PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 258 - 154 (Roll no. 579).
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 17, 2010
Emergency Unemployment Compensation Continuation Act - Amends the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 with respect to the state-established individual emergency unemployment compensation account (EUCA). Extends the final date for entering a federal-state agreement under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) program through February 28, 2011. Postpones the termination of the program until July 31, 2011.
Amends the Assistance for Unemployed Workers and Struggling Families Act to extend until March 1, 2011, requirements that federal payments to states cover 100% of EUC.
Amends the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008 to exempt weeks of unemployment between enactment of this Act and July 31, 2011, from the prohibition in the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 against federal matching payments to a state for the first week in an individual's eligibility period for which extended compensation or sharable regular compensation is paid if the state law provides for payment of regular compensation to an individual for his or her first week of otherwise compensable unemployment. (Thus allows temporary federal matching for the first week of extended benefits for states with no waiting period.)
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 1970 to authorize a state by law to apply certain requirements of the Act, with specified substitutions, for determining an extended unemployment compensation period. Requires the state's "on" and "off" indicators to be based on its rate of insured unemployment and rate of total unemployment for the period between enactment of this Act (or, if later, the date established pursuant to state law), and ending on or before March 1, 2011.
People & committees
Rep. McDermott, Jim [D-WA-7] · D–WA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 258 - 154 (Roll no. 579).
House roll call 579 · Individual votesFailed of passage/not agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Failed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 258 - 154 (Roll no. 579).
House roll call 579 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H7575-7576)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 6419.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H7569-7575; text of measure as introduced: CR H7569-7570)
Mr. Levin moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.6419 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.6419 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.6419 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.6419 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.