Macaca
07-20 07:56 AM
Breakdown in Relations in the Senate Hobbles Its Ability to Get Things Done (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/20/washington/20cong.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) By CARL HULSE (http://www.nytimes.com/gst/emailus.html) New York Times, July 20, 2007
WASHINGTON, July 19 � Arlen Specter is a senior United States senator who expects to be allowed his say on the Senate floor. So he bristled when Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, brusquely cut him off at the end of the Iraq debate.
�The leadership is setting a dictatorial tone,� Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Thursday, still furious over his treatment the day before. �Senators didn�t get here to be pushed around.�
It may seem small-minded to bicker over a few words at the end of a 24-hour debate. But the clash between the two veteran senators is evidence of a larger breakdown in relations in the Senate, a deterioration in cooperation that is hobbling the Senate�s ability to get things done. The situation is not likely to improve with a presidential election on the horizon.
As the cots were rolled away and lawmakers left for a decent night�s rest after the around-the-clock debate that ended � like others this year � in stalemate, lawmakers of both parties said they had rarely seen the tone so poisonous and the willingness to work together on the floor at such a low ebb.
�The last vestiges of courtesy seem to be going out the window,� said Senator Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who has served as majority and minority leader. �Every time I think the Senate � Republican or Democrat � has gone to a point where you can�t go any lower, we go lower.�
It is hardly startling that members of the two parties do not see eye to eye. And the spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate always rises and falls depending on the subject and the election calendar. But seven months into the new Democratic regime, the environment seems unusually hostile. Occasionally, senators do, too, as exhibited in a Sunday television exchange between Senators Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, that looked for a moment as if it might turn physical as the two men argued about the war in Iraq.
The angry attacks nearly spiraled out of control Thursday night as the two parties lobbed political bombs at each other during the windup of work on an otherwise popular higher education measure.
After Republicans brought forward proposals intended to embarrass Democrats on terror detainees and union elections, Democrats countered with a resolution urging President Bush not to pardon I. Lewis Libby Jr., a former top White House aide. Republicans struck back with a resolution deploring the pardons issued by President Bill Clinton.
The floor descended into chaos as members of the two parties glowered at one another across the aisle. Evidently recognizing they had gone too far, party leaders pulled back and agreed to try to finish the education bill as Democrats struck their Libby proposal from the record.
Hard feelings have consequences. Without agreements between the leaders of the opposing parties, the Senate has been plunged into a procedural knife fight, with Democrats forced to scramble to find 60 votes not just on contentious issues like an Iraq withdrawal plan, but on once-routine matters like motions to proceed to a spending bill.
The feuding has spilled into subjects that would seem to hold the potential for common ground, like antiterror legislation and lobbying reform, and will doubtless tie up other measures to come.
Democrats contend that Republicans have embarked on a strategy of delay, using Senate rules to chew up scarce legislative time and deny Democrats any accomplishments. Republicans complain that Democrats are trying to jam through objectionable bills and are mainly interested in building a political case for 2008. The relationship between Mr. Reid and his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has cooled after it was initially thought the two Senate tacticians would be able to do business.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been in the Senate for more than four decades, said he was not sure bipartisanship was at an all-time low, but acknowledged things were tense.
�The fact the Senate is so evenly divided makes big causes out of smaller events,� Mr. Kennedy said.
Besides the narrow 51-49 majority Democrats enjoy, lawmakers and others attribute what senators deplore as a lack of comity to various reasons, including the emotions surrounding the Iraq war debate, a Republican payback for Democratic stalling in recent years and pure political maneuvering in a hot-house environment.
Mr. Reid on Thursday blamed Republican ideology, saying the Senate�s conservative contingent was unwilling to swallow legislation sought by most Americans.
�Republicans in the Senate do not represent mainstream Republicans around the country,� he said.
Members of both houses have been contending for years that the sort of personal interaction that can lead lawmakers to overcome partisan differences has been on the decline, leaving Congress polarized.
But Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Specter and others say they find that committee leaders still tend to be able to work together. And a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers put together the Senate�s immigration proposal, though it went down in flames to the broader political divide in Congress.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has been in the heat of the battle over the Iraq legislation, said he did not believe feelings were frayed beyond repair.
�The Senate is a unique place where wills are tested, and this was a very important issue that people have very strong feelings on,� he said, referring to the Iraq debate. �Instead of fighting over it physically, there are battles that are fought on the floor of the Senate. But these are important disagreements and they should be aired.
�Isn�t that what we are here for?�
WASHINGTON, July 19 � Arlen Specter is a senior United States senator who expects to be allowed his say on the Senate floor. So he bristled when Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, brusquely cut him off at the end of the Iraq debate.
�The leadership is setting a dictatorial tone,� Mr. Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, said Thursday, still furious over his treatment the day before. �Senators didn�t get here to be pushed around.�
It may seem small-minded to bicker over a few words at the end of a 24-hour debate. But the clash between the two veteran senators is evidence of a larger breakdown in relations in the Senate, a deterioration in cooperation that is hobbling the Senate�s ability to get things done. The situation is not likely to improve with a presidential election on the horizon.
As the cots were rolled away and lawmakers left for a decent night�s rest after the around-the-clock debate that ended � like others this year � in stalemate, lawmakers of both parties said they had rarely seen the tone so poisonous and the willingness to work together on the floor at such a low ebb.
�The last vestiges of courtesy seem to be going out the window,� said Senator Trent Lott, the Mississippi Republican who has served as majority and minority leader. �Every time I think the Senate � Republican or Democrat � has gone to a point where you can�t go any lower, we go lower.�
It is hardly startling that members of the two parties do not see eye to eye. And the spirit of bipartisanship in the Senate always rises and falls depending on the subject and the election calendar. But seven months into the new Democratic regime, the environment seems unusually hostile. Occasionally, senators do, too, as exhibited in a Sunday television exchange between Senators Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, and Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, that looked for a moment as if it might turn physical as the two men argued about the war in Iraq.
The angry attacks nearly spiraled out of control Thursday night as the two parties lobbed political bombs at each other during the windup of work on an otherwise popular higher education measure.
After Republicans brought forward proposals intended to embarrass Democrats on terror detainees and union elections, Democrats countered with a resolution urging President Bush not to pardon I. Lewis Libby Jr., a former top White House aide. Republicans struck back with a resolution deploring the pardons issued by President Bill Clinton.
The floor descended into chaos as members of the two parties glowered at one another across the aisle. Evidently recognizing they had gone too far, party leaders pulled back and agreed to try to finish the education bill as Democrats struck their Libby proposal from the record.
Hard feelings have consequences. Without agreements between the leaders of the opposing parties, the Senate has been plunged into a procedural knife fight, with Democrats forced to scramble to find 60 votes not just on contentious issues like an Iraq withdrawal plan, but on once-routine matters like motions to proceed to a spending bill.
The feuding has spilled into subjects that would seem to hold the potential for common ground, like antiterror legislation and lobbying reform, and will doubtless tie up other measures to come.
Democrats contend that Republicans have embarked on a strategy of delay, using Senate rules to chew up scarce legislative time and deny Democrats any accomplishments. Republicans complain that Democrats are trying to jam through objectionable bills and are mainly interested in building a political case for 2008. The relationship between Mr. Reid and his Republican counterpart, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has cooled after it was initially thought the two Senate tacticians would be able to do business.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who has been in the Senate for more than four decades, said he was not sure bipartisanship was at an all-time low, but acknowledged things were tense.
�The fact the Senate is so evenly divided makes big causes out of smaller events,� Mr. Kennedy said.
Besides the narrow 51-49 majority Democrats enjoy, lawmakers and others attribute what senators deplore as a lack of comity to various reasons, including the emotions surrounding the Iraq war debate, a Republican payback for Democratic stalling in recent years and pure political maneuvering in a hot-house environment.
Mr. Reid on Thursday blamed Republican ideology, saying the Senate�s conservative contingent was unwilling to swallow legislation sought by most Americans.
