Floor Statements

Mr. President, I very much appreciate the statement of my good friend from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln. I am also very happy we are on the farm bill. It is a long time coming. We have finally worked it out. I do think American farmers and the industry will basically be happy, frankly, when we finally do pass this farm bill, hopefully next week.

While we are here, though, I want to address another subject, and that is the tax package in the Energy bill. Not too long ago, a month or two ago, when the Energy bill was before the Senate, there was a tax package as part of that Energy bill. It was voted on and did not get cloture. There were 58 Senators who voted for it. It was clear that Senators were absent, and had they been back here in the Senate, they would have voted for it and we would have invoked cloture on that and it would have become part of the Energy bill.

The tax title has strong support. When we brought it up in the Finance Committee, it passed by a vote of 15 to 5. And again, on the floor, there were at least 58 Senators who voted for it. I am quite confident 60 would have voted for it had they all been present.

We are now faced with a larger energy bill which includes CAFE renewal portfolio standards, fuel standards, as well as a tax title, and I wish to remind Senators how important this tax title is and how important it is to the Energy bill. We have an obligation as Senators to help make our country as energy independent as we possibly can, for a whole host of reasons.

One, clearly, is for national security. Our future is somewhat in the hands of people in other parts of the world--OPEC countries, Venezuela--and that is not good. With oil prices today as high as they are, that is clearly not very good. We want to be in control of our destiny as Americans as much as possible, and energy is such a key component that we should do whatever we can to help make ourselves more energy independent. The CAFE provisions in the bill go a long way in that direction.

Some of the other provisions in the bill also help, but the tax title, I daresay, goes as far as any other part of that bill to help make us energy independent. When that bill was before the Senate some time ago, it was about $32 billion. Again, that would have gotten 60 votes here in the Senate had all Senators been present. We now have scaled that back significantly. We cut it back by a third. So it is now about $20 billion. So the tax title that is in the Energy bill is about one-third less than the tax title that was in the Energy bill months ago, which, as I mentioned, got almost 60 votes.

I would like to remind Senators what some of those provisions are and why it is so important that we pass the tax title.

First of all, it is a minor matter to some, but it is pretty significant to others; the CAFE provision itself will cost about $2 billion out of the highway trust fund. That is $2 billion fewer dollars that will go into the highway trust fund as a consequence of the CAFE standards. Our highway trust fund is already in trouble. We need to add more to the trust fund if we are going to rebuild our Nation's roads and bridges. The tax title now includes about $2 billion to replenish losses to the highway trust fund that would otherwise occur because of the CAFE standards. We have to get that $2 billion back into the highway trust fund to pay for our roads and bridges. That is not well known, but it is part of the tax title. It is important.

In addition, there are some renewable provisions, so-called section 45 credits for electricity from wind, biomass--that is a 4-year extension. We need that. I need not tell you the number of times all of us have heard from energy people around the country--whether it is renewables, whether it is alternative forms of energy, biodiesel, clean coal, cellulosic--people need lead time, investors need lead time. They want to invest in these technologies. It will make America more independent. But we need to have these provisions in the law so investors can know what the tax provisions are, what the incentives are, and how long they are going to be in place. If we don't pass the tax title, we are going to dramatically cut back on investors' willingness to invest in biodiesel, alternative forms of energy, other renewable forms of energy. I mentioned cellulosic--and others.

It is imperative those provisions be available so we can help make ourselves more independent.

Commercial solar extension, that is in the tax title. It is an 8-year extension of the business solar credit. We all know we need solar energy. Add to that clean renewable energy bonds. What is that? Those are basically ways for nonprofits, whether it is counties, co-ops, or Indian tribes, also to develop clean renewable energy. The private sector can do it, for-profits can because they get a tax deduction. This provision enables nonprofits, that is the counties, municipalities, co-ops also have that available to them.

Residential solar credit--I mentioned the commercial solar extension. There is also a significant residential solar credit in this legislation.

Clean coal projects--half of the power we are consuming in America today is generated by coal. We all know that coal is very important to generate energy. We all know coal is part of the climate change problem. But we need to have clean coal technologies. This tax title has about $2 billion worth of clean coal technologies, so we can help make ourselves more independent but in a way that is totally compatible with climate change.

Cellulosic ethanol--there is a credit in this tax title for cellulosic ethanol so we can make fuel from switchgrass, wood chips. Again it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know why that should be enacted this year.

Biodiesel, renewable diesel--there is a credit there that extends that through 2010.

There is the plug-in hybrid credit. We all see these hybrids driving around, but there is no way to plug them in to get them recharged. The thought is, if we can have plug-in credits so the hybrid cars can be driven into your garage and plugged in, that is going to extend the battery life of those hybrids. That will enable them to get close to 100 miles a gallon. If we had more cars getting 100 gallons a mile, we would be doing pretty well as we become more independent.

The commercial buildings conservation credit helps commercial buildings install conservation provisions to save energy.

To add it all up, there is a lot in here. It is extremely important. We have an obligation to help make ourselves more energy independent. These are provisions that do so but also in a way that is compatible with climate change. If we enact this tax title, it will lay the foundation for lots and lots of entrepreneurs, with lots of new ideas, to develop all kinds of new ways to develop energy. Let a thousand energy technologies bloom. We are not saying which technology works better compared to others, but at least let's get these provisions in place so entrepreneurs and developers and investors who want to make a buck--this is the American way--are given an opportunity to make a little money while producing some energy in the United States. We are going to accomplish lots of objectives with one provision in this Energy bill.

I am working with my colleagues, if they have any objection to this tax title, to figure out a way to modify it to make it work. Our goal, frankly, is, together in the Senate, to become more energy independent. This tax title will go a long way to make that happen.

I thank my colleague from Montana who is presiding, the only Senator on the floor but for two others. We will make this work.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

You go ahead.

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I consume.

Mr. President, in the 1931 film classic, ``Frankenstein,'' the character Dr. Waldman tells Dr. Frankenstein:

You have created a monster, and it will destroy you.

That is how the AMT looks to the Tax Code. That is what it looks like. It is a monster. It is a thing of dread for many Americans. Unless we act, it will destroy the entire tax system. If we don't act pretty soon, the AMT tax will be greater than the individual Federal income tax. This tax is a problem for taxpayers in all 50 States. I must give a few numbers as to what will happen if we don't extend the AMT patch.

Let's take Texas. The number of Texans subject to the alternative minimum tax, if we do not act this year, would increase from roughly 150,000 taxpayers in Texas to 870,000 taxpayers. That is about a sixfold increase in 1 year.

The number of Nevadans subject to AMT would increase from about 15,000 to about 100,000--again, a little over a sixfold increase.

The number of South Carolinians would increase from 30,000 to 190,000, again a large increase, about 6 times.

That is about average across the country, six times more Americans will pay more taxes under the AMT if we don't act, compared to what they were otherwise paying.

Even taxpayers who do not pay the AMT tax are hurt. Why? Because taxpayers have to calculate not only the regular tax, but taxpayers then have to calculate the alternative minimum tax. That is the law. You have to do both.

First, you have to calculate all your regular taxes. Then you have to calculate what taxes you may pay under a whole separate system of AMT. So even though you may not pay more under the alternative minimum tax, you have still got to go through a second calculation. That is not a lot of fun. Then, if the second calculation shows you pay more under the alternative minimum tax, guess what. You have to pay more. You cannot choose to pay the lesser of the two; you have to pay the greater of the two. That is the law.

Again, the monster created by the Congress years ago, unintended consequences, but a monster we can eliminate, if not destroy, if we take action today.

Calculating taxes once is scary enough. Calculating taxes twice is almost enough to destroy a person. It may also cause significant financial hardship. Why? Because in today's economy, families depend on that refund check. It is getting close to Christmas. People are buying presents. Sometimes they run up their credit cards a little bit. They are depending upon that refund check to pay off their credit card balances. A lot of Americans do that. A lot of Americans do that.

Think of the taxpayers who think they are going to get a refund from the Federal Government. But then, if we do not fix this AMT problem, what happens? They get the letter in the mail telling them they have to pay more taxes because of the AMT. Talk about your horror story.

