[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 17, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H8366-H8369]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 1588, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Rodriguez moves that the managers on the part of the
House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1588 be
instructed to agree to the provisions contained in subtitle F
of title VI of the Senate amendment (relating to
naturalization and family protection for military members).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) and a member from the majority
party each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing my support for the
brave men and women who are risking their lives to defend our Nation. I
rise to urge my colleagues to express that support by voting in favor
of my motion to instruct conferees.
When hostilities broke out in Iraq, the first military member to die
in combat was Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, an immigrant from
Guatemala who volunteered to serve his adopted country. He died an
American hero, but he did not die an American citizen.
Lance Corporal Gutierrez was only the first of 13 noncitizen soldiers
killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Thousands of noncitizen soldiers are
currently serving in Iraq, and only 37,000 are noncitizen soldiers who
serve in the Nation's Armed Forces.
The motion I am offering today expresses the continued support of the
House for the Armed Forces Naturalization Act which passed, by the way,
on June 4 by a vote of 414 to 5. The House has already gone on record
in support of the bill to give immigrants serving in our Armed Forces
more rapid naturalization and to establish protections for their
families if they are killed in action.
The 37,000 immigrant soldiers have already met the same rigorous
evaluation as U.S. citizens before their enlistment. In fact, the
military's criteria are more challenging than the naturalization
requirements demanded by the Department of Homeland Security.
Besides meeting the qualifications for military service, noncitizen
soldiers have passed an even more important test: they have proven
their loyalty to the United States by pledging to defend our Nation and
our values with their bodies, their minds, and their lives. Their
service in defense of our Nation and our country and their willingness
to put their lives on the line speaks to their devotion to the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this small token of
gratitude as a demonstration to these 37,000 Americans who are brave
soldiers, to show that we appreciate their patriotism.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to
the motion, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to instruct conferees addresses the military
naturalization provisions that were included in the Department of
Defense authorization bill.
On June 4, this Chamber passed H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces
Naturalization Act of 2003, with overwhelming support from both sides
of the aisle. This military naturalization measure has a number of good
provisions. It was sent to the Senate for consideration where it was
passed favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. While the
Senate has not taken up H.R. 1954, similar provisions were included in
the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill.
The motion before us today urges conferees to adopt the provisions
contained in the Senate-passed DOD authorization bill. I think this
motion underscores the importance of this military naturalization
legislation to both Houses and to Republicans and Democrats alike.
However, the Senate should move this bill separately rather than
include it in the DOD authorization. This would give the committees
with relevant jurisdiction an opportunity to fully examine the
differences between the House- and the Senate-passed version and to
make informed decisions about these naturalization provisions.
Most of us agree that we should expedite the naturalization process
for those who have served our country and provide immigration benefits
to family members of those who died. I believe H.R. 1954 accomplished
those goals.
I would like to point out, however, some of the reasons why I am
concerned about supporting the Senate version contained in the DOD
authorization bill. First, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, grants
permanent resident status to the immediate relatives of U.S. citizen
soldiers and soldiers granted posthumous citizenship if they die as a
result of injuries incurred during active duty. The provisions
supported by this motion to instruct conferees would only grant
benefits to immediate family members if a soldier died in combat. The
family of a soldier who died in training or in being transported to the
front would not be granted these citizenship provisions.
Second, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, allows the spouse of a
soldier granted posthumous citizenship to immediately naturalize. This
is another important provision omitted from the Senate provisions
supported by this motion.
Third, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does not grant expedited
naturalization during peacetime to a soldier who is discharged less
than honorably. I do not believe we should extend the benefits of
expedited naturalization to an individual discharged less than
honorably, yet the Senate language does not make this distinction.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my concerns about the
provisions that benefit illegal aliens in the Senate language supported
by this motion. By contrast, H.R. 1954, as passed by the House, does
not grant benefits to illegal aliens. By adopting the motion to
instruct conferees, we would grant benefits to those illegal aliens,
and I do not think this sets a good precedent.
I am heartened that many of us agree on providing important reforms
to the naturalization process for military personnel. However, it is my
hope that the Senate will take up this legislation separately so that
we can resolve some important policy differences between these bills in
an appropriate context.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H8367]]
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez).
Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) for yielding me this time.
Throughout the United States' history of armed conflict, noncitizens
have worn our military uniforms and fought in our battles. In fact, one
of my uncles served in the Korean War while a legal permanent resident.
Today, approximately 3 percent of our military are legal permanent
residents, but not citizens. Of that 3 percent, more than 37,000
noncitizen soldiers are currently serving on active duty in the U.S.
Armed Forces. Many of the U.S. casualties in Operation Iraqi Freedom
and many of the soldiers who continue to risk their lives to bring
stability to Iraq are noncitizens.
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 protection that that status gives
them, these immigrant men and women are willing to risk their own lives
to defend this Nation.
{time} 1700
The least we can do is give them something in return. What this
motion to instruct does is instruct the conferees to accept the Senate
provisions that expedite the naturalization process for members serving
in the U.S. military and the selected reserves.
The Senate provision also protects spouses, children, and parents of
soldiers killed in action by preserving their ability to file for
permanent residence in the United States.
The provisions are an effective way to show those noncitizens serving
in our Armed Services that their efforts are appreciated. The
provisions provide noncitizen soldiers with the opportunity to apply
for citizenship after 2 years of military service instead of the 3-year
requirement currently in law.
The provisions waive naturalization fees and provide for
naturalization proceeds to take place overseas. It also allows for the
spouse, children, and parents of legal permanent resident soldiers
killed in action to apply for citizenship.
I am pleased that the Senate provisions deem the parents of soldiers
killed in action to petition for immediate family status. When the
House version of this bill was considered, I was concerned that parents
of legal permanent resident soldiers killed in combat were not eligible
for citizenship if they were outside the United States at the time
their child was killed. Those same parents would be eligible if they
were here in the United States and it made no sense. A parent is a
parent whether 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 prevented them
from being in the United States when their child was killed in combat.
I am pleased the Senate provision of this bill made these provisions
an important part of their bill.
Again, I support the motion to instruct conferees on the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. I urge my colleagues to
support this legislation and benefit noncitizens who are serving in our
Armed Services and protecting the freedoms that we hold so dear.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis), who has also authored legislation in this area.
(Ms. SOLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Rodriguez) for putting this motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1588,
which I am in strong support of.
Earlier in the year several Members of this House came together to
work on legislation because we knew immediately that we were seeing
many of our young soldiers coming back in body bags. But one thing that
differentiated some of the soldiers, and I wanted to point out a
photograph of one of the soldiers that was fallen in my district,
Francisco Martinez Flores. He was 2 weeks shy of his citizenship.
They granted him posthumous citizenship which means nothing. It stays
there in the grave. It does nothing for his family who now has to go
through hurdles to make sure that they at least get some semblance of
assistance for their well-being here in our country. But if you ask
their parents they did not say for one minute, son, do not go and serve
your country. He took that upon himself, and they are very proud of
him, and we are all very proud of him.
We want to protect all of our soldiers. But there should not be any
barriers when we send young men and women, as this 19-year-old went
abroad in Iraq. In the first 2 weeks he was there he fell. That was it.
His tank fell over the Euphrates River there and his parents never saw
him again.
We are working hard to see that these families stay whole, and one of
the things that we can demonstrate through this legislation or this
motion to instruct is to help preserve that family unit, that they also
get the respect that their sons and daughters may not have. In this
case, this young man.
I have another picture over here that illustrates a family who is
also in that predicament. They have a son who is serving right now in
Iraq. The parents are not totally naturalized but they are going
through the process. If their son is not returned, who knows what their
fate will be as well. But we have thousands of soldiers like that.
Our bill that we had originally proposed would have covered 37,000
men and women who are legal permanent residents that are currently
serving in the war, and a good number of our soldiers are also serving
as reservists, over 23,000. Nobody is asking them why is it that you
are serving? You are not here legally.
They are here legally. They have their green cards. But one thing
differentiates them. They do not have that citizenship. They leave
their jobs as teachers, as firefighters, as plumbers, as people who
helped to build our country. They do not know if they are going to come
back and their families are contacting us.
What we would like to see is that there is some assurance, that there
is some guarantee for them and their families that they are granted the
ability to become naturalized citizens. When I hear the word
``illegal'' it breaks my heart because we do not ask these soldiers to
come forward whether or not they are illegal. They were legal
residents. They are technically legal residents. And if their families
give us the opportunity for their sons and daughters to serve, should
we not at least give them the opportunity to grant them some
protections that our great country can offer because they are fighting
for our freedom every single day. At this moment we know that there are
many that are in harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) from the Committee on the Judiciary for his work in
recognizing this issue. We worked very hard with several other Members
of this House on a bipartisan level, and I would like to thank him for
his concerted effort in working with us.
I am also concerned now that this bill or components of the bill are
now being placed on hold. And I would ask that Members of our House
consider the bigger picture here, and that is these soldiers that are
waiting to see that we take action on this motion, and that we do
something, that we do the right thing. We sent them out in harm's way,
and now it is time for us to take care of them.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further speakers,
and I yield back the balance of my time with the understanding that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez) has the right to close.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, let me take this opportunity first of all
to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). I want to appeal to him.
I know that even in the case of the example that I had indicated and
that is Marine Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, who came here illegally,
who was one of the
[[Page H8368]]
first killed, he came here illegally. We also have another young man,
the majority of who are here, by the way, legally.
We have another young man, and I want to pinpoint in case because
this is a sad story. This is Army Private Juan Escalante. It just came
out in the paper in Seattle. The young man served in Iraq, and I want
to give the gentleman a copy of the article because I think it is
important to note. He is a 19-year-old. And I will read part of this.
He is like many of the other soldiers, sailors and airmen settling
into civilian life except for the one key fact that Private Escalante
is an illegal immigrant. Unlike the tens and thousands of noncitizen
soldiers, of which we have 37,000 soldiers that have served our country
with so-called green cards, military folks, President Bush has also
praised their service, by the way, according to the newspaper. And
Escalante fits into an entirely new separate area and I would hope that
you would kind of take these cases into consideration.
Here we have a soldier who at the age of 4, at the age of 4 he was
brought here by his parents. So he has been here and he is now 19
serving our country in Iraq. He has gotten the combat patch and the
whole thing. And now his parents and himself are being looked at for
being sent back.
When he graduated from high school he bought a fake green card and
joined the Army. And you might say, well, that is fraudulent. But we
have had a lot of other fraudulent cases in which people have joined
the Army and lied about their age. And he trained as a mechanic, and he
later on was deployed to Iraq. Escalante says that he has volunteered
and he has enjoyed the work and is extremely proud to have served our
country during Iraq and during that particular war. And now he finds
himself in a situation where his family is being sent back.
Immigration lawyers and experts argue that the law has long allowed
noncitizens who have served honorably during a time of combat, and I
know the gentleman is familiar with this, to be eligible for
naturalization under Executive Order 13269 signed by President Bush on
July 3, 2002. It provides for expedient naturalization for those active
during Operation Enduring Freedom.
I would ask the gentleman on that particular case that he please look
at and see if he can help that young man, in addition to helping the
37,000 that are here. But I would also want to just go back and say
that Mr. Escalante indicated that in the dialogue on this issue is
something that is extremely of concern to a lot of other veterans that
are out there.
So as we postpone and continue to postpone this, it is important.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to clarify for the
record that only a legal permanent resident can serve in the Armed
Services. Someone who is in the country illegally cannot serve in the
armed forces. They have to be a legal permanent resident. We may have
given the impression that some individuals were here illegally and were
allowed to serve but that is not government policy.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I know that might not be government
policy, but we do have them and we do have the cases. I mentioned to
the gentleman Mr. Escalante who served and defended and he has been
here since the age of 4. His parents might have violated the law but he
has been here since the age of 4. And wherever he came from, I am not
sure if he is from Mexico or Central America or whatever, but I know
that when you look at a person at the age of 4, are you going go to say
that he violated the law?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would continue to yield, we have
looked at some of those cases and have found in almost every instance
they had taken advantage of some legalization program so that when they
actually enlisted they were legal permanent residents. I just would not
want us to give the false impression that people who were in the
country illegally can expect to enlist in the Armed Services.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I understand that, but the fact is the reality is that
we do have and there is 37,000. By the way, that is nothing new. For
example, similar action has been taken in past history where we had
143,000 noncitizen military participants in World War I and World War
II. We had 31,000 members in the Korean War. We had an additional
100,000 who fought in Vietnam and in the Persian Gulf. These have all
been noncitizens.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. If the gentleman would continue to yield, that is
exactly right, but they are all legal permanent residents. They are not
illegal immigrants.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But the majority of them, those 37,000, are still not
citizens.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I understand that, I acknowledge that. They are
legal permanent residents. They are not citizens, but they also are not
in the country illegally.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. The gentleman is correct in that, but I did want to
mention this, too. But for all the others, the 37,000 that are here,
the legal permanent residents that are here and fighting and defending,
we want to be able to not give them anything extra except expedite what
everyone else has to go through. That is to also help them through
their waivers in allowing them an opportunity to waive the fees, and I
think the gentleman would be supportive of that. The gentleman would
also, I think, be supportive of reducing the waiting period for
citizenship, and I think the gentleman would also be supportive of
allowing them to proceed as quickly as possible when they are overseas.
One of the problems when they are overseas is that they cannot move
forward on their citizenship. So it is important for us to do that. I
think we owe them at least that amount to be able to do that. I would
hope the gentleman would help us out in that way, in terms of that.
{time} 1715
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we will be happy to help out, and I
have to point out to the gentleman that all of the provisions which we
support were in the House-passed bill, and I am surprised that this
motion we are considering now would actually endorse some provisions
that I consider to be not as good for individuals who are serving in
the military who we want to grant citizenship to.
I mentioned in my opening statement a while ago, for example, that
the Senate bill that is endorsed by this motion requires them to have
served in the military 2 years. The House bill that I support requires
them to have only served 1 year. The House bill says that they could be
killed while in training, while on their way to the front lines. The
Senate bill that this motion endorses says they have to be killed in
combat, and the Senate bill that this motion supports says they can be
awarded citizenship even if they were dishonorably discharged.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I know what the
differences are, but there is a game that is being played, and the
reason why we are doing this is we need to push forward on this, both
the Senate and the House is controlled by Republicans, and so my
colleagues can make it happen. We can move forward on this, and we can
push forward on this, and the importance is to look at those 37,000,
and as the gentleman indicated, these are persons, the majority, with
the exception maybe of one or two or three of the two that I mentioned,
that are all permanent residents and here now legally but need to move
forward on the citizenship.
What we are saying is we have got to go and do everything we can to
help them out since they have been willing to come forward. The reason
why we have this motion is to basically also indicate the importance of
moving forward on this act instead of playing games with the Senate and
arguing that the Senate has 2 years and we have 1 year, et cetera.
The bottom line is that will not get them the opportunity to move
forward and become citizens, and we have got to make that happen.
So the responsibility falls on the leadership both in the House and
in the Senate, and in this case, they are both controlled by
Republicans. So it becomes real important that we move forward.
The other thing is that the Senate version contains the reservists.
We
[[Page H8369]]
have 12,000 reservists that also fall in that category, and as my
colleague well knows, we have reservists doing full-time duty now, and
it is important for us to also recognize that. So we have soldiers that
we have asked them to be weekend soldiers, but they are spending time
down there all year. So it becomes real important that we move forward
on this as quickly as possible, and I want to ask that my colleagues
consider the motion and ask that we come because when all is said and
done, if this does not occur, then the only ones we can hold
responsible is both the House and the Senate and, in this case,
controlled by the Republican party and the administration.
So I would ask my colleagues for serious consideration of some
passage that would allow expediting the citizenship process because
they have to qualify even more so. To be in the military, they have to
have had a GED or high school. They have to have, as I already
indicated, the leadership and loyalty to this country and demonstrated
that, and so I think we have a unique opportunity to send a real
positive message to both the people that are serving our military, and
both the reservists as well as the active duty, because they have all
been out there for us and are willing to continue to defend our
country, and we ought to be willing to move forward, and if they served
honorably, then we ought to see what we can do to help them out in the
process of becoming citizens and to have 37,000 people in the military
that are not citizens yet and have trouble as the case that I have here
before on Private Escalante, then we need to see how we can make some
exceptions in those cases, and I would hope that we have that
flexibility in order for that to happen.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join my colleagues in
asking the House conferees of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R.
1588) to accept the Citizenship for America's troop's provision that
Senator Kennedy included in the Senate's bill.
Ever since the war against Saddam Hussein began, politicians and
commentators have noted that many brave soldiers were risking their
lives for America despite the fact that they are not citizens. As many
have pointed out, some of these non-citizen 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, Cpl.
Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were
born in Guatemala--like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez. But all died
fighting for a country where they couldn't even cast a vote.
Of course, this is not a new problem. In the last Congress--in May of
2002, to be precise--I first introduced legislation to help remove the
obstacles these brave soldiers face on their path to citizenship. And I
re-introduced my bill in this Congress one week before our country went
to war in Iraq.
But months and months have passed, and still this Congress has not
acted. So while the citizenship provision in the Senate bill is not
identical to my original legislation, I fully support it. It is the
quickest way to honor the brave soldiers who have shown the willingness
to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly wish to be
citizens of. Members of the military who risk their lives to defend
this Nation deserve better than the bureaucratic and financial burdens
that now stand between them and citizenship. And they deserve better
than the waiting game they've had to endure since I first proposed
legislation like this more than a year ago.
So, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the House managers to not play politics
with this issue. Accept the Kennedy language and do the right thing for
our troops.
It is the only way to get this done in a timely fashion. Our legal
permanent resident troops have already waited for far too long.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Rodriguez motion to
instruct the conferees on the Defense Reauthorization Act.
I support his motion because I strongly believe that we must expedite
the citizenship process for immigrants that serve in the United States
military.
If they wear the American flag on their uniform everyday and proudly
fight for this nation then I believe offering them citizenship is the
least we can do.
Thirty-seven thousand immigrants soldiers risk their lives everyday
in defense of our Nation. These patriots may be of different
nationalities but they share the same commitment to defend the United
States.
As a Nation, we must respect and honor those who are willing to fight
and die for ideals of democracy and the ideals of the United States of
America, regardless of their nationality. If we trust immigrants to die
protecting this Nation then we must trust them to become American
citizens.
The Senate bill has provisions to allow these immigrant soldiers to
become citizens after two years, rather than three and I support that.
The Senate provision also allows immigrant soldiers to fulfill
citizen requirements at U.S. facilities abroad and I support that.
Currently, immigrant soldiers serving over seas are required to take
leave, spend their own money and travel back to the U.S. to fulfill
their citizenship requirements. The process is slow archaic, and wrong.
No one should be punished for serving this Nation.
I served this Nation proudly and I am the child of immigrants. I know
the love that my parents had for this Nation, and I know the love that
I have for this Nation, and no one should be punished for wanting to
proudly serve this country. No one should be punished simply because
they were not lucky enough to be born on United States soil.
We owe anyone who is willing to fight for this Nation the opportunity
to quickly and expeditiously become a United States citizen.
We are asking something simple--allow these proud immigrants to
become citizens. At a time when we are fighting enemies abroad and at
home, why deny those that are the most loyal their wish to become
Americans.
On behalf of the 37,000 immigrant soldiers and families, I urge my
colleagues to support the Rodriguez motion to instruct.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the remainder of the time.
General Leave
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on this motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. 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
earlier order of the House of today, further proceedings on this motion
will be postponed.
____________________