�Republicans in the Senate do not represent mainstream Republicans around the country,� he said.
Members of both houses have been contending for years that the sort of personal interaction that can lead lawmakers to overcome partisan differences has been on the decline, leaving Congress polarized.
But Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Specter and others say they find that committee leaders still tend to be able to work together. And a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers put together the Senate�s immigration proposal, though it went down in flames to the broader political divide in Congress.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee who has been in the heat of the battle over the Iraq legislation, said he did not believe feelings were frayed beyond repair.
�The Senate is a unique place where wills are tested, and this was a very important issue that people have very strong feelings on,� he said, referring to the Iraq debate. �Instead of fighting over it physically, there are battles that are fought on the floor of the Senate. But these are important disagreements and they should be aired.
�Isn�t that what we are here for?�
wallpaper Short Layered Hairstyles for
petepatel
09-01 01:40 AM
filed I140/I485/I765 on Aug 6
recieved on Aug 10
No Receipts
No Checks Cashed
recieved on Aug 10
No Receipts
No Checks Cashed
gjoe
10-03 04:14 PM
^^^bump^^^^
2011 Medium-length hair styles for
ashkam
07-18 11:13 AM
yes, probably not, yes.
more...
paskal
07-09 05:32 PM
if you want a more restrictive visa they will happily let you have it! :-)
Macaca
08-05 08:12 AM
A Bad Deal Gets Worse (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/opinion/05sun2.html) August 5, 2007
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
President Bush is understandably desperate for some kind of foreign policy success. But that cannot justify sacrificing his principled stand against weapons proliferation to seal a nuclear cooperation deal with India. The agreement could end up benefiting New Delhi�s weapons program as much as its pursuit of nuclear power.
The deal was deeply flawed from the start. And it has been made even worse by a newly negotiated companion agreement that lays out the technical details for nuclear commerce. Congress should reject the agreement and demand that the administration, or its successor, negotiate a new one that does not undermine efforts to restrain the spread of nuclear weapons.
Any agreement needs to honor the principle Mr. Bush set forth in 2004: that countries do not need to make their own nuclear fuel, or reprocess their spent fuel, to operate effective nuclear energy programs. The technology can be all too easily diverted to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
Unfortunately, Mr. Bush�s accord with India jettisoned that essential principle. Washington capitulated to India�s nuclear establishment and endorsed continued reprocessing. And while United States law calls for nuclear cooperation to end if India detonates another weapon, the agreement makes no explicit mention of that requirement � while it promises that Washington will acquiesce, if not assist, in India�s efforts to find other fuel suppliers.
Bringing India � which never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty � in from the cold is not a bad idea. It is the world�s most populous democracy, with a dynamic economy. And its record on nonproliferation � aside from its own diversion of civilian technology to its once-secret weapons program � is pretty good. The problem is that the United States got very little back. No promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no promise not to resume nuclear testing.
The message of all this is unmistakable: When it comes to nuclear proliferation, Washington�s only real policy is to reward its friends and punish its enemies. Suspicion of America�s motives around the world are high enough. America cannot afford another such blow to its credibility, especially when it is trying to rally international pressure against nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea.
The administration will argue that altering this agreement now would be a slap at India. But there is no good in compounding a bad deal. And there are better ways to deepen political and economic ties.
Congress accepted the administration�s arguments far too uncritically when it approved the first India-related nuclear legislation last December. It must now take a stand against the even more damaging companion agreement. At a time when far too many governments are re-examining their decision to forswear nuclear weapons, the United States should be shoring up the nuclear rules, not shredding them.
more...
karen77
12-10 12:58 PM
hello! i overstayed my visa by several years, left , and was able to get a new tourist visa and enter the u.s.
after leaving the u.s, on return,i was denied enterance, removed and banned for 5 years. my boyfriend lives in u.s, he's a citizen. is a fiance visa helpful to allow me in until we get married? is there even a chance? or do we need to marry outside of the u.s in this case? thank you!
after leaving the u.s, on return,i was denied enterance, removed and banned for 5 years. my boyfriend lives in u.s, he's a citizen. is a fiance visa helpful to allow me in until we get married? is there even a chance? or do we need to marry outside of the u.s in this case? thank you!
