39–006

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

2

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 chilVerDate jul 14 2003 20:25 May 26, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR099.XXX HR099
3

dren) 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

4

ROLLCALL NO. 1—Continued

Ayes Nays Present 

Mr. Delahunt .....................................................................................................

Mr. Wexler .........................................................................................................

Mr. Weiner ......................................................................................................... X

Mr. Schiff ..........................................................................................................

Ms. Sa ́nchez ...................................................................................................... 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 

5

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). 

6

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:]

7


I2293A.eps
8


I2293B.eps
9


I2293C.eps
10


I2293D.eps
11

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. 

12

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 

13

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 

14

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:]

15

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 


A2293A.eps
16

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:]

17

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 


A2293B.eps
18

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 beVerDate jul 14 2003 20:25 May 26, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR099.XXX HR099
19

cause 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. 

20

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. 

21

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.] 

(23)

1Prior 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.’’

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

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-conVerDate jul 14 2003 20:25 May 26, 2005 Jkt 039006 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR099.XXX HR099
24

2Public 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, 

§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, §534(m). 3See the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Division J, Title IV, Subtitle 

B, §108–447. 4See 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, §405, P.L. 109–13. 5 Id at §501. 

nected. 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. 

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. 

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, 

25

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. 

26

Description of Amendments Offered by Democratic Members 

During the markup one amendment was offered by one Democratic Member, Mr. Conyers. 

1. Conyers Amendment

Description 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.

Æ