Macaca
07-22 05:33 PM
For Real Drama, Senate Should Engage In a True Filibuster (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/ornstein/19415-1.html) By Norman Ornstein, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, July 18, 2007
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
For many Senators, this week will take them back to their college years - they'll pull an all-nighter, but this time with no final exam to follow.
To dramatize Republican obstructionism, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to hold a mini-version of a real, old-time filibuster. In the old days, i.e., the 1950s, a real filibuster meant the Senate would drop everything, bring the place to a screeching halt, haul cots into the corridors and go around the clock with debate until one side would crack - either the intense minority or the frustrated majority. The former would be under pressure from a public that took notice of the obstructionism thanks to the drama of the repeated round-the-clock sessions.
It is a reflection of our times that the most the Senate can stand of such drama is 24 hours, maybe stretched to 48. But it also is a reflection of the dynamic of the Senate this year that Reid feels compelled to try this kind of extraordinary tactic.
This is a very different year, one on a record-shattering pace for cloture votes, one where the threat of filibuster has become routinized in a way we have not seen before. As Congressional Quarterly pointed out last week, we already have had 40 cloture votes in six-plus months; the record for a whole two-year Congress is 61.
For Reid, the past six months have been especially frustrating because the minority Republicans have adopted a tactic of refusing to negotiate time agreements on a wide range of legislation, something normally done in the Senate via unanimous consent, with the two parties setting a structure for debate and amendments. Of course, many of the breakdowns have been on votes related to the Iraq War, the subject of the all-night debate and the overwhelming focus of the 110th Congress. On Iraq, the Republican leaders long ago decided to try to block the Democrats at every turn to negate any edge the majority might have to seize the agenda, force the issue and put President Bush on the defensive.
But the obstructionist tactics have gone well beyond Iraq, to include things such as the 9/11 commission recommendations and the increase in the minimum wage, intelligence authorization, prescription drugs and many other issues.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his deputy, Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.), have instead decided to create a very different standard in the Senate than we have seen before, with 60 votes now the norm for nearly all issues, instead of the exception. In our highly polarized environment, where finding the center is a desirable outcome, that is not necessarily a bad thing. But a closer examination of the way this process has worked so far suggests that more often than not, the goal of the Republican leaders is to kill legislation or delay it interminably, not find a middle and bipartisan ground.
If Bush were any stronger, and were genuinely determined to burnish his legacy by enacting legislation in areas such as health, education and the environment, we might see a different dynamic and different outcomes. But the president's embarrassing failure on immigration reform - securing only 12 of 49 Senators from his party for his top domestic priority - has pretty much put the kibosh on a presidentially led bipartisan approach to policy action.
Republican leaders have responded to any criticism of their tactics by accusing Reid and his deputy, Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), of trying to squelch debate and kill off their amendments by filing premature cloture motions, designed to pre-empt the process and foreclose many amendments. There is some truth to this; early on, especially, Reid wanted to get the Senate jump-started and pushed sometimes prematurely to resolve issues.
But the fact is that on many of the issues mentioned above, Reid has been quite willing to allow Republican amendments and quite willing to negotiate a deal with McConnell to move business along. That has not been enough. As Roll Call noted last week, on both the intelligence bill and the Medicare prescription drug measure, Republicans were fundamentally opposed to the underlying bills and wanted simply to kill them.
The problem actually goes beyond the sustained effort to raise the bar routinely to 60 votes. The fact is that obstructionist tactics have been applied successfully to many bills that have far more than 60 Senators supporting them. The most visible issue in this category has been the lobbying and ethics reform bill that passed the Senate early in the year by overwhelming margins.
Every time Reid has moved to appoint conferees to get to the final stages on the issue, a Republican Senator has objected. After months of dispute over who was really behind the blockage, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina emerged as the bte noire. But Republican leaders have been more than willing to carry DeMint's water to keep that bill from coming up.
The problem Reid faces on this issue is that to supersede the unanimous consent denial, he would have to go through three separate cloture fights, each one allowing substantial sustained debate, including 30 hours worth after cloture is invoked. In the meantime, a badly needed reform is blocked, and the minority can blame the majority for failing to fulfill its promise to reform the culture of corruption. It may work politically, but the institution and the country both suffer along the way.
Is this obstructionism? Yes, indeed - according to none other than Lott. The Minority Whip told Roll Call, "The strategy of being obstructionist can work or fail. For [former Senate Minority Leader Tom] Daschle, it failed. For Reid it succeeded, and so far it's working for us." Lott's point was that a minority party can push as far as it wants until the public blames them for the problem, and so far that has not happened.
The war is a different issue from any other. McConnell's offer to Reid to set the bar at 60 for all amendments related to Iraq, thereby avoiding many of the time-consuming procedural hurdles, is actually a fair one - nothing is going to be done, realistically, to change policy on the war without a bipartisan, 60-vote-plus coalition. But other issues should not be routinely subject to a supermajority hurdle.
What can Reid do? An all-nighter might help a little. But the then-majority Republicans tried the faux-filibuster approach a couple of years ago when they wanted to stop minority Democrats from blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and it went nowhere. The real answer here is probably one Senate Democrats don't want to face: longer hours, fewer recesses and a couple of real filibusters - days and nights and maybe weeks of nonstop, round-the-clock debate, bringing back the cots and bringing the rest of the agenda to a halt to show the implications of the new tactics.
At the moment, I don't see enough battle-hardened veterans in the Senate willing to take on that pain.
wallpaper Nicole Richie spent some
LayoffBlog
01-27 07:20 PM
According to CNNMoney: “The job market continued to take a beating Tuesday, as six companies across several industries announced more than 11,500 job cuts Tuesday.The huge number of job cuts pales only in comparison to Monday’s statistics: seven companies issued job cut announcements totaling more than 71,400 layoffs.In January alone, companies have announced more 211,500 [...]http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=layoffblog.com&blog=5255291&post=1267&subd=layoffblog&ref=&feed=1
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/27/more-than-211500-job-cuts-announced-in-january-alone/)
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/27/more-than-211500-job-cuts-announced-in-january-alone/)
Jipjap74
03-18 11:40 AM
I applied for the I-140 and I-485 at the same time last October 9th 2009. I was requested an RFE in February of 2010 which they received back in March before the deadline. The RFE was looking for some basic info. I am still awaiting a response to the RFE or approval of the I-140. My job is currently going through tough times and there are rumors I will be laid of on April 30th. My question is that after April 9th(180 days after i filled I-140 and I-485) can i move jobs to a similar role before my I-140 is approved and if so what do i need to do.
Thanks
Dave
Thanks
Dave
2011 nicole-richie-skinny.jpg
freddyCR
March 2nd, 2005, 08:38 PM
Not very sure about this one...what do you think?
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/stray1-1_BW8x6L.jpg
http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/stray1-1_BW8x6L.jpg
more...
Macaca
11-10 05:44 PM
Why Moderate Republicans Wield Newfound Clout; Democrats Need Allies To Override Bush Vetoes Of Major Legislation (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119457364946187455.html) By David Rogers. Wall Street Journal, Nov 9, 2007
Long ignored when their party was in control, moderate Republicans are the new power brokers in an increasingly bitter series of veto confrontations between President Bush and the Democratic Congress.
Senior Democrats met last night with centrist House Republicans, trying to get a veto-proof majority for a child-health-insurance initiative opposed by Mr. Bush. Senate moderates played a part in an earlier 79-14 roll call overriding his veto of a water-resources bill. Moderates in both chambers will decide the future of a $151 billion education, labor and health-care budget approved by the House last night, 274-141, with 51 Republicans opposing the president.
The new dynamic reflects both the Democratic takeover of Congress and how Mr. Bush responded to it. In 1994, after Republicans took over, President Clinton saw a new middle ground defined by the election and moved away from fellow liberals in Congress. Mr. Bush did the opposite, moving to the right to shore up his conservative base, leaving an opening in the center.
The White House's more-confrontational tactics are a strategy calculated to disrupt the new majority and reduce the effectiveness of Congress to challenge Mr. Bush on the war in Iraq. The result has been a convergence of veto threats over spending levels and domestic policy, leaving little time for the two sides to reach deals.
A stopgap bill to keep the government funded until Dec. 14 neared passage last night, and Democrats have agreed to give the president his top priority: a $471 billion Pentagon budget including emergency funds for armored vehicles in Iraq. But new fights flared up in the House over war policy, and there is no peace in sight on the domestic front.
The education budget faces an almost certain veto. A $105.6 billion transportation and housing budget, approved by House-Senate negotiators, faces the same fate.
The White House argues that Democrats won no mandate in 2006 to increase spending and have floundered over how best to present the bills to Mr. Bush. "Their strategy changes by the hour," White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said. "I get different answers from every one of them."
Unaccustomed to the spotlight, Republican moderates find themselves in an uncomfortable role somewhere between being tied to the railroad tracks as the Democrats and White House come barreling down, and being the switchman who can save the train.
Yesterday's Senate vote on the water-resources veto was the first time Mr. Bush has been overridden. The more-telling test will come on the child-health-insurance and education bills now in play.
The health-care bill calls for an additional $35 billion in spending over the next five years to expand coverage for the children of working-class families. To win over moderates, Democrats are prepared to add tighter income limits and push more parents off the rolls. There has been a backlash from New Jersey and Rhode Island senators worried about the impact on their states; at the same time, House Republican leaders are pressing to pull their members back.
