[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 186 (Thursday, December 6, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14835-S14838]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    TEMPORARY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of the leader, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate now proceed to consideration of the House AMT 
bill, H.R. 3996; that all after the enacting clause be stricken, and 
the text of Senator Baucus's amendment, No. 3804, providing for a 1-
year, unpaid-for AMT extension be substituted in lieu thereof; that the 
time between now and 6:15 p.m. be equally divided for debate between 
the two leaders or their designees; that at 6:15 p.m. the bill, as 
amended, be read a third time, and the Senate, without any intervening 
action or debate, vote on passage of the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would 
ask that the agreement be modified to add tax extenders unpaid for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, at this point, if the Republican leader 
would modify that to provide for the extenders package with the offsets 
in Senator Baucus's earlier amendment, we could agree to that. I wonder 
if he could agree to that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would have to object to that 
modification.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of a number of Senators on this 
side, I would have to object to the Republican modification, and I 
renew the original consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original unanimous 
consent request?
  The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, the Senate will proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 3996, which the clerk will state by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3996) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 
     1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other 
     purposes.


                           Amendment No. 3804

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All after the enacting clause is stricken and 
the text of the Baucus amendment, No. 3804, is substituted in lieu 
thereof.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Tax Increase Prevention Act 
     of 2007''.

     SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX 
                   EXEMPTION AMOUNT.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (1) of section 55(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption amount) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking ``($62,550 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (A) and inserting 
     ``($66,250 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)'', 
     and
       (2) by striking ``($42,500 in the case of taxable years 
     beginning in 2006)'' in subparagraph (B) and inserting 
     ``($44,350 in the case of taxable years beginning in 2007)''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.

     SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF FOR 
                   NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL CREDITS.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (2) of section 26(a) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for 
     taxable years 2000 through 2006) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or 2006'' and inserting ``2006, or 
     2007'', and
       (2) by striking ``2006'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``2007''.
       (b)  Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2006.


[[Page S14836]]


  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I am gratified that at long last the 
Senate is acting to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 19 
million more American taxpayers.
  We tried to save those 19 million families from AMT on November 15, 
when the majority leader asked the Senate to do so. We tried to save 
those 19 million families from the AMT on repeated occasions this week. 
Most recently, today we tried to save those 19 million families from 
the AMT by moving to the House-passed bill. When the other side blocked 
us, we tried to save those 19 million families from the AMT by asking 
consent to pass the legislation that we have before us now. But at 
every step, the Republican caucus objected.
  I am gratified that at long last the Republican caucus has agreed to 
let us act. Perhaps the third time is the charm--or the fourth or the 
fifth. In any event, here we are.
  I will support this effort to save those 19 million families from the 
AMT. The bill before us is plainly not my first choice of how to do so, 
but this is our best choice to do so. Let me once again remind people 
why we need to act. That is, we need to act because if we do not, 
nearly 12 million families with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 
will pay the AMT next year. We need to act because if we don't, 5 
million families with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 will pay the 
AMT next year. We need to act because if we don't, remarkably, nearly 
2\1/2\ million families with incomes of less than $75,000 will have to 
pay the AMT next year. We need to stop that from happening. We need to 
keep the AMT from hitting any more families than it already does.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I will yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  I am obviously very pleased that the Senate has finally come to the 
point of voting on something in 2007 to take care of the alternative 
minimum tax problem. I would rather have gone through this process 
several months ago but better late than never.
  Over the course of this year, I have given 12 Senate floor speeches 
analyzing the alternative minimum tax and describing the problem it 
poses for middle-class taxpayers, and I have done that in great detail. 
As I said so many times--before, hoping, and now I am glad to say the 
Senate Democratic leadership seems to realize--the AMT should not be 
offset.
  I also wish to thank my good friend, Chairman Baucus, for all of his 
hard work this year and for several years to protect middle-income 
taxpayers from the AMT. Chairman Baucus did our country a great service 
by pushing for this compromise that can garner, we hope, the support of 
Democrats and Republicans. Although we did not mark up in committee, 
Chairman Baucus rolled up his sleeves and got to work to find a middle 
ground. That middle ground is before us. He has consistently avoided 
bitter partisanship and always worked to do the right thing.
  Tonight, I ask my friends in the House Democratic leadership, 
assuming we get the votes to pass this product before us, to follow the 
example of Chairman Baucus and the Senate Democratic leadership and 
finish this job to give the assurance that is necessary to these 23 
million taxpayers that they are not going to be hit by a tax they were 
never expected to pay in the first place.
  Everyone has thus far made partisan points. That episode must cease. 
Those obsessed with their tax-increase-biased version of pay-go must 
turn now to the people's business. Those who want to raise more taxes 
to pay for a tax that was never meant to raise revenue from the middle 
class have made their points. The record is clear. My friends in the 
House Democratic leadership need to cease punishing the 23 million 
middle-income taxpayers with a pay-go obsession.
  I say to my friends in the House Democratic leadership, we can talk 
until we are blue in the face. The bottom line is we need to change the 
tax laws with respect to AMT. That law change needs congressional 
action and Presidential signature. Anything else is just plain talk.
  Last night, I suggested a path to get all parties to an agreement on 
changing the law on the AMT patch. By ``all parties,'' I am referring 
to House Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate 
Republicans, and I have to include the President because without an 
agreement we will not get a law, and a law has to be signed. Without a 
law change, 23 million families face an unexpected tax increase that we 
think will be about $2,000 per family. Without a rapid law change, we 
make things even worse during filing season. We are going to have a 
fiasco of another 27 million families and individual taxpayers hurt, 
waiting for a refund.
  I reiterate my suggestion tonight. It is in a letter from Chairman 
Rangel, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member McCrery, and myself. That 
letter, dated October 31 this year, contains the tests that ought to be 
applied to any proposal in substance or process on the AMT patch 
legislation. Here is one sentence, ``We''--the four of us:

