lacrossegc
06-23 12:20 PM
Any one home? need to reactivate this chapter ... come one folks
wallpaper ank logos of the world.
Macaca
11-14 09:30 PM
Congress Needs Both Comity and Accomplishments (http://aei.org/publications/pubID.27104,filter.all/pub_detail.asp) By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call, November 14, 2007
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
A look at the range of public opinion surveys on Congress in recent days, weeks and months can't leave anybody happy. The most recent Associated Press-Ipsos survey showed a 25 percent approval rating, coupled with a staggering 70 percent disapproval--a 45 percent gap in the wrong direction. The most recent NBC-Wall Street Journal survey showed 19 percent approval and 68 percent disapproval, for a 49 percent gap.
Democrats are taking comfort from the fact that much of the anger and disappointment people feel is aimed at Republicans. It should be scant comfort. To be sure, a recent ABC-Washington Post poll showed Republicans at 32 percent approval and 63 percent disapproval. But Democrats are not exactly exempt from public disgust; the same survey showed only 36 percent approval for them, with 58 percent disapproval. If Democrats think they can count on the unhappiness with President Bush and the residue of repugnance with the performance in Washington when the Republicans controlled all the levers of power, they are delusional. There is clearly a broader public anger about the performance of most institutions, but especially those in Washington, and it could very, very easily turn into a broader and deeper reaction against the status quo and all incumbents.
Dig a bit deeper, and it is obvious that voters are tired of the partisan bickering and ideologically driven rancor--they want problems solved in Washington, not yelling or posturing or revenge killing that only results in gridlock. The latter is what they see coming out of Congress.
Of course, this is not entirely fair. The 110th Congress has some significant accomplishments, including implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, increasing the minimum wage, expanding college aid, implementing "pay-as-you-go" budgeting and working hard to make it a reality, and passing significant lobbying and ethics reform. But many other things have passed the House and foundered in the Senate, or been stopped, like children's health insurance, by a presidential veto. And, of course, Congress has spent countless hours trying futilely to do something to change course in Iraq.
Just as important, the image of Congress is far more that of a dysfunctional body riven with partisanship than a well-oiled, or even marginally oiled machine working hard to help the country and its people with their daily challenges. On this front, the blame is widespread, going both to an irresponsible minority and an insensitive majority.
But the onus is especially heavy on the majority. It is the majority, especially in the House, that has the power to shape debate and either to open up or shut down the process to ideas, amendments and involvement by rank-and-file Members in both parties. It is the majority that has to rise above the cheap shots, irresponsible motions to recommit and outrageous rhetoric, both to serve the larger interests of the House and to serve their own partisan interests in maintaining a majority.
The attitude of some Democrats, including some in the leadership, is eerily reminiscent of the Republican leaders in 2005 and 2006--voters don't really care about the internal dynamics of Congress, and even if they are unhappy, our fundraising advantages and strong candidate recruitment will keep us in charge. That is a formula for repeat disaster. Even if Democrats can continue to maintain a thin edge over Republicans in the approval/disapproval ratio, keep up their funding advantage and gain leverage from the retirements of many Republican moderates in contestable districts, their ability to hold a majority beyond 2008 will be severely limited.
The first thing Democrats should do is develop a basic sensitivity and avoid doing stupid things that gain nothing except additional enmity from their counterparts. A good example was the utterly foolish decision to schedule a revote on SCHIP when many Republicans from California were back home tending to their constituents in the midst of the disastrous fires. There was no good reason for pushing that vote instead of delaying it until Members could be back to participate. It reminded me again of the high-handed and insensitive behavior of Republicans in the 109th Congress, when they would quash debate or screw the Democrats for no good reason other than that they had the power to do so.
The second thing Democrats should do is to accept the possibility of defeat on the floor as something short of a disaster. The biggest failing of the GOP in the 109th was an unwillingness to lose no matter what. Of course, you don't want to lose, and can't afford to lose on some basic important issues and priorities. But in other cases, amendments can be constructive or no great disaster (and in some cases, amendments the majority doesn't like can be allowed to pass and jettisoned in conference).