2010 Earlier women with short
mukraw6
10-18 05:47 PM
Thats not an issue looks like. When you go for FP, just ask them to see if your name is correct in the system with you A number. Thats more important thatn the spelling on notice.
more...
italianlady
10-28 10:23 AM
Hi everybody!
nice to meet you and thanks for any advice :)
I'd like to ask you a question since as I said before italian consulate is not that full of infos...i hope this is the correct section !
I filled up my DS156 online for a H4 ViSA Application two months ago, but then me and my husband who works in the U.S. have found out that we need an extra document, that will be issued much later. So we left it pending and never took an appointment at our consulate.
My question is: since the conditions and answers might be different next time, can I just erase my DS156 form and fill up a new one next time I need?
How can I erase it?
i'm going to visit him on christmas time to spend some time together, as tourist with VISA WAIVER... might I have problems enterning the us by custom service because i filled up this application time ago?
can I just say i'm going to visit my husband for that months being honest?
nice to meet you and thanks for any advice :)
I'd like to ask you a question since as I said before italian consulate is not that full of infos...i hope this is the correct section !
I filled up my DS156 online for a H4 ViSA Application two months ago, but then me and my husband who works in the U.S. have found out that we need an extra document, that will be issued much later. So we left it pending and never took an appointment at our consulate.
My question is: since the conditions and answers might be different next time, can I just erase my DS156 form and fill up a new one next time I need?
How can I erase it?
i'm going to visit him on christmas time to spend some time together, as tourist with VISA WAIVER... might I have problems enterning the us by custom service because i filled up this application time ago?
can I just say i'm going to visit my husband for that months being honest?
hair of short female hair cuts
bobbo0722
08-03 09:12 PM
http://www.peaseblog.com/pope_stamp.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/popo_stamp.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/kirupa_love.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/popo_stamp.jpg
http://www.peaseblog.com/kirupa_love.jpg
more...
pointlesswait
02-19 06:20 PM
:confused:
Am currently in my 7th year H1 and have got admission into a parttime MBA program!
1.) I just wanted to clarify if i can accept scholarship in form of tution waivers? (not a income?)
2.) I am aware i cannot accept any scholarships which may require me working as a TA or RA? as this is a income...
but is a non-income school sponsored tution waiver an accepectable option>
Any gurus on this board like to throw some light on this!!!:confused:
Am currently in my 7th year H1 and have got admission into a parttime MBA program!
1.) I just wanted to clarify if i can accept scholarship in form of tution waivers? (not a income?)
2.) I am aware i cannot accept any scholarships which may require me working as a TA or RA? as this is a income...
but is a non-income school sponsored tution waiver an accepectable option>
Any gurus on this board like to throw some light on this!!!:confused:
hot short hair short haircuts
Blog Feeds
06-29 03:30 AM
This is a huge deal and immigration laws in dozens of states could be deemed to violate the Constitution. Arizona's 2007 law allows the state to revoke a company's business license if it is found to have employed illegally present immigrants and mandates all employers in the state use E-Verify. The law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, but a similar law in Oklahoma was largely overturned by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/showdown-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-arizonas-2007-employer-sanctions-law.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/06/showdown-supreme-court-to-hear-case-on-arizonas-2007-employer-sanctions-law.html)
more...
house Eva Longoria short hair style
eagerr2i
07-18 07:14 PM
Let the EAD expire, it makes more sense to use H1B when you enter the country. EAD and Advance Parole should be avoided and be used only as a last resort in extreme cases beacuse of the way immigration rules are carved.
tattoo Short Hairstyles For Women
puja101
07-12 04:45 PM
I received RFE that says" your application contained form I-693 in which the required TB skin test was not conducted. Please note there may be conflicting information on some published form I-693 instructions regarding when the chest X ray Report should be performed. It is required only when the TB skin test indicates a reaction equal to greater than 5 mm, or when the reason for why the TB skin test is medically inappropriate to perform has been annotated on theform I-693. Please submit a newly completed form I-693 indicating the results of the required skin test."
