[House Report 108-111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-111
======================================================================
 
                ARMED FORCES NATURALIZATION ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

  May 19, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 1954]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred 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, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 
recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
The Amendment....................................................     2
Purpose and Summary..............................................     5
Background and Need for the Legislation..........................     5
Hearings.........................................................     6
Committee Consideration..........................................     6
Vote of the Committee............................................     6
Committee Oversight Findings.....................................     8
Performance Goals and Objectives.................................     8
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................     8
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................     8
Constitutional Authority Statement...............................    11
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.......................    11
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............    14
Markup Transcript................................................    21
Minority Views...................................................    71
    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

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.--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,''.
    (b) Prohibition on Imposition of Fees Relating to Naturalization.--
Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et 
seq.) is amended--
            (1) in section 328(b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (3)--
                            (i) by striking ``honorable. The'' and 
                        inserting ``honorable (the''; and
                            (ii) by striking ``discharge.'' and 
                        inserting ``discharge); and''; and
                    (B) 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
            (2) in section 329(b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'' at the 
                end;
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) 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.''.
    (c) Revocation of Citizenship for Separation from Military Service 
Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.--Section 328 of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439) is amended by adding at the end the 
following:
    ``(f) Citizenship granted pursuant to this section may be revoked 
in accordance with section 340 of this title if at any time subsequent 
to naturalization the person is separated from the military, air, or 
naval forces under other than honorable conditions, and such ground for 
revocation shall be in addition to any other provided by law. 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.''.
    (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.--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,''.

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

    (a) 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) 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.
            ``(2) 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 on 
        which the petition under paragraph (4) is filed, 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 such 
        filing date).
            ``(3) 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 present in the United States on the date of 
        the citizen's death, 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.
            ``(4) 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 (1), (2), or (3), 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.
                    ``(B) Minor children.--In the case of a child under 
                18 years of age on the filing date, the petition 
                described in subparagraph (A) shall be filed on behalf 
                of the child by a parent or legal guardian of the 
                child.
            ``(5) Deadline.--Paragraphs (1) through (4) shall apply 
        only if the petition under paragraph (4) is filed not later 
        than 2 years after the date on which the request under 
        subsection (c) is granted.
            ``(6) 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 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--
                    ``(A) shall convert such petition to a petition 
                filed under paragraph (4) to classify the alien as an 
                immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i);
                    ``(B) shall ensure that the priority date assigned 
                upon receipt of the original petition is maintained; 
                and
                    ``(C) otherwise shall treat the date on which the 
                request under subsection (c) is granted as the petition 
                filing date for purposes of this subsection.
            ``(7) 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.
            ``(8) 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.''.
    (b) Naturalization for Surviving Spouses.--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.''.
    (c) Technical Amendments.--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''.

SEC. 4. IMMIGRATION BENEFITS FOR SURVIVING ALIEN SPOUSES, CHILDREN, AND 
                    PARENTS OF CITIZENS WHO DIE WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY.

    (a) Treatment As Immediate Relatives.--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 while on active-duty 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 during a 
                        period of honorable service in the Armed Forces 
                        of the United States 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), a person who is a surviving 
                parent described in subparagraph (A), and who is 
                lawfully present in the United States on the date of 
                the citizen's death, 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 priority date assigned prior to the 
                        death shall be maintained.
                            ``(ii) Self-petitions.--In the case of a 
                        surviving child or parent who remains an 
                        immediate relative after the date of a 
                        citizen's death pursuant to subparagraph (C) or 
                        (D), any petition under section 204 otherwise 
                        required to be filed by the citizen to classify 
                        the child or parent under subsection 
                        (b)(2)(A)(i) may be filed instead by the child 
                        or parent. 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 petition under 
                        section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) and shall be treated 
                        as an alien spouse described in the second 
                        sentence of subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) for such 
                        purpose.
                            ``(iii) Minor children.--In the case of a 
                        child under 18 years of age on the filing date, 
                        the petition described in clause (ii) shall be 
                        filed on behalf of the child by a parent or 
                        legal guardian of the child.
                            ``(iv) 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.''.
    (b) Technical Amendment.--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''.

SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act and 
the amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if enacted on 
September 11, 2001.
    (b) Fees.--The amendments made by this Act to sections 328 through 
329A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439-1440-1), 
insofar as such amendments prohibit the imposition of a fee--
            (1) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this 
        Act; and
            (2) shall not be construed to require the refund or return 
        of any fee collected before such date.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1954 would reduce the period of military service 
required during peace time from 3 years to 1 year before a non-
citizen military member could apply for naturalization. It also 
makes the application process easier for service members by 
waiving fees for the application for naturalization, the 
certificate of naturalization, and the application for 
posthumous citizenship and requiring the Secretaries of 
Homeland Security, State, and Defense to make naturalization 
applications, interviews, filings, oaths, and ceremonies 
available, to the maximum extent practicable, through United 
States embassies, consulates, and military installations 
abroad. H.R. 1954 would also permit spouses, children, and 
certain parents of a military member granted posthumous 
citizenship, and a U.S. citizen military member who died during 
military service, to apply for immigration benefits as if the 
military member had not died, while waiving the public charge 
ground of inadmissibility.

                Background and Need for the Legislation

    After learning that 10 members of our Armed Forces who died 
in combat during ``Operation Iraqi Freedom'' were not United 
States citizens, several bills were introduced to honor those 
military members who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this 
country by either easing the naturalization requirements of 
legal permanent residents in the armed services or providing 
immigration benefits to surviving family members of those 
killed in service to America, or both.
    Some bills reduce the peace time military service 
requirement from 3 years to 2 years; another bill lowers it to 
zero years. H.R. 1954 would reduce the military service 
requirement to apply for naturalization during peace time from 
3 years to 1 year. One year is an obvious compromise. It lowers 
the required years of service while maintaining the requirement 
that a military member must still establish his worthiness for 
expedited naturalization through a period of honorable military 
service during peace time.
    Many of the introduced bills, including H.R. 1954, also 
waive the fees for the naturalization petition or 
naturalization certificate, along with related State fees, and 
the fee for the posthumous citizenship application. This would 
ease the financial burden for military members who perform 
outstanding service for our country and receive little money in 
return.
    Currently, military members must be physically 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 military members to 
have to leave their post abroad and return to the United States 
at their own expense. This is both expensive and causes 
unnecessary interruption in their military service. 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.
    Under current law, family members of posthumous citizens 
cannot apply for immigration benefits through the posthumous 
citizen. H.R. 1954 would permit surviving immediate relative 
family members (spouse, children, and certain parents) of both 
military members who were U.S. citizens before death, and 
immigrant military members who were granted citizenship 
posthumously, to apply for immigration benefits as if the 
military family member had not died.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 
Security, and Claims held 1 day of hearings on related bills 
H.R. 1714, H.R. 1275, H.R. 1799, H.R. 1850, H.R. 1685, and H.R. 
1814 on May 6, 2003. Testimony was received from six Member 
witnesses, the authors of the above bills: Representative Doc 
Hastings, Representative Martin Frost, Representative Walter 
Jones, Representative Luis Gutierrez, Representative Darrell 
Issa, and Representative Hilda Solis.

                        Committee Consideration

    On May 7, 2003, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1954 with amendment by 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes the following 
votes occurred during the Committee's consideration of H.R. 
1954:
    Mr. King offered an amendment to permit revocation of 
citizenship granted for military service during peace time when 
a military member is separated from military service under 
other than honorable conditions. The amendment passed by voice 
vote.
    Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment to permit surviving 
spouses of posthumously-granted U.S. citizen military members 
to apply for naturalization immediately rather than wait for 
the 3 year-marriage requirement to be met. The amendment passed 
by voice vote.
    Mr. King offered an amendment to preclude a deceased 
soldier's parents who are not authorized to be in the United 
States when the soldier dies from being able to apply for 
immigration benefits through the deceased soldier. The 
amendment passed by a recorded vote of 14-8.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................              X
Mr. Green.......................................................              X
Mr. Keller......................................................              X
Ms. Hart........................................................
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................              X
Mr. King........................................................              X
Mr. Carter......................................................              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................                              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................                              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................                              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................                              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................                              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................                              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             14               8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Berman and Ms. Sanchez offered an amendment to waive 
grounds of inadmissibility, including that for unlawful 
presence, for family members of deceased military members. The 
amendment was rejected by voice vote.
    Ms. Lofgren offered an amendment to permit members of the 
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve to apply for 
naturalization immediately during periods of named hostilities 
under section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The 
amendment failed by a recorded vote of 10-16.

                                                   ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Ayes            Nays           Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble.......................................................                              X
Mr. Smith.......................................................                              X
Mr. Gallegly....................................................                              X
Mr. Goodlatte...................................................
Mr. Chabot......................................................                              X
Mr. Jenkins.....................................................                              X
Mr. Cannon......................................................                              X
Mr. Bachus......................................................                              X
Mr. Hostettler..................................................                              X
Mr. Green.......................................................
Mr. Keller......................................................                              X
Ms. Hart........................................................
Mr. Flake.......................................................                              X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes......................................................                              X
Mr. King........................................................                              X
Mr. Carter......................................................                              X
Mr. Feeney......................................................                              X
Mrs. Blackburn..................................................                              X
Mr. Conyers.....................................................
Mr. Berman......................................................              X
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler......................................................              X
Mr. Scott.......................................................              X
Mr. Watt........................................................              X
Ms. Lofgren.....................................................              X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................              X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Meehan......................................................              X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Ms. Baldwin.....................................................              X
Mr. Weiner......................................................
Mr. Schiff......................................................              X
Ms. Sanchez.....................................................              X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman.....................................                              X
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................             10              16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to report the bill, as amended, 
favorably to the full House. The motion was adopted by voice 
vote.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the 
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 1954 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does 
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax 
expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, H.R. 1954, the following estimate and 
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 15, 2003.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1954, the Armed 
Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz, who can be reached at
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin.

Enclosure

cc:
        Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
        Ranking Member
H.R. 1954--Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.