The third thing Democrats should do is to move aggressively to more debate, and not only between Democrats and Republicans. Now is a perfect time to revive the idea of regular prime-time debates on important issues. Take one evening a week, in special orders, and structure a lively debate on something of concern to the country. Have two or four Members lead the way in debate, and follow with a free-for-all discussion. In some cases, say global warming or trade, have both majority and minority Members on each side. Add to that a regular process of having real debate on bills that reach the floor whenever possible.
Now a fourth suggestion: It is possible that Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who are legislators, would react to a new Democratic attitude and approach with their own constructive responses. But it also is possible that they, egged on by their own bomb-throwers, would just try to take advantage of any new opening for greater partisan leverage. So Democratic leaders should also open up serious lines of communication with the retiring Republicans such as Reps. David Hobson (Ohio), Ray LaHood (Ill.) and Deborah Pryce (Ohio). Make a deal: We will bend over backward to accept your amendments and the nonfrivolous or nongotcha ones by your colleagues, and to be more fair and open, if you offer such amendments and encourage others, and if you object to irresponsible motions to recommit. The retirees have one last opportunity to make a difference in the way the House operates and in helping to solve the nation's problems. It is a long shot, but it just might work.
rokocoko
01-11 06:06 PM
It will be a good idea to post your message in localfiles http://localfiles.com/production/htmls/msp/
I am sure you will find someone.
I am sure you will find someone.
2011 of the World Bankfunded
Bpositive
10-31 10:47 PM
sorry in advance if this seems too obvious...if anyone has first hand experience, I really appreciate your response
i am planning to travel through UK to India from US. I have a valid 5 yr tourist visa. Do I still need a transit visa?
i am planning to travel through UK to India from US. I have a valid 5 yr tourist visa. Do I still need a transit visa?
more...
loku
12-28 11:54 AM
Please let me know!!
kokujampo
04-27 10:19 AM
Hello everyone,
I had come and been living in California since Feb 2010 under F1 visa.
My mom filed the form I-130 to petition me last year when my PD was current (Dec 2010), I filed the form I-485 to AOS. I got fingerprint done and was issued the EAD card plus a valid SSN and Alien number also. And last week I just got the INterview done at the local USCIS. Unfortunately, the officer said because the retrogression of visa bulletin, my PD wasnt current anymore, and all the paperwork was sent to NBC to be saved there and when my PD comes, they will issue me my GC.
I am currently going to school, and Im wondering if Im qualified for FAFSA, and am I considered as CA resident so that I dont hav to pay out-of-state resident?
Also, I will be filling out my transfer application to a university this FALL (Im going to a Community College now), what should I write for my immigration status and etc?
I will rly appreciate ur feedback!
Kokujampo
P/s: I apologize if I spam with this topic, since I rly need the answer. thanx
I had come and been living in California since Feb 2010 under F1 visa.
My mom filed the form I-130 to petition me last year when my PD was current (Dec 2010), I filed the form I-485 to AOS. I got fingerprint done and was issued the EAD card plus a valid SSN and Alien number also. And last week I just got the INterview done at the local USCIS. Unfortunately, the officer said because the retrogression of visa bulletin, my PD wasnt current anymore, and all the paperwork was sent to NBC to be saved there and when my PD comes, they will issue me my GC.
I am currently going to school, and Im wondering if Im qualified for FAFSA, and am I considered as CA resident so that I dont hav to pay out-of-state resident?
Also, I will be filling out my transfer application to a university this FALL (Im going to a Community College now), what should I write for my immigration status and etc?
I will rly appreciate ur feedback!
Kokujampo
P/s: I apologize if I spam with this topic, since I rly need the answer. thanx
more...
sreeanne
11-26 08:52 PM
Can H4 visa people start a company in US?
i.e company will be registered in their name.
Please throw some light on this.
