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 · Jul 14, 2009
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3170) making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Perlmutter, Ed [D-CO-7] · D–CO
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 the Yeas and Nays: 216 - 213 (Roll no. 553). (text: CR H8191)
House roll call 553 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 216 - 213 (Roll no. 553).(text: CR H8191)
House roll call 553 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 227 - 200 (Roll no. 552). (consideration: CR H8198-8199, H8203; text: CR H8198-8199)
House roll call 552 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H8203-8204)
POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.Res. 644, the Chair put the question on ordering the previous question and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Sessions demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings on ordering the previous question on H.Res. 644 until later in the legislative day.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 644.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H8191-8199)
On Question of Consideration of the Resolution Agreed to by voice vote.
The Chair put the question on consideration of the resolution.
POINT OF ORDER - Mr. Flake raised a point of order against the provisions of H.Res. 644 on the grounds that it violated the Congressional Budget Act. The Chair announced that the disposition of the point of order would be resolved by the question of consideration of H.Res. 644. The House proceeded with 20 minutes of debate on the point of order at the end of which the Chair will put the question on consideration.
By the direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Perlmutter called up H.Res. 644 and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 89.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. The Chair may entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill. During consideration of the bill, the Chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-208, by Mr. Perlmutter.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-208, by Mr. Perlmutter.
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.644 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.644 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.644 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.644 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.