vayumahesh
11-30 01:54 PM
Just noticed there is an update on LUD on my previous EAD (not the current one). Not sure what that means though. Still waiting for response after sending interfiling letter.
wallpaper News and Gossip
bond65
08-20 09:36 PM
My husbands DL expires on Oct 1st, 2007. The North Carolina DMV insists that he should have a valid H1B visa stamp in his PP in order to renew the license. He does have a valid H1B extension with I-94 at the bottom till Oct.2009. We dont want to leave the country as we are filing for our I-485's.
Any one in NC have any suggestions?
We recently went got our driving licenses renewed with our H visa extension I-797s. DMV didn't ask for an unexpired visa. All they wanted was a visa stamp in the passport to make sure that we legally entered US.
Any one in NC have any suggestions?
We recently went got our driving licenses renewed with our H visa extension I-797s. DMV didn't ask for an unexpired visa. All they wanted was a visa stamp in the passport to make sure that we legally entered US.
Humhongekamyab
04-30 02:15 PM
Does anyone else have the same problem. The webcast is erroring out.. saying page not found .
Let's try at 2:30 PM.
Let's try at 2:30 PM.
2011 News and Gossip
reddysn
06-05 11:13 AM
rightly said
Guys/Gals - Those of you who are planning to file your 140 and/or 485 and are worried about the future consequences, please stop worrying about the bill and first of all get your 140 and/or 485 filed.
Now, when you are done with it , please help IV to ensure that the current bill has enough amendments to make our future secure.
If you are one of those who can keep working on your 140/485 , worry about the bill and help IV all together in a balanced way, no need to follow the step by step process :-)
Things happen - they can always happen - they can be good - they can be bad - but Life Goes On.... so you do what you need to do for your current processing and whatever plans you have for future but just be aware that things can always change. Say you dont file your 140 assuming the world's gonna end and then before the world ends, 140 premium processing is stopped - ( not that there are any rumours regarding this ).... so get the point - carry on with your processes assuming the best out of this bill and help IV as much as you can.
Guys/Gals - Those of you who are planning to file your 140 and/or 485 and are worried about the future consequences, please stop worrying about the bill and first of all get your 140 and/or 485 filed.
Now, when you are done with it , please help IV to ensure that the current bill has enough amendments to make our future secure.
If you are one of those who can keep working on your 140/485 , worry about the bill and help IV all together in a balanced way, no need to follow the step by step process :-)
Things happen - they can always happen - they can be good - they can be bad - but Life Goes On.... so you do what you need to do for your current processing and whatever plans you have for future but just be aware that things can always change. Say you dont file your 140 assuming the world's gonna end and then before the world ends, 140 premium processing is stopped - ( not that there are any rumours regarding this ).... so get the point - carry on with your processes assuming the best out of this bill and help IV as much as you can.
more...
ashutrip
06-19 07:48 AM
I agree. Email and call below dol personnnel as well.
Tom Coyne on 312.596.5435.
E-mail : coyne.tom@dol.gov
Any trend of certifications of backlogged applications?
Tom Coyne on 312.596.5435.
E-mail : coyne.tom@dol.gov
Any trend of certifications of backlogged applications?
pcs
07-05 10:11 AM
I met the local office of my Congressman with the following documents to make it easy & simple..
A copy of the Congresswoman Lofgren's letter written to USCIS etc ( download it from IV homepage )
A copy of Today ( July 5th ) Wall Street Journal . This issue has story about this fiasco.
Downloaded news flash from Murthy.com regarding Visa bulletins of 13th June & the screwup bulletin on 2nd July
Above was good enough to convince them regarding the mess & they promised action on their part..
IMPORTANT... I clarified that IT IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE WITH USCIS
NOT AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE WHERE CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE ACTION
This really made them very comfortable as she said, we keep writing to concerned offices about procedural matters.
I told them that they should ask USCIS to " RECEIVE" aour applications to minimize our finanacial loss and other headache of refiling at a later date
Please note, it is real easy to meet the Congressman as they have local offices may be one mile away from your office or home.
Small towns like mine are great for this effort as compared to big towns. I encourage all of you particularly living in small towns to make this small move, which I am sure can resolve our issue & we will save all the $$$ in refiling & avoid further agony
Since your butt is on fire like mine.... I do not think I need to convince you to act on this
Best wishes
A copy of the Congresswoman Lofgren's letter written to USCIS etc ( download it from IV homepage )
A copy of Today ( July 5th ) Wall Street Journal . This issue has story about this fiasco.
Downloaded news flash from Murthy.com regarding Visa bulletins of 13th June & the screwup bulletin on 2nd July
Above was good enough to convince them regarding the mess & they promised action on their part..
IMPORTANT... I clarified that IT IS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE WITH USCIS
NOT AN IMMIGRATION ISSUE WHERE CONGRESS HAS TO TAKE ACTION
This really made them very comfortable as she said, we keep writing to concerned offices about procedural matters.
I told them that they should ask USCIS to " RECEIVE" aour applications to minimize our finanacial loss and other headache of refiling at a later date
Please note, it is real easy to meet the Congressman as they have local offices may be one mile away from your office or home.
Small towns like mine are great for this effort as compared to big towns. I encourage all of you particularly living in small towns to make this small move, which I am sure can resolve our issue & we will save all the $$$ in refiling & avoid further agony
Since your butt is on fire like mine.... I do not think I need to convince you to act on this
Best wishes
more...
eb3_nepa
04-25 11:47 AM
Guys what about the type of visa? I mean shud the start date be ur H1B start date or ur F1 entry date? Coz if some people start on an H1 a lot of us also started on an F1. In that case doesnt it make more sense to root for the clause that says the immigrant can apply for his own GC that is employer independant? If i am not mistaken, is that not already a part of the PACE act?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
Besides a lot of people are not sure for a while, if they even want to apply for their GCs or not initially. I personally know of atleast 3 such people. By putting the responsibility of application of the GC into the immigrant's hands, and empowering the applicant to apply for himself/herself, the process becomes a lot more transparent and fair. That way the day the immigrant decides to apply and applies is their PD. That way if someone does not start it as soon as he/she can, it is now up to them. Since the applicant Can apply for himself instead of being sponsored for a GC by an employer, it is no longer employer based, so no one can fault the employer saying that, "They didnt file for me for a year".
In my opinion, just pushing ur PD to the date u entered will not really help a lot. Coz say ur current PD is Feb 2002 EB3 but u had entered in 1998. DOL/UCSIS will say, ok lets do that, and the next day they will say, Now the Retrogression goes back to the year 1996. Is that not possible? Currently what we need is the immigrant to be in total control of his/her GC process. That way the GC can take even 10 years, so long as the applicant and dependants can avail of EADs and Travel permits which are longer than just 1 year increments. If we are thinking long term, then shudnt we be looking at this aspect? The GC itself represents nothing more than total freedom in ur career and it's choices. If we can achieve the same thing without the actual GC, isint that our goal?
2010 Thursday, August 5, 2010 1:45
srikondoji
08-02 04:08 PM
This was answered in the trail of threads following the first post. However for the benefit of all, i updated the original post.
Please refer back to it.
Any updates for TSC who sent their applications to NSC??
Please refer back to it.
Any updates for TSC who sent their applications to NSC??
more...
gctoget
08-03 03:51 PM
bunp
hair Updated: Jun 09, 2010 5:31 PM
srikondoji
08-12 01:43 PM
Diptam,
Can you re-read the post and quote relevant parts of my very first post to prove that i was assertive?
I very clearly said that this info was from customer rep and was true for NSC only.
I have called USCIS twice for specific information because i need t0 travel to europe on a business trip in the months of sept/oct and was interested in getting AP.
Information in this forum or any other forum is for sharing purposes. People should take that and do their own due dilligence.
