S. 1932 Status
- Thread starter sunjoshi
- Start date
pasupuleti
Registered Users (C)
what does this mean
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01932:@@@X
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01932:@@@X
Some interesting details from http://www.imminfo.com/news.htm
The Visa Office is telling us that the worldwide EB3 cutoff date is March 1, 2001. They are telling us, in effect, that there is a backlog of some 770,000 approved I-140 petitions for people who have either filed for adjustment of status already or who have notified their home consulates that they have all required documentation and are ready for an interview. That backlog is approximately equal to the number of all employment based immigrants for the seven year period 1998 – 2004.
For the past five years, the Visa Office has told us that there were sufficient visa numbers available to accommodate all qualified EB applicants. Now, all of a sudden, three-quarters of a million new applicants have turned up. Where did they come from? More importantly, does this mean that the CIS has approved one and a half million I-140 petitions in the past five years? That would be very interesting, particularly when the Department of Labor has approved fewer than 350,000 labor certifications over the past five years.
A cynical person might speculate that the whole thing is a sham, designed to allow the CIS to whittle down its humiliatingly large adjustment of status backlog. It think it is starting to become clear that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
The Visa Office is telling us that the worldwide EB3 cutoff date is March 1, 2001. They are telling us, in effect, that there is a backlog of some 770,000 approved I-140 petitions for people who have either filed for adjustment of status already or who have notified their home consulates that they have all required documentation and are ready for an interview. That backlog is approximately equal to the number of all employment based immigrants for the seven year period 1998 – 2004.
For the past five years, the Visa Office has told us that there were sufficient visa numbers available to accommodate all qualified EB applicants. Now, all of a sudden, three-quarters of a million new applicants have turned up. Where did they come from? More importantly, does this mean that the CIS has approved one and a half million I-140 petitions in the past five years? That would be very interesting, particularly when the Department of Labor has approved fewer than 350,000 labor certifications over the past five years.
A cynical person might speculate that the whole thing is a sham, designed to allow the CIS to whittle down its humiliatingly large adjustment of status backlog. It think it is starting to become clear that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.
Can someone else comment on this
I saw this yesterday that there was an amendment placed but I did not understand. Now it says it passed. Can someone please see what this means ? If S.1932 is already passed then all we really have to wait is for the President to sign !!
Please comment....
pasupuleti said:
I saw this yesterday that there was an amendment placed but I did not understand. Now it says it passed. Can someone please see what this means ? If S.1932 is already passed then all we really have to wait is for the President to sign !!
Please comment....
WaitingonLC
Registered Users (C)
letter to the Member of Congress
Dear Member of Congress:
As we begin Fiscal Year 2006, America’s long-term economic health must be at the forefront of our nation’s legislative agenda. I am writing to alert you to several issues that we believe pose a significant threat to U.S. competitiveness and economic security. Leading business and scientific organizations recently warned that the United States is in danger of losing its innovative edge. Lagging student interest in math, science and engineering, coupled with a pattern of reduced government investment in basic research in the physical sciences are troubling indicators for the future. These disturbing trends must be reversed.
The green card process needs reform to enable employers to hire and retain the best qualified individuals in sufficient numbers. We believe that those individuals with the education, experience, knowledge and skills critical to U.S. competitiveness in the 21 st Century should be granted priority permanent resident status. Such reforms would significantly assist U.S. employers in retaining that talent, as well as alleviate the overwhelming demand for H-1B visas. USCIS’ efforts to reduce application backlogs have created another problem – unavailability of permanent visas, frequently called “green cards.” As of October 1, 2005, the State Department has set the clock backward – adding years to the wait for a green card for thousands of foreign professionals from countries such as India, China and the Philippines. The impact of the new restrictions will make it nearly impossible for these highly educated and skilled workers to gain permanent residence in the United States in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the recent unavailability of visas will force thousands of professionals to put their lives on hold, with the inability to change jobs, locations or employers.
