we need to defeat this amendment. This is not the usual AMT fix we are used to. This actually repeals rates of the AMT that were put into effect in 1993. The reality is we are not going to increase taxes in order to pay for the relief that would be provided to taxpayers here. This points out the difference between the Specter amendment, which we will deal with next, and the Conrad amendment. I urge my colleagues to support the Specter amendment because it is the real deal. It is the real way we will deal with AMT, rather than the phony way that is presented by a mere indication that we will find revenues somewhere to offset against this tax cut. The question the majority would have to answer is: What taxes are you going to raise in order to pay for this rate reduction for the people who would otherwise pay the AMT? There is certainly no suggestion that there is a spending cut in the offing. Therefore, what taxes would be raised to pay for this?
Editor's note · Context
Opposing an amendment related to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) during Senate floor debate.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
I would like to make just a couple of comments on my friend's having left the Senate and with respect to the remarks that he just made. The Senate has had some very good people over the years, and currently, but none have been more…
One of the things that we noticed in this endeavor is there is a great attitude among the military, among the Defense Department generally in being able to succeed at a mission.
I am informed that it is necessary for me to insert into the Record of the proceedings the resignation letter that I sent to Governor Doug Ducey of Arizona on December 12, 2018; therefore, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be…
I know that the Democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, but if there is a minute that I could take in between, I just wanted to comment on my colleague who spoke yesterday, Senator Collins. I had wanted to come to the floor to speak…





