Carl Levin

We are going to be offering alternatives to sequestration.

I think many of us up here do not like sequestration. You have heard me and you have heard others say that it is an abominable way to budget.

We also have to do something in the entitlement area as well.

What I do not support is making this a competition to see who has the most creative tax lawyers.

Caterpillar's Swiss strategy is not the result of conscious policymaking to support American manufacturing.

I am just asking you a question. It was not impacted by that major change in how the taxes were going to be paid. Is that correct?

I am as enthusiastic a supporter of American manufacturing as there is.

The head of this effort, the driver of this effort, the one who is going to decide whether or not a dealer stays in or is not going to be allowed to stay in is Mr. Levenick in Illinois.

So dealers whose plans are approved then have 3 years to meet their sales targets, or they may be dropped from the network.

Is it true that until 1999, 85 percent or more of its international replacement parts sales income was included on Caterpillar's U.S. tax return and about 15 percent of the income was reported as Swiss income?

It continues to be involved with the development and oversight of worldwide marketing programs and approaches.

I am a strong supporter of R&D tax credits.

That is a pretty good answer, that this, whatever we want to call it, but that transaction, that CSARL transaction and license, did not affect the accountable profits issue.

It would alter the character of the income from CSARL from includable deemed distribution income to the U.S.

Remove Caterpillar Inc. from the chain of title for purchased finished parts.

Are those not crown jewels of a company?

I think every corporate executive in the world would answer that, but you in front of this Subcommittee.

I think it is you would not answer that no. But you can answer it no because nobody in their right mind would sell to an unrelated party what Caterpillar transferred in that license agreement for nothing.

Obviously you do not know what a definition is.

The "unnecessary middleman" is absurd--to call Caterpillar Inc. an "unnecessary middleman is utterly absurd.

Would you sell that to an unrelated party? Would you give a license to an unrelated party?

But it is a low-tax jurisdiction under your own documents, and that was one of the purposes of these transfers.

Is it true, Mr. Beran, that Caterpillar has its largest parts warehouse and manages its global parts inventory in Morton, Illinois?

Did you know that the board was going to be discussing that in February 2012?

No, I was asking you whether you would offer this--I thought you were making an offer right now to a third party to buy all that.