To make matters worse, many of these professionals – including researchers, scientists, teachers and engineers – will see their wait for permanent residency drag on for many more years. Our system of backlogs, delays and unpredictability is discouraging and unwelcoming, forcing many valued employees to seek employment in other nations. This is not only disruptive to U.S. employers and our economy, but exceedingly unfair to hard-working, valued members of the American workforce. Access to this talent keeps innovation and jobs in the United States. Tapping America’s Potential and the National Association of Manufacturers’ 2005 Labor Day Report are available at www.competeamerica.org and www.nam.org.
The U.S. Senate passed S. 1932 which includes Section 8001 and Section 8002 to resolve the foregoing problems which this nation faces. The House bill, H.R. 4241, failed to include these important parts of the budget reconciliation legislation. Please support Sections 8001 and 8002 of S. 1932 in the conference process.
Thank you. Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx,
President,
yyy Corporation,
address,
telephone number.
Source(Immigration-law.com)
Dear Member of Congress:
As we begin Fiscal Year 2006, America’s long-term economic health must be at the forefront of our nation’s legislative agenda. I am writing to alert you to several issues that we believe pose a significant threat to U.S. competitiveness and economic security. Leading business and scientific organizations recently warned that the United States is in danger of losing its innovative edge. Lagging student interest in math, science and engineering, coupled with a pattern of reduced government investment in basic research in the physical sciences are troubling indicators for the future. These disturbing trends must be reversed.
The green card process needs reform to enable employers to hire and retain the best qualified individuals in sufficient numbers. We believe that those individuals with the education, experience, knowledge and skills critical to U.S. competitiveness in the 21 st Century should be granted priority permanent resident status. Such reforms would significantly assist U.S. employers in retaining that talent, as well as alleviate the overwhelming demand for H-1B visas. USCIS’ efforts to reduce application backlogs have created another problem – unavailability of permanent visas, frequently called “green cards.” As of October 1, 2005, the State Department has set the clock backward – adding years to the wait for a green card for thousands of foreign professionals from countries such as India, China and the Philippines. The impact of the new restrictions will make it nearly impossible for these highly educated and skilled workers to gain permanent residence in the United States in the foreseeable future. Moreover, the recent unavailability of visas will force thousands of professionals to put their lives on hold, with the inability to change jobs, locations or employers.
To make matters worse, many of these professionals – including researchers, scientists, teachers and engineers – will see their wait for permanent residency drag on for many more years. Our system of backlogs, delays and unpredictability is discouraging and unwelcoming, forcing many valued employees to seek employment in other nations. This is not only disruptive to U.S. employers and our economy, but exceedingly unfair to hard-working, valued members of the American workforce. Access to this talent keeps innovation and jobs in the United States. Tapping America’s Potential and the National Association of Manufacturers’ 2005 Labor Day Report are available at www.competeamerica.org and www.nam.org.
The U.S. Senate passed S. 1932 which includes Section 8001 and Section 8002 to resolve the foregoing problems which this nation faces. The House bill, H.R. 4241, failed to include these important parts of the budget reconciliation legislation. Please support Sections 8001 and 8002 of S. 1932 in the conference process.
Thank you. Sincerely,
xxxxxxxxx,
President,
yyy Corporation,
address,
telephone number.
Source(Immigration-law.com)
Phone Calls
I called the following 39 members of the House budget Committee and left the enclosed message on their voice mails. I took me 1hr and 12 mins.
http://clerk.house.gov/committee/index.html?comcode=HBU00
Republican & Democrat
1. Jim Nussle, IA, Chairman
2. Jim Ryun, KS
3. Ander Crenshaw, FL
4. Adam H. Putnam, FL
5. Roger F. Wicker, MS
6. Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
7. Jo Bonner, AL
8. Scott Garrett, NJ
9. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
10. Thaddeus G. McCotter, MI
11. Mario Diaz-Balart, FL
12. Jeb Hensarling, TX
13. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL
14. Daniel E. Lungren, CA
15. Pete Sessions, TX
16. Paul Ryan, WI
17. Michael K. Simpson, ID
18. Jeb Bradley, NH
19. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
20. Connie Mack, FL
21. K. Michael Conaway, TX
22. Chris Chocola, IN
1. John M. Spratt Jr., SC
2. Dennis Moore, KS
3. Richard E. Neal, MA
4. Rosa L. DeLauro, CT
5. Chet Edwards, TX
6. Harold E. Ford Jr., TN
7. Lois Capps, CA
8. Brian Baird, WA
9. Jim Cooper, TN
10. Artur Davis, AL
11. William J. Jefferson, LA
12. Thomas H. Allen, ME
13. Ed Case, HI
14. Cynthia McKinney, GA
15. Henry Cuellar, TX
16. Allyson Y. Schwartz, PA
17. Ron Kind, WI
Message
"I request your support of Section 8001 in the Senate bill S 1932 which serves to increase federal government revenue by recapture of unused employment based permanent residence numbers in 2006. This senate bill had passed with great bipartisan support with a vote of 85-14. The house recently passed HR 4241 but without a similar provision. These 2 bills will be reconciled at a House / Senate Conference Committee meeting soon. I urge you to support the inclusion of Section 8001 of S 1932 in the final version to be submiited to the President
Please note that the provisions in Section 8001 would recapture unused permanent residence numbers which were already approved in past years but were not utilized due to administrative inefficiency by the former INS and now USCIS. Section 8001 benefits legal aliens who are already in the US for the past 4 - 6 years. These beneficiaries are hardworking tax payers who have already been certified by the US department of labor as highly-skilled workers who will not be displacing existing American workers in the market but meeting the need of American industry - especially the health care and IT sectors.
Support of Section 8001 is a win-win situation for all. The government benefits from increased revenue. The American industry will maintain its competitive edge. Health care sector can retain alien nurses and physicians already employed here in the US. The legal aliens in the US can gain permanent residence in a timely fashion and continue to contribute to American society.
I look for ward to your support of Section 8001 of Senate bill S 1932 at the Conference committee meeting."
Rog
I called the following 39 members of the House budget Committee and left the enclosed message on their voice mails. I took me 1hr and 12 mins.
http://clerk.house.gov/committee/index.html?comcode=HBU00
Republican & Democrat
1. Jim Nussle, IA, Chairman
2. Jim Ryun, KS
3. Ander Crenshaw, FL
4. Adam H. Putnam, FL
5. Roger F. Wicker, MS
6. Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
7. Jo Bonner, AL
8. Scott Garrett, NJ
9. J. Gresham Barrett, SC
10. Thaddeus G. McCotter, MI
11. Mario Diaz-Balart, FL
12. Jeb Hensarling, TX
13. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, FL
14. Daniel E. Lungren, CA
15. Pete Sessions, TX
16. Paul Ryan, WI
17. Michael K. Simpson, ID
18. Jeb Bradley, NH
19. Patrick T. McHenry, NC
20. Connie Mack, FL
21. K. Michael Conaway, TX
22. Chris Chocola, IN
1. John M. Spratt Jr., SC
2. Dennis Moore, KS
3. Richard E. Neal, MA
4. Rosa L. DeLauro, CT
5. Chet Edwards, TX
6. Harold E. Ford Jr., TN
7. Lois Capps, CA
8. Brian Baird, WA
9. Jim Cooper, TN
10. Artur Davis, AL
11. William J. Jefferson, LA
12. Thomas H. Allen, ME
13. Ed Case, HI
14. Cynthia McKinney, GA
15. Henry Cuellar, TX
16. Allyson Y. Schwartz, PA
17. Ron Kind, WI
Message
"I request your support of Section 8001 in the Senate bill S 1932 which serves to increase federal government revenue by recapture of unused employment based permanent residence numbers in 2006. This senate bill had passed with great bipartisan support with a vote of 85-14. The house recently passed HR 4241 but without a similar provision. These 2 bills will be reconciled at a House / Senate Conference Committee meeting soon. I urge you to support the inclusion of Section 8001 of S 1932 in the final version to be submiited to the President
Please note that the provisions in Section 8001 would recapture unused permanent residence numbers which were already approved in past years but were not utilized due to administrative inefficiency by the former INS and now USCIS. Section 8001 benefits legal aliens who are already in the US for the past 4 - 6 years. These beneficiaries are hardworking tax payers who have already been certified by the US department of labor as highly-skilled workers who will not be displacing existing American workers in the market but meeting the need of American industry - especially the health care and IT sectors.
