September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H6165 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 

WOMACK). Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from New 

York? 

There was no objection. 

f 

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 fiveminute 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 TANFrelated 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. 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 socalled ‘‘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. 

b 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—— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 droughtstricken 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. 

b 1300 

This bill is based upon a premise that 

has been proven false by multiple factchecking 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6170 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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.’’ 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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. 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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. 

b 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
September 20, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE
H6174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE September 20, 2012 

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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 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 

Luja ́n 

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) 

Sa ́nchez, 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 

Vela ́ zquez 

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 

b 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. 

f 

DISAPPROVING RULE RELATING 

TO WAIVER AND EXPENDITURE 

AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO 

THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE 

FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM 

Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 

House Resolution 788, I call up 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 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with HOUSE