drirshad
12-31 11:15 PM
How complicated will the life be if one changes job after 3 yr. extension of H1 based on approved I-140 ?
How complicated is life for u now, if current employer making life hell then changing job with 3 yr. extension is best option, provided u workout with the employer that they don't cancel the 140 after u move or u cannot port the priority date ....
If u know employer will cancel 140 at any cost if u move then decide is it still worth staying or moving. these days PERM and 140 premium taking like 6 months
BUT wait until Feb/March the immg lobby is trying to pass some bills for us if it goes thru will b good but u can float ur resume and start interview process ....
Happy New Year 2007 ...........
How complicated is life for u now, if current employer making life hell then changing job with 3 yr. extension is best option, provided u workout with the employer that they don't cancel the 140 after u move or u cannot port the priority date ....
If u know employer will cancel 140 at any cost if u move then decide is it still worth staying or moving. these days PERM and 140 premium taking like 6 months
BUT wait until Feb/March the immg lobby is trying to pass some bills for us if it goes thru will b good but u can float ur resume and start interview process ....
Happy New Year 2007 ...........
wallpaper iPhone Wallpaper — Night story
roseball
07-20 05:02 PM
I thought as per the new memo it is advisable to extend your non-immigrant status even if you have filed your AOS and work on EAD.
I know many people who were on H4 and started working as soon as they filed AOS and got EAD's, now in this case there I-94 issued for H4 is still valid.
When their spouse extended their H1B's, they did also extend the H4 petition to get new I-94's.
Like the attorney mentioned, you can't maintain H4 and AOS status at the same time. You can file for H1 to H4 COS but as soon as you use your EAD and start working, you will lose your H4 status. Having a valid H4 I-94 does not mean you still maintain H4 status. You can't work on H4, period. EAD gives you authorization to work based on your pending I-485, but then using your EAD will put you back in AOS pending/Parolee status. Hope this helps...
I know many people who were on H4 and started working as soon as they filed AOS and got EAD's, now in this case there I-94 issued for H4 is still valid.
When their spouse extended their H1B's, they did also extend the H4 petition to get new I-94's.
Like the attorney mentioned, you can't maintain H4 and AOS status at the same time. You can file for H1 to H4 COS but as soon as you use your EAD and start working, you will lose your H4 status. Having a valid H4 I-94 does not mean you still maintain H4 status. You can't work on H4, period. EAD gives you authorization to work based on your pending I-485, but then using your EAD will put you back in AOS pending/Parolee status. Hope this helps...
puskeygadha
06-02 09:22 PM
somehow they have to talk to DOL
morons..
but one out of many attorneys may have screwed up..why is everyone
being audited???
morons..
but one out of many attorneys may have screwed up..why is everyone
being audited???
2011 Live Wallpaper The Balrog.
chanduv23
06-08 07:20 AM
I have a NY lisence and it says on top "Temp visitor, expires 05/29/2010" which is the date on my i 94. So around that time I have to go get that extended to whatever temporary date my status gets extended. What a pain.
more...
sreeanne
12-13 12:29 PM
my 485 also did not show up till my FP was done, but after my FP completed, the next day it showed up in online system.
perm2gc
01-08 03:44 PM
They are in mid-30s and if they apply for residency they will finish at age 35yrs and then post-residency is another couple of years. Does mid 30s age in their favour?
Would like to get more insight on this issue.
Thanks.
Please post what insight you want to know on the issue.The 30's is common age here.so VO will not buy that...
Would like to get more insight on this issue.
Thanks.
Please post what insight you want to know on the issue.The 30's is common age here.so VO will not buy that...
more...
rameshk
03-03 04:32 PM
Who is the laywer? can share his contact information with us please?
Thanks,
Hi,
I've been an infrequent visitor to this site in the past, but it has helped me substantially especially when I've been frustrated with the GC situation - I feel the need to share this, hoping that it might help others. I'm posting in this forum because this is the place people tend to ask questions of lawyers. I'll try to keep this simple so that its easy to understand.
Me: EB2 PD March 2005 for first job. I-140 approved 2006. Promoted to different tile in 2007 Jan, second EB2 filed in March 2007.
Wife: EB2 PD Feb 2007.
During the 'fiasco' of 2007, because I did not have an approved PERM for my new job title, we filed for 485's and 140s through my wife with me as the dependent (Having an AP is worth it when traveling overseas, especially if you anticipate traveling for emergencies and don't have the luxury of checking in for an appointment with the consulate to get a visa renewal - also removes the stress of another interview). Neither of us applied for EADs because we were more secure on the H1 visas - your status is immediately screwed if you switch to EAD and your 485 is denied.
In 2008, I received an RFE on my 2nd PERM application (which was addressed by my company - I have no clue what it was about). In 2009, I received an RFE on my 485 application through my wife, we replied to it through a very good lawyer.