Support of Section 8001 is a win-win situation for all. The government benefits from increased revenue. The American industry will maintain its competitive edge. Health care sector can retain alien nurses and physicians already employed here in the US. The legal aliens in the US can gain permanent residence in a timely fashion and continue to contribute to American society.
I look for ward to your support of Section 8001 of Senate bill S 1932 at the Conference committee meeting."
Rog
Anand_Mishra
Registered Users (C)
Good work. I will also leave few.
GOP are gearing up smoothen up for critical differences to keep alive the bill. 8001 or immigration relief are not even in picture. I am not sure they will be able to work out major differences.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119...MqyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
GOP are gearing up smoothen up for critical differences to keep alive the bill. 8001 or immigration relief are not even in picture. I am not sure they will be able to work out major differences.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051119...MqyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--
Rog said:
The Word "Visa" or "H1B"
Hey All,
I will show same effort for Canference Committee by calling, faxing, e-mailing and even sending regular mails which we time for it, at least for a few Committee members.
I just received a regular mail from Mr. John Linder, who was one of the representatives I e-mailed, dated on Now. 03 '05.
He expressed his support on H.R. 4818, which is H-1B visa number recapture.
What I asked him was support for EB Retrogression. He misunderstood I guess. Please do not put any of "visa" or "H1B" word on your letter of fax.
Rog's letter is good and I can use it except last 4-6 years part. I have been here for 3 years. So, I won't be qualify under this circumstances. Please give me a clue that section 8001 has any restriction like applicant should have been in USA for last 4-6 years ????.
Thanks being here.
Zbd.
Hey All,
I will show same effort for Canference Committee by calling, faxing, e-mailing and even sending regular mails which we time for it, at least for a few Committee members.
I just received a regular mail from Mr. John Linder, who was one of the representatives I e-mailed, dated on Now. 03 '05.
He expressed his support on H.R. 4818, which is H-1B visa number recapture.
What I asked him was support for EB Retrogression. He misunderstood I guess. Please do not put any of "visa" or "H1B" word on your letter of fax.
Rog's letter is good and I can use it except last 4-6 years part. I have been here for 3 years. So, I won't be qualify under this circumstances. Please give me a clue that section 8001 has any restriction like applicant should have been in USA for last 4-6 years ????.
Thanks being here.
Zbd.
S1932 included in HR4241 - passed & ready to be signed by President ....
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01932:@@@X
S.1932
Title: An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).
Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] (introduced 10/27/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.4241
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed without objection.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01932:@@@X
S.1932
Title: An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).
Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] (introduced 10/27/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.4241
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed without objection.
WaitingonLC
Registered Users (C)
Answer to Confusion on Passage of S. 1932 by House on 11/18/2005
Answer to Confusion on Passage of S. 1932 by House on 11/18/2005
It appears that the immigrant community is terribly confused because the House passed not only H.R.4241 but also S.1932 right after passing H.R. 4241 after the midnight of 11/17/2005. It appears that the GOP intended to resolve the deficit reduction legislation as soon as possible and acted swiftly on S.1932 which was on the desk of the House Speaker.
Here is exactly what happend:
11/14/2005 6:02pm:
Received in the House.
11/14/2005:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
11/14/2005 7:16pm:
Held at the desk.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 4241 as passed by the House.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
Considered by unanimous consent.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
H.AMDT.633 Amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
H.AMDT.633 On agreeing to the Rules amendment (A002) Agreed to without objection.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
On passage Passed without objection.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
11/18/2005:
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
The House passed S.1932 striking all the provisions in the S.1932 and inserting in lieu thereof H.R. 4241 as passed by the House that night! This House action was then sent to the Senate and at the desk of Senate President pro temp at this time. Because of the differences between the two bills, S. 1932 is expected to the Conference Committee after the Congress returns to the session the second week in December 2005. This means that the businesses, academic community, and immigrant community should focus on the House-Senate conference committee to resolve differences between the S. 1932 as passed by the Senate and the S.1932 as amended by the House. H.R. 4241 which was passed that night is merged into S. 1932 and out of the picture hereon. The Senators and the House members have returned to your community for the next two weeks and it is a golden opportunity for the supports of the original S. 1932 to contact their Congressional delegations in their community during this holiday season. The House Speaker and the GOP majority whips in the Senate and House will play an important role in the conference process.
It is hoped that this posting clears the confusion in the immigrant community.
drirshad said:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN01932:@@@X
S.1932
Title: An original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).
Sponsor: Sen Gregg, Judd [NH] (introduced 10/27/2005) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.4241
Latest Major Action: 11/18/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed without objection.
Answer to Confusion on Passage of S. 1932 by House on 11/18/2005
It appears that the immigrant community is terribly confused because the House passed not only H.R.4241 but also S.1932 right after passing H.R. 4241 after the midnight of 11/17/2005. It appears that the GOP intended to resolve the deficit reduction legislation as soon as possible and acted swiftly on S.1932 which was on the desk of the House Speaker.
Here is exactly what happend:
11/14/2005 6:02pm:
Received in the House.
11/14/2005:
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
11/14/2005 7:16pm:
Held at the desk.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
Mr. Nussle asked unanimous consent to strike all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R. 4241 as passed by the House.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
Considered by unanimous consent.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
H.AMDT.633 Amendment reported by the House Committee on Rules.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
H.AMDT.633 On agreeing to the Rules amendment (A002) Agreed to without objection.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
On passage Passed without objection.
11/18/2005 1:50am:
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
11/18/2005:
Message on House action received in Senate and at desk: House amendment to Senate bill.
The House passed S.1932 striking all the provisions in the S.1932 and inserting in lieu thereof H.R. 4241 as passed by the House that night! This House action was then sent to the Senate and at the desk of Senate President pro temp at this time. Because of the differences between the two bills, S. 1932 is expected to the Conference Committee after the Congress returns to the session the second week in December 2005. This means that the businesses, academic community, and immigrant community should focus on the House-Senate conference committee to resolve differences between the S. 1932 as passed by the Senate and the S.1932 as amended by the House. H.R. 4241 which was passed that night is merged into S. 1932 and out of the picture hereon. The Senators and the House members have returned to your community for the next two weeks and it is a golden opportunity for the supports of the original S. 1932 to contact their Congressional delegations in their community during this holiday season. The House Speaker and the GOP majority whips in the Senate and House will play an important role in the conference process.
It is hoped that this posting clears the confusion in the immigrant community.
Yes
Yes,
The above info has come on www.immigration-law.com..
It looks like S1932 passed.. But it is so confusing as to what needs to be done now.. Reconcile both house version of S1932 and Senate version of S1932 and append it to HR 4241 ?
Yes,
The above info has come on www.immigration-law.com..
It looks like S1932 passed.. But it is so confusing as to what needs to be done now.. Reconcile both house version of S1932 and Senate version of S1932 and append it to HR 4241 ?
WaitingonLC
Registered Users (C)
Again Please do not misunderstand!
S1932 is passed but with no immigration benifits at the house level.But final version of this bill should include the senate version of S1932 bill which consists of the immigration benifits.congress won't come to the table until the second week of Dec.What is needed is contacting and sending the mails or letters to the congress delegationsl members and to the Committee on the Budget members.
GCBy2010 said:
S1932 is passed but with no immigration benifits at the house level.But final version of this bill should include the senate version of S1932 bill which consists of the immigration benifits.congress won't come to the table until the second week of Dec.What is needed is contacting and sending the mails or letters to the congress delegationsl members and to the Committee on the Budget members.
WaitingonLC
Registered Users (C)
We Thank Sen. Arlen Specter (Penn) for His Support for Sponsored Immigration Packet
We Thank Sen. Arlen Specter (Penn) for His Support for Sponsored Immigration Packet in S.1932
The immigration packet in the S. 1932 was introduced and strongly supported by the Chairman of Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Spector (Pennsylvania), a highly respected senator in the Hill. Now since the S. 1932 is returned to the Senate, the nation looks forward to his continuing support for his proposal in collaboration with his colleagues in appointing members to Conference Committee in the Senate as well as in the House.
