January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S139 

the purchase of essential new equipment. Unfortunately, the incentive in 

that bill was written to last just one 

year, and so, in 2009, absent additional 

action, small firms will be able to expense just $133,000 of new investment. 

Instead of being able to write off more 

of their equipment purchases immediately, films will have to recover their 

costs over 5, 7, or more years. 

At a time in which we find ourselves 

in a recession and our nation’s small 

businesses are having trouble finding 

capital to make job-creating new investments, we simply cannot allow 

that to occur. Accordingly, my bill 

would allow small businesses to continue expensing up to $250,000 of new 

investment in both 2009 and 2010. The 

purchase of new equipment will undoubtedly contribute to continued productivity growth in the business community, which economic experts have 

repeatedly stressed is essential to the 

long-term vitality of our economy. 

Second, my bill recognizes that many 

businesses that were once profitable 

are experiencing significant losses as a 

result of current economic conditions. 

As a result, many are curtailing operations, and over 2 million Americans 

lost their jobs in 2008. It is for this reason that I am introducing a proposal to 

extend the net operating loss 

carryback period from 2 to 5 years. In 

this way, businesses reporting losses in 

2008 and 2009 may offset those losses 

against profits from as many as 5 years 

in the past and claim an immediate tax 

refund. They can use that money to 

help sustain operations and retain employees while the economy recovers. 

This proposal should be particularly 

beneficial to small businesses, which 

are responsible for creating 75 percent 

of net new jobs. Finally, I would note 

that although I proposed this very 

change in January 2008 and it cleared 

the Finance Committee as part of last 

year’s stimulus legislation, it was subsequently dropped in negotiations with 

the House of Representatives. I hope 

that this worthy proposal does not suffer the same fate this year. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 156 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Small Business Stimulus Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED EXPENSING 

FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (7) of section 

179(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 

amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2008, 

2009, or 2010’’, and 

(2) by striking ‘‘2008’’ in the heading thereof 

and inserting ‘‘2008, 2009, OR 2010’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to taxable 

years beginning after December 31, 2008. 

SEC. 3. 5-YEAR CARRYBACK OF NET OPERATING 

LOSSES. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (H) of section 172(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(H) CARRYBACK FOR 2008 AND 2009 NET OPERATING LOSSES.—In the case of a net operating 

loss for any taxable year ending during 2008 

or 2009— 

‘‘(i) subparagraph (A)(i) shall be applied by 

substituting ‘5’ for ‘2’, 

‘‘(ii) subparagraph (E)(ii) shall be applied 

by substituting ‘4’ for ‘2’, and 

‘‘(iii) subparagraph (F) shall not apply.’’. 

(b) ALTERNATIVE TAX NET OPERATING LOSS

DEDUCTION.—Subclause (I) of section 

56(d)(1)(A)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(I) the amount of such deduction attributable to the sum of carrybacks of net operating losses from taxable years ending during 2001, 2002, 2008, or 2009 and carryovers of 

net operating losses to taxable years ending 

during such calendar years, or’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

paragraph (2), the amendments made by this 

section shall apply to net operating losses 

arising in taxable years ending after December 31, 2007. 

(2) ALTERNATIVE TAX NET OPERATING LOSS

DEDUCTION.—The amendments made by subsection (b) shall apply to taxable years ending after 1997. 

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself and 

Mrs. LINCOLN): 

S. 157. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the 

temporary waiver of required minimum distribution rules for certain retirement plans and accounts; to the 

Committee on Finance. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, today I 

rise to introduce legislation to offer expanded relief to retirees who are forced 

to take so-called required minimum 

distributions from their retirement accounts. After a year in which the Dow 

Jones Industrial Average fell a staggering 34 percent, Congress rightly suspended required minimum distribution 

rules for 2009 as part of the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery Act of 

2008. Unfortunately, Congress did not 

act to suspend the rules for 2008 or 2010 

as I had previously proposed. Consequently, we now find ourselves in a 

situation in which 1 year of relief is insufficient to enable retirees to recoup 

their losses, and I am, therefore, introducing the Retirement Account Distribution Improvement Act of 2009 to 

allow amounts required to have been 

distributed in 2008 to be re-contributed 

and to waive the rules for 2010. I would 

like to thank Senator LINCOLN for cosponsoring this legislation. 

Under current law, individuals who 

have reached age 70.5 generally must 

begin to withdraw funds from their 

IRAs or defined contribution retirement plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457, 

and TSP plans. The withdrawals must 

begin by April 1 of the year after which 

an individual attains age 70.5. Failure 

to take a required minimum distribution may result in a 50 percent excise 

tax on the difference between what 

must be withdrawn and the amount actually distributed. 

In times that equities markets are 

rising and retirement account balances 

are growing, required minimum distribution rules are sensible. Indeed, 

they ensure the Government gains revenue after years of tax-deferred 

growth. Unfortunately, we are now witnessing unprecedented losses in equities markets that have caused many 

individuals to suffer steep losses in 

their retirement account balances. Notably, the American Association of Retired Persons has said that retirement 

accounts have lost as much as $2.3 trillion between September 30, 2007, and 

October 16, 2008. Forcing individuals to 

prematurely liquidate accounts and 

pay income taxes on the proceeds, as is 

required under current law, instead of 

allowing them to wait until the market 

recovers and continue to defer tax, 

simply adds insult to injury. Moreover, 

mandating withdrawals may cause 

stock prices to fall, hurting other investors. 

It is for these reasons that I am 

today introducing legislation to allow 

individuals who were forced to withdraw funds in 2008 to re-contribute that 

money into their accounts by July 1, 

2009. Any amounts erroneously distributed in early 2009 could also be re-contributed by July 1, 2009. Finally, my 

bill would also waive minimum required distributions for 2010. 

Although Congress took a solid first 

step by suspending minimum required 

distributions for 2009, we must do 

more. With many predicting a multiyear recession, Congress must adopt a 

longer-term approach to helping individuals protect their retirement assets 

and weather the current economic 

storm. Individuals may require several 

years to recoup losses they have sustained, and by enabling them to keep 

assets in their retirement accounts 

until 2011, this bill offers them that opportunity. At that point, Congress can 

reevaluate whether the waiver of current-law rules should be further extended. 

I urge all Senators to consider the 

benefits this legislation will provide to 

millions of retirees all across the 

United States, and I look forward to 

working with my colleagues to enact it 

in a timely manner. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 157 

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

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Retirement 

Account Distribution Improvement Act of 

2009’’. 

SEC. 2. EXPANSION OF WAIVER OF REQUIRED 

MINIMUM DISTRIBUTION RULES 

FROM CERTAIN RETIREMENT PLANS 

AND ACCOUNTS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (H) of section 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986, as added by the Worker, Retiree, and 

Employer Recovery Act of 2008, is amended— 

(1) by striking ‘‘for calendar year 2009’’ in 

clause (i) and inserting ‘‘for calendar years 

2008, 2009 or 2010’’, 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

(2) by striking ‘‘2009’’ in clause (ii)(I) and 

inserting ‘‘2010’’, and 

(3) by striking ‘‘to calendar year 2009’’ in 

clause (ii)(II) and inserting ‘‘to calendar 

years 2008, 2009, or 2010’’. 

(b) ELIGIBLE ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTIONS.— 

The last sentence of section 402(c)(4) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by 

the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery 

Act of 2008, is amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2008, 2009, or 2010’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007. 

(2) RECONTRIBUTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN

2008 OR EARLY 2009.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a person receives 1 or 

more eligible distributions, the person may, 

on or before July 1, 2009, make one or more 

contributions (in an aggregate amount not 

exceeding all eligible distributions) to an eligible retirement plan and to which a rollover 

contribution of such distribution could be 

made under section 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 

408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986, as the case may be. For purposes of the preceding sentence, rules similar 

to the rules of clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 

402(c)(11)(A) of such Code shall apply in the 

case of a beneficiary who is not the surviving 

spouse of the employee or of the owner of the 

individual retirement plan. 

(B) ELIGIBLE DISTRIBUTION.—For purposes 

of this paragraph— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

clause (ii), the term ‘‘eligible distribution’’ 

means an applicable distribution to a person 

from an individual account or annuity— 

(I) under a plan which is described in 

clause (iv), and 

(II) from which a distribution would, but 

for the application of section 401(a)(9)(H) of 

such Code, have been required to have been 

made to the individual for 2008 or 2009, 

whichever is applicable, in order to satisfy 

the requirements of sections 401(a)(9), 

404(a)(2), 403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), and 

457(d)(2) of such Code. 

(ii) ELIGIBLE DISTRIBUTIONS LIMITED TO REQUIRED DISTRIBUTIONS.—The aggregate 

amount of applicable distributions which 

may be treated as eligible distributions for 

purposes of this paragraph shall not exceed— 

(I) for purposes of applying subparagraph 

(A) to distributions made in 2008, the amount 

which would, but for the application of section 401(a)(9)(H) of such Code, have been required to have been made to the individual 

in order to satisfy the requirements of sections 401(a)(9), 404(a)(2), 403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 

408(b)(3), and 457(d)(2) of such Code for 2008, 

and 

(II) for purposes of applying subparagraph 

(A) to distributions made in 2009, the sum of 

the amount which would, but for the application of such section 401(a)(9)(H), have been 

required to have been made to the individual 

in order to satisfy such requirements for 

2009, plus the excess (if any) of the amount 

described in subclause (I) which may be distributed in 2009 to meet such requirements 

for 2008 over the portion of such amount 

taken into account under subclause (I) for 

distributions made in 2008. 

(iii) APPLICABLE DISTRIBUTION.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘applicable distribution’’ means a payment or distribution 

which is made during the period beginning 

on January 1, 2008, and ending on June 30, 

2009. 

(II) EXCEPTION FOR MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTRIBUTIONS FOR OTHER YEARS.—Such term 

shall not include a payment or distribution 

which is required to be made in order to satisfy the requirements of section 401(a)(9), 

404(a)(2), 403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), or 

457(d)(2) of such Code for a calendar year 

other than 2008 or 2009. 

(III) EXCEPTION FOR PAYMENTS IN A SERIES.—In the case of any plan described in 

clause (iv)(I), such term shall not include 

any payment or distribution made in 2009 

which is a payment or distribution described 

in section 402(c)(4)(A). 

(iv) PLANS DESCRIBED.—A plan is described 

in this clause if the plan is— 

(I) a defined contribution plan (within the 

meaning of section 414(i) of such Code) which 

is described in section 401, 403(a), or 403(b) of 

such Code or which is an eligible deferred 

compensation plan described in section 457(b) 

of such Code maintained by an eligible employer described in section 457(e)(1)(A)) of 

such Code, or 

(II) an individual retirement plan (as defined in section 7701(a)(37) of such Code). 

(C) TREATMENT OF REPAYMENTS OF DISTRIBUTIONS FROM ELIGIBLE RETIREMENT PLANS

OTHER THAN IRAS.—For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a contribution is 

made pursuant to subparagraph (A) with respect to a payment or distribution from a 

plan other than an individual retirement 

plan, then the taxpayer shall, to the extent 

of the amount of the contribution, be treated 

as having received the payment or distribution in an eligible rollover distribution (as 

defined in section 402(c)(4) of such Code) and 

as having transferred the amount to the plan 

in a direct trustee to trustee transfer. 

(D) TREATMENT OF REPAYMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM IRAS.—For purposes of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a contribution is made pursuant to subparagraph (A) 

with respect to a payment or distribution 

from an individual retirement plan (as defined by section 7701(a)(37) of such Code), 

then, to the extent of the amount of the contribution, such payments or distributions 

shall be treated as a distribution that satisfies subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 

408(d)(3) of such Code and as having been 

transferred to the individual retirement plan 

in a direct trustee to trustee transfer. 

(3) PROVISIONS RELATING TO PLAN OR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If this paragraph applies 

to any pension plan or contract amendment, 

such pension plan or contract shall be treated as being operated in accordance with the 

terms of the plan during the period described 

in subparagraph (B)(ii)(I). 

(B) AMENDMENTS TO WHICH PARAGRAPH APPLIES.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—This paragraph shall apply 

to any amendment to any pension plan or 

annuity contract which— 

(I) is made by pursuant to the amendments 

made by this section, and 

(II) is made on or before the last day of the 

first plan year beginning on or after January 

1, 2011. 

In the case of a governmental plan, subclause (II) shall be applied by substituting 

‘‘2012’’ for ‘‘2011’’. 

(ii) CONDITIONS.—This paragraph shall not 

apply to any amendment unless during the 

period beginning on January 1, 2009, and ending on December 31, 2010 (or, if earlier, the 

date the plan or contract amendment is 

adopted), the plan or contract is operated as 

if such plan or contract amendment were in 

effect. 

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. 

KERRY, Mr. BROWN, and Mrs. 

LINCOLN: 

S. 158. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the 

availability of industrial development 

bonds to facilities manufacturing intangible property; to the Committee on 

Finance. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise 

today to reintroduce legislation that 

would provide State and local development finance authorities with greater 

flexibility in promoting economic 

growth that meets the changing realities of an ever more global economy. 

Specifically, my bill would expand the 

definition of ‘‘manufacturing’’ as it 

pertains to the small-issue Industrial 

Development Bond, IDB, program to 

include the creation of ‘‘intangible’’ 

property. I am pleased to be joined by 

Senators KERRY, BROWN, and LINCOLN

in reintroducing this critical legislation to promote economic development, and I strongly believe it would 

be a critical additional to any stimulus 

legislation. 

Our Nation’s capacity to innovate is 

a key reason why our economy remains 

the envy of the world, even during 

these difficult economic times. Knowledge-based businesses have been at the 

forefront of this innovation that has 

bolstered the economy over the longterm. For example, science parks have 

helped lead the technological revolution and have created more than 300,000 

high-paying science and technology 

jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs for a total of 750,000 jobs in 

North America. 

It is clear that the promotion of 

knowledge-based industries can be a 

key economic tool for States and localities. This is especially true for States 

that have seen a loss in traditional 

manufacturing. In my home State of 

Maine, we lost 28 percent of our total 

manufacturing employment over the 

last decade. I believe that it is critical 

that we provide States and localities 

with a wider range of options in promoting economic development, particularly as our economy lost over 2 

million jobs in 2008. My legislation will 

do just that by expanding the availability of small-issue IDBs to new 

economy industries, such as software 

and biotechnology, that have proven 

their ability to provide high-paying 

jobs. 

These IDBs allow State and local development finance authorities, like the 

Finance Authority of Maine, to issue 

tax-exempt bonds for the purpose of 

raising capital to provide low-cost financing of manufacturing facilities. 

These bonds, therefore, provide local 

authorities with an invaluable tool to 

attract new employers and assist existing ones to grow. The result is a winwin situation for local communities 

providing them with much needed jobs. 

Consequently, it only makes sense to 

ensure that these finance authorities 

have maximum flexibility in options to 

grow jobs. 

In addition, my bill provides some 

technical clarity to distinguish between the phrases ‘‘functionally related and subordinate facilities’’ and 

‘‘directly related and ancillary facilities.’’ Until 1988, there was little confusion based on Treasury regulations 

going back to 1972 that made it clear 

that ‘‘functionally related and subordinate facilities’’ were clearly eligible for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE