[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3] [Senate] [Pages 3455-3456] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]HIRE ACT Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, one of the provisions the Democratic leadership decided to put in this HIRE bill is the expansion of Build America Bonds. Build America Bonds is a very rich spending program; however, it is disguised as a tax cut. One Democratic Senator was asked why the Build America Bonds program is viewed differently than appropriations, and she replied: It has a good name. Ironically, the Finance Committee is returning to its roots of doing appropriations bills. When our committee was established in 1816, the Finance Committee handled the major appropriations bills that came before Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a portion of the document outlining the history of the Finance Committee be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: This vote of no confidence proved a turning point in jurisdiction over tariff bills. . . . Beginning in 1834, all tariff bills were referred initially to the Finance Committee. The important Tariff Act of 1842 was handle by the Finance Committee, as were a number of minor bills in the decade following the Compromise Tariff of 1833. In 1846, a bill to reduce tariffs was passed by the House and sent to the Senate on July 6. The Senate leaders wished to take the bill up on the Senate floor immediately; a motion to refer it first to the Finance Committee was narrowly defeated 24 to 22. After 6 weeks of floor debate, it was referred to the Finance Committee on July 27 by a 28 to 27 vote, with detailed specific instructions on what to report. The following day the committee asked to be discharged from further consideration of the bill. A motion to refer the bill to a special committee, with similar detailed instructions, was defeated 27 to 27 (with the Vice President opposing the motion), the bill was then passed with the Vice President voting for the bill, thereby breaking a tie vote of 27 to 27. For the next decade, there was no serious challenge to the Finance Committee's jurisdiction over tariff measures. The tariff-reducing Tariff Act of 1857 was handled by the Finance Committee; an attempt to prevent referral of the 1861 Tariff Act to the Finance Committee was defeated, 29 to 27 (though subsequent to Finance Committee action, a select committee was appointed to consider the bill further). Appropriation bills.--Though the Finance Committee was to become the major committee handling appropriations before the Civil War, this role was not established immediately upon the creation of the committee in 1816. In the earliest years of the committee's existence, there were only three major appropriation bills to be considered each year: for the Army, for the Navy, and for the civil functions of Government. In the first session of the 14th Congress, while the Finance Committee was still a select committee, the Army appropriation bill was handled by the Select Committee on Military Affairs; the Navy appropriation bill was handled by the Select Committee on Naval Affairs; and the general Government appropriation bill was referred to a specially created select committee none of whose members served on the select Committee on Finance and an Uniform National Currency). The next year, when the standing Committee on Finance was established it took over the responsibility for the Army and general Government appropriation bills. The Navy appropriation bill continued to be handled by the Committee on Naval Affairs until 1827 (with the exception of the 2 years 1821 and 1822), when the Finance Committee was assigned the bill. One of the appropriation actions in the early years of the Senate Finance Committee related to the Louisiana purchase, which had been made in 1803. Of the $15 million cost of the purchase, $3.75 million was retained by the United States to pay claims of U.S. citizens for damages incurred (mostly at sea at the hands of the French). The remaining $11.25 million was provided in 6-percent bonds payable in four annual installments, from 1818 to 1821. Since Napoleon wanted cash rather than bonds, he sold them to two international bankers for about $10.2 million. The bankers held the bonds until maturity: when they were paid, the Senate Finance Committee had jurisdiction over the appropriation bills. The total cost of the Louisiana purchase to the United States, including interest and American damage claims, was $23.5 million less than 3 cents an acre for the entire territory. New appropriation bills were not always referred to the Finance Committee. An annual bill appropriating funds for Revolutionary War pensions was first referred to the Committee on Pensions: not until 1830 was Finance Committee jurisdiction over appropriations for this purpose firmly established. Appropriations related to Indian treaties were first handled by the Committee on Indian Affairs; transfer of jurisdiction to the Finance Committee took several years, and it was not until 1834 that all Indian appropriation bills began to be referred to the Finance Committee. From this time on, jurisdiction over appropriation bills remained virtually unchanged until the Civil War. The Finance Committee was given basic responsibility for appropriations, with the sole exception of public works appropriation bills (which were referred either to the Committee on Commerce or the Committee on Territories, depending on the location of the projects). Mr. GRASSLEY. Bloomberg News reported that large Wall Street investment banks were charging 37 percent higher underwriting fees on Build America Bond deals than on other tax-exempt bond deals. Therefore, American taxpayers appear to be funding huge underwriting fees for large Wall Street investment banks as part of the Build America Bonds. The Wall Street Journal article, dated March 10, 2010, stated, Wall Street investment banks have made over $1 billion in underwriting fees on Build America Bonds in less than 1 year. The Wall Street Journal article, based on data from Thomson Reuters, stated underwriting fees on Build America Bond deals are higher than those for tax-exempt bond deals. That sounds like a great deal for the high rollers on Wall Street. But how about the taxpayers back on Main Street America who have to pick up this tab? The Democratic leadership has said the Build America Bonds program is about creating jobs. But I wish to know whether it is about lining the pockets of Wall Street executives. Recently, I asked the CEO of a large Wall Street investment bank a number of questions about these larger underwriting fees that are subsidized by the American taxpayers. He confirmed that the underwriting fees for Build America Bond deals are larger than those of tax-exempt bond deals. The Senate and House have recently passed different versions of the bill we are currently debating which includes [[Page 3456]] a provision that expands the Build America Bonds program created in the stimulus bill. One would assume it was just a temporary provision and extend that to four types of tax credit bonds. I will give those four types. Before I do, I remind my colleagues that this is another example that the word ``temporary'' does not apply to very many things in Washington, DC, because it does not take long for a temporary program to become a permanent program. I talked about four types of tax credit bonds. They are the qualified school construction bonds, qualified zone academy bonds, clean renewable energy bonds, and qualified energy conservation bonds. The Build America Bonds program contains an option for the issuer of bonds which is a nontaxpaying entity to receive a check from the Treasury Department based on a percentage of the interest cost incurred by the issuer. Some refer to this option as the direct pay option. The percentage of the interest costs on the four tax credit bonds subsidized by the American taxpayers under the direct pay option in the Senate bill is a whopping 45 percent and is increased to 65 percent for small issuers. ``Small issuers'' are defined as those issuing less than $30 million in bonds per year. The House version increased the direct payment subsidy to 100 percent for qualified school construction bonds and qualified zone academy bonds, and increased the subsidy to 70 percent for clean renewable energy bonds and the qualified energy conservation bonds. Let me put this in context. The Build America Bonds program created in the stimulus bill contains a 35-percent direct pay subsidy, and the President has proposed in his fiscal year 2011 budget that it be lowered to 28 percent. It was reported in the March 11, 2010, Bond Buyer article that a senior House staffer asserted that no issuers would opt to issue direct pay bonds under the lower Senate rates of 45 and 65 percent. When I read that assertion, I asked the Finance Committee Republican staff to reconcile that assertion with the scoring of the Build America Bonds proposal in the Senate-passed bill. The Republican staff of the Finance Committee reviewed the Joint Committee on Taxation's final estimate of the Senate-passed bill and found that the senior House staffer's assertion was directly contradicted by the estimate provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation, which everybody knows is the nonpartisan official scorekeeper for Congress on any tax matters. In fact, footnote 2 of the estimate of the Senate Build America Bonds provision states that the Joint Tax Committee's estimate of the Senate direct pay bonds option includes an increase in outlays of--let's say $8 billion. This means the Joint Committee on Taxation estimates assumed that a large number of issuers would elect to use the direct pay option, contrary to that House staffer's assertion. The Bond Buyer--that is a publication--the Bond Buyer also reported that the senior House staffer stated: There is nobody that I know who does not view the Build America Bonds program as an enormous success, with the possible exception of one person. I assume that staffer was referring to me. There are many Federal taxpayers who do not view the Build America Bonds program as an enormous success. To understand why, let's see which States benefit the most from the Build America Bonds. In looking at data from Thomson Reuters on the 10 largest Build America Bonds deals, California alone issues 73 percent of those bonds. Between California and New York, those two States alone issue 92 percent of the bonds from the 10 largest Build America Bonds deals. California and New York are the biggest winners under the Build America Bonds, while American taxpayers from the remaining 48 States subsidize these States. As Senator Kyl pointed out in his ``Dear Colleague'' letter on Build America Bonds circulated on March 15, the Build America Bonds program actually rewards States for having a riskier credit rating by giving them more money. Build America Bonds creates a perverse incentive that causes State and local governments to borrow more than they otherwise would borrow. This is especially true regarding the school tax credit bonds. This bill creates incentives where States and local governments should not even care what the interest rate is. The American taxpayers are picking up 100 percent of the interest cost. Actually, the cost borne by the American taxpayers is, in fact, more than 100 percent. At least with tax credit bonds, the taxpayers include the amount of the tax credit in income and the Federal Government collects taxes on that income. The only purchasers of tax credit bonds are those who have tax liabilities; otherwise, it makes no sense to buy tax credit bonds. However, Build America bonds are technically taxable bonds. But most of the investors do not pay tax on these bonds. For example, under our tax rules, if a foreign person or a pension fund or a tax-exempt entity buys a Build America Bond, they do not pay tax on the interest they receive. Thus, the Federal Government not only cuts a check for 100 percent of the bond's interest cost, but it also loses most of the revenue it would have collected from the tax credit bonds. State and local governments can view this Federal money as what it really is--free money--because they do not have to collect it from their residents. Therefore, of course, State and local governments turn out to be very big fans of the Build America Bonds program. They get Federal money that they do not have to pay back. The large Wall Street investment banks love Build America Bonds. Why? Because they are getting richer off those bonds. However, we all know there is no such thing as a free lunch. Washington is an island surrounded by reality. Consequently, everybody in this town thinks there are free lunches, and the common sense of the rest of the country has difficulty getting inside this island. It is our responsibility to point out that in this city, this District--the only real industry is government--you cannot have everybody in the wagon. In this town, everybody is in the wagon. Everybody outside the District is pulling the wagon. That cannot go on very long. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Federal taxpayers are footing the bill for this big spending program, which only gets bigger every time Congress touches it. This legislation before us is just an example. As this program that started out as a little program in the stimulus bill--and presumably the word ``stimulus'' means temporary, doesn't it? But this is not turning out to be temporary and it is not turning out to be small because it has just been enhanced greatly in the other body. The American taxpayers are the ones we ought to be looking out for, and a temporary program ought to be temporary and a stimulus program ought to be stimulus and nothing else. And here we are expanding it. The American taxpayers are the ones who, in the words of the senior House staffer, do ``not view the Build America Bonds program as an enormous success.'' I urge my colleagues to look beyond the fancy, well-funded lobbying campaign for this rich subsidy. Take a look at who wins. The winners are big Wall Street banks. Maybe a small number of governments will issue bonds they otherwise would not. Main Street is not helped very much by this program. The only certainty is that the Federal taxpayers are on the hook for the interest costs. With record budget deficits under this Congress and administration, we cannot casually look away as new, open-ended subsidies are proposed. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska. ____________________