Legislation to help shine light on Illinois' higher education institutions

SPRINGFIELD - May 1, 2012. Lt. Governor Sheila Simon submitted written testimony to the Senate Higher Education Committee today in support of House Bill 5248, Amendment 2. The legislation, approved 7-0, will require public and private colleges and universities to publish annual "College Choice Reports" with key student and institutional data.

The College Choice Reports could contain information such as degree and certificate completion rates, net costs, debt loads and job placement outcomes. Much of the suggested data is already collected by the Illinois Community College Board and Illinois Board of Higher Education, but HB 5248 will ensure it is published in an easy to find and digestible format.

"Future undergraduates will be able to access College Choice Reports online to comparison-shop among institutions," said Simon, who helped draft the legislation following her Complete College Tour of the state's 48 community colleges. "Think of this new tool as a consumer report, guiding parents and students toward high-quality, affordable higher education investments."

Upon passage of HB 5248, Amendment 2, higher education stakeholders will convene a committee to determine the style and content of the reports by January 1, 2014. Public and private degree-granting institutions will publish their first College Choice Report by January 1, 2015. Simon, as chair of the Joint Education Leadership Committee of the P-20 Council, will monitor the committee's progress.

The General Assembly, with guidance from the P-20 Council, recently revamped the elementary and high school report cards which have been required for more than a decade. The College Choice Reports will build on these resources, Simon said.

HB 5248, sponsored by Sen. Kimberly Lightford, now moves to the Senate for a vote.

May 1, 2012

Republicans in the House, as well as the governor, have come to an agreement to spend roughly $6.25 billion for the state budget.  Democrats, who control the Iowa Senate have moved their total number of general fund expenditures down from roughly $6.45 billion to match the House and governor's number.  This move does little to assist in negations to end the legislative session.

Truly, the devil is in the accounting details.  Total spending is not less; in fact it has appeared as hundreds of millions more in multiple budgets presented.  Money is pulled from one-time accounts and used for purposes other than what those accounts were intended for to keep actual spending at a higher level.

As an example, the Economic Emergency Fund, Cash Reserve Fund and Taxpayer Relief Fund are used to keep taxes down in tough economic times.  If politicians pull money out of these accounts for ongoing programing they did not spend less, they just shifted the funding source.  This is like paying your cell phone bill out of your savings account rather than budgeting for the bill in your checking.  What do you do when your fridge goes out and you spent down too low in your savings account?

The budget process impacts the whole pie and it is impossible to pass individual pieces without a rational outlook on the whole thing.  For this reason, even if an agreement happened today, moving the pieces through the chambers will still take several days if not two more weeks.  With responsibilities at home like corn to plant, jobs to return to, and primary elections to work on members are becoming anxious.

Thank you for letting me serve you in Des Moines.  Feel free to contact me at shawn.hamerlinck@legis.iowa.gov or 515-281-3371 or visit my website at www.shawnhamerlinck.com.

Shawn Hamerlinck
State Senator
District 42

CHICAGO - As ambassador to the Illinois Main Street program, Lt. Governor Sheila Simon on Wednesday will designate the Six Corners business district in Chicago's Portage Park neighborhood as the newest Main Street community, the second such designation in Chicago.

"I'm excited to designate the Six Corners business district as an official Main Street community. This means access to technical assistance and training on economic development. The designation will compliment what the Six Corners Association has already done to revitalize this historic part of Chicago," Simon said.

The Six Corners business district is a historic commercial center at the intersection of Milwaukee and Cicero Avenues and Irving Park Road that used to be among the busiest in Chicago according to Ed Bannon, the executive director of the Six Corners Association. The business district includes The Peoples Gas Building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places, and the Portage Theater, which was recently given preliminary landmark status by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

According to Illinois Main Street coordinator Mitzi Brandenburg, Six Corners received the designation based in part on its historic preservation needs and its efforts since 2007 to implement the Main Street Four-Point Approach, which provides communities guidance on revitalization efforts. One example of this was the Six Corners Association's assistance in the facade redesign of Six Corners Bistro, a restaurant currently under construction that is scheduled to open this summer.

Illinois Main Street is administered by the Office of Regional Economic Development at the Illinois Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity (DCEO) and offers its designated communities technical assistance and training in how to revitalize traditional downtowns, neighborhood business districts, and urban corridors. The program is part of the National Main Street Program at the National Trust for Historic Preservation Main Street Center.

Simon announced in March that the Illinois Main Street Program is once again accepting applications from communities interested in becoming part of the program. Communities interested in obtaining more information can visit www.illinoismainstreet.org.

EVENT: Six Corners Illinois Main Street Designation Ceremony

TIME: 2 p.m.

DATE: Wednesday, May 2

PLACE: Las Tablas Restaurant, 4920 W. Irving Park, Chicago

Grassley Concerned that Fraudulent Practices May be Used to Circumvent Protections of H-1B Visa

WASHINGTON - Senator Chuck Grassley is pressing the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland Security to look into possible improper use of B-1 visas by certain companies looking to import cheaper foreign labor.

