|
|
| Appeal Time Clarification Act Of 2011 |
September 12, 2011 |
|
Howard Coble, R-NC
|
|
"This year, as part of its rules package, the Supreme Court submitted proposed amendments to Appellate Rule 4 that clarify the treatment of the time to appeal in civil cases involving a United States officer or employee. Because the time to appeal in a civil case is set not only by Appellate Rule 4 but also by section 2107 of title 28 of the U.S. Code, the Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has proposed that the Judicial Conference seek legislation to make the same clarifying change to section 2107."
|
|
| Second Opinion |
July 7, 2011 |
|
Tom Udall, D-NM
|
|
"I want to talk a little bit about that. I think there are some lessons to be learned in terms of budgets and deficits and how we should invest. But first I want to thank the Senators who helped me while I was gone. As the Presiding Officer, Senator Franken, knows, we are assigned weekly duties in terms of presiding, and I was supposed to preside last week. So three of my colleagues, Senator Durbin, Senator Merkley, and my cousin, Senator Mark Udall, stepped up to help me with presiding time. I had an amendment that was on the floor when we were dealing with the rules package, and Senator Harkin helped me with that proposal. So there was a real team effort within our Democratic caucus to help me to be able to work on the wildfire issue out in New Mexico and stay there and have my capable staff and the other Senators help out. I really thank everybody for that team effort."
|
|
|
|
| Legislative Program |
June 16, 2011 |
|
Steny Hoyer, D-MD
|
|
"I, too, like the gentleman from Virginia, want to reach an agreement on the reduction of the deficit and the substantial reduction of the debt. The gentleman indicates he wants to cut spending by trillions. However, as we all know—and I’ve repeated—the gentleman voted for a rules package the first day of this session which provides for $4.8 trillion in additional deficit without paying for it. That is the continuation of taxes while not cutting the spending by that amount."
|
|