```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 128 (Thursday, September 20, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6165-H6174]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 118, DISAPPROVING 
 RULE RELATING TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE 
    TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM; PROVIDING FOR 
   CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3409, STOP THE WAR ON COAL ACT OF 2012; AND 
 PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 2012, 
                       THROUGH NOVEMBER 12, 2012

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 788 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 788

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the joint 
     resolution (H.J. Res. 118) providing for congressional 
     disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, 
     of the rule submitted by the Office of Family Assistance of 
     the Administration for Children and Families of the 
     Department of Health and Human Services relating to waiver 
     and expenditure authority under section 1115 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315) with respect to the Temporary 
     Assistance for Needy Families program. All points of order 
     against consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The 
     joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means and the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, 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. 3409) to limit the authority of the Secretary of the 
     Interior to issue regulations before December 31, 2013, under 
     the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977. 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 amendments 
     specified in this resolution and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce, and the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Natural Resources now printed in the bill, it shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 112-32. That amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against that amendment in the nature of a substitute are 
     waived. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except those printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     September 22, 2012, through November 12, 2012, --
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved;
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment; and
       (c) bills and resolutions introduced during the period 
     addressed by this section shall be numbered, listed in the 
     Congressional Record, and when printed shall bear the date of 
     introduction, but may be referred by the Speaker at a later 
     time.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.

                             Point of Order

  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully raise a point of order against 
H. Res. 788 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act.
  The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against 
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of 
the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 
426(a).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin makes a point 
of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The gentlewoman has met the threshold burden under the rule, and the 
gentlewoman from Wisconsin and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes of debate on the question of consideration. Following debate, 
the Chair will put the question of consideration as the statutory means 
of disposing of the point of order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.
  Ms. MOORE. I thank you so much, Mr. Speaker.
  I raise this point of order, not necessarily out of concern for 
unfunded mandates, although there are some in the underlying bills 
under consideration here today, H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. Rather, I 
am here today because this is the only opportunity to voice my adamant 
opposition to the TANF-related resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 
118, given the strict closed terms of our debate today.
  My goal here today, Mr. Speaker, is to be a voice of reason, and 
certainly a voice of truth in this debate, because we are all 
undoubtedly about to hear an astonishing array of half truths and, Mr. 
Speaker, even lies about the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families 
program or TANF--the lie, for example, that the TANF program was this 
raving success that took people out of poverty, gave them dignity and 
put them in good jobs. Well, what it really did was to really kick poor 
people off the rolls.
  You know, under President Clinton, 1996, when we passed the original 
TANF bill, it was a time of prosperity; and those people, primarily 
women, who would normally get off the rolls within 2 years, found jobs 
which were readily available. But even more, primarily women, just 
simply languished in poverty as a permanent underclass.

                              {time}  1240

  Despite the creation of the so-called ``safety net'' under TANF, 
many, many women have languished in poverty and are still in poverty 
today. We're not just talking about the poor. We're talking about deep 
poverty.
  Mr. Speaker, did you know that between 1996 and 2011 the numbers of 
U.S. households living on less than $2 per person per day--the measure 
of extreme poverty as defined by the World Bank for developing 
nations--has more than doubled from 636,000 to 1.46--nearly 1.5--
million people and that the number of children in extremely poor 
households has also doubled from 1.4 million up to 2.8 million children 
living in poverty--children, by the way, who cannot work? We are 
talking about the poorest of the poor. These numbers are startling 
given that we are talking about the United States of America, not some 
Third World country.
  Now let's get to the big lie that these resolutions relate to. The 
Republicans claim that the work requirements have been gutted under the 
Health and Human Services' guidance. These lies have already been 
debunked by the

[[Page H6166]]

media, by Fact Check checkers, even by the original architects of 
TANF--for example, by Ron Haskins.
  Apparently, our colleagues find it convenient to ignore the facts; 
but, of course, we have heard throughout this election cycle that the 
GOP is not going to be dictated by facts. Sadly, I'm not at all 
surprised that we are forced to engage in this TANF battle on the House 
floor. I knew that the GOP would challenge the administration's 
proposal at the earliest opportunity; but, frankly, House Republicans' 
timing on this could not be worse.
  Do you think that the American people are demanding more attacks on 
the poor from your party this week or that doubling down on a strategy 
of vilifying the poor is a wise choice--trotting out the mythical, lazy 
welfare queen who doesn't want to take responsibility for her own life, 
who is part of the 47 percent who would rather have a so-called 
``government handout'' than a job?
  I think that the insistence on considering this bill at this moment 
in history when we should be considering critical issues like the farm 
bill for our drought-ridden States or the Violence Against Women Act--
or how about this one, Mr. Speaker, the American Jobs Act?--rather than 
political message bills is remarkably tone deaf. TANF was written at a 
time when our labor market and our economy were radically different 
than they are today.
  I didn't support TANF in 1996, but I certainly don't support it now 
that I have seen what it has done. It has become a hollow shell of a 
safety net program. It is not going to be allowed to evolve with the 
times, and it is now nothing short of completely broken. TANF 
recipients have been poorly served by the program, which too often 
locks people into a cycle of poverty through rigid guidelines and red 
tape while allowing them no access to real opportunity. In its current 
form, the program makes it extremely hard to move from welfare to work, 
which is supposedly the goal of the program, an honorable goal of the 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, check this out: States can meet their work requirements 
even if none--zero--of their recipients find a job. States are only 
measured by whether or not recipients participate in certain activities 
for a set number of hours, like if they just job search and never find 
a job.
  Not only are we not moving people from welfare to work in this 
program, but we are not allowing people any opportunity to get the 
education and training they might need to compete in the labor market 
or to learn valuable skills. We are trapping them in so-called ``job-
search activities'' that are poorly designed and add up to nothing. 
TANF just does not provide real opportunities that could translate into 
better lives for beneficiaries. There are others who are unable to get 
help at all because the program is not designed to allow them in the 
door.
