This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking water. Under the bill, the sale of such products would be permissible only if they were ?lead-free.?

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) urged support for this bill: ?This bill will update the national lead content standard to nearly eradicate lead in faucets and fixtures which currently contribute up to 20 percent of human lead exposure, according to the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. In a 21st century America, we have a responsibility to do more to protect our children and families against the lead exposure acquired through plumbing systems. The Safe Drinking Water Act, which determines the national lead content standards, currently allows up to 8 percent lead content for faucets and other plumbing fixtures and limits the amount of lead that can leach from plumbing into drinking water. But health studies have concluded that much smaller amounts of lead exposure can have serious impacts on children and adults, including kidney disease, reduced IQ, hypertension, hearing loss, and brain damage.?

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) argued that the bill failed to educate the public about the new lead standard, and therefore would lead to mass confusion, and perhaps unintended consequences: ??We need an education component to this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill so we can get an education component part of it. I am concerned that do-it-yourselfers, much like me, are going to see this legislation pass, think that their existing faucets are toxic fountains, go to their hardware store to get a new faucet, cut their home piping, thereby releasing lead shavings into their home's pipes, and wind up with water streaming from their faucets with even more lead than had they just left the faucet alone.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 226-109. Voting ?yea? were 195 Democrats and 31 Republicans. 108 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation effectively eliminating lead from faucets and other fixtures used for drinking wa

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure.
 
Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ?People are trying very hard to fight these battles alone. They can't get in touch with the [legal] services?.we are allowing these homeowners to swim out there alone by themselves with no help. Let's help the American people. This is the least that we can do?We can not only send this message, but we could stand up and demand that they get the kind of help that will keep them and their families in their homes.?

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) argued that the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and amounted to a ?bailout.? He contended that any funding to help those facing home foreclosures should come from the Legal Services Corporation, which is federally funded and provides legal aid to the poor: ?Taxpayers are already paying for legal services for the impoverished. It's the Legal Services Corporation. And the appropriation [funding level] for this year, at least as it currently is listed, is $440 million?If the [Democratic] majority is upset that there is not enough money going to legal services for the poor, whether it's for foreclosures or other legal issues, the right path would be?asking for additional funds within an already existing process.?

While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on the bill was 210-145. Voting ?yea? were 204 Democrats and 6 Republicans. 140 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have allowed the Treasury Department to provide financial assistance to non-profit organizations that offer legal assistance to homeowners who were facing foreclosure.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies. The bill also provided for a training program for employees who would be charged with evaluating the merits and efficacy of government programs.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) urged support for the bill: ?The concept is not complicated. We can cut down on the debt by cutting down on waste. With greater government efficiency, we can produce cost savings for every American taxpayer. This bill will shine light on ineffective federal programs to root out wasteful spending. Federal agencies are supposed to clearly identify ambitious, high-priority goals and assess their performance and effectiveness to evaluate its direct impact on the American people and the government. This will provide the needed information to make informed budgetary decisions.?

Rep. Darrel Issa (R-CA) urged opposition to the bill, arguing that the president already had the authority to establish such performance standards, and that it was therefore wasteful to spend millions of taxpayers? dollars on a program to implement those standards: ?This is not a good bill?.this bill is simply a series of mandates that codifies [enters into law] a management style that needs no legislation. This legislation does not create something that the president cannot and is not already doing. We, in Congress, want goal-setting?.As the bill is written today, basically, an agency sets its own goals, announces its own goals? This does not create a real requirement for performance-based program analysis?.If we are going to spend even $75 million on new mandates, we have a standard that has to be a standard of excellence, a standard that truly makes improvements, and a standard that in fact does not simply allow the president to do what he already has the power to do?.?

While a majority of members (212) voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on the bill was 212-131. Voting ?yea? were 189 Democrats and 23 Republicans. 127 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have  required federal government agencies to establish performance standards intended to help assess and improve the efficiency of those agencies.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down.

The federal government?s fiscal year ends on September 30. If Congress has not passed legislation setting funding levels for all programs and agencies by that date, the House and Senate must enact temporary ?continuing resolutions? (or ?CRs?) until a long-term funding bill is passed and signed into law by the president. In this case, the government would have shut down on Sunday, December 19 (the date at which the previous CR expired). This continuing resolution kept the government running through December 21. Such short-term measures were necessary because the Senate had not yet passed a long-term bill to fund government operations. Thus, while the House waited for the Senate to act, it passed this bill to keep the government running for three more days.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued the bill would ?allow government to continue its normal operations until midnight, on Tuesday, to give the Senate a chance to complete its deliberations.? Polis continued: ?I could take this opportunity to share the frustration of our colleagues at the inability of the Senate to complete its work in a timely manner; but in the spirit of the [holiday] season? I will simply say that we must pass this continuing resolution to allow the Senate to continue its important work and deliberations to create either a longer term continuing resolution or an omnibus appropriations package that will allow the regular business of government to keep the people of America safe to continue.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The underlying legislation is a CR to keep the government running until Tuesday. That is true. The Democrats provided no budget this year, and the President has not signed one appropriations bill into law this year. So this legislation and the rule is just another tactic to keep the government running until the majority can figure out its next priority. Well, I assure you it will be all about spending?.Republicans want to take spending levels back to 2008, which would save American taxpayers nearly $100 billion in the first year.?This country needs leaders who are willing to make tough financial decisions and fiscal decisions that will bring back our economy, stability, job growth--not just more of the same taxing and spending.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 184-159. Voting ?yea? were 184 Democrats. All 149 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation keeping government programs and agencies operating for three days to prevent the government from shutting down.?

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011 (this legislation was known as the ?Defense Authorization bill?), including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

This bill reflected a compromise between the House and the Senate. The House had passed its Defense Authorization bill seven months earlier. The Senate, however, never passed its own version. While all but six Republicans present voted in favor of this compromise bill, none praised the measure during debate on the House floor. Indeed, Republican members indicated they would vote for the bill reluctantly, because they believed its passage was critical to the safety of U.S. troops. They argued that it was highly inappropriate to consider such a major piece of legislation under suspension of the rules, which limits debate and prohibits members from offering amendments. They also argued that this compromise bill was inferior to the one passed by the House seven months earlier, which among other things, included a bigger pay raise for U.S. troops.

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) echoed the sentiments of many Republicans: ?We stand here today 7 months after the House passed its version of the 2011 defense authorization bill because the leadership of the other body [the Senate] dithered instead of doing the right thing for all members of our armed services. As a result, the Senate has not passed its version of the defense authorization. Then in a last minute rush to get a defense bill, any defense bill, we stand on the floor today to debate for 40 minutes under suspension of the rules a 900-page bill?that is a stripped down, weakened version of what the House enacted in May. We may hear some good things about the bill, but let me remind members that this rush to have a bill has cost the men and women in uniform. This bill is stripping out key House provisions in the name of expediency?.Despite the omissions in the bill, I will reluctantly urge members to support the bill.?

A majority of Democrats also backed the Defense bill. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) urged support for the bill, arguing its passage was vital to the well-being of American troops overseas: ?Most of you, like me, have spent time with our troops overseas. Their dedication, their courage, their devotion never cease to amaze me. Their service and sacrifice is matched only by that of their families who bear the same burden. Their sacrifice is, at times, almost unbearable. Yet they do it, and not for us but for the American people. However, we bear the awesome burden of repaying their sacrifice.?

A number of Democrats, however, voted against the measure. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) argued: ??We have the largest defense budget in the world. We cannot continue to spend as much on defense as the next 16 countries combined. We cannot continue to spend billions to protect West Germany from the Soviet Union when both ceased to exist 2 decades ago. Such policies are not fair to our military or to the taxpayer. While nothing is more important than providing the resources needed to keep our men and women in uniform safe, the bill is too rooted in the past and the unfortunate present operation in Afghanistan, which I've opposed for scaling up, when we should have been scaling down so that we can refine and refocus on programs that will make our country safer and more secure.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 341-48. Voting ?yea? were 187 Democrats and 154 Republicans. 42 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 6 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $725 billion to be spent on Defense Department programs in 2011, including $159 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending income tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003, and extending (for one year) unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits.

This bill reflected a compromise negotiated between President Obama and Republican leaders. Obama ? along with most congressional Democrats ? favored extending only those tax cuts which benefitted middle class Americans. Republicans had insisted on extending tax cuts for all Americans, including those individuals with incomes over $200,000 and couples with incomes over $250,000. They had also opposed extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had used up their benefits. Thus, the compromise bill provided for a temporary, two-year extension of the Bush-era tax cuts ? as well as an extension of unemployment benefits for workers who had not yet received unemployment compensation for the maximum 99 weeks allowed under federal law Workers who had received unemployment compensation for more than 99 weeks were ineligible for further assistance under this bill.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?The Democratic majority in the House has made it crystal clear that we stand on the side of middle income families, of unemployed workers, of small businesses struggling in this difficult economy?. In order for the [Obama] administration to be able to include provisions that help lower and middle income families, it came at the price of assisting the very wealthy, the Republicans' priority. Their [the Republicans?] position has led to a package where the top six-tenths of 1 percent of the very wealthiest receive 20 percent of the benefits of the tax package [the bill being debated].?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged support for the bill: ?Americans are suffering through the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. This is not a time for political speeches or electoral posturing. This is a time to act responsibly, to do what is right, and to vote `yes.' Employers are begging us to pass this legislation. Small businesses and the National Federation of Independent Business are supporting the bill because they know they cannot afford a tax hike.?

Many Democrats (including most progressives) opposed this compromise bill. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) argued it was short-sighted, fiscally irresponsible, and would primarily benefit the wealthy: ?A vote on this agreement may or may not be good politics, but it is wrong. It continues the Washington tradition of ducking tough issues, making suboptimal choices, and trying to make every interest group happy?. Make no mistake, this vote means an exchange for a little temporary relief weighted in favor of those who need it the least. This bill means Americans will pay more in debt and interest, a sluggish economy, and costs of an unfair tax system. It's a bad bargain for the future of America's families.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 277-148. Voting ?yea? were 139 Democrats and 138 Republicans. 112 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 36 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending income tax cuts for two years, and extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers who had exhausted their benefits.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

Under the bill (which was known as the DREAM Act), such individuals must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15 and have lived in the United States for at least five years. They must also have been 29 or younger at the time of this bill?s enactment. The bill also required that they finish high school and undergo a medical examination.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?It [the underlying bill] is a bipartisan bill to address the plight of children who were brought to the United States as undocumented immigrants and grew up here?. they have to be less than 29 years old to even qualify. They must have lived in the United States at least for 5 years. They must have graduated from an American high school or be admitted to an institution of higher education??

Rep. Ed Pastor (D-AZ) urged support for the measure: ?The DREAM Act would create a pathway to citizenship for undocumented young people, who were brought to the U.S. as children, raised in this country, have excelled in our education systems, and have expressed a clear commitment to pursue higher education or military service.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill: ?The DREAM Act is a nightmare for the American people. It insults American workers, American taxpayers, and anyone who believes in the rule of law. How can we consider amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants when just last Friday, the Department of Labor reported that unemployment in America jumped up to 9.8 percent??

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) argued: ??Make no mistake, this bill is not the American Dream. This bill is the amnesty dream. This bill will give amnesty to nearly 2 million illegal immigrants right away, while providing a pathway to amnesty to encourage millions more illegal immigrants to enter our country.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 216-198. 208 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 8 Republicans voted ?yea.? 160 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally if they had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15; had lived in the United States for at least five years; and fulfilled certain educational or military service requirements.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

Under the bill (which was known as the DREAM Act), such individuals must have arrived in the U.S. before the age of 15 and have lived in the United States for at least five years. They must also have been 29 or younger at the time of this bill?s enactment. The bill also required that they finish high school and undergo a medical examination.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The young people covered under this bill are the children any parent would be proud of--our sons and daughters, our neighbors, our classmates, prom kings and queens, football players, and cheerleaders--who stayed in school, played by the rules, graduated, worked hard, and stayed out of trouble. They are the children of our great nation.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that the underlying bill amounted to amnesty for illegal immigrants: ?I don't think there is anyone on our side of the aisle who isn't empathetic to the fact that the youth brought to America as children did not come here illegally of their own accord. I certainly feel that way. However, the majority of immigrants come to America because of what our nation stands for, which is rooted in our foundation--the cornerstone being our rule of law. In order to maintain our liberties and freedom, Congress must always respect and preserve the rule of law. We must exercise our principles in fairness, not inequity; and I would argue that amnesty is not fairness but a direct assault on the rule of law.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 211-208. 211 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? All 171 Republicans present and 37 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011. Such spending bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? Democratic leaders also attached a food safety bill to this CR. The food safety bill, which had already passed the Senate, increased safety inspections at food processing plants and gave the federal government new authority to recall tainted food products. The CR also froze the salaries of civilian federal workers for two years.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) argued that the CR was the product of compromises, many of which he did not like, yet argued that passage of the bill was the only responsible option. He blasted Republican opposition to the bill, and urged all members to support it: ?I hope it does not represent too great an `inconvenience' to those members of this body who are much more comfortable providing budget-busting tax gifts to the economic elite in this country rather than making even the tiniest government investment in programs that will help the lives of the unlucky?There are at least 50 decisions in this bill that I am flatly opposed to. There are many arguments in this bill that I have lost. But the fact is, sooner or later, if you're going to be responsible, you have to set aside your first preferences and simply do what is necessary in order to keep the government open so that Congress doesn't become the laughingstock of the country. The only responsible vote to cast on this proposition is an ``aye'' vote. I urge support for the resolution, with all of its shortcomings.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) replied that if Obey was so unhappy with the CR, than he should join Republicans in voting to defeat it: ??If both of us dislike it so much, Mr.Obey, and if we both voted `no,' maybe we could bring the turkey down and start all over again.? Lewis argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ??I remain adamantly opposed to extending this CR for the balance of the fiscal year at Democrats' current levels, which are too high, or at the inflated levels proposed in this package?.none of us believe we should shut down the government, but I cannot and will not support the CR?because it simply spends too much??

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) urged support for the bill, and praised its food safety provisions: ? Some 5,000 Americans die every year of bad food, 300,000 go to the hospital, and 77 million get sick. This bill gives the Food and Drug Administration the funds, the authority that it needs to do the job that has to be done.?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill, and criticized the food safety measures. He specifically took issue with a provision authored by Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) exempting small farms from regulations: ? The inclusion of what's called the Tester amendment in the Senate bill means that some farms, small farms along the borders between the United States and Mexico and the United States and Canada would be exempt from some of the requirements of the bill.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 212-206. 212 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? All 171 Republicans present and 35 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels (i.e., funding levels that were in place in 2010) through September 30, 2011. Such spending bills are known as ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.? Democratic leaders also attached a food safety bill to this CR. The food safety overhaul increased safety inspections at food processing plants and gave the federal government new authority to recall tainted food products. The CR also froze the salaries of civilian federal workers for two years.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution (which set a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill) and the underlying legislation (the CR): ??Today the House will consider the?continuing resolution legislation that will fund the federal government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011. Additionally, this bill contains the food safety bill?Both these measures need to be passed. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying CR: ??[The underlying bill] includes the food safety bill which has been attached to that CR. So it is not a clean bill?.This legislation, once again, continues to overspend and overregulate, a common theme over the last two Congresses?. This CR?continues the unsustainable high rate of spending passed by the Democrat majority, aided by, supported, and abetted by the president of the United States, our president, Barack Obama.?

McGovern shot back: ?I am sorry the gentleman is not for safer food safety measures, but let me just point out for the record that while the food supply in the United States is one of the safest in the world, each year about 76 million illnesses occur, more than 300,000 persons are hospitalized, and 5,000 die from food-borne illnesses.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 207-206. 207 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 37 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation funding all government agencies and programs at existing funding levels through September 30, 2011, and implementing new food safety regulations.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection (known as ?whistleblower protection?) to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions. Whistleblower protections shield employees from employer retaliation when they expose such conditions.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ??The House today considers urgently needed legislation to address life-threatening gaps in our nation's mine safety laws. Despite progress made over several decades in mine safety, more than 600 miners have been killed on the job in the last 10 years?.After every major tragedy, promises are made by public officials to miners and their families--to the survivors--that timely action will be taken to make sure that this thing never happens again?.The Robert C. Byrd Mine Safety Protection Act is our chance to finally make a downpayment on that promise.? (The bill?s supporters named the legislation after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-WV), who represented West Virginia mining communities for more than half a century in the U.S. Senate.)

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) urged opposition to the bill, arguing that the Democratic-backed bill was a rushed and irresponsible response to a problem they did not fully understand how to solve: ?I believe steps can be taken by federal and state regulators, mine operators, and miners, themselves, to reduce the dangers inherent for those who mine for natural resources that power our nation. That is why it is with deep regret that I oppose the legislation before us today. Once again, well-intended reforms addressing a vital issue are being rushed through a flawed process that results in a deeply flawed bill. This is not the way to govern?.it [the bill] seeks to create a solution to a problem we do not fully understand.?

The vote on the bill was 214-193. 213 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this mine safety bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since the bill did not receive the required two-thirds majority, the measure failed.  As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have required additional inspections of mines, given federal regulators the authority to seek court orders to close mines deemed to be dangerous, and offered legal protection to mine employees who expose unsafe working conditions.? Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments -- to all legislation considered in the House of Representatives until December 18 -- on the same day it was passed by the House Rules Committee.

According to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was passed by the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. In an effort to circumvent the two-thirds majority requirement for ?same-day? consideration of a rule, Democratic leaders brought up a resolution that would waive that requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority.

This vote took place on December 8, 2010, less than one month before the end of this congressional session. Any bill not passed by both houses of Congress (and signed into law by the president) by the end of a congressional session automatically dies. Thus, Democrats used this ?same-day rule? to expedite consideration of major legislation which had still not cleared both houses of Congress.

Democrats indicated that this resolution would allow the House to bring up major legislation, including a bill to extending expiring income tax cuts; legislation implementing stricter food safety regulations; a bill providing annual funding for the Defense Department; and legislation allowing children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the ?same day rule? resolution: ? Today?key legislation remains to be completed?This rule today is critical so that we can move forward to consider middle class tax cuts, the DREAM Act, food safety, defense authorization [the Defense spending bill], regardless of where members of this body stand on particular issues, and I think we owe it to our country to bring them forward in a timely manner for full consideration by this body.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) urged opposition to the measure: ?The rule before us provides for expedited same day consideration for all legislation brought forward until December 18?.It's really martial law rule because it closes down the process, does not allow members of Congress to review legislation, to really know what legislation that will be considered is about.?

The House agreed to this ?same-day rule? by a vote of 215-194. 215 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing the House to bring up a rule setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to major legislation, including bills to extend expiring tax cuts, provide annual funding for the Defense Department, impose new food safety regulations, and allow children (who were not born in the U.S.) of illegal immigrants to remain in the country legally.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment. Proponents of the bill argued such a payment was necessary because Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a cost-of-living increase in their Social Security checks in 2011.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for Social Security beneficiaries are determined by a formula that increases payments when the cost of everyday expenses rises. According to this formula, the cost of living did not increase in 2010. Therefore, Social Security beneficiaries were not scheduled to receive a COLA in 2011. Democrats brought this bill up for a vote, arguing that denying seniors increased financial assistance during a deep recession could harm their quality of life.

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) urged support for the bill: ??They [seniors] have their benefit levels flatlined at a time when they are encountering higher costs, reducing their quality of life experience, and disappointing them greatly about Social Security.  The bill before us would provide 54 million Americans with a $250 payment in lieu of COLA. Now, for those at the very bottom, this means a lot--about a $20 a month cost-of-living adjustment to help them with those higher costs.?

Rep. Sam Johnson (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill: ?The COLA formula is designed to achieve a simple goal. Increases in consumer prices trigger an increase in Social Security benefits?.Since prices have remained short of the peak they reached back in 2008, the Social Security Administration announced there will not be a COLA in 2011...Though seniors are understandably disappointed, the COLA formula is working as intended.?

The vote on the bill was 254-153. 228 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted ?yea.? 141 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since the bill did not receive the required two-thirds majority, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation to provide seniors with a one-time $250 payment in lieu of a Social Security COLA. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers,  but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

In 2011, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 were scheduled to expire. Democrats supported extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, arguing that middle-income earners should not face a tax hike during a recession. (This particular recession began in 2008, and had persisted for more than two years). Many Democrats, however, objected to extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans meanwhile, insisted that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for all Americans. President Obama had urged Congress to pass legislation extending tax cuts only for middle class Americans.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?This is the moment to stand up and be counted on middle-income tax cuts. The Republicans want to continue to keep middle-income tax cuts hostage, hostage until it's combined with upper-income tax cuts. It's, in part, because they don't want to have to vote separately on tax cuts for the very wealthy.?

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) also argued in favor of the measure: ??We have to draw a line somewhere. We have to say the people who have done extremely well over the last 10 years thanks to the Bush tax cuts need to pay a little more. This won't kill jobs. We won't be crying crocodile tears for them. It's more important that we make sure that the vast majority of Americans have the income they need to drive this economy. That's where the business people, small and large, will prosper.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged opposition to the bill: ?The unemployment rate in October, the latest data available, was 9.6 percent. That marked 15 consecutive months we are at or above 9.5 percent unemployment in this country, the longest period since the Great Depression?.What's a Democrat's answer to the Great Recession? Increased taxes, but not just any taxes. Democrats in the bill before us today are targeting half of all small business income in the country. Democrats are targeting the very employers we need, hiring more workers, and buying more equipment, not paying more taxes.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) criticized the measure: ?They [the Democrats] have tried to spend their way into economic prosperity; it has failed. They have tried to borrow their way into national economic prosperity; it has failed?.Here today, again, another opportunity to tax our way into economic prosperity. It does not work. The American people have rejected this tired, old class warfare rhetoric. You cannot help the job seeker by punishing the job creator.?

The House passed the middle class tax cut bill by a vote of 234-188. 231 Democrats ? including the vast majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools. 

Under the bill, foster children would become automatically eligible for the school lunch program (in which students are provided with a free lunch subsidized by the federal government). In order to streamline the process of enrolling children in the school lunch program, the measure reduced the amount of paperwork required to sign up for free meals. The bill also established a grant program to increase participation among schools in the national school breakfast program.
 
The bill directed the Agriculture Department to establish nutritional standards for all food sold in schools ? including products in vending machines. The measure also implemented an organic food pilot program (to serve organic food in public schools).

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ??Today I rise for our nation's children, for the poorest children in our country who are hungry and malnourished. I rise because children need our help. Child nutrition is not a political issue. It's not a partisan issue. It's a question of what's a moral thing to do for our children. It's about being on the right side of history and ensuring a healthy and productive future for our country. Our children will make and determine our future, and that is what is at stake.?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) also argued in favor of the bill: ?As a nurse for over 30 years, I have seen firsthand the risks and illnesses that can result from obesity. Childhood obesity, diabetes, and heart disease are all on the rise in the United States. And one of the best tools we have to combat these illnesses is our ability to apply wholesome and healthy nutrition to children in our schools?Given the current harsh financial realities for many families in my district and throughout the nation, schools have an increasingly important role to play in providing children with nutritious food during their days.?

Rep. John Kline argued that an expansion of child nutrition programs was unaffordable: ?Each of us must make that choice as we cast our votes on the bill before us. Everyone recognizes the importance of extending child nutrition programs, but extending these programs does not mean expanding them. We could extend these programs and improve them with no added cost to taxpayers. We could listen to our constituents and do right by our children.?

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) criticized the measure: ?I'm a medical doctor, and I have spent almost four decades of practicing medicine concerned about child nutrition and about the health of my patients.?But this act is not about child nutrition.?This is about more government control. This is not about healthy children. It's about borrowing more money and putting our children in greater debt. It's not about creating a better environment for children in the schools. It's about more and more control from Washington, DC.?

The House passed this child nutrition bill by a vote of 264-157. 247 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?yea.? 153 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions (on a school lunch and child nutrition bill) that would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks. The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches (as opposed to free school lunches) for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) urged support for the Republican motion to recommit: ?Allowing the federal government to create price mandates is a dangerous precedent and should not be set. By approving this motion to recommit, we can block this harmful tax on working families. We have thoroughly debated the broader objections to this legislation today, arguing against the spending and mandate, but that is not the debate we're having now. This motion to recommit is a modest pair of corrections that will make the bill better. It will make our children safer and protect working families, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) argued that Republicans offered this motion to recommit simply to kill the bill. (Since this vote occurred at the end of a congressional session, the Senate would likely not have had time to take up the bill if the House were to amend it. If both the Senate and the House of Representatives do not pass a bill by the end of a congressional session, it automatically dies.) Miller contended: ?They [the Republicans] opposed this legislation even though it passed unanimously on the floor of the Senate?they know that we're in the last days of this session, and if they can attach something to this legislation, they can kill this bill. They can kill the years of hard work that have gone into this legislation??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 200-221. 170 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted ?yea.? 220 Democrats ?including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a school lunch and child nutrition bill. If the motion had passed, it would have required all employees of child care operations receiving funding under the bill to submit to criminal background checks. The motion to recommit also would have eliminated a provision in the bill that allowed the Agriculture Department to regulate the prices of paid school lunches for children with incomes over 185% of the federal poverty level.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers,  but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

In 2011, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 were scheduled to expire. Democrats supported extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, arguing that middle-income earners should not face a tax hike during a recession. (This particular recession began in 2008, and had persisted for more than two years). Many Democrats, however, objected to extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans meanwhile, insisted that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for all Americans. President Obama had urged Congress to pass legislation extending tax cuts only for middle class Americans.

Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??This is about fairness. We need to fight for working families and let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire so that they can start to pay their fair share of taxes. Today's vote on this bill will let the American people, the 98 percent who don't make $200,000 a year, including 323,000 families in Hawaii, know who is on their side fighting for them.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill, arguing Congress should vote to extend tax cuts for all Americans: ??I have an unemployment rate in part of the area I'm privileged to represent in Southern California, Mr. Speaker, that is in excess of 15 percent. We have a statewide unemployment rate in the largest state of the Union, the largest, most important state of the Union, the state of California, we have a 12 1/2 percent unemployment rate. People are hurting. And so to do anything other than ensure that we don't increase taxes on the people who are struggling to create jobs for our fellow Americans is something that we have a responsibility to do.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 213-203. 213 Democrats ? including all progressives present ? voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 33 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts (which were enacted in 2001 and 2003 under President George W. Bush) for middle class taxpayers,  but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

In 2011, the tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 and 2003 were scheduled to expire. Democrats supported extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, arguing that middle-income earners should not face a tax hike during a recession. (This particular recession began in 2008, and had persisted for more than two years). Many Democrats, however, objected to extending tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans meanwhile, insisted that the Bush-era tax cuts be extended for all Americans. President Obama had urged Congress to pass legislation extending tax cuts only for middle class Americans.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??Today we have the opportunity to do the right thing and put American workers ahead of millionaires and billionaires?.Today we can focus on economic growth to help those who are suffering from this recession and to provide permanent, equitable tax relief for the middle class. These should not be controversial positions?.The economic growth that all Americans can share in ought to be a top priority for every elected official, and lowering the tax burden for working families shouldn't be any kind of a partisan fight.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?The bottom line is, by resorting to legerdemain, we are going to end up increasing taxes on working Americans?.Any member of this House who votes in favor of this measure is voting to increase taxes on the men and women in this country who are out there saving, investing, and working to create jobs for our fellow Americans, and it is just plain wrong.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 224-186. 224 Democrats ? including all progressives present ? voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending tax cuts for middle class taxpayers, but allowing tax cuts for wealthy individuals and families to expire.

Government operations are generally funded by 12 annual spending bills, known as ?appropriations bills.? (For example, one annual spending bill funds Agriculture Department programs and operations, while another funds those of the Defense Departmen.)  Since none of those 12 bills had been enacted, a temporary measure ? known as a ?continuing resolution? or ?CR?  -- was needed to keep the government running on a short-term basis.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged support for the measure: ??This legislation is one page long. It does only one thing: It changes the date so we can keep the government running from this Friday, December 3 to Saturday, December 18. Otherwise, the government would shut down.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) sharply criticized the measure: ??I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable levels of spending established last year. At a time of historic deficits, record debt, and 10 percent unemployment, I believe we owe our constituents more than the status quo. Let's start cutting spending, Mr. Speaker, today.?

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) urged opposition to the legislation: ?Today's CR is nothing but a continuation of the culture of overspending, persistence of a broken process, and a refusal to make the tough decisions, end earmarks, and do the job we were sent here to do. As a result, our federal spending is off the charts. We are staring at another trillion-dollar budget deficit. Debts are stacking up over $13 trillion. Unemployment continues to hover around 10 percent, and congressional approval by the public remains at an all-time and dangerous low.?

Obey shot back: ?Let me simply say that I will take a lot of lectures from a lot of people on a lot of subjects, because I have made more than my share of mistakes in the years that I have served in this place. But the one thing that I will not take is lectures from the other [Republican] side about fiscal responsibility?. these are the folks who managed to turn $6 trillion in expected surpluses when Bill Clinton left office into a $1 trillion deficit. These are the same folks who insisted on passing two tax cuts primarily targeted at the wealthiest people in this country, all paid for with borrowed money.?
 
The House passed this legislation by a vote of 239-178. 237 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and  determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010.

Government operations are generally funded by 12 annual spending bills, known as ?appropriations bills.? (For example, one annual spending bill funds Agriculture Department programs and operations, while another funds those of the Defense Department.)  Since none of those 12 bills had been enacted, a temporary measure was needed to keep the government running on a short-term basis.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ? I rise today in strong support of approving a continuing resolution to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for our federal government. It is one of our primary constitutional responsibilities as members of Congress to keep the federal government running through the passage of appropriations legislation. This continuing resolution will ensure that all necessary and vital functions of government will continue uninterrupted until both chambers of our legislature have completed their work. If we do not act now, Mr. Speaker, the federal government will effectively shut down this Friday, December 3. This continuing resolution is a short term, straightforward measure to keep the government running and get us through the next 2 weeks, until December 18, while bipartisan negotiations [on spending bills] continue in the House and the Senate.

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??It seems to me that as we look at the challenges that are lying ahead, the notion of saying we are going to continue funding at the levels that created a 91 percent increase in nondefense discretionary spending [all spending that is unrelated to military operations, Medicare, and Social Security], that we're going to continue the funding levels that have created that obviously failed $787 billion?stimulus bill [which was passed by the Democratic Congress in 2009 in response to an economic crisis, and was signed into law by President Obama] which has been decried as having failed by people all across the political spectrum?That is why I'm going to urge my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to oppose this measure. I believe that we can do better.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 236-172. 236 Democrats voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation to keep government agencies and programs operating until December 18, 2010.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

Under the bill, foster children would become automatically eligible for the school lunch program (in which students are provided with a free lunch subsidized by the federal government).  In order to streamline the process of enrolling children in the school lunch program, the measure reduced the amount of paperwork required to sign up for free meals. The bill also established a grant program to increase participation among schools in the national school breakfast program.

The bill directed the Agriculture Department to establish nutritional standards for all food sold in schools ? including products in vending machines. The measure also implements an organic food pilot program (to serve organic food in public schools).

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Childhood hunger and poor nutrition are two of the greatest public health challenges--and yes, education challenges--that face our country. Nearly one-third of American children are overweight or obese, and many of those who are overweight or obese also suffer from malnutrition. This number has been on the rise nationally as well as in my home state of Colorado?.Our schools should be our first defense against childhood obesity and unhealthy nutrition habits that stay with kids as they mature into adults and even have an intergenerational effect across their lives. While hunger affects people of all ages, it is particularly devastating for children.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the legislation for using unspent funding that had been allocated for food stamps in the stimulus bill (which was enacted in February, 2009 in response to an economic crisis): ?In order to pay for the new programs in this legislation, the congressional majority decided to use previously appropriated funding intended for the Food Stamp Program. The Food Stamp funds were provided under the so-called stimulus legislation, so it's as though the majority is admitting that taxpayer dollars were incorrectly spent, and they are now using those stimulus funds to pay for these programs.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 230-174. 229 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 162 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school breakfasts and lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

Under the bill, foster children would become automatically eligible for the school lunch program (in which students are provided with a free lunch subsidized by the federal government).  In order to streamline the process of enrolling children in the school lunch program, the measure reduced the amount of paperwork required to sign up for free meals. The bill also established a grant program to increase participation among schools in the national school breakfast program.


The bill directed the Agriculture Department to establish nutritional standards for all food sold in schools ? including products in vending machines. The measure also implemented an organic food pilot program (to serve organic food in public schools).

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Some of my friends on the other side will say that they want no children in our country to go hungry?.Here's their opportunity to demonstrate that their concern for the hungry in this country is more than just lip service?.I understand the politics here. It's pretty simple. If the President's for it, my Republican friends are against it. But I would ask them and I would plead with them to check those politics at the door just this once. Please don't sacrifice an opportunity to improve the lives of millions of our children on the altar of partisan politics. The need to act is clear. Our moral obligation is clear. Our children are getting sicker and sicker and sicker. If kids don't have enough nutritious food to eat they don't learn.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?I think that all of us in this House, certainly an overwhelming majority of the membership of the House, would support--I certainly do--the continuation and reauthorization of reduced and free school food programs. The bill before us unfortunately does not improve upon the current situation in that regard. In fact, the bipartisan National Governors Association has outlined several problems that they have with this underlying legislation, and I was reading some hours ago their objections. Governors Ritter of Colorado and Rell of Connecticut highlighted new certification and monitoring mandates that will be forced on states by this legislation in order for the states to be able to continue their important participation in these programs.? (The provisions to which Diaz-Balart refers require states to certify that their public schools are in compliance with the bill?s nutritional requirements.)

The House agreed the previous question motion by a vote of 232-180. 232 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation expanding eligibility for subsidized school lunches for low-income children, and implementing stricter nutritional standards for food served in schools.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers. The bill also extended for six months the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to America?s poorest families. This bill had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature.

The bill provided $1.15 billion to compensate African American farmers who had brought a class action lawsuit against the Agriculture Department for discrimination. In addition, the measure provided $3.4 billion to settle the class action lawsuit brought against the Interior Department by Native American farmers.

Rep Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: ??Today, we are considering a measure which will settle over a combined century of litigation. The bill will bring to closure some shameful acts undertaken by the United States, and it will allow several communities to move forward in rebuilding their communities and their trust in the United States.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued: ?Today the House has an opportunity to bring an end to two historic injustices. We can do so by approving the settlement in the Pigford [the lawsuit brought against the government by African American farmers] and Cobell class action lawsuits [the lawsuit brought by Native Americans], helping to make amends to African American farmers and more than 300,000 Native Americans?.Few people in this Nation have been treated as poorly by their Nation as have African Americans and Native Americans. This was a continuing injustice that should have been addressed decades ago and, indeed, of course, should not have happened.?

Rep. Tom McClintock urged opposition to the bill, arguing it was unfair to American taxpayers: ??There is no doubt that Americans of African descent and Native Americans have suffered grave injustices over the years at the hands of this government, and they deserve justice--no more and no less; but if we are excessive in our zeal to do justice to one group, we end up necessarily doing injustice to others. That is the concern that is raised in this bill. Legal settlements--and that is what this bill purports to be--should be settled on legal grounds, but there is a serious question? as to whether these settlements are in the interest of justice or in the interest of all the people of our land.?

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) argued the settlement with black farmers was a back-door attempt to pass slavery reparations legislation: ??We know?[that what] started out to be in the aftermath of the Civil War, a promise from the federal government that there would be 40 acres for African Americans, newly freed slaves, provided by the federal government, by either federally owned land or southern land that had been confiscated by the Union, and there would be a rented mule to go along with that, or a loaned mule. That has been the promise of slavery reparations. Of course, it didn't come to pass?.Pigford?allowed for those who had a legitimate claim of discrimination to file that claim. Many who didn't have legitimate claims also filed claims?.this has become a modern-day reparations component, and it's wrong.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 256-152. 240 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted ?yea.? 149 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers. The bill also extended for six months the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, which provides cash assistance to America?s poorest families.

The bill provided $1.15 billion to compensate African American farmers who had brought a class action lawsuit against the Agriculture Department for discrimination. In addition, the measure provided $3.4 billion to settle the class action lawsuit brought against the Interior Department by Native American farmers.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Passing this measure will bring closure for hundreds of thousands of Americans who have been mistreated or had their rights violated by the government?.Another critical provision in this bill is the extension of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, also known as TANF. This comes at a time when so many Americans are struggling financially and are due to lose the support of this program if the House does not act.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued that, in the case of the settlement with black farmers, the number of discrimination claims had risen dramatically since 1997? an indication, she contended, that some of those claims were fraudulent.  She said: ?Alarmingly, when this case was originally brought forward in 1997, it was then estimated that 2,000 farmers may have suffered from discrimination by the USDA. Today, while the number widely varies, it is estimated that approximately 65,000 potential claims exist.? With respect to the settlement with Native American farmers, she contended that the Obama administration had not proved that ?these settlement amounts represent a net benefit to taxpayers as compared to the consequences and costs of litigation.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 223-168. 221 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 159 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation approving settlements in discrimination lawsuits brought against the federal government by African American and Native American farmers, and extending a cash assistance program for poor families for 6 months.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits have expired. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?I don't see how we can go home for Thanksgiving when, as a result of failure of benefits, hundreds of thousands of people may not have a turkey on their table because they can't afford it and the next week may not have the moneys they need to meet their daily needs. [This was one of the last votes taken in the House prior to the Thanksgiving recess.] This should be a bipartisan effort?.These are people laid off, people who have been looking for work, people who cannot find work. For every job, at least five people are looking for employment for that job.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) urged members to oppose the bill, arguing that the cost of extending unemployment insurance should be offset by cutting government spending on other programs: ?The American people know it isn't right to add these costs to our already overdrawn national credit card. We all want to help those in need, but the American people also know that someone has to pay when government spends money, and it shouldn't be our children and our grandchildren?.So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this bill today. Instead, let's work together to quickly pass a bill to extend federal unemployment benefits while finding a responsible way to pay for it.?

The vote on this bill was 258-154. 237 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?yea.? 143 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation extending unemployment compensation for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring up the bill again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home).

The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. The House first passed this ?telework? bill on July 14, 2010, after Republicans successfully amended the measure to prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. The Senate then took up that bill, and removed the anti-union language before passing the measure. This vote was on final passage of the Senate-passed legislation (which did not include the restriction on union activities).

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) urged support for the measure: ??Despite the evolving nature of the way the Federal Government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work in a remote location, continues to be woefully underutilized by federal agencies. Private and public sector employers that offer telework consistently experience increased productivity and retention rates, thereby lowering an employer's operating costs?.Given that the federal government owns or leases over 8,600 individual buildings and spends upwards of $500 billion as a landlord annually, this legislation will translate into real-world savings in the near future.?

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) urged support for the bill: ?Telework is an important and cost-effective component of efforts to reduce congestion, greenhouse gas pollution, and smog?.Reducing greenhouse gas emissions would lead to a reduction in ground level ozone in our region, which is critically important to protect the health of our region's seniors and other residents suffering from respiratory ailments or asthma.?

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) argued the bill would not guard against abuse of telecommuting policies: ?This bill lacks the safeguard so that somebody can basically take a Blackberry and a notebook, disappear forever and be almost unaccountable as to whether they ever did any of their core work while doing their union organizing and running activity. That's not in the best interest of the taxpayers. It's not what the last election was about.?

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) criticized the Democratic majority for bringing up the bill without the anti-union language: ?How will we obtain the trust of the American people who are struggling every day in this economy if we allow Federal employees to participate in union activities while on official time, give them benefits when they're delinquent on their taxes, and increase spending in Federal agencies trying to make this flawed teleworking system work??
 
The House passed the telecommuting bill by a vote of 254-142. 240 Democrats and 14 Republicans voted ?yea.? 149 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute ? thus clearing the bill for President Obama?s signature.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home).

The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. The House first passed this ?telework? bill on July 14, 2010, after Republicans successfully amended the measure to prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. The Senate then took up that bill, and removed the anti-union language before passing the measure. This vote was on the Senate-passed legislation (which did not include the restriction on union activities).

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?I have often heard my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak eloquently of how much more efficient the private sector is and about the need for government to take more cues from business. Telecommuting could not be a better example of this. There is no reason that the federal government should not make full use of the perpetual advances being made in mobile technologies to ensure that our government's workforce functions as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sharply criticized the underlying bill, arguing it was part of a larger agenda to grow the size of the federal government: ?The liberal Democrat elites have found the solution that has evaded them for so long. It is not to keep tax rates for small businesses from rising. It is not to look at ways to cut spending so that more capital is available to the private sector. It is not pushing for improved trade agreements that will increase exports and help restore our balance of trade. It is not to shrink the size and number of Federal regulations that are slowing job creation in the private sector. No. Madam Speaker and ladies and gentlemen, they bring us an opportunity to reinvigorate America's strength by spending $30 million more to make it easier for Federal employees to work from home.? [The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of implementing this telework legislation would be approximately $30 million over five years.]

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 235-171. 234 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home).

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from places other than office, such as one?s home).

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. The House first passed this ?telework? bill on July 14, 2010, after Republicans successfully amended the measure to prohibit federal employees from engaging in union or collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. The Senate then took up that bill, and removed the anti-union language before passing the measure. This vote was on the Senate-passed legislation (which did not include the restriction on union activities).

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?Telecommuting?helps to reduce traffic congestion. Not only does this save gas and emissions, but it decreases rush-hour traffic for all residents of the D.C. metro area, whether they work for the federal government or in the private sector. In the past, some have argued that telecommuting just allows lazy government employees to sit at home and pretend to work. That's simply not the case.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sharply criticized the underlying bill: ?If we accept as truth liberal claims that unemployment is the exclusive issue of concern to all voters, one must wonder what the liberals plan to do about the stalled economy now that the voters have forced them to refocus. The answer to reducing the unemployment rate: pass flawed legislation that makes it easier for federal employees to stay at home and get paid for work.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 239-171. 239 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute.

This was a vote on overriding the president?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries (notaries performed outside of the state where the court is located). Most Democrats supported sustaining the president?s veto of the bill (and thus killing the bill), while Republicans favored overriding his veto (which would have passed the bill over the president?s objections).

While the notaries bill was initially non-controversial, many Democrats became concerned that it might inadvertently lead to improper home mortgage foreclosures.  Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) argued: ?Improperly performed notarizations were reportedly a major factor in circumventing the legal protections afforded to citizens in foreclosure--notarizations in the absence of the person signing the document or without that person's signature or sometimes even forged notary signatures. So we are taking a fresh look at the notarization bill. There were concerns that it could have the unintended effect of facilitating improprieties in mortgage foreclosures?The President took the responsible course in refusing to sign this bill into law so that we could give it a careful and fresh examination in light of these concerns.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued that the Democrats? concerns were misguided, and that the legislation would in no way enable fraudulent home foreclosures: ?News accounts have detailed stories of fraudulent activity involving affidavits used to rid banks of bad mortgage inventories. I support any effort to combat that activity, but this situation does not involve H.R. 3808 [the underlying bill]. The bill applies only to `any lawful notarization made by a licensed notary public.' There is nothing in its language that pertains to fraudulent acts of notarization?.We should override the veto and support the legitimate purpose of H.R. 3808.?

The House sustained the president?s veto by a vote of 185-235. A ?yea? vote was a vote in favor of overriding the president?s veto (most Republicans? preferred position). A ?nay? vote (most Democrats? preferred position) was a vote against overriding the veto (and thus, in favor of sustaining the veto). 169 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?yea.? 230 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 5 Republicans voted ?nay. As a result, the House voted to sustain President Obama?s veto of legislation requiring courts to recognize out-of-state notaries.

This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional Thanksgiving recess. (This particular recess typically lasts for one week ? the week of Thanksgiving.)

The minority party typically opposes adjournment resolutions as a symbolic protest against the manner in which the majority party (in this case, Democrats) are running the House ? or as a protest against the majority?s legislative agenda. Under House rules, adjournment resolutions are not debatable. Thus, no members spoke in opposition to the resolution. 

However, Republican members had sharply criticized the Democratic majority earlier that morning for failing to schedule a vote during the ?lame duck? session of Congress on extending all of the income tax cuts enacted under the first Bush administration. (A ?lame duck session? refers to a session of Congress occurring after an election, but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office. This particular lame duck session took place after the 2010 midterm elections, in which Republicans won enough seats to regain control of the House of Representatives.)

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) argued: ?The American people said in deafening terms that they are tired of the borrowing and the spending and the bailouts and the takeovers and the tax increases of the recent past. They voted for change. That's why it's so remarkable, Mr. Speaker, that this Congress is poised to allow one of the largest tax increases in American history to take effect in January of this year?.It is absolutely imperative, if Congress accomplishes nothing else in this lame duck, that we take immediate action to make permanent all of the current tax rates.?

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) argued that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for top income earners should be allowed to expire: ?We are going to have to decide whether or not to indebt the American people another $700 billion to extend benefits, tax benefits, for the richest 1 percent of the country. Before we go too far in feeling sorry for that 1 percent, consider this: From 2001 to 2006, 53 percent of all gains, total gains, in income in this country went to that 1 percent?.Heed the words of the Roman priest Plutarch, who once wrote: An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics.?

The House agreed to the adjournment resolution by a vote of 234-184. 223 Democrats and 11 Republicans voted ?yea.? 163 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing Congress to adjourn for the traditional Thanksgiving recess.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions? or ?CRs.?) Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.

[Congress generally votes on 12 separate spending bills (referred to as ?appropriations bills?) each year. These bills fund the federal government?s various agencies and departments (such as the Education Department, the Agriculture Department, etc.) and most government programs. Since Congress had not passed any of these 12 bills, legislation to fund government operations on a short-term basis was required ? or the government would have shut down.]

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged support for the short term funding bill (referred to as a ?continuing resolution, or ?CR?): ??This continuing resolution is designed to keep the government open and running. We have an obligation to do this. We've got enough problems in the economy right now without adding to uncertainty. The Senate passed this continuing resolution by a vote of 69-30. The House ought to pass it. It is a relatively straightforward and unadorned CR which simply keeps the government open for 64 days.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and urged members to oppose it: ?This Continuing Resolution would have been the Democrat majority's last hope of telling voters that they're listening to the public's concern about out-of-control spending--and yet, one more time, they have turned a deaf ear.?While I recognize the need to keep the government running in the absence of any spending bills being enacted, I cannot and will not support this CR because it continues unsustainable and unrestrained levels of spending established last year.?

The House passed the short-term funding bill by a vote of 228-194. 227 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 22 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation prohibiting chief state election officials (state officials charged with supervising state and federal elections) ? including secretaries of state -- from taking an active role in federal campaigns for elections over which they have supervisory authority. (For example, if a state official were responsible for supervising an election for U.S. Senate, he or she would be prohibited from taking in active role in any campaign for that U.S. Senate seat.) The bill did not, however, prohibit state election officials from taking an active role in campaigns for state offices.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ??This isn't a partisan issue. It's an issue of preserving the American people's faith and the integrity of our democracy. This bill will finally close the door on inherent conflict of interest. It certainly won't solve everything, but it will help prevent future controversies.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) urged opposition to the bill: ??We should proceed with great caution before depriving any individual state?of their full rights as citizens to participate in the electoral process?.The bill does prohibit the chief state election administrator from taking an active role in a political campaign of any federal office. And while this bill places significant restrictions on the ability of secretaries of State to participate in the political process, it does so, in my judgment, without producing any justification why such a drastic action is warranted.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 296-129. 251 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted ?yea.? 128 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation prohibiting chief state election officials from taking an active role in federal campaigns for elections over which they have supervisory authority.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass of legislation authorizing $59 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) over three years. The bill also authorized NASA to carry out another Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station during that time period. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) argued that while the Senate-passed bill was imperfect, it was the only chance to enact NASA-related legislation before the midterm elections in November, 2010: ?For the sake of providing a degree of certainty, stability, and clarity to the NASA workforce and the larger space community, I felt it was better to consider a flawed bill than no bill at all?Thus, despite its flaws, I will vote to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged support for the bill: ?While the bill before us today is far from perfect, it offers clear direction to an agency that is floundering and sets us on the path toward maintaining America's leadership in space.?

A slight majority of progressives opposed the bill, and argued it did not do enough to prevent NASA employees from layoffs. (NASA had recently cut its workforce as a result of reductions in funding for research and development. This bill blocked such layoffs for one year. Progressives supported a longer moratorium on such layoffs.) Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argued: ?I believe that provisions in this bill under consideration today leave NASA employees vulnerable in the long-term and could force the agency to continue down the unsustainable path it currently finds itself on.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the NASA bill by a vote of 304-118. 185 Democrats and 119 Republicans voted ?yea.? 64 Democrats ? including a slight majorityof progressives ? and 54 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $59 billion for NASA over three years. The Senate had already passed this bill. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?) Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.

 [Congress generally votes on 12 separate spending bills (referred to as ?appropriations bills?) each year. These bills fund the federal government?s various agencies and departments (such as the Education Department, the Agriculture Department, etc.) and most government programs. Since Congress had not passed any of these 12 bills, legislation to fund government operations on a short-term basis was required.]

The minority party (in the case, Republicans) generally opposes short term funding bills, and argues that such measures amount to admission by the majority party that it cannot govern. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) warned Republicans not to ?demagogue? the bill and urged support for the legislation: ??We are here tonight to?to maintain a level and consistent funding stream for the government. It is an easy issue to demagogue, and it is my hope that everybody will work together now and quickly move this bill to passage and to the President's desk.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Apparently, the House is wrapping up its business tonight, adjourning early for the campaign season. Our final act will be the passage of this continuing resolution, made necessary by this majority's many, many failures?. They [the Democratic majority] did not complete work on a single appropriations bill. And to make matters worse, they are leaving town with a tax hike looming for the American people?.this is not a record of which to be proud.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the short-term funding bill by a vote of 233-191. 233 Democrats voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on Legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010. (Such measures are known as a ?continuing resolutions,? or ?CRs.?) If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.Democratic leaders brought up this bill in the House of Representatives shortly before adjourning in advance of the 2010 midterm elections.

 [Congress generally votes on 12 separate spending bills each year. These bills fund the federal government?s various agencies and departments (such as the Education Department, the Agriculture Department, etc.) and most government programs. Since Congress had not passed any of these 12 bills, legislation to fund government operations on a short-term basis was required.]

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) urged support for the resolution, and argued that Congress almost always has to use short-term funding bills (known as ?continuing resolutions,? or a ?CR?) to keep the government operating:
?No one should be surprised with the CR. With the exception of?1989, 1995 and 1997, one continuing resolution at least has been enacted for each?year since 1955. In the 12 years that Republicans controlled the House, CRs were enacted 84 separate times. As in previous years, we are extending funding with a CR??

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged members to oppose the previous question motion. If the motion was defeated, Dreier indicated he would seek to amend the resolution (which set a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the short-term funding bill) to allow a vote on a Republican proposal to reduce government spending to 2008 levels: ?We can have a vote on a responsible level of spending, sending a powerful signal that we will work together to get our fiscal house in order? if we are successful in defeating the previous question, we will offer a?[proposal to return] to the 2008 spending levels.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 240-186. 240 Democrats voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on legislation to keep all government agencies and programs operating through December 3, 2010 (and did not proceed to a vote on a Republican proposal to reduce government spending to 2008 levels).

This was a vote on final passage of legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. Such agencies include (among others) the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Defense Intelligence Agency. The funding levels provided by the bill for these agencies are unknown because their budgets are classified ? meaning they are not available to the general public.

The bill did not contain two provisions, which were strongly favored by Republicans included in an earlier version of the legislation. The first of those provisions prohibited the use of intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo [the detention facility where the U.S. government had held suspected terrorists] to the United States. The second prohibited the granting of Miranda rights [the rights that police officers must explain to criminal suspects in the United States, such as the ?right to remain silent?] to suspected terrorists.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?Authorization bills  [bills that ?authorize? money to be spent on certain programs ? in the case, intelligence programs] are critical to the smooth functioning of the intelligence community. We face innovative and aggressive adversaries, and the intelligence community needs the flexibility to adapt. But the authorities and institutions of the intelligence community are, to a large extent, set by statute. Only acts of Congress--traditionally in the form of authorization bills--can give the community the tools it needs to keep America safe.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also urged passage of the intelligence bill: ?There is no higher responsibility than we have when we raise our hands in this Chamber [the House of Representatives] to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. Clearly, one of our major responsibilities is to protect America from adversaries, whether they be domestic or foreign, and in that process have an intelligence community that has the capability of ferreting out those who would harm this country and its people?.?


Rep. Mac Thornberry urged opposition to the bill: ?This bill does nothing to prevent Guantanamo detainees from being brought here to the mainland of the United States, and yet tomorrow, the end of the fiscal year, tomorrow, all of the existing statutory prohibitions on bringing those terrorists here to the mainland expire. This bill was an opportunity to do something about that, and yet it does nothing.?

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) also criticized the bill: ?Tomorrow we are going to allow Guantanamo detainees to be transferred to the U.S.?It doesn't take a rocket scientist to say, That's an awful idea. And Americans say, ?Don't do it.? There's a better way. This bill rejects that notion and goes to the very heart of why Americans are concerned about the direction of how we pursue terrorism in these days and in the days ahead.?

The House passed the intelligence authorization bill by a vote of 244-181. 243 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies. The Senate had already passed this legislation. Thus, House passage cleared the bill for President Obama?s signature.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rule and pass legislation directing the Energy Department to develop technology to guarantee a long-term supply of ?rare earth elements? (17 periodic table elements which have proved critical to a number of technologies, such as windmill systems, hybrid cars, and computer disc drives), of which China controlled 97% of the world?s current supply and had frozen exports. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

The bill authorized $10 million to be spent on rare earth materials research activities in 2011, and $15 million per year during the 2012-2015 period. The bill also authorized the Energy Department to make loan guarantees intended to spur investment in rare earth technology.

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged support for the bill: ?Rare earths are an essential component of technologies in a wide array of emerging and established industries. And, for everything from oil refining to hybrid cars, wind turbines to weapon systems, computer monitors to disk drives, the future demand for rare earths is only expected to grow. However, despite the U.S. at one time being the leader in this field, China now controls 97 percent of the global market. Making matters more urgent, China has begun limiting production and export of rare earths. This is clearly an untenable position for the U.S.?

While no Republicans expressed explicit opposition to the bill, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) voiced Republican concerns over the loan guarantees, arguing that government loan guarantees are inappropriate if such loans are already available within the private sector: ?With respect to commercial supply needs, taxpayer subsidies in the form of loan guarantees should be restricted to those areas not undertaken by the private sector.? The official website of House Republicans also stated Republican sentiment towards the bill, arguing the bill would ?increase spending, and provide taxpayer subsidized loans to private companies that are associated with the commercial use of rare earth materials.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the rare earths bill by a vote of 325-98. 251 Democrats and 74 Republicans voted ?yea.? 97 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $70 million to be spent on rare earth materials research activities through 2015, and authorizing the Energy Department to make loan guarantees intended to spur investment in rare earth technology.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. A number of rescue workers developed respiratory diseases as a result of toxic chemicals at the site of the attacks.

To pay for the cost of the rescue workers? medical care, the bill required U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to pay taxes on income earned in the U.S. Democrats contended this simply helped to ensure proper tax withholdings, while many Republicans argued it would prove to be a ?job-killing tax.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) urged support for the bill and made a direct appeal to Republican members: ?Now let me appeal to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I understand that some may have a problem with the offset [the tax on foreign corporations], even though it is not aimed at U.S. companies and is simply designed to improve withholding of taxes that are legally due?.But I have to ask this: Just consider for a moment what we are talking about. Balance that tax rate against the needs of our 9/11 heroes, needs that are so great, so raw, and so obvious, and let our moral obligation to the heroes of 9/11, our obligation, as Lincoln said, `to care for him who shall have borne the battle,' prevail. Let us do the honorable thing and vote for this bill?.I will be voting today for the firefighters, for the police, for the first responders, for the survivors of the attacks. I urge every Member of the house to do the same.?

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) also urged support for the bill: ? An estimated 36,000 Americans have received treatment for illnesses as a direct result of 9/11. Those who are suffering come from all of our 50 States and 428 of the 435 congressional districts nationwide were represented at 9/11....Thousands of people lost their lives 9 years ago, but thousands and thousands more lost their health. This is not an entitlement. This is a responsibility to take care of those who took care of us when our country was attacked.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) urged opposition to the bill: ??The bill would impose a $7.4 billion tax hike on U.S. businesses that happen to be headquartered overseas but that create good, high-paying American jobs right here at home in communities across this great country. These?companies provide significant employment in the United States, with many of these jobs in the manufacturing sector?.With the unemployment rate hovering near 10 percent and businesses across the country continuing to struggle to meet payroll, now is the worst possible time for a tax hike on employers that will cost us more jobs.?

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued that the fund established by the bill to pay for medical care for affected rescue workers amounted to ?a huge $8.4 billion slush fund paid for by taxpayers that is open to abuse, fraud, and waste.? He urged members to oppose the measure: ?Why does Congress continue to overreach and consider taxpayers to be their personal slush fund? There is no excuse for this kind of legislation, and I hope thoughtful Members will want to oppose the bill.?

The House passed the 9/11 rescue workers health bill by a vote of 268-160. 251 Democrats and17 Republicans voted ?yea.? 157 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating  9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.) 

The motion to recommit was offered to a bill establishing a new health care program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. To pay for the cost of the rescue workers? medical care, the bill required U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations to pay taxes on income earned in the U.S. Democrats contended this simply amounted to closing a tax loophole, while many Republicans argued it would prove to be a ?job-killing tax.?

Rep. Christopher Lee (R-NY) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?I?m a new member of Congress. I'm from New York. I spent my entire career in the private sector before coming here, not in politics, focused on growing jobs in the manufacturing sector, and I can tell you firsthand these taxes will kill jobs in the United States. These are taxes on new jobs. By passing this motion to recommit, we can remove the harmful job-killing tax hikes and do what's right for these 9/11 heroes and leave the politics aside.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged support opposition to the motion to recommit: ?This legislation [the underlying bill] is designed to provide health care services for the heroes of 9/11, the policemen and the firemen who didn't know what would be in store for them when they went into the World Trade Center. Many of them are suffering from the health consequences of their activities, and we have an obligation to provide the services that they need. What does this motion to recommit do? It would, first of all, reduce payments to health care providers, making it harder for those people to get access to hospitals to treat them. But the worst thing about this motion to recommit is that it strikes a pay-for [the ?pay-for? refers to the tax on subsidiaries of foreign corporations] that's been passed three times already in the House??

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 185-244. 171 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 240 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have eliminated a tax on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations (which had not paid taxes on income earned in the U.S.), and cut payments to medical providers treating 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to three separate bills. Those three bills included H.R. 847, which established a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; H.R. 2701, a bill, which authorized annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; and H.R. 2378, which enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the 9/11 rescue workers health bill: ?The attacks caused all kinds of terrible health problems that are unique to 9/11. 9/11 responders have received a lot of awards and praise, but what they tell me is what they really need is their health care. And this bill provides health care to all who need it--monitoring for those who were exposed to the deadly toxins, and assistance for the survivors of the attacks.?

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-NY) urged support for the intelligence bill: ?I know that the intelligence community is the first line of defense against terrorists, proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, and other rogue elements who wish to do us harm here at home and across the globe. This legislation? is an opportunity for the Congress to guide the 16 agencies of the intelligence community [these include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), etc.] while making significant strides in improving oversight of the intelligence community.?

H.R. 2378, which enabled the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies, attracted bipartisan support. Rep. Don Manzullo (R-IL) urged support for that bill: ?This legislation provides another weapon in our trade arsenal to empower trade enforcement officials to confront unfair trade practices by China and others. If you want to stop Chinese imports coming in at predatory prices and give our manufacturers and farmers the chance to fairly compete, then support the currency reform bill.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued the intelligence bill omitted Republican-backed policies, including a prohibition on using intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo [the detention facility where the U.S. government had held suspected terrorists] to the United States. He also criticized the Democrats for omitting a Republican-supported provision that prohibited the granting of Miranda rights [the rights that police officers must explain to criminal suspects in the United States, such as the ?right to remain silent?] to suspected terrorists. Diaz-Balart said: ?The underlying bill contains changes [from the original House bill, which included the prohibitions described above] that were negotiated with no House Republican input....the majority wishes to rush to the exit to be back in their districts campaigning, but we should not pass a bill that hurts the intelligence community in the process.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 234-183. 233 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. The intelligence bill had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for President Obama?s signature.]

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to three separate bills. (If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.) Those three bills included H.R. 847, which established a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; H.R. 2701, which authorized annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; and H.R. 2378, which enabled the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies. (Those tariffs were intended to make U.S. exports more competitive.)

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bills: ?I strongly urge my colleagues, whether they be Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, northern or southern, eastern or western, to vote `yes' on the previous question and to vote `yes' on the rule [the ?rule? refers to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments can be offered] and vote `yes' on the [9/11 workers health] bill. Those who stood up for our country in the wake of 9/11 are now counting on each of us to stand up for them. Another important measure of this rule allows for the consideration of H.R. 2378? which is necessary to level the international playing field so that United States manufacturers can fairly compete with our trading partners. China is, without a doubt, undercutting our nation's industrial base by devaluing its currency and dumping products into our markets, and we must do something about it.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) urged opposition the resolution, arguing the intelligence bill omitted Republican-backed policies: ?The legislation?removes the prohibition on using intelligence funding to bring prisoners from Guantanamo [the detention facility where the U.S. government had held suspected terrorists] to the United States, and it excludes?[a provision] that would prohibit the granting of Miranda rights [the rights that police officers must explain to criminal suspects in the United States, such as the ?right to remain silent?] to foreign terrorists captured overseas.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 235-183. 235 Democrats voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001; separate legislation authorizing annual funding for U.S. intelligence agencies; as well as a third bill that would enable the federal government to impose tariffs on countries that undervalue their currencies.

This was a vote on a resolution providing for an adjournment of the two houses of Congress for the traditional pre-midterm election recess (which typically begins in October and lasts into November).

The minority party typically opposes adjournment resolutions as a symbolic protest against the manner in which the majority party (in this case, Democrats) are running the House ? or as a protest against the majority?s legislative agenda. Under House rules, adjournment resolutions are not debatable. Thus, no members spoke in opposition to the resolution.

However, Republican members had sharply criticized the Democratic majority earlier that morning for adjourning for the midterm elections without voting on an extension of income tax cuts enacted under the first Bush administration. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued: ?Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how much they're going to raise their taxes. They're going to wait till after the election when we come back into session. And Democrats in Congress won't tell the American people how they're going to spend their money.?

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) argued that an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts would mainly benefit the wealthy: ?A recent analysis shows?Since 2004, those earning $10,000 have received $335 in total tax benefits. And next year they can look forward to an additional $5 if we extend the Bush tax cuts. Now, for someone earning more than $7 million, we will note that they have enjoyed more than $2 million in tax benefits since 2004. And next year they can look forward to $339,000 in tax cuts if we extend the tax cut system that President Bush offered as-is.?

The House agreed to the adjournment resolution by a vote of 210-209.  210 Democrats voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted ?nay.?  As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing the House to adjourn for the pre-midterm election recess.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

[The House of Representatives had already passed a small business loan bill in June 2010. The Senate amended that bill and sent it back to the House. House Democratic leaders then decided to bring up the Senate-passed bill.]

Specifically, this bill established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. As passed by the Senate, the bill also provided $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level. The measure also allowed small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) urged support for the bill: ?The Small Business Jobs Act [the bill being debated] is one of the most important bills this year to support our economic recovery. During the small business federal resource seminars that I hold in my district, community business owners have told me again and again that lack of access to affordable credit remains their greatest obstacle to business recovery, expansion and diversification. This critical and timely bill will help bridge that gap.?

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) argued the bill would help small businesses recover from the recession that began in 2008: ?Throughout the two-year recession, we saw banks stop providing credit, and small businesses shedding jobs and closing their doors?.today we will pass a comprehensive small business job creation measure to allow small businesses to lead this recovery as they have aptly done in the past.?

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) opposed the bill: ?Small business owners aren't looking for more government intervention and more wasteful spending. They are looking for some certainty. Small business owners are looking for a commitment from Washington leaders that their taxes are going to stay the same. They need a commitment that they won't be bombarded with more job-killing regulations. Most of all, they need to feel confident that they can hire new workers and can invest in their businesses without the fear that next week, next month or even next year, Washington is going to turn its back on them.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) also opposed the bill: ??Another day, another opportunity to borrow $30 billion, much of it from the Chinese, and send the bill to our children and our grandchildren?.The American people are asking, what part of `broke' doesn't Congress understand? They don't get it.?

The House passed the small business bill by a vote of 237-187. 236 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 174 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation (thus clearing it for the president?s signature) establishing a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less, providing $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level, and allowing small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing the ?Sedona-Red Rock National Scenic Area? on 160,000 acres of land in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Designating that land as a ?scenic area? prevents land exchanges (in which the federal government trades publicly owned land with states, local governments, or private entities) on those acres.

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) argued the bill would create jobs in her district at no cost to taxpayers: ??This is a low-cost jobs project. There is no cost to this. It is a project that I have been looking for that creates jobs that requires federal action, not Federal spending. It's appalling, but not surprising, that my esteemed colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose a low-cost jobs project. They clearly do not understand what's happening to the American people who do not have a job.?

Rep. Doc Hastings argued that the ?scenic area? designation had no basis in current law. Thus, he contended, the bill would lead to frivolous litigation and more federal bureaucracy: ??I have concerns about how this ``National Scenic Area'' designation will affect the safety, welfare, and economic livelihoods of those who live and work within this 160,000-acre proposal?.there is no underlying act [law] for national scenic areas?[the bill] is silent on everything but the fact that land exchanges are prohibited. This sort of vague and open-ended delegation of authority is an invitation to litigation and bureaucratic overreach.?

The vote on this bill was 244-174. All 246 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 160 Republicans voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, motions to suspend the rules require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Since this legislation did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed.  As a result, the House rejected legislation preventing land exchanges within 160,00 acres of the Coconino National Forest in Arizona. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona.  (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) The monument consists of preserved pre-historic structures built by a Native American community that resided in the area during the early 13th century.

Del. Donna Christensen (D-Virgin Islands) urged support for the legislation: ??Given the value of the resources involved, this should be an easy decision. It would be a shame if political gamesmanship and partisan bickering allowed these pieces of our past, the jobs that would be created, and the hard work of the people of this part of Arizona to be lost forever.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible and could infringe upon the rights of private property owners in the area where additional acreage would be added to the monument: ?First, this bill represents wasteful and unnecessary spending at a time of exploding federal debt. Second, it lacks needed protection for private property rights. Third, it expands the already bloated federal government at a time when our priority should be on jobs and economic growth, not the growth of government.?

The vote on the Casa Grande Ruins bill was 244-174. 242 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of this bill, motions to suspend the rules require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation authorizing the National Park Service to add 415 acres to the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument in Coolidge, Arizona. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

[The House of Representatives had already passed a small business loan bill in June 2010. The Senate amended that bill and sent it back to the House. House Democratic leaders then decided to bring up the Senate-passed bill.]

Specifically, this bill established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. As passed by the Senate, the bill also provided $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level. The measure also allowed small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?As we invest in our small businesses, we forge a path toward economic prosperity for so many Americans--not only for small business owners, but for those who will be employed by these companies. Improving small business access to capital will foster innovation and encourage the development of new products and services to carry our country forward. Simply put?we have to act now. It's the right thing to do. All of my colleagues who have gone home and talked to their constituents, and particularly to small business owners, know that this issue of extending credit is a big deal. They want us to help, and that's what this bill is about.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) compared the bill to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- a law enacted in response to the 2008 economic crisis. (TARP, which many conservatives opposed, was intended to thaw the frozen lending market, thus making loans available to businesses.) Instead, Diaz-Balart contended that House should extend income tax cuts enacted under the second Bush administration in 2001 and 2003: ?We on the minority side, the Republicans, believe that lowering taxes on small businesses would do far more to help create jobs and lead us out of this recession. One hundred days from today, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire and every American taxpayer will see tax increases at exactly the wrong time. Instead of taking clear, concrete action to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, the majority brings us junior TARP today.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the small business bill by a vote of 226-186. 226 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

[The House of Representatives had already passed a small business loan bill in June 2010. The Senate amended that bill and sent it back to the House. House Democratic leaders then decided to bring up the Senate-passed bill.]

Specifically, this bill established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers.  As passed by the Senate, the bill also provided $1.5 billion to states to administer small business loan programs at the state level. The measure also allowed small businesses to use government loans provided by the Small Business Administration to refinance existing debt.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying small business bill: ?Today, the House delivers on a promise it made to small businesses. With the passage of this bill, small businesses, the backbone of our economy, will be given the tools and relief they need to expand their companies, to create more jobs and to help this Nation recover from the worst economic recession in decades?.They [small businesses] can't wait, and we have an obligation to act swiftly to pass this bill today to make good on our promise to reward innovation, to loosen outdated limits on lending, and to encourage entrepreneurs to go to the SBA [Small Business Administration] for help in starting and building their own businesses.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible and compared it to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- a law enacted in response to the 2008 economic crisis. (TARP, which many conservatives opposed, was intended to thaw the frozen lending market, thus making loans available to businesses.) Diaz-Balart said: ?The underlying legislation establishes a $30 billion fund managed by the Treasury Department in an effort to increase lending from small banks to small businesses. The majority claims that this fund will move quickly to inject capital into the marketplace. What we have today before us is junior TARP?.It's kind of a rehash of the 700-or-so-billion-dollar fund that was also supposed to make credit available for businesses. I was proud to oppose TARP then, and I am proud to oppose junior TARP today.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 230-181. 230 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

Shortly before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans were trying to prevent a ?lame-duck? session of Congress. (Lame-duck sessions are held after an election but before the newly elected Congress is sworn into office.) Republican members of the House of Representatives offered a resolution pledging not to hold a lame-duck session after the election.  The Speaker of the House ruled that the Republicans? resolution violated House rules. Republicans made a motion to appeal the Speaker?s ruling. Democrats then made a motion to table (kill) that appeal.

Specifically, the resolution stated that ?the Democrat majority has all but announced plans to use any lame-duck Congress to advance currently unattainable, partisan policies that are widely unpopular with the American people or that further increase the national debt against the will of most Americans.? The resolution also stated that the House ?pledges not to assemble on or between the dates of November 2, 2010 [election day] and January 3, 2011, [the date at which the newly elected Congress is sworn into office] except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency requiring immediate action from Congress.?

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) argued in favor of his resolution: ??the intent of the majority is very clear. They want to spend more, they want to tax more, they want to borrow more, and they wish to harm more job creation in this lame duck session. And the American people don't want this. To positively represent our constituents, I urge the Speaker to allow this resolution to be considered.?

Such resolutions ? known as ?privileged resolutions? ? are only permissible under House rules if they affect ?the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings? of the House. If the Speaker rules that such a resolution does not meet these criteria, it is in violation of House rules and cannot be debated or voted on.

The Speaker ruled that the resolution failed to meet the criteria described above, and therefore violated House rules. Price appealed the Speaker?s ruling. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) then made a motion to table (kill) Price?s appeal.

The House voted to table (kill) Price?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling by a vote of 236-172. 235 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House tabled (killed) an effort to appeal a ruling by the Speaker of the House that a resolution pledging not to hold a ?lame-duck? session of Congress after the 2010 midterm elections violated House rules. This vote, in effect, killed the Republicans? resolution.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation creating a new national park in Hartford, Connecticut.  (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.)  This park, the ?Coltsville National Historic Park,? would be established where the Colt Fire Arms Company was once located in Hartford. (The Colt Firearms Company, founded in 1836, was a major small arms manufacturer during the Civil War, as well as World Wars I and II.)

Rep. John Larson (D-CT), the author of the bill, urged members to support it: ?Unlike a lot of people out West who have spacious land, we are limited. This would be Connecticut's only national park because of its historic significance and also because of its economic significance. Hartford is the fourth poorest city in the nation.?

Larson acknowledged that establishing a national park in a densely populated area such as Hartford would pose challenges, but contended they could be addressed: ??Any time you are in an urban area, you are going to enter into different property rights concerns than you would in an area which is less congested? The point is this: between all of the participants, including the Governor of the State, our economic development commission, the city of Hartford?and the more than 88 property owners [who owned property where the park was going to be established]?all are welcoming this with great pride and with the understanding of what this will mean to their city??

Still, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that the bill still raised concerns with respect to private property rights: ?Regardless of the will of these property owners, this legislation would create federal boundaries around their property and raise serious questions about whether their property rights are being violated.? Hastings also argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ?The American public is pleading for this Congress to stop out-of-control spending. While the concept and the intent behind this proposal may have merit, and I think it does have merit, we need to also acknowledge that the taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars in rehabilitation costs just to prepare this site for visitors??

214 Democrats and one Republican voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?nay.? While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since this bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. As a result, the House rejected legislation establishing a new national park in Hartford, Connecticut. However, Democratic leaders remained free to bring the bill up again under a different procedure requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was vote on final passage of legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program.

Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA) urged support for the bill: ?H.R. 4785 [the underlying bill] authorizes USDA's [the Agriculture Department?s] rural utility service to make interest-free loans to eligible entities. These entities will use these funds to make low-interest loans to rural consumers allowing them to implement energy-efficient measures on their property?. The upfront costs to make energy-efficient upgrades are often beyond the reach of most consumers.?H.R. 4785 is an opportunity to meet these challenges and enact policy that we know will reduce energy costs and consumption and improve the quality of life in our rural communities.?

Rep. G. K. Butterfield (D-NC) also praised the legislation: ?The recession [which began in 2008 and continued well into 2010] has had a significant impact on the home construction and services industry, which has experienced unemployment rates of 27 percent.?Home energy retrofit [?home energy retrofitting? refers to home improvements that make existing buildings more energy efficient] can provide, and it will provide, significant employment opportunities for construction workers while boosting domestic manufacturing?.Home energy efficiency retrofits can also cut the nation's energy use, saving consumers money and cutting pollution.?This legislation, Mr. Chairman, presents an opportunity for all of us to work together to save energy and create jobs.?

Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) urged opposition to the bill, arguing it ?would require the government, through USDA, to front nearly a billion dollars to rural electric cooperatives so that they can, in return, make what might potentially be risky loans to their customers for energy-efficiency projects in their homes?.Energy efficiency is an important step in an overall energy plan. But creating a new government funded program is not the solution.?

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) argued that while the energy efficiency loan program amounted to sound public policy, it was fiscally irresponsible given the country?s budget deficits: ? I would point out that 2 years ago the federal debt was a little under $6 trillion. We have added almost $3 trillion to it in the last 2 years. I can't see that there is much net improvement that has happened to our economy with the expenditure of that much money, the addition of that much money to the debt?.With these kinds of deficits, I think we need to think as a body, Is this a program that is absolutely essential and is it worth adding more to the public debt to pass this program? And with all due respect, while this is a good program, it is not a program that I think we should add to our children's and our grandchildren's debt.?

The House passed the energy efficiency loan legislation by a vote of 240-172. 234 Democrats and 6 Republicans voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??Not only will?[the legislation] result in more Americans jobs; it will lower families' and farms' utility bills. This is particularly important in rural areas where customers are facing increasing costs for electric power. Rural electric co-ops are facing a growing demand for electric power at a time when they are constrained from building new generation capacity.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued the bill would fail to create jobs: ?They've come forward with another bill to deal with weatherization that they say will be a job creator. Well, the policies that we've seen over the past 20 months have killed jobs?.We should be reducing the tax and regulatory burden on working Americans and job creators to ensure that we can, as early as possible, have that kind of success.?

The House agreed this resolution by a vote of 225-188. 223 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities. Those utilities would then be required to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations. The bill authorized $993 million to be spent on this program.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.    

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?This is a good, cost-effective bill?. [it] will create high-skilled, high-wage manufacturing and construction jobs while delivering energy savings to millions of Americans by providing access to capital and energy-efficient technologies.?

McGovern also argued: ?The truth is that more than 92 percent of energy efficiency products are manufactured right here in the United States of America. We are talking about insulation, windows, doors and water heaters. That's why this is so important. A family or a business will not only hire someone to install these energy efficiency products, but these products will be made in our backyard right here in our own country. Make it in America. That's what Democrats want. That's what we stand for.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible: ?Even though we have all had the opportunity to meet with our constituents in our districts over the past 6 weeks [during Congress? summer recess], it's clear that the ruling Democratic elite still do not seem to get it?.The fact is we cannot afford, nor do we need, these new government programs, especially at a time when we have an unprecedented deficit and return on this spending is questionable at best.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 226-186. 226 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Agriculture Department to provide loans to public or cooperative electric utilities, and requiring those utilities (which were recipients of government loans) to make low-interest loans to customers for energy-efficient installations.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

The federal government and state governments fund Medicaid jointly. Unlike the federal government, however, almost all states are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. During economic downturns, states often cut Medicaid funding in order to prevent a budget deficit ? thus leaving many low-income people without health insurance coverage. This bill was intended to give states sufficient funding to prevent such Medicaid cuts. The measure also provided states with funding to prevent layoffs of teachers at public schools, as well as other government employees such as policemen, firefighters, and nurses. Proponents of the bill estimated that it would preserve over 300,000 jobs.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) urged members to support the bill: ?Today, we can either sit frozen in the ice of our own indifference, as Franklin Roosevelt once said, or we can take action to help states meet their safety net obligations and to protect our children's education by keeping teachers in the classroom while we continue to claw our way back from the most devastating economic crisis since the Great Depression?. Our Nation's kids are getting ready to go back to school. They need this help now, inadequate though it is. I urge all Members to vote ``yes'' to give it to them. It's the least we should do.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) also urged support for the measure: ?This will provide critical relief for the States and local governments. This is a vote for jobs, for education, for health care?This will help the states avoid the massive cuts in Medicaid eligibility payments and payments to [medical] providers.?

