U.S. House schedule for Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012
By Lynn R. Mitchell | Wednesday, February 1st, 2012 | PoliticsFrom Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s office….
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 2ND
One Minute Speeches (15 per side)
H.R. 3582 – Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2011 (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Tom Price / Budget Committee / Rules Committee)
The rule provides for one hour of general debate and makes in order the following amendments:
Rep. Gary Peters Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. Gerald Connolly Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. Timothy Walz Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. Marcia Fudge Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. Mike Quigley Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. Jeff Flake Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Rep. David Cicilline Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Begin Consideration of H.R. 3578 – Baseline Reform Act of 2011 (Structured Rule) (Sponsored by Rep. Robert Woodall / Budget Committee)
The rule provides for one hour of general debate and makes in order the following amendment:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee Amendment (10 minutes of debate)
Postponed Vote on Democratic Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 3630 – Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (Offered by Rep. Michael Michaud)
Special Order Speeches
COMMITTEE ACTIVITY OF THE DAY
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
As SWAC Girl (an acronym for Staunton, Waynesboro, and Augusta County), Lynn has been writing in the Virginia political blogosphere since 2006. Active in area politics, she has coordinated campaigns and served in leadership for the past decade. The Shenandoah Valley of Virginia is one of the most beautiful places to call home ... the Republican Party carries her beliefs.
Comments
One Response to "U.S. House schedule for Thursday, Feb. 2, 2012"
I wish to speak on a vote before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. This is as close as I am ever going to get to keep this on topic.
Allowing bigger and heavier trucks on our highways was the issue. My side won, the committee voted no for now. But the issue is not dead.
I wish to admit that I personally will benefit as long as we keep the standards the way they are. However I am smart enough to expose that any of our representatives in Congress who strongly argue in favor of allowing increased weights is wrong as long as the fulcrum of the debate is best benefit for society as a whole.
I stand ready and willing to debate any of our Congressional representatives to debate me in an open forum for why bigger and heavier trucks is a bad idea.
On this issue, I stand ready to defend that while I might personally benefit, the only real benefit is because it is better for my nation. If heavier trucks was really that good an idea, I am smart enough to live with the new rules and profit from exploiting them. However we have to take into consideration what benefits society as a whole in the big picture.
I challenge ANY politician or lobbyist to take me on in this issue. I stand ready to prove you are either a fool or that you are willing to sell your efforts to the highest bidder. Let me warn you, I am armed with the truth, and I can prove it.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.