Welfare Reform Restoration Act of 2009

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material in the Record.)

Mr. 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 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.

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. 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.

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. 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).

I yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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.

Correct. I agree with the gentleman.

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. 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.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

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. Speaker, I will join the distinguished Chair in asking how much time is remaining on each side, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Lubbock, Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.''

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 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1363 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, we're here today with a pretty straightforward mission. We want to empower the men and women who are investigating the causes of the serious safety problems facing miners in America.

As we saw recently with the terrible disaster at Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia, there's some combination of industrial wrongdoing there and inadequate regulation that we must address. The explosion at Upper Big Branch in April killed 29 coal miners, ripped apart an entire community and State, and was the worst mine disaster in this country since 1970.

Why is Congress involved? Because one of our most serious responsibilities as lawmakers is oversight and investigation. And from what we've been able to tell from the facts so far, there is an urgent and compelling need for the public to know all the facts surrounding this and other recent mining tragedies.

I come to this issue with a personal feeling. Many of my constituents back home and some here know that I was born in Harlan County, Kentucky, in the midst of some of the best bituminous coal on Earth. Some of my earliest memories are hearing the whistle blow at night over at the mine. Even the smallest child, as I was then, knew what that whistle meant. It meant serious trouble at the mine.

The pain and suffering endured by miners in Kentucky and West Virginia and everyplace else should inspire us to do everything in our power to make this dangerous and volatile work environment as safe as we possibly can. The bottom line should never supersede a human life.

The resolution before us today would give the House Committee on Education and Labor staff authority to take depositions as they pursue their investigation. We know that greater review of this issue is sorely needed. There are far too many unanswered questions surrounding underground coal mine operator compliance with the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act, and the safety of every single miner in this country depends on answering those questions.

Getting to the truth on mining safety is not a partisan issue, and empowering staff to get the truth is in everyone's interest. Granting a committee this sort of authority is not without precedent. In numerous times over the years, Congress has approved resolutions such as this to provide temporary powers to committees trying to get at the truth. And every piece of information that comes from the questioning will be obtained by and shared with members of the committee from both parties.

The House gave the Education and Labor Committee similar authority during a probe into a mining accident just a few years ago. It was in the 110th Congress that the Education and Labor Committee was given staff deposition authority in their 2007-2008 investigation into the deaths of nine miners and rescue workers at the Crandall Canyon Mine near Huntington, Utah. That led to strengthening mine safety with laws that may be too lax in enforcement.

Among the issues the committee wishes to delve into is the growth of the number of mine safety enforcement cases that are pending before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. The Commission is meant to serve as an independent agency that provides administrative trial and appellate review to contested citations, penalties, and worker retaliation cases.

In reality, though, the increased enforcement and tougher penalties that followed several high-profile mine accidents in 2005 and 2006 has swamped the Commission. Mine owners have tripled the number of violations that they appeal, and they contest 67 percent of all penalties that are assessed. As a result, the government is facing a lengthy backlog of cases at the Commission that has surged from 2,100 in 2006 to approximately 16,000 in February of this year.

This deposition power for the committee will help to prod reluctant witnesses who have important insight into this issue but might otherwise not be willing to offer testimony. This is an important tool, and I urge my colleagues to rise and support me on this plan here today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

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. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, the Chair of the Workforce Protection Committee, Ms. Woolsey.

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. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

I yield to the gentleman another 30 seconds.

Because he didn't really get the chance to finish, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Perlmutter from Colorado.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield the gentleman another 45 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know the time remaining, please.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. May

I request from my colleague if he is ready to close?

Mr. Speaker, this has been a most interesting debate. As I started, I am terribly concerned about what caused the awful mine disaster in West Virginia. I look forward to finding out why that was. Lack of government oversight, without any question in my mind, will be a large part of it, just as we're finding out in the oil spill.

This has also been an interesting afternoon of playing charades. I have a 6-year-old granddaughter who loves to play a game with me. She will tell me a tall tale, and then I pretend to believe it. Then, at a moment of her choosing, she says, ``Gotcha.'' Don't let them ``getcha'' today. What they have been doing here is totally nongermane to this bill. And if you all run up and vote ``no'' on the previous question, they're not going to bring this up, because they can't.

Don't be taken in by this again. The Obama administration did not create this awful problem, but we're totally aware of it, and we have undertaken responsibility to clean it up. And we're going to do that. As soon as the supplemental bill comes, we're going to have one of the best chances in the world if we start to cut back the money that we're spending on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we've already spent a trillion dollars, lost enormous numbers of our young soldiers, maimed many, many more. And it is time for us to cut that out. That, again, will start, along with other things we are doing, to get this country back on some solid footing.

Let me say to you once again, Please come down here and vote ``yes.'' Don't be fooled by this. I imagine that this is the beginning of every charade every week, sort of like what Mr. Perlmutter said about the COMPETES Act. Please don't forget, my colleagues, that twice we tried to vote out that bill to create jobs, put people back to work, and procedural games have killed it, to the great concern of the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce, to name a couple.

So this afternoon I want you to come down here as quick as you can, wherever you are, and put your ``yes'' in here so that we can get this done and to give Chairman Miller the opportunity to use this deposition authority with his staff to get to the bottom of this mine disaster. We have many disasters of all stripes that we're working on, as you know. Don't be held up by what we have been through here today. There's no question about it, it's nongermane.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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.

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.

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.

I would like to speak to my friend from Michigan, and she probably knows as much as anybody the trauma that so many families have felt by the economy, by the recession, by the layoffs. And as we start moving forward, we have got to make sure that those people who lost their jobs find employment.

Now, they say Washington is not listening about cuts. We know spending needs to be managed, but we need to be smart in how we spend. But I would say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they should have been thinking about this back in 2001 when they cut the taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, prosecute two wars without paying for them, fail to police Wall Street, and leave this country in the worst financial shape it has been since 1929. George Bush left; Obama received a $1.3 trillion deficit.

Now, they want to complain about it. Okay, go ahead and complain about it, but take a look at yourselves. That's what I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle. And I would say, on Tuesday, they made all of these arguments. The one race that was up between Democrats and Republicans, people were worried about jobs. The Democrat won. They worried about jobs. And that's what this country needs is to get people back to work.

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.