Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to stress the great consensus of opinion on most aspects of this deposit insurance legislation, and I mean that sincerely. There is broad support from the administration. There is broad support from the regulatory agencies. There is broad support from Members of the House and members of the Senate, from those of the Democratic party and the Republican party for most aspects of this bill. And as I think this debate has pretty clearly identified, it is 10 percent of this bill that has caused 90 percent of the problems for certain members of the committee. What I want to address, first of all, is that 90 percent of the bill which I find really no opposition for, and I want to stress those things because I think they are the heart of this bill. The first one is that we merge the bank and thrift insurance funds. That would not only diversify the risk, and everyone agrees on that, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, both the Senate and the House, because the BIF reserve ratio has recently declined to 1.26. So by combining these funds it reduces the risk that any of our financial institutions will have to pay any premiums in the future. It reduces that risk. So whatever else happens, this legislation will reduce the risk of paying premiums to the majority of our institutions. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are certain rapid insured deposit growth, well, what I am saying is sweep programs have caused a reduction of four basis points in the BIF program or the BIF reserve ratio funds. This is from a very few financial institutions that have set up multiple subsidiary banks and they are using sweep accounts, and they are sweeping all that money into FDIC, and they are not compensating the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, the administration; and I think every Member of our committee agrees that this should not go on. We have addressed this. We have reforms in this bill that compensate banks for the adverse effect of these so-called free riders. We give transition assessment credits, recognizing the contribution of those banks to the insurance reserves that they made during the early and mid-1990s, and those credits will offset future premiums for all but the newest and the most recent new institutions and also those fast-growing institutions. The premium-setting reforms prevent future free rider inequity, and there is consensus on this and there is consensus that that ought to be done. Finally, we have eliminated the hard trigger in the current system that can force banks to pay significantly higher premiums during economic downturns. That promotes economic stability and the well-being of the financial system. I have not heard a dissenting voice from us doing that. So those are the main components of the bill. Where the disagreement is is the coverage rates; and Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out these things about the coverage rates, and I am going to go back for a minute to those few large institutions, financial institutions that have established sweep accounts and have established multiple subsidiary banks. What those institutions are doing is they are going out and they are advertising $700,000, $800,000, $1 million worth of coverage, and my colleagues have heard testimony from those who oppose a coverage increase, that the people do not want an increase of coverage, they do not need an increase of coverage. The same Treasury Department that says people do not want it have also come to us and said these very institutions that are offering $700,000 worth of coverage or $800,000 worth of coverage, ``that they have reduced these large financial companies controlling multiple industry banks, have reduced the BIF reserve ratio by four basis points to an alarming level without compensating the FDIC.'' Now, I ask all the Members this question: If they are sweeping all this money into these accounts by offering additional coverage, where is the money coming from if it is not coming from people who want additional coverage? How can the Treasury and how can the Federal Reserve and how can certain Members of the House and Senate say that people do not need additional coverage, they will not use additional coverage, and yet at the same time agree that these, really a couple of financial institutions mainly, are sweeping millions and millions and millions of dollars into these accounts? Well, obviously the people are using these accounts, and obviously they feel the need for this protection; and that is why we need additional coverage. In 1974, we increased coverage. We over-doubled coverage. Was there a crisis then? No, there was no crisis then. So increasing it 150 percent did not cause any crisis then. In 1980 we increased the coverage for all the banks in this country. Did banks fail? No, banks did not fail. It was savings and loans that fell. Yes, we increased it for savings and loans; but if it was because of increase of coverage, do my colleagues not think banks would have failed, along with the savings and loans? Of course they would have, but it was only the savings and loans. Yes, we got a lot of testimony about, oh, the last time we did this there was the savings and loans, several of them failed, but they do not say the banks did not fail and we increased it for banks. It just does not fly. In 1974, the coverage was at $40,000. If we went back to 1974 and we increased it allowing for inflation, we would have gone to $140,000. We only go to $130,000. So we are not even keeping pace with 1974 when the chairman of the Federal Reserve said we had a safe amount and it was at a safe level. Well, if that is the case, then I guess he is advocating for $140,000, not $130,000. When we increased it to $100,000, if we only adjusted for that inflation today, it would be $200,000, not $130,000. What we do in this bill is increase it to $130,000, which is less coverage than the people of the United States had enjoyed in 1974, in 1980 and at any time. We do not take care of all the inflationary loss, and we hear a lot of strange talk up here in Washington. We hear talk that the people do not need this coverage, but Mr. Speaker, we