[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 204 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7197-S7199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The bill clerk read the nomination of Liam P. Hardy, of Virginia, to 
be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 
for the term of fifteen years to expire on the date prescribed by law.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Maryland.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4810

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to discuss a 
question of fundamental fairness to members of our Armed Forces and to 
Federal employees.
  I think we all may recall a few months ago when President Trump 
ordered the Department of the Treasury to establish a system to push 
businesses, companies, and employers around the country to defer the 
collection of employees' payroll taxes. Those are the taxes that go to 
Social Security and Medicare. The key word here is ``defer'' because 
this is really a shell game.
  Any moneys that businesses do not pay into Social Security and 
Medicare now are going to have to be paid by those Federal employees 
right after the holidays, starting in January.
  And many employees around the country were at first confused. They 
thought they were getting a payroll tax holiday, but that is not the 
case.
  The reality is, whatever they didn't pay in the form of payroll taxes 
now and in the past couple months they would be required to pay back 
right after those holidays.
  And when businesses looked at this and when workers and employees 
around the country looked at this, they overwhelmingly rejected it. 
They said they didn't want to participate.
  Here is what UPS said about this proposal: ``We recognize that for 
some, it may have been helpful to have more money in their paychecks in 
2020, yet not all employees have professional tax planning needed to 
prepare effectively for the added obligation they would face in 2021.''
  So even though this payroll tax deferral proposal got a burst of 
attention, it turned out to be meaningless for most workers around the 
country. Most private sector employers didn't participate, and their 
employees and workers didn't want them to participate.
  Unfortunately, the one big exception to this has been members of our 
Armed Forces, the folks who every day stand guard to protect our 
country, and Federal employees who do the Nation's business with 
respect to important services they provide.
  And as the private sector has rejected this, we have heard from 
thousands of Federal employees who say: We don't want to participate 
either. We have heard from members of the Armed Forces that say: We 
don't want to be used as guinea pigs and be required to participate.
  So I want to be really clear that if we don't correct this, the 
damage will continue to be done, and these members of our Armed Forces 
and Federal employees will be forced to pay even more back after the 
holidays.
  Now, I wrote to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and to OMB Director Vought 
about this back in September, September 8, just as the deferral was 
starting, and we were joined in that letter by 22 Senators--Senators 
from both sides of the aisle. We had a simple bipartisan request. It 
was: Make this payroll tax deferral optional, make it voluntary. If 
Federal employees and members of our Armed Forces want to participate 
in this proposal, fine. Let them do it, but don't force, don't require, 
don't coerce members of our military and Federal employees to 
participate.
  And we didn't get a response to that letter to Secretary Mnuchin and 
CBO Director Vought. So I asked Secretary Mnuchin about this issue at a 
Senate Banking Committee hearing on September 24. I said: Mr. 
Secretary, why shouldn't we make this voluntary? Why should you require 
members of our Armed Forces and Federal employees to participate in the 
program if they don't want to? And his response was: Yeah, it would be 
``reasonable'' for

[[Page S7198]]

the payroll tax to be voluntary ``if people don't want to participate. 
Sounds like common sense.''
  Well, we expected some followup from the Secretary of Treasury. 
Nothing. So we sent a followup letter--again, a bipartisan letter. 
Nothing.
  So now it is December, and the Trump administration is still forcing 
members of our Armed Forces and Federal employees who don't want to 
participate in this now-forced deferral program--they want to continue 
to force them to do it. So we introduced a bipartisan piece of 
legislation called the Protecting Employees from Surprise Taxes Act. It 
is pretty straightforward. It says: If a Federal employee or member of 
the armed services wants to participate, let them participate. If they 
want to opt out, let them opt out of it.

