在一些立法者提出针对EB-5计划的改革提案后，EB-5计划在过去六个月内成为美国国会热议的话题，这意味着已经有25年历史的EB-5计划将可能发生重大变化。然而，立法者们最终决定“缓而行之”，将EB-5计划的时限再延迟一年。

　　美国国会于12月15日通过了向美国政府提供资金的综合议案，其中就包括了上文所述的将EB-5计划延期至2016年9月30日的内容，而这一举动将意味着先前的讨论发生了令人震惊的转变。在维持常规性的五年延期的同时，美国国会一直致力于对EB-5计划进行广泛改革。

　　但是，美国国会终究未能达成一致，谈判以失败告终。立法者们选择将有关EB-5计划改革的讨论再推后一年。

　　“事情的真相是，国会中有某些人试图迫使立法者们接受现状，不给他们任何审议EB-5计划改革提案的机会，”来自费城的Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP的执行合伙人H. RonaldKlasko律师说道。他还表示，在投票进行前的周末提案草案经历过三次修订。

　　对于近年来越发受到人们青睐的EB-5计划来说，延期显然是好消息。EB-5资金已经被投入到从酒店到高层公寓等一系列建设项目中。“就房地产领域而言，我认为这样的结果无论是对于等待批准的项目还是争相递交预批准申请的项目来说都是一种胜利，Ballard Spahr LLP 律所华盛顿特区办事处的合伙人Debbie A. Klis表示。“这样一来，那些已经在等待获批的项目就能继续运作并筹集资金。”她补充道。

　　多数情况下，EB-5资金常被用于提供比常规夹层融资金额更低的夹层融资。根据EB-5投资联盟委托制作的2015年度经济研究报告，EB-5计划自2005年至2013年间产生的私人投资额至少达52亿美元。

　　EB-5计划是根据1990年通过的移民法案而创立的，旨在帮助受困于高失业率的城市和农村地区促进就业机会的创造以及经济发展和投资。而事实上，EB-5计划也的确通过绿卡换取资金的方式为吸引外资提供了强大的动力。外籍人士需要投资至少100万美元，或在某个获得认可的目标就业区(TEA)投资50万美元，并同时创造一定数量的新就业机会，才得以获得EB-5签证。

　　近几年来，EB-5计划遭到了来自其管理者和立法者的批评之声，而这些批评主要针对EB-5计划存在的欺诈和滥用等问题，因为有些EB-5项目并非位于受到高失业率困扰的地区。因此，改革提案提出了一系列改革措施，例如提高最低投资门槛，改变“目标就业区(TEA)”的定义以及进一步加强监管。

　　但有一点是所有人一致同意的，那就是对实施项目融资的区域中心施以更严格的监管。然而，改革提案在如何定义TEA的问题上停滞不前。“我认为致使改革提案流产的是其中一些较为激进的内容，因为许多游说者都极力反对这些内容，所以这样的提案根本无法通过。”Klis表示。

　　主导改革提案的佛蒙特州议员Senator Leahy和爱荷华州议员Grassley希望收紧TEA的认定规则，从而将EB-5资金所带来的发展机遇给予那些更需要的地区。“对于那些的确需要与周边地区结合而成为合格TEA地区的城市而言，改革提案所提议的TEA定义显得过于严苛，这样一来就会使这些城市被剔除出TEA地区。”

　　另外，改革提案中有关增加拆分签证名额分配的规定成了又一块绊脚石。目前，每年配发的签证名额为10,000个。改革提案的主导议员增加了一项“预留签证”的规定，即提议将其中2,000个签证名额分配给农村地区项目，而另2,000个签证名额分配给位于城市贫困地区的项目。

　　“没有人会在那些地方建楼。”Klasko表示，“这样的提议会导致大量签证被闲置，甚至会进一步延长时间。”他说道。

　　预计参议院将于2016年再次寻求推行针对EB-5计划的重大改革。

　　“希望立法者们能够从此次失败中汲取教训，努力改善提案的透明度，并给予人们充分时间对提案进行审议和讨论。”Klasko说道，“由于受影响人数众多，我认为(立法者们)应该在今后学聪明些，征求业内人士的意见，并给予整个行业充分讨论和进行变革的时间。”Klasko表示。“如果他们能做到这一点，那我认为最终将会得出一份相当不错的提案。”

---

　　英文原文：

　　How EB-5 Got a Surprise One-Year Reprieve

　　EB-5 has been a hotly debated topic in Congress for the past six months as some legislators proposed changes that would significantly revamp the 25-year old investment program. In the end, they decided to “kick the can down the road”for another year.

