Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 81 (Wednesday, June 4, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 4, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H4899-H4910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ARMED FORCES NATURALIZATION ACT OF 2003

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 1954) to revise the provisions of the Immigration and
Nationality Act relating to naturalization through service in the Armed
Forces, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:

H.R. 1954

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Armed Forces Naturalization
Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. NATURALIZATION THROUGH SERVICE IN ARMED FORCES.

(a) Reduction of Period for Required Service.--
(1) In general.--Section 328(a) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439(a)) is amended by striking
``three years,'' and inserting ``one year,''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to applications for naturalization
filed or pending on or after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees Relating to
Naturalization.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended--
(A) in section 328(b)--
(i) in paragraph (3)--

(I) by striking ``honorable. The'' and inserting
``honorable (the''; and
(II) by striking ``discharge.'' and inserting ``discharge);
and''; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee
shall be charged or collected from the person for filing the
application, or for the issuance of a certificate of
naturalization upon being granted citizenship, and no clerk
of any State court shall charge or collect any fee for such
services unless the laws of the State require such charge to
be made, in which case nothing more than the portion of the
fee required to be paid to the State shall be charged or
collected.''; and
(B) in section 329(b)--
(i) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the end
and inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
``(4) notwithstanding any other provision of law, no fee
shall be charged or collected from the person for filing the
application, or for the issuance of a certificate of
naturalization upon being granted citizenship, and no clerk
of any State court shall charge or collect any fee for such
services unless the laws of the State require such charge to
be made, in which case nothing more than the portion of the
fee required to be paid to the State shall be charged or
collected.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to applications for naturalization
filed, and certificates of naturalization issued, on or after
the date of the enactment of this Act. Such amendments shall
not be construed to require the refund or return of any fee
collected before such date.
(c) Revocation of Citizenship for Separation From Military
Service Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.--
(1) In general.--Title III of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) is amended--
(A) by adding at the end of section 328 the following:
``(f) Citizenship granted pursuant to this section may be
revoked in accordance with section 340 if the person is
separated from the Armed Forces under other than honorable
conditions before the person has served honorably for a
period or periods aggregating five years. Such ground for
revocation shall be in addition to any other provided by law,
including the grounds described in section 340. The fact that
the naturalized person was separated from the service under
other than honorable conditions shall be proved by a duly
authenticated certification from the executive department
under which the person was serving at the time of separation.
Any period or periods of service shall be proved by duly
authenticated copies of the records of the executive
departments having custody of the records of such service.'';
and
(B) by amending section 329(c) to read as follows:
``(c) Citizenship granted pursuant to this section may be
revoked in accordance with section 340 if the person is
separated from the Armed Forces under other than honorable
conditions before the person has served honorably for a
period or periods aggregating five years. Such ground for
revocation shall be in addition to any other provided by law,
including the grounds described in section 340. The fact that
the naturalized person was separated from the service under
other than honorable conditions shall be proved by a duly
authenticated certification from the executive department
under which the person was serving at the time of separation.
Any period or periods of service shall be proved by duly
authenticated copies of the records of the executive
departments having custody of the records of such service.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply to citizenship granted on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(d) Naturalization Proceedings Overseas for Members of
Armed Forces.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State,
and the Secretary of Defense

[[Page H4900]]

shall ensure that any applications, interviews, filings,
oaths, ceremonies, or other proceedings under title III of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.)
relating to naturalization of members of the Armed Forces are
available, to the maximum extent practicable, through United
States embassies, consulates, and United States military
installations overseas.
(e) Technical Amendment.--
(1) In general.--Section 328(b)(3) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(3)) is amended by striking
``Attorney General,'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security,''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if enacted on March 1, 2003.

SEC. 3. POSTHUMOUS CITIZENSHIP THROUGH DEATH WHILE ON ACTIVE-
DUTY SERVICE IN ARMED FORCES.

(a) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees; Benefits for
Survivors.--
(1) In general.--Section 329A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1) is amended by striking
subsection (e) and inserting the following:
``(e) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees.--Notwithstanding
any other provision of law, no fee shall be charged or
collected from a person for filing a request for the granting
of posthumous citizenship under subsection (c), or for the
issuance of a document under subsection (d).
``(f) Benefits for Survivors.--
``(1) Applicability.--Notwithstanding any other provision
of this subsection, this subsection shall apply only to the
surviving spouses, children, and parents of persons dying on
or after September 11, 2001.
``(2) Spouses.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), a person who is the surviving spouse
of a person granted posthumous citizenship under this
section, and who was living in marital union with the citizen
spouse at the time of death, shall be considered, for
purposes of section 201(b), to remain an immediate relative
after the date of the citizen's death, but only until the
date on which the surviving spouse remarries.
``(3) Children.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), a person who is the surviving child
of a person granted posthumous citizenship under this
section, and who is an unmarried person under 21 years of age
on the date of such grant, shall be considered, for purposes
of section 201(b), to remain an immediate relative after the
date of the citizen's death (regardless of changes in age or
marital status after the date of such grant).
``(4) Parents.--Notwithstanding the first sentence of
section 201(b)(2)(A)(i), a person who is the surviving parent
of a person granted posthumous citizenship under this
section, and who is lawfully authorized to be present in the
United States on the date of the citizen's death
(disregarding any departure for a temporary visit abroad),
shall be considered, for purposes of section 201(b), to
remain an immediate relative after such date, and the
requirement that the citizen be at least 21 years of age
shall not apply.
``(5) Self-petitions.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of a surviving spouse,
child, or parent who remains an immediate relative after the
date of a citizen's death pursuant to paragraph (2), (3), or
(4), any petition under section 204 otherwise required to be
filed by the citizen to classify the spouse, child, or parent
under section 201(b)(2)(A)(i) may be filed instead by the
spouse, child, or parent. A surviving spouse's petition may
include derivative children in the same manner as is
permitted under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii).
``(B) Minor children.--In the case of a child under 18
years of age on the filing date, any nonderivative petition
described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed on behalf of the
child by a parent or legal guardian of the child.
``(6) Deadline.--Paragraphs (1) through (5) shall apply
only if the petition under paragraph (5) is filed not later
than 2 years after the date on which the request under
subsection (c) is granted.
``(7) Conversion of petitions.--In the case of a petition
under section 204 initially filed for an alien's
classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section
203(a)(2)(A), based on the alien's petitioning spouse or
parent being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, upon
the grant of posthumous citizenship under this section to the
petitioner, the Secretary of Homeland Security, unless the
alien otherwise has attained the status of an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence--
``(A) shall convert such petition to a petition filed under
paragraph (5) to classify the alien as an immediate relative
under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i); and
``(B) shall ensure that the filing date of the original
petition is maintained.
``(8) Waiver of public charge ground for inadmissibility.--
In determining the admissibility of any alien accorded an
immigration benefit under this subsection, the grounds for
inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(4) shall not
apply.
``(9) No benefits for other relatives.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed as providing for any benefit under
this Act for any relative of a person granted posthumous
citizenship under this section who is not treated as a
spouse, child, or parent under this subsection.''.
(2) Conversion of petitions.--In the case of a surviving
spouse or child accorded an immigration benefit under section
329(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by
paragraph (1), if the spouse or child was the beneficiary of
a petition described in paragraph (7) of such section, unless
the beneficiary otherwise has attained the status of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence, the Secretary of
Homeland Security shall provide for--
(A) the reinstatement of such petition, if it was revoked
or terminated (or otherwise rendered null), either before or
after its approval, due to the death of the petitioner; and
(B) the conversion of such petition in accordance with such
section.
(3) Effective dates.--
(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
the amendment made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect
to posthumous citizenship granted before, on, or after the
date of the enactment of this section.
(B) Fees.--Section 329A(e) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended by paragraph (1), shall apply
with respect to requests for posthumous citizenship filed,
and documentation of posthumous citizenship issued, on or
after the date of the enactment of this Act. Such section
shall not be construed to require the refund or return of any
fee collected before such date.
(b) Naturalization for Surviving Spouses.--
(1) In general.--Section 319(d) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1430(d)) is amended by adding at
the end the following: ``For purposes of this subsection, the
terms `United States citizen' and `citizen spouse' include a
person granted posthumous citizenship under section 329A.''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to persons granted posthumous
citizenship under section 329A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1) due to death on or after
September 11, 2001.
(c) Technical Amendments.--
(1) In general.--Section 329A of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1440-1) is amended by striking
``Attorney General'' each place such term appears and
inserting ``Secretary of Homeland Security''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if enacted on March 1, 2003.

SEC. 4. IMMIGRATION BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING ALIEN SPOUSES,
CHILDREN, AND PARENTS OF CITIZENS WHO DIE
DURING SERVICE IN ARMED FORCES.

(a) Treatment as Immediate Relatives.--
(1) In general.--Section 201(f) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(f)) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``(4) Surviving alien spouses, children, and parents of
citizens who die during service in armed forces.--
``(A) Benefits for survivors.--
``(i) In general.--The benefits under this paragraph shall
apply only to a surviving spouse, child, or parent of a
person who, while a citizen of the United States, died on or
after September 11, 2001, during a period of honorable
service in the Armed Forces as a result of injury or disease
incurred in or aggravated by such service.
``(ii) Determinations.--The executive department under
which the citizen so served shall determine whether the
citizen satisfied the requirements of clause (i).
``(B) Spouses.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of
subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), a person who is a surviving spouse
described in subparagraph (A), and who was living in marital
union with the citizen described in such subparagraph at the
time of death, shall be considered, for purposes of
subsection (b), to remain an immediate relative after the
date of the citizen's death, but only until the date on which
the surviving spouse remarries.
``(C) Children.--Notwithstanding the second sentence of
subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), a person who is a surviving child
described in subparagraph (A), and who is an unmarried person
under 21 years of age on the date on which a petition
described in subparagraph (E) to classify the alien as an
immediate relative is filed, shall be considered, for
purposes of subsection (b), to remain an immediate relative
after the date of the citizen's death (regardless of changes
in age or marital status after such filing date).
``(D) Parents.--Notwithstanding the first sentence of
subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), and subject to subparagraph (E), a
person who is a surviving parent described in subparagraph
(A) shall be considered, for purposes of subsection (b), to
remain an immediate relative after such date, and the
requirement that the citizen be at least 21 years of age
shall not apply.
``(E) Treatment of petitions.--
``(i) Continuation of petitions.--A petition properly filed
on behalf of a spouse, child, or parent under section
204(a)(1)(A)(i) by a citizen described in subparagraph (A)
prior to the citizen's death shall be valid to classify the
spouse, child, or parent as an immediate relative pursuant to
this paragraph. No new petition shall be required to be
filed, and any filing date assigned prior to the death shall
be maintained.
``(ii) Self-petitions.--

``(I) Spouses.--In the case of a surviving spouse who
remains an immediate relative after the date of a citizen's
death pursuant to subparagraph (B), the spouse may file a
petition under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) for classification of
the spouse (and the spouse's

[[Page H4901]]

children) under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i). The spouse shall be
treated as an alien spouse described in the second sentence
of subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) for such purpose.
``(II) Children.--In the case of a surviving child who
remains an immediate relative after the date of a citizen's
death pursuant to subparagraph (C), any petition under
section 204 otherwise required to be filed by the citizen to
classify the child under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) may be filed
instead by the child. In the case of a child under 18 years
of age on the filing date, the petition described in this
subclause shall be filed on behalf of the child by a parent
or legal guardian of the child.
``(III) Parents.--In the case of a surviving parent who
remains an immediate relative after the date of a citizen's
death pursuant to subparagraph (D), any petition under
section 204 otherwise required to be filed by the citizen to
classify the parent under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) may be
filed instead by the parent, but only if the parent was
lawfully authorized to be present in the United States on the
date of the citizen's death (disregarding any departure for a
temporary visit abroad).

``(iii) Deadline.--In the case of petition under clause
(ii), subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) shall apply only if
such petition is filed not later than 2 years after the date
of the citizen's death.
``(F) Waiver of public charge ground for inadmissibility.--
In determining the admissibility of any alien accorded an
immigration benefit under this paragraph, the grounds for
inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(4) shall not
apply.''.
(2) Continuation of petitions.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
provide for the reinstatement of any petition filed by a
deceased person described in subparagraph (A) of section
201(f)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as added by
paragraph (1), if such petition is described in subparagraph
(E)(i) of such section and was revoked or terminated (or
otherwise rendered null), either before or after its
approval, due to the death of such person, unless the
beneficiary otherwise has attained the status of an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
(B) Exception.--A petition otherwise satisfying the
requirements of subparagraph (A) and filed by a citizen on
behalf of a parent shall not be reinstated unless the parent
was lawfully authorized to be present in the United States on
the date of the citizen's death (disregarding any departure
for a temporary visit abroad).
(3) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
(b) Technical Amendment.--
(1) In general.--Section 201(f)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 201(f)(1)) is amended by striking
``Attorney General'' and inserting ``Secretary of Homeland
Security''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall take effect as if enacted on March 1, 2003.

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. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1954, the bill
currently under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the
news that 10 members of our Armed Forces who died in combat were not
U.S. citizens, several bills have been introduced to either ease the
naturalization requirements of legal permanent residents in the Armed
Forces or to provide immigration benefits to the surviving family
members of those killed in service to America, or both.
We can never adequately express our gratitude to those noncitizen
members of our military who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we can
bring reasonable changes to the naturalization process for other
permanent resident service members willing to make the same sacrifice
and to provide immigration benefits to family members of those who
died.
The Committee on the Judiciary has worked closely with those who have
introduced bills on this issue, including the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Solis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa), as well as the ranking member, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee), to come up with a bipartisan compromise bill.
In addition, six Members not on the Committee on the Judiciary
testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims regarding their legislation.
H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act is a consensus bill in
which I have done my best to address the concerns of the other
interested Members and to balance competing priorities. I am grateful
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) have signed on as original cosponsors.
Not every Member got everything they wanted in this bill, but each of
the Members we consulted with got something that they wanted. As a
result, we have a bill that should easily be able to pass the House
with support from Members with widely varying views on immigration who
all want to honor the service to our country of permanent residents in
the Armed Forces.
H.R. 1954 reduces the military service requirement to apply for
naturalization during peacetime from 3 years to 1 year. Some of the
earlier bills reduced the requirement to 2 years and another bill
reduced it to zero years. One year is an obvious compromise.
It lowers the required years of service while maintaining the
requirement that a military member must still establish their
worthiness for expedited naturalization through a period of honorable
military service during peacetime. For soldiers, this bill also waives
the fees for the naturalization petition or naturalization certificate,
along with related State fees and waives the fees for the posthumous
citizenship application. This will ease the financial burden for
military members who perform an outstanding service for our country and
receive little money in return.
The bill permits the revocation of citizenship if a person is
separated from the Armed Forces under other than honorable conditions
before the person has served honorably for 5 years in either peacetime
or wartime. In addition to the 5-year military revocation, an alien
would remain subject to denaturalization at any time if, for example,
the alien committed fraud to gain citizenship or the underlying green
card.
I would also add that this bill does not allow for the naturalization
or acquisition of permanent resident status to undocumented aliens.
H.R. 1954 would require the Departments of Homeland Security, State
and Defense to ensure that naturalization applications, interviews,
filings, oaths and ceremonies are available to the maximum extent
practicable at U.S. embassies, consulates and military installations.
Currently, a soldier must be physically present in the United States to
file a naturalization application, to be interviewed for the
application and to take the oath of citizenship. This requirement
causes some soldiers who are stationed outside the United States to
leave their post abroad and to return the United States at their own
expense. This is both expensive and causes unnecessary interruption in
their military service.
The bill would also permit surviving immediate family members of both
military members who are U.S. citizens before death and immigrant
military members who are granted citizenship posthumously to apply for
immigration benefits as if the military family member had not died.
Under current law, family members of posthumous citizens cannot apply
for immigration benefits through the posthumous citizen. This bill
would permit the spouse, the children and certain parents to do so.
Under current law, a lawful permanent resident spouse of a U.S.
citizen may apply for naturalization in 3 years instead of 5 years. If
the U.S. citizen spouse happens to be in the military and dies during
military service, the lawful permanent resident spouse may apply for
naturalization immediately rather than wait 3 years.
H.R. 1954 extends this immediate eligibility for naturalization to
lawful permanent resident spouses of military members who gain U.S.
citizenship posthumously.

[[Page H4902]]

Finally, the bill would waive the affidavit of support/public charge
ground of inadmissibility for family members applying for adjustment of
status. If the military member was the breadwinner, we elected not to
penalize the immediate relative because their means of support died
during service to our country.
I urge my colleagues to support this carefully crafted and broadly
supported compromise bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a great day today. Mr. Speaker, I might add my
support to H. Con. Res. 177, that commends the troops for the Iraqi
operation, and H. Res. 201, that commends the business support of the
troops, because this is the day when we further acknowledge that there
is no divide amongst Americans or amongst those of us who are Members
of the United States Congress in commemorating, celebrating and
appreciating the valid service of the United States troops.
I am very pleased to join the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary in full support of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization
Act of 2003.
I do want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner),
as full committee chairman, and, as well, the chairman of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for working
with the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and myself as the ranking member of the
subcommittee, in what is an important legislative action that we are
joined in by any number of my colleagues who have done an outstanding
job in recognizing this very important challenge.
This work is a culmination of a bipartisan effort to improve the
military naturalization provisions of the Immigration and Nationality
Act.
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) was quick to respond
and sensitive to the need of moving this legislation along very
quickly. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill that was
later introduced by the chairman, but more importantly, to be working
very closely on the drafting of these issues within the bill and to
make the bill as responsive as possible, along with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), to the issues of concern to those brave and
valiant individuals who serve us and create an opportunity for our
freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the Members who cooperated with
this project by combining their individual naturalization bills to
produce a comprehensive Armed Forces Naturalization Act. Certainly the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Solis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa),
and the gentleman from illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), all of them had
brilliant ideas, brilliant piece of legislation focusing on very
important aspects of this work. We could not have done this legislation
without them.
Marine Corporal Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez
were among the 129 men and women killed during the Iraqi war. Those
numbers obviously have increased. When they volunteered for military
service and fought in this war, they were immigrants with resident
status and not citizens of the United States.
Jose A. Gutierrez was an orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked on
railcars into Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States illegally.
Later, however, he obtained permanent resident status. And according to
Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers, he once told her,
``I was born the day I arrived in this county.''
Garibay was a native of Jalisco, Mexico, whose family moved to the
United States when he was a baby. He joined the Marines 3 years ago.
``He probably thought he was more an American than a Mexican,'' said
his sister. With the help of their families and fellow Marines, these
brave young Americans unfortunately lost their lives in the war in
Iraq; and so we would hope that as we move this legislation forward,
these brave young Marines will also obtain their citizenship
posthumously.
Service in the United States military, particularly in times of
conflict, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Our immigration laws
traditionally have allowed for expedited citizenship consideration for
noncitizen members of the United States military even in peacetime. For
instance, section 328 of the INA allows noncitizen members of the
military to become citizens after 3 years of peacetime service instead
of the usual 5-year wait required of nonmilitary applicants.
Section 329 of the INA allows noncitizens to receive immediate
naturalization eligibility through their active duty service in the
Armed Forces during periods of military hostilities.
Under this section of the INA, 143,000 noncitizen military
participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the United
States military who fought during the Korean War became naturalized
American citizens. More than 100,000 members of the United States
became citizens following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War
collectively.
The important point, Mr. Speaker, is to realize that this Nation
continues to be a Nation built upon immigrants and their desire to be
part of this great democracy. And it also shows how much we are united,
united in our war against terrorism, and that immigration does not
equate to terrorism.
The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 would reduce the time
that a peacetime member of the Armed Forces has to serve for
naturalization eligibility purposes from 3 years to a single year. The
fees normally charged for naturalization will be waived for members of
the Armed Forces.
Moreover, effort will be made to provide locations overseas at which
soldiers will be able to take the naturalization examination, the
interviews and other steps in the naturalization process. If you can
imagine, before this legislation and the vision of the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost), these persons had to come back from their posts, and
that was very, very difficult, to proceed to naturalize. This will
avoid the expense to that soldier serving overseas of paying his or her
transportation to and from the United States to complete the
naturalization process.
The current law provides for posthumous citizenship when a soldier
has been killed during a period that has been declared a time of
military hostilities, but the current law explicitly denies derivative
immigrant benefits for the soldier's spouse and children. This bill
will correct that inequity by allowing the spouse, children and parents
of such a soldier to self-petition for immediate relative status on the
basis of the soldier's posthumous citizenship.
The bill as offered at the mark-up, however, did not extend similar
benefits to the case in which the soldier's surviving spouse is already
a lawful permanent resident. This omission was corrected by an
amendment I offered at the mark-up. Ordinarily, a lawful permanent
resident must be married to a United States citizen for a period of 3
years before becoming eligible for naturalization as a spouse of a
United States citizen. Section 319(d) of the INA waives that
requirement when a lawful permanent resident's citizen spouse dies in
the Armed Forces.
The pertinent part section of 319(d) reads as follows:
``Any person who is a surviving spouse of a United States citizen,
whose citizen spouse dies during a period of honorable service in the
Armed Forces of the United States and who was living in marital union
with the citizen spouse at the time of his death, may be naturalized
upon compliance with all the requirements of this title except that no
prior residence or specified physical presence within the United States
shall be required.''
My amendment provides the same waiver in the case of the lawful
permanent resident spouse whose soldier spouse receives citizenship
posthumously.

{time} 1500

The only difference between the two situations is that the one
permitted under current law involves a soldier who received his
citizenship before he died; whereas in the second situation, the
citizenship is received posthumously. In both cases, the soldier is a
citizen who is killed during a period

[[Page H4903]]

of honorable military service. I am pleased that the committee voted to
approve that amendment.
There are two instances of concern that I have. One amendment
provides that anyone naturalized under the bill's 1 year of service in
the Armed Forces measure can have such citizenship revoked if the
individual is subsequently separated from the military under other than
honorable conditions. No such provision currently exists for revoking
the citizenship of Armed Forces personnel who obtain naturalization
pursuant to peacetime service. I am concerned about that and hope we
can work through conference on that issue.
I am also concerned about an amendment that modifies the provisions
in the bill that are intended to grant immigration benefits to the
parents of soldiers who receive citizenship posthumously. The original
provisions in the bill make the parents eligible for immediate relative
status without imposing any additional eligibility requirements.
Immediate relative status would permit them to obtain an immigrant visa
without having to wait for a visa number.
The amendment that was in this bill limits the benefit to parents who
are lawfully authorized to be present in the United States on the date
of the soldier's death. Aside from unusual situations, such as when the
parents happen to be college students or have visas for temporary
employment in the United States as computer experts, et cetera, this is
a problem because we can imagine problems of where a parent might be on
any given day when the son or daughter dies, whether or not they are
out of the country; and I would hope that we could make a correction as
we move forward with this legislation.
I do want to acknowledge that this is an important bill that has come
about through bipartisan efforts, and I do want to acknowledge that
there are problems that we want to work through; and clearly, we want
to make sure that the problems that we face will be ones that can be
corrected.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we worked in a bipartisan way for the
betterment and good of these heroes, valiant heroes; and I would ask
that my colleagues support this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the ``Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003'' is the
culmination of a bi-partisan effort to improve the military
naturalization provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which was
introduced by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner
and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative John
Conyers, for their leadership. I also want to thank the members who
cooperated with this project by combining their individual
naturalization bills to produce the comprehensive Armed Forces
Naturalization Act, Representatives Doc Hastings, Martin Frost, Walter
Jones, Hilda Solis, Darrell Issa, and Luis Gutierrez.
Marine Corporal Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez
were among the 129 men and women killed during the Iraqi war. When they
volunteered for military service and fought in this war, they were
immigrants with resident status, not citizens of the United States.
Jose A. Gutierrez was an orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked on
railcars into Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States illegally.
Later, however, he obtained permanent resident status. According to
Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers, ``He once told me, `
was born the day I arrived in this country.' '' Garibay was a native of
Jalisco, Mexico, whose family moved to the United States when he was a
baby. He joined the Marines three years ago. ``He probably thought he
was more an American than a Mexican,'' said Garibay's sister Crystal.
With the help of their families and fellow Marines, Garibay and
Gutierrez became American citizens posthumously.
Service in the United States military, particularly in times of
conflict, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Our immigration laws
traditionally have allowed for expedited citizenship consideration for
non-citizen members of the United States military, even in peacetime.
For instance, Section 328 of the INA allows non-citizen members of the
military to become citizens after 3 years of peacetime service, instead
of the usual 5-year wait required of non-military applicants.
Section 329 of INA allows non-citizens to receive
immediate naturalization eligibility through their active duty service
in the Armed Forces during periods of military hostilities. Under this
Section of the INA, 143,000 non-citizen military participants in World
Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the United States military who
fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American citizens.
More than 100,000 members of the United States military became citizens
following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War collectively.

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will reduce the time that
a peacetime member of the armed forces has to serve for naturalization
eligibility purposes from 3 years to a single year. The fees normally
charged for naturalization will be waived for members of the armed
forces. Moreover, effort will be made to provide locations overseas at
which soldiers will be able to take the naturalization examination, the
interviews, and the other steps in the naturalization process. This
will avoid the expense to the soldier serving overseas of paying for
his or her own transportation to and from the United States to complete
the naturalization process.
Current law provides for posthumous citizenship when a soldier is
killed during a period that has been declared a time of military
hostilities, but the current law explicitly denies derivative
immigration benefits to the soldier's spouse and children. this bill
will correct that inequity by allowing the spouse, children, and
parents of such a soldier to self-petition for immediate relative
status on the basis of the soldier's posthumous citizenship. the bill
as offered at the markup, however, did not extend similar benefits to
the case in which the soldier's surviving spouse is already a lawful
permanent resident. This omission was corected by an amendment I
offered at the markup.
Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a United
States citizen for a period of 3 years before becoming eligible for
naturalization as the spouse of a United States citizen. Section 319(d)
of the INA waives that requirement when the lawful permanent resident's
citizen spouse dies during a period of honorable service in the Armed
Forces. the pertinent part of section 319(d) read as follows:

Any person who is the surviving spouse of a United States
citizen, whose citizen spouse dies during a period of
honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States
and who was living in martial union with the citizen spouse
at the time of his death, may be naturalized upon compliance
with all the requirements of this title except that no prior
residence or specified physical presence within the United
States . . . shall be required.

My amendment provides the same waiver in the case of the lawful
permanent resident spouse whose soldier spouse receives citizenship
posthumously. The only difference between the two situations is that
the one permitted under current law involves a soldier who received his
citizenship before he died, whereas in the second situation, the
citizenship is received posthumously. In both cases the soldier is a
citizen who is killed during a period of honorable military service. I
am pleased that Committee voted to approve my amendment.

I am concerned, however, about two amendments from Representative
Steve King that also were approved at the markup. Representative King's
first amendment provides that anyone naturalized under the bill's ``one
year of service in the Armed Forces'' measure can have such citizenship
revoked if the individual is subsequently ``separated from the military
. . . under other than honorable conditions.'' No such provision
currently exists for revoking the citizenship of armed forces personnel
who obtain naturalization pursuant to peacetime service.
Representative King's second amendment is even more troubling. It
modifies the provisions in the bill that are intended to grant
immigration benefits to the parents of a soldier who receives
citizenship posthumously. The original provisions in the bill make the
parents eligible for immediate relative status without imposing any
additional eligibility requirements. Immediate relative status would
permit them to obtain an immigrant visa without having to wait for a
visa number. Mr. King's amendment limits the benefit to parents who are
lawfully authorized to be present in the United States on the date of
the soldier's death. Aside from unusual situations, such as when the
parents happen to be college students or have visas for temporary
employment in the United States as computer experts or agricultural
workers, the King amendment limits the immediate relatives status
benefit to parents who have coordinated their vacation plans with the
death of their soldier son or daughter.
For instance, if the parents are in the United States for two weeks
in June as nonimmigrant visitors and their soldier son or daughter dies
in combat in July, they are not eligible for immediate relative status.
Although they were authorized to be in the United States when they
visited in June, they were not authorized to be present in the United
States in July, which is when their son or daughter dies in this
hypothetical example. The results is this irrational in every situation
I can image. It

[[Page H4904]]

makes no sense to limit eligibility in this manner.
I also want to note that although the Armed Forces Naturalization Act
will make important changes in the military naturalization provisions,
there is more to be done. In the coming months of this session, we also
need to work on benefits for the brothers and sisters of soldiers who
are killed while serving our country. Currently, immigration status is
not available in that situation. I offered an amendment at the markup
to fix this problem, but it was not approved.
Another problem is the fact that immigrants who are in the United
States in an unlawful status for more than 6 months are barred
thereafter from becoming a permanent resident for a period of 3 years.
If they are in an unlawful status for more than a year, they are barred
from becoming a permanent resident for a period of 10 years. Moreover,
the waivers available to people who face such bars are far too narrow.
If we cannot agree to eliminate these bars, we must work together to
create reasonable waivers so that discretion is available when it is
needed to prevent an injustice.
Nevertheless, the fact that we have more work ahead of us does not
diminish the importance of enacting the Armed Forces Naturalization Act
of 2003. It is an excellent bill that demonstrates how much we can
accomplish when we work together. I urge you to vote for it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time; and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1954
and would like to commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary, for his leadership on this important issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the committee's bill
includes the principal provisions of my legislation, the Armed Forces
Citizenship Act. I introduced my bill during the recent war in Iraq in
order to make it possible for legal immigrants serving in America's
Armed Forces to become U.S. citizens after 1 year in uniform rather
than the 3 to 5 years required for naturalization under current law.
Mr. Speaker, these patriotic men and women have willingly volunteered
to carry out one of the most solemn duties any nation can ask of its
citizens, the defense of freedom. In doing so, I believe that they have
truly earned the opportunity to become citizens of the country that
they serve to protect.
After all, is there any better way to demonstrate our fitness for
citizenship than to make that kind of commitment to what our Nation
stands for? Are not these precisely, Mr. Speaker, the kinds of
individuals that we should want as United States citizens? By enacting
this legislation, America can do the right thing for some very brave
men and women who are doing the right thing for America.
As my colleagues know, some of our troops who died in Iraq wearing
the uniform of the United States gave their lives before they were
truly entitled to call themselves Americans. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, that
is just plain wrong, and it is an injustice; and I am pleased that
Congress is moving quickly to correct that injustice.
So, Mr. Speaker, let us recognize their love of this country by
voting today to enable legal immigrants serving America's Armed Forces
to become citizens before, not after, they begin risking their lives to
save ours.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a
member of the full Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the ranking member
of the subcommittee, both for her excellent work and for yielding me
this time.
I rise in strong support of the bill, but I do want to point out a
few issues that were addressed in the Committee on the Judiciary where
I think we could have gone farther to be fair to the families of our
soldiers.
I very much appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) willingness to create a bipartisan process in the
negotiations on this bill, a process that started with at least seven
different bills on the topic. I think the goal of all the Members who
introduced those bills, and of most of us in the House, were the same.
We wanted to reward the dedication of lawful, permanent residents in
the military by making it as easy as possible for them to become full
members of the country they are serving on the battlefield.
Secondly, we wanted to honor the sacrifice of both lawful, permanent
residents and U.S. citizens who have been killed in service; and we are
doing that by ensuring that their families are treated fairly by the
country that they gave their lives to defend.
As I indicated, the bill is a very good start. The problem is that
there will be some families of these brave soldiers who will not be
helped by this bill. My hope is that in the conference with the other
body we will be able to address those issues so we can be sure that we
are not creating a situation where we have to, for example, tell the
mother of a young man who gave his life for his country, our country,
that we thank him very much for his service but his mother will have to
leave. As one of my colleagues on the committee put it, we ought to be
sure that the family members of our fallen heroes have the right to
tend to the grave of their loved one.
When the Committee on the Judiciary considered this bill, I offered
an amendment that would have provided the Secretary of Homeland
Security the discretion, the discretion, to waive certain bars in our
immigration laws that otherwise could be an obstacle to relief for the
spouses, children, parents of the soldier killed in combat. We are not
talking an automatic waiver. What we asked for was an opportunity for
the Secretary of Homeland Security to do an investigation and, in his
discretion, provide relief where he deemed it appropriate.
I think it is right to offer some level of forgiveness to these
families whose spouse or child or sibling has given the ultimate
sacrifice to our country; and by giving that discretion to the
Secretary of Homeland Security, we would have ensured that the waiver
posed no threat to our national security.
The second issue of concern in this legislation is one raised by the
gentlewoman from Texas, the ranking member, that we have drawn an
arbitrary line with respect to immigration relief for the parents of
both U.S. citizen soldiers and soldiers granted posthumous citizenship
under the bill.
Under current law, legal permanent residents cannot petition for
their parents to come to this country as immigrants. Naturalized
citizens can petition for their parents. Under the language of this
bill, the parent of a legal permanent resident soldier who is killed in
combat and is given posthumous citizenship cannot get immigration
benefits if they were waiting outside the country for their child to
naturalize and then petition for them.
If a U.S. citizen soldier filed a petition for their parents before
they were killed in combat and their parents do not happen to have a
visa to be in the U.S. on the exact date that their child was killed,
the petition would be extinguished. In other words, the parent
patiently waiting, playing by the rules, is turned away by the country
their son or daughter died for.
In a bizarre and totally arbitrary twist, if that parent happened to
get a visitor's visa to enter the country, say to help take care of the
soldier's children while he was deployed, and that time in the U.S.
happened to include the exact date on which their child was killed in
combat, then the parent of a legal permanent resident soldier would be
eligible for relief. This distinction makes no sense and we should
correct it. A parent is a parent whether they are in Mexico waiting
patiently or here on a tourist visa helping with the kids.
I would hope we could address these issues in conference.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time, and I want to thank the chairman of this
committee and the ranking member for working with me on H.R. 1799, the
Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act.
Mr. Speaker, this came to my attention when I attended the funeral of
a Marine who was killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. His name was
Michael