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) argued the bill amounted to a bailout of state governments: ?States across America have as their number one responsibility the education of our young. If the States cannot allocate their own spending in order to carry out that top responsibility, we will never solve the problem with a bailout from Uncle Sam. A multibillion-dollar bailout today will set the stage for nationalized education tomorrow. That will surely push our economy over the cliff of bankruptcy.?

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued the bill would produce no economic benefit, and that school districts did not need the funding provided by the bill: ??This bill ignores a simple truth: government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy that is not first taken out of the same economy?.Nor is this necessary to save teaching jobs. A school board faced with the choice between a couple of good teachers and an overpaid bureaucrat is probably going to keep the teachers and fire the bureaucrat. But this bill says it doesn't have to make that choice.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of 247-161. 245 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 158 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage and layoffs of teachers and government employees. Since the Senate had already passed the bill, the House?s action cleared the measure for the president?s signature.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

The federal government and state governments fund Medicaid jointly. Unlike the federal government, however, almost all states are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. During economic downturns, states often cut Medicaid funding in order to prevent a budget deficit ? thus leaving many low-income people without health insurance coverage. This bill was intended to give states sufficient funding to prevent such Medicaid cuts. The measure also provided states with funding to prevent layoffs of teachers at public schools, as well as other government employees such as policemen, firefighters, and nurses. Proponents of the bill estimated that it would preserve over 300,000 jobs.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ??The vote we will take today is a vote for preserving jobs in America and a vote against sending them overseas. It will be a vote for keeping jobs in our country by saving the jobs of over 140,000 teachers, 700 them in my home State of Maine.  Allowing for further cuts in teachers' jobs would be devastating, not only to our children but also to our local economies in Maine and across the country. The loss of 700 jobs in my State means 700 fewer paychecks being spent at a local grocery or hardware store on the goods and services that support our local economy.?

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) derided the legislation as a ?bailout? for states and argued it would merely postpone difficult budgetary decisions: ?At best, inflating state education spending for another year will kick the can down the road, merely postponing the tough decisions and allowing States to overextend themselves for another year. At worst, another bailout will make states more dependent on the federal government and more susceptible to Washington's political whims.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 229-173. 229 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 157 Republicans present and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage (the health insurance program for the poor) and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.   

The federal government and state governments fund Medicaid jointly. Unlike the federal government, however, almost all states are required by their constitutions to balance their budgets. During economic downturns, states often cut Medicaid funding in order to prevent a budget deficit ? thus leaving many low-income people without health insurance coverage. This bill was intended to give states sufficient funding to prevent such Medicaid cuts. The measure also provided states with funding to prevent layoffs of teachers at public schools, as well as other government employees such as policemen, firefighters, and nurses. Proponents of the bill estimated that it would preserve over 300,000 jobs.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?We are here today to extend a lifeline to teachers in classrooms across the country to ensure that students and our future are not mortgaged by a weak economy that has forced states into drastic cutbacks?.This legislation saves or creates 310,000 American jobs, specifically for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and nurses. In Colorado, this bill will save the jobs of 2,600 teachers?.absent the passage of this bill, class sizes will be larger for students across the state, and we will be mortgaging our future because of the current recession.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) criticized the Democratic majority for bringing up a bill that increased federal spending, also noting that the Democratic leadership had interrupted the traditional August recess to schedule a vote on the legislation: ?I would like to say?that this special emergency session called unexpectedly just after a week of the district work period to pass another $26.1 billion in spending is, in fact, Washington, D.C. at its absolute worst. Everything that Americans have come to hate about their government, about the way their government works--the waste, the ineptitude, the cynicism, the lack of accountability, the utter disregard for the concerns of taxpayers--is all very vividly on display right here today.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 244-164. 244 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 160 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $26 billion to states to prevent cuts in Medicaid coverage and layoffs of teachers and government employees.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. (The provision was included in the health care bill to help raise tax revenue to pay for an expansion of insurance coverage.) The provision was widely viewed by members of both parties as overly burdensome for small businesses. The bill also prohibited businesses from receiving refunds from the U.S. Treasury for taxes paid to foreign governments on income that was never reported in the United States.

Rep. Bill Owens (D-NY) urged support for the measure: ?This legislation repeals the new 1099 reporting requirements that impose a flood of new tax paperwork on small businesses. This bill evidences our commitment to listening to our constituents and acting to resolve their legitimate concerns.?I have heard from numerous constituents, farmers, manufacturers and other small businesses, about this issue. Repealing these requirements is critical to protecting small businesses and family farms from having to mail hundreds of forms to vendors each year. H.R. 5982 is fully paid for by eliminating $11.6 billion in tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) urged opposition to the bill based on the foreign tax provisions: ? Now, if you have U.S. companies that are trying to compete against foreign-owned companies in a very complex economic environment and if U.S. companies are subject to double taxation, you can call it a loophole. I call it hurting American competitiveness. The bottom line is we want a Tax Code that promotes private sector job growth.?

Although a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since the bill did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on this bill was 241-154. 239 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 153 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation repealing a provision of major health care legislation enacted in 2010 that required small businesses to file a tax form (a 1099 form) for all individuals who had received $600 or more from a business in exchange for property or merchandise. Democratic leaders, however, remained free to bring up the bill again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil). Democrats brought up this bill in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: ?This legislation is aimed at shedding light on longstanding inadequacies in the management of our Federal oil and gas resources and to address the lessons learned in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon disaster [the oil drilling rig that exploded, thus causing the oil spill]?. It directly responds to the Deepwater Horizon disaster while also looking forward and attempting to prevent the next catastrophe. It will create strong new safety standards for offshore drilling and the revolving door between government and industry.?

Rep. Henry Waxman also urged members to support the measure: ?This legislation puts an end to this culture of complacency?.It is too late to stop the explosion and blowout on the Deepwater Horizon. But, with this legislation, we can hold the appropriate parties accountable and make sure that this type of catastrophic blowout never happens again.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued: ?While this bill will cost billions?the real toll is the potential lost jobs because of the actions of this bill. American jobs will be lost, and many will be sent overseas because of this bill. Why is this being done, I wonder, to the people of the gulf coast? The gulf coast has already taken a terrible economic hit. By what measures? do they deserve this Democrat Congress taking action on a bill that will inflict even greater economic pain and suffering??

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued that new regulations would not prevent another disaster, and contended the bill was doomed to be a failure: ?The problem is not a lack of bureaucracy. The problem is a tangled mess of rigid regulations, political posturing, contradictory edicts, and administrative incompetence that produced an emergency response worthy of the Keystone Kops. More of the same is not the answer. My advice to this administration and its congressional majority is this: If you can't lead and won't follow, then get out of the way.?

The House passed this bill by a vote of  209-193. 207 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 154 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, and requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States. The motion to recommit was offered on legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling.  The Obama administration imposed the oil drilling moratorium in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast states.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??With millions of American families out of work, Republicans will fight for American energy workers and their jobs. The question is will Democrats fight alongside us? The drilling moratorium is killing American energy jobs now. It needs to end now. The rigs are already leaving overseas. So are the jobs, equipment, and the capital. Workers are being laid off, small businesses are struggling to survive, and they won't.?It [the vote on the motion to recommit] is the only vote on this floor where each lawmaker can stand up and fight for these American energy workers right now.?

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged opposition to the motion to recommit: ??The fact is we need new safety requirements, and we cannot lift any moratoria in any domestic production of energy without ensuring that the new safety requirements are met. In this pending legislation, we do that. We don't just trust what the industry gives the oil rig safety inspectors. We say you have to verify. The safety inspectors have to verify what previously had just been given to them by the [oil] industry to submit as a final safety report.?

The House rejected to the motion to recommit by a vote of 166-239. 149 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?yea.? 228 Democrats and 11 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit (on legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) that would have ended a moratorium on offshore oil drilling in the Gulf Coast area of the United States.

This was a vote on an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) by Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar had put the moratorium in place following the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast states.

Melancon urged support for his amendment: ?The tragedy [the BP oil spill]?opened our eyes to the need for tougher safety regulations for offshore drilling, to the need to strengthen the enforcement of both new and existing laws, and to the need to protect workers who report their companies' dangerous and even illegal practices to regulators so that we can stop another accident before it happens. Yet an indiscriminate blanket moratorium punishes the innocent along with the guilty for the actions and the poor judgment of one reckless company.?

Rep. Charlies Boustany (R-LA) argued the amendment did not really end the oil drilling moratorium, since Melancon?s proposal allowed the Interior Secretary to make the final decision on whether to grant drilling permits to companies who meet safety standards. (In other words, the secretary could choose to deny an oil company a permit even if they met the met the Interior Department?s safety standards.) Boustany argued: ?I'm afraid that this amendment doesn't fully address the issue. It doesn't address the current moratorium, whereby we are hemorrhaging jobs.?the problem we have is ?[that the amendment] continues to allow the Secretary this wide latitude ? [with respect to] the normal permitting process. So we have a real problem with this?.It's not the kind of policy that we need.?

The House agreed to Melancon?s amendment by a vote of 216-195. 213 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 156 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) that removed a moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf Coast region of the United States for companies that meet safety standards issued by the Secretary of the Interior.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN) on behalf of Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT, who wrote the amendment) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund (a fund established to protect and restore natural resources on federal land) to be used for acquiring additional natural resources (meaning new federal land) as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored. The amendment also provided that the Natural Resources Damages fund use remedies for environmental destruction that restore entire damaged ecosystems, rather than address damage in specific locations.

Oberstar urged support for the amendment: ?The Himes amendment, which I offer on his behalf, emphasizes that acquisition of a natural equivalent resource can be an acceptable alternative to restoration or rehabilitation. Consistent with current law, the acquisition of an equivalent natural resource should be used only when restoration is likely to be?The second part of the amendment will ensure that natural resource damage assessments and implementation emphasize restoring the entire damaged ecosystem rather than dealing simply with specific, discrete segments thereof. The gulf coast is such a unique resource with countless species of fish, shellfish, marine life, wildlife, all integrated, and it really needs to be treated as an overall cohesive ecosystem.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing the Natural Resource Damages Fund should not be used for the acquisition of new federal land: ?The fundamental goal of the Natural Resources Damages Act [the law that created the Natural Resources Damages Fund]? is to ensure the protection and restoration of all resources on federal lands?.This includes restoration of damages caused by fires, invasive species, oil spills, ship groundings and vandalism. What this amendment attempts to do is to shift funds from the restoration of our national parks and national wildlife refuges to the purchase of? [new federal] land?.I am always weary when I see we are taking another fund and using that to acquire even an extension of federal lands.?

The House agreed to the Himes/Oberstar amendment by a vote of 258-149. 243 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted ?yea.? 144 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) allowing the Natural Resources Damages Fund to be used for acquiring additional natural resources as a remedy for environmental destruction in cases where the damaged resource is unlikely to be restored.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) making a number of changes to an oil drilling regulation bill, including requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals.

Rahall, the chairman of the committee that drafted the underlying bill (which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling), urged support for the amendment: ?It [the amendment] holds CEOs more accountable for the actions of their companies. It ensures that, even when you spill the public's oil, you still pay the royalties that are due to the American people, and it also leads to a more accurate collection of royalties for natural gas.?These are noncontroversial, good government, and good policy provisions. I urge my colleagues to support them.?

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged opposition to the amendment, arguing that it included proposals that had never been considered by the Natural Resources Committee ? the committee responsible for legislation relating to oil drilling regulation: ?Inside this lengthy amendment are a number of significant changes to oil and gas policies, royalties, collections, and studies. That might be fine, but I am not aware that any of these provisions have been subject to hearings in our Committee on Natural Resources, and I think that we should certainly have a better understanding of the impacts before we pass this on the House floor.?

 Hastings also noted that the amendment ?includes a cumulative impact [study]of oil and gas on marine mammals,? a proposal that Hastings described as ?insidious.? Hastings said: ?Now I don't know exactly--and I don't think anybody really knows--how to measure what those impacts are?I think it would be good for us, from the standpoint of making policy, to know the full impact of that. And, really, the only way you can know the full impact of that is to have hearings on this subject. To my knowledge, we [the House Natural Resources Committee] have not had any hearings on that.?

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 250-161. 238 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 148 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation which imposed new safety regulations on companies engaging in offshore oil drilling) requiring oil companies to pay royalties on oil that was discharged from a well (including spilled oil), and requiring a study of the effects of oil and gas drilling on marine mammals.

This was a vote on passage of legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials [these employees are known as ?whistleblowers]. The bill allowed employees to file a complaint (accusing their employers of discrimination) with the Labor Department within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. Democrats brought up this bill in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Rep. George Miller (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?No worker should ever have to choose between his or her life and their livelihood, but that's a decision these workers face?.this bill is narrowly tailored and will protect offshore workers who call for a timeout for safety?.Specifically, H.R. 5851 [the whistleblower protection bill] will prohibit discrimination against employees who report violations of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. It protects workers who report injuries or unsafe conditions to an employer or the government, and protects workers who refuse to perform on the assigned task when there is a reasonable belief of injury or spill.?

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) also urged support for the bill: ?Now, following the Gulf of Mexico disaster, it is clearer than ever that providing strong protections to offshore oil and gas workers would be a positive step in encouraging workers to speak out about work safety and health issues at the worksite. Obviously, inspectors cannot be at all workplaces at all times, and so the system relies on willingness of employees to come forward, because these employees, these workers, know their worksite better than anyone else. Yet too many workers fear doing so because they fear repercussions. They don't fear imagined repercussions; they fear real ones.?

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) argued the bill would create a new layer of bureaucracy that would lead to legal confusion with respect to whistleblower protection law: ?H.R. 5851 creates a brand-new whistleblower framework for any individual directly or indirectly involved with a company that drills on the Outer Continental Shelf. We all agree on the need to clarify protections for workers on the rigs, but what about other workers, those who are already covered by other law? H.R. 5851 adds a new layer of legal processes, deadlines, and remedies for workers who are already covered. It creates legal confusion, particularly for those workers who would now be covered by parallel and possibly conflicting statutes.?

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) urged opposition to the bill: ??What we've gotten from this [Democratic] majority is an unserious response, a political response more interested in taking advantage of the latest crisis?.With this Congress, all the serious policy issues are secondary to the politics. Instead, what we get is a bill that establishes a whole new bureaucracy, a whole new whistleblower framework for a specific class of workers.?

The House passed this whistleblower protection bill by a vote of 315-93. 247 Democrats and 68 Republicans voted ?yea.? 92 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns [these employees are known as ?whistleblowers]. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  The motion to recommit was offered to legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.

The motion to recommit would have replaced the whistleblower protection bill?s new protocols for filing complaints with a less stringent procedure allowing the Labor Secretary to conduct an investigation of the complaint if the secretary deems such an investigation ?appropriate.? In addition, the underlying bill allowed employees to file a complaint (accusing their employers of discrimination) with the Labor Department within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory action. The Republican motion to recommit would have required such complaints to be made within 30 days.

Rep. John Kline (R-MN) argued the motion to recommit merely extended legally established whistleblower protections to oil workers, and would create less legal uncertainty than creating a new regulatory framework specifically for employees of oil companies: ?The Democrats' bill creates confusion. Our approach gives certainty. The Democrats' bill creates legal conflict. Our approach has established case law. The Democrats' bill will take time to implement and understand. Our approach will provide immediate protections in a manner Federal authorities and workers already know and understand.?

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) urged opposition to the motion to recommit: ?I would strongly urge you to reject the Republican motion to recommit. What we have before us today in the legislation that I am offering [the underlying whistleblower protection bill]?is an effort to provide the level of protection that these offshore oil workers on the rigs on the Outer Continental Shelf of the United States of America are entitled to. What the Republicans are suggesting is that a law that was written in 1970 is good enough for these workers. Let's understand the environment in which these workers are working. They're working on the most expensive oil rigs in the history of the world. They're making the most complex drills in the history of the world. They're using the most complex technology in the history of the world, and they're doing it in constant motion on top of the seas as they drill for these resources.?

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 171-234. All 161 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?yea.?  234 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a whistleblower protection bill that would have eliminated new protocols requiring the Labor Department to investigate all complaints by oil company employees who claim they have been discriminated against for reporting safety concerns. If it had passed, the motion to recommit would have replaced those protocols with a less stringent procedure allowing the Labor Secretary to conduct an investigation of the complaint if the secretary deems such an investigation ?appropriate.?

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation (H.R. 3534) imposing new safety regulations on companies engaging in oil drilling, and repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills. The resolution also limited debate and amendments on separate legislation (H.R. 5851) prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials. Democrats brought up both bills in response to the BP oil spill on April 20, 2010 that wreaked environmental havoc on the Gulf Coast region of the United States.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution, as well as both of the underlying bills: ?Today, we are considering two bills that will help address some of our most egregious problems. This bill will provide protection for whistleblowers who alert the government to dangerous violations of federal law. Nobody should be forced to choose between his or her job and reporting unsafe conditions. It will also improve the leasing process, making sure all companies follow the environmental and safety rules, and it will ensure royalties are paid on all oil drilled or spilled.?

Rep. Pete Sessions urged opposition to the resolution as well as both underlying bills: ?Today, we are discussing two bills that are reactions to the gulf oil spill crisis. While reforms are clearly needed to make the American offshore drilling safer and cleaner, today's legislation requires new blanket regulations without a good sense of, I think, what the problem was and what the facts say. The investigation of events [relating to the BP oil spill] should be completed so that Congress can act intelligently and correctly. The focus should be on permanently stopping the leak, on cleaning up the oil, on assisting gulf coast communities, on holding BP accountable, and on finding the cause of the disaster. We ought to wait until we get that.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 220-194. 220 Democrats voted ?yea.? 220 Democrats voted ?yea.? 165 Republicans and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation repealing the $75 million cap on oil companies? liabilities relating to oil spills, as well as separate legislation prohibiting employers involved in offshore oil drilling from discriminating against who report suspected safety violations to federal or state officials.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011. The $67 billion total included $45 billion for highway infrastructure, over $11 billion for public transportation investments, and $2.5 billion for repairs in public housing.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged support for the bill: ?Specifically within transportation, investments are targeted to areas that will create skilled jobs immediately and build the infrastructure that underpins future economic growth. The fact remains that our transportation network has great investment needs with aging highways, bridges, and transit systems, and an air traffic control system in desperate need of modernization. It is my belief that we can no longer defer investments in our transportation systems, which provide the foundation for our nation's economy.?

Rep. Dave Obey (D-WI) also encouraged members to support the bill: ??Vulnerable populations affected by the economic downturn, such as the homeless, the elderly and the disabled, are? supported in this bill through programs such as funding for section 8 housing vouchers [housing vouchers for low-income people]?.Low-income individuals have disproportionately been affected by this economic crisis. We need to focus instead on the right kind of affordable housing for seniors, the disabled and the homeless. That's what this bill does, and I urge support of it.?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) blasted the bill: ?The truth is, as I look at this extraordinary piece of legislation and I think of a $1.47 trillion deficit this year, this massive spending bill just seems to be emblematic of the fact that this majority just doesn't get it. They don't understand that the American people are bone weary of deficits and debt and spending as usual. And they long for leadership in Washington, D.C., that's willing to play it straight, make the hard choices.?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) also urged members to oppose the bill: ?The nation's debt is the biggest threat to U.S. national security. Yet the Democratic majority brings a bill to this floor spending 38 percent more on THUD [transportation, housing, and urban development] than just 3 years ago?.We are truly at a tipping point which is why the American people are saying: what part of broke don't you understand? No nation can borrow, spend or bail out its way to economic prosperity. This bill needs to be rejected.?

The House passed the transportation and housing bill by a vote of 251-167. Voting ?yea? were 237 Democrats and 14 Republicans. 154 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs operated by the departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development in 2011.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment would prohibit $150,000 from being spent on the construction of a child's playground. Now I am the father of five children. I understand the importance of having a place for kids to play. Believe me, kids need to let loose and expend some energy somewhere. But federal spending has been let loose, far too loose, so loose that we have this year a $1.4 trillion deficit. We are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar that we spend.  When we are doing this, we can't just all of a sudden say we are going to build playgrounds anywhere as a model for economic development or anything else. We can't continue to spend money this way.?

Del. Pedro Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico) urged opposition to the amendment: ?I requested $150,000 to purchase equipment for a community and recreational park for low-income children in Yauco, Puerto Rico, a city in the southwestern part of the island?.There currently is no recreational park in Yauco, which is home to approximately 50,000 residents, has a poverty rate of 56 percent and has an unemployment rate of over 17 percent. Furthermore, although there are over 75,000 children in Puerto Rico, I am advised that there is not a single recreational park in the entire southwestern region of Puerto Rico that is?accessible to children with disabilities.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 159-264. 146 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?yea.? 243 Democrats and 21 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $150,000 for the construction of a children's playground in Yauco, Puerto Rico.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY, which was designed by famous American architect Frank Lloyd Wright.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?There are a lot of historic buildings around the country, a lot of them, that need a lot of restoration. My own home needs a lot of it. A lot of people are losing their homes. Those homes need a lot of restoration. A lot of them are losing them because of the Federal Government's spending ways. Yet here we are designating one project to receive a million dollars?.We have a deficit of $1.47 trillion. We have a debt of $13.2 trillion. How in the world can we continue to do this, to earmark money for projects like this, when we have that kind of deficit and we have that kind of debt??

Rep. Brian Higgins (N-NY) urged opposition to the bill: ?The Darwin Martin House in Buffalo is one of Frank Lloyd Wright's singular architectural masterpieces and is currently undergoing an ambitious project to restore it from a period of neglect to its original grandeur. The reason for its inclusion in the bill before us today is because restoration of the Martin House is important to the economic future of Buffalo and western New York. The Martin House currently attracts tourists from all over the world. This investment will help create 200 jobs and $18 million in annual economic activity for a million-dollar investment.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 165-258. 151 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 242 Democrats and 16 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for the restoration of the Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington (known as the ?Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project?).

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment would prohibit a million dollars going to the downtown Tacoma streetscape improvements in Tacoma, Washington, and reduce spending in the bill by a commensurate amount?.There are a lot of cities around the country that need streetscapes, a lot of them that are probably deserving. But why in the world did we choose this one??

Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) urged opposition to the amendment: ?The Downtown Tacoma Streetscapes Improvement Project is a vital economic recovery tool for the City of Tacoma. The Tacoma area has an unemployment rate of 9 percent. In addition, the largest downtown employer has recently announced their plans to move. In response, the community came together and created a revitalization plan to redevelop the downtown corridor. The overall plan is estimated to create 500 new jobs and help transform the local economy?.this is an important economic development project in my district, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment and ask that the Members vote against it.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 157-267. 148 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?yea.? 247 Democrats and 20 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for an economic revitalization project in downtown Tacoma, Washington.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

Flake urged support for his amendment: ?I love biking. I will go home this weekend and bike. But why in the world should the taxpayers at the Federal level be on the hook for an earmark for a bike path in Rhode Island? Why did we just choose this one? That's part of the problem of this system of earmarking that we have.?

Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) urged opposition to the amendment: ?In case people don't understand, there is a public health epidemic. It's called diabetes. It's called lack of exercise. I think we actually ought to be encouraging people to be outdoors. It is a public health issue. We will be paying for this public health problem if people don't exercise. But this gentleman seems to dismiss the cost of a bike path.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 163-260. 151 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 243 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have eliminated a provision of the bill providing $1 million for a bicycle path in North Smithfield and Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion.

Flake urged support for the amendment: ?The U.S. Department of Transportation calculates that the average Amtrak passenger receives a $210 Federal subsidy for their [train] ticket.?In fact, the federal government says that it could actually save money by buying a plane ticket for every passenger on some of the worst performing routes, like that from Orlando to L.A., for example. This has been going on for a long, long time, and we're always told that Amtrak will be self-sufficient just around the corner, or that something else will happen; and it simply never does.?

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) urged opposition to the amendment: ?I encourage my colleagues to oppose this terrible amendment. Rail in America is experiencing a renaissance that we haven't seen in 50 years?.In fact, in 2009 Amtrak welcomed aboard over 27 million passengers, the second largest annual total in Amtrak history. An average of more than 74,000 passengers ride more than 300 Amtrak trains per day. And with gridlocked roadways and ever increasing prices in gas, ridership will only increase.?

The House rejected Flake?s amendment by a vote of 129-293. 123 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted ?yea.? 250 Democrats and 43 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut federal funding for rail transportation by $1.2 billion.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. (The amendment was intended to reduce funding for those two departments to 2008 levels.)

Jordan urged support for his amendment: ?My amendment is real simple. It says this bill should go back and we should spend it at 2008 baseline levels. After all, a lot of families are living on something less. A lot of families have had to live on what they were functioning on in 2008. A lot of small businesses are functioning on what they had to in 2008. Why in the heck can't the Federal Government do the same thing??

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged opposition to the amendment: ?We are now coming out of this recession. If an amendment were implemented, such as the one the gentleman from Ohio has proposed, it would send us right back into the recession. We cannot do this?.Is this a deliberate effort to put us back into a double-dip recession [in which the economy enters a recession, recovers, and then enters a recession again ? thus ?double dipping?) that would be so similar to the Great Depression??

The House rejected Jordan?s amendment by a vote of 159-265. 152 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?yea.? 250 Democrats and 15 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $18.6 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) to a transportation, housing, and urban affairs bill that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

Neugebauer urged support for his amendment: ?Our national debt is $13 trillion today. We are headed to $20 trillion. We are headed to having debt almost equal to 90 percent of our total economy?.let?s give the American people a break. Let's give them their $10 billion back. A lot of people say, well, it's just $10 billion; but that's the problem around here. People don't take money seriously because it's not real money to them because we are charging it to our children and our grandchildren.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged opposition to the amendment: ?As the amendment is written?it is a straight across-the-board amendment of a couple of billion dollars difference from the one that was offered by Mr. Culberson [an amendment which would have cut $12.4 billion from the bill] earlier and has been defeated by roll call vote in the last round of roll calls.? Earlier, Olver had argued against across-the-board cuts, saying: ??This is about the worst kind of amendment that you can have, because it provides no indication of priorities whatsoever. It just cuts everything in the whole government an equal percentage amount and gives no priority indication whatsoever.?

The House rejected the Neugebauer amendment by a vote of 177-247. 165 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 244 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $10.5 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) urged support for the bill: ?On 9/11, roughly 3,000 people lost their lives, but thousands and thousands lost their health because they rushed in to save others. To date, the Federal Government has identified more than 20,000 individuals who have health problems as a direct result of the attacks. Caring for those who are suffering is a national responsibility. Every single State, 428 of the 435 congressional districts have someone enrolled in the Federal World Trade Center Health Registry because they were near Ground Zero or worked at Ground Zero.?

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) criticized the Democratic majority for bringing up the bill under suspension of the rules, which prohibits amendments. He argued that Democrats used this process in order to avoid voting on a Republican amendment that would have prohibited the bill?s funds from being used by illegal immigrants. King characterized the process as ?a cruel hoax and a charade.? He also said: ?Everyone also knows that this bill would pass with a clear majority if the Democrat leadership would allow it to come to the floor under the regular procedures of the House. The reason H.R. 847 is not being brought up under regular order is because the majority party is petrified of having its members face a potential vote on illegal immigration. You can blame it on the Republicans?but the reality is you could pass this bill if you wanted to. You are in control. You have the power. You have the responsibility.?

While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, the measure failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the bill was rejected. The vote on the bill was 255-159. 243 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 155 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation establishing a health program for 9/11 rescue workers who became ill as a result of their rescue efforts following the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Democratic leaders, however, could bring up the bill again under a different procedure requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on amendment by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. The amendment applied an ?across-the-board? 18% cut to all programs funded by the bill.
Culberson urged support for his amendment: ?The burden that these levels of debt and deficit will impose on our kids will undoubtedly result in massive tax increases, dramatic cuts in social programs. And every chance we get, Mr. Chairman, on every bill, we want to try to do what we can to save money. And so my amendment today would cut the total spending level in this bill by 18 percent.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ?I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. Actually this is about the worst kind of amendment that you can have, because it provides no indication of priorities whatsoever. It just cuts everything in the whole government an equal percentage amount and gives no priority indication whatsoever?. Fiscal prudence simply cannot mean turning hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes, eliminating almost a quarter of a million jobs, and creating real transportation safety concerns.?

The House rejected Culberson?s amendment by a vote of 169-252. 156 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?yea.? 240 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $12.4 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

Latham urged support for his amendment: ?We're going to have a $1.47 trillion deficit this year. Forty-three cents on every dollar that we're spending is borrowed money, and our kids, our grandchildren are going to have to pay for it--or our great-great-grandchildren, the way we're going--and it simply is not sustainable?. And if we can't do it here on this very small amendment on this huge bill, we're never going to save our fiscal future for our kids and our grandchildren.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ?This amendment would result in cuts to a number of programs that are critical to creating jobs, increasing transportation safety, and restoring support to programs serving vulnerable Americans across the country.?This funding [which Latham sought to cut] would have a positive impact on the economy, create thousands of jobs, and occur over a several-year period, thereby serving as a slow release remedy to keep the recovery going as it ought to do.?

The House rejected Latham?s amendment by a vote of 197-225. 167 Republicans and 30 Democrats voted ?yea.? 224 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation that would have cut $1.8 billion from programs operated by the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.

This was a vote on an amendment (to transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation) that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), the author of the amendment, urged members to support it: ?Now, let me get this straight. We're going to spend $40 million, money that we don't have, to train communities on how they can spend our money. I would think that if we are going to send money to a community that we would know what the money is for, that the community would know what it's for, and that spending $40 million to train them on how to spend our money is a giant waste of time. I urge my colleagues to support the elimination of the Transformation Initiative and save our kids and grandkids $40 million.?

Rep. John Olver (D-MA) urge opposition to the amendment: ?The bill before us includes $40 million for HUD to provide technical assistance to nonprofit organizations, cities, States on how to use HUD funding efficiently and effectively. The amendment removes every penny, every penny, of this technical assistance funding from HUD. It is a meat axe amendment. Cutting funding for technical assistance does nothing but make the programs less effective?In fact, technical assistance is the only way that communities can increase their capacity and improve program delivery to their vulnerable populations who need assistance.?

The House rejected Boehner?s amendment by a vote of 206-217. 165 Republicans and 41 Democrats voted ?yea.? 214 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a transportation and housing bill that would have eliminated a $40 million initiative for HUD to provide technical assistance for states, cities, and nonprofit organizations for using HUD funding effectively.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing approximately $9 billion for infrastructure investment programs (programs intended to create jobs through the construction of things like roads and bridges) and $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families. The measure also eliminated approximately $11 billion in tax breaks for U.S. companies with overseas operations. (As of press time, no official cost estimate for this bill had been released. Thus, these rough estimates for the measure?s expenditures were based on information made available from the committee that drafted the bill.)

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued the underlying bill ?creates and protects American jobs through increased investment in infrastructure and by closing tax loopholes that enable companies to move their operations offshore. This is another piece of legislation to add to the long list of bills that Democrats have passed this Congress to spur opportunities to support American jobs, American manufacturing, and American families. Democrats are helping Americans dig out of the worst recession in decades. ?

Rep. Virginia Foxx criticized Democrats for prohibiting amendments to the bill, and also criticized the bill itself: ?Although we've grown accustomed to this type of process under the reign of the current liberal Democrat majority, their arrogance and contempt for institutional integrity never ceases to shock and amaze us?.Let's be clear about what this bill does?We are spending more of taxpayers' money on plans that will kill private-sector jobs. We know we have the largest deficit in history, and we need to stop this spending.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 233-182. 233 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing roughly $9 billion in infrastructure investment programs and approximately $3.5 billion for employment assistance programs for low-income families.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing approximately $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) praised the underlying transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation: ?Included in H.R. 5850 [the transportation and housing bill] is $45.2 billion to improve and repair our Nation's aging highway infrastructure. The bill includes more than $11.3 billion for the Federal Transit Administration, which will support bus and rail projects, and an estimated 20,000 additional jobs for transit workers nationwide. This not only provides more transportation options to Americans during tough economic times, it also decreases traffic congestion, reduces our dependence on foreign oil and greenhouse gas emissions, and makes our roads safer for commuters.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that limiting amendments to the underlying bill was an example of the Democratic majority ?moving in the direction of more restrictions, more control, less liberty, and less opportunity?.By tradition, appropriations have been sacrosanct when it comes to the amendment process?.But now it has tragically?become the norm for us to shut down the opportunity for the American people?to be heard through their elected representatives, denying both Democrats and Republicans alike the opportunity to participate.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 231-185. 231 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY) praised the underlying transportation, housing, and urban affairs legislation: ?I rise?in strong support of H.R. 5850 [the transportation and housing bill]? because housing and transportation are two areas that must be priorities, especially in tough economic times such as we are in, because we get the double return on our investment. As we have seen with the recovery bill, investment in infrastructure not only generates economic recovery by putting people back to work, but those construction jobs strengthen our transportation system and improve our housing stock. They make our roads safer, our bridges safer for our families and our friends and our constituents to travel on.?

Republicans generally focused their remarks on the resolution limiting amendments to the bill, rather than the bill itself. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the Democratic majority for limiting amendments to the bill: ?Always throughout the history of the Republic, appropriations bills have been brought forth under open rules [allowing for unlimited amendments]?. sometimes the process of debate on appropriations bills got unruly and long and frustrating. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work?. this process is unjust and it's unnecessary?It's a colossal mistake that the majority will come to regret.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 236-179. Voting ?yea? were 236 Democrats. All 167 Republicans present and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation providing roughly $67 billion for programs relating to transportation, housing, and urban development in 2011.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million.

Garrett urged support for the amendment: ?This amendment would increase the amount of funding for grants for construction of States veterans cemeteries by $7 million while reducing funding for grants for construction of minor projects by an equal amount. The VA provides funding for State veterans cemeteries through the grants for construction of State veterans cemeteries program?.This is not an earmark program. It is a competitive ranking process?.the appropriations bill we are considering today provides only $46 million for grants for construction of State veterans? cemeteries.?

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ?This amendment would adversely affect veterans in my district by shifting funding away from priority construction projects, such as the?extended stay unit in Butler, Pennsylvania. That facility is a vital source of shelter and rehabilitation for homeless veterans in western Pennsylvania, and I will not allow its upkeep and improvement to be compromised by this type of unwise amendment.?

The House rejected the Garrett amendment by a vote of 128-296. 108 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted yea.? 234 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 62 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that would have increased funding for veterans? cemeteries by $7 million and cut funding for military base construction projects by $7 million.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)  to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States. Since 2001, the federal government had held suspected terrorists at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

Gingrey urged support for his amendment: ??Transferring the detainees to the United States could eventually lead to their release on American soil, which would put our own citizens at risk. It could create significant immigration issues as aliens could become eligible for asylum or other forms of immigration-related relief from removal. It most certainly would make any facility where they are held a terrorist target.?

No members spoke in opposition to the amendment. 69 House Democrats, however ? including most progressives ? voted ?nay.? Calls to Democratic offices seeking an explanation for their votes were not returned.    

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), a key supporter of the veterans? bill, said: ?I do want to clarify that there is no funding in this bill of any type to fund any kind of facility to house detainees from Guantanamo. Having said that, I would be glad to support the gentleman's amendment.?

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch ally of the Obama administration and a supporter of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility, said this in 2009, as quoted by ABC News: "If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held?no [terrorist] prisoner has ever escaped in the United States, period. Republicans also claim the administration wants to release terrorists in our communities, some kind of work release, walking around situation for terrorists. What an incredible charge, and patently false. President Obama has made clear that Guantanamo will be closed in a manner consistent with our national security."

A July 21 article in Roll Call entitled ?Guantánamo Debate Has Gone Silent on Capitol Hill,? made note of the Democrats? hesitancy to address Guantanamo. The article quoted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as saying: ?That?s [Guantanamo] not an issue being discussed very broadly. I think that you?re not going to see it discussed very broadly in the near term.?

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 353-69. 182 Democrats and all 171 Republicans present voted ?yea.? 69 Democrats voted ?nay. As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a Veterans Affairs Department funding bill that prohibited the measure?s funds from being used to transfer detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to a facility in the United States.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. (Current law required such individuals to turn over personal assets ? including guns ? to bankruptcy trustees).

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH), the author of the legislation, urged members to support the bill: ?Since 2005, debtors who file bankruptcy could retain household goods such as radios, TVs, VCRs and linens, but not firearms. Currently, bankruptcy for gun owners not only means the seizure of family heirlooms, but perhaps the inability for them to protect their own family. This means that families who file bankruptcy are left without this constitutionally provided right. H.R. 5827 [the bankruptcy/firearms bill] ensures a person who files for bankruptcy will not lose a treasured family heirloom or sporting equipment passed down from one generation to the next.?

 Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) also urged members to support the measure: ?The Bankruptcy Code already exempts a variety of other basic items like linens and household goods that a debtor needs during a bankruptcy case to live a modest life and reorganize his or her financial affairs. The bill confirms that a debtor can maintain his or her own safety while the bankruptcy case is pending. The bankruptcy exemption we are creating today is consistent with the principles embodied in the Second Amendment.?

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) urged members to oppose the bill: ?I sympathize greatly with individuals and families who are facing a bankruptcy. But as part of a bankruptcy proceeding, personal assets are turned over to bankruptcy trustees. The trustees collect assets--cars, boats, and so on?. What is special about guns, though, that they should have a special carve-out?... Furthermore, studies have shown that the presence of guns in households, especially those experiencing bankruptcy, enhances the risk of suicide, or even worse, murder-suicide.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass this bill by a vote of 307-113. 168 Republicans and 139 Democrats voted ?yea.? 112 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation ensuring that individuals filing for bankruptcy do not have to relinquish firearms as part of the bankruptcy proceedings.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs in 2011. The $121 billion total included funding for veterans? medical care, assistance for homeless veterans, and the maintenance of veterans? medical facilities. In addition to the veterans funding, the bill provided nearly $19 billion for military base construction projects in 2011.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??For more than 9 years our country has been engaged in two conflicts halfway around the world. The number of wounded military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan has put a financial strain on the Department of Veterans Affairs. The VA expects to treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2011, including more than 439,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan?.I am very proud of what this bill does for our Nation's veterans. Their service has earned them world-class health care and benefits, and Congress has a moral obligation to provide the best benefits possible.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the Democratic majority for limiting amendments to the bill, arguing that annual spending measures ? known as ?appropriations? bills ? had traditionally been brought up under a process allowing for unlimited amendments: ?The Congress' constitutional obligation [to pass annual appropriations bills]?has traditionally manifested itself in an open appropriations process. That process allows every member of the House to propose any amendments?to the 12 appropriations bills. That's the way it's been done, certainly since I've been here, and I know for decades and decades and generations before.?

