  I think the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. 
Chamber of Commerce got it just right when they opposed this bill for 
all the right reasons.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from 
Georgia, my friend John Lewis.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman, my 
friend, for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, not long ago, the American economy was headed toward 
disaster. In the past year, businesses have closed their doors, and 
more and more of our sisters and brothers have joined the unemployment 
line. In my district, unemployment is still over 10 percent. That is 
unacceptable. And with this bill, with this piece of legislation, we 
can do better.
  While this Congress and this administration have brought our economy 
back from the brink of depression, there is still so much left to do. 
Today with this bill, we can take another step down that long road to 
recovery. This bill will create jobs, it will save jobs, and it will 
save our small businesses. Is it possible? Is it too much to ask for? 
Is there someway and somehow that we all could come together and create 
jobs to put our people back to work?
  This bill will help the family-owned restaurant that has served our 
community for years. It will help businesses that are facing cutbacks, 
and it will help people follow their dreams to open their own 
businesses.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, for all of our small 
businesses, and to pass it now.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).
  Mr. MANZULLO. Madam Speaker, you can't tell the people in Rockford, 
Illinois, whose unemployment is at 20 percent that all these stimulus 
bills are working. In fact, even before the President was sworn in, 
because he mentioned a carbon tax, near the city of East Dubuque over 
on the Mississippi River in the congressional district that I 
represent, Rentech, which makes anhydrous ammonia and urea, was all set 
to make an $800 million investment to substitute coal for natural gas 
in the Fischer-Tropsches process resulting in the production of 
aircraft fuel. So 1,000 manufacturing jobs, an $800 million investment, 
was wiped out because even the threat of cap-and-trade had the 
investors pull the plug on it.
  And now we come up with still another bill, still another government 
program, this one to tax foreign direct investment, many of those 
people involved in the manufacturing sector. There are 240,000 jobs in 
Illinois that directly depend upon foreign direct investment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. MANZULLO. We just passed the health care bill, the cap-and-trade. 
Every time we pass these bills, the people in the congressional 
district that I represent lose more jobs. We don't need help from 
Congress. We need Congress to leave the people alone.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Neal) who is such an active member of this committee on the issues 
before us.
  Mr. NEAL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of our 
committee, and I rise in support of the Small Business and 
Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act. As a former mayor, I am pleased that this 
bill contains a number of infrastructure tools to lower the costs for 
State and local development.
  Let me put to rest the argument here that there was no cooperation on 
this bill. Mr. Ryan, a prominent Republican on the committee, and I 
supported legislation that would exempt private activity bonds from 
AMT. And it's working. The U.S. Department of Transportation cited this 
provision as saving $635 million for construction projects at 38 
airports around the country, including Cleveland, Milwaukee and 
Houston, among others. We don't check those airports to find out if 
they have a Republican Congressman or a Democratic Congressman. We 
think they are worthwhile undertakings.
  These construction projects have created thousands of jobs nationwide 
at a time that our economy really needs them. In my office, if you want 
to secure the information, we would be happy to provide you with the 
information about airport expansion which in many communities is a 
public and private partnership, but they have taken advantage of this 
initiative. These bonds are also used for student loans, and protection 
from AMT means lower rates on borrowers. In Massachusetts alone, 26,000 
students will benefit.
  The bill we are debating today also includes a provision offered by, 
yes, my friend Mr. Tiberi and I. We want to protect the New Markets Tax 
Credit from the AMT, a reasonable undertaking, a reasonable provision. 
Since its inception, this program has generated over $15 billion of 
private sector investment in some of the poorest communities in this 
country. I will repeat. Mr. Tiberi and I sponsored this provision. Mr. 
Ryan and I have cosponsored provisions here. Protection from AMT means 
financing costs are lowered, freeing up greater investment for 
struggling neighborhoods.
  And I want to submit, Mr. Chairman, and to the Speaker as well, there 
is not a Republican mayor in America who would be against the 
provisions that are offered here.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lee).
  Mr. LEE of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support a 
provision in the bill allowing a tax deduction for small business 
startup expenses. This is one of the most significant things we can do 
to encourage entrepreneurs. That's why last year I joined with a 
colleague of mine from Maryland (Mr. Kratovil) to introduce legislation 
that increases the tax deduction from $5,000 to $20,000. Designed to 
motivate entrepreneurs to act now, this provision serves as an added 
incentive for entrepreneurs to get off the sidelines and

[[Page 4758]]

create new job growth in the private sector.
  As someone who has actually run a manufacturing company up until I 
came to Congress last year, it's very disappointing for me that I 
cannot support the underlying bill. This bill without a doubt will 
raise taxes on U.S. manufacturing and jeopardize jobs here at home.
  American manufacturing workers are also facing an unfair playing 
field against our Chinese competitors. And according to the National 
Association of Manufacturers, this bill will ``make it more difficult 
for them to compete in the global marketplace and, in some cases, will 
threaten U.S. jobs and economic growth.'' I believe we should be 
strengthening U.S. manufacturers, not saddling them with job-killing 
taxes. This will further impede efforts to grow our economy and create 
jobs right here in the good old United States.
  Madam Speaker, it is past time that the House finally move through 
true pro-growth legislation. Unfortunately, despite the inclusion of 
the small business startup deduction, the underlying bill just isn't 
it.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, regarding these ill-considered arguments 
against the treaty-shopping provisions that allow a handful of firms to 
dodge their responsibilities to fund our national and homeland 
security, let's get the facts straight.
  First, there is not one company headquartered in the United States 
that will pay one cent of additional taxes as a result of these 
provisions. Number two, there is not one company that is headquartered 
in a foreign country with whom we have a tax treaty that will pay one 
cent of additional taxes. And that covers, by the way, over 90 percent 
of all foreign investment in the United States that we were just 
hearing about, over 90 percent not touched whatsoever if they are 
headquartered in a country with a tax treaty.
  What it does touch is the minority, defended by the Republican Party, 
that are determined to dodge their fair share of the cost of running 
America. Those are companies that are headquartered in tax havens that 
set up their operations specifically to dodge their tax responsibility. 
We believe they ought to follow the same rules as American-owned 
companies, as American-headquartered companies.
  It is amazing to me that the same folks who would defend the flim-
flam artists at Enron from dodging their tax responsibilities, that 
would defend the American corporations that renounce their American 
citizenship to move to some sunny tax haven, are now defending this 
small minority of firms that will not pay their fair share of American 
taxes.
  And what of this phony argument that we are somehow violating our tax 
treaty responsibilities: well, it is just that, it is phony because 
this measure is actually an incentive to support the tax treaty system. 
That is where over 90 percent of the investment already is; and so we 
are saying, as the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation concluded, 
this provides an incentive for any responsible foreign investor to 
locate in a treaty country. The treaties are set up to help American 
companies. That is what these companies should do.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I place in the Record a letter to Mr. Levin and myself from the 
Organization for International Investment, a large association 
representing over 5 million Americans. It is an association of U.S. 
subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad which also accounts for 
one-fifth of all exports which says that the language in this 
legislation would override many of our bilateral income tax treaties 
and could lead to retaliatory actions by other countries.
  I would also note that during the markup of this legislation in 
committee, even the Obama administration's own witness, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Tax Policy stated that the Treasury Department 
has, and I quote, ``Concerns about the specifics of this provision and 
whether it will override many of our income tax treaties.'' She also 
stated the administration prefers a more targeted approach.

                                                  Organization for


                                     International Investment,

                                                   March 15, 2010.
     Hon. Sander Levin,
     Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Dave Camp,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Representative Camp, On behalf of 
     the Organization for International Investment (OFII), I am 
     writing to express concern with a tax provision included as 
     Section 401 of the discussion draft of the Small Business and 
     Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. While we recognize the 
     need for revenue, we must oppose Section 401 as an offset 
     because it represents a clear and harmful override of our 
     existing U.S. income tax treaties. Although positive changes 
     were made to this proposal since it was originally introduced 
     as an offset to the 2007 Farm Bill (H.R. 2419), OFII remains 
     opposed because it still uniquely discriminates against U.S. 
     subsidiaries of companies headquartered abroad and clearly 
     violates many of our international agreements.
       OFII is the largest association of U.S. subsidiaries of 
     companies headquartered abroad. U.S. subsidiaries play an 
     important role in the growth and vitality of the U.S. 
     economy. They provide high-paying jobs for over five million 
     Americans and account for almost one-fifth of all U.S. 
     exports. A discriminatory tax increase sends a negative 
     signal to international investors and may dissuade these 
     companies from choosing the United States as a location for 
     job creating investment.
       As drafted, Section 401 would unilaterally override many of 
     our bilateral income tax treaties and could lead to 
     retaliatory actions by other countries or withdrawal by our 
     treaty partners from existing treaties, negatively impacting 
     international business transactions. The Senate has opposed 
     this and similar provisions twice in the past two years for 
     these reasons.
       Congress has not held any hearings to examine this issue 
     and whether the proposal is the appropriate remedy to address 
     any perceived concerns. In this regard, there is no evidence 
     that existing safeguards, including the substantial and 
     restrictive anti-treaty shopping provisions (so-called 
     ``Limitation on Benefits'' (LOB) provisions) contained in 
     most of our current U.S. income tax treaties, are 
     ineffective. Further, if material tax abuses were evident, 
     the Treasury could implement changes to the U.S. Model Tax 
     Treaty which would avoid the negative consequences of 
     violating our international agreements.
       Since a similar proposal was introduced in 2007, the 
     Treasury has taken great strides to update the three 
     bilateral tax treaties without LOB provisions (Iceland, 
     Hungary, Poland). A protocol adding an LOB provision to the 
     Iceland treaty was negotiated by Treasury and ratified by the 
     Senate in 2008. A similar protocol with Hungary has been 
     negotiated and initialed and could be ratified this year. 
     Treasury is expected to pursue a similar amendment to the 
     treaty with Poland during 2010-2011.
       Consistent with the conclusions in the Treasury Report that 
     was released in November 2007 that reviewed potential abuse 
     of income tax treaties, OFII believes re-negotiation of 
     existing income tax treaties without LOB provisions is a more 
     appropriate way to address the concerns underlying this 
     provision and we urge you to oppose including Section 401 in 
     the final version of the Small Business Jobs Bill. We would 
     be glad to discuss our concerns with your staff in greater 
     detail.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Nancy McLernon
                                                  President & CEO.

               Organization for International Investment

       OFII is the only business association in Washington D.C. 
     that exclusively represents U.S. subsidiaries of foreign 
     companies and advocates for their non-discriminatory 
     treatment under state and federal law.


                                members

       ABB Inc., ACE INA Holdings, Inc., AEGON USA, AgustaWestland 
     Inc., Ahold USA, Inc., Airbus North America Holdings, Air 
     Liquide America L.P., Akzo Nobel Inc., Alcatel-Lucent, Alcon 
     Laboratories, Inc.
       Alfa Laval Inc., Allianz of North America, ALSTOM, AMEC, 
     American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Anheuser-Busch, APL Limited, 
     AREVA, Inc., Astellas Pharma US, Inc., AstraZeneca 
     Pharmaceuticals.
       BAE Systems, Barclays Capital, Barrick Goldstrike Mines, 
     Inc., BASF Corporation, Bayer Corp., BIC Corp., Bimbo Foods, 
     Inc., bioMerieux, Inc., BNP Paribas, Boehringer Ingelheim 
     Corp.
       BOSCH, BP, Bridgestone Americas Holding, Brother 
     International Corp., Brunswick Group, BT, Bunge Ltd., Case 
     New Holland, CEMEX USA, Cobham.

[[Page 4759]]

       Covidien, Credit Suisse Securities (USA), Daiichi Sankyo, 
     Inc., Daimler, Dassault Falcon Jet Corp., Deutsche Post World 
     Net USA, Deutsche Telekom, Diageo, Inc., EADS, Inc., EDF 
     International North America.
       Eisai Inc., Elbit Systems of America, LLC, Electrolux Home 
     Products, Inc., EMD Serono Inc., Ericsson, Evonik Degussa 
     Corporation, Experian, Finmeccanica North America, 
     Flextronics International, Food Lion, LLC.
       France Telecom North America, Garmin International, Inc., 
     GDF SUEZ Energy North America, Inc., Generali USA, Givaudan, 
     GKN America Corp., GlaxoSmithKline, Hanson North America, 
     Hitachi, Ltd., Holcim (US) Inc.
       HSBC North America Holdings, Huhtamaki, Hyundai Motor 
     America, Iberdrola Renewables, ING America Insurance 
     Holdings, InterContinental Hotels Group, John Hancock Life 
     Insurance Co., Lafarge North America, Lenova, Logitech Inc.
       L'Oreal USA, Inc., Louisiana Energy Service (LES), 
     Louisville Corporate Services, Inc., LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis 
     Vuitton, Macquarie Aircraft Leasing Services, Macquarie 
     Holdings Inc., Maersk Inc, Magna International, Marvell 
     Semiconductor, McCain Foods USA.
       Michelin North America, Inc. Miller Brewing Company, 
     Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics, Munich Re, Nestle USA, 
     Inc., The Nielsen Company (US), Inc., Nokia, Inc., Novartis 
     Corporation, Novelis Inc., Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals.
       Oldcastle, Inc., Panasonic Corp. of North America, Pearson 
     Inc., Pernod Ricard USA, PetroBras North America, Philips 
     Electronics North America, QBE the Americas, Randstad North 
     America, Reed Elsevier Inc., Rexam Inc.
       Rio Tinto America, Roche Financial USA, Inc., Rolls-Royce 
     North America Inc., Royal Bank of Canada, SABIC Innovation 
     Plastics, Saint-Gobain, sanofi-aventis, SAP America, 
     Schlumberger Technology Corp., Schott North America.
       SGL Carbon LLC, Shell Oil Company, Siemens Corporation, 
     Smith & Nephew, Inc., Sodexo, Inc., SolarWorld USA, Solvay 
     America, Sony Corporation of America, Square D Company, 
     Sumitomo Corp. of America.
       Sun Life Financial U.S., Swiss Re America Holding Corp., 
     Syngenta Corporation, Takeda North America, Tate & Lyle North 
     America, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Thales USA, Inc., 
     The Tata Group, Thomson Reuters, ThyssenKrupp USA, Inc.
       Tim Hortons, Toa Reinsurance Company of America, Tomkins 
     Industries, Inc., TOTAL Holdings USA, Inc., Toyota Motor 
     North America, Tyco International (US), Inc., Tyco 
     Electronics, UBS, Umicore USA, Unilever.
       Vivendi, Vodafone, Voith Holding Inc., Volkswagen of 
     America, Inc., Volvo Group North America, Inc., Welspun, 
     Westfield LLC, White Mountains, Inc., Wolters Kluwer U.S. 
     Corporation, WPP Group USA, Inc., XL Global Services, Zausner 
     Foods Corporation, Zurich Insurance Group.

  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
I have to say I am confused. Now I am confused maybe because I am not 
on the Ways and Means Committee--I'm on the Appropriations Committee--
and on March 16 at 10 o'clock we had a hearing, and our special guest 
at the hearing was Secretary of the Treasury Geithner, Secretary of OMB 
Orszag, and the President's Economic Adviser, Ms. Romer. All of them 
said to the full committee the stimulus program is working. It is the 
greatest program. In fact, I thought they were going to start high-
fiving and hugging each other right there in the committee, they were 
so excited about it.
  But now I am like you. You Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee, 
I kind of agree with you. It ain't working. We know that it is not 
working. That is why we are now debating the third stimulus jobs bill 
in the House. We had one a couple of weeks ago, we had one in December, 
and all it is is spend, spend, spend. The $862 billion stimulus program 
was supposed to keep unemployment from getting to 8 percent, and it is 
now pushing 10 percent. Of course it is not working.
  But does this work? It is just more spending, more money for 
municipal governments. I keep hearing the mayors like it and the county 
commissioners like it. Oh, yeah, we are sending them more money; I 
guess they do like it. They envy us because we can print it, and we can 
borrow it. In fact, we borrow a lot of money. In fact, if you look at 
it, every dollar that we spend, we actually borrow 40 cents. Now you 
would never do that back home, but that is what is going on. We borrow 
to pay for the military, to pay for education, to pay for 
transportation, to pay for the National Park Service. We borrow foreign 
aid. Can you think of the absurdity of that: we borrow money to give it 
to other countries. That's what is going on. And here comes this bill 
with more borrowing.
  You know, if you look at what has gone on, May of 2008, a $168 
billion stimulus bill failed. I voted ``no.'' It was a George Bush 
bill. All of these stimulus bills, all of this spending does not create 
jobs. We need to vote this down.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  To the gentleman who just spoke, this bill is paid for unlike bills 
you voted for. And also let me say to the distinguished gentleman, you 
are opposed to this bill because it isn't big enough or it is too 
small. It's not clear. The recovery program is beginning to work. This 
will make it work better, and yet you are standing here opposed to it.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
just to correct the record once again, this bill, unlike previous bills 
passed by our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, is 
completely paid for. There is not a cent that would be added to the 
deficit. You have to make some tough decisions when you pay for things, 
but this bill is completely taken care of and paid for. So the tax cuts 
we give to small businesses, we take care of that. We don't do it in an 
irresponsible fashion. That is why we should vote for this legislation.
  We need to put this country back on track and back to work, and this 
bill continues a series of legislation that have come through this 
House, gone to the Senate and been signed by the President which put 
America back to work. The economic recovery package which too many of 
our colleagues rail against, the independent, nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office has told us has already created at least 2 million jobs 
in America; and we still have more of the economic recovery package 
effects to take place over this coming year.
  What we do know is if we keep at it and do it responsibly, we can put 
America back to work. That is what this is all about. That is why we 
should support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this 
bill.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Camp for yielding 
me this time.
  We are talking about jobs, and this bill purports to be a job-
creation bill, but I have deep reservations about one of the pay-fors 
in the bill. It is in section 301. It raises $7.7 billion in taxes, and 
where do these taxes come from? Where does this tax increase come from? 
Well, it comes from U.S. companies who happen to be headquartered 
overseas. What does that mean? These are companies that employ U.S. 
workers. These are companies that are in every one of our communities 
that also stimulate business activity that help create jobs in other 
businesses that affiliate with these and do business with them.
  So what are we doing here? We are basically hurting U.S. job growth. 
We are hurting U.S. workers. Furthermore, this provision would 
basically abrogate some 60 bilateral tax treaties that we currently 
have. We know that the Senate has opposed these types of provisions in 
the past. So why are we doing this?
  Secondly, in the course of the hearing, we had the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Tax Policy and she had questions about this approach and 
said that this was not the preferred approach of the administration and 
also expressed concerns that this could invite retaliation upon U.S. 
companies doing business overseas, further hurting U.S. jobs.
  Now if we are going to create jobs, let's try to be sensible and make 
sure that our tax policy is coordinated with trying to create jobs. 
What do we know about these jobs in the U.S. by these

[[Page 4760]]

U.S. companies who happen to be headquartered overseas? Well, they pay 
better wages. In fact, their compensation packages are roughly one-
third more. These are high-skilled jobs so why on the one hand do we 
want to say we are going to create jobs and on the other hand focus on 
policies that will kill jobs? I just don't understand the logic here, 
and for those reasons I oppose this bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. I am glad to now yield 1 whole minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, everyone in this body is entitled to 
their own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts. I wish 
some of our colleagues would read this bill. It does not add one penny 
to the deficit.
  First, we have a speaker on the other side of the aisle complaining 
about the fact that it adds to the deficit when it doesn't; because the 
next speaker then complains about how we want to pay for it. Which is 
it?
  This bill is paid for. This bill will help small businesses just like 
the economic recovery bill has helped stabilize the economy. Just a 
little over a year ago when President Obama was sworn in, our economy 
was in free fall. We were headed from recession to depression. Now we 
are here 14 months later, the economy has begun to stabilize. We went 
from 5.7 percent negative growth to 5.6 positive growth, the biggest 
swing in growth, 10 points, in 30 years. People are beginning to go 
back to work. Obviously, we have not turned the corner there, but it is 
a vast improvement from where this country was a little over a year 
ago. This is another important step by assisting small businesses to 
keep the engine going.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
important jobs bill in general, and two provisions in particular.
  The SBA provision makes a change to the Tax Code to encourage private 
investment in the Small Business Investment Company program, which in 
turn will help small businesses hire more employees.
  The extension of the AMT exemption for private activity bonds is 
critically important to creating jobs and growing our economy. Bonds 
have been one of the economic recovery efforts' biggest successes, and 
they are responsible for creating jobs and funding important projects 
in nearly every State in our country.
  One example can be seen at the Sacramento International Airport in my 
district. They sold bonds to complete their terminal renovation. This 
money was directly responsible for preserving 1,200 construction jobs 
and generating over $1 billion in the surrounding community.
  We must do everything we can to put Americans back to work. Today's 
jobs bill is paid for. Today's job bill is paid for and is one more way 
to spur economic development.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, there is a certain amount of irony 
hearing our friends on the other side of the aisle talking about a 
recovery package that hasn't worked as well as all of us would like 
because it was deliberately scaled down in an effort to try to secure 
Republican support. More of it was put in tax cuts than we would have 
liked rather than in infrastructure to rebuild and renew America. We 
know if it would have been done the way the Democrats wanted, it would 
have worked better. Nonetheless, I hate to think what would happen in 
the State of Michigan without economic recovery money, in the State of 
Oregon without this money.
  I have three brief points. One, by putting more money in 
infrastructure, we are going to be putting people to work. Second, this 
is fully paid for, unlike what we have seen with the efforts of our 
friends on the Republican side of the aisle when they were in charge. 
And, third, the pay-for is incorporating recommendations that came from 
the Bush administration Treasury that recognized there were 
corporations that were not meeting their obligations to the United 
States Treasury.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. These provisions will affect companies in a small 
number of countries--there are less than 10 percent of the countries 
that don't have a tax treaty with us--they will be encouraged to have a 
relationship to avoid tax avoidance. It will be an opportunity for 
people who are not paying their fair share now to put some money behind 
renewing and rebuilding America.
  It is a good bargain for the taxpayer, it is a good bargain for 
revitalizing our communities, and I appreciate the committee bringing 
this bill forward.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. CAMP. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Boustany).
  Mr. BOUSTANY. I want to respond to what was just said about these tax 
provisions, and that is, the previous administration actually wanted to 
work through these treaties and recognized that there were some 
problems but did not just simply want to abrogate 60 tax treaties.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. The last Administration offered proposals to address 
this time after time, and a Republican Congress wouldn't approve them. 
That is one of the reasons we need to take this firm action today. We 
see the benefits of doing that in the almost $8 billion that are raised 
not from American companies but from companies that are located in 
these tax-haven locations.
  Mr. CAMP. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just say to the gentleman and to those on the floor, to say 
this is the same proposal that occurred in the previous administration 
is really an oversimplification. The previous administration really 
wanted to have a more targeted approach to this. They wanted to, 
certainly through treaty amendments, targeted domestic law provisions, 
that would address the problem of potential abuses under this area of 
law. But they didn't want to damage our treaty relationships with all 
of the other countries.
  And as the gentleman from Louisiana has said, this would damage our 
treaty relationships with over 60 countries. We have a letter in the 
record from the organization overseeing nearly 5 million U.S. workers 
and companies headquartered abroad. The Treasury testified at the 
committee that this is not the approach they want to take. They would 
much prefer to take similar approaches to the Bush administration. So 
in terms of tax policy, we actually have the Treasury Department 
wanting to do the same thing.
  This is outside of that. This is overbroad. It would hurt our 
relationships.
  I reserve my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. We are in no way saying that this is the same 
legislative language that the Bush Administration recommended. We are 
saying it addresses the same problem and that you didn't like the Bush 
Administration approach any better than you liked the Obama 
Administration approach, any better than you like this approach. And 
the only beneficiaries of this obstruction to a legislative answer are 
the same tax dodgers in these tax havens that have been avoiding their 
responsibility. We want to level the playing field. We don't want to 
shirk treaty responsibilities. We want an incentive to encourage every 
one of these companies to go to a tax treaty country.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman.
  No more loopholes. No more sheltered tax havens. No more privileged 
class perks. Period. That is how we're paying for this bill.

[[Page 4761]]

  Mr. Speaker, once again, the day after significant legislation has 
been passed, we're back at our greatest priority--putting people back 
to work. There are many sections of this bill that do that. I want to 
highlight just one of them: the Sustainable Water Infrastructure 
Investment Act. I hope you support that part of the legislation.
  As it was introduced, this provision will generate significant 
investment through the use of tax-exempt bonds, and if we don't go that 
way, our communities are going to have to find the money to fix their 
infrastructure, to fix their sewer systems, to fix their water systems, 
and you know that is not going to happen. Our communities look to us 
for help. Our infrastructure is in disrepair, and it's just not our 
roads and it's just not our bridges.
  Earlier this year the American Society of Civil Engineers gave the 
nation's water and water system the lowest grade of any infrastructure 
category, a D minus. This legislation aims to repair our crumbling 
water infrastructure while leveraging private capital to create jobs. 
Every dollar invested in public water and sewer infrastructure will add 
$8.97 to the national economy. Economists estimate a $1 billion 
investment----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Economists estimate a $1 billion investment in water 
infrastructure will create 28,500 jobs.
  For anybody to stand up here and say that this particular legislation 
does not specifically face off against the job lag in this country, 
they haven't read the bill.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve at this time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Now it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada, Shelley Berkley.
  Ms. BERKLEY. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership.
  This legislation is yet another strong step towards economic recovery 
for Las Vegas, the State of Nevada, and the Nation. The provisions of 
this bill will spur the creation and growth of small businesses and 
help State and local governments make critical job-creating 
infrastructure investments that are essential to long-term economic 
recovery.
  Build America Bonds have been an essential source of funding for 
critical infrastructure projects in my district. That includes millions 
for investments by McCarran International Airport, millions for 
essential upgrades to water and sewer systems by the Las Vegas Water 
Authority, millions in highway and transit improvements by Clark 
County.
  The extension of Recovery Zone Bond programs will make my district 
eligible for yet another source of financing for infrastructure 
projects that will spur economic growth and help bring down one of the 
highest unemployment rates in the Nation. Fifty percent of the building 
trades in Las Vegas are idle. Families are suffering.
  Speaking of families, families and small businesses are going to 
directly benefit from this legislation. The increased deduction for 
small business start-up expenses will provide new opportunities for 
business creation and help create jobs we so desperately need.
  And Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, this is incorporated in 
the bill and will help many Nevada families who struggle daily to help 
make ends meet.
  The people of my district are struggling with difficult economic 
times. This Congress continues to focus on policies that will create 
new opportunity for growth and investment in Las Vegas and help 
entrepreneurs build job-creating small businesses.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now have the privilege of yielding 1 minute to the 
gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Allyson Schwartz.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Democrats are committed to rebuilding America's 
economy, putting our workers back to work and ensuring our businesses 
can compete in a global 21st century economy.
  Today we will vote on the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax 
Act, which makes smart investments, including: expanding Build America 
Bonds, which have been used by State and local governments across the 
country, including 21 times in my own home State of Pennsylvania, to 
finance $2 billion in essential infrastructure projects; excluding 
capital gains taxes on the sale of small business stock; exempting 
water and sewer facility bonds from State volume caps initiating new 
infrastructure water projects which will improve the quality of our 
drinking water; and ending unfair tax penalties for small businesses 
that offer certain pension plans.
  Let's be clear. This bill means voting for lower taxes for small 
businesses, for new infrastructure, and for new jobs. And it does not 
add to the deficit. In fact, it is paid for by collecting taxes from 
corporations located in tax havens.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois, Mr. Danny Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I want to thank the chairman for yielding.
  I note that the State of Illinois has received $4.853 billion in 
bonds up through January of this year. Many of those have gone to 
communities that are represented by individuals who certainly are not 
described as Democrats. As a matter of fact, they've gone to 
communities throughout the State.
  These bonds are about building schools, roads, hospitals, creating 
jobs. There is no way under the sun that I could imagine not voting for 
this bill. It stimulates the economy, it builds jobs, it puts people to 
work.
  Mr. CAMP. I continue to reserve.
  Mr. LEVIN. I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise to support this bill for our small businesses and local 
communities. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and right 
now they need help in order to grow, expand, and hire new workers. 
Research shows that almost every ``new job'' in this country is created 
by entrepreneurs who simply have an idea and the energy and the vision 
to make it a reality. We should support them, and this bill does so.
  This bill also invests in our local communities by expanding 
successful Build America Bonds and water and sewer bonds which our 
communities badly need to restore our infrastructure and, more 
importantly, create jobs.
  I met recently with a North Carolina housing finance agency, and 
yesterday I received a letter from the National Association of 
Counties, who both support this bill. Helping our small businesses, 
investing in infrastructure, and creating jobs should be a nonpartisan 
issue. We must come together to fix our economy. And as a former small 
business owner, I support this legislation for creating jobs on Main 
Street.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. CAMP. I reserve my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is now my privilege to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady 
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) a member of the committee.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. I would like to thank the 
chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4849, 
legislation that invests in affordable housing, infrastructure, and 
small businesses.
  I want to speak today about two provisions in the bill that are 
particularly important to the constituents I represent. I'm very 
pleased that the bill incorporates legislation that I wrote to 
strengthen the low-income housing tax credit. A stable roof over a 
child's head contributes to his or her education, emotional well-being, 
and overall physical health.
  In California alone, 4 percent low-income housing credits have been 
responsible for 125,000 new housing units in the last 20 years. By 
reviving the value of these credits, we will revitalize the housing 
sector, creating not just affordable homes but new jobs.
  Additionally, this bill extends the Recovery Act's successful Build 
America Bonds program. These bonds are responsible for almost 25 
percent of the

[[Page 4762]]

current municipal bond market. As of the end of February, $78 billion 
in Build America Bonds have been issued by State and local governments 
to build roads, bridges, and schools. And the jobs that are created pay 
a living wage. They are an investment in our community.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. They are an investment in our 
community and an investment in our workforce, investments that are 
going to pay dividends for years to come.
  I want to thank the chairman and the committee staff for their hard 
work on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close. I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation. From this debate, I think 
it's difficult to see whether this legislation is either a small 
business bill or a jobs bill. Frankly, it's neither one. The reason is 
the tax increases in this bill will hurt an already weak economy. To 
raise taxes on employers during a recession makes it even harder for 
Americans to find work.
  Second, roughly 80 percent of the tax relief in this bill goes to 
State and local governments and to pay State and local governments. To 
borrow more money, as this bill does, is not what America needs right 
now.
  Lastly, I would say there are some tax provisions, very small ones, 
that have received bipartisan support. But, frankly, those good things 
are outweighed by the structure of the bill and the way the bill is 
drafted, because even those well-intentioned measures will not do 
enough to help employers create jobs; and, particularly, the provision 
that would override our tax treaties with 60 countries, that even the 
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, when testifying before the 
committee, said she had concerns over, and also which has been rejected 
by the Senate, which means the almost $7 to $8 billion they are using 
to fund this bill will not see its way across the floor of the United 
States Senate. So I think we would do better to come back and try to do 
something that would actually potentially do something about job 
creation and see its way to the President's desk for signature.
  With that, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on this. I really urge my colleagues 
on the minority side to think not twice, but to think thrice before 
voting against this bill. I don't think everyone has to march in a 
partisan way in this place, especially on a bill that will help create 
jobs.
  I have a letter regarding the contingency fund from a Republican 
Governor and a Democratic Governor, which states that, ``currently, 23 
States are drawing down the fund for subsidized jobs, with several more 
State applications pending approval. Many of these programs take time 
to develop and implement. By allowing States more time to access these 
funds, Congress can help maximize the impact of TANF ECF in providing 
crucial skill development and training to our workers.''
  Regarding the Build America Bonds, almost every State has taken 
advantage of these. It's for local communities and States to build--to 
build. Who builds roads? Who builds bridges? Not robots. Basically, 
it's human beings. So if you come here and vote ``no,'' you are voting 
against jobs for human beings.
  In terms of the pay-for, the only entities that will pay taxes will 
be those who are evading them, who are essentially using tax havens to 
avoid paying taxes.
  I think the Senate will take a second look at this. I think this can 
become law, and we should join together to help make this become law. 
We owe it to the people of this country. This is a jobs bill.
  Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. LINDER. Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation.
  Since the Democrats' 2009 stimulus law, 3.3 million jobs have been 
eliminated, not the 3.7 million jobs they forecast it would create. 
Unemployment has risen to 10 percent, not the 8 percent peak Democrats 
promised. And 16 million Americans are currently unemployed, an all 
time record.
  That stimulus legislation created numerous welfare expansions, 
including a new $5 billion welfare ``emergency fund.'' This fund 
directly undermines the successful 1996 welfare reforms by paying 
States more money if they increase welfare dependence instead of work. 
The legislation before us would extend and expand that welfare 
emergency fund, costing taxpayers another $2.5 billion.
  Democrats claim this welfare expansion will create jobs, as they 
claimed their stimulus bill would. The facts show stimulus didn't 
create jobs, and this won't, either.
  Why are we doing this? According to the latest MIS figures, States 
have not spent over $3 billion in the current welfare emergency fund. 
By the end of year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates one-third 
of the fund--about $1.5 billion--will remain unspent.
  But instead of letting this ``emergency'' fund expire, or even just 
giving States more time to spend current funds, Democrats insist on 
shoving another $2.5 billion in welfare out the door. This will cost 
taxpayers billions of dollars more, and benefit especially those few 
States that spent all of what Democrats promised in last year's 
stimulus bill. So the more you spend, the more you get. All on top of 
last year's trillion-dollar stimulus bill, and the trillion-dollar 
health takeover bill the President signed yesterday.
  But it's not enough, because it's never enough.
  Two weeks ago, in a hearing on welfare spending, one expert testified 
to the subcommittee on which I serve as Ranking Republican that 
government will spend $953 billion on means-tested welfare programs 
next year, a nearly 50 percent increase since 2007. I asked the Obama 
Administration witness, who supported the welfare expansion before us 
today, whether her testimony was that $953 billion is not enough. She 
responded: ``Who's to say what is enough?''
  The reality is we are the ones elected to represent the American 
people in saying what is enough. And after a trillion dollars in failed 
stimulus spending, and a trillion dollars for the government health 
care takeover yet to come, I say enough. Oppose this unnecessary 
welfare spending increase.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 4849, the 
``Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010.'' Today's 
legislation would provide much needed tax relief to small businesses, 
as well as assistance to states for infrastructure projects, housing 
tax credits, and direct aid for communities hit the hardest by job 
losses. This is a very timely bill and will provide a real benefit to 
States suffering through periods of unemployment, like my own State of 
Michigan.
  As we are all too aware, states have been struggling with staggering 
budget deficits and have painfully cut back on many vital programs. One 
of the important proposals within the Act would extend $2.5 billion 
funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 
Emergency Contingency Fund through 2011. TANF gives a one-time aid for 
needy families and subsidizes employment programs
  I also support provisions in H.R. 4849 that would allocate over two 
billion dollars in additional funding for Recovery Zone bonds and 
extend the popular Build America Bonds initiative. Recovery Zone bonds 
are low interest bonds aimed at funding investment in economically 
depressed areas, such as my congressional district. Build America 
Bonds, lauded as one of the most successful parts of the Recovery Act, 
are bonds with tax exemption on interest and will be extended for three 
years under this bill. Build America Bonds will allow for the 
construction of new schools, roads, environmental projects, public 
safety facilities, and government housing projects.
  Madam Speaker, this. Congress has passed sweeping legislation such as 
the Recovery Act, health insurance reform and fair pay for women. These 
actions have shown the American people that we can act in times of 
crisis. In this vein, I believe tax relief, coupled with aid to the 
States, can spur substantial job creation. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax 
Act.
  Specifically, I am pleased one of the provisions of this bill is the 
text of H.R. 537, The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act, 
of which I am a cosponsor.

