NIFA accepted half the GOP proposals to replace the fee revenues but
rejected other amendments.
Not exact matches
In debating the
amendments to be sent to the states for ratification, the Congress considered and then
rejected three
other amendments, including one that would have established terms for changing the members» salaries.
Similar proposals have already been
rejected by the Republican majority when Senate Democrats tried to force their passage in «hostile
amendments» to
other legislation.
Nelson, along with U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor and 10
other Democratic members of Florida's congressional delegation sent a letter to CMS Director Seema Verma urging her to
reject a proposed
amendment to a state Medicaid «waiver» that would exempt Florida from a federal requirement that gives people up to 90 days following a health problem to apply for Medicaid coverage.
The proposed
amendment establishes a redistricting commission every 10 years beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees; prohibits legislators and
other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission's redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission's plan is
rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission.
The document
rejected WIPP as an option because «surplus Pu would exceed capacity... would likely require
amendment to the [LWA], associated regulations,... regulatory compliance documents,... among
other things.»
Most of the major
amendments proposed by the rapporteur, Michel Rocard, and
other MEPs critical of the proposal were
rejected...»»
Indeed, the Court first
rejects the amici's statutory argument that the Solomon
Amendment merely requires access to the military on the same conditions as those imposed on
other employers.