  Shockingly, States are rewarded for simply lowering their caseloads 
rather than for moving people into jobs. There is, indeed, an incentive 
for States to create barriers that prevent the individuals and families 
with the highest need from even participating. We've heard the horror 
stories of people who have been kicked off TANF or who couldn't get in 
in the first place and of the desperate things they've had to do to 
feed and shelter and clothe their children.
  By now, those of us who have been paying even the bare minimum of 
attention realize that the Republicans have been playing politics with 
the Obama administration's waiver program and have been playing fast 
and loose with reality. I would venture to guess that every Member in 
this Chamber knows the truth, that Republicans and Democratic Governors 
have been requesting increased flexibility in implementing the welfare 
reform for many years.
  In fact, in 2005, no fewer than 29 Republican Governors asked for 
increased waiver authority, and given my limited time, I will only name 
a few of them. We have such socialist Governors like Mississippi 
Governor Haley Barbour, Texas Governor Rick Perry. How about Arkansas 
Governor Mike Huckabee and none other than--drum roll, please--
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney?
  Like these Governors, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of allowing 
States the flexibility to craft welfare systems that meet the specific 
needs of their job markets and their participants. I know--and I know 
that many of you know, though you refuse to acknowledge it--that the 
waiver proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services would 
meaningfully strengthen our ability to move people from welfare to 
work.
  May I inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wisconsin has 40 
seconds remaining.
  Ms. MOORE. I was once one of those 47 percent--a welfare recipient. I 
have seen firsthand the successes and failures of this safety net in my 
community and across the Nation. I support the administration's 
strategic efforts to guarantee that TANF is a more effective program. I 
encourage all of my colleagues to reject H.J. Res. 118, this resolution 
of disapproval, and to, instead, work together to build a strong 
workforce and economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time in 
opposition to the point of order and in favor of the consideration of 
the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the question before the House is: 
Should the House consider H. Res. 788? While the resolution waives all 
points of order against the consideration of H.J. Res. 118 and H.R. 
3409, the committee is not aware of any points of order, and the waiver 
is basically prophylactic in nature.
  We heard a lot of emotional and interesting points as to the basis of 
the bill that could be debated if, indeed, this rule were to be passed. 
I don't think it is actually the time right now in a point of order to 
go over the benefits of the bill or the detriments of whatever may 
happen if the bill, itself, is actually debated. There is time for 
that.
  We do know that the number of individuals receiving welfare has 
dropped by 57 percent, that poverty amongst all single mothers has 
fallen by 30 percent, that the poverty amongst black children has 
dropped to its lowest level since 2001, and that employment and 
earnings amongst single mothers have increased significantly.

                              {time}  1250

  But that's all debate to the bill, which still has to go through the 
rule debate, and we're not talking about that. This is a procedural 
issue.
  We could talk about the fact that in '93 the Ways and Means Committee 
did say that waivers granted after the date of enactment may not 
override provisions in the TANF law that concern further mandatory work 
retirements. But, once again, that would be the kinds of things that we 
should be talking about in the debate of the bill, which will come 
after the debate on the rule, which will come after our discussion of 
this procedural point of order.
  So, actually, the merits of what the bill is is not the same thing as 
the purpose of the procedural point of order. The procedural point of 
order still has to be based on the idea of unfunded mandates within the 
rule.
  The Congressional Budget Office believes that H.R. 3409 would impose 
an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. However, based on the information for EPA and a small number of 
public entities would be required to comply with the bill's 
requirement, the CBO estimates that the cost of those entities to 
comply would fall below the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act's annual 
threshold for intergovernmental mandates. It's a threshold that is set 
and adjusted for inflation.
  So the Congressional Budget Office states that H.J. Res. 118 also 
contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates as defined by 
the Mandates Reform Act. That is the basis of the point of order. The 
bottom line is there is no violation of both an unfunded mandate within 
the rule or in the bills themselves.
  The rest of the discussion is actually to the merits of the 
legislation and is appropriate at the time as we are debating that 
legislation.
  So, Mr. Speaker, although I really have this great desire to use the 
full 10 minutes of discussion here, the bottom line still----

[[Page H6167]]

  Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield whilst he has too much time?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No, thank you.
  Ms. MOORE. Will the gentleman yield to a question?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the honor. Will the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin let me finish the statement?
  Ms. MOORE. I am asking you if you would yield to a question, not for 
me to speak.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I appreciate the interruption, but let me finish 
here. And probably not. Let's get on with the issue at hand here.
  The point of order basically, Mr. Speaker, is still specious. It is 
in order to allow the House to continue its scheduled business for the 
day because the issue of the point of order is the unfunded mandate, 
not the other merits towards the legislation.
  So I do urge Members to vote ``yes'' on the question of 
consideration. We will have an additional hour to discuss anything you 
wish to on the rule debate, as well as a whole lot of time on the 
merits of the bill when we debate the bill itself.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
  The question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Utah is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.

                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 
legislative days during which they may revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. This resolution provides for a closed rule for 
the consideration of H.J. Res. 118, the congressional disapproval 
waiver of work requirements, and provides 1 hour of general debate, 
with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  This rule also provides for a structured debate for consideration of 
H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure 
Protection Act, and provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources, 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  Finally, this rule makes in order a number of important amendments on 
both sides of the aisle. If staff doesn't change my mind, I believe 
there are 13--7 Republican and 6 Democrat--amendments which is as close 
as you can get with an uneven number to a fair rule. So it is a fair 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, now speaking towards the merits of this particular 
resolution, I would like to make special mention of Congressman 
Johnson, who is the base sponsor of H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner 
Employment and Domestic Energy Infrastructure Protection Act. He 
definitely has been one of the leaders in this entire area of the issue 
of coal as it is used in energy. Not only is it important to his 
constituents, but this is an important issue for the entire country. 
And I want to recognize Mr. Johnson as having been tireless in 
committee, asking questions that go to the core of this particular 
issue, providing amendments, and then finally culminating with his bill 
which deals with how we actually can use coal to further our energy 
needs in this particular country. Representative Johnson is a freshman 
who has learned fast and is a true champion for inexpensive energy that 
will expand our economy and create jobs for American citizens.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This week marks the last time the Chamber will meet until the middle 
of November. As we depart, the majority walks away with the dubious 
distinction of having presided over a session of Congress that is 
widely called the least productive in history. This Congress has 
achieved that distinction because, although bipartisan consensus is 
needed to pass any bill into law, the majority has spent the last 2 
years pursuing an extreme and partisan agenda. In fact, they have 
repeatedly spurned potential bipartisanship in order to vote on 
ideological legislation that will never become law.
