When does Judicial commitee proposal becomes bill?

check this one

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=15&u=/ap/20051104/ap_on_go_co/congress_budget_21


To ease passage next week, House GOP leaders may drop a provision that would allow drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, with the intention of revisiting it in final compromise talks with the Senate.


The House Budget Committee approved the bill Thursday on a party-line vote. But so many GOP lawmakers are unhappy with the bill that Republican leaders acknowledge it will have to be reworked before a final vote in the full House next week.

Despite strongly supporting the overall effort, the White House has threatened to veto the bill over an obscure proposal to kill subsidies for some regional health insurers that offered Medicare prescription drug coverage. The White House's stand threatens $5.4 billion in savings.
 
Contact Your Congress man

attached are lists of House Of representatives by State and their Phone numbers

Find your congress man from the lists and call them or write them to support immigration provisions passed by Senate in Budget reconciliation Bill - S1932

Check here to get your congress man by Your state and their web site URL
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml

You can write to your congress man directlyfrom this link
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

your ZIP code and your 4-digit ZIP code extension is needed to find the congress man who represent your locality
to get that from your address check here
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S. 1932 and Spouse and Children of EB Beneficiary

S. 1932 and Spouse and Children of EB Beneficiary

S. 1932 provides that the immigrant visa for the accompaning or following-to-join deriavative beneficiary spouse and children of EB direct beneficiary should not be counted in EB annual cap. Some people question that since the system must draw the visa numbers from somewhere for the spouses and children, where the visa number will be drawn. This question is derived from misunderstanding of the immigration quota system. Under the current immigration system, all the employment-based immigrant petitions fall under the preference categories and in that regard are subject to the quota system. However, when it comes to the family-based immigration systems, the immediate relatives (spouses and children, and parents) of a U.S. citizen are not subject to the quota system and the U.S. government can issue green cards for these beneficiaries without any limitation in numbers.A similar concept will apply to the spouses and children of EB applicant under S. 1932, . but the difference is that in the case of the spouse or children of EB direct beneficiary, unless the direct beneficiary's I-140 petition is eligible, their spouses and children will not be able to submit I-485 applications. Besides, unless the direct EB beneficiary's I-485 is first or simultaneously approved, the U.S. government will not be able to approve their I-485 applications. Accordingly, they remain "derivative" beneficiaries whose fate will depend on the direct beneficiary's eligibility and approval of the green card. The spouses and children thus cannot obtain the green card approval as separately from the direct beneficiary's immigration proceeding. In the following-to-join context, their applications may be processed after the direct beneficiary's I-485 is approved, but again the direct beneficiary's I-485 approval is basis for the family members' application and approval. In this regard, they will be indirectly subjected to the preference visa quota system in that unless the direct beneficiary's I-485 is approved after he/she gets his/her visa number current in the Visa Bulletin, their (spouses and children) I-485 applications will not be approved either. It is just that their applications would not take out visa numbers from the specific preference category quota and nothing more.
 
What does it mean

Its still not clear if the derivative GC for spouse and children allow them to work right away. Can we apply for EAD for the spouse along with our 485
 
popoye said:
Its still not clear if the derivative GC for spouse and children allow them to work right away. Can we apply for EAD for the spouse along with our 485
Click to expand...

Based on present rules ., If some one able to apply for I 485 they can also apply for EAD ,AP etc., based on pending I485 application and once EAD is approved they can work on it.

it seems the same holds true after passage of S1932 also.,
 
beware of democrats

I was looking at the Vote result of S.1932
In this majority of democrates were against for this immigration reform, even the major states like new york, california, Illinois.
Eg; Miss Clinton voted against it.
The states that voted agaist are AR, CA, CT, Delaware,MAine,Maryland,MA,Michigan,Minnesota,ND,RI,WA,WV,WI.
Our group from all these sates should contact the congress men, If we loose this opportunity there ends the matter.
Best thing is to draft a letter and fax it.
thanks
 
Focus on EB Retrogression only !!!!

Please write to congressmans based on the good template posted by Anil and others in S1932 section.

We need to stay focussed on the EB Retrogression scenario only. I heard from top lawyers in immigration business ( THey write law text books ! - they are CA based, they said If affected folks are EB Category applicants they have a good chance to get more current dates. We are fighting a losing battle by asking H1 increase !!!.

If we all folks focus on H1 B CAP INCREASE WE STAND TO LOOSE EVERYTHING. Since most avg americans and folks in congress think we are " Excess Baggage " if we campaign for H1 B increase. Since our immediate need is a EB Visa, we need to focus exclusively on EB Visa. Why worry about what we can do for H1 cap increase ?. (2) it is big companies like infosys and wipro who benefit and we are fighting proxy for them ??
 
Send u rFAX AND EMAIL FAST FOR EB RETRO FIX

pls act fast on sending FAX and Email to senators..only last few days left...otherwise - we all be stuck by 2000 model ! and might not move forward.

Pls see the s1932 thread so that we all stay focussed and do our bit to the success.. having few folks sending mail will not help anyone !! believe me.. all of us have to put massive efforts to succeed here and convince the senators.
 
I agree. H1B increase is much riskier than EB increase because that's the front door. EB increase is more like cleaning up the house but H1B increase is like leaving the front door wide open. Also H1B increase without EB increase would be a nightmare for the new comers as well. EB increase is the key to fix the problem.


sundar99 said:
Please write to congressmans based on the good template posted by Anil and others in S1932 section.

We need to stay focussed on the EB Retrogression scenario only. I heard from top lawyers in immigration business ( THey write law text books ! - they are CA based, they said If affected folks are EB Category applicants they have a good chance to get more current dates. We are fighting a losing battle by asking H1 increase !!!.

If we all folks focus on H1 B CAP INCREASE WE STAND TO LOOSE EVERYTHING. Since most avg americans and folks in congress think we are " Excess Baggage " if we campaign for H1 B increase. Since our immediate need is a EB Visa, we need to focus exclusively on EB Visa. Why worry about what we can do for H1 cap increase ?. (2) it is big companies like infosys and wipro who benefit and we are fighting proxy for them ??
Click to expand...
 
HR - 4241 Placed in Congress

Here is full text of Bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h4241rh.txt.pdf

Here is Congess actions:
ALL ACTIONS: (color indicates Senate actions)
11/7/2005 9:00pm:
The House Committee on The Budget reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-276, by Mr. Nussle.
11/7/2005 9:00pm:
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 151.

From Congress Daily Digest:

Mr. NUSSLE: Committees on the Budget. H.R. 4241 . A bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 201(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (Rept. 109-276). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

Check here to get day to day bill status

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04241

Calender details:

RULE XIII
CALENDARS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

Calendars

1. (a) All business reported by committees shall be referred to one of the following three calendars:

(1) A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, to which shall be referred public bills and public resolutions raising revenue, involving a tax or charge on the people, directly or indirectly making appropriations of money or property or requiring such appropriations to be made, authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, or referring a claim to the Court of Claims.

(2) A House Calendar, to which shall be referred all public bills and public resolutions not requiring referral to the Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union.

(3) A Private Calendar as provided in clause 5 of rule XV, to which shall be referred all private bills and private resolutions.

(b) There is established a Corrections Calendar as provided in clause 6 of rule XV.

(c) There is established a Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees as provided in clause 2 of rule XV
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi All,
Great effort you all. I agree 1000 % that we need to focus on the retrogression issue! I also agree that 10K is not a big price to pay if it comes to that.

However, I am little confused abt the legislative process that is required for our final success. I spent abt an 1/2 hour reading the messages and links posted here, and doing minor research, but I hope to understand better what we all are aiming to do (in terms of asking for support). If someone can clarify, I would truely appreciate it.

I believe that understanding the process better would help to concentrate our efforts as well as guage the "real" chances of success. Heres what I understand:

"subtitle A (sec 5101) of title V of Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 has to be replaced by sec 8001 and sec 8002 of title VIII of Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 (S.1932) which was passed in the Senate. Both the titles are releated to Judiciary committee"

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (this one has the L visa fee increase) was approved by the House Budget Committee on Nov. 3rd.
(http://www.house.gov/budget/).
The Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 (S.1932) was approved by the Senate Budget Committee on Oct 26th. (In this sec 8001 is more relevant to us than the sec 8002! 8002 essential talks of L visa(?) fee increases). http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1932:

This is what the whitehouse has to say on S.1932:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legis.../s1932sap-s.pdf (pgs 4,5). They like the fee increase (!) but there is NO word abt 1) the reuse of visa numbers and b) application for adjustment of status if the visa number is not available (not current).

so heres the big question. What is the NEXT thing? How are these 2 bills going to be reconciled? Are the budget committees of the house and the senate reconcile their differences? If so, when is that scheduled to happen? and where will this happen- in the house/senate? Also, why is one bill names the "reconciliation" bill while the other one is not....

ps. Judiciary seems to be the least imp. thing in the bill?!? :-|

Thank you,
S.
 
what is Committee of the Whole House?