The following Senate record of S. 1932 proceedings reflects how he envisioned the importance of the immigration for the future of this nation and why Sen. Byrd was wrong:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill would increase immigrant work visas by 350,000 per year, about one-third of the current level. It is a massive and destabilizing increase that does not belong on the reconciliation bill.
My amendment would strike the increase in immigrant work visas and impose a $1,500 immigrant application fee on multinational corporations. With my amendment, the Judiciary Committee would exceed its reconciliation savings targets and do so without increasing immigrant work visas. We authorized over half a million H-1B visas in 2000. Last year, we authorized another $100,000 over 5 years. Do we really need another 150,000 visas on top of that? When is enough enough?
My amendment has the support of the unions. It has the support of immigrant enforcement groups. It has the support of Republican and Democrat Senators. I urge agreement of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment because the fees for L visas would raise funds but would do nothing to fill very important jobs in the United States. The existing plan submitted by the Judiciary Committee imposes a fee, but it extends the H-1B visa and recaptures the visas which were not used in the last 5 years. There are very careful safeguards so that U.S. jobs are not lost. (Matthew Oh note: According to the news report, right after the passage of H.R. 4241, the White House released its opinion more or less agreeing with this assessment, expressing its view that the White House disagreed with the provision imposing fees for L visas for purposes other than immigration. Right on, Mr. President!)
I understand the position of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the position of the unions, but I believe their concerns are misplaced and that there is a real need for these positions of highly skilled professionals, Ph.D.s, advanced degrees. Therefore, with due respect to my colleague from West Virginia, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CORZINE) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 85.
With due respect, we disagree with the Sen. Byrd assessment of the financial burden of this bill on the deficit. From our calculation, it would rather contribute additional revenue of about $150 million. Fortunately, 85 Senators read implication and significance of this immigration packet correctly and we look forward to the continuing strong support from these 85 Senators in the conference process under the leadership of Sen. Arlen Specter.
This reporter proposes to the business leaders, higher learning institutions, high tech industries, and immigrants to send "thank you" e-mails to the respected Senator from Pennsylvania.
We Thank Sen. Arlen Specter (Penn) for His Support for Sponsored Immigration Packet in S.1932
The immigration packet in the S. 1932 was introduced and strongly supported by the Chairman of Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Spector (Pennsylvania), a highly respected senator in the Hill. Now since the S. 1932 is returned to the Senate, the nation looks forward to his continuing support for his proposal in collaboration with his colleagues in appointing members to Conference Committee in the Senate as well as in the House.
The following Senate record of S. 1932 proceedings reflects how he envisioned the importance of the immigration for the future of this nation and why Sen. Byrd was wrong:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the reconciliation bill would increase immigrant work visas by 350,000 per year, about one-third of the current level. It is a massive and destabilizing increase that does not belong on the reconciliation bill.
My amendment would strike the increase in immigrant work visas and impose a $1,500 immigrant application fee on multinational corporations. With my amendment, the Judiciary Committee would exceed its reconciliation savings targets and do so without increasing immigrant work visas. We authorized over half a million H-1B visas in 2000. Last year, we authorized another $100,000 over 5 years. Do we really need another 150,000 visas on top of that? When is enough enough?
My amendment has the support of the unions. It has the support of immigrant enforcement groups. It has the support of Republican and Democrat Senators. I urge agreement of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I am opposed to this amendment because the fees for L visas would raise funds but would do nothing to fill very important jobs in the United States. The existing plan submitted by the Judiciary Committee imposes a fee, but it extends the H-1B visa and recaptures the visas which were not used in the last 5 years. There are very careful safeguards so that U.S. jobs are not lost. (Matthew Oh note: According to the news report, right after the passage of H.R. 4241, the White House released its opinion more or less agreeing with this assessment, expressing its view that the White House disagreed with the provision imposing fees for L visas for purposes other than immigration. Right on, Mr. President!)
I understand the position of the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the position of the unions, but I believe their concerns are misplaced and that there is a real need for these positions of highly skilled professionals, Ph.D.s, advanced degrees. Therefore, with due respect to my colleague from West Virginia, I ask for a ``no'' vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. CORZINE) is necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 14, nays 85.
With due respect, we disagree with the Sen. Byrd assessment of the financial burden of this bill on the deficit. From our calculation, it would rather contribute additional revenue of about $150 million. Fortunately, 85 Senators read implication and significance of this immigration packet correctly and we look forward to the continuing strong support from these 85 Senators in the conference process under the leadership of Sen. Arlen Specter.
This reporter proposes to the business leaders, higher learning institutions, high tech industries, and immigrants to send "thank you" e-mails to the respected Senator from Pennsylvania.
where_is_my_gc
Registered Users (C)
I am confused and baffled (response from Joe Lieberman)
Thank you for contacting me in regards to proposals to increase the
H1-B
visa limit for 2005. I am pleased to hear from you on this extremely
important issue.
The H1-B visa program was amended in 1998, at a time of very low
unemployment, to increase the maximum allotment of visas to 195,000 per
year for 2000-03. In 2004, the H1-B visa ceiling decreased to 65,000.
Many U.S. companies have advocated an increase in the H1-B cap, due to
the
fact the 65,000 application allotment was reached the first day of the
fiscal year. In the past, I supported these measures because proceeds
from visa applications would be used to ensure that more American
youths
study engineering and computer science and to retrain experienced
members
of our workforce to go into these fields. However, I now share your
view
that as unemployment increases we should re-examine the need to
increase
the H1-B visa ceiling.
Over half of the visas awarded are given to foreign professionals that
are
experts in information technology (IT). Currently, there are an
estimated
180,000 experienced IT professionals looking for employment and I
support
immediately enacting another stimulus package to increase investment in
the technology sector to bring these technology professionals back into
the workforce.
Most recently, in October, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
approved
compromise language that would recapture up to 30,000 H-1B visas that
had
not been issued in prior years. Applicants would be charged an
additional
fee of $500 to obtain these recaptured visas. In November, a majority
of
the Senate approved the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of
2005 (S. 1932) which included the H-1B visa provisions agreed to in the
Judiciary Committee. Once the House of Representatives passes its
version
of S. 1932, the differences of the two version will be reconciled in a
joint House-Senate conference committee before a final vote in the
Senate.
To keep track of future actions on this legislation, you can go to the
"Bill Tracking" service at
http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources.
My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that
provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific
information,
and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the
Senate
on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you
know that I have launched an email news update service through my web
site. You can sign up for that service by visiting
http://lieberman.senate.gov and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News
Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are
informative and useful.
Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please
contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our
work
in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
--
Not a single mention of H1 in my mail!
Looks to me an automated one anyway
Thank you for contacting me in regards to proposals to increase the
H1-B
visa limit for 2005. I am pleased to hear from you on this extremely
important issue.
The H1-B visa program was amended in 1998, at a time of very low
unemployment, to increase the maximum allotment of visas to 195,000 per
year for 2000-03. In 2004, the H1-B visa ceiling decreased to 65,000.
Many U.S. companies have advocated an increase in the H1-B cap, due to
the
fact the 65,000 application allotment was reached the first day of the
fiscal year. In the past, I supported these measures because proceeds
from visa applications would be used to ensure that more American
youths
study engineering and computer science and to retrain experienced
members
of our workforce to go into these fields. However, I now share your
view
that as unemployment increases we should re-examine the need to
increase
the H1-B visa ceiling.
Over half of the visas awarded are given to foreign professionals that
are
experts in information technology (IT). Currently, there are an
estimated
180,000 experienced IT professionals looking for employment and I
support
immediately enacting another stimulus package to increase investment in
the technology sector to bring these technology professionals back into
the workforce.
