HR 589 Gaining Momentum - Check here for updates

DesperateInRI wrote:Thank you for all your work, HR 589 picked up more cosponsors yesterday. Check this list from the 99'ers Union for the latest updates. Gregg Rosen has been working tirelessly with the Rep. Barbara Lee and staff and provides continuing updates on this vital piece of legislation. Just a reminder - keep contacting your Reps!


http://www.american99ersunion.com/

Click on the light blue (589) and it will bring you to the list of current sponsors.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdhLi1:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112|

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h589/show

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/112_HR_589.html#commentform

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-589

https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr589

Evidentally it was on the floor to some extent last night.
12:57 A.M. -
Mr. Rehberg raised a point of order against the Lee (CA) amendment Mr. Rehberg stated that the amendment proposes to change existing law. The Chair sustained the point of order.

12:45 A.M. -
DEBATE - The Committee of the Whole proceeded with debate on the Lee (CA) amendment under the five-minute rule pending reservation of a point of order.
Amendment offered by Ms. Lee (CA).


An amendment numbered 221 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section regarding rules related to additional weeks of first-tier emergency unemployment compensation

Topic on this forum says rules violation and describes what it means! Something about 589 was kicked out because pf a rule violation . This is a suspect post to me and the member to me is unknown! But I requested this person to provide a link he read it on! So very suspect rt could be legit. But we deal with this all the time!

Hi, I'm a previous member of UF but hardly ever post. I wasn't able to post the link, but I googled, "examiner rules violation" and the article came up.

Reposting my comment from another thread:

tazzy posted the link, from a blog. Please note: This blog
states this happened "In the early morning hours on Thursday" -- the
blog has a time stamp of 2:31 am ET. Unless the House was in session
before 2:30 am EST this morning, this makes no sense.

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-national/99er-unemployment-extension-amendment-bounced-for-rules-violation#ixzz1EDpGkKfw

look at who the writer is

OH no! now they are going on break tomorrow for a week . Is this right! So another full week without knowing anything!

Here is the link. Go to the time
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html

the article is boggus..his first paragraph does not reference HR589, but in his second paragraph (which usually means new subject), it references that it will have to stand alone, because it was rejected. the first paragraph does not say HR589 was rejected.

everytime you click on it, he gets paid..