hpandey
07-03 02:35 PM
Are you going to Mexico on a personal or official company business. If it is a personal visit I would advise you to wait until the H1b approval comes through.
On the other hand if its an urgent company work then I would advise you to consult a lawyer and do what they say .
On the other hand if its an urgent company work then I would advise you to consult a lawyer and do what they say .
neerajkandhari
10-05 09:29 PM
waiting for AP
july 2 filer
july 2 filer
GC_1000Watt
12-11 03:03 PM
Pls. find the answers in red ink below. Also, all the answers are based on personal experience.
Can I work while the case is appealed?
No. You cannot unless you have a back - up of EAD.
How do I transfer to a new employer E2 (Premium Processing) and when can I apply for the new h1b (after the case is appealed or any time)?
There is no way you can transfer you H1-B as you old one has already expired. The only way left is applying for a new H1-b, according to my lawyer, the sooner the better. The new H1-b mostly will be a consulate case. Meaning, even though you are approved, it will be only activated once you go for visa stamping.
What are the chances of approvals in Premium processing in Current Markethttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#)?
No idea.
Can I start working once the receipt for the new h1b petition comes in?
No, you can only start working once it is acitvated. Meaning, once u get it stamped if it is approved as a consulate case.
If not, can I work once the h1 is approved or should I go to India (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) and reenter to start working?
If consulate case, then you will have to get it stamp to start working.
Can i transfer my approved I140 to a new employer ?
I guess, if you have filed I-485 which is already past 180 days. (Check with ur lawyer)
I will really appreciate your feedback on this.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. Hope it helps. All the very best.
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
Thanks in advance.
Can I work while the case is appealed?
No. You cannot unless you have a back - up of EAD.
How do I transfer to a new employer E2 (Premium Processing) and when can I apply for the new h1b (after the case is appealed or any time)?
There is no way you can transfer you H1-B as you old one has already expired. The only way left is applying for a new H1-b, according to my lawyer, the sooner the better. The new H1-b mostly will be a consulate case. Meaning, even though you are approved, it will be only activated once you go for visa stamping.
What are the chances of approvals in Premium processing in Current Markethttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/2_bing.gif (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#)?
No idea.
Can I start working once the receipt for the new h1b petition comes in?
No, you can only start working once it is acitvated. Meaning, once u get it stamped if it is approved as a consulate case.
If not, can I work once the h1 is approved or should I go to India (http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/#) and reenter to start working?
If consulate case, then you will have to get it stamp to start working.
Can i transfer my approved I140 to a new employer ?
I guess, if you have filed I-485 which is already past 180 days. (Check with ur lawyer)
I will really appreciate your feedback on this.
Again, I am not a lawyer. All the above answers are based on personal experience. Hope it helps. All the very best.
Thanks a lot for your reply. I really appreciate if you can aswer the following:
Can I transfer my H1B to another company once my old employer has appealed the H1B denail notice?
if the appeal on denial goes in my favor then whether I am going to get extension with I-94 or without I94?
Thanks in advance.
jsb
05-07 02:26 PM
I think if iam not wrong its not based of the priority date or anything else. Its just random
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
They are not random. The do have some logic.
At every center cases are filed in order they are received (at least that is what they claim). "Received" does not mean in order of RD you see on your receipt. It is when physically a center accepted your paper case, and decided to enter in the system. PD plays role only for casesfrom retrogressed countries (EB and FB, both). For majority of cases, it has no relevance. PD of cases is nowhere maintained in the system (at least until a case is looked at the first time, which is sometime referred to as "preadjudication"), except on your paper filing. When your file turns out to be next in que for adjudication, in order or receive date (as defined above), the IO has no idea about your PD. Physical file is processed and checked for docs (birth certificates, photos, etc. etc.), AND the PD. At this time you might see a LUD. If nothing further progresses (due to PD not being current) LUD remains a soft LUD, and your case is put aside. If by luck your file was seen when your PD was current, you get lucky and get a GC (and several hard LUDs). PD sequence and received date sequence have no relationship, that's why the whole process seems random.
more...
TeddyKoochu
06-01 02:07 PM
I agree and believe we can get #3 passed. It will provide relief to thousands like myself who have to struggle to maintain a status.
I have asked this question several times to IV/Pappu but got no response. Is is possible to ask for this provision asap ? We know that IV is working on a bigger cause to get us all GC's but honestly no one is sure when and if CIR will happen. Even if it does no one can guarantee that our interests will not be put aside.
I am surprised that whenever I ask for this temporary relief, I see no one else coming forward. I know that there are thousands waiting to file their I-485 but no one wants to speak up ?! That's very disheartening !
Satya & OP. I agree with you. Point # 3 is very significant to many many people who don't have EAD. I believe that nothing also happened to the pre-filing concept which would have allowed this. I also do very sincerely appreciate IV's efforts for the larger cause of CIR, let�s see what happens.
I have asked this question several times to IV/Pappu but got no response. Is is possible to ask for this provision asap ? We know that IV is working on a bigger cause to get us all GC's but honestly no one is sure when and if CIR will happen. Even if it does no one can guarantee that our interests will not be put aside.
I am surprised that whenever I ask for this temporary relief, I see no one else coming forward. I know that there are thousands waiting to file their I-485 but no one wants to speak up ?! That's very disheartening !
Satya & OP. I agree with you. Point # 3 is very significant to many many people who don't have EAD. I believe that nothing also happened to the pre-filing concept which would have allowed this. I also do very sincerely appreciate IV's efforts for the larger cause of CIR, let�s see what happens.
DSLStart
07-28 03:56 PM
The reason for transfer as per email was that the jurisdiction is now TSC But why now? why not transferred along with 485 in 2007?
Orignal poster,
what was your message in email/online status?
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
Orignal poster,
what was your message in email/online status?
is it in any shape size or form possible that you would put your I-140 employer into a bracket of potentially fraudulent companies? or did you have sub labor? anything you can think of that your employer may not have toed the line as far as the law is concerned? i am not suggesting that fraud investigation is the cause of these happenings... i am in fact wondering if that could be the case... if you think your employers were super lawful, then who knows what USCIS is doing!!
more...
indyanguy
07-31 11:17 AM
You are not. EAD is basically for spouse. Primary applicant need to be careful on using EAD.
When you say careful, what do you think needs to be avoided? What are the dos and dont's of a primary applicant who wants to use their EAD?
When you say careful, what do you think needs to be avoided? What are the dos and dont's of a primary applicant who wants to use their EAD?
sk.aggarwal
11-11 08:03 PM
I have never heard about this before, but if I were you I would:
1. Immediately request transcripts from college in sealed envelope, exactly as requested.
2. I dont think sending notarized copies will work, because notaries normally dont attest document, owner of the document does that and they just say that it is your signature. As per my understanding you will need to send the originals as requested. But with it you can safely send a letter asking them to send the documents back. Include a prepaid fedex envelop.
Worst case, they will loose these documents but you can get them reissued from university. But if you dont send documents as requested your application could be denied.
Its amazing the extent USCIS will go to make our lives tough
1. Immediately request transcripts from college in sealed envelope, exactly as requested.
2. I dont think sending notarized copies will work, because notaries normally dont attest document, owner of the document does that and they just say that it is your signature. As per my understanding you will need to send the originals as requested. But with it you can safely send a letter asking them to send the documents back. Include a prepaid fedex envelop.
Worst case, they will loose these documents but you can get them reissued from university. But if you dont send documents as requested your application could be denied.
Its amazing the extent USCIS will go to make our lives tough
more...
h1vegas
06-25 10:21 AM
This is not correct.
Managing the business comes under employment authorization whether or not salary is drawn by the owner.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Here is the reply from my attorney
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don�t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
Managing the business comes under employment authorization whether or not salary is drawn by the owner.
_________________
Not a legal advice.
Here is the reply from my attorney
the CIS takes 90 days to issue the EAD cards; don�t panic as you and your wife are in valid status and not in violation of any rules because you have timely filed your applications for adjustment of status and your status (H1B and H4) are still current
greencardfever
12-11 01:37 PM
Is it 6 months for both, EAD and AP or just EAD? If it's just EAD, then how soon can I renew my AP?
more...
singhsa3
07-12 09:18 AM
Thats not the fact! and could be easily argued against.
"We continue to pay for Your Social Security
But the presidency gives illegals over legals more priority"
"We continue to pay for Your Social Security
But the presidency gives illegals over legals more priority"
CantLeaveAmerica
03-28 09:48 AM
guys, Murthy says EB2 will move forward in May 2008 bulletine. Reason is getting leftover visa from EB1 India's category.
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Great for us...aren't are Indian PHD's in the US are as scholarly and motivated as before? lol To think that there are left over visas in this category beats me ! :D
http://murthy.com/bulletin.html
hoping big forward move.:D
Great for us...aren't are Indian PHD's in the US are as scholarly and motivated as before? lol To think that there are left over visas in this category beats me ! :D
more...
FredG
June 4th, 2004, 08:22 PM
I hope you don't mind but with about 20 minutes in photoshop...:DGood job! Provided a great laugh at the end of a rough day.
lord_labaku
12-16 01:40 AM
Your code has lot of syntax error. (for your reference - message window has spell check feature inbuilt)
Sorry..could not resist.
On a serious note, please read the AC21 rules and interpretation
Sorry..could not resist.
On a serious note, please read the AC21 rules and interpretation
more...
lj_rr
09-01 04:21 PM
Thanks gcwanted101.
So it looks like G639 is only for requests to USCIS and not for DOL.
Can anyone who has submitted an FOIA request to DOL for Labor docs clarify the process?
I browsed the DOL web site, but they don't seem to have a form similar to USCIS G-639 form.
Hey lj_rr
"Also for the labor copy, should the request be sent to USCIS or DOL?"
For Labor : you have to send request to DOL.
For 140 : you have to send request to USCIS.
So it looks like G639 is only for requests to USCIS and not for DOL.
Can anyone who has submitted an FOIA request to DOL for Labor docs clarify the process?
I browsed the DOL web site, but they don't seem to have a form similar to USCIS G-639 form.
Hey lj_rr
"Also for the labor copy, should the request be sent to USCIS or DOL?"
For Labor : you have to send request to DOL.
For 140 : you have to send request to USCIS.
Berkeleybee
04-12 12:56 PM
Thanks for putting up the link Learning01. Karin got in touch with us and I had several calls with her cluing her into the facts and figures. She herself is an immigrant from Sweden.
Good to see our leads payoff.
best,
Berkeleybee
Good to see our leads payoff.
best,
Berkeleybee
more...
fromnaija
03-18 04:17 PM
So it automatically changes the status from H4 to EAD. I have also confirmed this the officer about the status, he confirmed that the status will automatically changed to EAD. So H4 no longer exists for spouse if the spouse carried H4 earlier.
Not true. Applying for and getting EAD and SSN does not invalidate H4; using the EAD to work does.
Not true. Applying for and getting EAD and SSN does not invalidate H4; using the EAD to work does.
unitednations
02-28 11:41 AM
hey unitednations:
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
Danger for you is when she goes for the f-1 they also cancel the visitors visa.
Some people try to get spouse on h-1b and then wait for primary to get citizenship and then file greencard that way.
Others; are willing to let spouse come to usa on business/visitors visa and then overstay and not go back home until primary gets citizenship and sponsorship through this route.
There isn't a whole lot of attractive avenues for greencard holders trying to bring in non immigrant spouse.
She had the B visa all along so there is no issue of her telling the truth or not on the visa app.
I have looked into the V visa before as well, and as we know, it is not applicable since I filed the I-130 July, 2006.
The present situation is that we just booked a ticket for her and the baby to head home on March 17th (the I-94 expires March 24th.) The hope is to receive good news on the grad school application and commence the work on the F-1. Thanks for your inputs so far guys..
Leslie
Danger for you is when she goes for the f-1 they also cancel the visitors visa.
Some people try to get spouse on h-1b and then wait for primary to get citizenship and then file greencard that way.
Others; are willing to let spouse come to usa on business/visitors visa and then overstay and not go back home until primary gets citizenship and sponsorship through this route.
There isn't a whole lot of attractive avenues for greencard holders trying to bring in non immigrant spouse.
uma001
05-24 10:14 AM
you may get 100 points it does not matter, We are still going to have country caps ...
How can i get 100 points, i dont have TOEFEL score and no relatives in US.
How can i get 100 points, i dont have TOEFEL score and no relatives in US.
funny
01-29 06:30 PM
Sam thing happened with my wife, USCIS denied her I131 saying they have already approved the 485 so no need for I131. My lawyer thinks that this was a mistake from USCIS and we applied for her I131 again.
Hope this helps.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
Hope this helps.
I'm from Bangladesh and my PD is May 2006....EB3
I applied for my I485, I765 and I131 in July 2, 2007. Then me and my wife received the I765 approval in couple of months then the real drama began.
In October i received the letter about our i131 denial. The reason for the denial was approval of I485 (I485 approval news was mentioned in my i131 denial letter). My lawyer then told me to wait couple of months to receive my cards. I waited but didn't receive anything. The I called the USCIS and they told me that there is no update in the system and they requested me to go to the local immigration office to notify the matter. After visiting the local immigration office they asked me to write a status request letter to USCIS.
Me and lawyer already wrote 4 letters to USCIS requesting the status of my i485 as my i131 got denied. Finally one of the cases status for i131 showing online that you�re RFE has been received and case has been resumed; and the other one is still case denied. On the other hand the i485 for both mine and my wife's case still showing like it was showing six months ago..."received and pending"........
I�m totally confused in this present situation. USCIS never requested for any RFE against my i131, so why they put in the online status that the RFE has been received. All I did was requested for the I485 applications as they mentioned in my i131 denial letter that my i485 got approved��
Some help here will be highly appreciated��.thanks in advance
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment