Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this is a great day today. Mr. Speaker, I might add my support to H. Con. Res. 177, that commends the troops for the Iraqi operation, and H. Res. 201, that commends the business support of the troops, because this is the day when we further acknowledge that there is no divide amongst Americans or amongst those of us who are Members of the United States Congress in commemorating, celebrating and appreciating the valid service of the United States troops.

I am very pleased to join the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary in full support of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003.

I do want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as full committee chairman, and, as well, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler) for working with the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and myself as the ranking member of the subcommittee, in what is an important legislative action that we are joined in by any number of my colleagues who have done an outstanding job in recognizing this very important challenge.

This work is a culmination of a bipartisan effort to improve the military naturalization provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) was quick to respond and sensitive to the need of moving this legislation along very quickly. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill that was later introduced by the chairman, but more importantly, to be working very closely on the drafting of these issues within the bill and to make the bill as responsive as possible, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), to the issues of concern to those brave and valiant individuals who serve us and create an opportunity for our freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the Members who cooperated with this project by combining their individual naturalization bills to produce a comprehensive Armed Forces Naturalization Act. Certainly the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), and the gentleman from illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), all of them had brilliant ideas, brilliant piece of legislation focusing on very important aspects of this work. We could not have done this legislation without them.

Marine Corporal Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez were among the 129 men and women killed during the Iraqi war. Those numbers obviously have increased. When they volunteered for military service and fought in this war, they were immigrants with resident status and not citizens of the United States.

Jose A. Gutierrez was an orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked on railcars into Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States illegally. Later, however, he obtained permanent resident status. And according to Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers, he once told her, ``I was born the day I arrived in this county.''

Garibay was a native of Jalisco, Mexico, whose family moved to the United States when he was a baby. He joined the Marines 3 years ago. ``He probably thought he was more an American than a Mexican,'' said his sister. With the help of their families and fellow Marines, these brave young Americans unfortunately lost their lives in the war in Iraq; and so we would hope that as we move this legislation forward, these brave young Marines will also obtain their citizenship posthumously.

Service in the United States military, particularly in times of conflict, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Our immigration laws traditionally have allowed for expedited citizenship consideration for noncitizen members of the United States military even in peacetime. For instance, section 328 of the INA allows noncitizen members of the military to become citizens after 3 years of peacetime service instead of the usual 5-year wait required of nonmilitary applicants.

Section 329 of the INA allows noncitizens to receive immediate naturalization eligibility through their active duty service in the Armed Forces during periods of military hostilities.

Under this section of the INA, 143,000 noncitizen military participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the United States military who fought during the Korean War became naturalized American citizens. More than 100,000 members of the United States became citizens following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War collectively.

The important point, Mr. Speaker, is to realize that this Nation continues to be a Nation built upon immigrants and their desire to be part of this great democracy. And it also shows how much we are united, united in our war against terrorism, and that immigration does not equate to terrorism.

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 would reduce the time that a peacetime member of the Armed Forces has to serve for naturalization eligibility purposes from 3 years to a single year. The fees normally charged for naturalization will be waived for members of the Armed Forces.

Moreover, effort will be made to provide locations overseas at which soldiers will be able to take the naturalization examination, the interviews and other steps in the naturalization process. If you can imagine, before this legislation and the vision of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), these persons had to come back from their posts, and that was very, very difficult, to proceed to naturalize. This will avoid the expense to that soldier serving overseas of paying his or her transportation to and from the United States to complete the naturalization process.

The current law provides for posthumous citizenship when a soldier has been killed during a period that has been declared a time of military hostilities, but the current law explicitly denies derivative immigrant benefits for the soldier's spouse and children. This bill will correct that inequity by allowing the spouse, children and parents of such a soldier to self-petition for immediate relative status on the basis of the soldier's posthumous citizenship.

The bill as offered at the mark-up, however, did not extend similar benefits to the case in which the soldier's surviving spouse is already a lawful permanent resident. This omission was corrected by an amendment I offered at the mark-up. Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a United States citizen for a period of 3 years before becoming eligible for naturalization as a spouse of a United States citizen. Section 319(d) of the INA waives that requirement when a lawful permanent resident's citizen spouse dies in the Armed Forces.

