[House Report 108-529]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 108-529
======================================================================
RELIEF OF TANYA ANDREA GOUDEAU
_______
June 8, 2004.--Referred to the Private Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 530]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 530) for the relief of Tanya Andrea Goudeau, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment
and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 1
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 1
Hearings......................................................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 2
Vote of the Committee............................................ 2
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 2
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 2
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 3
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 3
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 3
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 3
Agency Views..................................................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Markup Transcript................................................ 7
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 530 would allow Tanya Andrea Goudeau to become a
permanent resident of the United States.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Tanya was born on December 6, 1984, in Sri Lanka. Tanya's
natural father deserted her and her mother when she was 3 years
old. Eventually her natural mother left to live in Italy,
leaving her in the care of her elderly grandmother. Tanya's
adoptive parents (Roger and Dee Goudeau), became aware of her
unstable home life when she was 6 years old. Upon finding out
that food was becoming scarce and Tanya was no longer attending
school, they initiated adoption proceedings. Although they
became her official guardians prior to her 16th birthday, the
adoption was not finalized until February 5, 2001.
In order for an adoptee to lawfully immigrate to the United
States, the immigration law requires an adoption to have
occurred prior to the age of 16. Because Tanya's adoption was
not completed until after her 16th birthday, she needs a
private bill to gain permanent residence.
The precedent concerning adoption cases is well-
established. Precedent dictates that in order for favorable
consideration of a private bill that allows an adoption to be
considered legitimate for immigration purposes, the adoption
must have been initiated prior to the child's turning 16 and
must be finalized. It is clear from the documentation provided
to the Committee that the Goudeaus were actively proceeding
with the adoption prior to Tanya's 16th birthday.
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 530 in the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Committee Consideration
On May 11, 2004, the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims met in open session and ordered favorably
reported the bill H.R. 530 without an amendment, by a voice
vote, a quorum being present. On May 12, 2004, the Committee
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill
H.R. 530 without an 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 that there
were no recorded votes during the committee consideration of
H.R. 530.
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.
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. 530, 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 13, 2004.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
reviewed four pieces of private relief legislation that were
ordered reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on May
12, 2004. CBO estimates that their enactment would have no
significant impact on the federal budget. This legislation
could have a very small effect on fees collected by the Bureau
of Citizenship and Immigration Services and on benefits paid
under certain federal entitlement programs. These fees and
expenditures are classified as direct spending. The legislation
reviewed is as follows:
LH.R. 530, a bill for the relief of Tanya
Andrea Goudeau;
LH.R. 712, a bill for the relief of Richi
James Lesley;
LH.R. 867, a bill for the relief of
Durreshahwar Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hasan, Anum
Hasan, and Iqra Hasan; and
LS. 103, an act for the relief of Lindita
Idrizi Heath.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
530 will allow Tonya Andrea Goudeau to become a permanent
resident of the United States.
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 I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the
Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Section 1. Permanent Resident Status for Tanya Andrea Goudeau
Section 1(a) classifies Tanya Andrea Goudeau as a child
under the Immigration and Nationality Act for purposes of
approval of an immediate relative visa petition filed by her
adoptive parent and the filing of an application for an
immigrant visa or adjustment of status.
Section 1(b) provides that if Tanya Andrea Goudeau enters
the U.S. before the filing deadline specified in subsection
(c), she shall be considered to have entered and remained
lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for
adjustment of status to that of a permanent resident.
Section 1(c) provides that subsections (a) and (b) shall
apply only if the application for an immigrant visa or for
adjustment of status is filed within 2 years of the date of
enactment.
Section 1(d) provides that upon the granting of an
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Tanya Andrea Goudeau,
the Secretary of State shall reduce by one during the current
or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant
visas that are made available to natives of the country of her
birth.
Section 1(e) provides that the natural parents, brothers,
and sisters of Tanya Andrea Goudeau shall not, by virtue of
such relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status
under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section. 2. Eligibility for Citizenship
For purposes of section 320 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (regarding the automatic acquisition of
citizenship), Tanya Andrea Goudeau shall be considered to have
satisfied the requirements applicable to adopted children.
Agency Views
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, the Committee notes H.R. 530
makes no changes to existing law.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 2004
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.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A
quorum is present.
[Intervening business.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The next item on the agenda is the
adoption of private bills. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, the Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, for a motion.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims reports favorably the
bills H.R. 710, H.R. 712, H.R. 530, H.R. 867, and H.R. 509 and
moves their favorable recommendation to the full House.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, H.R. 710, H.R.
712, H.R. 530, H.R. 867 and Senate 103 will be considered en
bloc. We are substituting Senate 103 for H.R. 509 because H.R.
509 is identical to the Senate 503. By making this
substitution, we will ensure faster enactment of an identical
bill.
Without objection, the en bloc private bills will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 530, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, to strike the last word.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the outset, I wish to commend the work of the Ranking
Member, Ms. Jackson Lee, as well as all of the Members of the
Subcommittee for their work in bringing these bills to the full
Committee.
Let me give some background on the four private immigration
bills and one private claims bill that we will consider en
bloc.
H.R. 710 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
pay Mrs. Florence Narusewicz $28,000. Mrs. Narusewicz is the
widow of Leo Narusewicz, who fought in World War II and was a
Purple Heart recipient.
In June 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded
Mr. Narusewicz $28,000 in disability benefits retroactive to
his discharge in 1945. On July 24th, 2000, the Department
mailed the first of two $14,000 checks to Mr. Narusewicz. After
Mrs. Narusewicz informed the Department that her husband had
died on July 12, 2000, her checks were immediately cancelled.
This case mirrors the situation of two other women that the
106th Congress passed a private law to assist.
S. 103 would allow Lindita Idrizi Heath to become a
permanent resident of the United States. Ms. Heath was born in
1984, in the former Yugoslavia. She was a refugee residing in
Germany when she was adopted by Dennis and Mary Jo Heath.
Lindita entered the United States on July 2, 2001, under a
grant of humanitarian parole and has been residing in Maryland
with the Heaths since that day.
Under U.S. immigration law, an adoption of a foreign child
must occur prior to the age of 16. Unfortunately, Lindita's
adoption was finalized after her sixteenth birthday. Private
bill precedent dictates that in order to make an adoption
legitimate for immigration purposes, the adoption must have
been at least initiated prior to the child's turning age 16.
The Heaths meet this condition. They were actively proceeding
with Lindita's adoption prior to her sixteenth birthday.
H.R. 712 would allow Richi James Lesley to become a
permanent resident of the United States. Mr. Lesley was born in
1977 in Korea to an unknown U.S. serviceman and a Korean woman.
They put him up for adoption, and later that year he was
adopted by U.S. Air Force Sergeant James Doyle Lesley and his
wife in Korea.
In 1978, Sergeant Lesley was killed in a fishing accident.
When his wife became unable to care for their children, the Air
Force, with her consent, transported Richi and his sister to
America for placement with their adopted father's mother. Richi
and his sister resided with his grandmother and, after her
death, with other family and friends from the time he was 1
year old until he attended college. He did not realize that he
was not a U.S. citizen until the INS began deportation
proceedings against him in 2000. Richi has been here since he
was an infant and has no memory of ever living anywhere but the
United States. His only remedy is a private bill.
H.R. 530 would allow Tanya Andrea Goudeau to become a
permanent resident of the United States. Tanya was born in 1984
in Sri Lanka. Her natural father deserted her and her mother
when she was 3 years old. Eventually, her natural mother left
for Italy, leaving her in the care of her elderly grandmother.
Tanya's aunt and uncle brought Tanya to the United States when
she was 14 and immediately commenced adoption proceedings. The
adoption was finalized 5 days after her 16th birthday.
H.R. 867 would grant permanent residence to Durreshahwar
Durreshahwar, Nida Hasan, Asna Hassan, Anum Hasan and Iqra
Hasan. In 1983, Waqar Hassan came to the United States and
later brought his wife and four daughters to join him. Mr.
Hassan helped manage service stations on a work visa and had a
pending application for adjustment of status for himself and
his family. On September 15th, 2001, in reaction to the events
of September 11th, an unstable man killed Mr. Hassan. Because
Mr. Hassan was the petitioner for the family's adjustment, that
petition became invalid upon his death. Therefore, under
current law, his wife and four daughters who live in suburban
New Jersey face removal from the United States.
This private bill, on behalf of the family, would not set
any bad precedent. Though he did not die at the World Trade
Center or the Pentagon, Mr. Hassan was indeed a victim of the
events of September 11th. The Committee is preceding with this
bill only because the murder is linked to 9/11. It is
inappropriate, generally, for Congress to pass private bills to
give status to the families of noncitizens because those
noncitizens were killed while in the United States.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
Jackson Lee?
Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the distinguished Chairman, and I
thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims for cooperating and working collectively
on these legislative initiatives.
Let me quickly ask unanimous consent for the totality of my
statement to be put into the record.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection.