　　Congress passed the Omnibus Bill on Dec. 15th to fund the U.S. Government. That bill included an extension of the EB-5 program—exactly as is—until Sept. 30, 2016. The move represents a seismic shift from previous discussions. Congress had been working to introduce extensive changes to the EB-5 program along with the usual five-year extension.

　　In the end, Congress could not reach an agreement. Discussions broke down, and legislators chose to push the debate off for another year.

　　“Really what happened here is that certain people in Congress tried to ram this thing down people’s throats without any opportunity to review it,” says H. Ronald Klasko, a managing partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP in Philadelphia. For example, the bill went through three different draft revisions over the weekend prior to the vote, he says.

　　The extension is good news for a program that has surged in popularity in recent years, with funding going to a wide range of construction projects ranging from hotels to high-rise condos. “In the real estate community, I think it is considered a win for all of the pending projects or projects that scrambled to file an exemplar,” says Debbie A. Klis, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of law firm Ballard Spahr LLP. “Those projects already pending know that they can keep going and raise the money,” she adds.

　　In most cases, EB-5 money is used to provide mezzanine financing at a rate that is lower than financing from traditional mezzanine sources. The EB-5 program generated a minimum of $5.2 billion in private investment between 2005 and 2013, according to a 2015 economic study commissioned by the EB-5 Investment Coalition.

　　Originally created as part of the 1990 Immigration Act, the program is aimed at boosting job creation, economic development and investment in urban and rural areas that are blighted or suffering from high unemployment. Effectively, the program offers a strong incentive for foreign investment in the U.S. by trading greencards for capital. In order to qualify for a visa, foreign nationals need to invest a minimum of $1 million, or $500,000 if it is invested in certain qualifying Targeted Employment Areas (TEAs) and also create a certain number of new jobs.

　　The program has drawn criticism in recent years from program administrators and legislators over concerns related to fraud and abuse of the program as EB-5 projects were being granted in areas that were not blighted or struggling with high unemployment. The bill proposed a number of changes related to raising the minimum investment thresholds, changing definitions of TEAs and adding more oversight.

　　One of the points that was agreed on was to create more oversight for regional centers that manage project funding. However, the bill ran into stumbling blocks related to how TEAs are defined. “I think it was the more radical ideas that bogged this down, because there was so much lobbying against it that it was never going to be passed,” says Klis.

　　The lead senators, Senator Leahy (Vermont) and Senator Grassley (Iowa), wanted to make the definition of TEAs more narrow, with the premise that it would drive development to more deserving areas. “For some of these cities that really rely on the surrounding areas to qualify, the proposals were so narrow that it would basically make it obsolete,”says Klis.

　　Another stumbling block was the addition of carve-outs on how the visas were allocated. Currently, the cap is 10,000 visas issued annually. The lead senators added a provision for “reserve visas”that would require 2,000 of the visas to be allocated to projects in rural areas and another 2,000 for urban impoverished zones.

　　That is not where people are building buildings,” says Klasko. So the concern was that many of those visas would go unused and make the wait list even longer, he says.

　　It is expected that the Senate will pick up efforts to make significant changes to the program again in 2016. Hopefully, legislators learned a lesson about being very transparent with what is proposed and giving people ample time to review and comment on it, says Klasko. “There are lots of people affected by this, and I think (legislators) will be smarter next time and will solicit input from the industry and give industry time to comment and make changes,” he says. “If they do that, I think we will end up with a pretty good bill.”

---

　　文章转自：National Real Estate Investor

　　编辑整理：刘宇和贝特曼律师事务所