Thanks in advance
i.e company will be registered in their name.
Please throw some light on this.
Thanks in advance
2010 -china%2FWorld+Bank+signs+
Stayaway
04-02 09:06 PM
If you are considering working for Sharper Impressions painting... don't. THEY WILL RIP YOU OFF. They prey on those who don't have the money or the resources to fight them. They are not fair to their subcontractors. They sub out all of their work and screw most of them. They just know that another "sucker" will come around. They have "offices" in Columbus, Ohio, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Nashville, Colorado, Chicago, and Atlanta. I encourage you to not deal or work with them. Type in "Sharper Impressions Rip Off" and see what you come up with.
more...
martinvisalaw
07-31 12:28 PM
It is very unlikely that a physical therapist would qualify for a national interest waiver. You need to show exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business and that you will substantially benefit the national economy, cultural, or educational interests or welfare of the United States.
hair at the World EXPO 2010.
ganguteli
03-23 12:19 PM
Google is your best friend
more...
kirupa
07-15 11:54 PM
Added :)
hot UK Bank Logos
logiclife
02-06 11:17 AM
If you havent already, please take this poll.
Its very important for IV to find out best and most popular website amongst Indian community in USA so we know the best way to gain publicity for our cause.
--logiclife.
Its very important for IV to find out best and most popular website amongst Indian community in USA so we know the best way to gain publicity for our cause.
--logiclife.
more...
house WASHINGTON– The World Bank
sri1309
01-14 09:20 PM
Please register and vote positively, . Once logged in, search for immigration. AND vote for all the issues that are relevant for us. EB2 and EB3.. Vote for Legal immigrants
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov
tattoo World Bank releases paper on
Macaca
07-22 05:49 PM
Senate Comity Slips Away (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_9/news/19453-1.html) By Emily Pierce and Erin P. Billings, ROLL CALL STAFF, July 19, 2007
Though tensions between Democrats and Republicans have been festering since the beginning of the 110th Congress, this week�s Senate debate on the Iraq War has pushed the chamber to a new level of partisan acrimony, where even the most seasoned and collegial of Senate elders have abandoned traditional acts of decorum.
�The Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I�ve been here a long time,� Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said. �All modicum of courtesy has gone out the window.�
That statement came after a highly charged, all-night debate on a Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq and complete a troop drawdown by April 30, 2008. The amendment failed, 52-47, to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cited the Republicans� �obstructionist� tactics in his decision to scrap the entire debate on the Defense Department authorization bill.
Reid�s insistence not only on having repeated votes this year on pulling out of Iraq but also on having the overnight session contributed to the explosion of partisan tensions, some Senators said.
�I do think 36 hours with no sleep and the orchestration of a repeat debate of what we just got through two months ago weighed heavily on everybody,� Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said. �It was what it was, but there�s a lot of frustration. It�s a good time for a four-week break.�
Senate Republicans said the clearest evidence that the chamber�s traditional comity has evaporated is in Reid�s repeated decisions to prohibit GOP Senators from giving short speeches when they object to his unanimous consent requests. Reid first began using the tactic against a handful of GOP conservatives during last month�s bitterly fought immigration reform debate.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the most recent victim of that tactic, gave an indignant speech on the floor Wednesday to protest what he said was Reid�s lack of respect for fellow Senators.
Though Specter acknowledged that Senate rules do not afford lawmakers the right to give speeches following unanimous consent requests, the veteran Pennsylvania moderate said, �It has been common practice in this body to allow a Senator who reserves the right to object to make a statement as to why the objection is being lodged.�
Specter went on to ominously state that Reid�s insistence on the rules could come back to haunt him.
�Those practices I think are not only rude, but dictatorial,� he said. �And if those technical rules are applied � and any one of us can do it � this body will cease to function.�
Republican sources said that beyond Specter, both Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were taken aback this week when they were denied recognition typically afforded the minority. Lott and Specter � Senators who often work with Reid and Democrats on the floor and on legislation � were particularly incensed with what they viewed as Reid�s disregard of Senate decorum and protocol.
