What: All Issues : Justice for All: Civil and Criminal : Equal Access to Justice : (H.R.2847) On the motion to table (kill) the vote on whether to reverse a ruling relating to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice; the ruling sought to be reversed was that a motion to recommit the appropriations bill and add language prohibiting any funds in H.R. 2847 from being used to provide “Miranda rights” to detainees in Afghanistan was not in order.
 Who: All Members
[POW!]
 

To find out how your Members of Congress voted on this bill, use the form on the right.

(H.R.2847) On the motion to table (kill) the vote on whether to reverse a ruling relating to the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice; the ruling sought to be reversed was that a motion to recommit the appropriations bill and add language prohibiting any funds in H.R. 2847 from being used to provide “Miranda rights” to detainees in Afghanistan was not in order.
house Roll Call 402     Jun 18, 2009
Y = Conservative
N = Progressive
Winning Side:
Progressive

This was a vote on a motion to “table” (kill) an appeal of a ruling that a motion made by Rep. Lewis (R-CA) to recommit H.R. 2847 to the Appropriations Committee with instructions was not in order. The instructions that Rep. Lewis had proposed adding to the bill that were ruled out of order would have prohibited the Justice Department from using any funds in the bill “to provide (Miranda) rights . . . to detainees in the custody of the armed forces of the United States in Afghanistan.'' Miranda rights are those given by arresting officers to criminal suspects before they can be questioned, including the right to have a lawyer.

The chair had based its ruling that the instructions proposed by Rep. Lewis were out of order on its determination that the instructions would create “limitations not specifically contained or authorized in existing law”. House rules prohibit such limitations from being added to an appropriations bill. The language in the instructions was based on an amendment Rep. Rogers (R-MI) had planned to offer to H.R. 2487. During the debate on the appeal of the ruling of the chair, Rogers first claimed that the “highly restrictive” rule imposed by the Democratic majority on the number of amendments that could be offered during consideration of H.R. 2487 “prohibited me from offering my (Miranda rights) amendment . . . .” Rogers then argued that the language of the amendment “did not constitute legislating on an appropriations bill” and should therefore be in order as instructions on a motion to recommit.

The vote on whether to kill a motion to reverse the ruling was 246-171 along almost straight party lines. Two hundred and forty-four Democrats and two Republicans voted “aye”. One hundred and sixty-six Republicans and five Democrats voted “nay”. As a result, there was not a vote on whether to reverse the ruling that stopped the effort to prohibit the giving of “Miranda rights” to detainees in Afghanistan.

Issue Areas:

Find your Member of
Congress' votes

Select by Name