Posted on 07/21/2015 4:41:42 PM PDT by Timber Rattler
If I don't have time to read legislation before voting on it, my default vote is no. We received the highway bill today at 3:06 p.m., and it is over 1,000 pages long. Our first vote on this legislation is scheduled for 4:00 p.m.
(Excerpt) Read more at facebook.com ...
Who wrote the bill and why is it presented to legislators in this manner?
It would be amazing if more Reps auto-voted no until they had a chance to read these bills.
Good for him. This is ridiculous.
We’re not a banana republic - we’ve sunk far lower than that.
Here’s the bill: http://1.usa.gov/1Iix4wd
And here are the spending offsets: http://t.co/N3VAFregOl
...some weird ones in there.
“5. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain unpaid taxes. This provision would authorize the Federal government to deny the application for a passport when an individual has more than $50,000 (indexed for inflation) of unpaid federal taxes which the IRS is collecting through enforcement action. It would also permit the Federal government to revoke a passport for such individuals. Before revocation, however, the Federal government would be allowed to limit a previously issued passport only for return travel to the United States or to issue a limited passport that only permits return travel to the United States. The provision would be effective on January 1, 2016, and is estimated to raise $0.398 billion over 10 years. “
Absolutely, if they dump these omnibus piles of legislative garbage on you with no time to study you should note “no”.
McConnell’s on the same level of Dingy Harry, just with a different party designation after his name.
ALL BILLS before congress should be required to be read in full, live on CSPAN and into the official record by it’s sponsor.
you can’t read the whole bill without stopping, it dies right then and there
Is it not true that Federal gasoline tax is earmarked for highway upkeep?? If not, why not??
Is it not true that Federal gasoline tax is earmarked for highway upkeep?? If not, why not??
Interesting, I don't see how this would be applicable to any illegal alien, not that our laws mean a damn to them, or congress and senate critters.
I don’t ‘get’ what many of them are about.
Here’s a blood-boiler though:
“3. Amend the Social Security Act to make certain revisions to provisions limiting payment of benefits to fugitive felons. Current law allows Social Security benefits to be paid to people with felony warrants. This provision extends the limitations to include those who are subjects of a felony arrest warrant and for whom the state has given notice that they intend to pursue the warrant. The provision also includes a safeguard that allows the Commissioner of Social Security to allow payments to such individuals for “good cause.” Offset estimate: $2.3 billion. “
The SSA is paying $.23 billion every year to fugitive felons?
Or is the SSA going to stop checks to anyone arrested for a felony- before their trial?
Something is very wrong!
An individual Senator has considerable power in this area if he is only courageous enough to use it. No bill can proceed without being read on the Senate floor unless there is unanimous consent to do so. An objection by any one Senator can stop action until the full bill is read aloud. When it comes to the rules, all Senators usually “go along to get along”.
Great. Sharpton and Rangel are stuck here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.