Here is an example of how AMT hits working families. Let us take a married couple, four young children. What is their household income? A whopping $75,000 a year. Their regular income taxes should be about $1,800. That is probably what they pay. This is after the standard deduction and after the child tax credit.

Again, a family with a $75,000 income, family of four, pays about almost $2,000. Not quite, because they are able to take a standard deduction for the child tax credit.

Well, let's see what happens when we calculate the alternative minimum tax. Same family. Same income. The amount more than doubles this family's tax liability. It raises their tax from $1,800 to $3,800. More than twice. More than twice.

That is a family earning $75,000. Not a huge, big-income family. That is a $75,000 family. The AMT hits this family not because they are rich, because they are not. Why? Because they have four kids. That is kind of how it works. It is perverse. If you have more children, you pay more taxes. That is kind of nutty, but that is what it is today.

The AMT will cost taxpayers because it costs the Federal Government. A delay will create delayed tax return filings, and last minute legislation will delay the issuance of Federal refunds. With each extra day we delay, the greater the cost. The greater the cost to taxpayers, the greater the cost to the IRS. The cost mounts up.

Let's look at some of the costs of delay. If the IRS has to postpone accepting returns to the early part of the filing season, say January 28, this would delay the receipt of more than 6.5 million returns, delay the issuing of more than 5.5 million refunds, totaling more than $17 billion, delay about $17 billion worth.

A delay in fixing the alternative minimum tax affects States. We are not just talking about the Federal income tax, we are talking also about State taxes. Why? Because most State taxes are tied to the Federal tax system.

A delay in the Senate will mean not only a delay in the Federal tax receipts but also a delay in the State tax refunds, Federal and State.

A delay will also mean States that are already financially strapped could have a cash crunch. Think of the States' coffers. Their normal flow of tax revenues will not be coming in. Many States are very tightly budgeted. I know that is true in the State represented by the officer in the chair. I hear many times about the tight fiscal situation in that State.

That is true for most States. If tax agencies cannot reprogram their computer systems in time, States and the IRS are concerned taxpayers will turn back to paper returns. What is the consequence of paper returns? It leads to an increase in processing times and costs as well as more errors.

Let's take the State of Montana. In Montana, it costs $2 to process an electronic return, $2. But it costs $9 to process a paper return. I daresay that disparity is probably true in most States.

At a time when families are experiencing hardship, I must say the other side of the aisle is playing politics. They are not letting us fix this problem. They, in effect, consequently want to increase taxes. They are increasing taxes. How? By causing the alternative minimum tax to be imposed upon Americans, by not letting us fix the alternative minimum tax.

You watch that vote that is coming up. We are not going to get 60 votes. You watch how, when the leader is going to request we take up the House-passed bill, and the substitute measure where we fix the AMT patch, unpaid for, they will object to that. They do not want to fix this problem. They say they do, but their actions are louder than the rhetoric. They are raising taxes. They are raising taxes by not allowing us to fix the alternative minimum tax patch for 2007.

In the 1945 B movie ``House of Dracula,'' the character, Dr. Edelman, says of Frankenstein's monster:

He's indestructible. Frankenstein's creation is man's

challenge to the laws of life and death.

Let's prevent that from being said about the AMT. Let's prove the AMT is

not indestructible. Let's move to proceed to the House bill and stop this tax monster.

We are going to do this. Let's do it now. We know we are going to fix this one way or another. So I say: Stop playing politics. I say that to the other side of the aisle because they are going to block this next cloture vote. They are going to object to the motion asking consent to pass the alternative minimum tax, unpaid for.

I say: Stop the games. Let's get on with it. Let's help do something for the American people. Let's move to proceed to the House bill, stop this tax monster.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senator from New Hampshire. I say to my friend, frankly, I would not have written the House bill in the way it was written. I don't agree with everything in the House bill. In fact, I think there are some measures there that probably should be addressed and amended. I also think, though, that we need to get to the House-passed bill so we can fix the AMT. We can't fix the AMT until we get to that bill. Once we get to that bill, any Senator, irrespective of whether cloture has been filed, can always file a motion to strike. So if there are measures in the House bill that the Senator does not like or the Senator from Texas doesn't like or anybody doesn't like, that motion to strike is available.

If we get to the House bill, I am going to offer a compromise which I think the vast majority of the Members of this body will accept. We need to get to the bill. We need to vote cloture and get to the bill so we can cure this AMT problem, offer amendments that Senators might find objectionable to the House bill. At the same time, I am going to offer a compromise proposal which I believe will dispose of it. I urge my friends on the other side to let us get on the bill. Then we can vote to strike. We can vote on this compromise proposal I will offer.

I mentioned that there are various versions we could vote on. One is just straight AMT unpaid for, period. That is an option. To get there, we need to get to the bill.

Reserving the right to object, I remind all of us, we are here to solve a very imminent problem; that is, the alternative minimum tax. The IRS is having fits, frankly, because they are unable to send out the right returns, programs, and so forth, to help the American public avoid this AMT for 2007. The other provisions listed in that consent have nothing to do with the alternative minimum tax. One is the Bush tax cuts. They don't expire until 2010. We are talking about 2007, right now, this month. Then there is the flat tax. That has nothing to do with the alternative minimum tax. That is a whole other issue that has nothing to do with what we are trying to accomplish today. I urge Senators to keep their eye on the ball. Let's get the AMT patch passed. That is what we are talking about.

I must, on behalf of the majority leader, object. I can't agree to a procedure on the floor without the presence of the majority leader. I just point out the pitfalls of that request which prevent us from getting to a real problem, and that is solving the AMT for the tax year 2007.

Mr. President, I just want to make the fundamental point that if we don't act, we will be raising taxes on 19 million Americans. We have to act to prevent a tax increase from going into place. We on our side ask to vote for cloture so as to get to the bill which accomplishes that result of preventing 19 million Americans from paying greater income taxes. We have to get to the bill so we can pass that legislation. It can always be amended by any Senator who has a problem with other provisions that might be in this bill. I respect that. In fact, I would agree with some of those amendments, I am quite certain, and motions to strike are always available.

We need to get to the bill so we can prevent a tax increase on 19 million Americans, called the alternative minimum tax, from going into effect. To the degree to which the other side prevents us from getting to the bill, that indicates to me they want to increase taxes on those 19 million Americans. I hope that is not true, but their actions indicate that it is true. Unless they totally change and say, yes, we should get to the bill to fix this AMT problem, I have to conclude they want to increase taxes on those 19 million Americans.

I see no other Senators who wish to speak, so I note the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be equally divided on both sides.

Mr. President, I think most of us are a little distressed that the other side is objecting to a request which is a huge concession on the part of this Senator, as well as most of the Senators on this side of the aisle, and that would be helping the other side, and that is that we are agreeing to pass AMT not paid for. Why? Because we need to get the AMT patch fixed. We don't want the American taxpayers to have to pay additional taxes under the alternative minimum. We want to get this fixed right away.

It is also important to remind us that time is of the essence because the IRS has to get out the correct forms. The computer programs have to be written properly. So I very much hope that very quickly the other side will no longer object and we can get this passed.

Mr. President, this reminds me of an old joke, and the joke goes like this: There was a big flood, and a man of faith heard about it on the radio. But he did not flee to higher ground. He said: No, I'll put my trust in God. I am not going to flee to higher ground, even though there is this big flood, which I heard about on the radio. I'll put my trust in God.

Well, the waters surrounded the man's home. And as he was standing on his front porch, a boat came up and the skipper said: Jump in, I'll take you to safety. And the man said: No, I'm going to put my trust in God.

Well, the boat went away, and the water rose up to the roof. So the man stood on the roof, and a helicopter came and dropped a ladder, and the pilot yelled down: Climb up the ladder, I'll save you. But the man, said: No, I'm going to stay. I'll put my trust in God.

So the helicopter flew away, and the water continued to rise, and the man drowned. The man went to Heaven, and God asked him: What are you doing here? The man said: I put my trust in you, and you let me down.

Well, God said: What do you mean I let you down? I sent you a message, I sent you a boat, I sent you a helicopter. I tried to save you three times.

I think that is what the Republican caucus has done to the AMT. The House passed a bill to prevent the AMT from hitting 19 million more taxpayers, but the Republican caucus said, no, we will wait for our own legislation. The majority leader asked unanimous consent to consider a compromise amendment that did not pay for the AMT but just paid for the extenders. The Republican caucus said, no, we will wait for our own legislation. And now the majority leader has once again asked consent to allow us to consider an amendment that does nothing but prevent new taxpayers from being hit by the AMT, and once again the Republican caucus said, no, we will wait for our own legislation.

Mr. President, at this point I want everyone to know if the AMT hits more taxpayers next year, it is not because of the House of Representatives. If the AMT hits more taxpayers next year, it is not because of the majority leader. If the AMT hits more taxpayers next year, it is not because of the Democratic caucus. If the AMT hits more taxpayers next year, it is because of the Republican caucus. That is clear. They cannot take yes for an answer.

We are trying to set it up so we can vote on a unanimous consent request to fix the AMT, unpaid for, and get it done now, but the Republican caucus says, no. They cannot take yes for an answer.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.

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.

We have to wait a few minutes.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. President, I assume all time is yielded back?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I wish to recognize a great friend of mine and a wonderful woman and leader. Sally Smith passed away December 1, 2007, from complications related to myeloma. Sally founded the Lab School in Washington, DC, one of the premier educational institutions in the Nation for students with learning disabilities. The Lab School is a place where children with learning disabilities are nurtured, taught, given the tools to succeed and the opportunity to flourish. And nearly all of them do.

I had heard what an extraordinary place the Lab School is and decided I wanted to find out for myself. On a crisp autumn morning about 4 years ago, I decided to drop by the Lab School on my way into work. I was amazed as I walked into the Castle, which is the main building of the school. As Sally hadn't arrived yet, I was invited to wait in her office. The door was always open as Sally welcomed anyone and everyone. Soon a woman came in looking like a bright rainbow with brilliant colors flowing and dazzling from head to toe. As I spoke with Sally about the school and its mission I quickly came to understand what a unique and wonderful place this was. The Lab School is a safe haven for so many kids who are bright and smart and eager to learn but can't learn in traditional ways. Sally through her hard work and years of dedication has truly created a grand new doorway to education for kids who found the doors to other schools closed to them. From that day on I became great friends with Sally and supported the school in any way that I could. I have attended the annual Gala Awards Dinner which has raised much needed funds for the schools and honored people like Charles Schwab and Magic Johnson who had grown up with learning disabilities and struggled until they found a pathway to education. I always looked forward to visiting with Sally and offered to help in any way that I could.

Sally first saw the need for a school to help children with learning disabilities to learn and grow when her son Gary was in the first grade. While Gary was bright and creative, he was unable to read and do simple math. When Gary began to have trouble at school, his parents found that he had severe learning disabilities. The school he was attending gave them few options to help their son learn, and Sally began to realize that for Gary to excel and reach his potential he would need to be given the opportunity to learn in a way tailored to his unique needs. Using what she had learned in graduate school course work in education and observing that her son learned best through storytelling and acting things out, she set out in 1967 to create a school that would use these tools to teach children with learning disabilities.

Rather than learning through lectures and traditional textbook exercises, Sally set out to create a curriculum that would allow for artistic, visual, hands-on learning. She invited artist friends to serve as teachers and sought the help of many acquaintances to raise funds that would make the dream of the Lab School a reality. The Lab School has now for 40 years given students like Gary a chance to succeed. From this life learning opportunity, nearly all Lab School alumni graduate and over 90 percent find their way to college.

We can only imagine where these students would be without the love and dedication of Sally Smith. Where others saw kids who couldn't learn and were disruptive, Sally saw kids eager to learn and let their creativity bloom in their own special way. And why should these children, the future of our Nation, be pushed aside and forgotten about when they have so much potential and so many gifts to give?

The Lab School over the years has expanded and now has nearly 325 students enrolled. It reaches another 250 through tutoring programs for children and adults and many more through summer camps and outreach services. The school also opened a campus in Baltimore. Sally was also a professor at American University's School of Education and was in charge of the master's degree program specializing in learning disabilities. She has authored 10 books on effectively teaching students with learning disabilities and conducted workshops for educators of learning disabled children.

Sally's legacy and nurturing teaching style that sought to include and find the potential of each student will never be forgotten by those whose lives she touched. Not only did her students

learn a great deal from Sally, but we all can.

Mr. President, I ask that a copy of an article from the December 4, 2007, edition of the Washington Post entitled ``The Teacher at the Head of the Class'' be printed in the Record.

The material follows.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 4, 2007]

The Teacher at the Head of the Class

(By Ellen Edwards)

At first glance you might have thought you had come upon

some improbable tropical bird, full of color and feathers,

dressed in layers of patterns on patterns, a pile of rolling

blond curls on her head.

This, of course, is what captivated children when they

first looked at Sally Smith, the founder and director of the

Lab School of Washington, one of the nation's premier places

for students with learning disabilities. She didn't look like

any other adult in their experience, and they discovered she

didn't think like any other head of school, either.

Sally Smith, who died Saturday from complications of

myeloma at 78, looked right back at those young faces and saw

potential, intelligence, the charm and grace of childhood.

Where other schools saw kids who didn't pay attention, she

saw kids who viewed the world in creative ways. Where other

schools saw frustration and anger, she saw kids desperate to

learn, and she created a school for them. She gave them

respect, she gave them hope and she gave them the tools to

succeed.

Her own son's difficulties with learning caused her to look

for ways to teach him, and from the beginning, even before

she became a nationally known educator, she placed the

responsibility directly on adults in charge. In the school

handbook, Smith wrote, ``our philosophy is based on the

belief that a child's failure to learn means that the

teaching staff has not yet found a way to help him. It is up

to the adults to seek out the routes by which each child

learns, to discover his strengths and interests and to

experiment until effective techniques are found.''

Anyone who ever met Sally has a story to tell. She was

larger than life: in her size and presence, in her ambitions,

in her throaty voice advocating her ideas. She cultivated

artists, and often had them to her Cleveland Park home. She

cultivated support for the Lab School, from wealthy and

powerful potential donors to parents who could give only

their time. Her fundraising gala highlighted learning-

disabled achievers, who over the years have included Charles

Schwab, Magic Johnson, Robert Rauschenberg, Cher and James

Carville. In a closed-door session, the students would face

those big names and ask blunt and painful questions: ``Did

you feel stupid compared with your siblings?'' ``Were your

parents embarrassed by you?'' ``How did you feel when you

were asked to read out loud in class?''

The core of all of Smith's techniques, in her 10 books and

the PBS series about her work, is empathy. I first heard her

name a decade ago from a reading specialist in the Midwest

when I was beginning to think I might have a dyslexic child.

You're near Sally Smith's school, aren't you?'' she asked

me. ``That's the place.'' She said it with such confidence

and certainty that I knew I had better figure out who Sally

Smith was.

I met Sally first as a reporter, sitting in her office and

listening to her talk about students the Lab School has

taught. I remember in particular the story of the young boy

who was good at numbers but not good at reading. The Lab

faculty, which individualizes homework, a study plan,

classwork, everything, for every student, put him in charge

of the school store. He loved selling things. They found a

way to catch his interest and motivate him to learn to read.

He grew up and out of Lab, and, Smith boasted, had become a

successful businessman.

She talked about another student who learned

kinesthetically, through movement. The teachers spread

patterns out on the floor for him to learn math, a map for

him to learn geography, and he danced his way through

learning.

She told me how often tears had been shed in that office,

which was crowded with art from students and professionals,

and which had an open door policy so vigorously enforced that

most people didn't think she even had a door. Parents came to

her desperate to find a school where their child would be

accepted and challenged, where they could learn and not be

warehoused until they dropped out. They brought with them

horror stories from other schools that had treated their kids

as if they were stupid, made them feel terrible about

themselves and chucked them in the corner as a lost cause.

After a few months at Lab, they often wept again, with

gratitude, because the school meant no more endless rounds of

tutors and therapists. It meant free time after school for

exhausted children who worked hard every minute of the school

day. It meant an end to the isolation of parenting a child

who learned differently, because the school community

embraced the potential of these children.

Five years ago I met Sally again, but this time as the

parent of a prospective student. It was clear my son had the

family dyslexia gene, and reading was going to be a struggle.

He enrolled for third grade, where 12 students in his class

had four educators.

His lead teacher that year spent a long time figuring out

how to get him interested in reading. Of course he was

interested, but it was so hard and frustrating for him that

he pushed it away. Finally, she realized his interest in

baseball might do it. Every day, his homework consisted of

reading lessons she had taken from news stories about

baseball and had rewritten at his reading level. Every day

she created a page of four or five questions for him to

answer from his reading. Little by little, his reading got

better. He was studying without realizing it. He thought he

was just having fun.

This learning environment was Sally Smith's creation, her

gift to the world of education. She saw how arts could teach

all kinds of things, and she shaped the Lab School around the

arts. She hired artists as teachers because she knew they

would think creatively. They taught sophisticated content

without reading.

In his first year there, the mythologies of ancient times

were taught through what was called Gods Club. The students

were taught by Cleopatra, complete with headdress. The

students dressed in togas. Each took the identity of a Greek

god. To enter the classroom, they used passwords that changed

every day, such as ``Corinthian,'' which taught them the name

of a column's capital. A painted Nile River ran through the

middle of the classroom just as the real Nile runs through

Egypt.

When the winter break came, and we took our son to the

Egyptian galleries at the Metropolitan Museum in New York, he

read the hieroglyphics to us while we listened slack-jawed.

This was her famous Academic Club method, one of the many

she shared as professor in charge of American University's

masters program for special education. Our son went on to

Knights and Ladies Club, taught by Eleanor of Aquitaine, and

Renaissance Club taught by Lorenzo de Medici. He jousted and

learned about Holy Wars, made cheese and tasted ravioli,

painted a fresco and took on the persona of Dante.

He learned, and after four years he moved on to a

mainstream school, which was Smith's ultimate goal for all

her students.

A couple of months ago, my son was visiting the school and

saw Smith. She was in a wheelchair, dressed in her usual eye-

popping splendor. She took his hand and asked him how he

liked his new school.

She really wanted to know the answer, and she really

listened when he gave it. That was Sally Smith's

genius.

I ask that my 5 minutes be expanded to 10 minutes.

Will the Senator yield?

I think the Senator from Washington made a point to show the Senator from Texas is incorrect.

Mr. President, if I understand the Senator from Texas correctly, he is essentially complaining that Congress has not passed legislation to prevent the alternative minimum tax from going into effect for American taxpayers for calendar year 2007. I think that is basically what he is saying. I might say, Mr. President, there is not one Senator on the floor who disagrees with that--maybe one or two, but this Senator wants to fix AMT so Americans do not have to pay an additional tax in calendar 2007 when they are preparing their tax returns next year. I daresay virtually every Member on this side of the aisle has that same belief. We do not want to force that additional tax on Americans for all the reasons he correctly stated; namely, this was a provision which was enacted in the code back in the early 1960s intended to ensure--I think there were 200 only, very wealthy Americans who were not paying income taxes and who should pay some income taxes. That was the genesis of the alternative minimum tax. Unfortunately, as has been stated by many speakers, it was not indexed, so over the years more and more middle-income taxpayers have had to pay this additional tax, and frankly, ironically perversely, the most wealthy Americans have escaped.

So this alternative minimum tax does not do what it was intended to do. It was not a tax on the most wealthy because basically the capital gains provisions in it are so low, the net effect is the basic rate is 26 percent for the first $75,000 and 28 percent just above, and so it affects taxpayers who make between $75,000 and $500,000. That is who it hits. We want to repeal that for 2007. Virtually every Senator here wants to repeal that for 2007. We are trying to do it. We are trying to get that enacted--the repeal for 2007--so taxpayers don't pay it.

What has happened? We are being blocked. We are being blocked. Just as the Senator from Washington was trying to get an appropriations bill up, she was blocked in her effort by the other side of the aisle. Just as the President of the United States says: Congress, do your work, do your work, pass appropriations bills, he is, in effect, instructing his minions here to do the opposite--to block. That is what is happening.

The Senator from Texas, I would daresay--and it is a presumption to say this--would probably vote against efforts here on the floor to bring up a way to fix AMT. There is a cloture motion pending right now, Mr. President. It is basically on the House-passed bill to fix AMT. The leader offered a couple suggestions. What are they? One is, well, if we can't do that, let's take up the measure proposed by myself and the ranking member of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. What does it provide? It basically says: Okay, repeal AMT. We have the AMT patch unpaid for, 2007. In addition, we have to pass these so-called tax extenders for 1 or 2 years and pay for it. Nobody seems to complain about that; the complaint is whether the AMT should be paid for. We are willing, myself and Senator Grassley, to bring up and advocate the passing of that legislation. Blocked. We couldn't get consent to bring that up. Not paying for AMT but paying for extenders blocked.

Well, Mr. President, I have another suggestion. In fact, it was even mentioned by our leader. Let us bring up AMT not paid for alone. Will the Republicans object to that? So far, they have. I am waiting. Where is the Republican Party? Do they or do they not want AMT fixed in 2007? What could be easier? Bring it up--alone, unpaid for. Where are they? Why don't they accept it? What is going on here, Mr. President? What could be easier? What could be more appropriate? What could be more Republican? Lowering taxes, unpaid for. No, they do not want to do that, either, which is a good indication to me that what is really going on here--what is really going on here--is that side of the aisle will do whatever is possible to prevent the Congress from even passing legislation that is very good for the American people.

I will be glad to yield.

I say to my dear friend from Washington that it is part of the extender package that is in there. So if that were extended this year and that would go into effect, the good people of the State of Washington would not have to pay that.

I appreciate that. I may also say I suspect--I am only guessing here--the objection from the other side of the aisle is in part mischievous. Senators from the other side of the aisle wish to force some votes on some other measures which are not apt at this moment. What are they? President Bush's tax cuts, extending the tax cuts, extending the 2001 tax cuts. Some

Senators on the other side want to force a vote on that. That doesn't expire until 2010. This is 2007; AMT applies to 2007. We have to act now. This isn't 2010.

Others wish to vote on the 2003 tax cuts, which expire--when? Again, 2010. Not now; in 2010.

I see my time is expiring. I strongly urge people to focus on what is going on here--not the rhetoric, just look at the facts. The facts are that I, as chairman of the Finance Committee, am willing and do advocate bringing up legislation to repeal the alternative minimum tax as it applies to taxpayers for 2007. There are various ways to do it. One is the House-passed bill. If that doesn't work, we will do the measure proposed by myself and Senator Grassley, which is AMT, not paid for, but the tax extenders paid for. If that doesn't work, I am even willing to go so far as to see AMT alone, not paid for. That is where we should be and what we should do.

Finally, I don't know if I am known as a partisan guy. I think I tend to be perceived as somebody who tries to work things out, tries to be pragmatic, tries to get things done, not flail in a partisan manner, not engage in flowery rhetoric for the heck of it, getting headlines, and so forth. There comes a time when you have to call it like it is, say it like it is. That is what I am trying to do. I am trying to be practical and pragmatic here by calling it, saying what is going on here, and that is, despite the cries from the other side, despite the cries from the White House for Congress to fix AMT, they themselves, behind the scenes, indirectly, are blocking it. They are blocking it. They are saying one thing and doing something else.

As my father used to tell me, it is deeds, not words. They have the words but they also are blocking the deeds. I hope very much they change their minds and allow us to pass legislation here to fix AMT, because it is up to them to let us do it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement. Peru is no ordinary country, and the Peru agreement is no ordinary free-trade agreement.

Peru is a vibrant country. It is marked by the diversity of its dramatic and varied landscapes, abundant and rich wildlife, and strong people. Peru provides a home to more than 170 million acres of forest and 84 of the 103 existing ecosystems on the planet. And it is the birthplace of the Inca civilization, the builders of the incomparable Machu Picchu complex in the Andean highlands. Their descendants live on today in Peru's thriving indigenous communities. This remarkable diversity of landscape, wildlife, and people deserves to be protected, and the strong labor and environmental provisions of the Peru agreement ensure that it will.

Since 1958, when the United States entered into a free-trade agreement with Israel, we have entered into bilateral or regional free- trade agreements with no fewer than 15 additional countries, and since then Democrats have sought to make labor and environmental issues a greater priority in trade agreements. We have had limited success until now.

