[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 17 (Tuesday, February 26, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H527-H529]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FAMILY SPONSOR IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1892) to amend the
Immigration and Nationality Act to provide for the acceptance of an
affidavit of support from another eligible sponsor if the original
sponsor has died and the Attorney General has determined for
humanitarian reasons that the original sponsor's classification
petition should not be revoked.
The Clerk read as follows:
Senate amendment:
Page 3, line 4, after ``law,'' insert ``sister-in-law,
brother-in-law,''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and to include extraneous material on H.R. 1892, the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, H.R. 1892, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001,
was introduced by the two gentlemen from California (Mr. Calvert) and
(Mr. Issa).
I want to thank them for bringing to our attention an unintended
quirk in the Immigration and Nationality Act that needlessly keeps
families separated. I also want to thank them as well for developing
this bill, which corrects the problem.
Each year, the United States provides hundreds of thousands of
immigrant visas for spouses and other family members of U.S. citizens
and permanent residents. Tragically, each year a number of these U.S.
citizens and permanent residents petitioning for their family members
will die before the immigration process is complete.
Generally, INS regulations provide for automatic revocation of a
petition when the petitioner dies. The consequences are severe for a
beneficiary when his or her petitioner dies before the beneficiary has
adjusted status or received an immigrant visa. If no other relative can
qualify as a petitioner, then the beneficiary would lose the
opportunity to become a permanent resident.
For instance, if a petition is revoked because a widowed citizen-
father dies after petitioning for an adult unmarried daughter, the
daughter would have no living mother to file a new petition. If another
relative can file an immigrant visa petition for the beneficiary, that
beneficiary would still go to the end of the line if the visa category
was numerically limited.
For instance, if the daughter's mother was alive, she could file a
new first family-preference petition. However, the daughter would lose
her priority date based on the time her father's petition had been
filed with the INS and would receive a later priority date based upon
the filing date of her mother's petition.
Because of the severe consequences of the revocation of a visa
petition, INS regulations do allow the Attorney General, in his or her
discretion, to determine that, for humanitarian reasons, revocation
would be inappropriate, and thus complete the unification of a family.
However, there is a complication. The Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires that when a family member
petitions for a relative to receive an immigrant visa, the visa can
only be granted if the petitioner signs a legally-binding affidavit of
support promising to provide support of the immigrant.
If the petitioner has died, obviously he or she cannot sign the
affidavit. Thus even in cases where the Attorney General feels a
humanitarian waiver of the revocation of the visa petition is
warranted, under current law a permanent resident visa cannot be
granted because the affidavit requirement is unfulfilled.
H.R. 1892 solves this dilemma. It simply provides that in cases where
the petitioner has died and the Attorney General has determined for
humanitarian reasons that revocation of the petition would be
inappropriate, a close family other than the petitioner would be
allowed to sign the necessary affidavit of support.
Eligible family members in H.R. 1892, as it passed the House last
July, would include spouses, parents, grandparents, mothers- and
fathers-in-law, siblings, adult sons and daughters, adult sons and
daughters-in-law, and grandchildren. Legal guardians would also be
eligible.
The Senate passed a minor amendment to the bill to add brothers- and
sisters-in-law, and this is the motion to concur in the amendment that
is before the House today.
{time} 1415
H.R. 1892 is humanitarian and pro-family. I urge my colleagues to
support the bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1892 and thank the co-sponsors
of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) and the
gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert); and as well I thank the
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for his astuteness and
commitment to this legislation, having spearheaded its movement through
the House the last time we were able to vote on it. I as well thank the
ranking member for his commitment to these issues.
I believe that this is a legislative initiative that is extremely
important because it speaks to the cornerstone of immigration policy in
this Nation, and that is family reunification. In spite of all the
tragedies that we have faced in the last year and reminding ourselves
of the tragedy of September 11, I believe this Nation should never
stray
[[Page H528]]
away from the honest need to reunite families who legally want to
access the opportunities of citizenship in this country.
Last July I supported this measure as it passed the House and the
Senate. The Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001 is a very important
immigration bill with a bipartisan support. We are correcting a glitch
in the immigration law. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration Claims of the House Committee on the Judiciary, I was
pleased to work with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the
chairman of that subcommittee, on that legislation along with the
original sponsor of this legislation as well. Again, I thank them for
their service and their leadership.
Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the same
person that petitions for the admission of an immigrant must be the
same person who signs the affidavit of support. That person is called a
sponsor. So if the sponsor dies, current law does not allow someone
else to sign the affidavit of support, although they are a legitimate
person, although there is no attempt to commit fraud; and that person
is unable to adjust his or her status to receive an immigrant visa even
though they have been waiting in a line, have a very procedurally
correct manner, and adhering to laws of our Nation. There lies the
problem. There lies the complete loss of your opportunity to seek
citizenship in a legal manner.
Such consequence of the law toward a beneficiary when his or her
petitioner dies before the beneficiary has a chance to adjust status or
receive an immigrant visa has been and continues to be harsh and only
creates a pool of individuals that remain illegally in this country.
H.R. 1892 will amend the Immigration Nationality Act to allow an
alternative sponsor, a close family member; and with the Senate
amendment, a close family member can be a sister now or a brother-in-
law.
Additionally, I am pleased that we were able to work out an agreement
last July that further allows alternative sponsors to be a spouse, a
parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child if at least 18
years of age, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, grandparent
or grandchildren and now a brother-in-law or sister-in-law of a
sponsored alien or legal guardian of a sponsored alien all with the
idea of reunifying a family.
I am grateful to all of the members of the subcommittee, Democrats
and Republicans, who saw fit to ensure that families can stay together.
This bill, H.R. 1892, which has bipartisan support, is important
because in the event of death of a sponsor, the beneficiary's
application will now be able to have someone else sign the affidavit of
support and the beneficiary's application for permanent residency can
move forward without losing the beneficiary's priority date, in
essence, not having them go to the back of the line and, therefore,
delaying them being reunited with their family.
Just think of moms and dads whose children are here, young children
are here or the father and children are here or the mother and children
are here and they want to reunite with that mother or father.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an important initiative that we have
done in a bipartisan way, and it speaks loudly to the fact that the
United States will craft a very legitimate immigration policy that
addresses the question that we are a country of laws, but we are also a
country of immigrants.
Madam Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 1892, and I believe that it is
a legislative initiative that speaks to the cornerstone of immigration
policy in this Nation: family reunification. Last July I supported this
measure as it passed the House and the Senate. The Family Sponsor
Immigration Act of 2001 is a very important immigration bill. With
bipartisan support, we are correcting a glitch in the immigration law.
As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of
the House Committee on the Judiciary, I was pleased to work with the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the
subcommittee, on this legislation, along with the original sponsors of
this legislation as well, and I thank them for their service and
leadership.
Currently, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires that the same
person that petitions for the admission of an immigrant must be the
same person who signs the affidavit of support: the sponsor, that
person is called. So, if the sponsor dies, current law does not allow
someone else to sign the affidavit of support, although they are a
legitimate person, although there is no attempt to commit fraud, and
that person is unable to adjust his or her status to receive an
immigrant visa, even though they have been waiting in a line in a very
procedurally correct manner and adhering to the laws of our Nation.
Such consequences of the law toward a beneficiary when his or her
petitioner dies before the beneficiary has a chance to adjust status or
receive an immigrant visa, has been and continues to be too harsh.
H.R. 1892 will amend the Immigration Nationality Act to allow an
alternative sponsor, a close family member, and with the Senate
amendment a close family member can be a sister or brother-n-law.
Additionally, I am very pleased that we were able to work out an
agreement last July that further allows alternative sponsors to be a
spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, sibling, child, if at
least 18 years of age, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
grandparent or grandchild, and now a brother or sister-in-law of a
sponsored alien or legal guardians of a sponsored alien, all with the
idea of reunifying a family.
This bill, H.R. 1892, which has bipartisan support, is important
because in the event of the death of the sponsor the beneficiary's
application will now be able to have someone else sign the affidavit of
support and the beneficiary's application for permanent residency can
move forward without losing the beneficiary's priority date, in
essence, not having them go to the back of the line and, therefore,
delaying them being reunited with their family.
Madam Speaker, I believe this is an important initiative that we have
done in a bipartisan way, and I ask my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1892, Family
Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001, as amended in the Senate. I want to
thank our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner);
our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas);
the leadership on both sides of the aisle that worked diligently to
bring a fuller and more complete reform to the floor here today.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Calvert), who is not on the committee but who has constituents that
were faced with exactly this problem and brought it to our attention,
only to find that I had constituents with this exact same problem, thus
creating the need for the bill.
Last I would like to thank Senator Feinstein who has taken time out
of her busy schedule on the Senate side to research this and to make
those amendments which, in fact, make this a more thorough bill and
less likely to need to be revisited.
