[House Report 109-99]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 109-99
======================================================================
TO PROVIDE SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR ALIENS SERVING AS TRANSLATORS
WITH THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
_______
May 26, 2005.--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. 2293]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 2293) to provide special immigrant status for aliens
serving as translators with the United States Armed Forces,
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.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Vote of the Committee............................................ 3
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 5
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 5
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 6
Markup Transcript................................................ 6
Minority Views................................................... 23
The Amendment
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR PERSONS SERVING AS TRANSLATORS
WITH UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) In General.--For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), subject to subsection (c)(1), the Secretary of
Homeland Security may provide an alien described in subsection (b) with
the status of a special immigrant under section 101(a)(27) of such Act
(8 U.S.C. 1101(a(27)), if the alien--
(1) files with the Secretary of Homeland Security a petition
under section 204 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1154) for
classification under section 203(b)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1153(b)(4)); and
(2) is otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is
otherwise admissible to the United States for permanent
residence, except in determining such admissibility, the
grounds for inadmissibility specified in section 212(a)(4) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)) shall not apply.
(b) Aliens Described.--
(1) Principal aliens.--An alien is described in this
subsection if the alien--
(A) is a national of Iraq or Afghanistan;
(B) worked directly with United States Armed Forces
as a translator for a period of at least 12 months;
(C) obtained a favorable written recommendation from
the first General or Flag officer in the chain of
command of the United States Armed Forces unit that was
supported by the alien; and
(D) prior to filing the petition described in
subsection (a)(1), cleared a background check and
screening, as determined by the first General or Flag
officer in the chain of command of the United States
Armed Forces unit that was supported by the alien.
(2) Spouses and children.--An alien is described in this
subsection if the alien is the spouse or child of a principal
alien described in paragraph (1), and is following or
accompanying to join the principal alien.
(c) Numerical Limitations.--
(1) In general.--The total number of principal aliens who may
be provided special immigrant status under this section during
any fiscal year shall not exceed 50.
(2) Counting against special immigrant cap.--For purposes of
the application of sections 201 through 203 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151-1153) in any fiscal year,
aliens eligible to be provided status under this section shall
be treated as special immigrants described in section
101(a)(27) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)) who are not
described in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (K) of such
section.
(d) Application of Immigration and Nationality Act Provisions.--The
definitions in subsections (a) and (b) of section 101 of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) shall apply in the
administration of this section.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2293 would provide special immigrant status to a
limited number of Iraqis and Afghanistanis who have served as
translators for the U.S. Armed Forces.
Background and Need for the Legislation
A number of alien translators currently working in Iraq and
Afghanistan embedded with units of the U.S. Armed Forces are
providing extremely valuable services. Their cooperation and
close identification with the U.S. military have put these
individuals and their families in danger. This danger will only
escalate after U.S. forces leave or reduce their strength in
Iraq and Afghanistan. H.R. 2293 would provide immigration
relief for this small group of brave individuals.
Under H.R. 2293, permanent resident visas would be
available to nationals of Iraq or Afghanistan (and their
spouses and minor children) who have worked directly with the
U.S. Armed Forces as translators for at least 12 months, who
have obtained favorable written recommendations from the
officer in charge of the unit they worked with, and who have
cleared a background check. No more than 50 principals may
receive permanent resident status in any fiscal year, and the
recipients will count towards the 10,000 per year quota of
special immigrant visas.
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 2293.
Committee Consideration
On May 18, 2005, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 2293 with amendment by
a voice vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
The Committee adopted H.R. 2293 by voice vote. In
compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the
following rollcall vote occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 2293.
1. Amendment offered by Mr. Conyers to remove the numerical
restriction on the special immigrant visas created by this
bill. The amendment was defeated 10 ayes to 19 nays.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Hyde........................................................
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Texas)............................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Jenkins..................................................... X
Mr. Cannon...................................................... X
Mr. Bachus......................................................
Mr. Inglis......................................................
Mr. Hostettler.................................................. X
Mr. Green....................................................... X
Mr. Keller...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Flake.......................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Feeney...................................................... X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Conyers..................................................... X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Boucher.....................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Meehan...................................................... X
Mr. Delahunt....................................................
Mr. Wexler......................................................
Mr. Weiner...................................................... X
Mr. Schiff......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
Mr. Smith (Washington)..........................................
Mr. Van Hollen.................................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Chairman..................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 2293, 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 24, 2005.
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. 2293, a bill to
provide special immigrant status for aliens serving as
translators with the United States Armed Forces.
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 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 2293--A bill to provide special immigrant status for aliens
serving as translators with the United States Armed Forces.
H.R. 2293 would allow certain nationals of Iraq or
Afghanistan who have worked with the United States Armed Forces
as translators to apply for permanent U.S. residence as special
immigrants. The bill would limit this opportunity to 50
individuals, plus their families. Enacting this legislation
could affect revenues and direct spending by the Bureau of
Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Department of State,
and certain Federal assistance programs. Because so few special
visas would be provided, however, CBO estimates that H.R. 2293
would have no significant budgetary impact.
H.R. 2293 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would not affect the budgets of State, local, or tribal
governments.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz,
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
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.
2293 would provide special immigrant status to a limited number
of Iraqis and Afghanistanis who have served as translators for
the U.S. Armed Forces.
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
SEC. 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR PERSONS SERVING AS TRANSLATORS
WITH U.S. ARMED FORCES.
Subsection (a) of section 1 provides that the Secretary of
Homeland Security may provide special immigrant status under
section 101(a)(27) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to an
alien described in subsection (b) who files with the Secretary
a petition under section 204 of the INA for classification as a
special immigrant (under section 203(b)(4) of the INA) and who
is otherwise eligible to receive an immigrant visa and is
otherwise admissible (disregarding the public charge ground of
inadmissibility (found at section 212(a)(4) of the INA)).
Subsection (b)(1) describes the principal aliens who are
eligible for special immigrant visas under the bill. An alien
must: 1) be a national of Iraq or Afghanistan; 2) have worked
directly with U.S. Armed Forces as a translator for a period of
at least 12 months; 3) have obtained favorable written
recommendation from the first General or Flag officer in the
chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces unit that was
supported by the alien; and 4) have cleared a background check
and screening, as determined by the first General or Flag
officer in the chain of command of the U.S. Armed Forces unit
that was supported by the alien (before filing a petition).
Subsection (b)(2) provides that the spouse and children of
a principal alien who are following or accompanying to join the
principal alien are also eligible for special immigrant visas.
Subsection (c)(1) provides that the total number of
principal aliens who may be provided special immigrant status
pursuant to the bill shall not exceed 50 in any fiscal year.
Subsection (c)(2) provides that aliens eligible to receive
special immigrant status pursuant to the bill shall be treated
as special immigrants (as described in section 101(a)(27) of
the INA, but not described in subparagraphs (A)-(C) or (K)).
Subsection (d) provides that the definitions in subsections
(a) and (b) of section 101 of the INA shall apply in the
administration of this bill.
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 that this
bill does not change existing law.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
MAY 18, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 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
working quorum is present.
[Intervening business.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Now, pursuant to notice, I call up
H.R. 2293, a bill to provide special immigrant status for
aliens serving as translators with the United States Armed
Forces, for purposes of a markup and move its favorable
recommendation to the House. Without objection, the bill will
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 2293, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the Chair recognizes the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler, for 5 minutes for
purposes of explaining the bill.
Mr. Hostettler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Hostettler. Today I join with the Ranking Member of the
Immigration Subcommittee, Sheila Jackson Lee, and the Chairman
of the Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, to thank the
Chairman of this Committee for holding a markup of H.R. 2293.
H.R. 2293 amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to
admit Afghan and Iraqi nationals who serve U.S. forces as an
interpreters for at least 12 months and have a recommendation
of the first general or flag officer in the chain of command.
The spouse and children of a qualified alien are also eligible
for admission, and the total number is capped at 50 persons.
