mss007
04-21 03:05 PM
I am July 2007 filer, submitted I485, EAD/AP for me and my wife but as of now no LUDs on both I485s. Submitted at NSC but transferred to TSC this is happend at that time only now the case is pending at TSC.
EAD renewed last year got one year only now we have to renew this year again.
Many of my friends and their familes updated LUDs on 485 and even I read many threads in this forum regarding soft LUDs once or twice but mine is nothing... don't know:confused:
I took infopass appointment to know the status of my I 485. They said the case is pending it may take time and also said mail the letter to TSC and ask them what is the status? but she didn't say name check pending etc.., I don't where is stuck my application these I had wait once the processing time comes then they will update but nothing done....
Any one is facing same kind of situation?
Please let me Know.
PD Aug 2006 EB2
I485 pending at TSC, ND Sep 2007
no LUDs on 485 :(
FP done Nov 2007
EAD renewed last year got one year only now we have to renew this year again.
Many of my friends and their familes updated LUDs on 485 and even I read many threads in this forum regarding soft LUDs once or twice but mine is nothing... don't know:confused:
I took infopass appointment to know the status of my I 485. They said the case is pending it may take time and also said mail the letter to TSC and ask them what is the status? but she didn't say name check pending etc.., I don't where is stuck my application these I had wait once the processing time comes then they will update but nothing done....
Any one is facing same kind of situation?
Please let me Know.
PD Aug 2006 EB2
I485 pending at TSC, ND Sep 2007
no LUDs on 485 :(
FP done Nov 2007
h1techSlave
07-17 11:24 AM
It is difficult to arrive at hard numbers using these kinds of analysis.
For example you say "Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%".
In reality there are no such human being exist. When a person comes here, he/she does contribute to the society. The person may not be in any official pay roll, but he buys stuff, he does work (in the house at least), he consumes services etc. Now such behavior by the hypothetically low skilled person has a positive contribution to the economy. May be the person took care of the house hold chorus of a young family, enabling the mom to take a Masters in computer science. Fast forward two years, the couple starts a successful software company which employs dozens of Americans.
The story line that you give is the same argument that NumbersUSA gives, which is that an additional person is just a job stealer; but I disagree.
Hello All,
I want to start an interesting discussion - not sure whether a thread already exists or a similar discussion has already taken place.
We all know about the current state of the economy and current unfortunate unemployment rate. We all also know that majority jobs lost are in construction, manufacturing etc. We also know that some people (who have no other choice) are targetting legal EB community as if they are responsible for all this mess.
I want people to discuss the other things like DV Lottery, Chain Family Migration or any other popular programs from labor/unemployment point of view. Please no intent to discuss it from any other angle at all.
These forms of migration bring a lot of uneducated (or less educated), unskilled (or low skilled) population/labor into the country which contribute higher for the unemployment rate (for both numerator and denomenator - rate = # unemployed/# total).
example: suppose in a hypothetical community of 10000000, 300000 are unemployed. They have 3% of unemployement rate.
Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%
This can be bad example but it was just to put a point forward.
Are there any statistics (again?) available about the effect of DV, chain family migration or any such program in the last 10-15 years towards the unemployment rate today? A lot of unskilled (or low skilled) labor was added to the economy which was OK during upward economy but cannot sustain at all in down economy like this.
Thanks,
M.
For example you say "Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%".
In reality there are no such human being exist. When a person comes here, he/she does contribute to the society. The person may not be in any official pay roll, but he buys stuff, he does work (in the house at least), he consumes services etc. Now such behavior by the hypothetically low skilled person has a positive contribution to the economy. May be the person took care of the house hold chorus of a young family, enabling the mom to take a Masters in computer science. Fast forward two years, the couple starts a successful software company which employs dozens of Americans.
The story line that you give is the same argument that NumbersUSA gives, which is that an additional person is just a job stealer; but I disagree.
Hello All,
I want to start an interesting discussion - not sure whether a thread already exists or a similar discussion has already taken place.
We all know about the current state of the economy and current unfortunate unemployment rate. We all also know that majority jobs lost are in construction, manufacturing etc. We also know that some people (who have no other choice) are targetting legal EB community as if they are responsible for all this mess.
I want people to discuss the other things like DV Lottery, Chain Family Migration or any other popular programs from labor/unemployment point of view. Please no intent to discuss it from any other angle at all.
These forms of migration bring a lot of uneducated (or less educated), unskilled (or low skilled) population/labor into the country which contribute higher for the unemployment rate (for both numerator and denomenator - rate = # unemployed/# total).
example: suppose in a hypothetical community of 10000000, 300000 are unemployed. They have 3% of unemployement rate.
Supposed 30K unskilled (or low skilled) labor is added (which neither creates jobs nor are employed). Now if they are added, the rate becomes 330000/10030000 or ~ 3.3%
This can be bad example but it was just to put a point forward.
Are there any statistics (again?) available about the effect of DV, chain family migration or any such program in the last 10-15 years towards the unemployment rate today? A lot of unskilled (or low skilled) labor was added to the economy which was OK during upward economy but cannot sustain at all in down economy like this.
Thanks,
M.
yetanotherguyinline
01-18 01:48 PM
Great initiative Gopal :)
dtekkedil
07-02 11:52 PM
The Honorable Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
Director U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20529
more...
hebron
04-17 07:04 PM
Hi Guys,
Any suggestions for my post above? It will be really helpful.
Thanks in advance!!
Any suggestions for my post above? It will be really helpful.
Thanks in advance!!
mps
08-15 05:00 PM
:p You just killed spirit of "AC21"
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
:D Now you may want to add that - USCIS should request proof of employement each year from anyone who gets GC in EB category right !
I noticed a flaw in GC process with respect to �Ability to pay� and �AC21�
Here are the definitions
Ability to pay - Suppose a company files for I-140, it has to prove its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary.
AC21 states that an employee can change jobs to a similar position if I-485 is pending for more than 180 days. This could happen when I-485 is pending for more than 180 days or after its approval.
Let�s consider the following scenario
1) Company A files for I-140 and I-485 concurrently and proves its ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary at I-140 stage.
2) I-140 gets approved and I-485 is pending for more than 180 days.
3) The employee quits employer A and remains idle (or) becomes self employed (or) joins employer B in a different position.
4) During the I-485 adjudication he provides an offer letter from employer C with similar roles, responsibilities and wage as the proposed GC position with Company A and says that he intends to work with employer C after I-485 approval.
5) I-485 gets approved.
Here is the flaw. USCIS doesn�t check if employer C has the ability to pay the proffered wage to the beneficiary. All it asks for is an offer letter with wage, duties and annual salary.
What if company C is running in loss and not in a position to pay the proffered wage.
Why should USCIS make a big deal out of ability to pay when it�s not checked across all employers where the beneficiary intends to work?
more...
dollar500
08-02 11:39 PM
....bump.....
vegasbaby
02-19 07:06 PM
All,
Even though there are other threads on this topic, I wanted to start a separate thread, as I had some unique questions. I am at the zenith of frustration and at the age of 37, I feel like my career is slipping away while waiting for GC :(
My employment scenario:
- Been with the current employer since Jan 2001
- Less than 5 years experience before I joined the current employer
- Have an MBA that was not used to the GC application (applied in July 2003) since I was a programmer at the time of GC application
My GC scenario:
- Applied for GC in July 2003 under EB3
- Applied for I-485 in July 2007
- Approved I140 and EAD in hand
- Even though I have EAD, I continue to use my H1
My new role in the job:
- After being in the job for as long as I have been, I am now doing Business Development that makes use of my MBA
My questions:
1) Lawyer asked me to wait it out for the GC instead of trying to convert the application to GC2. Lawyer says new labor applications are getting under scrutiny a lot more than before and he think it is prudent to wait. Is this reasonable?
2) What are my other options - do you think I can ask my employer to apply fresh EB2 application for the business development role and show my MBA? Not sure if they will agree to my request, but wanted to make sure that it is even possible to do that.
3) Can I change my job based on H1? Or change the job based on EAD? If either way I change my job, can I then ask the new employer to apply for my GC under EB2? If I change the job, and if my current employer agrees (I don't why he would, but just for understanding sake), can I retain my current EB3 application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. I am at a point of giving it up and going back to India, but then that is another big decision,
Regards,
I am also in the same boat as you. To ans your questions -
1. If the lawyer your talking abt is the company attorney, then, he would most likely support the company than you. I did hear that labors are going thru lot of scrutiny, but if your case is genuine & you have all relevant docs, why is there a reason to worry.
2. Well yes since you have the degree & if they have a role for you, I see no reason as to why they cannot file for you. A lot of companies including mine are not too keen on reapplying under EB2 since they feel it will cause unnecessary hassles to them. If your case is brought up under review, its not just you but the entire company gets audited & then they have to produce a million documents to USCIS.
3. You should be able to retain your old pd or current application (if I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) either ways i.e. if new employer files EB2 for you or your old employer does EB2 for you. However, as someone already pointed out, that same employer filing EB2 for you would be a tricky situation since the experience with your current employer doesn't count. But I have also read somewhere that if its a new position/a new role, then, your experience with current employer will also count. Get this verified.
Even though there are other threads on this topic, I wanted to start a separate thread, as I had some unique questions. I am at the zenith of frustration and at the age of 37, I feel like my career is slipping away while waiting for GC :(
My employment scenario:
- Been with the current employer since Jan 2001
- Less than 5 years experience before I joined the current employer
- Have an MBA that was not used to the GC application (applied in July 2003) since I was a programmer at the time of GC application
My GC scenario:
- Applied for GC in July 2003 under EB3
- Applied for I-485 in July 2007
- Approved I140 and EAD in hand
- Even though I have EAD, I continue to use my H1
My new role in the job:
- After being in the job for as long as I have been, I am now doing Business Development that makes use of my MBA
My questions:
1) Lawyer asked me to wait it out for the GC instead of trying to convert the application to GC2. Lawyer says new labor applications are getting under scrutiny a lot more than before and he think it is prudent to wait. Is this reasonable?
2) What are my other options - do you think I can ask my employer to apply fresh EB2 application for the business development role and show my MBA? Not sure if they will agree to my request, but wanted to make sure that it is even possible to do that.
3) Can I change my job based on H1? Or change the job based on EAD? If either way I change my job, can I then ask the new employer to apply for my GC under EB2? If I change the job, and if my current employer agrees (I don't why he would, but just for understanding sake), can I retain my current EB3 application?
Any advice is greatly appreciated. I am at a point of giving it up and going back to India, but then that is another big decision,
Regards,
I am also in the same boat as you. To ans your questions -
1. If the lawyer your talking abt is the company attorney, then, he would most likely support the company than you. I did hear that labors are going thru lot of scrutiny, but if your case is genuine & you have all relevant docs, why is there a reason to worry.
2. Well yes since you have the degree & if they have a role for you, I see no reason as to why they cannot file for you. A lot of companies including mine are not too keen on reapplying under EB2 since they feel it will cause unnecessary hassles to them. If your case is brought up under review, its not just you but the entire company gets audited & then they have to produce a million documents to USCIS.
3. You should be able to retain your old pd or current application (if I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days) either ways i.e. if new employer files EB2 for you or your old employer does EB2 for you. However, as someone already pointed out, that same employer filing EB2 for you would be a tricky situation since the experience with your current employer doesn't count. But I have also read somewhere that if its a new position/a new role, then, your experience with current employer will also count. Get this verified.
more...
karthik204
06-20 04:09 PM
It is suggested not to travel. But if there is a emergency and you need to travel, talk to your attorney. Even if you get an answer here from someone, do you really want to agree that it would be accurate?
If I were you, I would not worry about it right now unless there is an emergency situation.
If I were you, I would not worry about it right now unless there is an emergency situation.
balan2008
07-08 01:19 PM
Thanks guys for your valuable support and advice.
balan.
balan.
more...
sanju
03-06 02:59 PM
What are you talking about?
Somebody here said Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday. All I am doing is asking what was passed and where?
Am I missing something?
Sorry, that was not directed at you, it was directed at the agenda that mirage is trying to set the agenda.
Somebody here said Zoe Logfren was able to get her bill passed on wednesday. All I am doing is asking what was passed and where?
Am I missing something?
Sorry, that was not directed at you, it was directed at the agenda that mirage is trying to set the agenda.
Munna Bhai
02-27 07:14 AM
I have received my GC on January 28th. My company filled the following with USCIS:
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
See with lot of difficulty you got GC. And with GC you can work part-time and even take another job. Why you want to take a chance. Yes, you must work for the employer for 180 days. Just stick for another 6 months and the game is over.
Enjoy the life.
I140 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 24th 2008
I485 was filled on Nov. 21 2007 and Approved on Jan 20th 2008
Now... some people say to me to wait 180 days to quit my current job (which is paying me half of what I should be earning as a GC holder), some people say it is okay to leave at anytime....
So, I don't know what to do, I pretend to become a citzen in 5 years also, and not sure if this will count bad towards that.
I have some reasons to leave: sallary is low (they will not negociate more), wife is pregnant and I am getting a mortgage.
Please advice.
See with lot of difficulty you got GC. And with GC you can work part-time and even take another job. Why you want to take a chance. Yes, you must work for the employer for 180 days. Just stick for another 6 months and the game is over.
Enjoy the life.
more...
chanduv23
10-15 08:02 AM
You are correct Chandu !.
My manager suggested me to read this book. Actually he refered this book for one of the middle eastern issues.
Even though the company is not fully satisfied with Outsource team performance, still they want to stick to it some time beacuse of low budget and cutdown time. Outsourced company has offered 24x7 development which will attract most US companies.
I think time will come soon that we are going to have GreencardVoice.org and fight for early US citizenship for GC holders!
People resist changes, in general, many people will be under the impression that their employers will listen to them if they tell them about the harmful effects of outsourcing and prove that it does not work, but they don't realise that management does not look at it that way. All these entrepreneurs are capable and smart and they know what they are doing.
One thing people must understand that in the modren day world, if anything is constant, that is "change". Yes, "CHANGE IS CONSTANT" and one has to adapt to changes to survive in this present day world.
Issues arise time to time, and one has to face them and be bold and must do something about it rather than crib about them.
I was layed off in my 6th year of h1b and thought this is the end of world to me. Everyone around me have all sorts of crap advices like, you must be careful with your manager, you must know how to keep your job, you must learn how to butter your bosses so that you keep job when u r in 6th year of h1b etc...... but some gurus, these are folks in immigration.com who are actually in the IV founding team did gave me a lot of encouragement. I started everything new and found out that nothing is impossible if we work towards it with hard work, faith and perserverence - which is exactly what we are trying to tell people here.
Thise who realise what needs to be done here, come forward, those who do not realise, are always resistant. This is the time everyone comes forward and show support.
If you lose your job due to outsourcing, then there is nothing much you can do about it, but to look for a new job and do something about fixing the system
My manager suggested me to read this book. Actually he refered this book for one of the middle eastern issues.
Even though the company is not fully satisfied with Outsource team performance, still they want to stick to it some time beacuse of low budget and cutdown time. Outsourced company has offered 24x7 development which will attract most US companies.
I think time will come soon that we are going to have GreencardVoice.org and fight for early US citizenship for GC holders!
People resist changes, in general, many people will be under the impression that their employers will listen to them if they tell them about the harmful effects of outsourcing and prove that it does not work, but they don't realise that management does not look at it that way. All these entrepreneurs are capable and smart and they know what they are doing.
One thing people must understand that in the modren day world, if anything is constant, that is "change". Yes, "CHANGE IS CONSTANT" and one has to adapt to changes to survive in this present day world.
Issues arise time to time, and one has to face them and be bold and must do something about it rather than crib about them.
I was layed off in my 6th year of h1b and thought this is the end of world to me. Everyone around me have all sorts of crap advices like, you must be careful with your manager, you must know how to keep your job, you must learn how to butter your bosses so that you keep job when u r in 6th year of h1b etc...... but some gurus, these are folks in immigration.com who are actually in the IV founding team did gave me a lot of encouragement. I started everything new and found out that nothing is impossible if we work towards it with hard work, faith and perserverence - which is exactly what we are trying to tell people here.
Thise who realise what needs to be done here, come forward, those who do not realise, are always resistant. This is the time everyone comes forward and show support.
If you lose your job due to outsourcing, then there is nothing much you can do about it, but to look for a new job and do something about fixing the system
gcwanted101
09-01 12:10 PM
Hi
I have my Labor and 140 approved. (140 approved in Jan 2009)
But my employer is not ready to provide me with copy of my approved PERM labor and 140. Just like any other employer.
So I am planning to request both of this by making FOIA request to DOL and USCIS.
I have done some ground work for that. Now here are my questions.
1) If I haven�t applied for 485 yet will USCIS/DOL release this document to me?
Or are both of this employer�s petitions?
2) I have heard that after six month of 140 approvals it become employee petition.
How much true is that?
If anyone like me (who haven�t applied 485 yet) got their copy of labor and 140 through FOIA. Please share your experience.
I have my Labor and 140 approved. (140 approved in Jan 2009)
But my employer is not ready to provide me with copy of my approved PERM labor and 140. Just like any other employer.
So I am planning to request both of this by making FOIA request to DOL and USCIS.
I have done some ground work for that. Now here are my questions.
1) If I haven�t applied for 485 yet will USCIS/DOL release this document to me?
Or are both of this employer�s petitions?
2) I have heard that after six month of 140 approvals it become employee petition.
How much true is that?
If anyone like me (who haven�t applied 485 yet) got their copy of labor and 140 through FOIA. Please share your experience.
more...
rsdang
07-08 04:41 PM
Spouse will have to be in relation for 3 years even after getting GC. Or else upon request, GC of the spouse can be revoked by USCIS.
I asked my company immigration specialist and she said since its an EB GC - the three year stipulation is not valid... Thats for family based GC...
You may want to ask a lawyer...
Hope This helps.
I asked my company immigration specialist and she said since its an EB GC - the three year stipulation is not valid... Thats for family based GC...
You may want to ask a lawyer...
Hope This helps.
GCneeded
03-14 01:53 PM
hello,
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
My mother has 10 yr multiple entry visa. She is planning to travel from Bangalore India to USA through Lufthansa Airways. She has a stop over at Frankfurt airport for about 3 hrs. Does she need to get a transit visa for that. Any recent experience or suggestion? Thanks.
more...
meetpravee
04-17 11:49 AM
My passport expires in 6 months. What is the earliest time before passport expiry can I apply for my Indian passport renewal. How long will it take to process it.
dealsnet
09-09 04:53 PM
You are talking about this company.?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
Telecall - Company Profile on LinkedIn (http://www.linkedin.com/companies/telecall)
web address.
http://www.telecallnet.com/
The access number is shown below by http://www.switchboard.com
(631) 763-1059
Type: Land Line
Location: Cold Spring Harbor, NY
looks like the website is created in July end. Contact address from FL. It seems to be associated wit telecall (a company, I don't know much..google). I found this by checking whois domain lookup...for this free india call thingy...just an fyi.....don't know how safe?
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.
Nil
06-18 02:18 PM
i received a txt message to call this number: 1-866-961-2143 and request the whitehouse to keep its promise on passing CIR this year.
Pls try calling.
Pls try calling.
pa_arora
05-15 07:08 PM
Just curious, why are we not including the HR 6039 - that exempts US grads from the quota?
Yes please include HR6039 as well in ur talk/discussion. It will definitely shorten the EB2 and EB1 queue.
Yes please include HR6039 as well in ur talk/discussion. It will definitely shorten the EB2 and EB1 queue.
No comments:
Post a Comment