Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007

Floor Speech

TEMPORARY TAX RELIEF ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - December 06, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source