heard that every time there was a bank failure, there were people who lost a great amount of their retirement funds because the coverage was not there. Five thousand Americans every day sell their home, and the vast majority of them deposit the proceeds from those sales in their bank account. The gentleman from California would tell us, and the Federal Reserve and the Treasury would tell us, that people have an opportunity to open multiple accounts and establish that money in multiple accounts. Well, I ask my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of this body, When people sell their home, how many of them go out and establish three bank accounts and deposit that money in three different accounts? Experience tells us that almost no one does that, and when they deposit it, when they deposit that $200,000 or $300,000 in a bank account and that bank fails, they lose two-thirds of their life savings. Retirement accounts, $150,000, $200,000, not unusual. How many people go out and establish multiple IRA accounts? Well, I think we know the answer to that. The AARP has strongly, in fact, they have urged a greater increase in coverage than we give, because people do not run around all over town establishing one account here, another account there, another account there; and they should not have to do that. They should not have to rely on a couple of large financial institutions of this country that have come in here and battled against this bill, and they have said we do not need over $100,000; but those same companies and the financial services roundtable that has represented their interests have come up here and told them they do not need $100,000. Those same companies that were on this hill lobbying against an increase were going out and buying six or eight banks and advertising $800,000 worth of coverage, bankrupting the funds; and then they had the audacity to come up here and oppose this bill and oppose our efforts to stop their raid on the FDIC. Thank goodness in committee, thank goodness in subcommittee and thank goodness in the morning when we vote on this legislation we will pass it, and we will stop the abuse that we have seen in the last couple of years on free riders who not only free ride on the FDIC, they come to the Members of this body and lobby against our efforts to stop their efforts to, as Peter Fisher said, to reduce the BIF reserve ratio by four basis points without compensating the fund. That is what they have done. Certainly they have gimmicked the system. They are getting a free ride. They are paying nothing; and they are going to communities like the communities in South Dakota, like communities in Alabama, communities all over the Nation, and they are saying we will offer $700,000 worth of coverage; and then they and friends and supporters that they have at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are coming over here and telling us to do something about these free riders but do not do anything about the free riders which would interfere with a free ride, do not do anything which allows the community banks to increase coverage, we do not need an increase of coverage. Well, the marketplace is demanding it. The marketplace is getting it. The free riders have gone out and gotten an increase in coverage, and it is absolutely ludicrous for us to let this continue to go on. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). (Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) to speak in support of the legislation.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule to table this misguided resolution. If we pass H.J. Res. 84 we're going to be sending a message to the rest of the world. And that message is: Foreign countries, go ahead. Flood our markets. Illegally dump your products here. Because the United States is not going to enforce our trade laws. We'll be declaring ``open season'' on America's manufacturing base and on American workers. We cannot let that happen. We must stop it. And I'm proud that our President, George W. Bush, took decisive action to restore fair competition for our steelworkers. If American steelworkers are allowed to compete on a level playing field, they will win. But if we do not restore that level playing field, more American steelworkers will lose their jobs. This problem has been going on for years, and President Bush showed real leadership when he put these tariffs on. This action is absolutely necessary to defend steelworker jobs against illegally traded steel and ensure America has a steel industry five and ten years from now. Madam Speaker, I testified before the International Trade Commission on several occasions about the illegal import crisis and its effect on our steel-producing areas like my home State of Alabama. I told them about the dangers this crisis presents to our national security. And in this time of war, what is more important than the security of our Nation and its ability to defend itself? Vote yes on the rule. Stand with our President. And stand up for the hardworking citizens who built this country into the great and powerful Nation it is today.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, when terrorists were positively identified, the INS could not program its computers to find out if they had any information on those terrorists. Not only that, but they issued them visas. The story of the INS' approval of terrorist visas illustrates that our immigration process is a total failure. But as is often the case, the people back in our districts and in our home States, they realize this before we do. In fact, I got a letter from Michael Burns from my district in December. He describes an accident where a car hits his wife's car and then a car piles into both of those. Both drivers were illegal aliens, no driver's license and no documentation. When the police officer was asked what would happen to these people, how would they be kept up with, would they be deported, would they be held accountable, they were told there is not an INS representative in Birmingham; that they were wasting their time; we are wasting our time. What about a county sheriff who on this last visit home told me that he stopped 15 illegal aliens in a van. There were drugs in the van, marijuana. They had no documentation and an expired driver's license. He called the INS; he was told there is no one to deal with the problem. There is no one to deal with the problem. Far more disturbingly, and let me close with this, are the illustrations of over 100,000 illegal aliens who have been brought before the courts and charged with crimes, convicted of crimes, and told to be deported. Are they deported? No. What happens? They receive a letter. They receive a letter. That is all. This bill is a step in the right direction. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter I referred to earlier: Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Birmingham, AL, December 17, 2001. Congressman Spencer Bachus, Cannon House Office Building, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Bachus: On Wednesday, December 12, 2001, my wife was involved in a traffic accident, while this is certainly not a Federal issue the events surrounding the accident I feel need to be brought to your attention. Her car was struck in the Hoover area by an illegal immigrant who spoke no English, carried no Alabama state drivers license, had no insurance, but is employed at a local Mexican restaurant and has been in Alabama for over two years. The individual in the third car, who was also an illegal immigrant, had no driver's license at all and no insurance. Additionally when my wife asked the Hoover officer at the accident site what would happen to this individual she was told ``probably nothing, the State of Alabama does not allow us to deport them unless there is a crime committed with then goes through INS''. This came as a shock to both my wife and myself. When I did some checking I was told there is not even an INS representative in Birmingham full time. These individuals are in this country illegally, pay no U.S. taxes and can hit someone and virtually walk away! While I am forced to pay a $500.00 deductible on my insurance to be able to get $2,100 worth of damages repaired. This is shameful. As a taxpayer, constituent, and loyal financial supporter of the Republican Party (in excess of $2,800 during the last election, PAC National and state party contributions), quite frankly I resent this type of conduct from the Federal Branch of our government. While I am actively pursuing action against this illegal alien through the City of Hoover I would like to know what I can do, and what your stand is as my congressman on this situation. Congressman, I know you get many letters that are considered ``off the wall''. However, as a Vice-President of Alabama's largest insurance company and as a longtime resident of your congressional district, I want to assure you that I do not write this letter lightly, but rather out of concern over a situation that is apparently getting out of hand in the City of Hoover. I await your response. The best to you and your family for the holiday season. Sincerely, G. Michael Burns, Vice President Mass Marketing.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, Members will recall that 2 years ago, the SEC proposed to limit auditors from doing several nonauditing functions for their clients, consulting work and other nonauditing services. When the SEC proposed that, they do what they always do, what this body has insisted they do, what they ought to do, that they put those proposals out for public comment, because all knowledge does not come from Washington. It is not all inside the Beltway. They made 10 specific proposals to ban nonauditing services. Consumer groups came in and testified before the Securities and Exchange Commission. Consumer groups came in and testified before Arthur Levitt and the SEC. Industry groups came in and testified. Over a 4- or 5-, 6-month period, they looked at the rules, they listened to witnesses, they refined the rules, they revised the rules. And in September, Arthur Levitt had this to say about that process of letting the public participate in how they are governed. He said this: ``Thanks to the thoughtful and constructive public input, we see ways to revise the proposed rules to avoid unintended consequences and to address other legitimate concerns.'' There are unintended consequences when you propose a rule. There are other legitimate concerns that people have when you put a rule out there for public comment. As a result, Arthur Levitt said, ``We've gone through this process and we have got better rules, we have got more effective rules, we have got a good product.'' Basically that is what the bill that Chairman Baker and Chairman Oxley have put out for us, is the result of that process by Arthur Levitt, with public comment from consumer groups, labor groups and industry groups. Both bills ban these nonauditing services. Both of them ban them. But the difference is that the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and, in fact, when I mentioned this in committee, the gentleman from New York said, ``I realize that's a major problem,'' but it is a problem that we still have in the substitute. The gentleman from New York went back and actually adopted the proposed rules, not the final rules as the base text has. He went back to the proposed rules, throw out all the comments by the consumer groups, throw out all the comments by the business groups, throw out all the comments by the labor organizations, throw out all the comments by those in the academic world. He goes back to the original proposed rules, like starting all over again. That is not what this place is all about. It is about including the public.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1009. I first want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) for bringing this legislation to the floor. This is important legislation. Members will recall that the House passed legislation very similar to this, which the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) sponsored back in April of last year. Then, at the end of last year, we passed the terrorist insurance legislation. We passed several other important pieces of legislation designed to get the economy going, designed to eliminate unnecessary regulations, to stimulate growth, to create jobs, and to end the recession in our regulations. This legislation, like the terrorist insurance legislation that President Bush strongly urged the other body to get to work in passing, has not been passed by the other body. It is time that we sent this legislation out with a strong vote and a strong message to the other body to get to work passing this legislation and other important legislation. This legislation had strong bipartisan support. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). In speaking on this legislation, they basically have already outlined to this House amply why we need this legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is critically important to small businesses. Large corporations use sweep accounts. They use sophisticated computer programs and complex programs to earn interest on their commercial deposits. Small business owners do not get those same benefits. Money center banks can attract deposits from large corporate customers. They promise them, through sweep accounts, that they will be compensated for the use of their money. Our small community banks do not do this, or it would cost them a great expense to do this. This legislation would simply enable the small businesses, whether it is a florist, a body shop, an auto body shop, a law firm, a doctor's office, a beauty shop, it will allow them to get the same benefits that large corporations are getting today. It will also allow the small community banks to attract deposits. We all know that that is key for the small banks or community banks in attracting deposits, keeping those deposits and keeping those monies in the local communities. Again, I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the other party, the minority party, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez). Also, finally, I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for her work on this bill, and the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am in full support of H.R. 1542 including the Manager's Amendment, which includes an antitrust savings clause. That clause reaffirms that regulatory and antitrust laws play important but different roles in promoting competition in the telecom industry. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 governs the transition of local telecommunications from a heavily regulated environment historically dominated by incumbent carriers to a competitive environment in which new entrants and incumbents compete vigorously with each other. The 1996 Act imposes on carriers special duties that do not exist under the antitrust laws and compels them to take actions firms in an unregulated environment would not undertake. Antitrust laws serve a different function. They protect competition by preventing firms from entering into agreements that prevent or restrain competition. They also prevent firms from unlawfully obtaining monopoly power or unlawfully extending existing monopolies into new lines of business. There should be no confusion about the differences in these laws or the roles they play in bringing the benefits of competition to American consumers. These laws are compatible and complementary for two reasons. First, they promote the same goal: vigorous competition in the marketplace. Second, to the extent that any potential inconsistencies may arise in the administration of these laws, antitrust courts resolve them through well-established antitrust doctrines recognizing that general antitrust laws will not be enforced in a manner that undermines the requirements of regulatory laws crafted to deal with specific industry situations. This savings clause does not repeal any portion of the antitrust laws or antitrust doctrines adopted by the courts under those laws. Neither this Act nor the 1996 Act change the manner in which the antitrust laws are enforced by antitrust enforcement agencies and courts. Rights, duties and remedies under the antitrust laws are preserved and not diminished in any way. Also preserved are the traditional antitrust defenses, exemptions, and immunities crafted by the courts to balance antitrust and regulatory objectives for more than 100 years. This savings clause does not overrule any portion of the Seventh Circuit decision in the Goldwasser case. This savings clause is fully consistent with the learned opinion in that case. By not modifying antitrust laws, rights, remedies, defenses, exemptions, immunities, and procedures, we make it plain that antitrust courts should continue to do what they have always done--manage potential conflicts between the administration of antitrust and regulatory laws on a case-by-case basis with due regard for the intent of Congress in establishing specific regulatory processes. This savings clause achieves that effect.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. They would like to delay or postpone it.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As I said, we have got to revitalize this economy. Tax cuts stimulate the economy, get the economy moving. They create jobs. President Bush said it best when he said, the bottom line is jobs, creating good jobs. Baby boomers, to protect their retirement, they need to be working; they need to be paying into their retirement accounts, not drawing unemployment checks. We have got a delay over in the Senate of the economic stimulus package that is being obstructed. Now it has actually been killed. We lost 300,000 jobs this last month while the Senate failed to act. Now these same people who killed the economic stimulus package want to kill the tax cut. We know in Washington that if you want to kill something, you simply postpone it or delay it. That is Washington-talk for kill it. We all know that if these taxes do not go into effect that taxpayers, American people will be paying more out of their pay check. I will close simply by saying this. There will be a vote in a few minutes on whether we preserve the tax cuts, whether that money stays in the pocket of hardworking Americans or whether we bring it up here and spend it. We will all have a say. We will all take a position. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. BACHUS. Yes. I will be glad to supply the gentleman with all of that information.

