文章由兆龙移民翻译整理

　　兆龙编者按：以下是我们兆龙移民的小编为大家翻译的Klasko律师关于EB-5改革提案的评论。兆龙移民的美国律师团队与各著名移民律师就该EB-5提案进行了深入交流，目前来看，930后EB-5的走向很大程度上取决于TEA的认定标准的松紧。相信目前提案中严苛的认定标准会在国会遭到一些议员的激烈反对，但最后能通过一个什么样的TEA标准，还是未知数，一定会比目前的严苛很多，也一定会比提案中的宽松一些，平衡点在哪里，决定了EB-5的未来，也一定程度上决定了很多家庭的未来。未雨绸缪，做好计划，面对变化!

　　EB-5 Reauthorization bill - What is the big picture?

　　EB-5再授权提案的重点

　　Webinar on June 24, 2015 titled: Implications of the Grassley Leahy Bill

　　2015年6月24日举行的网络研讨会：Grassley Leahy提案可能带来的影响

　　Discussion w/ Ron Klasko, Angelo Paparelli, John Tishler, Ozvaldo Torres and Michael Kester

　　讨论参与者：Ron Klasko、Angelo Paparelli、John Tishler、Ozvaldo Torres和Michael Kester

　　Angelo Paparell: What is the big picture here? What is this bill going to do to the industry? There's a restriction on the amount of capital that can be raised from non-EB5 funds; there are disclosure requirements and the tax return submission requirements are now 7 years.

　　Angelo Paparell：提案的重点何在?会给EB-5行业带来怎样的影响?提案对于非EB-5资金的融资额度作出了限制，且提出了跨度达7年的披露和提交纳税申报单的要求。

　　What are these changes going to do to the industry? Some have suggested that USCIS is now authorized to hire more expensive staff to review these applications and petitions. But what if the industry dries up because there isn't a big enough appetite and other nations offer more attractive citizenship or residency options. I'd like some predictions on where we're going.

　　这些变化会给EB-5行业带来怎样的影响?有人指出美国移民局现已获得授权可以投入更多资金招募人员以审理申请案件。但假使EB-5行业由于没有足够的吸引力而枯竭，同时其它国家提供了更具吸引力的公民身份和居留权政策，情况会如何呢?我想要获得关于未来走势的预测。

　　Ron Klasko: I think there are two key parts to this bill that if they were enacted in their present form would at the very least do very serious harm to the EB5 industry and render many and possibly most present projects unable to use EB5 money.

　　Ron Klasko：如果提案以目前的形式予以颁布，那么其中有两个关键部分将会在最低限度上对EB-5行业造成严重伤害，并使许多最近推出的项目无法使用EB-5资金。

　　First is the TEA provision. There's a very clear rural vs. urban aspect to this bill. The two sponsoring senators are both from rural states and this bill clearly favors rural states, which is one of the reasons that many of the senators from non-rural states are not going along with it.

　　首先是有关目标就业区(TEA)的规定。提案中很清晰地分成农村和城市两部分进行阐述。提案的两名发起人都来自农村占主导的州，因而这份提案明显偏向他们所属的州，这也是许多来自非农村主导州的议员不同意该提案的原因之一。

　　Basically what it would say is that the only thing that is a TEA and the only thing that prevents the investment amount from going from $500,000 to $1,200,000 is if you're a rural area or a single census track, high-unemployment area. I have a whole bunch of economists who've been looking at this and probably more than 90% of the present urban projects that are TEA’s using census track aggregation are not currently in a census track with an unemployment rate of 150% of the national average, and this is because the concept of census track aggregation, using contiguous census tracks, takes into account where the workers are coming from and the commuting distance concept.

　　简单来说，提案中规定只有农村地区或单个人口普查区，且拥有高失业率的地区才可以被认定为TEA并使投资额保持在50万美元而非120万美元。我手下有一批经济学家正在研究这个问题，而很可能出现的情况是，目前超过九成的拥有组合人口普查区的城市TEA项目都不位于失业率超过全国平均水平150%的人口普查区内，这是因为组合人口普查区合并了相邻的两个普查区，并将劳动者的所属地区及通勤距离等因素都囊括在内。

　　If you eliminate that as this bill does and only allow single census track TEAs, virtually no urban project would be in a TEA. You’d have to assess the value of the program when the minimum investment is going up 140%.