The pertinent part section of 319(d) reads as follows:

``Any person who is a surviving spouse of a United States citizen, whose citizen spouse dies during a period of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States and who was living in marital union with the citizen spouse at the time of his death, may be naturalized upon compliance with all the requirements of this title except that no prior residence or specified physical presence within the United States shall be required.''

My amendment provides the same waiver in the case of the lawful permanent resident spouse whose soldier spouse receives citizenship posthumously.

The only difference between the two situations is that the one permitted under current law involves a soldier who received his citizenship before he died; whereas in the second situation, the citizenship is received posthumously. In both cases, the soldier is a citizen who is killed during a period

of honorable military service. I am pleased that the committee voted to approve that amendment.

There are two instances of concern that I have. One amendment provides that anyone naturalized under the bill's 1 year of service in the Armed Forces measure can have such citizenship revoked if the individual is subsequently separated from the military under other than honorable conditions. No such provision currently exists for revoking the citizenship of Armed Forces personnel who obtain naturalization pursuant to peacetime service. I am concerned about that and hope we can work through conference on that issue.

I am also concerned about an amendment that modifies the provisions in the bill that are intended to grant immigration benefits to the parents of soldiers who receive citizenship posthumously. The original provisions in the bill make the parents eligible for immediate relative status without imposing any additional eligibility requirements. Immediate relative status would permit them to obtain an immigrant visa without having to wait for a visa number.

The amendment that was in this bill limits the benefit to parents who are lawfully authorized to be present in the United States on the date of the soldier's death. Aside from unusual situations, such as when the parents happen to be college students or have visas for temporary employment in the United States as computer experts, et cetera, this is a problem because we can imagine problems of where a parent might be on any given day when the son or daughter dies, whether or not they are out of the country; and I would hope that we could make a correction as we move forward with this legislation.

I do want to acknowledge that this is an important bill that has come about through bipartisan efforts, and I do want to acknowledge that there are problems that we want to work through; and clearly, we want to make sure that the problems that we face will be ones that can be corrected.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we worked in a bipartisan way for the betterment and good of these heroes, valiant heroes; and I would ask that my colleagues support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the ``Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003'' is the culmination of a bi-partisan effort to improve the military naturalization provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this bill, which was introduced by Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative John Conyers, for their leadership. I also want to thank the members who cooperated with this project by combining their individual naturalization bills to produce the comprehensive Armed Forces Naturalization Act, Representatives Doc Hastings, Martin Frost, Walter Jones, Hilda Solis, Darrell Issa, and Luis Gutierrez.

Marine Corporal Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez were among the 129 men and women killed during the Iraqi war. When they volunteered for military service and fought in this war, they were immigrants with resident status, not citizens of the United States.

Jose A. Gutierrez was an orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked on railcars into Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States illegally. Later, however, he obtained permanent resident status. According to Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers, ``He once told me, ` was born the day I arrived in this country.' '' Garibay was a native of Jalisco, Mexico, whose family moved to the United States when he was a baby. He joined the Marines three years ago. ``He probably thought he was more an American than a Mexican,'' said Garibay's sister Crystal. With the help of their families and fellow Marines, Garibay and Gutierrez became American citizens posthumously.

Service in the United States military, particularly in times of conflict, is the ultimate act of patriotism. Our immigration laws traditionally have allowed for expedited citizenship consideration for non-citizen members of the United States military, even in peacetime. For instance, Section 328 of the INA allows non-citizen members of the military to become citizens after 3 years of peacetime service, instead of the usual 5-year wait required of non-military applicants.

Section 329 of INA allows non-citizens to receive immediate naturalization eligibility through their active duty service in the Armed Forces during periods of military hostilities. Under this Section of the INA, 143,000 non-citizen military participants in World Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the United States military who fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American citizens. More than 100,000 members of the United States military became citizens following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War collectively.

The Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 will reduce the time that a peacetime member of the armed forces has to serve for naturalization eligibility purposes from 3 years to a single year. The fees normally charged for naturalization will be waived for members of the armed forces. Moreover, effort will be made to provide locations overseas at which soldiers will be able to take the naturalization examination, the interviews, and the other steps in the naturalization process. This will avoid the expense to the soldier serving overseas of paying for his or her own transportation to and from the United States to complete the naturalization process.

Current law provides for posthumous citizenship when a soldier is killed during a period that has been declared a time of military hostilities, but the current law explicitly denies derivative immigration benefits to the soldier's spouse and children. this bill will correct that inequity by allowing the spouse, children, and parents of such a soldier to self-petition for immediate relative status on the basis of the soldier's posthumous citizenship. the bill as offered at the markup, however, did not extend similar benefits to the case in which the soldier's surviving spouse is already a lawful permanent resident. This omission was corected by an amendment I offered at the markup.

Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a United States citizen for a period of 3 years before becoming eligible for naturalization as the spouse of a United States citizen. Section 319(d) of the INA waives that requirement when the lawful permanent resident's citizen spouse dies during a period of honorable service in the Armed

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the full Committee on the Judiciary and the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.

Mr. Speaker, can I inquire the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules and a major proponent but also author of legislation that has been part of this bipartisan legislation.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who was also one of the authors of legislation that contributed to this bipartisan bill that is on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the Speaker how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the distinguished chairman of the Democratic Caucus and a proponent of this legislation.

(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda Sanchez), a member of the full committee and a member of the subcommittee.

(Ms. LINDA SANCHEZ of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the reason this is on the consent calendar is that the members of the Committee on the Judiciary, as well as the Members in the House, agree that we should take steps to make sure citizenship is granted to some 37,000 military people who happen to be noncitizens. And it is in that spirit that I rise to commend the ranking subcommittee chair, the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), and the subcommittee chairman, the chairman of the full committee, and all of the members on the Committee on the Judiciary that worked on this.

We are trying to still improve this measure as it goes to conference, and I would like to urge everyone to give it a rousing vote this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, since this Nation's founding, more than 55 million immigrants from every continent have settled in the United States. Many of these immigrants have not only payed taxes and adopted the American way of life, they have honorably defended our Nation as members of the military.

During the recent war with Iraq, immigrant soldiers have continued to defend our country in large numbers, and tragically 10 noncitizens have lost their lives. It is important that we honor the extraordinary contributions these immigrants make to the Armed Forces by facilitating their naturalization and establishing important protections for their families if they are killed in action. Surely, if these immigrants are willing to risk their lives for our country, the least we can do is grant them the citizenship they so greatly desire.

Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigrant laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of the country they are defending.

And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of his immediate family. This is hardly a way to show our thanks to families that have sacrificed their loved ones in the name of our country.

H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003, reduces the 3 year military requirement to naturalize to 1 year, waives fees for naturalization petitions, and allows surviving family members of citizens and posthumous granted citizens to apply for immigration benefits. These substantive changes to immigration law will surely benefit those defending our Nation and will ensure that immigrant families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice to our nation.

This is not a perfect bill. For example, it does not go as far as I would have liked in helping the families of deceased servicemen and women obtain green cards. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 immigration laws will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their lives serving our country.

I am also concerned with two amendments added to this legislation in the Judiciary Committee. The first amendment will require revocation of citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier is discharged under less than honorable terms within his first 5 years of military service. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace.

The second amendment added to the bill in the Judiciary Committee will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parents of soldiers granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved. Rather than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and applied for benefits on behalf of his parents.

H.R. 1954 is a positive step in loosening the rigid restrictions immigration law has imposed on immigrant soldiers and their families. H.R. 1954 would: (a) Expedite the naturalization process by allowing military members to naturalize after serving 1 year in the military, waive naturalization fees, and allow naturalization interviews and oath ceremonies to take place abroad; (b) waive posthumous citizenship fees; and (c) ensure the ability of lawful permanent resident spouses, parents legally present in the United States, and unmarried children of citizen or posthumous granted citizen soldiers killed as a result of military service to self petition for immigration benefits or continue to pursue already filed petitions as if the U.S. citizen had not died. These substantive changes to immigration law will benefit those defending our Nation and will help ensure that many immigrant families of our fallen soldiers are not penalized for their great sacrifice. I am disappointed, however, that the bill passed by the committee is not more generous in addressing the unique needs of immigrant families and, in some cases, makes existing law worse.

