[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 178 (Thursday, December 20, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14029-S14030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             TAX EXTENDERS

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in a few moments I am going to ask that 
the Senate take up and pass the tax extenders legislation. It is 
unfortunate that the Congress, along with the President, were unable to 
agree on a stimulus to the American economy that would provide not only 
a boost to the American economy, but also assistance to those who have 
lost unemployment compensation benefits as a consequence of the decline 
in the economy accelerated by the events of September 11, as well as 
those who have lost health insurance as a consequence of losing their 
jobs.
  It is almost axiomatic that the economy is in tough shape. I do not 
expect with a high degree of certainty that the Congress is going to 
come back to where we would like to be very quickly.
  There are some small points which I think we should keep in mind. One 
is that auto sales broke records with zero percent financing, and the 
auto companies get most of their income from financing. So they were 
not making any money these past couple of months, which means reports 
coming out next quarter and even this quarter will not be high.
  The same applies to retail sales. It is the Christmas season. We know 
stores across the country, in order to encourage more sales, are giving 
tremendous discounts, which clearly discounts that company's income.
  We are going to have to face a stimulus package and should this next 
year. I hope we do it in a much more accommodating manner than we have 
in the last several weeks.
  I am not going to get into the blame game. I am not going to say who

[[Page S14030]]

caused this collapse. I have lots of ideas. That is history. What 
happened happened. It is now time to go forward. I urge my colleagues, 
after appropriate rest and a break over the holidays, when they are 
rested up, to come back with renewed vigor and renewed dedication and 
perseverance to working together and, most important, listening to the 
other side.
  Too often we tend to talk, and we do not listen enough. If we were to 
listen a little more, even for a nanosecond, I think that would be 
progress. I urge my colleagues to listen to different points of view 
next year.
  Nevertheless, I think we should salvage whatever we can, and part of 
that is what is called the tax extenders. These include matters that 
are very important for the economy and for people who are relying on 
them. One is the work opportunity tax credit which helps people find 
jobs.
  The Joint Committee on Tax estimates 450,000 to 525,000 will be hired 
with this credit next year. It expires this year. All provisions I 
mentioned expire this year, and I think it is important to keep those 
in existence so next year people can rely upon them.
  Another is extending the qualified zone academy bond that authorizes 
$400 billion in bonds to States in the calendar year 2002. That is to 
renovate schools and purchase equipment. That expires this year and 
will terminate unless this legislation I mentioned passes.
  A key point, and I urge my colleagues to listen to this, it is a 
matter of confidence and certainty. These are provisions upon which so 
many people in our country depend. Over the years, they have been on 
again, off again. It is like a yo-yo.
  It is no way to do business. People need certainty, a little more 
than they have today in these uncertain times, a little more ability to 
predict the future. If we could pass this legislation tonight, 
extending the extenders, that would enable people with more certainty 
to know they can count on an existing law.
  This is not new law. This is an extension of existing law. It is not 
right for us to be not continuing that legislation because, otherwise, 
we will wake up next year, January 1 or 2, and these are not in effect. 
There are many other of them that are very good and, again, it creates 
that uncertainty.
  One, for example, is AMT for individuals. That is the alternative 
minimum tax credit. That is an extender. According to the Joint 
Committee on Tax, 900,000 Americans will be subject to the AMT without 
this relief, as one of the extenders we have.
  Four hundred thousand of those will be taxpayers with incomes between 
$50,000 and $75,000. Those are really middle-income Americans. If we do 
not extend this extender, then those people will be subject to the AMT 
tax.
  In addition, this package includes an extension of a GSP, that is a 
generalized preference for trade. That is a trade provision that is in 
the law today. The Andean Trade Preference Act extends that. It is in 
the law today, in addition to trade adjustment assistance.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to think of Americans and pass this 
request.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 33, H.R. 8; that the Baucus substitute 
amendment at the desk be agreed to; the bill as amended be read a third 
time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. NICKLES. Reserving the right to object, I concur with many of the 
statements my friend from Montana made; it is very important for us to 
work together more than we have done in the last few months. The 
unanimous consent request, if I am reading it correctly, says the 
Senate wants to substitute the extenders for H.R. 8, which is the 
revenue package that passed April 6. Is that correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. That is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. That package would be a substitute for it? In other 
words, this was a bill that would basically, over a 10-year period of 
time, eliminate the death tax, I believe, and the Senator wants to 
strike all that language and put in a 2-year extender bill; is that 
correct?
  Mr. BAUCUS. This is 1 year. There is no intention to repeal any of 
the tax provisions that passed earlier this year.
  Mr. NICKLES. I am reading this as a substitute for the House bill. I 
believe it is a substitute for the House bill. If the Senator modifies 
this and makes it in addition to the House bill, at least this Senator 
would not object. But if it is striking the House bill, I feel 
constrained to object.
  If the Senator is willing to move it, in addition to the House bill, 
I will not object at this time.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will respond to my colleague that my intention is to 
take up the bill that is already on the calendar.
  Mr. NICKLES. I know.
  Mr. BAUCUS. And strike out the substance of it; take it up and pass 
it back with these provisions.
  I might answer my friend, this is the procedure we have to follow in 
order to pass these extenders.
  Mr. NICKLES. Further reserving the right to object, again I will 
object if it is striking the House bill. The House passed a bill with a 
good vote. I do not remember exactly what it was. If it is in addition 
to the House bill, I would not object.
  I ask my colleague--and I think I hear the Senator saying he is not 
going to--is it not the intent of the Senator not to pass the House-
passed bill? I was hoping we could make a deal.
  I might mention we might have to notify a few other Senators before 
we do this by unanimous consent.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I see. It is now more clear to me what is happening.
  Mr. NICKLES. My intention was, if we want to repeal the death tax and 
pass the extenders, this Senator would have no objection. I am sure we 
could whip it and see if there would be no objection.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I understand. I am sure the Senator would love to do 
that, and I am also sure there would be other Senators who would 
object.
  Mr. NICKLES. The Presiding Officer might like for us to do that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Given all the objections that approach will take, I was 
asking the Senator to consider the approach I am suggesting.
  Mr. NICKLES. Further reserving the right to object, if the Senator is 
not going to agree to pass the House-passed language that passed in 
April with the extenders language, then I ask the Senator to modify his 
request and let us take up the stimulus package that did have the 
extenders, that did have many other provisions that would have helped 
the unemployed, that did have some things that would help stimulate the 
economy, that did some things that would help New York in addition to 
what we have already done today. So I ask my colleague to modify his 
request, let us take up the stimulus package, the H.R. 3529, which was 
received from the House.
  I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified so that at first 
the Senate would proceed to consideration of H.R. 3529, which is the 
stimulus package received by the House; the bill be read a third time 
and passed, with no intervening action or debate.
  I would add, before the Chair rules, the bill has extender language 
that my colleague from Montana is requesting and therefore it would 
accommodate his request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I believe the Senator made a unanimous 
consent request that would change my unanimous consent request, at 
least as I understand it. I ask the Senator if he will modify his 
request to substitute the stimulus bill that passed the Senate Finance 
Committee instead of the bill that passed the House.
  Mr. NICKLES. I cannot agree to that. I do not know if we are playing 
one-upmanship. I would like to pass the bill that passed the House. So 
I will not agree to that.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, it is clear what is happening.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
Senator from Montana?
  Mr. NICKLES. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Louisiana is recognized.

                          ____________________