　　假设如提案所规定的那样，不承认组合人口普查区的做法，而只允许单个人口普查区的TEA存在，那么几乎所有城市项目都不位于TEA之内。如果最低投资额增长140%，那么我们就必须对EB-5计划的价值予以评估。

　　The other thing that will have a very serious effect on the EB5 industry is vast changes in what counts for job creation. If you put them together, many of the existing projects today would have very little job creation that would count and many if not most of the projects today would not be able to use EB5 in the future.

　　另一个会给EB-5行业带来严重影响的方面就是就业创造认定的巨大变化。如果所有这些变化得以全部实施，许多现有的项目将只能够创造极少被认可的就业，且目前的大多数项目都将无法在未来使用EB-5资金。

　　There's three different aspects to the changes in the job creation. There's a 90/10 rule, a 50/50 rule and there's a 30/70 rule.

　　关于就业创造认定的改变可以分为三个不同的方面。目前提出的有九比一、五比五以及三比七这三种规定。

　　1.The 90/10 rule says, that at least 10% of the total jobs that you can count for EB5 must be direct jobs. The way I read the language of this bill is it says it has to be direct jobs of the commercial enterprise (NCE), which in most cases is the lending company which never has any jobs to speak of. Well let’s say what they really meant and if they amend the language what it's going to say would be, well it can be W2 jobs of the job creating enterprise or the borrower in the lending model. Well that's okay, but in most of the projects that are successful in today's marketplace, most of the jobs are construction jobs, which from an immigration point of view are indirect jobs of the job creating enterprise (JCE). The language would then have to be amended to allow for direct construction jobs, which are not W2 employees of the job creating enterprise. That's a mess. Unless that's changed, it would render most projects no longer approvable.

　　1.按照九比一的规定，所有创造的EB-5就业岗位中必须至少有10%属于直接就业岗位。根据我对提案的理解，这些直接就业岗位必须是新商业企业(NCE)的就业岗位，而大多数情况下作为贷款方的NCE通常是没有任何就业岗位可言的。而提案真正的意思，或者说提案人想要表达的想法是，这些直接就业岗位可以是就业创造企业或借贷模式中借款人的W2类(直接雇佣类)工作。虽然这样的说法行得通，但目前市场上大多数成功项目所创造的就业多数为建设就业，而这在移民的角度来看是就业创造企业(JCE)的间接就业岗位。这样一来，提案就必须被修改为承认直接建设就业，而这些就业是就业创造企业的非W2类工作。这样就全乱套了。除非提案得以改变，否则将会致使大多数项目都无法得到批准。

　　2.The 30/70 provision in the bill that many of us who have read many times don't completely understand but what it seems to say is that if a project does not have mostly EB5 money in the capital stack, it’s going to have very severe limitations on the number of jobs that can be counted. If EB5 money is not more than 70% of the capital stack, then the job count is limited. There may be a limitation that only 30% or less of the jobs that presently count for EB5 would count if this bill were to become the law. This clearly favors projects that are mostly or solely EB5 money in the capital stack, which is exactly the opposite of what's marketable in China in today's market, which are big projects where there's a lot of developer money in and EB5 is a smaller part of the capital stack.

　　2.至于提案中的三比七规定，我们中有许多人读了数遍但仍然没有完全理解其含义，但看起来该规定想要说的是，如果一个项目的资本结构中EB-5资金没有占到大多数，那么该项目将在创造就业数量的认定上受到严格限制。如果EB-5资金没有占到项目总资本的七成以上，那么在就业创造认定上就会受到限制。如果目前的提案成为正式法律，那么目前被承认的EB-5就业岗位中可能只有30%或更低比例的就业能够被承认。这显然有利于那些EB-5资金占多数或全部使用EB-5资金的项目，而这恰恰与目前中国的市场行情格格不入，因为在中国销售的许多大项目中，开发商的资金往往占到多数而EB-5资金的比例则相对较低。

　　3.The 50/50 changes to the job creation, which may have a little bit less effect is a determination of whether the jobs that are created can be created outside the TEA. Basically what it says is that if a project is in a TEA and the TEA is in a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or a CSA, then 50% of the jobs must be in the MSA or CSA. If the project is not in an MSA or a CSA, then 50% of the jobs must be in the same or adjacent county. This clearly limits a projects that has indirect and induced jobs that are not in the local area.