Still, Diaz-Balart urged support for the underlying veterans bill: ?The underlying legislation continues our commitment to the brave men and women who sacrifice so much to keep the nation safe, supporting our service members on base, deployed abroad, and to care for them when they come home.?

The House agreed to resolution by a vote of 243-178. 243 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 171 Republicans present and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing approximately $121 billion for veterans programs and nearly $19 billion for military base construction projects in 2011.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) urged support for the bill: ?Those of us here in Congress cannot lose sight of the broader perspective. Our brave military men and women and their civilian counterparts are in the midst of a tough fight that is critical to U.S. national security. Cutting off their funding in the middle of that fight is tantamount to abandonment. I have confidence that? our troops will succeed in Afghanistan if given the time, space, and resources they need to complete their mission.?

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) also urged support for the measure: ??Today we take a vital step toward fulfilling one of Congress' most basic and important responsibilities. We will provide the men and women of the United States military with the resources they need to carry out their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, missions for which they are risking their lives.?

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, expressed sentiment shared by many progressives on the war in Afghanistan. Still, he argued that as the chairman, it was his duty to bring the bill to the House floor: ?I have a?conflicting obligation on this matter. As chairman of the committee, I have an obligation to this House to bring this war supplemental before the House to allow this institution to work its will. But I also have the obligation of my conscience to indicate by my individual vote my profound skepticism that this action will accomplish much more than to serve as a recruiting incentive for those who most want to do us ill.?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) also urged opposition to the bill: ?I believe in this Nation, and I believe in our soldiers. I salute them. And I believe it is time to bring them home with honors. They are our heroes. They have done what they needed to do in Afghanistan?.It's time now to bring them home with honor.  Vote "no'' on this supplemental [war-funding bill].

The House passed the war-funding bill by a vote of 308-114. 160 Republicans and 148 Democrats voted ?yea.? 102 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 12 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing $59 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The measure had already passed the Senate. Thus, House passage cleared the measure for the president?s signature.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation directing the president to withdraw U.S. troops from Pakistan. The United States had been carrying out military operations in Pakistan as part of its ongoing anti-terrorism efforts. (The Taliban and other militant groups had been operating out of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.)

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), the sponsor of the resolution, urged members to support it. He argued that American involvement in Pakistan would prove fruitless if the Pakistani government did not take steps to fight extremists within its own country: ??Americans are increasingly weary of this costly war. If Mr. Obama cannot persuade Islamabad to cut its ties to, and then aggressively fight, the extremists in Pakistan, there is no hope of defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that by passing a measure requiring the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Pakistan, Congress could undermine the war effort: ?...For the sake of our troops in Afghanistan and for the sake of stability and security in a critical region, we must remain engaged with the democratically elected government in Islamabad. This engagement takes a number of different forms. While we have no combat troops in Pakistan, our military commanders have been building relationships with their Pakistani counterparts. Particularly, as Pakistan continues to go on the offensive against insurgent groups in the tribal border region, the technical advisory role of our military is a very limited yet a very important one.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the Pakistan measure by a vote of 222-196. 217 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 5 Republicans voted ?yea.? 165 Republicans and 31 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Pakistan.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation barring members of federal advisory committees from being appointed based on their political affiliation. The bill also required advisory committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest. Federal advisory committees are comprised of policy experts from the public (government) and private sectors. They make policy recommendations to federal government agencies.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.
 
Rep. William Lacy Clay (D-MO) urged support for the bill: ?Advisory committees provide the President and agencies with expert advice on complex issues. Current examples include the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was established to advise the President on policies to achieve fiscal sustainability and the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill....[The bill] will shed light on who is advising the government, how they are advising the government, and what they are saying. I urge any colleagues to support this important open-government legislation.?

No members spoke in opposition to the bill, yet most Republicans (124) voted against the measure. A website run by House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA), however, expressed Republican sentiment about federal advisory committees ? and recommended that Congress cut $170 million in funding for those committees over five years by consolidating them: ?In 2008, the Federal government spent $342 million on 917 active Federal Advisory Committees. These committees had nearly 64,000 total members. Many of these committees are duplicative. For example, the National Endowment for the Arts spent $1.3 million on two separate advisory panels, both of which makes recommendations to the NEA [National Endowment for the Arts] chairman?. Consolidating existing advisory committees and with a goal of reducing overall funding by 10% would save taxpayers $34 million next year and $170 million over five years.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules by a vote of 250-124. 223 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted ?yea.? 124 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation barring members of federal advisory committees from being appointed based on their political affiliation, and requiring those committees to provide transcripts of their meetings and disclose information relating to members? conflicts of interest.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, wind coverage ?would be offered at a premium sufficient to cover the future expected cost of that coverage.? In other words, the program would be financially ?self-sustaining,? and would not add to the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) urged support for the bill, and implied that measure?s opponents were simply in the pocket of the insurance industry: ?If I was a shill for the insurance industry, and apparently we have our share on the floor today, I would do everything but talk about what the insurance industry did to south Mississippi after Hurricane Katrina?What we are proposing is a program that?would allow people to?pay for a wind option. That way if they come home to nothing, if they come home to a substantially destroyed house, it doesn't matter if the wind did it, it doesn't matter if the water did it; the fact is they built their house the way they were supposed to, they built it in a place that was safe, they paid their premiums, and they are going to get paid.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) argued that if the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was expanded to cover wind damage, it would assume additional liability that would be passed onto taxpayers: ?Transferring these liabilities from the private sector to the NFIP would be fiscally irresponsible. The NFIP currently owes the U.S. Treasury over $18 billion--yet we're going to give them some more, we're going to empower them some more--the amount that it's been forced to borrow from the American taxpayers to pay claims and expenses in excess of the premiums collected.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 228-183. 227 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 166 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.    

According to the Congressional Budget Office, wind coverage ?would be offered at a premium sufficient to cover the future expected cost of that coverage.? In other words, the program would be financially ?self-sustaining,? and would not add to the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the legislation was necessary because, in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, insurance companies had ?engaged in a maddening shell game with homeowners about their coverage? and refused to cover damage they claimed was due to wind and not flooding. Slaughter argued: ?The apparent loophole in coverage made it very difficult for many families to rebuild in the months and years after the storm. The same problem has cropped up after other hurricanes or large storms have struck over the years?. The bill creates a new program within the National Flood Insurance Program to purchase both flood and wind storm insurance under one multi-peril policy, or to purchase wind storm coverage to supplement their already existing flood insurance.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) urged opposition to the resolution as well as the underlying legislation: ??We're here today to discuss H.R. 1264, which would expand the National Flood Insurance Program, known as NFIP, to include wind storm insurance coverage. But once again today, based upon the agenda that this Democratic majority has, it would create a massive new government program to offer government-paid coverage backed with taxpayer dollars. And while this legislation may be well-intended, I have no doubt that it would have a crushing impact on a very fragile U.S. job market that would add billions to the federal deficit.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 234-179. 234 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation expanding the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind damage.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) urged support for the bill and sharply criticized Republicans for opposing assistance for laid-off workers: ?The opposition to this legislation has been disingenuous, cruel and out of touch. Many of the unemployed people in my district spent years working hard, paying their bills, and contributing to their communities. Through no fault of their own, they found themselves out of work?.my Republican friends ought to take responsibility for their role in precipitating this economic disaster?The least they could do is vote with the Majority to minimize some of the pain they caused. For the sake of human decency for our fellow citizens, I encourage my colleagues to support the bill.?

Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) also urged support for the bill: ?Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work. Of these 15 million, 46 percent have been out of work for more than six months. In recent months, there have been at least five unemployed workers for every job opening. These are proud, working Americans who have already been victimized by the state of our nation's economy. Why are we victimizing them again by denying them this crucial lifeline??

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible because it was ?not paid for? ? meaning it would add to the federal budget deficit: ?This latest unemployment insurance extender bill fails to do what the American people want us to do. Instead, the Democratic approach adds another $34 billion to the already staggering $13 trillion national debt. And that's not because we have a shortage of ineffective, inefficient, wasteful spending that we could cut to offset what's needed to pay for this. We want to do this, but we want to do what the American people want us to do--and that is to pay for it.?

Rep. Jeb Henslaring (R-TX) also urged opposition to the bill: ?Ultimately, the people in America don't want more unemployment checks. They want more paychecks?. The debate is, are you going to pay for the unemployment insurance, or are you going to take the burden and put it on our children and grandchildren yet again? That is unconscionable, unsustainable, and it ought to be immoral.?

The House passed the unemployment insurance bill by a vote of 272-152. 241 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted ?yea.? 142 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months. Since the Senate had already passed the bill, the House?s action cleared legislation for President Obama?s signature. 

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance through December 5, 2010 for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) argued the legislation ?ensures that much-needed Federal assistance continues to reach the millions of Americans struggling to find a job, trying to keep their homes and doing the best they can to provide for their families.? Hastings also chastised Republicans for seeking to block relief for those who were out of work: ?While the other party is content with giving themselves a pat on the back for every roadblock they throw in front of the Democratic bill, I remind my colleagues that they are playing with the livelihoods of countless, hardworking Americans. What is merely a political win for them is, in reality, another family that can't make rent, can't send their kids to college, or can't pay their medical bills.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) criticized the legislation because it was ?not paid for? ? meaning it increased the federal budget deficit: ?Republicans know that we must reduce the deficit, and if the underlying bill had been paid for, Republicans would have gladly supported it, but it is not. Undoubtedly, the American people are suffering from the actions of this Democrat-controlled Congress. We go home every weekend and our constituents tell us that their concerns are both jobs and the debt. In fact, they tell us every weekend they are frightened to death for the future of this country. I've never had constituents tell me that before this year.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 237-180. 236 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers who had been jobless for more than six months.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up a ?rule? --- setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers -- on the same day it was passed by the Rules Committee.  (Before legislation can be considered in the House, agreement must be reached on a ?rule? setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments can be offered on a particular bill -- and these rules are drafted by the House Rules Committee.) According to procedural rules in the House, passage of a rule on the same day that the rule was passed by the Rules Committee requires a two-thirds majority vote rather than a simple majority vote. In an effort to circumvent the two-thirds majority requirement for same day consideration of a rule governing debate on the unemployment insurance bill, Democratic leaders brought up a resolution which would waive that requirement and allow the rule to be passed by a simple majority.

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) urged support for the ?same-day? resolution: ? This would allow for the same-day consideration of any resolution reported through the legislative day of July 23, 2010, relating to consideration or disposition of a measure addressing unemployment compensation?.the Restoration of the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2010 [the unemployment insurance bill] ensures that absolutely essential funds continue to reach the millions of American citizens struggling to find a job, keep their homes, and provide for their families.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged opposition to the same-day resolution: ?I rise in opposition to this same-day rule on unemployment insurance? Painting Republicans as being unfeeling and uncaring about those who have lost their jobs is inappropriate. We are very concerned with those people, and we want to do everything that we can to help them. But putting us more and more into debt and increasing the deficit is not going to do that. And our colleagues across the aisle should have learned that by now with their very, very bad policies.?

The House passed the resolution by a vote of 233-185. 233 Democrats voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a resolution allowing the House to bring up a rule setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers on the same day it was passed by the Rules Committee.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence. The bill also permitted any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products. Current law allowed only Federal Bureau of Investigation officials to investigate such sales.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: ?This bill?would improve prosecution of unlawful misrepresentation and counterfeiting of American Indian jewelry, pottery, baskets, rugs, and other items...[and] would address the profound public safety needs and provide the additional law enforcement and criminal justice resources sorely needed on Indian reservations across the country.?
 
Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued that Republicans supported the substance of the bill but would oppose it because Democrats had brought up the measure under suspension of the rules -- which prohibits amendments and limits debate time: ?There is considerable bipartisan support for what this bill aims to do, and yet today it is being considered before the House using a process and procedure that elicits opposition. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: The objections that I will express today are focused squarely on the matter in which the House leaders have chosen to have this bill debated?.The process being used today [suspension of the rules] to consider this legislation is normally reserved for bills such as naming post offices and congratulating sports teams on winning championships. Addressing crimes against Indians deserves to be considered in a much more serious, thorough process.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 326-92. All 248 Democrats and 78 Republicans voted ?yea.? 92 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation providing training for Native American law enforcement officials to investigate and prosecute domestic and sexual violence ? and permitting any federal law enforcement officer to investigate sales of counterfeit Indian art products.

This was a vote on passage of legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners. (Coverage is provided to property owners in communities that agree to adopt practices intended to reduce the risk of future flooding.)

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) spoke in favor of the bill: ??There is nothing more devastating, more heartbreaking than for individual families to lose their homes and all of their possessions. And if there ever was a time that the role of government plays its most important role, it is to come to their rescue immediately, quickly, and help them to recapture their lives as quickly and to make sure that they have the insurance that is needed.?

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) argued the bill ?helps us to stabilize the housing market. There are many persons who seek to buy homes who have not been able to buy homes because the flood insurance was not available, yet required, to make the purchase. ?

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) argued the bill would widen the country?s social safety net in an irresponsible manner: ?I wish we would leave, given the state of the national debt, I wish we would leave the safety net where it currently is?
This bill adds to the tab. And the Congressional Budget Office has projected this bill will increase spending by roughly a half-billion dollars over 10 years. Even by Washington standards, I hope we still consider that to be significant funding.?

Rep. Candice Miller (R-MI) argued the bill was unfair to states that did not experience flooding: ??In Michigan, we actually look down at the water. We don't look up at the water. And we are very sympathetic?to areas of other parts of the country that are prone to floods, that are prone to hurricanes, et cetera. We appreciate the challenges that they face, but I don't think it's fair that citizens in a State like Michigan have to pay for those kinds of things.?
 
The House passed the flood insurance bill by a vote of 329-90. 244 Democrats and 85 Republicans voted ?yea.? 89 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit (on a flood insurance bill) that would have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP -- which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners).

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) argued the NFIP outreach program was duplicative since the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) already carried out an outreach program. Since the flood program operates within FEMA, Hensarling argued that it did not need a separate outreach initiative: ??The motion to recommit today is a simple one. It says today, right here, right now, this body will decline to create?a new FEMA outreach program on top of the FEMA outreach program that is already in place?.What we are saying is there is an opportunity right here, right now not to create yet another duplicative program and add to the debt burden.?

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) argued that an outreach initiative that was specific to the flood insurance program was necessary, and that the general FEMA outreach program was not sufficient: ?I am very surprised that the members on the opposite side of the aisle would try and deny to their constituents the basic kind of information and services that we should all be responsible for. We should be able to say to our constituents not only do you have a right to this information, but we are going to give you some help?. these are simply outreach activities that must be dealt with. These are outreach activities that our constituents deserve.?

The House rejected Hensarling?s motion to recommit by a vote of 191-229. 172 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?yea.? 227 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have have eliminated an outreach program intended to educate property owners about how the National Flood Insurance Program.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing $476 million for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides flood insurance coverage to property owners. (Coverage is provided to property owners in communities that agree to adopt practices intended to reduce the risk of future flooding.)

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Floods have been, and continue to be, one of the most destructive and costly natural hazards to my hometown of Sacramento and to other communities throughout the country. The NFIP is a valuable tool in addressing the losses incurred due to these disasters, and mitigating against future disasters. The program ensures that families have access to affordable flood insurance, while making certain that their safety is protected.?

While Democrats? remarks exclusively focused on the bill, Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) ? the only Republican to speak on this resolution ? criticized the Democratic majority for making allowing more Democratic amendments than Republican amendments: ?So today we will consider three minority and eight majority amendments, plus another 10 majority amendments included in the manager's amendment. That's quite a contrast. It's especially unfortunate when you consider we were told that the process was going to change, that it wasn't going to be this way. The distinguished Speaker promised the American people that her party would run the most open and bipartisan Congress in history. Yet week after week, the majority continues to block an open process.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 239-182. 238 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 174 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing $476 million through 2015 on the National Flood Insurance Program.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees. 

Republicans had succeeded in making a number of changes to the bill through a motion to recommit. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure.) As a result of that motion to recommit having been passed, the bill the bill prohibited employees from engaging in collective bargaining activities while telecommuting. In addition, the measure required the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting or ?teleworking? (working from home) policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The measure also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting. Employees who were delinquent on their taxes, or who had been disciplined for poor work performance, would be barred from telecommuting.

(By including anti-pornography and anti-tax delinquency provisions in the motion to recommit, Republicans were able to gain the support for more than half of all House Democrats ? even though most Democrats generally oppose restrictions on collective bargaining.)

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) urged support for the bill: ??Despite the evolving nature of the way the federal government conducts its affairs, telework, which allows an employee to regularly perform work from a remote location other than their usual workplace, continues to be underutilized by Federal agencies. Experience has consistently demonstrated that the private and public sector employers who utilize telework experience increased productivity and retention rates.?

Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) also praised the measure: ?The private sector is doing this [allowing employees to telecommute], and they're recruiting people, using this as an opportunity for more flexible work arrangements. The Federal workforce should be doing the same thing. It will help to improve productivity and morale among the workforce. Those agencies that have taken full advantage of teleworking have shown that productivity has been enhanced within their agency.?

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was the only member to speak in opposition to the bill. Issa, however, was the member who offered the motion to recommit described above. After the motion to recommit passed, he voted in favor of the bill (as he had vowed to do if and only if the motion to recommit passed). Thus, no Republican who voted against the bill spoke against it during debate. However, the House Republican cloakroom (run by House Minority Leader John Boehner) released a ?statement of Republican policy? on the measure, which charged the bill would ?mandate a new telework bureaucracy across the Federal government, designed in large part to quash any managerial opposition to teleworking.?

The statement also read: ??House Republicans are concerned that Congress would place a priority on legislation that attempts to alter policies for employed Federal workers rather than focus on legislation necessary to help the thousands of Americans who are looking for any employment.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 290-131. 245 Democrats and 45 Republicans voted ?yea.? 129 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs. 

This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a telecommuting bill requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting or ?teleworking? (working from home) policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting. Employees who were delinquent on their taxes, or who had been disciplined for poor work performance, would be barred from telecommuting. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited employees from engaging in collective bargaining activities while telecommuting.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

(The underlying bill required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) urged support for the motion to recommit: ??If adopted, this motion will require that each agency must certify to the Office of Personnel Management that the agency's telework program will save money, rather than increase spending. Furthermore, teleworking privileges will not be granted to employees that have been disciplined for poor work performance and behavior, such as viewing pornography on work computers, having a record of being absent without permission, or who are delinquent in paying their taxes. ?

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) argued that agencies could not be expected to certify savings (from telecommuting) since the Appropriations Committee had not yet informed them of their annual budget for the following year. (Without knowing their budget allotments, agencies could not be expected to make such a certification.) In addition, he argued that while agencies would need to spend money to implement telecommuting policies, they would eventually save money. Thus, to expect immediate savings would be unreasonable, he contended: ?[The motion to recommit] creates a level of impossibility for us to demonstrate savings when we don't know how much money is going to be used in implementing this measure. That will be decided by the appropriators. And, as well, we realize that to set this up, in order to establish the teleworking protocols, there will be an expenditure to begin with, but the savings will result at a later time.?

Lynch also objected to the restriction on collective bargaining: ?I do want to say that prohibiting collective bargaining activity while teleworking is also a question of possible violation with other statutes that I believe may be infringed upon by this motion.?

Lynch also indicated that Democratic members would not be pressured to vote with their party on the motion, saying: ??I would understand and respect the members' rights to vote as they might on this measure.?

The House agreed to the motion to recommit by a vote of 303-119. All 174 Republicans and 129 Democrats vote ?yea.? 119 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to a motion to recommit on a telecommuting bill requiring the head of each federal agency to certify that telecommuting policies would save the agency money before allowing employees to telecommute. The motion to recommit also prohibited federal employees from downloading pornography while telecommuting.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.

[The House first voted on this bill on May 6 under suspension of the rules. (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) While a majority of members supported the telecommuting bill, the measure did not receive a two-thirds majority vote required under suspension of the rules. Thus, Democratic leaders chose to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage].

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?With today's mobile technology, we can do better to ensure that Federal employees can effectively telecommute regardless of weather conditions?.Telecommuting also helps to reduce traffic congestion.?Now, some may argue that telecommuting will just allow lazy employees to sit at home and pretend to work. That's simply not the case. This bill requires agencies to establish a telecommuting policy that authorizes employees to telecommute to the maximum amount possible only to the extent that it doesn't diminish employee performance or agency operations.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-VA) accused the Democrats of supporting the bill only to help government employee unions (which are generally Democratic allies): ?While government employees and their union handlers might be satisfied with the liberal Democrat jobs agenda, try asking the small business men forced to close their doors or the 7 million private business employees who've lost their jobs since the liberal Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and want to get back to work. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time.?

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 238-180. 237 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute, and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs.

This was procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill also required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.   

[The House first voted on this bill on May 6 under suspension of the rules. (Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.) While a majority of members supported the telecommuting bill, the measure did not receive a two-thirds majority vote required under suspension of the rules. Thus, Democratic leaders chose to bring the bill up again under a different process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.]

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Even in this July heat, it is hard to forget the historic snowfall that blanketed the Washington region this past winter. OMB [the Office of Management and Budget] estimated that for each day the federal government was shut down during the storms, the government lost $71 million worth of productivity. Had some agencies not allowed their employees to telecommute, the cost of lost productivity would have been $100 million.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the bill would only help members of government employee unions: ??It's my sad duty to come before you yet again today to speak in opposition to spending this House's valuable time to consider a bill that would do absolutely nothing to respond to the very real concerns facing Americans every day. Here we are with a 9.5 percent unemployment rate, the largest deficit in our history, and the national debt at almost $14 trillion. The response of the liberal Democratic leadership? A bill making it easier for federal employees to stay at home to work and creating more government union jobs.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 232-184. 232 Democrats voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation requiring federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute, and designating an official to supervise telecommuting programs.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties in Texas.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX) urged support for the bill:  ?The need to prepare for this growth is clear. Just last year alone, in 2009, the park had a record-breaking year of visitations with over 1.7 million people visiting the park, a 35 percent increase over 2008 levels. This legislation ensures that future generations will be able to walk along the river and see the city through the eyes of its past inhabitants as they look upon these historic structures and learn about the people that settled the region.?

Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) argued the measure was fiscally irresponsible: ?The stated purpose of this bill is to expand the park by an additional 151 acres?.the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] cost estimate is fairly precise, $4 million?.The current level of Federal spending is too high to rubber-stamp the flood of plans to expand our government's property holdings?.I urge my colleagues to exercise some fiscal restraint here today, support property rights, and oppose this bill.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 264-114. 225 Democrats and 39 Republicans voted ?yea.? 113 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation expanding the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park by 151 acres in Bexar and Wilson counties.

This was a vote on an amendment (to a war funding bill) that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. President Obama had stated his intention to begin a withdrawal of troops by July 2011. If the president were to adopt a new policy that did not begin withdrawing troops by that date, the amendment would have required him to obtain approval from Congress.

Rep. David Obey urged support for the amendment: ?Now, last December the President indicated that it was his intention to follow a policy which would begin to withdraw our troops from Afghanistan beginning in July of 2011. This amendment is meant to simply buttress that commitment?What this amendment also says is, if the administration decides to follow a different policy by, for instance, extending that date, then they cannot do that unless the Congress explicitly votes to allow the funds to be used for that purpose.?

Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) urged opposition to the amendment: ??We are a nation at war. We have soldiers and Marines deployed halfway around the world. Many of them are in combat at this very hour facing a dangerous enemy. And yet we find ourselves here tonight questioning the very mission we've asked our troops to execute. What message does that send to them if they're watching us? ?What message does it send to our enemies, people who would launch deadly attacks in our homeland as they've done in their homeland each and every day at an early opportunity.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 162-260. 153 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 9 Republicans voted ?yea.? 162 Republicans and 98 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result the House rejected an amendment to a war-funding bill that would have required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan. The amendment would also have required the president to obtain approval from Congress for any change in Afghanistan policy that does not require a withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin by July 2011.

This was an amendment offered by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) with other members that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funds exclusively for the purposes of withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The amendment was offered to a war-funding bill.

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) urged support for the amendment: ?My amendment?would prevent any escalation or any ongoing combat operation in Afghanistan and limit the funding to the safe and orderly withdrawal of our troops and military contractors from Afghanistan. It is critical to understand that this amendment would provide for the safety of our troops, civilian personnel, and contractors while troop withdrawal takes place. It does not allow funding for ongoing combat operations or for this escalation. It is not a cut-and-run amendment. It would not leave our troops stranded in harm's way.?

Republicans criticized Lee?s amendment, as well as other amendments to limit military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Rep. Bill Young (R-FL) said: ?I am opposed to all of these amendments that we are considering because none of them do anything to support our troops in the field, which is what this bill is supposed to be all about. These amendments are not good, and it's just a real shame that we are not considering the needs of our troops who are deployed, to provide what it is that they need in order to accomplish the mission that we sent them to accomplish and to protect themselves while they're doing it.?

The House rejected this amendment by a vote of 100-321. 93 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- and 7 Republicans voted ?yea.? 164 Republicans and 157 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a war-funding bill that would have required the president to use Afghanistan war funds exclusively for the purposes of withdrawing U.S. troops from that country.

This was a vote on an amendment to war funding legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs. It also provided $5 billion for Pell Grants for low-income college students and $700 million for border security enforcement.

The Democratic leadership had devised a strategy for bringing up a Senate-passed war funding bill, which divided the bill into 5 different ?amendments? (a parliamentary procedure known as ?division of the question?). This particular amendment contained war funding, education funding, and funds for border security. (Other amendments included restrictions on Iraq and Afghanistan war funds). This strategy allowed liberal and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus to vote against funding for military operations they opposed ? and vote in favor of the restrictions on war funding described above. (For example, a member could vote against the amendment containing $37 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but vote in favor of an amendment requiring the president to submit to Congress a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.)

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) urged support for this amendment, and particularly cited the need for the education jobs fund: ?We now bring before the House a bill which reflects what we've been asked to do by a great many Members. It attempts to provide a much smaller aid package to keep those teachers on the job, about $10 billion; and it contains a few other small items, including almost $5 billion in additional Pell Grants funds for some 87,000 students who are going to need them badly?.I think people need to ask themselves one question: Are they interested in simply standing by and allowing teachers to be fired?or are they willing to do something about it??

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) criticized the process by which Democratic leaders brought up the bill, and argued all provisions not relating to war funding ought to have been removed from the measure: ?I urge my colleagues on both sides, particularly my friends in the majority who are truly concerned about the ever-escalating rates of growth of spending, to reject these amendments and reject this Fourth of July spending spree. Let's support our troops, pass a clean version of the supplemental on a broad, bipartisan basis, and get this package to the Commander in Chief. Our men and women in harm's way deserve no less.?

A number of Democrats also opposed the measure?s war funding. Rep Chellie Pingree (D-ME) said: ?I rise in opposition to the $37 billion in this bill for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I oppose this war funding, and I believe that our presence in Afghanistan is not strengthening our national security. Instead of spending this money on a war that doesn't make us any safer, I believe we should be reducing the deficit and investing here at home.?

The House passed this amendment by a vote of 239-182. 236 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed this section of the war-funding bill, which provided $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and $10 billion for an education jobs fund to prevent teacher layoffs.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement.

Specifically, the resolution allowed the House to bring up a Senate-passed bill providing $37 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The resolution then divided the Senate measure (a parliamentary procedure known as ?division of the question?) into five different ?amendments.? The first amendment provided $1 billion to expand access to summer jobs for those between the ages of 14 and 24. In addition the amendment provides $1.2 billion to pay claimants in a lawsuit in which African American farmers had sued the Agriculture Department for discrimination. (The claimants had charged that the Agriculture Department had wrongfully denied their applications for loans.) This amendment was to be ?considered? passed once the House passed the resolution.

The resolution then provided that recorded votes would occur on the remaining four amendments. The second of five amendments contained the Senate bill?s war funding described above, and also provided $10 billion for an ?Education Jobs Fund? to prevent teacher layoffs, $5 billion for Pell Grants to help low-income students pay for college, and $700 million for border security enforcement. The third amendment would have eliminated all funding for military operations in Afghanistan. The fourth amendment would have restricted funding for military operations in Afghanistan, allowing those funds to be used only for withdrawing U.S. troops from that country. The fifth amendment required the president to submit to Congress by April 4, 2011 a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

The process allowed liberal and anti-war members of the Democratic caucus to cast votes expressing their opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars (as opposed to forcing them to cast a single up-or-down vote on funding for those wars).

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation, while acknowledging that the resolution provided for a convoluted process for voting on the bill: ?This is a difficult rule. It is a difficult rule because it deals with an extraordinarily important subject?It deals, as I said, with the lives and welfare of our young people. It deals with the security of this nation. It deals with the safety of our people.?I rise in support of this rule because I think that the very difficult line of trying to give every Member the opportunity to reflect their point of view, which, of course, in a body of 435 people is very difficult, but I think this rule attempts to do that.?

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued that including provisions in the bill unrelated to war funding could put American troops in jeopardy: ??I believe fully that if we were to have that up-or-down vote, that a bipartisan majority, a bipartisan majority in this House would in fact vote to complete the work, ensure that our men and women in uniform have all the resources that they need to proceed, and then we will have done our job?.I am going to urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule for numerous reasons, the most important of which at this moment is to ensure that our men and women in uniform get what they need as soon as possible.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 215-210. 215 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 38 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $37 billion for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, $10 billion to help local school districts prevent teacher layoffs, and $208 million for border security enforcement.

This was a vote on passage of legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Specifically, the bill extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

Democratic leaders had brought up the bill earlier in the week under a process known as suspension of the rules. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the Democratic leadership decided to bring the bill up again under a process requiring only simple majority vote.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) urged support for the unemployment insurance extension: ?This is support that is going to hardworking Americans who have played by the rules, paid into the system, and maybe were making $50,000, $60,000 a year a few weeks ago. These people who spend every day looking for work and have sent out hundreds of resumes, many of which are not even responded to, they paid for this by paying taxes in the past. And with five people competing for every available job, they simply cannot find work, no matter how qualified and educated they are, in the worst economy in 70 years.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) strongly refuted the notion that unemployment insurance discourages the jobless from working for work: ?The average unemployment insurance in this country is about $300 a week. That is about half of the previous wage on average, and for a family of four, that average check is only 74 percent of the poverty level. That should refute the notion that those who are unemployed, who have no benefits, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, are not looking for work.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged opposition to the bill because it would increase the deficit: ?Let me be clear: I support and Republicans have supported extending unemployment benefits, but we must not do so at a cost to the deficit, to the economy, and to future generations. Our inability to get our fiscal house in order isn't just damaging future generations; it is wreaking havoc on job creation today.?

Rep. Charles Boustany (R-LA) made similar remarks: ?Now what does this bill do? It's $34 billion to extend the unemployment benefits. But it's not paid for. The American people want these policies paid for?. More debt, more uncertainty, more unemployment, higher taxes. The American people deserve better.?

The House passed the unemployment extension bill by a vote of 270-153. 241 Democrats and 29 Republicans voted ?yea.? 142 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an effort to appeal the Speaker?s ruling that a motion to recommit on an unemployment insurance extension bill violated House rules. The motion to recommit would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance. (The economic stimulus measure was enacted in response to the financial crisis in 2009.)

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?We know that the stimulus hasn't worked. In its wake, nearly 3 million private-sector jobs were lost, unemployed soared to 10 percent nationwide, and 48 out of 50 States lost jobs. So this motion to recommit pays for the $34 billion in Federal unemployment costs by cutting that much in unspent stimulus spending.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) argued that the motion to recommit violated House rules since it was unrelated to the unemployment bill: ?This is not a germane amendment. Also what it is, is an effort to use emergency funds targeted to create jobs to fund emergency unemployment insurance.?

The Speaker ruled in Levin?s favor, agreeing that the motion to recommit violated House rules. Camp then appealed the Speaker?s ruling. Levin then made a motion to table (kill) Camp?s appeal.

The House tabled Camp?s appeal by a vote of 220-196. 220 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House tabled Camp?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling that a motion to recommit (that would have required that unspent funds from the economic stimulus bill enacted in February, 2009 be used to pay for legislation extending unemployment insurance) violated House rules.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Specifically, the bill extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

Democratic leaders had brought up the bill earlier in the week under a process known as suspension of the rules. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the Democratic leadership decided to bring the bill up again under a process requiring only simple majority vote.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ??Never before in our history has Congress allowed extended unemployment benefits to lapse when the unemployment rate was anywhere close to 10 percent; yet here we are again trying to extend this critical program to keep food on the table for millions of households, including millions of American children across this great Nation simply because the other [Republican] side of the aisle repeatedly can only say `no.'

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged opposition the measure because it increased the deficit: ??Republicans want to reduce the deficit; and if the underlying bill had been offset with reduced spending elsewhere, Republicans would have supported it?. Congress cannot continue this spending spree. We're simply living beyond our means, and I fear the consequences of our actions are not far off.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the unemployment insurance extension bill by a vote of 231-189. 231 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired.

This was a vote on passage of a conference report on financial regulatory reform legislation.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation, which was intended to prevent the kind of financial crisis that had recently occurred in the fall of 2008. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. Both Houses then must pass that report before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. Under House rules, conference reports cannot be amended.

The conference report created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from risky and abusive financial practices, provided for an audit of the Federal Reserve, strictly limited the extent to which banks could invest in hedge funds, and gave the federal government the authority to regulate sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives.? The audit of the Federal Reserve, however, only applies to loans made by the Fed during the financial crisis. (A number of members, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), had proposed a much broader and controversial proposal to audit the Federal Reserve.)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) urged support for the conference report: ??The conference report represents a reasoned, middle ground that strikes an appropriate balance and does what we need it to do. It ends the problem of too-big-to-fail financial institutions, effectively regulates the derivatives products which some have referred to as financial weapons of mass destruction, and it greatly strengthens investor protections.?

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) argued the conference report was ?landmark legislation which will protect consumers and investors while allowing our financial services industry to continue financing the creativity and innovation which has, even in these very difficult times, made the American economy the envy of the world. This bill restores safety and soundness, reduces the likelihood of another systemic crisis, restores faith and confidence in our institutions and markets, while safeguarding Americans from predatory, unfair, and deceptive practices.?

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) urged opposition to the measure: ?Under the guise of financial reform, Democrats today are pushing yet another bill that will kill jobs, raise taxes, and make bailouts permanent. Let me say that again. This legislation will kill jobs by restricting access to credit, it will kill jobs by raising taxes on those that would provide loans and opportunity to small business owners and family farmers, and it makes the bad ideas of the Wall Street bailout permanent.?

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) criticized the conference report: ?This legislation is a clear attack on capital formation in America. It purports to prevent the next financial crisis, but it does so by vastly expanding the power of the same regulators who failed to stop the last one.?

The House passed the conference report by a vote of 237-192. 234 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 19 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a conference report on major financial regulatory reform legislation intended to prevent the kind of economic crisis that occurred in September 2008.  With the legislation having passed the House, Senate passage would clear it for President Obama?s signature.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit on the financial regulatory reform conference report (see explanation of conference reports below) that would have required a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation, which was intended to prevent the kind of financial crisis that had recently occurred in the fall of 2008. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. Both Houses then must pass that report before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

Under House rules, motions to recommit on conference reports cannot be debated. Thus, no members spoke in support of or opposition to the motion. Multiple news outlets, however, reported that Republicans would use the motion to recommit to offer a proposal providing for a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve.

The conference report provided for a much more limited audit, limiting it to loans provided by the Fed during the financial crisis. While some Republicans (such as Rep. Ron Paul (D-TX) supported a broader audit, the motion to recommit was intended to put Democrats in a political bind. While the broader audit had robust support in the House, it had little support in the Senate. Thus, the motion to recommit could have jeopardized the conference report?s chances in the Senate. The Atlantic?s Chris Goode reported: ?It's a last-ditch effort to alter/thwart Democratic financial reforms: House Republicans will force a floor vote today on Ron Paul's proposal for an audit of the Federal Reserve?.The proposal is popular in the House, having gained 320 cosponsors, but probably wouldn't fare as well in the Senate: a related bill, introduced by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, drew only two cosponsors.?

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 198-229. 175 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted ?yea.? 229 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have required a sweeping audit of the Federal Reserve.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation.

The House of Representatives and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation, which was intended to prevent the kind of financial crisis that had recently occurred in the fall of 2008. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law. Under House rules, conference reports cannot be amended.

The conference report created a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to protect consumers from risky and abusive financial practices, provided for an audit of the Federal Reserve, strictly limited the extent to which banks could invest in hedge funds, and gave the federal government the authority to regulate sensitive financial instruments known as ?derivatives.? The audit of the Federal Reserve, however, only applies to loans made by the Fed during the financial crisis. (A number of members, including Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), had proposed a much broader and controversial proposal to audit the Federal Reserve.)

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the legislation: ??Today we will take an historic vote on the most significant reform to our financial industry since the New Deal. These comprehensive reforms will reduce threats to our financial system, increase oversight and prevent future bailouts. The bill strikes a responsible balance, ending the `wild west' era on Wall Street, while laying a new regulatory foundation for long-term growth which is stable and secure.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the measure: ?Today, we are considering a 2,300-page Federal takeover of the financial services industry. This happened in health care. It's now happening in financial services. The bill before us today is just one more piece of the Democrat majority's agenda to federalize more of the private sector of this country.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the conference report by a vote of 234-189. 234 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on major financial regulatory reform legislation.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation.

Normally, the House Rules Committee passes a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments may be offered to bills. The full House then votes on that resolution. Following passage of the resolution, the chamber begins debate on the underlying bill. House rules, however, prohibit the full House from voting on such a resolution until the day after it passes the Rules Committee. Ordinarily, in order for the House to pass a resolution on the same day it was passed by the committee, it must receive a two-thirds majority vote.

Occasionally, the House circumvents this requirement by passing what is known as a ?same-day rule.?  A same-day rule is a resolution that waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement, and allows for passage with a simple majority vote. Under this procedure, the House first passes the same-day rule (which waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement). Following the vote on the same day rule, the House then passes the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments to the underlying bill. After passing that resolution, the House can begin debate on the underlying bill. Democratic leaders used this ?same-day rule? procedure for a conference report [see an explanation of conference reports in the paragraph below] on financial regulatory reform legislation, as well as a separate bill to extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)  urged support for the same day rule: ?I'm voting `yes' because I stand with working families against big banks, for transparency in the financial markets, with small businesses and family farmers and ranchers for tougher Wall Street oversight, and for progress toward preventing future bank bailouts.?

Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) criticized the financial reform legislation, arguing it ?grants [the federal government] some carte blanche power over the financial markets, not just on Wall Street but on Main Street, too. This bill is going to raise the costs for small business operators and consumers who will use financial institutions.?

