Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act

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

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

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my very good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Rochester, Ms. Slaughter, and I rise in opposition to this rule.

Mr. Speaker, we are in week 4 of the National Football League season. The Washington Redskins have just defeated the Dallas Cowboys, the Kansas City Chiefs have just defeated the Denver Broncos; and we are, as a Nation, facing one of the most serious financial crises that we have ever faced. In fact, it's a crisis that only a few of our very, very senior Members who lived back in 1929 have ever experienced.

And what is it that we're doing here right now, Mr. Speaker? Well, we're considering a measure that will allow us to bring to the floor any item whatsoever for same day consideration, but in fact, we're not using this measure that is before us to deal with the very serious and important legislation that the American people very much want us to address.

I am vehemently opposed to any measure that would provide a blanket guarantee to bail out the people on Wall Street who have engaged in outrageous behavior jeopardizing the credit structure that exists here in the United States today.

And we know the kind of impact that it's having on our markets, we know the kind of impact it's having on the global economic markets, and we know that some action must be taken.

And what is it that we're doing here? Well, we're considering a same day rule. And I should say to the distinguished Chair, my good friend from Rochester, that I appreciated her compliment on my fine work in the 109th Congress, and I find it fascinating that my work product from the 109th Congress is now being held up as a model for the action that is taking place right here this evening.

I guess we're going to consider under same day something that's being discussed upstairs in the Rules Committee right now, the so-called tax extenders legislation. And it's legislation that we could very easily dispense with. We could dispense with it, Mr. Speaker, by virtue of taking up a measure that by a 93-2 vote passed in the United States Senate. Seems to me that a 93-2 vote would be pretty bipartisan, nearly a unanimous vote, to deal with the very important issues that the American people want to address when it comes to the tax side.

The outrageous alternative minimum tax that began in 1969 to go after 155 millionaires has now expanded to include 22-plus million Americans, and they are being unfairly taxed. They want us to address that measure.

My State of California is very important when it comes to the issue of looking at technological advances, and making sure that we extend the research and development tax credit is critical. Pursuing alternative energy sources like wind and solar, biodiesel, the kinds of creative green crude, the notion of looking at algae and utilizing that through present oil refineries today to try to bring down the cost of gasoline for the American people and for those around the globe who are seeking to decrease energy costs.

Well, I will tell you, we could deal with every single one of those items if we were to simply take that measure that has passed the Senate by a 93-2 vote. We could bring it up, and it would pass nearly unanimously, I believe, in this House if we were to do it. But instead, rather than focusing our attention on this very important credit crisis that needs to be addressed based on analyses provided by virtually everyone so that we are able to bring about the kind of stability that is necessary, or at least attempt to do that, whether it's from Wall Street to Main Street, from San Dimas Avenue, where I live, to 5th Avenue and every area in between, we very much need to do that, Mr. Speaker. And instead, we're going to be addressing--and the Rules Committee, as I have said, right now is holding a hearing on an item that will never go anyplace.

So that's why it's a real insult to the American people that we are here right now doing what we're doing.

But unfortunately, it is a pattern that we have seen in the 110th Congress. And while again, I'm proud that my record has been held up as a model, whatever criticisms that may have been leveled towards my record in the 109th Congress, the activities that we've seen in the 110th Congress really, really, really go beyond the pale.

In fact, I just read a speech that was delivered by our Rules Committee, the second ranking member behind Ms. Slaughter, our good friend from Worcester, Mr. McGovern, who, on the 29th of September, 2006, virtually 2 years ago, he gave a very strong speech right here on the floor in which he began to level criticism about the number of closed rules, the number of restrictive rules, the lack of open rules that existed in the 109th Congress.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that this 110th Congress has transcended dramatically the number of closed rules, the fact that there are fewer open rules, the increased number of restricted rules. In fact, right now we're on the 65th, headed towards the 66th closed rule in the 110th Congress, Mr. Speaker. Again, while we were criticized harshly in the 109th Congress,

today what we're seeing is the highest number of closed rules in any Congress in the 230-year history of this great institution of ours.

So I have got to tell you that I am not about to support any kind of package that provides a blank check of $700 billion to those people on Wall Street who are responsible for the outlandish, outlandish behavior that's gone on and the problems that have existed. But I do believe that action does need to be taken. Action needs to be taken so that we can, in fact, stabilize the credit markets and bring about stability.

That's what we should be doing at this moment, Mr. Speaker. That's what we should be doing right now. We should not be wasting time on this kind of effort when we can very easily get a measure that by a 93- 2 vote has passed the Senate and that the President of the United States is prepared to sign so that we can provide AMT relief to those 22 million Americans who desperately need it, so that we can make the research and development tax credit extended, so that we can have creative, new ideas, so that we can deal with incentives for alternative energy sources to play a role in bringing down the costs to the American people and those around the world who are looking for alternative energy sources that will be generated right here in the United States of America.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I am very saddened that we're taking the action that we are, and I hope very much that we can defeat this rule so that we'll be able to bring up that proposal that, again, will provide that kind of relief, and it will get the measure to the Senate, it will get the measure to the President's desk.

And we know very well the Democratic majority leader, the majority leader in the United States Senate, our colleague from Nevada (Mr. Reid) has made it clear that he's not about to take up this measure from the House because they've passed, by a 93-2 vote, the item that the President of the United States is prepared to sign so that we can meet the President's goal here.

So I hope that we can defeat this rule.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

Let me yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me say again that I believe that it is a mistake for us to be here imposing this martial law rule at a very precarious time in our Nation's history as we're dealing with the serious challenges that lie before us.

I'm going to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. And if the previous question prevails, I will urge them to vote ``no'' on this rule so that we will be in a position where we can bring up the very important item that will allow us to get AMT relief, allow us to provide incentives for alternative energy sources, and allow us to deal with things like the research and development tax credit, which are so important to this country.

And while we do everything that we can to ensure we do not give a blank check to those on Wall Street, I do believe that the American people want us to take action that will responsibly deal with the very important credit crisis so that automatic teller machines will be able to get cash to individuals; so that the small businessmen and -women throughout the United States of America will be able to have access to credit so that they will be able to continue to thrive as businesses; so that the American people who, in fact, have met their obligation in paying their mortgage, that they won't be saddled with the responsibility for people who have been less than responsible.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and as I said, if in fact the previous question does pass, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentlewoman yield on that point?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to note that a year ago this coming December, the structure that passed the United States Senate with this so-called not paid for is exactly what this Democratic Congress did to extend the alternative minimum tax, the R&D tax credit, and these other items 1 year ago. And so this is actually a change from what the Democratic Congress did a year ago to deal with this issue, and I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. President, following Republican opposition to the Senate's effort to pass a comprehensive immigration bill last summer, President Bush and other Republicans moved on and away from this admirable goal. They chose, instead, to accommodate the most extreme views in their party with respect to immigration. Secretary Chertoff turned to mass immigration raids and building border walls that have consumed millions of taxpayer dollars, tread on the rights of property owners along the southern border, scarred the environment and tarnished the reputation of the United States around the world.

One aspect of the immigration debate on which I have continued to press this year is the backlog in citizenship applications. Last year, the administration insisted on a fee increase for citizenship applications and assured us it would cut processing time if authorized. That increase, along with the increased enforcement activities, and an impending presidential election, combined to result in a surge in citizenship applications. In just three months, May, June, and July of 2007, the immigration agency received over 700,000 citizenship applications. By last October, the agency had over 1 million citizenship applications pending, and a significant backlog had developed. Yet the administration did little. Its response reminded me of its preparations for Hurricane Katrina or the current financial meltdown. The anticipated surge in applications was not adequately planned for but resulted in a crisis before the administration would begin to notice.

In early 2008, Senator Kennedy and I pressed Secretary Chertoff. We joined, along with Senator Schumer, in writing to the Homeland Security Secretary about this problem in advance of our April 2008 oversight hearing.

At the April hearing, I asked Secretary Chertoff for a firm commitment that persons who had applied for U.S. citizenship by March 31, 2008, would have their applications processed in time to register and vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Seven months should have been adequate to consider these applications, especially when the agency had sold the increase in fees to us by saying it would cut processing time to less than seven months.

When Secretary Chertoff sought to excuse his delays by blaming the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, for being slow to clear name checks, we made sure to provide the FBI with additional resources.

At our most recent FBI oversight hearing with Director Mueller last week, I continued to raise the issue. At one point, the backlog in citizenship applications was 1 million. By this spring, it was still nearly half a million. After the most recent oversight hearing, we were told that it has been significantly reduced and now numbers in the tens of thousands. I thank the agents at the FBI and U.S. Customs and Immigration Services, USCIS, for their hard work.

The monthly updates we demanded have been helpful not only to us, but apparently also to encourage progress within the agency. That is, of course, still too many. No one who has been here, working hard, following the law, who has applied for citizenship more than 6 months ago, ought to be denied participation in the upcoming Presidential election because the Homeland Security bureaucracy has been too slow to process his or her application.

Now is the time for the agency to make a final push to process the remaining backlog of applications by the end of this month so that lawful immigrants will have time to register and will be able to vote. It is unacceptable that tens of thousands of people, some of whom have been waiting for 2 years to have their applications processed, will be left in limbo and unable to participate as citizens during the elections in November. So there is still significant work to do.

The Senate took an important step Wednesday night when it passed S. 2840, the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act. I am pleased the Senate has given its unanimous support to this legislation.

This bill is intended to help the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS expedite citizenship applications for members of the Armed Forces by creating a liaison with the FBI and by setting processing deadlines for these applications. Those who serve in our military and who wish to become citizens do not deserve to experience unnecessary bureaucratic delays. Their dedication to the United States, and their desire to become full participants in the democracy they help defend, ought to be met with a process that is as fair and efficient as possible.

The legislation the Senate passed last night will help to streamline the citizenship process for the legal permanent residents who have served the country they wish to call their own. I hope that this legislation will help move Congress toward seeking additional improvements in the citizenship process for everyone. The granting of citizenship is one of the most sacred privileges our Nation conveys, and only comes to those who have worked hard to achieve it. Ensuring that it is carried out with care and efficiency is a goal all members of congress should support.

I thank Senators Schumer and Hagel for successfully moving this legislation through the Senate, and thank all Senators for supporting this measure.

I commend Senator Kennedy, Senator Schumer and the other members of the Judiciary Committee who have worked with me all year in our oversight effort to ensure that the citizenship application backlog of 1 million would be eradicated. Senator Kennedy, in particular, is someone who has been unrelenting in his focus on this issue and characteristically fought for fairness, dignity and the rights of those least powerful among us. Senator Kennedy is our longtime chairman of the Immigration subcommittee, and has led the Senate on immigration matters for years. He asked me to express his appreciation to USCIS for its progress in clearing up the backlog in naturalization applications that otherwise would have deprived over a million eligible citizens the opportunity to participate in our democracy during this fall's election. He asked me to say that the right to vote is the most precious right that American citizens have. He welcomes these new Americans, and he urges them to go to the polls this November.

I hope that as a new administration takes office and begins to help this Nation rise above the divisiveness, corruption, and failures of the last 8 years, we can renew our commitment to immigration reform. The answer does not lie in policies based on fear or isolationism, but in a restoration of America's rightful role in the world. It does

not lie in denying children the opportunity for an education. It does not lie in denying American farmers and small business owners willing workers, nor does it lie in exploiting foreign labor to disadvantage American workers. And the answer does not lie in raiding workplace after workplace, tearing apart families, or building walls along our borders.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1514 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1514.

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1514 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII which requires a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Rules Committee. This waiver would apply to any rule reported on the legislative days of Sunday, September 28, and Monday, September 29, 2008.

Waiving the same day is not an uncommon procedure. It has been used routinely by the majority party, both Republicans and Democrats, as an important tool to help expedite important legislation, particularly at the end of a legislative session.

It is not as common to have a same day rule that covers any measure reported by the Rules Committee. This is the only time in this Congress that this Rules Committee has reported such a measure. All of the previous same day rules have applied to only those specific measures contained in the rule.

