[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 182 (Friday, December 20, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9083-S9084]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1882

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1882, a bill to extend the 
exclusion from income for employer-provided mass transit and parking 
benefits; that the bill be read three times and passed; and the motion 
to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to 
this particular issue. However, this is just one of many tax provisions 
which will expire at the end of the year.
  In the past, the senior the Senator from New York supported the 
extension of numerous provisions, as have I, particularly the State and 
local sales tax deduction in his case. I can only wonder if he is 
signaling that the State and local sales tax provision, along with all 
the others which are expiring, are no longer a priority for him.
  In any event, the Senate Finance Committee has jurisdiction over all 
the tax extenders, including the one being offered here today. As of 
yet, the committee has not been able to fully consider and report a tax 
extenders bill. As a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee 
himself, I would hope my colleague would want to work with other 
members of the committee to preserve its jurisdiction.
  Since the House of Representatives has been out for 1 week, my 
colleague's request--even if agreed to in the Senate--would not result 
in extending the mass transit provision. Finance Committee Republicans 
stand ready to work with our Democratic colleagues when we return in a 
couple of weeks, and the House will be back then too. If we want to 
enact this extension into law, rather than just sending out talking 
points, we ought to engage in regular order when we get back.
  On that basis, I ask unanimous consent to modify my colleague's 
unanimous consent request.
  I ask unanimous consent that the request be modified to refer this 
bill to the Finance Committee so it can be properly considered through 
regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New York accept the 
modification request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the original request?

[[Page S9084]]

  Mr. HATCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is noted.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We are good friends 
and I know his heart is in the right place. I would just make a couple 
of quick points before I get into a little bit of the substance, and I 
will be brief.
  The reason this extender has special weight and deserves being 
brought up today is the following: Most of the tax extenders--and I 
certainly support a large number of them--can be put into law 
retroactively with little harm done. Since most of them affect people's 
tax returns in 2015 if the law is changed, say, January or February of 
2014, it doesn't affect this because the tax deduction would actually 
be filed before April 2015.
  The one problem with the mass transit benefit is it is much harder to 
make retroactive. People try and we tried last year. We did it 
retroactively. But since the benefit goes each month to the commuter 
from his or her employer, retroactivity doesn't work quite as well.
  That is why I felt it was important to try to get this passed now, so 
perhaps when the House returned immediately--there is good bipartisan 
support for this in the House support as well--they might enact it and 
we would not have to wait for the Finance Committee to go through a 
large number of other tax extenders hearings and whatever, because the 
longer it is retroactive, the harder it is.
  I certainly appreciate my colleague's objection. I am going to fight 
very hard to try to get this done in January when we return. I would 
just make these following points about the benefit.
  It is a win-win. It is a win for our mass transit commuters because 
then they get the same benefit--no more, no less--than those who drive 
to work and park. It was an anomaly in the law, pointed out by my late 
colleague, friend, and mentor, Senator Moynihan, that it was unfair to 
give people who drive their cars to work double the tax benefit of mass 
transit commuters. It is only fair to make them equal.
  Right now, the law will raise the parking-driving benefit--those who 
drive to work--at the rate of inflation to $250. That is a good thing 
and I am all for that. But if the law is not renewed before December 
31, the mass transit benefit, which I have worked hard to make equal to 
the park-and-drive benefit, will revert back to $130 a month, which is 
a lot less and unfair.
  The second benefit is to people who drive. You say why would they 
benefit? They are getting theirs. The bottom line is, for every person 
who takes mass transit and doesn't take his or her car to work, that 
reduces congestion on the roads. So even if you never want to ride the 
train or the bus to work, you should be for this.
  Finally, I would say the following: It benefits our environment. We 
all know that mass transit pollutes the air a lot less than people 
driving individual cars. In many places it is not possible to use mass 
transit, but in more and more parts of the country it is and we ought 
to be encouraging that. To have this benefit expire is bad, bad for 
people who take mass transit. Obviously there are a lot of them in my 
State--700,000--who get this benefit. It is bad for those who drive and 
bad for the clean air that we wish to breathe.
  I will continue my quest because I think it is only fair and only 
right and it is good for all of America. As my colleague noted, it is a 
tax break. We generally can find more agreement on tax breaks than many 
other issues--fiscal and tax issues in this Congress. I will continue 
my quest to have this renewed as soon as possible, and I think it is 
not unfair to do it ahead of the other tax breaks because of the unique 
way that this benefit functions and how it is harder--not impossible 
but harder to enact retroactively.
  Mr. President, I wish you, the entire staff who has done a great job 
here through the year, and all of my colleagues as well as those here 
in the gallery, a merry Christmas, a happy new year--not least of whom 
is my good friend and colleague from Utah who I know has a big and 
happy family. I wish them a merry Christmas and a happy new year as 
well.
  I yield the floor, I guess with just about almost certainty for the 
last time in 2013.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague from New York. He 
is a great Senator. I understand his concern here, but we ought to do 
this in accordance with regular order, especially on the Finance 
Committee, to get to where we work on these matters and get them done 
in an exigent and good way, and I will certainly try to work with my 
colleague throughout this process.
  Mr. President, I also would like to wish everybody who serves in this 
body a merry Christmas and a happy new year. This is a wonderful time 
of the year. We all feel pretty good today, having finally gotten 
through most of the work that we needed to get through.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my colleague.

                          ____________________