sachisdis
02-23 07:48 PM
Hi,
Im from India and joined the company 4 years back as Programmer/Analyst. I have an Bachelors in Computer Science (3 Yrs) + MCA (3 Yrs) and experience of 4 years & 8 months before joining the company. The company field for GC under EB3, priority date: November 2008 and I-140 approved date: November 2009.
With nearing 9 years of experience company promoted me to Sr. Programmer/Analyst consultant and is ready to file the case in EB2.
My question:
1. My priority date from EB3 is November 6, 2008. So after approval of fresh labor for EB2, can the new I-140 for EB2 be filed with the old priority date of EB3 ?
2. Can the same company hold two I-140 for the same employee? That is keep the EB3 I-140 active and apply for EB2 I-140 till the EB2 clears/approves ?
3. The designation & job duties can be the same as that of EB3 or need to be changed.
Thanks in advance!
Im from India and joined the company 4 years back as Programmer/Analyst. I have an Bachelors in Computer Science (3 Yrs) + MCA (3 Yrs) and experience of 4 years & 8 months before joining the company. The company field for GC under EB3, priority date: November 2008 and I-140 approved date: November 2009.
With nearing 9 years of experience company promoted me to Sr. Programmer/Analyst consultant and is ready to file the case in EB2.
My question:
1. My priority date from EB3 is November 6, 2008. So after approval of fresh labor for EB2, can the new I-140 for EB2 be filed with the old priority date of EB3 ?
2. Can the same company hold two I-140 for the same employee? That is keep the EB3 I-140 active and apply for EB2 I-140 till the EB2 clears/approves ?
3. The designation & job duties can be the same as that of EB3 or need to be changed.
Thanks in advance!
wallpaper His Girl Friday movie poster
poreddyp
11-13 10:56 PM
I have a question about VISA stamping.
I had a valid H1B approval till 9th October 2010. I applied for I485 and I had valid Advance Parole expiring Sept 2010. My current visa stamping is expired. I am planning to go to India on vacation and returning in Dec 2009.
My question is
1. If I use my Advance Parole at port of entry to US with out getting my visa stamped in India, will I loose my H1B status?
2. If I don't loose my H1B status, I am planning to transfer my H1B in Feb 2010. Will there be any problem in H1B transfer.
Thanks,
Praveen.
I had a valid H1B approval till 9th October 2010. I applied for I485 and I had valid Advance Parole expiring Sept 2010. My current visa stamping is expired. I am planning to go to India on vacation and returning in Dec 2009.
My question is
1. If I use my Advance Parole at port of entry to US with out getting my visa stamped in India, will I loose my H1B status?
2. If I don't loose my H1B status, I am planning to transfer my H1B in Feb 2010. Will there be any problem in H1B transfer.
Thanks,
Praveen.
onemoredesi
06-21 10:53 AM
In case the I-485 is filed concurrently with I-140 or on the basis of a I-140 "pending approval", if the "I-140" is rejected (say because it was incorrectly classified as EB-2 when it should have been EB-3), then is the I-485 also automatically rejected? (My guess: YES)
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
Abhijit,
This happened to a very close friend of mine a couple of years ago when he was in hi 6th year. He luckily found a labor substitution at that time and was able to immediately file.
I-140 is probably most important of the entire green card process.. it is what proves the employer's capability to pay the prospective employee.
To your question, if I-140 is rejected, your entire application is denied.. I-485 is immediately nullified.
You might want to talk to your attorney if you have the slightest of the doubts..
If this happens to you, does this mean you may not be able to resubmit I-485 if your "priority date" is not current at the time you came to know it got rejected? (My guess: YES... and this is a scary scenario.)
Finally, if the I-140 (EB2) is mentions the requirement to be "BS + 5 years of post BS experience", but the the reviewing officer thinks that the 140 application is not supported by "proper" evidence of 5 years of progressive post BS experience.... then would it generate an RFE or would it straightaway cause a rejection of the I-140?
Experts, please comment. I may have to face this scenario.
Thanks!
Abhijit
Contribution so far: $100
Abhijit,
This happened to a very close friend of mine a couple of years ago when he was in hi 6th year. He luckily found a labor substitution at that time and was able to immediately file.
I-140 is probably most important of the entire green card process.. it is what proves the employer's capability to pay the prospective employee.
To your question, if I-140 is rejected, your entire application is denied.. I-485 is immediately nullified.
You might want to talk to your attorney if you have the slightest of the doubts..
2011 FRIDAY MOVIE QUOTE
ameryki
09-23 07:59 PM
i am waiting for response from my lawyer in atlanta. i was wondering if people have gone through similar situation where they take a promotion with same employer or change jobs. Since AC21 leaves a lot of room for interpretation, it would be helpful to know past cases.
thanks
mate i took a promotion even before applying for 485. if you are in a similar role with at least 50% of your new job duties the same as what your labor certification states you should have no problems.
thanks
mate i took a promotion even before applying for 485. if you are in a similar role with at least 50% of your new job duties the same as what your labor certification states you should have no problems.
more...
s_r_e_e
08-15 11:26 AM
you just beat me in posting this
:D
happend to have oh law site open on the side while reading this... it was easy to find the faq link in there :)
:D
happend to have oh law site open on the side while reading this... it was easy to find the faq link in there :)
Sachin_Stock
11-09 10:16 AM
I don't know which position your company and lawyer are advertising, but 7 years requirement sounds catered and more specific. 5 years is standard, and general.
more...
bazuka6
10-20 09:14 PM
I seriously think IV should take specific instances of past delays due to FBI checks and USCIS delays and highlight these.. A letter campaign supporting Mayorkas should be sent to senatiors.
Letter must specifically highlight how Grassley's allegations are unfounded (based on his history) and how Mayorkas has increased transparency within USCIS and helped legitimate aliens get their immigration benefits in a timely fashion instead of perpetuating bureaucratic delays
Letter must specifically highlight how Grassley's allegations are unfounded (based on his history) and how Mayorkas has increased transparency within USCIS and helped legitimate aliens get their immigration benefits in a timely fashion instead of perpetuating bureaucratic delays
2010 Next+friday+movie+poster
greenhorn
12-09 01:55 PM
When does the H-1 B fiscal year start? Is it April? So for example, people apply in April 2007 for the 2007 fiscal year and start working from April 2007?
In this case of transfer from non profit to for profit, is the priority date portable after I-140 approval?
This is a different question. Is the government job also regarded as cap exempt non profit?
Thank you very much for your help! Our immigration gods bless you!
Best,
I am surprised some one in an earlier post said they switched from a non-profit to a for-profit, without being counted against the cap.
I work for an NPO too and here is what i know:
If u have always worked for a non-profit on ur H1, transferring from a non-profit to a for-profit does require that u are subject to the H1B quota. So u will need to make sure the h1B quota is available before u switch. And that can be tricky.. because though, the quota opens in Apr, from what i understand, u would have to wait until October of that year to start working. You would have to find an employer who would be willing to file for an H1 for u by Apr/May before the H1 quota fills up, and wait until October for u to start work.
Only institutions of higher education, non-profit entities affiliated to such institutions or non-profit research / governmental research organizations that fall under certain sections of USC,under the Higher Education Act of 1965 qualify for the H1B cap exemption. You would have to check with ur prospective employer to find out if they qualify if u want to switch to another non-profit.
As for the priority date after 1-140 approval, i don't see any reason why it would not be portable.. but u would have to check on that.
In this case of transfer from non profit to for profit, is the priority date portable after I-140 approval?
This is a different question. Is the government job also regarded as cap exempt non profit?
Thank you very much for your help! Our immigration gods bless you!
Best,
I am surprised some one in an earlier post said they switched from a non-profit to a for-profit, without being counted against the cap.
I work for an NPO too and here is what i know:
If u have always worked for a non-profit on ur H1, transferring from a non-profit to a for-profit does require that u are subject to the H1B quota. So u will need to make sure the h1B quota is available before u switch. And that can be tricky.. because though, the quota opens in Apr, from what i understand, u would have to wait until October of that year to start working. You would have to find an employer who would be willing to file for an H1 for u by Apr/May before the H1 quota fills up, and wait until October for u to start work.
Only institutions of higher education, non-profit entities affiliated to such institutions or non-profit research / governmental research organizations that fall under certain sections of USC,under the Higher Education Act of 1965 qualify for the H1B cap exemption. You would have to check with ur prospective employer to find out if they qualify if u want to switch to another non-profit.
As for the priority date after 1-140 approval, i don't see any reason why it would not be portable.. but u would have to check on that.
more...
mrajatish
04-17 03:41 PM
Agree with you - my wife's PERM approval got lost in mail and she had to apply for 140 with an electronic copy as DOL will not issue a new approval notice.
Mine, of course is languishing in BEC.
The inefficiency of DOL is really incomparable - they are much worse than USCIS.
Mine, of course is languishing in BEC.
The inefficiency of DOL is really incomparable - they are much worse than USCIS.
hair Update: Friday the 13th Poster
randomdude
12-07 12:34 PM
I have my EAD for a rainy day.
In some cases where transfers from one center to another affected the RD, the concept is gray. if you are a risk taker you can try to swing it, but I do not recommend it. Check the RD on your 485 receipt. If it is 180 days from that date you are fine.
The only problem that can come by moving earlier is your employer may revoke your 140. There is no reason for them to do it, except out of spite (earlier they had the advantage of reusing the labor for someone else). If your relations with your employer will be smooth even after you move on, then that risk is alleviated.
Also remember that your 140 should be approved before you invoke AC21 to avoid potential problems from that area.
Thanks again for your reply KaiserSose
FYI, I sent my app to NSC and got a receipt from them. Then it got transferred to TSC which sent me a notice after 2 months. I do have the correct date on my receipt from NSC though and will wait for 180 days to finish based on this receipt date. I hope that eliminates all the risk, right?
As far as I140 goes, its already approved. :)
I am guessing there are no issues with me moving to AC21, correct?
In some cases where transfers from one center to another affected the RD, the concept is gray. if you are a risk taker you can try to swing it, but I do not recommend it. Check the RD on your 485 receipt. If it is 180 days from that date you are fine.
The only problem that can come by moving earlier is your employer may revoke your 140. There is no reason for them to do it, except out of spite (earlier they had the advantage of reusing the labor for someone else). If your relations with your employer will be smooth even after you move on, then that risk is alleviated.
Also remember that your 140 should be approved before you invoke AC21 to avoid potential problems from that area.
Thanks again for your reply KaiserSose
FYI, I sent my app to NSC and got a receipt from them. Then it got transferred to TSC which sent me a notice after 2 months. I do have the correct date on my receipt from NSC though and will wait for 180 days to finish based on this receipt date. I hope that eliminates all the risk, right?
As far as I140 goes, its already approved. :)
I am guessing there are no issues with me moving to AC21, correct?
more...
gc_in_30_yrs
09-11 04:03 PM
My PD is Aug, 2004. Got 45 Days letter sometime in March 2006 and replied. No movement. No changes. No information. Employer says, he did not hear anything from them to start advertising.
hot quot;Friday Movie Suggestion
malibuguy007
02-06 05:38 PM
I don't know where you are but as far as California is concerned, most non-compete clauses are not enforceable.
more...
house Friday Movie Fun with Mr. T
go_gc_way
01-14 04:31 PM
It is just frustrating to visit these forums and see nothing is happening. We need more members and more money. But if that happens in 10 years, what is the use. Not much anyone can do. Might as well as start packing.
Hello Members,
rajuram brings up a good point ..
It may be only 5% of the members who have taken up all action items seriously and did any thing .. You need strengthen the efforts by more actively participating.
Time and again it is reminded by IV core team of Action items to members. If you have not taken up any of the action items and if you wish something happen and support IV.. PLEASE ACT NOW ON ACTION ITEMS .. I think THIS IS THE TIME with several bills being discussed in media.
WITH OUT YOUR HELP AND PARTICIPATION, YOU HAVE NO IV.
Hello Members,
rajuram brings up a good point ..
It may be only 5% of the members who have taken up all action items seriously and did any thing .. You need strengthen the efforts by more actively participating.
Time and again it is reminded by IV core team of Action items to members. If you have not taken up any of the action items and if you wish something happen and support IV.. PLEASE ACT NOW ON ACTION ITEMS .. I think THIS IS THE TIME with several bills being discussed in media.
WITH OUT YOUR HELP AND PARTICIPATION, YOU HAVE NO IV.
tattoo 1W) Friday
shirish
10-15 12:42 PM
Sorry Gurus, Couldn't figure out how to start a new thread. So posting here,
My spouse is on H4, Now she wants to use EAD and work.She wants to work part time, She has found a job as well, but the employer is sayng she can do parttime only for few months, after that she has to do full time or find a job somewhere else. Now if she cannot find another parttime job after few months, and has to stop working , will it affect her status?
Thankx in advance.
My spouse is on H4, Now she wants to use EAD and work.She wants to work part time, She has found a job as well, but the employer is sayng she can do parttime only for few months, after that she has to do full time or find a job somewhere else. Now if she cannot find another parttime job after few months, and has to stop working , will it affect her status?
Thankx in advance.
more...
pictures Title: Freaky Friday Movie
mjdup
05-31 09:46 AM
Messed up my pay pal account, fixed it and contributed, back to recurring contribution...please contribute folks !
dresses Black Friday
somegchuh
11-09 05:08 PM
In the corporate world dilbert cartoon strip, shows an evil character called dogbert who is an HR exec. This evil character does everything to annoy office staff. However, for GC aspirants lawyers and USCIS are also nothing short of dogberts.
Speaking of annoying lawyers, my company lawyer who is supposed to file for our EAD/AP renewal is adamant that the renewal can be filed only four months in advance. I have provided him a USCIS link that clearly states that USCIS accepts applications 6 months in advance. But it doesn't seem to help. God, I hate these lawyers.... So much fuss for filing paperwork....
Speaking of annoying lawyers, my company lawyer who is supposed to file for our EAD/AP renewal is adamant that the renewal can be filed only four months in advance. I have provided him a USCIS link that clearly states that USCIS accepts applications 6 months in advance. But it doesn't seem to help. God, I hate these lawyers.... So much fuss for filing paperwork....
more...
makeup The New Friday Movie!
chanduv23
07-25 09:39 AM
thanks much, ...
i was just worried about not having a salary for those 90 days or so would affect my whole GC process.
Yes, my I140 WILL be revoked. I'm on good terms with my previous employer and this is just something they will be doing to protect their interests.
This is a new strategy followed by consulting companies. As they cannot stop people from leaving, they would like to discourage this by revoking 140. there are so many scared people out there who want to play it very very safe and will avoid invoking ac21 if they think there could be issues.
You will be fine.
Being in good terms with employers helps - but it has to be from both sides.
i was just worried about not having a salary for those 90 days or so would affect my whole GC process.
Yes, my I140 WILL be revoked. I'm on good terms with my previous employer and this is just something they will be doing to protect their interests.
This is a new strategy followed by consulting companies. As they cannot stop people from leaving, they would like to discourage this by revoking 140. there are so many scared people out there who want to play it very very safe and will avoid invoking ac21 if they think there could be issues.
You will be fine.
Being in good terms with employers helps - but it has to be from both sides.
girlfriend Next+friday+movie+poster
rayoflight
12-21 01:51 PM
Thanks all for your replies.
hairstyles Watch Friday Movie Trailer
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.
TomPlate
07-11 10:59 AM
That is great south mama. Machi I filed I140 on JUN2nd and I got approved on JUN10th. Machi Congrat you soon will get the ration card.
gc_mania_03
10-01 11:14 AM
Add me in..