However, in the 109th Congress, when my good friend, the gentleman from California, was chairman of the Rules Committee, there were five rules reported from the committee that did what this rule does this evening.

I want to emphasize to my colleagues that adoption of this rule does not provide for passage of any other rule or any other bill on its own. Any measure brought before this House pursuant to this rule must pass by a majority vote, just like any other measure considered under regular order.

What it does do is to allow the House to consider important legislation in a timely fashion. Hopefully, the legislation to help address our Nation's looming financial crisis will be ready for consideration soon. It is very important that this package is considered and adopted by the House as soon as possible. This rule is an important part of the process to make that happen.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my colleague whether he has any further speakers?

I have no speakers, and we would be happy to have you close.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of the record only, I will state why the majority has not taken the Senate bill, which as my colleague pointed out passed rather handily in the Senate.

The Senate bill is not paid for. It is the purpose of this majority and has been for the 2 years we've been in the majority to pay for measures that we enact.

I will.

I will reclaim my time, and I will urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and ``yes'' on this rule so that we can get on with this important business of the House. As my colleague correctly points out, we have much, much work to do.

I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks made by my Texas colleague, Mr. Rodriguez.

Mr. Speaker, the Military Personnel Citizenship Processing Act creates an Office of the

FBI Liaison within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This office will monitor the progress of naturalization applications filed by veterans and military personnel.

It will also monitor the progress of naturalization applications filed by spouses of active duty soldiers stationed abroad. And the Liaison Office will track the naturalization process for the soldiers and their spouses and children who are eligible for citizenship under the provisions that grant posthumous citizenship to military personnel who die in service to the country.

The intent behind the establishment of this Liaison Office is to address the delays that often occur in the processing of the necessary background checks for these categories of applicants.

The haste under which this bill was added to the suspension calendar precludes any meaningful assessment of the need for such an office. However, I do not object to measures that facilitate the processing of naturalization applications of those who have honorably served our country or their spouses and children.

This bill also requires USCIS to make a decision on these applications within 6 months of filing or, in circumstances in which that is not possible, to provide the reasons why. This is not an onerous burden since USCIS will still have the flexibility needed to be sure that all required security checks and eligibility criteria are met before granting citizenship.

In this Congress, we have already passed legislation to ease the processing of naturalization applications for our soldiers. The Kendall Frederick Citizenship Assistance Act became law on June 26th of this year. That law permits soldiers to use the fingerprints they provided at the time of enlistment for their background checks.

That law also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Director of the FBI to take steps to ensure that soldiers' naturalization applications are adjudicated within 180 days after the background checks have been completed. This bill furthers those goals.

The bill provides, but does not require, an earlier target date of 6 months after the filing of the application. But in cases in which that time frame cannot be met--even with the new FBI liaison office created under this bill--USCIS will need to explain why.

I have no objection to these measures, which are intended to ensure the timely adjudication of naturalization applications filed by those who have served our Nation, and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2840) to establish a liaison with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to expedite naturalization applications filed by members of the Armed Forces and to establish a deadline for processing such applications.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, foreign-born soldiers serving in our Armed Forces are eligible for expedited U.S. citizenship, yet they often face delays in the processing of the FBI background check required for naturalization.

S. 2840 would address this backlog by creating an Office of the FBI Liaison within the Department of Homeland Security. This office will help expedite the processing of naturalization applications filed by soldiers, veterans, and spouses and children of active duty soldiers.

The bill requires DHS to adjudicate these naturalization applications within six months, or to inform the applicants of the reasons for the delay and provide them with an estimated date of completion.

It promotes accountability by having the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) report annually to Congress on how many of these naturalization applications that remain pending a year after filing due to delays in background checks.

Approximately 45,000 lawful permanent residents are currently serving in our Armed Forces. More than 13,000 non-citizen military have applied for U.S. citizenship since 2002.

S. 2480 is a good measure that will help ensure that our soldiers and veterans do not face unreasonable hurdles to U.S. citizenship.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Ciro Rodriguez, as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from California, Zoe Lofgren, as much time as she may need.

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