  In week after week, the majority has refused to help our Nation's 
drought-stricken farmers. With the Senate-approved farm bill sitting on 
the table and a bipartisan outcry to pass a 5-year farm bill growing, 
the majority has decided to neglect our Nation's farmers and allow the 
farm bill to expire without even attempting to pass a bill at any time 
in the House.
  An expiration of the farm bill means that dairy farmers in my part of 
the country, western New York, and throughout the United States will 
lose what little safety net they have. Yet, when faced with the choice 
of passing a compromised farm bill or pursuing an all-or-nothing 
partisan agenda or, as we're doing today, passing bills that have 
already passed the House just because they liked them so much they 
wanted to see them again, the majority chose the latter.
  In western New York, farmers don't need the majority to play partisan 
games. They need a 5-year farm bill, and they need it now.
  Unfortunately, the bills we consider today offer more of the same. 
Both the bills before us today are little more than extreme and 
partisan messaging documents designed to benefit politicians running 
for office, not the American citizen struggling to get by. Take, for 
example, H.R. 3409, the Coal Miner Employment and Domestic Energy 
Infrastructure Protection Act. That's a fine title there. Four out of 
the five titles in this bill, as I had said a minute ago, four out of 
the five bills in this measure have already been voted on by the House, 
but they were too partisan and extreme to pass the Senate. They will 
not yet again pass the Senate; therefore, it is simply a waste of time 
today.
  It costs a lot of money to bring all the Members of Congress back to 
Washington from the four corners of the United States, and to come back 
to repass bills that have already passed that will never go beyond this 
House cannot be called anything else but a colossal, disastrous waste 
of time.
  Among other things, the bill would roll back decades of environmental 
protections, endanger the public's health, and prevent our country from 
addressing the growing threat of climate change. The majority knows 
that such extreme proposals will not pass into law, but they are moving 
forward anyway in order to serve political campaigns. Similar 
sentiments appear to be driving the consideration of the second 
proposal, the TANF disapproval resolution.

                              {time}  1300

  This bill is based upon a premise that has been proven false by 
multiple fact-checking organizations, including The Washington Post 
Fact Checker. Indeed PolitiFact, an nonpartisan project of the Tampa 
Bay Times, has concluded that ``by granting waivers to States, the 
Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more 
successful, not end them.''
  Despite that, we're going to bring up the bill today to cure 
something that does not exist. It is astounding that at a time when we 
could be voting on a jobs bill, Republicans have instead chosen to 
block an Obama administration proposal that would help States put more 
people back to work and, indeed, has been requested by those States' 
Governors.
  Perhaps most telling is the fact that even as we consider these 
bills, the majority also refuses to consider legislation to address 
serious national crises.

[[Page H6168]]

Yesterday at a meeting of the Rules Committee, they blocked five 
amendments that would address those issues.
  First they brought an amendment by Representative Boswell to vote on 
the bipartisan Senate farm bill. They had another chance yesterday to 
bring the farm bill up before we all go home. Then they brought an 
amendment by Representative Moore to reauthorize the Violence Against 
Women Act, which expires in days and a bipartisan bill, if ever there 
was one, because I was one of the coauthors of the bill. That has been 
routinely authorized by both parties until this year.
  Finally, they blocked amendments by my colleagues, Representatives 
Levin, Connolly, and Blumenauer to pass tax cuts for the middle class, 
to extend a production tax credit for renewable energy producers, wind 
energy, and to consider legislation to address the financial crisis 
facing the postal service.
  The majority was given a chance to bring all of its proposals to the 
floor, but they walked away and went forward with the messaging before 
us today. So we will pass today four bills that have been passed 
previously.
  I asked my colleagues in the majority: Which is more important, to 
provide relief to the drought-stricken farmers or voting to deny 
climate change? Which is more important, passing a symbolic resolution 
based upon a false premise or providing tax cuts to the middle class? 
Which is more important, passing self-proclaimed messaging documents, 
or working together to provide for the millions of Americans in need? 
If you would ask a farmer in Monroe County, New York, if they would 
rather have Congress pass a dead-on-arrival messaging bill or act on a 
bipartisan farm bill, I know and you know what they would choose.
  In closing, what we are considering today are choices made by the 
majority, a choice to pursue an extreme and bipartisan agenda that they 
knew would never become law. In so doing, they have failed to provide 
results for the American people that lead to the least productive 
Congress in the history of our Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to reconsider the choices that have been brought 
here today and the legislation that we are about to consider. In the 
process, I hope we can finally end the political games and return to 
the responsibility of governing.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope you will forgive me if I try to limit myself to 
what is actually in the resolutions and the bills that we are 
presenting today as far as the Rules Committee is concerned.
  There is, though, a common thread that runs through the two 
resolutions that happen to be here and deals with the definition of 
what is administrative and what is legislative. Even if the current 
administration seems to have a problem in making that definition of 
what is administrative, we in Congress need to clearly understand what 
is our legislative responsibility.
  Our good friend, Louie Gohmert of Texas, always says that he who 
learns the lessons of history will find some other way to screw it up. 
That's probably true. I don't want to sound like an old history 
teacher, but I am. I do want to say that there are some things that we 
in Congress should be doing to learn from our past history.
  John Page, in 1771, a Congressman from Virginia, was on the House 
floor when it was determined while the House was debating whether they 
stuck around to actually determine where postal routes should be. 
People wanted to go, and, more importantly, the people trusted the 
President. The question was, Why don't we just let the President do it 
all?
  It was John Page who stood up and said, and I move to adjourn and 
leave all objects of legislation to his, the President's, sole 
consideration and direction. He shamed Congress into doing their job of 
writing the legislation and not allowing the executive branch, the 
administration, simply to do everything by fiat. We sometimes have 
forgotten that.
  In the TARP language, we put in language like, the Secretary of the 
Treasury will be able to purchase troubled assets on such terms and 
conditions as are determined by the Secretary; or authorize any 
purchase on which the Secretary determines, promotes financial market 
stability; or the Secretary is authorized to take such action as the 
Secretary deems necessary to carry out all authorities in this 
particular act.
  That is legislative authority that we passed on to the executive 
branch. That was a tragic mistake. We should not incorporate that 
tragic mistake, wider now, by simply allowing the executive branch to 
take on responsibilities and authorities of their own free will and 
volition.
  We have this same situation once again in the history of this 
country. We had a President of the United States who wrote a book about 
Congress without ever visiting Congress itself, who said what the 
Founding Fathers realized, in which their effort to have vertical 
separation of power between State and national government--what we call 
federalism--and horizontal separation of powers between the three 
branches, which we call the separation of powers--and every public 
school student is taught that--they were put in there so that 
individual liberty, which I always consider to be individual choices 
and options in running their lives, would be protected against the 
concentration of power in one branch or another.
  Now, this former President of the United States called this 
separation of powers political witchcraft. He said it was wrong to try 
and separate powers perplexingly subdivided and distributed to be 
hunted down in out-of-the-way corners. An earlier President than him 
thought, you know, the President of the United States is elected by 
everybody, Congress by a few people, the courts by none. Therefore, 
ignore the courts, which has some appeal, but at the same time the 
President should speak for the government.
  This other President, coming back later, built upon that so he 
increased the role and power of the executive branch under the concept 
the President is the President of the whole people and, therefore, he 
has the ability to transcend separation of powers.
  His effort to improve democracy was to eliminate democracy and 
instead ensure that the decisions were not made by the people or the 
voice or representatives of the people, but by experts, experts who 
were serving in the administrative branches. We, if you like that 
concept, call it the administrative state. If you don't, we call it 
``nanny government.'' Nonetheless, that was the concept.
  One of the other Presidents that came shortly before him said there 
will be little permanent good that can be done by any party if we fail 
to regard the States as anything other than a convenient unit for local 
government. He said there is no harm by concentrating power in the 
hands of one individual. He also said that he would not be content with 
keeping his talents undamaged in a napkin. That's perhaps why the 
Speaker of the House at the time said he had no more use for the 
Constitution than a tomcat has for a marriage license.
  The bottom line of what happened in the history is that all of a 
sudden we found that the Founding Fathers who believed in people and 
believed in the legislative branch, listening to John Locke, who said 
you cannot transfer the power of the legislature to another branch, 
those type of people decided at that time that the people should not be 
running their own affairs, that government experts should be making 
that policy.
  To be honest, when we're talking about the first resolution that 
deals with TANF, the welfare issue, I don't care if the waiver is the 
greatest thing since sliced bread, it is still extra-constitutional and 
it should not be used and Congress should not allow it to take away 
what is the role of Congress, and only Congress, to establish these 
issues and set these boundaries.
  In the other bill that we're talking about, we're talking about 
prohibiting future actions by entities, in this case, specifically the 
EPA, which would destroy jobs, increase the cost of our utilities that 
would cause greater costs of lighting homes and heating homes, 
especially for those who have the least ability to do so.
  Congressmen and Congresswomen must stand up and insist that Congress 
create these standards and create these options, not being made by 
executive

[[Page H6169]]

fiat. That is the very purpose of why we are here.
  The first President, to whom I referred, ended up with a legacy of 
many programs implemented which we still today find controversial. He 
was labeled by historians as an arrogant President at that time who 
refused to talk to Congress. Because of that, he lost some of his last, 
most precious programs in an effort to try and go around Congress 
rather than working with Congress.

                              {time}  1310

  Now, Mr. Speaker, that's why this resolution is before us and why 
these two separate bills are here. Both of them attempt to set the 
record straight and show that it is Congress' responsibility to set the 
rules and the guidelines. It is not an administrative prerogative. And 
we as Congress need to step forward and say we are the ones who do 
this. We should not allow it to be done by anyone else, regardless of 
why it's being done or the merits of why it's being done. It's our job.
  We should learn from history. We should be more like John Page and 
try and make sure the Congress does these types of issues and makes 
these types of decisions and less like Presidents later on who thought 
the President speaks for everybody and the President has every right to 
transcend separation of powers and do it for himself. That's the basis 
of these two bills. That's the important issue. We should learn the 
lesson of history.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.
  Republicans are saying that there is a war on coal. They even named 
this bill the End the War on Coal Act. But the only battle coal is 
losing is in the free market to natural gas, to wind, to solar.
  Just 4 years ago, coal generated 51 percent of our electricity. Now 
it is down to 35 percent of our electricity. Have the lights gone off? 
No. And that's because coal has been replaced in the free market by 
natural gas, which has risen from 21 percent to 30 percent of all 
electrical generation in our country. And by the way, the same thing is 
true for wind. Wind has gone from 1 percent of electrical generation to 
4 percent of electrical generation.
  That's your answer. That's what's happening. The marketplace has 
moved to natural gas--another fossil fuel, by the way--and wind. And 
why have they done so? Natural gas is cheaper than coal. It's more 
plentiful now because of fracking technologies. And the market has 
moved.
  What is happening? What is happening is that natural gas prices have 
gone down 66 percent in the last 4 years. That is the shift from coal 
over to natural gas. That's the arithmetic. You're a consumer, you see 
a product, it does the same thing as the other product, and it's 
dropped 66 percent in price. The arithmetic says I go and get that 
product if it's going to ensure that my home is heated, that my air 
conditioning goes on. It's just arithmetic. Coal is losing to natural 
gas.
  So when the Republicans say there is a war on coal, in a market 
sense, yes, there is a war. In the same sense that when we started 
carrying BlackBerries, it was a war on the black rotary-dial phone; in 
the same sense that when we started using Macs and PCs, it was a war on 
typewriters; in the same sense that the horseless carriage was a war on 
horses; in the same sense that refrigerators were a war on salted 
meats; in the same sense that the telegraph was a war on carrier 
pigeons.