Specter said that Lott declined Reid�s offer to publicly apologize.
One senior Republican aide said Reid � by refusing to allow GOP Senators the opportunity to answer him when addressed � sent a clear signal to the minority of, �To heck with you, your views don�t matter.�
�Not only is violating common courtesy unlike him, it�s not conducive to running the Senate in an effective manner,� the aide said of Reid.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the GOP debate on the Defense measure, said what occurred over the course of the past two days � and the past two weeks � demonstrated that the �climate here is very bad� and is �part of the whole environment� of the Senate these days. The Iraq War is just one factor contributing to the heightened partisanship in the chamber, McCain added.
But it isn�t just Republicans who are complaining about the breakdown of the chamber�s otherwise civil atmosphere. Senate Democrats countered that they also have been on the receiving end of what they consider ungracious behavior by their GOP colleagues.
In what appeared to be a slap at Democrats on Wednesday, McConnell turned his back on Reid and the Democratic side of the chamber while speaking about the Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the Minority Leader was simply addressing his fellow Republicans as he often does when many are gathered in the chamber. More than 70 Senators � roughly half Republicans, half Democrats � were present for the post-vote debate.
But Senate Democrats have said repeatedly that they are being forced to use heavy-handed tactics because the minority refuses to adhere to the traditional courtesy of allowing the Majority Leader to conduct the bulk of the Senate�s business without first having to file procedural motions to limit debate. Republicans have objected to a little more than half of Reid�s requests to begin debate on both controversial and bipartisan bills, resulting in Reid having to file time-consuming cloture motions to cut off prospective filibusters.
�Who�s been asking for these cloture votes?� asked an exasperated Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). �Republicans.�
McConnell has �lost control of his caucus on this matter,� Durbin said of what he believes is McConnell�s inability to convince conservatives in the Republican Conference to pick their battles.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley declined to comment specifically on why Reid has been prohibiting GOP Senators from making short objection speeches, but he indicated that Democrats need to fight back against the GOP�s blocking strategy.
�It�s become pretty evident in recent weeks that there�s been a decision by the Republican leadership to block the Senate from doing all but the most routine and noncontroversial legislation,� Manley said.
Meanwhile, debate on the Defense bill has stopped for the time being, with Reid saying he would bring it back up once it is possible to �pass a Defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq.�
For the moment, Democrats have been able to put a lock on the Republicans� procedural objections by bringing up a higher education reconciliation bill that is privileged under the rules and cannot be filibustered. But that measure was taken up only after Republicans blocked Reid from quickly beginning debate on a Homeland Security spending bill.
Reid has tasked Durbin with negotiating a deal with Lott, McCain and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on how to resume consideration of the Defense measure.
However, McCain questioned whether the DOD bill would rear its head again in the next two weeks: �Without a certain level of cooperation it�s almost impossible. It will be difficult to make it out in time, make it out by August. And the fiscal year ends the first of October.�
Though tensions between Democrats and Republicans have been festering since the beginning of the 110th Congress, this week�s Senate debate on the Iraq War has pushed the chamber to a new level of partisan acrimony, where even the most seasoned and collegial of Senate elders have abandoned traditional acts of decorum.
�The Senate is spiraling into the ground to a degree that I have never seen before, and I�ve been here a long time,� Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said. �All modicum of courtesy has gone out the window.�
That statement came after a highly charged, all-night debate on a Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq and complete a troop drawdown by April 30, 2008. The amendment failed, 52-47, to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome a filibuster, and Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) cited the Republicans� �obstructionist� tactics in his decision to scrap the entire debate on the Defense Department authorization bill.
Reid�s insistence not only on having repeated votes this year on pulling out of Iraq but also on having the overnight session contributed to the explosion of partisan tensions, some Senators said.
�I do think 36 hours with no sleep and the orchestration of a repeat debate of what we just got through two months ago weighed heavily on everybody,� Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said. �It was what it was, but there�s a lot of frustration. It�s a good time for a four-week break.�
Senate Republicans said the clearest evidence that the chamber�s traditional comity has evaporated is in Reid�s repeated decisions to prohibit GOP Senators from giving short speeches when they object to his unanimous consent requests. Reid first began using the tactic against a handful of GOP conservatives during last month�s bitterly fought immigration reform debate.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the most recent victim of that tactic, gave an indignant speech on the floor Wednesday to protest what he said was Reid�s lack of respect for fellow Senators.
Though Specter acknowledged that Senate rules do not afford lawmakers the right to give speeches following unanimous consent requests, the veteran Pennsylvania moderate said, �It has been common practice in this body to allow a Senator who reserves the right to object to make a statement as to why the objection is being lodged.�
Specter went on to ominously state that Reid�s insistence on the rules could come back to haunt him.
�Those practices I think are not only rude, but dictatorial,� he said. �And if those technical rules are applied � and any one of us can do it � this body will cease to function.�
Republican sources said that beyond Specter, both Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) were taken aback this week when they were denied recognition typically afforded the minority. Lott and Specter � Senators who often work with Reid and Democrats on the floor and on legislation � were particularly incensed with what they viewed as Reid�s disregard of Senate decorum and protocol.
Specter said that Lott declined Reid�s offer to publicly apologize.
One senior Republican aide said Reid � by refusing to allow GOP Senators the opportunity to answer him when addressed � sent a clear signal to the minority of, �To heck with you, your views don�t matter.�
�Not only is violating common courtesy unlike him, it�s not conducive to running the Senate in an effective manner,� the aide said of Reid.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who led the GOP debate on the Defense measure, said what occurred over the course of the past two days � and the past two weeks � demonstrated that the �climate here is very bad� and is �part of the whole environment� of the Senate these days. The Iraq War is just one factor contributing to the heightened partisanship in the chamber, McCain added.
But it isn�t just Republicans who are complaining about the breakdown of the chamber�s otherwise civil atmosphere. Senate Democrats countered that they also have been on the receiving end of what they consider ungracious behavior by their GOP colleagues.
In what appeared to be a slap at Democrats on Wednesday, McConnell turned his back on Reid and the Democratic side of the chamber while speaking about the Democratic amendment to refocus the U.S. mission in Iraq.
McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the Minority Leader was simply addressing his fellow Republicans as he often does when many are gathered in the chamber. More than 70 Senators � roughly half Republicans, half Democrats � were present for the post-vote debate.
But Senate Democrats have said repeatedly that they are being forced to use heavy-handed tactics because the minority refuses to adhere to the traditional courtesy of allowing the Majority Leader to conduct the bulk of the Senate�s business without first having to file procedural motions to limit debate. Republicans have objected to a little more than half of Reid�s requests to begin debate on both controversial and bipartisan bills, resulting in Reid having to file time-consuming cloture motions to cut off prospective filibusters.
�Who�s been asking for these cloture votes?� asked an exasperated Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). �Republicans.�
McConnell has �lost control of his caucus on this matter,� Durbin said of what he believes is McConnell�s inability to convince conservatives in the Republican Conference to pick their battles.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley declined to comment specifically on why Reid has been prohibiting GOP Senators from making short objection speeches, but he indicated that Democrats need to fight back against the GOP�s blocking strategy.
�It�s become pretty evident in recent weeks that there�s been a decision by the Republican leadership to block the Senate from doing all but the most routine and noncontroversial legislation,� Manley said.
Meanwhile, debate on the Defense bill has stopped for the time being, with Reid saying he would bring it back up once it is possible to �pass a Defense authorization bill, but with a deadline dealing with Iraq.�
For the moment, Democrats have been able to put a lock on the Republicans� procedural objections by bringing up a higher education reconciliation bill that is privileged under the rules and cannot be filibustered. But that measure was taken up only after Republicans blocked Reid from quickly beginning debate on a Homeland Security spending bill.
