[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.
____________________