     We plan to do everything possible to enact AMT relief 
     legislation in a form mutually agreeable to the Congress and 
     the President before the end of the year.

  Chairman Baucus and the Senate Democratic leadership are trying to 
meet this test with this agreement which is before us now. Now the 
Democratic leadership in the House needs to follow through. We Senators 
hopefully will pass this package that is agreeable to the President and 
the House. What do we all agree on? We agree the patch needs to get 
done, so that is the base of what will pass the Senate, we hope. If 
House Democrats continue to insist on offsets for a patch--we hope that 
doesn't happen.
  The President and congressional Republicans disagree with the 
Democrats on the need for offsets. Offsets for the patch are not 
mutually agreeable, as the letter we sent implies. They fail the tax 
writer's test. On extenders, the House wants 1 year, the Senate wants 2 
years. President Bush had 1 year in his budget. Maybe 2 years might be 
mutually agreeable. On this point, offsets are not mutually agreeable. 
But it looks as if we will defer on next year's extenders.
  On this year's AMT patch, we need to make law. To make law, the 
proposals must be mutually agreeable. The only proposal that is 
mutually agreeable is an unoffset AMT patch. Let's get to the law 
change and end the AMT patch dilemma.
  I urge the House Democratic leadership to pass the AMT patch bill and 
send it to the President. It is in a form the President will sign. We 
must change the law now. We owe it to the 23 million families who could 
be hit by the AMT. We owe it to the additional 27 million families and 
individuals who face delayed refunds.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, first of all, I thank my good friend for 
his warm compliments. I deeply appreciate it. He is a gentleman. He is 
a good man. I thank him very much for that.
  I see Senator Sherrod Brown would like to speak. We are getting close 
to 6:15. I wonder if Senators might agree to extend the time allowable 
for debate until we finally vote, say, 10 more minutes equally divided 
on both sides, if that is agreeable to the Senator from Iowa?
  I ask unanimous consent and make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Ohio.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from Ohio 
is recognized.
  Mr. BROWN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. BROWN pertaining to the introduction of S. 2431 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it is with great reluctance that I 
plan to oppose the AMT bill before us. While I strongly support 
providing AMT relief to middle-class taxpayers, I simply cannot support 
an AMT patch that is not paid for. Let's be clear on what we are doing 
here today: we are voting on a bill that will require us to increase 
our deficit by $50 billion. Our children and grandchildren will have to 
pay

[[Page S14837]]

back the funds we are borrowing today, with interest.
  There are many ways we could have been responsible and paid for this 
measure, but the President of the United States and the Republican 
Congress have refused to consider them. One option in a bill that I 
introduced would have paid for this AMT relief by increasing the taxes 
on investment profits for millionaires, many of whom enjoy an unjust 
tax benefit that allows them to pay a lower tax rate than struggling 
middle-class families. Under my proposal, a small number of taxpayers 
with incomes over $1 million per year could have funded a patch to 
benefit approximately 20 million Americans.
  The President of the United States and the Republicans in Congress 
believe that borrowing money from foreign nations, for our children to 
repay, is the best way to finance our government. I do not, and 
therefore I must oppose this measure.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I don't see anybody who wishes to speak 
now, but we do have to wait a few minutes before we call the vote.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum, with the time being equally 
divided between the two sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOMENICI. What is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 10 minutes of debate left.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Ten minutes of debate left, 5 on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DOMENICI. If Senators are not here to use it, they can yield it 
back so we can vote, can't they?
  Mr. BAUCUS. We have to wait a few minutes.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Oh, sorry. I was in the same position. I wanted to go, 
they have to come. We have to yield to them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from New Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I wish to congratulate the Senator from 
Iowa and the Senator from Montana for bringing the bill to the floor. 
Earlier in the day, we had a discussion about the underlying bill, 
which is the bill that came over from the House, and the reservations I 
had about this, specifically the fact that it raises taxes.
  It raises them in an inappropriate way, in a way, in my opinion, 
which would chill economic expansion in this country, would undermine 
our ability to create capital in this country and, as a result, would 
undermine the ability of entrepreneurs to go out and create jobs.
  It would have the effect of exporting jobs offshore, as a practical 
matter in the financial markets and, unfortunately, would probably have 
an equally detrimental effect of encouraging places such as London to 
become even more aggressive as they compete for our capital formation 
activity, which has always historically occurred in New York City, 
which plays a large role in the energy of our Nation's economy.
  So the underlying bill has serious problems as it came over from the 
House. It also had a specific earmark to basically benefit essentially 
290 people who are using the Virgin Islands as a tax shelter. It had 
another specific earmark to benefit State legislators who would get a 
per diem for not even showing up at their State legislature. It was a 
very poor bill.
  The proposal as brought forward from the Senator from Montana is an 
excellent approach: Let's take care of the AMT for next year. Let's 
move on. Let's do this quickly so the people who are being subject to 
this or may be brought into this improperly, who were never supposed to 
be brought into this, can be relieved of that burden.
  Of course, there is the issue of whether there should be an offset. 
Well, of course, there should not be an offset. Looking at it from a 
budgeteer's standpoint, in my opinion, these are all phantom funds. We 
basically know the alternative minimum tax is not going to generate 
these revenues that we score as coming in because we know the AMT was 
never intended to tax 26 million Americans or 20 million Americans. We 
know that.
  But because of the rules, the arcane rules we have around here for 
budgeting, we basically have to include those revenues in this 
baseline, even though we know we are never going to tax people at those 
levels because it would be totally unfair and inappropriate. So I 
congratulate the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa for 
coming forward with this approach to resolve this matter. I look 
forward to voting for the proposal.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from 
North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I thank the Chairman of the Finance 
Committee. I thank him for his leadership and the leadership of the 
Senator from Iowa in attempting to address the problem we confront.
  I rise today as chairman of the Budget Committee in direct 
contradiction of my colleague on the other side to say: When nobody 
anticipated using these revenues: Really?
  How it is then that all this money was in the President's budget? All 
this money was in every budget printed by Republicans and Democrats. 
The only way any of these budgets balance is with this revenue.
  Now, I would acknowledge it makes absolutely no sense to tax these 
people with the alternative minimum tax. It was never adjusted for 
inflation. That would not be a fair outcome. But it ought to be paid 
for. The revenue ought to be replaced, either by spending cuts or by 
other revenue.
  Because if we do not pay for it, we are going to borrow it. Where are 
we going to borrow it? Well, we are going to borrow about half of it 
from abroad, most of it from the Chinese and the Japanese.
  So while I very much recognize the difficult situation we are in, and 
I applaud the chairman of the Finance Committee and the ranking member 
for grappling this, with trying to find a way to handle this problem, I 
cannot support providing this measure without it being paid for. That 
is what pay-go is about, to require that any new spending or new tax 
cuts or other revenue changes be offset. If we do not do it, we have to 
borrow it. We increasingly have to borrow it from abroad. That is not a 
wise course to pursue. Again, I recognize the extremely difficult 
situation we are in because some will resist doing anything other than 
allowing AMT to be eliminated for this 1 year without an offset.
  I, personally, think that is a mistake. I think it is a mistake for 
the country. I think that money ought to be replaced, it ought to be 
offset. Again, when people say: Well, nobody ever anticipated this 
revenue, that is not the case. Everybody who wrote a budget around here 
anticipated it. Every single budget, including the President's, 
including every budget written by Republicans or Democrats, included 
this revenue.
  While it would be a serious mistake to allow the AMT to go forward 
and hit 23 million American families, I believe the answer is to pay 
for it.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time not be 
counted against the time that is remaining under the previous unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have a number of Senators because of the 
bad

[[Page S14838]]

weather who are caught in traffic. I have two alternatives. One is when 
time is up, go into a quorum call. What I would like to do, because I 
know other people want to get the vote over and leave, what I would 
like to do, is let everyone know I would drag the vote. We do not have 
anything to do after the vote anyway. Unless there is some objection, I 
would let people know we are going to not be able to complete the vote 
probably until around 7 o'clock. I have two people, I understand one is 
a Democrat, one is a Republican. So if no one complains, I am going to 
go ahead and let the vote occur as required at approximately 6:25, and 
then I will drag the vote. Does anybody care about that?
  Mr. President, it is my understanding the Democrats, under the 
control of Senator Baucus, are ready to yield back time. I want 
everyone to understand the vote is going to take more than the ordinary 
15 minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields back.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I assume all time is yielded back?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on the engrossment of the amendment and third reading 
of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill, as amended, pass?
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), 
the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton), the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Dodd), and the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama) are necessarily 
absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and 
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 5, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 415 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Wyden

                                NAYS--5

     Carper
     Conrad
     Dorgan
     Feingold
     Whitehouse

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Biden
     Clinton
     Dodd
     Ensign
     McCain
     Obama
     Voinovich
  The bill (H.R. 3996), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________