                                SUMMARY

    Under current law, lawful permanent residents who have 
served honorably on active duty or in reserve status in the 
U.S. armed forces for 3 years (in aggregate) are eligible to 
apply for naturalization (citizenship). During periods of 
military hostilities, however, such individuals who have served 
in the armed forces on active duty are immediately eligible for 
naturalization. On July 3, 2002, the President officially 
designated the period beginning on September 11, 2001, as a 
period of military hostilities.
    H.R. 1954 would reduce the aforementioned service 
requirement from 3 years to 1 year, and would waive application 
fees for individuals eligible for naturalization through 
military service, including posthumous citizenship for persons 
killed while on active duty. The bill also would direct the 
Administration to make naturalization services available to 
military personnel serving overseas, to the maximum extent 
practicable. In addition, for family members of persons who die 
while on active duty, H.R. 1954 would make it easier to gain 
certain immigration benefits. Because enacting the bill would 
result in a reduction in immigration fees, CBO estimates that 
it would increase direct spending by about $1 million in fiscal 
year 2003 and by $12 million in 2004.
    H.R. 1954 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates 
that the costs of the mandate, if any, would not be significant 
and would be well below the threshold establish in UMRA ($59 
million in 2003, adjusted for inflation). The bill contains no 
new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1954 is shown in the 
following table. CBO assumes that the bill will be enacted by 
July 1. The costs of this legislation fall within budget 
function 750 (administration of justice).

                 By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority          1     12      0      0      0      0
Estimated Outlays                   1     12      0      0      0      0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    The U.S. armed forces currently includes about 37,000 
individuals on active duty and another 12,000 in reserve status 
who are not citizens. In addition, CBO expects about 9,000 new 
legal permanent residents to enter the armed forces on active 
duty by the end of fiscal year 2004, based on the number of 
such entries in recent years. However, approximately 7,000 
persons on active duty have already applied for naturalization 
since military hostilities were declared in July 2002 and could 
not benefit from H.R. 1954 (this represents less than 20 
percent of the current eligible population of active-duty 
personnel).
    By waiving application fees and improving the 
naturalization process overseas, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 
1954 would significantly increase the percentage of eligible 
individuals who apply for citizenship. We anticipate that the 
majority of eligible individuals would choose to naturalize 
under the bill's provisions over the next year or two, thus 
gaining an important benefit while avoiding the $310 in fees 
currently collected by the Bureau of Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (BCIS). Based on the current number of 
citizenship applications by eligible military personnel (as 
noted in the preceding paragraph), we estimate two-thirds (over 
30,000) of the eligible persons would apply for naturalization. 
By comparison, nationwide about 55 percent of eligible aliens 
apply for citizenship over the duration of their stay in the 
United States. Thus, enacting H.R. 1954 would result in a loss 
of fees (direct spending) of about $10 million over the 2003-
2004 period, mostly in 2004.
    In addition, the BCIS (formerly the Immigration and 
Naturalization Service) expects to employ 25 persons at 
overseas locations to provide naturalization services there, as 
directed by H.R. 1954. These activities are funded by fees 
collected by the BCIS and spent without appropriation action. 
Thus, CBO estimates that this provision would increase direct 
spending by about $3 million annually, beginning in fiscal year 
2004.
    The BCIS periodically reviews its fees for providing 
adjudication and naturalization services and sets fees 
sufficient to ensure the recovery of the full costs of 
providing all such services, including the costs of services 
provided without charge to certain applicants. The two most 
recent fee adjustments occurred in early 1999 and in early 
2002, and total fee collections and spending on immigration 
administration are expected to exceed $1 billion in each of the 
next few years. During fiscal year 2005, CBO assumes that the 
BCIS will raise fees as necessary to offset the additional 
costs resulting from enactment of H.R. 1954. In that case, the 
bill would have no significant net effect on BCIS spending 
after 2004.
    CBO estimates the bill's provisions relating to fees for 
posthumous citizenship and immigration benefits for family 
members of those killed in wartime would have no significant 
effect because of the relatively small number of persons 
involved.

         ESTIMATED IMPACT ON STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENT

    H.R. 1954 would prohibit, in certain cases, State courts 
from collecting fees for processing naturalization applications 
or issuing certificates of naturalization for individuals who 
have served in the armed forces. To the extent that any State 
courts charge such fees, such a preemption of State authority 
is an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. However, 
CBO estimates that costs from the mandate, if any, would be 
insignificant and well below the threshold establish in UMRA 
($59 million in 2003, adjusted for inflation).

                 ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

    The bill contains no new private-sector mandates as define 
by UMRA.

                         ESTIMATE PREPARED BY:

Federal Costs: Mark Grabowicz (226-2860)
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid 
    Hall (225-3220)
Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach (226-2940)

                         ESTIMATE APPROVED BY:

Peter H. Fontaine
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in article 1, section 8, clause 4 of the 
Constitution.

               Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion

    Sec. 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the ``Armed 
Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.''
    Sec. 2. Naturalization Through Service in Armed Forces. 
Section 2(a) amends section 328(a) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (INA) to reduce the peace time military service 
requirement from 3 years to 1 year before a lawful permanent 
resident military member may apply for naturalization.
    Section 2(b) prohibits fees from being charged to military 
members applying for naturalization or a certificate of 
naturalization, including full or partial State charges for 
State documents that support an application for naturalization, 
such as criminal disposition documents. The Committee 
recommends that the Department of Homeland Security raise fee 
amounts for other applications to cover the costs of these 
military naturalization applications.
    Section 2(c) permits the revocation of citizenship for 
separation from military service under other than honorable 
conditions. Because a military member may apply for 
naturalization immediately during a named period of 
hostilities, section 329 of the INA already states that such a 
military member may have their citizenship revoked if, at any 
time subsequent to naturalization, the person is separated from 
the military under other than honorable conditions. Because 
section 2(b) of H.R. 1954 would lower the peace time military 
service requirement from 3 years to 1 year before a military 
member can apply for naturalization, section 2(c) of H.R. 1954 
would amend section 328 of the INA to also state that such a 
military member may have their citizenship revoked if, at any 
time subsequent to naturalization, the person is separated from 
the military under other than honorable conditions.
    Section 2(d) requires the Departments of Homeland Security 
(DHS), State and Defense (DOD) to provide naturalization 
applications, interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies, or other 
INA title III proceedings for military members, to the greatest 
extent practicable, through United States embassies, 
consulates, and U.S. military installations overseas. 
Currently, military members must be physically in the U.S. to 
apply for, interview, and take the oath of citizenship. This 
requires some military members to have to take leave from their 
military service and travel to the U.S. at their own expense to 
apply for and take the oath of citizenship. This is both 
unnecessarily expensive and impractical for our military 
members. Both the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services within the DHS and the DOD have represented to this 
Committee that they have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
between the two Departments that permits a flexible, smooth 
processing of military naturalization applications. This 
Committee would encourage the two Departments to revise their 
MOU to incorporate the changes made by H.R. 1954, including 
military naturalization processing overseas to the greatest 
extent practicable and perhaps permitting military leaders to 
perform the oath of citizenship for military members under the 
Secretary of Homeland Security's authority to delegate oath 
authority. The Committee realizes it will be impracticable to 
establish military naturalization adjudication at some remote, 
minimally staffed consulates and military installations. 
Therefore, the Committee does not expect military 
naturalization adjudication to occur at all such places. 
Rather, the Committee encourages the two Departments to 
continue to be flexible in establishing an MOU that allows for 
resourceful military naturalization adjudication.
    Sec. 3. Posthumous Citizenship Through Death While on 
Active-Duty Service in Armed Forces. Section 3(a) prohibits the 
charging of a fee from a person seeking posthumous citizenship 
for a military member killed performing military service. The 
Committee recommends that the Department of Homeland Security 
raise fee amounts for other applications to cover the cost of 
posthumous citizenship applications. Section 3(a) also permits 
immediate relatives (spouses, children, and certain parents) to 
apply for immigration benefits as if the military member 
granted posthumous citizenship had not died. However, the fees 
are not waived for the immediate relatives' applications for 
immigration benefits under this Act. With regard to spouses of 
posthumous citizens, this section permits the spouse who was 
living in marital union with the posthumous citizen spouse to 
remain an immediate relative after the date of the posthumous 
citizen's death, regardless of the length of the marriage, but 
only until the spouse re-marries.
    Children of posthumous citizens who are unmarried and under 
21 years old may remain immediate relatives after the date of 
the posthumous citizen's death, regardless of whether the child 
turns 21 or marries after filing the immigration petition under 
this section.
    Section 3(a) also permits parents of posthumous citizens 
who are authorized to be present temporarily in the United 
States on the date of the posthumous citizen's death to remain 
immediate relatives after the death of the military member and 
regardless of whether the military member was under 21 years 
old.
    If a military member had not filed a visa petition for the 
spouse, child(ren), or parents before death in the military, 
the eligible spouse, child(ren), and parents may self-petition 
for a family visa as if the military member (would-be 
petitioner) had not died. If a child is under 18 years of age, 
the surviving parent or legal guardian shall file the self-
petition on behalf of the child.
    Any petition filed under this section must be filed within 
2 years from the date on which the posthumous citizenship is 
granted.
    If the lawful permanent resident military member had filed 
a visa petition for the spouse or child(ren) prior to death in 
the military and subsequent posthumous citizenship, the 
petition for the spouse or child(ren) as a family-sponsored 
immigrant shall convert to a petition for an immediate relative 
upon the grant of posthumous citizenship. Also, the priority 
date assigned under the original petition shall be maintained 
after conversion to a petition for an immediate relative. 
Otherwise, the date on which posthumous citizenship is 
requested shall be the petition filing date for a self-petition 
under this subsection.
    Section 3(a) also waives the public charge ground of 
inadmissibility for immediate relative family members eligible 
to apply for immigration benefits under this section. Section 
3(a) does not permit any other family member to apply for 
immigration benefits under this section.
    Section 3(b) of H.R. 1954 permits lawful permanent resident 
spouses of posthumous citizens to immediately apply for 
naturalization rather than wait 3 years, as if the military 
member had not died. Section 319(d) of the INA currently 
permits lawful permanent resident spouses of U.S. citizens who 
die during military service to immediately apply for 
naturalization. Section 3(b) would give parity to lawful 
permanent resident spouses of military members granted U.S. 
citizenship posthumously.
    Sec. 4. Immigration Benefits for Surviving Alien Spouses, 
Children, and Parents of Citizens who Die While on Active Duty. 
Section 4(a) permits spouses, children, and certain parents of 
U.S. citizens who die during honorable military service to 
apply for immigration benefits as if the citizen had not died. 
The fees are not waived for the immediate relatives' 
applications for immigration benefits under this Act. The 
military branch under which the U.S. citizen served shall 
determine whether the citizen satisfied the requirements of 
death during a period of honorable service in the Armed Forces 
of the U.S. as a result of injury or disease incurred in or 
aggravated by such service.
    With regard to spouses of U.S. citizens, this section 
permits the spouse who was living in marital union with the 
citizen spouse to remain an immediate relative after the date 
of the citizen's death, regardless of the length of the 
marriage, but only until the spouse re-marries.
    Children of citizens who are unmarried and under 21 years 
old may remain immediate relatives after the date of the 
citizen's death, regardless of whether the child turns 21 or 
marries after filing the immigration petition under this 
section.
    Section 4(a) also permits parents of citizens who are 
authorized to be present temporarily in the United States on 
the date of the citizen's death to remain immediate relatives 
after the death of the military member and regardless of 
whether the U.S. citizen military member was under 21 years old 
at death.
    If the U.S. citizen had filed a petition on behalf of a 
spouse, child(ren), or parent prior to the citizen's death, the 
petition shall continue to be valid as a petition for an 
immediate relative. No new petition need be filed and any 
priority date assigned prior to the citizen's death shall be 
maintained.
    If the U.S. citizen military member had not filed a visa 
petition for the spouse, child(ren), or parents before death in 
the military, the eligible child(ren) and parents may self-
petition for a family visa as if the military member (would-be 
petitioner) had not died. A surviving spouse of a killed U.S. 
citizen military member may self-petition as an immediate 
relative, regardless of how long the couple had been married. 
If a child is under 18 years of age, the surviving parent or 
legal guardian shall file the self-petition on behalf of the 
child.
    Any petition filed under this section must be filed within 
2 years from the date of the citizen's death. Section 4(a) also 
waives the public charge ground of inadmissibility for family 
members applying for immigration benefits under this section.
    Sec. 5. Effective Date. Section 5 establishes the effective 
date for the fee waivers on the date of enactment of H.R. 1954 
and should not be construed to require the refund or return of 
any fee collected before such date. Otherwise, the effective 
date of this Act is September 11, 2001.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

                    IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT



           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
                         TITLE II--IMMIGRATION

                      Chapter 1--Selection System

                     worldwide level of immigration

    Sec. 201. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Rules for Determining Whether Certain Aliens Are 
Immediate Relatives.--
            (1) Age on petition filing date.--Except as 
        provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), for purposes of 
        subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), a determination of whether an 
        alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter 
        preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall 
        be made using the age of the alien on the date on which 
        the petition is filed with the [Attorney General] 
        Secretary of Homeland Security under section 204 to 
        classify the alien as an immediate relative under 
        subsection (b)(2)(A)(i).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (4) Surviving alien spouses, children, and parents 
        of citizens who die while on active-duty 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 during a period of 
                        honorable service in the Armed Forces 
                        of the United States 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), a person 
                who is a surviving parent described in 
                subparagraph (A), and who is lawfully present 
                in the United States on the date of the 
                citizen's death, 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 
                        priority date assigned prior to the 
                        death shall be maintained.
                            (ii) Self-petitions.--In the case 
                        of a surviving child or parent who 
                        remains an immediate relative after the 
                        date of a citizen's death pursuant to 
                        subparagraph (C) or (D), any petition 
                        under section 204 otherwise required to 
                        be filed by the citizen to classify the 
                        child or parent under subsection 
                        (b)(2)(A)(i) may be filed instead by 
                        the child or parent. 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 
                        petition under section 204(a)(1)(A)(ii) 
                        and shall be treated as an alien spouse 
                        described in the second sentence of 
                        subsection (b)(2)(A)(i) for such 
                        purpose.
                            (iii) Minor children.--In the case 
                        of a child under 18 years of age on the 
                        filing date, the petition described in 
                        clause (ii) shall be filed on behalf of 
                        the child by a parent or legal guardian 
                        of the child.
                            (iv) 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Chapter 2--Nationality Through Naturalization

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    married persons and employees of certain nonprofit organizations

    Sec. 319. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d) Any person who is the surviving spouse of a United 
States citizen, whose citizen spouse dies during a period of 
honorable service in an active duty status 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, or within a State or a district of the 
Service in the United States shall be required. For purposes of 
this subsection, the terms ``United States citizen'' and 
``citizen spouse''' include a person granted posthumous 
citizenship under section 329A.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


naturalization through service in the armed forces of the united states

    Sec. 328. (a) A person who has served honorably at any time 
in the Armed Forces of the United States for a period or 
periods aggregating [three years,] one year, and who, if 
separated from such service, was never separated except under 
honorable conditions, may be naturalized without having 
resided, continuously immediately preceding the date of filing 
such person's application, in the United States for at least 
five years, and in the State or district of the Service in the 
United States in which the application for naturalization is 
filed for at least three months, and without having been 
physically present in the United States for any specified 
period, if such application is filed while the applicant is 
still in the service or within six months after the termination 
of such service.
    (b) A person filing a application under subsection (a) of 
this section shall comply in all other respects with the 
requirements of this title, except that--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) the applicant shall furnish to the [Attorney 
        General,] Secretary of Homeland Security prior to any 
        final hearing upon his application, a certified 
        statement from the proper executive department for each 
        period of his service upon which he relies for the 
        benefits of this section, clearly showing that such 
        service was honorable and that no discharges from 
        service, including periods of service not relied upon 
        by him for the benefits of this section, were other 
        than [honorable. The] honorable (the certificate or 
        certificates herein provided for shall be conclusive 
        evidence of such service and [discharge.] discharge); 
        and
            (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Citizenship granted pursuant to this section may be 
revoked in accordance with section 340 of this title if at any 
time subsequent to naturalization the person is separated from 
the military, air, or naval forces under other than honorable 
conditions, and such ground for revocation shall be in addition 
to any other provided by law. 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.

 naturalization through active-duty service in the armed forces during 
    world war i, world war ii, the korean hostilities, the vietnam 
        hostilities, or in other periods of military hostilities

    Sec. 329. (a) * * *
    (b) A person filing an application under subsection (a) of 
this section shall comply in all other respects with the 
requirements of this title, except that--
    (1) * * *
            (2) no period of residence or specified period of 
        physical presence within the United States or any State 
        or district of the Service in the United States shall 
        be required; [and]
            (3) service in the military, air, or naval forces 
        of the United States shall be proved by a duly 
        authenticated certification from the executive 
        department under which the applicant served or is 
        serving, which shall state whether the applicant served 
        honorably in an active-duty status during either World 
        War I or during a period beginning September 1, 1939, 
        and ending December 31, 1946, or during a period 
        beginning June 25, 1950, and ending July 1, 1955, or 
        during a period beginning February 28, 1961, and ending 
        on a date designated by the President by Executive 
        order as the date of termination of the Vietnam 
        hostilities, or thereafter during any other period 
        which the President by Executive order shall designate 
        as a period in which Armed Forces of the United States 
        are or were engaged in military operations involving 
        armed conflict with a hostile foreign force, and was 
        separated from such service under honorable 
        conditions[.]; and
            (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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 posthumous citizenship through death while on active-duty service in 
     the armed forces during world war i, world war ii, the korean 
 hostilities, the vietnam hostilities, or in other periods of military 
                              hostilities

    Sec. 329A. (a) Permitting Granting of Posthumous 
Citizenship.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
title, the [Attorney General] Secretary of Homeland Security 
shall provide, in accordance with this section, for the 
granting of posthumous citizenship at the time of death to a 
person described in subsection (b) if the [Attorney General] 
Secretary of Homeland Security approves an application for that 
posthumous citizenship under subsection (c).
    (b) Noncitizens Eligible for Posthumous Citizenship.--A 
person referred to in subsection (a) is a person who, while an 
alien or a noncitizen national of the United States--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c) Requests for Posthumous Citizenship.--A request for the 
granting of posthumous citizenship to a person described in 
subsection (b) may be filed on behalf of the person only by the 
next-of-kin (as defined by the [Attorney General] Secretary of 
Homeland Security) or another representative (as defined by the 
[Attorney General] Secretary of Homeland Security). The 
[Attorney General] Secretary of Homeland Security shall approve 
such a request respecting a person if--
            (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

            (3) the [Attorney General] Secretary of Homeland 
        Security finds that the person satisfied the 
        requirement of subsection (b)(3).
    (d) Documentation of Posthumous Citizenship.--If the 
[Attorney General] Secretary of Homeland Security approves such 
a request to grant a person posthumous citizenship, the 
[Attorney General] Secretary of Homeland Security shall send to 
the individual who filed the request a suitable document which 
states that the United States considers the person to have been 
a citizen of the United States at the time of the person's 
death.
    [(e) No Benefits to Survivors.--Nothing in this section or 
section 319(d) shall be construed as providing for any benefits 
under this Act for any spouse, son, daughter, or other relative 
of a person granted posthumous citizenship under this section.]
    (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) 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.
            (2) 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 on which the 
        petition under paragraph (4) is filed, 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 such filing date).
            (3) 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 present in the United 
        States on the date of the citizen's death, 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.
            (4) 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 (1), (2), 
                or (3), 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.
                    (B) Minor children.--In the case of a child 
                under 18 years of age on the filing date, the 
                petition described in subparagraph (A) shall be 
                filed on behalf of the child by a parent or 
                legal guardian of the child.
            (5) Deadline.--Paragraphs (1) through (4) shall 
        apply only if the petition under paragraph (4) is filed 
        not later than 2 years after the date on which the 
        request under subsection (c) is granted.
            (6) 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 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--
                    (A) shall convert such petition to a 
                petition filed under paragraph (4) to classify 
                the alien as an immediate relative under 
                subsection (b)(2)(A)(i);
                    (B) shall ensure that the priority date 
                assigned upon receipt of the original petition 
                is maintained; and
                    (C) otherwise shall treat the date on which 
                the request under subsection (c) is granted as 
                the petition filing date for purposes of this 
                subsection.
            (7) 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.
            (8) 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                           Markup Transcript



                            BUSINESS MEETING

                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2003

                  House of Representatives,
                                Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James 
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    [Intervening business.]
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Now, the last item on the agenda, 
and pursuant to notice, I now call up the bill H.R. 1954, the 
``Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003'' for purposes of 
markup and move its favorable recommendation to the full House.
    Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and 
open for amendment at any point.
    [The bill, H.R. 1954, follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair recognizes himself 
for 5 minutes to explain this bill.
    Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and, more 
specifically, because of the news that 10 members of our Armed 
Forces who died in combat were not U.S. citizens, several bills 
have been introduced to either ease the naturalization 
requirements of legal permanent residents in the Armed Forces 
or to provide immigration benefits to the surviving family 
members of those killed in service to America, or both.
    We can never repay these noncitizen members of our military 
who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we can bring reasonable 
changes to the naturalization process for other permanent 
resident servicemembers willing to make the same sacrifice, and 
provide immigration benefits to family members who could have 
obtained such benefits had the servicemember not died in 
action.
    My Committee staff has worked closely with the staffs of 
those Members who have introduced bills on this issue, 
including Representatives Hastings, Frost, Walter Jones, Solis 
and Issa, as well as the Committee staff of Ranking Member 
Conyers and Immigration Subcommittee Ranking Member Jackson 
Lee, to come up with a bipartisan compromise bill.
    In addition, six Members who are not of this Committee 
testified yesterday at a hearing before the Subcommittee 
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 balance competing 
interests. I am grateful that Mr. Conyers and 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, and we have a 
bill that should easily 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 bills reduce the service requirement to 2 years. And one 
bill lowers it to no 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 fee for posthumous 
citizenship applications. This will ease the financial burden 
for military members who perform an outstanding service for our 
country and receive little money in return.
    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 to have to 
leave their posts abroad to return to the United States at 
their own expense. This is both expensive and causes 
unnecessary interruption to 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 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, parents, and children to do so.
    Likewise, it would permit the spouse, parents, and children 
to self-petition for green cards or continue to pursue their 
already filed petition as if the U.S. citizen had not died.
    Finally, this bill would waive the affidavit of support 
public charge ground of inadmissibility in both these 
categories. If the military member was the breadwinner, we 
elected not to penalize the immediate relative because their 
means of support died during military service to our country.
    I urge my colleagues to support this carefully crafted and 
broadly supported compromise bill.
    The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 
me thank you very much for the cooperative work of this 
Committee--the Chairman of the Committee, the Ranking Member of 
the Committee, the Chairman of the Subcommittee. In working, as 
I said earlier, in putting some initial remarks into the record 
on an issue,----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.--that many of us would have thought would 
have been corrected.
    You are absolutely right, Mr. Chairman, that we make better 
the process of aiding legal resident military personnel to 
assume citizenship, but, as well, we give honor to those who 
are fallen heroes who have lost their lives in a way that 
provides benefits for their families and grants them posthumous 
citizenship.
    I think this is a giant leap in light of the great response 
of the legal resident community and their service in Iraq and, 
as well, the service that they have given us through all of our 
world wars, including World War II, World War I, the Korean 
War, Vietnam, and all of the conflicts that we have had.
    As I read in my remarks earlier, it was noted by a 
particular individual, fallen individual--that is Lance 
Corporal Gutierrez--that he told his foster parent, ``I was 
born the day I arrived in this country.''.
    This legislation will give honor to those who live, who 
serve us in the United States military, and it will certainly 
give honor and respect and admiration to those who have fallen 
and provide us with an opportunity to correct the injustices in 
immigration law.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support 
this legislation, and I have an amendment that I would like to 
offer when appropriate, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Thank you. Without objection, all 
Members may include opening statements in the record at this 
point.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    On March 21, 2003, in a battle with Iraq's Republican Guard troops, 
Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, a young immigrant from Guatemala, was killed 
in the service of the country he loved. According to Martha Espinosa, 
one of his former foster mothers, ``He once told me, 'I was born the 
day I arrived in this country.'"
    Jose was one of four fallen Marines who deserve special mention 
because they died in service to a country they could not yet call their 
own. The other three were Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose 
Angel Garibay, and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar, all born in 
Mexico.
    Immigrants have long seen service in the U.S. military as a gateway 
to citizenship, education and economic opportunity, and the deaths of 
these four Marines echo those of other non-citizens who died for this 
country before them. Their valor is well documented.
    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 example, Section 328 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
allows non-citizen members of the military in peacetime to become 
citizens after three years of service, instead of the usual five-year 
wait required of non-military applicants.
    In addition, 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. This 
opportunity becomes available when the President designates by 
Executive Order that the armed services are or were engaged in armed 
conflict with a hostile foreign force.
    Under Section 329 of the INA, 143,000 non-citizen military 
participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the U.S. 
military who fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American 
citizens. Executive Orders following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War 
collectively led to more than 100,000 members of the U.S. military 
becoming American citizens.
    One Congressman, Mr. Gutierrez, proposed a fascinating bill that 
would take such gratitude a step further by providing automatic 
naturalization the moment that noncitizen soldiers are ordered to serve 
in a combat zone.
    In any case, notwithstanding the generosity that American has shown 
towards people who have served honorably in our armed forces, the 
military naturalization provisions need improvement. Chairman 
Sensenbrenner's ``Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003'' represents 
a remarkable bipartisan effort to make those improvements. I am proud 
to be an original cosponsor of this bill.
    For instance, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will 
reduce the time that a member of the armed forces has to serve before 
being eligible for naturalization from 3 years to a single year. The 
fees normally charged for naturalization will be waived for members of 
the armed forces. 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 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 by the President of the United States, but these provisions 
specifically exclude derivative immigration 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.
    I believe, however, that we must go even further. For instance, 
current law sets forth a waiver that makes certain naturalization 
benefits available to the lawful permanent resident widow of a citizen 
soldier who dies while serving his country but not to the lawful 
permanent resident widow of a soldier who receives posthumous 
citizenship. I intend to offer an amendment later in this markup that 
will make this benefit available in both situations.
    In addition, 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, and, more disturbingly, the siblings would 
have a 10 to 12-year wait for a visa even if they were able to get such 
status. We cannot tolerate such lengthy delays in the processing of 
benefits applications. Such delays are serious problems that we must 
face together and resolve.
    Another serious 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. It is 
completely unnecessary to have such harsh rules. 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 
correct an injustice.
    I urge you to vote for the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003. 
Thank you.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Iowa.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to be recognized 
for the purposes of offering amendment No. 8.
    The Chairman. We have an amendment at the desk. The clerk 
will report the amendment.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1954, offered by Mr. King of 
Iowa:
    In section 2 of the bill, insert after subsection (b) the 
following: (and redesignate provisions accordingly.).
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment goes to 
the section of the bill titled ``Revocation of Citizenship for 
Separation from Military Service Under Other than Honorable 
Conditions.'' .
    This amendment applies the same revocation provision in 
current law for members of the armed services who naturalize 
during periods of hostility to those naturalized in peacetime.
    Under current law, noncitizen members of the Armed Forces 
who naturalize under section 329 of the Immigration Nationality 
Act, which provides for naturalization after service of only 1 
day under hostilities, may have their citizenship revoked if 
they separate from service under less than honorable 
conditions.
    So I believe that, given the shortened time period in this 
bill, back to 1 year for naturalization in peacetime, this 
revocation provision should apply to peacetime naturalization 
under section 328 as well.
    So the reasoning is simple. If we are going to allow 
noncitizens of the Armed Forces to expedite their citizenship, 
requiring only 1 year rather than the current 3 years, we need 
to be sure about their commitment to our military and our 
country. The young men and women who serve honorably should be 
awarded with expedited citizenship. The few who do not serve 
honorably should not receive the same award, and that, Mr. 
Chairman, is the essence of the amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman yield back?
    Mr. King. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I have a question. I would like to move to 
strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I understand the thinking behind the 
amendment, which is not unreasonable, but my concern is this. 
My recollection--I didn't research it before coming in, but the 
primary--I think maybe the only time that citizenship may be 
revoked under current law is when it was obtained through fraud 
and therefore really never occurred.
    I am concerned about what precedent this might set not just 
for military individuals, but also for citizens generally. 
Recently we heard the Attorney General proposing that citizens 
be stripped of their citizenship for political speech and some 
other activities that we think--at least I think are a mark of 
freedom. And I know that the gentleman is not suggesting that 
in this amendment, but I am concerned that this would 
inadvertently start us down that path, and wonder if the 
gentleman has thought about that issue and has researched it.
    Mr. King. Thank you, and if the gentlelady would--I have 
addressed this--if the gentlelady would yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I do yield.
    Mr. King. Thank you. I did address this in my opening 
remarks, that those who acquire citizenship through the 
expedited version, through hostilities for only 1 day of 
service, fall under the same section that addresses the 
revocation of citizenship for less than honorable discharge. So 
those less-than-honorable conditions become extremely 
dishonorable. In fact, it requires an activity that runs 
contrary to honorable service, and that list is somewhat 
extensive but includes such things as rape and murder.
    Ms. Lofgren. All right. And reclaiming my time, I 
appreciate the clarification, and I yield back the time.
    Mr. King. Thank you.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
    The gentleman from California wish to move to strike the 
last word? The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman has 
proposed a very good bill. All sides can find fault with some 
aspect of it, but it is a real effort to try and pull together 
a synthesis of the different proposals that were out there and 
to deal with what I think is a compelling situation.
    And I guess I am asking the Chairman, if the bill moves as 
he has drafted it, without amendment, and we can prevail on our 
side to not make the perfecting amendments that we would like 
to see in there in the recognition of this compromise, would 
the Chairman be prepared to help create a dynamic whereby the 
bill as he has proposed it could move through?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman yield to me?
    Mr. Berman. Okay.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think that probably the best 
thing to do in order to expedite this amendment, or expedite 
this legislation, is not to offer and not to adopt any 
amendments today; but instead to attempt to work on refining 
whatever agreements there have been between now and the time 
this bill goes to the floor.
    And if all Members would forbear on amendments that are 
controversial, including the gentleman from Iowa, we will have 
at least a week, and perhaps two, to figure out what to do on 
this. You know, I really don't want to have this bill saddled 
down with controversial amendments, because if this bill is not 
in shape to get passed on the suspension calendar, my fear is 
that we are talking through June or later in bringing this 
legislation up on the floor, and I think it is important to 
send the proper signal to our service people that we get this 
bill up on the floor as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Berman. If I may just reclaim my time, then, and then I 
will yield to the gentlelady from Texas, I would be prepared--I 
feel very strongly about the issue that I had intended to raise 
by amendment, but if I have the opportunity during the general 
debate to be yielded some additional time just to speak to that 
issue, so that that could be one of the issues that is 
contemplated as we move from here to the floor, and if the 
gentleman from Iowa and others are willing to forbear on their 
proposed amendments, I think in recognition that you tried to 
put together a very good synthesis of all the different 
proposals, that we should go along with your suggestion and 
seek to work out any problems in an effort to get a manager's 
amendment at the time the bill might be taken up, either during 
regular debate time or on suspension on the floor.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have a clarifying amendment which I 
think is extremely important. I guess I want to pose the 
question to the Chairman of the full Committee, with about a 
week's time that we can work through, I guess, a number of 
issues, and I would be happy to be cooperative in this effort, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from California 
who controls the time yield?
    Mr. Berman. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You know, obviously when we move to 
suspend the rules, it can be with the manager's amendment that 
would be agreed to by all sides, and I think that this probably 
would be the best procedure to utilize.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, if I could ask the gentleman from 
California----
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. As you may be aware, Mr. Sensenbrenner, I 
have an amendment that would help the spouse--the clarity of 
the spouse----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. If the gentleman from California 
will yield----
    Mr. Berman. I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. That amendment was agreed to on 
both sides last night. So it certainly is a prime candidate for 
a manager's amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And I will just thank you very much, and I 
know that other Members have amendments as well that they would 
like considered, but thank you very much.
    Mr. Berman. And, Mr. Chairman, before I yield whatever time 
I have remaining, how does the gentleman from Iowa feel about 
all of this? And I would be happy to yield to him for his 
reaction.
    Mr. King. If you would yield, thank you. You know, as I 
listen to this discussion move back and forth, I am concerned--
I would like to see this process move forward, and I recognize 
the interest of both parties in that. I would like to also have 
an understanding that I have an opportunity to offer my 
language at some point.
    Mr. Berman. As I understand the situation, the Chair is 
suggesting we all forbear on offering amendments now, that he 
will work with us between now and when this comes to the floor, 
that if these issues can be worked----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired. Without objection, the gentleman has 2 more minutes.
    Mr. Berman. I thank the gentleman.
    And that if we can work out a satisfactory resolution, they 
will be incorporated into a manager's amendment. I do have to 
say if the Chair seeks to put this on suspension, which I 
assume he might unless there is some serious controversial 
issue remaining, then everything will have to be done through a 
manager's amendment.
    Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
    Mr. Gallegly. I thank the gentleman. I would like to 
address this question to the Chair, with your concurrence.
    Mr. Chairman, would it be your intent that the language, or 
similar language to what Mr. King is proposing, would be made a 
part of the manager's amendment that would be incorporated in 
the bill before--the bill before it would go to----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You know, we will--if the gentleman 
from California--the gentleman from California will further 
yield----
    Mr. Berman. I will.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. We have attempted to have this bill 
reflect a consensus of all of the competing proposals that have 
been introduced, and there are about six bills on this subject 
that have been introduced.
    I can say that what I thought should have been a slam-dunk 
relative to getting agreement ended up causing a whole lot of 
staff time and a lot of compromising being done by the authors 
of all of the bills that had been introduced.
    Certainly the topic of the gentleman from Iowa's amendment 
is relevant in terms of a manager's amendment, but I would like 
to get this bill agreed upon by both sides, and that is going 
to mean that both sides are going to have to bend a bit. If 
there isn't any bending, you know, then I would be forced to 
bring this bill on the floor up under a rule, and that means 
arguing with the leadership to get some time to do it.
    Mr. Gallegly. Would the gentleman further yield?
    Mr. Berman. I will.
    Mr. Gallegly. I certainly agree with my esteemed Chairman 
that the art of legislation and compromise means bending 
sometimes, but not breaking.
    I would yield back the balance of my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to yield and bend but not 
break.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the gentleman 
has 2 more minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. I also have an amendment, and it was in one of 
the bills that was--proceeded the Chairman's compromise bill, 
and it would allow members of the Selective Reserves to be 
included. And I would note that since 9/11, 282,000 Selective 
Reservists have been called to duty. So I would inquire of the 
Chairman whether this amendment might also be considered in the 
weeks between now and the floor.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Well, if the gentleman from 
California will yield, I guess everything is on the table for 
consideration.
    You know, there are two ways to do it. We can either pull 
the bill now and keep on talking about it and dealing with it 
at the next markup, which I think is a bad idea, you know; or 
everybody can forbear and we can talk about it between now and 
the time that it goes to the floor and hopefully reach an 
agreement that would either get a unanimous or a near unanimous 
vote on the floor.
    Ms. Lofgren. Well, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield----
    Mr. Berman. I will.
    Ms. Lofgren. I think some of these amendments--my own, but 
actually Mr. Berman's is even more important--really need to be 
included or we will end up with a situation where family 
members are not going to even be able to attend to the 
gravesites of those who have been lost.
    So I understand the Chairman's desire to get consensus, and 
yet there are some significant issues that need to be dealt 
with. And I am not sure what kind of assurance we have that 
that would be accomplished.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentleman yield to me?
    I guess to bring this matter to a head, plan A is to report 
the bill out without an amendment, and anybody who has an 
amendment can continue negotiating between now and the time we 
go to the floor. Plan B is not to report the bill out today and 
continue negotiating and schedule this bill for the next 
markup.
    Now, may I ask those who are thinking of proposing 
amendments whether they go for plan A or Plan B, and the Chair 
then can decide what to do?
    Mr. Berman. Should we do it all together or----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I guess it would have to be 
unanimous, because there is no way the Chair can prevent the 
offering of amendments by Members of the Committee.
    Mr. Berman. I think it is important enough to move this 
bill, that even though I recognize that--in the case of my 
amendment, my leverage to prevail may not be enhanced by us 
going in this process. I am also not so sure what my leverage 
to prevail is the other way. So I favor plan A. I think we 
ought to use your good offices to try and come to some 
resolution on these different issues.
    I, for instance, am curious. The gentleman from Iowa, is he 
focused on his concern that the 1-year waiting period is not 
long enough to do the appropriate investigation? Are there 
other ways to achieve what he is concerned about than this way? 
These are the kinds of things that we can go through during the 
next week or 10 days.
    Mr. King. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. Berman. I would be happy to.
    Mr. King of Iowa. I am focused simply on the loophole in 
the law that the same revocation that can apply if one receives 
citizenship because of service during a time of military 
conflict, that that revocation can apply also if one receives 
this accelerated citizenship when we move the time back to a 
year. I am comfortable with a year period of time, but I am not 
comfortable with that time span.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentleman has 
expired. I think what we ought to do is go through the regular 
order, and the pending question is the amendment of the 
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. Does anybody wish to discuss the 
King amendment further? The gentleman from Indiana, 
Subcommittee Chair.
    Mr. Hostettler. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate the point 
that Mr. King has just now made. The suggestion was made that 
this is somewhat unusual in current law that an individual 
could be denaturalized other than a finding of fraud; that, in 
fact, the language for the gentleman's amendment comes directly 
from current law in section 329 of the INA. And so that the 
gentleman seeks to only apply law that now is applicable to 
time of conflict and naturalization during a time of conflict 
as it is to apply to the new term, and that is a time of peace. 
And so this is not unprecedented. It is, I would think, an 
issue that should be noncontroversial, given that it is already 
in law today with regard to naturalization during times of 
conflict. So I wanted that clarified for the record, because a 
suggestion was made earlier that this might be somehow unusual. 
So I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman yields back. For what 
purpose does the gentleman from North Carolina seek 
recognition?
    Mr. Coble. Move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman is recognized for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Coble. And I will be very brief. I will speak in favor 
of the amendment and I want to say this to you. Conceptually, I 
agree with what we are trying to do here. But I want us to be 
alert and aware of the fact that this could be abused. And I 
want to avoid leaving the door ajar in the event that the 
tipping hand of abuse does rear its ugly head. But having said 
that, I agree with the gentleman from Iowa, but let us proceed 
very cautiously.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Coble. I would be glad to.
    Mr. Berman. I thank you for yielding. I want to ask a 
question of the author of the amendment. Your point is not that 
if someone happens to end up being separated from service under 
other than honorable conditions, that citizenship will be 
automatically revoked. You are simply wanting to provide 
authority for whom to decide whether or not citizenship should 
be revoked. Who are you trying to give the discretion to, the 
Department of Homeland Security, armed services?
    Mr. King of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. Berman. It is the gentleman from North Carolina's time.
    Mr. Coble. I will yield.
    Mr. King of Iowa. I am seeking to allow that authority to 
go to the same authority that would do the revocation under 
section 329. And it is my understanding that that might happen 
under more than one department, but I would expect that it 
would be initiated under the armed services by possibly the 
Attorney General's Office or Homeland Security.
    Mr. Berman. If the gentleman further yields. Am I correct 
that it is discretionary, it is not automatic? The fact that 
somebody got into a fist fight and was discharged for something 
other than fully honorable circumstances or had one relatively 
minor disciplinary incident will not automatically result in 
the revocation of citizenship? Am I understanding that?
    Mr. King of Iowa. You are correct. And in fact, lines 6 and 
7 say may be revoked and not shall be revoked.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Coble. I will yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. Actually looking at the amendment, I think it 
is exactly the same as the provisions of law that applied for 
naturalization provisions in World War I, World War II, Korea 
and Vietnam under the code. It is the same.
    Mr. Coble. Is that addressed to me or the gentleman from 
Iowa?
    Ms. Lofgren. Actually, it was just a statement. It is 
exactly the same as what is in the code.
    Mr. Coble. I reclaim and yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the King 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed no. Ayes appear 
to have it, the ayes have it and the King amendment is adopted. 
Are there further amendments?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1954 offered by Ms. Jackson 
Lee of Texas. In section 3 of the bill, one, redesignate 
subsection B as subsection C. And 2, insert after subsection A 
the following: B, naturalization----
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. As my 
colleagues----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Would the gentlewoman yield?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be happy yield.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. This is the amendment that was 
agreed to last night on a bipartisan basis and I would urge its 
approval.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
will simply say, in conclusion, so the Members can know what 
this amendment is, this amendment would waive the 3-year 
resident requirement in the case of a lawful permanent resident 
spouse, whose citizen spouse received citizenship posthumously. 
It does so when the person does so in life, and now this will 
do so in death if the individual is in the United States 
military. And we just want to make sure that we treat all 
fairly who have been willing to offer themselves to serve in 
the United States military and protect the value of this 
Nation. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
       Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a 
           Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
    Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a United 
States citizen for a period of 3 years before the lawful permanent 
resident spouse is eligible to apply for naturalization as the spouse 
of a United States citizen. Section 319(d) of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1430(d), 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) reads 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 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.

    This amendment would waive the 3-year residence requirement in the 
case of the lawful permanent resident spouse whose citizen spouse 
receives citizenship posthumously. The only difference between the two 
situations is that the one addressed by current law applies to a 
soldier who receives his citizenship while he is alive, 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. If anything, the posthumous situation is 
more compelling than the other situation. Posthumous citizenship is 
given when a soldier dies during a period of military hostility.
    The amendment also would make technical corrections in the Armed 
Forces Naturalization Act. For instance, as presently written, the bill 
provides benefits to the surviving ``children and parents'' of a 
soldier that was naturalized posthumously. The benefit is intended to 
go to the surviving ``spouse'' also.
    I urge you to vote for this amendment. Thank you.

    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman yield back?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. Those 
in favor will say aye. Opposed no. The ayes appear to have it 
the ayes have it. Are there further amendments. Gentleman from 
Iowa?
    Mr. King of Iowa. I would like to offer amendment number 7.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1954 offered by Mr. King of 
Iowa. In section 329(a)(f) 3 of the Immigration and 
Naturalization Act as added by section 3(a) of the bill, strike 
under this section shall, and insert under this section and who 
is un--who is lawfully.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read and the gentleman from Iowa is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. King of Iowa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment 
goes to the issue of how far we will extend citizenship and 
where we grant an opportunity for citizenship for the spouse, 
the children and the parents of a deceased service man or 
woman. That is also--and this allows for that his extension to 
go on into foreign countries and parents who may not even know 
the whereabouts of their child. What it does is it draws a line 
a little bit than the opening that is there in the bill and it 
may be an inadvertent opening, but it simply says that those 
parents who are lawfully present in the United States, and if 
they have started any citizenship proceedings, they would be 
present in the United States, and we certainly would want to 
preserve that opportunity, but if they happen to live in a 
foreign country, or potentially are in the country illegally 
for one reason or another, then we are rewarding that may not 
be interested citizenship or in fact may have broken our laws. 
So it draws a line and it says if they are lawfully present in 
the United States, and we preserve the opportunity for 
citizenship for those parents who are, but do not extend it for 
those who are not. And I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the adoption of 
the King amendment. Those in favor----
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Number one, I have a copy of the act here and 
it is printed March 2003 and there is at least in this version 
of the Act Number 329(a)(f) that I can find. And it seems to 
be--I guess this is a question, what am I missing here in the 
latest printing of the act and--it is added in the bill, okay. 
Would this preclude someone who is here, let us say the 
individual who is in the armed services who dies has a spouse 
who is--has overstayed her student visa by 6 months and is in 
unlawful status, would that preclude that spouse from taking 
advantage of the provision--the other provisions of the act?
    Mr. King of Iowa. If the gentlelady yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would.
    Mr. King of Iowa. It would be my opinion that it would. We 
are seeking to avoid rewarding illegal behavior. And if they 
are not lawfully present in the United States, they would fall 
underneath this provision.
    Ms. Lofgren. Regaining my time, we would actually be saying 
that the spouse would be deported, unable to attend the grave 
site of the soldier who died in service of the United States?
    Mr. King of Iowa. If the gentlelady would yield. This 
amendment goes only to the parents, not to the spouse or the 
children.
    Ms. Lofgren. So the parents would not be--reclaiming my 
time--attend to the grave site of their son or daughter who 
died in the service of the United States of America?
    Mr. King of Iowa. If the gentlelady would yield.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would yield.
    Mr. King of Iowa. I don't believe there would be any 
provision that prevent the parents from visiting the grave 
site. There just wouldn't be an automatic provision to allow 
access to citizenship.
    Mr. Berman. Would the gentlelady yield? I truly do not 
understand what this amendment is trying to get at. A legal 
permanent resident, or a U.S. Citizen for that matter, who dies 
in combat and has a petition pending to bring his mother in 
from Mexico or India or Great Britain as a permanent immigrant, 
and that is pending and you are saying that we are now going 
to--because she was not lawfully present in the United States 
on the date that that citizen or legally permanent resident 
died in combat, that petition is extinguished. They are 
complying with all the laws. Surely you don't intend to do this 
and why would you want to void that petition? The person is 
waiting in their own country or they were in this country 
legally and returned because the son was in combat to be with 
another sibling who was living in the home country and didn't 
happen to be in the United States at that time.
    Ms. Lofgren. Or to help with the children while the mother 
is off in combat.
    Mr. Berman. I think the gentleman should take a look at the 
language of his amendment and see how it affects the 
petitioning system in a fashion that I can't believe he really 
intends to do.
    Mr. King of Iowa. Would the gentleman yield?
    Ms. Lofgren. The time is mine and I would yield.
    Mr. King of Iowa. This amendment only addresses the 
circumstances for posthumous citizenship, and therefore under 
those circumstances it wouldn't be possible for those 
proceedings to be initiated. They could only be initiated after 
the posthumous citizenship. Those particular circumstances the 
gentleman demonstrated would not apply.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would yield to the gentlelady from Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I guess I see the direction of Chairman 
Sensenbrenner's initial comments about amendments. This started 
out to honor those who were willing to offer their lives. This 
amendment in its complexity and its inability to be understood 
takes away from that honor, but I will cite an example. There 
have been examples of those who wait for a variety of reasons. 
The language that you have indicates be present who is lawfully 
present in the United States on the date of the citizen's 
death. That means that if family members were away on vacation 
or away out tending to business outside of the boundaries of 
the United States and they got a message of their fallen loved 
one, then you are suggesting----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman of 
California has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. And I was just wondering why you would 
want to undermine a bill that was intended to honor to the 
individuals who lost their lives.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the King 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed no. Noes appear 
to have it, and the amendment is not agreed to.
    Mr. King of Iowa. rollcall.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. A rollcall is requested. Those in 
favor of the amendment of the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, 
when your name is called answer aye. Those opposed no and the 
clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith?
    Mr. Smith. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith aye.
    Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly aye.
    Mr. Goodlatte?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus aye.
    Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler aye.
    Mr. Green.
    Mr. Green. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Green aye.
    Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller aye.
    Ms. Hart?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes aye.
    Mr. King.
    Mr. King. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. King aye.
    Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter aye.
    Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney aye.
    Mrs. Blackburn?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Conyers?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman no.
    Mr. Boucher?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler no.
    Mr. Scott?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren?
    Ms. Lofgren. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren no.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee no.
    Ms. Waters?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan no.
    Mr. Delahunt?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin no.
    Mr. Weiner?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez no.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there additional Members who 
wish to cast or change their votes?
    Gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman from Tennessee, Ms. 
Blackburn.
    Mrs. Blackburn. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Blackburn aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Coble.
    Mr. Coble. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. 
Jenkins.
    Mr. Jenkins. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their votes?
    Mr. Berman. For purposes----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. You are interrupting rollcall.
    Mr. Berman. I would like to change from a no to aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members wish to cast or 
change their votes? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 14 ayes and 8 noes.
    Mr. Berman. Point of order.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. State your point of order.
    Mr. Berman. At what point may a Member who voted on the 
prevailing side ask for reconsideration of the vote by which 
the amendment was adopted?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. At any time prior to the bill being 
reported favorably.
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments?
    Mr. Berman. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1954 offered by Mr. Berman and 
Ms. Sanchez. On page 7, strike lines 14--10 to 14 and insert 
the following:
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentleman from California will be 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Mr. Berman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to again state 
that I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to try and create 
a bipartisan process in the negotiations on the bill. I think 
every bill that was introduced, all seven of them, the goals 
were the same. The authors, and I think a strong majority of 
the Congress, and I believe the American public want to reward 
the dedication of lawful permanent residents serving 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. We want to honor the sacrifice of both lawful 
permanent residents and U.S. Citizens who have been killed in 
service, and we are doing it by ensuring that their families 
back in the U.S. Are treated fairly by the country that they 
gave their lives to defend.
    And the bill is a good start. But it has come to my 
attention that there may be some families of these brave 
service members who would not be helped by this bill. This 
morning's New York Times points out one of the provisions that 
this bill lacks for people who do not have proper documents, 
for people whose presence may not be authorized in the United 
States, there is absolutely no waiver authority in this bill, 
and that these people will therefore be rendered 
notwithstanding this bill ineligible for legal permanent 
residency and citizenship.
    We are talking here spouses. We are talking here minor 
children. We are talking about parents. For the universe, the 
very narrow universe of people covered by this bill, my 
amendment would provide the Department of Homeland Security 
with a discretionary waiver, not the mandatory waiver that was 
contained in 245(i) where the different grounds for 
inadmissibility were automatically waived by the bill itself 
and which passed this House narrowly several years ago, but on 
a discretionary basis, give the Homeland Security Department 
the authority to consider whether or not a person whose 
presence in the United States is not authorized, who is an 
immediate relative, a spouse, a parent of a minor child of this 
person who was killed in combat serving in Armed Forces would 
be eligible to receive their visa and have the petition, which 
has been filed on their behalf, continued after the combat 
officer is killed.
    I think written in its discretionary fashion, at the very 
least, we ought to give homeland security for the relatives of 
these heroes--we ought to give them the Department of Homeland 
Security the authority to decide in their particular situation 
that such a waiver is appropriate, and that is what my 
amendment does on a discretionary basis, very much the same as 
Mr. King's amendment gives a discretionary basis to decide 
whether discharge from the military on other than honorable 
circumstances should be a basis for revoking citizenship.
    Discretion in the hands of the executive branch to look at 
the facts of a particular case, I think, are appropriate in 
this situation, again, a very narrow universe and far less than 
many people on this Committee and this House supported in their 
passage of 245(i).
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman yield back. The Chair 
recognizes himself for 5 minutes in opposition to the 
amendment. I must strongly oppose this amendment. The process 
by which this bill was drafted was a remarkable example of 
Members with very different viewpoints about almost every 
conceivable immigration issue coming together in a common 
cause. This common cause was to honor those lawful permanent 
residents who have risked and, in some cases, given their lives 
for the safety of all of us. In doing so, we steered clear of 
divisive issues that put at risk all we are trying to achieve 
in this bill.
    Unfortunately this amendment raises such a divisive and one 
that would imperil this bill's chances of being enacted into 
law. The amendment would explicitly provide benefits for 
illegal aliens. It would waive for certain relatives of those 
granted posthumous citizenship universally applicable principle 
of our immigration law that aliens who have been unlawfully 
present in the United States for over 6 months are inadmissible 
for 3 years, and that aliens who have been unlawfully 
imprisoned in the United States for a year or more are 
inadmissible for 10 years. We should not turn a bill about the 
honorable military service of legal permanent residents into a 
bill about granting benefits to illegal aliens. We should not 
turn the debate on this bill into a debate that would be 
similar to the second debate that the House had last year on 
the 245(i) bill. That debate has had its time and place, but it 
is not now, and I would urge my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment and yield back the balance of my time. Gentlewoman 
from California, Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move to strike the 
last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Sanchez. I am delighted that this Committee has taken 
up the issue of military naturalization. In this country, 
noncitizens have worn our military uniforms and fought in our 
battles throughout our history. As I mentioned during our 
Immigration Subcommittee hearing yesterday, one of my uncles 
served in the military as a legal permanent resident during the 
Korean War. In recent years, the percentage of noncitizens 
serving in our military has been on the rise. The Department of 
Defense now estimates that approximately 3 percent of our 
military are legal permanent residents. It seems only fair to 
recognize and reward these individuals for the sacrifices that 
they have made. 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 very least we can do is give them something in 
return.
    So while I applaud these Committee's effort to do just 
that, I also must encourage us to give just a little bit more. 
The Chairman's bill includes some critical measures. I join 
with the gentleman from California, Mr. Berman, in making a 
small amendment to the underlying bill. In the bill, when 
surviving immediate relative family members are posthumously 
granted citizens or U.S. Citizens who apply for immigration 
benefits, the affidavit of support and public charge ground of 
inadmissibility are waived. Our amendment would add a waiver 
for persons who have failed to meet certain documentation 
requirements provided that those persons are in possession of 
valid documentation.
    In addition, the amendment would include a discretionary 
waiver, not an automatic waiver for three other categories of 
persons as already explained by Mr. Berman. This amendment 
simply recognizes there are people who have made some kind of 
minor mistake with regard to their immigration admissibility or 
status, but that we may want to adjust their status or to 
naturalize. For most of the categories covered by the 
amendment, the Secretary of Homeland Security, would be given 
the final decision on whether to waive inadmissibility. And for 
all of the categories, once a waiver is granted, the immigrant 
would still need to apply through the regular immigration 
channels giving our immigration system plenty of opportunity to 
determine whether this person's application should be approved. 
There is no danger that this amendment would bypass any of the 
checks and balances currently in place in immigration law, and 
in fact, it provides an additional safeguard by making three or 
four categories discretionary. The same narrow waivers are 
included in the Senate version of this bill.
    Again, I thank the Chairman for his leadership on this 
important issue and urge the Members of this Committee to 
accept this amendment. Thank you.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Sanchez. I will yield to the gentlewoman from 
California, Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. In support of the amendment, I think it is 
important to think through the kinds of situations where this 
amendment might come into play. One of the traditional and 
longstanding barriers to legalization is the so-called public 
charge ground. And basically it is an analysis of whether the 
applicant is too poor really to support themselves and that is 
reasonable in the ordinary course of events. But when you take 
a look at how it would apply when you have got a dead soldier, 
I think you have to come to a different conclusion. Most of our 
soldiers are men.
    And in American society, most of the bread winners are men. 
And when the bread winner is killed in defense of the United 
States, it is likely, or at least quite possible, that the 
widow is going to be facing tough financial times. In fact, she 
may be a public charge while she tries to get her life back 
together again. Further, I think it is worth noting that 
depending on the size of the family, public charges--soldiers 
are eligible for food stamps. So even if there wasn't a death 
this isn't an issue. Further, in terms of the ability of the 
Homeland Security Department to do a waiver when the person is 
here without benefit of a valid visa, think through the kind of 
scenarios that can occur.
    I mentioned earlier when discussing Mr. King's amendment, 
if you overstayed your student visa, a likelier situation would 
be your husband is off at war. You have a child or two, you 
have to drop out of school to support yourself and you don't 
have the infrastructure. When you drop out of school you lose 
your status and what we would be saying is that----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
    Ms. Lofgren. Then I would move to strike the last word.
    Mr. Gallegly. I would move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Hostettler. I would like to strike the last word. I 
speak in very strong opposition to this amount. While I am 
strong supporter of the spirit of what we are trying to do in 
the underlying bill, I think that this amendment denigrates the 
effort that we are trying to bring forth in rewarding someone 
for serving in this country, and I think the real purpose of 
this amendment is to circumvent 245(i). And with that, I would 
yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. For what purpose does the 
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, seek recognition?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentlewoman move to strike the last 
word?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. One of the issues that my colleagues are 
raising besides the question of dealing with individuals 
presently out of status is how large a question this really is. 
And again, let me refer the Committee to the bill. It is 
narrowly drafted. The bill deals with individuals who have 
enlisted in the United States military, who have gone into 
combat and in particular have died, and we are responding to 
the needs of their family. This amendment, more narrowly drawn, 
deals with those posthumous grants of citizenship and the 
impact on their families. Additionally, it says that the 
Homeland Security Department may grant a waiver. We are talking 
about a finite, a small number of individuals. Why are we 
trying to block the fullness of this legislation, which is to 
respond to the family members of the deceased? We are not 
trying to respond to his neighbor, his church, his Boy Scout 
troop. We are saying the family member, small, definitive. Can 
you not, in this limited way, and I don't want to speak for the 
proponents of this legislation, but I imagine they may want to 
work with you legislatively. This is a very small number of 
individuals that we are dealing with and it is narrowly drawn.
    It is limited, and I would ask my colleagues to consider 
what we are trying to do is to deal with the now deceased 
individual who offered his or her life for this country. I 
believe that is the minimal we can do to make sure his 
particular family is taken care of. With that I yield to the 
gentlewoman from California.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would just note that while the numbers will 
be small and the amendment only provides a discretionary 
process for the Department of Homeland Security, it is not a 
mandatory situation, the tragedy that it could prevent is 
worthy of our consideration. You know, when soldiers are killed 
in battle, it is a big deal. I mean, it is a big deal to the 
country and it is also a big deal in the community to honor 
those who were lost. If the widow has dropped out of school and 
is out of status, she and their children are going to become 
known. Their pictures are going to be in the newspaper because 
of their hero who lost his life. When that happens, that widow 
and her children are going to be subject to deportation because 
the widow dropped out of school when the husband went over to 
fight.
    Under the current law, there is no provision to allow for a 
waiver in that situation, let alone the ability to take 
advantage of what I think is very decent in this bill, the 
ability to regularize one status and the posthumous citizenship 
requirements. When that situation occurs we will all be ashamed 
that we have not provided for an opportunity for the widow to 
be accommodated for her to remain and care for the grave of her 
lost hero, to maintain her faith in the country he lost his 
life for. This is a small matter and in terms of numbers, but 
it is not a small number in terms of the right thing to do. And 
I would hope that Members would consider this. The bill is very 
good, but this small oversight can be corrected. And I thank 
the gentlelady for yielding.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman yields back?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me just conclude by saying I don't 
know why we are trying to stray off the path. We can help a 
narrow group of individuals for someone who lost their life in 
the service of this country.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair is informed there will be 
votes on the floor in 10 minutes and would prevail about upon 
the Members to try to bring this bill up to a vote on favorably 
reporting it before we all have to go over to the floor. 
Gentleman from New York.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I strongly urge 
support for this amendment and I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Berman. Thank the gentleman for yielding. 10 legal 
permanent residents were killed in combat so far. I am not sure 
what the total fatalities are, but it is approximately 150. 
This is the universe we are limited to. We are talking about 
giving the Department of Homeland Security the authority, the 
discretion, not as the Chairman I think mistakenly said, we are 
not waiving, we are giving the authority to waive the bar on 
admissibility and on adjustment for unlawful presence in the 
Department of Homeland Security discretion to a limited group 
of people for whom petitions have already been filed in almost 
all these cases.
    Petitions are now pending. If the mere assertion of the 
word ``illegal alien'' can so chill anybody's sense of 
appropriate justice and an understanding of the situation in 
this country at this particular time, then we are going to 
automatically deny without giving the Department of Homeland 
Security, not the Department of Liberal Humanitarianism, the 
Department of Homeland Security, the chance to decide maybe 
there is a case maybe there is a spouse, a parent or minor 
child, notwithstanding their unauthorized presence in this 
country, should be allowed to adjust if, for no other reason, 
have that person's son, father, spouse died in combat. It is a 
sad statement, and certainly shows we will have very little 
capacity in this Congress to deal with the presence of probably 
8 to 10 million unauthorized aliens when we can't even provide 
this modicum of discretion to the Department of Homeland 
Security for the 150 or so people who may have--some of whom 
have petitions to bring in relatives. I yield back.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Question is on the Berman 
amendment. Those in favor will say aye. Opposed no. The noes 
appear to have it. The noes have it. The amendment is not 
agreed to. Are there further amendments. Gentleman from 
California.
    Mr. Berman. I move to strike the last word.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Berman. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support this bill 
notwithstanding the failure of this bill to contain my 
amendment, but I do want to say that I think the adoption of 
the King amendment which gratuitously denies a parent 
admissibility. If they happen not to be on the United States on 
the date that their son or daughter was killed in combat makes 
no sense whatsoever. And I simply want to say that a lot of us 
are going to think about how we want to deal with this in terms 
of the House floor. And I would urge the gentleman from Iowa to 
rethink this, the second of his two amendments. And since that 
person----
    Mr. King of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. Berman.--that parent may have done nothing illegal. 
They may have been waiting outside the country for their visa 
to come up.
    Mr. King of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield.
    Mr. Berman. Yes.
    Mr. King of Iowa. Thank you. In the interest of really 
justice and humanity, it has been pointed out to me that the 
language in my amendment might inadvertently include someone 
who was outside the country maybe by virtue--and so there has 
been a suggestion made to me and I would--if you would indulge 
me--offer--ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to 
include language that would protect that type of an 
eventuality, and it would read a lawful immigrant described 
under section--if I could read it here--section that addresses 
those that are in the country legally under temporary visa 
holders' H1Bs, vacation, business, student visas, et cetera, 
and also include parolees and asylees. And I think that might 
address the gentleman's concern.
    Mr. Berman. If I may reclaim my time.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would object.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman asked unanimous 
consent. An objection is heard.
    Mr. Berman. I would suggest that just because this is a 
complicated subject that requires some review of the law, I 
would ask the gentleman seeking unanimous consent to withdraw 
this amendment, not the first one we adopted, this amendment, 
for the purposes of at least allowing us to look at this for a 
possible manager's amendment by the Chairman. So I would ask 
you to offer a unanimous consent request to withdraw your 
amendment.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman 
from California.
    Mr. Berman. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa.
    Mr. King of Iowa. This amendment was fairly and intensely 
debated and I would prefer working to improve the language with 
the manager on the floor rather than remove this language in it 
entirety, but thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Would the gentleman yield.
    Mr. Berman. Yes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to associate myself with the words 
of Mr. Berman. Since we have a meeting going on right now that 
I will have to depart----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. I think we are on the last 
amendment.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I want to say that this does breach, if 
you will, the spirit of the bipartisan effort that we have 
made. I hope that Mr. King will see his way clear to withdraw 
his amendment or work with Chairman Sensenbrenner and others 
and be glad to work with you on what you have really done to 
this legislation with that amendment. And I would cautiously 
not be supportive of this bill as we move forward with that 
amendment in it. And I yield back to Mr. Berman.
    Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield? Could you yield for 
the purposes of offering my amendment?
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
    Mr. Berman. I am told I can't. In that case, I will yield 
back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments?
    Ms. Lofgren. I have an amendment at the desk.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the 
amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 1954 offered by Ms. Lofgren. 
In section 2 of the bill, insert after subsection B the 
following and redesignate provisions accordingly. C, 
naturalization----
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is 
considered as read. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    [The amendment follows:]
    
    
    Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I believe this amendment makes 
the bill a stronger one. It would ensure the ability of members 
of the selective reserves to expedite their naturalization 
applications during times of hostility just like members of the 
armed services can under the Chairman's bill. There is little 
difference between selective reservists and members of the 
Armed Forces, especially in times of hostility.
    So why should we treat them differently now? Like members 
of the Armed Forces, selective reservists have to be ready to 
leave family and friends and familiar surroundings at a 
moment's notice. Like members of the Armed Forces, selective 
reservists have to risk their lives in combat, fight for their 
country and, in some cases, die for their country. Currently 
all members of the Armed Forces are subject to expedited 
naturalization benefits during times of hostility regardless of 
whether they are actually engaged in the armed conflict.
    The argument is that a member of the armed services can be 
called to duty at a moment's notice. In other words, an Armed 
Forces member can be training at a camp in the United States 
during times of hostility and become immediately eligible for 
naturalization without having set foot in the theater of war. A 
member of the selective reserve may be in the United States and 
similarly subject to the call of active duty at a moment's 
notice. However, under the bill, they would not also become 
eligible for expedited naturalization benefits, like members of 
the Armed Forces training at a U.S. Camp. The reality of being 
called to duty at a moment's notice just like members of the 
armed services has become a reality for so many selective 
reservists in recent hostilities.
    Selective reservists called up in Somalia were 343. During 
Bosnia, over 28,000, Kosovo over 9,000. And selective 
reservists in Afghanistan and Iraq included 218,284. Moreover a 
member of the selective reserves makes many sacrifices that 
those in the armed services may not have to endure. Many 
usually work a full-time job of their own while balancing 
training schedules which they must accomplish during their own 
time. As we know, citizenship comes with various privileges not 
enjoyed by legal permanent residents.
    Without citizenship, selective reservists eager to serve 
their positions are precluded from senior positions and cannot 
receive security clearances. You know, the Army and all our 
armed services has changed over the years. We increasingly rely 
on our reserves more than we did in the past, and I know I 
have, and I am sure other Members of the Committee have gone to 
visit our reserves on weekends and during breaks. And we know 
that they are actually functioning exactly like the Armed 
Forces, the actual Army at this point.
    I think the bill would be a stronger one if we were to 
recognize that fact and that is what the amendment does, and I 
would yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself in 
opposition to the amendment. Immigration law has long provided 
the unique benefit for permanent residents who are deployed in 
active duty status during times of military conflict. These 
permanent residents are granted the immediate ability to seek 
naturalization as soon as they are so deployed. The required 5-
year period as a permanent resident is completely waived and 
the peacetime requirement of first having served 3 years in the 
military is also waived. The reason we do this is because 
soldiers who serve in active duty during wartime accept a 
heightened level of risk to their lives and show a heightened 
level of commitment to the United States that deserve special 
recognition.
    The higher recognition is called for in peacetime service 
or for reserve service. That is why we made the collective 
decision not to completely waive the requirement of prior 
military service in order for a soldier to naturalize during 
peacetime. And that is why we should not waive the requirement 
for soldiers who serve in the reserves but not in active duty 
during wartime. Remember, a day a reservist is called up to 
active duty during wartime, he or she can immediately seek 
naturalization.
    But reserve service alone should not confer this benefit. I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and yield back the 
balance of my time. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from California Ms. Lofgren. Those in favor 
will say aye. Opposed no. Noes appear to have it.
    Ms. Lofgren. I would like a recorded vote.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Those in favor of the Lofgren 
amendment will as your names are called, answer aye. Those 
opposed no and the clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hyde?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble?
    Mr. Coble. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Coble no.
    Mr. Smith?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly.
    Mr. Gallegly. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly no.
    Mr. Goodlatte?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins no.
    Mr. Cannon.
    Mr. Cannon. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Cannon no.
    Mr. Bachus?
    Mr. Bachus.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler.
    Mr. Hostettler. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler no.
    Mr. Green.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller.
    Mr. Keller. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Keller no.
    Ms. Hart?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes.
    Mr. Forbes. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Forbes no.
    Mr. King.
    Mr. King. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. King no.
    Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Carter no.
    Mr. Feeney.
    Mr. Feeney. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Feeney no.
    Mrs. Blackburn?
    Mrs. Blackburn. No.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Blackburn no.
    Mr. Conyers?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman.
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Boucher?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Nadler. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Nadler aye.
    Mr. Scott?
    Mr. Scott. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Scott aye.
    Mr. Watt?
    Mr. Watt. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Watt aye.
    Ms. Lofgren.
    Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren aye.
    Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Jackson Lee aye.
    Ms. Waters?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan.
    Mr. Meehan. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Meehan aye.
    Mr. Delahunt?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin.
    Ms. Baldwin. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Baldwin aye.
    Mr. Weiner?
    [no response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff?
    Mr. Schiff. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Schiff aye.
    Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez aye.
    Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. No. Are there Members who wish to 
cast or change their vote? Gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith
    Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot.
    Mr. Chabot. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chabot no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Bachus.
    Mr. Bachus. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Bachus no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change? Gentleman from California, Mr. Berman.
    Mr. Berman. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Berman aye.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Flake.
    Mr. Flake. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Flake no.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or 
change their vote? If not, the clerk will report.
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 16 noes.
    Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to. 
Are there further amendments? There are no further amendments, 
the Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum. The 
question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 1954 
favorably as amended. All in favor will say aye. Opposed no. 
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it and the motion to 
report favorably is adopted. Without objection, the bill will 
be reported favorably to the House in the form of a single 
amendment in the nature of a substitute incorporating the 
amendments adopted here today.
    Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to move to go 
to conference pursuant to House rules. Without objection, the 
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes 
and all Members will be given 2 days as provided by the House 
rules in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental, 
or minority views. The Chair thanks the Members for their 
cooperation during this markup. We have accomplished a lot 
today due to the cooperation of everybody. The Committee is 
adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                             Minority Views

    H.R. 1954, The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, 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. We are 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 non-citizen 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 non-
citizens.\1\ Unfortunately, the rigidness of current 
immigration laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers 
who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In 
particular, a non citizen 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 non-citizen soldier is killed while 
serving in our military; current law would void most pending 
applications for immigration benefits filed on behalf of the 
fallen soldier's immediate family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Citizenship Now Easier For Foreign-Born Soldiers, http://
www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Aug2002/a20020812citizenship2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  See also: Sylvia Moreno, ``Immigrant Marine Fights For Citizenship; 
Application Denied Because of Mistakes,'' Washington Post; April 15, 
2003.
    H.R. 1954 makes many meaningful improvements to existing 
law. However, we 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 in 
some cases we will be deporting 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 inadmissability 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.
    We further believe that this bill does not go far enough in 
extending immigration benefits to all non-citizens 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.\2\ 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 Selected 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 
Selected 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 our country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ 8 U.S.C. 1440 (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  See also: Exec. Order No. 13,269, 67 Fed. Reg. 45287 (July 8, 2002), 
Designation of period beginning September 11, 2001 as time of 
hostility.
    We take great issue with two amendments added to this 
legislation by Rep. Steve King. The first amendment will allow 
for the 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, but permitting revocation 
of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would 
punish service members in a way does not currently exist for 
soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of 
service during a time of peace. We 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 non-citizens 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 Rep. King 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 and parents who reside lawfully 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.
    We are pleased that this committee has taken up the issue 
of military naturalization. However, we 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 committee would 
punish non-citizen 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. We hope that 
these issues will be resolved before this legislation goes to 
the floor so that we may send the proper message to our brave 
Servicemen and Servicewomen.

                                   John Conyers, Jr.
                                   Howard L. Berman.
                                   Robert C. Scott.
                                   Melvin L. Watt.
                                   Zoe Lofgren.
                                   Sheila Jackson Lee.
                                   Maxine Waters.
                                   William D. Delahunt.
                                   Anthony D. Weiner.
                                   Linda T. Sanchez.

                                   - 
