[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 77 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H3671-H3681]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GRANTING AUTHORITY TO COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR FOR PURPOSES OF
ITS INVESTIGATION INTO UNDERGROUND COAL MINING SAFETY
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1363 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1363
Resolved, That the Committee on Education and Labor is
granted the authority provided under clause 4(c)(3) of rule X
of the Rules of the House of Representatives in furtherance
of the investigation by such committee into underground coal
mine operator compliance with the Federal Mine Safety and
Health Act of 1977, as amended, and into other related
matters.
Sec. 2. (a) The chair of the Committee on Education and
Labor shall transmit to the Committee on Rules, not later
than 2 days following an adjournment sine die of the second
session of the 111th Congress, or January 2, 2011, whichever
occurs first, a report on the activities of the Committee on
Education and Labor undertaken pursuant to this resolution.
Such report shall indicate--
(1) the total number of depositions taken;
(2) the number of depositions taken pursuant to subpoenas;
and
(3) the name of each deponent that the committee has
publicly identified by name as a deponent.
(b) Upon receipt of the report described in subsection (a)
by the Committee on Rules, the chair of the Committee on
Rules shall submit such report for publication in the
Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).
All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5
legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material into the Congressional Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides the Committee on Education and
Labor with deposition authority in connection with its investigation of
underground mine safety. The resolution also requires the Education and
Labor Committee to report to the Rules Committee on its use of the
authority by the end of this congressional session.
{time} 1430
Mr. Speaker, we're here today with a pretty straightforward mission.
We want to empower the men and women who are investigating the causes
of the serious safety problems facing miners in America.
As we saw recently with the terrible disaster at Upper Big Branch
Mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia, there's some combination of
industrial wrongdoing there and inadequate regulation that we must
address. The explosion at Upper Big Branch in April killed 29 coal
miners, ripped apart an entire community and State, and was the worst
mine disaster in this country since 1970.
Why is Congress involved? Because one of our most serious
responsibilities as lawmakers is oversight and investigation. And from
what we've been able to tell from the facts so far, there is an urgent
and compelling need for the public to know all the facts surrounding
this and other recent mining tragedies.
I come to this issue with a personal feeling. Many of my constituents
back home and some here know that I was born in Harlan County,
Kentucky, in the midst of some of the best bituminous coal on Earth.
Some of my earliest memories are hearing the whistle blow at night over
at the mine. Even the smallest child, as I was then, knew what that
whistle meant. It meant serious trouble at the mine.
The pain and suffering endured by miners in Kentucky and West
Virginia and everyplace else should inspire us to do everything in our
power to make this dangerous and volatile work environment as safe as
we possibly can. The bottom line should never supersede a human life.
The resolution before us today would give the House Committee on
Education and Labor staff authority to take depositions as they pursue
their investigation. We know that greater review of this issue is
sorely needed. There are far too many unanswered questions surrounding
underground coal mine operator compliance with the Federal Mine Safety
and Health Act, and the safety of every single miner in this country
depends on answering those questions.
Getting to the truth on mining safety is not a partisan issue, and
empowering staff to get the truth is in everyone's interest. Granting a
committee this sort of authority is not without precedent. In numerous
times over the years, Congress has approved resolutions such as this to
provide temporary powers to committees trying to get at the truth. And
every piece of information that comes from the questioning will be
obtained by and shared with members of the committee from both parties.
The House gave the Education and Labor Committee similar authority
during a probe into a mining accident just a few years ago. It was in
the 110th Congress that the Education and Labor Committee was given
staff deposition authority in their 2007-2008 investigation into the
deaths of nine miners and rescue workers at the Crandall Canyon Mine
near Huntington, Utah. That led to strengthening mine safety with laws
that may be too lax in enforcement.
Among the issues the committee wishes to delve into is the growth of
the number of mine safety enforcement cases that are pending before the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The Commission is
meant to serve as an independent agency that provides administrative
trial and appellate review to contested citations, penalties, and
worker retaliation cases.
In reality, though, the increased enforcement and tougher penalties
that followed several high-profile mine accidents in 2005 and 2006 has
swamped the Commission. Mine owners have tripled the number of
violations that they appeal, and they contest 67 percent of all
penalties that are assessed. As a result, the government is facing a
lengthy backlog of cases at the Commission that has surged from 2,100
in 2006 to approximately 16,000 in February of this year.
This deposition power for the committee will help to prod reluctant
witnesses who have important insight into this issue but might
otherwise not be willing to offer testimony. This is an important tool,
and I urge my colleagues to rise and support me on this plan here
today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something that is somewhat
unusual. I would like to, as I did
[[Page H3672]]
in the Rules Committee yesterday, associate myself completely with
everything that has been said by the distinguished chair of the
Committee on Rules.
As I said yesterday in the Rules Committee, it's difficult to fathom
the challenge that a young person would go through, as she did, hearing
that whistle and knowing that there was difficulty ahead and the threat
of the loss of life. And that's the reason that we are very proud to
stand here, having had an exchange with Mr. Miller--and I see Mr.
Rahall here, who obviously has suffered greatly through this; Mrs.
Capito is here as well--to say that we would have been extraordinarily
proud, Mr. Speaker, to have done this instantaneously under a unanimous
consent agreement. Mr. Kline would have agreed to that.
In our exchange with Chairman Miller yesterday, we talked about the
important rights of the minority, the fact that we are simply expanding
authority that already does exist, but it is very important that we do
this. That tragedy with the loss of those 29 lives is something that
is--we have got to remain committed in a bipartisan way to ensure we
have adequate oversight to ensure that it never, ever happens again.
We know that a hearing has taken place in the Senate today, and
serious questions have come to the forefront.
And I will say, Mr. Speaker, that we were privileged to approach the
majority and say that there was no reason for us to be here, no reason
for us to be here, because we would have granted unanimous consent and
we would not have taken this time of the House of Representatives to
consider this measure.
And so the only thing that I'm in disagreement with is the fact that
we are taking the time of the House to do this. And so it's for that
reason, Mr. Speaker, that I'm going to move to defeat the previous
question. I'm going to move to defeat the previous question, not so
that we, in any way, would undermine this very important authority that
the Committee on Education and Labor is going to have, but to enhance
this and get us back to an issue which I think is very near and dear to
the American people since we've all agreed that this kind of authority,
Democrats and Republicans alike, is essential. We believe that if we
can defeat the previous question, we will have the opportunity to take
on the issue of deficit spending, which has been incredibly painful all
the way around.
Just today, when I last looked earlier today, the Dow Jones
Industrial Average was down over 350 points. I saw it had come back a
little. But we are dealing with at least a 3-month low on the Dow now.
And then we saw the numbers this morning on the dramatic increase in
the jobless claims, 417,000. We are going through difficult times. We
all know that. And it is essential that we do everything in our power
to rein in massive Federal spending, which we believe, and I believe
the American people by and large believe, has exacerbated rather than
ameliorated the economic challenges that we're facing.
