[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13749-13760]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 13750]]

       ``(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 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

[[Page 13751]]

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.
  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

[[Page 13752]]

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 country.''
  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 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

[[Page 13753]]

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 corrected 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 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

[[Page 13754]]

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 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

[[Page 13755]]

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. 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 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

[[Page 13756]]

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. 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, 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 T. Sanchez), a 
member of the full committee and a member of the subcommittee.
  Ms. LINDA T. 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.

[[Page 13757]]

  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. 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. 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.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

                              {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

[[Page 13758]]

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 line 
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.
  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.

[[Page 13759]]

  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.
  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

[[Page 13760]]

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.

                          ____________________