[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 169 (Saturday, December 18, 2010)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2186-E2187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 TAX RELIEF, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REAUTHORIZATION, AND JOB CREATION 
                              ACT OF 2010

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. GARY L. ACKERMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, December 16, 2010

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4853) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding 
     and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust 
     Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend 
     authorizations for airport improvement program, and for other 
     purposes:

  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chair, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4853, the 
Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization and Job Creation Act 
of 2010.
  It is fundamentally wrong to hold for ransom unemployment benefits to 
the most vulnerable individuals among us for tax cuts to billionaires. 
That's what happened here: 99.7 percent of us will not be affected by 
the estate tax, yet a $23 billion bribe to just 6,600 families across 
the entire country was needed to get those unemployment benefits in the 
bill. And, we then add the entire cost of the bill, all $860 billion, 
straight to the deficit.
  Surely, there are worthwhile provisions in this bill. However, these 
worthwhile provisions should not be held ransom for tax cuts to the 
richest taxpayers--$60 billion in tax cuts for them--some $24 billion 
more than the struggling middle class who've been the hardest hit by 
the economic downturn. I fully support extending such low and middle-
class tax relief such as the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, 
the dependent care credit, the earned income tax credit, the student 
loan interest deduction, and Alternative Minimum Tax relief, among 
others. But don't tell me I have to vote

[[Page E2187]]

for giving tax cuts to billionaires for two years when we can't even 
give our seniors on Social Security $250 for one.
  Speaking of Social Security, this bill represents the single greatest 
threat to the program since President Bush wanted to privatize it. This 
bill requires a $111 billion infusion from general funds into the 
Social Security Trust Fund to make up the difference for cutting two 
percent from the employee payroll tax. Next year, if the economy hasn't 
recovered sufficiently, Congress will not have the stomach to let the 
tax holiday expire--no Member of Congress will want to ``raise'' 
payroll taxes by two percent. Any future extension of this tax holiday 
necessarily means that Social Security will compete with other federal 
programs, such as veterans, medical research, and defense, for its 
funding. This dangerous precedent means that Social Security's 
dedicated funding, payroll taxes, is under attack. This opens the door 
to means testing and benefit cuts for beneficiaries. Make no mistake, 
Social Security's opponents will be enticed to move in for the kill by 
moving to privatize the program.
  I don't oppose extending the middle-class tax cuts for 98 percent or 
99 percent of taxpayers. In fact, before this compromise was struck, I 
supported raising the threshold from $250,000 to something more 
reasonable, such as $400,000, because where my constituents live there 
is a much higher cost of living than in other parts of the country. 
However, to hold extending those middle-class tax cuts hostage to pass 
a bill that will cost more than TARP, more than the stimulus, and add 
$860 billion to the national debt, is not acceptable.
  Mr. Chair, it's hard to climb the ladder of prosperity if the middle 
rungs are missing. This bill does nothing to restore those middle 
rungs; instead, by giving the most to those who need it the least, it 
perpetuates the failed thinking that somehow the rest of us will 
benefit. I for one won't pay this ransom--my vote--for a few crumbs 
when we should be getting what's fair for our constituents. I will vote 
no on the underlying bill and I ask my colleagues to do so as well.

                          ____________________