Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Burial shroud proves Turin Shroud not from 1st century C.E. Jerusalem
Jesus-era shrouded man in Jerusalem had leprosy

IMAGE: This is part of the tomb where the shrouded man was found. Note the remains of plaster around the entrance.

The DNA of a 1st century shrouded man found in a tomb on the edge of the Old City of Jerusalem has revealed the earliest proven case of leprosy. The burial cave, which is known as the Tomb of the Shroud, is located in the lower Hinnom Valley and is part of a 1st century C.E. cemetery known as Akeldama or ‘Field of Blood’ (Matthew 27:3-8; Acts 1:19) – next to the area where Judas is said to have committed suicide. The tomb of the shrouded man is located next to the tomb of Annas, the high priest (6-15 C.E.), who was the father in law of Caiaphas, the high priest who betrayed Jesus to the Romans. It is thus thought that this shrouded man was either a priest or a member of the aristocracy. According to Prof. Gibson, the view from the tomb would have looked directly toward the Jewish Temple.

What is particularly rare about this tomb is that it was clear this man, which is dated by radiocarbon methods to 1-50 C.E., did not receive a secondary burial. Secondary burials were common practice at the time, where the bones were removed after a year and placed in an ossuary (a stone bone box). In this case, however, the entrance to this part of the tomb was completely sealed with plaster. Prof. Spigelman believes this is due to the fact that this man had suffered from leprosy and died of tuberculosis, as the DNA of both diseases was found in his bones.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Nancy Pelosi:

This legislation brings jobs to Main Street by increasing credit for small businesses, rebuilding the infrastructure of America, and keeping police and fireman and teachers on the job.

As we create jobs for Americans, we are doing so in a fiscally responsible way. These investments are fully paid for by redirecting TARP funds from Wall Street to Main Street.

And for those hit hardest by the deep recession, this bill provides emergency relief: extending unemployment benefits, help with health benefits for those out of work, and protecting health coverage for millions through Medicaid.

In short, this legislation creates jobs, helps meet the needs of those who are unemployed, and puts us America back on a path to prosperity.

CT Votes:

Courtney, DeLauro, Larson, Murphy: Yes
Himes: NO

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Here is a summary of the Gutierrez bill that was introduced in Congress today:

Comprehensive Immigration Reform for _America’s Security and Prosperity _(CIR ASAP) Act of 2009

_TITLE I – BORDER SECURITY, DETENTION, AND ENFORCEMENT

Subtitle A – Border Security:_Subtitle A of Title I assembles a vision of effective and accountable enforcement for the 21st century through maximizing border security by requiring the Secretary of Homeland Security to form a national strategy that is consistent with the progress already made. In order to achieve these goals, oversight and accountability for the Department of Homeland Security is emphasized, especially as they pertain to fiscal appropriations and cost-benefit analyses of operations and programs.

Protecting Our Borders: This subtitle protects United States border cities and communities from violence and crime along the U.S.-Mexico border by:__ Creating a Southern Border Security Task Force that is composed of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers__ Requiring a security plan for land ports of entry at the borders involved in international trade__ Expanding the programs under the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism that is in accordance to the SAFE Port Act__ Improving the exchange of information between federal agencies on North American Security by a conducting a targeted study of security clearance standards, document integrity, immigration and visa management and coordination, terrorist watch lists and smuggling operations

Effective Enforcement: Subtitle A achieves effective enforcement by improving personnel, assets and technology. This section:__ Supports additional training, oversight and evaluation for agents who are the first face of America at the borders__ Ensures that Customs and Border Protection have sufficient personal equipment like body armor, weapons, and uniforms, and that Customs and Border Protection have sufficient assets such as helicopters, power boats, motor vehicles and other electronic equipment__ Promotes standards for searches of electronic devices and appropriate training for agents in conducting such searches__ Minimizes wasteful spending by developing and studying comprehensive uses of advanced technologies, such as aerial and automated surveillance__ Requires an inventory prior to any increase of personnel assets and technology

Securing Ports of Entry: Our nation’s ports of entry are modernized for our economic benefit and security by conducting a study of the infrastructure and operations to identify necessary improvements and projects to enhance border security and the flow of legitimate commerce and travel. This section: __ Improves infrastructure and recalibrates resources and training to allow for more effective screening of commercial goods and individuals so as to minimize threats to national security at ports of entry__ Increases the number of full-time port of entry inspectors, agricultural specialists, and support staff to improve the timely and safe flow of commercial goods and individuals__ Establishes a demonstration project to test and evaluate new port of entry technologies and also refines existing technologies and operational concepts

Combating Criminal Activity: This subtitle recognizes the role of state law enforcement at the border in combating criminal activity by creating border relief grant programs for Northern and Southern border state, local and tribal law enforcement entities. This section:__ Enables better training and technical assistance for state and local partners that deals with narcotics-related kidnapping, drug trafficking and the interdiction of weapons and currency__ Facilitates information-sharing and collaboration between federal and state partners__ Suspends the Operation Streamline program pending review of the goals, impacts and cost-benefit analyses__ Reimburses Northern and Southern border state and local prosecutors for prosecuting federally initiated drug cases__ Provides expanded resources for Operation Armas Cruzadas and Project Gunrunner to identify, investigate, and prosecute individuals involved in the trafficking and smuggling of firearms between Mexico and the United States.