Committee of the Whole House

In order to expedite the consideration of bills and resolutions, the rules of the House provide for a parliamentary mechanism, known as the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, that enables the House to act with a quorum of less than the requisite majority of 218. A quorum in the Committee of the Whole is 100 members. All measures on the Union Calendar--those involving a tax, making appropriations, authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, or disposing of property--must be first considered in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee on Rules reports a rule allowing for immediate consideration of a measure by the Committee of the Whole. After adoption of the rule by the House, the Speaker may declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole. When the House resolves into the Committee of the Whole, the Speaker leaves the chair after appointing a Chairman to preside.

The rule referred to in the preceding paragraph also fixes the length of the debate in the Committee of the Whole. This may vary according to the importance of the measure. As provided in the rule, the control of the time is usually divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the relevant committee. Members seeking to speak for or against the measure may arrange in advance with the Member in control of the time on their respective side to be allowed a certain amount of time in the debate. Members may also ask the Member speaking at the time to yield to them for a question or a brief statement. A transcript of the proceedings in the House and the Senate is printed daily in the Congressional Record. Frequently, permission is granted a Member by unanimous consent to revise and extend his remarks in the Congressional Record if sufficient time to make a lengthy oral statement is not available during actual debate. These revisions and extensions are printed in a distinctive type and cannot substantively alter the verbatim transcript.
 
As the House is about to mark up full house debate of H.R. 4241, the House version of Budget Omnibus Reconciliation bill, people are anxious to learn what process the bills from the Senate and the House will go through as people want to participate in the final legislative process. Unless the a member of the House introduces the Senate immigration bill as an amendment on the floor, it is obvious that the Senate S. 1932 bill and the House H.R. 4241 will go to conference of the two Houses. Next question then is who will be the members of the Conference Committee from each House. This will not be known until the differences in the two bills between the House and the Senate are fixed by the passage of the bills by each House and in each House a motion is taken to send them to the conference. The members of conference committee are not appointed by the Speaker of House and the President of Senate until it gets to this stage..
 
HR 4241 referred to Committee on Rules on Yesterday ..

http://www.rules.house.gov/109/specialrules/109rulehr4241.htm

Here is House Calendar No. 115 entry

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:hres.542:


11/9/2005 10:32pm:
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 109-281, by Mr. Putnam.
11/9/2005 10:32pm:
Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4241 with 2 hours of general debate. Previous question shall be considered as ordered without intervening motions except motion to recommit with or without instructions.
11/9/2005 10:32pm:
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 115.
 
Thanks for the update.

But, what does it mean? It seems that some amendment (suggested by senator Nussle) is adopted, and that further consideration of the bill is postponed until the time designated by the speaker...

Anything else I am missing?

How will we know if S.1932 (immigration related amendment) will be made or not, and is yes, when?

S.

S.
 
ISNAmerica.org: Please fax through online facility to congressmen/senators

ISNAmeria.org Online Fax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please fax to your senators/congressmen through ISNAmerica.org

GOD_BLESS_YOU said:
ANWR provision stripped out
Click to expand...
 
spgtopper said:
Thanks for the update.

But, what does it mean? It seems that some amendment (suggested by senator Nussle) is adopted, and that further consideration of the bill is postponed until the time designated by the speaker...

Anything else I am missing?

How will we know if S.1932 (immigration related amendment) will be made or not, and is yes, when?

S.

S.
Click to expand...

That amendment is on agriculture commitee related

Nussle #13: Agriculture Committee title: modifies the food stamp eligibility requirement by granting an exception from the 7-year residency requirement for persons with lawful permanent residence in the United States for at least 5 years upon enactment who are over 60, or who have pending applications for U.S. citizenship.

http://www.rules.house.gov/109/specialrules/hr4241/109hr4241_nussle.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top