To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active-duty service abroad in the Armed Forces, the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, in 2008, I was proud to join Senator Durbin in support of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act, which President Bush signed into law. This last week I have been able to arrange on behalf of the Senate Judiciary Committee for expedited action on the bill's extension, and that the Senate is passing unanimously. I commend Chairman Lamar Smith and the House Judiciary Committee for moving this legislation, and Representative Cohen, the bill's author, for his leadership and attention to the issue. Without this measure, the authority we provided to help our Guard and Reserve families would expire. By taking this action we preserve the assistance this authority provides.

It is a privilege to work on behalf of the men and women who serve in the Vermont National Guard. They have and continue to make all Vermonters proud. I cannot say enough about the men and women who serve in the National Guard and Reserve. They and their families deserve the full support of Congress for the sacrifices they make. Especially now, where multiple conflicts have demanded even more of them, when so many have been called into active service, we need to keep them foremost in our thoughts.

Extending the protections of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act for another 4 years is the right thing to do. The bill the Senate passes today will exempt qualifying members of the Guard and Reserve from the harsh means test imposed in our bankruptcy laws a few years ago. As a result of Congress's enactment of a 2005 bankruptcy measure, passed at the behest of large banks and credit card companies, Americans who must make the difficult decision to seek the protection of the bankruptcy court now face onerous requirements to demonstrate that they are experiencing sufficient hardship to enter chapter 7 bankruptcy. Under the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Extension Act, qualifying members of the Guard and Reserve will be protected against the burden of this requirement for another 4 years.

In my view, no American, particularly in times of such economic hardship, should have this burdensome requirement of the so-called means test imposed upon them. The bankruptcy system was established to protect Americans and give them a fresh start. The 2005 enactment turned the law on its head. I opposed this provision in the Senate in 2005, and continue to have serious misgivings about a policy that presumes that Americans facing extreme financial hardships are abusing the bankruptcy process.

Passage of the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Extension Act is a step forward toward correcting our current policy.

I also note that passage of this legislation is another example of the good cooperation that exists between the Senate and House Judiciary Committees operating across the aisle and across the Capitol. Last night, the Senate passed H.R. 394, the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act, a bill sponsored by Chairman Smith to bring clarity to the operation of Federal jurisdictional and venue statutes, thereby helping to reduce wasteful litigation over these issues. This bipartisan bill was cosponsored in the House by Representatives by Howard Coble, ranking member John Conyers, Jr., and Hank Johnson of Georgia. Companion legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senator Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, and was cosponsored by Senator Sessions, the ranking member on the subcommittee.

These two bills are just the most recent examples of legislation I have worked with Chairman Smith to enact. Of course, we worked together to enact the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act to revitalize our patent laws. We worked together on authorizing the extension of the term of FBI Director Mueller, which required a statutory exception, and on reauthorizing the USA PATRIOT Act.

Other examples include H.R. 368, Representative Hank Johnson's bill to clarify removal provisions for matters filed in State courts against Federal agencies and officers; H.R. 398, Representative Lofgren's bill to toll certain time periods for those in active service to our country; S.1637, Senator Klobuchar's bill to clarify how time is calculated under the Federal Rules; and H.R. 2944, Chairman Smith's bill to extend the authority of the U.S. Parole Commission.

In addition to these nine measures, we are continuing to work on a number of additional bills, including: S. 1639, Senator Tester's bill to amend the American Legion charter; and S. 1541, Senator Bennet's bill to revise the Blue Star Mothers' charter.

I look forward to our continued collaborative relationship. Our successful efforts across the aisle and across the Capitol show that the partisan gridlock

that has become all too prevalent these days does not govern everywhere.

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

As the author of H.R. 398, I support this bill. It's a small measure to help support members of our Armed Forces who are serving overseas and their families here at home.

Our troops, who take up our country's call to service and volunteer to place themselves in harm's way, face uncertainties every day. For countless soldiers, the peace of mind that they get from family back home helps to keep them focused on the important job at hand. For that reason, it is critical that we not add to their burdens and instead seize the opportunity to alleviate even a small amount of the anxiety they feel.

