Commonwealth of Fremont • 10th Parliament

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Introducing this myself since Scott seemed to doze off seeing he's not online atm despite previously discussing this situation with him. I'll withdraw it if Scott comes up with his own plan, but we need this to be funded ASAP (and the rules better be suspended for this).

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Introducing this myself since Scott seemed to doze off seeing he's not online atm despite previously discussing this situation with him. I'll withdraw it if Scott comes up with his own plan, but we need this to be funded ASAP (and the rules better be suspended for this).

I've been trying to approach the matter with caution, so I drafted a bill last night but didn't introduce it yet.  Is $2 billion enough, though?

In any case, the rules will be suspended.

I googled California's national guard budget quickly last night and got something like $262 million so I based it off of that IIRC.

[YE]

Pretty sure it’s a 48 hour vote technically but the rules were suspended:

[YE]

Actually looking at the standing orders, it’s 48 hours or a simple majority - whatever comes first.

[YE]

Not happy with 1 being passed.

[YE]

Why shortchange debate by axing the 36 hour time frame?

[YE]

In the interest of reducing the abruptness of the transition, I would second the nomination of Jimmy for Speaker.
What we need now is certainty and experience, to see us through this Parliamentary overhaul. And I am of the opinion that only Jimmy can provide that at this time.

Credit where credit is due for realizing token speaker runs just waste time.

[YE]

Pretty sure Jimmy is nominated by acclimation if no one else runs.

[YE]

And with 4 votes in favour, the amendment to the standing orders is now adopted.

Since when did you become speaker?

Edit: This actually is a good idea tbf.

[YE]

AN ACT
In response to Eckne's story

Section 1: Title

This legislation may be cited as the Pacific Railway Reauthorization Act.

Section 2: Findings

In the original 2017 bill, a sum of 10 billion dollars was allocated to the development of rail lines connecting San Francisco and Seattle, Sacramento and Omaha, and Salt Lake City and Minneapolis; however, a recent cost analysis suggests that it will need almost double that sum for each line.

A key issue involves the necessity to build the Omaha line through the rocky mountains. Although BNSF and Union Pacific rail lines exist across the Rockies, the requirements for a high-speed line are more stringent, and require avoidance of sharper bends that wouldn't be out of place in existing tracks. As such, potentially extensive tunneling will need to be carried out on significant portions of the path to make the line feasible. Alternatively, the project could share BNSF tracks at a greatly lowered cost, at the expense of the 'high' in 'high-speed.'

In addition, problems are arising in negotiations with state and local governments, as existing stations in major cities are in need of extensive modifications in order to accomodate the new high-speed rail lines. Significantly, project managers are considering moving the terminus of the Seattle from San Francisco to Emeryville (in Alameda County), citing development concerns regarding the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco.  

Section 3: Funding
$10,298,400,000 in funding for the Pacific Railway Act of 2017 has been reauthorized following construction difficulties.

[YE]

A RESOLUTION

That this chamber voices its matter on SB 9010.

Whereas, the Senate is voting on SB 9010: Fulfilling Railway Promises Act.
Whereas, X.
Resolved, Y.

[YE]

AN ACT
To provide disaster relief

Section 1: Title

This legislation may be cited as the Nebraska and Iowa Flood Relief Act.

Section 2: Text
The sum of $250 million shall be allocated to a fund that deals with the recent floods in Nebraska and Iowa.  Of this, the sum of $160 million shall be used in Iowa; while the sum of $90 million shall be used in Nebraska.