[[Page 4763]]

  This provision will help our local communities by removing the 
federally mandated State Volume Cap on Private Activity Bonds for water 
and wastewater projects.
  Lifting this cap will allow additional private investment through the 
use of tax exempt bonds to address our critical water infrastructure 
needs.
  Other infrastructure projects, such as airports, intercity high-speed 
rail, and solid waste disposal sites are already exempt from these bond 
caps.
  Removing state volume caps on Private Activity Bonds for water and 
wastewater facilities is expected to reduce the cost of water projects, 
increase the number of water projects that communities initiate, 
improve our Nation's water infrastructure, and encourage public-private 
partnerships.
  I am proud to support this bill that will enhance our water 
infrastructure, create local jobs, and encourage private capital 
investment in our communities.
  Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010.
  This bill is another important step forward in helping small 
businesses create jobs in our communities and in assisting state and 
local governments to crawl out of their financial holes.
  I agree with Secretary Geithner that by extending the Buy America 
Bonds program we are providing an important financing tool for state 
and local governments and investing in our country's long term economic 
growth in a cost-effective way.
  As local governments continues to struggle financially, local 
officials can look forward to using the Buy America Bonds to build 
bridges, fix roads, and upgrade schools--all while creating jobs in our 
communities.
  Snohomish County, in my district, is about to utilize the Buy America 
Bonds to fund public and private capital improvements that promote 
economic development and job growth throughout the county.
  In addition, this bill includes provisions that will help small 
businesses obtain additional capital and encourage the formation of new 
businesses.
  Small business is the engine that drives our economy, having created 
65 percent of all new jobs in the last decade, and continues to play an 
important part of our economic recovery.
  I will continue to do all I can to support our small businesses and 
create jobs.
  Mr. DINGELL. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4849, the 
Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act. First, I would like to 
commend my friend and colleague from Michigan, Chairman of the Ways and 
Means Committee, Sander Levin, for sponsoring this legislation. As all 
economists note, any true recovery must contain healthy and sustained 
growth in our small business sector. Fortunately, the Small Business 
and Infrastructure Jobs Act will spur growth among our small 
businesses, provide incentives to invest in small businesses, and 
encourage small businesses to hire workers and entrepreneurs to take 
risks and start new businesses. Moreover, the bill does this without 
increasing the deficit.
  The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act contains several 
small business tax provisions to spur investment, such as excluding 
capital gains taxes for those that purchase stock in small businesses, 
providing relief from burdensome tax penalties, and increasing the 
amount that can be deducted for expenditures made for starting a small 
business.
  I am also pleased to see that this legislation emphasizes the job 
creation potential through local rebuilding. By extending the Build 
America Bonds program, state and local governments will be able to 
continue rebuilding our schools, hospitals and transit in an affordable 
manner. More importantly, extending this program through 2013 would 
allow our state and local governments to plan further into the future 
the necessary rebuilding projects. The Small Business and 
Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act also extends the Recovery Zone bonds for 
economically distressed areas through 2011, which will ensure areas 
like Southeast Michigan, now struggling with over 16 percent 
unemployment, can continue to invest in infrastructure projects, job 
training programs, education and economic development in our 
communities.
  In addition, this legislation extends the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families Fund. This fund was created in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act to help States handle increasing expenditures on 
assistance for families and to help create jobs programs that 
subsidizes employers or small businesses that hire unemployed workers. 
With the Fund already helping to employ 160,000 workers, this one-year 
extension will allow this good work to continue.
  Finally, the bill will help to save American jobs by cracking down on 
foreign tax haven corporations that are taking advantage of the U.S. 
tax treaty network to dodge paying taxes and gain an advantage over 
American companies that play by the rules.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this 
job-creating legislation.
  Mr. POMEROY. Madam Speaker, helping North Dakota business create jobs 
is my top priority and today, Madam Speaker, Congress takes another 
step forward with a sharp focus on small businesses.
  Small businesses are a proven engine of job creation. During the last 
economic expansion, companies with less than 20 employees accounted for 
40 percent of the job growth while accounting for only 25 percent of 
all jobs.
  One of the lingering difficulties of this recession is that many 
small businesses have limited access to the capital they need to 
operate, grow, and create new jobs. By providing small business tax 
relief, Congress can free up money and help small businesses feel they 
can afford to hire new employees and make investments that will build 
demand for goods and services.
  In rural America, small business is business. For example, nearly 80 
percent of North Dakotans are employed by companies with less than 500 
employees and nearly 60 percent work for companies with less than 100 
employees.
  These small businesses are the companies on our small town Main 
Streets. Across numerous towns in North Dakota, ambitious business 
persons are finding opportunities to start up business, and the ranks 
of these new businesses are growing. A recent article in the Dickinson 
Press, reported that a number of small, North Dakota towns are seeing 
several new businesses starting up during the year. I ask permission to 
enter the article into the Record.
  The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act, H.R. 4849, will help 
new start-up businesses like KZ Photography, a company launched by Kim 
Zachmann last August. The bill would allow her to deduct from income, 
up to $20,000 in expenses she might have incurred to set up her 
photography studio and get her business up and running in the town of 
Beach, North Dakota. Without the bill before us today, her deduction 
from income for those start up costs would be limited to only $5,000.
  The 100 percent exclusion from tax of gains on small business stock 
and the change to enable Small Business Investment Companies to deduct 
the investment losses would expand the access to capital for small 
business across the country.
  While the Internal Revenue Service must act to stop abusive tax 
shelters, Congress today will vote to eliminate a disproportionate 
effect that some tax penalties have on small businesses. We have heard 
from individuals facing outlandish penalties. Under the bill, the tax 
penalty for failing to disclose on their taxes reportable transactions 
would be brought into proportion with the underlying tax savings for 
small businesses and not put the small business owner out of business.
  These are provisions that have bipartisan support and will make a 
difference and spur job creation among small businesses. My colleague 
across the aisle, Jerry Moran from Kansas, agreed that these provisions 
were needed to help small business and we introduced the ``Small 
Business Jobs and Tax Relief Act.''
  I thank Chairman Levin for including small business tax incentives 
and relief that I authored the bill we are considering today. I also 
appreciate that we will also extend the highly successful Build America 
Bond program so that payments for the bonds to state and local 
governments would last through 2013.
  When I held a roundtable with small businesses in Fargo, North 
Dakota, sharp and savvy business owners told me that Recovery Act 
funding is making a big difference and that they were vying with new 
national competitors. So, I urge my colleagues to pass the extension 
and expansion of the successful Build America Bonds, which have made it 
cheaper for state and local governments to finance the rebuilding of 
schools, sewers, hospitals and transit projects.
  Communities like West Fargo and Rugby have used these bonds to launch 
projects and the bill also opens this funding opportunity to tribal 
governments for funding of water and sewer infrastructure improvements.
  The Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act is good for North 
Dakota small businesses. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 
4849.

