What: All Issues : Aid to Less Advantaged People, at Home & Abroad : America's Poor : (H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On a "question of consideration," or determining whether the House would bring up the resolution allowing the chamber to debate the health care legislation (2010 house Roll Call 160)
 Who: All Members : New York, District 2 : King, Pete
[POW!]
 
(H.R. 3590, H.R. 4872) Legislation making major changes to the national health care system, including expanding health coverage to uninsured Americans -- On a "question of consideration," or determining whether the House would bring up the resolution allowing the chamber to debate the health care legislation
house Roll Call 160     Mar 21, 2010
Member's Vote
(progressive
or not)
Progressive Position
Progressive Result
(win or loss)

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.

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