在一些立法者提出針對EB-5計劃的改革提案后，EB-5計劃在過去六個月內成為美國國會熱議的話題，這意味著已經有25年歷史的EB-5計劃將可能發生重大變化。然而，立法者們最終決定“緩而行之”，將EB-5計劃的時限再延遲一年。
美國國會于12月15日通過了向美國政府提供資金的綜合議案，其中就包括了上文所述的將EB-5計劃延期至2016年9月30日的內容，而這一舉動將意味著先前的討論發生了令人震驚的轉變。在維持常規性的五年延期的同時，美國國會一直致力于對EB-5計劃進行廣泛改革。
但是，美國國會終究未能達成一致，談判以失敗告終。立法者們選擇將有關EB-5計劃改革的討論再推后一年。
“事情的真相是，國會中有某些人試圖迫使立法者們接受現狀，不給他們任何審議EB-5計劃改革提案的機會，”來自費城的Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP的執行合伙人H. RonaldKlasko律師說道。他還表示，在投票進行前的周末提案草案經歷過三次修訂。
對于近年來越發受到人們青睞的EB-5計劃來說，延期顯然是好消息。EB-5資金已經被投入到從酒店到高層公寓等一系列建設項目中。“就房地產領域而言，我認為這樣的結果無論是對于等待批準的項目還是爭相遞交預批準申請的項目來說都是一種勝利，Ballard Spahr LLP 律所華盛頓特區辦事處的合伙人Debbie A. Klis表示。“這樣一來，那些已經在等待獲批的項目就能繼續運作并籌集資金。”她補充道。
多數情況下，EB-5資金常被用于提供比常規夾層融資金額更低的夾層融資。根據EB-5投資聯盟委托制作的2015年度經濟研究報告，EB-5計劃自2005年至2013年間產生的私人投資額至少達52億美元。
EB-5計劃是根據1990年通過的移民法案而創立的，旨在幫助受困于高失業率的城市和農村地區促進就業機會的創造以及經濟發展和投資。而事實上，EB-5計劃也的確通過綠卡換取資金的方式為吸引外資提供了強大的動力。外籍人士需要投資至少100萬美元，或在某個獲得認可的目標就業區(TEA)投資50萬美元，并同時創造一定數量的新就業機會，才得以獲得EB-5簽證。
近幾年來，EB-5計劃遭到了來自其管理者和立法者的批評之聲，而這些批評主要針對EB-5計劃存在的欺詐和濫用等問題，因為有些EB-5項目并非位于受到高失業率困擾的地區。因此，改革提案提出了一系列改革措施，例如提高最低投資門檻，改變“目標就業區(TEA)”的定義以及進一步加強監管。
但有一點是所有人一致同意的，那就是對實施項目融資的區域中心施以更嚴格的監管。然而，改革提案在如何定義TEA的問題上停滯不前。“我認為致使改革提案流產的是其中一些較為激進的內容，因為許多游說者都極力反對這些內容，所以這樣的提案根本無法通過。”Klis表示。
主導改革提案的佛蒙特州議員Senator Leahy和愛荷華州議員Grassley希望收緊TEA的認定規則，從而將EB-5資金所帶來的發展機遇給予那些更需要的地區。“對于那些的確需要與周邊地區結合而成為合格TEA地區的城市而言，改革提案所提議的TEA定義顯得過于嚴苛，這樣一來就會使這些城市被剔除出TEA地區。”
另外，改革提案中有關增加拆分簽證名額分配的規定成了又一塊絆腳石。目前，每年配發的簽證名額為10,000個。改革提案的主導議員增加了一項“預留簽證”的規定，即提議將其中2,000個簽證名額分配給農村地區項目，而另2,000個簽證名額分配給位于城市貧困地區的項目。
“沒有人會在那些地方建樓。”Klasko表示，“這樣的提議會導致大量簽證被閑置，甚至會進一步延長時間。”他說道。
預計參議院將于2016年再次尋求推行針對EB-5計劃的重大改革。
“希望立法者們能夠從此次失敗中汲取教訓，努力改善提案的透明度，并給予人們充分時間對提案進行審議和討論。”Klasko說道，“由于受影響人數眾多，我認為(立法者們)應該在今后學聰明些，征求業內人士的意見，并給予整個行業充分討論和進行變革的時間。”Klasko表示。“如果他們能做到這一點，那我認為最終將會得出一份相當不錯的提案。”
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.”
文章轉自：National Real Estate Investor
編輯整理：劉宇和貝特曼律師事務所
