sledge_hammer
08-18 11:51 AM
June 20 is the RD (paper filing). Service center is Texas. EAD expires on Sep 24th.
Case status is still "Pending"!
I applied on June/25/2008 (Efilling) for me and spouse. My receipt date was on June/26/2008 for both EAD and AP. Still waiting for approval.
Mine NSC. Don't know when it will be approved,
Does anyone know, NSC working on EAD , AP and 485?
Please share your info.
Case status is still "Pending"!
I applied on June/25/2008 (Efilling) for me and spouse. My receipt date was on June/26/2008 for both EAD and AP. Still waiting for approval.
Mine NSC. Don't know when it will be approved,
Does anyone know, NSC working on EAD , AP and 485?
Please share your info.
wallpaper Terminator Salvation Poster
Macaca
10-05 09:35 PM
To their credit, the editor has added a comment for further reading on the legal limbo faced by foreign-born scientists from a page one story written last year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115135331760891063.html
Dr Ona (= DrOna = drona) :D
WSJ could find 1 article in 1+ year but have 4+ articles on undocumented workers per week, with a CIR dead for ever. I tried to post this but they closed the blog.
Only a forever ignorant can continue to post that media (and everyone else) is ignorant about the distinction between legal and illegal. They closed this blog because the blog was getting filled with EB GC issues which are not of interest. Here is a 4+ day open WSJ blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/01/that-was-fast/) on H2B.
BTW, blog post has more effect then email because others can read a post and hence puts more pressure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115135331760891063.html
Dr Ona (= DrOna = drona) :D
WSJ could find 1 article in 1+ year but have 4+ articles on undocumented workers per week, with a CIR dead for ever. I tried to post this but they closed the blog.
Only a forever ignorant can continue to post that media (and everyone else) is ignorant about the distinction between legal and illegal. They closed this blog because the blog was getting filled with EB GC issues which are not of interest. Here is a 4+ day open WSJ blog (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/10/01/that-was-fast/) on H2B.
BTW, blog post has more effect then email because others can read a post and hence puts more pressure.
dpsg
03-27 07:17 PM
PCS would be best person in my view, As midWest manufacturing
woes are used to bash off-shoring. His work will be great example
How immigrants with technology/business skills can help remove the
joblessness crises in midwest and also move that region into high tech
era.
Great work PCS.
woes are used to bash off-shoring. His work will be great example
How immigrants with technology/business skills can help remove the
joblessness crises in midwest and also move that region into high tech
era.
Great work PCS.
2011 The Terminator - Arnold
wa_Saiprasad
12-11 10:47 PM
I vote for Blood Drive. I have donated blood two times in the US no issues.
more...
vin13
07-31 08:44 AM
This would be the last visa bulletin for this year. The dates should move just like they did last year to consume all numbers.
Hopefully when the dates move, it moves with all pre-adjudicated applicants within the cut off date get their GC and not a lottery. That should hopefully bring some order to the system. Let us see.
Hopefully when the dates move, it moves with all pre-adjudicated applicants within the cut off date get their GC and not a lottery. That should hopefully bring some order to the system. Let us see.
prem_goel
08-02 04:04 PM
well there will always be certain exceptions everywhere....Michael Aytes did mention it publicly when he testified before congress in his document below
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/I...as_30Apr08.pdf
he does mention that all these applications will be pre-adjudicated just short of visa number. So officially in my opinion they will not go back to these applications unless there is an exceptional condition which makes them do it. I can safely say that broadly it's not gonna happen.
http://www.uscis.gov/files/article/I...as_30Apr08.pdf
he does mention that all these applications will be pre-adjudicated just short of visa number. So officially in my opinion they will not go back to these applications unless there is an exceptional condition which makes them do it. I can safely say that broadly it's not gonna happen.
more...
GCNirvana007
08-23 02:04 PM
Less than 20 people in 2004 - Even if we multiply by 10 , its 200
2010 arnold schwarzenegger
chanduy9
07-06 12:40 PM
Is there any Specific date, I mean when AILF is filing the case...USCIS is announced they are gonna reject the applications..but did they rejected any single application?? We will come to know after 4 or 5 weeks abt our applications (As per USCIS rep)....I think there must be some time limit to file a case...and we dont have a base to file a case until they reject it.
Finally they dont reject application nor they will accept it...
Guys send flowers with all your comments on JULY 10TH...we may get media and political atten...
this is just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
Chandra.
Finally they dont reject application nor they will accept it...
Guys send flowers with all your comments on JULY 10TH...we may get media and political atten...
this is just my 2 cents.
Thanks,
Chandra.
more...
gsc999
05-29 02:25 PM
Nola,
Thanks for clarifying. IV appreciates support from LGBT community. You have done amazing amount of work for IV in the recent past. Some of the Bay area folks still remember your leadership at 5K run at San Francisco Golden Gate. You created a decent amount of buzz by bringing along your friends all the way to California.
IV members: Having said that, I would just like to remind some IV members to be mindful of the fact that we enjoy support from diverse groups of people and it makes sense to extend reciprocal courtesy when responding to some of the posts here e.g. the UAFA bill etc.
Cheers!
g
Weldonsprings, you might be mistaken about the UAFA bill which is up for a vote on June 3, 2009. The intent of the UAFA is to allow US Citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for permanent residency by means of demonstrating a "permanent partnership". Let me re-emphasize, this bill is geared primarily for the LGBT Community of which I am a proud member, so if you are supporting this bill, my thanks to you.
[QUOTE=WeldonSprings;343823]That is correct! The bills in the house and senate coming up for discussion does not mention visa re-capture. However, Please look at the titles-don't they sound the same. The contents are different. The content of S.424 is to give permanent residents the same STATUS as US citizens so that they can sponsor their wives, parents, brothers, sisters and doggies...So an amendment is necessary. That's why I have written in the original post-
Thanks for clarifying. IV appreciates support from LGBT community. You have done amazing amount of work for IV in the recent past. Some of the Bay area folks still remember your leadership at 5K run at San Francisco Golden Gate. You created a decent amount of buzz by bringing along your friends all the way to California.
IV members: Having said that, I would just like to remind some IV members to be mindful of the fact that we enjoy support from diverse groups of people and it makes sense to extend reciprocal courtesy when responding to some of the posts here e.g. the UAFA bill etc.
Cheers!
g
Weldonsprings, you might be mistaken about the UAFA bill which is up for a vote on June 3, 2009. The intent of the UAFA is to allow US Citizens and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for permanent residency by means of demonstrating a "permanent partnership". Let me re-emphasize, this bill is geared primarily for the LGBT Community of which I am a proud member, so if you are supporting this bill, my thanks to you.
[QUOTE=WeldonSprings;343823]That is correct! The bills in the house and senate coming up for discussion does not mention visa re-capture. However, Please look at the titles-don't they sound the same. The contents are different. The content of S.424 is to give permanent residents the same STATUS as US citizens so that they can sponsor their wives, parents, brothers, sisters and doggies...So an amendment is necessary. That's why I have written in the original post-
hair Arnold Schwarzenegger, is
abhisam
09-12 01:15 AM
exactly my thought... you almost stole words from my mind :-)
if i have to return to my country because of the immigration bs, it's this country's loss and the lender's loss - not mine. I did everything that I could... like an ideal citizen would do... and after all that if they want to kick me out, well then goodbye.
Also one thought (on an unrelated note, sorry!) - I see a lot of people on the forum posting about how they finally got their GC's after 10, 12, 15 years. I am really happy for them. Having said that, its not a matter a pride that people have to wait for so long to get GC. In fact it's a matter of shame! And by the way before anyone pounces on me, I take care of all action items that IV recommends :-) I am just saying that I feel bad when people have to wait for 10-15 years for their GC. My opinion is (coming back to our discussion) - I base none of my decisions on my GC process. I bought a house, decided to take a student loan to go back to school, changed my job and hopefully if all goes well, may even take a promotion pretty soon. GC my kiss my you know what. The process will go on on the side, but it won't affect my life in anyway.
Bottom line - whateva whateva, I do what I want! (for any South Park fans here)... haha..
Sorry about blabbering! Chao!
I have just kept GC out of the equation for anything I do in my life. Buying a house was a personal choice and I could afford one - so just went ahead and did it. If I have to leave the country for good due to some immigration related bs, my lender can suck it up :D
if i have to return to my country because of the immigration bs, it's this country's loss and the lender's loss - not mine. I did everything that I could... like an ideal citizen would do... and after all that if they want to kick me out, well then goodbye.
Also one thought (on an unrelated note, sorry!) - I see a lot of people on the forum posting about how they finally got their GC's after 10, 12, 15 years. I am really happy for them. Having said that, its not a matter a pride that people have to wait for so long to get GC. In fact it's a matter of shame! And by the way before anyone pounces on me, I take care of all action items that IV recommends :-) I am just saying that I feel bad when people have to wait for 10-15 years for their GC. My opinion is (coming back to our discussion) - I base none of my decisions on my GC process. I bought a house, decided to take a student loan to go back to school, changed my job and hopefully if all goes well, may even take a promotion pretty soon. GC my kiss my you know what. The process will go on on the side, but it won't affect my life in anyway.
Bottom line - whateva whateva, I do what I want! (for any South Park fans here)... haha..
Sorry about blabbering! Chao!
I have just kept GC out of the equation for anything I do in my life. Buying a house was a personal choice and I could afford one - so just went ahead and did it. If I have to leave the country for good due to some immigration related bs, my lender can suck it up :D
more...
abhisam
09-12 01:15 AM
exactly my thought... you almost stole words from my mind :-)
if i have to return to my country because of the immigration bs, it's this country's loss and the lender's loss - not mine. I did everything that I could... like an ideal citizen would do... and after all that if they want to kick me out, well then goodbye.
Also one thought (on an unrelated note, sorry!) - I see a lot of people on the forum posting about how they finally got their GC's after 10, 12, 15 years. I am really happy for them. Having said that, its not a matter a pride that people have to wait for so long to get GC. In fact it's a matter of shame! And by the way before anyone pounces on me, I take care of all action items that IV recommends :-) I am just saying that I feel bad when people have to wait for 10-15 years for their GC. My opinion is (coming back to our discussion) - I base none of my decisions on my GC process. I bought a house, decided to take a student loan to go back to school, changed my job and hopefully if all goes well, may even take a promotion pretty soon. GC my kiss my you know what. The process will go on on the side, but it won't affect my life in anyway.
Bottom line - whateva whateva, I do what I want! (for any South Park fans here)... haha..
Sorry about blabbering! Chao!
I have just kept GC out of the equation for anything I do in my life. Buying a house was a personal choice and I could afford one - so just went ahead and did it. If I have to leave the country for good due to some immigration related bs, my lender can suck it up :D
if i have to return to my country because of the immigration bs, it's this country's loss and the lender's loss - not mine. I did everything that I could... like an ideal citizen would do... and after all that if they want to kick me out, well then goodbye.
Also one thought (on an unrelated note, sorry!) - I see a lot of people on the forum posting about how they finally got their GC's after 10, 12, 15 years. I am really happy for them. Having said that, its not a matter a pride that people have to wait for so long to get GC. In fact it's a matter of shame! And by the way before anyone pounces on me, I take care of all action items that IV recommends :-) I am just saying that I feel bad when people have to wait for 10-15 years for their GC. My opinion is (coming back to our discussion) - I base none of my decisions on my GC process. I bought a house, decided to take a student loan to go back to school, changed my job and hopefully if all goes well, may even take a promotion pretty soon. GC my kiss my you know what. The process will go on on the side, but it won't affect my life in anyway.
Bottom line - whateva whateva, I do what I want! (for any South Park fans here)... haha..
Sorry about blabbering! Chao!
I have just kept GC out of the equation for anything I do in my life. Buying a house was a personal choice and I could afford one - so just went ahead and did it. If I have to leave the country for good due to some immigration related bs, my lender can suck it up :D
hot Without Arnold Schwarzenegger
pani_6
06-18 01:47 PM
If you have plans to travel...could you go to the local INS office and get the AP??.AP is very important too if you are travelling
more...
house arnold schwarzenegger
bugsbunny
04-21 02:13 PM
Hmm, What part of the words "Good, Reliable and Comprehensive" you did not understand.
lol no need to get aggressive...next time search for better insurance ;)
lol no need to get aggressive...next time search for better insurance ;)
tattoo of quot;Arnold Schwarzenegger
Gravitation
08-11 08:23 AM
Can't believe you still bother to check. What losers!! LoL!
more...
pictures arnold schwarzenegger terminator 4. arnold schwarzenegger
americandesi
08-16 01:41 PM
I personally think that 6 month rule-of-thumb is nonsense.
AC21 clearly states you can switch employers 6 months after your green card application has been pending. On what legal basis could USCIS then come back and deny citizenship to anyone for switching employers too soon after getting their green card?
I'd really be interested to hear if someone has specific knowledge of a case where someone had their citizenship denied due to switching companies too soon after getting their green card.
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for the following
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As "a_yaja" said, "AC21 applies only if your GC has not been approved. You cannont invoke AC21 after your GC has been approved."
AC21 clearly states you can switch employers 6 months after your green card application has been pending. On what legal basis could USCIS then come back and deny citizenship to anyone for switching employers too soon after getting their green card?
I'd really be interested to hear if someone has specific knowledge of a case where someone had their citizenship denied due to switching companies too soon after getting their green card.
Refer http://www.murthy.com/pr_thngs.html and search for the following
"It is also important to understand that the green card approval will be reviewed at the time of the naturalization interview. For employment-based cases, this means inquiries into how long the individual worked for the employer after obtaining the green card. If the period is extremely short, there may be questions about the bona fide nature of the green card process."
As "a_yaja" said, "AC21 applies only if your GC has not been approved. You cannont invoke AC21 after your GC has been approved."
dresses arnold schwarzenegger
mrsahaayam
03-17 08:07 PM
If you want to reply properly do so else don't pal
more...
makeup TERMINATOR 4: Orange You Glad
abhijitp
03-11 03:57 PM
Sure, your point is very much valid. What I understand from the Freakenomics experiment and EB3I behavior with respect to IV is that only a few folks have the perseverance to go all the way from D to B.
Take 100 folks with C grade and give them the $50 offer for B. May be 80% will reach that goal. (I do not recall the actual results of the experiment).
Take 100 folks with D grade and give them the $50 offer for B. Ideally we should see 80% of folks improving their grade to a C (one level up). But in real life only may be half as much (40%) will actually improve their grades to a C.
An important difference here is, no matter how many participate in this campaign in DC, we all move up a grade at some point.
We will all move a few years sooner if we try, and years later if nobody tries anything. (But we will still move!)
Folks just need to decide: what's more preferable? Slower of faster?
Take 100 folks with C grade and give them the $50 offer for B. May be 80% will reach that goal. (I do not recall the actual results of the experiment).
Take 100 folks with D grade and give them the $50 offer for B. Ideally we should see 80% of folks improving their grade to a C (one level up). But in real life only may be half as much (40%) will actually improve their grades to a C.
An important difference here is, no matter how many participate in this campaign in DC, we all move up a grade at some point.
We will all move a few years sooner if we try, and years later if nobody tries anything. (But we will still move!)
Folks just need to decide: what's more preferable? Slower of faster?
girlfriend of quot;Terminator Salvation:
WaldenPond
02-24 03:58 PM
arihant & wellwishergc
Thank You for continued support. You make Immigration Voice an organization.
diesel, abhikal & wrldnw4me,
Welcome and Thank you for the support and contribution. Please encourage your friends to join this effort.
Please feel free to call us at anytime at (281) 576-7185.
Regards,
-WP
Thank You for continued support. You make Immigration Voice an organization.
diesel, abhikal & wrldnw4me,
Welcome and Thank you for the support and contribution. Please encourage your friends to join this effort.
Please feel free to call us at anytime at (281) 576-7185.
Regards,
-WP
hairstyles arnold schwarzenegger
sina
07-21 01:15 PM
I agree with somegchuh. This is for discussing the issues that somegchuh listed. People interested in talking about - which is better, immigrating to canda or going back to india can discuss this in a separete thread.
eb3retro
10-18 01:10 PM
Not sure about the SR, but I called the 800 number in the case status page on AP renewal and just chose the expedite option and did the expedite. Not sure if this process is called as SR creation. Hope this helps.
Can anyone tell me how to open an SR so that I can expedite my application on the basis of financial loss. I have applied for AP in august 2010 and I have travel plans in 1st week of December. Thanks in advance.
Can anyone tell me how to open an SR so that I can expedite my application on the basis of financial loss. I have applied for AP in august 2010 and I have travel plans in 1st week of December. Thanks in advance.
john2255
07-21 08:27 AM
What you should do immediately.
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
If anyone lives in these Senators' jurisdictions, please call their offices and thank them for sponsoring the amendment, and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
SPONSOR: Senate Amendment 2339 Sen Cornyn, John [TX],
COSPONSORS(6):
Sen Enzi, Michael B. [WY]
Sen Gregg, Judd [NH]
Sen Smith, Gordon H. [OR]
Sen Sununu, John E. [NH]
Sen Coleman, Norm [MN]
Sen Voinovich, George V. [OH]
If anyone lives in Senators' jurisdictions who voted yes, please call their offices and thank them for understanding our problems and encourage them to keep pushing for this amendment.
If you live in the jurisdiction of those who voted against the amendment, please call them and encourage them of the urgent need for similar amendments. Telephone is the best way to make your voice heard. Here is the link to the Senators' phone numbers and contact info.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
See comments for the roll call of votes (the YEAS were the people who helped us, the NAYS were the people who hurt us).
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00266
Grouped by Home State
Alabama: (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Nay Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Nay
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Nay Carper (D-DE), Nay
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Nay Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Nay Obama (D-IL), Not Voting
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Nay Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Nay Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Yea Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Yea Lott (R-MS), Not Voting
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Yea McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Yea Reid (D-NV), Nay
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Yea
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Yea Dole (R-NC), Yea
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Nay Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Nay Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Nay Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Nay Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Yea
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Yea Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Nay Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Wyoming: Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea
No comments:
Post a Comment