The House agreed to the same day rule by a vote of 237-189. 237 Democrats voted ?yea.? 175 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House was able to bring up a resolution  (later that same day) setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to financial regulatory reform legislation as well as separate legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution allowing the House of Representatives to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

Normally, the House Rules Committee passes a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments may be offered to bills. The full House then votes on that resolution. Following passage of the resolution, the chamber begins debate on the underlying bill. House rules, however, prohibit the full House from voting on such a resolution until the day after it passes the Rules Committee. In order for the House to pass a resolution on the same day it was passed by the committee, it must receive a two-thirds majority vote.

Occasionally, the House circumvents this requirement by passing what is known as a ?same-day rule.?  A same-day rule is a resolution that waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement, and allows for passage with a simple majority vote. Under this procedure, the House first passes the same-day rule (which waives the two-thirds majority vote requirement). Following the vote on the same day rule, the House then passes the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments to the underlying bill. After passing that resolution, the House can begin debate on the underlying bill. Democratic leaders used this ?same-day rule? procedure for a conference report [see an explanation of conference reports in the paragraph below] on financial regulatory reform legislation, as well as a separate bill to extend unemployment insurance for laid-off workers.

The House and Senate had passed different versions of financial regulatory reform legislation. When the two Houses of Congress pass different versions of the same bill, a final version is typically negotiated in a conference between a limited number of members of both bodies, and a conference report is developed. That report then must be passed by both Houses before it is sent to the president to be signed into law.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) urged support for the same day rule: ?This bill allows for clear actions, up-or-down votes on the conference report to prevent Wall Street from melting down like it did 2 years ago and a bill to provide unemployment compensation to people who have lost their jobs who cannot find work in this economy.?these are clear-cut choices. Either you support fixing Wall Street or you don't. Do you believe unemployed Americans looking for work should receive unemployment benefits to help them pay for their mortgages, utilities, and food for their families or do you not??

Rep. Pete Sessions criticized the Democrats? use of the same-day rule procedure: ?I remember just a few short years ago when our Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] said that she would run a House that was the most honest, open, and ethical Congress. I have yet to see evidence of that these last few years. As a matter of fact, week after week after week I see?unprecedented shenanigans related to bringing legislation to the floor, and a closed process.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question on the same day rule by a vote of 243-182. 242 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution allowing the chamber to bring up financial regulatory reform legislation later that day.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Democratic leaders decided to bring a ?stand-alone? unemployment insurance extension bill (meaning there were no other provisions in the measure) following failed attempts to enact more comprehensive legislation (which, among other things, had extended health benefits for jobless Americans). While the House had passed a more sweeping bill intended to aide job creation, that measure had stalled in the Senate. The House Democratic leadership thus attempted to pass this narrowly-tailored bill, which extended unemployment insurance for six months for workers who had exhausted their benefits.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) urged support for the bill: ?America's unemployed workers cannot wait any longer for all of us to do the right thing?.If you vote ``no'' you will be cutting off unemployment benefits to Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules but now find themselves with no job, no savings, and no support.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ? Here we go again. Another month, another bill extending unemployment benefits and extending the Federal deficit?.I urge my colleagues to oppose this deficit-extending bill today so that we can bring up a real bill that allows us to pass and actually pay for these benefits for the long-term unemployed. That's the only road out of this policy dead-end into which the other [Democratic] side's spending ways have driven us.?

While a majority of members (261) supported the measure, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 5618 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote was 261-155. 231 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- and 30 Republicans voted ?yea.? 139 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation pass legislation extending unemployment insurance (for six months) for laid-off workers whose benefits had expired. Democratic leaders, however, could still bring the bill up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for or against a political candidate or party through independent expenditures (spending on campaign ads). That prohibition also applied to foreign-owned corporations. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public.

House Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 5175 in response to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law in January 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prohibit unions and corporations from spending money on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.  To earn support from conservative Democrats, the Democratic leadership made last minute changes to the bill that exempted organizations which had existed for more than 10 years, had more than one million members, and received no more than 15% of their total funds from corporations. This exemption, or ?carve-out,? was intended to exempt the National Rifle Association from the bill?s requirements. This change enabled conservative, pro-gun Democrats to vote for the bill.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ?Now, I ask my colleagues, will you stand with the American people in calling for disclosure and transparency in the political process, or will you allow corporations to overtake our democracy with the expenditure of undisclosed, limitless amounts of money? I think that we should stand with the American people. We should vote for the DISCLOSE Act [H.R. 5175]. Disclosure is good. Voters need to know who is saying what.?

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) also urged the House to support the bill: ?The DISCLOSE Act would make a vast and substantial difference in protecting the integrity of our elections, and I cannot think of a more important bill if this country is going to remain a democracy with a small `d' and not a captive of large corporations.?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) argued the bill was an assault on free speech: ?`Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.' We all know that that is part of our First Amendment to the Constitution. It is first for a reason, because freedom of speech is the basis for our democracy, but today, the majority wants to pass a bill restricting speech, violating that very First Amendment to the Constitution.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) concurred, saying: ?I am not sure that I have ever seen a frontal assault on the Constitution as this bill is. Why do I say that? I say that because this deals with the First Amendment. It deals with political speech. It deals with political speech at its most effective, which is in the context of a political campaign, and we ought to deal with that very, very carefully.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 219-206. 217 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 2 Republicans ? voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 36 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit on a campaign finance reform bill that would have banned political ?robocalls? (automated calls to voters urging support for or opposition to a political candidate) unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.)

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Under the expedited judicial review process required by the motion to recommit, a three-judge court convened in Washington, D.C would review a constitutional challenge immediately. That challenge could then be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Under the normal judicial review process, bills would first be challenged in the federal district court. Following the judgment of the district court, cases can be appealed the case to a federal circuit court. Only after the circuit court?s has ruling has been handed down can a case be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) urged support for the motion to recommit: ?We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices [Congress routinely passes bills naming post office buildings]; can't we spend a little bit of time protecting the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?...We're talking about political speech, the essence of the First Amendment, and for us not to allow that consideration by the courts in an accelerated manner, as we have every other time, is unworthy of this place, is unworthy of our constituents, and is unworthy of the Constitution that we take an oath to uphold.?

Rep. Brady (D-PA) urged members to oppose the motion to recommit: ?Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is a needless distraction from the core mission of the underlying legislation. All the legislation says basically is, who is saying it, who is paying it? We have a right to know who's talking about us; we have a right to know who's talking for us.? Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the author of the underlying bills, accused the Republicans of having ?injected a total spurious and unrelated provision with respect to D.C. voting rights.?

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 208-217. 171 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted ?yea.? 216 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on a campaign finance bill that would have banned political ?robocalls? unless explicitly authorized by a political candidate and would have provided for an expedited judicial review process determining the constitutionality of the bill. (The motion to recommit would also have required this expedited process to be used for any subsequent legislation giving the District of Columbia a member of the House with full voting rights.)

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Patrick J. Murphy (D-PA) to a campaign finance reform bill that that required the funders of political television advertisements to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertisement?s disclaimer. The ?disclaimer? refers to the portion of the advertisement in which its funder acknowledges financing it.

Murphy urged support for his amendment: ?By knowing where the money is coming from, people will have a better understanding of who the funder is and the motivations behind an ad. This is not a Democratic or a Republican idea. All citizens deserve to know if a special interest completely unrelated to their districts and to the issues that affect their daily lives is trying to influence their elections.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) argued the amendment would impose an onerous requirement on political advertising, and require their disclaimers to be unrealistically long: ?By the additional disclaimers required on broadcast ads, we have already determined that, in some cases, very easily, one would have to use 15 to 17 seconds of a 15- or a 30-second ad to make the disclaimer. If you add additional requirements, as the gentleman suggests, you could have as much as 20 seconds, which will mean that you won't be able to do 15-second ads.?

The House agreed to Murphy?s amendment by a vote of 274-152. 243 Democrats and 31 Republicans voted ?yea.? 140 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a campaign finance bill that required the funders of political television advertisements to include the city and state of their place of residence or principal place of business in the advertisement?s disclaimer.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public.

House Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 5175 in response to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law in January 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prohibit unions and corporations from spending money on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) praised the legislation: ?Earlier this year, the Supreme Court overturned decades of precedents in a court case called the Citizens United case. The decision undermines democracy and empowers the powerful?.This legislation restores transparency and accountability to Federal campaigns and ensures that Americans know when Wall Street, Big Oil, and health insurers are the ones behind political advertisements.?

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) argued the bill amounted to an attack on free speech: ?If I had the chance under the House rules to speak to the public, this is what I would say. This is your First Amendment. It's not my First Amendment. It's not the Democratic leadership's First Amendment. And yet they are auctioning off parts of this First Amendment by this bill.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 220-205. 220 Democrats  -- including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party. Under the bill?s new reporting requirements (applying to donations in excess of $600), independent organizations (such as advocacy groups) airing political ads would be required to make previously confidential information regarding their donors public.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

House Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 5175 in response to Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance law in January 2010. In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not prohibit unions and corporations from spending money on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) praised the underlying resolution: ?During my time in Congress, I haven't had a single constituent say to me, `You know, Jim, I think there should be more special interest money in politics.' Obviously, the conservative activist judges that now make up the majority of the Supreme Court don't live in my district. Because in January, the court tossed aside decades of established law and legal precedent by ruling that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections.?

Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) criticized the bill and defended the Supreme Court?s ruling: ?The Citizens United decision [the Supreme Court decision referenced above] struck down provisions of campaign finance law because of the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, a right explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. The bill is simply a legislative workaround to Citizens United. The Supreme Court was very clear that prohibitions on full legal speech are unconstitutional and will only be a matter of time should this bill become law that it's struck down as well.?

The House agreed to motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 243-181. 243 Democrats voted ?yea.? 173 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to campaign finance reform legislation requiring organizations to report all campaign donations over $600 to the Federal Election Commission and prohibiting organizations with a federal government contract worth more than $10 million from working actively for a political candidate or party.

This was a vote on passage of legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

H.R. 5297 established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. The measure also established the ?Small Business Credit Initiative Program.? This initiative provided $2 billion to help states increase private lending to small businesses. 

Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL) praised the bill, calling it ?a significant step to boost small business lending through our community banks.?This is an important investment by the federal government in our small business that brings tremendous returns.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) also supported the bill: ? This bill, ladies and gentlemen of the House, can go a long way towards opening up the flow of credit that helps create jobs. That's what this is about, allowing small businesses to expand, grow their businesses, hire more people, pay good salaries and benefits, and get our economy moving. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and to help our small businesses create jobs.?

Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) urged opposition to the bill: ?My opposition is not a question of whether or not I support small businesses, it's a question of whether or not this bill will actually help small businesses. Unfortunately, my conclusion is that this bill will not help them, but will cost the taxpayers another $33 billion--by the way, $33 billion that we don't have?. This bill allows for another $33 billion in spending that will be added to the government's credit card.?

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) argued the bill would fail to help small businesses: ?Although my [Democratic] colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this bill would improve small business access to much-needed capital, I am not convinced. In fact, there is virtually no guarantee that small businesses will benefit whatsoever from the funding in this bill.?

(The resolution that set a time limit for debate and determined which amendments could be offered to H.R 5297 also provided that when the House passed the bill, it would be combined with H.R. 5486, a separate small business measure that had already passed the House. H.R. 5486 exempted investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes. Thus, once H.R. 5297 was passed, these two small business measures were combined into a single bill.)

The House passed the small business lending bill by a vote of 241-182. 238 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result the House passed legislation establishing a loan fund aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers ? and passed additional legislation (which was incorporated into H.R. 5297 following its passage by the House) exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) on a small business legislation that would have  required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend it as specified. 

TARP had been created to assist troubled banks during the serious economic decline of 2008 and 2009. The small business loan fund provided for by H.R. 5297 authorized the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers.

Neugebauer urged support for the motion to recommit: ?Is the majority afraid to use this experienced and effective regulator simply because the word ``TARP'' is part of its title? The taxpayers deserve to be protected when Treasury makes investments with their money. Unfortunately, we have some examples of TARP investments that have raised serious questions about how the investment decisions were made.?

Republicans had been sharply critical of TARP and had tried to capitalize on the public?s anger over the notion of a ?bailout? for the nation?s biggest banks.  Rep. Barney Frank accused Republicans of trying to tar the small business lending bill with TARP?s reputation to make the bill unpopular with the public. In addition, he mocked Republicans for what he called their ?envy? that Democrats would ultimately be responsible of phasing out the unpopular program. Frank said: ?This [motion to recommit] is an effort to call it [H.R. 5297] TARP? It's the Peewee Herman school of legislating; let's call each other names without dealing with the substance. Let's not, when we're dealing with a serious issue of trying to get money to community banks to help our smaller businesses, fall for that nonsense?. What our friends on the other side have, for political reasons, is a severe case of TARP separation envy. It's going away?They are going to miss it, but we're not going to deal with that in this bill and kill the bill.?

The House rejected Neugebauer?s motion to recommit by a vote of 180-237. 171 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted ?yea.? 237 Democrats voted ?no.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit on H.R. 5297 that would have required the Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program to oversee a new small business loan fund created by the underlying bill.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

H.R. 5297 established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. (The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. The measure also established the ?Small Business Credit Initiative Program.? This initiative provided $2 billion to help states increase private lending to small businesses.

This resolution also provided that when the House passed H.R. 5297 (which established the small business loan fund), it would be combined with H.R. 5486--a separate small business bill that had already passed the House, but had never been voted in the Senate. H.R. 5486 exempted investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes. Thus, once H.R. 5297 was passed, these two small business measures were combined into a single bill.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-KY) praised the bill and accused Republicans of trying to resurrect the economic policies of former President George W. Bush: ??The steps that we propose to take in this Small Business Act [H.R. 5297]?are steps that we believe are worth trying, that will be an affirmative effort to grow jobs in the small business segment of the economy to make capital available?to motivate small business operators to grow their businesses, to start new businesses. These are the steps that this Congress and this [Obama] administration are taking to grow the economy. It is better than sitting in the cheap seats and saying we want to go back to the [Bush] agenda that put us in the ditch.?

Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) argued the legislation was fiscally irresponsible: ??This debate is not just about whether or not we are acting responsibly here. It is what we are doing with the hard-earned taxpayer money. We are talking about money here, and this bill that you are talking about spends an extra $33 billion that we do not have??

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to H.R. 5297 by a vote of 237-179. 237 Democrats voted ?yea.? 169 Republicans and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

H.R. 5297 established a ?Small Business Lending Fund,? and authorizing the Treasury Department to make up to $30 billion of capital investments in banks with total assets of $10 billion or less. The loan fund was aimed at small businesses seeking to hire new workers. The measure also established the ?Small Business Credit Initiative Program.? This initiative provided $2 billion to help states increase private lending to small businesses. 

This resolution also provided that when the House passed H.R. 5297 (which established the small business loan fund), it would be combined with H.R. 5486--a separate small business bill that had already passed the House, but had never been voted on in the Senate. H.R. 5486 exempted investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes. Thus, once H.R. 5297 was passed, these two small business measures were combined into a single bill.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the bill: ??In 2008, after years of lax regulation and Wall Street roulette, our nation's economy fell off a cliff. Within a matter of months, many Wall Street giants fell, and they took the livelihoods of thousands of small businesses with them....The underlying bill, the Small Business Lending Fund Act, establishes a process for community banks to lend responsibly to small businesses.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged opposition to the resolution and the underlying bill: ??It is really just another bank bailout. The bill is intended to give the appearance that they're [the Democrats] doing something. It appears the ruling liberal Democrat regime has completely given up on even trying to pretend they are capable of budgeting or of even governing this country.?

The House agreed to the previous question motion by a vote of 241-179. 241 Democrats voted ?yea.? 172 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation intended to increase lending to small businesses.

This was a vote on passage of legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses. In addition, the bill restricted the use of granter retained annuity trusts (GRATS). GRATS essentially allow individuals to transfer wealth to family members without paying a gift or estate tax. By setting up a trust that is passed onto a beneficiary (which must be a family member), wealthy individuals can facilitate a considerable transfer of wealth without being subject to the normal tax penalties that apply to such transfers. If the individual dies before the GRAT?s term expires, the family member receives the remaining value of the trust. The bill would limit the use of these financial instruments by requiring a minimum 10-year terms for GRATS. Requiring  a 10-year minimum term would make GRATS a riskier option for older people who may not survive for a full decade. In other words, a 10-year GRAT requires far more financial risk than a two or three-year GRAT. Forbes? Ashlea Ebeling explained the rationale this way: ?The House bill would require a GRAT to last a minimum of 10 years. That increases the risk the person setting it up will die during the term of the GRAT, making GRATS less attractive for the older folks who typically set them up.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ? This bill, H.R. 5486, the Small Business Jobs Tax Relief Act of 2010, is, in a few words, a continuation of our work to spur job creation and to really improve the quality of life in all of our communities. Since the beginning of this year, our economy has created 982,000 jobs. That is a reversal of 22 straight months of job losses, a very long stretch indeed. But we all know that far too many people today are out of work and the unemployment rate remains at a very unacceptably high 9.7 percent. So something considerable has been done, but we have to do more.?

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) also urged support for the bill: ?If you really care about small businesses and entrepreneurship and growing the economy, the essential argument here is how do we get these small business people back on their feet. The proposal here is to provide some tax relief. Greater lending possibilities with the prospect of encouraging small businesses to grow and invest is a very important part of what's incorporated in this very piece of legislation.?

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible, and would fail to help small businesses: ??While the tax relief in here is welcome, it's not enough and won't actually help small businesses create the jobs we need to reduce our stubbornly high unemployment rate?.this bill, like others before it, provides a stark reminder of the majority's view of the Ways and Means Committee as an ATM machine to fund other spending.?

House Minority Leader John Boehner argued that the bill was doomed to fail as long as a major health care law enacted in March 2010 remained in place: ??The bill before us today is supposed to be about helping small businesses. ?Yet, if we really want this bill to work and if we really want small businesses to be able to begin hiring once again, what we really need to do is to repeal the job-killing health care law that was passed in this Chamber on March 21. The heart of that law is something that is called the ``individual mandate.'' The individual mandate forces Americans to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, whether they can afford it or not.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 247-170. 242 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted ?yea.?162 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation exempting income from investments in small businesses and restricting the use of granter retained annuity trusts.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) on small business legislation that would have repealed a provision in a major health care law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance. Most Republicans opposed this provision, which is known as the ?individual mandate.?

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If passed, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend it as specified.

Camp urged support for his motion to recommit: ? The motion to recommit the underlying bill keeps the underlying bill intact and provides real help to Americans by repealing one of the most onerous provisions of the new health care law, the individual mandate that? forces Americans to buy government-approved health insurance or pay a tax if they don't. The Federal Government has never required its citizens to purchase a particular product before, and doing so with health insurance violates the basic principles of freedom and individual choice. No American should be forced to buy or purchase health insurance they don't want or can't afford.?

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged members to oppose the motion to recommit: ?Without individual responsibility, it would mean that we could not eliminate exclusions for preexisting conditions. We could not prohibit insurers from refusing to cover someone when they apply. We could not prohibit insurance companies from charging more when you get sick.?

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 187-230. 166 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted ?yea.? 229 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an effort to repeal a provision in a major health care law enacted in March 2010 that required Americans to obtain health insurance.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies? ? policies that enable employees to balance the demands of work with family life.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey urged support for the bill: ?Outside of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which provides unpaid leave for qualifying employees, there is no national policy to support work-life balance. This award will send a strong message that the Federal Government supports and encourages work-life balance.?

No Republicans spoke in opposition to the bill during floor debate. Most GOP members, however, voted against the measure. Later that evening, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) delivered a speech explaining his opposition to the legislation: ??The goals and objectives of this bill are respectable and even noble ideas.  No one questions that a proper work-life balance is extremely important.  But, just because something is important, doesn?t mean that Washington has to write a law to protect it or create a bureau to encourage it?it is simply not the job of the federal government to promote good work-life balance.?

The vote on this bill was 249-163. While a majority of members voted for the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 4855 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure was rejected. 230 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted ?yea.? 147 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation establishing a new award given by the Labor Department to employers that adopt effective ?work-life balance policies.? Democratic leaders, however, could bring the bill up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution, as well as the underlying legislation: ?These bills will provide much needed support for the small businesses that make up our communities and are the backbone of our economy and our economic recovery. These bills will help small entrepreneurs grow and create jobs?. Today, we can assist the small lenders who know firsthand the difference those businesses make to a community. Today, we can make it easier for companies to get access to the financing that will help them grow, expand, and create jobs.?

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) urged members to oppose the resolution and the underlying bills: ??It's unfortunate that I, again, find myself before this body amazed by the stunning arrogance of the liberal Democrats responsible for bringing this rule [the ?rule? refers to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bills] before us today?.We all know that many small businesses have not been able to get available credit. However, the Democrat response is, unfortunately, too predictable: Borrow more money from foreign lenders in future generations and spend it on yet another in a long string of bailouts; create a lot of federal government jobs; and do nothing to really help small businesses.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two small business bills by a vote of 228-186. 228 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 166 Republicans present and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on a bill exempting investments in small businesses from capital gains taxes, as well as a separate bill intended to increase lending to small businesses.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000. Current prohibited the program from insuring loans in excess of $729,750.

Turner urged support for his amendment: ? Only in Washington would a government program insure a mortgage on a home worth $750,000 for a low- and moderate-income program. Permitting FHA loans on a $750,000 home puts American taxpayers at additional risk. Allowing FHA-backed loans on these expensive homes contributes to the overinflated housing values that contributed to the foreclosure crisis from the beginning?. Permitting FHA loans to purchase a $750,000 home also means fewer FHA-insured mortgages for Ohio families and for families across America who truly need them.?

Rep. Gary Miller (D-CA) urged members to oppose the amendment: ??If this were in some way impacting the federal government or taxpayers, I would absolutely agree with my good friend [Rep. Turner]?.but this is not impacting taxpayers. It is not impacting FHA. It has some of the best-performing loans. Why should people who live in high-cost areas be basically penalized just because we want to pick a number of $500,000 out of the air, which will have no benefit to anybody anywhere??

(The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.)

The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 121-301. 109 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 240 Democrats and 61 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to housing legislation that would have prohibited the federal government?s mortgage insurance program from insuring a mortgage on a home worth more than $500,000.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year.

Price urged support for his amendment: ??If we are honest with ourselves, when appropriately sized, the FHA does indeed do a wonderful job and is very helpful. But at this point, this is just another government program that is distorting the market. FHA's huge market share is a hindrance to regaining equity in the housing market.?

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) urged members to oppose Price?s amendment: ?Right now, FHA is 30 percent of the home purchase finance market, about over half of that market for African Americans, 45 percent for Hispanics. Are we going to tell one-third of American home buyers, almost half or over half Hispanics and African Americans seeking to buy homes, that they are not going to be able to buy those homes? Because, if they can't get FHA financing, the private sector may be there, but at much higher rates. And there is no way that these individuals will be able to afford to buy those homes.?

(The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.)

The House rejected the Price amendment by a vote of 106-316. 105 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted ?yea.? 251 Democrats and 65 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to housing legislation that would have capped the number of new mortgage loans provided to borrowers under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program at 10 percent of the total number of private-market home loans given each year.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required under current law.

The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders. Since the FHA is intended to help low-income individuals become homeowners, mortgage loans provided under the program require very little investment up front from the borrower. This amendment would require those borrowers to pay more when closing on a loan by requiring a 5% down payment on the home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required under current law.

Garrett urged support for his amendment: ?It's not a 20 percent down payment or 15 percent or even a 10 percent, which many private lenders right now require, but we go for the reasonable one, the compromise, 5 percent down payment. I support home owners as much as the next guy, and I want everybody to be able to afford their own home if they could. But we have to learn something from our past history, and we have to be responsible here in this House.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) argued that the amendment was unnecessary, because the FHA had already instituted more stringent requirements than those which Garret proposed: ??The FHA has gone beyond the gentleman from New Jersey with regard to borrowers who are risky. For borrowers with a 580 or below credit score, the FHA has already used the authority we have given them to raise the down payment to 10 percent??

The House rejected the Garrett amendment by a vote of 131-289. 124 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?yea.? 243 Democrats and 46 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to housing legislation that would have required homeowners receiving mortgages from private lenders participating in the federal government?s mortgage insurance program to make a 5% down payment on their home, as opposed to the 3.5% payment required by current law.

While the bill did allow the government to prop up institutions in situations that could lead to a financial catastrophe, those actions would be paid for by a fund financed by a fee on financial institutions ? not taxpayer money. In these situations, the government would be empowered to fire all of the top management of the institution in question. The government could extend loan guarantees for banks and financial institutions only if they were solvent, and only in the event of a liquidity crisis (This refers to a ?frozen credit market,? in which financial institutions stop lending -- which can have disastrous economic effects.). 

Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) urged support for the motion: ?This motion to instruct directs the conferees to insist that this legislation end the possibility of taxpayer-funded bailouts once and for all by stipulating that bankruptcy is the only available option for liquidating a failed financial firm?. if you read the bill, in reality, it is nothing less than the taxpayer-funded life support to pay off the creditors of the failed institutions but not necessarily all of the creditors.?

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that the motion to recommit sought to do more than simply prohibit bailouts. Rather, he contended the proposal would have prevented the government from taking action to prevent an economic catastrophe resulting from the collapse of a major financial institution: ?The question between us is this: When an institution that has gotten overly indebted is put out of business, as this bill requires it to be, do you simply do that and ignore the consequences or should there be some capacity in the Federal Government to look at the consequences??


Frank, also argued that Republicans were simply inventing fictitious controversies in the bill based on blatant misrepresentations and distortions: ??We have just seen an elephant stick wielded on the floor of the House. The elephant stick refers to the man who's walking around the Mall here in Washington carrying a big stick, and people say, Why do you have that big stick. He said, Well, I've got to keep away all the elephants, and the people say to him, Well, there aren't any elephants here, and he said, Right, my stick works.?


The House rejected the motion to instruct conferees by a vote of 198-217. All 170 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted ?yea.? 217 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House did not instruct the conference committee to prohibit the federal government from stabilizing troubled financial institutions under any circumstances.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification --which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) urged support for the resolution: ??What our resolution attempts to do is to focus on another perhaps worse threat to the oceans today associated with the burning of fossil fuels, and that is the sad, unalterable, unambiguous, scientifically certain fact that our oceans are becoming more acidic, substantially more acidic, as a result of carbon-based pollution from our burning of oil and coal and other fossil fuels.?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) criticized the resolution as overly vague, and charged it could be a stalking horse for cap-and-trade legislation. (?Cap-and-trade? refers to a proposal in which companies that emit excessive quantities of pollutants would be required to purchase credits from companies that pollute less.) Chaffetz said: ?I would stress that, prior to adopting national policies and international agreements which could adversely impact American jobs, the administration needs to continue its efforts to conduct research to better understand ocean acidification to ensure that efforts to address its effects do not necessarily harm the United States economy.?

Chaffetz asked Inslee about cap-and-trade directly: ?It [the resolution] talks in the very first sentence, `Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should adopt national policies.' By `national policies' does the gentleman mean the cap-and-trade??

Inslee responded: ?A cap could be one of those, but there are many other policies that could be beneficial, many of which have already passed the House of Representatives, including our efforts to start building electric cars in America rather than China, building lithium ion batteries. We are opening up our first plant in Michigan where we are putting to work hundreds of out-of-work autoworkers.  All of these are great policies. We do not specify in this resolution any particular policy.?

Although a majority of members (241) voted in favor of the resolution, it failed to receive the two-thirds majority vote required for passage under suspension of the rules. Thus, the measure was rejected. The vote on the resolution was 241-170. 222 Democrats and 19 Republicans voted ?yea.? 150 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a resolution urging the federal government to implement national policies to prevent ocean acidification -- which can severely damage marine ecosystems in coastal areas -- in the United States.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program.

The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the underlying legislation, saying it ?provides FHA with the necessary tools to strengthen its mortgage insurance program and overall financial position. The collapse of the private sector in the wake of the financial crisis left a large void in the housing market.?

Republicans did not express opposition to the contents of the bill, but argued it would fail to address larger economic concerns ? and criticized Democrats for blaming on former President George W. Bush for the economic crisis. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said: ?The legislation before us today brings some stability to the currently wavering housing market; but Americans are still concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the Democratic agenda?I think that increasing deficits, increasing spending, more taxes on business, shrinking job numbers, it's a sad day if we want to look back and blame everything on George Bush?For that reason, I encourage a?``no'' vote on the rule [the ?rule? refers to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill].

The House agreed to this resolution by a vote of 239-172. 239 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 4 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.

The federal government?s mortgage insurance program is run by the Federal Housing Authority (FHA), which was established during the Great Depression to make home ownership accessible and affordable for more Americans. It insures mortgages provided to homeowners by FHA-approved private lenders. The program is intended to shield private lenders participating in the program from losses that occur when homeowners default on their loans. The program is largely ?self-sustaining? ? meaning the taxpayers do not finance it. To keep the program solvent, the legislation raised premiums paid by homeowners receiving loans from FHA-approved lenders.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) praised the legislation: ?FHA plays a critical role in the marketplace, and this bill strengthens the program so that it can continue its role in a sound manner. FHA was created during the Great Depression to stimulate the economy, particularly with regard to real estate. This purpose is equally important today, so it is crucial that we make reforms to the program that will allow it to keep up with the industry.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) did not criticize the bill, but urged opposition to the resolution and to ordering the previous question, claiming Democrats had not provided for an open amendment process: ??This will be the 31st time that I have handled a rule [a ?rule? is a resolution that sets a time limit for debate and determines which amendments can be offered to bills] on this House floor in this Congress, and this is the 31st time that I have yet to handle an open rule. In fact, out of the over 120 rules of this Congress, we have not debated one open rule. Not one open rule this Congress. I don't believe that closing debate, limiting amendments, and shutting Democrats and Republicans out of thoughtful ideas is a good way to run this House.? While Perlmutter did not specifically rebut Sessions? criticisms with respect to the amendment process, he had noted in his opening remarks that the resolution allowed 13 amendments to be offered to the underlying bill.

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 230-180. 230 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing the Department of Housing and Urban Development to raise the maximum premium paid by homeowners under the federal government?s mortgage insurance program.?

This was a vote on a motion to recommit offered by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA) that prohibited funds provided by a Defense bill from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States. Since 2001, the federal government had held suspected terrorists at a detention center in Guantanamo Bay.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

Forbes urged support for his motion to recommit: ??Sometimes things are not as complex as we try to make them here in Washington. In fact, sometimes our best decisions come down to simple truths. One of those truths is that Americans are safer when our government fights to keep terrorists off U.S. soil rather than when it fights to bring them here.?

No members spoke in opposition to the motion to recommit. More than half of all House Democrats, however ?  including most progressives ? voted ?nay.? Calls to Democratic offices seeking an explanation for their votes were not returned. 

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a staunch ally of the Obama administration and a supporter of closing the Guantanamo Bay facility, said this in 2009, as quoted by ABC News: "If we can safely hold these individuals, I believe we can safely hold any Guantanamo detainees who need to be held?no prisoner has ever escaped in the United States, period. Republicans also claim the administration wants to release terrorists in our communities, some kind of work release, walking around situation for terrorists. What an incredible charge, and patently false. President Obama has made clear that Guantanamo will be closed in a manner consistent with our national security."

A July 21 article in Roll Call entitled ?Guantánamo Debate Has Gone Silent on Capitol Hill,? made note of the Democrats? hesitancy to address Guantanamo. The article quoted House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as saying: ?That?s [Guantanamo] not an issue being discussed very broadly. I think that you?re not going to see it discussed very broadly in the near term.? Indeed, a number of Democrats who had once opposed Republican efforts to prohibit funding for transferring Guantanamo detainees voted differently on this motion to recommit. For example, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) voted in favor of the motion to recommit. In 2009, however, Ruppersberger said this about transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S.: ??If, in fact, there are prisoners that are so dangerous that would hurt our country, I would much rather have us control those prisoners. If we need to bring them to the United States of America to try them, I have more confidence in our court system and our prison system than some of the countries they go back to where they could escape and come back and do harm to our citizens.?

The House agreed to the motion to recommit by a vote of 282-131. 168 Republicans and 114 Democrats voted ?yea.?  130 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to prohibit the Defense bill?s funds from being used to transfer inmates from the Guantanamo Bay prison to the United States.

This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of the ruling of the House Speaker that a motion to freeze the salaries of all federal employees violated House rules. During debate on legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department in 2011, Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-MN) offered a motion to recommit that would have frozen the salaries of all federal employees ? including members of Congress.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Bachman urged support for the motion to recommit: ?Do we really want to go on record saying that the rules of this House should not be used to shield our own Members of Congress' salaries and also those of the legislative salaries of the non-uniformed branch from being fiscally irresponsible??

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO) made a point of order against the motion to recommit, arguing that it violated House rules because it had nothing to do with the Defense bill: ?I make a point of order against this motion as it is not germane, and I insist on that point of order.?

The Speaker ruled in Skelton?s favor, declaring that Bachmann?s motion was in violation of the rules. Bachmann then appealed that ruling.  Skelton then made a motion to table (kill) Bachmann?s appeal.

The House voted to table Bachmann?s appeal of the Speaker?s ruling by a vote of 227-183. 224 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted ?yea.? 165 Republicans and 18 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have frozen the salaries of all federal employees ? including members of Congress.

This was a vote on passage of legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Of the $86 billion total, $44 billion would be designated for National Science Foundation programs, while $35 billion would be designated for Energy Department research programs. The bill also authorized $5.4 billion for National Institute of Standards and Technology programs. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency within the Commerce Department. Its mission to promote competitiveness through scientific and technological research.)

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (legislation which was intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13, one week earlier. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

(The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.)

The Republicans had effectively torpedoed the bill by attaching the anti-pornography provision to the motion to recommit -- which passed with the support of 121 Democrats. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the measure, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. Since the House had never voted on final passage of the bill, Democrats brought the measure up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Democrats were able to defeat all sections of the motion to recommit that cut funding in the bill. The anti-pornography section passed unanimously. Following votes on the different sections of the GOP motion to recommit, the House proceeded to vote on final passage.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) urged support for the bill: ?In recent years we have watched as our country has fallen behind in educating our children for the 21st century and developing technology that our neighbors envy. Today's legislation will help to turn these trends around by making the strong investments necessary in research, education and manufacturing.?

No Republicans spoke on the bill prior to the vote on final passage, but during previous debate on May 13, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ?While I'm certain this bill was drafted with the best of intentions and motivations, I strongly disagree that this is in our nation's best interests. American investments in science and technology cannot operate in a vacuum. We need a broader strategy that prioritizes spending, reduces debt, eliminates deficits, and provides clarity, stability, and the appropriate regulatory environment?But this legislation makes no choices. It simply authorizes more and more spending.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 262-150. All 245 Democrats present and 17 Republicans voted ?yea.? 150 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have frozen spending on existing programs (in legislation intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's opportunity to torpedo or significantly change a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levelsThe motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.  (The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.) 

The Republicans had effectively torpedoed the bill by attaching the anti-pornography provision to the motion to recommit -- which passed with the support of 121 Democrats. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the measure, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. Since the House had never voted on final passage of the bill, Democrats brought the measure up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the ninth section, which froze spending on existing programs in the bill at 2010 funding levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. When the House debated the GOP motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall argued that increasing spending on the bill?s programs beyond 2010 levels was excessive: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the Members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by?reducing the spending down to the fiscal year 2010 appropriated levels.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that additional spending was needed to keep the U.S. competitive with the rest of the world: ?There are 6.5 billion people in the world. Half of those that are working make less than $2 a day. Now, if we try to compete in a global economy on that type of labor, then you're going to see your kids and grandkids wind up with a national standard of living less than their parents. So we can't win in terms of wages. We have to win by having a higher technological base here.?

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 181-234. 169 Republicans and 12 Democrats voted ?yea.? 233 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have frozen spending on existing programs in the bill (which was intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world economy) at 2010 levels in any year in which there was a federal budget deficit.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by the underlying bill if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? with Republicans Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the eighth section, which dealt with military recruiters on college campuses.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. When the House debated H.R. 5116 on May 13, Rep. Ralph Hall urged support for the motion to recommit, arguing it would ?ensure that the institutions that we're giving Federal funding to through this act will repay the federal government by allowing the military onto their campuses for recruitment.?

No members spoke against this section during the May 13 debate. Many progressives, however, have long opposed requiring colleges to grant military recruiters access due to its policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly. When the House debated the issue of military recruiters on college campuses in 2006, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) said: "The military's misguided Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban on lesbian, gay and bisexual servicemembers is clearly not compatible with university policies that prohibit campus recruiting by employers who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?.granting access to an employer, whether military, private sector or otherwise, that fails to meet a school's nondiscrimination policy is not equal access, but special access. It is a unique right to discriminate, granted only to the military." 

The House agreed to this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 348-68. 179 Democrats and 169 Republicans voted ?yea.? 68 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to bar barred institutions of higher learning from receiving funds provided by H.R. 5116 if they prohibited the U.S. military from recruiting on their campuses.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have required that institutions of higher education serving large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for federal funding provided by the underlying bill.The proposal would essentially put schools that serve disabled veterans in the same category (with respect to eligibility for federal funding) as institutions such as Gallaudet, a university for the blind. The amendment was offered to a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? (with Republicans). Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the sixth section, which dealt with disabled veterans.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. During debate on the motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged support for this component of the GOP proposal: ?I cannot for the life of me understand why there's a resistance to assisting the Nation's disabled veterans. Of the 3.1 million disabled veterans in this country, over 50,000 are currently training to receive undergraduate degrees and an additional 2,800 participate in graduate school programs. The schools serving these men and women deserve the same consideration as those assisting other underrepresented populations.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, argued that H.R. 5116 already guaranteed that disabled veterans receive special consideration: ??Language was put in the bill both for scholarships for individual veterans and also for those institutions. Let me read this to you, ?For the purposes of the activities and programs supported by this Act and the amendments made in this Act, institutions of higher education offering?research education activities and programs that serve veterans with disabilities shall receive special consideration and review??.So we have taken care of that.?

When the Science and Technology Committee had drafted the bill, Gordon had made an additional argument against Hall?s specific proposed language. Gordon contended that, since nearly all universities enroll veterans, Hall?s proposal would open a limited funding source for schools serving the disabled to an unsustainable number of schools. As a result, he contended, schools like Gallaudet would lose funding: ?The concern that I have here is?this is such an expansion that it covers everywhere where it makes nobody special in this regard.?which really reduces the benefits to Gallaudet and to those other schools. So I think your intention is good, but I am afraid that the expense is too large.?

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) articulated this point somewhat more succinctly: ??Insofar as every college and university in America ought to be serving veterans with disabilities, by opening it [special consideration for federal funding] up to every college and institution, we are not targeting anybody.?

Gordon argued the language included in the bill (quoted above from May 13 floor debate) accomplished Hall?s stated objective in a manner which was realistic and feasible.

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 197-215. 171 Republicans and 26 Democrats voted ?yea.? 215 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members ? voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have required that institutions of higher education that serve large numbers of disabled veterans receive ?special consideration? for funding provided by all programs in H.R. 5116 ? language which Democrats argued was duplicative of what was already in the bill.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste. The initiative also was intended to help manufacturers commercialize new products relating to renewable energy systems. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? with Republicans. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the second section, which sought to eliminate the ?innovative services initiative.?

