PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 19, 2012
Sets forth the rule for consideration of 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; providing 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; and providing for proceedings during the period from September 22, 2012, through November 12, 2012.
People & committees
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1] · R–UT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 233 - 182 (Roll no. 588). (text: CR H6165)
House roll call 588 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 233 - 182 (Roll no. 588).(text: CR H6165)
House roll call 588 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 238 - 179 (Roll no. 587). (consideration: CR H6173-6174)
House roll call 587 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 788.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H6165-6167, H6173-6174)
On question of consideration of the Resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Ms. Moore stated that the provisions of H. Res. 788 violate section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and made a point of order against the consideration of the resolution. Subsequently, the Chair noted that the required threshold of identifying the specific language in question had been met, and the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. At the conclusion of debate on the question of consideration, the Chair will put the question to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Bishop (UT) called up the resolution H. Res. 788, and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 162.
The resolution provides for consideration of both H.J.Res. 118 and H.R. 3409. H.J. Res. 118 is debatable for one hour and is closed to amendments. H.R. 3409 is debatable for one hour and specified amendments are in order. Motions to recommit are in order. The resolution also provides for approval of the Journal on specified days; appointing of Members to perform duties of the Chair; not counting of legislative days for the purposes of the War Powers Act, purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII, and the purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-680, by Mr. Bishop (UT).
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 112-680, by Mr. Bishop (UT).
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.788 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.788 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.788 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.788 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.