As the chairman has indicated, there is a conditionality placed on residents gained through marriage. Couples are given a 90-day period just before the second anniversary of the grant to file to remove the conditions, and then they get only 90 days to appear in person for an interview. Now, only after this is done are the conditions removed. And if the conditional status is not removed in this way, the residence is terminated and the foreign national spouse could be deported. That means that either the spouse of one of our soldiers could be deported or the soldier himself could be deported.

Now, it's pretty hard to appear for the interview if you're serving in Iraq, and we certainly don't want our soldiers or their spouses to be deported. So I support this measure.

In 2008, as chairwoman of the House Immigration Subcommittee, I convened a hearing on the immigration needs of America's fighting men and women. At the hearing, we heard from members of the Armed Forces about countless challenges that they face because of our rigid and unyielding immigration system.

This bill will help to resolve just one of those challenges. It will not excuse military families from the requirements. It will simply allow them to put off those requirements if they choose during overseas deployments.

Of course, there are many problems with our country's immigration laws that this bill does not address, too many to count. And as we know from our 2008 hearing, those problems will continue to unnecessarily tear military families apart, distract from our mission abroad, and betray the fundamental values that we claim to hold dear.

But despite this great need, it is only this small bill, a bill that should help a few dozen servicemembers a year, that is on the floor for action.

I commend my colleagues Lamar Smith, Elton Gallegly, and John Conyers for joining me in introducing this very modest measure.

Our men and women on the front lines are standing in defense of our country, and their loved ones back home stand in defense of them. As Members of Congress, it's both a responsibility and an honor to provide whatever support we can. And while this bill may be small, it is important for the few dozen soldiers it may help each year. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 398) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll, during active-duty service abroad in the

Armed Forces, the periods of time to file a petition and appear for an interview to remove the conditional basis for permanent resident status, and for other purposes.

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 materials on H.R. 398, currently under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill, which provides relief to military servicemembers serving overseas who marry foreign spouses.

Our Nation's military should not have to worry about red tape while they are abroad protecting our freedoms. When a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident marries a foreign spouse, that spouse becomes a conditional permanent resident. After 2 years, the couple files a petition with the Department of Homeland Security for the removal of the conditional status. If the petition is successful, the immigrant becomes a permanent resident.

The petition generally must be filed before the second anniversary of the spouse's becoming a conditional permanent resident.

Upon the filing of the petition, DHS interviews the couple to determine whether there was any marriage fraud. The interview must be conducted unless DHS waives the deadline for the interview or the requirement for the interview.

This timetable is reasonable under normal circumstances. However, what happens when the U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse is serving overseas in active duty status in the Armed Forces?

It would certainly be a disruption to the military to have a member of the Armed Forces deployed overseas travel for a personal interview with DHS. Our military's focus should be on defending freedom, not bureaucracy.

While it is true that DHS can choose to delay this process in appropriate circumstances, this bill's provision should be standard policy while the spouse is serving abroad. Of course, the petition and interview would still take place when the spouse is no longer on active duty.

This bill is good for our military, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was absent earlier today due to a prior commitment scheduled before we knew the House would be in session. On the votes I missed, on H.R. 2715, to provide greater authority and discretion to the CPSC in enforcement of product safety laws, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H.R. 398, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to toll during national and active duty service abroad in the Armed Forces, I would have voted ``yes.''

On H.R. 1933, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to modify requirements, I would have voted ``yes.'' While I do recognize the shortage of nurses in our country, I would hope that we should focus on providing more incentives to students here to become nurses.

On the motion on ordering the previous question on the rule for S. 365, I would have voted ``no.''

On H. Res. 384, the rule providing for consideration of S. 365, I would have voted ``no.''

On the Journal vote, I would have voted ``yes.''

I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from the further consideration of H.R. 398, and the Senate proceed to its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and the Senate now proceed to a vote on the passage of the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with no

intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the bill be placed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read.