What: All Issues : Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful : Adequate Government Funding for a Broad Range of Human Needs : (H.R. 2647) A resolution requiring that an unlimited number of amendments could be offered on all spending bills - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that the resolution was not in order (2009 house Roll Call 461)
 Who: All Members : New York, District 2 : King, Pete
[POW!]
 
(H.R. 2647) A resolution requiring that an unlimited number of amendments could be offered on all spending bills - - on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of a ruling that the resolution was not in order
house Roll Call 461     Jun 25, 2009
Member's Vote
(progressive
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)

The Republican minority had been objecting to what it said was an ongoing practice by the Democratic majority of limiting the number of amendments that could be offered to legislation, especially to spending bills. In support of their objections, the Republicans had offered a resolution that would have allowed an unlimited number of amendments to be offered to all spending bills. The resolution also contained language saying that the actions of the Democratic majority in limiting the number of amendments “disenfranchised every single Member of this House, limiting their ability to effectively represent their constituents. These actions by the Democrats in charge . . . have violated the integrity of our proceedings . . . .” The Republicans argued that, under House rules, the resolution should be voted on immediately.

A ruling had been made that the resolution was not in order to be offered. This was a vote on a motion to table (kill) an appeal of that ruling. The ruling was that the resolution was out of order because it violated a House prohibition against requiring the Rules Committee to impose certain types of conditions under which the House may consider a bill.

The vote on the motion to kill the appeal of the ruling was 245-174 along almost straight party lines. All 245 “yea” votes were cast by Democrats. Three other Democrats joined 174 Republicans and voted “nay”. As a result, the ruling prevailed and the House did not vote on the resolution that would have required that an unlimited number of amendments could be offered on all spending bills.

N Y W
Issue Areas:
Key: Y=Yea, N=Nay, W=Win, L=Loss