[[Page H4905]]

Bitz. Sergeant Bitz was married to a lady, Janina Bitz, who was from
Australia, and at the time we were concerned with the fact that he had
lost his life, that his wife might have to start the process again of
becoming a naturalized citizen.
When I attended the funeral down at Camp Lejeune of Sergeant Bitz, I
met Pat Millush, the military liaison to the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Service at Camp Lejeune. Pat said to me the immigrant
spouses of military personnel were treated unfairly under current
immigration law.
By knowing that, Mr. Speaker, I decided that I would put this
legislation in that would allow the spouse of a member of the military
who had lost their life, whether it be in war or by accident or in
training, that if they had not reached that 2-year period of time, that
they would still be able to continue the naturalization process without
being penalized.
I am delighted and want to thank again the chairman of the committee
and the ranking member for not only working with me on this issue but
other Members who have been named today, because the men and women who
serve this great Nation and their families need to be honored; and I
think this bill itself is a way to honor those who have given their
lives for this great Nation.
Basically what 1799 did, which has been included in this bill, allows
the immigrant spouse of military personnel who die as a result of a
service-connected injury or disease to continue the immigration process
regardless of the number of years of the marriage. Mr. Speaker, I have
outside of my office, 422 Cannon, a photograph of everyone who has died
in the war for freedom in Iraq, and I am pleased and honored that this
committee would accept the language in 1799 and encompass it in this
naturalization bill to honor our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, again, I will close by saying I ask God to please bless
our men and women in uniform. I ask God to please bless the families of
the loved ones fighting for freedom; and again, I thank the leadership,
the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership, for this honor
that they have given to Michael Bitz who gave his life for America.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire the time
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has 7 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Rules and a major proponent but also
author of legislation that has been part of this bipartisan
legislation.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support for H.R. 1954, the
Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.
In the war against Saddam Hussein, noncitizen soldiers were among the
first brave men and women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before
joining the U.S. military like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Corporal
Jose Angel Garibay, and Lance Corporal Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others
were born in Guatemala, like Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez; but all
died fighting for a country where they could not even cast a vote.
Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress, in May of 2002 to be precise, I
first introduced legislation to help remedy the obstacles these brave
soldiers faced on their path to citizenship, and I reintroduced my bill
in this Congress before the war with Saddam Hussein began. So I am
pleased that we are finally here today voting to ease the burdens
placed on our legal permanent resident troops.
The men and women who serve honorably in the Armed Forces have earned
the respect and gratitude of every American citizen. All of those who
have chosen to make the ultimate sacrifice for the defense of our
country certainly have earned the full rights and privileges of U.S.
citizenship.
While it is unfortunate that it took a war to shed light on the
sacrifices of our green card troops and compel the House as a body to
act, I am hopeful that we will focus our attention on rewarding and
enhancing our military personnel in time of peace as well as times of
war.
According to the Department of Defense, the number of legal permanent
residents serving on active duty has risen to 37,401, or about 3
percent of our military. Additionally, thousands of immigrants serve in
the Reserves and were called up for active duty.
The ranks of noncitizens serving in the Armed Forces are growing, and
today's immigrants are building upon a rich legacy of service in the
U.S. military. Immigrants have fought in every American conflict from
the Revolutionary War to the war with Iraq. The military service of
immigrants reflects the strong strain of patriotism among generations
who have chosen to come to America, and the patriotism of today's large
Hispanic immigrant communities is particularly strong.
However, thousands of those troops are still not citizens today
because of the significant obstacles that remain.
The sacrifices of legal permanent residents in our military are
unique. They choose to defend freedom of American citizens while not
sharing in the full rights and privileges of citizenship themselves.
Unfortunately, the process for granting citizenship to immigrants
within the U.S. still places heavy burdens upon them, especially those
serving in the toughest overseas assignments.
Mr. Speaker, simply stated, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of
2003 will help remove unfair and unnecessary obstacles facing thousands
of legal permanent residents serving honorably in the U.S. military
trying to obtain their citizenship. While there are some differences in
the bill that I originally introduced and the bill we are debating
today, I am hopeful that certain changes can be made in conference.
This is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation. Let us honor our truly brave soldiers who have shown the
willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly
wish to be citizens of.

{time} 1515

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Weller).
Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
As Americans, we owe the men and women who serve our Nation a great
debt of gratitude, and that is why I rise in strong support of H.R.
1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.
Many immigrants have proven their patriotism by fighting in this
country's wars. These soldiers are real patriots, adopting America as
their home to honor and defend. America's armed services have long
included soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines who were noncitizen
residents of the United States. These men and women fight and die along
with their fellow citizen-soldiers and deserve the privilege of U.S.
citizenship.
Currently, over 37,000, or 2.6 percent of active members of the armed
services are noncitizens or immigrants. There is one specific American
patriot I would like to honor today, Lance Corporal Jakub H. Kowalik.
Sadly, having given the ultimate sacrifice, Jakub died in an ordnance
explosion while serving in Iraq on May 12 of this year.
Jakub, a native of Poland, migrated with his family in 1991, settling
in Schaumburg, Illinois. He played football at Maine East High School,
where he graduated in 2002. Jakub enjoyed fishing with his father,
Henryk, who preceded him in death 2 years after their arrival in the
United States. Jakub enlisted in the Marines his senior year in high
school, a few months before the attacks of September 11. His older
brother, Paul, called him his best friend and hero. His mother said he
just enjoyed being a Marine. Jakub is but one example of the many
noncitizens who have proudly served our country.
The message of this legislation is very clear: While we can never
fully repay these men and women who have willingly entered harm's way
to preserve, protect, and defend our freedom

[[Page H4906]]

around the world, serving with courage and selflessness, we can honor
and respect them for their service. Throughout history they have
answered the call. Today, we have the opportunity to reply with the
greatest privilege we have to offer, which is U.S. citizenship.
My colleagues, I urge passage and bipartisan support for this
legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who was also one
of the authors of legislation that contributed to this bipartisan bill
that is on the floor today.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me this time, and I also would like to thank the chairman of the
committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking
member of the subcommittee, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), and others who helped to put forward this piece of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I was moved to put forward legislation on this issue
because we have several young soldiers that are in my district that are
serving now, but one in particular, Francisco Martinez Flores, who
actually lost his life. He lost his life just 2 weeks short of becoming
a U.S. citizen. Most of his family is here legally, with the exception
of his father. Without this piece of legislation, his father is out
there on his own for the time being, and it would take a while for him
to become a U.S. citizen.
I am very appreciative of the work that has taken place on the bill.
Thirty-seven thousand legal permanent residents will be eligible,
through this legislation, in 1 year to become citizens, and their
family members. That is first and foremost in my mind in terms of what
we need to do for the families.
I had a chance to meet with several of those families in my own
district, many of whom are waiting, wanting their children to come home
and hoping they do come home. The fact we are moving in this direction
today to provide opportunities for them to continue to support our
country is something we can all take pleasure and pride in today.
I also want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for putting
forward legislation that is also incorporated in this piece of
legislation, for having the foresight to put forward his idea even
before the conflict began.
There are many different angles and parts of this bill that I could
speak on. I know I have limited time here, but I do want to say that we
should make some corrections. One piece that is amiss in the bill that
I put forward was to try to allow for parents that are not here with
appropriate documentation to be allowed to become legal permanent
residents even if their son or daughter is serving and may be a fallen
soldier.
We need to look at that and continue to work on this legislation to
make sure that we take care of those family members because there are
many, many that are not here, that are in Mexico or Central America
waiting to hear about their children.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the very, very able
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for yielding me this time,
and I thank him for the tremendous time and energy he puts into so much
of the heavy lifting that goes on in this institution.
I rise in strong support of this very important legislation. As we
think about the sacrifice that has been made, and it has obviously come
to the forefront in the past several months, I believe that steps
towards recognizing those sacrifices that have been made by people
regardless of their background and citizenship, I think this piece of
legislation which has been crafted in a bipartisan way to address this
important need will go a long way toward sending a signal of great,
unwavering appreciation of those of us in the United States Congress
and the American people on behalf of that sacrifice that has been made.
I want to congratulate my fellow colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis) for her work on this, obviously the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Berman), and the others who have been involved in this legislation; and
I look forward to its speedy passage.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the
Speaker how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) has 2 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Putnam).
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding me this time, and I appreciate his leadership on this
important issue.
I rise in support of H.R. 1954. Our servicemen and women shoulder the
burden of defense as one of the responsibilities of citizenship in this
country. Having participated in protecting our rights of U.S.
citizenship, and having met lethal force on battlefields around the
world, they are more than qualified to appreciate and treasure the
blessings of citizenship in the country they so proudly serve.
The relationship of citizenship to the all-volunteer force is very
real. That force is a reflection of the intrinsic civic virtue of
military service. That civic virtue is as strong today among America's
citizen-soldiers as with the first minutemen. And making it easier for
military service members to gain citizenship is a minimal act of
gratitude by an often all-too-ungrateful Nation.
A citizen of the United States is accorded a number of benefits not
granted to lawful permanent residents. He has the right to vote and to
hold public office and may qualify for various jobs from which
permanent residents are barred. But who is more deserving to receive
those benefits of U.S. citizenship than a member of the Armed Forces?
I am delighted that the committee's bill incorporated my legislation,
H.R. 1806, along with others, as part of the final package. It came to
my attention that this was the right thing to do for our citizen-
soldiers when one of my district caseworkers notified me that some of
our own constituents were courageously serving in our Armed Forces,
defending our freedom, and sadly, some of those who had been killed had
yet to be granted U.S. citizenship.
More so than most, these individuals have earned their opportunity to
become citizens of the country they defend. These active duty service
members who have shown such courage and bravery in the defense of our
homeland deserve to become citizens before not after they begin risking
their lives to defend ours.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of
the Democratic Caucus and a proponent of this legislation.
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Armed Forces
Naturalization Act, and I hope that it will give rise to some other
opportunities that have been discussed here in terms of those who serve
our country and their families.
I remember during the 107th Congress when a Republican colleague of
ours referred to legal permanent residents as enemies of the State on
this very floor during campaign finance reform debate. Thousands of
these enemies of the State, as they were referred to, are serving in
our Armed Forces. They fight for our country, they shed blood for the
country, and in some cases, they die for this country. They are also
protecting our airports, our seaports, and our borders. They risk their
lives daily in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places around the world to
protect us here at home.
These members of the so-called green-card military, the more than
37,000 noncitizen legal immigrants currently serving in America's Armed
Forces, have been fighting, and in some cases dying, for their adopted
country. In fact, a noncitizen, Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez of
Guatemala was the first U.S. casualty in the war with Iraq,

[[Page H4907]]

and at least seven other noncitizen soldiers also made the ultimate
sacrifice in Iraq.
So this legislation rectifies a variety of barriers faced by U.S.
servicemen and women seeking to become citizens of the country that
they serve and that they risk their lives for. I hope we will not only
pass this, but it will give rise to other opportunities.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, has the time allocated to the
minority expired?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee)
has 30 seconds remaining.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez), a member
of the full committee and a member of the subcommittee.
(Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand
here and support this bill, but I just want to bring people's attention
to one part of the bill in particular I am concerned about, and that is
parents of legal permanent resident soldiers killed in combat who are
not eligible for citizenship if they were outside the United States at
the time their child was killed. Those same parents would be eligible
for citizenship if they are here in the United States. It makes no
sense to differentiate between the two.
A parent is a parent, whether or not they happen to have gone to
their home country for a short time, or whether they are in the process
of waiting for a visa application renewal, or whether some other
circumstances have forced them to be outside the U.S. when their child
was killed.
I urge the other body to correct this aspect of the bill, but I rise
in support of the bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.
In this country, non-citizens have worn our military uniforms and
fought in our battles throughout our history. One of my uncles served
in the military as a legal permanent resident during the Korean War.
Now, approximately 3 percent of our military are legal permanent
residents.
I am a strong supporter of measures that provide opportunities for
legal permanent residents serving in our military to become U.S.
citizens. These individuals are making enormous sacrifices. Without
being citizens, and without having the protections that status would
give them, these immigrant men and women are willing to risk their own
lives to defend this nation. The least we can do is give them something
in return.
What this bill does is to provide them the opportunity to apply for
citizenship after 2 years of military service, instead of the 3 years
requirement in current law. It also allows for the spouse and children
of legal permanent resident soldiers, killed in action, to apply for
citizenship.
I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner, and other Members of the House, for
introducing legislation to address this issue. I appreciate Chairman
Sensenbrenner's willingness and diligence in working closely with
Democrats to produce a bill that we can support. I still have some
concerns with aspects of this bill, however, and hope that we are able
to work out these issues.
In particular, I am concerned that parents of legal permanent
resident soldiers killed in combat and not eligible for citizenship if
they were outside the U.S. at the time their child was killed. Those
same parents would be eligible if they are here in the U.S. It makes no
sense. A parent is a parent, whether or not they happen to have gone to
their home country for a short time, or whether they are in the process
of waiting for a visa application renewal, or whether some other
circumstance has forced them to be outside the U.S. when their child
was killed. I urge the other body to correct this aspect of the bill.
In addition, during consideration of this bill in the Judiciary
Committee, I joined with Mr. Berman in offering an amendment to provide
a discretionary waiver to the Secretary of Homeland Security for three
categories of people. Unfortunately, that amendment failed. I will work
with Mr. Berman to encourage the other Body to include this provision
in their version.
Again, I applaud Chairman Sensenbrenner and other Members who have
worked so diligently on this issue. I hope that, with continued work in
conference with the other Body, we can produce a bill that truly honors
our legal permanent resident soldiers.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to show how bipartisan we in the Committee
on the Judiciary are on practically everything.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the reason this is on the consent calendar is that the
members of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the Members in
the House, agree that we should take steps to make sure citizenship is
granted to some 37,000 military people who happen to be noncitizens.
And it is in that spirit that I rise to commend the ranking
subcommittee chair, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee), and the subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the full
committee, and all of the members on the Committee on the Judiciary
that worked on this.
We are trying to still improve this measure as it goes to conference,
and I would like to urge everyone to give it a rousing vote this
afternoon.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
committee for yielding me this time, and I also want to thank the
ranking member, my neighbor from Houston. I am really happy that H.R.
1954 is up today.
There is no more powerful or honorable way to serve our country than
in our Armed Forces. Our military men and women are willing to put
their lives on the line to defend freedom and democracy. This type of
service is remarkable, particularly for our non-native born.
We have legal permanent residents who volunteer, and I have some who
were actually drafted in World War II, Korea, and the Vietnam War who
deserve their citizenship. We have worked with them to get them through
the system with INS to get their citizenship, but this bill just gives
us a statute that will make it work.
Mr. Speaker, again, I thank the chairman and I thank all the members
of the Committee on the Judiciary for allowing this. We had more than
300,000 Mexican Americans that served in our Armed Forces just in World
War II. I have constituents whom I have talked to who served and who
were told they would get their citizenship, but they did not. Again,
that is our constituent work, working together, but this makes it so
much easier.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces
Naturalization Act of 2003.
Legal Permanent Residents who volunteer in our U.S. Armed Forces
demonstrate the highest level of patriotism and service to our country.
They serve, not out of obligation or a sense of duty to their
homeland, but because they have embraced everything that America stands
for.
These individuals are willing to risk their own lives, so that their
children and grandchildren can grow up as citizens of this great land.
Legal permanent residents have a long history of serving our country
and protecting our democracy.
More than 300,000 Mexican Americans served in the armed forces during
World War II. Most enlisted in the army, and more Hispanics served in
combat divisions than any other ethnic group.
Of the fourteen Texans awarded the Medal of Honor during WWII, five
were Mexican Americans. By the end of the war, seventeen Mexican
Americans had earned the Medal of Honor. Five were awarded
posthumously.
Today, immigrants continue to play an important role in the United
States military.
As of February 2003, more than 37,000 people in active duty status in
the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines were non-citizens.
During our war with Iraq some of the first fallen soldiers were
immigrants who were not naturalized citizens. The least we can do for
these individuals--who are willing to serve in ways that many American
born individuals aren't--is to recognize them as citizens.
The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will allow immigrant
service men and women who have risked death--and those who have made
the ultimate sacrifice--to come a step closer to fulfilling the
American Dream by giving them the opportunity to become a naturalized
citizen.
I urge my colleagues to vote for the Armed Forces Naturalization Act
of 2003 and grant citizenship to non-citizen immigrants who have
honorably served in our military.

