PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 15, 2010
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 4853) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program.
People & committees
Rep. Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [D-NY-28] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 214 - 201 (Roll no. 644). (text: CR H8524-8525)
House roll call 644 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 214 - 201 (Roll no. 644).(text: CR H8524-8525)
House roll call 644 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1766.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H8524-8532, H8545-8551)
WITHDRAWAL OF RESOLUTION - Mr. McGovern withdrew the resolution from consideration.
DEBATE - The House continued with further debate on H. Res. 1766.
DEBATE - The House continued with further debate on H. Res. 1766.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 1766.
On motion to consider the resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
At the conclusion of debate on the Flake point of order, the Chair put the question on consideration of the resolution.
POINT OF ORDER AGAINST CONSIDERATION - Mr. Flake stated that the provisions of H.Res. 1766 violate section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and made a point of order against the consideration of the resolution. Subsequently, the Chair noted that the required threshold of identifying the specific language in question had been met, and the House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the question of consideration. At the conclusion of debate on the question of consideration, the Chair will put the question to wit: Will the House now consider the resolution?
By direction of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Slaughter called up the resolution, H.Res. 1766, and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 254.
Makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means that the House concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the amendment printed in the report from the Committee on Rules. The resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the motion except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-682, by Ms. Slaughter.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-682, by Ms. Slaughter.
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 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.Res.1766 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.Res.1766 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.Res.1766 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.Res.1766 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.