The Peru agreement is in fact a groundbreaking achievement. Months of complex negotiations involving numerous parties and difficult compromises on all sides resulted in a landmark deal between Congress and the administration. Believe me, this is a very significant and unexpected breakthrough that was achieved not too long ago. We agreed to include strong labor and environmental provisions in all our pending trade agreements beginning with the Peru Free Trade Agreement. That was the understanding, all agreements beginning with Peru--truly a remarkable accomplishment, and we should be proud of what we have achieved. For the first time, the Peru agreement requires the parties to implement the five core International Labor Organization standards. For the first time, the Peru agreement requires the parties to implement seven core environmental treaties. And, for the first time, the Peru agreement makes these labor and environmental provisions fully enforceable by subjecting them to the same dispute settlement mechanism that applies to all other obligations.

Some may criticize the agreement as not going far enough, but these provisions are in fact exactly what many of us in Congress in the labor and environmental movements have been seeking to include in trade agreements for decades. They will benefit workers, they will encourage environmentally sustainable development, and they will ensure the Peru agreement helps to export our fundamental values abroad at the same time that it helps to export our products and services abroad.

The agreement also strengthens our ties with a stalwart ally in an increasingly troubled part of the world. It is an agreement with a leading reformer in our hemisphere, it is an agreement with one of the fastest growing economies in Latin America, and it is an agreement with solid commercial benefits for the United States. Mr. President, 98 percent of Peruvian exports to the United States already receive duty- free treatment under various United States preference programs. This agreement levels the playing field and allows our exports to enjoy the same benefits in Peru.

To cite one example, more than two-thirds of current United States farm exports to Peru, including delicious Montana beef, I might add, and wheat, will receive immediate duty-free access to Peru under the agreement. All remaining tariffs on Montana and other U.S. agricultural goods will be eliminated within 17 years.

For Peru, this agreement means better conditions for its workers, strengthened protection for its amazingly diverse environment, and greater integration into the world economy. Our neighbors to the south can hope it will represent a first step toward increased prosperity, transparency, and stability for the Latin American region as a whole.

This agreement demonstrates what Congress and the administration can achieve when we work together. I hope we can build on the success of this agreement to heal the wounds of previous battles and I hope we can begin to recreate a consensus for trade liberalization going forward.

But the Peru agreement is only one step in this process. Enactment of a robust and modernized trade adjustment assistance program should be our next focus, certainly before this Congress considers additional free trade agreements. We cannot express support for trade agreements unless we fulfill our responsibility to ensure that trade-displaced workers, whether in manufacturing or the services sector, are able to retrain and retool for the 21st century economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues and with the administration on trade adjustment assistance reauthorization very soon.

For all these reasons, I am pleased to support the United States Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act and I urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent the time be charged equally against both sides.

The leader mentioned to me he had an urgent meeting he had to attend. It is up to the leader if he wants to propound his consent now or later.

Mr. President, this is a very interesting proposal. I think it is constructive. Now the Senate is engaging on this issue. At an earlier point, a couple or 3 weeks ago, the leader propounded a consent on this subject, and it was objected to and the Senate took no action. But here the distinguished minority leader is suggesting a process. He is suggesting a way, perhaps, to resolve this question. I think the basic implication of his suggestion is that we must and should very definitely pass legislation this year that prevents about 19 million Americans from paying the alternative minimum tax for tax year 2007 when they fill out their tax returns next year.

There are provisions which are interesting, which I have not seen until this moment--I daresay which I think the leader has not seen until this moment--which have to be worked out before I think there can be an agreement. But there may be something here, the beginnings of something so that we can work out an accommodation. I very much hope that is the case.

Over the next hours and day or two perhaps we can find a way to reach an agreement on what the procedure should be, what amendment will be offered by whom, et cetera.

I again thank the distinguished minority leader, but on behalf of the leader, on behalf of Senator Reid, I must object.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I underline the urgency of curing this alternative minimum tax problem and also underline how strongly the Senators on this side of the aisle are attempting to get that legislation passed as soon as possible. We tried, on this side, to get AMT legislation up before the Senate and passed so that American taxpayers will not have to pay it. That was objected to by the other side. We made many attempts. There were many suggestions by the majority leader to bring up legislation to prevent the alternative minimum tax from going into effect. They were all objected to by the other side. We are here again trying to get resolution.

The leader filed cloture on the House-passed bill so we can get a vote on the issue in an attempt to move the issue forward. I commend him for that. Again it was, in a sense, objected to by the other side because they offered just now a package which is somewhat in the right direction but also has complications in it which raise questions to the degree we can fully get AMT passed. But I want to underline the importance of this body passing legislation to prevent the alternative minimum tax from affecting about 19 million Americans. We all know this is a pernicious tax, it is a stealth tax. It was not intended to have this effect on so many middle-income Americans. Unfortunately, it has this effect because when it was enacted years ago it was not indexed, and each year more and more American taxpayers have to pay the alternative minimum tax. Soon we will get very much to the point where most Americans--I will not say most, but a vast number of Americans will have to pay the alternative minimum tax, and that is not what we want. We did not intend that. We are trying to get it solved.

There is another issue, and that is this: The IRS has sent the 2007 tax forms to the printer. They were sent to the printer on November 16. So each day that we dally here, each day the Congress does not correct this problem, it means it costs the Government more money to correct the forms, to correct the programs that it has to utilize when paying taxes online, whether it is various providers--it is the wrong way to do business.

It means a lot more frustration for taxpayers. Just think, if you are a taxpayer and you are beginning to figure out what your income tax is going to be, and suddenly out of the blue, Congress does not change this AMT, it causes huge problems. Just think of the withholding provisions. Americans have a certain amount of dollars withheld from their income as taxes every year, from every paycheck, for example. The calculation assumes the AMT, pretty soon, if it is not corrected-- assume AMT will be corrected. If it is corrected, those changes have to be made on the taxpayers when they withhold.

I hope, again, we get this done. Senator Grassley, the ranking member of the committee, and I have offered a proposal. We have a package we agree on, Senator Grassley and I, to take up and pass legislation which says: OK, nobody has to pay AMT in 2007 who didn't pay it in the previous year. That is the tax year 2007. We are providing it doesn't have to be paid for. That is a big step. But I say that because it is

my judgment that because the President--because Republicans so adamantly said it cannot be paid for, and because we need 60 votes, that it will not be paid for. That is just a judgment I made. I suggest we bring up legislation, pass an AMT patch for 1 year, and also include the extender provisions which will be paid for.

That is where we are going to end up. Everybody knows that is where we are going to end up. If that is where we are going to end up, let's just do it, not go through this kabuki here, these games, not use this as leverage to offer amendments that are going nowhere and will never be enacted, that are just political. But we are unfortunately in a position where we are not yet free to pass legislation that we know at some point we are going to end up with; that is, AMT not being paid for and all the extenders paid for.

I again underline how much we on this side of the aisle are trying to get the AMT passed. Up to this point we are being blocked by the other side. We are going to keep trying. The earlier we get this passed the better because the forms can be sent out more quickly, the computer programs changed more quickly, and we are going to keep at it because it is the right thing to do. And, second, we are going to do it anyway. If it is the right thing to do and we are going to do it anyway, why don't we do it now?

Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I see my good friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, is on the floor. We will both speak on the same subject. I have a statement, and then I think he wants to speak next on the same subject.

Today, Senator Grassley and I are placing in the Congressional Record a Senate Finance Committee staff report which describes a very disturbing series of events related to the safety of the diabetes drug Avandia.

I commend Senator Grassley for his efforts on this issue, and I recommend this report to my colleagues.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the report be printed in the Record.

The report presents evidence that a pharmaceutical company allegedly tried to intimidate a doctor who raised concerns about Avandia's link to heart problems.

A few years ago, the Senate Finance Committee uncovered a similar situation connected to the drug Vioxx.

These actions are unacceptable.

It is critical that our prescription drugs be developed based on rigorous experimentation, the facts, and the science, not on intimidation and threats of lawsuits.

We place a great deal of trust in pharmaceutical companies to make safe and effective products. The health of millions of Americans, from young children to retirees, depends on the careful work of these drug manufacturers.

Today, as I said, Senator Grassley and I are placing in the Congressional Record a Senate Finance Committee staff report which describes a very disturbing series of events related to the safety of the diabetes drug, Avandia.

The report presents evidence that a pharmaceutical company allegedly tried to intimidate a doctor who raised concerns about Avandia's link to heart problems. This occurred after the doctor gave speeches at 2 scientific meetings where he warned of the cardiovascular risks to those using Avandia, a drug designed to control glucose levels in diabetics.

To make matters worse, the company in question denied trying to intimidate the doctor in the press. That claim is seriously challenged by e-mails presented in the staff report.

It appears that the company labeled the doctor as a ``renegade'' and all but silenced him by complaining to his department chairman and threatening a lawsuit.

In an e-mail contained in the report the doctor in question describes signing a legal document in which he agreed not to discuss the issue in public. He goes on to say that he felt intimidated by the actions of the pharmaceutical company.

Is this the tip of the iceberg or just an isolated case? Nobody really knows. But just 3 years ago the Senate Finance Committee uncovered a similar situation connected to the drug Vioxx. A clinical professor at Stanford University said Merck scientists had tried to intimidate him after he raised questions in public about the effects of Vioxx.

It was later discovered that Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks and the drug was withdrawn from the market. Just last week Merck agreed to pay $4.8 billion to settle Vioxx lawsuits.

As in the Vioxx case, the concerns raised by the doctor in the Avandia case were followed by complaints by other researchers. And yesterday the FDA added an additional ``black box'' warning to the Avandia label.

With the Finance Committee's continued spotlight on this behavior, I hope we can deter similar abuses in the pharmaceutical community.

Again, it is critical that our prescription drugs be developed based on rigorous experimentation, facts and

science, not on intimidation and threats of lawsuits.

I, again, recommend the report to my Senate colleagues, and I very much thank my colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley, for his efforts here and, again, for his efforts on the work of this investigation.

Mr. President, I regret that the Republican side has objected to the request offered by the majority leader. But I am very pleased, frankly, with the objection by the majority leader to the minority leader.

Mr. President, if I might ask my colleagues to indulge me a little because this is an important subject on the issue at hand. I ask their indulgence for 5 minutes.

I thank my friends. Mr. President, the goal is to try to fix the alternative minimum tax and to try to get these tax extenders passed. The goal is not to relitigate the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which I think would be the subject of the amendments that the minority side would offer if their consent requests were granted. We are not here to relitigate that; we are here to figure out some way to make sure this Congress allows the alternative minimum tax patch to pass so Americans do not have to pay an alternative minimum tax for tax year 2007, which is the goal.

I am very disappointed, frankly, that we are not allowed to get to that point because the other side objected to the request offered by the majority leader to set up a series of votes which would enable us to get to that point--namely, where this body could pass the legislation, probably an amendment by Senator Grassley and myself-- which would accomplish most of the objectives by the other side; namely, dealing with the alternative minimum tax, not paid for, but pay for the extenders.

That would have been the third vote if we were to get there; that is, if the

minority party allowed us to get there. But, apparently, they do not care about that. Apparently, they do not care about the alternative minimum tax. Apparently, they want to relitigate the 2001 tax cuts, the 2003 tax cuts, to have it extended with mischievous amendments.

I remind my colleagues we are here today because back in 1969, Congress passed the alternative minimum tax because so many wealthy taxpayers were not paying any taxes. So we passed AMT. But we made a mistake, frankly; we did not index it. And lo and behold, after all of these years, now taxpayers between $100,000, $200,000, $300,000 of income, many of them are going to have to pay the alternative minimum tax very soon.

But, ironically, it is the most wealthy taxpayers in America who are not affected by the alternative minimum tax. It does not hit them. It does not affect them. It does not affect the most wealthy. It just affects those with incomes between, say, $100,000 and $200,000 in income.

Why does it not affect the most wealthy? Because on the alternative minimum tax, the capital gains rates are not the alternative minimum tax rates, rather the capital gains rates under the AMT are the regular capital gains rates, and most wealthy people get most of their income paying capital gains taxes because their income is passive rather than ordinary income.

So it is a bad provision, the AMT, and we have to fix it. And mark my words, we are going to try to find a way to fix it because it has to be fixed. I am very disappointed, frankly, that the other side would not let us fix it now. It is important we fix it now because the IRS is going to send out forms. The programmers who do the programming for the Tax Code, for the tax provisions in the Tax Code, have to get the right programs out to the American people.

If we dally, if we wait--it looks as if now we are going to wait until certainly after Thanksgiving. It looks as if probably we have to wait to the end of the year. Who knows when? Maybe the day before Christmas. That is not the way to do business. So we will find a time. We can bring up legislation to make sure there is a so-called AMT patch, that we do not have AMT affect taxpayers for this year. And we also have to bring up these so-called extender provisions.

I think we should pay for those extenders. But we may not be paying for the AMT, and that was going to be the third amendment that was going to be offered today so we can get moving. But I guess that is going to come up another day. I am very disappointed we are not there.

Mr. President, the journalist Norman Cousins once said: ``Wisdom consists of the anticipation of consequences.''

By this or any measure, the alternative minimum tax is the most unwise of policy. Congress plainly did not anticipate the AMT's consequences. And the wise course now is plainly to stop it from increasing the taxes of millions of Americans.

The Tax Reform Act of 1969 created the AMT. Congress saw that under the tax code of that time, 155 high-income households took advantage of so many tax benefits that they owed little or no income tax. So Congress responded with the AMT.

But Congress did not anticipate the consequences. Notably, Congress failed to index the AMT for inflation. And now an increasing number of middle-income Americans are finding themselves subject to this tax.

Now, the AMT punishes people for having children. The AMT punishes people for paying high State taxes. And the AMT punishes people with complexity.

And many taxpayers who owe the AMT do not realize it until they prepare their returns. Worse yet, many do not realize it until they get a letter from the IRS. Many never see it coming.

Listen to what the Congressional Budget Office has reported:

[I]f nothing is changed, one in five taxpayers will have

AMT liability and nearly every married taxpayer with income

between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe the alternative tax.

But oddly enough, the AMT would have less effect on households higher up the income scale. Surely these are not the consequences that Congress intended.

Protecting working families from the alternative minimum tax is my top tax priority this year. And it remains my goal to repeal AMT altogether.

We could do something about it, today. We have a chance to anticipate the consequences, today. We could enact wiser policy, today.

Last week, the House passed the bill that was the subject of the unanimous consent request that the Leader just made. It would protect more than 23 million families from a tax increase this year under the AMT. It would extend a number of important tax cuts for research, college expenses, and other priorities. And it is paid for. It is fiscally responsible.

Under the unanimous consent agreement just propounded, the Senate could have acted. If we had agreed to this unanimous consent request, we could have prevented the AMT from wielding its unintended consequences 1 more year.

I'm disappointed that the Senate did not consent to consider this bill today. But I am not sorry for choosing to protect taxpayers from the AMT, even at some cost. Too many folks are at risk of an unfair tax increase, if Congress fails to act on the AMT.

Provisions like the college tuition deduction, State and local sales tax relief, and the research and development tax credit are also in this bill. Those provisions make a real difference for America's families and businesses. I am disappointed that we were not able to extend these expiring provisions. People deserve greater certainty about their tax relief.

Now I don't support all of the provisions in the House bill. I would not have written it this way. There are certain targeted provisions that are not strictly extenders that I would not have put in the bill. There are some offsets that I would not have used or that I would write differently.

But I do support tax relief. And I support fiscal responsibility. And this was our chance to both ensure tax relief for 23 million Americans and also to avoid saddling our children and grandchildren with debt.

Mr. President, many of my colleagues have insisted that we pay for extending the Children's Health Insurance Program. Many have insisted that we pay for extending the farm bill. And many have insisted that we pay for preventing cuts to doctors under Medicare.

Well, if paying-as-you-go is good enough for children's health, if it is good enough for America's farmers, and if it is good enough for Medicare, then it ought to be good enough for tax cuts, too.

So I regret that there has been objection to considering the House- passed AMT bill. I regret that those who are objecting have prevented us from saving 23 million Americans from the unintended consequences of the AMT. And I regret that those who are objecting have prevented us from moving forward to enact wiser tax policy.