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. During debate on the motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) made clear that the GOP motion to recommit sought to eliminate all new programs in the bill because Republicans viewed them as fiscally irresponsible: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by?striking the new programs in the bill??

Gordon argued that increasing funding for innovative research ? particularly with respect to energy efficiency ? was necessary: ?R&D [research and development] gives you innovation. Innovation gives you jobs, which creates the type of standard of living and revenue that allows us to reduce the deficit as well as to continue the R&D again. Another important part of this bill is the energy independence. Right now we have to reduce our dependence on our foreign oil for our economic as well as our national defense. And I don't want to trade our dependency on foreign oil to foreign technology.?

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 163-244. 163 Republicans voted ?yea.? 239 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have eliminated a provision in H.R. 5116 that established an ?innovative services initiative? intended to help small manufacturers increase their profits by reducing their energy usage and environmental waste.

This was a vote on an amendment that would have eliminated a provision establishing a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research. The provision was part of a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world.

The House first debated H.R. 5116 (which was a bill intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world) on May 13. Republicans offered a motion to recommit that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also would have required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to preserve programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to oppose a ban on federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography. 

The GOP motion to recommit passed 292-126, with 121 Democrats voting ?yea? with Republicans. Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage. The Democratic leadership then brought a scaled-down version of the bill (designed to attract Republican support) to the floor under suspension of the rules; this procedure prohibits the minority party from offering any amendments or a motion to recommit. It also requires, however, that bills receive a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Although the scaled-down version bill included a number of the proposals from the GOP motion to recommit ? including the anti-pornography language ? most Republicans still voted against the measure, denying it the two-thirds majority required for passage.

Since the House had never voted on passage of H.R. 5116 on May 13 following the successful motion to recommit, House rules allowed Democratic leaders to bring the bill up again as ?unfinished business.? Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) then demanded that the motion to recommit be divided into different sections (this rarely used procedure is known as ?dividing the question?). Thus, the motion to recommit was split into nine separate parts. Roll call votes were held on six of the nine sections. (No roll call vote was requested on the remaining three sections.) This vote was on the first section, which sought to eliminate National Science Foundation cash awards for innovative research.

No debate occurred on any sections of the GOP motion to recommit. During debate on the motion to recommit on May 13, however, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) made clear that the GOP motion to recommit sought to eliminate all new programs in the bill because Republicans viewed them as fiscally irresponsible: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending. It will address this issue by?striking the new programs in the bill??

Gordon argued that increasing funding for innovative research was essential with respect to job creation and economic growth: ??The last few years, you've seen that the public sector dollars have been stagnant in terms of our investment in research and development. And on the private sector level, they've actually gone down. Why does this matter? Because the rest of the world is increasing their investments in research and development, and the importance to us here in this country is that 50 percent of the growth in the GDP in our Nation since World War II has been a result of research and development.?

The House rejected this section of the GOP motion to recommit by a vote of 175-243. 170 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted ?yea.? 242 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected the section of the GOP motion to recommit that would have eliminated a pilot program in which the National Science Foundation would award cash prizes for innovative research.

This was a vote on passage of legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians (known as the physician payments ?fix?) scheduled to take effect on June 1. The Democratic leadership had decided to divide H.R. 4213 into two different sections, each to be voted separately.  The first vote was on all provisions contained in the bill except the Medicare physician payment ?fix.? (Those provisions included an extension of unemployment insurance and tax credits for small businesses.) The second vote (this vote) dealt exclusively with the physician payments. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) urged support for the measure: ?I want to urge my colleagues to vote for the part of this legislation that would update the SGR [sustainable growth rate ? the government?s formula which sets Medicare payment rates for physicians], which is the payment for physicians under the Medicare program. It's absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians' services.?If we don't act, doctors' fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.?

Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) argued that House action on blocking a pay cut for physicians was an empty gesture, since the Senate had already adjourned for its week-long Memorial Day recess and would not vote on the measure. He contended the bill ?is not going to benefit America's doctors, because the Senate went home.  June 1, doctors get their pay cut?. Do you know what happens when you hold a check in a one- or two-doctor office for two weeks? That doctor doesn't have a paycheck at the end of their month, their margins are so tight.?

The House passed the Medicare physician payments measure by a vote of 245-171. 230 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 15 Republicans voted ?yea.? 156 Republicans and 15 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

This was a vote on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses. The legislation also extended through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. In addition, the measure extended the flood insurance program through December 31, 2010.

In addition to all of the provisions listed above, H.R. 4213 originally blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians (known as the physician payment ?fix?) scheduled to take effect on June 1. The Democratic leadership, however, decided to divide H.R. 4213 into two different sections, each to be voted separately.  The first vote (this vote) was on all provisions contained in the bill except the Medicare physician payment ?fix.? The second vote dealt exclusively with the physician payments. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.

Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) urged support for the legislation, particularly the extension of unemployment insurance: ?If you think starving the children of unemployed people by saying, We're not going to give you money to go to the store and get food for your kids, is going to somehow make them go out and find work in a time when we have six people looking for every job in this country, you simply don't understand the human condition.?

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued the measure ?protects the safety net for Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own. It extends their unemployment insurance and helps them keep their health coverage. That's not only the right thing to do; it is also one of the most effective ways to boost local economies.?

Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) urged members to opposed the measure: ? Instead of creating jobs, this bill will cost jobs. Instead of providing much needed certainty, this bill merely kicks the can down the road. Instead of helping our economy recover, this bill will more likely delay it.?

Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL) argued the bill would fail to create jobs: ??Let?s look carefully and quickly at what the job creators are saying about this bill. The United States Chamber of Commerce says it will hinder job creation. The Business Roundtable says it takes us two steps backwards in terms of job creating?.
Look, this is a cascading disappointment?.This needs to go back to the drawing board?.Let's get about the business of serious job creation, and not just fall headlong into an orthodoxy that is a complete failure.

The House passed the measure by a vote of 215-204. 214 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses, and extending through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure ? and then proceeded to a vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010. The bill also extended through 2010 tax credits for small businesses as well as a a bonds program encouraging state and local governments to invest in infrastructure. The resolution also allowed the House to take a separate vote on blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

Democrats were trying to pass legislation to help unemployed Americans. Republicans and conservative Democrats opposed the measure, objecting to the bill?s overall cost. Thus, Democratic leaders were forced to water down the measure in order to attract support from conservative Democrats. Thus, Democratic leaders reduced the bill?s price tag by eliminating health benefits for laid-off workers. They also divided the bill into two different sections, each to be voted on separately. One section blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, and the other section contained the rest of the bill. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa

Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in support of this rule [resolution] and the underlying bill for one reason, and that is jobs, jobs, jobs. That's what this bill is about. It's about creating jobs across the country from Massachusetts to Florida to my home State of California.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?Why is the Speaker having this bill today on the floor? This isn't about jobs. It's not about the unemployed. It's not about those without insurance or it's not even about physicians. It's about a political agenda. It's about taxing and spending and a message on this floor that tries to make it seem like it's the reverse.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 221-199. 221 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? All 170 Republicans present and 29 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, extending through 2010 tax credits for small businesses, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

This was a vote on an amendment eliminating a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans. The amendment was not offered to the bill itself, but to the resolution that allowed the House to debate and vote on the bill. Such resolutions typically set a time limit for debate and determine which amendments can be offered to legislation. In rare cases, however, these resolutions can make substantive changes to the underlying bill. This was such a case. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) offered this amendment.

Democrats were trying to pass legislation to help unemployed Americans. Republicans and conservative Democrats opposed the measure, objecting to the bill?s overall cost. Thus, Democratic leaders were forced to water down the measure in order to attract support from conservative Democrats. Thus, Democratic leaders reduced the bill?s price tag by eliminating health benefits for laid-off workers. They also divided the bill into two different sections, each to be voted on separately. One section blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians, and the other section contained the rest of the bill. This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.
No debate occurred on the amendment. Republicans, however, had voiced their displeasure earlier in the day with being confronted with last minute changes to the bill under this legislative procedure. Rep. Pete Sessions said: ?Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic majority promised the American people that they would run the most open, honest, and ethical Congress. To date, this Congress and I think the last one has seen more backroom deals, arm twisting, and more partisan negotiations than ever before. I think the American people are fed up with it. They want transparency, they want accountability, and I think what they are looking for is solutions. Standing up and touting this bill when nobody even knows what's in it and how great it is, I think, a sham.?

The House agreed to Slaughter?s amendment by a vote of 215-106. 215 Democrats ? including a majority of progressives -- voted ?yea.? All 172 Republicans present and 34 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House eliminated a provision in legislation intended to help laid-off workers that extended health benefits for jobless Americans ? and divided the bill into two separate sections, each to be voted on separately.

This was a procedural vote ordering the previous question (which, if passed, effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote) on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance and health benefits for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010. The bill also blocked a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1. In addition,  the bill  extended through 2012 a bonds program that offers state and local governments to invest in infrastructure.

Following this vote (which was on ordering the previous question), however, the House was scheduled to consider an amendment by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) that stripped the health insurance extension from the bill, and then divided the bill into two different sections, each to be voted on separately. One section contained the Medicare physician payment provision, and the other section contained the rest of the bill. (This strategy allowed members to vote in favor of extending unemployment insurance, and against blocking cuts in physician payments, or vice versa.) Democrats eliminated the extension of health benefits in order to attract support from conservative Democrats who were balking at the cost of the bill.

Slaughter praised the legislation: ?It's the product of many hours of hard work. It's also an effort to strike a balance between extending important life-saving assistance to laid-off workers and investing in smart spending that will help our economy.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the Democratic majority for introducing last minute changes to H.R. 4213 through Slaughter?s amendment to the resolution: ??It is my understanding that the Democrats are planning to amend the rule [resolution] to change the text of the underlying legislation that we are discussing here right now?.What's in the amendment? Are they gutting the State Medicare funding portion? Are they eliminating the COBRA [health benefits for laid-off workers] extension? Will doctors see a 21 percent cut in reimbursement next week? I don't know, nor does anybody who is going to vote on this bill.?

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 235-182. 235 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 169 Republicans present and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a vote on Slaughter?s amendment, and then a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation extending unemployment insurance for laid-off workers through November 30, 2010, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians scheduled to take effect on June 1.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) to legislation  authorizing funding for Defense Department programs in 2011 that barred the federal government from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers. In addition, the amendment required all federal agencies to conduct an inventory of their existing  government contracts. The amendment required those inventories to specify the total amount of federal money spent on each contract. The inventories were also required to identify contracted services that had been ?poorly performed,? either due to excessive cost or inferior quality. The amendment also required the inventories to identify government contracts in which services should be ?insourced,? or transferred to government employees.

Sarbanes argued his amendment ?would bring standards of good government and good government practice to procurement across the federal agencies. What it does, in fact, is it takes a set of standards that has been put in place already with respect to the Department of Defense?and it makes it clear that those are going to be authorized standards going forward to apply to non-DOD [Department of Defense] agencies as well now as to DOD agencies.?

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) argued the outsourcing policies Sarbanes sought to enact ?not working so great for the Department of Defense, and to take it to all the other departments of government is not a good idea?. People that are in government are well-intentioned, they do their best, but there just sometimes is not that same cutting-edge innovation and technology improvement in government service that we see with people working in the private sector.?

The House agreed to the Sarbanes amendment by a vote of 253-172. 243 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted ?yea.? 161 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment that barred federal government agencies from contracting out services that would otherwise be performed by federal employees without determining that such a contract would result in savings for taxpayers, and required all federal agencies to conduct an inventory of their existing  government contracts. (The amendment required those inventories to identify contracted services that had been ?poorly performed,? either due to excessive cost or inferior quality. The amendment also required the inventories to identify government contracts in which services should be ?insourced,? or transferred to government employees.)

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) to legislation authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military  while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality. In a compromise intended to attract support from military leaders, the amendment allowed the Pentagon to postpone repeal of DADT until the department completes a review of the policy in December 2010. Following the review, DADT would be repealed only if military leaders certify that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, or recruiting and retention.

Murphy urged support for his amendment: ??When I served in Baghdad, my team did not care whether a fellow soldier was straight or gay. We cared if they could fire their M-4 assault rifle or run a convoy down Ambush Alley; could they do their job so that everybody in our unit would come home safely. With our military fighting two wars, why on Earth would we tell over 13,500 able-bodied Americans that their services are not needed? This policy hurts our national security?Our troops deserve a Congress that puts their safety and our collective national security over rigid partisan interests and a close-minded ideology.?

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) said: ??Anyone who is willing to put on this country's uniform and put his or her life on the line to protect our freedoms deserves our respect and should not be subject to discrimination. Repealing this flawed policy is an important way for us to show that respect.?

Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA) argued consideration of the amendment was premature: ?I rise in strong opposition to the amendment being offered by Representative Murphy that would have Congress act to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell even before the comprehensive review directed by the Secretary of Defense is completed and even before Congress has received the comprehensive views of those who will be most directly affected by any change in the law.? Rep. John Shimkus called the amendment ?devastating to the warfighters and to the combat infantrymen.?

The House agreed to Murphy?s amendment by a vote of 234-194. 229 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- and 5 Republicans voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a Defense bill that repealed the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers, which prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military while barring military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality ? but allowed the Pentagon to postpone repeal of DADT until the department completes a review of the policy in December, 2010. Following the review, DADT would be repealed only if military leaders certify that allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military would not harm military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, or recruiting and retention.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) to a bill authorizing annual funding for the Defense Department that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (a military aircraft), which the Pentagon views as unnecessary and too expensive. According to the Washington Post: ?Gates has opposed the extra engine for years, saying it is unnecessary and a waste of money. But Congress has argued that funding a second engine model for the F-35 would keep defense contractors on their toes by forcing them to compete.?

Pingree urged support for her amendment: ?In 2001, Pratt & Whitney won the award for the primary engine for the Joint Strike Fighter through a competitive bidding process. This process was set up to save millions in taxpayer dollars. Since then, Congress has authorized an astonishing $1.3 billion of unrequested funds for the development of this extra unnecessary engine. The Bush administration opposed this program. The Obama administration opposes this program. And yet if this amendment fails today, we will continue to fund a defense program that is a complete waste of money.?

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) argued that eliminating funding for the second engine would prove to be anti-competitive and would actually cost taxpayers more money: ??The second engine is all about fiscal responsibility and saving the taxpayers money. The Pentagon themselves funded this program for 10 years, and they funded it because they knew that competition mattered.? Rep. Mike Conaway argued: ?The Pingree amendment would result in a sole source contract to a single engine manufacturer for the Joint Strike Fighter. But few can argue with the premise that competition is good for the taxpayer.?

The House rejected the Pingree amendment by a vote of 193-231. 136 Democrats ? including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 57 Republicans voted ?yea.? 116 Republicans and 115 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to the Defense bill that would have prohibited funding for an alternate jet engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) to legislation authorizing funds for the Defense Department that allowed the Government Accountability Office (which carries out audits and investigations on behalf of Congress) to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) already possesses this authority with respect to other Congressional committees. An exception has long been made for the Intelligence Committee, however, due to the sensitive nature of the issues under its jurisdiction.

Eshoo urged support for her amendment: ?The reason I offer this amendment is because, unlike all the rest of the committees of the House who can use the GAO, dispatch the Government Accountability Office into the executive branch to make the kinds of determinations on financial issues, financial management, personnel, acquisitions, information technology, whatever it might be, the House Intelligence Committee is not allowed to do that?. I believe this issue goes directly to the heart of one of the most important functions of the Congress, and that is effective oversight. That's what this amendment is about.?

Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) argued the amendment was unnecessary: ?I think the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are capable of performing their job. Now, I get frustrated. I don't agree with everything that the majority chooses to do, but I believe that the committee is perfectly capable of oversight of the intelligence community as we were tasked to do in the House rules and by statute.?

The House agreed to the Eshoo amendment by a vote of 218-210. 206 Democrats ? including a majority of the most progressive members ? and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 161 Republicans and 49 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment allowing the GAO to carry out audits of the Intelligence community in order to aid investigations undertaken by the House Intelligence Committee.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs.

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: ?In the end, the bill that we will vote on later today will strengthen our national defense, will give our troops the equipment they need to do their jobs and will take care of them and their families. The bill also invests in military infrastructure and technology, which will create jobs here in the United States and will stimulate growth throughout the economy.?

Pingree also urged support for an amendment that would repeal the military?s ?Don?t Ask Don?t Tell? (DADT) policy towards gay servicemembers. This policy prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, and barred military officials from inquiring about soldiers? sexuality.  The effort to repeal this policy was backed by gay rights groups, most Democrats, the Obama administration, and key high-ranking military officials, such as Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Pingree said: ?I am very encouraged and pleased by the fact that this rule [resolution] allows for an amendment [repealing DADT) to be made in order by Mr. [Patrick] Murphy from Pennsylvania, which, if passed, will finally put the military on the path to repealing the misguided and outdated Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. I am looking forward to voting for the amendment and to seeing the end of this discriminatory policy once and for all.?

Most Republicans, however, opposed the amendment repealing DADT, and therefore voted against this resolution, which allowed the amendment repealing the policy to be debated and voted on. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued that the process by which Democrats sought to repeal DADT failed to take into account input from the troops: ??When the President announced his decision to repeal the current policy [DADT]?it was agreed to by all, including the President, that a survey would be sent to all the troops so that their input would be taken into account regarding how best to implement the new policy, and that a report with such recommendations as to how to best implement the new policy would be issued this December, before any legislative action was taken?So, breaking the agreement now by having this vote today is most unfortunate, and I strongly disagree with the decision of the President, the Speaker, and the majority leadership to do so, to break that agreement today.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 241-178. 240 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 167 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing annual funding in 2011 for Defense Department programs.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion in West Virginia. (This particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.)  On April 5, 2010, 29 miners were killed in an explosion in Upper Big Branch Mine in Raleigh County, West Virginia.

Rep. Louise Sluaghter (D-NY) urged support for the resolution: ?this resolution provides the Committee on Education and Labor with deposition authority in connection with its investigation of underground mine safety. The resolution also requires the Education and Labor Committee to report to the Rules Committee on its use of the authority by the end of this congressional session. Mr. Speaker, we're here today with a pretty straightforward mission. We want to empower the men and women who are investigating the causes of the serious safety problems facing miners in America.?

Rep. David Dreier argued that the House need not have considered the resolution, because Republicans would have agreed to grant the committee deposition authority unanimously. If the House had agreed by ?unanimous consent? to grant this authority, no vote would have been taken on the matter. Dreier urged members to defeat the previous question motion: ??I'm going to move to defeat the previous question. I'm going to move to defeat the previous question, not so that we, in any way, would undermine this very important authority that the Committee on Education and Labor is going to have, but to enhance this and get us back to an issue which I think is very near and dear to the American people since we've all agreed that this kind of authority, Democrats and Republicans alike, is essential. We believe that if we can defeat the previous question, we will have the opportunity to take on the issue of deficit spending, which has been incredibly painful all the way around.?

The House agreed the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 240-177. 240 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 168 Republicans present and 9 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution granting the Education and Labor Committee the authority to take depositions relating to its investigation of a mine explosion on April 5, 2010 in West Virginia.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.   

H.R. 5325 was a revised version of legislation considered by the House the previous week. The earlier version (H.R. 5116) provided $86 billion over five years (while H.R. 5325 provided $47 billion over three years). This revision was intended to attract support from Republicans, who had complained about the bill?s price tag. House Democrats abruptly ended consideration of H.R. 5116 before voting on final passage after the House agreed to Republican-drafted motion to recommit. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.)

The GOP motion to recommit eliminated all new programs established by H. R. 5116 (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. The motion to recommit also required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography. 

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.  

Thus, Democrats brought a revised version of that bill to the floor under suspension of the rules ? a procedure that does not allow for any amendments or a motion to recommit. In order to win GOP support, Democrats incorporated the anti-pornography language from the motion to recommit into the new bill (H.R. 5325). In addition, Democrats reduced overall funding provided by the bill to $47 billion (from $86 billion).

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged support for the bill: ? The bill before us today, H.R. 5325, is similar to the bill the House considered last week?However, the bill differs in two respects. One, it includes language from the motion to recommit barring money from going to agency employees who were disciplined for viewing pornography at work, and two, the authorization period for all programs in the bill has been changed from 5 years to 3 years. I understand the concerns of many of my colleagues about the overall size of a 5-year authorization, and this reduction is my sincere attempt to compromise on an issue that is very important to me and our country.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged members to oppose the bill: ?While I remain committed to the underlying goals of the America COMPETES Act [H.R. 5325], the bill before us today continues to take us in a much more costly direction and authorizes a number of new programs which have little to do with prioritizing investments in basic science, technology, engineering, and math research and development.?

While a majority of members voted in favor of the bill (261), a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 5325 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. All 246 Democrats present and 15 Republicans voted ?yea.? 148 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation authorizing $47 billion to be spent over three years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. However, Democratic leaders could bring the bill up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation authorizing funding for programs to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River (which runs through parts of New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona) Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin (which runs through parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Utah). H.R. 2288 authorized ?such sums as may be necessary? through 2023 for these fish conservation initiatives. (Funding for those initiatives was previously set to expire in 2011.) The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementing the legislation would cost $12 million per year through 2015, and $3 million to $4 million annually from 2016 through 2023.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) urged support for the bill: ?H.R. 2288 will help ensure the continued delivery of water from Federal water projects to irrigators and municipal and industrial contractors throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin through fiscal year 2023?.These recovery programs are nationally recognized examples of diverse stakeholders coming together to collaboratively find solutions without litigation that allow everyone to use the river systems to promote economic growth while supporting compliance with the Endangered Species Act and the recovery of native fish species within the Colorado River Basin.?

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued the legislation would damage the economies of western states: ?This measure offers yet another example of how the Endangered Species Act has put a gun to the head of the West. The unreasonable effect of this law is now impoverishing millions of people across the country. In California communities, it has devastated the agricultural sector of our economy, and it threatens us all with permanent water shortages, skyrocketing food prices, and chronic unemployment.?

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the fish conservation bill by a vote of 264-122. 228 Democrats and 36 Republicans voted ?yea.? 119 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing funding to help endangered species of fish recover in the San Juan River Basin and the Upper Colorado River Basin.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service.? Americorps is a national public service program in which volunteers perform jobs ranging from education to environmental cleanup.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.

Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) urged support for the resolution: ?I rise today in full support of House Resolution 1338, which recognizes the substantial contributions of AmeriCorps. Since 1994, AmeriCorps programs have engaged over 570,000 individuals of all ages in national service programs, totaling 705 million hours of service to our nation.?

Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) also praised the resolution: ?Americans have a long history of service to each other and to their country, and AmeriCorps creates a web of opportunities for Americans to serve?.Nationwide, AmeriCorps provides 85,000 opportunities annually to serve communities from across the Nation and gives Americans the opportunity to offer their services in tutoring and mentoring disadvantaged youth, fighting illiteracy, building affordable housing, and assisting communities in times of natural disaster.?

No members spoke against the resolution. Most Republicans, however, voted against it. According to GOP.gov, the official website of the House Republican conference, offered this explanation: ?Some members are concerned that AmeriCorps volunteers are currently employed (and recruited) by community organizations including Planned Parenthood [a pro-abortion rights organization which provides abortions through its clinics, along with a variety of other reproductive health and counseling services].  Members have expressed concern that federal funding should not support "volunteers" to be paid to work [Americorps volunteers receive stipends for food and other living expenses] for abortion providers??

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 280-128. 236 Democrats and 44 Republicans voted ?yea.? 128 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution ?recognizing the significant accomplishments of AmeriCorps and encouraging all citizens to join in a national effort to raise awareness about the importance of national and community service.?

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions on a science and technology research bill that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), and froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels. (A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. ) The motion to recommit also required colleges and universities receiving funds provided by the bill to allow military recruiters on their campuses. In addition, the motion to recommit prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.

The motion to recommit effectively put Democrats in a difficult political position. In order to vote against eliminating programs they supported ? such as the loan guarantee program described above ? they would have to vote against barring federal funds from being used to view and disseminate pornography.

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX), the author of the motion to recommit, urged members to support it: ?The motion to recommit addresses the biggest concern I, and many of the members on this side of the aisle, have with the legislation, which is the excessive spending?It also would prohibit federal funds from being used by federal employees to view, download, or exchange pornography, including child pornography. Additionally, it will ensure that the institutions that we're giving federal funding to through this act will repay the federal government by allowing the military onto their campuses for recruitment.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged members to reject the motion to recommit: ?Nobody seriously thinks that we don't want to deal with pornography here?.Everybody raise your hand that's for pornography. Come on, raise your hand. Nobody? Nobody is for pornography? Well, I'm shocked. So I guess we need this little bitty provision that means nothing; that's going to gut the entire bill. This is an embarrassment, and if you vote for this, you should be embarrassed.?

The House agreed to the motion to recommit by a vote of 292-126. 171 Republicans and 121 Democrats voted ?yea.? 125 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to a science and technology research bill that eliminated all new programs established by the bill (including a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation), froze spending on existing programs at 2010 levels, and prohibited federal funds from being used to view, download, or exchange pornography.  Since Republicans had succeeded in making such drastic changes to the bill, Democratic leaders then withdrew the legislation from the House floor without holding a vote on final passage.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) to a science and technology research bill that doubled ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. (The original underlying bill had authorized $50 million to be spent on this program.)

Boccieri urged support for his amendment: ?This amendment is an investment in our Nation's manufacturing base, the backbone of our economic recovery that will give additional funding for loans to embrace advances in technology, innovation and retool and rebuild so that we can compete on a global scale.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) argued doubling funding for the program was excessive: ?This amendment would double to $100 million annually the authorization levels of the new never-done-before loan guarantee program created in the bill. I have major concerns with this program as it stands?Doubling the amount and doubling this spending on an unnecessary and redundant program is not good policy.?

The House agreed to Boccieri?s amendment by a vote of 248-171. 246 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted ?yea.? 168 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment (to legislation authorizing funding for scientific and technological research) doubling ? to $100 million ? funding for a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. Democratic leaders, however, could bring the bill up again under suspension of the rules ? a process that prohibits Republicans from offering a motion to recommit but would also require a two-thirds majority vote for passage. Alternatively, Democrats could bring the measure up again under a process requiring only a simple majority vote for passage. The latter option, however, would enable Republicans to offer another motion to recommit that could potentially undermine or kill the bill.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) to a science and technology research bill barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds for facilities and administrative costs if they failed to provide labor organizations with information (relating to facilities and administrative costs) to which they were entitled under current law.  Specifically, those institutions would be required to provide labor organizations with the applicable information within 15 days of a request. When universities submit requests for grants, those requests account for the cost of maintaining or installing new facilities, and various administrative costs. Often, postdoctoral individuals are responsible for carrying out much of this administrative work (which includes tasks such as running laboratories).  Miller charged that the University of California, Berkley, for example, had failed to pass on grant funding intended for administrative costs to the postdoctoral individuals who did the administrative work. Thus, the amendment was intended to force universities to be more transparent with respect to how they spend grant funding.

Miller urged support for his amendment: ??This has really nothing to do with labor law. The question is whether the postdoctorate employees of the university who are involved in running these very sophisticated labs and experiments and research, whether or not they get the information that they are entitled to under the law.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged opposition to the amendment: ??Any public university receiving funds in this bill ?would have to produce any documents or information that a union requests within 15 days or face the threat of losing federal funding?.I find this amendment troubling, and urge its defeat.?

The House agreed to Miller?s amendment by a vote of 250-174. 241 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted ?yea.? 161 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment barring public institutions (such as public universities) from receiving funds authorized by the bill if those institutions fail to provide unions with information to which they were entitled under current law.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) to a a science and technology research bill establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies. The consortium would include research universities, private industry, as well as nongovernmental organizations that specialize in clean energy development.

Markey urged support for his amendment: ? Moving to commercialize innovations in the clean energy sector is critical to our ability to compete for jobs with China and India. The faster we bring clean energy technologies to market, the faster we end our addiction to foreign oil from the Middle East. Our amendment will connect professors with producers, inventors with investors to move energy innovations out of the lab and into the factory.?

Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) urged members to reject the amendment, arguing Markey?s proposal was ?expensive and [would] expand the bureaucracy within the Department of Energy, which is already too large. We need to be consolidating and streamlining DOE's [Department of Energy] many R&D [research and development] programs, not creating new ones on top of new ones.?

The House agreed to Markey?s amendment by a vote of 254-173. 253 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?yea.? 170 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House agreed to an amendment establishing a ?clean energy consortium? intended to further the commercialization of clean energy technologies.

This was a vote on an amendment offered by Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) that would have eliminated a provision in a science and technology research bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation. The amendment also would have eliminated a provision in the bill creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness. In addition, the amendment would have eliminated an ?Office of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,? which the bill established to foster the commercialization of new technologies, products, and services.

Hall urged the House to support the amendment, arguing it eliminated provisions that would lead to ?bigger government and calls for more spending in areas that go well beyond research and development and authorize potentially inappropriate and duplicative programs.?

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) urged opposition to the amendment: ?All the provisions [which Hall?s amendment sought to eliminate]?are aimed at looking at creating real world economic value for research and development?Title V [the section of the bill which contained the provisions the amendment would have eliminated] includes three important provisions to help spur innovation in this country?It establishes an Office of Innovation and Enterprise at the Department of Commerce to help turn the good ideas into new businesses, leading to economic growth and job creation. And, finally, it establishes a Regional Innovation Program at the Department of Commerce to empower local communities to leverage regional strengths to promote innovation.?

The House rejected Hall?s amendment by a vote of 163-258. 161 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted ?yea.? 250 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have eliminated provisions in a science and technology research bill creating a loan guarantee program for small manufacturers seeking to improve their competitiveness through technological innovation and creating a ?regional innovation program? within the Commerce Department to help small businesses develop new technologies in order to improve competitiveness.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research. Of the $86 billion total, $44 billion would be designated for National Science Foundation programs, while $35 billion would be designated for Energy Department research programs. The bill also authorized $5.4 billion for National Institute of Standards and Technology programs. (The National Institute of Standards and Technology is an agency within the Commerce Department. Its mission to promote competitiveness through scientific and technological research.)

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) urged support for the resolution and the underlying legislation: ?As we speak, there are scientists, inventors, and engineers in our Nation who are devising the next groundbreaking advances. We cannot afford to let those ideas wither on the vine. So I urge the passage of the rule and the underlying bill, which will create jobs and solidify the foundation for the long-term growth and prosperity of the United States.?

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued that the bill would provide for excessive spending on scientific research programs: ??We need to have an economic strategy that encourages companies, businesses in the United States, to compete, to grow, and to hire new workers, a strategy that includes the streamlining of burdensome regulations, a strategy that reduces taxation, that brings our federal spending under control, and controls the spiraling national debt?as much as I would prefer to support the underlying legislation, I believe that at this time of severe budgetary constraints, the underlying legislation includes excessive spending levels.?

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 243-177. 243 Democrats voted ?yea.? All 172 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing $86 billion to be spent over six years on research intended to make the U.S. more competitive in the world, including science, technology, engineering, and mathematics research.

This was a vote on passage of legislation authorized a total of $6 billion to be spent over two years on initiatives intended to make private homes more energy efficient. The government would provide rebates for such energy efficiency improvements. The rebate would be given to the contractors responsible for the renovations. Those contractors would then be required to pass on the value of that rebate to their customers.

The measure authorized rebates of up to $1,500 for certain installations, such as energy-efficient doors and storm windows. Those who make their homes 20% more energy efficient would be eligible for a rebate of up to $3,000. All of the programs authorized by the bill would expire if the legislation was projected to increase the federal budget deficit.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to support it: ?This legislation, more than anything, is about jobs?.These are jobs that won't be outsourced overseas. They are construction jobs in our neighborhoods and our communities?. [The bill] would accomplish this by establishing a rebate program for the installation of energy-efficient home upgrades. These rebates would encourage homeowners to hire contractors to install new, efficient heating and air conditioning, to insulate their homes, and to replace drafty windows and doors. It's an approach that can benefit every contractor in this country, from small independent businesses to contractors associated with large home improvement store chains. ?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) also praised the legislation: ?It will create 168,000 new jobs, especially in the construction sector which has upwards of 25 percent unemployment, and it will increase our energy independence by backing out that oil that we import into our country, moving us closer to this energy independence, which should be the goal of our country, using new energy technologies that make it possible for every consumer to participate in this revolution.?

Rep. Joe Barton urged argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: ?The definition of insanity, Madam Chair, is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. That appears to be what we are doing here today with the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act [H.R. 5019]. It's another chapter in saying one thing, trying to put something out that looks good, feels good, but doesn't really have the substance to back it up?.I don't believe we should authorize a $6 billion program without a pay-for or an indication of how we intend to pay for it. I think that's too much, and I think it's bad public policy with a deficit of $1.5 trillion.?

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) urged members to oppose the bill: ??We're going to authorize $6.6 billion of money that we don't have so that we can caulk homes.  Now, I think it's a good idea to caulk your home, to weatherize your home, to make our homes more energy efficient; but we have to remember something: 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends this year we're going to borrow. And guess who gets to pay that money back? It's going to be our kids and our grandkids.?

The House passed the bill by a vote of 246-161. 234 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted ?yea.? 154 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences, including a rebate of up to $3,000 for homeowners who make their houses 20% more energy efficient.

This was a vote on  a motion to recommit with instructions by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) on a bill authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.
 
Barton?s motion to recommit required the legislation to expire if it were projected to increase budget deficits. In addition, it eliminated the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program, which would have provided loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations. In addition, the motion to recommit eliminated $12 million in funding for a ?public education campaign? intended to advertise the bill?s home energy efficiency initiatives (including rebates and loans) to the public.  Finally, the motion would have disqualified homeowners from participating in these initiatives if their gross annual income exceeded $250,000.

Barton?s motion to recommit also contained two provisions that were politically difficult for Democrats to oppose. It barred the bill?s funds from being used for gambling, and prohibited any of the programs funded by the bill from employing sex offenders. According to an Associated Press story:

 ?Waxman said Republicans picked up Democratic votes for that final GOP motion - 178 of 245 voting Democrats backed it - by including several ?gimmicks? that could be used against lawmakers in future elections, such as a provision that contractors in the program must ensure that they don't have sexual predators on their payroll.?
The Atlanta Journal Constitution?s Jamie Dupree noted: ?When the vote started, Democrats voted against the plan.  But it became clear that Republicans were going to win this procedural vote, and so dozens and dozens of Democrats then changed sides, to the Yes column.?

Barton urged support for his motion to recommit: ??The substantive parts of the motion to recommit are pretty straightforward. It would sunset the legislation if there is a negative net effect on the Federal budget deficit?.It strikes the $12 million EPA public information campaign. As I pointed out in my floor statement, bees know where the honey is, bank robbers know where the bank is, teenage boys know where the teenage girls are, the public will know how to get this money.?

Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) also urged support for the motion to recommit: ? This simply is not the time for a new $6.6 billion government program. That is why?I urge you to support the motion to recommit. It ensures fiscal responsibility and ensures taxpayer dollars will be spent wisely.?

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, urged members to reject Barton?s motion to recommit: ?It [the motion to recommit] undermines the basic structure of the bill?.It eliminates the loan program. It eliminates the public education campaign. It creates?burdensome income thresholds as well.?

The House agreed to Barton?s motion to recommit by a vote of 346-68. 178 Democrats and 168 Republicans voted ?yea.? 67 Democrats ? including most progressives ? and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House voted to eliminate a loan program providing loans for home energy efficiency improvements, eliminate a provision providing $12 million for advertising home energy efficiency programs to the public, and require all the programs authorized by the bill to expire if they were projected to increase the federal budget deficit.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising the energy efficiency programs to the public.

The underlying bill authorized a number of programs (including rebates and loans) for residents who make their homes more energy efficient. The bill provided $12 million for the purposes of advertising those programs. The amendment would have eliminated that funding.

Burgess argued that since energy efficiency programs were popular with the public, they did not need to be advertised: ?This amendment would strike the $12 million it [the bill] has designated for advertising that will be paid for by the Federal Government. Now, let's be honest. Energy efficiency sells itself. If consumers see lower bills, they use less electricity. It is inherently incentivized.?

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) urged House members to reject the Burgess amendment: ?a philosopher once asked: If a tree falls in the middle of a forest and if there is no one around, does that tree make a sound??Mr. Burgess' amendment raises a similar question. If there is a great energy efficiency program and if people don't know about it, will it help to actually increase energy efficiency? The answer to that question, I think, is no. We actually need to have a plan to spread the word about Home Star to achieve the best results.?

The House rejected the Burgess amendment by a vote of 190-228. 167 Republicans and 23 Democrats voted yea.? 227 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members ? and one Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation providing $12 million for advertising energy efficiency programs to the public.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (for energy efficiency home renovations) to make new loans. In other words, Barton sought to prohibit repaid loans from being ?re-lent.? The underlying bill established the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. This program provided loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations.

Barton urged support for his amendment: ??This amendment is fairly straightforward. It would strike? [a provision] which provides that funds repaid by eligible participants may be used to provide loans to additional participants under the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. In other words, under the pending legislation, if people were to get a loan and use that loan, when that loan was paid back, the funds that are paid back could then be relent. My amendment would strike the relending provision so that as the funds are paid back, they would go to the Treasury, hopefully for deficit reduction.?

Rep. Ed Markey urged opposition to the Barton amendment: ??People want to save money on their energy bills, but not everyone can afford the upfront costs of an energy retrofit. What the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program is designed to do is to help those people participate in the Home Star program?if the Barton amendment is passed, it would severely limit the number of people who could participate in Home Star. Without long-term opportunities for efficiency loans, many low-income households will, literally, be left out in the cold.?

The House rejected the Barton amendment by a vote of 180-237.  166 Republicans and 14 Democrats voted ?yea.? 236 Democrats and 1 Republican voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected an amendment to a home energy efficiency bill that would have eliminated a provision in the legislation allowing the government to use funds collected from repaid loans (under the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program) to make new loans.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home). The bill would also have required those agencies to designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs for federal employees.

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) urged support for the bill: ?This legislation seeks to improve and expand access to telework  (telecommuting) among Federal employees governmentwide?despite the evolving nature of the way the federal Government conducts its affairs, telework continues to be underutilized by federal agencies. H.R. 1722 provides for improvements to increase the number of federal employees that participate in telework programs.?

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) also praised the bill: ?Telework has been shown to save money on infrastructure, transportation, and other costs.?In addition, telework has proven to be an effective way to attract and retain highly qualified, skilled, and motivated employees. As the baby boomer generation begins to retire, these types of tools will be essential to ensuring that the Federal Government can attract the next generation of employees.