Last year, my original LC PD became current! However, our 485s were tied to my wife's application. After speaking to many lawyers, we understood that there were the following options:-
1. Withdraw the earlier 485s, file completely new ones based on my PD (supposedly the safest from GC point of view, because it leaves no room for confusion. Downside is processing time, app getting lost, losing AP/EAD from earlier 485 etc)
2. File another completely new set of parallel 485s, and leave it to UCSIS to figure out that they needed to pick one with the earlier PD (overkill and confusing as well. UCSIS now deals with 4 485 applications, and chances that they will get confused magnify. High processing time as well)
3. Send a letter requesting that the 485 applications be reviewed based on my PD as opposed to my wife's. (Upside is that its potentially the fastest, is approved by the UCSIS, and you can track it by calling up. Downside is that they may simply don't respond because its not really a legal document that's being sent. Then you get stuck just running for Infopass, SR, Congressman etc)
I have to say that choosing the right lawyer to handle your case is possibly the most important thing you can do. What some of us don't know is that while the earlier stages of the GC process are applications made by the company, the 485 application is an individual application, and you are legally allowed to do so through any lawyer you wish to. In our case, we chose the law firm we trusted, even though it was more expensive. They recommended option 3, and we went with it. That was 4 months ago.
On Saturday (2/25) we received email saying that the card were in processing. This afternoon we got our cards in the mail - a nice surprise.
Moral of the story:-
1. Do your homework, get multiple opinions - no one will care about your GC app like you do.
2. When you move and update the AR-11, make sure you update the address for pending cases as well - this will ensure they mail your GC to the correct place.
3. Don't do anything illegal :)
4. Hire the best lawyer you can if your case is not straightforward. Our lawyer was always willing to talk to us at a few hours notice, was very prompt, and was proactive in checking up on UCSIS updates, bulletins etc.
Best wishes.
Thanks,
Hi,
I've been an infrequent visitor to this site in the past, but it has helped me substantially especially when I've been frustrated with the GC situation - I feel the need to share this, hoping that it might help others. I'm posting in this forum because this is the place people tend to ask questions of lawyers. I'll try to keep this simple so that its easy to understand.
Me: EB2 PD March 2005 for first job. I-140 approved 2006. Promoted to different tile in 2007 Jan, second EB2 filed in March 2007.
Wife: EB2 PD Feb 2007.
During the 'fiasco' of 2007, because I did not have an approved PERM for my new job title, we filed for 485's and 140s through my wife with me as the dependent (Having an AP is worth it when traveling overseas, especially if you anticipate traveling for emergencies and don't have the luxury of checking in for an appointment with the consulate to get a visa renewal - also removes the stress of another interview). Neither of us applied for EADs because we were more secure on the H1 visas - your status is immediately screwed if you switch to EAD and your 485 is denied.
In 2008, I received an RFE on my 2nd PERM application (which was addressed by my company - I have no clue what it was about). In 2009, I received an RFE on my 485 application through my wife, we replied to it through a very good lawyer.
Last year, my original LC PD became current! However, our 485s were tied to my wife's application. After speaking to many lawyers, we understood that there were the following options:-
1. Withdraw the earlier 485s, file completely new ones based on my PD (supposedly the safest from GC point of view, because it leaves no room for confusion. Downside is processing time, app getting lost, losing AP/EAD from earlier 485 etc)
2. File another completely new set of parallel 485s, and leave it to UCSIS to figure out that they needed to pick one with the earlier PD (overkill and confusing as well. UCSIS now deals with 4 485 applications, and chances that they will get confused magnify. High processing time as well)
3. Send a letter requesting that the 485 applications be reviewed based on my PD as opposed to my wife's. (Upside is that its potentially the fastest, is approved by the UCSIS, and you can track it by calling up. Downside is that they may simply don't respond because its not really a legal document that's being sent. Then you get stuck just running for Infopass, SR, Congressman etc)
I have to say that choosing the right lawyer to handle your case is possibly the most important thing you can do. What some of us don't know is that while the earlier stages of the GC process are applications made by the company, the 485 application is an individual application, and you are legally allowed to do so through any lawyer you wish to. In our case, we chose the law firm we trusted, even though it was more expensive. They recommended option 3, and we went with it. That was 4 months ago.
On Saturday (2/25) we received email saying that the card were in processing. This afternoon we got our cards in the mail - a nice surprise.
Moral of the story:-
1. Do your homework, get multiple opinions - no one will care about your GC app like you do.
2. When you move and update the AR-11, make sure you update the address for pending cases as well - this will ensure they mail your GC to the correct place.
3. Don't do anything illegal :)
4. Hire the best lawyer you can if your case is not straightforward. Our lawyer was always willing to talk to us at a few hours notice, was very prompt, and was proactive in checking up on UCSIS updates, bulletins etc.
