validIV
03-25 01:49 PM
How come you are being paid if you are unemployed?
Libra
11-15 02:08 PM
bumping the thread.....anyone out there to join MN state chapter?
mbartosik
01-30 08:41 PM
Yes this looks bad, and what we're trying to do with MI will be stomped on to a large extent by this.
The key problem is that it assumes that DHS SAVE system is up to date, and we know how far USCIS gets with data entry.
Also licenses to be marked as temporary.
The key problem is that it assumes that DHS SAVE system is up to date, and we know how far USCIS gets with data entry.
Also licenses to be marked as temporary.
hebbar77
08-13 01:09 PM
Hi,
I have same case.
X:EB2-I-140-PD DEC 2004 approved JAN 2008
Y: EB2-I-140-PD DEC 2007 approved July 2007
485 filed on Jul2 2007 with Y I-140
On aug 1st lawyer sent a request to USCIS to process the I-485 with X-140 PD.
Still no LUD on I-485/I-140...
Anyone knows how long it takes for such cases?
I have same case.
X:EB2-I-140-PD DEC 2004 approved JAN 2008
Y: EB2-I-140-PD DEC 2007 approved July 2007
485 filed on Jul2 2007 with Y I-140
On aug 1st lawyer sent a request to USCIS to process the I-485 with X-140 PD.
Still no LUD on I-485/I-140...
Anyone knows how long it takes for such cases?
more...
amsaleem
11-07 07:42 PM
Your current employer experience has to be prior to your labor filing date (PD). You can not use the experience you got after the filing date.
satyasaich
06-11 04:23 PM
Friend
There is already another thread for this AND by the way july bulletin is not out yet, may be in the next 4 or 5 days
Does anyone out there knows when is the next visa bulletin,I mean with the date the bulletin will be released?
Zee.
There is already another thread for this AND by the way july bulletin is not out yet, may be in the next 4 or 5 days
Does anyone out there knows when is the next visa bulletin,I mean with the date the bulletin will be released?
Zee.
more...
pappu
12-16 04:18 PM
Can't you get this information unde FOIA (Freedom of Information Act)?
yes and no. It is not easy. USCIS has also been sued for not giving the data by an org we know.
yes and no. It is not easy. USCIS has also been sued for not giving the data by an org we know.
gunabcd
06-15 10:03 AM
The USCIS PDF for I-693 (http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-693.pdf) says "OMB No. 1615-0033; Expires 06/30/07" at the top of the form. At the bottom it says "Form I-693 (Rev. 09/16/05) Y". Will we be able to submit this form if we get the medical exam done now and file it with the I-485 on July 1 or later?
I found another version of the PDF which says "OMB No. 1615-0064; Expires 05/31/08" at the top and "Form I-693 (Rev. 09/16/05) N" at the bottom. I've only found this at these sites:
http://immigrationadvice.net/I-693.pdf
http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web895.pdf
But I'm not sure which one should be used because of the upcoming expiry date on the one from uscis.gov, versus the one with the later expiry date on these other sites. Does this expiry date matter?
I'm going to my medical exam in 1 1/2 hours -- if anyone can post a response before then, that'd be much appreciated!
I don't know if the doctor will use my copy or provide a copy. Is it a problem if the doctor provides and uses the older form?
I think in absense of a newer form by USCIS, the expiry date 6/30/07 means the form can be filled in by 6/30. I think the doctor will use his own form and will not accept if you provide one. This is just my logical thinking and not a rule.
I found another version of the PDF which says "OMB No. 1615-0064; Expires 05/31/08" at the top and "Form I-693 (Rev. 09/16/05) N" at the bottom. I've only found this at these sites:
http://immigrationadvice.net/I-693.pdf
http://www.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/immigration/pdfs/web895.pdf
But I'm not sure which one should be used because of the upcoming expiry date on the one from uscis.gov, versus the one with the later expiry date on these other sites. Does this expiry date matter?
I'm going to my medical exam in 1 1/2 hours -- if anyone can post a response before then, that'd be much appreciated!
I don't know if the doctor will use my copy or provide a copy. Is it a problem if the doctor provides and uses the older form?
I think in absense of a newer form by USCIS, the expiry date 6/30/07 means the form can be filled in by 6/30. I think the doctor will use his own form and will not accept if you provide one. This is just my logical thinking and not a rule.
more...
jotv
10-09 05:43 PM
:(hi gcpadmavyuh ,
here is my question i got h1 that is starting from oct 1st and i got ead also .
i dont have ssn also . my i-94 got expired.
1) now i am on which status ?
2) how to come from h4 to ead in my situation ?
3) how to actually use ead or h1 ?
4) should i get salary( payroles every month ) on h1 from this oct 1st onwards ?
5) in my situation how uscis will recognise am i using ead /h1 /h4 ?
6) in my situation if i got ssn and driving license after showing ead card in that offices , but i didnt work until this year end then by the year end on which status i am h4 or ead or h1 ?
7) in my situation if once i used my ead is there any chance to come from ead to h1 in future if i need ?
please clarify this doubts . please other experts suggest me.
here is my question i got h1 that is starting from oct 1st and i got ead also .
i dont have ssn also . my i-94 got expired.
1) now i am on which status ?
2) how to come from h4 to ead in my situation ?
3) how to actually use ead or h1 ?
4) should i get salary( payroles every month ) on h1 from this oct 1st onwards ?
5) in my situation how uscis will recognise am i using ead /h1 /h4 ?
6) in my situation if i got ssn and driving license after showing ead card in that offices , but i didnt work until this year end then by the year end on which status i am h4 or ead or h1 ?
7) in my situation if once i used my ead is there any chance to come from ead to h1 in future if i need ?
please clarify this doubts . please other experts suggest me.
subba
02-27 06:57 AM
Just an update from my front, for the info of anyone else in a similar boat.
Consulate issued me a stamp to 4/30/2010.
I re-entered US. The officer at the Canadian airport issued me an I94 for 3 years from arrival date (instead of all the way to 4/30/2010). I am sure I will travel some other time in the next couple of years and I expect I will get an I94 all the way to 4/30/2010 when I enter back.
Here is my situation:
Currently on 7th year H1 extension which expires 4/30/2007 (7th year extension not stamped in passport).
Have another 3 year extension approval ie., 5/1/2007-4/30/2010.
Will be travelling to canada on Feb 22nd for visa stamping.
Few qns:
1) Will the consulate issue me a visa all they way to 4/30/2010?
If yes, will they issue two stamps in the passport one to 4/30/2007 and one to 4/30/2010, or just one stamp?
2) If they issue one all the way to 4/30/2010, I am assuming I can re-enter the country straightaway ie., the visa does not have an effective "begin" date of 5/1/2007.
Anyone have any experience with a similar situation?
Your help will be appreciated.
Consulate issued me a stamp to 4/30/2010.
I re-entered US. The officer at the Canadian airport issued me an I94 for 3 years from arrival date (instead of all the way to 4/30/2010). I am sure I will travel some other time in the next couple of years and I expect I will get an I94 all the way to 4/30/2010 when I enter back.
Here is my situation:
Currently on 7th year H1 extension which expires 4/30/2007 (7th year extension not stamped in passport).
Have another 3 year extension approval ie., 5/1/2007-4/30/2010.
Will be travelling to canada on Feb 22nd for visa stamping.
Few qns:
1) Will the consulate issue me a visa all they way to 4/30/2010?
If yes, will they issue two stamps in the passport one to 4/30/2007 and one to 4/30/2010, or just one stamp?
2) If they issue one all the way to 4/30/2010, I am assuming I can re-enter the country straightaway ie., the visa does not have an effective "begin" date of 5/1/2007.
Anyone have any experience with a similar situation?
Your help will be appreciated.
more...
ilikekilo
07-18 10:40 AM
Really makes me feel awful when I come across someone who is waiting since 2001 for labor.. This system is seriously broken.. I myself had to wait for over three years to get my labor, and I know how frustrating it is.. I have two friends with priority date older than mine, and they are still stuck in labor. Very depressing. I wish and hope the *&$%!*#@ at Philly and Dallas get their act together and there is a flurry of labor approvals in the next few weeks..
i doubt they would do that give that they are anticipating more appps now in july thru august...we cant win in everyhitng, can we? sad!! now next few months we will be desperately be wating for each bulleting every month...now hte the PD's rule!!!!!!!!
i doubt they would do that give that they are anticipating more appps now in july thru august...we cant win in everyhitng, can we? sad!! now next few months we will be desperately be wating for each bulleting every month...now hte the PD's rule!!!!!!!!
Aah_GC
06-19 08:37 AM
Aah_GC: Lawyer might not have received it from USCIS otherwise irrational would not be writing it here :) Many who filed during July 07 fiasco have not received the 485 receipt notices (lost in mail) from USCIS.
irrational: For EAD renewal, you can use your biometric notice as a proof of filing for I-485 to extend EAD and you make sure give correct A# on the form , with this USCIS should be able to pull your records. Also write a cover letter stating that you have not received the 485 receipt notice from USCIS, thats it. Nothing to worry, Go ahead and file without 485 receipt notice copy.
Sure, guess I was a bit irrational :)!
irrational: For EAD renewal, you can use your biometric notice as a proof of filing for I-485 to extend EAD and you make sure give correct A# on the form , with this USCIS should be able to pull your records. Also write a cover letter stating that you have not received the 485 receipt notice from USCIS, thats it. Nothing to worry, Go ahead and file without 485 receipt notice copy.
Sure, guess I was a bit irrational :)!
more...
sands_14
04-09 09:57 PM
Can you get conventional loan with 10% down in New Jersey?
ANd that too for H1B/EAD. My broker says that you cant get conventional loan with work permit status.
Is that true?
The FHA option he is giving ,looks expensve to me.
Paying 9000usd upfront and then PMI for 5 years will be expensive.
Any suggestions appreciated.ANY good lenders ?
ANd that too for H1B/EAD. My broker says that you cant get conventional loan with work permit status.
Is that true?
The FHA option he is giving ,looks expensve to me.
Paying 9000usd upfront and then PMI for 5 years will be expensive.
Any suggestions appreciated.ANY good lenders ?
uslegals
11-11 01:45 PM
I just read the instructions for E-filing of AP. This is what it says -
Who is Not Eligible to e-File This Form:
You are not eligible to electronically file this form if:
You have a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence Status or Adjust Status currently at a USCIS office and you are eligible to file the I-131 for no additional fee.
Does that mean that only if your 485 application is @ a local office. My 485 is @ NBC, Biometrics is next week. I was told by my attorney that my application will then be transferred to local office for a interview. Don't know when though. Am i still eligible to E-file. Would appreciate any advice.
Thanks !
Who is Not Eligible to e-File This Form:
You are not eligible to electronically file this form if:
You have a pending I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence Status or Adjust Status currently at a USCIS office and you are eligible to file the I-131 for no additional fee.
Does that mean that only if your 485 application is @ a local office. My 485 is @ NBC, Biometrics is next week. I was told by my attorney that my application will then be transferred to local office for a interview. Don't know when though. Am i still eligible to E-file. Would appreciate any advice.
Thanks !
more...
![barcelona fc logo vector. FC Barcelona Logo [CDR File]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tF6yo-Vd9444b99bH1l004iHGBhYaKnVFmSP0RAYz8NEPjZwrBXJt6B9Hauxktqr8LwMdINsVUnqPLmlg1DkDaC_3guZBIbQxo-bM6Svxq4yZ2uxV9x9AlzN22RYZFE10atXqwF0Ync4Df3n30ThdY_PA=s0-d "FC Barcelona Logo [CDR File]")
skynet2500
11-24 12:19 PM
Gurus, can you please let me know your opinion on my below situation? thanks a lot.
blackberry
07-24 12:26 PM
I have already contributed which bucket do i fit in... :)
--BB
--BB
more...
gcpadmavyuh
07-27 12:28 AM
What was the date of I485 approval? And when did the wife's 485 reach USCIS?
My friend has a unique situation. Please help out with your advise.
He had earlier applied for 485 in 2005(before October retrogression) and didnt get a chance to add his wife until the July bulletin(as he got married only after filing 485 and his PD was not current until the July 17th). His wife's application is now filed with the NSC center on 7/19th(didnt recieve the receipt notice yet) as a add-on and as a dependent for his original 485 application(he submitted I-134 affidavit of support along with his wife's application).
Today he got an email update from USCIS confirming that his 485 is approved. Since he doesnt know his wife's 485 status yet, he is not even sure if his wife's application is receipted or acknowledged as a dependent to his application. From Fedex, he can confirm that it reached the Nebraska CIS office on July 19th.
Considering his wife's application did go to the NSC center(7/19) before his 485 is approved(9/26), does this mean his wife is in-status or out-of-status(wife is on H-4 dependent visa). Their were not prepared for this news so soon and hence would appreciate any alternatives they can pursue.
My friend has a unique situation. Please help out with your advise.
He had earlier applied for 485 in 2005(before October retrogression) and didnt get a chance to add his wife until the July bulletin(as he got married only after filing 485 and his PD was not current until the July 17th). His wife's application is now filed with the NSC center on 7/19th(didnt recieve the receipt notice yet) as a add-on and as a dependent for his original 485 application(he submitted I-134 affidavit of support along with his wife's application).
Today he got an email update from USCIS confirming that his 485 is approved. Since he doesnt know his wife's 485 status yet, he is not even sure if his wife's application is receipted or acknowledged as a dependent to his application. From Fedex, he can confirm that it reached the Nebraska CIS office on July 19th.
Considering his wife's application did go to the NSC center(7/19) before his 485 is approved(9/26), does this mean his wife is in-status or out-of-status(wife is on H-4 dependent visa). Their were not prepared for this news so soon and hence would appreciate any alternatives they can pursue.
abhaykul
09-10 09:02 AM
Gr8 job ! Shilpa and Aman and all core members ...Keep it up
thomachan72
09-14 06:30 AM
You cannot work with an expired EAD. End of the story.
But if it is approved and you haven't got the card in your hand , few companies would allow you to work for 90 days from the date of approval.
so a person whose EAD expires but is waiting renewed EAD card has to resign and then be rehired??? Isn't there some clarity regarding this?
But if it is approved and you haven't got the card in your hand , few companies would allow you to work for 90 days from the date of approval.
so a person whose EAD expires but is waiting renewed EAD card has to resign and then be rehired??? Isn't there some clarity regarding this?
god_bless_you
06-14 09:14 PM
From Today's Lou Dobb's....
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
Tonight, congressional leaders are unable to break a deadlock and begin work on an immigration reform compromise. A provision in the Constitution could kill the Senate immigration bill and chances for immigration reform this year.
LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It could be a real procedural holdup or just a good excuse. But for now, immigration legislation is stalled on what could be the road to nowhere.
Here's the problem...
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: A notice has been served on the Senate that a blue slip will be filed, which, in effect, says they will not consider the bill in the House because it has a revenue enhancement in it, a tax provision in it.
SCHIAVONE: A blue slip is like a legislative traffic ticket. A blue slip would be slapped on the Senate bill because, besides a guest worker program, a wall at the border, punishment for employers who hire illegals, and so on, the measure includes tax provisions, including one requiring illegal aliens to pay back taxes and another making U.S. workers overseas pay more taxes than they do now.
What's wrong with that? The Constitution says tax laws start in the House, not in the Senate. The same way, for example, that it's the Senate, not the House that confirms judges and cabinet secretaries.
REP. TOM TANCREDO (R), COLORADO: If they shot the Senate bill over here, it would be shot down in about a heartbeat simply because, for one thing, no revenue-raising bill can originate in the Senate. There's a constitutional problem.
So it can be stopped. I mean, they can try it. Have them send it. That's fine with me, because that's the end of it.
SCHIAVONE: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist suggests tacking the immigration bill on to a benign House tax bill that's been on the Senate docket so that it has a House bill designation. But Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid wants assurances that no other legislation will hitch a ride on that train. Senator Frist's office says he has offered those assurances.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SCHIAVONE: And Kitty, it gets even more complicated than that. Congressman Tancredo says that lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol went home for Memorial Day and heard lots of protests about that Senate immigration bill and the eventual amnesty it offers, leaving some on Capitol Hill to wonder if in this election year it might just be better to let the clock run out on this session of Congress and start fresh next year -- Kitty.
PHILLIPS: Interesting stuff. Thanks very much. America's opinions on illegal immigration and border security should affect the legislation Congress adopts and the one that President Bush signs. In his news conference this morning, however, President Bush explained the crucial role of public opinion in a democracy.
Senator Jeff Sessions says the Senate ignored the will of the people in passing an amnesty bill for illegal aliens that would cost taxpayers tens of billions each year. A CBO report Sessions commissions says that the bill will also do nothing to stop illegal aliens entering this country. I asked Senator Sessions what the purpose of the Senate immigration bill is, if not to stop the flow of illegal aliens?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. JEFF SESSIONS (R), ALABAMA: That was the purpose, but the CBO numbers are based on the Senate bill. And they say, in a fact, there's no change in illegal immigration for 10 years. It would be 700,000 to 900,000 a year. If anything, that's certainly no less and maybe more than the current rate. So it really belies the argument that this bill is going to make any progress on enforcement. It certainly does not appear to.
PILGRIM: What does that say about the value of this bill, sir?
SESSIONS: Well I think it again is another indication that it is unacceptable, that it's terribly flawed, should never become law and will not do what it promises. It promises to enforce the border. And that's proven to be false. I think I've already said that, but the CBO confirmed it. Workplace enforcement is not there. And the future flow plans to allow millions coming in in the future at a much higher rate are just unprincipled and not valuable, not good for the United States. So we definitely need to review this legislation.
PILGRIM: House Speaker Dennis Hastert has said that he wants to take a long look at this bill and potentially hold hearings. Do you think hearings are appropriate? They're certainly not normal.
SESSIONS: No, they're not normal. But you know, the House has none of this so-called comprehensive approach to immigration. Theirs was focused primarily on enforcement. And so if they're going to consider the comprehensive bill at all, they absolutely should study it. We never had enough hearings in the Senate. This bill just basically came up and moved through with very few hearings directly related to the gray issues on immigration.
We just didn't discuss the real important issues in any significant way. For example, we've never considered whether or not we ought to adopt what Canada does, and that is to have a point system. Why haven't we even discussed that? It seems to me it makes an awful lot of sense.
PILGRIM: All right, you know, could this immigration reform bill be hammered out behind closed doors with the congressional leadership? Do you see it going that way?
SESSIONS: Well, that's a very dangerous thing. The American people's confidence in the government on a question of immigration is very low. They're very cynical. And if anyone thinks they can hammer out a bill and then ram it through without the American people being alerted, I think they're in for big trouble and just further erode public confidence in what we're doing.
PILGRIM: The Senate -- procedurally the Senate bill has to be attached to a House bill to avoid a constitutional issue. Would you support a unanimous consent to send to it the House?
SESSIONS: You know, I haven't made a decision about that. My personal view is we need to discuss this bill more. No one senator can block a bill from being considered, but can provide an opportunity for more debate. So we'll be looking at that.
PILGRIM: And timetable-wise, if this doesn't get to the House and Senate by August 1st, do you think it will make it at all in this session?
SESSIONS: You know, it may not. Then again, something could happen. But from what I'm hearing from the House, that they're so concerned about the viability of the comprehensive language in the Senate bill, not that they're so against the comprehensive bill, but just that they are uneasy and unaccepting of what we've done, then I think it's got a long way to go to become law, frankly.
newuser
09-15 01:11 PM
I am in
No comments:
Post a Comment