[[Page 4764]]



 Number of Businesses Growing in Area Towns--Officials: Younger People 
                               Moving in

                          (By Beth Wischmeyer)

       The number of businesses starting or being taken over by 
     new owners is growing, officials in the communities of Bowman 
     and Beach said Thursday.
       Deb Walworth, executive director of Prairie West 
     Development Foundation in Beach, said eight new businesses 
     started in 2009, many of which were started by people in 
     their 20s and 30s.
       ``We're seeing more young people,'' Walworth said. ``I 
     think this is just the tip of the iceberg, it's just 
     beginning.''
       In 2008, Walworth said there were three new businesses that 
     started.
       Since 2004, Sentinel Butte has had three new businesses and 
     the community of Golva has had two new businesses and one 
     existing business come under new ownership, she said.
       ``These are really small communities that are seeing 
     positive growth,'' Walworth said.
       Ashley Alderson, executive director of the Bowman Economic 
     Development Corp., said there have been about 10 new business 
     counsels last year, some that have started, some that are 
     starting and others that will open in the future.
       ``We've had quite a bit of new interest lately,'' Alderson 
     said. ``We've noticed it's been a really busy year for small 
     business.''
       Alderson said she's been with the corporation for about two 
     years, and said the past year was busier than her first year 
     with new businesses.
       The Beach area is seeing people moving back of all ages, 
     Walworth said.
       ``I'm just really excited about the young families that are 
     moving back, because if they don't have kids now, I think 
     they plan to have families in the future,'' Walworth said. 
     ``We're also seeing the result of that coming through the 
     schools, with kids coming through kindergarten and first 
     grade there. That's a benefit to the school system too.''
       Kim Zachmann, who owns the photography business KZ 
     Photography in Beach, said while photography has been an 
     interest and a hobby for a number of years, she started 
     pursuing it as a business last August.
       Zachmann, who grew up in the Beach area, said she purchased 
     a studio recently in town and now does photography full time.
       ``We haven't had a photographer here (in Beach) since about 
     '03, so I knew there wasn't anyone in the Beach surrounding 
     area, the closest one would be Dickinson, so I knew Beach 
     could benefit from one,'' Zachmann said. ``Beach is really 
     good about supporting local businesses. I like the Beach 
     area. I would like to live here the rest of my life if it was 
     possible with a job and family and stuff like that.''
       Ed Gold, executive director of the Adams County Development 
     Corporation, was out of the office Friday.
       Walworth thinks the Beach area is a ``good place to raise a 
     family,'' a draw to many young families, she added.
       ``The cost of living isn't as much as it is in some of the 
     larger places,'' Walworth said. ``These people are coming 
     from Las Vegas and the West Coast. They graduated from school 
     here; one or the other of them, or both; and I think they're 
     going for the safer communities to raise their family.''

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4849, 
the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Act, which is another step 
forward in helping Rhode Island's small businesses and creating jobs.
  This measure would exclude 100 percent of small business capital 
gains, increase the tax deduction for start-up expenditures from $5,000 
to $20,000, and provide small business penalty relief. These provisions 
will encourage the formation of new businesses and allow small 
businesses to grow and hire more workers.
  H.R. 4849 also extends the Build America Bonds program, which was 
part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and has been 
successful in helping our state and local governments finance the 
rebuilding of schools, sewers, hospitals and transit projects.
  Finally, today's bill extends the TANF Emergency Fund, which has 
helped states fund a jobs program that subsidizes employers, including 
small businesses, who hire unemployed workers. This program has put 
over 160,000 Americans back to work, and a program in Rhode Island 
should go into effect shortly.
  Congress is committed to more action on creating jobs and helping our 
small businesses, which are the backbone of our nation's economy, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, as chair of the Joint Economic 
Committee, I ask the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to 
come before my committee and report on the latest employment situation.
  In February 2009, the BLS Commissioner reported grim employment 
statistics.
  At that hearing we learned that in January of 2009, total nonfarm 
payroll employment fell by 779,000 jobs. That was a staggering number.
  A number like that made it abundantly clear that the task of turning 
the economy around was going to be enormous.
  The bursting of the housing bubble and the stock market decline 
vaporized trillions of dollars in household wealth, leaving consumers 
reeling and unwilling or unable to spend.
  It was a situation that called for unprecedented interventions, swift 
action, and--let me acknowledge it--a thick skin.
  It was a situation where we needed to act on many fronts all at once 
to get the economy on track and restore the stability of the financial 
system.
  The Fed prevented another Great Depression and the stimulus bill 
proved central to our recovery.
  The stimulus bill included the fastest and one of the largest tax 
cuts in our history. Tax cuts went out almost immediately for 95 
percent of working Americans.
  We passed 24 tax cuts to date including some for small businesses, 
first time homebuyers and families with kids in college.
  We helped struggling State and local budgets with badly needed 
funding to keep teachers in the schools, and police on the streets.
  We extended unemployment benefits to help those who had lost a job 
through no fault of their own.
  We passed tax cuts for 1st time homebuyers.
  We passed Cash for Clunkers.
  We passed the HIRE Act to provide tax incentives for private sector 
businesses that hire out-of-work Americans.
  The House is now set to pass the Small Business and Infrastructure 
Jobs Tax Act, which will, among other things, extend the ``Build 
America Bonds'' program from the Recovery Act.
  This program has been extremely successful at reducing the cost of 
financing for State and local governments which use the money for 
rebuilding of schools, sewers, and hospitals, rebuilding America and 
putting people back to work. I urge every one of my colleagues to vote 
for this bill.
  And the actions we have taken have begun to have effect. Not as fast 
as any of us would like--but turning a supertanker of an economy like 
ours around--just can't happen on a dime.
  First, the jobs losses began to moderate--decreasing month after 
month.
  Then our Gross Domestic Product turned around from minus 6.4 percent 
in the first quarter of 2009 to a plus 5.9 percent last quarter.
  At the last two jobs hearings before the JEC, the BLS Commissioner 
reported that the number of unemployed persons was essentially 
unchanged. The punishing job losses had been stopped.
  In November 2009, the economy actually created jobs, on net. I expect 
that soon the economy will start creating jobs every month and 
Americans will start going back to work.
  It was also important for our long-term economic health that we took 
the historic step of reforming health care. Left unchanged, the soaring 
costs of health care insurance were a problem that would be certain to 
act as a drag on our economy.
  And, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, 
health care reform will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of 
$143 billion over the next ten years. And it is estimated, by $1.3 
trillion over the next 20.
  It sometimes seems that in all the noise, ill will, and the 
invective, what has really been accomplished by this country has been 
lost or overlooked.
  18 months ago, we stood on the brink of an economic abyss so deep and 
dark it was fearful to even contemplate. The voices of doom were many, 
the predictions grim. The outlook was uncertain.
  Though much remains to be done, so much has already been achieved.
  It has been a tough year--it is tough for millions still. But we are 
making progress. We are not there yet--but without question we are 
moving forward.
  As I look out on America and contemplate our future--I am filled with 
hope and optimism. The steps we have taken--have put us on the path to 
recovery and renewal.
  And as we prepare for spring recess, let's be mindful of the season 
and the ``green shoots'' that are beginning to push upwards.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 4849, the Small Business and Infrastructure Jobs Tax Act of 2010. 
The passage of this bill will create jobs and continue to revive our 
economy.
  In particular, I would like to highlight a portion of this bill that 
has proven itself as a job creator and with passage of this legislation 
will continue to put people back to work: the Temporary Assistance for 
Needy Families, or

[[Page 4765]]

``TANF,'' Emergency Contingency Fund. Since its enactment as part of 
the Recovery Act, the TANF Emergency Contingency Fund has created or 
maintained 160,000 jobs and by extending the fund for an additional 
year it will create thousands more.
  This is an effort that has broad bipartisan support. Kevin Hassett, a 
scholar for the American Enterprise Institute, has said that ``Given 
the state of the labor market, it is hard to imagine how any sensible 
person could oppose such a move,'' and both Democratic and Republican 
Governors have supported extending the program.
  A few weeks ago in Connecticut I met with leaders in the state 
government, the business community and the non-profit community to 
discuss their efforts to utilize the Emergency Contingency Fund. The 
extension that we are passing today will allow them to take full 
advantage of this program as they have committed to putting together a 
plan to use this funding to create jobs in the state.
  I want to thank Chairman Levin for his hard work on this bill as well 
as the Caucus Jobs Task Force--particularly Dr. Judy Chu, Jim 
McDermott, and Co-Chairs Alcee Hastings and Betty Sutton. Each of these 
members has made a tremendous commitment to putting Americans back to 
work and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1205, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. CAMP. In its current form.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the 
gentleman's motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan reserves a point 
of order.
  The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Camp moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4849 to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; ETC.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Tax 
     Incentives for Small Business Growth and Health Care 
     Corrections Act of 2010''.
       (b) Amendment of 1986 Code.--Except as otherwise expressly 
     provided, whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal is 
     expressed in terms of an amendment to, or repeal of, a 
     section or other provision, the reference shall be considered 
     to be made to a section or other provision of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act 
     is as follows:

Sec. 1. Short title; etc.

