buehler
01-21 04:25 PM
I am an analyst under H1B and I am involved in a sales process by developing a prototype for a client. My company wants me to give a percentage of total deal as commission. It will show in the pay stub as commission. Is it legal to get commission under H1B (please remember I am a programmer analyst) ?
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
As long as the payment comes from/through the company that is sponsoring your H1B, you're fine.
wallpaper Super Saiyan Princess ⋅ 超
harry_78
03-20 03:11 AM
Dear All,
Today i read that their is a new law prohibiting the employers from filling multiple applications for the same employee.
I have applied with 2 companies,as an employee , i have two different employers, who will file application for me.
Is it against the current law or ?
Pls help me asap , so that i can stop atleast one of the employer , if needed to file the application.
Thanks
Harry
Today i read that their is a new law prohibiting the employers from filling multiple applications for the same employee.
I have applied with 2 companies,as an employee , i have two different employers, who will file application for me.
Is it against the current law or ?
Pls help me asap , so that i can stop atleast one of the employer , if needed to file the application.
Thanks
Harry
creativeFuzion
08-02 09:32 PM
bobbo, great job man! I love the pig one! Haha, is that ex President Clinton I see there? Lol, good job, I love 'em all!
~Philip
~Philip
2011 Super Saiyan Princess ⋅ 超
ctrl
08-23 12:46 PM
Requested the senator help about the case and found that the following information
"The File is currently being transferred to Adjudications Officer".
do you know what is the next step and how soon the Adjudication offices will take the decision?. any Idea?.
"The File is currently being transferred to Adjudications Officer".
do you know what is the next step and how soon the Adjudication offices will take the decision?. any Idea?.
more...
arunkk798
03-18 09:25 PM
Can some1 help me to sort out my problem:
- I was working for a company A in L1-B which was about to expire by Dec 2006. So I applied for H1 and got the petition / application approved. I received the I94 also.
- But due to some reason, I travelled back to India and didn't submit the H1-I94 @ the port of exit.
- Now the same company A again processed me L1 in India and Im back to US after a yr. with the new L1 and never told any1 about my existing H1B visa
I need to know whether can I start looking jobs on that H1B without legal procedures?
Is there anything i have to do in order to activate my H1??
Appreciate your feedback in advance....
- I was working for a company A in L1-B which was about to expire by Dec 2006. So I applied for H1 and got the petition / application approved. I received the I94 also.
- But due to some reason, I travelled back to India and didn't submit the H1-I94 @ the port of exit.
- Now the same company A again processed me L1 in India and Im back to US after a yr. with the new L1 and never told any1 about my existing H1B visa
I need to know whether can I start looking jobs on that H1B without legal procedures?
Is there anything i have to do in order to activate my H1??
Appreciate your feedback in advance....
jerez_z
11-03 11:43 AM
I'm looking for PHP or ActionScript work. I'm not a designer in any sense of the word, so I can't do any graphical work. I'm just starting out, so my protfolio is lacking but I have done several full blown CMSs lately. I've never gotten a problem I couldn't solve, I just need to prove myself.
more...
man-woman-and-gc
08-26 02:30 PM
anyone???
2010 Super Saiyan Princess ⋅ 超
msp1976
04-15 06:38 AM
We do know that Senate plans to debate STRIVE in second half of May.
Senate would probably debate some version of immigration bill late may...It may or may or may be not be strive..
Senate would probably debate some version of immigration bill late may...It may or may or may be not be strive..
more...
Macaca
08-16 05:40 PM
Is the Senate Germane? Majority Leader Reid's Lament (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_19/procedural_politics/19719-1.html) By Don Wolfensberger | Roll Call, August 13, 2007
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
Don Wolfensberger is director of the Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and former staff director of the House Rules Committee.
The story is told that shortly after Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris in 1789, he asked President George Washington why the new Constitution created a Senate. Washington reportedly replied that it was for the same reason Jefferson poured his coffee into a saucer: to cool the hot legislation from the House.
Little could they have known then just how cool the Senate could be. Today, the "world's greatest deliberative body" resembles an iceberg. Bitter partisanship has chilled relationships and slowed legislation to a glacial pace.
The Defense authorization bill is pulled in pique because the Majority Leader cannot prevail on an Iraq amendment; only one of the 12 appropriations bills has cleared the Senate (Homeland Security); an immigration bill cannot even secure a majority vote for consideration; and common courtesies in floor debate are tossed aside in favor of angry barb-swapping. This is not your grandfather's world-class debating society.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) frustration level is code red. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) input level is code dead. The chief source of all this animosity and gridlock is the Democrats' intentional strategy to pursue partisan votes on Iraq to pressure the administration and embarrass vulnerable Republican Senators. The predictable side effects have been to poison the well for other legislation and exacerbate already frayed inter-party relationships.
The frustration experienced by Senate Majority Leaders is nothing new and has been amply expressed by former Leaders of both parties. The job has been likened to "herding cats" and "trying to put bullfrogs in a wheelbarrow." But there does seem to be a degree of difference in this Congress for a variety of reasons.
While Iraq certainly is the major factor, the newness of Reid on the job is another. It takes time to get a feel for the wheel. Meanwhile, there will be jerky veers into the ditch. Moreover, McConnell also is new to his job as Minority Leader. So both Leaders are groping for a rock shelf on which to build a workable relationship. Add to this the resistance from the White House at every turn and you have the perfect ice storm.
Reid's big complaint has been the multitude of amendments that slow down work on most bills - especially non-germane amendments - and the way the Senate skips back and forth on amendments with no logical sequence. These patterns and complaints also are not new, but they are a growing obstacle to the orderly management of Senate business.
Reid has asked Rules and Administration Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to look into expanding the germaneness rule. The existing rule applies only to general appropriations bills, post-cloture amendments and certain budget matters. The committee previously looked at broadening the germaneness rule back in 1988 and recommended an "extraordinary" majority vote (West Virginia Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd suggested three-fifths) for applying a germaneness test on specified bills. But the Senate never considered the change.
The House, by contrast, adopted a germaneness rule in the first Congress on April 7, 1789, drawn directly from a rule invented on the fly and out of desperation by the Continental Congress: "No motion or proposition on a subject different from that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment." According to a footnote in the House manual, the rule "introduced a principle not then known to the general parliamentary law, but of high value in the procedure of the House." The Senate chose to remain willfully and blissfully ignorant of the innovation - at least until necessity forced it to apply a germaneness test to appropriations amendments beginning in 1877.
Reid's suggestion to extend the rule to other matters sounds reasonable enough but is bound to meet bipartisan resistance. Any attempt to alter traditional ways in "the upper house" is viewed by many Senators as destructive of the institution. The worst slur is, "You're trying to make the Senate more like the House." Already, Reid's futile attempts to impose restrictive unanimous consent agreements that shut out most, if not all, amendments on important bills are mocked as tantamount to being a one-man House Rules Committee.
What are the chances of the Senate applying a germaneness rule to all floor amendments? History and common sense tell us they are somewhere between nil and none. Senators have little incentive to give up their freedom to offer whatever amendments they want, whenever they want. Others cite high public disapproval ratings of Congress as an imperative for reform. However, there is no evidence the public gives a hoot about non-germane amendments. Only if such amendments are tied directly to blocking urgently needed legislation might public ire be aroused sufficiently to bring pressure for change; and that case has yet to be made.
Nevertheless, the Majority Leader's lament should not be dismissed out of hand. It may well be time for the Senate to undergo another self-examination through public hearings in Feinstein's committee. When Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) chaired that committee in the previous two Congresses, he showed a willingness to publicly air, and even sponsor, suggested changes in Senate rules. One such idea, to make secret "holds" public, has just been adopted as part of the lobby reform bill.
The ultimate barrier to any change in Senate rules is the super-majority needed to end a filibuster. Although, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture on most matters from two-thirds of those present and voting to three-fifths of the membership (60), they left the two-thirds threshold in place for ending debates on rules changes. That means an extraordinary bipartisan consensus is necessary for any significant reform. In the present climate that's as likely as melting the polar ice caps. Then again ...
hair Super Saiyan Princess ⋅ 超
willigetgc?
11-12 10:56 AM
How many weeks of all possible unpaid leave can i avail while on EAD ?
Did you apply late or is there a delay in processing? Which center did you send your renewal to?
Did you apply late or is there a delay in processing? Which center did you send your renewal to?
more...
karthiknv143
02-27 05:31 PM
Will be interesting to see what the CIR bill proposes.:confused:
hot Super Saiyan 2
H1B-GC-NY
06-18 08:50 AM
Category: EB3 - PD: July 2003
Processing Center: NSC
I-140 application: Oct-2006
I485 application : July-02-2007
I140/I485 denial : April 2008
MTR application : April 2008
I485 reopened : June-2008
I140 approval : June 2008
I-765 [EAD] : Delivered September 2007
Question:
NSC is now processing July-28-2007.
Which is the processing DATE for my I485?
- PD
- I485 application
- I485 date the case was reopened
:confused:
Processing Center: NSC
I-140 application: Oct-2006
I485 application : July-02-2007
I140/I485 denial : April 2008
MTR application : April 2008
I485 reopened : June-2008
I140 approval : June 2008
I-765 [EAD] : Delivered September 2007
Question:
NSC is now processing July-28-2007.
Which is the processing DATE for my I485?
- PD
- I485 application
- I485 date the case was reopened
:confused:
more...
house Gohan Super Saiyan 4 .jpg
vasudhapulakam
04-16 08:12 PM
I recently got an RFE for my I 485 Application.
Need to prove my non-immigration status from Nov 29 2007 to Nov 24 2008 .
I have I-797 ( H1-B approval ) for the above mentioned period. But My Last Name in the approval has a typo error ( in place of letter A they misstyped U). My Enployer has opened a Service request to correct the Name in H1 B approval. But he is saying that he never got the corrected approval. Time went by and i applied for H1 ext..i got the H1 extension from Nov 25 2008 to Nov 2011.
So My question is
Is it okay to submit all the documention that was sent to USCIS to correct the name along with the I 797,I-94 for the above mentioned period and explain them that we did not recieved the corrected I-797 ? or not
Please suggest me ..
Thanks
Need to prove my non-immigration status from Nov 29 2007 to Nov 24 2008 .
I have I-797 ( H1-B approval ) for the above mentioned period. But My Last Name in the approval has a typo error ( in place of letter A they misstyped U). My Enployer has opened a Service request to correct the Name in H1 B approval. But he is saying that he never got the corrected approval. Time went by and i applied for H1 ext..i got the H1 extension from Nov 25 2008 to Nov 2011.
So My question is
Is it okay to submit all the documention that was sent to USCIS to correct the name along with the I 797,I-94 for the above mentioned period and explain them that we did not recieved the corrected I-797 ? or not
Please suggest me ..
Thanks
tattoo Videl, Bulla
ncrtpMay2004
11-07 02:02 PM
do we need a funding drive do anything for the lame duck session?
more...
pictures Super Saiyan Princess ⋅ 超
Blog Feeds
03-05 02:00 PM
The New York Times' Nina Bernstein reports on gross abuses of immigrants in the detention system and how the Administration would like to make reforms to better protect detained individuals. But just as it is trying to clean up the mess, the White House is trying to wash its hands of responsibility in two of the worst cases.
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/white-house-wants-to-take-responsibility-for-detention-abuses-but-not-too-much.html)
More... (http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2010/03/white-house-wants-to-take-responsibility-for-detention-abuses-but-not-too-much.html)
dresses Main article: Super Saiyan
munnu77
04-04 12:01 PM
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html
may visa dtes r not out yet
may visa dtes r not out yet
more...
makeup Ascended Super Saiyan,
f1USvisaholder
04-03 09:10 PM
Hi,
I'm on F1 visa and recently got married in US..I would like to have my lastname changed in my INDIAN passport.. I will apply for a new INDIAN passport through indian embassy in US..I realized that i will get a new passport with new last name...But my question is what happens to the F1 visa on the old passport and I-94, will they be still valid?...How does it work..what do i need to get them moved over to the new passport...
I know i will have to let my school know about the name change so that they can get me a new I-20 by updating the SEVIS...I've already done that and they are OK with it...
Appreciate your response..
Thanks
I'm on F1 visa and recently got married in US..I would like to have my lastname changed in my INDIAN passport.. I will apply for a new INDIAN passport through indian embassy in US..I realized that i will get a new passport with new last name...But my question is what happens to the F1 visa on the old passport and I-94, will they be still valid?...How does it work..what do i need to get them moved over to the new passport...
I know i will have to let my school know about the name change so that they can get me a new I-20 by updating the SEVIS...I've already done that and they are OK with it...
Appreciate your response..
Thanks
girlfriend Super Saiyan Kid Trunks by
jim
09-06 11:54 PM
My I-140 approved in Aug 2007,My employer has withdrawn the I-140 in july but still it is approved in Aug 2007,Now my employer is agreed and want to sent the letter to USCIS not to withdrawn this I-140,As I am in Canada so they are planning to file the I-824 for me for Consular processing,so please advice do they need to file the new I-140 for me for Consular processing as they sent the withdrawn letter to uscis or is it ok for them to sent the letter again to uscis and telling them not to withdrawn this case and file I-824 for CP.Please advice!!!!!!
hairstyles Trunks Turn Super Saiyan
xela
01-30 11:13 AM
So I was one of the lucky (yes a bit of sarcasm) people that got transferred in July 2007 to be receipted in California even though we sent the papers to Nebraska. In Sept 2007 they told me they are now transferring my application to Nebraska. And guess what just today I got the update on CRIS that it is now pending at the Nebraska office.
What did they go on vacation for over a year or how can it take that long to transfer something that was never supposed to be transferred in the first place, because I did send it to the correct office, they just decided to move it because of receipting back ups.
What did they go on vacation for over a year or how can it take that long to transfer something that was never supposed to be transferred in the first place, because I did send it to the correct office, they just decided to move it because of receipting back ups.
Macaca
12-02 09:18 AM
Business Lobby Presses Agenda Before �08 Vote (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/washington/02lobby.html?hp) By ROBERT PEAR | NY Times, December 2, 2007
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 � Business lobbyists, nervously anticipating Democratic gains in next year�s elections, are racing to secure final approval for a wide range of health, safety, labor and economic rules, in the belief that they can get better deals from the Bush administration than from its successor.
Hoping to lock in policies backed by a pro-business administration, poultry farmers are seeking an exemption for the smelly fumes produced by tons of chicken manure. Businesses are lobbying the Bush administration to roll back rules that let employees take time off for family needs and medical problems. And electric power companies are pushing the government to relax pollution-control requirements.
�There�s a growing sense, a growing probability, that the next administration could be Democratic,� said Craig L. Fuller, executive vice president of Apco Worldwide, a lobbying and public relations firm, who was a White House official in the Reagan administration. �Corporate executives, trade associations and lobbying firms have begun to recalibrate their strategies.�
The Federal Register typically grows fat with regulations churned out in the final weeks of any administration. But the push for such rules has become unusually intense because of the possibility that Democrats in 2009 may consolidate control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives for the first time in 14 years.
Even as they try to shape pending regulations, business lobbies are also looking beyond President Bush. Corporations and trade associations are recruiting Democratic lobbyists. And lobbyists, expecting battles over taxes and health care in 2009, are pouring money into the campaigns of Democratic candidates for Congress and the White House.
Randel K. Johnson, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce, said, �I am beefing up my staff, putting more money aside for economic analysis of regulations that I foresee coming out of a possible new Democratic administration.�
At the Transportation Department, trucking companies are trying to get final approval for a rule increasing the maximum number of hours commercial truck drivers can work. And automakers are trying to persuade officials to set new standards for the strength of car roofs � standards far less stringent than what consumer advocates say is needed to protect riders in a rollover.
Business groups generally argue that federal regulations are onerous and needlessly add costs that are passed on to consumers, while their opponents accuse them of trying to whittle down regulations that are vital to safety and quality of life. Documents on file at several agencies show that business groups have stepped up lobbying in recent months, as they try to help the Bush administration finish work on rules that have been hotly debated and, in some cases, litigated for years.
At the Interior Department, coal companies are lobbying for a regulation that would allow them to dump rock and dirt from mountaintop mining operations into nearby streams and valleys. It would be prohibitively expensive to haul away the material, they say, and there are no waste sites in the area. Luke Popovich, a vice president of the National Mining Association, said that a Democratic president was more likely to side with �the greens.�
A coalition of environmental groups has condemned the proposed rule, saying it would accelerate �the destruction of mountains, forests and streams throughout Appalachia.�
A priority for many employers in 2008 is to secure changes in the rules for family and medical leave. Under a 1993 law, people who work for a company with 50 or more employees are generally entitled to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn children or sick relatives or to tend to medical problems of their own. The Labor Department has signaled its interest in changes by soliciting public comments.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the law had been widely abused and had caused �a staggering loss of work hours� as employees took unscheduled, intermittent time off for health conditions that could not be verified. The use of such leave time tends to rise sharply before holiday weekends, on the day after Super Bowl Sunday and on the first day of the local hunting season, employers said.
Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women and Families, an advocacy group, said she was �very concerned that the Bush administration will issue new rules that cut back on family and medical leave for those who need it.�
That could be done, for example, by narrowing the definition of a �serious health condition� or by establishing stricter requirements for taking intermittent leave for chronic conditions that flare up unexpectedly.
The Chamber of Commerce is seeking such changes. �We want to get this done before the election,� Mr. Johnson said. �The next White House may be less hospitable to our position.�
Indeed, most of the Democratic candidates for president have offered proposals to expand the 1993 law, to provide paid leave and to cover millions of additional workers. Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut was a principal author of the law. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York says it has been �enormously successful.� And Senator Barack Obama of Illinois says that more generous family leave is an essential part of his plan to �reclaim the American dream.�
Susan E. Dudley, administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said, �Research suggests that regulatory activity increases in the final year of an administration, regardless of party.�
Whoever becomes the next president, Democrat or Republican, will find that it is not so easy to make immediate and sweeping changes. The Supreme Court has held that a new president cannot arbitrarily revoke final regulations that already have the force of law. To undo such rules, a new administration must provide a compelling justification and go through a formal rule-making process, which can take months or years.
Within hours of taking office in 2001, Mr. Bush slammed the brakes on scores of regulations issued just before he took office, so his administration could review them. A study in the Wake Forest Law Review found that one-fifth of those �midnight regulations� were amended or repealed by the Bush administration, while four-fifths survived.
Some of the biggest battles now involve rules affecting the quality of air, water and soil.
The National Chicken Council and the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association have petitioned for an exemption from laws and rules that require them to report emissions of ammonia exceeding 100 pounds a day. They argue that �emissions from poultry houses pose little or no risk to public health� because the ammonia disperses quickly in the air.
Perdue Farms, one of the nation�s largest poultry producers, said that it was �essentially impossible to provide an accurate estimate of any ammonia releases,� and that a reporting requirement would place �an undue and useless burden� on farmers.
But environmental groups told the Bush administration that �ammonia emissions from poultry operations pose great risk to public health.� And, they noted, a federal judge in Kentucky has found that farmers discharge ammonia from their barns, into the environment, so it will not sicken or kill the chickens.
On another issue, the Environmental Protection Agency is drafting final rules that would allow utility companies to modify coal-fired power plants and increase their emissions without installing new pollution-control equipment.
The Edison Electric Institute, the lobby for power companies, said the companies needed regulatory relief to meet the growing demand for �safe, reliable and affordable electricity.�
But John D. Walke, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the rules would be �the Bush administration�s parting gift to the utility industry.�
If Democrats gain seats in Congress or win the White House, that could pose problems for all-Republican lobbying firms like Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, whose founders include Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
Loren Monroe, chief operating officer of the Barbour firm, said: �If the right person came along, we might hire a Democrat. And it�s quite possible we could team up in an alliance with a Democratic firm.�
Two executive recruiters, Ivan H. Adler of the McCormick Group and Nels B. Olson of Korn/Ferry International, said they had seen a growing demand for Democratic lobbyists. �It�s a bull market for Democrats, especially those who have worked for the Congressional leadership� or a powerful committee, Mr. Adler said.
Few industries have more cause for concern than drug companies, which have been a favorite target of Democrats. Republicans run the Washington offices of most major drug companies, and a former Republican House member, Billy Tauzin, is president of their trade association, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.
The association has hired three Democrats this year, so its lobbying team is split evenly between Republicans and Democrats.
Loren B. Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a policy research organization, said: �Defense contractors have not only begun to prepare for the next administration. They have begun to shape it. They�ve met with Hillary Clinton and other candidates.�
vpadman
03-13 06:55 PM
Is it possible to file H1B1 transfer without lawyer?
There is a desi consulting that says they will do H1B1 transfer without lawyer.
For premium processing, they charge a fee of $3500
There is a desi consulting that says they will do H1B1 transfer without lawyer.
For premium processing, they charge a fee of $3500
No comments:
Post a Comment