Best wishes.
2010 Wallpaper - 2
lazycis
01-15 11:15 AM
Finally, I found it in the federal regulations. So it's the federal law.
20 CFR Ch. V. � 655.731
...
except that the deduction may not recoup a business expense(s) of the employer (including attorney fees and other costs connected to the performance of H–1B program functions which are required to be performed by the employer, e.g., preparation and filing of LCA and H–1B petition);
20 CFR Ch. V. � 655.731
...
except that the deduction may not recoup a business expense(s) of the employer (including attorney fees and other costs connected to the performance of H–1B program functions which are required to be performed by the employer, e.g., preparation and filing of LCA and H–1B petition);
more...
paskal
02-14 03:44 PM
Physicians measures:
We have been actively engaged in discussions with senate leaders on physician issue over the last few months. Members of our chapter traveled to DC to attend a key Senate task force meeting on physician immigration and current challenges. We also attended the AAPI legislative day event in DC and found support from lawmakers and from AAPI.
We strongly encourage everyone to be strongly behind the administrative fixes campaign, as this will bring considerable relief while we battle for immigration reform. letters from physicians and their colleagues will carry their own weight. Ask your employers too and approach your lawmakers!
Our efforts have shown signs of bearing fruit in recent times. Recently we were privileged to be part of a discussion on an upcoming physician bill that would satisfy our primary agenda: quota free green cards for physicians that serve in under served areas. The current proposal would encompass both J1 and H1B physicians. This would be an interim step towards reform- a more wide ranging bill is expected in the future.
We are hoping that this bill can be brought up for voting at some point in the near future. We will need help from many physician members to achieve our objective. A successful result would resolve the entire issue for many physicians AND would establish for the first time a principal that IV has espoused: skilled immigrants that work in the national interest should not be bound by quotas. This precedent would go along way in resolving the larger immigration morass as well.
The chapter thanks all it's active members and IV for the efforts and support that have led us this far. If you want to join the physicians chapter, use the links in my signature. Remember that membership is contingent upon disclosing at least your name and contact number, which is kept confidential at all times.
We have been actively engaged in discussions with senate leaders on physician issue over the last few months. Members of our chapter traveled to DC to attend a key Senate task force meeting on physician immigration and current challenges. We also attended the AAPI legislative day event in DC and found support from lawmakers and from AAPI.
We strongly encourage everyone to be strongly behind the administrative fixes campaign, as this will bring considerable relief while we battle for immigration reform. letters from physicians and their colleagues will carry their own weight. Ask your employers too and approach your lawmakers!
Our efforts have shown signs of bearing fruit in recent times. Recently we were privileged to be part of a discussion on an upcoming physician bill that would satisfy our primary agenda: quota free green cards for physicians that serve in under served areas. The current proposal would encompass both J1 and H1B physicians. This would be an interim step towards reform- a more wide ranging bill is expected in the future.
We are hoping that this bill can be brought up for voting at some point in the near future. We will need help from many physician members to achieve our objective. A successful result would resolve the entire issue for many physicians AND would establish for the first time a principal that IV has espoused: skilled immigrants that work in the national interest should not be bound by quotas. This precedent would go along way in resolving the larger immigration morass as well.
The chapter thanks all it's active members and IV for the efforts and support that have led us this far. If you want to join the physicians chapter, use the links in my signature. Remember that membership is contingent upon disclosing at least your name and contact number, which is kept confidential at all times.
hair Balrog
qplearn
08-23 07:04 PM
I am wondering why it is that nobody knows whether a bill will be introduced in Sept. The house and senate have their timetables set long in advance.
Also, if it goes beyond Nov, and the Dems win, they might forget all about us; they care far more for the illegals, unfortunately.:(
We must try to get this passed before the elections in Nov.
qplearn
Its bound to happen. Everyone thinks others will do it, and they dont care(dont want to make any efforts) even though they really want GCs from their inside. Howver we will still find some people who care for this cause and will join the group. so its worth trying.
thanks again for at least trying.
Also, if it goes beyond Nov, and the Dems win, they might forget all about us; they care far more for the illegals, unfortunately.:(
We must try to get this passed before the elections in Nov.
qplearn
Its bound to happen. Everyone thinks others will do it, and they dont care(dont want to make any efforts) even though they really want GCs from their inside. Howver we will still find some people who care for this cause and will join the group. so its worth trying.
thanks again for at least trying.
more...
reddymjm
05-05 04:27 PM
You will get your GC before your AP and EAD for sure. You missed the 2 year EAD and AP man. ;)
hot Share Your Opinion: Removing
ardnahc
09-01 01:56 PM
Congratulations!
more...
house Wallpaper Information
karan2004m
07-29 01:38 AM
Did Anyone got 2 year EAD when I-140 pending? There is some stupid assumption posted on some immigration website that USCIS is issuing 2 yr EAD to approved 140 petitions only..