National Adoption Day

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Colleague Senator Grassley in introducing legislation to provide that certain tax planning inventions cannot be patented.

America's patent system promotes innovation and competitiveness in all industries.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to establish a patent system. That system is meant to protect inventors and promote the progress of science and ``useful arts.'' Today, we refer to this as technological innovation.

In the Patent Act of 1793, Congress enacted a broad definition for inventions that can be patented. But conditions were included. The definition for what could be patented in 1793 is remarkably similar to the definition in the United States Code today. And not every process or discovery is patentable.

In 17th century England, the Crown would grant a monopoly over a particular business line. Peter Meinhardt, in his book, ``Inventions, Patents and Monopoly,'' described these ``letters-patent'' that provided exclusive manufacturing rights as enriching ``the grantee at the expense of the community.'' This is what our Founders and Congress sought to avoid.

Today, a number of attorneys and accountants have begun applying for and obtaining tax patents. These involve financial products, banking, estate and gift, and tax preparation software.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted at least 60 of these tax patents. About 90 applications are pending.

I have heard from tax practitioners, including those in Montana, who fear that tax patents will impede their ability to provide advice to their clients. They are concerned that even obvious applications of the tax law may become protected by tax patents. They also tell me that some tax strategy patent applications appear to be for tax shelters and other tax-motivated transactions.

The Treasury is also concerned about patent protection for tax planning methods. In September, Treasury issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of transactions that use a patented tax strategy.

While this is a step in the right direction, these rules do not go far enough to fix the real problem.

A taxpayer shouldn't be in the position of choosing to file a return and pay a patent holder a fee for using a tax strategy in the return. No one should have to pay a toll charge to comply with the tax laws.

They also should not have to conduct a due diligence check every time that they comply with the tax laws to see if they are infringing a tax patent.

As I understand it, a taxpayer might use a tax strategy based on advice from a tax practitioner. The practitioner would prepare and file a tax return using the patented strategy. The tax practitioner's advice, the taxpayer's use of the transaction, and the preparation and filing of the tax return could all be considered patent infringement.

These tax patents can also create traps for the unwary. If taxpayers used a patented strategy, not knowing that it is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, they could be subject to additional taxes, penalties and interest.

Congress has previously enacted laws to limit what can be patented. Limiting patentability for tax patents is another situation where Congress must act.

I introduce our bill today with Senator Grassley. There are a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

It would provide that the Patent Trademark Office could not issue patents for tax planning inventions.

Tax planning inventions are generally tax plans, strategies, techniques, schemes, processes, or systems that are designed to reduce, minimize, avoid, or defer a taxpayer's Federal or State tax liability.

There is an important exception. This change would not affect the use of tax preparation software to help practitioners and taxpayers prepare tax or information returns.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code contains the Internal Revenue Code, a public law that is available to everyone. No one should have the capability to monopolize the tax law through the patenting of tax strategies. This is why I believe that these tax planning inventions should not be granted patent protection.

I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today we are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with congressional intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner. It is our hope that we can move this package of technicals in December if possible.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my Colleague Senator Grassley in introducing legislation to provide that certain tax planning inventions cannot be patented.

America's patent system promotes innovation and competitiveness in all industries.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution authorized Congress to establish a patent system. That system is meant to protect inventors and promote the progress of science and ``useful arts.'' Today, we refer to this as technological innovation.

In the Patent Act of 1793, Congress enacted a broad definition for inventions that can be patented. But conditions were included. The definition for what could be patented in 1793 is remarkably similar to the definition in the United States Code today. And not every process or discovery is patentable.

In 17th century England, the Crown would grant a monopoly over a particular business line. Peter Meinhardt, in his book, ``Inventions, Patents and Monopoly,'' described these ``letters-patent'' that provided exclusive manufacturing rights as enriching ``the grantee at the expense of the community.'' This is what our Founders and Congress sought to avoid.

Today, a number of attorneys and accountants have begun applying for and obtaining tax patents. These involve financial products, banking, estate and gift, and tax preparation software.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has granted at least 60 of these tax patents. About 90 applications are pending.

I have heard from tax practitioners, including those in Montana, who fear that tax patents will impede their ability to provide advice to their clients. They are concerned that even obvious applications of the tax law may become protected by tax patents. They also tell me that some tax strategy patent applications appear to be for tax shelters and other tax-motivated transactions.

The Treasury is also concerned about patent protection for tax planning methods. In September, Treasury issued proposed regulations requiring the disclosure of transactions that use a patented tax strategy.

While this is a step in the right direction, these rules do not go far enough to fix the real problem.

A taxpayer shouldn't be in the position of choosing to file a return and pay a patent holder a fee for using a tax strategy in the return. No one should have to pay a toll charge to comply with the tax laws.

They also should not have to conduct a due diligence check every time that they comply with the tax laws to see if they are infringing a tax patent.

As I understand it, a taxpayer might use a tax strategy based on advice from a tax practitioner. The practitioner would prepare and file a tax return using the patented strategy. The tax practitioner's advice, the taxpayer's use of the transaction, and the preparation and filing of the tax return could all be considered patent infringement.

These tax patents can also create traps for the unwary. If taxpayers used a patented strategy, not knowing that it is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code, they could be subject to additional taxes, penalties and interest.

Congress has previously enacted laws to limit what can be patented. Limiting patentability for tax patents is another situation where Congress must act.

I introduce our bill today with Senator Grassley. There are a number of cosponsors from both sides of the aisle.

It would provide that the Patent Trademark Office could not issue patents for tax planning inventions.

Tax planning inventions are generally tax plans, strategies, techniques, schemes, processes, or systems that are designed to reduce, minimize, avoid, or defer a taxpayer's Federal or State tax liability.

There is an important exception. This change would not affect the use of tax preparation software to help practitioners and taxpayers prepare tax or information returns.

Title 26 of the U.S. Code contains the Internal Revenue Code, a public law that is available to everyone. No one should have the capability to monopolize the tax law through the patenting of tax strategies. This is why I believe that these tax planning inventions should not be granted patent protection.

I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and an analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today we are pleased to introduce the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007. Technical corrections measures are routine for major tax acts, and are necessary to ensure that the provisions of the acts are working consistently with congressional intent, or to provide clerical corrections. Because these measures carry out congressional intent, no revenue gain or loss is scored from them.

By filing this bill, we hope interested parties and practitioners will comment and provide direction on further edits, additions, or deletions. These comments should be submitted in a timely manner. It is our hope that we can move this package of technicals in December if possible.

Mr. President, I ask consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the Disaster Assistance Program in the farm bill.

From the beginning, farming has been hard work. In the Book of Genesis, for example, God told Adam:

[T]hrough painful toil you will eat of [the land] all the

days of your life . . . By the sweat of your brow you will

eat your food.

Drought and floods, frost and hail have plagued farmers ever since. It is hard work, yet they stick to it. It is vital work to put food on America's table. It has been true since Adam: All farmers suffer disasters. In farming, it is not a matter of if, it is a matter of when.

For example, early this year, Congress passed yet another ad hoc disaster assistance package, and I was proud to back that package. But for some farmers, it was too little; it was too late. Producers are still reeling from disasters that occurred 2 years ago. For some producers who had a disaster in the spring of 2005, assistance will not come until late 2007 or early 2008.

Today is November 8, and the regulations for that disaster bill we passed in May have not even been published. Yet some Senators are already calling for an extension of that disaster bill through 2007 to cover this summer's crops. Unfortunately, if history repeats itself, Congress will get around to passing another disaster bill around 2010. This is no way to provide disaster assistance.

I wish to show a picture of Dave Henderson's farm in Cut Bank, MT. Dave is probably one of the best farmers in Montana. Just look at his lush field of grain. This is what Dave's wheat and barley fields typically look like. During a normal year, Dave raises about 35 bushels of wheat per acre and about 54 bushels of barley per acre. That is normal--35 bushels of wheat and 54 bushels of barley. But 2007 was anything but normal for Cut Bank, MT.

From October 1, 2006, through September 1, 2007, Cut Bank received 2 inches of rain. We can see the picture on the left, the result of that lack of rain. You don't raise a crop with 2 inches of rain all season.