  These aren't wars. It's innovation. It's competition. It's natural 
gas versus coal. All we're saying as Democrats is let the free market 
work. You're here saying, No, protectionism. Protectionism against the 
natural gas industry winning this battle in the marketplace. By the 
way, natural gas is also winning the battle in the marketplace against 
home heating oil. Tens of thousands of people are shifting from home 
heating oil over to natural gas. Why? It's cheaper. The same thing is 
true in the production of petrochemicals and fertilizers. Industries 
are moving away from oil as the component part of moving over to 
natural gas. Why is that? It is cheaper. It's across-the-board.
  Do you understand this, Republicans? It's arithmetic. It's simple. 
It's easy to understand. It's not the policies of the Obama 
administration. If you want to blame someone, blame Adam Smith for the 
ruthless, Darwinian, paranoia-inducing market system that we've adopted 
where utilities and private citizens and the petrochemical industry 
move toward a product which is cheaper, more available here in the 
United States, a domestic industry that is here.
  Instead, this is a Republican Congress which has 302 anti-
environmental votes, which they've cast in just a year and 8 months. 
That's 302 anti-environmental votes. That's what they're all about. 
This whole thing is an excuse to lower the protection against pollution 
coming from coal that damages the health of children, the health of our 
environment all across our country, when they're just losing a battle 
to natural gas in the marketplace.
  They get an F on Medicare this Congress, F on tax breaks, F on jobs, 
F on urgent priorities, F on women, and an F on environment. It's just 
an excuse because they don't like what is going on in the marketplace. 
And it's a shame because they tout themselves as that party. 
Simultaneously, you know what they do? They're killing the wind tax 
break--killing it because it's up to 4 percent of electricity and 
keeping the exact same amount in for ExxonMobil and the oil companies 
to produce oil. Now how can you call that a plan of all-of-the-above?

  All of this tilts the playing field, tilts the competition in the 
marketplace. You can't give tax breaks to oil and take them away from 
wind and say you're all-of-the-above. You can't say you want to tilt 
the playing field toward coal as natural gas is winning in the 
marketplace and say you're in favor of all-of-the-above. You are not. 
You are not.
  So, ladies and gentlemen, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this rule and a 
``no'' vote on these bills as they come to the floor of the House. It 
is anti-market policy on steroids as they bring it out here on the 
House floor.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. With gratitude for the last speech, which was 
such a stirring support of fracking, which has made gas so plentiful 
and useful in this country, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the gentleman from Utah.
  The bill we are considering today is very simple: It's a bill that 
protects one of the Nation's most abundant and cheap energy sources--
coal--and ensures that some of the highest-paid family wage jobs in the 
country are saved.
  I want to focus on title I of H.R. 3409 that limits the authority of 
the Secretary of the Interior to issue new burdensome regulations under 
SMCRA until the end of 2013. This title will put a short timeout on the 
recklessly rushed rulemaking by the administration that has resulted in 
millions of wasted dollars and confusion by all parties regarding the 
current management of coal by the Office of Surface Mining. This 
rulemaking has been an unmitigated disaster, with the administration 
attempting to compress what ordinarily would take 36 months into 15 
months. When news got out about how many jobs would be lost under these 
proposed rules, the administration fired the independent contractor who 
provided the analysis.
  The administration's own analysis is that 7,000 direct mining jobs 
would be lost and an additional 29,000 people would fall below the 
poverty level in the Appalachian basin alone. The proposed rules would 
have a negative economic impact in 22 States.
  How in the world can a President who gives lip service to creating 
jobs allow his bureaucrats to kill jobs in coal States?
  This bill will simply give OSM a timeout so they can hear and address 
the concerns raised by the cooperating agencies, coal mining States and 
tribes, and citizens. It will allow States time to read the hundreds of 
pages of materials in months rather than days. The current rulemaking 
by OSM is an out-of-control process with no regard for mine workers and 
their families who depend on these jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support the resolution and the Johnson bill.

[[Page H6170]]

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this political 
resolution that aims to wrongly characterize the administration's 
position on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. This is a waste of 
our time.
  The purpose of the administration's waiver proposal is to allow 
States to test alternative and innovative strategies that are designed 
to improve employment outcomes for needy families. As the Department of 
Health and Human Services has said repeatedly, waivers will only be 
approved if a State can prove that there is an effective transition 
from welfare to work. In essence, that they are putting more people to 
work.
  Is the majority now against putting people to work? Or are they 
against states' rights? If so, they may want to tell their Presidential 
candidate. In 2005, Mitt Romney and 28 other Republican Governors wrote 
a letter requesting more ``flexibility to manage their TANF programs'' 
and ``increased waiver authority.''

                              {time}  1320

  This is exactly what the administration's waiver proposal does. For 2 
years now, instead of working with us to create jobs, instead of 
passing middle class tax cuts, instead of passing the Violence Against 
Women Act, instead of passing responsible deficit reduction and to help 
us to try to get the economy moving again, the urgent priorities that 
we should be working on right now, this majority has continually put 
forward politically motivated resolutions.
  You know, I would just say to you that the American people cannot 
afford a do-nothing Republican Congress that refuses to act on issues 
critical to the middle class, critical to small businesses, critical to 
farmers, critical to women. They need to expect better leadership from 
us.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this resolution. We need to get work 
done, not politically motivated resolutions.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the chairman 
of the Science Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and H.R. 
3409, the Stop the War on Coal Act. This may sound a little strange to 
a guy from an oil and gas State, but we have an awful lot of coal.
  This bill takes a number of simple, commonsense, and long overdue 
steps to rein in the Obama administration's out-of-control EPA, which 
is waging all-out war on American energy. Coal is at the heart of that 
war. Anyone who fails to believe such a war exists should speak to the 
people of Mount Pleasant, Texas, in my congressional district.
  EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule threatened 500 jobs at two coal-
fired power plants in Mount Pleasant. Fortunately, the courts threw out 
this rule in August after finding that EPA went well beyond the law in 
its efforts to regulate coal out of existence.
  We know EPA will go back to the drawing board. H.R. 3409 adds needed 
protections for any future proposal and, in doing so, protects jobs not 
only in my State, but in coal-producing States and coal-using States 
all around the country.
