[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 116 (Tuesday, September 26, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Page S9257]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STOP TAX-EXEMPT ARENA DEBT ISSUANCE ACT
Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, early this Congress, I introduced S.
224, the Stop Tax-Exempt Arena Debt Issuance Act or STADIA for short.
This bill would end a tax subsidy that inures largely to the benefit of
wealthy sports franchise owners, by eliminating tax-subsidized
financing of professional sports facilities. This legislation would
close a loophole that provides an unintended Federal subsidy--in fact,
contravenes Congressional intent--and that contributes to the
enrichment of persons who need no Federal assistance whatsoever.
This is the fourth time I have introduced this legislation, and I
chose to keep the original effective date for a number of reasons. Most
importantly, because Congress intended to eliminate the issuance of
tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports facilities as part of
the Tax Reform Act of 1986.
At the same time, I recognized that a few localities may have
expended significant time and funds in planning and financing a
professional sports facility, in reliance upon professional advice on
their ability to issue tax-exempt bonds. Thus, in my original
introductory statement, I specifically requested comment regarding the
need for equitable relief for stadiums already in the planning stages.
In response to my request, several localities that had been planning
to finance professional sports facilities with tax-exempt bonds came
forward and provided the details necessary to craft appropriate
``binding contract'' type transitional relief. Accordingly, I agreed to
change the bill in subsequent Congresses to exempt projects which had
progressed to a point where it would be unfair to stop them.
Now I have been contacted by others who make the case that retaining
the 1996 effective date creates a lack of certainty which is unhealthy
for communities desiring new stadiums and for the bond market itself.
Therefore, I am inserting into the record my intention to modify the
effective date if and when S. 224 is adopted in committee or on the
Senate floor.
Mr. President, I ask that this language be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
(b) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--The amendments made by this section shall
apply to bonds issued on or after January 19, 1999--
(2) Exception for construction, binding agreements, or
approved projects.--The amendments made by this section shall
not apply to bonds--
(A) The proceeds of which are used for--
(i) the construction or rehabilitation of a facility--
(I) if such construction or rehabilitation began before
January 19, 1999 and was completed on or after such date, or
(II) if a State or political subdivision thereof has
entered into a binding contract before January 19, 1999 that
requires the incurrence of significant expenditures for such
construction or rehabilitation and some of such expenditures
are incurred on or after such date; or
(ii) the acquisition of a facility pursuant to a binding
contract entered into by a State or political subdivision
thereof before January 19, 1999, and
(B) which are the subject of an official action taken by
relevant government officials before January 19, 1999--
(i) approving the issuance of such bonds, or
(ii) approving the submission of the approval of such
issuance to a voter referendum.
(3) Exception for final bond resolutions.--The amendments
made by this section shall not apply to bonds the proceeds of
which are used for the construction or rehabilitation of a
facility if a State or political subdivision thereof has
adopted a final bond resolution before January 19, 1999,
authorizing the issuance of such bonds. For this purpose, a
final bond resolution means that all necessary governmental
approvals for the issuance of such bonds have been completed.
(4) Significant expenditures.--For purposes of paragraph
(2)(A)(i)(II), the term `significant expenditures' means
expenditures equal to or exceeding 10 percent of the
reasonably anticipated cost of the construction or
rehabilitation of the facility involved.
____________________