　　3.相比之下，五比五的规定带来的影响可能稍小些，因为该规定判定的是所创造的就业是否能够在TEA之外得到创造。简单来说，如果项目位于TEA内，且TEA位于大都市统计区(MSA)或组合统计区(CSA)之内，那么所创造的就业中必须有50%位于MSA或CSA内。如果项目不位于MSA或CSA内，那么所创造的就业中必须有50%位于同一或相邻的县内。这显然对那些不在局部地区拥有间接和引申就业的项目进行了限制。

　　You put those three changes of counting job creation together, along with the reduction in what would be TEAs, and the impact on the EB5 industry would be very, very, very substantial. The good news is that the chances of all of that happening, certainly from the involvement I've had in the advocacy of this in Washington, are not very good. I think there is a lot of opposition.

　　如果我们将以上三个就业创造认定的变化与TEA认定标准的收紧合并来看的话，EB-5行业所遭受的影响是非常非常巨大的。好消息是，从我在华盛顿参与的倡议活动来看，所有这一切成为现实的可能性并不大。我相信提案必定会遭到许多反对。

　　Doug Edwards, EB-5MA

　　Doug Edwards，马萨诸塞州EB-5就业有限公司

　　‎2015‎年‎7‎月‎8‎日‎ ‎5‎:‎04‎:‎18

　　Hi Kurt and Folks,

　　Kurt和Folks，

　　I had responded to your request for comment last week concerning the Leahy-Rural Tea response. Which agreed with this week's comment by Ron Klasko. We've been in the creative TEA sector of our industry for 6 years or more. Let me suggest an even more ominous possibility for those virtually non existent one-census tract TEAs. Even if the TEA is realized as conforming to the original census tract sharing precepts of TEA creation, mathematically, the chances are very great that the single census tract will be more volatile and thus more apt to be forced out of said TEA status (unless Grandfathered) due to changing economic factors within a small geographic area. Meaning, those projects originally granted TEA status would sooner or later lose the required unemployment rate that originally was granted. This would make it virtually untenable for any legitimate developer to wait then understand that they might lose the TEA designation during the raise period. Not Good! Could make this program look like a sad imitation of what the Program has overcome during the past 25 years. WOW! * There is so much more to discuss but the obvious problems that have been exacerbated are looking ominous for our industry.

　　根据你们的请求，我已经于上周回复了关于Leahy议员对于农村地区TEA问题所作回复的看法。Leahy议员的回复与本周Ron Klasko律师给出的见解不谋而合。我们已经在EB-5行业独创的TEA领域干了6年或更久。我想在此提出一个关于那些几乎不存在的单个人口普查区的TEA的不利前景。即便TEA遵照原先的人口普查区分享规定得以建立，但可以肯定的是，单个人口普查区极有可能将会更不稳定，且会由于较小地理区域内的多变经济因素而更容易失去TEA状态(除非免受新规约束)。也就是说，那些原先获得TEA认可的项目将会迟早失去原先认可的所需失业率水平。这样的话，就会造成任何合法的开发商等待而后得知他们将在融资期间失去TEA指定的事实，而实际上这是说不通的。这显然是坏消息。EB-5将会遗憾地重蹈过去25年间所经历的种种困难的覆辙。需要讨论的问题还有许多，但是那些已经呈加剧态势的明显问题对于EB5行业显然是不利的。

　　Best

　　Peace to all

　　一切安好

　　Doug Edwards

　　CEO/President

　　首席执行官/总裁

　　EB-5 Jobs For Massachusetts RC

　　马萨诸塞州EB5就业区域中心