Americans are tired of the reckless spending, and they're outraged,
Mr. Speaker, by the lack of accountability, and deeply concerned about
the consequences of our fledgling economic recovery, now and for future
generations as well.
After months and months of countless phone calls, emails, letters,
town hall meetings, the American people are asking themselves, Why
won't Washington listen? Why is our demand for fiscal responsibility
not getting through? Why is the majority refusing, for the first time
in modern Congressional history, to not even consider a budget?
My answer to them is that some of us, Mr. Speaker, some of us are
getting the message from the American people very loudly and clearly.
The Democratic majority might refuse to listen, but Republicans are
serious about the issue of reining in spending. Though we've been
barred by the majority from making significant reforms, we're using
every tool at our disposal to force some accountability into the
spending process.
One such effort is what we are calling the YouCut project, Y-O-U-C-U-
T, which was launched last week on the Republican whip's Web site.
Americans had the opportunity to voice their opinion on five specific
spending cuts, and nearly 300,000 votes were cast, people making their
thoughts known. Nearly 300,000. The proposed cuts, among those five,
that drew the most votes was a welfare program that was expanded in the
so-called economic stimulus bill without including any requirements
that able-bodied recipients return to work. It was a concept that came
forward by our friends, Messrs. Price and Jordan, who've worked long
and hard on this.
Now, Mr. Speaker, common sense dictates that an era of fiscal crisis
is no time for creating an open-ended welfare program. Cutting this
program will save taxpayers $2.5 billion. And today, we're going to
hold the Democratic majority's feet to the fire and demand a vote on
this spending cut.
Again, Mr. Speaker, let me say that today, when we vote on the
previous question, members of both political parties will have the
opportunity to state very clearly whether they are in the camp of
fiscal discipline, reining in the size and scope and reach of the
Federal Government, or continuing down the path of reckless spending.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue this YouCut program in the
weeks ahead. Every single week Americans will have the opportunity to
vote for the spending cut that they'd like to see most, and every week
Republicans will demand a vote on the winning cut.
Can we eliminate the deficit in one fell swoop? Absolutely not.
Everybody knows that we can't do that. Anyone who's ever had to take
responsibility for a budget knows that no magic wand will fix the
problem. It takes very hard choices, one cut at a time. But with
discipline and perseverance, we can restore fiscal accountability here
in Washington.
The Democratic majority has made it clear that, left to their own
devices, they will continue to spend our Nation into insolvency. And
we've seen a projection that just came out: the notion of our national
debt being 110 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product within
the next 5 years, extraordinarily troubling, based on the path that
we're on today.
They've put up every conceivable roadblock so far, Mr. Speaker, to
accountability, but they're not going to be able to sidestep today's
vote. We're ensuring that 300,000 American voices are being heard.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who cares about spending in Washington will have
the opportunity to see how their Representative voted, and they'll
continue to have that opportunity week after week as the YouCut program
goes forward.
Now, there are a number of tactics that can be employed to prevent
fiscal accountability, and the Democratic majority has tried them all.
But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, the will of the American people will find
a way around the roadblocks and their voices will be heard. We are
determined to make sure that the voices of the American people are
heard here on the floor of the people's House.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question
so that Members of this body will have the chance to take on the issue
of fiscal discipline and accountability and support the Price-Jordan
measure, which will finally bring us the kind of responsibility we need
to our Nation's welfare program.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chair of the Rules
Committee for yielding to me, and I certainly want to commend her for
bringing this resolution to the floor and for the manner in which she
has spoken from personal knowledge of the troubles and trials and
tribulations, that is, that we go through in coal country, as she hails
from coal country herself.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to commend, as well, the chairman of our
Education and Labor Committee, Mr. George Miller, within whose
jurisdiction the Mine Safety Health Administration resides. Mr. Miller
is certainly a true champion of our coal miners and one who has coal
mine health and safety deep in his bones. He will be traveling to our
district in southern West Virginia on Monday to have a hearing to
[[Page H3673]]
listen to family members or those who lost loved ones at UBB in that
horrific tragedy on April 5.
{time} 1445
I also wish to commend the House of Representatives in a bipartisan
fashion for the very swift action in which the House passed a
resolution after this tragedy commending those 29 fallen miners and
expressing condolences to their families. We continue to work with the
family members to help them through what is a difficult process known
as healing and trying to get by in life now without their loved ones.
This resolution is to grant the Committee on Education and Labor
deposition authority as part of the committee's oversight activities
relating to coal mine health and safety. While I am not a member of the
Education and Labor Committee, the disaster which took place on April 5
at the Upper Big Branch mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia, claiming
the lives of 29 men, occurred in the congressional district of which I
am honored to represent.
This resolution reflects the seriousness with which the House of
Representatives takes the issue of coal mine health and safety, the
loss of these 29 brave souls, and the grief of their families and
friends.
The UBB mine disaster was the worst in our Nation, as the gentlelady
from New York, the chair of the Rules Committee, has stated, the worst
disaster in our coal mines in our Nation since 1970.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. It follows in the wake of the Sago mine disaster in 2006,
which claimed 12 lives; the Darby mine disaster was also in 2006, which
claimed 12 lives; and Crandall Canyon mine disaster in 2007, which
claimed nine lives. While Congress responded in 2006, again under the
very capable leadership of the Education and Labor Committee chairman,
Mr. Miller, with the enactment of what is referred to as the MINER Act,
the focus then was on emergency response.
In the wake of the UBB disaster, it is now entirely appropriate that
we investigate coal mine health and safety matters further. And the
committee on Education and Labor is the appropriate forum for that to
take place.
I again commend Chairman George Miller and his ranking member, Mr.
John Kline, for pursuing a responsible course in the conduct of this,
their oversight responsibilities. I do urge the adoption of the
resolution. And I would note and thank the ranking member of the Rules
Committee, Mr. Dreier, as well for the bipartisan support that he and
members of the Rules Committee and on the minority side are giving this
particular resolution, although they are trying to of course hijack it
for other purposes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend for his very
thoughtful remarks and say again how horribly we all feel about the
tragedy that he and Mrs. Capito and others from his State have
suffered. And once again, we totally agree with exactly what it is we
are attempting to do here.
With that, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to our distinguished
Republican whip, who has launched the YouCut item on his Web site, Mr.
Cantor.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from California.
I would just like to follow up on the remarks that we, too, would
tell the gentleman from West Virginia, we agree entirely with the
thrust of his remarks and express our sorrow for the folks of West
Virginia who have experienced such a tragic loss.
I would say again, the ranking member on the Rules Committee has
indicated already that we could have already embarked upon the effort
that the gentleman from West Virginia and the lady from New York speak
about because we did offer unanimous consent on this. So we are in
total agreement there. However, I will rise in opposition to the
previous question.
Mr. Speaker, for the millions of Americans demanding accountability
for the culture of reckless runaway spending in Washington, meet
YouCut. At a time when approval of congressional spending has reached
its lowest ebb, this first-of-its-kind initiative empowers taxpayers
with the ability to contribute directly to a new culture of savings in
our Nation's capital.
Each week the public votes on one of five wasteful spending items
that they would like to strip from the Federal budget. Once the votes
are tallied, the House will vote on whether or not to cut the winning
provision from the Federal balance sheet.
Within 5 days of the experiment, over 280,000 Americans cast their
vote either online or by text message. That's a rate, Mr. Speaker, of
more than 2,000 votes per hour, with less than 1 percent of the votes
originating from inside the Beltway, I might add. The overwhelming
response speaks to the extreme frustration taxpayers feel toward a
Congress that refuses to listen to them.
Make no mistake: America is at a critical crossroads. The American
people are tired of the spending binges. They look across the Atlantic
and see Europe collapsing under the weight of its debt. With our own
deficit swelling, it's only natural to fear that we are heading down
the same road to ruin.
YouCut is not a political venture. It is about shifting the pendulum
in Washington back towards the direction of saving money. Rooting out
unnecessary spending should be a bipartisan endeavor. This week the
House has considered two bills to name a post office and a Federal
building, 11 resolutions honoring different individuals, sports teams,
or causes, including even recognizing Craft Beer Week. We have
considered bills to spend more money and create new programs.
Mr. Speaker, what we have not considered is a single bill to reduce
spending. Unfortunately, this is a pretty typical week. Today we have a
chance to change that. During the first week of YouCut, a plurality of
voters chose to axe a recently created $2.5 billion annual welfare
program that undercuts cost-saving welfare reforms made in 1996 by a
Republican Congress and a Democratic President. It was bipartisan
reform. This new program undermines those reforms.
While it was just created last year, the reports of waste and fraud
are already trickling in: perverse incentives for States to increase
welfare caseloads, reports of cash being given out to welfare
recipients that is then used to buy flat-screen TVs, iPods, and video
gaming systems. Enough is enough.
To put it simply, even when the funds are not being so extravagantly
wasted, we cannot afford this program. The American people understand
this. That is why they asked us to vote on this proposal to terminate
this program and to use that money to reduce the deficit. This previous
question vote is the vote to do just that.
Today, over a quarter-million Americans will get to see whether their
Representatives in Congress share their specific fiscal priorities. I
urge my colleagues to listen to the voice of the people and take up
this vote today and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 7 minutes to the
gentleman from California, the chairman of the Committee on Education
and Labor and a champion of all working people, Mr. Miller.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
chair of the Rules Committee for bringing this rule to the floor of the
House and to thank the ranking member, Mr. Dreier, from California for
his cooperation and support for this resolution. I, too, associate
myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), who probably has more experience and understanding of these
tragedies than any Member who doesn't live in the coal regions of our
country, and has spent a lot of time with myself and others on our
committee discussing these issues of coal mine safety, tragically
throughout the years as we have had one accident after another over
that time.
The resolution that the Rules Committee brings to the House floor
today reflects the seriousness with which Congress takes the issue of
mine safety. Last month we watched the tragic events unfold in the
Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia. The memory of the 29 miners who
lost their lives in that disaster must stand as a reminder of the work
that remains to be done to keep our Nation's miners safe.
There is much to be learned about the disaster at the Upper Big
Branch mine. I have been heartened by the swift and decisive action
taken so far
[[Page H3674]]
by the Department of Labor and the Mine Safety and Health
Administration. I expect their investigations into this particular
tragedy will be comprehensive. The resolution we are discussing today,
however, will be in furtherance of our committee's broader oversight
duties regarding the health and the safety of our Nation's coal miners.
Last year, our committee staff began looking into issues relating to
the backlog of cases at the Federal Mine Safety Review Commission. This
commission and its administrative law judges hear mine operators'
contests of the citations Mine Safety and Health Administration
inspectors issue against the operators. This backlog has potentially
severe ramifications for miners' safety.
The backlog has prevented MSHA from placing mines on what is called a
pattern of violations because so many of those mine citations remain
bound up in the litigation. Because of this increased scrutiny it would
bring, mines warned by MSHA that they are about to be designated as
having a potential pattern of violations generally significantly
improve their mine safety record. But the mine owners have figured out
a way to game that system, and therefore, the miners and their families
are robbed of this very powerful tool that would ensure greater safety
of their workplace and perhaps avoid some of the tragedies that we have
just witnessed.
In February, our committee explored a recent uptick in the citation
contests and how it might ultimately affect safety in the mines. In the
wake of the Upper Big Branch mine disaster and our hearings on mine
operator citation appeals and backlogs, I am deeply concerned about
what coal mining conglomerates have done to encourage or discourage
safe mining practices. That is why I believe that our committee's
oversight responsibility would benefit from the authority to hold and
compel witnesses' attendance at depositions.
Deposition authority is a powerful tool for many investigations, but
some investigations would particularly benefit from the tool. Last
Congress, Congress granted the committee deposition authority in our
investigation of the Crandall Canyon mine disaster in Utah. This
successful investigation led to a criminal referral to the Department
of Justice, in large part because of the evidence that our staff
obtained in those depositions. I understand that the Department of
Justice continues to investigate our referral.
I believe that the deposition authority is equally justified in this
case. A deposition can serve as an intermediate step between a full
public hearing, an executive session, and informal staff interviews. It
creates a formal record; yet it allows us to explore issues in a more
sustained manner than would be practical at a hearing. Indeed, it
allows us to realize that the potential witness does not have the
knowledge of particular issues to justify calling them at a hearing.
It was because of the usefulness of this investigative tool that our
committee this Congress approved the committee rules package to include
deposition procedural rules. We wanted to build on our successes and
our execution of the deposition authority granted last Congress, and we
wanted to be ready should the circumstances justify seeking the
authority again. Unfortunately, the tragic deaths at Upper Big Branch
have again highlighted the importance of our investigative work on mine
safety and that our committee again investigate the issues related to
mine safety.
The committee's deposition rule respects and affirms the rights of
those individuals being deposed and respects the rights of the minority
on our committee. It has been worked out with the minority on our
committee. It is the result of a bipartisan process began last Congress
and reaffirmed with the adoption of our committee rules this Congress.
We have used the tool sparingly and effectively in the past, and I
assure the committee that we will use it sparingly and effectively in
this investigation.
Next week, my committee will be conducting a field hearing in West
Virginia with Congressman Rahall. We will be hearing from the families
of the victims of the Upper Big Branch mine explosion. Just as we made
sure to hear from the families of Sago and the Crandall Canyon, we will
hear the concerns of these families. With every such hearing we pledge
to the families to never turn a deaf ear to their concerns, their
knowledge, to make sure that mining is safer. I intend to keep that
pledge, and the resolution before us is part of keeping that pledge.
Again, I want to thank the ranking Republican on our committee,
Congressman Kline, and his staff who worked closely and effectively
with me and my staff in framing the deposition rules and in framing our
future investigations and going before the Rules Committee to ask for
this authority from the Rules Committee.
Again, I want to thank the chair and the ranking member for bringing
this matter to the floor and thank Congressman Rahall for his support
for our committee having this authority.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my friend from California (Mr.
George Miller) for his thoughtful remarks.
At this time, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Charleston, West Virginia, who clearly has suffered greatly through
this extraordinary tragedy, Mrs. Capito.
Mrs. CAPITO. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me
time.
I understand that there is no controversy really on this underlying
resolution. I wish we could have done this, and I think we could have
done it several days earlier to get started on this under unanimous
consent. So I wish that was the direction that we had gone.
But as we have said, on April 5, 2010, an explosion occurred at the
Upper Big Branch mine in West Virginia, killing 29 miners. And our
hearts and prayers still are with the families and with the communities
who have suffered greatly. This disaster was the worst mine disaster in
West Virginia and the third mining disaster over the last 4 years. In
2006 in my district, 13 coal miners were trapped for nearly 2 hours at
the Sago mine, and one miner miraculously survived.
I agree, my colleagues, that Congress has a very important oversight
role to ensure that the laws are properly executed and to prevent
future mining accidents. There must be a thorough investigation by
Congress to determine whether the executive branch agencies charged
with protecting miners are performing their job and whether changes
need to be made to ensure that those agencies fulfill their obligations
to the miners, their families, and the public.
{time} 1500
Also, the Congress needs to have a thorough investigation into the
company practices and whether safety is the top priority and the one
priority first considered whenever beginning or starting to pursue coal
mining and while it's in operation. Congress, however, must be wary not
to compromise the integrity of any future or pending investigations and
potentially jeopardize the executive branch's ability to enforce and
hold violators accountable.
Keeping our miners safe requires all of us to work together to
prevent mine disasters from happening in the first place. I support
this rule, and I vow to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure
the safety and health of all miners.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California, the Chair of the Workforce Protection Committee, Ms.
Woolsey.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for
allowing me this time, and I appreciate the cooperation we're getting
from both sides of the aisle on this very important issue.
On April 5, 29 miners were killed and two injured in a massive
explosion which ripped through Massey Energy's Upper Big Branch mine in
Montcoal, West Virginia. It was a shock to all of us. Unfortunately
since then, there have been two other mine accidents, one in Kentucky
and another in West Virginia, that have resulted in even more
fatalities.
The explosion at the Upper Big Branch mine was the worst mine
accident since 1970 when 38 miners were killed in an explosion at a
mine in Kentucky.
We are now, Mr. Speaker, in the 21st century, and there is absolutely
no excuse for these tragedies. There are ongoing investigations into
the explosion
[[Page H3675]]
at the Upper Big Branch mine so we don't yet know exactly what caused
this blast, but we do know that Massey Energy has a long, long history
of health and safety violations at this mine and others of theirs and
that it has received hundreds--not a few--but hundreds of citations
before the blast occurred.
This tragedy and the conduct of this mine owner towards the safety of
its workers further highlight the need for the Education and Labor
Committee to fully perform oversight functions. We owe this much to the
families of the fallen miners and to those miners who go to work each
and every day so that they can come home safely to their families every
night.
The deposition authority provided by this resolution, which is the
product of a bipartisan agreement, as we all know, is a vital tool for
the committee, and I urge passage of this resolution by every Member of
the House of Representatives.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 3 minutes
to the coauthor of the very important issue that's going to bring back
accountability to welfare, the gentleman from Roswell, Georgia (Mr.
Price).
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
We all are strongly sympathetic and unanimously support the
underlying resolution, and our thoughts and prayers go out to the
victims and the families of all mine disasters.
We should take this as an opportunity, however, Mr. Speaker, to
unanimously decrease spending. Everybody across this land knows that
Washington spends too much and it borrows too much and it taxes too
much. Washington has grown fat on bloated, wasteful spending for far
too long. It's collapsing our fiscal house; it's jeopardizing our kids'
and our grandkids' future; and it is undermining our economy. And it's
high time that we put the Federal Government on a diet, and that can
begin today.
With the YouCut program, Republicans are partnering with the American
people to restore fiscal sanity. This is a unique initiative where we
are asking the American people to help prioritize which special-
interest handouts and other wasteful spending they want to target for
elimination. This YouCut initiative combines two crucial components of
commonsense governing: listening to the people and cutting waste from
government spending.
So I'm grateful for the huge participation that we have already seen,
over 281,000 votes cast, of which less than 1 percent are from the
District of Columbia. So Americans all across this land are
participating.
The spending reduction that Representative Jordan and I proposed
received more than 81,000 votes. We identified, and America supported
the repeal, of a $2.5 billion-per-year program that has gutted the
positive bipartisan welfare reforms of the 1990s.
As part of their failed stimulus package, Democrats added a new
program to incentivize States to increase, yes increase, Mr. Speaker,
their welfare caseloads without requiring work from those able to work
or get job training or make other efforts to move off taxpayer
assistance. Welfare reform was one of the most important bipartisan
achievements of the last two decades, and it's been terribly undermined
by this little-noticed provision.
So rather than take our Nation backwards, we need to vote today to
restore welfare reform by refocusing temporary assistance on people
getting back on their feet as quickly as possible. So I hope that our
Democrat colleagues will follow our lead and, yes, the lead of the
American people in working together to put Washington's fiscal house
back in order.
Mr. Speaker, we have tried to partner with our Democrat colleagues to
rein in wasteful spending; but their help in this matter has not,
frankly, been forthcoming. In fact, they have chosen to explode the
annual deficits to over a trillion dollars and add costly new
government mandates and tax hikes that stand in the way of job
creation.
So let's start today, together, to begin the job of getting our
Nation back on track. Vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote for
fiscal responsibility.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey, a member of the Education and Labor
Committee, Mr. Holt.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady, the chair of the Rules
Committee.
I rise in support of H. Res. 1363, which gives the Committee on
Education and Labor, on which I sit, the ability to investigate the
Upper Big Branch mine disaster. This resolution allows us to do our
work, and I would like to speak about that subject.
In a greater sense, this resolution honors the coal miners who
perished in the tragedy and works to ensure that such a tragedy never
happens again. We owe it to the remaining families and to all mining
families.
I feel strongly and personally about the concerns of miners because I
was born and reared in West Virginia where my father, the late U.S.
Senator many decades ago, was known as one of the best friends the
miner has ever had.
There's no question that mining has been a dangerous job. Although
the number of deaths in America's mines has been reduced, today coal
mining is rated still among the most dangerous jobs in America, and it
does not have to be that way.
I support the Education and Labor Committee's work to investigate any
possible health and safety violations at Upper Big Branch and to see if
laws were circumvented and miners' lives were put recklessly at risk.
Those responsible must be held accountable.
Too many families have suffered the loss of a loved one in a mining
disaster. We in Congress need to investigate fully the factors that led
to these tragedies. We need to investigate fully the deficiencies in
laws, regulations, and enforcement that may have contributed. We owe it
to the families of the miners lost and the miners who work every day to
take action.
We must prevent these accidents from happening again, and I urge my
colleagues to support H. Res. 1363.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to a hardworking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, the
gentleman from Duluth, Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my sincere sorrow to the
families of those who were killed or wounded in that accident and all
mine accidents and remind our friends that this could have been done on
unanimous consent without a rule, but since the rule is here, I rise in
support of defeating the previous question to the rule so that we can
consider Mr. Price's motion
The 1996 Republican welfare reform successfully reduced welfare
dependence and poverty and increased work and earnings. But despite
that success, opponents have spent years trying to undermine welfare
reform. They saw a new opening in the Democrats' 2009 stimulus law. In
that trillion-dollar bill, they created a new $5 billion welfare
emergency fund designed to promote welfare dependence all over again.
The new fund pays States if they increase welfare caseloads, among
other outcomes. States have been less than eager to collect. By mid-
May, less than half, $2.4 billion, had actually been claimed by States.
Only three States received full shares. You know something is wrong
when the Federal Government has trouble giving away money.
Mr. Price's motion would end this program right here and right now.
And that is the right policy for a program that should never have been
begun. Just consider how this emergency money has been spent so far.
One of the largest chunks has been spent on something called ``non-
recurrent short-term assistance.'' A program operated in New York last
summer offers an example: New York used these funds to make one-time
$200 payments to welfare and food stamp recipients supposedly for back-
to-school purchases. But that's not how the money was really used. Some
recipients used the money, as CBS News put it, to buy ``flat screen
TVs, iPods, and video gaming systems.'' Convenience stores in low-
income areas noted marked ``increases in beer, lotto, and cigarette
sales.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DREIER. I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. LINDER. ATMs ran out of cash, so now we have no idea how those
funds
[[Page H3676]]
were spent, but I suspect many can guess.
The Subcommittee on Welfare, on which I serve, recently had a hearing
on this fund. One witness noted taxpayers already spend an incredible
$953 billion per year on welfare and other low-income benefits. I asked
the administration witness sent to us is she still asking for more
welfare spending. I said, Is it your testimony that $953 billion is not
enough? Her answer was telling: Who's to say what is enough?
It is time that the American people are saying this is enough and so
should we.
[From the Political Hotsheet, Sept. 2, 2009]
Unplugged Exclusive: Stimulus Funds for School Supplies Misused
(By Sharyl Attkisson)
Getting kids back to school with the clothes and supplies
they need can strain the family budget. That's why the
Governor of New York decided to use federal stimulus funds
for a back-to school program. Needy families got a one-time
payment of $200 dollars per child to buy school supplies. It
adds up to $140 million of your tax dollars.
Neasey Hendricks, single mother of five, says she's putting
the money to good use.
``Definitely sneakers, try to save a little bit for a
haircut, a couple of pairs of pants, some shirts, get the
girls a few skirts,'' Hendricks says.
While few argued with the concept of helping low-income
families, nobody anticipated the chaos that would come next.
On August llth, the state of New York deposited the $140
million in stimulus money into the individual food stamp and
welfare accounts of people on public assistance. Some saw
their balance shoot up by a thousand dollars all at once. The
idea was they would use their regular welfare benefits card,
which acts like a debit card, to buy the school supplies.
There was just one problem. The letter from the state telling
them what the money was for didn't arrive until days later.
By then, it was too late.
``No one questions the intention of this particular
program. However there is an extraordinary distance between
the good intention of the program and the implementation of
the program,'' Monroe County's Commissioner of Health
Services Kelly Reed said on Wednesday's edition of
``Washington Unplugged,'' which first reported the story.
County Executive Maggie Brooks says social workers were
flooded with calls from merchants who were afraid fraud was
being committed.
``We had different retailers calling us and saying people
were coming in with their benefit transaction card, and they
are purchasing flat screen TV's, iPods and video gaming
systems,'' Brooks told CBS News. Brooks doesn't blame the
recipients--she blames the state for not ensuring the funds
were spent for school.
Businessman Josh Babin says the day stimulus money went
into the welfare accounts, business at his Rochester Cell
phone store doubled. And he doesn't sell school supplies.
``Most of them came in, picked up most of their accessories,
most of their products.''
Welfare recipients were also free to withdraw the money as
cash. That led to an unexpected run on ATM's across the
state. Brenda Smith, manager of a Wilson Farms store in
Monroe County, said most of her increase in sales when the
stimulus funds were disbursed were not in school supplies,
but in ``pre-pay cell or credit cards.'' She said her store's
ATM was wiped empty.
Managers of three Wilson Farms convenience stores in
Rochester also reported empty ATM machines and increases in
beer, lotto and cigarette sales.
Managers of four Tops Markets stores in Rochester had
similar stories. On West Avenue, the store's three ATM's were
all depleted by noon on August 11th. ``Large increase in
volume of customers but minimal spoke in sales which were not
in school supplies but rather candy racks at the register,''
stated investigative notes obtained by CBS News. So many
welfare customers were seeking cash back; the stores
implemented a $50.00 cash back limit on-the-spot. At the East
Ridge Road location, the ATM ran out of money on August 11 as
well. ``Numerous clients came in and purchase minimal items
to withdraw the $50.00 limit and then returned to other
cashiers in the store in order to retrieve all the money out
of their account,'' reads investigative notes. And on Upper
Falls Blvd., the Tops Market reported ``500 more customers''
but ``$4,000 less in sales'' than usual. Also, ATM's
containing $60,000 were entirely depleted.
On ``Unplugged'' Reed said one recipient ``had $1000
dollars on their card and jumped over a period of a few
minutes over eighteen lines in a Tops store buying something
for forty nine cents for two dollars for fifty cents and
getting fifty dollars back in cash,'' each time.
ATM's were also wiped out in hours at many Wegman's stores
statewide and the owner of a Sunoco station described
``scenes of panic'' at her store, with public assistance
customers flooding her ATM machine. Some of them, she says,
immediately used the cash to buy cigarettes and beer.
Monroe County investigators sampled the accounts of more
than 70 drug and alcohol rehabilitation clients and found
more than half of them withdrew their back-to-stimulus funds
entirely in cash.
New York Congressman Eric Massa (D-NY) supports the
stimulus bill, but said this program is flawed. ``It's a
matter of accountability,'' Massa said. ``Ensuring what's
happening with the funding. You and I both know where there's
crevices, the water will go through those crevices.''
New York State officials defend the stimulus program saying
no matter what welfare recipients purchased with the taxpayer
funds, it served to stimulate the economy. State spokesman
for the program, Kristen Proud said it stimulated the
economy. Supporters accuse critics of making unfair
stereotypes about welfare recipients. ``We have as many
examples of families using the dollars for school clothes,
school uniforms, school supplies,'' Proud said when asked
about reports of luxury items being purchased with the back-
to-school stimulus funds.
In Rochester, the Rev. Marlowe V.N. Washington, Pastor of
the Baber African Methodist Episcopal Church, contacted CBS
News to say that hundreds of grateful local residents have
been helped by the back-to-school funds, and that it's unfair
for anyone to assume they didn't spend the money on school
supplies. ``That is offensive, attacking and mean spirited,''
Washington told us. ``People need to hear how stimulus funds
have benefited American families and not hurt them.''
We asked the Inspector General on stimulus funds for
comment on this stimulus project. Based on our report, I.G.
spokesman Edward Pound told CBS News that his office has
notified the HHS Inspector General to make sure that agency
is aware of the problem. HHS is the department from which the
back-to-school stimulus funds to New York State originated.
Because debit cards don't list what was bought, state
officials say they'll never know how much of the $140 million
actually went for school supplies. Those who bought luxury
items didn't break any laws, because there were no strings
attached to the money. Little consolation to taxpayers who
were promised that they'd know how every dime of stimulus
funds was spent.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes
to the coauthor of the amendment who's joined Mr. Price in bringing
about welfare accountability, the gentleman from Urbana, Ohio (Mr.
Jordan).
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the people have spoken. They said stop the ridiculous
spending, and with the YouCut proposal, they have said stop the
ridiculous spending which incentivizes the wrong behavior and insults
basic American values. Think about the old welfare system. Think about
what it said in particular to the single mother out there. It said,
Don't get a job, don't get married, have more children, and we will pay
you more money. That's exactly the wrong kind of incentives you want to
send in government policies, but that's exactly where the Democrats'
proposal takes us back to.
Our amendment would change that. Our previous question would change
that.
Democrats want to move back in the wrong direction. We think that
it's completely the wrong way to go, particularly at a time,
particularly at a time when we have a $1.4 trillion deficit, a $12
trillion national debt. It is the wrong thing to do.
You know, one of the things that makes our country so special, one of
the things that makes America the greatest Nation in history is this
simple little concept: parents make sacrifices for their children so
that when they grow up, they have life better than we did. And when
they, in turn, become adults and become parents, they'll do the same
things for their kids. Each generation in this country has done that
for the next.
Now we find ourselves with the policymakers, where the political
class is making decisions that say spend now, focus on the moment, and
send the bill to somebody else. And it is wrong. It is wrong to trap
people in this welfare system. It is wrong to keep spending and
spending. It is wrong for future generations of Americans, and that's
why, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
{time} 1515
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Let's talk about jobs.
My friends on the Republican side of the aisle have completely
forgotten what the subject of today's presentation is, and that's about
mine safety, about protecting the people who are going deep underground
to help fuel this country. They have completely
[[Page H3677]]
forgotten about that. That's not of any interest to them, obviously,
because they want to talk about other things. What they want to come in
here and talk about is completely off topic. They would like America to
continue to be afraid, to continue to be in doom and gloom. That's
their whole argument.
What is happening here--and they would like everybody to forget about
it. Their prescription for this country is mass amnesia. They want to
forget about the fact that under George Bush this country was dropping
into the abyss in terms of jobs.
The last month of George Bush, this country lost 780,000 jobs in that
month alone. Last month, in April, 14 months later, we gained 290,000
jobs. That is a swing of over 1 million jobs a month. In 1 month, a
million-job swing. But, no, they don't want to talk about that. They
want to talk about, Hey, we've got too many problems. We don't want to
put the 8 million people who lost their jobs back to work. We don't
want to take care of them. Okay?
Well, as this country gets back on its feet, its economy starts
booming, it takes care of a lot of what they are talking about in terms
of debt and deficit. But once we are back on our feet, then we can look
at these numbers that they are talking about. But we have got to get
this country back on its feet. It has got to be strong.
So we should be here dealing with a serious subject like mine safety
and all those men and women that were killed a couple months ago.
That's a serious discussion, and we are not even having that
discussion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jackson of Illinois). The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield to the gentleman another 30 seconds.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. So let's talk about what actually happened.
Under George Bush, this economy fell off the planet, dropped 6.4
percent the last quarter of 2008. We haven't seen anything like that
since 1929. During the last 9 months, all of a sudden our GDP is going
up so that this country is getting back on its feet and heading in the
right direction.
Job loss, as I said, was at a level unseen before. We are reversing
that, but we have got a long way to go. And today, we should be worried
about mine safety and getting this bill passed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say that, with
all due respect to my very good friend and Rules Committee colleague,
that he obviously has not followed the debate.
We approached the majority and said, under unanimous consent, we
wanted this kind of authority to be granted so that we could ensure
that never, ever again will we see the kind of tragic loss of life
because of a mine disaster that we have faced.
Now, my friend said that we were talking about some extraneous issue.
Then, he takes the well and begins talking about jobs under George
Bush, where, in fact, we are dealing with the issue that we have all
said needs to be addressed, and that is, from the very outset, Mr.
Speaker, we concurred with the desire to ensure that this authority
exists.
At this point, I yield 1 minute to my very, very good friend from
Michigan, a hardworking, very, very thoughtful Member, Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And, Mr.
Speaker, all Americans, all Americans, share the grief of the families
of the miners of West Virginia.
Mr. Speaker, spending by this Congress is out of control. In the next
few days, our national debt will surpass $13 trillion, and today the
Federal Government borrows about 40 cents of every dollar that it
spends. The American people have been speaking out, saying that this
out-of-control spending is not sustainable. They are very frustrated
that Washington and the Democrat majority is not listening.
Mr. Speaker, the House Republicans are listening. We have heard their
voices.
YouCut allows the American people to vote on specific spending cuts.
We actually had over 300,000 folks just vote this week. The goal of
YouCut is simple, and it should not be a novel concept on Capitol Hill:
Stop spending and start cutting. The question, again, is, Will
Washington listen? Can you hear them now?
A ``no'' vote on the previous question will allow us to debate this
spending cut put forward by the American people. Is that too much to
ask?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Because he didn't really get the chance to finish, I
yield 2 minutes to Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I would like to speak to my friend from Michigan, and
she probably knows as much as anybody the trauma that so many families
have felt by the economy, by the recession, by the layoffs. And as we
start moving forward, we have got to make sure that those people who
lost their jobs find employment.
Now, they say Washington is not listening about cuts. We know
spending needs to be managed, but we need to be smart in how we spend.
But I would say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they
should have been thinking about this back in 2001 when they cut the
taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, prosecute two wars without
paying for them, fail to police Wall Street, and leave this country in
the worst financial shape it has been since 1929. George Bush left;
Obama received a $1.3 trillion deficit.
Now, they want to complain about it. Okay, go ahead and complain
about it, but take a look at yourselves. That's what I would say to my
friends on the other side of the aisle. And I would say, on Tuesday,
they made all of these arguments. The one race that was up between
Democrats and Republicans, people were worried about jobs. The Democrat
won. They worried about jobs. And that's what this country needs is to
get people back to work.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to
my good friend from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).
Mr. HENSARLING. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mine safety is a very serious issue. So is national bankruptcy.
Under Democratic control, the deficit has exploded tenfold in just 2
years. We are seeing the national debt triple before our very eyes. We
are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from the Chinese and sending the
bill to our children and our grandchildren.
The Democrats have been on a spending spree that puts us on the road
to becoming Greece. House Republicans are fighting back with a new
program called YouCut, where the American people can participate in
voting themselves to cut spending and to save their children money. And
in just this week alone, 280,000 voted to cut a wasteful welfare
program that has been associated with fraud.
Mr. Speaker, the choice is simple: Either you cut or your children
and grandchildren go bankrupt paying the national debt.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote ``yes'' for fiscal
sanity. Vote ``yes'' for saving your children and grandchildren $2.5
billion that doesn't have to be borrowed from the Chinese.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the chairlady for
yielding.
I think it is important for the House to reflect on what we are and
are not doing.
What we are doing is considering a procedure by which the Congress
can investigate what may or may not have happened in the tragedy that
occurred in West Virginia that cost the miners their lives, setting
that process in motion.
What the minority is doing is trying to bring to the floor a vote on
a different matter regarding the TANF program. And that is well within
their rights, so I am not going to object to their procedural efforts
to do that. I am going to object to the substance of their argument.
If I understand it correctly, the cut that they are interested in
making is in a program that I think most Americans think makes pretty
good sense. And what it essentially says is, if you are able-bodied and
you receive welfare benefits, you should work. Most Americans, when
they hear that, would say it is a pretty good idea.
And I want to read to the minority that this program that they want
to
[[Page H3678]]
debate today was commented on by a gentleman from a think tank in
Washington who said: Given the state of the labor market, it is hard to
imagine how any sensible person could oppose extending the emergency
fund that they are talking about.
This was not from the Obama administration or one of the more liberal
groups in town. It was Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise
Institute.
So I would say to the minority that their thirst for spending cuts
was somehow missing when the Bush administration raised spending by 8
percent per year, when the Bush administration launched two wars on
borrowed money, when the Bush administration cut taxes for the
wealthiest Americans and paid for it by borrowing money from the
Chinese.
There is a record on spending increases in recent history. During the
Clinton years, Federal spending increased by 4 percent per year on the
average. During the Bush years, spending increased by 8 percent per
year on the average. In the first 2 years of the President's term,
spending has increased by 6 percent, given the economic emergency. But
during the 8 years of President Reagan's term, spending increased by 7
percent per year.
So I am with the minority, Mr. Speaker. I think spending restraint is
something we need to have, which is why we should make sure we never
have another Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to my friend from California.
Mr. DREIER. I will just say to my friend that the closing was very,
very inappropriate, because the solution that the gentleman has offered
to the 8 percent increase that existed during the Bush administration
is to have an 85 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending,
which is what has taken place in the last 2 years. And I thank my
friend for yielding.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman another 45 seconds.
Mr. ANDREWS. I would ask my friend from California if it is true or
false that spending increases in the Obama years have been 6 percent
and 8 during the Bush years. Is that true or false?
Mr. DREIER. And I will say that it is absolutely false. What has
happened is, we did see the 8 percent increase for defense, homeland
security, and veteran spending, which did increase during that period
of time.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time. If I understand it correctly, the
gentleman is denying that the spending increases averaged 8 percent
during the Bush years. Is that correct?
Mr. DREIER. Correct. I agree with the gentleman.
Mr. ANDREWS. Well, then you are agreeing with me. You are not denying
it.
Mr. DREIER. I agree with the gentleman that they increased 8 percent
during the Bush administration, but they have increased 85 percent in
nondefense discretionary spending in the Obama administration.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the best insurance policy against
spending increases is a Democratic majority.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds to say to my
friend that we have had an 85 percent increase in nondefense
discretionary spending since President Obama has been in office.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
{time} 1530
Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. How much of that 85 percent was the Recovery Act?
Mr. DREIER. Eighty-five percent increase in nondefense discretionary
spending. If we look at the 417,000 increase in the jobless and if we
look at the markets now, we can see it's failed.
With that, I am happy to yield 1 minute to my very good friend from
Wheaton, Illinois (Mr. Roskam).
Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I found the gentleman from New Jersey's logic dizzying. It took 43
American Presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush, for us
to accumulate $5 trillion in debt. This Congress and this
administration unambiguously are tripling that number in a decade. I
also found it sobering and kind of surprising that the gentleman from
Colorado a couple of minutes ago--and I wrote it down immediately--
said, Once we're back on our feet, then we can talk about it, or words
to that effect. Once we're back on our feet, then we can talk about
cutting spending? It is this bloated budget that is the restraining
influence on prosperity in this country. It is the hidebound orthodoxy
on the other side that says we can borrow and spend our way into
prosperity--and that is an economic fool's errand. It is the sinkhole
of self-absorption of this Congress and this generation that says we
want to spend, spend, spend, and pass the bill on to another
generation. We need to defeat this previous question so we can get
serious about these cuts.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the time remaining,
please.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will join the distinguished Chair in
asking how much time is remaining on each side, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlelady from New York has 4\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from California has 4\3/4\ time
remaining.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the chairwoman of our Rules Committee.
I think what is key here is this country needs to get back on its
feet. We're moving in that direction. We had a bill up this week called
the America COMPETES Act, which is about investing in this country's
future through grants and funding of our National Science Foundation,
National Institutes of Health, those kinds of investments which are
jobs today and investment in the future so that this country is on the
best footing to compete with every other country on the globe. My
friends on the other side have now twice undercut that whole operation,
that whole bill. But this Congress is going to keep this country moving
forward so that we have jobs today and we invest in the future so that
we don't have the kind of job loss that we saw at the end of the Bush
administration.
People in this country, as much as my friends would like it to be
doom and gloom and blame, what they want is a can-do approach, because
the spirit of America is that we can do this. We can make this better.
We will make this better. We're not taking ``no'' for an answer.