More than 37,000 noncitizen soldiers are currently serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and some of the first U.S. casualties in the current war in Iraq were noncitizens. Unfortunately, the rigidness of current immigration laws often prevents individuals like these soldiers, who are truly deserving, to be granted citizenship. In particular, a noncitizen who is honorably serving in our military must leave his post abroad and return to the United States to file a naturalization application, be interviewed for the application, and to take the oath of citizenship. Consequently, soldiers serving abroad must spend prohibitive amounts of money in order to become citizens of the country they are defending. And yet even more shocking is the scenario in which a citizen or noncitizen soldier is killed while serving in our military; current law would void most pending applications for immigration benefits made by the soldier on behalf of his immediate family.

H.R. 1954 makes many meaningful improvements to existing law. However, I would have preferred that the committee go much further in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. One of the unjust consequences of the 1996 immigration laws is that many individuals in the U.S. became ineligible for permanent residence due to a prior unlawful entry or a minor scrape with the law many years prior. The result is that spouses, children, and parents of a soldier killed in combat who have been rendered removable or ineligible for immigration benefits by the 1996 laws will be precluded from enjoying the benefits of this bill. This means that we will be deporting many of the spouses, children and parents of soldiers who have given their lives serving our country. In response, Reps. Howard Berman and Linda Sanchez offered an amendment, defeated by a party line vote, that would have waived certain documentation requirements, and authorized the Department of Homeland Security, on a discretionary basis, to waive categories of inadmissibility for spouses, children, and parents of soldiers killed in service to the military. This proposal would have balanced the goal of honoring the sacrifice these families have made with our duty to national security.

I further believe that this bill does not go far enough in extending immigration benefits to all noncitizens serving the U.S. military, including the Selected Reservists. Current law grants the President authority to designate by Executive order a period of military hostilities that would trigger immediate naturalization eligibility for active duty members of the Armed Forces. Unlike traditional members of the Armed Forces, Selected Reservists are not eligible for immediate citizenship under this law if they do not serve in combat during times of hostility. Rep. Zoe Lofgren offered an amendment, defeated by voice vote, that would have applied immediate naturalization benefits to Select Reservists during times of hostility regardless of whether they serve in combat. This amendment would have addressed the fact that the rationale for providing benefits to members of the Armed Forces and members of the Select Reserves is nearly identical because during times of hostility they both must be ready to leave family, friends, and familiar surroundings at a moment's notice and potentially die for their country.

I take great issue with two amendments added to this legislation by Rep. Steve King. The first amendment will require revocation of citizenship granted through 1 year of military service if the soldier is discharged under less than honorable terms. This bill was drafted with the intent to reward those who have taken a great risk and made great sacrifice for our country. However, allowing for the revocation of naturalization for less than honorable discharge would punish Service Members in a way that does not currently exist for soldiers applying for naturalization pursuant to completion of service during a time of peace. I understand Rep. King's desire to make the bill parallel to current law in 329(c) of the INA, but he overlooks that 329(c) applies exclusively to a special case in which members of the Armed Forces are eligible for immediate naturalization during a time of hostility without the requirement of any prior service or commitment to the military. The provision added to H.R. 1954 would bestow conditional citizenship on all immigrants naturalized through a demonstrated commitment to military service and would create a perverse incentive for noncitizens not to join the military. Moreover, this language would allow military authorities to routinely make legal decisions that in effect would deprive a U.S. citizen of his or her citizenship. In some cases, these decisions would be based on conduct that would be completely lawful in civilian contexts, but is considered a military offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The second amendment added to the bill by Representative King will prevent parents of citizen soldiers and the parent of soldiers granted citizenship posthumously from obtaining immigration benefits if they are out of the country at the time that their child is killed in combat. The amendment is drafted in such a broad manner that it would exclude from benefits even parents who have not violated any immigration laws, including parents who are waiting abroad for a pending petition filed by their citizen child to be approved and parents who lawfully reside in the United States, but have left the country temporarily at the time of their child's death. Rather than honoring the sacrifice made by the fallen soldier and his parents, this amendment arbitrarily picks out the category of parents and adds a new requirement that would not have existed had the soldier lived and applied for benefits on behalf of his parents.

I reiterate that the Armed Forces Naturalization Act of 2003 does not go far enough in assisting the immigrant families of our fallen soldiers. Moreover, amendments added to the bill in the Judiciary committee would punish noncitizen soldiers and their families, rather than reward them for their service and sacrifice, by creating a conditional class of citizenship and putting additional restrictions on immigrant parents of soldiers.

While this bill is not perfect, it does make many meaningful improvements to existing immigration law and takes a significant step help our soldiers and their families be granted the citizenship they so greatly desire. It is my hope that as this bill goes to conference will seriously consider the negative repercussions these two amendments will have on the people this bill intends to honor. It is for these reasons that I think we can all support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1954) to revise the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to naturalization through service in the Armed Forces, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1954, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the news that 10 members of our Armed Forces who died in combat were not U.S. citizens, several bills have been introduced to either ease the naturalization requirements of legal permanent residents in the Armed Forces or to provide immigration benefits to the surviving family members of those killed in service to America, or both.

We can never adequately express our gratitude to those noncitizen members of our military who made the ultimate sacrifice, but we can bring reasonable changes to the naturalization process for other permanent resident service members willing to make the same sacrifice and to provide immigration benefits to family members of those who died.

The Committee on the Judiciary has worked closely with those who have introduced bills on this issue, including the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), to come up with a bipartisan compromise bill.

In addition, six Members not on the Committee on the Judiciary testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims regarding their legislation.

H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act is a consensus bill in which I have done my best to address the concerns of the other interested Members and to balance competing priorities. I am grateful that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) have signed on as original cosponsors.

Not every Member got everything they wanted in this bill, but each of the Members we consulted with got something that they wanted. As a result, we have a bill that should easily be able to pass the House with support from Members with widely varying views on immigration who all want to honor the service to our country of permanent residents in the Armed Forces.

H.R. 1954 reduces the military service requirement to apply for naturalization during peacetime from 3 years to 1 year. Some of the earlier bills reduced the requirement to 2 years and another bill reduced it to zero years. One year is an obvious compromise.

It lowers the required years of service while maintaining the requirement that a military member must still establish their worthiness for expedited naturalization through a period of honorable military service during peacetime. For soldiers, this bill also waives the fees for the naturalization petition or naturalization certificate, along with related State fees and waives the fees for the posthumous citizenship application. This will ease the financial burden for military members who perform an outstanding service for our country and receive little money in return.

The bill permits the revocation of citizenship if a person is separated from the Armed Forces under other than honorable conditions before the person has served honorably for 5 years in either peacetime or wartime. In addition to the 5-year military revocation, an alien would remain subject to denaturalization at any time if, for example, the alien committed fraud to gain citizenship or the underlying green card.

I would also add that this bill does not allow for the naturalization or acquisition of permanent resident status to undocumented aliens.

H.R. 1954 would require the Departments of Homeland Security, State and Defense to ensure that naturalization applications, interviews, filings, oaths and ceremonies are available to the maximum extent practicable at U.S. embassies, consulates and military installations. Currently, a soldier must be physically present in the United States to file a naturalization application, to be interviewed for the application and to take the oath of citizenship. This requirement causes some soldiers who are stationed outside the United States to leave their post abroad and to return the United States at their own expense. This is both expensive and causes unnecessary interruption in their military service.

The bill would also permit surviving immediate family members of both military members who are U.S. citizens before death and immigrant military members who are granted citizenship posthumously to apply for immigration benefits as if the military family member had not died. Under current law, family members of posthumous citizens cannot apply for immigration benefits through the posthumous citizen. This bill would permit the spouse, the children and certain parents to do so.

Under current law, a lawful permanent resident spouse of a U.S. citizen may apply for naturalization in 3 years instead of 5 years. If the U.S. citizen spouse happens to be in the military and dies during military service, the lawful permanent resident spouse may apply for naturalization immediately rather than wait 3 years.

H.R. 1954 extends this immediate eligibility for naturalization to lawful permanent resident spouses of military members who gain U.S. citizenship posthumously.

Finally, the bill would waive the affidavit of support/public charge ground of inadmissibility for family members applying for adjustment of status. If the military member was the breadwinner, we elected not to penalize the immediate relative because their means of support died during service to our country.

I urge my colleagues to support this carefully crafted and broadly supported compromise bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. Speaker, has the time allocated to the minority expired?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to show how bipartisan we in the Committee on the Judiciary are on practically everything.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

(Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1954 is a bill that has almost universal support in this House because it is a compromise. The Committee on the Judiciary on legislation relating to the Immigration and Naturalization Act has deep divisions.

The reason this bill is so strongly supported is twofold. One is that there is a demonstrated need to provide a naturalization road and the immigration benefits to those who have served our country, their immediate families and their survivors. Everybody agrees that this is part of the immigration law that needs to be changed and updated, particularly in light of those who have paid the ultimate price in defending America's freedoms in Iraq.

But I would like to give a word of caution, because this bill is a compromise. Everybody with an oar in the water and a differing viewpoint gave up something to ease the passage of this bill. If we allow the bill to emphasize the divisions that we have in the Congress and in the Committee on the Judiciary on immigration law and in the conference, then it is not going to have an easy road from here. But what we have given up to make H.R. 1954 an agreed-upon bill that will get an overwhelming vote in a few minutes should continue to be given up in the conference so we can speedily turn this bill into law and give the benefits to the people that we want to give the benefits to. As we proceed in this, I urge all of my colleagues to keep that in mind.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, the ranking member of the subcommittee, both for her excellent work and for yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of the bill, but I do want to point out a few issues that were addressed in the Committee on the Judiciary where I think we could have gone farther to be fair to the families of our soldiers.

I very much appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Sensenbrenner) willingness to create a bipartisan process in the negotiations on this bill, a process that started with at least seven different bills on the topic. I think the goal of all the Members who introduced those bills, and of most of us in the House, were the same. We wanted to reward the dedication of lawful, permanent residents in the military by making it as easy as possible for them to become full members of the country they are serving on the battlefield.

Secondly, we wanted to honor the sacrifice of both lawful, permanent residents and U.S. citizens who have been killed in service; and we are doing that by ensuring that their families are treated fairly by the country that they gave their lives to defend.

As I indicated, the bill is a very good start. The problem is that there will be some families of these brave soldiers who will not be helped by this bill. My hope is that in the conference with the other body we will be able to address those issues so we can be sure that we are not creating a situation where we have to, for example, tell the mother of a young man who gave his life for his country, our country, that we thank him very much for his service but his mother will have to leave. As one of my colleagues on the committee put it, we ought to be sure that the family members of our fallen heroes have the right to tend to the grave of their loved one.

When the Committee on the Judiciary considered this bill, I offered an amendment that would have provided the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretion, the discretion, to waive certain bars in our immigration laws that otherwise could be an obstacle to relief for the spouses, children, parents of the soldier killed in combat. We are not talking an automatic waiver. What we asked for was an opportunity for the Secretary of Homeland Security to do an investigation and, in his discretion, provide relief where he deemed it appropriate.

I think it is right to offer some level of forgiveness to these families whose spouse or child or sibling has given the ultimate sacrifice to our country; and by giving that discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security, we would have ensured that the waiver posed no threat to our national security.

The second issue of concern in this legislation is one raised by the gentlewoman from Texas, the ranking member, that we have drawn an arbitrary line with respect to immigration relief for the parents of both U.S. citizen soldiers and soldiers granted posthumous citizenship under the bill.