                 TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

Sec. 101. Temporary exclusion of 100 percent of gain on certain small 
              business stock.

       Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties

Sec. 111. Limitation on penalty for failure to disclose certain 
              information.
Sec. 112. Annual reports on penalties and certain other enforcement 
              actions.

Subtitle C--Preservation of Health Savings Accounts and Health Flexible 
                         Spending Arrangements

Sec. 121. Repeal of limitations on medicines.
Sec. 122. Repeal of dollar limitation on health flexible spending 
              arrangements.

                      Subtitle D--Other Provisions

Sec. 131. Nonrecourse small business investment company loans from the 
              Small Business Administration treated as amounts at risk.
Sec. 132. Increase in amount allowed as deduction for start-up 
              expenditures.

                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Exclusion of certain low-quality fuels from the cellulosic 
              biofuel producer credit.
Sec. 202. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes.

                 TITLE I--SMALL BUSINESS TAX INCENTIVES

                     Subtitle A--General Provisions

     SEC. 101. TEMPORARY EXCLUSION OF 100 PERCENT OF GAIN ON 
                   CERTAIN SMALL BUSINESS STOCK.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (a) of section 1202 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4) Special 100 percent exclusion.--In the case of 
     qualified small business stock acquired after March 15, 2010, 
     and before January 1, 2012--
       ``(A) paragraph (1) shall be applied by substituting `100 
     percent' for `50 percent',
       ``(B) paragraph (2) shall not apply, and
       ``(C) paragraph (7) of section 57(a) shall not apply.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Paragraph (3) of section 
     1202(a) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``after the date of the enactment of this 
     paragraph and before January 1, 2011'' and inserting ``after 
     February 17, 2009, and before March 16, 2010'', and
       (2) by striking ``Special rules for 2009 and 2010'' in the 
     heading and inserting ``Special 75 percent exclusion''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to stock acquired after March 15, 2010.

       Subtitle B--Limitations and Reporting on Certain Penalties

     SEC. 111. LIMITATION ON PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE 
                   CERTAIN INFORMATION.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 6707A is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(b) Amount of Penalty.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as otherwise provided in this 
     subsection, the amount of the penalty under subsection (a) 
     with respect to any reportable transaction shall be 75 
     percent of the decrease in tax shown on the return as a 
     result of such transaction (or which would have resulted from 
     such transaction if such transaction were respected for 
     Federal tax purposes).
       ``(2) Maximum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under 
     subsection (a) with respect to any reportable transaction for 
     any taxable year shall not exceed--
       ``(A) in the case of a listed transaction, $200,000 
     ($100,000 in the case of a natural person), or
       ``(B) in the case of any other reportable transaction, 
     $50,000 ($10,000 in the case of a natural person).
       ``(3) Minimum penalty.--The amount of the penalty under 
     subsection (a) with respect to any transaction for any 
     taxable year shall not be less than $10,000 ($5,000 in the 
     case of a natural person).''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to penalties assessed after December 31, 2006.

     SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORTS ON PENALTIES AND CERTAIN OTHER 
                   ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.

       (a) In General.--The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, shall submit 
     to the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Finance of the Senate an 
     annual report on the penalties assessed by the Internal 
     Revenue Service during the preceding year under each of the 
     following provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986:
       (1) Section 6662A (relating to accuracy-related penalty on 
     understatements with respect to reportable transactions).
       (2) Section 6700(a) (relating to promoting abusive tax 
     shelters).
       (3) Section 6707 (relating to failure to furnish 
     information regarding reportable transactions).
       (4) Section 6707A (relating to failure to include 
     reportable transaction information with return).
       (5) Section 6708 (relating to failure to maintain lists of 
     advisees with respect to reportable transactions).
       (b) Additional Information.--The report required under 
     subsection (a) shall also include information on the 
     following with respect to each year:
       (1) Any action taken under section 330(b) of title 31, 
     United States Code, with respect to any reportable 
     transaction (as defined in section 6707A(c) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986).
       (2) Any extension of the time for assessment of tax 
     enforced, or assessment of any amount under such an 
     extension, under paragraph (10) of section 6501(c) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (c) Date of Report.--The first report required under 
     subsection (a) shall be submitted not later than December 31, 
     2010.

Subtitle C--Preservation of Health Savings Accounts and Health Flexible 
                         Spending Arrangements

     SEC. 121. REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON MEDICINES.

       Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act, section 9003 of such Act (relating to 
     distributions for medicine qualified only if for prescribed 
     drug or insulin) is hereby repealed and any provision of law 
     amended by such section is amended to read as such provision 
     would read if such section had never been enacted.

     SEC. 122. REPEAL OF DOLLAR LIMITATION ON HEALTH FLEXIBLE 
                   SPENDING ARRANGEMENTS.

       Effective as of the enactment of the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act, section 9005 of such Act (relating to 
     limitation on health flexible spending arrangements under 
     cafeteria plans) is hereby repealed and any provision of law 
     amended by

[[Page 4766]]

     such section is amended to read as such provision would read 
     if such section had never been enacted.

                      Subtitle D--Other Provisions

     SEC. 131. NONRECOURSE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT COMPANY LOANS 
                   FROM THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION TREATED 
                   AS AMOUNTS AT RISK.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 465(b)(6) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(B) Qualified nonrecourse financing.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph--
       ``(i) In general.--The term `qualified nonrecourse 
     financing' means any financing--

       ``(I) which is qualified real property financing or 
     qualified SBIC financing,
       ``(II) except to the extent provided in regulations, with 
     respect to which no person is personally liable for 
     repayment, and
       ``(III) which is not convertible debt.

       ``(ii) Qualified real property financing.--The term 
     `qualified real property financing' means any financing 
     which--

       ``(I) is borrowed by the taxpayer with respect to the 
     activity of holding real property,
       ``(II) is secured by real property used in such activity, 
     and
       ``(III) is borrowed by the taxpayer from a qualified person 
     or represents a loan from any Federal, State, or local 
     government or instrumentality thereof, or is guaranteed by 
     any Federal, State, or local government.

       ``(iii) Qualified sbic financing.--The term `qualified SBIC 
     financing' means any financing which--

       ``(I) is borrowed by a small business investment company 
     (within the meaning of section 301 of the Small Business 
     Investment Act of 1958), and
       ``(II) is borrowed from, or guaranteed by, the Small 
     Business Administration under the authority of section 303(b) 
     of such Act.''.

       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Subparagraph (A) of section 
     465(b)(6) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``in the case of an activity of holding 
     real property,'', and
       (2) by striking ``which is secured by real property used in 
     such activity''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to loans and guarantees made after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 132. INCREASE IN AMOUNT ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION FOR START-
                   UP EXPENDITURES.

       (a) In General.--Subsection (b) of section 195 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) Increased limitation for taxable years beginning in 
     2010 or 2011.--In the case of any taxable year beginning in 
     2010 or 2011, paragraph (1)(A)(ii) shall be applied--
       ``(A) by substituting `$20,000' for `$5,000', and
       ``(B) by substituting `$75,000' for `$50,000'.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2009.

                      TITLE II--REVENUE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LOW-QUALITY FUELS FROM THE 
                   CELLULOSIC BIOFUEL PRODUCER CREDIT.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (E) of section 40(b)(6) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) Exclusion of certain low-quality fuels.--The term 
     `cellulosic biofuel' shall not include any fuel if--

       ``(I) more than 4 percent of such fuel (determined by 
     weight) is any combination of water and sediment,
       ``(II) the ash content of such fuel is more than 1 percent 
     (determined by weight), or
       ``(III) the acid number of such fuel is greater than 25.''.