I did TB skin test in 2007 that came negative and it appears to me, civil surgeon did not updated results on I-693 form. After consulting with the doctor they filled up new I-693 from with 2007 test results and gave me in a sealed envelop. I need to know whether 2007 results will be acceptible to USCIS or do I need to do it gain before I submit response. Please advise.
I did TB skin test in 2007 that came negative and it appears to me, civil surgeon did not updated results on I-693 form. After consulting with the doctor they filled up new I-693 from with 2007 test results and gave me in a sealed envelop. I need to know whether 2007 results will be acceptible to USCIS or do I need to do it gain before I submit response. Please advise.
more...
pictures short womens haircuts 2011.
Blog Feeds
08-13 11:40 AM
It's not unusual for immigrant sports figures in the US to have big followings in their home countries. When Omri Casspi don's a Sacramento Kings NBA jersey this coming season, it will be extra special for millions of his fellow Israelis who are looking forward to seeing the first one of their countrymen to play in the NBA. Casspi was a star player in Israel and is a first round draft choice this year.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigrant-of-the-day-omri-casspi-basketball-player.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/08/immigrant-of-the-day-omri-casspi-basketball-player.html)
dresses short asymmetric hairstyle for
samuel5028
03-21 02:06 AM
Maybe few visas might get rejected because they would have tried to stay in USA permanently. Yes, you may apply for L1 visa extension using Form I-129, and L Supplement. Extensions of two years at a time may be allowed until you have been in the U.S. for a total of seven years if you are a manager or executive.
more...
makeup Short Hairstyles for Women
gcmaker
04-01 10:21 AM
I think there was a change in the rules for re-entry permits - you have to submit for biometrics before you leave the U.S. - so the auntie may not be able to apply for re-entry permit if she is outside the U.S.
http://www.laborimmigration.com/2008/03/new-biometric-requirements-for-re-entry-permits/
http://www.laborimmigration.com/2008/03/new-biometric-requirements-for-re-entry-permits/
girlfriend short hair styles for lack
perm2gc
11-13 09:37 AM
hi guys,
during stage 3, they require a birth certificate. what if I dont have a birth certificate? do they accept an affidavit from my parents with a domicile cerrtificate or not? i dont even have a school leaving certificate. please give me advices.
Thank You
Yogesh
Please Search the Forum.We have discussed your issue and was addressed..
during stage 3, they require a birth certificate. what if I dont have a birth certificate? do they accept an affidavit from my parents with a domicile cerrtificate or not? i dont even have a school leaving certificate. please give me advices.
Thank You
Yogesh
Please Search the Forum.We have discussed your issue and was addressed..
hairstyles short bob hairstyle for women
Blog Feeds
06-09 02:10 PM
My friend John Lamb in Nashville blogs today about ICE's Hutto detention center where whole families are jailed while awaiting deportation. I'm reminded of Charles Dickens' tales of debtors prisons in Victorian England where "lawbreakers" who violated British laws relating to debt were jailed right along with their spouses and children. It's hard for me to tell the difference. I don't know that I blame CCA, the contractor that runs the center. Nor do I necessarily blame ICE which is simply carrying out their mission. The country's policymakers carrry responsiblity - senior DHS officials, White House officials, members of Congress,...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/is-it-right-to-detain-children.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2009/06/is-it-right-to-detain-children.html)
aanakkoddan
07-06 06:27 PM
My LD 01/31/2003 I485 date 10/20/03 extending my EAD 4th time. Stuck in backlog center TX. Any one recently got from TX backlog?
immig4me
05-03 08:45 PM
If approved perms go into audits, what happens to approved 140s or 140s currently being processed?
No comments:
Post a Comment