In a letter to Department of State Secretary Hillary Clinton and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Grassley cited a Seattle Times story that outlined questionable practices by The Boeing Company in using the B-1 visa instead of the H-1B visa to bring in workers from Moscow.  The story said that officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection interviewed several arriving individuals and found that their stories about what they would do in the country did not correspond with the terms of their visas.  The Customs and Border Protection agents turned away these workers, but it has been reported that despite Boeing not changing its practices an additional 250 Russian contract engineers have entered the United States to work with the company.

In his letter, Grassley reiterated his concern that the "B-1 in Lieu of H-1B" program was being abused to bring in foreign workers without the protections of the H-1B visa program.  Grassley first raised questions about the program to Clinton and Napolitano on April 14, 2011.  The State Department indicated it was working with Homeland Security to "consider removing or substantially amending" the Foreign Affairs Manual.  The Department of Homeland Security suggested it would work to "develop guidance clarifying the scope of activities permissible in the B-1 business visitor classification."  At this time, nothing official has been done to remedy the situation.

Here's a copy of the text of Grassley's letter.  A signed copy can be found here.

April 30, 2012

The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary

U.S. Department of State

2201 C Street NW

Washington, D.C. 20520

The Honorable Janet Napolitano

Secretary

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

245 Murray Lane, Mailstop 0150

Washington, D.C. 20528-0150

Dear Secretary Clinton and Secretary Napolitano:

I write again to express my concerns about the B-1 visa program, particularly the so-called "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" policy, and seek your cooperation to determine if some companies are abusing this avenue to bring in cheaper foreign labor.

Last April, I wrote to both of you about the "B-1 in lieu of H-1B" policy, and asked that the policy, which is included in the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual but omitted in Homeland Security guidance, be reconsidered.  To date, nothing on this issue has been done, despite a fairly positive response from the State Department that they were working on "removing or substantially amending the FAM."

I remain concerned about fraudulent actions that some companies may be taking in order to get around the requirements and U.S. worker protections of the H-1B visa program.  While my previous letter on this issue focused on a lawsuit pending against Infosys, it has come to my attention that The Boeing Company ("Boeing") may have employed similar tactics to bring in foreign workers.

According to a report in the Seattle Times, 18 Russian engineers arrived in Seattle on October 14, 2011, with B-1 visas.  Officials from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) interviewed the arriving individuals and found that their stories about what they would do in the country did not correspond with the terms of their visas.  Records provided by the Seattle Times to my office reveal the following notes between the foreign nationals and CBP officials (who took statements under oath in a sworn affidavit):

·         One individual admitted that, prior to her trip, she was told by her company (Nik, Ltd.) that she would perform the same work in the United States as she did in Russia.  This person admitted that she would be working alongside Boeing employees.  She also said she was instructed by her company not to state that she would be working in the United States.

·         One individual stated that he was invited by Boeing and presented an invitation letter to attend training, but admitted that it "was not the whole truth."

·         Several individuals admitted that they intended to work at Boeing five days a week, eight hours a day.

·         One individual stated that the letter he presented to the U.S. Consulate in Moscow was not entirely correct in its context, and that he would be working, not training.  When asked by the CBP officer if an American could perform the work, he stated that "Boeing needs to hire one" and that "it was his belief that it was cheaper to hire Russian engineers."

·         One individual told officers that he would not do any hands-on work at the Boeing plant in Everett, Washington, but later, under oath, he admitted that he would.

It was apparent to CBP officers that these foreign nationals were not traveling to the United States to receive or provide training; attend a conference, meeting or trade show; be a speaker, lecturer, or researcher; or perform sales or sign contracts; which are the types of activities appropriate for a B-1 visa.  It's my understanding that all 18 B-1 visa holders were turned away on October 14, 2011.  In light of the report and the CBP documentation, I was dismayed to read earlier this month a follow-up story in the Seattle Times stating that Boeing has not changed its practices, and that about 250 additional Russian contract engineers have entered the country to work with Boeing.

Given these reports and my ongoing concern about this issue, I ask for your help in answering the following questions about Boeing and the use of B-1 visas:

1.      How many B-1 visas has Boeing petitioned for in the last five years?  How many have been approved and how many denied?

2.      How many B-1 visa holders, other than those encountered by CBP on October 14, have been turned away at a port of entry in the last five years?

3.      What other previous trips had each of the 18 workers (from October 14, 2011) made to the United States?  Under what visa classification and for how long were their previous stays in the United States?

4.      How often, if at all, does the Department of Homeland Security conduct site visits of companies that regularly receive B-1 visitors?  Has or will the Department of Homeland Security conduct an on-site review or I-9 audit of Boeing?  If not, why not?

5.      In light of the recent reports about certain companies using B-1 visas to circumvent other employment visa programs, are CBP officers receiving updated guidance on how to handle B-1 visa entries?  Are consular officers receiving guidance or training to detect fraud by B-1 visa applicants?

It's my hope that your Departments will provide as much information to my office as possible about this matter, including any other relevant information not requested in this letter.  In doing so, we can work together to ensure that companies are abiding by the law and not ignoring American workers at home who may be able to do these high skilled jobs.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Grassley