"There's a decent chance of a deal," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.).
"I'm seeing the potential for some successes," said Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R., Mich.).
As talks continue, a synergy has developed between the fate of the child-health bill and education budget, known as the "Labor H" bill -- so much so that the health talks even moved into the House Appropriations Committee rooms last night as members voted on the floor.
On a vote Tuesday night, it was evident that Republicans, who had stood with the president against the health-care bill, were looking for a chance to show their independence on the second bill, Labor H.
"There was a lot of talk in the corner. 'I'm getting a lot of heat at home because of my [health-care] vote,'" said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio). "'I have to make it right on Labor H.'"
In crafting the package, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) has moved to the right to win over Republicans. Spending has been cut by about $1 billion below the level approved by the House in July, and antiabortion language has been preserved for conservatives.
"I've been told many times by the White House that they have no intention of compromising," he warned in a last appeal to moderates last night. "It's put up or shut up time."
Long ignored when their party was in control, moderate Republicans are the new power brokers in an increasingly bitter series of veto confrontations between President Bush and the Democratic Congress.
Senior Democrats met last night with centrist House Republicans, trying to get a veto-proof majority for a child-health-insurance initiative opposed by Mr. Bush. Senate moderates played a part in an earlier 79-14 roll call overriding his veto of a water-resources bill. Moderates in both chambers will decide the future of a $151 billion education, labor and health-care budget approved by the House last night, 274-141, with 51 Republicans opposing the president.
The new dynamic reflects both the Democratic takeover of Congress and how Mr. Bush responded to it. In 1994, after Republicans took over, President Clinton saw a new middle ground defined by the election and moved away from fellow liberals in Congress. Mr. Bush did the opposite, moving to the right to shore up his conservative base, leaving an opening in the center.
The White House's more-confrontational tactics are a strategy calculated to disrupt the new majority and reduce the effectiveness of Congress to challenge Mr. Bush on the war in Iraq. The result has been a convergence of veto threats over spending levels and domestic policy, leaving little time for the two sides to reach deals.
A stopgap bill to keep the government funded until Dec. 14 neared passage last night, and Democrats have agreed to give the president his top priority: a $471 billion Pentagon budget including emergency funds for armored vehicles in Iraq. But new fights flared up in the House over war policy, and there is no peace in sight on the domestic front.
The education budget faces an almost certain veto. A $105.6 billion transportation and housing budget, approved by House-Senate negotiators, faces the same fate.
The White House argues that Democrats won no mandate in 2006 to increase spending and have floundered over how best to present the bills to Mr. Bush. "Their strategy changes by the hour," White House Budget Director Jim Nussle said. "I get different answers from every one of them."
Unaccustomed to the spotlight, Republican moderates find themselves in an uncomfortable role somewhere between being tied to the railroad tracks as the Democrats and White House come barreling down, and being the switchman who can save the train.
Yesterday's Senate vote on the water-resources veto was the first time Mr. Bush has been overridden. The more-telling test will come on the child-health-insurance and education bills now in play.
The health-care bill calls for an additional $35 billion in spending over the next five years to expand coverage for the children of working-class families. To win over moderates, Democrats are prepared to add tighter income limits and push more parents off the rolls. There has been a backlash from New Jersey and Rhode Island senators worried about the impact on their states; at the same time, House Republican leaders are pressing to pull their members back.
"There's a decent chance of a deal," said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.).
"I'm seeing the potential for some successes," said Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R., Mich.).
As talks continue, a synergy has developed between the fate of the child-health bill and education budget, known as the "Labor H" bill -- so much so that the health talks even moved into the House Appropriations Committee rooms last night as members voted on the floor.
On a vote Tuesday night, it was evident that Republicans, who had stood with the president against the health-care bill, were looking for a chance to show their independence on the second bill, Labor H.
"There was a lot of talk in the corner. 'I'm getting a lot of heat at home because of my [health-care] vote,'" said Rep. Steven LaTourette (R., Ohio). "'I have to make it right on Labor H.'"
In crafting the package, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D., Wis.) has moved to the right to win over Republicans. Spending has been cut by about $1 billion below the level approved by the House in July, and antiabortion language has been preserved for conservatives.
"I've been told many times by the White House that they have no intention of compromising," he warned in a last appeal to moderates last night. "It's put up or shut up time."
Breezestorm
07-13 01:54 PM
For all of you, whose cases are in NBC (National Benefits Center), please update your status here.
I had to undergo finger printing twice last year and this could be a reason for it.
My case information
EB2
PD: Dec 2005
Case transferred to NBC: 06/09/2008
No interview notice yet
Went for FP twice last year
Should we start getting police clearance certificates as our priority dates are current?
I had to undergo finger printing twice last year and this could be a reason for it.
My case information
EB2
PD: Dec 2005
Case transferred to NBC: 06/09/2008
No interview notice yet
Went for FP twice last year
Should we start getting police clearance certificates as our priority dates are current?
more...
WeShallOvercome
11-01 01:14 PM
I sent my EAD application on 10/24(Wednesday), reached NSC on 10/26(Friday), Notice date 10/29(Monday), Check cashed 10/30(Tuesday)..Already got I-485 receipts back in August.
So they are Current now.... But what about those July/Aug filers who are still waiting for their receipts? Very unfair to them. I could wait for 2 months to get my EAD receipt if they could first receipt all july august filers...
They are really unpredictable..
So they are Current now.... But what about those July/Aug filers who are still waiting for their receipts? Very unfair to them. I could wait for 2 months to get my EAD receipt if they could first receipt all july august filers...
They are really unpredictable..
2010 Nicole Richie and friend,
zerozerozeven
07-22 09:12 AM
^^^^^^^^^
more...
Macaca
07-22 05:39 PM
Empty Promises (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_8/editorial/19419-1.html), July 18, 2007
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
As Senate Democrats were preparing to go to the mattresses over Iraq voting procedures and as Republicans threatened to stop all activity over a judicial appointment, it's worth recalling what Senate leaders were promising at the outset of the 110th Congress.
On Jan. 4, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared on the floor that "last November, the voters sent us a message - Democrats and Republicans. The voters are upset with Congress and the partisan gridlock. The voters want a government that focuses on their needs. The voters want change. Together, we must deliver that change."
Minutes later, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) observed that "the challenges ahead will not be met if we do nothing to overcome the partisanship that has come to characterize this body over the past several years. A culture of partisanship over principle represents a grave threat to the Senate's best tradition as a place of constructive cooperation. It undermines the spirit and the purpose of this institution. And we must do something to reverse its course."
Six months on, the Senate has devolved into a nonstop brawl. The House, where leaders made let's-work-together promises of their own, also is a cauldron of partisanship, but at least there the rules permit a majority to rule.
But together, they've been able to pass just three pieces of significant legislation - a hike in the minimum wage, expansion of stem-cell research funding and a supplemental appropriation to fund the Iraq War. Only the first was directly signed into law. The second was vetoed by President Bush. The third was vetoed then passed.
Partisan warfare and inaction on issues from health care to immigration to energy - even lobbying and ethics reform, once the top priority for this Congress - has reduced respect for the legislative branch to its lowest level ever. Respect for the presidency is not much higher.
Who's to blame? Senate Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of "obstructionism" - systematic refusal to grant unanimous consent so that bills can be voted upon. Senate Republicans blame Reid for invoking cloture to stifle full debate and the offering of amendments.
The level of rancor is escalating now because Democrats are frustrated that Republicans are insisting on a 60-vote threshold on Iraq War amendments - as though Democrats in the past have not used the 60-vote requirement when it suited them. Republicans are threatening to create procedural chaos and allow little or no action on the floor if Democrats block a single appellate court nominee.
In January, Senators of both parties gathered in the Old Senate Chamber in what McConnell described as "a small act of bipartisanship" that he hoped would lead to a restoration of the Senate's reputation. Now, perhaps, Senators should regather there and contemplate their current level of public esteem.
hair Nicole Richie
Blog Feeds
04-05 09:30 AM
USCIS has not extended its temporary accommodation for delays in the labor condition application (LCA) process. Earlier, USCIS agreed to accept H-1B petitions without a certified LCA, in certain situations, for a limited time. This exception was available from November 5, 2009 to March 9, 2010. The USCIS has declined to extend this exception. Accordingly, all H-1B petitions must be filed with the certified LCA otherwise USCIS will deny the H-1B petition or extension.
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
Hence, it again is necessary to have an Approved LCA in place for the proper location at the time of the H-1B filing. The reason the exception was not extended is that the DOL assured USCIS that LCAs are being processed within the required seven-day processing time. The DOL, in fact, stated that LCAs are being processed within four to five days which is in fact true as well. It is our suggestion to plan accordingly.
More... (http://www.visalawyerblog.com/2010/03/lca_needs_to_be_certified_agai.html)
more...
jliechty
August 16th, 2006, 12:03 AM
I recommend the Nikon 18-70 AF-S DX zoom in that price range. Right now I use the older 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom on my DSLR, and find that I frequently use the 24mm extreme and wish it went wider. If you do lots of interiors and don't need a very wide angle of view, then one of your suggested lenses would be better due to the larger aperture (keep in mind that 28mm on a DSLR equals the angle of view of a 42mm lens on film).