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 28, 2009
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010.
People & committees
Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1] · D–ME
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: 241 - 185 (Roll no. 655). (text: CR H8976-8977)
House roll call 655 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 241 - 185 (Roll no. 655).(text: CR H8976-8977)
House roll call 655 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 685.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H8976-8986)
On question of consideration. Agreed to by voice vote.
The Chair put the question of consideration of the resolution.
POINT OF ORDER - Mr. Flake raised a point of order against the provisions of H.Res. 685 because 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. 685. 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.
DEBATE - By direction of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Polis called up H.Res. 685 and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 98.
The bill shall be considered as read through page 147, line 4. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in order except those amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. All points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. After disposition of the amendments specified, the Chair and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees each may offer one pro forma amendment to the bill for the purpose of debate, which shall be controlled by the proponent. 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 (as described in clause 9 of rule XVIII). During consideration of H.R. 3326, the Chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-233, by Ms. Pingree (ME).
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-233, by Ms. Pingree (ME).
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.685 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.685 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.685 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.685 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.