[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 167 (Wednesday, December 21, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14289-S14290]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 4096

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if we are not going to take up the 
major tax cut at this time, I am going to ask unanimous consent to take 
up the AMT.
  In 1969, when Congress passed the AMT it was supposed to affect 1 in 
500,000 taxpayers who make over $200,000 a year. In fact, that is not 
the case today. By 2010, the AMT is expected to ensnare 32 million 
taxpayers, the majority of whom have adjusted gross incomes of under 
$100,000. In fact, this especially hits people with children. By the 
year 2010, among married taxpayers with two or more children, 85 
percent of married taxpayers with two or more children in 2010 will 
face the AMT. It prohibits the ability to deduct for children.
  So I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of Calendar No. 326, H.R. 4096, the alternative minimum 
tax relief.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and 
passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any 
statements related thereto be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
majority, through the Senator from Texas, seeks unanimous consent to 
pass the House bill which extends the AMT exemption level. The House-
passed bill purports to be an AMT hold harmless bill. It is not. It 
does not hold everyone harmless.
  In fact, 600,000 additional families will pay AMT next year under 
that House bill which the majority seeks our consent. Under the version 
we in the Senate passed last month, with 64 Senators in support, we 
ensure that not one additional taxpayer faces higher taxes in 2006 due 
to an onerous alternative minimum tax.
  The same cannot be said of this House bill for which consent is 
agreed to.
  It is true that if Congress does not act, 17 million more middle-
income Americans will be subject to the AMT come January 1. We would 
prefer to get it right the first time and not have to make promises to 
close the gap for those 600,000 hard-working American taxpayers next 
year.
  I ask the Senator from Texas if she would amend her request instead 
to seek consent for an AMT relief amendment that I believe the majority 
would be supportive of, since it shows the Senate's provision, so that 
no AMT taxpayers are created next year. Further, while we are seeking 
to do these tax cuts outside of reconciliation, we would have them 
count against the total allowed under reconciliation. That would be 
part of the amendment.

[[Page S14290]]

The text of that Senate amendment is pending at the desk, and I am 
asking, Will the Senator from Texas accept this amendment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, with all due respect to the Senator 
from Montana, I don't see how we can take part but not all of the tax 
reconciliation bill. It is time to do away with the AMT.
  I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Montana has said he, too, 
wants to do that and that we need to do it right. To do it right we 
need to do the whole tax reconciliation bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask the Senator, will she object to an amendment I 
suggested that the whole AMT be held harmless and that it count under 
pay-go in terms of the tax, the budget provisions which provide for $70 
billion over the next 5 years? Those are the two conditions.
  Mr. KYL. Reserving the right to object to the proposed amendment to 
the unanimous consent, I believe on our side we would not object to the 
form of the so-called AMT patch that the Senator from Montana has 
proposed. Of course, we would object to his counting of that against 
the reconciliation number, or the so-called pay-go provision.
  I guess I ask for an amendment to his proposed amendment which would 
accept the broader AMT patch, as the Senator first described it, but 
nothing in addition to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. As I hear their response, they will not agree to my two 
suggested conditions and amendments. Therefore, I must respectfully 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. An objection has been heard.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I do hope the Senator from Montana, 
working with the chairman of the Committee on Finance, will make it a 
priority early next year to have the tax reconciliation package go 
through with AMT and with the other tax cuts that would be extended to 
show the American people they can rely on the tax cuts that have been 
passed and have helped the economy in its recovery.
  It is very important we not leave any question in anyone's mind that 
the tax cuts that started the economic upturn 2 years ago will be 
extended. The American people will get to keep the money in their 
pocketbooks, spend it, and fuel the jobs our economy has produced.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from 
Texas. I think we all agree we have to do something about the AMT. It 
is a big problem.
  I, frankly, tell the Senator I have introduced a bill to totally 
repeal AMT. It is a pernicious stealth tax and should not be incurred. 
We would like to work with the Senator to try and find a way to 
accomplish that.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I sign on to that effort immediately. With this kind 
of coalition maybe we can do something very important by doing away 
with the AMT in this country.

                          ____________________