I have been on yahoo finance for the past 8 years and read many posters recommendation about a particular stock. Do you make investment decisions based on those posts?
You need to update your skills about forums and the validity of its contents.
No one can be assertive in their posts and not even the information originator or its source.
So, please refrain from personal attacks.
I know you and buddyinus are doing just that.
Thanks for others who stepped in and helping me out.
Best regards
sri
Srikondo man,
I dont care your fight with 'buddyinus' or your friendship with 'frankzulu' and whether you were travelling by air/car/ship - I would like to ask you a SIMPLE question.
You started this thread saying that USCIS has a "deadline" for completing stuffs last Monday or last last Friday.... All of us trusted you that time - Could you please give us a responsible answer or status Update.
I hope you will reply this time.
Thanks,
Can you re-read the post and quote relevant parts of my very first post to prove that i was assertive?
I very clearly said that this info was from customer rep and was true for NSC only.
I have called USCIS twice for specific information because i need t0 travel to europe on a business trip in the months of sept/oct and was interested in getting AP.
Information in this forum or any other forum is for sharing purposes. People should take that and do their own due dilligence.
I have been on yahoo finance for the past 8 years and read many posters recommendation about a particular stock. Do you make investment decisions based on those posts?
You need to update your skills about forums and the validity of its contents.
No one can be assertive in their posts and not even the information originator or its source.
So, please refrain from personal attacks.
I know you and buddyinus are doing just that.
Thanks for others who stepped in and helping me out.
Best regards
sri
Srikondo man,
I dont care your fight with 'buddyinus' or your friendship with 'frankzulu' and whether you were travelling by air/car/ship - I would like to ask you a SIMPLE question.
You started this thread saying that USCIS has a "deadline" for completing stuffs last Monday or last last Friday.... All of us trusted you that time - Could you please give us a responsible answer or status Update.
I hope you will reply this time.
Thanks,
more...
GCBy3000
07-19 04:00 PM
Yes, you can.Check with your attorney
I have a question about a unique situation of getting stuck in BEC and applying 485 with a newer PERM case. If LC is stuck in BEC at this time, but the person has a new PERM+140 from a different location and applies 485. Can this person change the priority date of 485 when the old LC from BEC gets approved, and 140 approved, to the BEC PD?
I have a question about a unique situation of getting stuck in BEC and applying 485 with a newer PERM case. If LC is stuck in BEC at this time, but the person has a new PERM+140 from a different location and applies 485. Can this person change the priority date of 485 when the old LC from BEC gets approved, and 140 approved, to the BEC PD?
hot The Approach: Arnold Palmer
gcisadawg
02-09 10:05 AM
This, effectively, means that if the girl stops earning for any reason such as pregnancy or is unable to earn, she immediately forfeits the right to send money to her parents. This is the most illogical statement I have ever heard.
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
And it also means that for any reason, if a girl remains a house wife, she has no right to send any money to the parents like you, as the earning member, do.
This is the very strange attitude that may get a marriage in trouble.
Did I even say husband shouldn't send money to his parents from his earnings?
But shouldn't that be also need-based? How come it is the right of the husband to send any amount of money he wants to his parents without the wife complaining and how come it becomes a case of "taking for granted" when a non-earning wife wants to send money to her folks in need? This is a hypothetical situation and nothing to do with OP's case.
And then how is it we, husbands, are the first ones to start complaining when our wives don't get a share of our in-laws property following their demise?
And tell me then, following a divorce why are there laws which require you to split your net worth evenly with your non-working ex-wife? Is that acceptable to you then or you want to put forth an argument that "hey, we don't have a child and she is no longer my wife and so I am not obligated to give her a dime"
My stand is based on the premise that a man is financially responsible for his wife and his kids and not to wife's parents! The point I was making is about a completely non working spouse. It is not about a wife that leaves workforce for medical reason temporarily.
Let us not confuse the responsibility towards a man's wife and kids with that of in-laws!
Using the same token, a man shouldn't expect/demand any property/cash from in-laws!
I'm perfectly OK with humanitarian and need based help. What crosses the line, according to me, is that 'taking for granted' attitude!
If the brother in OP's story is taking care of his parents, then this situation wouldn't have occurred. Look at it other way. If the man's parents are in need of money, it is better to ask the man instead of their son-in-law!
A man taking a stand and be done with it has a better chance of saving a marriage than a man caving to the demand and building resentment. Hey, if a man is willing to please his in-laws in all possible ways, then who are we to stop him! Let him enjoy!!
more...
house Channel TV show #39;19
GCBy3000
07-20 01:46 PM
What the heck you think about USCIS?
When they can process 18K 485 in a day and 60K in a month, then these EADs and APs are miniscule for their efficiency. Ohh god, forgot to mention that too they worked on weekend. So they are ready for weekend work if required. So look at the below calc.
Yes, realistically, the estimated apps are 750K considering 500K primary and 250 dependents. This is can go up if the dependends increase. So assume a million in worst case scenario.
18K 485 a day = 50K EAD / AP a day.
Hence
50K EAD/AP in one day = 50K * 30 = 1500K in a month. So it would only 20 days to get your EAD / AP even if million people apply. Hmm let them not work on weekends now.
0r
60K 485 in one month = 180K EAD / AP in one month
Hence
180K EAD / month = 5 months
Above is worst case scenario with 1million apps. So dont worry, you should be getting your EAD faster now than before.
When they can process 18K 485 in a day and 60K in a month, then these EADs and APs are miniscule for their efficiency. Ohh god, forgot to mention that too they worked on weekend. So they are ready for weekend work if required. So look at the below calc.
Yes, realistically, the estimated apps are 750K considering 500K primary and 250 dependents. This is can go up if the dependends increase. So assume a million in worst case scenario.
18K 485 a day = 50K EAD / AP a day.
Hence
50K EAD/AP in one day = 50K * 30 = 1500K in a month. So it would only 20 days to get your EAD / AP even if million people apply. Hmm let them not work on weekends now.
0r
60K 485 in one month = 180K EAD / AP in one month
Hence
180K EAD / month = 5 months
Above is worst case scenario with 1million apps. So dont worry, you should be getting your EAD faster now than before.
tattoo News and Gossip
GCBy3000
06-03 02:38 PM
Yes every member has their own issues. We cannot solve individual issue one by one. That is why you have to contribute to IV and join hands with IV to solve our issue.
Also, if this May 15th date is true, then why the hell in world the backlog center is still open and working on dead cases. The cases will be dead only if the law is passed. May be they are also confused as we are.
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
Also, if this May 15th date is true, then why the hell in world the backlog center is still open and working on dead cases. The cases will be dead only if the law is passed. May be they are also confused as we are.
I received good news on June 1, 2007 that my I-140 is approved. It was received by USCIS on May 22, 2007. Then later that day I saw the new immigration bill. If this very unreasonable bill (EB backlog) will be passed the wasting of all the money, time, stress, anxiety and hope towards the GC procedure will make the whole thing look like a bitter joke. This is beyong my wildest imagination on how bad things can go since we are all hard-working and law-abiding legal immigrants. Is it a punishment for being a good member of society?
I'm praying that it will not be given any consideration by those who have powers.
more...
pictures Photo by Christopher Arnold
amitjoey
05-05 11:46 AM
Thanks EternityInLimbo for going out of your way to help the rest of us that are stuck. Not many people come back and help out with IV action items once they get their greencards.
dresses on CBS-KPIX channel 5.
nursekm
08-08 09:40 PM
I'm on Schedule A. My attorney filed my I-140/485/EAD on July 30 and it reached USCIS on the 31st. I am now waiting for the Receipt Notice which my lawyer says may take three to four weeks.
I keep on praying that my I-140 will not be returned due to some mistakes in filing. My lawyer filed I-140 using the new fee. Is this correct?
I filed my papers around the same time. Do you want to keep in touch and see how things go?
I keep on praying that my I-140 will not be returned due to some mistakes in filing. My lawyer filed I-140 using the new fee. Is this correct?
I filed my papers around the same time. Do you want to keep in touch and see how things go?
more...
makeup at the Fox News Channel.
santb1975
06-21 03:58 PM
you rekindled our hopes on this funding drive
another 100$ from IL
PayPal Receipt ID: 70125366SU56XXXXX
GO IV!!!!
another 100$ from IL
PayPal Receipt ID: 70125366SU56XXXXX
GO IV!!!!
girlfriend Scott Winters, 44, of Old
SkilledWorker4GC
07-15 10:20 AM
I could keep track of that.
I am Glad to see some momentum pick up again. How much have we raised so far?
I am Glad to see some momentum pick up again. How much have we raised so far?
hairstyles 1 / 5
indianindian2006
06-10 11:23 AM
snhn
what is a DWI?thanks.
Driving While Intoxicated
what is a DWI?thanks.
Driving While Intoxicated
sagis99
08-08 11:06 AM
Lets all try to send this letter. I'm working with my HR to get this 7001 out - As Pappu said there should not be any reason why HR wont sign that form.
What's going on at NSC or TSC is Shame.... Peoples who applied in AUG-SEP 07 has got 140 approved at NSC where as folks back in APR-JUNE 07 is stuck and more over NSC claims that they are processing MAR 22 07 for last 5 months.
This deserves attention - I'm trying to ratchet up some pressure via Congressman and Senator's office but they are very busy these days with Presidential election , so i'm not getting the kind of help that they generally do.
It's always nice to get some kind response like this. thanks.
What's going on at NSC or TSC is Shame.... Peoples who applied in AUG-SEP 07 has got 140 approved at NSC where as folks back in APR-JUNE 07 is stuck and more over NSC claims that they are processing MAR 22 07 for last 5 months.
This deserves attention - I'm trying to ratchet up some pressure via Congressman and Senator's office but they are very busy these days with Presidential election , so i'm not getting the kind of help that they generally do.
It's always nice to get some kind response like this. thanks.
swo
07-21 04:05 AM
Kindly note yourself John, that using fonts like this are obnoxious. Also note that in America we write it like this: 240,000. Not 2,40,000. I'm not sure why I keep seeing this here. Is this some kind of Indian thing?
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill, which itself is a failed bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 2,40,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
Kindly note,
This particular Cornyn amendment (S.Amdt. 2339) offered to attach to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), but the motion was failed due to lack of 5 votes.(55 YEAS and 40 NAYs. Require 3/5 majority) HR.2669 is passed by both Senate and house and sent for conference to resolve the difference between house and senate versions and president is sure to sign the bill and thus would become the law in another few days. This amendment does not have anything to do with defence bill, which itself is a failed bill or with SKILL bill. Following is the actions taken by congress of HR 2669.
IF THE AMENDMENT HAD PASSED WE WOULD HAVE GOT ATLEAST 2,40,000 RECAPTURED, UNUSED VISAS OF PREVIOUS YEARS IN ANOTHER FEW DAYS.
H.R.2669
Title: To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 601 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2008.
Sponsor: Rep Miller, George [CA-7] (introduced 6/12/2007) Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills: H.RES.531
Latest Major Action: 7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions. Status: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
House Reports: 110-210
MAJOR ACTIONS:
6/12/2007 Introduced in House
6/25/2007 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Education and Labor. H. Rept. 110-210.
7/11/2007 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 273 - 149 (Roll no. 613).
7/20/2007 Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 78 - 18. Record Vote Number: 272.
7/20/2007 Resolving differences -- Senate actions: Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Kennedy; Dodd; Harkin; Mikulski; Bingaman; Murray; Reed; Clinton; Obama; Sanders; Brown; Enzi; Gregg; Alexander; Burr; Isakson; Murkowski; Hatch; Roberts; Allard; Coburn.
No comments:
Post a Comment