[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8758-8769]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 8759]]

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. Speaker, I am going to do something that is somewhat unusual. I 
would like to, as I did 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

[[Page 8760]]

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 
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

[[Page 8761]]

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 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.

[[Page 8762]]

  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 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

[[Page 8763]]

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 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

[[Page 8764]]

     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 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

[[Page 8765]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 8766]]

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 
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

[[Page 8767]]

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 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

[[Page 8768]]


     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
     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.

[[Page 8769]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________