Just want to confirm that.
Just want to confirm that.
tattoo 4 - Balrog Wallpaper
sanjay02
12-08 01:24 PM
Hi
Does any one have contacts in websites like Rediff.com, Samachar.com so that we can put a banner and advt many companies when they lauch new products they put it there. For Eg Airtel similar to Reliance India call, has put a banner on samachar.com
Does any one have contacts in websites like Rediff.com, Samachar.com so that we can put a banner and advt many companies when they lauch new products they put it there. For Eg Airtel similar to Reliance India call, has put a banner on samachar.com
more...
pictures SSF4 Balrog Wallpaper
jayleno
04-24 09:41 AM
Guys,
A few days back my wife got the same RFE. Except we were asked to sumbit different evidence like joint back account, joint tax filings, joint residency, insurance on which both names are listed etc.
Looks like its getting very common to request this evidence recently.
A few days back my wife got the same RFE. Except we were asked to sumbit different evidence like joint back account, joint tax filings, joint residency, insurance on which both names are listed etc.
Looks like its getting very common to request this evidence recently.
dresses Streetfighter IV Balrog
vvpandya
05-19 07:08 PM
i did it myself too..pretty straightforward..they hv all info on their website..
more...
makeup Streetfighter IV Balrog
immi_enthu
08-06 11:17 AM
12 calendar days. My I 140 was originally applied on 01/08/2007 upgraded to premium on 06/26/2007 there was a RFE ability to pay , reponse for RFE received on 07/26/2007. we called 18663155718 today, the IO officer said my case is approved today. online status still says it's pending.
girlfriend Cayene Jeremie Paret Balrog 16 desktop wallpaper, Cayene Jeremie Paret
pappu
01-20 10:33 PM
IV is not giving any updates on the public forums at this time and risk our ongoing efforts. Do not quote some annonymous members on other forums or this forum to elicit a response from IV. Do not continue to start new threads asking for updates and asking core members for answers. You, an IV member is our answer and you yourself can also provide answer to all of us by helping us. It is our combined effort that will lead to a solution for all of us. IV core is working hard to make something happen but you all are our legs and support us. We would like to encourage members to actively participate in state chapters, and they can get to know our action plans by participating in them. We also want members to actively participate in funding drive and we will be communicating with such contributing members. This would encourage members to help IV to help everyone and themselves with their efforts. Till now merely 154 members have commited funds in the past 1 week. We can get thousands of opinions on forums on a given subject, but it is really hard to have a meagre $20 contribution from members. Without contributions we will be limited in our efforts. It is very critical for our success and to achive our common goal. IV will not survive without being able to fund our efforts and members can continue to debate on various provisons on forums without much hope for any relief. Hope you will appreciate this POV, understand the gravity of this issue and help all of us in the IV community wth the ongoing monthly contributions drive.
Thanks
Thanks
hairstyles Paret Balrog 15 Wallpaper
txuser
03-11 09:39 AM
For me, it took around 1.5 months to receive the L2 approval notice. I filed online on 11/17/2009, mailed the hard copies of the documents (USPS Priority with delivery confirmation) the same day and received the L2 approval notice on 01/08/2010.
You can do a concurrent filing for EAD (I-765) along with L2 (I-539). You'd probably receive the EAD in another month (Generally it takes around 2 to 3 months).
I did the mistake of not filing for EAD concurrently. I filed for EAD the second week of Jan (after receiving the L2 approval notice), Received the notice for Biometrics appointment in 3 days, scheduled for mid-February. Unfortunately, the ASC Office was closed that day due to bad weather and I received a re-scheduled biometrics appointment for the 3rd week of March. So, I am yet to do the biometrics and hopefully I'd get the card 2-3 weeks after the biometrics is done if there are no more surprises.
You can do a concurrent filing for EAD (I-765) along with L2 (I-539). You'd probably receive the EAD in another month (Generally it takes around 2 to 3 months).
I did the mistake of not filing for EAD concurrently. I filed for EAD the second week of Jan (after receiving the L2 approval notice), Received the notice for Biometrics appointment in 3 days, scheduled for mid-February. Unfortunately, the ASC Office was closed that day due to bad weather and I received a re-scheduled biometrics appointment for the 3rd week of March. So, I am yet to do the biometrics and hopefully I'd get the card 2-3 weeks after the biometrics is done if there are no more surprises.
mambarg
07-26 12:57 PM
This person mailed on June 28 and app received on June 29 and got his notice date on July 24. Today.
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
I could have been with him today but for my attorney who got extremely busy and did not file my 485 with 140 and got stuck with July fiasco
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment