If members of Congress want to be there to greet President Obama as he walks down the aisle of the House chamber for his State of the Union address tonight, they're going to have to save their seats now.

There are currently four members holding their aisle seats for the State of the Union address later today, more than nine hours before the speech is scheduled to take place.

Those members (at the moment): Reps. Al Green (D-TX), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), and Barbara Lee (D-CA).

But while Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) said on MSNBC Tuesday that members can just leave items in a chair and claim it later, according to a note sent to members from the speaker's office this morning, if a member wants the seat, they have to stay in it the entire time.

"Members are requested to be on the floor and seated no later than 8:25 p.m.," a note from the speaker's office to members read. "As has been the practice in the past, Members will not be allowed to reserve seats prior to the joint session by placement of placards or personal items. Chamber Security may remove these items from the seats. Members may reserve their seats only by physical presence following the security sweep of the Chamber."

There are a number of seats that currently have bags and coats on them in an effort to save them for the address later. It's unclear if Chamber Security will, in fact, enforce this policy.

The House will vote tomorrow to elect a Speaker of the House. While it is likely that Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) will be reelected, if 17 conservatives decide to vote against Boehner, it could lead to the first second ballot for speaker since 1923.

There are no indications Boehner will not be re-elected Speaker. While there will likely be members who vote against him, there is no real candidate that could garner enough votes to take Boehner down.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) leaves a House Republican Caucus meeting.

The 113th Congress will convene for the first time at noon Thursday, after which the House will vote to elect a speaker.

Members will be called by name alphabetically and asked for their vote. This vote is different than typical votes, which are done electronically during a set period of time. 

The next speaker needs a majority of all votes cast to be elected. They do not need a majority of the full membership of the House. The 113th has 434 members because Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.'s seat will be vacant.  

If all members were to vote, Boehner would need 218 votes, unless there are members who are absent for the vote or members who vote "present" (for no one).

Since 1913, the year the House reached the size of 435 members, there has only been one time that no candidate received the majority of the votes cast for speaker.  

That was in 1923, when nine ballots over three days were needed before Rep. Frederick Gillett (R-MA) was reelected to the position for a third term.

The speaker does not have to be a member of Congress, but in the history of the House of Representatives there has never been a speaker who was not a member.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) nominated Newt Gingrich this year during the Republican Conference meeting, but that nomination was not seconded, and Speaker Boehner was nominated by a voice vote (no objectors) to be the Republicans' nominee yet again.  Democrats chose to have Nancy Pelosi as their nominee for Speaker of the House.

Between 1943 and 1995, only the nominated Republican and Democrat received votes, but before that, it was customary for members of other groups within parties would garner votes as well. 

Since 1913, the speaker has been elected without a majority of the whole House, but with the majority of those voting, only four times: 

-- 1917 (65th Congress) -- "Champ" Clark (D-MO) was elected with 217 votes; 
-- 1923 (68th Congress) -- Frederick Gillett (R-MA) was elected with 215 votes;
-- 1943 (78th Congress) -- Sam Rayburn (D-TX) was elected with 217 votes;
-- 1997 (105th Congress) -- Newt Gingrich (R-GA) was elected with 216 votes

Recent speaker votes:

-- 2011 (Jan. 5th): Boehner 241, Pelosi 173, Shuler 11, Lewis (GA) 2 Costa 1, Cardoza 1, Cooper 1, Kaptur 1, Hoyer 1, Present 1 
-- 2009 (Jan. 6th): Pelosi 255, Boehner 174
-- 2007 (Jan. 4th): Pelosi 233, Boehner 202
-- 2005 (Jan. 4th): Hastert 226, Pelosi 199, Murtha 1, Present 1 

Updated 10:40 a.m. -- Just as the fiscal-cliff negotiations are drawing to a close, a fresh controversy is brewing in the House of Representatives after Republican leadership decided they will not vote during the 112th Congress on a bill to provide supplemental aid to victims of Superstorm Sandy.

Both Republicans and Democrats lashed out at Republican leadership for what one Republican called a "personal betrayal," after it was decided that the bill would not be considered until the 113th Congress, which convenes at noon Thursday.

"For the Speaker to just walk out is inexcusable," Rep. Peter King (R-NY-Long Island) told reporters. "It's wrong, and I'm saying that as a member of the Republican Party."