H.R. 2293 would provide a legislative solution to a problem
that is currently vexing our combat units in Iraq. Presently a
small number of alien translators are currently embedded with
our armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. These translators and
their immediate families live in constant danger of death
because of the key support they render to our combat forces.
Our ground commanders have expressed a desire to help these
translators come to the U.S. with their immediate families. The
justification for H.R. 2293 has best been summed up by a Marine
attorney serving in Iraq who had the following to say: ``The
reason our translators are seeking U.S. citizenship is because
they fear that their lives will be in jeopardy when we pull out
of Iraq because of how closely they've worked with both the
82nd Airborne Division last year and with our battalion this
year. I believe that there is a need for us to do something to
protect the lives of some of the people who have put their
lives on the line to help us with our mission in Iraq. I
realize that some people that are not as close to these
individuals might be concerned with security in allowing a
terrorist type into our country. However, I believe that the
battalion's members are the people in the best position to make
that determination. The reason I say that is because these
interpreters have been living with us at our camp in our living
quarters and eating chow with us every day since we've been
here. They go out to the field with us. They have fought
alongside us. They've shed blood with us. And they've sat in
fighting holes with us during combat operations. Because of all
of those reasons, our Marines and my battalion commander are in
the best position to know who is deserving and whom we can
trust to bring to the United States.''
``As a side note, some of the officers and enlisted Marines
in my battalion feel so strongly about this issue that they
have already offered up their homes for these Iraqi translators
to stay in when they come to the United States until they have
enough time to settle in and find a place of their own.''
This proposal does not create or change any entitlement or
require funding. I thank the Chairman for his attention and
swift action on this important issue that directly impacts the
effectiveness of our fighting men and women, as well as the
welfare of the foreign nationals who have aided them. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very troublesome matter. Can someone explain to
me why we limit it to the first 50 translators? I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. Hostettler. Would the gentleman yield? The number 50 is
a number that has been given to us by the folks in the field to
reflect the appropriate number of individuals, including family
members, that will be affected by this provision at this time.
I yield back.
Mr. Conyers. Well, what about the people from Afghanistan
and Iraq who are not translators but are doing very dangerous
work of supporting us militarily in the field here? I mean,
this is like one small group not to exceed 50 who will be given
special consideration by law. And so I don't think this is an
indication of very sound policy.
The ones that are risking their lives as much or more than
the interpreters are all excluded, and they may be just as
loyal and just as supportive as the translators themselves.
What about undercover informants? For many drivers who
carry U.S. Government employees across dangerous areas in both
countries? What about translators that are working in other
parts of our military operation or in the State Department or
USAID or Agriculture, or even in the nuclear specialist area?
What about foreign nationals working for other U.S. Government
agencies going--who are doing work critically important to
establish democracy and rebuild these nations?
This is not the kind of policy that was pursued when we
came out of Vietnam. We didn't limit it to translators. We
limited it to those who were fighting and risking their lives
and taking undue chances in supporting us. And so what we're
saying is that the first 50 will get a break here, and the rest
of them--and I shudder if we only have 50 translators between
two nations. That probably explains what's been happening over
there more clearly than anything else. I suggest that we
quadruple the number of translators as an amendment to this
bill and at least get the numbers up for those who might be
eligible.
Please, let's not show this kind of limited generosity so
that those who number 51 and higher won't be told, well, of
course, we were thinking about you translators, but we didn't
mean everybody that risked their lives, we only meant the first
50. And that is the reservations that I have about the measure
that is before us.
I return my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. 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
I am cosponsoring H.R. 2293 with my distinguished colleague, the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. H.R. 2293 would provide special
immigrant status for a limited number of Iraqis and Afghanistanis who
have served as translators for the U.S. Armed Forces.
The translators are providing services for our combat forces in
Iraq. According to the Marines who work with them, the translators and
their immediate families live in constant danger of death because of
the key support they are providing for our combat forces. The Marine
commanders have expressed a desire to help them to come to the U.S.
with their immediate families. The commanders believe that the lives of
the translators will be in even greater jeopardy when the Marines
withdraw from Iraq.
The translators have gone far beyond just providing translation
services. They stay with the Marines in their camp, in the same living
quarters, and eat chow with the soldiers every day. They go into the
field with the Marines. They have fought along side of them and shed
blood with them during combat operations. Some of the Marines feel so
strongly about helping the translators that they have offered to take
them into their homes in the United States until they have had enough
time to settle in and find places of their own.
H.R. 2293 would make permanent resident visas available to
nationals of Iraq and Afghanistan (and their spouses and minor
children) who have worked directly with U.S. Armed Forces as
translators for at least 12 months, who have obtained favorable written
recommendations from the officer in charge of the unit they worked
with, and who have cleared a background check. No more than 50
principals would be eligible to receive permanent resident status. The
recipients would count towards the 10,000-per-year quota of special
immigrant visas.
I am pleased that we can offer permanent resident status to such
deserving immigrants with a bipartisan bill. I urge you to vote for
H.R. 2293. Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from New York.
Mr. Nadler. I don't have an amendment, but I move to strike
the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker--Mr. Chairman, rather.
This bill calls for special immigrant status for Iraqi or
Afghani nationals who have served as translators in the United
States Armed Forces. This bill is a direct--perhaps if Mr.
Conyers' observations are correct, not quite adequate, but a
direct response to the critical need for translators and
linguists in our military.
This interpreter shortage is well documented. The 9/11
Commission report stated that the Government ``lacked
sufficient translators proficient in Arabic and other key
languages, resulting in a significant backlog of untranslated
intercepts.''
A 2002 GAO study concluded that staff shortages in Arabic
and Farsi ``adversely affected agency operations and
compromised U.S. military, law enforcement, intelligence,
counterintelligence, and diplomatic efforts.''
A Justice Department IG's report released in September 2004
said the Government ``cannot translate all the foreign language
counterterrorism and counterintelligence material it collects,
due largely to inadequate translation capabilities in languages
primarily related to counterterrorism activities'' such as
Arabic and Farsi.
The shortage of Arabic translators in Iraq and Afghanistan
has made it harder for U.S. soldiers to protect themselves and
has jeopardized interrogations of suspected al Qaeda terrorists
in U.S. custody. I commend the author of this legislation and
the Chairman of this Committee for their willingness to open
the immigration doors to Arabic linguists serving as
translators with the U.S. Armed Services--Armed Forces. Yet the
answer to this dire need is not only to give U.S. citizenship
to Iraqis and Afghanis, but also to stop discriminating against
American citizens who are ready to serve their country loyally
as Arabic translators but are refused permission to do so.
It is no coincidence that this bill would create 50 spots
for Iraqi and Afghani nationals, almost the exact number of
linguists who have been discharged from the armed forces under
the ``don't ask, don't tell'' law since 1994 because they are
gay. Fifty-four Arabic and nine Persian Iranian, including
Farsi people, have been discharged under this policy. Because
of ``don't ask, don't tell,'' the military continues to devote
its resources to rooting out patriotic gay Americans whose
service is central to the war on terror. And this is no excuse,
and I don't want to hear anything here about unit cohesion.
These people are translators.
This is another example of the way in which ``don't ask,
don't tell'' is not in the best interest of our national
security. And this Congress says, ``Don't ask, don't tell, and
for heaven's sake, don't translate.''
Given the willingness of the author of this amendment and
the Chairman of this Committee to think creatively to solve the
need for Arabic and Farsi linguists to help in the war on
terror, I hope we will recognize the fundamental rights of
American citizens and repeal the unfortunate and incredibly
self-defeating policy of ``don't ask, don't tell.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments?
Mr. Conyers. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2293 offered by Mr.----
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana?
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A point of order is reserved on the
amendment.
The Clerk. Page 3, strike line 12----
Mr. Conyers. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, so ordered.
Subject to the reservation of the gentleman from Indiana.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Since we have the measure before us, Members
of the Committee, there might be three changes that could make
it more acceptable.
First, of course, is to get rid of the 50-person cap on the
number of persons who can receive special immigrant status
under the bill.
Secondly--and this hasn't been stated yet--but it would
ensure that any visas granted under this act would be given
outside of the annual limit on special immigrant visas, the
worldwide ceiling, and the per country ceilings on visas, which
at this moment, unless we accept this amendment, is applied,
these 50 would be deducted from these three categories.
And, finally, it would open--this amendment would open up
these visas so that they're not available just to translators
but also to very important others who provide important
assistance to the United States Armed Forces or other U.S.
personnel.
The least we can do is be a little bit more democratic as
to who would be the beneficiaries of this special immigrant
status, and with these three changes, I think--I don't think. I
would support the amendment, and I urge the Members to
seriously consider these changes to make this at least a bill
that won't be the object of much commerce and joking around,
because it really--it really defies imagination that the first
50 translators would get a special status and everybody else
doing their job in this incredible struggle in the Middle East
would be subject to the regular immigration laws. I urge
support of the amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Indiana
insist on his point of order?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized. State
your point of order.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that
the amendment is not germane under House Rule XVI. The
amendment is not germane to the fundamental purpose of the
bill, that is, military translators, and thus fails for lack of
germaneness.
Moreover, the amendment is outside the scope of the
underlying bill and is thus not germane.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman from Michigan
wish to be heard on the point of order?
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I do.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Conyers. I would like to merely indicate that I would--
to take it completely out of the germaneness argument, I'd be
willing to strike the whole provision with the exception of
lifting the cap on--the ceiling----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Does the gentleman concede the
point of order and wish to reintroduce the amendment without
the provisions that are objected to?
Mr. Conyers. I do, and----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Okay. The point of order is
conceded and sustained. The gentleman from Michigan wishes to
offer a second amendment, which the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 2293, offered by Mr. Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. I ask unanimous consent the amendment be
considered as read.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment
that the gentleman is offering is the same amendment that deals
with striking line 12 through 24 on page 3, but does not strike
line 17 and all that follows through page 3, line 6 on
qualifying services. Is the Chair correct?
Mr. Conyers. The Chair is correct.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from Michigan is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, what I present now is merely the
main point that we would strike the 50-person cap on the number
of persons who can receive special immigrant status under the
bill, and not have those numbers taken from outside the annual
limit on special immigrant visas, the worldwide ceiling, or the
per country ceilings on visas.
In other words, we would at least allow more than 50
people, if there were that many--and let us all pray that there
are more than 50 translators in two countries struck by war--
that they would be able to enjoy the provisions of this special
immigrant status. And I return any time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr.
Hostettler. Does the gentleman from Indiana seek recognition?
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hostettler. Mr. Chairman, the cap that has been placed
on this provision is a reasonable cap, according to the U.S.
Marine Corps and others who are involved in this process. If
there is a purpose, a reason for us to allow for more
individuals to be made under this--to make provision for more
individuals, we can always revisit that. But at this time it is
unnecessary to increase the cap over the----
Mr. Conyers. Could the Chairman--could the Ranking Member
yield to me?
Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The time belongs to the gentleman
from Indiana, Mr. Hostettler. Do you yield to the gentleman
from Michigan?
Mr. Hostettler. I will yield.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. I thank you. Surely, Mr. Hostettler, you are
very much aware of how difficult changing immigration law is as
a Member of this Committee. The likelihood of us revisiting
this to find out that there are a couple hundred people
eligible I don't think is very good, if this were ever to
become law, and that's why--let's change it now. If, in fact,
there are not more than 50, then nobody will be hurt by us
making this change.
Mr. Hostettler. Reclaiming my time, and I understand the
gentleman's point that--and I would agree with him. As a
general rule, it is somewhat difficult to change immigration
law, but given the time that has lapsed since this request was
first brought to the Committee and to the Chairman and the time
of the marking up of this bill, this is one of those areas of
immigration law that has significant support, and if we need to
revisit it, I think that this will fall out of the normal MO
for immigration law, and we can revisit it and change it just
as quickly. And I yield back the----
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. Well, I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I'm just trying to clarify. Are we
talking--with the new amendment, we're only talking about
translators, right?
Mr. Hostettler. That's correct.
Mr. Cannon. And is 50 a generous number, do you know? Or
what if we end up with 55 or we're there for longer and we end
up with 70 or something? I'm just wondering why--in the first
place, how clear is the number 50? And could we maybe save some
problem without creating a big loophole by going with this
amendment?
Mr. Hostettler. Reclaiming my time, the number 50 is an
adequate number, according to the folks in the field.
Mr. Cannon. But would that--does it do harm to the
underlying concept to change a hard 50 to a number that may
adjust over time without us--I mean, does this do significant
damage to the underlying concept of----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Will the gentleman from Indiana
yield?
Mr. Hostettler. I will yield to the Chair?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. My reading of the bill indicates
that the limit is 50 per year.
Mr. Hostettler. Yes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. It's an annual cap of 50. I would
argue against the amendment of the gentleman from Michigan
because if we make it unlimited, then they might be without
translators as all of them would apply to come and it would put
the flag officer who is responsible for signing off in a real
untenable position in making a decision, whereas he could tell
some that they could wait until next year.
I yield back to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Hostettler. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. Those in
favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The noes appear to have it.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I would like a record vote on
this amendment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. A record vote will be ordered. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. Those in favor 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?
Mr. Smith of Texas. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Smith, no. Mr. Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gallegly, no. Mr. Goodlatte?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot?
Mr. Chabot. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chabot, no. Mr. Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Lungren, no. Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Jenkins, no. Mr. Cannon?
Mr. Cannon. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Cannon, no. Mr. Bachus?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Inglis?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler?
Mr. Hostettler. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Hostettler, no. Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Green, no. Mr. Keller?
Mr. Keller. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Keller, no. Mr. Issa?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Flake?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Pence?
Mr. Pence. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Pence, no. Mr. Forbes?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. King?
Mr. King. No.
The Clerk. Mr. King, no. Mr. Feeney?
Mr. Feeney. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Feeney, no. Mr. Franks?
Mr. Franks. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Franks, no. Mr. Gohmert?
Mr. Gohmert. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Gohmert, no. Mr. Conyers?
Mr. Conyers. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Conyers, aye. 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?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Waters?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Delahunt?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Wexler?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Weiner?
Mr. Weiner. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Weiner, aye. Mr. Schiff?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez?
Ms. Sanchez. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Sanchez, aye. Mr. Smith?
[No response.]
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen?
Mr. Van Hollen. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Van Hollen, aye. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Members who wish to cast or change
their votes? The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Waters.
Ms. Waters. Aye.
The Clerk. Ms. Waters, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa.
Mr. Issa. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Issa, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Forbes.
Mr. Forbes. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Forbes, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Massachusetts,
Mr. Meehan.
Mr. Meehan. Aye.
The Clerk. Mr. Meehan, aye.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. No.
The Clerk. Mr. Goodlatte, no.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Further Members who wish to cast or
change their votes? If none, the clerk will report.
The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, there are 10 ayes and 19 noes.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the amendment is not agreed to.
Are there further amendments? If there are no further
amendments, a reporting quorum is present. The question occurs
on the motion to report the bill H.R. 2293 favorably. All those
in favor will say aye? Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it. The motion to
report favorably is agreed to. Without objection, the staff is
directed to make any technical and conforming changes, and all
Members will be given 2 days as provided by House rules in
which to submit additional, dissenting, supplemental, or
minority views.
[Intervening business.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:41 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
Minority Views
In every war we fight on foreign soil, some citizens of
those countries are willing to take a stand against tyranny and
to stand up for democracy, by working in countless ways to help
advance our military, political and reconstructive efforts. In
the past, Congress has passed immigration laws to ensure that
foreign nationals who perform important services for us during
our occupation of foreign countries are able to relocate to the
United States. Often, they risk their lives to work for the
American military, or our diplomatic and development agencies.
Repaying their sacrifices by offering them the opportunity to
become American citizens, and sometimes literally saving their
lives, is a just and fair policy.
We support the general principles and policies underlying
this bill, but we are disappointed that the majority was
unwilling to broaden this bill to cover other foreign nationals
who work with U.S. government operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
When we pulled out of Vietnam, Vietnamese citizens who
worked for our government, and their families, were at great
risk of being killed if they remained in Vietnam. We responded
by giving them the opportunity to come to the United States and
resettle here with permanent residency. That was the right
thing to do. The same principle was correctly applied to
nationals from Laos and Cambodia.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to the passage of the Refugee Act of 1980, refugees from
the Indo-Chinese peninsula came and were brought to the U.S. and were
admitted as ``public interest parolees.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, in its present form, this bill does not
replicate that sound policy. After rushing this country into a
war in Iraq, and pursuing aggressors in Afghanistan, the
proponents of this legislation now suggest that translators for
our Armed Forces need to be rescued from our democratic
experiment in the Middle East. Neither country has fallen to
terrorists or insurgents. We are not pulling out of our
engagements in these nations. Yet the originator of this bill,
Chairman Duncan Hunter of the Committee on Armed Services,
wants to bring translators here now. Surely, we still need
these translators in Iraq and Afghanistan. This bill sends a
misguided message to the world that these nations are so
dangerous that we must, in essence, grant blanket asylum from
our own experiment in democracy.
Beyond that general concern, the legislation is so narrowly
drafted and unreasonably rigid that it excludes many deserving
foreign nationals. For example, the bill only allows 50
translators to come to the U.S. and it does not define who
qualifies as a translator, other than saying that the person
must work with (not even for) the U.S. Armed Forces for 12
months. On this basis, permanent residency can be handed out to
personal friends or others who should not necessarily qualify
but may be politically well-connected. Qualifying translators
may still be denied the opportunity to relocate here under this
language.
This unwise and arbitrary limitation to 50 visas should be
stricken. Experience has taught us that arbitrary caps in
immigration law are nearly impossible to adjust or repeal when
it turns out that the cap does not cover all of the people who
rightly qualify for the visa.\2\ It is important that we
correct this error now. Such caps often leave many deserving
people shut out of immigration benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Public interest parolees (PIPs) who arrived mostly in the
1970's and 1980's from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia following the wars
there were unable to become permanent residents. These people were
marginalized and were unable to take advantage of many opportunities in
the U.S. as a result. Finally, in 2001, Congress changed the law to
allow PIPs to adjust their status to permanent residency. See the
Foreign Operations Appropriations Act of 2001, P.L. 106-429, Sec. 101A.
However, many were unable to adjust. The benefit was capped at 4000
immigrants, although more than 4000 people meeting the qualification
standards were living in the U.S. as parolees at the time. The cap was
finally lifted in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2005, P.L. 108-447, Division D, Sec. 534(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the United States government may be engaged
in both Iraq and Afghanistan for many more years to come. We
cannot predict with any certainty that only 50 people in those
two countries will render the type of assistance to our
government that makes them worthy of this benefit. Nor should
we randomly shut the door after 50 applicants come forward. If
the beneficiaries of this bill have provided life-sustaining
assistance to United States Armed Forces, as the proponents of
this bill would argue, then surely the 51st and 52nd applicant
is just as worthy of relief as the first.
H.R. 2293 also reduces the total number of special
immigrant visas available to qualifying individuals. Yet there
is ample precedent for providing increased visas for
populations of deserving immigrants outside of existing
numerical caps. This was done most recently with H-1B visas
\3\, H-2B visas \4\, and Australian visas.\5\ Without lifting
these caps, other deserving immigrants who have been waiting
for visas or who may desperately need them (such as child
victims of abuse, neglect or abandonment) will be unable to get
a visa because their slots will have been used by Iraqi or
Afghan translators for the U.S. Armed Forces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005,
Division J, Title IV, Subtitle B, Sec. 108-447.
\4\ See the Real I.D. Act of 2005 in the Emergency Supplemental
Appropriation for Defense, the Global War on Terror and Tsunami Relief
for Fiscal Year 2005, Division B, Sec. 405, P.L. 109-13.
\5\ Id at Sec. 501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, this bill does not provide any benefits
for many of the Iraqis and Afghans who are risking their lives
for our nation's interests. There is no offer of permanent
residency for undercover informants. No benefit for the many
drivers who carry U.S. government employees across dangerous
areas in these countries, risking their lives every day. There
is no reason to exclude translators who are working for other
U.S. government agencies in these countries--the State
Department, USAID, the Agriculture Department, or our nuclear
specialists, for example. Certainly, hundreds of foreign
nationals are doing work that is critically important to our
efforts to establish democracy and rebuild these nations. They
may be targeted for reprisals from insurgents due to their
connections with U.S. employees or agencies and killed, yet, we
are unwilling to open our doors to anyone other than Armed
Forces translators.
H.R. 2293 only benefits Iraqi and Afghan translators for
the U.S. Armed Forces because Chairman Hunter agreed to move
the legislation at the request of the U.S. Marine Corps. There
is no logical reason why the bill, and the benefit of permanent
residency, should be limited to military translators. The
Conyers amendment that was offered in Committee would expand
potential beneficiaries so that others who provide important
assistance to U.S. Armed Forces, or other U.S. personnel, would
be eligible for special immigrant visas.
Certainly translators provide an important service to our
personnel on the ground in these countries. However, Afghans
and Iraqis assist with other important jobs as well. The
opportunity to relocate to the U.S. should be extended to
drivers who risk their lives for U.S. personnel on every road
trip, foreign nationals assisting USAID personnel in
development projects, and individuals who provide critical
intelligence information that protects our troops and assists
our military efforts.
The bill requires that translators must have worked with
the U.S. Armed Forces for 12 months. The amendment would allow
the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive a portion of that
work requirement in extraordinary circumstances. A translator
who saves the life of a U.S. Marine, or provides some other
critical assistance in his fourth month of work with our
military should be able to take advantage of this visa program
now. If his acts have made him a target of our opponents, his
life may be endangered, but the rigidity of this statutory
language would prevent us from assisting him under this
statute.
The amendment would still require that the provision be
applied to someone who has worked for or with the U.S.
government. It could not be applied to someone who has no work
or service relationship with a U.S. government entity. The
waiver would be made in consultation with the Secretary,
Director or chief officer of the U.S. government agency or
department for which the alien worked
The bill requires that applicants pass a background check
and screening, as determined by the appropriate military
officer, before they can apply for this visa. This sets up a
system where different standards may be applied to different
people. In addition, the military may not have appropriate
screening processes, or their processes may not cover the same
issues or concerns that need to be addressed for immigration
purposes. The amendment calls on the Secretary of Homeland
Security to establish these standards so that they will be
appropriate for newly arriving permanent residents and so that
they will be uniformly applied to applicants
This bill contains the seed of a good idea. But the
arbitrary cap, the reduction of special immigrant visas, and
the restriction to Armed Forces translators should be corrected
before this legislation is sent to the full House for its
consideration.
If we want to show our gratitude, and ensure their safely
of our friends from reprisals, we should pass a bill that
really helps the many people who are risking their lives for
Americans and U.S. policy in Iraq and Afghanistan, not a select
or favorite few.
Description of Amendments Offered by Democratic Members
During the markup one amendment was offered by one
Democratic Member, Mr. Conyers.
1. Conyers Amendment
of Amendment: The amendment would make the
following changes to the bill: (i) strike the 50-person cap on
the number of persons who can receive special immigrant status;
(ii) ensure that any visas granted would be given outside of
the annual limit on special immigrant visas, the worldwide
ceiling, and per-country ceilings on visas; (iii) make these
visas available not only to translators, but also to others who
provide important assistance to U.S. Armed Forces or other U.S.
personnel; and (iv) permit a partial waiver of the work
requirement and require the Department of Homeland Security to
establish processes for background clearances of the
applicants.
Vote on Amendment: The amendment was defeated on a voice
vote.
John Conyers, Jr.
Howard L. Berman.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Maxine Waters.
Chris Van Hollen.