bajrangbali
06-19 04:34 PM
US Media standards reached a new low with their double-standards in covering the Iranian election protests. Looks like US media wants to manipulate their citizens with one-sided information and only those news that media DECIDES are in the interest of the people.
Why is US bothered about the protests in Iran regarding elections? BBC, CNN and other media is flaming those young protester's passions. If you see the comments on these news sites, they all come from Iranians under 25 yrs..everyone knows that is hot-blood age and people take defeat to heart. Media is showing this as a civil war :D
How about the civil war in Iraq? How about the protests of Indian students in Australia and the racial attacks on them? How about the recent massacre of tamilians in SriLanka?
Afterall, US media is no different than third-world mafia which can go to any extent to SELL their version..hopefully people have not yet forgotten about the WMD in Iraq :D
US Media should take care of the domestic issues in US rather than posting biased news and flaming young adults in other countries...
Self-righteousness and justification of the politicians is shameful to say the least while complaining about the Iran protests while covering up the rapes and abuses in US prisons. And US will not allow Iran to have a nuke :D can you believe that coming out of the only country which used nukes on CIVILIANS and that too TWICE :D
Ron Paul is right...US should mind their own business instead of maintaining a world empire...lets get the financial crisis mess cleared up..lets get the people back to work and reduce unemployment...why all the hypocrisy, what for??
Why is US bothered about the protests in Iran regarding elections? BBC, CNN and other media is flaming those young protester's passions. If you see the comments on these news sites, they all come from Iranians under 25 yrs..everyone knows that is hot-blood age and people take defeat to heart. Media is showing this as a civil war :D
How about the civil war in Iraq? How about the protests of Indian students in Australia and the racial attacks on them? How about the recent massacre of tamilians in SriLanka?
Afterall, US media is no different than third-world mafia which can go to any extent to SELL their version..hopefully people have not yet forgotten about the WMD in Iraq :D
US Media should take care of the domestic issues in US rather than posting biased news and flaming young adults in other countries...
Self-righteousness and justification of the politicians is shameful to say the least while complaining about the Iran protests while covering up the rapes and abuses in US prisons. And US will not allow Iran to have a nuke :D can you believe that coming out of the only country which used nukes on CIVILIANS and that too TWICE :D
Ron Paul is right...US should mind their own business instead of maintaining a world empire...lets get the financial crisis mess cleared up..lets get the people back to work and reduce unemployment...why all the hypocrisy, what for??
ajaysri
08-07 02:21 PM
I applied for EAD renewal at NSC on 07/03/08 and today 08/06/2008, the status shows card production ordered. I applied for my wife along with me and her status shows still received.
Does the dependent (spouse) EAD in general get approved a few days after the primary applicants EAD is approved? I am not really using the EAD, its my wife who is using it, and thats the concern.
-AjaySri
Does the dependent (spouse) EAD in general get approved a few days after the primary applicants EAD is approved? I am not really using the EAD, its my wife who is using it, and thats the concern.
-AjaySri
prince_waiting
10-26 11:44 AM
Get images of checks cashed by USCIS, your receipt numbers are stamped on the back side of the checks. Use these RNs to call up USCIS and change your address.
Filing out AR-11 does not guarantee that USCIS will correspond to you on the new address.
Filing out AR-11 does not guarantee that USCIS will correspond to you on the new address.
diptam
08-13 11:49 AM
This is not an " go as you like" game in some 3rd world lawless Immigration Dept.... As long as we have Provided Initial evidence and you have Proof of that - who will dare to reject your case under the current legislations ??
Now what they can do is Probably re-define the word "Initial Evidence" and overload it little more. That wont even matter because your/mine "IE" should be taken from the Doc that was in place during July 2nd - Right ??
What do you say ??
nothing seems to be moving forward...and this is the last week for Aug 17th...so the more # of rejections/denials without possibility to reapply/re-appeal the less burden or number of applications they will have to process...my thoughts!
Now what they can do is Probably re-define the word "Initial Evidence" and overload it little more. That wont even matter because your/mine "IE" should be taken from the Doc that was in place during July 2nd - Right ??
What do you say ??
nothing seems to be moving forward...and this is the last week for Aug 17th...so the more # of rejections/denials without possibility to reapply/re-appeal the less burden or number of applications they will have to process...my thoughts!
more...
GCA
04-27 01:13 PM
GE is not a person. All of GE employees as well as share holders pay taxes on their income. Why do you want to double tax the companies and make them go out of business? Thats one reason companies have to setup operations in tax haven countries.
It's as if the wife has to pay taxes on her salary and then the husband has to pay taxes on the pocket money he gets from his wife as monthly allowance to run the house hold. (Just reversed the traditional places of husband and wife for fun).
So, can I stop paying sales taxes when I buy any goods out of my 'after tax' earnings???
It's as if the wife has to pay taxes on her salary and then the husband has to pay taxes on the pocket money he gets from his wife as monthly allowance to run the house hold. (Just reversed the traditional places of husband and wife for fun).
So, can I stop paying sales taxes when I buy any goods out of my 'after tax' earnings???
gcgonewild
03-10 03:24 PM
It's been the case for about 2 weeks with NJ.
more...
reddog
04-24 10:36 AM
A Memorandum of Marriage is different from the Certificate of Marriage.
A Memorandum of Marriage is required to obtain a Marriage Certificate.
Here is a sample (Schedule A) of the Memorandum of Marriage.
You will need to obtain one from your local Marriage Court.
http://ncw.nic.in/compMarriageBill.pdf
I would say, the marriage certificate, a notarized copy of the Memorandum of Marriage from India, with some additional proof, like photos, invites', etc should suffice.
A Memorandum of Marriage is required to obtain a Marriage Certificate.
Here is a sample (Schedule A) of the Memorandum of Marriage.
You will need to obtain one from your local Marriage Court.
http://ncw.nic.in/compMarriageBill.pdf
I would say, the marriage certificate, a notarized copy of the Memorandum of Marriage from India, with some additional proof, like photos, invites', etc should suffice.
abracadabra
07-15 03:41 PM
I have the same question. If somebody knows please let us know
I wonder if MSNBC, CNN, FOX ever covered any of legal immigrants stand against the present immigration mess. I don't see any news about the flower campaign, about visa bulletin fiasco, or even the rallies that we have been doing? The fight has been very strong and unity is finally in place.
Am I missing something here? Most of us sent so many mails to these bigwigs and nobody showed our news and plight on their news?
I wonder if MSNBC, CNN, FOX ever covered any of legal immigrants stand against the present immigration mess. I don't see any news about the flower campaign, about visa bulletin fiasco, or even the rallies that we have been doing? The fight has been very strong and unity is finally in place.
Am I missing something here? Most of us sent so many mails to these bigwigs and nobody showed our news and plight on their news?
more...
paskal
07-14 07:38 PM
s/he like to think of europe as one entity
not sure a lot of europeans will agree though :-)
not sure a lot of europeans will agree though :-)
chanduv23
11-20 12:19 PM
Bump
more...
chehuan
01-18 03:17 PM
do you know the reason for the i140 denial? That could be very critical....its just not about what your title is ..and what you do ..its about the whole 9 yards...let us know the reason for denial
I can surely find out and let you know
Thanks to all for helping out
I am just into the process and I am not so wise with the whole thing
I can surely find out and let you know
Thanks to all for helping out
I am just into the process and I am not so wise with the whole thing
Steven-T
February 23rd, 2004, 07:48 AM
That's why I only buy from B&H when there is no otehr choice.
Not this case, not yet.
Not this case, not yet.
more...
needhelp!
02-11 03:49 PM
try media fire
It worked before...I had uploaded in the NY/NJ yahoo user group. Did someone delete it from there ? Not sure. Anoone know of free sites where I can upload the files ?