A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said in a short statement: "The Speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month." 

That assurance was not enough for the members of districts affected by Sandy.

"I feel it is a personal betrayal," Rep. Michael Grimm (R-NY-Staten Island) said. "But I think more importantly, when you parse out all the politics, the people of this country that have been devastated are looking at this as a betrayal by the Congress and by the nation, and that is just untenable and unforgivable."

A bipartisan group of eight lawmakers gathered after protesting the move on the House floor after the House vote late Tuesday night to pass a bill to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff." That bill passed 257-167. 

The House had originally planned to consider a two-step bill that would start with $27 billion in supplemental aid, but also include an amendment worth an additional $33 billion. The bill had been split to allow conservative Republicans to vote for a base level of additional aid, but not the entire package, which many Republicans said did not entirely go to those affected by Sandy.

The Senate passed a bill on Dec. 28 by a vote of 61-33 that would provide $60.2 billion in additional aid to victims of Superstorm Sandy. During that vote 12 Republicans voted for the measure, but only after a replacement amendment that would have stripped $35 billion from the bill failed to pass.

"It passed the Senate in a bipartisan way," Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) said. "And again, to me, this is a real betrayal, a betrayal of the leadership of the Republican Party."

According to House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), he had been speaking with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) on a regular basis about when the bill would be coming to the floor for a vote. 

Cantor, whose office schedules what bills come to the floor and when, told Hoyer that he was "99.9 percent confident" that the bill would be considered after the fiscal-cliff legislation was considered.

"I urge the Speaker to reconsider and bring this bill to the floor," Hoyer said. "Do not walk away from these millions of people; do not walk away from these states that have been damaged."

An aide for Cantor said that the majority leader "is committed to ensuring the urgent needs of New York and New Jersey residents are met, and he has been working tirelessly toward that goal."

But even after these conversations between Cantor and other members of the House, it's unclear why Republican leadership decided not to consider the bill before the 112th Congress came to a close. 

FEMA told lawmakers in December they have enough emergency funds to take them through the spring, but the members protesting the change Tuesday night said the supplemental bill includes key funds for programs that go past the emergency phase of the Superstorm Sandy response.

An emotional King went so far Wednesday to urge residents of New York and New Jersey to halt donations to his own party in the House as a result of the chamber's inaction. 

"I’m saying right now, anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds," he said on Fox News. "Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace.”

The House is in session Wednesday, beginning at 10:00 am ET, but according to aides, no legislation is scheduled to be considered.  The 112th Congress must adjourn by 11:59 am ET Thursday, so the 113th Congress can gavel in at noon on that day.

Any legislation that passed either the House or Senate has to be re-passed once the new Congress is sworn in.

NBC's Carrie Dann contributed to this report.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said  negotiations between the White House and Republicans are at a "stalemate" after a proposal by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House Director of Legislative Affairs Rob Nabors was soundly rejected by Republicans yesterday.

“There's a stalemate, let's not kid ourselves,” Boehner said Friday at a news conference following President Obama’s event in Pennsylvania.

Boehner contended that the White House's proposal was "not a serious proposal," and that he's disappointed that three weeks after he gave a speech saying Republicans would be willing to budge on revenues – but not tax rates as the president has called for -- that this is what was offered to them.   

“When I come out the day after the election and make it clear that Republicans will put revenue on the table, I took a great risk,” Boehner claimed, adding of the White House plan, “It's not a serious proposal and so right now we're almost nowhere.”

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor echoed those comments, deriding the White House proposal as “not a serious offer.” He added, however, that they "remain in discussions" to find a solution to avert the fiscal cliff.

“All of a sudden,” Cantor said, “they're asking for $1.6 trillion in tax hikes and nowhere near that number in spending reforms.”

But Cantor would not say if Republicans would make a counter-offer to the White House, only saying that "this is a serious matter," and "we're not interested in playing rope-a-dope."

“What we will do is continue to take this as a serious matter,” Cantor said. “This is not a game. We're not interested in playing rope-a-dope. We're interested in trying to solve the problems of the American people so that you don't see taxes go up on anybody, so that we can engage in tax reform and get this economy going again. We're not playing a game. We're being serious. That offer yesterday was simply not serious.”

President Obama wants Republicans to go along with raising rates on the top 2 percent of Americans. Republican leadership has so far refused to entertain that.

“We take the position that raising tax rates is absolutely not something that helps get people back to work,” Cantor said, adding, “We don't want to increase tax rates; we're not going to increase tax rates, and we want to do something about the spending problem.”

Entitlements are also a sticking point. The White House has accused Republicans of not being specific about what entitlement cuts they would like to see.  Asked if the GOP would go back to the White House with which cuts they want, Cantor demurred.

Anyone thinking Republicans might be ready to accept extending the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 now, think again.

House Speaker John Boehner (R), the man at the center of negotiations with President Obama, today rejected Oklahoma Rep. Tom Cole’s suggestion to pass an extension of tax cuts for 98 percent of people, declare victory, and go home.

Yuri Gripas / Reuters

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) speaks next to Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, November 28, 2012.

"I told Tom earlier at our conference meeting that I disagreed with him,” Boehner said at a Capitol Hill news conference Wednesday morning. “He's a wonderful friend of mine and a great supporter of mine. In my view, raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent, half of those taxpayers are small-business owners that pay their taxes through their personal income filing every year. The goal here is to grow the economy and control spending; you're not going to grow the economy if you raise the top 2 percent rates. It'll hurt small businesses, and it'll hurt our economy, why this is not the right approach. We're willing to put revenue on the table as long as we are not raising rates."

Cole (R-OK) on Wednesday reiterated his call for Congress to pass an extension of the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000 first and then work on the extension for higher-earners later, a major break from the Republican's strategy in fiscal-cliff negotiations.

“In my view, we all agree that we're not going to raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000 dollars, so we should just take them out of this discussion right now,” Cole said after a meeting of the GOP Conference. “Continue to fight against any rate increases; continue to try to work, honestly, for a much bigger deal.”

Cole, the deputy whip and former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman, first made the suggestion during a closed-door "whip meeting" yesterday, which was first reported by Politico last night.  His comments have drawn criticism from those in his party.

Boehner is not the only Republican to disagree with Cole. Rep. Sean Duffy said on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown Wednesday morning that he believed Cole’s views are in the “minority” of House Republicans. In fact, interviews with other GOP members confirms that.

The lack of support for Cole’s proposal highlights the gap that persists between the White House and House Republicans with the clock ticking toward the so-called “fiscal cliff,” when all Americans would see tax increases and there would be a round a severe Defense and domestic spending cuts unless a deal is struck.

“Cherry picking provisions and rates right now doesn’t solve the problem, and they're not a serious deficit solution,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) told reporters today after a meeting of the Republican Conference. 

Brady, who sits on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, said he is advocating for comprehensive tax reform, to be completed next year after all rates would be extended. 

“I think we're strongly unified behind no tax increases on New Year’s Day,” he said.

Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID) echoed Brady’s concerns, saying he believes the majority of the Republican Conference, including himself, is opposed to the idea of decoupling the Bush tax rates.

“We have to make tough decisions about our tax rates,” Labrador said. “We have to make tough decisions about our spending; we have to make tough decisions about our deficit. Let's do that today. There's nothing courageous about saying let's raise taxes on a few people today.”

In August, House Democrats proposed a bill that would do exactly what Cole proposed, but it failed 257-170 with no Republicans voting for the bill, and 19 Democrats voting against it.

Related: 

How much is $250,000? Depends on the location

Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) has introduced legislation that would stop President Obama's recent executive action involving the children of illegal immigrants and their ability to stay in the United States.

Specifically, it prevents the Department of Homeland Security from enforcing a presidential executive action as immigration law. 

"Instead of working with Congress to secure our border and reform our immigration policy, Obama sought to circumvent Congress once again," Schweikert said in a statement. "This thinly veiled political ploy is detrimental to Americans and while President Obama asks the Department of Homeland Security to 'look the other way' on immigration policy, I ask him to respect the rule of law."

It's not clear if this bill will be brought to the House floor for a vote, as House Speaker John Boehner failed today to say if he supports or opposes Obama's new policy; he instead said the new policy makes it harder to achieve long-standing immigration reform.

According to an aide at the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee, the committee will proceed with a motion on June 20 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress in relation to the investigation into the so-called "Fast and Furious" gun-running operation.

Charles Dharapak / AP

Attorney General Eric Holder testifies on Capitol Hill, Thursday, June 7, 2012, before the House Judiciary Committee oversight hearing on the Justice Department.

The motion will have to pass through committee before it sees a full vote in the House.

The AP reports that House Republicans are pursuing this motion against Holder "for failing to produce some documents the panel is seeking.... To date, the the Justice Department has produced 7,600 pages of documents to the committee."

More from the AP:

Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, says Congress needs to examine records regarding the Justice Department's conduct following public disclosures in early 2011 that hundreds of guns illicitly purchased at gun shops on the U.S. side of the border wound up in Mexico, many of them at crime scenes.

The Justice Department says many of the documents deal with open criminal investigations and prosecutions -- matters relating to sensitive law enforcement activities that cannot be disclosed.

Contempt of Congress is used when the House or Senate wants to punish a recalcitrant witness for not complying with an investigation and, by doing so, is done to deter others from similar conduct.

If found in contempt of Congress, punishments can range from jail time, to fines, to probation, but it typically does not get that far.

If the committee passes this motion to proceed June 20, it is then sent to the full House of Representatives for a vote. If it passes through the full House, it then is referred to the U.S. Attorney. 

Two recent contempt of Congress considerations:
2008: Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee found White House counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolton in contempt for not cooperating with an investigation into possible political motivation in the handling of federal prosecutors by the Bush adminstration. The full House passed the measure, but most Republicans (including Boehner and Issa) boycotted the vote.

1998: Janet Reno was found in contempt of Congress by Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee for not complying with a subpoena regarding possible campaign-finance law violations. The full House never voted on the measure after the documents they had requested were turned over.

NBC News has obtained a list of talking points being distributed to the offices of House Republicans by Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office in preparation of the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law.

The list sheds some light on how Republicans plan to react in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, or just pieces of it.  According to a GOP aide, Speaker Boehner discussed these talking points during the GOP conference meeting this morning.

The talking points say that Republicans will not introduce a massive package to replace the entire law if the Supreme Court strikes it down, but instead will "enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms" in its place. 

Republicans use the mantra "Repeal and Replace" when talking about Obama's health care law, but have yet to introduce any real legislation to take it's place in the event the law were to be struck down.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE TALKING POINTS:

- Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

- Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes. We won't rush to pass a massive bill the American people don't support.

FULL LIST OF TALKING POINTS:

TALKING POINTS: WHAT WILL REPUBLICANS DO IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN ALL OR PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW?

·    The president's health care law is making things worse -- driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers.  The only way to change this is by repealing ObamaCare in its entirety.

·    Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

·    Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes.  We won't rush to pass a massive bill the American people don't support. 

·    Health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people.  The number-one health care concern of families and small business is the cost of health care, and Republicans' health care reforms will lower costs.

·    Women make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions made for their families.  Republican health care reforms will ensure families and doctors make health care decisions -- not Washington.  

·    We want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctor of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctor feel is best.  Those decisions shouldn't be made by Washington.

The House narrowly passed on Friday the Interest Rate Reduction Act by a vote of 215-195 -- largely along party lines. The White House has already threatened to veto the legislation.

The bill, introduced by House Republicans, would postpone, for a year, the doubling of interest rates on student loans to 6.8 percent on July 1st. Those interest rates currently sit at 3.4 percent as a result of a five-year bill passed by Democrats in 2007.  

The Republican's bill would offset the almost $6 billion price-tag for the year-long interest rate freeze by taking money from programs established by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul -- including those for prevention, wellness, and public health.

Democrats oppose that plan, saying they would rather pay for the bill by taking away subsidies for oil companies.

The legislation now goes to the Senate, which is expected to pass its own version in May. After that, both chambers will likely end up going to conference on the bill, to negotiate a way to fund the proposal that's amenable to both sides.

Joe Kennedy III, grandson of Robert Kennedy, announced today that he is leaving his job at the Middlesex District Attorney's office to start an exploratory committee for a possible run for Rep. Barney Frank's Massachusetts Congressional seat.

Frank announced his intention to retire in November after he finishes his 16th term in the seat, citing redistricting as the reason.

Here's Kennedy's full statement:

I am announcing today my intention to explore a candidacy for the United States Congress in the Fourth District of Massachusetts.

I look forward to reaching out to the residents of the Fourth District over the coming weeks, and I will look back on my work as an Assistant District Attorney in Middlesex County - and before then, in Barnstable County - with great appreciation for the dedication of my colleagues and their commitment to equal justice under law.  I loved my work in the courts and will remember its lessons as I seek the counsel of the citizens of the Fourth District.

One lesson that will stick with me from my time in the courts is how hard police, prosecutors and judges work together to achieve fairness. Fairness, the foundation of America's social compact, seems to be in short supply these days. We wage war, pass skewed tax breaks, and expand benefits by spendthrift borrowing, saddling the next generation of Americans with unsustainable debt.

Then when it comes time to restoring fiscal sanity to our budget, we see the middle class and the poor take the hit while the wealthy get more tax breaks.
 
The lack of common sense and fairness in Washington is a byproduct of the partisan gridlock that has turned obstruction into victory. Americans are better than that. Each and every day, we work with people of different backgrounds and political views to achieve a common purpose. Washington can and should do the same.
 
My decision to look seriously at elected office is grounded in a deep commitment to public service and my experience - both my own and that of my family -- in finding just, practical, and bipartisan solutions to difficult challenges. It is a commitment instilled in me at a young age and one that inspired me to join the Peace Corps after college and to become a prosecutor after law school.
 
I have given my notice of resignation to the Middlesex District Attorney's office, and my work will wind down over the course of the next two weeks.  I will then begin to reach out to the people of the Fourth District in order to hear directly from them about the challenges they are facing and their ideas on how we can restore fairness to our system. I will make a final decision about entering the race in the weeks thereafter.
 
I look forward to this new challenge, and to meeting people across the district in the weeks ahead.

After days of silence, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is calling on the House GOP to pass the two-month payroll-tax-cut extension -- and for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) to appoint negotiators to work with the House on a long-term deal after that extension is passed.

"House Republicans sensibly want greater certainty about the duration of these provisions, while Senate Democrats want more time to negotiate the terms," his statement says. "These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both."

House Speaker John Boehner's office had this response: "The House and Senate have two different bills, but the same goal," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. "That is why we believe, as Senator McConnell suggested, the two chambers should work to reconcile the two bills so that we can provide a full year of payroll tax relief -- and do it before year's end."

This morning, Boehner's office says he called President Obama to urge action on a one-year extension, but president Obama declined.

"Today, Speaker Boehner called President Obama to discuss the Speaker's desire to provide a full year of tax relief for American families before December 31st," a Boehner aide said in a written statement. "With Senator Reid having declined to call his Members back to Washington this week to join the House in negotiating a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, the Speaker proposed that the President send members of his economic policy team up to Congress to find a way to accommodate the President's full-year request. The Speaker explained his concern that flaws in the Senate-passed bill will be unworkable for many small business job creators. He reiterated that if their shared goal is a one-year bill, there is no reason an agreement cannot be reached before year's end. The President declined the Speaker's offer."

A Democratic leadership aide said Senate Democrats are "happy" to begin negotiating with the House once Boehner says he'll hold a vote and pass the Senate two-month payroll-tax-cut extension. 

"We have been saying all along that if the House passes the Senate's compromise to ensure there is no tax hike on Jan. 1, we can immediately begin negotiating the full-year extension," the aide said. "It's important to now hear from the Speaker. As we have said, we are happy to start negotiating a full-year extension when the House passes the short-term compromise."

Here is McConnell's full statement:

"The House and Senate have both passed bipartisan bills to require the President to quickly make a decision on whether to support thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs through the Keystone XL pipeline, and to extend unemployment insurance, the temporary payroll tax cut and seniors' access to medical care. There is no reason why Congress and the President cannot accomplish all of these things before the end of the year.  House Republicans sensibly want greater certainty about the duration of these provisions, while Senate Democrats want more time to negotiate the terms. These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both. Working Americans have suffered enough from the President's failed economic policies and shouldn't face the uncertainty of a New Year's Day tax hike. Leader Reid should appoint conferees on the long-term bill and the House should pass an extension that locks in the thousands of Keystone XL pipeline jobs, prevents any disruption in the payroll tax holiday or other expiring provisions, and allows Congress to work on a solution for the longer extensions."