[[Page H4908]]

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Reyes).
(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1530

Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in favor of H.R.
1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act, which recognizes the
contributions made to our country by over 37,000 legal permanent
residents serving in our armed services. As a member of the Committee
on Armed Services who has had an opportunity to visit Iraq and other
parts of the world where our men and women are serving proudly in the
military, this bill is the right recognition for their services and for
putting their lives on the line. So I strongly recommend that all my
colleagues support it.
I am pleased to rise today in favor of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces
Naturalization Act, which recognizes the contributions made to our
country by the 38,000 legal permanent residents serving in our armed
forces. These men and women dedicate their energies and put their lives
on the line to defend the freedoms and liberties of this great nation.
It is only appropriate that in exchange for their sacrifice, we remove
barriers to obtaining citizenship.
They have earned this.
H.R. 1954 would allow immigrants serving in our armed forces to apply
for citizenship after one year of service, down from three years under
current law. The bill removes administrative barriers to the
naturalization process by making citizenship applications, interviews,
filings, oaths, ceremonies and other such proceedings available to
members of the armed forces at our military bases, diplomatic missions,
and consulates overseas. The bill also waives application fees. In both
this Congress and the 107th Congress, I have been a proud original co-
sponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague from Texas,
Congressman Martin Frost, known as the Citizenship for America's Troops
Act, that sought to make these changes. I am pleased that they are part
of the bill we are voting on today.
The bill also allows spouses, children and parents of naturalized
soldiers who die in the line of duty to apply for permanent residency
status. Additionally, this bill recognizes the important support that
spouses provide to our soldiers by waiving the three-year residency
requirement to apply for citizenship. These provisions recognize the
important role that family plays and ensures that when their loved one
dies in the line of duty, they are not made to suffer even more by
having their residency status placed in jeopardy.
Despite these very good provisions, I must express my disappointment
that the bill does nothing for immediate family members who are
undocumented. I was an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by
my colleague Hilda Solis, which would have provided immigration
protections to immediate family members of soldiers who die in the lain
of duty, regardless of their immigration status. A father does not
cease to be a father, and a wife does cease to be a wife, just because
of the immigration papers they may or may not have.
I am further disappointed, startled in fact, that the bill actually
expands existing rules allowing for citizenship to be revoked from
naturalized servicemembers who are discharged under other than
honorable conditions. The major problem here is that there are other
forms of discharge that are not termed honorable, but which are not
necessarily dishonorable. The language in the bill would actually
punish someone who is discharged for medical reasons. For example,
someone who serves in our armed forces, applies for and obtains
citizenship, continues to serve for four years and then has to be
discharged for a medical condition, would have his or her citizenship
revoked. I cannot believe that the authors of this bill intended for
that to be the case. I strongly urge my colleagues to resolve this in
conference.
On balance, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 1954, demonstrates
the appreciation of a grateful nation to the thousands of people who
come to this country from around the world to contribute to the
freedom, strength and prosperity of America. I would like to thank my
colleagues, Representatives Solis and Frost, for all their work in
championing this issue, and most of all, I would like to thank the
members of our armed services for the sacrifices they make on our
behalf. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1954.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1954 is a bill that has almost universal support in
this House because it is a compromise. The Committee on the Judiciary
on legislation relating to the Immigration and Naturalization Act has
deep divisions.
The reason this bill is so strongly supported is twofold. One is that
there is a demonstrated need to provide a naturalization road and the
immigration benefits to those who have served our country, their
immediate families and their survivors. Everybody agrees that this is
part of the immigration law that needs to be changed and updated,
particularly in light of those who have paid the ultimate price in
defending America's freedoms in Iraq.
But I would like to give a word of caution, because this bill is a
compromise. Everybody with an oar in the water and a differing
viewpoint gave up something to ease the passage of this bill. If we
allow the bill to emphasize the divisions that we have in the Congress
and in the Committee on the Judiciary on immigration law and in the
conference, then it is not going to have an easy road from here. But
what we have given up to make H.R. 1954 an agreed-upon bill that will
get an overwhelming vote in a few minutes should continue to be given
up in the conference so we can speedily turn this bill into law and
give the benefits to the people that we want to give the benefits to.
As we proceed in this, I urge all of my colleagues to keep that in
mind.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1954, a bill that
honors all of the men and women who place themselves in harms way for
the sake of this Nation. America is composed of individuals from across
the globe--people who come from various nations all united by their
strong belief in the ideals for which America stands. Some of those who
have come to the United States are brave enough and committed enough to
serve in the military defending our country. It is partly because of
individuals like these that our democracy maintains its strength in a
sometimes perilous world. Accordingly, our democracy should respect
their sacrifice. A year's honorable service in the Armed Forces of the
United States, especially in this time of heightened security, is
surely ample proof that such a person deserves the full rights of
United States Citizenship. Additionally, if such a person loses his or
her life so serving, family members should not be forced to leave
America--on the contrary, they should be embraced by this Nation
quickly and expeditiously. Current laws are not adequate on either
front: required service time is unnecessarily long, and surviving
family members must undergo too much to gain immigration benefits.
I am proud to be the cosponsor of similar measures that have been
introduced by my colleagues Mr. Frost and Ms. Solis. Those two bills,
and the one before this Chamber today, uphold the spirit of honor and
respect that must be accorded to any individual willing to commit
themselves to the defense of our Nation. Such individuals come from New
Jersey, Texas, and California, but they also come from Poland, India,
and Mexico. Over 37,000 of the 1.4 million active duty members of the
Armed Forces are noncitizens--they and their families deserve the right
and honor of citizenship in the United States. I applaud their service,
and I eagerly welcome these men and women as fellow citizens.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, since this Nation's founding, more than 55
million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United
States. Many of these immigrants have not only payed taxes and adopted
the American way of life, they have honorably defended our Nation as
members of the military.
During the recent war with Iraq, immigrant soldiers have continued to
defend our country in large numbers, and tragically 10 noncitizens have
lost their lives. It is important that we honor the extraordinary
contributions these immigrants make to the Armed Forces by facilitating
their naturalization and establishing important protections for their
families if they are killed in action. Surely, if these immigrants are
willing to risk their lives for our country, the least we can do is
grant them the citizenship they so greatly desire.
Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigrant laws often prevents
individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted
citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in
our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States
to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the
application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently,
soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in
order to become citizens of the country they are defending.
And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or
noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law
would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by
the soldier on behalf of his immediate family. This is hardly a way to
show our thanks to families that have sacrificed their loved ones in
the name of our country.

[[Page H4909]]

H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, reduces the 3
year military requirement to naturalize to 1 year, waives fees for
naturalization petitions, and allows surviving family members of
citizens and posthumous granted citizens to apply for immigration
benefits. These substantive changes to immigration law will surely
benefit those defending our Nation and will ensure that immigrant
families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great
sacrifice to our nation.
This is not a perfect bill. For example, it does not go as far as I
would have liked in helping the families of deceased servicemen and
women obtain green cards. The result is that spouses, children, and
parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable
or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 immigration laws
will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means
that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of
soldiers who have given their lives serving our country.
I am also concerned with two amendments added to this legislation in
the Judiciary Committee. The first amendment will require revocation of
citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier
is discharged under less than honorable terms within his first 5 years
of military service. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward
those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our
country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for
less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way
that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization
pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace.

The second amendment added to the bill in the Judiciary Committee
will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parents of soldiers
granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if
they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in
combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would
exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any
immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a
pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved. Rather
than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents,
this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a
new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and
applied for benefits on behalf of his parents.
H.R. 1954 is a positive step in loosening the rigid restrictions
immigration law has imposed on immigrant soldiers and their families.
H.R. 1954 would: (a) Expedite the naturalization process by allowing
military members to naturalize after serving 1 year in the military,
waive naturalization fees, and allow naturalization interviews and oath
ceremonies to take place abroad; (b) waive posthumous citizenship fees;
and (c) ensure the ability of lawful permanent resident spouses,
parents legally present in the United States, and unmarried children of
citizen or posthumous granted citizen soldiers killed as a result of
military service to self petition for immigration benefits or continue
to pursue already filed petitions as if the U.S. citizen had not died.
These substantive changes to immigration law will benefit those
defending our Nation and will help ensure that many immigrant families
of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice. I
am disappointed, however, that the bill passed by the committee is not
more generous in addressing the unique needs of immigrant families and,
in some cases, makes existing law worse.
More than 37,000 noncitizen soldiers are currently serving on active
duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and some of the first U.S. casualties in
the current war in Iraq were noncitizens. Unfortunately, the rigidness
of current immigration laws often prevents individuals like these
soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In
particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must
leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a
naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to
take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad
must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of
the country they are defending. And yet even more shocking is the
scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while
serving in our military; current law would void most pending
applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of
his immediate family.
H.R. 1954 makes many meaningful improvements to existing law.
However, I would have preferred that the committee go much further in
assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. One of the
unjust consequences of the 1996 immigration laws is that many
individuals in the U.S. became ineligible for permanent residence due
to a prior unlawful entry or a minor scrape with the law many years
prior. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier
killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for
immigration benefits by the 1996 laws will be precluded from enjoying
the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of
the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their
lives serving our country. In response, Reps. Howard Berman and Linda
Sanchez offered an amendment, defeated by a party line vote, that would
have waived certain documentation requirements, and authorized the
Department of Homeland Security, on a discretionary basis, to waive
categories of inadmissibility for spouses, children, and parents of
soldiers killed in service to the military. This proposal would have
balanced the goal of honoring the sacrifice these families have made
with our duty to national security.
I further believe that this bill does not go far enough in extending
immigration benefits to all noncitizens serving the U.S. military,
including the Selected Reservists. Current law grants the President
authority to designate by Executive order a period of military
hostilities that would trigger immediate naturalization eligibility for
active duty members of the Armed Forces. Unlike traditional members of
the Armed Forces, Selected Reservists are not eligible for immediate
citizenship under this law if they do not serve in combat during times
of hostility. Rep. Zoe Lofgren offered an amendment, defeated by voice
vote, that would have applied immediate naturalization benefits to
Select Reservists during times of hostility regardless of whether they
serve in combat. This amendment would have addressed the fact that the
rationale for providing benefits to members of the Armed Forces and
members of the Select Reserves is nearly identical because during times
of hostility they both must be ready to leave family, friends, and
familiar surroundings at a moment's notice and potentially die for
their country.
I take great issue with two amendments added to this legislation by
Rep. Steve King. The first amendment will require revocation of
citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier
is discharged under less than honorable terms. This bill was drafted
with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made
great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation
of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish
Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers
applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a
time of peace. I understand Rep. King's desire to make the bill
parallel to current law in 329(c) of the INA, but he overlooks that
329(c) applies exclusively to a special case in which members of the
Armed Forces are eligible for immediate naturalization during a time of
hostility without the requirement of any prior service or commitment to
the military. The provision added to H.R. 1954 would bestow conditional
citizenship on all immigrants naturalized through a demonstrated
commitment to military service and would create a perverse incentive
for noncitizens not to join the military. Moreover, this language would
allow military authorities to routinely make legal decisions that
in effect would deprive a U.S. citizen of his or her citizenship. In
some cases, these decisions would be based on conduct that would be
completely lawful in civilian contexts, but is considered a military
offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The second amendment added to the bill by Representative King will
prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parent of soldiers granted
citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they
are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in
combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would
exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any
immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a
pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved and
parents who lawfully reside in the United States, but have left the
country temporarily at the time of their child's death. Rather than
honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this
amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new
requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and
applied for benefits on behalf of his parents.
I reiterate that the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 does not
go far enough in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen
soldiers. Moreover, amendments added to the bill in the Judiciary
committee would punish noncitizen soldiers and their families, rather
than reward them for their service and sacrifice, by creating a
conditional class of citizenship and putting additional restrictions on
immigrant parents of soldiers.
While this bill is not perfect, it does make many meaningful
improvements to existing immigration law and takes a significant step
help our soldiers and their families be granted the citizenship they so
greatly desire. It is my hope that as this bill goes to conference will
seriously consider the negative repercussions these two amendments will
have on the people this bill intends to honor. It is for these reasons
that I think we can all support this bill.

[[Page H4910]]

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1954,
legislation that I view as a good first step towards recognizing and
rewarding the significant contributions made by immigrants who serve in
our armed services.
Since our Nation's founding, immigrants have played a prominent role
in defending our country. For example, I have introduced H.J. Res. 125,
which grants honorary citizenship to all civil war soldiers of Asian
descent as a symbolic gesture to correct the historical injustices they
suffered.
But just as we endeavor to correct the mistakes of the past, we
should remedy current laws that treat some members of our Armed Forces
unfairly. That is why H.R. 1954 is so important and I am pleased it is
on the floor today.
By passing this legislation, the House of Representatives will be
begin to recognize the contributions of immigrant soldiers by providing
them and their family members just immigration laws.
Again, I reiterate this is a good first step, but there is much more
we can do to help make immigration laws more fair in this country.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of our troops who
serve our Nation in both peace and war and to support their families
who must endure the loneliness and fear of losing a loved one to uphold
the strength of our Nation.
I support this bill that not only eases requirements for immigrant
soldiers to become U.S. citizens, but also extends immigration benefits
to surviving family members of soldiers who gave their lives to defend
our Nation. I can't think of a better way to recognize the service of
immigrant soldiers and honor the memory of those that have died
fighting for their country, while also showing our appreciation to
their families for their tremendous sacrifices.
Although the Armed Forces Naturalization Act does much to help
immigrant soldiers and their families, we could and should have done
more. And we tried, but the Republican majority, so intent on limiting
immigration benefits, wouldn't even allow some mothers of soldiers
killed in combat to legally remain in this country.
How about this Republican logic? When an immigrant proudly serves in
the military and dies for the country, it is obvious that he or she has
shown devotion to our country. What about the families of soldiers whom
so proudly serve our Nation? If the mother of the soldier has
overstayed her visa, she is excluded from the benefits of this bill.
How about this? Your son is killed in combat: but you are deported.
How are you to put flowers on your son's grave? Republicans, so caught
up in anti-immigrant philosophies, want to short-change them and limit
their immigration benefits. What a shame.
There are 37,000 immigrants currently serving in our military and at
least 10 who have been killed in recent combat. It is time for us to
recognize and honor their service to our country by granting them full
and complete citizenship that extends full immigration benefits to
their families.
This bill is certainly a step in the right direction, but I know that
if it wasn't for the Republican majority, we could have done more.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in reluctant opposition
to H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act. Certainly, this
Member has no objections to expediting citizenship for noncitizen
members serving in U.S. armed services and supports efforts to provide
appropriate incentives for a very small percentage of few noncitizens
who meet established requirements to join our professional military
forces. However, in granting citizenship to these qualified men and
women, it is not necessary or desirable to also grant priority to their
parents, spouses, and children. And it is certainly not appropriate to
waive the requirement that such family members financially support
themselves in the U.S. Unfortunately, provisions in H.R. 1954 would
have that effect.
Through this bill, the spouses, children under the age of 21, and
parents of men and women who have been granted citizenship based on
their service in the U.S. Armed Forces and who have died in the line of
duty would be authorized to seek permanent resident status on an
expedited basis. Then, unlike other people seeking legal immigrant
status, these family members would not be required to meet financial
thresholds which indicate that they would not immediately be public
charges.
Most of the American public is unaware of these provisions. Enacting
such excessive inducements for joining the U.S. military is a step in
the wrong direction, particularly if it results in this country
increasingly depending upon what could come to be thought of and called
foreign mercenaries to serve in the Armed Forces. This practice has too
many similarities to the mercenary forces of the Roman Empire in its
decline as Roman citizens themselves became unwilling to serve in the
Roman legions. Imagine, too, the reactions of foreign nations that
begin to see our forces as forces that serve to gain citizenship for
themselves and their families.
Mr. Speaker, this Member encourages his colleagues to vote against
H.R. 1954 and to push strenuously for changing this legislation before
enactment.
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 1954, the ``Armed
Forces Naturalization Act of 2003,'' a bill that helps the families of
non-citizen military personnel killed in combat gain what their loved
ones died defending--the rights and freedoms of Americans.
Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in my Congressional district is home
to over 50,000 Marines. Many of these Marines were deployed to liberate
Iraq from Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime. While many have returned
to their families, some were not as fortunate. One of the Marines that
died in Iraq was a non-citizen stationed at Camp Pendleton. I was told
that he would receive posthumous citizenship--under current law, a
strictly honorary award.
Posthumous citizenship is a hollow benefit for a fallen hero if his
spouse and children are subsequently asked to leave the country he died
defending. Existing immigration and naturalization law permits the
President to award posthumous citizenship to non-citizens killed in any
military hostility, but denies immigration benefits for their spouse
and children. H.R. 1954 will honor the sacrifice of fallen heroes by
allowing their spouses and children to enjoy the benefits and freedoms
of the country they were fighting to defend, and would have eventually
gained had their loved one not perished.
There are nearly 38,000 non-U.S. citizens serving in our nation's
armed forces. These men and women are called upon to protect this
nation. I want them to know that when they make the ultimate sacrifice
for America their family will not face a cruel and unnecessary legal
sanction. H.R. 1954 will allow surviving family members of military
personnel, killed in defense of our freedom, to enjoy a real benefit
from a posthumous grant of citizenship.
I thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I urge all my
colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1954, as amended.
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. Mr. 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.

____________________