It worked before...I had uploaded in the NY/NJ yahoo user group. Did someone delete it from there ? Not sure. Anoone know of free sites where I can upload the files ?
gc_check
06-29 01:33 PM
Good lawyer...mine is taking 6-7 business days after submission atleast. Though, I did not fill any forms, I filled a questionairre and she will use that to fill the forms, that might delay things a little.
All the forms require applicants signature, Folks download the forms, complete and sign it and send with all the documents ASAP if filing through an Attorney along with the questionnaire. We used to have the same process, complete the questionnaire and then complete the forms, mail it back for signature... but now as the Legal have to file numerous petitions, they asked us to go ahead and fill all the forms and send the docs requested. they will contact back only if issues, else will file and then will notify us. Also make sure you sign all the form and also attach a G28 form signed and attach for each form, I485/765 and 131. This will save lots of time.
All the forms require applicants signature, Folks download the forms, complete and sign it and send with all the documents ASAP if filing through an Attorney along with the questionnaire. We used to have the same process, complete the questionnaire and then complete the forms, mail it back for signature... but now as the Legal have to file numerous petitions, they asked us to go ahead and fill all the forms and send the docs requested. they will contact back only if issues, else will file and then will notify us. Also make sure you sign all the form and also attach a G28 form signed and attach for each form, I485/765 and 131. This will save lots of time.
more...
Macaca
04-22 09:07 AM
Passing On H-1b Costs to the Employee? (http://www.hammondlawfirm.com/FeesArticle07.18.2006.pdf) -- Smart Business Practice or DOL Violation?, by Michael F. Hammond and Damaris Del Valle
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
After all the costs associated with an H-1B petition are totaled, the sum can be alarming. In order to offset this cost, some employers ask that the beneficiary, the employee who is being hired, reimburse the company in whole or in part. Which costs may and may not be paid by the beneficiary can be a tricky matter. What follows is an analysis of H-1B costs and who may pay what.
All deductions from an H-1B worker’s pay fall into three categories: authorized, unauthorized, or prohibited. Authorized deductions can be taken without worry of whether or not such a deduction will lower the employee’s rate of pay below the required wage rate. Unauthorized deductions, counter to what the term may connote, can be taken from an employee’s wage but are considered non-payment and are only allowed if the beneficiary’s wage rate, after the deduction(s), is greater than the required amount listed on the Labor Condition Application (LCA). Unauthorized deductions cannot push the employee’s wage below either the prevailing wage rate or the actual wage rate, i.e. salaries of those similarly employed and qualified at the work site. Prohibited deductions may not be taken from the employee’s pay regardless of the effect they would have on the required wage rate.
The most straightforward of the deductions is the prohibited deduction. The Training Fee associated with the H-1B petition is the only prohibited deduction associated with the cost of filing an H-1B petition. Rajan v. International Business Solutions, Ltd. and the language in the relevant regulation make it very clear that the Training Fee is to be paid by the employer or a third party; it is not to be reimbursed in part or whole by the employee. This fee must be completely shouldered by the employer or a party who is not the employee.
Deductions are considered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to be authorized if:
The deduction is reported as such on the employer’s payroll records,
The employee has voluntarily agreed to the deduction and such agreement is documented in writing (a job offer which carries a deduction as a condition of employment does not meet this requirement),
The deduction is for a matter that is principally for the benefit of the employee,
The deduction is not a recoupment of the employer’s business expenses,
The amount deducted does not exceed the fair market value or the actual cost (whichever is lower) of the matter covered, and
The amount deducted is not more than 25% of the employee’s disposable earning.
An Education Evaluation arguably qualifies as an authorized deduction. Similar to a translation fee, which is payable by the employee, the employee is benefiting from the evaluation and will be able to use it in the future in his/her private capacity if s/he so wishes. Of course, if the employee is paying for the evaluation, then s/he must be able to acquire a copy of the evaluation so that the future benefit upon which his/her payment is presumed is a real possibility.
Attorney’s fees associated with obtaining H-4 status for family members accompanying the Beneficiary may qualify as authorized deductions since the Beneficiary is the party who primarily benefits from such fees. In addition, attorney fees associated with visa issuance, assuming that international travel is not a requirement for the position, could be properly considered as authorized deductions. In order to properly deduct the attorney fees associated with these processes, it is important that the attorney break down the specifics of how much is being charged for each element of the H-1B process- this will allow the employer to deduct those fees associated with the retention of the visas for the accompanying family members without concerning itself with the deduction requirements necessary for unauthorized deductions.
The circumstances surrounding the Premium Processing Fee determine if deduction of the fee is to qualify as authorized or unauthorized. While the speedy decision that the Premium Processing Fee guarantees often benefits both the employer and the employee, it is important to take notice of which party requests and benefits most from premium processing. If the employee has decided to utilize premium processing for his/her own personal benefit, then the employer may be reimbursed by the employee in accordance with the requirements established by the DOL for authorized deductions. If the employer is the party desiring premium process and who will benefit from such processing, then any deductions from the employee’s pay are unauthorized and, as such Deduction of attorney’s fees associated with the filing of the LCA or H-1B and the Base Fee (or I-129 Fee) are considered to be unauthorized. These fees are considered to be the employer’s business expenses and, for this reason, are not authorized deductions. These fees may be deducted from the employee’s pay so long as they do not drop the rate of pay below the required wage rate.
It is not clear whether or not the Fraud Fee which was implemented in March 2005 is unauthorized or prohibited. The language of the act regarding the Fraud Fee states that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall impose a fraud prevention and detection fee on an employer filing a petition.”10 Almost identical language is used in the Act to refer to the Training Fee.11 Such similarity could be read to mean that the restrictions of the Training Fee also apply to the Fraud Fee. However, 20 C.F.R. 655 is explicit in saying that the employee cannot pay the Training Fee; no such statement is made regarding the Fraud Fee. The regulation regarding the Training Fee, 20 C.F.R. 655, predates the creation of the Fraud Fee, which may explain this discrepancy. Nonetheless, the language referring to the Fraud Fee is not explicitly prohibitive and an employer may decide to be reimbursed by the employee. If an employer chooses to do so, any deductions from the employee’s salary to pay for this fee must meet the DOL requirements for unauthorized deductions. 12
Before any payments are made by the employee or deductions are taken from his/her pay to reimburse the employer, it must be determined if such deduction is permitted and if so, whether or not it is authorized or unauthorized. Once these preliminary determinations are made, appropriate steps must be taken to ensure that the DOL’s requirements are met. As a practical matter, there are very few circumstances in which the prospective employee could legally be made to pay for the costs associated with the H-1b process without an employer risking non-compliance and causing significant record keeping.
485Mbe4001
10-24 01:08 PM
Are you sure it is 90 days, i think it is 180 days and above. Since visitor visa is 6 months max, most are not eligible to apply. After 9/11 my parents had to postpone their return by a month, we had a valid extension etc. My CPA told me that since i had filled out a sponsorship letter to support their visa application, it would create a hassle for my parents during reentry. I did not want to complicate things so i did not claim them.
My friend is a GC holder and he claims his parents as dependents when they stay for more than 180 days. He has had no issues so far. As far as i know, I have yet to see a case where people have run into issues for claiming parents as dependents.
I had applied for a ITIN for my parents about 4 years ago and I was able to claim them as dependents since they stayed in US for more than 90 days and additionally I was supporting their welfare and expenses. IRS did accept my application, but I can do this only in the year they are physically here.
Check Pub 501 page 14 onwards....the key is you need an ITIN # for them....also see page 19, where it says non-resident parents can apply for ITIN, if not eligible for SSN
I have couple of friends who have claimed like this....
if this is the first time you are applying, then you will need to file a paper copy of your taxes and send to IRS Phily and then they will process your taxes for next year....
My friend is a GC holder and he claims his parents as dependents when they stay for more than 180 days. He has had no issues so far. As far as i know, I have yet to see a case where people have run into issues for claiming parents as dependents.
I had applied for a ITIN for my parents about 4 years ago and I was able to claim them as dependents since they stayed in US for more than 90 days and additionally I was supporting their welfare and expenses. IRS did accept my application, but I can do this only in the year they are physically here.
Check Pub 501 page 14 onwards....the key is you need an ITIN # for them....also see page 19, where it says non-resident parents can apply for ITIN, if not eligible for SSN
I have couple of friends who have claimed like this....
if this is the first time you are applying, then you will need to file a paper copy of your taxes and send to IRS Phily and then they will process your taxes for next year....
more...
godbless
11-01 02:56 PM
My brother is a Physical Therapist. His employer filed I485/I140 concurrently last week. His I140 was not filed under premium processing as the employer said that it is a waste of money as the GC will not come in a months time ( as the retrogression took place from Nov 2006). But then would he get his EAD or not? Any thoughts please?
no-tec
10-20 09:18 PM
i got sotw a few weeks ago. what swirl thing?
Humhongekamyab
08-13 01:36 PM
Got Four Reds and "rupaki?" for the Raj Balsar thread :)
You are in favour of (posted) sports news and got four red. I am not in favor or (don't want such news posted) and got four reds.
I guess we cant make everybody happy.
You are in favour of (posted) sports news and got four red. I am not in favor or (don't want such news posted) and got four reds.
I guess we cant make everybody happy.
stucklabor
02-04 04:51 PM
Behind Bush's New Stress on Science, Lobbying by Republican Executives
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 1 � President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush called for a doubling within 10 years of the federal commitment to "the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences."
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, said Mr. Bush would request $910 million for the first year of the research initiative, with a commitment to spending $50 billion over 10 years.
Computer scientists have expressed alarm that federal support for basic research is being eroded by shifts toward applied research and shorter-term financing. But in his speech, Mr. Bush pointed to work in supercomputing, nanotechnology and alternative energy sources � subjects that were favorites in the Clinton administration but had not been priorities for the current White House.
What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13.
There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.
The report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," has been circulating in draft form since October. It was put together by a group of top technology and science leaders, who say the country faces a crisis that the Bush administration is ignoring.
"The gravitas of that group," Dr. Vest said, "has a lot to do with how we got as far as we did."
Still, even after the meetings, the executives and educators were not certain that the administration would respond. So President Bush's proposal on Tuesday night came as something of a surprise.
Albert H. Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest professional organization for scientists, called Mr. Bush's proposal "a breath of fresh air."
"We haven't seen this interest in basic research from this president before," Mr. Teich said. "We in the science community have talked about the state of basic research for quite a while, with its flat or declining budgets, and we are hopeful about this initiative."
Mr. Barrett of Intel, according to people who worked with him, had grown particularly frustrated with the lack of progress on the matter.
In a speech to the National Academy of Engineering in October, in which he described the findings of the Gathering Storm report, Mr. Barrett said: "If you look at the achievement of the average 12th-grade student in math and science, which is of interest to us here, that 12th-grader in the U.S. ranks in the bottom 10 percent among their international peers. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that report and help raise our voices collectively to our local officials, state officials and national officials."
The executives said that the administration had also been induced to respond by a growing bipartisan movement in Congress supporting basic research and education.
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
"We're excited the president has jump-started this and that it is very bipartisan," Dr. Vest said.
Now the technologists and the educators are waiting to see the specifics of the financing when the president's budget is introduced next week. The report had called for an annual 10 percent increase over the next 10 years, and several executives said they now expected a rise of 7 percent annually, putting annual spending around twice the current level in 10 years.
Peter A. Freeman, the National Science Foundation's assistant director for computer and information science and engineering, said the president's initiative would make a big difference.
"We're obviously not at liberty to say what will be in the president's budget next week," Mr. Freeman said, "but we're very hopeful based on the State of the Union address. This is a strong sign that this administration will continue to be very supportive of fundamental science and engineering."
Despite there being little detail yet with precise figures, even those who had been publicly critical of the administration were enthusiastic.
"This is really a huge deal and I'm very encouraged," said David A. Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is president of the Association for Computing Machinery, a professional group.
