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.
wallpaper Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
godbless
03-17 12:14 PM
Yes it is pretty much recognised for h1b purpose or for any other purpose whatsoever. I got my first h1b approval on the basis of my MBA from IGNOU.
The_Smiths
01-15 11:17 AM
Hello,
I obtained an EAD using my OPT just to be able to work in the U.S. while my fiancee completes her degree (I graduated in December 06 and she will do so in May 07). Since we will get married after she graduates, and will file for adjustment of status, we thought there would be no problem in my ability to work without any interruption.
However, it seems that filing for adjustment of status invalidates your OPT, therefore you wouldn't be able to continue working until you get your new EAD.
Does that mean I would have to stop working for 90 days or so after I get married? (Remember I'm on an F-1 as I think you can keep working if on an H-1B)
If so, is there any way to minimize this problem?
Thanks.
I obtained an EAD using my OPT just to be able to work in the U.S. while my fiancee completes her degree (I graduated in December 06 and she will do so in May 07). Since we will get married after she graduates, and will file for adjustment of status, we thought there would be no problem in my ability to work without any interruption.
However, it seems that filing for adjustment of status invalidates your OPT, therefore you wouldn't be able to continue working until you get your new EAD.
Does that mean I would have to stop working for 90 days or so after I get married? (Remember I'm on an F-1 as I think you can keep working if on an H-1B)
If so, is there any way to minimize this problem?
Thanks.
2011 angelina jolie red carpet
Blog Feeds
01-03 07:10 AM
Arizona's reputation for right wing lunacy certainly will be enhanced by this effort. Or maybe there's some pretty rational thinking behind SB1070 and eliminating rights for American born citizens of Hispanic descent. 30% of Arizonans are Hispanic. 42% of all students from kindergarten through twelth grade are Hispanic and the percentage goes even higher for the younger grades. Even if the efforts don't stand up to constitutional muster, maybe the real goal is not to get rid of illegal present immigrants, but, rather, all Hispanics, whether they are legal immigrants, born in the US or illegally present. Hispanics vote overwhelmingly...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/arizona-antis-pushing-birthright-citizenship-measure-.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/12/arizona-antis-pushing-birthright-citizenship-measure-.html)
more...
venkspr
04-03 07:44 AM
You can use Search and compare salary data based on job title, location, company and year using real data. Search is powered using real data from actual job disclosure from fortune 500 companies and more.. - SalaryQuest.com (http://salaryquest.com) to look up the data. It's based on perm an h1b disclosure data. Good luck.
Silvermanto
05-26 06:23 AM
Hi I'm a US citizen and have around 15k or less credit card debt. All government loans were paid off. Something happened three and a half years ago in my home town and I had to leave Washington state and took care of it. So my question is: it's has been 3 and a half year and I'm heading back to washington state for short visit.
1. I'm sure the debt did gall into collection agency. Will it go to court?
2. Since I had been gone since 2007 and will there be a warrant on me since I didn't appear to court (if there was one)
3. I will be entering Vancouver bc airport then to Seattle by driving. I'm afraid I will get caught for warrant at the border.
Hopefully someone can answer my questions and thanks for the help in advance.
1. I'm sure the debt did gall into collection agency. Will it go to court?
2. Since I had been gone since 2007 and will there be a warrant on me since I didn't appear to court (if there was one)
3. I will be entering Vancouver bc airport then to Seattle by driving. I'm afraid I will get caught for warrant at the border.
Hopefully someone can answer my questions and thanks for the help in advance.
more...
sw33t
07-27 03:36 PM
SENATOR CORNYN IS THE CHAIR OF THE INDIA CAUCUS IN THE U.S. SENATE
WHO: U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas
WHEN: Thursday,August 9,
Lunch: 11:30 a.m.
Speech: 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Lakeway Inn, New Glass Ballroom
SPONSOR: Rotary Club/Lakeway
Lake Travis
COST: $250 per table of 10,
or $25 per individual
RESERVATIONS: MANDATORY!
10 Tables are being reserved
for Rotary & Guests
20 Table reservations will
be taken and must be paid for
by July 27, 2007!
Please PM me if you are interested.
WHO: U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas
WHEN: Thursday,August 9,
Lunch: 11:30 a.m.
Speech: 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Lakeway Inn, New Glass Ballroom
SPONSOR: Rotary Club/Lakeway
Lake Travis
COST: $250 per table of 10,
or $25 per individual
RESERVATIONS: MANDATORY!
10 Tables are being reserved
for Rotary & Guests
20 Table reservations will
be taken and must be paid for
by July 27, 2007!
Please PM me if you are interested.
2010 Angelina Jolie hits red carpet
yagw
11-11 12:05 PM
My I-485 and I-140 was filed last week. I was wondering how many days it takes to get receit and .
when does the six month count down for AC21 begin???? Is it after receit date or fedex date..thnx
Please let me know
You need to wait till your I-140 is approved. Otherwise, you will face problem in AC21 stage.
That said, the 180 days count from "receipt" date in your I-797 (receipt for I-485). And its better to have few days more, if not few weeks/months (just to be safe).
when does the six month count down for AC21 begin???? Is it after receit date or fedex date..thnx
Please let me know
You need to wait till your I-140 is approved. Otherwise, you will face problem in AC21 stage.
That said, the 180 days count from "receipt" date in your I-797 (receipt for I-485). And its better to have few days more, if not few weeks/months (just to be safe).
more...
bharat.chandramouli
12-09 12:35 PM
Folks:
I did not see a specific tracker for Advanced Parole applications at the NSC. So, here's my information:
Receipt Date: August 15, 2007
Notice Date: September 30, 2007
Status: Not received yet:mad:
Has any one filed in the same timeframe and received the AP document?
Thanks in advance.
BC
I did not see a specific tracker for Advanced Parole applications at the NSC. So, here's my information:
Receipt Date: August 15, 2007
Notice Date: September 30, 2007
Status: Not received yet:mad:
Has any one filed in the same timeframe and received the AP document?
Thanks in advance.
BC
hair red carpet, angelina jolie
prioritydate
03-09 07:24 PM
Send me a PM
more...
prajarajyam
11-19 06:06 PM
Hi All,
My AP got approved with incorrect A#.
Where as receipt notice has correct A#.
Please let me know, what I need to do to get correct A# on my AP?
Thanks for your help.
Praja
My AP got approved with incorrect A#.
Where as receipt notice has correct A#.
Please let me know, what I need to do to get correct A# on my AP?
Thanks for your help.
Praja
hot red carpet at
waitin_toolong
04-21 10:17 AM
Yes, you can. present the new I-797 to get I-94 till the new H1 date
more...
house Angelina Jolie Honored At The
webm
05-12 10:09 AM
Thanks to IV for making the multi year EAD/AP happen. Since USCIS might or might not announce this, I want to track when people start getting these multi year EAD/APs. Anyone in the IV community got one of these yet?
Not yet....you know they are very lazy to implement it esp. good one's that people are benefited..
Not yet....you know they are very lazy to implement it esp. good one's that people are benefited..
tattoo Angelina Jolie Cannes style
Blog Feeds
09-09 07:20 AM
Nextgov.com reports: The Homeland Security Department plans to establish a database of immigration data that will identify fraud in applications for benefits, and provide information to intelligence and law enforcement agencies. DHS will create a mirror copy of multiple databases the Citizenship and Immigration Services uses to award federal benefits to immigrants and nonimmigrants and develop a single user interface employees use to access the stored information, according to a notice the department published in theFederal Register on Wednesday. The Citizenship and Immigration Data Repository System of Records, which will include real-time updates and a search engine, will allow officials...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/dhs-to-develop-single-searchable-immigration-database.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/09/dhs-to-develop-single-searchable-immigration-database.html)
more...
pictures Pitt and Jolie on the red
raja2122
09-25 11:48 PM
NO My husband has applied for I-485 and EAD card for both of us, He is on 9th year, i just got my H1 on Oct 2005.
dresses Look at the Stars - Angelina
invincibleasian
02-19 05:19 PM
You can travel using AP only. No need to worry about visa stamp! But take your lawyers advice on this too!
more...
makeup The red carpet was graced by
kumar1
10-29 01:45 PM
Racist Lou Dobbs should get a free copy of it. We should all get together sometime and burn copies of his book Exporting America.
can somebody please post this on the forum. thanks
can somebody please post this on the forum. thanks
girlfriend Red Carpet Fashion and Makeup:
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
hairstyles said an insider. On the
rpulipati
11-02 09:18 PM
It has to be receipt date FIFO, but can never say how USCIS will processes.
With my experience from Backlog Elimination Center's, USCIS works using a pure random function that gets seeded randomly from congress.
Please let me know if 140 processing times is based on receipt date or notice date?
I'm a concurrent 140-485 filer, filed on July 2 2007. My notice date on I-140 says August 16, 2007, where as my friend who filed only140 on july 2 has Notice date of july 12. Does that mean his will be processed first?
With my experience from Backlog Elimination Center's, USCIS works using a pure random function that gets seeded randomly from congress.
Please let me know if 140 processing times is based on receipt date or notice date?
I'm a concurrent 140-485 filer, filed on July 2 2007. My notice date on I-140 says August 16, 2007, where as my friend who filed only140 on july 2 has Notice date of july 12. Does that mean his will be processed first?
gclife
07-06 01:05 PM
what is the best way to do a change of address with uscis for pending applications ? I tried online changing ar-11 and for each individual case nothing seems to be getting in effect, my FP notice still gets forwarded to the old address. I also even called the uscis customer service and changed it , still no luck. any one had similar experiences ? please advise on what to do .
makasika
12-10 02:39 PM
HI ,
Someone told me that I-140 have to be applied 45 days from PERM approval ? Otherwise PERM will get cancelled. Is that true. Can anyone help here.
MakaSika
Someone told me that I-140 have to be applied 45 days from PERM approval ? Otherwise PERM will get cancelled. Is that true. Can anyone help here.
MakaSika
No comments:
Post a Comment