  The bill also blocks future efforts to attack coal through other 
regulations, most notably the EPA's effort to enact economywide 
restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. These rules are based on 
shaky science and would raise the cost of energy for all Americans. 
They should never see the light of day.
  I want to mention my support for two amendments made in order under 
this rule. They will be offered by members of the Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee, which I chair. These amendments address serious 
problems with EPA science that the committee highlighted during the 
112th Congress; specifically, Congressman Dan Benishek's amendment that 
requires that an analysis of the cost of regulations explicitly 
evaluate the potential negative health effects of regulations. Energy 
and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Andy Harris' amendment would 
require that the scientific data EPA uses to justify its regulations is 
peer reviewed and made publicly available.
  These amendments reinforce and strengthen the transparency and 
openness provisions in H.R. 3409. I urge Members to support these 
amendments, the rule, and the underlying bill as well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, as one who believes in the value of work, I 
voted for the 1996 law to transform welfare to workfare. Now as the 
ranking Democrat on the subcommittee overseeing this law, I want to 
strengthen reform and assure that every able-bodied American who can 
work is working, you know, people like Mitt Romney's father, who long 
ago was on a form of welfare himself before he became wealthy. Those 
are the kind of people that should be working.
  Unfortunately, Republicans talk work for everyone else, but when it 
comes to doing the work here in Congress, well, they don't quite 
measure up to it.
  It's just like the expired Federal education law. They have been in 
power here for over 20 months, and we wouldn't need any changes or 
waivers in the law if they'd done their job to renew workfare.
  The real question here is not whether we emphasize work but how, how 
we achieve the most effective ways to get more people working.
  This administration has simply responded to Republican Governors and 
some Democrats who are seeking more flexibility and less bureaucratic 
paperwork, who sought better ways to get more people working.
  Even the Republican staff director who wrote the original 1996 reform 
law and who recently surveyed 42 State TANF directors says that these 
Republican attacks are ``exaggerated.''
  So, why in the world would Republicans be here today, when there is 
so much other work that this Congress has failed to do, presenting what 
is really an antiwork resolution masquerading as prowork?
  Well, I think it's because particularly during this week, such a very 
difficult and troubling week for Mitt Romney, they're a little 
desperate. They think they can hoodwink enough Americans to turn on 
their neighbors by falsely dividing us--dividing us between makers and 
takers, between manufacturers and moochers, between producers and 
parasites. That is not America.
  Whenever they bump into an inconvenient fact like what actually is 
involved in this legislation, they just ignore it. They have made this 
Congress largely a fact-free zone.
  When confronted with reality, they hold up those signs that say 
``believe.'' They left a word off. It really should say ``make 
believe,'' because that's what's at stake here, the fantasy that they 
bring us on all aspects of this measure. Fantasy is a mighty poor way 
to govern America.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the 
underlying bill, the polluters' bill of rights.
  I understand that my Republican friends are trying to improve the 
coal industry's outlook, and I imagine that most industries would 
benefit if Congress simply eliminated their obligation to help keep the 
public safe.
  We hear a lot about the immorality of leaving our children with 
mountains of debt, and I completely agree with that. I support measures 
to responsibly reduce the debt. But bills like this one are piling 
another form of debt on our children. We are leaving them to deal with 
the consequences of letting coal companies pollute the air that our 
children breathe and the water that they drink.
  Our failure to take comprehensive action on global climate change is 
already profoundly immoral. It is a disgrace that we refuse to 
sacrifice on behalf of our grandchildren. I fail to understand the 
perverse notion that my colleagues on the other side share that somehow 
global climate change is a laughable matter that we can sweep under the 
rug instead of an unprecedented threat to the health of our children 
and to the security of our Nation.
  How many more millions of tons of greenhouse gases would my 
Republican colleagues like in our atmosphere before they're concerned? 
How much less

[[Page H6171]]

polar ice? How many more cases of preventable cancer should American 
children develop?
  I offered an amendment to slow down the bill's assault on America's 
environmental laws until scientists could verify that what this 
Congress seeks to accomplish would not increase cases of preventable 
cancer among our most vulnerable: children, seniors, and those with 
chronic conditions.
  Regrettably, the House will not even have a chance to vote. It must 
be too inconvenient for my colleagues to have to tell their 
constituents that they value these coal companies above sick children.
  Well, I've got news for my colleagues. Ignoring the consequences of 
our actions does not make them go away. These rules are in place 
because the American people demand safe air and water. They expect the 
electricity that powers their homes is not produced in a way that makes 
tumors grow in their loved ones.
  We should focus on building a Nation, a secure economic future in 
this Nation. That means investing in clean energy industries instead of 
catering to special interests.

                              {time}  1330

  Moving forward with clean energy is the least we can do. Passing this 
bill is the worst thing we can do. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, 
except one more. And we want to defeat the previous question.
  I'm going to offer an amendment which proposes that Congress will not 
adjourn until the President passes the middle class tax cut into law. 
Additionally, I want to make in order the amendment that will extend 
the renewable energy tax credit. These tax credits are directly 
responsible for creating more American jobs. Allowing them to expire 
will mean fewer manufacturing jobs at home and more jobs sent overseas 
to China. We cannot afford to leave town without extending them.
  To discuss our proposal, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Boswell).
  (Mr. BOSWELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOSWELL. Mr. Speaker, today is Thursday, September 20. And 
tomorrow, I understand, the House is set to adjourn until after the 
election. Tomorrow, the House is set to leave town without finishing 
the work that the American people sent us here to do.
  Now, I have no objection to increasing domestic energy production, 
and I think an all-of-the-above approach is a rational approach to 
take. However, I rise against this rule. I rise in opposition to this 
rule because two amendments that I had offered to the bill were not 
made in order by the Rules Committee. The amendments I offered were on 
substantive policy that my constituents are calling for, and I am here 
to stand up for and represent my constituents in Iowa--and, I might 
add, across the Nation.
