This was a vote on a motion to recommit that would have prohibited a short-term government funding from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits. 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. This motion to recommit was offered to legislation funding federal government programs and agencies for three weeks. Such short-term funding bills are known as “continuing resolutions,” or “CRs.”

Rep. Mark Critz (D-PA) urged support for this motion to recommit: “…The folks that I live with and live around and the people of my district have come to rely on Social Security, as it provides for, actually, generations at this point….   I can understand that the folks who watch this at home are trying to figure out, well, whose side are we on?...if you look at the 12th District of Pennsylvania, I have an elderly population. I am one of the districts that has a lot of senior citizens in it. A lot of people are on Social Security. And if you look at this chart, 77 percent of people say, Leave Social Security alone. Don't touch the retirement age. Don't touch the benefits.”

Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY) opposed the motion to recommit: “Nothing in the CR would cut Social Security or Medicare benefits, nor would it privatize Social Security….This is a procedural motion that is simply a fog screen, trying to hide us from our real task at hand, but I don't think we'll be fooled at that. The debate should not be about procedure or fog screens or things unrelated to the bill. It should be about doing our job….Instead of picking political fights, they [the American people] want us united in cutting the budget. This motion moves us further away from that goal. It would send us backwards, not forwards. It's a smokescreen…”

The House rejected this motion to recommit by a vote of 190-239. All 189 Democrats present and 1 Republican voted “yea.” 239 Republicans voted “nay.” As a result, the House rejected a motion to recommit that would have prohibited a short-term government funding from cutting Social Security or Medicare benefits.