Failure is not an option. We are going to invest in this country today,
help people get back to work, and we will be a stronger Nation for it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\
minutes to my good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, in a minute, we're going to have a vote
on the previous question. It's going to be a very simple vote. If you
vote ``yes''--and I think a lot of my colleagues on the other side are
going to do that--that means yes, keep on spending money we don't have.
Now I'm going to vote ``no'' because I believe that the American people
are speaking out--and I'm listening--that they're tired of spending.
There's a picture in the cloakroom of a little girl standing next to
a dollhouse. She says, You know, I owe $41,966, and all I own is a
dollhouse. Really, that's what this is about. This is about the future
of our children and our grandchildren. And what we're doing every day
is mortgaging that future. Today, we have almost $13 trillion in debt.
We're on course here to double that debt in 5 years and triple it in 10
years.
What are we going to say to our children and our grandchildren when
we leave them with a legacy that, basically, all they get to do is
service the debt service? We've got to stop it. And so that's the
reason the right vote on the previous question is ``yes'' if you want
to keep on spending. But if you want to stop spending, you want to
bring fiscal responsibility to this country, you want to leave a legacy
of opportunity and empowerment for our future generations, you're going
to vote ``no.'' It's time to listen to the 280,000 people that
participated in YouCut last week that said, Stop the spending. Vote
``no'' on the previous question.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May
[[Page H3679]]
I request from my colleague if he is ready to close?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me close as I began, saying first that
we could have done this under unanimous consent. We all concur with the
need to ensure that we take steps to ensure adequate oversight to
ensure that we never, ever, ever see the kind of loss of life that we
did in West Virginia or any other mine disaster.
Mr. Speaker, the American people, the hundreds of millions of
Americans who want us to rein in Federal spending have, unfortunately,
because of the Democratic majority, they have been denied a voice here
on the House floor. They're saying, Try and bring down the size and
scope and reach of government.
My friend, Dennis Prager, says, very correctly, the bigger the
government grows, the smaller the individual becomes. And so we decided
to utilize a procedure here known as defeating the previous question.
And we said, Why don't we let the American people actually have a
chance to be heard? And so what we did is we put five proposals out
there on the Republican Whip's Web site and asked the American people
to vote. Nearly 300,000 Americans cast votes, and they ended up with
81,000 votes being cast in favor of a measure that said, Gosh, should
people be required to work for welfare or should we have an open-ended
policy that allows them, without any kind of accountability, to see
States actually rewarded for not having people have a work component in
the welfare program?
So, Mr. Speaker, we said with that overwhelming vote that we would
use this procedure to ensure that Democrats and Republicans alike would
have an opportunity to make a decision whether or not they want to go
down the road towards continued spending where, again, we've had an 85
percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending since President
Obama has been in office. And that's why I couldn't understand why my
friend from New Jersey was arguing that we had an 8 percent increase
when President Bush was there, and his answer is a tenfold increase and
that's going to solve the problem.
We know that we are deeper in the hole. We have more serious problems
now, and the American people want us to cut Federal spending, and every
Democrat and Republican will have a chance when we move to defeat the
previous question to do just that.
So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the
amendment and extraneous material be included in the Record just before
the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that, I urge my colleagues to vote for
reduced spending by defeating the previous question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, this has been a most interesting debate.
As I started, I am terribly concerned about what caused the awful mine
disaster in West Virginia. I look forward to finding out why that was.
Lack of government oversight, without any question in my mind, will be
a large part of it, just as we're finding out in the oil spill.
This has also been an interesting afternoon of playing charades. I
have a 6-year-old granddaughter who loves to play a game with me. She
will tell me a tall tale, and then I pretend to believe it. Then, at a
moment of her choosing, she says, ``Gotcha.'' Don't let them ``getcha''
today. What they have been doing here is totally nongermane to this
bill. And if you all run up and vote ``no'' on the previous question,
they're not going to bring this up, because they can't.
Don't be taken in by this again. The Obama administration did not
create this awful problem, but we're totally aware of it, and we have
undertaken responsibility to clean it up. And we're going to do that.
As soon as the supplemental bill comes, we're going to have one of the
best chances in the world if we start to cut back the money that we're
spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we've already spent a
trillion dollars, lost enormous numbers of our young soldiers, maimed
many, many more. And it is time for us to cut that out. That, again,
will start, along with other things we are doing, to get this country
back on some solid footing.
Let me say to you once again, Please come down here and vote ``yes.''
Don't be fooled by this. I imagine that this is the beginning of every
charade every week, sort of like what Mr. Perlmutter said about the
COMPETES Act. Please don't forget, my colleagues, that twice we tried
to vote out that bill to create jobs, put people back to work, and
procedural games have killed it, to the great concern of the National
Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, to name a
couple.
So this afternoon I want you to come down here as quick as you can,
wherever you are, and put your ``yes'' in here so that we can get this
done and to give Chairman Miller the opportunity to use this deposition
authority with his staff to get to the bottom of this mine disaster. We
have many disasters of all stripes that we're working on, as you know.
Don't be held up by what we have been through here today. There's no
question about it, it's nongermane.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:
Amendment to H. Res. 1363
Offered by Mr. Dreier of California
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 1277) to repeal the emergency fund for the TANF
program. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not
apply to the consideration of H.R. 1277.
____
(The information contained below was provided by Democratic
Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 109th
Congress.)
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the
[[Page H3680]]
vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to
proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . .
[and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications
whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said.
Listen to the definition of the previous question used in the
Floor Procedures Manual published by the Rules Committee in
the 109th Congress, (page 56). Here's how the Rules Committee
described the rule using information from Congressional
Quarterly's ``American Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the
previous question is defeated, control of debate shifts to
the leading opposition member (usually the minority Floor
Manager) who then manages an hour of debate and may offer a
germane amendment to the pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: ``Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting House Resolution 1363, if
ordered; and suspending the rules and passing H.R. 5128, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 240,
nays 177, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 288]
YEAS--240
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Teague
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NAYS--177
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bilbray
Bonner
Diaz-Balart, M.
Garamendi
Gordon (TN)
Hoekstra
Jackson Lee (TX)
Kirk
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schwartz
Souder
Wamp
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1608
Messrs. WHITFIELD, GINGREY of Georgia, POSEY, ROGERS of Alabama,
JORDAN of Ohio, LEE of New York, SIMPSON, GOHMERT, BROUN of Georgia,
EHLERS, BLUNT, INGLIS, OLSON and Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CHILDERS changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 413,
nays 1, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 289]
YEAS--413
Ackerman
Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
[[Page H3681]]
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grijalva
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--1
Paul
NOT VOTING--17
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bilbray
Bonner
Davis (KY)
Diaz-Balart, M.
Garamendi
Gordon (TN)
Hoekstra
Jackson Lee (TX)
Kirk
Lynch
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Schwartz
Souder
Wamp
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain on this vote.
{time} 1615
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________