  I want to stress that the Federal workers we have heard from and the 
organizations and unions that represent Federal workers strongly 
support this measure. And why not? It is hard to argue that we 
shouldn't let the folks who are standing guard to protect us make a 
choice about whether they want to participate in this program.
  Also, just to remind our colleagues--maybe they haven't kept track of 
this--the Senate chose not to participate. The Senate chose not to 
participate in this program, whether on a mandatory or a voluntary 
basis. The House of Representatives chose not to participate in this 
program.
  So it is going to be interesting to hear the Senators say that they 
want to require members of our Armed Forces and Federal employees to 
enroll in a program that this Senate decided was not good for members 
of the Senate staff and the House of Representatives decided was not 
good for House staff.
  Yet, if we don't support this proposal, this is simply passing the 
bipartisan legislation I mentioned to give our members of the Armed 
Forces and Federal employees that choice. If we don't pass this, we are 
going to require them to continue to participate in a program they 
don't like.
  So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 4810 and the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and 
passed and the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table 
with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am here 
to express support for this payroll tax holiday, and I think Congress 
should do much better than that, and that is to come together and 
forgive these taxes, period.
  In fact, back in March, I pushed for Congress to include a payroll 
tax cut in the CARES Act, and I still support that today because the 
payroll tax cut is about supporting workers who might have had their 
hours reduced.
  These are workers who are living paycheck to paycheck, workers across 
our country who are struggling to make ends meet because of the impact 
of COVID-19 on our economy.
  Allowing folks to keep more of their hard-earned money could make a 
big difference. It would provide immediate support--immediate support--
for Montana's families who are struggling to get by. And, importantly, 
we ensure that this will have no impact--zero impact--on Social 
Security because we transfer money from the general fund to the 
Treasury.
  This is not a new concept. It has been done by Congress. In fact, it 
was done under the Obama administration. As an example, a Montanan who 
earns an annual salary of about $40,000 typically pays about $2,500 in 
payroll taxes every year. Forgiving the taxes deferred during this 4-
month payroll tax deferral would save that Montanan about $827.
  What we should be doing is working together to pass a COVID relief 
package that delivers much needed aid for families who have had a tough 
go the last several months. And it is going to get tougher going 
forward, not only for these families but workers and small businesses.
  Instead, my colleagues across the aisle have continued to block very 
targeted relief, several times, right here on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate, which is holding Montanans and the American people hostage. We 
should come together and agree on this targeted relief. We can continue 
to disagree on these other items, but let's get this targeted relief 
package passed.
  So instead of coming to the floor today to try to pass a bill that 
undermines a payroll tax holiday to save folks more of their hard-
earned money, I urge my colleague here before us to work with Members 
of his caucus and get the COVID-19 relief passed.
  Once again, we should be forgiving these taxes as a payroll tax 
holiday, not unlike what happened during the Obama administration, and 
for these reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator for Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, just to respond to the Senator from 
Montana, I think he well knows that it has been over 6 months since the 
House of Representatives passed the first Heroes Act with comprehensive 
COVID-19 relief. They have also passed an updated ``Heroes 2 Act,'' but 
we never even had a vote here in the U.S. Senate on that provision. We 
have been blocked from having that vote by the Republican leader.
  I don't know where my colleague stands on the bipartisan framework 
that was just released. That is something that I can support and 
pursue, but listening to the Senate majority leader, he has been 
pouring cold water on it. And, by the way, the measure that the Senator 
from Montana mentioned that we should pass right now for coronavirus 
relief, that doesn't have a payroll tax holiday. It doesn't do what the 
Senator just said he wants to do. It doesn't say anything about that.
  So if the Senator or others want to introduce legislation to have a 
payroll tax holiday for those who have been enrolled in this program 
for the last 4 months, go ahead. But why would you allow another day to 
pass requiring members of our Armed Forces who don't want to 
participate to participate to participate or requiring Federal 
employees who are out there providing public services to participate? 
That is all this does. This doesn't preclude anything the Senator 
talked about doing. All it does is to say: Right now, for those people 
who are calling who don't want to be enrolled in this program, let them 
out. Let them out.
  And what the Senator from Montana is saying is: No, I want to 
continue to hold them hostage to pass a proposal that isn't even in the 
majority leader's own bill.
  And that is what people get sick and tired about around this country.
  So let's just pass this. This is a simple, straightforward bill. I 
welcome debate on the bipartisan proposal that has been put forward by 
a number of Republican Senators and a number of Democratic Senators, 
but don't try and mix this up into that larger debate. This is very 
simple. It just says to a member of the Army, the Navy or any of the 
services who doesn't want to be forced to participate in this right now 
that they don't have to. That is what this says, and by opposing this, 
you are saying that you want to prolong the requirement that they 
participate in a program that they don't want to be a part of
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Maryland 
raising these points. In regard to the proposal of the bill that was 
passed by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of House, the reason we didn't take 
a vote on that bill in the U.S. Senate is because it was full, 
basically, of her wish list of many items that didn't really relate to 
COVID-19 relief. We did put a targeted bill on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate in the amount of $600 billion that, frankly, addressed many of 
the issues that the House had in their bill, and we had many issues 
that we agreed on here in the Senate that would be at least targeted. 
This is about the Paycheck Protection Program. This is relief for 
schools. This is resources for the vaccine, for additional PPE, for 
additional testing. It is a long list, including relief for the U.S. 
Postal Service. Of course, I would hope that you would support it, but 
we were blocked from even bringing that bill to the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. We couldn't get to debate on that bill in September when it 
came before the U.S. Senate.

[[Page S7199]]

  I appreciate these points. Obviously, we have a disagreement. 
President Trump pushed for Congress to pass a payroll tax cut. I would 
rather see a cut, not a deferral. That is the way to really help 
workers across this country. When Congress failed to act in July, the 
President enacted that deferral as a way to provide immediate relief to 
the American people. I would ask that we come together and let's 
forgive those taxes. Forgive them, and they won't be getting a surprise 
tax increase if we do that.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, just very briefly in response, I think 
everyone knows what is going on here. This is a very simple proposal. 
If you want to participate in President Trump's deferral, you can 
continue to participate in the deferral program. But if you are in the 
Armed Forces or are a Federal employee and you are being required to do 
that right now and you don't want to, we should let them opt out. That 
is all this is about, and I am really surprised that our Republican 
colleagues would block members of our Armed Forces and Federal 
employees from making a simple choice which they believe is in their 
best interest.
  So I am disappointed with the objection and will continue to pursue 
this.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to yield back the 
time in order for the vote to occur now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.