       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to fuels sold or used on or after January 1, 
     2010.

     SEC. 202. TIME FOR PAYMENT OF CORPORATE ESTIMATED TAXES.

       Notwithstanding section 6655 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, in the case of a corporation with assets of not less 
     than $1,000,000,000 (determined as of the end of the 
     preceding taxable year)--
       (1) the amount of any required installment of corporate 
     estimated tax which is otherwise due in July, August, or 
     September of 2010 shall be 100.75 percent of such amount, and
       (2) the amount of the next required installment after an 
     installment referred to in paragraph (1) shall be 
     appropriately reduced to reflect the amount of the increase 
     by reason of such paragraph.

  Mr. CAMP (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the motion be considered as read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  Mr. LEVIN. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, today we begin to repeal some of the most 
troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. This Republican 
motion is straightforward. It strikes troubling tax increases, it 
maintains tax relief for small businesses, repeals unpopular provisions 
of the health care bill that force middle class families to pay more 
taxes and more for their health care, and is fully paid for in 
compliance with the PAYGO rules.
  To meet the PAYGO rules, the motion eliminates the so-called 
emergency welfare spending and closes the Black Liquor tax loophole 
that's repeatedly passed the House but has yet to become law.
  Here's what we keep: the few provisions that directly help small 
businesses, including an exclusion from capital gains tax on 
investments and qualifying small businesses; new protections for small 
businesses from excessive penalties if they unknowingly fail to 
disclose certain information related to their participation in tax 
shelters; and a temporary increase in the amount of small business 
start-up costs that can be immediately expensed.
  In addition to this tax relief, we begin today to repeal some of the 
troubling aspects of the Democrats' health care bill. Today we seek to 
eliminate two of the tax increases in the health care bill that would 
hit middle class families and violate the President's pledge that you 
can keep the health care plan you have and like.
  First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution 
to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year 
under the health care bill starting in 2011.
  FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage 
consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care 
goods and services. Approximately 7 million Americans put more than 
$2,500 into their FSAs. According to the Employers Council on Flexible 
Compensation, the median income of an FSA holder in 2008 was just 
$55,000 a year. Repealing this provision would provide Americans with 
$15.6 billion in tax relief.
  Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health 
savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as 
HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban 
discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing 
cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available. By repealing 
this provision, we'll not only provide $5.5 billion in tax relief, but 
we'll also help American families lower their health care bills.
  This motion offers Members a clear choice. A vote against this motion 
is effectively a choice to close the Black Liquor loophole to pay for 
billions of dollars in additional Medicaid spending. A vote in favor of 
this motion is a vote to close that Black Liquor tax loophole to pay 
for small business tax relief that will actually help create jobs and 
undo some of the harmful tax increases on American families passed by 
the House in the dark of night on Sunday.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is reserved.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Well, I guess here we start. You know, what's interesting 
here is the following: Mr. Camp says that they pay for the small 
business provisions. They're already paid for in this bill. And so how 
inconsistent can he be?
  He wants to continue to pay for them when they're already paid for, 
but he intends to vote against the bill. That is the height of 
inconsistency, and I think that's a reason to object, even if this 
turns out to be a motion to recommit that's in order.
  And then let me just talk a bit about Black Liquor so we know what's 
going

[[Page 4767]]

on. Talking about inconsistency, that's a charitable word. The Black 
Liquor provision is now in the health bill in the Senate, awaiting 
action. You know precisely that. So what you're now suggesting is, take 
it out of that bill that's being considered in reconciliation, and put 
it in here, and you're claiming you're paying for it.
  ``Inconsistency'' is charitable. There could be other words used for 
that, including the unwillingness of the minority to face up to the 
need to pay for bills.
  We pay for the bill that is now before us. We pay for the bill in 
ways that are more than defensible; they are necessary. And so a reason 
to object to this on its substance is that, essentially, this approach 
here is a sleight of hand.
  I suggest to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) that you walk 
over to the Senate, ask them what's in reconciliation. It's not a very 
long distance from here. Just walk over there and whisper to the 
majority leader, or, if you want, you can whisper to the minority 
leader, is Black Liquor in the bill that's over there that is now being 
considered under reconciliation? And I think both of them will tell you 
it is.
  So, essentially, what you're saying is we want to take something out 
of the bill that is being considered under reconciliation and claim to 
be paying for the small business provisions that you're going to vote 
against.
  Now, my suggestion is that nobody is going to be fooled by that; and 
that what you ought to be doing is to tackle these issues straight on, 
and also to tackle the pay-for straight on and not pretend that you're 
paying for something when you're not.
  So I don't know what's worse, the majority, the then-majority, now 
the minority, having refused to pay for bills that came through here 
year after year, bills that came before the Ways and Means Committee 
that you never dreamed of paying for, whether that's worse than what 
you're now doing. I guess they're both as bad.
  Yet what you're now doing is saying, well, we'll pay with something 
that's in a bill that's in the Senate that's soon going to become law.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. LEVIN. So as a result, not only do I think that that motion to 
recommit deserves to be defeated on its substance, but I now want to 
press my point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the 
Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in fiscal year 2011 
before a budget resolution for that year has been adopted.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, before being recognized, would the gentleman 
please state his point of order.
  Mr. LEVIN. You want me to restate it? You're getting more notice on 
the restatement than you gave to us on your motion to recommit. I'll be 
glad to repeat it once or twice.
  I make a point of order that the motion violates section 303 of the 
Budget Act because it includes a change in revenue in FY 2011 before a 
budget resolution for that year has been adopted.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, my point would be that we actually raise 
revenues in years 2010 and 2011. We do not reduce revenues, so I would 
suggest that the point of order is without merit.
  Mr. LEVIN. If I could speak briefly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. It makes a change. That's all that's necessary to violate 
section 303.
  I ask that the point of order be upheld.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard further on the 
point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, I am informed that the underlying bill has a 
Budget Act problem, and the waiving of all points of order against the 
consideration of the bill in the full House, including 303, would make 
the gentleman's point of order unacceptable and would make his point of 
order invalid.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, if I could respond briefly.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I think that trying to do this through a 
motion to recommit is inappropriate. And I suggest that before they 
bring up motions to recommit, that they very much should look at what 
the rules of the House are.
  Therefore, I insist on the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. If no other Member wishes to be heard, the 
Chair is going to consult the precedents before ruling.

                              {time}  1455

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I believe there has been much consultation, 
and I now withdraw the point of order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The point of order is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from Michigan may proceed for the 1 minute that was 
remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have withdrawn the point of order after there has been 
consultation with the parliamentarian, and so now we are back to the 
substance of the motion to recommit.
  I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to 
recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we 
passed. And also, what it does by a trick of hand is to pretend to pay 
for this motion to recommit by taking a provision that is in the bill 
that is now in the Senate, subject to reconciliation, and that I trust 
will pass fairly soon.
  That is reason enough. I don't think it is appropriate for this body 
to vote for a motion to recommit pretending it is paying for it by 
taking a provision that we have included in a bill that we have passed 
and now is in the Senate for its consideration.
  So I would urge every single Member on the majority side to vote 
``no'' on this motion to recommit.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMP. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on the passage of the bill, if ordered, and motions to 
suspend the rules with regards to H.R. 4098 and H.R. 1879, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 184, 
nays 239, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 181]

                               YEAS--184

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McIntyre

[[Page 4768]]


     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--239

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Davis (AL)
     Gutierrez
     Hoekstra
     Kilpatrick (MI)

                              {time}  1528

  Messrs. PALLONE, BARROW, HOYER, KILDEE, MILLER of North Carolina, 
Mrs. KIRKPATRICK of Arizona, Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. BOREN, SHULER, 
CLEAVER, Ms. RICHARDSON, Messrs. ACKERMAN, ISRAEL, WELCH, TIERNEY, 
KUCINICH, RAHALL, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, CARNAHAN, CAPUANO, Mrs. 
MALONEY, Mr. HOLT, and Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. COLE, LAMBORN, GINGREY of Georgia, HUNTER, EDWARDS of Texas, 
and CAO changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 246, 
noes 178, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 182]

                               AYES--246

     Ackerman
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cao
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castle
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--178

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bright
     Broun (GA)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick

[[Page 4769]]


     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Nye
     Olson
     Owens
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (SC)
     Cleaver
     Davis (AL)
     Hoekstra
     Kilpatrick (MI)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  1537

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________