PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jan 6, 2011
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Prohibits the amount of Members' Representational Allowances established in the House of Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections Act for 2011 or 2012 from exceeding 95% of the amount established for 2010.
Reduces the current amount of Members' Representational Allowances by 5% until such Allowances are established for 2011.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits the head of any House leadership office from authorizing disbursement of appropriations for salaries and expenses of that office during calendar year 2011 or FY2012 at a rate exceeding 95% of the rate provided for FY2010.
Prohibits the aggregate amount authorized for expenses of House committees for 2011 and 2012, under primary expense resolutions adopted by the House, from exceeding 95% of the aggregated amount provided under such resolutions for 2009 and 2010. Entitles such committees, pending adoption of such primary expense resolutions, to 95% of the current amount otherwise determined.
Prohibits the chair of the House Committee on Appropriations from authorizing the disbursement of amounts appropriated for the Committee's salaries and expenses during FY2011-FY2012 at a rate exceeding 91% of such rate for FY2010.
People & committees
Rep. Walden, Greg [R-OR-2] · R–OR
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 motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 13 (Roll no. 8). (text: CR H62)
House roll call 8 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408 - 13 (Roll no. 8).(text: CR H62)
House roll call 8 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with two hours of debate on H. Res. 22.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H62-68)
Mr. Lungren, Daniel E. moved to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on House Administration, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
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.22 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.22 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.22 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.22 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.