Under current law, legal permanent residents cannot petition for their parents to come to this country as immigrants. Naturalized citizens can petition for their parents. Under the language of this bill, the parent of a legal permanent resident soldier who is killed in combat and is given posthumous citizenship cannot get immigration benefits if they were waiting outside the country for their child to naturalize and then petition for them.

If a U.S. citizen soldier filed a petition for their parents before they were killed in combat and their parents do not happen to have a visa to be in the U.S. on the exact date that their child was killed, the petition would be extinguished. In other words, the parent patiently waiting, playing by the rules, is turned away by the country their son or daughter died for.

In a bizarre and totally arbitrary twist, if that parent happened to get a visitor's visa to enter the country, say to help take care of the soldier's children while he was deployed, and that time in the U.S. happened to include the exact date on which their child was killed in combat, then the parent of a legal permanent resident soldier would be eligible for relief. This distinction makes no sense and we should correct it. A parent is a parent whether they are in Mexico waiting patiently or here on a tourist visa helping with the kids.

I would hope we could address these issues in conference.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in favor of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act, which recognizes the contributions made to our country by over 37,000 legal permanent residents serving in our armed services. As a member of the Committee on Armed Services who has had an opportunity to visit Iraq and other parts of the world where our men and women are serving proudly in the military, this bill is the right recognition for their services and for putting their lives on the line. So I strongly recommend that all my colleagues support it.

I am pleased to rise today in favor of H.R. 1954, the Armed Forces Naturalization Act, which recognizes the contributions made to our country by the 38,000 legal permanent residents serving in our armed forces. These men and women dedicate their energies and put their lives on the line to defend the freedoms and liberties of this great nation. It is only appropriate that in exchange for their sacrifice, we remove barriers to obtaining citizenship.

They have earned this.

H.R. 1954 would allow immigrants serving in our armed forces to apply for citizenship after one year of service, down from three years under current law. The bill removes administrative barriers to the naturalization process by making citizenship applications, interviews, filings, oaths, ceremonies and other such proceedings available to members of the armed forces at our military bases, diplomatic missions, and consulates overseas. The bill also waives application fees. In both this Congress and the 107th Congress, I have been a proud original co- sponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague from Texas, Congressman Martin Frost, known as the Citizenship for America's Troops Act, that sought to make these changes. I am pleased that they are part of the bill we are voting on today.

The bill also allows spouses, children and parents of naturalized soldiers who die in the line of duty to apply for permanent residency status. Additionally, this bill recognizes the important support that spouses provide to our soldiers by waiving the three-year residency requirement to apply for citizenship. These provisions recognize the important role that family plays and ensures that when their loved one dies in the line of duty, they are not made to suffer even more by having their residency status placed in jeopardy.

Despite these very good provisions, I must express my disappointment that the bill does nothing for immediate family members who are undocumented. I was an original cosponsor of legislation introduced by my colleague Hilda Solis, which would have provided immigration protections to immediate family members of soldiers who die in the lain of duty, regardless of their immigration status. A father does not cease to be a father, and a wife does cease to be a wife, just because of the immigration papers they may or may not have.

I am further disappointed, startled in fact, that the bill actually expands existing rules allowing for citizenship to be revoked from naturalized servicemembers who are discharged under other than honorable conditions. The major problem here is that there are other forms of discharge that are not termed honorable, but which are not necessarily dishonorable. The language in the bill would actually punish someone who is discharged for medical reasons. For example, someone who serves in our armed forces, applies for and obtains citizenship, continues to serve for four years and then has to be discharged for a medical condition, would have his or her citizenship revoked. I cannot believe that the authors of this bill intended for that to be the case. I strongly urge my colleagues to resolve this in conference.

On balance, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 1954, demonstrates the appreciation of a grateful nation to the thousands of people who come to this country from around the world to contribute to the freedom, strength and prosperity of America. I would like to thank my colleagues, Representatives Solis and Frost, for all their work in championing this issue, and most of all, I would like to thank the members of our armed services for the sacrifices they make on our behalf. I urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 1954.