No members spoke in opposition to the bill. The Baltimore Sun, however, quoted Michael Steel -- a spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) -- as saying: "Republican members opposed the bill because it would add $30 million to the deficit." Steel was referring to a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget office projecting that implementing the bill?s new telecommuting policies would cost the federal government $30 million over six years.

While a majority of members (268) voted in favor of the bill, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under suspension of the rules. Since H.R. 1722 did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the measure failed. The vote on this motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill was 268-147. All 244 Democrats present and 24 Republicans voted ?yea.? 147 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House rejected legislation that would have required federal agencies to determine which employees are eligible to telecommute (work from home), and designate an official to supervise telecommuting programs. Democratic leaders, however, could bring up the bill again under a procedure requiring only a simple majority for passage.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences.

The underlying bill authorized a total of $6 billion to be spent over two years on initiatives intended to make private homes more energy efficient. The government would provide rebates for such energy efficiency improvements. The rebate would be given to the contractors responsible for the renovations. Those contractors would then be required to pass on the value of that rebate to their customers. The measure authorized rebates of up to $1,500 for certain installations, such as energy-efficient doors and storm windows. Those who make their homes 20% more energy efficient would be eligible for a rebate of up to $3,000. In addition, the bill established the Home Star Energy Efficiency Loan Program. This program provided states with funds to offer loans to individuals who want to make their homes more energy efficient, but cannot afford the needed renovations.

Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA) argued the bill would not only reward environmentally sound practices, but also create jobs: ? As our nation continues its economic recovery, we must continue to focus on job creation. By increasing energy efficiency, we will not only create jobs and incentivize the emerging clean technology industry but also reduce carbon pollution and cut costs for customers.  H.R. 5019 would increase residential efficiency and create almost 170,000 jobs nationwide, thereby reducing the current 25 percent unemployment rate in the construction sector.?

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the bill, arguing it was wasteful: ?This bill would provide tax rebates to participating contractors and vendors who would perform qualifying energy-saving measures that meet efficiency and insulation targets in federal standards. That's a whole lot of words for a program that in essence is too expensive, unnecessary, and I believe a waste of taxpayer dollars, especially at a time when growing deficits are causing this country to have failing markets and confidence in this government.?

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the bill by a vote of 229-182.  229 Democrats voted ?yea.? 171 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted ?nay.? As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing rebates for energy efficient renovations in private residences.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day.? Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

The text of the resolution stated that the House of Representatives ? (1) recognizes the important contributions that trains and Amtrak make to the national transportation system; (2) supports the goals and ideals of National Train Day as designated by Amtrak; and (3) urges the people of the United States to recognize such a day as an opportunity to celebrate passenger rail and learn more about trains.?

Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) praised the train resolution: ?Rail in America is experiencing a renaissance we haven't seen in 50 years. All forms of passenger rail, including Amtrak, are seeing increased ridership numbers. In fact, in 2009 Amtrak welcomed aboard over 27.1 million passengers, the second-largest annual total in Amtrak's history, an average of more than 74,000 passenger rides and more than 300 Amtrak trains per day.?

No members spoke against the resolution. Politico, however, reported that Republicans voted against the measure because it offered praise for Amtrak.  ?Taxpayer subsidies enable Amtrak to avoid necessary reforms and keep losing money,? read a GOP memo (urging opposition to the resolution) obtained by Politico?s Jonathan Allen.

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 296-119. All 246 Democrats present and 50 Republicans voted ?yea.? 119 Republicans voted ?nay.? As a result, the House passed a resolution ?supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day.?

This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory).  (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, free association, or continuing its current commonwealth status.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged support for the bill: "Puerto Rico ?is a showcase of democracy in the Caribbean. Having some of the highest voter turnout rates in our nation, Puerto Rico shames many of our own States with its energy and enthusiasm in electing its leaders. Economically, it is a powerhouse in the Caribbean and considered a home away from home for many mainland Fortune 500 companies?.We are here today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives because, in spite of what we have gained from each other, there has been no ultimate achievement in Puerto Rico's political status, which really is the greatest commitment the U.S. has to all of our territories."

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) also praised the bill: "This legislation does not bind future Congresses. H.R. 2499 doesn't require the federal government to create a Puerto Rican state, nor does it force us to work toward Puerto Rican independence. This bill simply asks the citizens of Puerto Rico whether they want to remain a U.S. territory in their current status or whether they would prefer another political status. And if it turns out they favor another political status, another vote would then be authorized to determine which status option they prefer."

Rep. Doc Hastings urged members to oppose the bill: "H.R. 2499 is the wrong way to go about achieving statehood?This bill has the process entirely backwards. This bill is a bill asking Puerto Rico if it wants to be a State, not the other way around. This is a dramatic departure from the long-established precedent of how other states sought admission to the Union."

Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) also expressed opposition to the bill: "This legislation is designed to push the statehood agenda, regardless of whether that agenda is the best solution for the island or even among the people?.I tell you that this legislation has no business being on the floor today. It raises a host of questions. It has zero probability of becoming law. However, it does place Members in the awkward position of explaining why they are meddling in Puerto Rico when a request from Puerto Rico has not even been made."

The House passed H.R. 2499 by a vote of 223-169. 184 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 39 Republicans voted "yea." 129 Republicans and 40 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, o a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States -- or continue its current status as commonwealth (territory).

This was a vote on a motion to recommit by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as its official language. In addition, it required Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

Hastings argued his motion to recommit would simply have stated that "English will be the official language of the state, and all official business will be conducted in English; two, laws will be in place that will `ensure residents have the Second Amendment right to own, possess, carry, use for self-defense, store assembled at home, and transport for lawful purposes, firearms and in any amount ammunition, providing that such keeping and bearing of firearms and ammunition does not otherwise violate federal law.'''

Del. Pedro R. Pierluisi (D-Puerto Rico) urged opposition to the motion to recommit: "The matters that are being raised in this motion are premature. They are irrelevant, actually, because all that H.R. 2499 does is to consult the people of Puerto Rico on the four available options that they have regarding our status--the current status of the territory, statehood, independence, and free association. The people of Puerto Rico have not yet expressed by a majority that they want to join the Union as a State. I hope that it comes about, and when it comes about, Puerto Rico will comply with the Second Amendment in the same way that all the other States must comply with the Second Amendment."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 194-198. 162 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted "yea." 192 Democrats ? including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 6 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have required Puerto Rico -- if it were to become a state -- to adopt English as the official language, and requiring Puerto Rico to enact laws guaranteeing its residents have the right to own, possess, carry, and transport firearms.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-NY) that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that was made through a democratically held process by direct ballot." The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to choose from three options in a referendum: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) As amended, the bill also allowed Puerto Rico to choose to continue its commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The underlying bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, free association, or continuing its current commonwealth status.

Velázquez urged members to support her amendment: "The amendment that I am offering will honor the concept of self-determination. This amendment empowers the people of Puerto Rico to submit their own proposal for moving forward. The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that we should not proceed until we have heard from those most affected by this debate, the Puerto Rican people. The residents of Puerto Rico should exercise freely and without congressional interference."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) argued the amendment would have undermined the effort to resolve the question of Puerto Rico's status: "?This amendment does nothing to further the goal of H.R. 2499, which is to provide the people of Puerto Rico with a federally recognized process to allow them to freely express their wishes regarding their future political status in a congressionally recognized referendum."

The House rejected Velázquez's amendment by a vote of 171-223. 116 Republicans and 55 Democrats voted "yea." 175 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 48 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment that would have delayed consideration of legislation dealing with Puerto Rico's status until the federal government "receives an official proposal from the people of Puerto Rico to revise the current relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States that was made through a democratically held process by direct ballot."

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN) requiring that ballots in a referendum  held in Puerto Rico  be printed in English as well as Spanish. The amendment also provided that if Puerto Rico were to become a state, it would be subject to any federal English language requirements (such as establishing English as the official language of the United States). Currently, no such federal requirement exists. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on its political future in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, ?free association,? or continuing its current commonwealth status. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.

(The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

Burton urged support for his amendment: "This is an amendment I think that everybody will embrace?So we are talking about making sure that everybody who votes?will see it [the ballot] in both English and Spanish. We are also pushing to promote English more than it has been in the past. I think this is an amendment that everybody should agree with."

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) urged opposition to the amendment: "I think it [Burton's amendment) should be soundly defeated, but I am happy he brought it because it just demonstrates the imperialist nature. Here we are in the empire, the Congress of the United States, plenary powers over Puerto Rico, dictating what language they have to use."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) argued the amendment was gratuitous: "It [Burton's amendment] says that the plebiscite [referendum] will be carried out in English. So we don't need that because it is already in the bill. The second provision [of Burton's amendment] is really meaningless. That is the one that talks about Federal language requirements. We know there is no Federal requirement in this country as to English, even though 30 States have adopted that. There is no official one from the United States. There should be, but there isn't."

The House agreed to Burton's amendment by a vote of 301-100. 187 Democrats ands 114 Republicans voted "yea." 47 Democrats and 53 Republicans voted "nay." The most progressive members were nearly evenly split on this vote: 17 members voted "yea," while 18 voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment requiring that ballots in a referendum held in Puerto Rico (in which Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its common wealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States) be printed in English, as well as Spanish -- and providing that Puerto Rico would be subject to any federal English language requirements (such as establishing English as the official language of the United States). Currently, no such federal requirement exists.

This was a vote on  an amendment by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining  the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to choose from three options in a referendum: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.) As amended, the bill also allowed Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.) Gutierrez's amendment would have added "none of the above" as an additional option. In a referendum held in 1999 in Puerto Rico, voters chose "none of the above" over statehood, independence, or free association.

The underlying bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, free association, or continuing its current commonwealth status.

Gutierrez urged support for his amendment: "They [the Democratic leadership] have this thing rigged from the beginning to the end. If not, if they were so faithful to the wishes, to the will, to the passion of the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico, why aren't they including the very option that won? They say they respect the decision of American citizens on the island of Puerto Rico and we should give them an opportunity to express themselves freely in a referendum. Guess what? They did. And yet we reject the very option that they chose for themselves."

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) argued that allowing for a "none of the above" option could allow the issue of Puerto Rico's political future to remain unresolved: "'None of the above' is the ultimate and unnecessary escape clause. The proposal for its inclusion on the ballot suggests that there exists some other option for permanently resolving Puerto Rico's status in a manner compatible with the U.S. Constitution beyond the three options of independence, sovereignty in association with the United States, or statehood. Such a belief defies the conclusions of the international community, the courts, and the executive branch."

The House rejected Gutierrez's amendment by a vote of 164-236. 118 Republicans and 46 Democrats voted "yea." 187 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- as well as 49 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose "none of the above" in a referendum determining the nature of its association (or lack there of) with the United States - in addition to allowing Puerto Rico to choose statehood, independence, continuing its current common wealth status, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current status as a commonwealth, or territory. The underlying bill required Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. (If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.)  Foxx's amendment would have allowed for a fourth option -- continuing Puerto Rico's current commonwealth status. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The underlying bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

Foxx urged support for her amendment: "[Under the bill,]?Puerto Ricans choose only from three options: statehood, independence, or sovereignty in association with the United States. These three options deny supporters of continuing the Commonwealth status quo the freedom to vote for their preferred political status. Whether they support statehood, independence, or the Commonwealth status quo, Puerto Ricans' views should be given equal and fair consideration. My amendment very simply adds a fourth option: 'Commonwealth: Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status to the available voting options for the second stage of the plebiscite.'"

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) urged opposition to Foxx's amendment: "this bill was carefully crafted to give the people of Puerto Rico the opportunity to inform Congress for the first time ever whether they want to continue with their current temporary status, Commonwealth, or move to a permanent status: statehood, independence, or free association. This amendment would subvert this effort by including a choice to continue the island's present status among the options provided for in the bill's second plebiscite (referendum). Adoption of this amendment will contradict the bill's intent and make it less likely that the people of Puerto Rico would seek a permanent nonterritorial status."

The House agreed to Foxx's amendment by a vote of 223-179. 149 Republicans and 74 Democrats voted "yea." 160 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment allowing Puerto Rico to choose to continue its current commonwealth status, in addition to allowing it to choose statehood, independence, or sovereignty in "free association" with the United States.

This was a vote on a motion to table a motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. The House had passed this resolution, and the motion to reconsider essentially asked the House to vote on it again. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.  (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) made the motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution. Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) then made a motion to table (kill) Gutierrez's motion. There was no debate on either motion. During floor debate on the resolution limiting amendments to H.R. 2499, however, Gutierrez had sharply criticized the process by which Democratic leaders chose to bring the bill to the House floor. Gutierrez noted that when the House had considered a similar bill when Republicans controlled Congress, the amendment process had been less restrictive: "First of all, I really think that if you're going to talk about democracy [in Puerto Rico]?then you have to deal with the process, and this process is just patently unfair. I thank the majority for two amendments. That was nice. But isn't it interesting that as a Democrat--100 percent Democrat, one that has been consistently a senior Democrat--that when I came down here in 1998?when it was a Republican-sponsored bill and I went before the Rules Committee, I had seven amendments ruled in order. Each amendment was given 30 minutes."

The House tabled (killed) Gutierrez's motion to reconsider the vote on the resolution limiting amendments to H.R. 2499 by a vote of 199-186. 196 Democrats and 3 Republicans voted "yea." 165 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation.  (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: "What this bill does is celebrate democracy in Puerto Rico. I am grieved from time to time when I read that some of our fellow American citizens in Puerto Rico talk about the United States treating Puerto Rico as a colony. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not interested in having colonies. I don't perceive and have never perceived the United States as an imperial power with colonies. I perceive the United States of America as priding itself on being supportive of self-determination, of being committed to the premise that people freely ought to be able to come together and determine their own status."

Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) urged opposition to the resolution, arguing that it unfairly limited the number of amendments that could be offered to the bill: "It is astonishing to me to see how the Democrat leaders are denying the amendments proposed and offered by Members of their caucus. Senior Democrat Members are being limited. Their amendments were blocked. Their ability to speak and engage in debate is being restricted. And for what possible reason, Mr. Speaker? By what justification is this necessary and how is it fair?"

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to H.R. 2499 by a vote of 222-190. 221 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 170 Republicans and 20 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House later proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States. If Puerto Rico chose to freely associate with the United States, it would essentially become a self-governing entity, but not an independent nation. (The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States. Since it is not a state, Puerto Rico lacks representation in the United States Senate. While Puerto Rico does elect a delegate to the House, that delegate lacks the full voting rights enjoyed by House members from the 50 states.)

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

The bill provided that the referendum determining Puerto Rico?s future would take place in two stages. First, voters would choose between maintaining the status quo, and changing the nature of Puerto Rico?s relationship with the United States. Specifically, voters could choose between the following two options: ?(1) Puerto Rico should continue to have its present form of political status. If you agree, mark here XX. (2) Puerto Rico should have a different political status. If you agree, mark here XX.?

If a majority of voters chose the second option ? to change Puerto Rico?s political status ? a second referendum would be held. That referendum would allow Puerto Ricans to vote for independence, statehood, or free association.

Rep. Jared Polis praised the legislation: "?In spite of the contributions Puerto Ricans have made to this country, they do not receive all of the benefits that are due to them as American citizens?.While they [Puerto Ricans] pay many taxes, Federal programs treat Puerto Rico less than equally when compared to the 50 States?.while they have courageously served in the military, and in fact at a higher rate than many other States, they do not yet have the right to vote for President of the United States, the Commander in Chief. It's imperative that Congress act to right these wrongs which Puerto Ricans have had to live through for so long."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) -- a supporter of the underlying bill -- criticized the Democratic majority for deciding to limit amendments to the H.R. 2499: "?Unlike the current majority, I believe in open debate. Let amendments stand or fall on their merits. Just about every week I have the honor to come to the floor of this House to help manage rules debates on behalf of my party, and pretty much every time I come to the floor, I criticize the current majority for systematically blocking open debate with ruthless efficiency on every bill that we consider."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and limiting amendments to H.R. 2499 by a vote of 218-188. 218 Democrats voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation requiring Puerto Rico to hold a referendum on whether to become a state, an independent nation, or a sovereign entity that "freely associates" with the United States.

This was a vote on final passage of legislation extending unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid off workers and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payments to physicians. The Senate had already passed the bill. House passage thus cleared it for the president's signature.

The bill extended (through May 2010) unemployment insurance for workers whose benefits had expired, as well as a program providing government subsidized health insurance for workers who had lost their jobs through no fault of their own. (Workers who were fired due to poor job performance, for example, were not eligible for this health program.) The bill also extended current Medicare payment rates for physicians, blocking a scheduled 21% cut in those payments.

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged support for the bill, arguing laid-off workers urgently needed assistance: "We now have 6 1/2 million unemployed workers who have been looking for a new job for over 6 months. That's twice the numbered of long-term unemployed compared to any other time on record before this recession....we should now rise together and pass this bill. The unemployed people of this country are waiting. Those looking for work when there are no jobs available are waiting for action by this House."

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) also urged members to vote for the legislation: "We pass these needed and humane extensions tonight to ease the pain being felt by our fellow citizens around the country. I sincerely hope this is the last time we are forced to cut off this social lifeline because of the dilatory tactics of Senate Republicans. Food, shelter, and health care are too important to be subjected to petty political battles."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "?I support American workers and families, and that is why I must oppose the legislation before us that would heap another $18 billion onto the dangerous deficits this Congress has already amassed and that American workers will ultimately be made to pay for in the coming years?.we need to send this bill back to the drawing board and return with legislation that is paid for that will not create more debt, that will help create more jobs instead of economic uncertainty and, ultimately, more job losses."

Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS) argued the bill would fail to lower the unemployment rate: "?This bill does little to address our country's persistent high unemployment rate. Rather than continuing to spend money we do not have, Congress needs to pursue a strategy of job creation. This legislation is yet another unfortunate example of `business as usual' in our nation's capital; same old story from a Congress that needs to learn its lessons from the American people?"

The House passed the bill by a vote of 289-112. 240 Democrats and 49 Republicans voted "yea." 111 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation (thus enabling President Obama to sign it into law) extending through May 2010 unemployment compensation and health insurance for laid-off workers, and blocking a 21% cut in Medicare payment rates for physicians.

This was a vote on passage of a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. (Estuaries are coastal bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea.)

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) -- the chairman of the committee that drafted the measure -- urged support for the bill, arguing that protecting estuaries was in the national interest: "An impaired estuary is bad for commercial and recreational fishing, results in depleted fisheries, decreased tourism revenues, and deteriorated property values. In addition, because of deterioration of the estuary and the borderland around it, we've seen increased flooding, shoreline erosion, damaged infrastructure, particularly when storms occur, which happens every year."

Rep. John Boozman (R-AR) -- the only member to speak against the bill during general debate time -- argued that while estuaries were important, increases in funding may not be justified: "I note that H.R. 4715 increases the authorized level of funding by 43 percent from $35 million per year to $50 million a year. The average appropriation over the past 5 years for this program has been only $26.8 million. While I support the National Estuary Program and improvements made here in H.R. 4715, I know many of my colleagues, as well as myself, are concerned about increasing authorized levels of spending for programs when Congress has not been able to fund the program close to its current authorization."

The House passed the estuaries bill by a vote of 278-128. 240 Democrats and 38 Republicans voted "yea." 126 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries.

This was a vote on a motion to recommit with instructions by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) that would have had the effect of reducing the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million. The underlying bill authorized $50 million annually for the program through 2016.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

Jordan urged the House to support his motion to recommit: " Discipline is the quality we need in this Congress today. The easiest thing to do in the world is to spend money, particularly someone else's money. Really simply, this amendment says: Let's have the discipline to say ``no'' to spending. Let's have the discipline to say let's do the right thing today. Let's not do the convenient thing. Let's hold the line on spending and treat taxpayers with a little respect on this day of all days. Treat them with a little respect."

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) urged the House to reject Jordan's motion to recommit: "I am sorry that the gentleman doesn't understand that a great many people do understand what an estuary is. Three-fourths of our population live along areas that are designated as estuaries. Estuaries, the meeting place of fresh and salt water--where new forms of life are created, where new forms of fish and aquatic plants are created--are the richest places on Earth for the creation of maritime life. Estuaries are the common heritage of all Americans. There is a national interest in their protection and in their enhancement."

The House rejected Jordan's motion to recommit by a vote of 192-214. All 164 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted "yea." 214 Democrats voted "nay. As a result, the House rejected an amendment to the estuary bill that would have reduced the annual authorized funding level for an estuary restoration program to $35 million from $50 million.

This was a vote on an amendment by Rep. Carol Shea Porter (D-NH) to an estuary restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive  estuary conservation and management plan. Estuaries are bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea. The underlying bill authorized $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries.

Shea Porter urged support for her amendment: "?Sea levels are changing. Whether you agree or disagree that global climate change is the cause, we should all be alarmed by the potential impact rising sea levels could have on these important habitats. It has been estimated that sea level rise could convert as much as 33 percent of the world's coastal wetlands to open water. That right would be a devastating loss for our coastal community."

No members spoke in opposition to the amendment. Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), speaking for the Republicans, said: "We do not oppose this amendment." A majority of GOP members, however, voted against it. As of press time, calls to multiple Republican congressional offices for comment were not returned.

The House agreed to the Shea Porter amendment by a vote of 294-109. 238 Democrats and 56 Republicans voted "yea." 107 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to an estuary restoration bill requiring that changes in sea level be taken into account when implementing a comprehensive estuary conservation and management plan.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill authorizing $50 million to be spent annually (through 2016) on a program to restore estuaries. (Estuaries are coastal bodies of water in which fresh water --such as from rivers or streams -- mix with salt water from the sea.)

Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) urged support for the resolution and the underlying bill: "?Many of the Nation's estuaries are in poor environmental health. An impaired estuary not only impacts commercial and recreational fishing, it also harms small businesses that rely on clean water and reduces the number of tourists coming to the State?.We're here today to discuss a bill to help restore our Nation's estuaries by promoting comprehensive planning efforts in nationally significant estuaries such as Casco Bay and the Piscatisqua River Estuary on the Maine-New Hampshire border."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the estuary bill was fiscally irresponsible: "Our national debt stands at $12.8 trillion and is growing every day; yet this bill increases funding levels for the National Estuary Program under the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] to $50 million per year, a 43 percent increase. Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Speaker, and this action suggests the Democrats in charge, at best, are in denial or, at worst, are simply indifferent to the economic situation our country is facing. At a time of record budget deficits, it's crucial that we hold the line on spending."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the estuary bill by a vote of 235-171. 235 Democrats voted "yea." All 168 Republicans present and 3 Democrats voted "nay."  As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation authorizing $50 million to be spent annually on a program to restore estuaries.

After the House and Senate both passed their respective health care reform bills, the two chambers had intended to reconcile those two bills into a final package. After the House and Senate passed that final package, it would have been sent to President Obama, who would have signed it into law. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), however, won a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before the final health care bill could be brought up for a vote. Brown's victory gave Republicans 41 votes in the Senate, thus depriving Democrats of the 60-vote majority they needed to defeat a Republican filibuster against the final health care bill.

In order to pass comprehensive health care legislation without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health
care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely. 

The House had already passed the companion bill on March 21, 2010. The Senate then made a number technical changes to the measure, and sent it back to the House. Senate Republicans succeeded in striking a number of sections of the bill that did not conform to budget reconciliation rules. These modifications did not change the substance or cost of the bill, but merely forced the House to vote on it a second time. 

This was the vote on final passage of companion bill making changes to the Senate health care legislation. Those changes included delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 4872 under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate. If a bill is filibustered, it must have the support of 60 senators in order to end debate and vote on the legislation. Under budget reconciliation, bills can pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority.

H.R. 4872 would increase the number of uninsured Americans that would be covered under the health care bill by 1 million -- resulting in an expansion of coverage to 32 million individuals, as opposed to 31 million. An estimated 95% of Americans would have access to health insurance under the legislation.

H.R. 3590 placed 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. Under the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872), the tax would not take effect until 2018. 

H. R. 4782 also contained a major provision -- unrelated to health care -- that would phase out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders. Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.  

Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ) urged passage of the bill: "We will finally say that Americans who wait on tables and pump gas and clean our offices at night will finally have the ability to go home and not only thank God for the fact that their child is better but be thankful for the fact that they live in this country where every American finally has affordable access to health insurance. That is our mission here tonight."

Rep. George Miller (D-CA) said: "I rise today in support of this legislation, the last leg of a long journey to bring historic health insurance and student loan reforms to the American people. Two days ago President Obama made our first piece of groundbreaking health reforms the law of the land, a remarkable moment that will benefit millions of American families and small businesses. Our health insurance reforms and student loan reforms are truly historic. But the benefits for Americans start right now. And with this law, we make college more affordable and health care available to all Americans. That's what we promised we would do, and that's what we did."

Rep. Mike Pence argued the Democratic-backed health care overhaul would prove disastrous: "Last Sunday, defying the will of a majority of the American people, House Democrats rammed their health care bill through the Congress?Now we're being asked to fix the bill by passing some sort of reconciliation measure. But, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight doesn't fix anything. It doesn't fix the fact that this is a government takeover of health care that's going to mandate that every American buy health insurance whether they want it or need it or not?.Mr. Speaker, the American people know there's no fix for ObamaCare."

Rep. Michael Conaway (R-TX) argued the bill was an assault on freedom: "?Today may well mark a great victory for President Obama and the Democratic Leadership of Congress?.it appears as though they finally have the votes to bend an unyielding electorate to their will and pass the most massive expansion of the federal government in two generations. Yet, a victory today would be a pyrrhic victory; the costs of implementing their vision for the future of American health care will bankrupt our treasury and rob us of our liberty."

The House passed the companion reconciliation bill by a vote of 220-207. 220 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." 175 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation (thus, enabling President Obama to sign it into law) giving 32 million uninsured Americans access to heath insurance, delaying a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018, and phasing out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders (Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.).

After the House and Senate both passed their respective health care reform bills, the two chambers had intended to reconcile those two bills into a final package. After the House and Senate passed that final package, it would have been sent to President Obama, who would have signed it into law. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), however, won a special election to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) before the final health care bill could be brought up for a vote. Brown's victory gave Republicans 41 votes in the Senate, thus depriving Democrats of the 60-vote majority they needed to defeat a Republican filibuster against the final health care bill.

In order to pass comprehensive health care legislation without a 60-vote majority in the Senate, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health
care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely.

The House had already passed the companion bill on March 21, 2010. The Senate then made a number technical changes to the measure, and sent it back to the House. Senate Republicans succeeded in striking a number of sections of the bill that did not conform to budget reconciliation rules. These modifications did not change the substance or cost of the bill, but merely forced the House to vote on it a second time. 

This was the vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the companion bill making changes to the Senate health care legislation. Those changes included delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 4872 under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate. If a bill is filibustered, it must have the support of 60 senators in order to end debate and vote on the legislation. Under budget reconciliation, bills can pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority.

H.R. 4872 would increase the number of uninsured Americans that would be covered under the health care bill by 1 million -- resulting in an expansion of coverage to 32 million individuals, as opposed to 31 million. An estimated 95% of Americans would have access to health insurance under the legislation.

H.R. 3590 placed 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. Under the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872), the tax would not take effect until 2018. 

H. R. 4782 also contained a major provision -- unrelated to health care -- that would phase out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders. Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.  

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) called for swift passage of the legislation: "I won't even bother reciting all of the ways in which ordinary Americans will gain as we shift the balance of power away from insurance companies and back to patients, because they will know very shortly. I have already spoken at length about how under our bill families will no longer feel trapped by their coverage or fearful about children with preexisting conditions. Health care reform, I am happy to say, is now the law of the land. I encourage my colleagues to join me today in quickly adopting these small technical fixes to the legislation so we may move on to more pressing challenges."

Rep. Jim McGovern praised Democratic efforts to pass health care reform legislation: "We voted to end the most abusive practices of the insurance companies, to provide coverage to millions of hardworking families, to bring down the costs of health care for families and small businesses, and to pass the biggest deficit reduction package in 25 years. That reform is now the law of the land. Already, we hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle saying that they want to repeal that law. They want to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against people because of preexisting conditions?.They want to continue to let families go bankrupt because of their medical bills."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) criticized Democrats for failing to craft a bi-partisan health bill, and vowed that Republicans would work to pass legislation more to their liking: " We will work to ensure that government bureaucrats never come between patients and doctors. We will make sure that no one will be forced to give up their current coverage if they do not so choose, and that those who have diligently saved in their health savings accounts are not in any way punished. If we can abandon the failed tactics that the Democrats in charge have put forward and work in an bipartisan and open fashion, these are the kind of real reforms that can be enacted so all Americans will have access to quality, affordable health insurance."

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) warned that the legislation would have dire consequences: "   The first thing that it will do is it's going to drive millions of people out of work. Also, besides that, it's going to drive many doctors out of business?When people have that free health care insurance card issued by the federal government in their pocket, it's going to be about as worthless as the Confederate dollar was after the Civil War because you are not going to find any doctors who are going to be willing to take the government insurance card."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the companion reconciliation bill by a vote of 225-199. 225 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 174 Republicans present and 25 Democrats voted "nay."  As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation giving 32 million uninsured Americans access to heath insurance, delaying a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018, and phasing out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders (Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.).

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a resolution supporting the goals of "National Public Works Week," which acknowledges the contributions of infrastructure projects to the quality of life in the U.S. In 2010, National Public Works Week will be observed May 16 through 22.

The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure known as "suspension of the rules" if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority.  

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) urged support for the resolution: "This year, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of National Public Works Week. During the Great Depression, public works rose to prominence as a means to help stabilize our Nation by putting people to work to create a national infrastructure that benefited all Americans. Once again, our country faces similar challenges and our public works will help our nation regain its footing."

No members spoke in opposition to the resolution during floor debate on the measure. Republicans, however, unanimously voted against the measure because it contained a number of references to jobs created by the "American Reinvestment and Recovery Act" -- the economic stimulus legislation signed into law by President Obama in February 2009 that was intended to prevent an economic catastrophe. Every House Republican voted against that bill. Thus, Republicans objected to praising the stimulus measure.

Following the vote, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) expressed shock and outrage that all Republicans voted against the resolution: "I rise to express my astonishment and disappointment that the entire Republican Conference voted against H. Res. 1125 for the observance of National Public Works Week?.There were three [references]?to the investment of funds under the Recovery Act. Those are figures drawn from information reported to our committee by the states and reported every 30 days by this committee and distributed to every Member of this House. For some reason, the other side of the aisle chose to vote against that. They didn't like that reference in this resolution."

The House rejected the motion to suspend the rules and pass the resolution by a vote of 249-172. While a majority of members (249) voted "yea," a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage under motions to suspend the rules. Since the motion did not receive a two-thirds majority vote, the National Public Works Week resolution was voted down. 249 Democrats voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected a resolution expressing support for the goals of "National Public Works Week.

This was a vote on passage of legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. The FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S. These funds would be spent on airport planning and development, as well as aviation-related research and engineering. The bill also established new procedures intended to improve aviation safety, including a requirement that the FAA Administrator implement a runway safety plan, as well as a requirement that the FAA complete a study on combating fatigue among pilots. The bill also prohibited airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations. Under current law, the Transportation Department can grant such antitrust immunity to airlines seeking to form alliances.

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) argued the bill set reasonable safety standards that all members should embrace: "We will have a new, higher standard, which the good airlines are already meeting, and those who are not meeting are going to be forced to meet?This will make the American traveling public safer?this FAA bill will move us to a 21st century system for air traffic control, one that will allow the airlines much more use of our airspace, much more efficiently avoid storms, fly more fuel-efficient routes, avoid delays."

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA) said: "The FAA Authorization Act represents our commitment to safety in general aviation, commercial, cargo, and many other areas, especially the innovative programs to come. This is important to our economy, but also to our quality of life. I fly two times a week, 3,000 miles each way?.This authorization is a step in the right direction to the total modernization that is needed and that has been long awaited."

Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI) expressed opposition to the bill "due to the inclusion of several controversial provisions?[including] a provision that would automatically sunset [eliminate] airline alliance antitrust immunity agreements 3 years after enactment. We are told this could threaten approximately 15,000 airline jobs in the United States. Considering U.S.-based airlines have already been forced to cut a staggering 41,000 jobs, nearly 10 percent of their work force in the last 2 years, further job loss resulting from this provision raises obvious concerns."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) also took issue with the legislation's anti-trust provision: "By sunsetting in 3 years the antitrust immunity for airlines participating in international alliances, this bill puts at risk the global competitiveness of U.S. airlines, and reduces benefits for consumers. International alliances help better serve Americans when traveling abroad. When airlines partner together, consumers benefit from the enhanced competition."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 276-145. 242 Democrats and 34 Republicans voted "yea." 139 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation providing $53 billion for FAA operations, prohibiting airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations, and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for floor debate and prohibiting amendments to legislation providing $53 billion for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. The FAA is the federal agency that oversees and regulates aviation activities in the U.S. These funds would be spent on airport planning and development, as well as aviation-related research and engineering. The bill also established new procedures intended to improve aviation safety, including a requirement that the FAA Administrator implement a runway safety plan, as well as a requirement that the FAA complete a study on combating fatigue among pilots. The bill also prohibited airline carriers from receiving immunity from anti-trust regulations. Under current law, the Transportation Department can grant such antitrust immunity to airlines seeking to form alliances.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) praised the legislation, arguing it would improve aviation safety and save lives. She made reference to a recent plane crash near Buffalo, NY, as evidence that safety standards needed updating: "I stand here just a day after having been reminded yet again of the pain of many of my friends and constituents of the tragic February 12, 2009 crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407 and the grief caused to the people of our area?.It has been 21 years, Mr. Speaker, since we have revised some of the standards for aircraft rescue and firefighting standards. We are well overdue to update our expectations for all pilots, who, for the most part, are well-qualified, dedicated, and well-trained professionals."

Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) criticized the Democratic majority for prohibiting amendments to the bill, and argued the measure contained excessive spending: "?Once again we are here to discuss a bill on the floor that has come to the floor under a closed rule [that prohibits amendments]?This is a historic level of funding for the FAA, which should come as no surprise from this Democrat-controlled Congress that has already set record levels of deficit and spending over the past 4 years and, once again, aiming for a $1.6 trillion deficit this year, $200 billion worth of deficit last month alone."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the bill by a vote of 231-190. 231 Democrats voted "yea." 173 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $53 billion for FAA operations, and establishing new procedures intended to improve aviation safety.

This was a vote on passage of a bill providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. According to the Democratic staff on the committee that drafted the legislation, a number of FEMA projects were on hold due to a shortage of funding. The summer jobs program was intended to employ 300,000 people between the ages of 16 and 21 during the summer months.

Rep. David Obey (D-MI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the disaster relief bill,  urgedthe House to pass the legislation: "This a very simple bill. It provides $5.1 billion as requested by the President for FEMA disaster relief because FEMA will run out of money in the next 2 or 3 weeks....The bill also provides $600 million for youth summer jobs. This funding will support over 300,000 jobs for youth ages 16 to 21. This age group had some of the highest unemployment levels in the country."

Rep. David Price (D-NC) argued the bill was needed to sustain projects intended to support communities devastated by natural disasters: "This bill is about making sure that FEMA keeps its promises to devastated communities that are getting back on their feet as well as to those who may face disasters in the months to come. In addition to ongoing recovery costs associated with an active hurricane season and extraordinary flooding in the Midwest in 2008, FEMA is still required to pay for some very expensive outstanding costs related to Katrina, such as the devastated Louisiana schools and Charity Hospital."

Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "I believe that most Members would agree that the fiscal path that our country is currently on is unsustainable?.We shouldn't continue to spend money we don't have."

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) called the legislation "an expensive and now hurried bill. It goes without saying that the administration and FEMA must do better in estimating and budgeting for the real costs of disasters. We have been on this broken path for too long."

The House passed the disaster relief bill by a vote of 239-175. 234 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted "yea." 167 Republicans and 8 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) an effort by Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) to appeal the ruling of the chair that his amendment to the disaster relief bill violated House rules.  The disaster relief bill provided $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters.

During debate on the disaster relief bill, Lewis offered a motion to recommit with instructions. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

Lewis' amendment would have used funding from an economic stimulus bill signed into law by President Obama in February, 2009 to pay for the programs funded by  disaster relief bill. Lewis said: "?The bill before us contains almost $6 billion in new spending, spending that is not offset by true reductions. Instead, this $6 billion will simply pile more money on to the government's charge card and add to our already astronomical debt."

Rep. David Obey (D-WI) raised a point of order against Lewis' amendment, arguing it violated House rules. Obey contended that the amendment "constitutes legislation on an appropriation bill." House rules prohibit legislative language from being added to bills exclusively intended to spend money. The chair upheld Obey's point of order, ruling that the amendment did, in fact, violate the rules.  Lewis then appealed the chair's ruling. Obey then made a motion to table (kill) Lewis' appeal.

The House tabled (killed) Lewis' appeal of the chair's ruling by a vote of 239-176. 239 Democrats voted "yea." 173 Republicans and 3 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House effectively rejected an amendment to use funding from the economic stimulus law to pay for programs funded by the disaster relief bill.

This was a vote on passage of legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers. 

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) urged passage of the bill: "This bill expands the successful Build America bonds and Recovery Zone bonds, which helps State and local governments fund needed projects and put people to work?.This bill also contains provisions to help small business innovate and grow....Americans all over our country will have stronger incentives to open the books of new businesses?For Democrats, job creation is our single-most important job?.This bill carries that work forward, and I believe it will provide significant relief to the Americans who are still feeling the recession's harsh effects."

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the committee that drafted the bill, said: "This, indeed, is a jobs bill. It's a continuation of the work in this Congress by some of us to spur job creation to recover from the 8.4 million jobs lost in this recession and to improve the quality of life in our communities. The cornerstone, indeed, of this package is an extension of the Build America Bonds program. It's been an effective tool in job creation. It's been a vital resource for State and local governments looking to advance infrastructure programs."

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) argued the bill would raise taxes and hurt American workers: "Under this bill, American jobs will be taxed?.There's never a good time to raise taxes on employers and American workers, but given the continued weakness in the economy, now may be the worst time. Data from the Department of Labor confirms that 48 states have lost jobs since the Democrats' stimulus bill passed, 3.3 million jobs have been eliminated since the Democrat stimulus bill passed, and a record 16 million Americans are out of work."

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) argued the bill illustrated the Democrats' failure to create jobs: "Another week, another stimulus. This ministimulus, the third or fourth such effort--I've lost count--is more proof of the failed economic policies of Washington Democrats and an acknowledgment that the massive $860 billion stimulus bill has fallen far short of its debt-driven, wastefully spent promises to revive America's recovery. From a jobs standpoint for small business, this bill does next to nothing. In fact, by increasing taxes on global companies that invest and create jobs here in America, this bill may actually kill more jobs than it creates."

The House passed the job creation bill by a vote of 246-178. 242 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 7 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects, and  increasing taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations.

This was a vote on a ?motion to recommit with instructions? ? i.e. an amendment -- offered by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), that would have repealed a number of provisions in major health care legislation recently signed into law by President Obama, including an annual limit on contributions to health flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

The amendment was offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.

Camp contended his motion to recommit would repeal the most unpopular provisions in the health care reform law: "First, the motion repeals the cap on the minimum annual contribution to flexible spending accounts, which will be capped at $2,500 per year under the health care bill starting in 2011. FSAs, which are currently used by 35 million Americans, encourage consumers to be more aware of both the cost and quality of health care goods and services?.Second, the motion repeals the ban on using several forms of health savings, including FSAs and health savings accounts, also known as HSAs, to purchase over-the-counter medicines. Not only does this ban discourage tax-free savings, it discourages Americans from choosing cheaper, nonprescription medicines when they're available."

Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI) urged the House to defeat the motion to recommit, contending it was a cynical attempt to undermine legislation passed by the House just days earlier: "Well, I guess here we start?.I want to strongly urge everyone to vote against this motion to recommit. It is wrong in substance in trying to change the bill that we passed."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 184-239. All 174 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted "yea." 239 Democrats voted "yea." As a result, the House did not include language in the job creation bill repealing certain provisions in major health care legislation, including an annual limit on contributions to health FSAs.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a bill providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program. The $5.1 billion was specifically granted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the federal agency charged with helping communities recover from natural disasters. According to the Democratic staff on the committee that drafted the legislation, a number of FEMA projects were on hold due to a shortage of funding. The summer jobs program was intended to employ 300,000 people between the ages of 16 and 21 during the summer months.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-CO) argued the legislation was urgently needed: "?We are quickly approaching the beginning of disaster season in the United States?. Today's bill is the most important thing they can do to help in the recovery and relief efforts. There will be emergency response professionals who worked overtime and need to be reimbursed. There are federal search and rescue teams which will have to be mobilized. FEMA will have to rebuild public infrastructure and remove debris. FEMA will have to provide temporary shelter to families displaced by the disaster?.finally, the bill invests $600 million into job training and employment services. This is a vital investment to build upon the progress we have made in the past year to put America back to work."

Rep. Virginia Foxx argued the bill was filled with wasteful spending: "?The ruling Democrats, who have apparently no concept of the value of money, have completely thrown that idea right out of the window?. We have established in the minds of many Americans that federal dollars are somehow or another manna from heaven. They are not manna from heaven. Somebody has to pay this bill. It's not free. There is no free lunch. Every dime we are spending has to be borrowed. The American people understand that, and they are sick and tired of it."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to the disaster relief bill by a vote of 233-191. 232 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 174 Republicans and 17 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing $5.1 billion to aid communities affected by natural disasters, and $600 million for a summer youth jobs program.  

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) contended the bill deserved bi-partisan support: "I am pleased that we have in here the Build America Bonds, that we will be able to extend a favored treatment to local governments, to be able to build infrastructure, to be able to fight congestion, fight pollution, be able to revitalize communities. These bonds have been very successful in the last program we had. This extends it for 3 more years. I would hope, Madam Speaker, that at some point we will be able to return to the era where at least one area was not partisan, and that is infrastructure and rebuilding and renewing America. Even Ronald Reagan supported user fees for things like transportation."

Rep. Dave Reichert (R-WA) argued the bill would raise taxes without helping small businesses: "The last thing we should be doing to small businesses is raising taxes. The last thing that Congress should be doing is raising taxes. Small businesses today need certainty about what's going to be happening to them in the future. Small businesses today want to hire employees, but they can't hire employees because they are being taxed too much?.I am one of those that stand up and say, I want to keep the tax burdens on small businesses low so they can hire employees, so we can generate jobs, so we can generate this economy and get this country moving forward."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to the job creation bill by a vote of 233-187. 233 Democrats voted "yea." All 173 Republicans present and 14 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to legislation providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation. If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote.  

The job creation bill also expanded the "Build America Bond program," which provides subsidies to state and local governments for bonds intended for infrastructure projects. Current law provides subsidies for bonds issued prior to January 1, 2011. This bill extended the subsidy program to bonds issued prior to April 1, 2013. H.R. 4849 also increased taxes on U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations employing American workers.

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) urged support for the legislation: "The small businesses of America form the backbone of economic growth in our country. In fact, they are responsible for creating three out of every four jobs in the United States. That is why with this bill we are continuing to foster their growth and entrepreneurial spirit?This bill extends the Recovery Act's Build America Bonds program. To date, State and local governments have financed well over $78 billion in infrastructure projects using this tool to create jobs and help improve water utilities, sewers, schools, hospitals, transit buses, and other public projects."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) criticized the legislation, arguing it would raise taxes but fail to create jobs: "This bill does not create jobs just because the majority has slapped `jobs' on the title of the bill. This bill is nothing more than a hodgepodge of narrow, targeted tax provisions that will not create new jobs. Although it's sold as a jobs bill, it actually amounts to a net tax increase at a time when Congress should be lowering taxes in order to encourage job growth. In this legislation, the largest tax is a $7.7 billion one on foreign companies located in the United States employing American workers."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 240-179. 240 Democrats voted "yea." All 174 Republicans present and 5 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to a bill providing small businesses with tax incentives intended to spur job creation and expanding a bond program for infrastructure projects.

In order to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation, Democratic leaders devised a plan in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590), thereby enabling the president to sign it into law. The House would then pass a separate companion bill (H.R. 4872) to make changes to the Senate health measure. Assuming the Senate passed the companion bill, that measure would then go to the president for signature as well. This process allowed the House to make changes to Senate-passed health care legislation without sending the entire health bill back to the Senate, where it could be filibustered indefinitely.

This was the vote on passage of the companion bill making changes to the Senate health care legislation. Those changes included delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. Democratic leaders brought up H.R. 4872 under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate. If a bill is filibustered, it must have the support of 60 senators in order to end debate and vote on the legislation. Under budget reconciliation, bills can pass the Senate with a simple 51-vote majority.

H.R. 4872 would increase the number of uninsured Americans that would be covered under the health care bill by 1 million -- resulting in an expansion of coverage to 32 million individuals, as opposed to 31 million. An estimated 95% of Americans would be covered under the legislation.

H.R. 3590 placed 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. Under the reconciliation bill (H.R. 4872), the tax would not take effect until 2018.

H. R. 4782 also contained a major provision -- unrelated to health care -- that would phase out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders. Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government. 

Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) argued the  reconciliation bill would help provide access to health care for nearly all Americans: "Opponents of health care reform have said anything and done everything to distort the facts, delay the process, and try to put off what Americans have asked for and needed for generations. They have tried to sow fear into the American people?.But we have made it to the final step in this process--despite all that noise. And now we face a simple choice. We can side with America's families and college students and make health insurance and college more affordable and accessible--while creating millions of jobs and reducing the deficit. Or, we can side with insurance companies and banks. That's it. That's the choice. I'm siding with the American people. "

Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) argued the bill would help his struggling middle-class constituents: "They are the average Long Islanders--not rich, not poor, but usually somewhere in between--who live in quiet desperation and concern?.The woman who thought health care worked pretty well for her, until her daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer....The middle class family with two kids just out of college who are having trouble finding a job that provides health insurance. Under this bill, those young adults can get coverage on their parents' plans until they turn 26."

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) argued the bill would infringe upon Americans' freedoms: "The philosophy advanced on this floor by this majority today is so paternalistic and so arrogant. It's condescending, and it tramples upon the principles that have made America so exceptional. My friends, we are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend upon the Federal Government than upon themselves for their livelihoods, a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependences."

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) argued the Democratic majority was ignoring the will of the public: "Despite overwhelming public opposition today, this administration and this Congress is poised to ignore the majority of the American people. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is not the President's House. This is not the Democrats' House. This is the people's House, and the American people don't want a government takeover of health care."

The House passed the reconciliation bill by a vote of 220-211. 220 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 33 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation giving 32 million uninsured Americans access to heath insurance, delaying a tax on high-cost health insurance plans until 2018, and phasing out a program in which the federal government guaranteed loans made to students by private lenders (Under the bill, students would instead receive loans directly from the federal government.). The legislation then went to the Senate for consideration by that chamber.

This was a vote on a "motion to recommit with instructions" amending a bill making a number of changes to Senate-passed health care legislation.  A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified.  

This amendment, offered by Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), would have prohibited health insurers from selling government-subsidized coverage to uninsured individuals if the insurance plans cover abortion. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) had offered an amendment to the original House-passed health care bill containing this language. His amendment passed, and thus these restrictions on abortion coverage were included in the House bill. The Senate health bill, meanwhile, had less stringent abortion language -- it required women receiving subsidized health coverage to make a separate payment for abortion services to ensure they were not reimbursed for those services with taxpayer money.

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) urged the House to pass his motion to recommit: "The motion to recommit offers us a chance to fix the most egregious defect, allowing taxpayer funds to subsidize abortions?. There is no bargaining or dealmaking when it comes to the life of the unborn. A life is a life. And it is the responsibility of this House to defend these children. When this measure was last before the House, it passed overwhelmingly, 240-194. It should do so again." 

Stupak -- the original author of this language -- led the opposition to it, denouncing the amendment as a cynical attempt to kill health care reform efforts: "The motion to recommit purports to be a right-to-life motion, in the spirit of the Stupak amendment. But as the author of the Stupak amendment, this motion is nothing more than an opportunity to continue to deny 32 million Americans health care. The motion is really a last-ditch effort of 98 years of denying Americans health care?. For the Republicans to now claim that we send the bill back to committee under the guise of protecting life is disingenuous. This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life. We stand for the American people. We stand up for life."

The House rejected the motion to recommit by a vote of 199-232. All 178 Republicans and 21 Democrats voted "yea." 232 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "nay." As a result, the House did not include language in health care reform legislation prohibiting health insurers from selling government-subsidized coverage to uninsured individuals if the insurance plans separately cover abortion.

This was a vote on passage of a bill making major changes to the national health care system. House passage of the legislation ? which had already passed the Senate -- would clear the bill for the president's signature.

The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals.

Under the legislation, insurers would be required to cover preventive care -- such as regular checkups -- at no cost to customers. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance.

Immediately following the vote on the Senate-passed health care bill, the House planned to bring up a second health measure. The second bill  made a number of changes to the Senate legislation, including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. It also expanded coverage to 32 million people, one million more than the Senate-passed bill. The second bill was brought up by Democratic leaders under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shielded the bill from a filibuster in the Senate, allowing it to pass that chamber with a simple 51-vote majority.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) argued the bill represented "the end of discrimination against Americans with preexisting conditions, and the end of medical bankruptcy and caps on benefits. It is coverage you can rely on whether you lose your job or become your own boss, coverage that reaches 95 percent of all Americans?.Illness and infirmity are universal, and we are stronger against them together than we are alone. Our bodies may fail us; our neighbors don't have to. In that shared strength is our Nation's strength, and in this bill is a prosperous and more just future."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the chairman of one of the committees that drafted the legislation, said: "This bill provides all Americans the security of knowing they will always be able to afford health care for themselves and their families. The bedrock foundation of the legislation is that it builds on what works today and reforms what doesn't, but we fundamentally reform the insurance company practices that are failing our families." 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) criticized the Republicans for seeking to delay and obstruct passage of the legislation: "GOP used to stand for Grand Old Party. Now, it stands for grandstand, oppose, and postpone. They grandstand with phony claims about nonexistent government takeovers, they oppose any real reform, and then they want to postpone fixing a broken health care system. GOP: Grandstand, oppose, and postpone."

Republicans denounced the bill as a "government takeover" of health care that would lead to economic ruin: Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) said: "Tragically, this bill will destroy freedom and do incredible damage to the very fabric of our society. This bill is a bailout for the insurance companies. They get the individual mandate that they wanted all along--a mandate that is un-American and unconstitutional."

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) argued the bill would use taxpayer dollars for abortions: "This bill violates the conscience of the American people?.This extreme legislation is being forced on an unwilling Nation. It is the most pro-abortion bill and the largest expansion of abortion in our history. No Member who votes for it will ever be able to claim again that they have always stood on the side of the unborn."

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) argued the bill would lead to socialism and totalitarianism: "?This debate is not about the uninsured; it's about socialized medicine. Today we are turning back the clock. For most of the 20th century, people fled the ghosts of communist dictators, and now you are bringing the ghosts back into this Chamber. With passage of this bill, they will haunt Americans for generations. Your multitrillion dollar health care bill continues the Soviets' failed Soviet socialistic experiment. It gives the Federal Government absolute control over health care in America?.Say "no'' to socialism. Say "no'' to totalitarianism. Say ?no? to this bill."

The House passed the Senate health care bill by a vote of 219-212. 219 Democrats -- including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- thereby enabling the president to sign it into law.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a major Senate-passed health care bill -- as well as a separate companion bill making changes to the Senate health measure.The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The Senate bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that are worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance.

The companion bill  made a number of changes to the Senate legislation, including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. It would also expand coverage to 32 million people, one million more than the Senate-passed bill. The second bill was brought up by Democratic leaders under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shields the bill from a filibuster in the Senate, allowing it to pass that chamber with a simple 51-vote majority.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the health care legislation was historic and long overdue: "  The effort to reform the health care system goes back to at least Theodore Roosevelt, that great President who campaigned in 1912 by promising: 'We pledge ourselves to work increasingly in State and Nation for protection of home life against the hazards of sickness?'" Slaughter also argued the bill had "the potential to transform the way that we deliver health care in the country." She accused Republicans of willfully misrepresenting the bill to the public saying: "The fight has been long and contentious, and the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to."

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) contended the bill would make health care more affordable while reducing the deficit: "We have the opportunity to enact real, meaningful health insurance reform that will improve the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We can end the most abusive practices of the insurance companies. We can provide coverage to millions of hardworking families. We can bring down the cost of health care for families and small businesses. We can close the doughnut hole in Medicare and extend the solvency of that vital program, and we can pass the biggest deficit-reduction package in 25 years. All we need is the courage to do what is right."

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) argued: "?The simple truth is this health care bill is a killer. It kills over 5 million jobs in future job creation with $52 billion in mandates and taxes. It kills economic freedom and the American entrepreneurial spirit. It kills the family budget with over $17 billion in more mandates and taxes primarily aimed at the poor and its seniors. It kills our future by allowing taxpayer-funded abortions.  Make no mistake about it. If you vote for this bill, you can never call yourself pro-life again."

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) argued the bill "represents one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States, and the American people recognize this simple truth. Even the ruling Democrats recognize how unpopular this proposal is but have chosen to ignore the overwhelming outcry and convince their wavering colleagues that the government and politicians in Washington, D.C., know better than their constituents. What arrogance."

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 224-206. 224 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members-- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to formal floor debate on a Senate-passed bill making major changes to the national health care system -- as well as a bill to make a number of changes to the Senate-passed measure (including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018).

This was a procedural vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to a major Senate-passed health care bill -- as well as a separate companion bill making changes to the Senate health measure.

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

The Senate-passed bill imposed a requirement that most Americans have health insurance, added 15 million people to the Medicaid rolls, provided funding to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance coverage for low- and middle-income people, and prohibited insurance companies from refusing coverage because of ?pre-existing conditions.? The Senate bill would also place a 40% tax on high-cost insurance plans -- or those plans that worth more than $27,500 for families, and $10,200 for individuals. The bill was estimated to cover 31 million uninsured individuals. Under the bill, an estimated 95% of Americans would have health insurance.

The  separate companionbill would make a number of changes to the Senatelegislation, including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018. It would also expand coverage to 32 million people, one million more than the Senate-passed bill. The second bill was brought up by Democratic leaders under a process known as budget reconciliation. This process shields the bill from a filibuster in the Senate, allowing it to pass that chamber with a simple 51-vote majority.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued the legislation would expand access to health insurance and prevent abuses by private health insurance companies: "Our bill covers an estimated 32 million Americans in a fiscally responsible way that improves Medicare benefits, holds insurance companies accountable, and helps small business owners with coverage. We are finally gaining ground against insurance special interests. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy will get tax credits if they make health care coverage available for their workers. We offer free preventive care for people on Medicare. We help people who have retired at 55, 10 years before they are eligible for Medicare. And we ban the lifetime and yearly limit on coverage."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) argued the legislation would fail to reduce health care costs or improve the quality of care Americans receive: "This is not a bill that will increase access to care or improve its quality. It will not rein in costs. What it will do is add an enormous amount of new government bureaucracy to our existing system. It will spend $1 trillion at a time when our deficit is already $1.4 trillion, and our total national debt exceeds $12 trillion. It will cripple the small businesses that are already struggling in this economy and will further drive up unemployment."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 228-202. 228 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 24 Democrats voted nay. As a result, the House proceeded to a final vote on the resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments on a Senate-passed bill making major changes to the national health care system -- as well as a separate companion bill to make a number of changes to the Senate-passed measure (including delaying the implementation of the tax on high-cost insurance plans until 2018).

This was a procedural vote determining whether the House would begin consideration of a resolution that would both set a time limit for debate and prohibit amendments to major health care legislation. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), raised a point of order against the resolution, claiming it contained earmarks -- provisions tucked into legislation that benefit a particular interest, organization or locale. In order to defeat this point of order against the resolution, the Democrats needed to vote on a "question of consideration" -- which essentially determined whether the House would consider the resolution. If the House voted in favor considering the resolution, the point of order would be defeated.

Issa argued his point of order against the resolution allowing debate on health care effort legislation should be upheld: "?This legislation is filled with earmarks?Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order that an earmark is tantamount to a bribe. An earmark to receive a vote is clearly a way to get a vote in return for something of value. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a vast tax increase and a vast increase in the reach of government. It deserves to be considered on its merits, not based on promises and bribes for financial gain to various Members' districts. Therefore, it is clear we must remove all earmarks before this legislation can move forward."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) argued Issa was trying to use procedural tactics to kill health care legislation: "The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time."

By a vote of 230-200, the House voted in favor of considering the resolution allowing for debate on health care legislation -- and, in effect, voted down Issa's point of order. 230 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members -- voted "yea." All 178 Republicans present and 22 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to bring up a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to health care legislation.

This was a procedural vote determining whether the House would begin consideration of a resolution setting a time limit for debate and prohibiting amendments to major health care legislation. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), raised a point of order against the resolution, claiming it contained ?unfunded mandates?, which violate the Congressional Budget Act. An unfunded mandate is a provision requiring states to spend money on a program without providing federal money to pay for the program.  In order to defeat this point of order against the resolution, the Democrats needed to vote on a "question of consideration" -- which essentially determined whether the House would consider the resolution. If the House voted in favor considering the resolution, the point of order would be defeated.

Ryan said: "This bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There are mandates on states?.There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS?There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide government-approved health insurance or face penalties?.There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to comply with new federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet these new requirements?."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) denounced Ryan's point of order as an effort to kill health care reform legislation: "Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care itself. They just want to make reform go away. I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion"

By a vote of 228-195, the House voted in favor of considering the resolution allowing for debate on health care legislation -- and, in effect, voted down Ryan's point of order. 228 Democrats ? including all of the most progressive members present -- voted "yea." All 176 Republicans present and 19 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to bring up a health care resolution setting a time limit for debate and a prohibition on amendments.

This was a vote on passage of legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the  Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." As amended, the bill would keep in place an annual $12 million limit on funding for the program. In addition, the program would expire within five years unless legislation is enacted to provide additional funding for the PLSC.

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the sponsor of the bill, urged the House to pass it: "The training and experience Corps members receive while working to improve the condition of our natural and cultural resources will give them a huge advantage when they enter the working world in such professions as science, land management, the building trades, academic disciplines such as history and education. The legislation not only takes a decisive step forward in finishing desperately needed work on our national park lands, forests, wildlife refuges, historic sites and Indian lands, but also recognizes the importance of our coastal and marine systems and our national marine sanctuaries."

Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) argued the bill should put additional restrictionson funding for the PLSC: "What we are doing now is building a program that has no latitudes, no restrictions on what their options are, no restrictions on their funding. This is a hole so wide you could drive a Toyota Prius through it because there is nothing involved that could stop it. That is not the way you do good legislation. This is not the way you do good legislation. But it could be, and it should have been."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 288-116. 230 Democrats and 58 Republicans voted "yea." 114 Republicans and 2 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate the Public Land Service Corps.

This was a vote on an amendment to legislation requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." The bill would also remove annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC. 

The amendment, offered by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), would keep in place the annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC, and "sunset" the program within five years. A "sunset" refers to a requirement that a program would expire on a certain date unless new legislation is enacted to provide that program with additional funding.

Bishop urged the House to pass his amendment: "This is a very simple amendment, an easily understandable one?.Number one is you continue the funding authorization that is in the current law; and, number two, you add a 5-year sunset period in there?. There is something wrong when we refuse to periodically exercise our legislative responsibility to review those things that we are currently doing?.There is nothing wrong with a sunset. In fact, it should be standard fare in most of our pieces of legislation."

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) urged the House to reject the amendment: "The amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Bishop, would not only leave the [$12 million] cap in place, but also force the program to sunset in 5 years. Madam Speaker, as we all know, when the Republicans controlled this Congress and the White House, they presided over the largest increase in Federal spending in the history of this Nation?.Republicans want to cap and sunset a popular, effective, bipartisan jobs program; but when they controlled the entire Federal budget, they spent like sailors on leave."

The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 227-180. 171 Republicans and 56 Democrats voted "yea." 179 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 1 Republican voted "nay." As a result, the House included language in the PLSC bill keeping in place the annual $12 million limit on funding, and "sunsetting" the program within five years.

This was a vote on a motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study of the Hudson River Valley in New York to evaluate the national significance of the area and to determine the feasibility and suitability of designating the valley as a unit of the National Park System.

The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure known as "suspension of the rules" if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) argued that, given the Hudson River Valley's unique characteristics and history, it ought to be made part of the National Park Service system: "The Hudson River Valley is one of the most significant river corridors in our country.?Passage of this bill and the subsequent study would position the Hudson River Valley to gain the full attention of the National Park Service for all of the significant and substantial historic contributions this region has made to the development, establishment, and the continuation of the United States, as well as for the area's pristine natural beauty."

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) argued the bill could lead to additional federal regulations with respect to various recreational activities in the valley (such as hunting and fishing): "As we in the West painfully know, national park designation comes with an abundance of regulations and direct federal management. It is important that people living in the affected area know ahead of time how much authority over their local affairs will be ceded to the federal government."

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 293-115. 243 Democrats and 50 Republicans voted "yea." 114 Republicans and 1 Democrat voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation requiring the National Park Service (NPS) to conduct a study evaluating the the feasibility of designating the Hudson River Valley in New York as a unit of the National Park System.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade.

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) urged support for the bill: "?My bill, H.R. 3644, seeks to formally authorize these two innovative and important NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] education programs that were established through the annual appropriations process so we can ensure that they are here for our children now and in the future. It also ensures that certain standards and criteria for positive implementation are met by the agency when they spend these funds. To me, this represents a responsible oversight effort on the part of our committee to exercise our proper duties."

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) argued the bill would help educate the students about the Chesapeake Bay:  "I come from the state of Maryland, and we have the largest estuary, the Chesapeake Bay, in and around the State of Maryland, and this notion of educating young people, investing them in science and also educating them about the deep impacts that we have through all of our communities onto this estuary is so important."

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) argued the bill was fiscally irresponsible: "There are two simple and compelling arguments for why I am opposed to this legislation: first, it spends too much money that our government just doesn't have, and it singles out two of the more than one dozen NOAA education programs for special treatment when the entire effort is subject to a top-to-bottom review."

Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) objected to annual increases in spending for programs funded by the bill: "?We have a bill which has a wonderful name with a wonderful purpose; but it appears that we are forgetting the fact that we're broke. As I understand this bill, this will be a 10 percent increase per year for 5 years for this education program."

The House passed the bill by a vote of 244-170. 236 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted "yea." 161 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation authorizing funding for two programs intended to educate the public about water resources issues.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade.

A motion to recommit with instructions is the minority's last chance to make substantive changes to a bill before a final up-or-down vote on the measure. If successful, the motion sends the legislation back to committee with instructions to amend the legislation as specified. 

This amendment, offered by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), would have frozen federal spending on programs funded by the bill at 2010 levels. The amendment would also have prohibited any entity currently suing the federal government from receiving funding under the bill.

Chaffetz argued his amendment was fiscally responsible: "We're $12 trillion in debt. We're spending more than $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. At some point, some way, we're going to have to curb spending in this body. This bill authorizes a 10 percent increase every year for the 5 years covered in this bill. This is just too much?.This motion to recommit simply will freeze funding at the current year appropriated levels?"

Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) urged opposition to the amendment, and argued a 10% annual increase in funding was appropriate: "The modest increases in this bill were negotiated with my colleague, Mr. [Rep. Bill] Cassidy [R-LA], in the Natural Resources Committee, in a very bipartisan discussion with negotiations that we made between the two sides, and I urge Members to oppose this motion and support the underlying bill."

The House rejected the motion to recommit with instructions by a vote of 200-215. All 169 Republicans present and 31 Democrats voted "yea."  215 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected an amendment to the water resources education bill freezing federal spending on programs funded by the measure at 2010 levels.

This was a vote on an amendment offered to a bill authorizing funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. The bill authorized as much money "as is necessary" to be spent on both programs.

The amendment, offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA), would authorize $13.2 million for the environmental literacy program in 2011, and increase that funding level by roughly 10% per year -- providing 19.3 million by 2015. The amendment would provide the same annual 10% increase in funding for the coastal and marine resources program, providing $10.7 million in 2011, and $15.6 million by 2015.

Capps urged support for her amendment: "?My amendment will authorize a gradual increase in authorized appropriations for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. This modest annual increase of 10 percent will allow for the responsible expansion of both programs to incorporate new regions that are not currently served?"

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) argued the amendment would prove too costly: "Is there no recognition that this country is over $12 trillion in debt? We are paying over $600 million a day in interest on the debt, and yet we continue to fund these programs at record levels, and giving them amazingly high increases without recognition of the fact that this body has got to make difficult decisions."

The House agreed to the Capps amendment by a vote of 233-178. 229 Democrats and 4 Republicans voted "yea." 167 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House agreed to an amendment to the water resources education bill increasing by 10% annually the amount of money authorized to be spent on programs funded by the legislation.

This was a vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor nutrients and sediment in the Mississippi River Basin. The program would keep a record of the loss of nutrients and sediment in the Basin over time. It would also identify "major sources of sediment and nutrients within the Basin" -- which could then reduce sediment and nutrient loss.

The majority party in the House schedules bills for floor debate under this procedure known as "suspension of the rules" if the leadership deems them to be non-controversial. Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. 

Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) argued the bill would help to maintain the health of the Mississippi Rive Basin: "What we're trying to do is put the science in place in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The greatest threat that this great national treasure that we have running through the middle of America, comprising roughly 50 percent of the landmass of our Nation, is the amount of nutrients and sediments that flow into the river basin doing incalculable ecological damage. We've heard of the stories of the dead zone being created in the Gulf of Mexico. Well, 40 percent of the nutrients that are flowing south through the river and ending up deposited in the Gulf, contributing to the dead zone, emanates in the Upper Mississippi River Basin."

Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) said: "Based on the history of this legislative proposal, we're not opposing the measure; however, Members should note that today's bill has been changed from prior versions. The 10-year sunset has been removed." The "sunset" refers to the date at which the program would expire without a new bill authorizing additional money to be spent on that program.

The House agreed to the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill by a vote of 289-121. 240 Democrats and 49 Republicans voted "yea." 117 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed a bill authorizing $6.25 million to be spent annually on a program to monitor nutrients and sediment in the Mississippi River Basin.

This was a vote on a resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to two different bills. The first bill, H.R. 3644, would authorize funding for an environmental literacy grant program (which would educate the American public about water resources issues) and additional funding for an environmental education program "promoting stewardship" of coastal and marine resources for students in Kindergarten through 12th grade. Priority for funding in these programs would be given to given to the Great Lakes states, U.S. territories, Alaska, and mid-Atlantic states. The measure authorized as much money "as is necessary" to be spent on these programs.

The second bill, H.R. 1612, would require the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs. The PLSC provides youth with volunteer opportunities relating to repair and restoration projects in national parks. H.R. 1612 would also officially change the name of the  Corps from the "Public Lands Corps (PLC)" to the "Public Lands Service Corps (PLSC)." That bill would also remove annual $12 million limit on funding for the PLSC.

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) argued the bills would improve the public's scientific understanding of a number of environmental issues: "Our society is faced with a fundamental lack of scientific understanding, where special interests on all sides frequently undermine the vast scientific consensus on key issues simply by flashy public relations campaigns. We need to make sure that our country is the world leader in innovation and science in order to ensure that our country can overcome new challenges and protect its public health and natural wonders."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL) did not address the bills for which the resolution set the terms for debate, but rather criticized the process by which the Democratic leadership had planned to debate and vote on health care legislation. Under this process -- which the Democrats later chose not to use --  the House would vote on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would have been "deemed passed" by the House. The House would then have voted on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation. Republicans sharply criticized this procedure as undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major legislation.  Diaz-Balart said: "On Sunday, it is expected that the majority will deem the [Senate health care] bill passed, and in a few days it would be law, the signature issue of this President and this congressional majority. You would think, Madam Speaker, that they would proudly embrace their signature accomplishment. You would think that they would welcome debate on it. But they do not, because they know that the Senate bill is fatally flawed. The American people deserve a full and complete debate in the House on the Senate health care bill, but they won't get it."

The House agreed to the resolution setting a time limit for debate and determining which amendments could be offered to these different bills by a vote of 236-171. 235 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 165 Republicans and 6 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceeded to floor debate on a bill authorizing funding for two National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs intended to improve water resources education, as well as a bill requiring the Interior Department to establish an office to coordinate Public Land Service Corps (PLSC) programs.

This was a vote on tabling (killing) a resolution offered by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) "disapproving" of the manner in which Democratic leaders planned to bring up and vote on health care reform legislation. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) made a motion to table the resolution.

Republicans had repeatedly criticized the process by which the Democratic leadership chose to debate and vote on health care reform legislation. Under this process, the House would have voted on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would have been "deemed passed" by the House. The House would have then voted on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation.

The resolution that Hoyer moved to table referenced a story in McClatchy Newspapers reporting that "Representative John Larson, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, stated, 'Many of our members would prefer not to have voted for the Senate bill.'" The resolution then states that the House "disapproves of the malfeasant manner in which the Democratic Leadership has thereby discharged the duties of their offices."

There was no debate on the resolution, but Republicans had charged that the  procedure chosen by Democratic leaders was undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major legislation.

The House voted to table the resolution relating to health care reform legislation by a vote of 232-181. 232 Democrats voted "yea," All 171 Republicans present and 10 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House tabled (killed) a resolution requiring the House to take a separate vote on the Senate-passed health care reform bill.

This was a vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up and vote on legislation under a procedure known as a "motion to suspend the rules."

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. House rules, however, only allow the chamber to use this procedure to consider to legislation on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In order bring up bills under suspension of the rules on any other day, the House must first pass a resolution allowing it to do so. The Democratic majority had tentatively scheduled a vote of major health care legislation on Sunday. This resolution enabled the House to carry out legislative business until that vote occurred.

Republicans did not address the resolution directly, but rather used the opportunity to criticize the proposed health care overhaul. They also criticized the process by which the House would debate and vote on the health care reform bill. Under this process, the House would vote on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would be "deemed passed" by the House. The House would then vote on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation. Republicans sharply criticized this procedure as undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major legislation.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) bristled at Republican criticisms and urged adoption of the resolution: "Give me a break. That somehow Republican ideas have helped anybody in this country dealing with the high cost of insurance, it's ridiculous?.I mean, this is crazy. The fact is that people are struggling to pay for their health insurance. And people who pay for it ought to be able to get the insurance that they think they're going to get. We have a situation now where it's not just we have to worry about the uninsured; we have to worry about people with insurance who all of a sudden find themselves sick or a loved one sick and find for crazy reasons that they are somehow going to be denied coverage."

Rep. Paul Broun(R-GA) assailed Democratic efforts to pass their health care reform bill: "I want to ask three questions of my Democratic colleagues: Are you so arrogant that you know what's best for the American people? Are you so ignorant to be oblivious to the wishes of the American people? Three-fourths of America does not want this bill. Are you so incompetent that you ignore the Constitution; that you have to use tricks and deception to ram down the throats of the American people something that they absolutely do not want?"

The House agreed to the resolution by a vote of 232-187. 231 Democrats and 1 Republican voted "yea." 171 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House was able to bring up legislation on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments.

This was a procedural vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up and vote on legislation under a procedure known as a "motion to suspend the rules."

If passed, this particular procedural motion -- known as the ?previous question" -- effectively ends debate and brings the pending legislation to an immediate vote. 

Motions to suspend the rules limit time allowed for debate, and prohibit members from offering amendments. A two-thirds majority vote is required to approve the motion and pass a bill, rather than the usual majority. House rules, however, only allow the chamber to use this procedure to consider to legislation on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays. In order bring up bills under suspension of the rules on any other day, the House must first pass a resolution allowing it to do so. The Democratic majority had tentatively scheduled a vote of major health care legislation on Sunday. This resolution enabled the House to carry out legislative business until that vote occurred.

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) argued the resolution would allow the House to move forward with noncontroversial legislation until the vote on health care legislation could take place: "I want to remind my colleagues that any legislation passed under suspension of the rules still must receive at least a two-thirds vote. This rule will help us move important bipartisan legislation before we recess for the upcoming district work period [Easter recess]?.We expect a number of important bills to be considered. Additionally, we expect the Rules Committee to meet again to make several other rules in order. Before I reserve my time, let me just state the obvious. We are waiting for the health care bill to ripen and be ready for floor consideration. While we wait, there is business that this House must attend to, and this rule helps us do that."

Republicans did not address the resolution directly, but rather used the opportunity to criticize the proposed health care overhaul. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) said: "This insurance should be a state issue; it should not be a Federal issue. Maybe changes need to be made in the State of North Carolina, but that is up to the State of North Carolina. This is a federal government takeover, which is inappropriate."

Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) urged the House to defeat the previous question motion so that the House could consider a GOP proposal addressing the procedure in which the House debated and voted on the health care reform bill. Under the process to which Dreier referred, the House would vote on a resolution setting the terms for floor debate on a bill making changes to the Senate-passed health care measure. When the House passed that resolution, the Senate health care bill would be "deemed passed" by the House. The House would then vote on the bill making the changes to the Senate health care reform legislation. Republicans sharply criticized this procedure as undemocratic, although both parties have used the tactic to pass major bills.

Dreier said: "When we defeat the previous question--I hope, Madam Speaker, we will be able to do that--we will take the initiative that has been launched by our newest Republican colleague, Parker Griffith [R-AL], who has come forward and offered a proposal to say that if we're going to debate this health care bill, we should have an up-or-down vote and we should have extended debate, because the process that's being contemplated right now, Madam Speaker, would not allow one single minute of debate on the floor of the people's House to debate the health care bill."

The House agreed to the motion ordering the previous question by a vote of 222-203. 222 Democrats voted "yea." All 175 Republicans present and 28 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House proceed to a final vote on a resolution allowing the House to bring up legislation on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday under a procedure that limits debate time and prohibits amendments.

This was a vote on passage of a bill to establish a program to control and prevent harmful algal bloom and hypoxia. Death and decay of algal blooms deplete oxygen in the water. This process has proven to be deadly for freshwater and marine mammals, and hazardous to human health. The bill would authorize $41 to be spent annually on the program for the next four years.

The House had considered the bill earlier under a procedure known a "motion to suspend the rules." That procedure requires a two-thirds majority vote in favor of the bill for passage. While 263 members had previously voted in favor of the bill, the measure failed to receive the required two-thirds majority. Therefore, the bill failed. Thus, Democrats scheduled the measure for consideration again -- this time under procedural rules that require only a simple majority vote for passage.

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) argued the bill would save lives, noting that harmful algal blooms  can be lethal to humans: "Indeed, it does kill some of our citizens every year. It kills countless numbers of fish life, it destroys tourism, and it costs hundreds of millions of dollars. That seems to me a pretty good reason to take something up?.The bill represents a focused effort to address the specific issues of harmful algal blooms and hypoxia."

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) also praised the bill: "This is just the kind of action we need to take more often. We need to provide our federal science agencies the tools they need to gather the scientific data necessary to help us develop an effective solution to this problem."

Very few members spoke in opposition to the bill, although Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) argued the measure could prove to be fiscally irresponsible: "While supportive of the goals of the measure, I and several of my Republican colleagues, and there is a difference among us on this side, have some concerns about the authorization levels in this bill as well as the potential for unfunded mandates on states and localities. This bill authorizes funding that is almost three times the amount that had been appropriated in recent years and is 50 percent higher than the last reauthorization in 2004. In authorizing legislation, we must be mindful of fiscal constraints both at the federal and the state level."

The House passed the harmful algal blooms bill by a vote of 251-103. (76 members did not vote.) 213 Democrats and 38 Republicans voted "yea." 98 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted "nay." As a result, the House passed legislation to establish a program to address harmful algal bloom and hypoxia.

This was a vote on a resolution outlining the terms for debate on a measure directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.

Specifically, the president would be required to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan within 30 days of the measure's enactment. If the President determines that U.S. forces could not be safely withdrawn by that date, he would be required to remove them by December 31, 2010, or an "earlier date that the President determines that they can be safely removed."

U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan began following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The Obama administration had previously indicated a drawdown of troops could begin by July 2011. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, has said that a withdrawal of U.S. forces could begin sooner, depending on conditions on the ground.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) argued that the House must act to preserve its constitutional role with respect to military action: "Mr. Speaker, in 2001 I joined the House in voting for the Authorization for Use of Military Force. In the past 8 1/2 years, it has become clear that the Authorization for Use of Military Force is being interpreted as carte blanche for circumventing Congress' role as a coequal branch of government."

Rep. Jerold Nadler (D-NY) warned that the U.S. forces could not succeed in bringing an end to a civil war in Afghanistan: "I am not convinced that the United States and its allies can end the 35-year civil war in Afghanistan, nor is that our responsibility. We should not use our troops to prop up a corrupt government. It is simply not justifiable to sacrifice more lives and more money on this war. We must rethink our policy. If we do not, we are doomed to failure and further loss of American lives."

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) contended that a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan would be interpreted by America's enemies as a sign of weakness: "Our retreat would be seen around the world by friends and opponents alike as a surrender, as a sign that America no longer has the will to defend herself. We might attempt to fool ourselves into believing that it was merely a temporary setback, that we have suffered no long-term blow, but no one else would be fooled. It would be proof to every group that wishes to attack and destroy us that we can be fought and we can be beaten, that eventually America will just give up, regardless of the consequences."

Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) argued a withdrawal of U.S. forces would be irresponsible: "?The notion that at this particular moment we would demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development, expand the rule of law, and without any measurement of whether the ``hold'' strategy now being implemented is indeed working, I don't think is the responsible thing to do."

The House rejected the measure calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan by a vote of 65-356. 60 Democrats -- including a majority of the most progressive members -- and 5 Republicans voted "yea." 189 Democrats and 167 Republicans voted "nay." As a result, the House rejected legislation directing the president to remove U.S. troops from Afghanistan.