On my right is a picture of a normal year, and on my left is what happens when there is no rain, about 2 inches over most of the growing season. That is all he received.

This fall, Dave harvested about 4 bushels of wheat per acre, and his barley averaged about 3 bushels per acre. You cannot pay your bills when your crop is about 10 percent of normal. How much assistance do you think Dave received from the disaster bill we passed in May? What do you think? The answer is nothing. Why? Because he did not plant before the February 28 cutoff date. Consider this: If Dave had planted winter wheat instead of spring wheat, he would have received a disaster payment. But he didn't. He planted spring wheat instead of winter wheat, so he didn't get a disaster payment.

Congress can do better for our farmers. Because of Dave and thousands of farmers and ranchers across the countryside, I am proud we included a reliable disaster program in our farm bill. In the future, farmers will know that if they suffer a disaster, help will be on the way. It won't make them rich, but it will help them get by.

I am proud and grateful for the support of the disaster program we have in our farm bill, the support it has received from all around the countryside and from a broad range of agricultural groups.

I have a letter, which I am showing, from the National Farmers Union signed by over 50 groups from all across our country. This letter is signed by 50 different farm groups. We can see the whole list. I know the print is a bit small: National Farmers Organization, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, ARCAF, just to name a few. It is a large group: American Farm Bureau, Cape Cod Cranberry Growers, Texas Sheep and Goat Raisers Association, National Grape Cooperative Association, and the Independent Community Bankers of America.

Why bankers? They have just as much at stake as farmers do. They rely on each other. Bankers will more likely give a loan to a farmer if he thinks

the farmer is going to have some kind of income with a crop or reasonable disaster assistance program. But a banker is less likely to provide that loan if it looks as if that farmer is not going to have any income or if there is not a good disaster assistance program, assuming if there is hail, drought, or whatnot.

I have another letter of support from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association representing cattle ranchers all across the country, showing a broad array of support. It is not just farmers but also livestock producers who very much want and support the agricultural Disaster Assistance Program that is in the farm bill. These letters demonstrate how important reliable disaster assistance is to all sectors of agriculture. It doesn't matter if you are a cattle rancher in Montana or a cranberry grower in Cape Cod; when disaster strikes, this program will provide a reliable safety net.

One more interesting point. In addition to helping farmers, the disaster program in the farm bill is good for taxpayers. The program is only available to farmers who purchase crop insurance, and that is why it is also good for taxpayers. Let me explain that a little more.

Those farmers who purchase high levels of insurance are eligible for more assistance when they face natural disasters. If you purchase low levels of insurance, you get probably less assistance. The program, therefore, creates a powerful incentive for farmers to purchase high levels of crop insurance and take measures to manage their own risk. When farmers purchase crop insurance, taxpayers save money on disaster assistance.

Now, I will put up a chart that shows this a little more graphically, by definition. This graph compares the disaster payments made to sample Midwestern farms that are under both the ad hoc and new disaster program. The ad hoc is in blue, and in the disaster program, in the farm bill, the bars are in red. Under the ad hoc disaster bills, farmers' payments would have been about $9,000 for a 75-percent crop loss--$9,000 for a 75-percent crop loss--compared to only $3,000 under the new program. If you had a 50-percent crop loss, the ad hoc payment would be $3,400 but, under the new program, $3,300.

You might ask: What in the world is going on? Why in the world would we, in our farm bill, provide disaster assistance at the lower level, with a 75-percent crop loss, than in the ad hoc program? As I mentioned earlier, it is because of crop insurance. You are more likely to get more assistance when you purchase crop insurance. That is a good thing. That saves taxpayers money because we will be paying out fewer dollars under the disaster program.

The program also saves taxpayers money by basing payments on whole- farm losses. In the past, disaster payments were based upon losses to individual units or individual crops on the farm. Farmers were never asked if the farm's other units or their crops had bumper harvests. So it was based on a unit. One crop disaster got payment in the ad hoc disaster programs, even though your whole farm was doing real well on a net basis. You may have had hail to a small part, but the rest of the place was great. That often happens in my part of the world. That doesn't make sense.

So we have changed that disaster assistance based on the whole farm on a net basis, and I think that is fairer to the taxpayers. The program will look at all the crops on a farm and only provide assistance if the entire farm has suffered a loss. When disaster payments are based on whole-farm losses and not individual unit losses, taxpayers save money and assistance is delivered to those who need it the most.

In closing, our farmers deserve a disaster program that is dependable, that is timely, and is equitable. Our taxpayers also deserve a program that is fiscally sound and requires farmers to manage their risk; i.e., crop insurance. This disaster program accomplishes both. It is a win for agriculture and it is a win for taxpayers.

I strongly urge my colleagues to reject any attempt to weaken or cut the disaster program. Farmers such as Dave Henderson deserve better, farmers producing in other parts of the country deserve better, and our taxpayers deserve better.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed for the Record the letters I referred to earlier. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the

Record, as follows:

National Cattlemen's

Beef Association,

Washington, DC, November 1, 2007.

Hon. Max Baucus,

U.S. Senator,

Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Baucus: On behalf of the National Cattlemen's

Beef Association (NCBA), and the farmers and ranchers it

represents across the Nation, I am writing to express support

for the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust Fund that was

approved by the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month

as part of the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest and Horticulture

Act of 2007 (S. 2242). It takes nearly two years for a cow to

produce her first calf, and a significant amount of effort

and expense is invested in each breeding animal. For this

reason, the impact of natural disasters such as hurricanes,

wildfires, tornadoes, blizzards, floods or prolonged drought

can be particularly stinging for cattle producers.

Appropriate and timely agricultural disaster assistance from

the permanent disaster relief program will provide critical

assistance to producers when they need it most.

In the past, Congress has moved to pass disaster assistance

on an ad hoc basis in an effort to help those impacted by

catastrophic weather events. It has become abundantly clear,

however, that this reactive system of addressing agricultural

disasters is no longer an effective or viable means of

providing timely aid when it is needed. Producers struggle

with difficult management, movement and sale decisions in the

midst of a disaster, and the situation is only worsened by

the uncertainty that accompanies legislative action. Natural

disasters will continue to occur, and NCBA submits that a

different approach is needed. While the Permanent Disaster

Relief Trust Fund is not perfect, it represents a significant

step toward prudent fiscal planning that will serve the

interests of both Congress and beef producers.

Livestock producers are accustomed to dealing with adverse

weather conditions, and most do their best to plan for them.

In fact, beef producers have actively sought out measures to

mitigate their risk of loss in the case of weather related

disasters. An example would be strong producer participation

in the Risk Management Agency's (RMA) Pasture, Rangeland and

Forage Insurance Pilot Program, which was made available just

last year to provide livestock producers in certain

geographic areas with a mechanism to insure against losses in

forage production. Cattle producers applaud the objectives of

this program, and NCBA is committed to working with RMA and

others to ensure that workable risk management tools are

available to producers.

Nevertheless, during periods of extreme and prolonged

disaster, access to Federal disaster assistance programs is

important to the viability of many livestock operations. In

the most devastating instances, when producers have

experienced tremendous grazing forage losses or even

livestock mortalities, the Permanent Disaster Relief Trust

Fund will provide crucial support as producers struggle with

additional expenses for supplemental feed, grasslands

restoration and herd rebuilding.

There will no doubt be challenges in implementing the

permanent program, and it is likely that some provisions will

need refinement. But, the central tenets of the Permanent

Disaster Relief Trust Fund, such as no disincentives for the

development and adoption of other insurance and risk

management options, eligibility criteria based on actual

livestock and/or forage production losses and requirements

that any disaster assistance funds are to be directed to only

those producers directly impacted by disaster conditions, are

a step in the right direction.

There is no `silver bullet' solution to addressing

agricultural disaster assistance, but NCBA appreciates your

efforts on this issue. We look forward to working with you to

see the inclusion of this program in the 2007 Farm Bill as it

moves through the Senate.

Sincerely,

John Queen,

President,

National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mary Baker, Tom Louthan, Sara Shepherd, Sam Anderson, Travis Cossitt, Siri Smillie, Matt Slonaker, Charles Kovatch, John Carey, Timothy Kehrer, and Mollie Lane be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the farm bill.