  One amendment would extend the wind production tax credit. Wind 
energy plays a significant role in electricity generation in the State 
of Iowa and many other States--for us about 20 percent--and the 
manufacturing of wind turbine components in Iowa has brought high-tech 
manufacturing jobs to my district. The fact that the House is set to 
adjourn until after the election while this industry is being forced to 
lay off workers because of Congress' inaction is shameful. It's 
something we should not do. Yesterday, it was announced we would be 
laying off 400, and more to come.
  Another amendment I offered would have allowed the House to finally 
vote on a farm bill. But once again the Republican leadership of the 
House stopped the House from voting on a farm bill. Let me say that 
again: The House Republican leadership is preventing this House from 
working its will on a farm bill.
  Mr. Speaker, apparently some House Republicans believe standing up 
for our farmers and ranchers across the country is not worthy of this 
House. This is a disgrace. Inaction on a farm bill is creating the 
market uncertainty that the House Republicans so often decry, and this 
uncertainty will only get more complicated as the House continues to 
kick the can down the road.
  So, once again, I rise in opposition to this rule. And I call on my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can amend the 
rule and proceed to a debate that will result in the House actually 
doing the work our constituents sent us here to do.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I have some empathy for the 
gentleman from Iowa, but I will have to say that one of the reasons 
that those amendments were not made in order was, quite frankly, 
because both of them were nongermane to the base bill, and that becomes 
a concept.
  One of the reasons that Ms. Slaughter speaks on wishing to stay here 
until we pass middle class tax cuts--and I think I can approve of that 
because, actually, when we considered H.R. 8, the Rules Committee took 
an extraordinary step of waiving the rules of the House--including 
CutGo and other budget-related points of order--so an amendment could 
be given by Mr. Levin, and he could have an opportunity to present that 
amendment. That amendment was debated, and it was rejected on a 
bipartisan vote of the House in August.
  Unlike the amendment, then H.R. 8 passed the House with a bipartisan 
vote, which means the House has voted for a middle class tax cut. We 
have done our duty. It is one of the myriad of bills that is sitting 
over on the Senate side waiting for them to do something so that we can 
proceed to a conference committee.
  So I actually approve of what the gentlelady from New York is saying 
because basically we've done it, and we did it on August 1.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I do have a late entry here. I would like 
to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, 102 days from today, every American who pays income 
taxes will face a substantial tax increase; 102 days from now, the 
estate plans of small business people will be blown asunder because of 
the changes in the Tax Code that will automatically occur; 102 days 
from now, workers at defense plants, medical research institutions, and 
other very important functions in our country will lose their jobs 
because of an across-the-board spending cut called a sequester. The 
response of the majority to this looming problem is to leave town.
  Now, I must confess that, given the majority's propensity to end the 
Medicare guarantee and provide tax cuts to millionaires, perhaps them 
leaving town does have a certain appeal. But under these 
circumstances--where there is a significant problem in our country, 
where farmers all across the country have no idea under what rules they 
will be running their farms and their businesses because a farm bill 
that received broad support from Democrats and Republicans on the 
Agriculture Committee has not made its way to the floor--in light of 
all this trouble, amidst all the stress of the American economy, the 
plan for the majority is to leave town tomorrow until after the 
election. This is irresponsible in two ways.
  First, I think we have a duty to act before the election so the 
voters of this country can assess where we stand and whom they want to 
have represent them in the years ahead. And second, the problems of 
American families will not be put on hold during the 6 or 7 weeks that 
we're back in our districts politicking. Then we'll all come back after 
the election--many people will be in what's called a lame duck status 
where they're not coming back--and we will compress all of these 
decisions into 5 or 6 weeks. This is just not the proper way to 
legislate. It's not the proper way to govern our affairs.
  So I would urge Members to oppose the previous question, which has 
the effect of putting on the floor legislation that would guarantee a 
tax cut, tax relief for middle class people, as well as the creation of 
jobs in our country because of clean energy. Now, you can agree or 
disagree with those propositions, but I don't think any of us disagrees 
with the proposition that in the face of these very real crises for the 
American people, we're just getting on

[[Page H6172]]

the plane, getting on the bus, getting on the train and leaving town. 
It's the wrong thing to do.
  We should oppose the previous question and vote ``no.''
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire through my colleague if he 
has any other requests for time?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I actually don't think I have any other speakers. 
I may be surprised in the next few minutes, as will be the case.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. It happens.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. It happens, yes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I am prepared to close, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I sincerely regret that today we will consider 
legislation that has no chance of becoming law. Our constituents send 
us here with an expectation that we will work together and deliver 
results. That doesn't mean that they expect us to abandon all of our 
principles, but it does mean that while we engage in fierce debate, we 
do so in the spirit of collaboration and at the end of the day we come 
together to produce bipartisan legislation that will address the major 
issues that are facing our country.
  For the last 2 years, the majority has actively avoided such 
bipartisan legislating, and as a result we face a mounting number of 
issues that demand our attention. Sadly, none of those pressing issues 
are addressed in today's bills.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose today's rule and the underlying 
legislation. It is time we put aside political games and address the 
pressing national issues facing this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, to defeat the previous question, and I urge a ``no'' vote on 
the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1340

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  In our discussion of this particular rule today, we have, as 
oftentimes is the case, wandered far and wide.
  I would point out to one of the speakers who was just up there saying 
that we should stay here doing the sequestration act, dealing with the 
sequestration issue, the House did. On May 10, we passed the 
Sequestration Replacement Act. Once again, it's sitting over in the 
Senate. To wait here until we do the middle class tax cuts, we did that 
in August. It's waiting over on the Senate to do something.
  We have issues that are significant in the two that are before us. If 
we're talking about welfare in some particular way, whether the rule 
that was made coming out of the executive branch was appropriate or 
not, we could go back and say why it was done. It is true the 
President, in 1997 and once again in 1998, said he would not have 
supported the legislation that created the system that we have. It's 
also true that in The Washington Post editorial, they made comments 
that said the Obama administration is waiving the Federal requirement 
that ensures a portion of able-bodied TANF recipients must engage in 
work activities. If this is not getting welfare reform, it's difficult 
to imagine what would be.
  But even if the substance of that was inaccurate, the fact that it 
was done by regulation, by rulemaking coming from the administrative 
branch, puts us in suspect category. Rules should not be establishing 
what is our priority; it should be laws made on this body. If you want 
to change it, if you want to do waivers, it should be coming from this 
particular body.
  The other half of it deals with coal. This is a Nation with the 
largest coal reserves in the world. We have 500 years of potential 
electricity at cheap rates coming from coal. A coal plant today is as 
much as 99 percent cleaner than one built 40 years ago, and yet rules 
and regulations that have been promulgated or are being threatened to 
promulgate are one of those that impede the ability of building new 
plants.
  There is no valid reason why the American coal industry should be 
suffering at the hands of overzealous Washington regulators or why 
workers are being laid off in the Midwest, in Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, West Virginia, and other places; although, today, it was again 
announced that there will be 1,200 coal mining jobs that will be 
eliminated across central Appalachia by a company, one company.
  And once again, there is the kind of unfair regulations that are 
taking place. It is true that H.R. 3409 is cobbled together with other 
bills that have passed this body, but I would remind you that each of 
those four that have already passed this body were passed on a 
bipartisan vote, with anywhere between 16 and 37 Democrats, depending 
on the bill, joining with Republicans to pass those. And, when put 
together in a package with H.R. 3409, presents a good package to make 
sure that we are in favor of cheap energy, energy that will drive and 
build our economy and provide jobs for those who need those particular 
jobs.
  I went historically in a while earlier because I wanted to say that 
we have faced these types of situations in the past, where the question 
was: Should the President make the rules or regulations or should 
Congress actually pass legislation?
  The President to whom I referred ended his tenure in a somewhat 
bitter way, refusing to work with Congress, instead, trying to go 
around Congress, which produced, at that time, a historic deadlock 
between the Presidency and the Congress.
  This is a Nation of laws. Laws are made here. It's not a Nation of 
rules. And if the rules and regulations are going to have the effect on 
the future and are going to have an effect on the American people, they 
should not be done by executive fiat. Whether you like them or not, 
they should not be done in that manner. It should be done here 
legislatively.
  That's the purpose of both of these issues that are tied together in 
this rule; that's the thread that comes together--whether or not we 
actually believe Congress should be doing the job of creating the 
standards and the rules, or we're willing to simply abrogate our 
responsibility, our power, our options to some other body.
  And I would hope that as Congress we would be very careful and 
considerate about what our responsibility is, and we would take very 
seriously any encroachment on the role of law that is given to us by 
the Constitution. It was the vision of the Founding Fathers that this 
should be the body that makes those decisions, not the executive 
branch.
  This is a good bill, these are good bills, and this is a fair rule.
  We haven't even talked about the amendments that were made in order, 
but they do cover, in fact, we did have one statement about the 
amendment that was not made in order, and I half wish--the Member is no 
longer here, but his issue of concern is covered in another amendment 
that is made in order and will be discussed on this floor.
  So it is a fair rule. It will have a vigorous debate. And there are 
two good bills that would be brought before this body that I hope 
sincerely pass. I do urge their adoption, and I sincerely urge the 
adoption of this rule that will move us forward.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

    An Amendment to H. Res. 788 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 746) prohibiting the consideration of a 
     concurrent resolution providing for adjournment or 
     adjournment sine die unless a law is enacted to provide for 
     the extension of certain expired or expiring tax provisions 
     that apply to middle-income taxpayers if called up by 
     Representative Slaughter of New York or her designee. All 
     points of order against the resolution and against its 
     consideration are waived.
       Sec. 9. Immediately after House Resolution 746 is no longer 
     pending, 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. 15) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     to provide tax relief to middle-class families. All points of 
     order against consideration of

[[Page H6173]]

     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. 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.
       Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of the bill specified in section 9 of this 
     resolution.
       Sec. 11. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment printed in section 12 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution if 
     offered by Representative Boswell of Iowa or a designee. That 
     amendment shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent.
       Sec. 12 The Amendment referred to in section 11 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of the Rules Committee Print, add the following 
     new title:
       TITLE VI--EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT SEC. 601. 
     EXTENSION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY CREDIT.
       (a) Wind.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(d) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ``January 1, 
     2013'' and inserting ``January 1, 2017''. (b) Biomass, 
     Geothermal, Small Irrigation, Landfill Gas, Trash, and 
     Hydropower.--Each of the following provisions of section 
     45(d) of such Code is amended by striking ``January 1, 2014'' 
     and inserting ``January 1, 2017'':
       (1) Clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (2)(A).
       (2) Clauses (i) (I) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(A).
       (3) Paragraph (4).
       (4) Paragraph (6).
       (5) Paragraph (7).
       (6) Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (9).
       (7) Subparagraph (B) of paragraph (11).
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by the 
     Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     110th and 111th Congresses.)

        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 Republican 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 Republican 
     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 Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In 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 Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time 
and move the previous question on the resolution.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 179, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 587]

                               YEAS--238

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donnelly (IN)
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--179

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley

[[Page H6174]]

     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Akin
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Granger
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Renacci
     Ross (AR)
     Ryan (WI)
     Speier
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1406

  Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, DAVIS of Illinois, and TONKO 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GINGREY of Georgia and LABRADOR changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. CARNEY. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 587 on Previous 
Question H. Res. 788, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``yea'' when I 
should have voted ``nay.''
  I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record 
following rollcall vote No. 587.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 587, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quayle). 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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 182, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 588]

                               YEAS--233

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner (NY)
     Turner (OH)
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--182

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barber
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hochul
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Woolsey
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Akin
     Filner
     Gallegly
     Granger
     Heinrich
     Jackson (IL)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Posey
     Renacci
     Ross (AR)
     Ryan (WI)
     Speier
     Sullivan

                              {time}  1420

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 588, I was away from the Capitol 
due to prior commitments to my constituents. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''

                          personal explanation

  Mr. JOHNSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, September 20, 2012 
I had a delay on my American Airlines flight 1342 from Chicago to 
Washington, D.C. due to mechanical difficulties. I missed procedural 
votes on ordering the Previous Question and the Adoption of the rule 
for Welfare Work Requirements and Stop the War on Coal.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the above stated 
bills.

                          ____________________
```