[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 23]
[Senate]
[Pages 32139-32142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  AMT

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased we are finally discussing 
solutions to the alternative minimum tax problem that is poised to 
swallow 19 million more filers this year. I would have rather gone 
through this process several months ago but better late than never.
  Over the course of the year, I have given many speeches analyzing the 
AMT and describing the problem it poses for middle-class taxpayers in 
great detail. On February 12, I gave a speech on the history of the 
AMT. On February 13, I highlighted how the AMT affects individual 
income tax liabilities. On February 15, I discussed ways to reform the 
AMT and made the case that complete repeal is the best way to deal with 
the AMT.
  Incidentally, I made the case that dealing with the alternative 
minimum tax 1 year at a time could be problematic, and current events 
have proven me right.
  On March 20, I pointed out the Democrats' budget had no room for AMT 
relief, not even for 1 year. On March 22, I explained why we need to 
repeal the AMT. On April 18, I made an appeal for quick action on the 
AMT to help taxpayers making estimated payments who are already paying 
the price for the lack of action in Congress. On May 14, I explained 
why the AMT relief or repeal should not be paid for with a tax increase 
someplace else on other people. On May 17, I criticized the conference 
report on the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution for not realistically 
addressing the alternative minimum tax problem. On that same day, I 
gave another speech exposing how Democratic offsets to the AMT relief 
would result in massive tax increases on other people.
  On June 13, I discussed the inadequacy of the lead trial balloons 
House Democrats were floating as possible fixes for the AMT. This was 
to mark the occasion of the second quarter estimated tax payments 
coming due because we had taxpayers who file quarterly already being 
hit by the lack of action on the part of the Congress.
  On July 24, I introduced legislation to protect taxpayers who should 
have been making estimated payments for 2007 but weren't because they 
did not realize Congress was failing to protect them from the AMT. In 
other words, if they didn't have to pay the AMT in 2006, why would they 
think they had to pay the AMT in 2007? By not doing it, they were 
violating our tax laws, probably innocently.
  On September 19, I marked the occasion of the third quarter estimated 
tax payments coming due by again discussing the AMT problem and how 
little congressional leadership was doing about it.
  I just cited 12 speeches delivered on the Senate floor over the past 
year. That doesn't even include press conferences, Finance Committee 
meetings, and other events where I have talked about the need for 
repeal of the AMT or, in the case of a shorter term fix, just making 
sure it was fixed for this 1 year and kicking the can down the road. I 
have been talking about the alternative minimum tax literally all year 
now. House Democrats finally managed to introduce a bill on October 30, 
and the majority leader turned to it in the Senate right before the 
Thanksgiving recess. Democratic leadership cannot blame Republicans for 
their own failure to act until almost literally the last minute.
  As I said, I am glad we are finally discussing solutions, and the 
Senate leadership seems to realize that the AMT should not be offset. I 
also want to thank my good friend, Chairman Baucus, for all his hard 
work this year, and for several years, to protect middle-income 
taxpayers from the alternative minimum tax. Chairman Baucus is doing 
our country a great service now by trying to work out a compromise 
between those who want to pay for the AMT relief and extenders with a 
tax increase and those who are opposed to tax increases to offset AMT. 
He has consistently, meaning chairman Baucus, avoided bitter 
partisanship and always worked to do the right thing.
  Those obsessed with pay-go--and for the public watching, that is pay 
as you go--those who are obsessed with pay-go, who want to raise more 
taxes to pay for a tax that was never meant to raise revenue, are 
punishing the American taxpayers for their obsession. Unfortunately, 
right now, I cannot support a package with roughly $45 billion of 
offsets in it for the extenders, even though the AMT relief is not 
offset.
  I am still reviewing some of the revenue raisers, but my issue is not 
with the raisers themselves. I will only support a raiser if I think it 
is good policy and will not support a raiser simply for the revenues.
  I am concerned then if we send this package to the House, they will 
try to use the offsets not for what we put them in for, for the 
extenders, but send it back to us as offsets against the AMT, 
increasing taxes on others to pay for a tax that was never meant to be 
collected, and then still not get the extenders passed, as we should be 
passing them right now.
  The House has shown it does not respect the need to get 60 votes in 
the Senate, and I do not expect that to change right now. If the 
majority leader is serious about reaching a compromise, and really 
respects the minority, as he claims, he needs to get his colleagues in 
the House on board. I have been around long enough not to make it too 
easy to stab me in the back by having things that even leadership in 
the House has suggested could happen with this tax ping-pong operation 
that might go on here.
  It is unfortunate congressional leadership took so long to deal with 
the alternative minimum tax and that some are still putting an 
obsession with pay-go and narrow partisan interests over the wellbeing 
of their own constituents. We can talk until we are blue in the face, 
but the bottom line is we need to change the tax laws with respect to 
the alternative minimum tax. That law change needs congressional action 
and a Presidential signature, and anything else is just plain talk.
  I would like to end this part of the remarks I am making today with a 
suggestion. I hope we get all parties to an agreement by changing the 
law on the AMT patch. By all parties, I am referring to House 
Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, 
and, of course, nothing is going to happen if the President can't sign 
it. Without an agreement, we will not get a law. And without a law 
change, this is what is going to happen: 23 million families face an 
unexpected tax increase that is going to average about $2,000 per 
family. Without a law change, we make worse the filing season fiasco 
for yet another 27 million families and individual taxpayers. That is 
on top of the 23 million who, for the first time, are being hit by the 
alternative minimum tax.
  So here is my suggestion. It is simple. It is black and white. It is 
in a letter from Chairman Rangel and Chairman Baucus and ranking 
Republicans McCrery in the House and myself for the Republicans in the 
Senate Finance Committee. We are the senior tax-writing committee 
members from the Congress. That letter was dated October 31 this year 
assuring Treasury Secretary Paulson and Acting IRS Commissioner Stiff 
that we would work to pass an AMT patch bill expeditiously. That letter 
contains the test that ought to be applied to any proposal in substance 
and process on an AMT patch.
  Let me remind you, this is a bipartisan letter by the most senior 
tax-writing Members of the Congress. And it starts with ``we,'' meaning 
Chairman Rangel, Chairman Baucus, and ranking Republican members, 
McCrery and Grassley. Here is what that sentence says:

       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.

  That is the end of the quote, but I want to put emphasis within that 
quote on these words: Passing legislation in a form mutually agreeable 
to the Congress and to the President before the end of the year, 
meaning the

[[Page 32140]]

end of 2007. Chairmen Rangel and Baucus and their ranking members made 
it clear in this letter.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter I have been 
referring to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               Tax Writers Notify IRS of Upcoming AMT Fix


  Finance Ways and Means leaders intend to prevent tax from affecting 
 more Americans, urge IRS to begin planning now for accurate tax forms

       Washington, DC.--Leaders of the congressional tax writing 
     committees notified the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today 
     of imminent changes to the alternative minimum tax, and 
     encouraged the agency to plan now to produce accurate tax 
     forms for the 2007 filing season. Senate Finance Committee 
     Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), House Ways and Means Chairman 
     Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Finance Ranking Republican Chuck 
     Grassley (R-Iowa), and Ways and Means Ranking Republican 
     Member Jim McCrery (R-La.) sent a letter to Acting IRS 
     Commissioner Linda Stiff, indicating their intention to 
     complete legislation preventing the AMT from affecting any 
     additional American taxpayers for 2007. The AMT was 
     originally meant to ensure that wealthy Americans paid some 
     income tax, but without indexing for inflation it has begun 
     to affect middle-income American taxpayers.

  The text of the Tuesday letter follows here.

                                                 October 30, 2007.
     Ms. Linda E. Stiff,
     Acting Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Acting Commissioner Stiff: Under present law, more 
     than 23 million taxpayers will be subject to higher taxes in 
     2007 unless legislation is enacted to limit the reach of the 
     Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). We realize that this fact is 
     causing concern for many taxpayers and is creating 
     administrative difficulties for the IRS as the agency 
     prepares for the upcoming filing season.
       As the leaders of the Congressional tax-writing committees, 
     we want to assure you that legislative relief is forthcoming 
     so that no new taxpayers will be subject to the AMT for 
     taxable year 2007. To accomplish this, we are committed to 
     extending and indexing the 2006 AMT patch with the goal of 
     ensuring that not one additional taxpayer faces higher taxes 
     in 2007 due to the onerous AMT. In addition to allowing the 
     personal credits against the AMT, the exemption amount for 
     2007 will be set at $44,350 for individuals and $66,250 for 
     married taxpayers filing jointly.
       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. We urge the 
     Internal Revenue Service to take all steps necessary to plan 
     for changes that would be made by the legislation.
       Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter.
           Sincerely yours,
     Max Baucus,
       Chairman, Committee on Finance.
     Charles E. Grassley,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Finance.
     Charles B. Rangel,
       Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means.
     Jim McCrery,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Finance.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Now, our leaders in both the House and the Senate need 
to back up the tax writers. We Senators need to pass a package that is 
agreeable to the President and to the House. What do we all agree on? 
We agree the patch needs to get done right now. So that is the base of 
what should pass the Senate, if we are to get a law enacted. House and 
Senate Democrats insist on offsets for a patch.
  The old joke is that you better make certain the light at the end of 
the tunnel isn't a train coming toward you. Unfortunately, the joke is 
on the American people when it comes to the upcoming tax-filing season. 
Because of the failure of the Congress to act, the taxpayers are going 
to feel as if they have been hit by a freight train come April 15. The 
sad part is this was not necessary. Congress could have done the right 
thing. Congress could have acted. We have never in this century gone 
this late without passing the AMT patch and having it in place. The IRS 
and the Treasury have made it clear that the failure to act would cause 
very real problems in the filing season, in terms of confusion and in 
terms, especially, of a delay in providing taxpayers their refunds.
  I am astonished when I hear that some in the Democratic leadership 
are telling reporters these claims of a filing fiasco are all somehow a 
bluff. The Democratic leadership certainly didn't think the problems of 
the filing season were a bluff when we were delayed in passing an 
extenders package last year. That is when the Republicans were in 
control. I strongly advocated then that we needed to pass the extenders 
package and warned of its negative impact on the filing season, and I 
was not listened to by my Republican leadership. But Democrats, now in 
the majority but back then in the minority, joined me in those 
statements. Now the clamor is much smaller with the alternative minimum 
tax which will affect 25 million taxpayers and will be, in many ways, 
significantly more disruptive to the filing season than the extenders 
delay last year.
  As you can see from a chart I have here--I am going to ask my staff 
to hold that chart up. We all know the story of Chicken Little. But 
every once in a while, Chicken Little is right. When it comes to the 
filing season, the sky is falling.
  It is important that my colleagues understand that by failing before 
Thanksgiving, we have already gummed up the works. As my colleagues can 
see from this next chart, the deadline of October 15 for finalizing 
forms and instructions has already passed. We have passed the November 
7 deadline for printing the tax forms--as you can also see in the 
chart--and the absolute drop dead date for printing was November 16.
  Every week that we don't act, this problem will get worse and worse.
  I should make it clear that we are not only hearing from the IRS that 
the delays have created a filing fiasco; the tax preparer community is 
making it clear that the problems are real and they are big.
  We recently received a letter from the independent IRS Oversight 
Board that voiced ``grave concerns about the serious risks to the 2008 
filing season if legislation to change the AMT is delayed.''
  The IRS Oversight Board makes it clear that there is a big, big 
difference from Congress passing AMT relief this week as opposed to the 
third week of December. The board specifically says that another 2 or 3 
week delay by Congress could mean that another 31 million taxpayers 
will face a delay in filing returns and that another approximately $70 
billion in refunds could be delayed.
  These numbers would be on top of the 6.7 million taxpayers who 
already face a delay in filing returns and the $17 billion in refunds 
that are going to be delayed because we have not acted to pass the AMT 
``patch.''
  So if we continue to dilly-dally and delay on AMT relief until 
Christmas, it will be a total of 37.7 million return filings delayed 
and $86.9 billion in refunds delayed. These delayed refunds are not 
just paper; they represent real money that many working families are 
counting on to help them to pay the bills, make an important purchase 
or even have an important medical procedure done.
  To be blunt, we are already in the soup and it is a question of how 
bad it is going to get.
  I recently joined the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee 
in writing to Ms. Stiff, the Acting Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue Service, asking that the IRS do the following:
  No. 1, take steps to educate taxpayers about the possible changes in 
the law and tax forms;
  No. 2, work closely with the tax preparation community to keep them 
aware of the IRS to update programming and minimize delays and to 
encourage the tax preparation community to inform their clients and 
consumers about likely delays in processing returns and distributing 
refunds;
  No. 3, ensure that all IRS call center employees are fully informed 
about the status of the tax filing season and can provide accurate and 
timely information to callers;
  No. 4, within available resources, increase staffing of IRS call 
centers to accommodate the increased call volume that will likely 
result from taxpayer confusion.

[[Page 32141]]

  I think these steps will allow us to do the best we can with a very 
bad hand. But there should be no doubt, the real answer is to pass AMT 
relief and pass it now.
  For many years now, and certainly many times this year, I have tried 
to shed light on the monstrosity that is the alternative minimum tax 
and how the failure to index the AMT for inflation threatens middle-
class taxpayers. While I have consistently fought for full repeal of 
the alternative minimum tax, I have had to be content with enacting a 
series of provisions, since 2001, to increase the exemption amounts 
pertaining to the AMT to prevent new taxpayers from being caught by it. 
However, similar action has not yet been taken for tax year 2007. 
Despite plenty of advanced warning, congressional leadership's failure 
to act means that time for proactive action has already passed.
  The IRS is printing tax forms and making other arrangements to 
process tax returns submitted for the upcoming filing season. Any 
legislative fix undertaken now to check the advance of the AMT will not 
eliminate a problem, but will only manage it. Despite being deeply 
disappointed that congressional leadership has not seen fit to act 
faster, I was hopeful that the magnitude of around 19 million 
additional tax filers paying the AMT for tax year 2007 was finally 
beginning to hit home. The AMT finally seemed to be getting the 
attention it deserved, but recent rhetoric has again put me into a 
negative frame of mind.
  Rather than offer new ideas and insights into how to solve the AMT 
problem, which in the case of many would be to offer any ideas at all, 
some of my colleagues are merely recycling the same old and tired 
talking points of years past. More specifically, I'm referring to the 
accusation, made by left-leaning think tanks and also by the House 
Committee on Ways and Means majority, that advocates of tax relief in 
2001 and 2003 deliberately--I want to emphasize they are accusing use 
of deliberately using the AMT as a trick to minimize the revenue cost 
to the Federal treasury as a result of those policies. While it is true 
that some families benefit less from 2001 and 2003 tax relief than they 
otherwise would have, to say this is by design, as is indeed done in a 
Committee on Ways and Means press release issued on November 14, is 
absolutely ridiculous.
  Republicans have consistently fought, even before the 2001 tax relief 
bill, to curtail and eradicate the alternative minimum tax. In 1999, 
congressional Republicans passed the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 
1999, which completely repealed the AMT, and this bill was vetoed by 
President Clinton.
  Getting back to the Ways and Means press release of November 14, in 
it I myself am cited as critiquing President Bush for not doing more in 
his 2001 and 2003 tax packages to counteract AMT effects. I do 
absolutely want to make clear that despite my belief that the AMT was 
also a pressing problem at that time, I wholeheartedly supported tax 
relief in 2001 and 2003 and still think it was absolutely the right 
thing to do. In fact, I think the provisions in both bills should be 
made permanent.
  In order to counteract the effect of the AMT, Congress passed and 
President Bush signed into law a series of provisions to increase AMT 
exemption amounts to keep inflation from pushing new tax filers into 
the clutches of the AMT. If Ways and Means Democrats were serious in 
their implied concern for the effectiveness of 2001 and 2003 tax 
relief, they could do two very simple things: First, House Democrats 
could make 2001 and 2003 tax relief permanent; second, they could fully 
repeal the AMT. Of course they have shown no sign of doing either of 
these two things. In fact, opposition to the 2003 tax relief package 
was so intense among Democrats that the Vice President was called upon 
to break a tie during a vote in the Senate.
  The provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills were not made 
permanent because doing so might have made it impossible for the bills 
to overcome Democratic opposition. I believe that including AMT repeal 
in those bills would have had the same effect.
  Aside from being quoted in the November 14 Ways and Means press 
release, I found it unintentionally humorous in that it reveals that 
House Democrats are doing exactly what they accuse Republicans of 
having done since 2001. While they accuse Republicans of using the AMT 
as a budgeting gimmick, they are using the AMT as a gimmick to make it 
appear they are easing the tax burden when they are not.
  In the release, Ways and Means Chairman Rangel is quoted saying ``The 
house passed a bill to prevent the AMT from hitting 23 million families 
this year without hurting the economy by adding to the national debt.''
  What this means is that the House is protecting some people from the 
AMT by subjecting other filers to additional taxes. This is the same as 
if your community's animal control officer caught a rabid dog on your 
street and let it go someplace else across town. Your problem appears 
to have been immediately solved, but in the longer-term, the 
fundamental problem still exists. The fundamental problem with the AMT 
is the massive amount of unintended revenue it is forecast to collect, 
and the unwillingness of many of my colleagues to forego that revenue.
  If Ways and Means Democrats are serious in their appeal to the 
administration regarding the AMT to ``work with Congress to do the 
right thing and kill it,'' they will abandon any notion that revenues 
not collected because of AMT relief or repeal ought to be offset.
  Finally, I want to address the baseless claim that the Bush 
administration's tax priorities were responsible for the AMT problem on 
a technical level.
  This exact point was raised in 2005 by Democratic Ways and Means 
staffers in a letter to ``Tax Note,'' a prominent publication for tax 
professionals. At the time I requested that the nonpartisan Joint 
Committee on Taxation look into this matter. Their analysis showed 
that, as I have long maintained, the biggest problem with the 
alternative minimum tax was it was never indexed for inflation.
  In response, I received from the Joint Committee on Taxation a letter 
dated October 3, 2005. I have requested an update of that document and 
will discuss the updated numbers as soon as they are available. That 
estimate could be interpreted to indicate that if the Bush tax cuts 
were repealed, alternative minimum tax revenues could be expected to 
drop by $302 billion, or 27 percent.
  At the time, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate also found that 
extending and indexing the hold-harmless provision in effect at the 
time would reduce alternative minimum tax revenues by around $667 
billion, or 59 percent. Of course, the analysis of this question is 
complicated by the fact that the variables we are examining overlap and 
interact with each other. But responsible analysis of available 
information certainly does not support the allegation that the tax 
relief packages signed by the President in 2001 and 2003 are 
responsible for the explosion of the alternative minimum tax. If 
anything, House Democrats and their pet think tanks have illustrated 
the fallacy of using projected revenue reductions as a proxy for 
percentage causation.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the October 2005 Joint 
Committee on Taxation revenue estimate I referred to be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Congress of the United States,


                                  Joint Committee on Taxation,

                                     Washington, DC, Oct. 3, 2005.


                               memorandum

     To: Mark Prater and Christy Mistr
     From: George Yin
     Subject: AMT Effects
       This memorandum responds to your request of September 29, 
     2005, for an analysis of the portion of the AMT effect (AMT 
     liability plus credits lost due to the AMT) which can be 
     attributed to the failure to adjust the AMT exemption amount 
     to inflation, assuming alternatively that the EGTRRA and 
     JGTRRA tax cuts (``tax cuts'') are either permanently 
     extended or repealed. We also explain how this information 
     compares to information previously provided to you on August 
     31, 2005 and September 16, 2005.

[[Page 32142]]

       For the purposes of this analysis, we have first assumed 
     that the tax cuts are repealed. The first set of figures in 
     Table 1 compares the AMT effect under this assumption if, 
     alternatively, (1) the AMT exemption amount hold-harmless 
     provision is not extended beyond 2005; (2) such provision is 
     extended permanently; and (3) such provision is extended 
     permanently and indexed after 2005. The second set of figures 
     presents the same comparison under the assumption that the 
     tax cuts are permanently extended. All of the information 
     provided in this table was previously provided to you in our 
     September 16, 2005 memo, except in a different format.

                                 TABLE 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AMT effect
                           Item                             (billions of
                                                              dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax Cuts Repealed:
    (1) Hold-harmless provision not extended..............         399.9
    (2) Hold-harmless provision extended permanently......         212.0
    (3) Percentage of AMT effect attributable to failure             47%
     to extend hold-harmless provision (((1)-(2))/(1))....
    (4) Hold-harmless provision extended permanently and           169.7
     indexed..............................................
    (5) Percentage of AMT effect attributable to failure             58%
     to extend and index hold-harmless provision (((1)-
     (4))/(1))............................................
Tax Cuts Extended Permanently:
    (6) Hold-harmless provision not extended..............       1,139.1
    (7) Hold-harmless provision extended permanently......         628.5
    (8) Percentage of AMT effect attributable to failure             45%
     to extend hold-harmless provision (((6)-(7))/(6))....
    (9) Hold-harmless provision extended permanently and           472.0
     indexed..............................................
    (10) Percentage of AMT effect attributable to failure            59%
     to extend and index hold-harmless provision (((6)-
     (9))/(6))............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       In the information provided to you on August 31, 2005 and 
     September 16, 2005, we analyzed the portion of the AMT effect 
     attributable to the tax cuts. In the analysis described 
     above, we identify the portion of the AMT effect attributable 
     to failure to adjust the AMT exemption amount to inflation. 
     There is, however, interaction between these two contributing 
     factors to the AMT effect. In order to avoid double counting 
     of interactions, a stacking order is imposed. The 
     apportionment of effects to each contributing factor will 
     vary depending on the stacking order, even though the total 
     effect remains constant.
       This phenomenon is illustrated by Tables 2 and 3 below. The 
     first two columns of Table 2 show the portion of the AMT 
     effect attributed to the tax cuts, consistent with the 
     information provided on August 31, 2005 and September 16, 
     2005. The second two columns of Table 2 show the portion of 
     the AMT effect attributable to the failure to extend and 
     index the hold-harmless provision, consistent with the 
     information provided in Table 1 above. Note that if these two 
     contributing factors were completely independent of one 
     another, the information in Table 2 would suggest that the 
     two factors together contribute to more than 100 percent of 
     the AMT effect. In fact, as shown in Table 3, the two factors 
     together contribute to only 85 percent of the AMT effect. 
     Thus, there is substantial overlap between these two factors.

                                                                         TABLE 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         AMT effect                                                                          AMT effect
                         Item                           (billions of                                  Item                                  (billions of
                                                          dollars)                                                                            dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..............................................       1,139.1                                                              Baseline       1,139.1
Repeal tax cuts.......................................         399.9                          Extend and index AMT hold-harmless provision         472.0
                                                       --------------                                                                      -------------
Difference............................................         739.2                                                            Difference         667.1
Percentage of baseline................................           65%                                                Percentage of baseline           59%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 TABLE 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AMT effect
                           Item                             (billions of
                                                              dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline..................................................       1,139.1
Repeal tax cuts and extend and index AMT hold-harmless             169.7
 provision................................................
                                                           -------------
Difference................................................         969.4
Percentage of baseline....................................           85%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as I said, I will discuss those 
updated numbers when they are given to me by JCT.
  I mentioned earlier that the argument that our recent tax policies 
are responsible for the wild growth in the alternative minimum tax is 
an old and a very tired argument, intellectually dishonest. The Ways 
and Means press release of November 14, 2007 refers to a letter of 
March 6, 2001, sent by Mr. Rangel to President Bush.
  I just talked about a Democratic staffer making the same point in Tax 
Notes in 2005. I am not bothered by these arguments in and of 
themselves. They are based upon poor analysis, if that, and it is easy 
for me to respond to them. What does bother me, however, is that 
clearly many people are more interested in trying to make cheap 
political points than actually dealing with the alternative minimum 
tax. If House Democrats were concerned about the tax burden, they would 
repeal the alternative minimum tax without raising taxes on other 
taxpayers to replace revenue that was never supposed to come into the 
Federal Treasury, because these 23 million middle-income taxpayers were 
never supposed to be hit by the alternative minimum tax, because it was 
only meant to be paid by the superrich.
  I have made the point many times, that this alternative minimum tax 
was never meant as a revenue source, and I do not care if I made it 
twice in a row, three times in a row, it is a fact of life: These 23 
million people were never meant to pay it. The alternative minimum tax 
is only supposed to hit the superrich--it was an unsuccessful attempt--
when the alternative minimum tax was passed in 1969, to promote tax 
fairness. This point has not been challenged.
  Rather, my friends in the House and elsewhere have distorted that 
argument into a claim that Republicans intended to use the alternative 
minimum tax to secretly diminish the impact of the 2001 and 2003 tax 
relief packages. I have shown how that argument is flawed every time it 
is dug out of the closet by someone. The alternative minimum tax 
certainly is not a secret. But it is a mystery how so many people can 
engage in so much pointless discussion when what we need now right now, 
actually several months late, is urgent action.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill.) The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in morning business.
  Mr. SALAZAR. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________