Lastly, rather than speaking of the merits of this bill, I would like
to go down on record as saying that the Family Sponsor Immigration
Reform Act is just another example of how we work together on a
bipartisan basis to find the legal alternatives to immigration, and to
encourage those who play by the rules, those who go through the hoops,
sometimes a decade, to get their legal status should be rewarded.
At a time when we are saying to those who come here illegally that we
will not tolerate it any more, I hope this is the first of many reforms
that allows us to say we have an open door if you want to come through
the front door, and we are closing and locking the back door.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let me conclude by again acknowledging my support, but
also raising two important points that I would like to acknowledge. I
might say that the chairman of the full committee has expressed a great
interest in this, and I want to thank him for his support on these
issues.
I hope that we can finally bring some rest to the passage of 245-i
which is another legislative initiative that deals with the reuniting
of families. I know that our committee worked very hard on that
legislation.
Then I think, again, in the shadow of the tragedies that we faced
this past September, it is important that we
[[Page H529]]
move consistently with a purpose to reorder our immigration policies by
means of restructuring the INS with an assistant attorney general for
immigration affairs so that we can share data and information.
Intelligence is clearly a key element of what we need to reform our
immigration policies and to fight terrorism, two dual issues which I
think we can do.
Immigration does not equate to terrorism. I hope we have an
opportunity to debate those legislative initiatives, get them passed,
and begin on a pathway of formulating a very comprehensive immigration
policy for the United States of America. I offer my support for this
legislation.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Madam Speaker, today I support and applaud the House's
final passage of the ``Family Immigration Sponsor Act.'' And, I thank
my colleague, Mr. Calvert, for his work on this issue.
A family in my district, with a tragic story, has become a well-known
example of why this bill's passage is necessary. Mrs. Zhenfu Ge, a 73-
year-old Chinese national, came to the United States in 1998 to help
care for her dying daughter and her daughter's children. Her daughter--
my constituent Yanyu Wong--requested that her mother be allowed to stay
in America to take care of her grandchildren. Following the rules of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), my constituent
immediately submitted the appropriate paperwork to sponsor her mother's
petition for a green card so she could stay in the United States.
Sadly, on April 15, 2001, Yanyu Wong lost her fight against cancer.
This was only 11 days before the INS was scheduled to grant Mrs. Ge's
permanent resident status. In a desperate attempt to keep his mother-
in-law in the country, my constituent's husband petitioned to be Mrs.
Ge's new sponsor. However, INS law mandates the sponsor be another
adult blood relative. Without an adult blood relative left alive to
sponsor her, Mrs. Ge was told that she must go back to China and
restart the visa process.
Realizing the devastating results of these circumstances, I
introduced H.R. 2011, a private bill to allow Mrs. Ge to remain legally
in the United States while she completed the process to attain legal
status. Forcing Mrs. Ge to abandon her family during this time would
only add to the family tragedy. Enabling Mrs. Ge to stay in the country
could give the children a living link to their mother, and her culture,
something they would be denied forever if Mrs. Ge is deported.
With the passage of Representative Calvert's Family Immigration
Sponsor Act, Mrs. Ge will be able to stay in America and take care of
her grandchildren, while she completes the immigration process. With
the passage of this bill, Mrs. Ge can keep her promise to her daughter.
There's no doubt that the Family Immigration Sponsor Act will be able
to assist other families in situations similar to Mrs. Ge's. Passing
H.R. 1892 is the smart way for this country to help encourage families
to stay intact.
Mr. WU. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1892, the Family
Sponsor Immigration Act, introduced by my colleague Representative Ken
Calvert.
Our government plays a key role in shaping the lives of thousands of
immigrants. It is our duty to ensure that our system is fair to
aspiring residents.
Under our current law, someone applying to become a permanent U.S.
resident must be sponsored by a family member who assumes financial
responsibility for that person. However, if the sponsor dies before
U.S. permanent residency is granted, the applicant must find another
sponsor and start the process all over again. This process can take as
long as 7 years.
This must change.
As an immigrant, I understand the difficulties of the immigration
process. One should not have to wait another 7 years if the sponsor
dies. H.R. 1892 addresses this issue. It would allow for substitute
sponsors. More importantly, it will help unite families that have been
separated.
I applaud Representative Calvert for introducing this important
legislation, and I urge my fellow colleagues to join in support of this
bill which will ensure a fair process for those seeking U.S. residency.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests
for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill,
H.R. 1892.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________