A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend parity for exclusion from income for employer-provided mass transit and parking benefits.

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.

I object.

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.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

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.

I object.

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.