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 16, 2009
Sets forth the rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3326) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J.Res. 64) making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes; for consideration of the bill (H.R. 4314) to permit continued financing of Government operations; for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2847) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.
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 recorded vote: 228 - 201 (Roll no. 983). (text: CR H14994-14995)
House roll call 983 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 228 - 201 (Roll no. 983).(text: CR H14994-14995)
House roll call 983 · Individual votesOn ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 235 - 193 (Roll no. 982). (consideration: CR H15005)
House roll call 982 · Individual votesDEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 976.
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H14994-15006)
On question of consideration of the resolution Agreed to by voice vote. (consideration: CR H14996)
POINT OF ORDER - Mr. Flake raised a point of order against the provisions of H.Res. 976 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. 976. 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 direction of the Committee on Rules, Ms. Pingree (ME) called up H.Res. 976 and asked for its immediate consideration.
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 146.
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3326, H.J. Res. 64, H.R. 4314 and H.R. 2847.
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-380, by Ms. Pingree (ME).
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 111-380, 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.976 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.976 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.976 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.976 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.