Improving Partnerships: The importance of border communities as partners and allies are recognized as key in achieving effective enforcement by prioritizing community consultation in developing enforcement policies, border protection strategies and training. This subtitle: __ Establishes the U.S.-Mexico Border Enforcement Commission and a Border Communities Liaison Office to foster and institutionalize community consultation__ Prohibits military involvement in non-emergency border enforcement__ Prioritizes mitigating adverse impacts to federal, tribal, state, local and private lands, waters, wildlife and habitats by promoting cross-agency development of comprehensive monitoring and mitigation of ecological and environmental impacts of border security infrastructure and activity

Combating Human Trafficking: Subtitle A requires the development and implementation of a plan to improve coordination amongst federal and state partners to address human smuggling and migrant deaths. This section calls for additional ICE agents dedicated to combating human smuggling are stationed at ports of entry, requires reporting on migrant deaths, and establishes a study of strategies used at the Southern border to address this problem.

Subtitle B – Detention:_Improving Conditions of Detention: The bill requires DHS to meet minimum requirements to ensure the humane treatment of detainees. Minimum requirements include:__ Adequate medical and mental health screenings, evaluations, medically necessary treatment, and continuing care__ A review process for medical treatment requests and complete and confidential medical records __ Reasonable access to telephones, affordable rates, and privacy protections for calls__ Protections from sexual abuse, care for victims, and reports and investigations of abuse__ Protection from transfers that fail to consider health and access to counsel_To ensure compliance with minimum detention conditions, the bill requires rulemaking and enforcement. An independent immigration detention commission is established to investigate and report on compliance. DHS must report the death of a detainee within 48 hours, and report annually to Congress on the circumstances of all deaths in detention.

Protecting U.S. Citizens, Lawfully Present Immigrants, Vulnerable Populations, and Communities: This section increases screening and protections during immigration-related enforcement activities for U.S. citizens, Legal Permanent Residents, others lawfully present in the U.S., and vulnerable populations. Social service agencies, translators, and legal services must be available during enforcement activities. DHS will be required to: __ Issue regulations prohibiting apprehensions at enumerated community, educational, and religious locations__ Provide access to legal orientation programs and access to counsel during enforcement activities and for disabled individuals unable to fully participate in removal proceedings__ Give timely notice and service of immigration charges, as well as timely bond hearings if detained more than 48 hours_This section increases protections for individuals subject to immigration detainers, limits the use of detainers to confirmed removable aliens, and requires DHS to collect data and report on detainer use. The unnecessary detention of refugees is prohibited. DHS is required to report to Congress on the impact of immigration-related enforcement activities.

Improving Secure Alternative to Detention Programs: Criteria are established to guide detention and release decisions and require release for vulnerable populations. Detention decisions must be in writing, served upon detainees, and are subject to redetermination by an immigration judge.

Protecting Family Unity: Families with children may not be separated except in exceptional circumstances where alternatives to detention are not available. Residential, non-penal facilities are developed for any necessary family detention with appropriate protections for children and parental rights. The bill includes safeguards for families and children during immigration-related enforcement actions by: __ Improving child welfare services for children separated from parents and guardians who are in immigration detention or have been removed__ Requiring training for federal and state personnel who interact with separated children and for staff at immigration detention facilities on parental rights, humanitarian, and due process protections__ Ensuring protections for detained parents, guardians, and caregivers in immigration detention to promote access to children, family courts, child welfare services, and consular officials

Protecting Unaccompanied Alien Children: Training is required for DHS employees who encounter unaccompanied alien children. Upon apprehension of an unaccompanied alien child, immediate notice is required by DHS or ORR and transfer to ORR custody within 24 hours.

Subtitle C – Enforcement:_Protecting workers: Provides temporary visas and work authorization for detained workers when they have been retaliated against by their employer for asserting their labor rights and they agree to pursue labor claims against their employer. Also expands U visas to provide for whistleblower protections with regard to worker exploitation, civil rights violations and retaliation for exercising labor rights.

Address Reporting: Clarifies address reporting requirements

Ending Discrimination: Preempts any state or local law that discriminates against an individual based on immigration status or imposes sanctions on any individual or entity based on the immigration status of its clients, employees or tenants

Repeals the 287(g) program: Repeals the 287(g) program and clarifies that the authority to enforce federal immigration law lies solely with the federal government

ICE Ombudsman: Establishes an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Ombudsman

Asylum: Eliminates the arbitrary 1-year bar to applying for asylum

Restores federal jurisdiction: Restores the federal courts of their jurisdiction to review decisions and practices of DHS thereby also restoring the historic role that the courts play in reviewing agency actions

_TITLE II – EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION

This section sets up an employment verification system for employers to verify each new hire’s authorization to work. The new system will eventually apply to all workers and all new hires, and will be rolled out in phases, beginning with critical infrastructure employers and large employers. The employment verification system:__ Creates significant civil penalties for employers who do not comply with the requirements under the new system__ Establishes serious criminal penalties for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens__ Debars employers who repeatedly violate these provisions from government contracts, grants, and agreements__ Includes privacy safeguards by limiting the data that can be collected and stored in the database and requiring the agencies to develop the system with maximum security and privacy protections __ Requires the agencies to evaluate impact of system from a privacy perspective and complete privacy impact statements__ Prohibits creation of a national identification card__ Includes anti-discrimination provisions. Forbids employers from using the new system to discriminate against applicants or employees on the basis of nationality. Prohibits employers from terminating employment due to a tentative non-confirmation, using the system to screen employees prior to offering employment, or using the system selectively__ Allows an individual to register with the Social Security Administration and acquire a PIN that would allow them electronic access to their file in the system, update their information, and lock their file for purposes of employment

TITLE III – VISA REFORMS

Backlog Reduction and Numerical Limit Reforms:_Reduction of existing backlogs: Permits the “recapture” of unused employment-based visas and family-sponsored visas from fiscal years 1992-2008 and allows future unused visa numbers to roll over to next fiscal year. Immediate relatives are exempted from the annual cap on the number of immigrant visas. This section increases the percentage limit of visas which may be issued yearly to a single country.

Promotion of Family Unity: To recognize family unity principles and facilitate backlog reduction, reclassifies spouses and children of lawful permanent residents as immediate relatives. The government is given greater discretionary authority to waive unlawful presence bars to reunite families upon a demonstration of hardship for applicant’s U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family members.

Sons and daughters of Filipino World War II veterans: Exempts the sons and daughters of Filipino WWII veterans from the annual numerical limitations.

Immigrants with Advanced Skills Exempt from Visa Cap: Exempts several categories of highly skilled workers from the employment-based immigrant visa cap.

Retaining Workers Subject to the Green Card Backlog: Current nonimmigrant skilled workers whose employer has petitioned for an employment-based green card on their behalf and their dependents will be permitted to file an application for adjustment of status, regardless of whether a visa is immediately available. An applicant under this section must pay a supplemental $500 fee, to be used by DHS for backlog reduction and clearing security background check delays. The Secretary shall provide employment and travel authorization in 3-year increments while the application is pending.

Protection of Children and Families:_Relief for Orphans and Widows: Ensures that surviving spouses and children applying for adjustment of status or naturalization, including spouses and children of asylees and refugees, retain eligibility for waivers and other considerations that would have been available to them at the time of the petitioner’s death. Reform of Cancellation of Removal: Permits immigration judges greater discretion in determining eligibility requirements for long-term lawful permanent residents seeking cancellation of removal. Eliminates prohibitions on including time spent in the United States after becoming inadmissible or being placed in removal proceedings as counting towards continuous presence requirements for cancellation of removal. Protection for Refugees, Parolees or Asylees: Prohibits the removal of any individual who fled his or her homeland for fear of persecution before the age of twelve and was subsequently admitted into the United States as a parolee or refugee or was granted asylum in the U.S. Enhanced Protections for Children: Revises current law to ensure that the children of fiancés of United States citizens will be protected from aging out of eligibility to adjust to conditional resident status by requiring that eligibility determinations are based on the child’s age at the time the U.S. citizen files a petition for classifying the child’s parent as a fiancé or spouse. Eliminates he requirement that stepchildren must have been under the age of 18 at the time the qualifying marriage took place in order to be classified as a child for purposes of immigration eligibility.

Limits on Removal for Parents of U.S. Citizen Children: Permits an immigration judge to decline to order the removal of the parent of U.S. citizen child if the judge determines that removal would not be in the child’s best interests and the parent is not subject to removal based on national security, terrorism or trafficking grounds.

Determinations under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998: This section amends the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998 (HRIFA) to preserve eligibility for children of applicants based on their age on the date of enactment of HRIFA and permits new applications and motions to reopen on that basis.

Affidavit of Support: Revises the eligibility requirements for sponsorship of immigrants by reducing the level of support required from 125% of poverty level to 100% of poverty level. _Return of Talent Program: Permits lawful permanent residents to temporarily return to their home country to assist in post-conflict or natural disaster reconstruction activities, for up to two years without losing credit towards time as a continuous resident of the U.S. for purposes of applying for naturalization. _Humanitarian Visa Program to Prevent Unauthorized Migration (PUM Visa):_Prevent Unauthorized Migration Visa (PUM Visa) Creates a stop-gap new visa program that will provide for safe, humanitarian migration during the three-year transition period before the implementation of recommendations made by the new Labor Commission. __ One hundred thousand PUM visas will be made available annually, for three years, to persons from sending countries of unauthorized migration to the United States to be distributed on a percentage basis through a lottery system. __ Individuals may apply to the lottery if they are not present in the United States at the time of filing, do not have other family or employment-based means to immigration, submit to criminal background checks, and have completed less than a 4-year college degree program.__ Individuals awarded visas will be admitted to the United States as conditional residents and may petition to remove the condition after three years upon showing they have good moral character, pass all required background and security checks, comply with all tax requirements and other factors, including payment of a $500 fee that will be used to fund security and employment programs.

TITLE IV – EARNED LEGALIZATION PROGRAM FOR THE UNDOCUMENTED

Visa Program for Qualified Undocumented Workers: Creates a program providing conditional nonimmigrant status for undocumented immigrants (and their spouses and children) in the U.S., which is valid for six years.

Features of the Conditional Nonimmigrant Program:__ Provides conditional nonimmigrant visa applicants with work and travel authorization and protection from removal__ Bars related to undocumented status will be waived (security and criminal bars cannot be waived)__ Contains provisions for administrative and judicial review of denied applications

Requirements for Conditional Nonimmigrant Status: The alien must:__ Establish presence in the U.S. on the day of introduction, and continuously thereafter__ At time of registration, attests to contributions to the U.S. through employment, education, military service, or other volunteer/community service (with exemptions for minors, persons with disabilities, the elderly, or other unusual circumstances)__ Complete criminal and security background checks__ Pay a $500 fine plus necessary application fees (fine exemption for children and certain immigrants who initially entered the U.S. before the age of 16)__ The individual shall be ineligible to receive a visa as a result of a serious criminal conviction, persecution of another person or reasonable grounds for believing that the alien committed a particularly serious crime abroad__ There is a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment for anyone who willfully falsifies information in an application for conditional nonimmigrant status

Adjustment of Status to LPR: Provides qualified conditional nonimmigrants and their spouses and children with an opportunity to apply for lawful permanent resident status (green card) and eventual citizenship.

Features of the Earned Adjustment of Status Program:__ No green cards may be issued under this program earlier than six years after the date of enactment unless existing immigrant backlogs have been cleared before that time__ The Department of State and DHS are required to provide any requesting law enforcement entity with information furnished on an application in connection with a criminal or national security investigation or prosecution__ New penalties for making false statements in an application for earned citizenship are created__ Immigrants who adjust from a conditional nonimmigrant visa (including dependents) to lawful permanent resident status shall not be counted against the worldwide numerical visa caps__ Those appealing decisions associated with the application for adjustment to permanent status have access to a defined administrative and judicial process

Special Rule for Persons Brought to the United States Before the Age of 16: In order to simplify processing of applicants under CIR ASAP, those persons ordinarily covered under the DREAM Act will apply for status through the same program outlined above, with the following special features:__ No fines for persons who were brought to the United States before the age of 16, have resided in the U.S. for at least five years, and were 35 years of age or less__ Such persons will be eligible for accelerated LPR status upon graduation from high school, and completion of two years of college, military service, or employment. Persons granted LPR status under this provision will be eligible for naturalization three years after the date LPR status is granted__ Graduation from a U.S. high school or receipt of an equivalency degree will meet the English proficiency requirement__ Individual states permitted to determine residency requirements for in-state tuition purposes

Requirements for Earned Adjustment: The applicant must:__ Demonstrate contribution to the United States through employment, education, military service, or voluntary or community service, where applicable__ Complete criminal and security background checks__ Establish registration under the Selective Service (if applicable)__ Meet English and civics requirements__ Undergo a medical examination__ Pay all taxes__ Show admissibility to the U.S

Other Provisions in Title IV: __ AgJOBS Act of 2009

TITLE V – STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S WORKFORCE

Title V of CIR ASAP strengthens America’s workforce by reforming the badly-flawed H-1B, H-2B and L-1 visa programs and establishes a Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets to provide researched, unbiased, accurate recommendations for future flows of workers. It also permanently reauthorizes the EB-5 visa program and establishes stricter requirements for employers and recruiters of foreign workers. Title V additionally establishes the American Worker Recruit and Match System which will match qualified individuals with job opportunities in fields that traditionally have relied on unauthorized labor. Furthermore, this title establishes the Security and Prosperity Account which directs funds raised from fines in the earned legalization program to fortify America’s workforce, integrate new Americans and safeguard our borders.

Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets: Title V establishes a new independent federal agency known as the Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets. The Commission will:__ Establish employment based-immigration policies that promote economic growth and competitiveness while minimizing job displacement, wage depression and unauthorized employment__ Create and implement a policy-focused research agenda on the economic impact of immigration on multiple levels__ Collect and analyze information on employment-based immigration and publish the data and analysis__ Recommend to Congress and the President appropriate methods for determining the levels of employment-based immigration and assessing the effects of such immigration as well as the numerical levels and characteristics of procedures for future flows of workers to be admitted into the United States

Security and Prosperity Account: The Security and Prosperity Account is established in Title V to fund efforts to strengthen our workforce, including:__ Grants to states for adult and dislocated worker employment and training activities__ Funding for the Electronic Employment Verification System to ensure that all individuals working in the U.S. are authorized to do so__ Funding for the Commission on Immigration and Labor Markets to provide sound, researched and objective employment based immigration policy__ Dislocated workers assistance national reserve funding __ Establishment of AWRMS programs and funds educational purposes__ Funding to reduce the USCIS visa backlog to ensure a timely and reliable process for all individuals applying for visas and further the integration of new Americas with programs that, for example, facilitate citizenship for legal permanent resident students and create citizenship promotion services__ Funding for border security, detention and enforcement activities

American Worker Recruit and Match System: Title V establishes the American Worker Recruit and Match System (AWRMS), which is an internet-based program that is set up by each State Workforce Agency (SWA) to be incorporated into current Web-based job search engines. AWRMS is a searchable database that allows employers to post job opportunities in fields that have traditionally relied on unauthorized labor. In addition, individuals can post their employment profiles and AWRMS will match employers with qualified individuals.

Protecting Workers: Title V protects foreign workers from exploitation and abuse by ensuring that each prospective employee is provided a written description of the terms of their employment which may not knowingly include any misleading or false information. In addition, each employer must provide to the Secretary of Labor the identity of all recruiters working on their behalf and any possible violations committed by a recruiter. An employer will be held responsible for the actions of a recruiter and may be subject to civil penalties.

H-1B visa program: The current H-1B visa program does not adequately protect American or H-1B workers. Title V reforms the H-1B visa program to:__ Ensure that before an employer can hire an H-1B worker, the employer must meet strict requirements for the recruitment of American workers__ Authorize the Department of Labor (DOL) to initiate investigations into possible fraud and abuse in the absence of a formal complaint and/or the Secretary’s approval. __ Increase penalties for violations__ Authorize the DOL to conduct annual audits of employers that rely heavily on the H-1B program

L-1 visa program: The L-1 visa program is currently vulnerable to fraud and abuse. CIR ASAP authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to audit L-1 visa participants. Penalties will be assessed for violations of the provisions of the L-1 visa program.

H-2B visa program: The H-2B visa program is reformed to prevent the exploitation of H-2B non-immigrants and the depression of wages and other workplace abuses by exploitative employers. Reforms to the program:__ Include stricter requirements for recruitment of American workers__ Prevent employers from participating in the program if they have conducted a mass lay-off in the past year and includes strengthened worker protections

EB-5 Visa program: The EB-5 Visa program is permanently reauthorized within Title V with an increase in available visas to 10,000. It also allows for an expedited processing of petitions for a fee of $2,500. The definition of Targeted Employment Area (TEA) is expanded to include: __ Rural areas, __ High-unemployment areas__ Counties with a 20 percent or more population decrease since 1970__ Areas within the boundaries of state or federal economic development incentive programs__ Areas designated as TEAs by a state agency authorized by the Governor__ Areas designated as TEAs during the two year period before visa application_In addition, Title V requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to study and report on the current job creation counting methodology and how to promote the employment creation program to overseas investors. Lastly it creates a new category of job-producing foreigners eligible for visas: venture capitalist seeking a Founder’s visa.

TITLE VI – INTEGRATION OF NEW AMERICANS

Immigration Fees: Immigration fees have risen steeply in the past decade. Title VI will ensure that future fee increase requests receive closer scrutiny than provided by the largely perfunctory regulatory public comment process. Title VI incorporates and expands on provisions of the Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 to make citizenship more accessible and affordable. This title: __ Provides for greater transparency for immigration application fees and encourages a uniform process to submit fee waiver applications__ Provides for uniform administration of the naturalization exam__ Promotes citizenship of the elderly by adjusting the age requirements for English language exemption

Improving the Naturalization Process: The process for naturalization is lengthy and difficult to navigate. Title VI creates reforms that encourage citizenship among immigrant communities. This section requires timely response on background checks and evaluates their efficiency. In addition, this title includes a grant program for community based organizations to promote and help immigrants prepare for citizenship. These grants in support of naturalization efforts will assist legal permanent residents with: __ English language and citizenship classes__ Legal assistance__ Community outreach activities __ Assisting aliens with applications for citizenship

Integration Grant Programs:_Title VI includes a grant program for education, training and support efforts relating to the provisions of the CIR ASAP Act, including protections from immigration fraud and the availability of benefits provided by the act. Provisions ensure that to the extent possible, the nonprofit community organizations receiving grants serve geographically diverse and ethnically diverse locations.

USCIS Grant Program: Title VI establishes a grant program within USCIS that provides funding to community-based organizations, including community-based legal service organizations, as appropriate, to develop and implement programs to assist eligible applicants for naturalization. Grants provided for in Title VI will be funded through fees and fines deposited in the Security and Prosperity Account.

Initial Entry, Adjustment, and Citizenship Assistant Grant Program: Title VI establishes the Initial Entry, Adjustment and Citizenship Assistance Grant Program. IEACA grants will be awarded to community-based organizations for the design and implementation of programs to provide the following services: __ Assistance and instruction, including legal assistance, to aliens making initial application for conditional nonimmigrant or conditional nonimmigrant dependent classification __ Assistance and instruction, including legal assistance, to aliens seeking to adjust their status __ Assistance and instruction to applicants on the rights and responsibilities of US citizenship and English language proficiency

Improving Naturalization for Legal Permanent Residents: Facilitates citizenship among Legal Permanent Resident students that want to naturalize. Legal Permanent Resident students will be deemed to have satisfied the language and civics requirements for naturalization if they are able to demonstrate they graduated high school after completing grades 6 through 12 in the United States and the curriculum reflects knowledge of U.S. history, Government, and civics.

Strengthening Communities: Title VI strengthens and unites communities by creating incentives for English language acquisition programs. Creates tax credits for teachers in limited English proficient schools. Provides employers with a tax credit for qualified English language education programs. Authorizes states to form State New American Councils comprised of 15-19 individuals from state and local government, business and community organizations.

Celebrating Citizenship: Title VI celebrates the citizenship of new Americans and encourages these individuals to integrate into their communities. It provides for the availability of funds to the Director of USCIS or to approved public or private nonprofit entities to support public ceremonies for administering oaths of allegiance to naturalizing legal immigrants. Independence Day naturalization ceremonies include appropriate outreach, ceremonial, and celebratory activities. This program shall be funded through fees and fines deposited in the Security and Prosperity Account.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

This claim, by Mark Barnhart, director of community and economic development for Fairfield, seeemed absurd on the face of it. (I have some experience in these matters, as I was Barnhart’s predecessor in the job, and was promised the permanent post by First Selectman Ken Flatto before he snatched it away and gave it to Barnhart.)

Our vacancy rate is about 10 percent. It has gone up. We have some 10,000 to 11,000 square feet of space. The office market here is relatively small, compared to larger markets like Norwalk and Stamford,” he said, estimating that rental rates for Class A office space range from the low $20s to the low $30s per square foot.

10,000 to 11,000 sq. ft? Ridiculous. Here’s just some of the space available in Fairfield:

777 Commerce Drive, Fairfield, CT 06430 16,622 SF $29.50

1499 Post Road, Fairfield, CT 06824 11,285 sq. ft. $35

1 Post Road, Fairfield, CT 06825 9,215 SF $25

2150 Post Road, Fairfield, CT 06430 8,500 sq ft. $?

1657 Post Road, Fairfield, CT 06824 7,000 sq.ft. $35

1248 Post Road, Fairfield, CT 06824 1,992 sq ft. $24

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

Can we ignore the safety issues in both operating reactors and disposing of the wastes? Even as legislators are saying yes, the marketplace is saying no.

$18.5 billion in loan guarantees is currently authorized and under discussion for new reactors. The American Clean Energy Leadership Act of 2009 (S.1462), which has been passed out of the Energy Committee, authorizes unlimited loan guarantees. The recently unveiled Kerry-Graham-Lieberman “framework” for climate legislation also includes nuclear loan guarantees. The Alexander-Webb bill calling for 100 new nuclear reactors features $4 billion in new nuclear subsidies and an additional $10 billion that could leverage between $100 billion and $1 trillion in loan guarantees, depending on the subsidy cost. The nuclear power industry is on record calling for a miniscule 1 percent subsidy cost, which would result in the $1 trillion scenario.