Reid has tasked Durbin with negotiating a deal with Lott, McCain and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) on how to resume consideration of the Defense measure.
However, McCain questioned whether the DOD bill would rear its head again in the next two weeks: �Without a certain level of cooperation it�s almost impossible. It will be difficult to make it out in time, make it out by August. And the fiscal year ends the first of October.�
more...
pictures ank logos of the world.
xeixas
08-27 06:23 PM
Has anyone that sent his/her July I485 application to NSC and expect this application to have been transfered to TSC, received a receipt?
dresses around the world that gave
jville
11-09 02:16 PM
it is safe to go with EB3 route. You can file another one in EB2 latter and port the date.
more...
makeup world bank logo
akshayae
09-07 12:56 PM
Folks,
Members from the DC area will be meeting in the Great Falls (Virginina)public library meeting room from 1 pm to 3 pm on Saturday September 8th 2007. Members in DC/VA/MD areas are requested to meet other members to find out more info about the rally and importance of making this rally a success. The address for Great Falls Public Library is
Date and Time
Sep 8th 2007 Time from 1 pm to 3 pm
Meeting Room
9830 Georgetown Pike, Great Falls, VA 22066-2634
Ph 703-757-8560
We look forward to meeting you at Great Falls Public Library
Members from the DC area will be meeting in the Great Falls (Virginina)public library meeting room from 1 pm to 3 pm on Saturday September 8th 2007. Members in DC/VA/MD areas are requested to meet other members to find out more info about the rally and importance of making this rally a success. The address for Great Falls Public Library is
Date and Time
Sep 8th 2007 Time from 1 pm to 3 pm
Meeting Room
9830 Georgetown Pike, Great Falls, VA 22066-2634
Ph 703-757-8560
We look forward to meeting you at Great Falls Public Library
girlfriend download Bank Of China Logo in
hunkuncontrolled
03-13 06:05 PM
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Cities/Patna-girls-rare-feat-in-US-varsity/articleshow/4262665.cms.
Read this article . Now she will also join our community soon.
Read this article . Now she will also join our community soon.
hairstyles ank logos of the world.
ashkam
08-06 08:32 AM
I can not find my old ead can i still file or what is the process.need help please
Is this from your OPT?
Is this from your OPT?
gg_ny
03-31 01:20 PM
Hi,
Apologies if this is a repeat question:
I have extended my H1B (approval received) but my visa stamp expires in June 06. I have EAD (not using it) and plan to apply for AP. If I travel outside the country (with AP, of course), do I need to get a new HIB visa stamp to reenter? Can I show my AP, and 485 pending papers to come in as a parolee and still retain my H1B? Or my H1B status will get cancelled if I use AP?
I hear conflicting opinions from different people and I don't when I would be need to travel to India for family reasons. If anybody has been in a similar situation, please let me know your experience.
Apologies if this is a repeat question:
I have extended my H1B (approval received) but my visa stamp expires in June 06. I have EAD (not using it) and plan to apply for AP. If I travel outside the country (with AP, of course), do I need to get a new HIB visa stamp to reenter? Can I show my AP, and 485 pending papers to come in as a parolee and still retain my H1B? Or my H1B status will get cancelled if I use AP?
I hear conflicting opinions from different people and I don't when I would be need to travel to India for family reasons. If anybody has been in a similar situation, please let me know your experience.
parag_a2z
12-19 02:30 AM
Hi All,
I have H1B stamped from company A which is valid untill Oct 2008. I am planning to go to India in Jan on my new transferred H1B from company B.
Do I have to take an appointment in India for getting my new H1 stamped? Or can i just show my new approved H1B from company B on my port of entry in US, when I come back?
I have H1B stamped from company A which is valid untill Oct 2008. I am planning to go to India in Jan on my new transferred H1B from company B.
Do I have to take an appointment in India for getting my new H1 stamped? Or can i just show my new approved H1B from company B on my port of entry in US, when I come back?
No comments:
Post a Comment