Mr. BACHUS. From CBO, Congressional Budget Office.

Mr. BACHUS. Well, this is from CBO, and what it says is that 87 percent of the deficit is because of the economic conditions are spending, spending, only 13 percent as a result of tax relief.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we made a commitment to the American people to give them tax relief. Let us honor that commitment. The American people should get the tax cuts that they have been promised. We should not postpone them, we should not delay them. We are all going to have an opportunity in a few minutes to affirm those tax cuts. The gentleman from Texas says no one in this body has proposed delaying them, no one has proposed postponing them. We will get an opportunity to vote, yes or no. I say the American people should get the tax relief they need. Now, the gentleman from New York who is rising said, tax matters are before the Committee on Ways and Means. They ought to have jurisdiction in that. They ought to have an interest in that. They ought to decide that.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I say that the Congress ought to decide.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I hope my time will be extended.

Mr. BACHUS. No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. BACHUS. Now, Mr. Speaker, the passage of President Bush's tax cut.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, the passage of President Bush's tax cut was an historic bipartisan achievement. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, President Bush's historic tax cut was a bipartisan achievement. Only three times since World War II have we had an across-the-board tax cut. The first one was in 1960 under President Kennedy, then under President Reagan in 1980, and finally, last fall, under President Bush. Yes, people are talking about delaying that. People are talking about postponing that. This is a joint resolution. Hopefully, the Members will support those tax cuts we gave, and among them are marriage penalty relief, the elimination of the death tax, and across-the-board income tax cuts. We left no one out. We doubled the per-child tax credit. Hopefully, we will all stand up and be recorded, because the American people deserve to know where each and every Member of this House and this Senate stands. They deserve a recorded vote. I say this: This resolution is plain and simple. It affirms our support for the tax cut. It says that it should not be repealed or delayed. If my colleagues want to repeal them, if they want to delay them, if they want to raise taxes, vote against the resolution. The second thing, we have to revitalize our economy. Now, there has been a lot of talk about Social Security. Well, let me state this: The best way to ensure and to protect Social Security, which we all want, is to stimulate our economy. OMB Director Mitch Daniels said to the Committee on the Budget, the best way to protect the baby boomer generation and Social Security retirement is economic growth. We have to get the economy going. Couple that with Social Security system reforms. If we are serious about Social Security, let us reform Social Security. Let us get the economy growing. We have had lost 800,000 jobs in the last 4 months because we had not passed an economic stimulus plan. Now, some in Congress have tried to maneuver and scheme for political advantage by blaming the President's tax relief plan for the deficit and recession. I am glad that the gentleman from Texas finally acknowledged that the tax cuts had nothing to do with deficits. Those that say they do are not telling the truth. These tax supporters try to sell the myth that we must increase taxes just 6 months after we started giving Americans rebate checks. The ink on this new tax relief bill is hardly dry, and now people are talking about repealing it.

Mr. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Members in the minority do not have any problem debating this issue. They do not mind talking about postponing or delaying the tax cuts. They do not mind speaking out and blaming the tax cuts for all sorts of evil, but they do not want to vote. They do not want to take a position. That is all we are going to do, just take a vote and let everybody be counted. Now, last night in a kind of bomb blast against this resolution, there was a Member of the minority that said this country ran a surplus for 200 years and now we are in a deficit and it is no time to reduce taxes. Well, let me remind all of the Members that this country, while it was running a surplus, had a tax rate of half of what it is today. We have actually increased taxes by a greater extent than when we had a surplus. And all those tax increases have only resulted in more spending, that is what they have resulted in. They did not get us to a surplus until we cut spending; and we went into a surplus not by raising taxes but by cutting the rate of spending. And if Members are opposed to, if Members want to delay these tax cuts, if Members want to postpone these tax cuts, then vote no on this resolution. But as far as I am concerned, when Congress makes a commitment to give American people tax relief, they ought to honor that commitment. To put it plainly, the American people should get the tax cuts they were promised. Americans should have the relief they need now. Passage of President Bush's tax cuts, and the ink is barely dry on them. It has just been a few months. And that was a historic bipartisan effort, a historic bipartisan effort. Only three times since World War II has this Congress passed across-the-board tax cuts. The first time was President Kennedy in the 60's. The second time was President Reagan in the '80's, and now George W. Bush's tax cut that we just passed. And already, already we are saying we are blaming those tax cuts on the disappearance of the surplus. We are blaming them for that. And as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) said, spending accounts for 16 percent of it; 72 percent of it was caused by economic conditions. We need to stimulate the economy. We need tax cuts to stimulate the economy, to cause growth, to increase tax revenues. We do not need to be increasing taxes. Now, someone said we are just postponing and delaying the tax cuts. That does not result in a tax increase to anyone. Why, obviously, it does. The American people know that it does. When we postpone marriage penalty relief, people continue to pay a marriage penalty. Their taxes are more because the marriage penalty continues to be paid. Now, most of us in this body think that the marriage penalty is unfair, that we ought to repeal it. We voted to do just that. Yet, now Members are saying, well, we ought to delay the marriage penalty relief. Across-the-board income tax reduction. People got $300 and they got $600 back, and they said, this is great. The government trusts us to spend our own money. Instead of them spending it, we are getting to spend it. Now there are some in this body that said we should not do that. We should not continue that. They are saying we can spend this money. We can make better decisions than the American people. I say put that money in the pockets of hardworking Americans; let them spend that money, whether it is $300 or $600. Actually it is $1,700 when these tax cuts take effect. How about doubling of the per child tax credit? If we delay that, then people do not get that, and their taxes go back up where they would have gone down. We are talking about hundreds of dollars per American family. I call that a tax increase. If we want to vote to postpone, if we want to delay these tax cuts, get out here and vote for it. The American people deserve to know how every Member of the House and every Senator feels on this issue. Let us quit obstructing this.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, we can curtail spending. We do not have to rob Social Security.

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. They are talking about Social Security and throwing out all these things, throwing out numbers. The bottom line is this: If my colleagues want a tax increase, then submit a bill, submit legislation, and tell the American people where they stand. What I have done, what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) has done, we have submitted legislation to let the American people know where we stand, where everyone in this House and the Senate stands. Be honest. Submit legislation and increase taxes. We will have a vote on that. The best way to ensure that we protect Social Security, which is what we all want, is to stimulate the economy. OMB Director Mitch Daniels testified yesterday before the House Committee on the Budget, and that is what he said. The sooner we return to economic growth, the better we can protect Social Security. That was his message. A few hours later, the Senate killed the stimulus package. The way to get economic growth is to stick with President Bush's tax relief. Raising taxes or postponing or delaying the President's tax relief is a sure way to destroy this economy, that and obstructing an economic stimulus bill. That is how we will destroy Social Security, by driving up taxes and keeping spending high. We have made a commitment to the American people to give them tax relief they need. We must keep that commitment. Cutting taxes is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do for families who are struggling from paycheck to paycheck. We need to get this economy going. We need to create jobs. They do not want unemployment checks. They would much rather have a payroll check. Let us give them tax relief, let us resurrect that economic stimulus package. We lost 300,000 jobs last month through inactivity and 800,000 jobs since this House passed an economic stimulus package. Mr. Speaker, let us give the American people relief. Let us stimulate this economy. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question for H. Res. __ Providing for Consideration of Motions to Suspend the Rules At the appropriate place in the resolution strike ``(1)'' and all that follows through ``repealed.'' and insert in lieu thereof: ``(1) A bill to establish a procedure to safeguard the surpluses of the Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance trust funds printed in section 2 of this resolution.'' At the end of the resolution insert the following new section: ``Sec. 2. The text of the bill is as follows: Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,