greencardfever5
08-24 01:18 AM
poorslumdog,
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
I do appologize. I have made some donations today, will be making in the future.
i will be more active in the posts and compaigns.
will you please encourage others to respond to my questions?
Thanks for giving me a wake -up call.
wallpaper The ED-TECH GSA would like to
ghost
09-22 06:06 PM
I don't think that would be okay as you would then be jumping the hoop of I-140. I think we should just stay with the modest request of "filing 485" without visa number availability.
even if we can file for 485, the only possible way to move is by using AC-21 provisions, correct?
Also, when using AC-21 provisions to shift the job, do we need to ensure that the job description and responsibilities are similar to the previous job?
TIA
even if we can file for 485, the only possible way to move is by using AC-21 provisions, correct?
Also, when using AC-21 provisions to shift the job, do we need to ensure that the job description and responsibilities are similar to the previous job?
TIA
xu1
08-08 09:58 PM
I guess he is trying to lift the sunken spirits of the IV members. But I feel that if SKIL goes through, we will be fine. It all depends on SKIL
Yep.. Cheer up however we can.
note to myself: obessesion with anything is no good. Don't check back at this site ten times every hour.
Yep.. Cheer up however we can.
note to myself: obessesion with anything is no good. Don't check back at this site ten times every hour.
2011 facebook like button logo.
satyasaich
08-30 01:12 PM
Please let me know if i can give Continental air lines "one pass" miles. i think i have around 20000.
Requesting other members as well to donate
Requesting other members as well to donate
more...
visafreedom
07-03 02:09 AM
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
vin13
01-08 11:06 AM
I returned back from India a few days ago. My experience was very similar to "LostInGCProcess". The only difference was that i had only 2 copies of AP. They kept one and gave me one.
So, it should not be a problem if you have 2 AP copies. Just make sure you come out of Immigration with 1 copy for your future travels.
They will not take the only copy you have if you make another trip out of the country before it expires.
You need just the AP and Passport. Please let the officer know that you are using AP. Or they will keep looking through your passport for a visa.
It is good to have supporting documents such as I-485 receipt, I-140 approval, recent paystubs, employment letter from your HR (stating you are still employed). As 'LostInGCProcess" said, please do not provide them until reqested
So, it should not be a problem if you have 2 AP copies. Just make sure you come out of Immigration with 1 copy for your future travels.
They will not take the only copy you have if you make another trip out of the country before it expires.
You need just the AP and Passport. Please let the officer know that you are using AP. Or they will keep looking through your passport for a visa.
It is good to have supporting documents such as I-485 receipt, I-140 approval, recent paystubs, employment letter from your HR (stating you are still employed). As 'LostInGCProcess" said, please do not provide them until reqested
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
2010 Facebook-addict crooks make it
sankap
07-30 03:26 PM
Do you get the FP notice by email or snail mail?
more...
GotFreedom?
03-31 01:08 AM
Its always awesome to see these occasional threads mentioning 485 approvals. I wish we get to see more and more of these threads.
Congratulations and enjoy your freedom.
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
Congratulations and enjoy your freedom.
Yahoooooooooooooo......We (Me and my wife) received welcome notice today . Our 485 is approved on 25 th March.
no updates online just received postal mail from USCIS today .
I guess end of long wait , been in country from 2001 .
I wish you all the best and hang in there if your PD is current you can expect the notice any time so keep checking your postal mail box .
FYI - I dont know if my back ground check is clear or not , I guess it is .
hair Facebook+like+button+
immi_seeker
10-05 12:43 AM
This Thread is to start the ball rolling for meet & greet for Arizona members. Arizona memebers especially the folks living in phoenix/Chandler/Gilbert/Mesa/Tempe area , if interested pls come forward and post on this thread.
We could setup something in the near future (some weekend or friday)on october itself ) so we can get to know each other and discuss about any future course of action from a state chapter perspective.
We could setup something in the near future (some weekend or friday)on october itself ) so we can get to know each other and discuss about any future course of action from a state chapter perspective.
more...
test101
07-18 11:04 PM
Can I file I-131 after filing for I-485? or does it have to be done at the same time?
thanks
thanks
hot and Facebook+like+us+logo
kaisersose
11-27 01:38 PM
Hi,
one of my friend is working for a desi consuting firm. Due to emergency at his place he has to leave to India dusring the labor substition process. Now the consuting firm is saying that they have substituted a labor for him. They did not apply for I140 for him. Please let me know if there is a way to find weather his labor is substituted or not.
Thank you
The short answer is, it does not work. It has been permanently banned following heavy abuse.
Substitution is a process of cutting the queue, by using a Labor approved for someone else earlier. Many people who came ino the US in 2006 on H-1b now have green cards by paying $$$ to some GC shops for old Labors. This came to the notice of DOL and they decided to put an end to it.
one of my friend is working for a desi consuting firm. Due to emergency at his place he has to leave to India dusring the labor substition process. Now the consuting firm is saying that they have substituted a labor for him. They did not apply for I140 for him. Please let me know if there is a way to find weather his labor is substituted or not.
Thank you
The short answer is, it does not work. It has been permanently banned following heavy abuse.
Substitution is a process of cutting the queue, by using a Labor approved for someone else earlier. Many people who came ino the US in 2006 on H-1b now have green cards by paying $$$ to some GC shops for old Labors. This came to the notice of DOL and they decided to put an end to it.
more...
house 5) Click the “Facebook” logo
meridiani.planum
03-28 11:30 AM
I think it will stay where it is now for this quarter.....just my guess. Then for the last quarter, we may see some advancement.....again this is my guess.
I think we will move even more now. Looking at how premium processing is not back, and how many approvals have come on , USCIS may not have approved as many visas as they had hoped. instead of having another highly visible wastage of visa numbers dates will move big-time and lots of people with later PDs, but who have simpler cases will get approvals fast.
I think we will move even more now. Looking at how premium processing is not back, and how many approvals have come on , USCIS may not have approved as many visas as they had hoped. instead of having another highly visible wastage of visa numbers dates will move big-time and lots of people with later PDs, but who have simpler cases will get approvals fast.
tattoo Facebook Like Logo Vector.
saps
07-09 12:09 PM
I think the exams do expire. Just carry the copy of your old medical tests to the doctor and you might not need to take the vaccination shots again as most of them are valid for long period. But your wife will have to retake the TB and other tests. Just take the RFE with you to the doctor's office.
more...
pictures facebook like button icon.
bcg_consultant
02-13 04:35 PM
same here, my PD is Aug 2004 EB3(ROW) but my I-140 and 485 is still pending at NSC(more than 240 days).I dont have any hope that my I-140 will be cleared any time soon...Good bless H1B people
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
Folks,
Need a little advice. We (my husband and I) filed our 485 on July 2 under EB-3and have received AP, EAD, FP etc. Our PD date (July 7, 2001) got current in the March bulletin:). I wanted to check if there is way to find out if our cases have been adjudicated and are ready for approval as and when a visa # is allocated in March.
Thanks
dresses Smells Like Facebook
singhsa3
11-15 10:47 AM
What a shame and Ignorant people we are trying to motivate...
more...
makeup Click facebook-like-icon logo
jungalee43
12-23 02:27 PM
I also received similar mail from my attorney. I have double assurance now. Thanks.
You should be fine. I have been in the exact same situation did not have any problems excepting secondary inspection in which no questions were asked.
You should be fine. I have been in the exact same situation did not have any problems excepting secondary inspection in which no questions were asked.
girlfriend find Logo+facebook+like
gc67890
11-16 10:19 PM
IV gurus Please help.
My friend joined an X company short time ago. He was about to file GC with that company. The company laid of people in the last week.
Now they are saying to my friend that they cannot file for his labor as they have laid of people and they have to wait 6 months before filing.
Is it true if a company laid of people it should wait 6 month before it files for labor again?
Is there a way to avoid the waiting period.
My friend is in 5 th year of his H1B
Thanks
My friend joined an X company short time ago. He was about to file GC with that company. The company laid of people in the last week.
Now they are saying to my friend that they cannot file for his labor as they have laid of people and they have to wait 6 months before filing.
Is it true if a company laid of people it should wait 6 month before it files for labor again?
Is there a way to avoid the waiting period.
My friend is in 5 th year of his H1B
Thanks
hairstyles Facebook+like+logo+vector
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
django.stone
01-25 07:49 PM
Last week, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) introduced the Bipartisan Reform of Immigration through Good Enforcement Resolution in the lower house of Congress. According to Congressman Chaffetz, the resolution does three things: � make E-Verify mandatory for all employers, and hold employees accountable as well; � provide sufficient border infrastructure and manpower to secure and control our borders; and, � reject amnesty and any legal status which pardons those here in violation of our laws. At first I thought this was the usual anti-immigrant measure we expect to see from the folks in the Immigration Reform Caucus. But an interview with...
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/compromises-coming-on-immigration-reform.html)
With democrats in disarray, they would be even afraid of saying the 3 letter word CIR. nothing this year, an election year, so let's start thinking about 2011!. isn't this sad :(
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/01/compromises-coming-on-immigration-reform.html)
With democrats in disarray, they would be even afraid of saying the 3 letter word CIR. nothing this year, an election year, so let's start thinking about 2011!. isn't this sad :(
ski_dude12
12-22 12:27 PM
Please contribute to IV.
I am having tough time in getting an appointment with my local Representative and let them know what out problems are. And now this DEC bulletin is making my head spin.
---may be this bulletin will push me more in getting just an appointment--
:cool:God bless America:cool:
I am having tough time in getting an appointment with my local Representative and let them know what out problems are. And now this DEC bulletin is making my head spin.
---may be this bulletin will push me more in getting just an appointment--
:cool:God bless America:cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment