What is the amendment # of the bill filed by Rep Don Young of Alaska against Cape Wind Power Mass.?
368045
This was a particularly mind-numbing investigation, but what I turned up was this--  In the CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 889, COAST GUARD AND MARITIME TRANSPORTATION ACT OF 2006 (House of Representatives - April 06, 2006) under Title IV (Miscellaneous) of page H1660, section 414, 'Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation,' it says:\n\n"Section 419 of the House bill requires the Coast Guard to  provide an opinion in writing that states whether a proposed wind energy facility would create an obstruction to navigation in any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)."\n\n"The Senate bill does not contain a comparable provision." \n \n"The Conference substitute adopts a provision that prohibits the construction of an offshore wind energy facility in Nantucket Sound unless approved by the Commandant of the Coast Guard."\n\n-------\n\nWhat made this tricky, other than the obtuse legalese everything is written in, is that there are five versions of H.R.889, Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005, and even though I had read through the entire bill, I never found the above mentioned section 419.  This was because I had read one of the versions that doesn't have a section 419 listed under miscellaneous!\n\nThe Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House version of H.R.889 (Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2005) states in section 419, 'Opinions regarding whether certain facilities create obstructions to navigation':\n\n"In any case in which a person requests the Secretary of the Army to take action to permit a wind energy facility under the authority of section 10 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403), the Commandant of the Coast Guard shall provide an opinion in writing that states whether the proposed facility would create an obstruction to navigation."\n\nOf the eleven officially documented amendments to the bill (7 passed, 1 failed, 3 withdrawn), I found nothing to indicate Section 419, Cape Wind, or offshore wind energy facilities, meaning that it must have only been adopted through a conference proposal as sited in the April 6th report. \n\nAs best I can understand it, all that remains now of Young's efforts to change the bill is the authorization of the Coast Guard Commandant to issue the final ruling on the safe proximity of a wind structure to the shipping lanes, not the originally proposed 1.5 mile restriction. This is the standard procedure that most countries that have these off shore windmills follow, allowing their coast guard equivalent to rule on their placement on a case by case basis.  So, I'm not sure what's so upsetting about this, unless they suspect that the US Coast Guard is in somebody's pocket and will rule unfairly.\n\nAs an aside, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), in conjunction with Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), has proposed new legislation that would give the govenor of Massachusetts the power to halt the Cape Wind project.
792082
this should do \n\nhttp://www.statelocalgov.net/index.cfm
884794
When congress passes the bill to raise it. It was defeated about 2 months ago. http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
1010166
You can search for the bill and then download the PDF of it. \nhttp://www.legislature.mi.gov/(0blvfm55r5tapl55gmyawf45)/mileg.aspx?page=home
523131
HHR437 is a bill that if passed will make all illegal immigrants felons and deported. The protest for today is supposed to show the US how much they supposedly mean to the US economy
271850
I would cancel the "Clear Skies Initiative" that actually clears the energy companies from following REGULATIONS THAT WOULD CLEAR THE SKIES.  Pretty sneaky, that Bush.\nLucky for us - the courts are rolling it back.
894307
Republicans can pass it in the lame duck session.  If the libbies don't block it with a filibuster.\n\nAnd it will hurt them a lot yes.\n\nLibbies need to end their concerns about off shore drilling. Its perfectly safe.  I worry more about over-fishing.\n\nOK BEER TIME!  Who wants one too??
169561
Nothing. Call your State Legislature and ask him/her to introduce the bill. Ask others to do the same.\nNow if your thinking "grass roots referendum" to get the issue on the State vote, that's different.\nYour State may be different then mine.
749376
I think it the only item they have on their agenda!!! States voted down the gay marriage amendments (7 out of 8) and yet the democrats push the issue!!!! A no vote means no!!!!
432087
Below is a link to Connecticut's general assembly.  More specifically to pending legislation
67177
Amendment II\n\nA well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
1149241
Wow, I wasn't aware of that.  What are we going to do if the shrimp, crabs, lobsters, clams and mussels want to get married?  There needs to be a constitutional amendment banning crustacean marriage, just in case.  We don't want them to threaten the sanctity of other sea creatures' marriages.
496624
President pro tempore of the Senate, senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
1045912
Against.\n\nThey just blew up the old power plant near me (in Oregon), and that one was only running for, like, 20 years.  I don't think we have a high demand for energy in this state, so I would be against, since it would be pointless.\n\nWe get our power from dams...the ONLY clean power. (Okay, wind too, but that doesn't count.)
910058
Go to vote411.org  Great site w/ lots of information.
298043
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN02454:\n\nIt's called S.2454 in other words. Senate Bill number 2454.  Look at the full text section, and also make sure to look at the amendments to the bill, as those will tell you what the final enacted bill might look like.
753255
amendments,  \n\nfrom congress and or the supreme court