BEE-spoke-data/govdocs1-by-extension huggingface dataset:
![](media/image1.jpeg){width="6.122916666666667in"
height="1.007638888888889in"}

# Legislative Bulletin..............................................July 18, 2006

**Contents:**

**S.Con.Res. 108**---Authorizing the printing of a revised edition of a
pocket version of the United States

Constitution, and other publications

**S.Con.Res. 108---Authorizing the printing of a revised edition of a
pocket version of the United States Constitution, and other
publications---*as received from the Senate* (Sen. Lott, R-MS)**

**[Order of Business]{.underline}**: The resolution may be considered on
Tuesday, July 18^th^, subject to unanimous consent.

**[Summary]{.underline}**: S.Con.Res. 108 would authorize the printing
of the three following documents as Senate documents:

-   the 22nd edition of the pocket version of the U.S. Constitution:
    550,000 total copies, of which 440,000 copies would be for the use
    of the House, 100,000 copies for the use of the Senate, and 10,000
    copies for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing (cost capped
    at \$198,000 from existing funds);

-   the 2006 revised edition of the publication entitled "Our Flag":
    550,000 total copies, of which 440,000 copies would be for the use
    of the House, 100,000 copies for the use of the Senate, and 10,000
    copies for the use of the Joint Committee on Printing (cost capped
    at \$215,000 from existing funds); and

-   the book entitled "A Botanic Garden for the Nation": 3,075 total
    copies, of which 1,470 copies would be for the use of the House, 725
    copies for the use of the Senate, and 880 copies for the use of the
    Botanic Gardens (cost capped at \$102,000 from existing funds).

**[Committee Action]{.underline}**: On July 12, 2006, the Senate passed
the resolution by unanimous consent. On July 13, 2006, the resolution
was referred to the House Administration Committee, which took no
official action on the resolution.

**[Cost to Taxpayers]{.underline}**: The resolution would earmark
\$515,000 of authorizations already provided for printings such as
these.

**[Does the Bill Expand the Size and Scope of the Federal
Government?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Does the Bill Contain Any New State-Government, Local-Government, or
Private-Sector Mandates?]{.underline}**: No.

**[Constitutional Authority]{.underline}**: A committee report citing
constitutional authority is unavailable.

**[RSC Staff Contact]{.underline}**: Paul S. Teller,
<paul.teller@mail.house.gov>, (202) 226-9718
![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.997222222222222in"
height="1.448611111111111in"}

***Less Government \~ Lower Taxes \~ Personal Responsibility \~
Individual Freedom \~ Stronger Families \~ National Defense***

**Press Release** Contact: Pepper Pennington

For Immediate Release 202-225-2706

May 15, 2008 202-593-1253

**Unelected Judges Irresponsibly Overturn Gay Marriage Ban**

***Feeney Fights against San Francisco Values  ***

(Washington, D.C.) - Tom Feeney (Oviedo) today released the following
statement after the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved
gay marriage ban:

**\"The California Supreme Court today effectively thwarted the will of
the people by overturning a voter-approved gay marriage ban. I\'m
appalled that unelected judges have irresponsibly decided to legislate
from the bench and overturn the will of the people.**

**\"Florida\'s hardworking families should know that I will continue to
fight to prevent San Francisco taxes and values from infiltrating our
community,\"** said Feeney.

Tom Feeney supports H.R. 724, the Marriage Protection Act of 2007 and
also H.J. Res. 22 to amend the Constitution of the United States to
declare that marriage shall consist only on a legal union of a man and a
woman. Tom Feeney believes that other family law and marital benefit
issues should be left to state lawmakers. This includes the issue of
\"civil unions\" which should be left to the states.

\###
DATE

\[NAME\], Deputy Director

Division Materials Safety and State Agreements

Office of Federal and State Materials and

Environmental Management Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

T8-E24

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Dear \[NAME\]:

Enclosed is a copy of the legally binding requirements \[identify the
legally binding requirements using the title or description and date of
regulations\]. The legally binding requirements correspond to the
following equivalent amendments to NRC=s regulations.

> **[Rats ID]{.underline}** **[Title]{.underline} [State
> Section]{.underline}**

-   2005-1 Security Requirements for Portable License Condition

Gauges Containing Byproduct Material

We believe that adoption of these legally binding requirements satisfies
the compatibility and health and safety categories established in the
Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management
Programs (FSME) Procedure SA-200.

**\[**(If there are issues) The following are \[number\] issues that we
would like the NRC to address:

1\. Description of issue.

2\. Description of issue.**\]**

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at \[PHONE
NUMBER\] or \[STATE CONTACT\] of my staff at \[PHONE NUMBER\] or
\[E-MAIL ADDRESS\].

Sincerely,

> (Name of Radiation Control Program Director or designee), (Director or
> title of designee) (Radiation Control Program)

Enclosures:

As stated