[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
Florence Narusewicz is the widow of Leo Narusewicz, a World War II
veteran. In June of 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
awarded Leo a disability pension and made the pension retroactive to
his military discharge in 1945. The total pension was $28,000, which
was to be paid in two checks, but Leo died 12 days before the VA mailed
the first of the two checks on July 24, 2000. When Mrs. Narusewicz
notified the VA about Leo's death, the VA cancelled the two checks and
informed Mrs. Narusewicz that she was only entitled to benefits dating
back two years, which was an amount much less than the $28,000 her
husband had been awarded.
I agree that a private bill is warranted to award the entire
disability payment to Mrs. Narusewicz.
Lindita Idrizi Heath was a Kosovo refugee living in Germany when
she was adopted by Dennis and Mary Jo Heath. Lindita entered the United
States on July 2, 2001, under a grant of humanitarian parole. She has
been living with her family in Maryland since then.
The adoption was not finalized until June 2001, which was after
Lindita had reached the age of 16. Because the adoption was not
finalized until after her 16th birthday, it is not recognized under
immigration law. The record indicates, however, that the Heaths were
actively proceeding with the adoption prior to Lindita's 16th birthday,
which apparently satisfies the accepted standard for a private bill in
adoption cases, assuming that the circumstances are sympathetic.
I agree that a private bill is warranted in the circumstances of
this case, but a better approach for future cases would be to modify
the definition of an ``adopted child'' in section 101(b)(1)(F) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). If we made the ``adopted child''
definition more flexible, we would not have to enact private bills to
avoid harsh, unwarranted consequences in cases such as this one.
Richi James Lesley was born to an unknown United States serviceman.
On August 29, 1977, he was adopted by another serviceman in Korea,
Sergeant James Doyle Lesley. A year later, Sergeant Lesley was killed
in an accident. The United States Air Force transported Richi to the
United States where he resided with his grandmother from the time he
was a year old until he attended college. He did not know he was in the
United States unlawfully until the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) initiated deportation proceedings against him in the year
2000. His only avenue for relief now is a private bill. I am very
sympathetic to Richi's plight and will vote in favor of his bill.
Tanya Andrea Goudeau is an 18-year-old native and citizen of Sri
Lanka. Tanya's father deserted her and her mother when she was only
three years old. Then, her mother left her too, leaving her in the care
of her elderly grandmother. Tanya's aunt Dee and Dee's husband Roger
Goudeau became Tanya's official guardian before she reached the age of
16, but they did not finalize an adoption until after she had reached
the age of 16, which is too late for immigration purposes. This is
another example of the harsh consequences that are caused by the rigid
definition of an ``adopted child'' in section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA.
As was true in the case of Lindita Idrizi Heath, a private bill is the
only avenue available to Tanya for obtaining permanent resident status.
I will vote in favor of this bill too.
Waqar Hasan, a Pakistani man who was the head of the Hasan family,
was murdered four days after September 11, 2001, for no reason other
than that he was a Muslim. Killing him did not bring back the lives of
the people who had died on 9/11. It was a savage, pointless act of
terror that ended his life and shattered the lives of his wife and four
teenage daughters. After living in this country for nine years, Mrs.
Hasan lost her husband and the four children lost a father; and they
all lost their only avenue for becoming lawful permanent residents of
the United States. I agree that this situation warrants a private bill
and will vote to grant the Hasan family legal permanent residence in
the United States.
Thank you.
Ms. Jackson Lee. But I would like to summarize and offer
these thoughts on H.R. 710, which is a claims bill. And just to
emphasize to my colleagues that these legislative private bills
clearly are to correct a harm or undoing that was not the doing
of the individual petitioner. And I would the same for Mrs.
Narusewicz, that in actuality her husband died 12 days before
the VA mailed the first of two checks, and when she petitioned
to receive those monies, she was denied by the VA. There is no
other option for her to be made whole, and we applaud that.
Let me also suggest that the family dealing with Lindita,
the adoption was not finalized until June 2001, which was after
Lindita had reached the age of 16. Because the adoption was not
finalized until after her sixteenth birthday, it is not
recognized under immigration law.
It is important to note that that is a fix that needs to
occur with respect to adoption laws, so that children who are
in line will not opt out of being able to be United States
citizens.
Let me also say that this applies to Tanya, the 18-year-old
who mistakenly did not finalize her adoption papers, and
likewise found herself too late to be able to become a citizen
of the United States.
They are laws that need to be modified, and I look forward
to working with my colleagues in offering legislation, as well
as joining on legislation existing, to help modify that
particular problem.
Also, we find Mr. Hassan, who was tragically killed simply
because he was a Muslim, simply because he was a Muslim, after
9/11, and obviously there is no remedy for his family in that
he was the petitioner to secure the citizenship or the
legalization of his family. So Mr. Hassan also states a problem
with our immigration laws that could be fixed with
comprehensive immigration reform, which I hope this Committee
will have the opportunity to review in H.R. 3918. I support all
of these legislative initiatives, including H.R. 867.
I thank Mr. Holt, from New Jersey, for his leadership on
the Hassan and all of the other Members, and I would ask my
colleagues to support these legislative initiatives, and I
would yield to the distinguished lady from California for some
comments.
Ms. Lofgren. I thank the gentlelady.
I support these measures, but I did want to address also
the issue of the adoption measures. We have two private bills
that would grant legal permanent residence status to children
whose adoptions were initiated prior to their sixteenth
birthday, but finalized after they turned 16.
Now, I agree that we ought to approve these measures
because adoptions can be long and difficult processes,
especially when adoptions are multinational. I think it is a
mistake for our law to rely on highly variable adoption time
frames to determine a child's immigration status. And when you
think about it, think about our won families. If your child--
natural child--had been adopted, and it was finalized when they
were sixteen and a half and that child, under law, had to go
back to some country he or she didn't even remember, that would
seem ridiculous to you.
And so that's why we have these bills before us. And I
think it is a good thing that this Committee can take time away
from passing laws of general application to granting justice to
individual families who cannot get justice. But I would ask
that Members of this Committee consider very strongly
cosponsoring a bill that I plan to introduce this week that
would change the law relative to adoptions.
I think it is problematic that the only families to get
relief from the adoption rule are those families who happen to
know a Member of Congress well enough to get a private bill
introduced, and heard, and then passed. I think that we ought
to make sure that the law, relative to adoptions and legalizing
the children of adoptive parents, includes adoptions that are
initiated before the age of 16. We ought not to punish families
because court processes take a long time or the Immigration
Service is bureaucratic. We ought to exalt family life by
making sure that the initiative of the adoption is what counts
for keeping parents and their adoptive children together.
So I wanted to let Members of the Committee know that we
will be introducing that bill later this week. I hope that
every Member of this Committee might consider cosponsoring the
bill.
With that, I would happily support these measures and yield
back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Without objection, all Members' opening statements will be
placed in the record at this point.
Are there amendments to any of the bills?
The gentleman from New York?
Mr. Nadler. I would like to ask Mr. Hostettler a question.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York strikes
the last word and is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I support all of these bills. I want to
express my agreement, in one sentence, with Ms. Lofgren. Every
one of these bills shows an amendment that ought to be made to
the law because you shouldn't need to know a Member of Congress
because the law creates such a terrible result that you need a
special private bill. The law ought not to create such terrible
results. We ought to amend the law.
One thing that the gentleman from Indiana said, I want to
ask him why he said that. He said that on the bill that allows
the family of this man who was murdered to continue to apply to
regularize, adjust--to adjust I think is the phrase--the
status, he said it would be inappropriate to do this for other
crime victims who are not connected to 9/11. I wonder why.
If someone is here as a legal immigrant, has a green card,
et cetera, and under the law has the right to bring his family,
and he brings his family, and they are here, and he gets shot
in a bank robbery or otherwise killed or, for that matter, in
an automobile accident, why should those people be subject to
deportation? What is different than this situation?
Mr. Hostettler. If the gentleman would yield. This would
establish a precedent that just like the adoptions we would
amend the law with regard to the very same situation that
you're talking about. There comes a point where the law is the
law and that if that law is violated, once again, through no
fault of their own, but is nonetheless violated----
Mr. Nadler. Reclaiming my time. You're exactly right--
through no fault of their own, and yet you said, you seemed to
say--maybe you didn't mean it. I hope you didn't--that it is
different because this man was murdered only because of
emotions arising from 9/11. It was a hate crime. But if he was
murdered because someone wanted to steal his money, then it
would be appropriate to deport his family? I don't see the
difference. I think, I would hope--I'm not going to put you on
the spot--I would hope that we would all consider amending the
law so that someone who played by the rules, came to this
country legally, has a green card, is living here, brings his
family here and then is murdered or, for that matter, gets
killed in a car accident, it doesn't mean the family has to be
deported. It seems to me the same situation as in this very
worthy bill.
I thank you, and I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments to any of the
bills?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Good. A reporting quorum is
present. The question occurs on the motion to report the en
bloc private bills H.R. 710, H.R. 712, H.R. 530, H.R. 867, and
Senate 103 favorably.
All those in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. And the
motion to report the en bloc private bills favorably is
adopted.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the Chairman is
authorized to move to go to conference pursuant to House rules
with respect to each separate bill. Without objection, the
staff is directed to make any technical and conforming changes
with respect to each separate bills and all Members will be
given 2 days, as provided by House rules, in which to submit
additional dissenting supplemental or minority views with
respect to each separate bill.