Most recently, in October, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary
approved
compromise language that would recapture up to 30,000 H-1B visas that
had
not been issued in prior years. Applicants would be charged an
additional
fee of $500 to obtain these recaptured visas. In November, a majority
of
the Senate approved the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of
2005 (S. 1932) which included the H-1B visa provisions agreed to in the
Judiciary Committee. Once the House of Representatives passes its
version
of S. 1932, the differences of the two version will be reconciled in a
joint House-Senate conference committee before a final vote in the
Senate.
To keep track of future actions on this legislation, you can go to the
"Bill Tracking" service at
http://lieberman.senate.gov/issues/resources.
My official Senate web site is designed to be an on-line office that
provides access to constituent services, Connecticut-specific
information,
and an abundance of information about what I am working on in the
Senate
on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. I am also pleased to let you
know that I have launched an email news update service through my web
site. You can sign up for that service by visiting
http://lieberman.senate.gov and clicking on the "Subscribe Email News
Updates" button at the bottom of the home page. I hope these are
informative and useful.
Thank you again for letting me know your views and concerns. Please
contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our
work
in Congress.
Sincerely,
Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR
--
Not a single mention of H1 in my mail!
Looks to me an automated one anyway
iameddie2005
Registered Users (C)
More action still needed
BTW, another 2 or 3 weeks of intense effort is still required according to Attorney Oh who hosts http://www.immigration-law.com
Here is what he said "Because of the differences between the two bills, S. 1932 is expected to the Conference Committee after the Congress returns to the session the second week in December 2005. This means that the businesses, academic community, and immigrant community should focus on the House-Senate conference committee to resolve differences between the S. 1932 as passed by the Senate and the S.1932 as amended by the House. H.R. 4241 which was passed that night is merged into S. 1932 and out of the picture hereon. The Senators and the House members have returned to your community for the next two weeks and it is a golden opportunity for the supports of the original S. 1932 to contact their Congressional delegations in their community during this holiday season. The House Speaker and the GOP majority whips in the Senate and House will play an important role in the conference process."
Again, if you would like help out and/or not sure how this affects you and what you can to help. Please go to http://www.immigration-law.com and look under heading "11/18/2005: House Passed H.R. 4241 by Vote 217-215 at 01:41 a.m. Today" and click on the "Read and help the immigration community's last minute effort"
BTW, another 2 or 3 weeks of intense effort is still required according to Attorney Oh who hosts http://www.immigration-law.com
Here is what he said "Because of the differences between the two bills, S. 1932 is expected to the Conference Committee after the Congress returns to the session the second week in December 2005. This means that the businesses, academic community, and immigrant community should focus on the House-Senate conference committee to resolve differences between the S. 1932 as passed by the Senate and the S.1932 as amended by the House. H.R. 4241 which was passed that night is merged into S. 1932 and out of the picture hereon. The Senators and the House members have returned to your community for the next two weeks and it is a golden opportunity for the supports of the original S. 1932 to contact their Congressional delegations in their community during this holiday season. The House Speaker and the GOP majority whips in the Senate and House will play an important role in the conference process."
Again, if you would like help out and/or not sure how this affects you and what you can to help. Please go to http://www.immigration-law.com and look under heading "11/18/2005: House Passed H.R. 4241 by Vote 217-215 at 01:41 a.m. Today" and click on the "Read and help the immigration community's last minute effort"
Last edited by a moderator:
I already mailed to my House Rep and senators.
I have one question regarding passage of this bill and I140 filing. I got recent PERM approval and ready to file I140. If by the time this bill passes, if my I140 is approved, do you see that I can still file for I485 (even if the numbers are not current) or do I have to withdraw the current I140 and file both 140 and 485 again with $500 more fee for I140. Please any body advice. I would like to wait if I know now, that I cannot file for I485 if my I140 is approved by the time this bill becomes law.
I have one question regarding passage of this bill and I140 filing. I got recent PERM approval and ready to file I140. If by the time this bill passes, if my I140 is approved, do you see that I can still file for I485 (even if the numbers are not current) or do I have to withdraw the current I140 and file both 140 and 485 again with $500 more fee for I140. Please any body advice. I would like to wait if I know now, that I cannot file for I485 if my I140 is approved by the time this bill becomes law.