At the same time, though, Mr. Patterson was concerned that the president's proposal to double funds for basic research drew little applause from the Congressional audience on Tuesday night. "It just shows the challenge we have," he said. "It wasn't obvious to the legislators."
Warren E. Leary contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: February 2, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 1 � President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.
In his State of the Union message Tuesday evening, Mr. Bush called for a doubling within 10 years of the federal commitment to "the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences."
The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, said Mr. Bush would request $910 million for the first year of the research initiative, with a commitment to spending $50 billion over 10 years.
Computer scientists have expressed alarm that federal support for basic research is being eroded by shifts toward applied research and shorter-term financing. But in his speech, Mr. Bush pointed to work in supercomputing, nanotechnology and alternative energy sources � subjects that were favorites in the Clinton administration but had not been priorities for the current White House.
What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13.
There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.
The report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future," has been circulating in draft form since October. It was put together by a group of top technology and science leaders, who say the country faces a crisis that the Bush administration is ignoring.
"The gravitas of that group," Dr. Vest said, "has a lot to do with how we got as far as we did."
Still, even after the meetings, the executives and educators were not certain that the administration would respond. So President Bush's proposal on Tuesday night came as something of a surprise.
Albert H. Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest professional organization for scientists, called Mr. Bush's proposal "a breath of fresh air."
"We haven't seen this interest in basic research from this president before," Mr. Teich said. "We in the science community have talked about the state of basic research for quite a while, with its flat or declining budgets, and we are hopeful about this initiative."
Mr. Barrett of Intel, according to people who worked with him, had grown particularly frustrated with the lack of progress on the matter.
In a speech to the National Academy of Engineering in October, in which he described the findings of the Gathering Storm report, Mr. Barrett said: "If you look at the achievement of the average 12th-grade student in math and science, which is of interest to us here, that 12th-grader in the U.S. ranks in the bottom 10 percent among their international peers. I think it is incumbent upon all of us to look at that report and help raise our voices collectively to our local officials, state officials and national officials."
The executives said that the administration had also been induced to respond by a growing bipartisan movement in Congress supporting basic research and education.
Two bills tackling this matter have recently been introduced. One is the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act, by Senators Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico; Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee; and Barbara A. Mikulski, Democrat of Maryland. A similar bill was introduced by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut. Several of the senators met with President Bush in December to encourage him to support the competitiveness legislation.
"We're excited the president has jump-started this and that it is very bipartisan," Dr. Vest said.
Now the technologists and the educators are waiting to see the specifics of the financing when the president's budget is introduced next week. The report had called for an annual 10 percent increase over the next 10 years, and several executives said they now expected a rise of 7 percent annually, putting annual spending around twice the current level in 10 years.
Peter A. Freeman, the National Science Foundation's assistant director for computer and information science and engineering, said the president's initiative would make a big difference.
"We're obviously not at liberty to say what will be in the president's budget next week," Mr. Freeman said, "but we're very hopeful based on the State of the Union address. This is a strong sign that this administration will continue to be very supportive of fundamental science and engineering."
Despite there being little detail yet with precise figures, even those who had been publicly critical of the administration were enthusiastic.
"This is really a huge deal and I'm very encouraged," said David A. Patterson, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, who is president of the Association for Computing Machinery, a professional group.
At the same time, though, Mr. Patterson was concerned that the president's proposal to double funds for basic research drew little applause from the Congressional audience on Tuesday night. "It just shows the challenge we have," he said. "It wasn't obvious to the legislators."
Warren E. Leary contributed reporting from Washington for this article.
dixie
08-23 06:55 PM
We all know very well by now that the house of representatives is THE mover when it comes to passing any pro-legal immigration bill.Given that half of those representatives may loose their jobs in the coming election, I dont see much point in contacting them now if they have already made up their mind not to do anything on immigration until the elections. But we will have to double our efforts as soon as the new congress settles in so that our agenda gets highlighted to the new members of congress.
But look at the positive side. We have more time to contact the law makers.
But look at the positive side. We have more time to contact the law makers.
No comments:
Post a Comment