Mark Cooper, senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School: “2009 was the seventh year of the so-called ‘Nuclear Renaissance,” but it looks a lot like the U.S. nuclear industry of the 1980s, a decade of no new orders, multiple delays and cancellations, hefty defaults, and emerging cheaper alternatives. Of 26 new nuclear reactor license applications submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission since 2007, 19 have been cancelled or delayed and every private sector project has suffered a downgrade by credit rating agencies. The reality is that capital markets will not finance new reactors because demand growth has slowed, reactors cost much more than available alternatives and they face too many technology, marketplace, and policy risks; so nuclear advocates have demanded a massive increase in direct federal subsidies to bail the industry out. What we are looking at is the prospect of ‘nuclear socialism’ that could only go farther if it involved outright state ownership of the industry.”

Stephen Thomas, professor of energy studies, University of Greenwich, London, said: “Reactor design and construction problems have vexed the industry for years. In Finland, the Olkiluoto plant was expected to take four years to build but after four years of construction in May 2009, it was still nearly four years from completion and about 75 percent over budget. The vendor and the customer were countersuing each other for compensation for these delays. In France, the country often held up by nuclear advocates as the example others should follow, its Flamanville EPR was more than 20 percent over budget after only a year of construction … It is now clear that unless electricity consumers are required, as they were in the 1970s and 1980s, to bear all the economic risk – if costs went up, consumer electricity bills went up – nuclear power plants will only be built if governments grant major taxpayer subsidies, such as a guarantee on the electricity price nuclear power plants will receive and loan guarantees so that if the project goes wrong, taxpayers will ensure banks do not lose their money. Paradoxically, the worse the economic case gets for nuclear power, the more determined governments seem to be to force nuclear programmes through and the higher the level of taxpayer support is promised.”

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said: “No one should be surprised to see the latest accounts of multi-billion-dollar projected cost increases for the South Texas Project. In fact, in March 2008, I estimated costs two to almost three times higher than those advertized by NRG, the project’s developer; and my estimates are the projected costs today, even if there are no delays and other problems. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the industry consistently overstated likely demand and underestimated costs, which resulted in dozens of cancelled plants and huge debts. The difference today is that the government is willing to underwrite this risky nuclear adventure that is likely to come to no good and waste billions of taxpayer dollars.”

RECENT COST OVERRUNS IN TEXAS

Plans for two new nuclear reactors are in jeopardy in Texas due to a projected $4 billion cost overrun. As the Wall Street Journal reported:

“Spooked by escalating costs, a city-owned utility in San Antonio is considering backing out of a venture with NRG Energy Inc. to build two next-generation nuclear reactors in Texas. CPS Energy is expected to make a final decision next month, after it gets an updated cost estimate from Toshiba Corp., which will oversee construction of the two reactors. The project is one of the furthest along in a new crop of nuclear proposals, but it is proving unpopular with city officials. The cost of the reactors, estimated at $10 billion to $12 billion before financing costs, is causing concern at a time when the utility is making big investments in renewable energy and pollution controls. Nuclear-reactor costs also look high right now against competing types of generation, such as gas-fired plants.”

“The San Antonio city council was poised to approve a $400 million bond issuance in late October, but held back when new numbers came to light that indicated the nuclear project could cost more than expected. Like most municipal utilities, CPS has an appointed board that reports to elected city officials, whose approval is needed for rate changes or bond issuances … City officials say the cost estimate from Toshiba for the two-reactor project ballooned to $12.1 billion last summer from a preliminary estimate of $8.6 billion in 2007, catching them off guard. Utility documents show its board was working with a figure of $10 billion. NRG says that it is confident it will be able to get the cost below $10 billion, before about $3 billion in financing costs are added. … Even if the final cost is about $10 billion, some city officials feel the project is too costly. ‘Based on the numbers I’ve seen, I don’t think it’s the right decision to proceed,’ said Councilman Reed Williams. He said it made economic sense for CPS to build gas-fired plants or buy electricity from others … CPS’s skittishness about the cost of nuclear energy is understandable. The first two units at South Texas Project were supposed to cost less than $1 billion but ended up costing more than $5 billion. With that history seared into its memory, San Antonio officials have been sensitive to anything suggesting they could, again, get blindsided by escalating costs.”

A similar cost overrun situation is now unfolding in Georgia, at the Vogtle nuclear plant project, which is a finalist for the current round of DOE loan subsidies. Georgia Public Broadcasting reports:

“The proposed construction of two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro could likely have cost overruns and possibly face delays, according to testimony released by the Georgia Public Service Commission. The group monitoring the progress of the new reactors is also being denied access to crucial information about the process, and Georgia Power is not revising economic evaluations based on a variety of factors that include a reduced demand for electricity and cheaper alternatives to nuclear energy, the document says.”

“The testimony, dated December 2, comes from PSC staffers and an independent monitor assigned to review Vogtle in advance of a hearing scheduled for Wednesday, the second in a semi-annual review of the construction timeline and budget of the reactors. The PSC reviews are required by a state law written after construction of Plant Vogtle’s first two reactors in the 1980s skyrocketed from a projected cost of $660 million to $8.87 billion. ‘This project should be subject to a higher level of scrutiny due to higher financial risk to the ratepayer,’ says William Jacobs, an engineering consultant who also serves as the independent monitor for the Vogtle project.”

Major setbacks for new nuclear reactors have been a recurring theme. Earlier this year, Exelon cited “economic woes” as a major factor in postponing for up to 20 years plans to build two nuclear reactors at its site in Victoria, Texas.

FINANCIAL MARKET REPORTS: THUMBS DOWN FOR NUCLEAR POWER

A new November 9, 2009 report by Citi Investment Research & Analysis, a division of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. is titled “New Nuclear – The Economics Say No.” The report identifies “The Three Corporate Killers”:

“Three of the risks faced by developers — Construction, Power Price, and Operational — are so large and variable that individually they could each bring even the largest utility company to its knees financially. This makes new nuclear a unique investment proposition for utility companies. Government policy remains that the private sector takes full exposure to the three main risks; Construction, Power Price and Operational. Nowhere in the world have nuclear power stations been built on this basis. We see little if any prospect that new nuclear stations will be built in the UK by the private sector unless developers can lay off substantial elements of the three major risks. Financing guarantees, minimum power prices, and / or government-backed power off-take agreements may all be needed if stations are to be built …”

“Both Westinghouse and Areva claim to be able to construct a new third generation plant (AP-1000 and EPR, respectively) in 3 years from first pouring of concrete. However, evidence to date suggests this is not necessarily the case, as Olkiluoto and Flamanville projects have both suffered delays, while the first AP-1000 unit under construction, in SanMen China, is running significantly over its $1,000/KW construction cost target and is expected to be over $3,500/KW target on current estimates … We believe that if governments want new nuclear to be part of their energy policy, they will need to provide some support as either these plants will not be built or once they are, won’t be economically viable.”

The Citi report echoes other current financial analyses focusing more narrowly on the U.S. On June 23, 2009, Moody’s Investor Services issued a report titled “New Nuclear Generation: Ratings Pressure Increasing.” The summary to the report included the following:

“Moody’s is considering ‘taking a more negative view for those issuers seeking to build new (U.S.) nuclear power plants … Rationale is premised on a material increase in business and operating risk … most utilities now seeking to build nuclear generation do not appear to be adjusting their financial policies, a credit negative. First federal approvals are at least two years away, and economic, political and policy equations could easily change before then …’”

“The Economics of Nuclear Reactors,” a report released on June 18, 2009 by Dr. Mark Cooper found that it would cost $1.9 trillion to $4.1 trillion more over the life of 100 new nuclear reactors than it would to generate the same electricity from a combination of more energy efficiency and renewables. The Cooper analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry’s so-called “nuclear renaissance” at the beginning of this decade – a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the “Great Bandwagon Market” of the 1960s and 1970s, when half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT REACTOR DESIGN SAFETY

In November, European safety regulators raised major concerns about both of the designs for new U.S. reactors – the AP1000 and the EPR.

As New Civil Engineer reports:

“The (UK) Government’s plans to increase the country’s reliance on nuclear power have been thrown into doubt after experts raised a raft of safety concerns about two proposed reactors. Britain’s main safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, said it could not endorse the use of French and American designed reactors because of wide-ranging concerns about their safety… in reports on the assessment of the French EPR and US AP1000 reactor designs, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) said there was a much more ‘detailed work’ to do before they could be approved for use. The HSE said of both units: ‘We have identified a significant number of issues with the safety features …that would first have to be progressed. If these are not progressed satisfactorily then we would not issue a design acceptance confirmation.’”

“Among the criticisms raised, experts said there were significant concerns about EPR’s proposed architecture, and that improvements were required for ‘hazard barriers.’ Other issues relating to the reactor’s structural integrity were also addressed, with the report saying it was ‘too early to say whether they could be resolved solely with additional safety case changes or whether they may result in design modifications being necessary.’ The safety case of the AP1000′s internal hazards also showed ‘significant shortfalls.’”

The European concerns were even broader than those voiced in October by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which objected to major problems in the AP1000 reactor design, proposed for use in 14 of 25 proposed new U.S. reactors. Two of the four new nuclear projects that the DOE is reported to be considering for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees are AP1000 designs proposed by the Southern Company at the Vogtle site in Georgia and the South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE&G) V.C. Summer site.

The NRC has made it clear that there are grave doubts if the AP1000 nuclear reactor structure can withstand hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and other external impacts, as required by the NRC’s regulations. The NRC said that its “staff has informed Westinghouse that the company has not demonstrated that certain structural components of the revised AP1000 shield building can withstand design basis loads,” and also stated that the unsuccessful efforts to secure information had gone on for a year. The NRC announced: “This is a situation where fundamental engineering standards will have to be met before we can begin determining whether the shield building meets the agency’s requirements.”

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

From the New York Times:

The Million-Dollar Man

…(W)ay back in September, the senator was publicly championing a Medicare buy-in.

In an interview with The Connecticut Post, he said he had been refining his views on health care for many years and was “very focused on a group post-50, or maybe more like post-55” whose members should be able to buy Medicare if they lacked insurance.

This week, when there actually seemed to be a compromise on health care that did not focus on Mr. Lieberman, he announced that he would block the package if the Democrats included a terrible idea — allowing people between 55 and 65 to buy Medicare.

He presented this as a principled effort to keep down federal debt, but when a Times reporter asked about his 180-degree turn, he said he had forgotten taking his earlier position until the Democratic leadership reminded him about it over the weekend.

Mr. Lieberman has taken more than $1 million from the industry over his Senate career. In his 2006 re-election campaign, he ranked second in the Senate in contributions from the industry. He doesn’t seem to have forgotten that…

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

I have summarized below the most interesting Education Research Reports published in the last month. For more information on each of these, and in most cases, a link to the entire report, click on the highlighted links.

(More reports are available here.)

Student self-testing gets high marks as study tool

“We know that self-testing, which happens when students practice retrieving knowledge, drives learning,” says Jeffrey D. Karpicke, an assistant professor of psychological sciences. “Students can really benefit from testing themselves as they study by using something as simple as flashcards. However, the key is to not drop a flashcard once you feel you have mastered the material. Keep it as part of your rotation and keep practicing retrieval of that information.”

Expanded Time Schools in America

” On average these schools offer about 25 percent more time than the national norm of 180 six-hour days;
” While a majority of the schools included are public charter schools, more than one-quarter of the schools identified are standard district public schools;
” Compared with national averages, schools with expanded time serve a more heavily minority and poorer student population; and
” Data suggest that more time is associated with higher academic achievement, as students in schools with an expanded school day were found on average to outperform their district peers.

Tracking and Detracking: High Achievers in Massachusetts Middle Schools

Detracked schools have fewer advanced students in mathematics than tracked schools. The report also finds that detracking is more popular in schools serving disadvantaged populations.

Behavioral training improves function in the brain

Children with poor reading skills who underwent an intensive, six-month training program to improve their reading ability showed increased connectivity in a particular brain region, in addition to making significant gains in reading.

Early Exposure to Language in Babies Leads to Easier Acquisition of the Language as Adults

Early experience with a language – say before the age of one – can still help an adult many years later to acquire that language more easily that an individual who has not had such early exposure..

4 Out of 5 Older Children Academically on Track

Nearly 80 percent of students ages 12 to 17 were academically on track in 2006, up 8 percent from 1998, according to a new report by the U.S. Census Bureau. Students were considered to be academically on track if they were enrolled in school at or above the grade level appropriate for their age.

Urban District Assessment: Mathematics 2009

The Nation’s Report Card: Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA) Mathematics 2009 describes results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in mathematics for 18 selected urban districts from across the country.

* In comparison to 2007, scores improved in two districts at each grade in 2009. Scores did not change for the remaining nine districts that participated in 2007.
* When compared to 2003, the 2009 average mathematics scores at grade 4 were higher in eight out of ten participating districts, and in nine out of ten participating districts at grade 8.

Practice-Based Teacher Preparation Programs: MA

Over the past decade, alternative teacher preparation programs have proliferated across the nation — and in Massachusetts — in response to projected teacher shortages and in an effort to better prepare teachers for the challenges of today’s classrooms. While the vast majority of Massachusetts teachers are trained through traditional teacher preparation programs, both the number of alternative route programs and the number of teachers completing them has grown significantly.

Students’ Use of Tutoring Services

* Sixty percent of students attending schools that did not make AYP for three or more years had parents who received information about free tutoring from their child’s school or district, compared to 43 percent of students in other public schools.
* Twenty-two percent of students attending schools that did not make AYP for three or more years received free tutoring, compared to 13 percent of students in other public schools.
* Within schools that missed AYP targets for three or more years, the parents of 63 percent of the students who received free tutoring were very satisfied with the tutoring their child received.

Comments

|

E-mail

|

Print

At a press conference on the steps of the State Capitol yesterday, members of the unions in the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) joined business, labor, education and advocacy groups to decry Governor M. Jodi Rell’s latest round of proposed cuts. The conference was organized by District 1199/SEIU, a member of the coalition.

In addition to the wide array of cuts the Governor has already enacted, she has proposed even deeper cuts to services that serve the elderly, children and the state’s most vulnerable citizens. Speakers who took the podium highlighted the shortsightedness of the Governor’s plan, and showed that slashing funding for vital services will further endanger Connecticut’s recovery and prolong the pain felt by so many across the state.

District 1199/SEIU President Carmen Boudier said “The Governor’s plan won’t make people’s lives better; it will make them worse. That’s why our members are standing up for the people we care for, night and day, all across Connecticut. This is about protecting the services our mothers, our grandmothers, our sisters, our aunts and everyone we serve depend on.”

In addition to the impact felt by those who use the services, the Governor’s current proposal will add to the jobless rolls indiscriminately. Her proposal will cost another 5,000 jobs, on top of the approximately 30,000 jobs that have been lost due to previous budget cuts.

CT Association of Health Care Facilities Executive Vice President Matthew Barrett put it even more bluntly, “The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right name. This deficit mitigation plan has a right name, and it is ‘job killer.’ It also undermines and jeopardizes the quality of care in CT nursing homes.”

In February of this year, SEBAC leaders delivered an open letter to Governor Rell warning of exactly the cycle that is occurring — specifically that drastic cuts to balance the budget would lead to a slower recovery which would lead to a new budget crisis and prolonged hardship for the people of the state. The letter including the following statement:

“[C]utting public services in this economic crisis would only make the problem worse for everyone. Connecticut’s people deserve more from their government than simply joining in the cycle of spending reductions, cutbacks, and layoffs. They deserve a government that invests in its people and infrastructure even more in difficult times, and so helps to spark the process of turning the economy around.”

“We were amazed when we saw that the governor proposed cutting the LPN Training Program — when the best social program is an opportunity to be trained for a good job. Our message to the Governor is: if this is the plan you want us to accept, we are here to say we need a better plan for the residents of CT,” said Alex Johnson, the Chief Operating Officer for Capitol Workforce Partners.

The Governor’s latest proposal also includes $84 million in cuts to towns and cities for local services, exacerbating the already frayed safety net that so many Connecticut residents need to get back on their feet. Public statements from SEBAC have pointed out that a solution based solely on spending cuts is untenable and that increases in revenue from those most able to pay is the only feasible next step.

The Governor has cut enough. Cutting funding for kids with Autism, people with AIDS, reducing heating fuel aid, funding to nursing homes and people with Alzheimer’s is not the way to close the budget gap. It is time to take a serious look at what Connecticut needs to recover. SEBAC leaders call on the Governor to begin a positive cycle of reinvestment, hope, and renewal, rather than a vicious cycle of cutback, despair, and decline.

District 1199 is one of thirteen unions in the State Employee Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC), which serves to unite approximately 50,000 Connecticut State Employees to address issues of common concern.