U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

86–950 PDF 2003

HOUSE MILITARY NATURALIZATION BILLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

H.R. 1685, H.R. 1714, H.R. 1799, H.R. 1275,

H.R. 1814 and H.R. 1850

MAY 6, 2003

Serial No. 15

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

LORA RIES, Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Full Committee Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 6, 2003

BILLS 

H.R. 1714, ‘‘Armed Forces Citizenship Act of 2003’’

H.R. 1275, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change the 

requirements for naturalization to citizenship through service in the Armed 

Forces of the United States

H.R. 1799, ‘‘Fallen Heros Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act of 2003’’

H.R. 1850, To provide for automatic naturalization for noncitizen members 

of the Armed Forces ordered to serve in a combat zone, and to extend 

immigration benefits to surviving apouses, children, and parents of persons 

granted posthumous citizenship through death while on active-duty service 

in the Armed Forces

H.R. 1685, To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to posthumous citizenship through death while on active-duty service during periods of military hostilities to eliminate the prohibition on immigration benefits for surviving family members and to provide such benfits for spouses 

and children

H.R. 1814, ‘‘Naturalization and Family Protection for Military Members Act 

of 2003’’

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 4

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 6

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Doc Hastings, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Washington 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

The Honorable Martin Frost, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 13

The Honorable Walter B. Jones, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of North Carolina 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 17

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 18

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 19

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21

Page

IV

The Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 22

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 23

The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 41

Prepared Statement by the Honorable Bob Filner, a Representative in Congress From the State of California ..................................................................... 42

(1)

HOUSE MILITARY NATURALIZATION BILLS 

TUESDAY, MAY 6, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John H. Hostettler 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. This Subcommittee will come to order. At the 

outset we will hear opening statements. And given that the Chair’s 

opening statement will probably exceed the 5-minute limit, that 

will also hold true for the rest of the Subcommittee. 

Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom and, more specifically, the news that some of the members of our Armed Forces 

who died in combat were permanent residents, several bills have 

been introduced to either ease their naturalization requirements or 

provide immigration benefits to surviving family members of those 

killed in combat, or both. 

The purpose of this hearing today is to examine these bills and 

to examine current law to determine what changes, if any, should 

be made to military naturalization. 

To join the United States military, an alien must be at least a 

lawful permanent resident. To hold certain specialized positions in 

the military such as a Navy SEAL, a person must be a U.S. citizen. 

Currently, over 37,000 active duty members of the Armed Forces 

are noncitizens out of a total of 1.4 million men and women on active duty. In other words, about 2.6 percent of the United States 

military is made up of non-U.S. citizens. Likewise, about 11,800 

members of the National Guard and Reserve are noncitizens out of 

a total of 1,353,000. This amounts to about 0.87 percent of our National Guard and Reserve being noncitizens. 

Under current immigration law, there are three mechanisms by 

which a member of the Armed Forces may become a naturalized 

U.S. citizen: 

First, section 328 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or 

INA, permits a person who has served honorably at any time in the 

U.S. Armed Forces, for a period or periods aggregating 3 years, and 

who if separated from such service was never separated except 

under honorable conditions, to naturalize. As a comparison, lawful 

permanent residents generally must have a green card for 5 years 

before they may be naturalized. However, lawful permanent residents married to U.S. citizens may apply for naturalization after 3 

2

years instead of 5 years. Applicants pay fees totaling $310 to naturalize. 

Second, section 329 of the INA permits an alien who has served 

honorably in an active duty status in the U.S. military during 

World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or 

in other periods of military hostilities designated by the President 

by Executive order and who have separated from such service, was 

honorably separated, to naturalize. An alien in this category may 

apply for naturalization immediately. 

We are currently in a period of military hostilities designated by 

the President by an Executive order. On July 3, 2002, President 

Bush officially designated the period beginning on September 11, 

2001 as a period of hostilities which triggered immediate naturalization eligibility for active duty U.S. Military service members 

under section 329 of the INA. 

The Department of Defense and the Bureaus of Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, formerly the INS, in the Department of 

Homeland Security work closely together to expedite military naturalization applications in what both Departments describe as a 

smooth process; 6,753 lawful permanent resident military personnel have filed naturalization applications since July 3rd of last 

year, the date of the President’s Executive order. 

The third way a noncitizen member of the Armed Forces may become a U.S. Citizen is subsequent to death while on active duty 

service under section 329(a) of the INA. An alien who honorably 

served in the military during a named hostility mentioned above, 

and died as a result of injury or disease incurred in or aggravated 

by that service, may be granted posthumous citizenship if applied 

for by the next of kin no later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Posthumous Citizenship Restoration Act of 2002 or the 

date of the person’s death, whichever date is later. Posthumous 

citizenship does not confer any immigration benefits onto any family member of the deceased alien. 

Currently, military personnel must be 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 

military personnel to have to leave their post abroad and return to 

the United States at their own expense. Many complain that this 

is both expensive and impractical. Accordingly, some of the bills introduced require the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense to ensure that 

naturalization applications, interviews, filings, oaths, and ceremonies are available at U.S. embassies, consulates, and, military 

installations abroad. Several Members’ bills also waive the fees for 

the naturalization petition and the naturalization certificate to 

ease the financial burden for members of the Armed Forces. 

I support a change in the naturalization process to permit members of the Armed Forces abroad to apply for naturalization interview and take the oath of citizenship at U.S. embassies, consulates, 

and abroad, as practicable. Forcing military personnel stationed 

abroad to return to the U.S. to apply for naturalization and to take 

the oath is impractical and causes unnecessary interruption in 

their military activity. 

3

Likewise, I do not oppose waiving the application fees for our 

military personnel. They perform an outstanding service for our 

country, and the current procedure is more than just an inconvenience to that service. 

A number of Members also wish to lower the number of years a 

member of the Armed Forces must be in the military before becoming eligible to apply for naturalization. H.R. 1275 and H.R. 1814 

lower the 3-year military service requirement to 2 years. One bill, 

H.R. 1714, lowers the 3-year requirement to zero years. In conjunction with immediate eligibility, H.R. 1714 requires revocation of 

citizenship for other than honorable separation from the military. 

H.R. 1814 also permits Reservists during named hostilities to naturalize immediately. 

I have misgivings about reducing the military service requirement below 3 years, as well as permitting aliens who join the Reserves during named hostilities to be able to naturalize immediately. While noncitizens currently serve in our Armed Forces, 

they must demonstrate their loyalty and their character for 3 years 

before they become U.S. Citizens. Let me reiterate. Current law already recognizes the unique nature of military service by noncitizens by reducing the waiting period from the standard 5 years to 

3 years for those who serve. To permit an alien to sign on the dotted line to join the military and then immediately become eligible 

for U.S. Citizenship diminishes what it means to be a citizen of the 

United States of America. 

In addition, to push aside concerns about a brand-new recruit becoming a citizen because the law permits that citizenship to be 

taken away if they are subsequently discharged under other than 

honorable conditions neither holds U.S. Citizenship sacrosanct nor 

acknowledges the difficulty and rarity in denaturalizing someone. 

Last year 573,708 aliens naturalized. Around 60 naturalized citizens were denaturalized. Many judges are loath to take a lawful 

permanent resident’s green card away. Think how reluctant judges 

would be to take away a person’s citizenship. And remember, it is 

a Federal judge who decides and has discretion to denaturalize 

someone, not the military. 

Furthermore, we already know that al Qaeda has sought to recruit U.S. citizens because they can travel abroad, cannot be deported, and blend easily into American society. If September 11th 

taught us anything, it taught us that terrorists who wish to harm 

us are very creative and that we need to be more creative to stop 

them. That means that we cannot create more immigration loopholes which terrorists can easily exploit. It doesn’t take much creative thought to realize that if a noncitizen soldier can naturalize 

immediately upon joining the military and work in the most sensitive positions, the lure of the military for terrorists will only increase. Terrorists have already recruited members of our Armed 

Forces who are trained in our military, learn our tactics, and gain 

access to our weapons. Opening this loophole would be irresponsible. 

The second area in which these bills legislate is in granting immigration benefits to the survivors of members of our Armed 

Forces killed in combat. These changes include waiving the 2-year 

marriage requirement for the spouse of a U.S. citizen soldier killed 

4

in action to remain an immediate relative for immigration benefits, 

waiving the fee for the posthumous citizenship application, and 

permitting family members of posthumous-granted U.S. Citizens to 

receive immigration benefits while waiving the affidavit of support 

filing requirement and other grounds of inadmissibility. 

I do not oppose letting a spouse of a U.S. citizen killed in combat 

retain the same immigration status as an immediate relative, as 

would have occurred had the U.S. citizen not died, nor do I oppose 

waiving the fee for the next of kin to apply for posthumous citizenship for members of the Armed Forces who are killed during their 

service. I do, however, have concerns with granting immigration 

benefits to family members of those granted posthumous citizenship. While the numbers of aliens this would affect may be minimal, this is a significant departure from longstanding law. What 

makes such a change necessary now that didn’t exist before? In addition, what will we say to the family members of Armed Forces 

personnel granted posthumous citizenship prior to 9/11/2001? 

Those family members will certainly ask that they, too, be able to 

pursue immigration benefits based on their deceased family member. 

Having said all that, I now yield to the Ranking Member, Ms. 

Jackson Lee, for an opening statement. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 

am very pleased that we were able to hold this hearing and proceed 

with the very instructive legislative initiatives by the very able 

Members that appear before us this morning. And I want to thank 

the Members very much for the leadership that they have shown 

on this I think very unique and singular issue. 

Might I say, Mr. Chairman, that on behalf of the Members on 

this side—and I appreciate the presence of Ms. Sa ́nchez—that 

many of our Members are en route to Washington and would have 

liked to have been here. But because of their schedules—and some 

of whom have come from or are in California, as far as California— some were not able to be here with us this morning. And I know 

that the Members of this Subcommittee would like to equally compliment all of you for the leadership that you have shown. 

Mr. Chairman, the one thing that I know about the hearings this 

morning is that we are doing the right thing. There is no doubt 

that the present configuration of the immigration law is wrong as 

relates to patriots who happen not to be citizens, as relates to those 

who were willing to give the ultimate sacrifice who happen not to 

be citizens, as relates to family members of those who have given 

the ultimate sacrifice and who happen not to be citizens. So clearly 

we are doing the right thing. I think, Mr. Chairman, it has to be 

a question of how do we do a better thing. 

Might I share with you the story of Jose Gutierrez, who was an 

orphan from Guatemala when he hitchhiked on railcars into Mexico in 1997. He entered the United States illegally. Later, however, 

as a minor with no parents, he qualified for permanent residency 

and was taken in by a foster family. He graduated from high school 

and studied at a junior college before joining the Marine Corps. On 

March 21st, 2003, in a battle with Iraq’s Republican Guard troops, 

Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez was killed in the service of the 

country he so loved. 

5

According to Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers, 

he once said to me: I was born the day I arrived in this country. 

Jones was one of—Jose, rather, was one of four fallen Marines 

who deserve special mention because they died in service to a country or in a country that they could not yet call their own. The other 

three were Private First Class Francisco Martinez Flores, Corporal 

Jose Angel Gabray, and Lance Corporal Jesus Sorres Del Solar, all 

born in Mexico. 

Immigrants have long seen service in the United States as a 

gateway to citizenship, education, economic opportunity; and the 

deaths of these four marines echo those of other noncitizens who 

died for their country before them. Their valor is well documented. 

Their love is well documented. Their commitment is well documented. Their patriotism is well documented. 

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 example, section 328 of the Immigration Nationality Act 

allows noncitizen members of the military in peacetime to become 

citizens after 3 years of service instead of the usual 5-year wait requirement of nonmilitary applicants. In addition, section 329 of 

INA allows noncitizens to receive immediate naturalization eligibility through their active duty service in the Armed Forces during 

periods of military hostilities. Yet there is much work for us to do. 

This opportunity becomes available when the President designates 

by Executive order that the Armed Services are or were engaged 

in armed conflict with a hostile foreign force. Under section 329 of 

the INA, 143,000 noncitizen military participants in World Wars I 

and II and 31,000 members of the U.S. Military who fought during 

the Korean War became naturalized American citizens. Executive 

orders following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf collectively led to 

more than 100,000 members of the U.S. Military becoming American citizens. 

Those are fine processes, but we need to have new law on this 

issue. It is well overdue. Notwithstanding this history of generosity 

toward people who have served in our Armed Forces, the provisions 

of military service-based naturalization can be improved. 

The bills that are the subject of this hearing offer improvements 

in a number of areas. For instance, some of the bills would reduce 

the 3-year wait for peacetime. Some of my colleagues would like 

the time reduced to 2 years; others would eliminate the wait entirely and permit a peacetime soldier to begin the naturalization 

process immediately when he or she begins activity duty in the 

Armed Forces. 

Let it be very clear that at the time of an individual’s willingness 

to sign the papers, they have made the commitment to be able to 

stand for this Nation and to offer the ultimate sacrifice. If there is 

any litmus test, it should be simply that. They have been willing 

to sign up, they are willing to stand on behalf of all of our freedoms. 

The area that concerns me most is the posthumous naturalization which is granted when a soldier dies while on active duty during a period of military hostility. As presently written, the postVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:26 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050603\86950.000 HJUD2 PsN: 86950
6

humous naturalization provisions explicitly state that the soldier’s 

spouse and children will not benefit from the grant of posthumous 

citizenship. Several of the bills would remove this exclusion and 

specify that the spouse and children will be eligible for immigration 

benefits on the basis of the posthumous grant of naturalization. 

We must move quickly on this aspect, but I believe that we must 

go further. We need to show the extent of our gratitude toward the 

soldiers who died for this country by making citizenship readily 

available for their surviving spouses who are already lawful permanent residents of the United States. Ordinarily, a lawful permanent 

resident must be married to a United States citizen for a period of 

3 years before he or she can apply for the naturalization as a 

spouse of a United States citizen. Section 319(d) of the act waives 

that requirement in the case where the lawful permanent resident 

spouse is married to a citizen spouse who dies during a period of 

honorable service. That provision should be revised to apply in a 

case where the soldier’s citizenship is received posthumously. 

The only difference between the two situations is that the one 

addressed by the current law applies to a soldier who receives his 

citizenship while he is alive; while, as 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 service. If anything, the posthumous situation is more compelling than any other 

situation. Posthumous situation citizenship is given when a soldier 

dies during a period of military hostility. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe we can work together. We 

might be able to work together even in spite of your comments this 

morning as we listen to our colleagues about the 2-year waiver regarding the marriage requirement. The fees that are presently utilized, I believe we have common agreement: the eligibility time 

frame for the naturalization period, the 3-year eligibility period for 

naturalization, to a certain number of years; the fees, both in the 

Federal level and the State level; the requirement for the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of 

Defense that we might look at; and, as well, the requirements regarding the Department of Defense in facilitating the final naturalization processes. There are many aspects of these particular 

legislative initiatives that I would hope the Judiciary Committee 

would find common ground, and that we would be able to work together to ensure that when we finally pass legislation it will answer the question do we in fact pay tribute to these great and valiant soldiers, those living and those who have been willing and 

have given their lives. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

Are there any other Members who wish to make opening statements? Ms. Sa ́nchez from California. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, and thank you to all of the witnesses who have 

come here today to talk about the legislation on the issue of military naturalization. I applaud my fellow Members of Congress for 

recognizing the need for legislation in this area. 

In this country, noncitizens have worn our military uniforms and 

fought in our battles throughout history. In fact, one of my uncles 

7

served while a noncitizen. More recently, the percentage of noncitizens serving in our military has been on the rise. The Department 

of Defense now estimates that approximately 3 percent of our military are legal permanent residents. It seems only fair to recognize 

and reward these individuals for the sacrifices they have made and 

are willing to make. Without being citizens and without having the 

protections that status would give them, these immigrant men and 

women are willing to risk their own lives to defend this Nation. 

The very least we can do is to give them something in return. And 

the kinds of things recommended by these bills are the kinds of 

things that we all can support. No one is asking that everyone who 

signs up for the military should become citizens with no requirements whatsoever. We are talking about checking all the proper 

criteria, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s and then, if everything 

checks out, giving them citizenship. 

Let us take the case of spouses and children of noncitizen soldiers who die while serving this country. If those spouses and children are waiting for immigration applications to be processed, it 

seems like the height of insult to take that away from them. Again, 

no one is suggesting that they should automatically be granted citizenship or other legal status. What is being suggested is that they 

be given the opportunity to continue pursuing their application. 

I am sure it is an honor for individuals whose spouse or parent 

died to know that that person was granted posthumous citizenship, 

but we need to seriously ask ourselves if that is enough. If somebody gives the most that they can give this country, their very life, 

then doesn’t it seem like this country should give them something 

back? Since the soldier is no longer alive to receive those benefits, 

it seems only fitting to pass those benefits on to the soldier’s spouse 

and children. 

As a co-sponsor of the Frost and the Solis bills, I wholly support 

these efforts to thank our legal permanent residents for their efforts and sacrifices. I urge my fellow Subcommittee Members to do 

the same. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

At this time we will hear from our witnesses and colleagues. 

First of all, Representative Doc Hastings won election to the U.S. 

House of Representatives in 1994 to serve Central Washington’s 

Fourth Congressional District. He was reelected to a fifth term in 

2002. Congressman Hastings sits on the House Rules Committee as 

well as the Budget Committee. He is also the Republican assistant 

majority whip for the House. He has introduced H.R. 1714, the 

‘‘Armed Forces Citizenship Act of 2002,’’ about which he will testify 

today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Representative Martin Frost is serving his 

13th term, representing the 24th Congressional District of Texas. 

He serves as the Ranking Democrat Member of the House Rules 

Committee, and was the Chairman of the House Democratic Caucus from 1999 through 2002. Congressman Frost’s wife is a Major 

General on active duty in the United States Army. And I didn’t realize that until today, Congressman. And I understand you probably have a very unique perspective of this issue, and we appreciate her service as well. 

8

He has introduced H.R. 1275 to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to change the requirements for naturalization to citizenship through service in the Armed Forces of the United States, 

about which he will testify today. 

Representative Walter Jones is serving his fifth term representing the Third Congressional District of North Carolina. He 

sits on the Committees on Armed Services, Financial Services, and 

Resources. He has introduced H.R. 1799, the ‘‘Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act of 2003,’’ the subject of his testimony 

here today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Representative Luis Gutierrez is serving his 

sixth term as the Representative from the Fourth District of Illinois. He sits on the Financial Services and Veterans’ Affairs Committees. Mr. Gutierrez has introduced H.R. 1850, the ‘‘Fairness for 

America’s Heroes Act,’’ about which he will testify today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Representative Darrell Issa is serving his second term as the Representative for the 49th Congressional District 

of California. He sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and 

formerly was a Member of the Judiciary Committee during the 

107th Congress, including this Subcommittee. Congressman Issa 

enlisted in the Army during his senior year of high school and attained the rank of captain after attending college on an ROTC 

scholarship. Mr. Issa has introduced H.R. 1685, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act relating to posthumous citizenship 

through death while on active duty service during periods of military hostilities, to eliminate the prohibition on immigration benefits for surviving family members, and to provide such benefits for 

spouse and children, the subject of his testimony here today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Representative Hilda Solis was first elected to 

Congress in 2000, and is currently serving her second term representing the 32nd Congressional District of California. Congresswoman Solis serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and 

is the Ranking Member of the Environmental and Hazardous Material Subcommittee. She is also the assistant whip chairwoman of 

the Congressional Hispanic Caucus’s Task Force on Health, and 

Democratic Vice Chair on the Congressional Caucus of Women’s 

Issues. Ms. Solis has introduced H.R. 1814, the ‘‘Naturalization and 

Family Protection for Military Members Act of 2003,’’ about which 

she will testify today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Lady and gentlemen, thank you very much for 

being here and for your service. The Chair now recognizes Representative Doc Hastings for your opening statement. And without 

objection, all opening statements will be made available to the 

record. So you are free to testify. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 

this morning, and I would like to commend you for holding this 

hearing that is of great importance both to the Nation and to many 

of our men and women in uniform. 

Last week when President Bush welcomed home the officers and 

crew serving aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, he took special 

9

care to note the sacrifices made during the war in Iraq by soldiers, 

sailors, airmen, and marines who will not be returning home to 

their loved ones. Tragically, under current law, some of those who 

died wearing the uniform of the United States gave their lives before they were truly entitled to call themselves Americans. To me, 

that is just plain wrong and is an injustice that I hope Congress 

will move quickly to correct. 

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this is our chance to do the right 

thing for those who are doing the right thing for America. Now, I 

am not referring to illegal aliens or undocumented workers or those 

here in the U.S. on various kinds of temporary permits or visas. 

Rather, I am talking about legal permanent residents of this country, those born overseas and who by law are entitled to live and 

work in this country for the rest of their lives if they choose to. 

What they are not entitled to do, not yet anyway, is to become U.S. 

citizens with all the rights that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens 

under our Constitution. 

Mr. Chairman, you alluded to the fact that there were 37,000 

noncitizen immigrants serving in the Armed Services. Frankly, 

that number surprised me, but those 37,000 patriotic men and 

women have sworn an oath to protect and defend a Nation whose 

ideals they love and respect and believe in. Is there any better way 

to demonstrate your fitness for citizenship than to make that kind 

of commitment to what our Nation stands for? Aren’t these precisely the kind of individuals that we want to be U.S. citizens? 

Under existing laws, if you never enter the military, legal permanent residents—and those are the types of people we are talking 

about—can simply wait 5 years and become naturalized citizens; 

or, by joining the military they can apply for citizenship sooner, 

after serving 3 years on active duty or in the Reserves. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe 3 years simply is too long a waiting period for men and women who have made the kind of commitment 

to our Nation that you make by enlisting in the Armed Forces. And 

I should also note that most of the individuals we are talking about 

were already here and had been legal permanent residents for 

some time period before beginning their military service. 

Shortly before the April recess, I introduced H.R. 1714, the 

‘‘Armed Services Citizenship Act,’’ which would have made active 

duty personnel immediately eligible for citizenship. My bill would 

also waive the customary administrative fees required for naturalization, and make it possible for service men and women to take 

their citizenship oaths overseas. 

Finally, a critically important section of my bill provides for citizenship gained in this fashion to be revoked if the serviceman is 

discharged under other than honorable circumstances. In other 

words, they must follow through on their commitment. They have 

to do their part to become a citizen. 

I am pleased that in just the few days that we have been in session since the break, over 25 of my colleagues have joined on a bipartisan basis to cosponsor my bill. However, after extensive conversations with immigration officials, the military services, and a 

number of my colleagues, I have made several changes that are to 

be incorporated in my new bill which has not yet been assigned a 

number by the clerk. 

10

First, in response to Members who are reluctant to grant immediate eligibility for citizenship, I would now propose to establish eligibility after 1 year of military service. According to the Defense 

Department, the vast majority of those failing to complete their initial enlistments are gone before the first year that they have been 

in uniform. For the most part, by the end of the year of service, 

we know what kind of people these individuals are. 

Second, because the current law accelerating naturalization for 

military personnel makes no distinction between active duty service and Reserves, I have removed that distinction from my original 

bill. 

Finally, I would strongly urge the Committee to make it possible 

for military personnel to begin the paperwork process for naturalization upon entering military service in the hope that once they 

have served the required time in uniform, there would be no unnecessary further delay in administering their oaths of office. Ideally, 

by the time any individual was ordered into harm’s way, he or she 

would be made eligible to become citizens of the country that they 

serve to defend. 

So in closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am pleased that 

several of my colleagues have introduced legislation conferring citizenship on those servicemen who have lost their lives before becoming citizens. And while I support their efforts, I am hopeful 

that this Committee will work to ensure that it is never again necessary to grant citizenship to an American soldier who has died in 

service of this country before that individual experiences the tremendous pride felt by those who can say five very simple words, 

and I quote, ‘‘I am an American citizen,’’ end quote. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Hastings. 

[The statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to 

testify this morning and I’d like to commend you for holding this hearing on an 

issue of great importance both to the nation and to many of our men and women 

in uniform. 

Last week, when President Bush welcomed home the officers and crew serving 

aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, he took special care to note the sacrifices made 

during the war in Iraq by soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who won’t be returning home to their loved ones. 

Tragically, under current law, some of those who died wearing the uniform of the 

United States gave their lives before they were truly entitled to call themselves 

‘‘Americans.’’

That’s just plain wrong, and it’s an injustice I hope Congress will move quickly 

to correct. 

Simply put, Mr. Chairman, this is our chance to do the right thing—for those who 

are doing the right thing for America. 

I’m not referring to illegal aliens, or undocumented workers, or those here in the 

U.S. on various kinds of temporary permits and visas. Rather, I’m talking about 

Legal Permanent Residents of this country—those born overseas, but who by law 

are entitled to live and work in this country for the rest of their lives if they so 

choose. 

What they are not entitled to do—not yet, anyway—is become U.S. citizens, with 

all the rights that are guaranteed to U.S. citizens under our Constitution. 

It might surprise members of this committee—because I know it surprised me—

to learn that there are currently more than 37,000 non-citizen legal immigrants 

serving on active duty in our armed forces. 

11

37,000 patriotic men and women who have sworn an oath to protect and defend 

a nation whose ideals they love and respect and believe in. Is there any better way 

to demonstrate your fitness for citizenship than to make that kind of commitment 

to what our nation stands for? Aren’t these precisely the kind of individuals we 

should want as U.S. citizens? 

Under existing law, if they never enter the military, Legal Permanent Residents 

can simply wait five years and become naturalized citizens. Or, by joining the military they can apply for citizenship sooner—after serving for three years on active 

duty or in the reserves. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe three years is simply too long a waiting period for men 

and women who have made the kind of commitment to our nation that you make 

by enlisting in the armed forces. And I should also note that most of the individuals 

we’re talking about here have already had Legal Permanent Resident status for 

some period of time before beginning their military service. 

Shortly before the April recess, I introduced legislation (HR 1714—‘‘The Armed 

Forces Citizenship Act’’) which would have made active duty military personnel immediately eligible for citizenship. My bill would also waive the customary administrative fees required for naturalization, and make it possible for service men and 

women to take their citizenship oaths overseas. Finally, a critically important section of my bill provides for citizenship gained in this fashion to be revoked if the 

serviceman is discharged under ‘‘other than honorable’’ circumstances. They must 

follow through on their commitment—they have to do their part. 

I’m pleased that in just the few days we’ve been in session since the break, 25 

of my colleagues have joined as co-sponsors of my bill. 

However, after extensive conversations with immigration officials, the military 

services, and a number of my colleagues, I have made several changes that are incorporated in my new bill, which has not yet been assigned a number by the Clerk. 

First, in response to Members who are reluctant to grant ‘‘immediate eligibility’’ for citizenship, I would now propose to establish eligibility after one year of military 

service. According to the Defense Department, the vast majority of those failing to 

complete their initial enlistments are gone before the end of their first year in uniform. For the most part, by the end of a year in the service, we know what kind 

of people these individuals are. 

Second, because the current law accelerating naturalization for military personnel 

makes no distinction between active duty and service in the reserves, I have removed that distinction from my bill as well. 

And finally, I would strongly urge the Committee to make it possible for military 

personnel to begin the paperwork process for naturalization upon entering military 

service, in the hope that once they have served the required time in uniform, there 

would be no unnecessary further delay in administering their oaths of office. Ideally, 

by the time any individual was ordered into harms way, he or she would be made 

eligible to become citizens of the country they serve to defend. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I am pleased that several of my colleagues have introduced legislation conferring citizenship on those servicemen who 

lost their lives before becoming citizens. And while I support their efforts, I am 

hopeful that this committee will work to ensure that it is never again necessary to 

grant citizenship to an American soldier who has died in the service of his country—

before experiencing the tremendous pride felt by all those who can say five very 

simple words, ‘‘I am an American citizen.’’

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Congressman Frost. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MARTIN FROST, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my written 

testimony, if I may, and submit my entire statement for the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, my legislation predated the President’s Executive order of last year and predated the involvement 

in Iraq. My legislation was first suggested to me by the then Adjutant General of the United States Army, Major General Kathy 

Frost, my spouse. And the reason it was suggested to me was that 

as Adjutant General of the Army, she observed the great difficulty 

that legal residents had in applying for citizenship under current 

12

law; that is, not being able to apply at their duty station wherever 

they were around the world, having to fly back to the United 

States at their own expense, perhaps as much as $1,000 required 

for air fare, the difficulty in scheduling their appointments, their 

interviews here in the United States, and that really current law 

did not work. 

The question also involved the amount of time; under current 

law, as has previously been stated, there was a 3-year requirement. 

My legislation would reduce this to 2 years. 

I listened with interest to the testimony of my colleague, Doc 

Hastings. The 1-year provision in his new bill is an interesting 

idea. I think that there must be a specific period of time. I suggested 2 years because that was the minimum tour of duty in the 

United States Army. Perhaps this Committee would want to consider 1 year. I believe 2 years is an appropriate period of time. And 

the reason that I provided 2 years, as was previously testified by 

Doc Hastings, is that 25 percent of the men and women who sign 

up for our military leave before they have completed their 2 years 

of service. 

And, more specifically, there is a period of basic training that I 

went through as an enlisted man in the Army. There is a period 

of advanced individual training. All this occurs before you are ever 

assigned to a unit. And that is when our services make the basic 

decision as to whether this is an appropriate person to serve, and 

that is also when many of the people who have volunteered are unable to fulfill the requirements of service in our Army or our other 

branches. 

So I think a time period is very important, whether it be the 2-

year period as suggested by my legislation, or perhaps the 1-year 

period as suggested by my colleague Mr. Hastings. This, doing 

something, is very very important, however. We all know about the 

President’s Executive order, an Executive order that has been 

issued by other Presidents in times of wartime. There is the remedy in time when our country is engaged in war to provide for a 

shorter period of time, as the President has appropriately done. 

We need permanent legislation that will apply no matter whether we are in war or whether we are simply building up our Armed 

Services. That is why I introduced the legislation that would reduce the 3-year period, and that is why I introduced legislation 

that would eliminate the fees and make it possible for people to be 

processed in their duty station wherever they are around the 

world. 

I would hope that the Chair would reconsider his position as to 

the 3-year requirement. I believe that is too long. And also I think 

that it is imperative that we pass some legislation to recognize the 

soldiers who have fallen in this most recent battle. You have heard 

their names, some of them previously stated: PFC Francisco Martinez Flores, Corporal Jose Anhel Gadabay, Lance Corporal Jesus 

Suarez De Solar, Lance Corporal Jose Gutierrez, and others who 

have given their lives or risked their lives for this country. 

I represent a very large Hispanic constituency. My district is 38 

percent Hispanics. Hispanics evidence a high degree of support for 

this country. They are very proud of being in the United States and 

of serving our Nation. And I believe this legislation is long overdue. 

13

I hope the Committee will listen carefully to the testimony of all 

my colleagues who all offer constructive suggestions, and that you 

fashion some legislation that will recognize the service of these 

brave men and women to our country. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Frost. 

[The statement of Mr. Frost follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN FROST, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate and thank you for this opportunity to testify today 

on an issue of such great importance to our Armed Forces and our nation. 

In the war against Saddam Hussein, non-citizen soldiers were among the first 

brave men and women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before joining the U.S. 

military—like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose Angel Garibay and Lance 

Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were born in Guatemala—like Lance Cpl. Jose 

Gutierrez. But all died fighting for a country where they couldn’t even cast a vote. 

These brave individuals earned the respect and gratitude of every American citizen. All of those who’ve chosen to make ultimate sacrifices for the defense of our 

country certainly have earned the full rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship. 

Thousands of our troops, including many who just faced combat in the Iraq, are 

not U.S. citizens. According to the Department of Defense, the number of legal permanent residents serving on active duty has risen to 37,401 or about 3 percent of 

our military. Additionally, thousands of immigrants serve in the reserves and were 

called up for active duty. 

The ranks of non-citizens serving in the Armed Forces are growing, and today’s immigrants are building upon a rich legacy of service in the U.S. military—immigrants have fought in every American conflict, from the Revolutionary War to the 

War with Iraq. The military service of immigrants reflects the strong strain of patriotism among generations who’ve chosen to come to America. And the patriotism of 

today’s large Hispanic immigrant communities is particularly strong. 

However, thousands of those troops are still not citizens today because of the significant obstacles that remain. 

The sacrifices of legal permanent residents in our military are unique—they 

choose to defend the freedom of American citizens while not sharing in the full 

rights and privileges of citizenship themselves. Unfortunately, the process for granting citizenship to immigrants within the U.S. military still places heavy burdens 

upon them, especially those serving in the toughest overseas assignments. 

Under current law, immigrant troops who have served three years in the military 

may apply for citizenship. All citizenship interviews however, must be done in the 

U.S. Therefore, troops must pay their own way back and are subject to burdensome 

immigration fees. In total, a low-paid G.I. deployed overseas could easily have to 

spend more than $1,000 on fees and travel expenses to complete the naturalization 

process. These costs, and the difficulty of scheduling appointments months in advance, make it all but impossible for the non-citizens fighting for America in Iraq 

or Afghanistan to become U.S. citizens while they serve on the front lines. 

Congress has an opportunity to relieve immigrant troops of these burdens—and 

to pay tribute to their sacrifices—by passing H.R. 1275, the ‘‘Citizenship for America’s Troops Act,’’ a bi-partisan bill that I first introduced last May. 

My bill would remove unfair and unnecessary obstacles to facing thousands of 

legal permanent residents serving honorably in the U.S. military trying to obtain 

their citizenship. My legislation does the following:

• Lowers the military service year requirement from three years to two years 

in order to apply for citizenship

• Allows citizenship interviews and oath ceremonies to be conducted overseas 

at U.S. embassies, consulates, and military installations.

• Exempts these troops from paying all fees relating to naturalization.

Last year, following the precedent of previous administrations in time of military 

conflict, President Bush signed an Executive Order making those who had been on 

active duty since September 11th immediately eligible for citizenship. However, this 

executive order is only good only in times of conflict and not peace. 

It is often said that the best offense is a good defense. Our military is undisputed 

as the most powerful in the world. This is due in no small part because of the contributions of legal permanent resident soldiers. Their efforts in times of peace 

14

should not go unrecognized and unrewarded. As we have seen in the last months’

of war, legal permanent resident troops were all too willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice when called to serve their country at war. 

H.R. 1275 has the support of several prominent immigrantion and military organizations—the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Council of 

La Raza, the National Association of Latino Elected Officials, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Air Force Association. 

This is not a partisan issue—both Republican and Democratic Members are cosponsoring the Citizenship for America’s Troops Act. That’s because the ‘‘Citizenship 

For America’s Troops Act’’ contains simple, common sense measures to make life 

easier for dedicated, military personnel who dearly wish to become U.S. citizens. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.


A.eps
15


B.eps
16


C.eps
17

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Congressman Jones. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I thank the Ranking 

Member and the men and women on this Committee for this opportunity to discuss H.R. 1799, the ‘‘Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse 

Fairness Act.’’ Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, this does 

two very simple things: It eliminates the 2-year marriage threshold 

for immigrant spouses petitioning for permanent legal residence, 

and it waives the $80 fee charged to the family seeking postVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:26 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050603\86950.000 HJUD2 PsN: 86950

D.eps
18

humous citizenship for their loved ones who have died in the line 

of duty. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, I can very briefly tell 

you how this came to my attention. Several weeks ago, Sergeant 

Michael Bitts was killed in Iraq. His wife Janina is from Australia. 

They had three children. One was 3 years old, a little boy; then Michael had twins born that he never saw, and they were born after 

he was deployed. I went down to the funeral of Sergeant Michael 

Bitts down at Camp Lejeune, and I had the opportunity to speak 

to the family to convey my sympathy on behalf of my colleagues in 

the House and the Senate. 

Also, at that time I had the opportunity to speak to Pat Millish. 

She is the immigration liaison for the Judge Advocate at Camp 

Lejeune, which is in my district. Also Fort Bragg and Pope Air 

Force Base; those two bases are not in my district. We discussed 

the need for this legislation, because what has happened is that if 

by chance Mrs. Bitts had been in this country 1 year and 11 

months, then she would have to start the whole naturalization 

process from the beginning, from day one. As it worked out, she 

had been here 2 years and 1 month prior after her husband’s 

death. So basically what we are trying to do is to say to that family 

member who has lost a loved one, whether it be in a non-wartime 

situation or in a wartime situation, that you may continue the 

process where you are when that loved one dies. 

And it is very simple legislation. It is to the point. And, quite 

frankly, Ms. Millish says that she hopes that the House and the 

Senate would pass this very simple legislation to help the loved one 

who has lost an individual who has been in the service. 

I am pleased to tell you and the Committee that we do have the 

written support of the Fleet Reserve Association, the National Military Families Association. And again, this is a bill that does two 

simple things. But I think it is so important to that spouse so that 

when she or he loses a loved one and they are in the naturalization 

process, they don’t have to go back to the very beginning of the 

process. They continue where they are at that point in the process 

when that loved one has lost their life. 

So Mr. Chairman, with that, again I thank you and the Committee for giving me this opportunity to testify, and I will thank 

you and be glad to answer any questions when that time comes forward. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Jones. 

[The statement of Mr. Jones follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for inviting me 

to speak on the topic of House Military Naturalization Bills. I am pleased to have 

this opportunity to speak about legislation aimed at amending current immigration 

law to eliminate the 2-year marriage threshold for immigrant spouses petitioning 

for permanent legal residence and to waive the $80 fee charged to families seeking 

posthumous citizenship for their loved one who has died in the line of duty. 

I have recently introduced legislation, the Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act, H.R. 1799, to address the two issues I have mentioned. As the current law 

is written, should a U.S. citizen spouse die before a 2-year period of marriage is 

reached, the pending application of the non-citizen spouse is vacated. Widows and 

widowers of our men and women in uniform who are in the process of applying for 

19

a green card should not have their application process terminated if they are unfortunate enough to have lost their loved one prior to reaching the 2-year threshold. 

In the 3rd District of North Carolina, where there are numerous military installations and facilities, one of my constituents was killed during Operation Iraqi Freedom. This constituent’s spouse is a legal immigrant seeking to become a citizen and 

had been living in the 3rd District for 2 years and one month prior to her husband’s 

death. Consequently her paperwork for a green card will proceed. However, it is incomprehensible to me that should this immigrant spouse have been married for 1 

year and 364 days her paper work would have been voided due to the death of her 

husband. That is wrong. The time limit should be eliminated for spouses whose 

loved ones have given their lives serving our Nation. 

The Fallen Heroes Immigrant Spouse Fairness Act would amend Section 

201(b)2(A)(i) of Immigration and Nationality Act to eliminate the 2 year marriage 

requirement for foreign spouses of U.S. citizens who die while serving. Additionally 

this legislation seeks to remedy a practice of charging families of non-citizen soldiers 

who are killed in the line of duty an $80 fee for processing an application for posthumous citizenship. These brave men and women have made the ultimate sacrifice 

protecting the freedom and interests of the United States. As such, the imposition 

of a fee for the application process for posthumous citizenship is an insult to the 

contribution these service men and women made to our national defense. 

It is my sincere wish that we can make these common sense changes to our immigration process. We should not punish the families of our soldiers simply because 

they are unfortunate enough to have incurred the greatest loss of all with the death 

of their loved one in the service of our country.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Congressman Gutierrez. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, Members of the Committee, thank you so much for allowing us to come before you this morning. I want to thank my colleagues, Congressman Hastings and Congressman Frost and my 

good friend Walter Jones and Issa and Hilda Solis. I think, and I 

hope, Mr. Chairman—and I heard your opening remarks, and I 

apologize, the plane was a little late this morning. I really do apologize. I hope you don’t take that as any consideration as a lack of 

importance of this hearing. 

But look at this wonderful group of Congressmen, if I may so include myself. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I just can’t think of another moment in my 11 

years in the Congress of the United States where we have brought 

together such a diverse grouping of Members of Congress from different—obviously the two political parties, and even within the political parties, different ideological bents within those political parties. But we have all come together because we see an injustice. 

And I hope you will take that into consideration as you and the 

Ranking Members and other Members of the Subcommittee make 

your deliberations on this issue. 

I too will follow my colleague, Congressman Jones, and simply 

try to explain a little bit about the Fairness for America’s Hero’s 

Act, H.R. 1815. And what it does, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee, it simply says that when the Commander in Chief 

of the Armed Forces of the United States, the President, calls you 

to combat duty, that at that moment you become conferred with 

American citizenship. 

I say this because you shouldn’t have to die in order to be posthumously given American citizenship. Someone shouldn’t have to 

20

go out and pay for and search out a death certificate for someone 

who has died defending this Nation in order to be granted American citizenship. I mean, think about it, Mr. Chairman. You apply 

for permanent residency. That takes time. By the time you sign 

up—and you know, we don’t take everybody these days. We make 

sure that we take the best qualified into our Armed Forces these 

days. 

Then, as Martin Frost, Congressman Martin Frost, you go into 

training. They check you out, they take your fingerprints. They 

find out who you are. They find out something about you during 

that time. And then you get more training. I mean, by the time this 

soldier takes that gun and is called to combat duty, of the 37,000 

noncitizens that currently are in the Armed Forces of the United 

States, about 10 percent of them are called to combat duty. So that 

is who we are talking about. 

And so all my bill proposes to do is to say, look, if you are willing 

to pay the highest tax in this body—which is the taxing body—of 

this great Nation of ours, if you are willing to pay the highest tax 

that any citizen or any member of a nation can pay, which is the 

tax of their life and their limb and their health, then at that moment that Nation should respond and say you are a complete member of this great body of the United States of America. We are not 

going to wait for you to die. 

I mean, think about it. They have applied. We all have casework 

in our office where people have applied. And then, Mr. Chairman, 

they send them to combat duty, they send them to training, they 

can’t get back, they miss the exam date. 

Why are we waiting to give somebody on combat duty a civics 

test so they can become an American citizen? I mean, they have 

given us all a lesson in civics. An English test? They got that when 

they were in basic training. They wouldn’t have made it through 

without having a command of the English language. Security test, 

Mr. Chairman? What security clearance could they possibly need? 

We have given them the most sophisticated weapons known to 

mankind for them to use in defense of this Nation. So, obviously 

we have already crossed those thresholds. These are bureaucratic 

measures that we should somehow try to overcome. 

And secondly, Mr. Chairman, it says that those that gave life to 

that valiant soldier—their mother, their father, and those who will 

cary on life for that soldier, the spouse and the children, that immediate family, something that we defend and cherish so much in 

everything that we do here in the Congress—that that soldier who 

makes sure that I am able to go back to my grandson that was 

born a couple of days ago and my children, and allows us to go 

back to our families and our spouses and see my mom and my dad 

and continue to cherish in that relationship, that that application 

doesn’t die. Because that literally is what happens. A permanent 

resident; it dies. Let it live because the Congress of the United 

States saw fit to do so. 

Thank you very much, Members of the Committee, and thank 

you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Gutierrez. 

[The information follows:]

21

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUITIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, thank you for holding 

this important hearing. I am grateful for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee on my bill, the ‘‘Fairness for America’s Heroes Act’’ (H.R. 1850), which 

grants automatic citizenship to servicemembers called to combat duty and provides 

immigration protections to immediate family members who lose a loved one in military service to our nation. 

The war in Iraq has, once again, highlighted the very important contributions and 

sacrifices non-citizen soldiers make to our military. Currently, there are more than 

37,000 non-citizens on active duty in our military and each year approximately 

7,000 new non-citizens join the armed forces. The presence of these brave men and 

women in our military is nothing new. Immigrants have fought in every war since 

the American Revolution. In fact, they account for 20 percent of Congressional 

Medal of Honor recipients. 

The war on terrorism and the war in Iraq have poignantly, and even tragically, 

highlighted the need to reform how immigration policy affects the brave, legal permanent residents currently serving in our military. I believe we all agree there is 

a need for laws that reflect the heroism and patriotism of our non-citizen soldiers. 

Although permanent residents on active duty usually have to wait three years before they can apply for citizenship, President Bush issued an Executive Order in 

July 2002 that allows them to apply for citizenship immediately. This was an appropriate, timely, and commendable use of his executive powers. Servicemembers, however, must still comply with the naturalization process and submit an application 

and supporting documentation, pay related fees, take an exam, participate in an 

interview and often have to wait long periods of time due to backlogs in application 

processing. A soldier’s ability to pursue citizenship continues to be further complicated by their deployment to bases all over the world, well out of the reach of 

immigration service centers. 

My colleagues testifying today have proposed some important and creative solutions to remove these barriers that non-citizen soldiers face in their pursuit of U.S. 

citizenship. I commend their efforts and express my whole-hearted support for their 

legislative initiatives to streamline the naturalization process for active duty 

servicemembers. I also ask your support, Mr. Chairman, and the support of this 

Subcommittee for the central provision of my bill that takes immigration reform a 

step further for those who are called to risk their lives in the most dangerous conflicts around the globe. I am talking about the brave men and women who are called 

to serve in combat zones. 

Of the tens of thousands of immigrant servicemembers on active duty, approximately 3,200 are currently serving in a combat zone. These brave men and women 

are willing to die defending our nation and it is imperative that we recognize their 

selflessness and their spirit—not only when one of them is killed in battle, but from 

the moment they are called up for combat duty. 

My bill would grant immediate citizenship to non-citizen soldiers who are serving 

honorably and called to combat duty service. The date they become citizens would 

coincide with the date they officially qualify for the combat zone exemption as defined by the Internal Revenue Code. 

Within 30 days of being notified of the soldier’s naturalization, the Secretary of 

the Department of Homeland Security would issue an appropriate citizenship document reflecting the date the soldier was sent into combat. 

An additional provision of H.R. 1850 would also create a contingency for surviving 

family members of noncitizen soldiers granted posthumous citizenship by protecting 

their eligibility to adjust status even after a soldier’s death. This and all other provisions of my bill would take effect as if passed on September 11, 2001, thereby making its reforms available to any servicemember who has served, or died, since that 

date. 

Unfortunately, because of needless barriers to citizenship, soldiers have been 

killed on the battlefield without ever realizing their dream of U.S. citizenship. I believe we need laws that accurately reflect their service and their sacrifice. All of 

those who serve—regardless of race, gender, or country of origin—are recognized as 

America’s heroes. My bill would allow them, rightfully and justly, to also be recognized as Americans—a distinction they have earned and deserve. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that the key provisions of my bill be included in any legislative vehicle that is considered and approved by this Subcommittee. No soldier serving our nation should ever have to come home in a body bag to be recognized as 

an American. I appeal to this Subcommittee for its support of my bill, and I thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify today. 

22

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Congressman Issa. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to give 

special thanks to the Ranking Member, Ms. Lee. We worked together on authoring my, I believe, narrow but importantly crafted 

piece of legislation. And without her help I don’t believe it would 

be the document it is here today. 

I will submit my printed statement for the record, and take the 

liberty of expressing perhaps an opinion borne both of my service 

on this Committee and my service in the military, to say that as 

the Chair and as the Chair of the full Committee deliberate how 

to roll together all of this legislation into what I believe will be a 

single bill, one that I look forward to supporting, there is a balancing act. 

And I think that all of us here below the dais are in agreement 

that we need to reform immigration as to our service members. We 

need to do it not in a rush to judgment because we were very proud 

of our military and what they did in faraway lands both in Afghanistan and in Iraq, but because it is the right thing to do and it is 

long overdue. 

I particularly would like to take note that the normal prohibition 

on active duty members of the military lobbying Members of Congress was fortunately waived with Mr. Frost, and for a good reason. I believe that Mr. Frost has hit on some very important points: 

First of all, that somebody could serve 2 years in the military, 

be honorably discharged, and find themselves less than the existing 

3 and having to go through this process. 

I also share with Congressman Frost the concern that we not 

lower to a level so low that someone could simply join the military, 

serve for a very short period of time, get their citizenship, depart 

the military under what might be characterized as honorable discharge, but often isn’t. And I want to make a point, as someone 

who has been both an enlisted man and an officer and has discharged men and women, we often discharge under what are called 

general, under honorable condition, honorable conditions, soldiers 

who their service wasn’t all that honorable. It wasn’t dishonorable, 

but it wasn’t all that honorable. And I think that practice in the 

military has to be taken into consideration when we look at shortening the period. 

I do believe that there is one thing that none of us as far as I 

can tell addressed specifically, and that is that if we are going to 

look at the period of service—and let us just say that we go with 

the 2-year for a moment. That if someone becomes injured—not 

killed, but injured, due to no fault of their own, and discharged as 

a result, we need to ensure that that does accelerate their consideration to service. As you may all know, during that basic training 

and that advanced individual training and then when soldiers go 

into the training beyond that—I was airborne qualified. Jumping 

out of an airplane can be done pretty safely, but sooner or later, 

if you jump often enough, you may get injured and injured severely 

enough not to be able to continue to serve—that that is an area of 

23

unique consideration that you may want to add to all of this legislation. 

I will summarize and be available for questions by saying that 

although my piece of legislation with Ms. Jackson Lee is probably 

one of them that is narrow enough that it is not in doubt, when 

we look at adding all of these others, let us balance, please, Mr. 

Chairman, balance the possible shortening with the possibility that 

we would shorten it so much that we would create unfairly an ability for people to join the military for other than the honorable and 

right reasons that people should and do join the military. Citizenship is granted for those who serve honorably in the military, not 

you join the military to get citizenship and then get out as fast as 

you can. And I hope we would keep with that tradition. 

Last, but very much not least, those who have died in performance of their duty for their country, we often talk about are they 

legal or are they not legal. I would hope that this Committee would 

never question somebody who has enlisted in the military, served 

their country, a country that wasn’t theirs, died honorably, we 

should never question whether or not they were in legal status 

when they enlisted. This should be the one exception to any and 

all consideration, because I believe that it is too late to secondguess whether someone should have been admitted into the military or not. And I would hope as we look to that in this type of 

legislation, that we not second-guess that, just as, Mr. Chairman, 

you said very well, it is almost impossible to second-guess citizenship once granted; and, therefore, citizenship must be as it is 

today, nearly irrevocable. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I stand ready for questions. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Issa. 

[The statement of Mr. Issa follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DARRELL ISSA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding a hearing on House military naturalization 

bills including H.R. 1685, a bill I introduced to eliminate the prohibition on benefits 

for surviving spouses and children of non-citizen military personnel killed while on 

active duty during times of military hostilities. 

Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base in my Congressional district is home to over 

50,000 Marines. Many of these Marines were deployed to the Middle East to free 

the people in Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime. In the early stages 

of the war in Iraq, uniformed Marines, nearly every day, presented me with next 

of kin (NOK) notices for those Marines killed in action from my district. One of the 

Marines that died for this country was an active duty non-U.S. citizen. I was told 

that he would receive posthumous citizenship—under current law, a strictly honorary award. 

Existing immigration and naturalization law permits the President to award posthumous citizenship to non-citizens killed in any military hostility, but denies immigration benefits for their spouse and children. Honorary posthumous citizenship is 

a hollow benefit for a fallen hero if his spouse and children are subsequently asked 

to leave the country that he died defending. We should honor the sacrifice of fallen 

heroes by allowing their spouses and children to enjoy the benefits and freedoms 

of the country they were fighting to defend, and would have eventually gained had 

their loved one not perished. 

My bill will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to allow spouses 

and children of those granted posthumous citizenship to self petition because their 

primary sponsor has died in combat. This bill does not automatically grant anyone 

citizenship. Spouses and children will still need to apply for citizenship and meet 

certain background requirements defined in the INA. 

There are nearly 38,000 non-U.S. citizens serving in our nation’s armed forces. 

When these men and women are again called upon to protect this nation, I want 

24

to them to know that if they make the ultimate sacrifice for America their family 

will not face a cruel and unnecessary legal sanction. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify before for your committee. I stand ready to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Congresswoman Solis. I must say at the outset 

I apologize for the mispronouncing your name. With my last name, 

I should be more sensitive to this. I apologize for that. And Congresswoman Solis, you are welcome to give your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and also Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members of this Subcommittee that 

are here today. I am especially happy to be here to be able to 

present H.R. 1814, the ‘‘Naturalization and Family Protection for 

Military Members Act.’’ As you know, during the past month and a half we have all been 

saddened by the many deaths of our soldiers that have been killed 

in Iraq. And like many other service men and women before them 

who have lost their lives in defense of our country, these soldiers 

are true heroes, and we honor them and their families. 

Over 100 U.S. military members have been killed in the war on 

Iraq. Many in Congress and around the country have been surprised to learn that among these fallen heroes were at least 10 soldiers that were not U.S. citizens. One of them happened to be one 

of my constituents. It is a young man, Lance Corporal Francisco 

Martinez Flores from the city of Duarte in the 32nd Congressional 

District of California, Los Angeles County. He was 20 years old. 

Martinez Flores was born in Guadalajara, Mexico, and came to the 

U.S. with his family at the age of 3. He attended our public schools 

there in Duarte, participated in the Boy Scouts, and played football 

in high school. At the age of 18, he enlisted in the Marines. He was 

killed in action on March 25th when his tank plunged into the Euphrates River in Iraq; 1,500 people packed a local church that I 

went to in attendance for the ceremony to memorialize him. It is 

the first time that I had seen so many people in our community 

unite around one flag and one soldier and one family, a family that 

gave their son, their oldest son. 

Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores was just two weeks 

shy of earning his U.S. citizenship, but he died. He never got to realize that. His family felt enormous pride when he was granted 

citizenship by the President. But that didn’t go far enough. It 

doesn’t go far enough for his siblings, for his brothers and sisters, 

and for his parents.He was just one of thousands of lawful permanent residents who currently serve our military now. And now, as 

we welcome home our men and women in uniform, we should 

honor the sacrifices of soldiers like Lance Corporal Martinez Flores 

and their families for ensuring the ability of immigrant soldiers, 

legal permanent soldiers, to gain citizenship in a timely manner. 

The legislation that I have introduced is the most comprehensive, 

in my opinion, to help provide the military with the tools to naturalize these individuals. It includes provisions in Congressman 

Frost’s Citizenship for American Troops Act, of which I am a strong 

supporter. And these provisions would waive naturalization fees, 

25

allow naturalization interviews and citizenship oath to take place 

abroad, and shorten the 3-year service requirement to 2 years. It 

is—and I have to state that it is a hardship for many of our young 

men to come back to this country after serving abroad, having to 

pay for their air fare and then pay for those legalization fees to 

come here to receive the oath of office. Why can’t we open up our 

doors in our local consulate offices abroad to allow them to go 

through the ceremonies there and waive those fees? 

I want to commend Congressman Frost, who was working on this 

issue long before the war on Iraq. H.R. 1814 builds upon his provisions by ensuring that the ability of members of the Selective Service Reserves would also be included in this act. This provision is 

included because recruiting needs are immediate during wartime. 

And I say that because I also had an opportunity to meet with local 

Reservists in my own district, some of whom are young women who 

were preparing to go to war. Two days before I had met with them, 

they were already scheduled to go to Seattle, Washington and then 

be departed out to the Middle East. 

And I say that because many of them were perhaps, for at least 

the past 6 months, in preparation for war. Why can’t they also be 

a part of those individuals that would be granted, at least in a 

timely manner, citizenship? 

They too deserve, in my opinion, special recognition for their 

bravery and sacrifice. The final aspect of my bill, one that I feel 

very strongly about, would establish immigration protections for 

the immediate family. And I say that because the family of soldiers 

like Francisco, whose parents may not have obtained their permanent legal status here, who not be eligible because their son had 

died serving our country, I think it is only fitting that we allow 

them an opportunity, they play by the rules, they pay taxes, they 

have no criminal background, they are here, they gave their son or 

daughter. They should also be allowed those protections. 

So my bill goes in that direction. And I am proud to say that this 

is a comprehensive bipartisan piece of legislation, and I am happy 

that Congressman Cannon, a Member of the Subcommittee, is also 

a co-author. I thank the gentleman for his support. 

Other Ranking Members include Congressman Conyers, Chairman David Dreier, who sits next to me in my neighboring district 

there in Los Angeles County, Congressman Chris Smith, Lane 

Evans and other Members. In addition, this bill has a companion 

measure in the Senate, Senate bill 922, and that also enjoys bipartisan support. 

This bill is supported also by a broad range of organizations. We 

have worked very hard with this Committee staff and my staff to 

see that we could get a bipartisan piece of legislation that could 

take care of the concerns that our constituents are feeling, but also 

those various service groups that we also place honor upon. And I 

would like to list them: The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Blue 

Star Mothers of America, the National Guard Association of the 

United States, and the Noncommissioned Officers Association of 

the United States. It includes various other organizations that are 

also helping to advocate for this measure. 

I also have received the endorsement of the congressional Hispanic caucus, most of—more than half of the Members that have 

26

come on the bill. I would ask that this bill be given consideration. 

I also would like to mention in this hearing the possible opportunity to see the 2-year limit reduced to one. That is something 

that we should talk about, definitely. But I also know that there 

are individuals outside of this particular hearing room that would 

like to see that we keep at least the limit at 2 years because we 

are looking at military service. And that is currently a requirement. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congresswoman Solis. 

[The statement of Ms. Solis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson-Lee for inviting 

me to speak before the Subcommittee today about H.R. 1814, the Naturalization and 

Family Protection for Military Members Act. 

During the past month and half, we have all been saddened by the news of soldiers who have been killed while serving in Iraq. Like the many other servicemen 

and women before them who have lost their lives in defense of our country, these 

soldiers are true heroes, and we honor them and their families. 

Over 100 U.S. military members have been killed in the war with Iraq. Many in 

Congress and around the country have been surprised to learn that among these 

fallen heroes were at least ten soldiers that were not U.S. citizens. 

One of them, Lance Corporal Francisco Martinez Flores, was from Duarte, California, in my district. Martinez Flores was born in Guadalajara, Mexico, and came 

to the U.S. with his family at age 3. He attended public schools, participated in Boy 

Scouts, and played football for his high school. At the age of 18, Martinez Flores 

enlisted in the Marines. He was killed in action on March 25th when his tank 

plunged into the Euphrates River. Fifteen hundred people packed his church and 

the surrounding streets for his funeral to show their love and respect for this fallen 

hero. 

Lance Corporal Martinez Flores was just two weeks shy of earning his U.S. citizenship when he was killed. His family felt enormous pride when he was granted 

citizenship posthumously. 

Martinez Flores joins a long tradition of immigrant soldiers who have died in 

service to the United States. He was just one of thousands of lawful permanent residents who currently serve in the military. 

Now, as we welcome home our men and women in uniform, we should honor the 

sacrifices of soldiers like Lance Corporal Martinez Flores and their families by ensuring the ability of immigrant soldiers to gain citizenship in a timely fashion. 

The legislation I introduced, H.R. 1814, is the most comprehensive of the military 

naturalization bills. It includes the provisions in Congressman Frost’s Citizenship 

for America’s Troops Act, of which I am a strong supporter. These provisions would 

waive naturalization fees, allow naturalization interviews and the citizenship oath 

to take place abroad, and shorten the three-year service requirement to apply for 

naturalization to two years. I want to commend Congressman Frost, who was working on this issue long before the war in Iraq as part of his continuing commitment 

to protect the rights of all military families. 

H.R. 1814 builds upon the Frost provisions by ensuring the ability of Members 

of the Selective Reserves to expedite their naturalization application during times 

of hostility. This provision is included because recruiting needs are immediate during wartime and readiness is essential. During the war with Iraq, many reservists 

were activated, and many more were expected to be called up at a moment’s notice 

to defend our country. They too deserve special recognition for their bravery and 

sacrifice. 

The final aspect of my legislation—one I feel very strongly about—would establish 

immigration protections for immediate family members of soldiers killed in action. 

These military families have paid the ultimate sacrifice in losing their loved one in 

service to our country. The least we can do for these grieving families is to express 

our collective gratitude for their sacrifices by ensuring their ability to apply for U.S. 

citizenship. 

I am proud to say that this comprehensive legislation has been met with strong 

bipartisan support. Congressman Cannon, a Member of this Subcommittee, is a coauthor. Other cosponsors include: Ranking Member Conyers, Chairman Dreier, and 

27

Congressmen Chris Smith and Lane Evans, Chairman and Ranking Member of the 

House Veterans Affairs Committee. 

H.R. 1814 is supported by a broad range of organizations, including the Veterans 

of Foreign Wars, the Blue Star Mothers of America, the National Guard Association 

of the United States, the Non-Commissioned Officers Association of the United 

States, the National Council of La Raza, the National Asian Pacific American Legal 

Consortium, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Air Force Sergeants Association. It has also been endorsed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. 

Several weeks ago, I had the opportunity to help relaunch a support hotline that 

serves the many Latino immigrant families in the Los Angeles area who have loved 

ones serving in the military. The hotline is crucial to immigrant families who may 

find it difficult to obtain information about their loved ones due to language barriers. 

At the event, I had the opportunity to meet many of these proud family members. 

The families displayed photographs of their loved ones, and I’ve brought several of 

these pictures here today. 

The soldiers in these pictures may not yet be U.S. citizens, but it is clear that 

they and their families love this country. On their behalf, I am proud to be working 

with my colleagues in Congress to enact a comprehensive bill that recognizes the 

sacrifices of these soldiers and their families. 

I’m pleased that this Subcommittee has agreed to address this important issue. 

I want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member again for allowing me to testify today. I also want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member 

Conyers for their commitment to this issue and for the assistance of their staff 

throughout this process. 

Thank you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. We will now enter the time of questions based 

on the 5-minute rule. First of all, Congressman Hastings, why did 

you decide to lower the current 3-year military service requirement 

to 1 year now in your new legislation? 

Mr. HASTINGS. It is probably just the reality of the legislative 

process. I feel very strongly in my initial bill that it should be zero 

very simply, because of what we all read of those that gave their 

life. So I felt the proper time period would have been zero. But we 

all know that when you introduce legislation that is the start of the 

process and not the end of the process. And so, in discussions that 

I had with a number of Members, discussions with various organizations, I felt that a compromise there has to be a time period, 

then it should be 1 year. But it was simply the reality of trying to 

get something that can pass. 

Again, if I had my druthers and I were a benevolent dictator, like 

all of us would be, individually we would have ideal legislation 

with the one that we would introduce. I recognize this is the start 

of process and not the end, and I feel a one year time period is appropriate. I might add also from the time that I was in the service 

the training is much more extensive now in a longer period of time. 

Congressman Frost alluded it to that in his testimony and I certainly agree. So by the time you get to a point where somebody 

would be potentially in a combat situation or in a death situation 

probably he would have satisfied that 1 year any way. So, it is a 

combination of all of those factors that I think it is—I just think 

bottom line the time period ought to be shortened. That is the bottom line. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. Thank you. Congressman Jones, did 

you consider lowering the 3-year military service requirement as 

part of your legislation? 

Mr. JONES. No, sir. Primarily my concern was when I communicated with the wife of the fallen hero as well as to the lady who 

is in charge of working with the judge advocates office at Camp 

28

Lejeune. My bill just primarily dealt with the fact that the spouse, 

the surviving spouse of a fallen hero should not have to as they are 

trying to become American citizens start the process again. So 

what we basically are saying is that we should eliminate the 2-year 

limit in that situation where you have a spouse who has been 

killed or died in training for this country. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I don’t think I asked the question correctly. Did 

you consider it? And if not, was there a reason why you did not 

consider lowering the requirement? 

Mr. JONES. No, basically I did not. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Okay. Congressman Gutierrez, I understand 

that your bill currently to mean that a soldier ordered to service 

would be automatically granted citizenship without having to apply 

for naturalization; is that correct, that has been called into combat? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. At the moment that soldier is called into combat, 

and I want to reiterate there are 37,000, but only a little over 3,000 

that are called into active duty combat, that the moment, so that 

we would never go into a situation where we have to go search for 

a death certificate and apply for one and go through this process, 

which is a process in which most cases works out, but it is after 

the death of the soldier. The Internal Revenue Code, for example, 

there is a provision in the Internal Revenue Code when you go into 

active duty, combat duty, you get a tax break. I would think that 

as a country if we are thinking of a tax break for someone, we 

would think of that citizenship. And that comes because when Cardinal Mahoney in Los Angeles presided over the memorial service 

of Lance Corporal Gutierrez, suggested that he felt such a burden 

as an American citizen and as a leader of a religious community 

that that Lance Corporal would now have to go about the process 

of searching and seeking that American citizenship. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. Congressman Solis, in your bill, in 

your statement, you refer to permitting brothers and sisters to receive immigration benefits. But your bill seems not to include 

them. Is that a correct——

Ms. SOLIS. Actually, we would want to allow for their brothers 

or sisters or siblings, if they hadn’t, to self-petition. If, for example, 

this young man that I indicated passed away and his sister or 

brother did not have an application pending, they could self-petition. If they were already in the process, then this would continue, 

you know, in that process there. So it would be uninterrupted. But 

I would also just like to clarify what we are looking at here, in 

many cases, are families that have lived here for several years. 

And in this case of this young individual who passed away, was 

here at the age of 3, went through our public school system and 

what have you. And it is unfortunate that he was not eligible at 

the time to receive citizenship in his family. There are still members there that are not citizens, are now precluded or not given any 

advantage. So to me it is an advantage or benefit that is well deserved. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman. I now yield to the 

Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson Lee for questions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. As I said earlier, all 

of the presentations and the ideas of the legislative initiatives are 

excellent. Mr. Chairman, I think our challenge will be to ensure 

29

that we fully represent the talents and the intent of these legislative initiatives. I would like to first pose a question to Mr. Frost 

and acknowledge, as my good friend and colleague from California 

has done, is Mr. Frost has brought this to our attention some time 

ago in over a period of more than a year. 

So Mr. Frost, you have insight through the very fine expert that 

you have had contact with, the hardship of not being able to process at duty post and maybe some occurrences that may have negotiated the very fine service of individuals who have not been able 

to process. 

Mr. FROST. Well, I thank the gentlelady for her question. I really 

appreciate your service on this particular Subcommittee and on behalf of our delegation, it has been very important for the time that 

have you devoted to it. There aren’t individual stories, there are a 

lot of stories in terms of the difficulty it is. The key thing is that 

as I indicated in my testimony and several others have alluded to, 

the cost of coming back here of buying a round-trip ticket to the 

United States from wherever they may be station can be very, very 

significant. 

And many of these individuals come from basically a modest means. And to have to spend $1,000 or $1,500 for a round-trip ticket rather than being interviewed at the consulate where they may 

be or at their duty station really is a barrier they shouldn’t have 

to face when they are risking their lives for our country. 

And also there are great scheduling delays when someone is on 

active duty in a foreign country and they have to schedule an interview with their particular, back here in the United States, I have 

had my caseworkers, not just my wife, but caseworkers who work 

for me in my office in Texas have told me the great problem this 

causes and that sometimes people have to rescheduled several 

times because they can’t get away from their unit, they can’t come 

back to meet the initial appointment. 

I had a press conference in my district where I had three soldiers, two of whom were women, one is a young man who came and 

talked about the difficulty that they had had in just scheduling 

when they would do their interviews when they were back in the 

United States, when they were stationed abroad. And this was a 

very real problem. And we shouldn’t be posing those kind of barriers, we shouldn’t be electing those kind of barriers for something 

that should be easy. We want to recognize this service. We want 

to honor this service and ought to make this as easy as possible. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think all of us have found individuals in our 

respective districts that have had this encounter. And I would venture to say that if you would ask any American whether or not that 

was a process or the procedure, they would be shocked to see a document that they have to leave their duty post in order to complete 

their paperwork. And I am going to—I would like to raise this 

question for Congresswoman Solis and Issa and Gutierrez, and you 

can follow up, I would like to hear particularly because I think this 

is a very important point, the hardship that your deceased constituents family now faces with respect to the question of their status or their ability to petition for citizenship. 

Ms. SOLIS. Well, it becomes very, very difficult for them. And I 

think is even one other example that is currently in play in Los 

30

Angeles. There is a soldier who is serving right now, and he is a 

legal permanent resident. His mother is from Guatemala. She is 

now in the process of being deported. And unfortunately, there is 

no recourse in the law right now for this parent. 

This bill that I am proposing would actually help to provide protections for her. And of course, there is sensitivity around this entire issue and I understand that. It is very complicated. But there 

are a lot of good things that I think can come out of this. And families currently that I have come into contact with and I have recently seen many of them in my district in the area of east Los Angeles that I represent, the high number of young men that are currently serving us whose parents are LPRs, are hoping to seek some 

status here as well, knowing that their child, their son or their 

daughter may not come back. Many of them are on very fixed low 

incomes. They even rely on the support of that soldier that is 

abroad. Once that is in jeopardy, you can see where this is going. 

It is indeed a hardship. It isn’t just Hispanic community, it is 

also the Asian community, the Filipinos, people from other countries who are serving us right now to protect our freedoms. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Ask your kind indulgence of additional minute 

for the Members to responds to the question. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Representative Issa, let me just build on Congresswoman Solis’s point, and Representative Gutierrez may want 

to add to the earlier question that I posed, but in the legislation 

that we have had the pleasure of working together on, we allow the 

spouse and child to petition for immediate relative status. Looking 

at the criteria and the hurdles that they have to ascend, meaning 

all the listing of good credentials and no criminal activity, can we 

consider the idea of having a self-petition for the immediate relative in looking at that to see where that would take us in terms 

of the numbers? I think the deportation is a separate issue. I want 

to narrow it to the issue of the first, I think, set of circumstances 

of the deceased individual who Congresswoman Solis mentioned 

and those brothers and sisters. But let me yield to you. 

Mr. ISSA. First of all, I think you are exactly right that no matter 

what the numbers are, the numbers who have given their lives are 

relatively small, and we owe them something we can’t give them. 

It was one of the reasons that when you and I talked about this 

whole question of giving posthumous citizenship and nothing else, 

it is specifically taking away what would otherwise be the rights 

of citizenship, it became obvious what we were giving was pretty 

empty to the dead and we were giving nothing to the living. 

I think the interesting thing about the deportation of somebody 

whose member is serving overseas, I find it interesting that I even 

watched an episode of MASH from many years ago in which that 

was the scenario of how to keep the mother of a soldier from being 

deported. They finally, I guess, she was Swedish, they finally got 

her a job with diplomatic status at the Swedish consulate because 

that was MASH and they could do that. 

The reality is if a soldier is serving overseas we have a statute 

that says that you, in fact, cannot divorce that soldier while he or 

she is overseas. We have that for a reason. The soldier or sailor or 

Marine is not there to fight for their rights and to make their case. 

31

It would seem just as reasonable that you not deport an immediate 

family member who lives under the support or help or assistance 

of that soldier, sailor, or Marine during their deployment overseas. 

It is a small request, but it is very consistent with what we do with 

other domestic questions. 

And last but not least, I think the biggest question you are going 

to decide that will be very big and very different, will force the 

State Department to make material changes, is this question of 

citizenship being granted while overseas. And I would only say that 

just less than a year ago in the air coming out of Kuwait, I reenlisted a soldier. And by the way, because it was combat, there were 

no taxes on it. But if I can reenlist somebody any place a soldier’s 

foot stands, and it is considered good enough to be the United 

States, isn’t an American embassy or consulate or, in my opinion, 

any place a soldier’s foot stands on foreign soil, American enough 

to reenlist—or to grant them citizenship there? I would strongly 

suggest that we allow the broadest definition of what the United 

States is in our legislation so that we can, in fact, allow for citizenship to be granted anywhere, any time an appropriate officer is 

there to give the oath and the soldier is qualified. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gutierrez. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Anybody, one, we all know that the INS, when 

they take the fingerprints of an applicant, only considers them reliable for 6 months, so that we have issues of soldiers on active duty 

on the combat front, which are sent notices to come back to take 

fresh fingerprints. Again, what is the security issue here for that 

soldier? I don’t see any. We have given them a gun, we have given 

them the highest technology, we want them to take a fingerprint 

test again. 

Secondly is that permanent residents are only allowed to petition 

for their children and their spouses. Well, what about their parents? Should mom or dad be deported because that petition is not 

available to that soldier? And so I looked at all of the different legislation, and one of the areas I just looked at I said combat duty, 

they have got the gun, they are on the front, should we wait for 

them to die before they become an American citizen? Given the fact 

that we all know that there are delays, and all of them have them 

in our offices of 2, 3, 4 years in the immigration process to become 

an American citizen. We shouldn’t have that delay. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Iowa, Mr. King for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all 

the panelists for your testimony here. It is unusual to see this kind 

of a panel with such a bipartisan cross-section, and one that has 

so much in common with their viewpoint that you brought to this 

table. Each testimony has been interesting to me. I just reflect that 

as I evaluate this, I really want to take a piece of paper and draw 

a line down through it and list all the categories that you have addressed here, and the nuances of those categories, and then try to 

sort through and say where do I disagree with you, because it is 

hard for me to find those. 

32

I would say, Mr. Gutierrez, your testimony has been the most 

compelling. Maybe it is because you emote better, but also you focused on the call to combat duty. That is the issue that I think 

would have the least resistance by any part. So I propose my first 

question to you, one that I am having trouble answering myself, 

what is going to be the other side of this argument? I mean, you 

all come to the table with essentially a theme that is consistent 

here and it is legitimate here, but what are we going to hear as 

criticism on the other side of the argument. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. They will say people are going to sign up so they 

can become citizens right away. Well, number one, let’s remember 

that the President of the United States has already waived the 3 

years. So I really don’t understand what the discussion and the debate is about. He did it. It was almost unanimous, the applause 

and the acclaim for an action well taken by the President of the 

United States in a time of war. These are our best, that is what 

we call them when we recruit them, our best and brightest in our 

Nation. They are legally in the United States. No one, I think, in 

their right mind, is going to think that somebody is going to join 

the Armed Forces of the United States to go from a 5-year wait to 

a 3-year wait in order to process a citizenship application. And so, 

I think they might think that that is what they are going to do. 

I would just say that, look, even being born in this country and 

having served in the Armed Forces, as Timothy McVeigh did, does 

not guarantee that you are not going to be involved in some act of 

terrorism. I wish that was the test. It would be such a more wonderful country. So I thank you for your comments. I think that 

might be the thing. I don’t think we diminish it because they are 

giving their lives. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. I think one more item, Mr. King, would be this whole 

question of honorable service. And I think the Congressman said 

it very well. Your going to the service isn’t to get citizenship. On 

the other hand, your raising your right hand and agreeing to go to 

basic training doesn’t make you a good soldier or your service 

characterizable as honorable. It is one of the reasons that I am a 

little bit concerned about going to zero under any conditions other 

than posthumously, because whatever time is expired, that is all 

we have. But I have no doubt that once the military can make a 

determination that the service can be characterized as honorable, 

whether you choose to reduce it to 1 year, or perhaps go with Mr. 

Frost’s 2-year proposal, I think you achieve what you want to 

achieve, and completely shun all criticism of whether or not people 

have earned a unique acceleration of their citizenship. 

Mr. FROST. If I could add, Mr. King, I have met with a cross-section of veterans organizations in my district in Texas. They have 

emphasized the same point that Mr. Issa did, as long as the service 

is honorable and there is a sufficient period of time to determine 

that the service is honorable, then they fully embrace this also. But 

they do have that threshold of honorable service. 

Mr. KING. I am a little unclear about what the definition is for 

a call-to-combat duty. Does that include stateside duty during a 

time of crisis? 

33

Mr. GUTIERREZ. We use the Internal Revenue Code. So if they 

qualify under the Internal Revenue Code for combat duty is—we 

tried to find a test. 

Mr. KING. So that would be consistent with that? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. With combat duty, yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. I would add, also, as I listen to these 

things, something that I think is essential—citizenship needs to be 

precious. It needs to have value in order for it to be—also have 

value to this country. Certainly service in the military is a very 

powerful indicator of that commitment to that value. The citizenship test portion of the naturlaization requirements as applied to 

the military and asking that it be provided within the military 

doesn’t seem to me to be too much to ask. 

It is a civics lesson that prepares one for the citizenship test. I 

think that is essential. I think that goes with the person for a lifetime. I have met people that have been in this country for 20 years 

and didn’t know they weren’t citizens. I think it would be essential 

for them to go through that process, but I don’t think it is difficult 

to do that on a foreign land either. 

Mr. Frost. 

Mr. FROST. I do want to go back, too, to the point that we should 

avoid air situation where you are going to have a revocation of citizenship. I think the period of time should be long enough, whatever 

that period is agreed upon, so that you won’t have a large number 

of attempts by our Government to revoke someone’s citizenship. I 

think that is a direction that we should avoid at all costs. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. I might mention in my travels around the world although Mexico allows dual citizenship, as some other countries do, 

for a great many countries taking the oath of citizenship in the 

U.S., revokes permanently your citizenship. So if you quickly enlist 

somebody and give them citizenship you might very well find out 

that no, their country is not going to accept them back just because 

you have revoked it. So then you end up with something that we 

deal with a nightmare, which U.S. take away their citizenship and 

nobody else wants them either. 

So I do agree with Mr. Frost that this is the most important item 

is to balance it so that we don’t have to increase the amount of revocations of citizenship. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. King. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 

our panelists who have taken the time to come and testify today. 

Mr. Frost, you mentioned your bill would reduce the time requirement down to 2 years, and there seems to be some debate whether 

2 years is too short or whether 1 year is long enough. Do you have 

any concerns with Mr. Hastings’ recommendation of reducing it 

down to a year, that is to say, I know that you mentioned the attrition rates in the first 2 years. Is there a significant difference between the second versus first year? 

Mr. FROST. I don’t fully know the answer to that question. That 

is a question the Committee may want to pose to people in the 

military to people with the Department of Defense. The only inforVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:26 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050603\86950.000 HJUD2 PsN: 86950
34

mation I have is the attrition rate during the first 2 years, although I am being handed something which may be more helpful. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I will allow you a moment. 

Mr. FROST. My very efficient staff has—I will have to ask them—

let me ask a question. The information that I have been provided 

by my staff, which I believe they obtain from the Defense Department, was that DOD-wide, that is, all the services, and this is by 

year and we would be happy to submit this into the record, that 

the percent loss during the first 6 months seems to be in the range 

of 11 to 12 percent, as high as 15 percent in 1 year—in 2 of the 

years, 1993 and 1994, percent lost at 12 months, it seems to me 

as high as 20 percent in 1 year, and percent lost at 14 months then 

is as high as 26 percent. 

So there is—it does increase in terms of the amount of time. It 

is not a flat amount, if that is what your asking, Ms. Sa ́nchez. It 

is something that has to be considered. Because the services themselves have different amounts of time for their basic training and 

for their advanced individual training. And I think the key is having a long enough period of time so that we don’t have a great deal 

of—so that we have compensated for whatever attrition will occur, 

if it is high, it does rise to as high as 25 percent over a period of 

2 years, although that 25 percent doesn’t occur just during the first 

6 months or during the first 12 months, it is cumulative and occurs 

the longer that you are in. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Mr. Jones, from your testimony, I am not sure that I gathered whether or not—I know your 

bill specifically deals with spouses who have applied for citizenship 

and are somewhere in the process. Is your bill—would your bill, 

and I believe that your bill addresses those who are killed during 

active military service, would it also cover soldiers killed while they 

are enlisted, although they may not be involved in combat service? 

Mr. JONES. Yes, ma’am, it does. This is the—this would cover 

anyone that is in uniform and should they be killed in a car accident or training and they have the spouse who is in the process, 

they would be covered. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. Mr. Issa, you expressed a little bit of 

concern about shortening the length of service required from the 3 

years. Are you—would you be opposed to shortening it to 2 years? 

Mr. ISSA. Not at all. As a matter of fact, I think 2 years is the 

optimum date. If we reinstate a draft, as Mr. Rangel is asking to 

us do, it would be a 2-year draft. The 2-year enlistment still exists 

in some services. So to say that you need 3 years when you can 

actually only be in 2 years in some cases, as I said, also the possibility that for medical, let’s just say the chute doesn’t open properly 

and you end up broken into pieces, which really does happen during training, in original training and later training, there is a possibility you would need to have to deal with that. 

I am very concerned about the 1 year or zero, because I know altogether too well that you can go through 8, 9 months of training, 

some people do fine in training, and then they immediately, immediately prove that they are not terribly interested in being soldiers 

once they get through the training. I think optimally 2 years is the 

compromise. I think Mr. Frost’s figures looking at the attrition 

35

rate, we don’t want to grant citizenship to that 25 percent who got 

in the military and didn’t serve honorably. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I would ask unanimous consent for one more 

minute to ask one last question. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Could I respond to that? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. HASTINGS. Just to put the figures correctly here, if those enlisted in 1998 and 1999, the fallout in DOD-wide in both cases in 

the first year was nearly 20 percent; 1 year it was 20 percent, the 

next year it was 19 percent. So the biggest fallout is going be the 

first year. You have a very small fallout the second year. The implication of that is very obvious. The period of getting the best people 

to stay longer is more pronounced the longer they are in. You are 

going to get the people that are less desirable, presumably, out the 

first year. That is one of the reasons in response to the Chairman’s 

question that one of the factors that I offer the 1 year compromise 

rather than the zero. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Point very well made. 

Ms. Solis, currently it seems that we have some bills that will 

address the specific situation where a spouse who is married to a 

citizen—or married to a legal permanent resident who is serving in 

the military, has submitted her application, his or her, I should 

say, application for citizenship, and then the spouse dies and is 

awarded the posthumous citizenship, and there are some bills specific to addressing if she hasn’t been married—he or she has not 

been married for 2 years. 

What is the current status of the law if the noncitizen spouse 

has—is not in the process or hasn’t yet applied for citizenship when 

their spouse is deployed? Do they have any protections whatsoever? 

Ms. SOLIS. No. That is the purpose of our legislation is to provide 

an opportunity for an individual in that situation to hopefully selfpetition, be allowed that opportunity, and in the case of some of the 

soldiers that have passed away in Iraq, I know that in the case of, 

say, a parent, the parent has—is an LPR also, but having had their 

son killed, they still at this time would have to wait a longer duration period. If this bill is enacted, it would actually help to discontinue to secure that they are not disadvantaged and that they 

are not lost in that process. To me, this is one of the better attempts to try to secure that all those family members that haven’t 

petitioned have an opportunity to do that. And those that are in 

play continue to have their applications processed and be taken 

care of appropriately with have guarantees written into the law. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady from California. In conclusion, I want to thank the Members of this panel——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If you would yield for just one question, I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Again, I want to emphasize, I appreciate the 

Chairman and I appreciate the Chairman of the full Committee 

and the Ranking Member of the full Committee for the urgency behind this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a signal to the 

Members here, and I look at the number, evenly divided between 

Republicans and Democrats that maybe this Subcommittee on ImVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:26 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050603\86950.000 HJUD2 PsN: 86950
36

migration will be open to many more immigration-legislative initiatives. You see, I have my Chairman smiling. That will help us 

gain——

Mr. ISSA. Here, here. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE.—earned access to legalization as we look to 

the future. But I think this is a very fine signal that we can work 

together around common issues that are clearly important. I want 

to just pose a question to Congresswoman Solis, and if the other 

Members would answer it because I think in her legislation that 

there is a singular point besides the other very excellent proposals 

and the excellent analysis given by Members of this question of relatives. I define it, I don’t want to misspeak, siblings. I know you 

can get relatives far and wide, and those of us who come from minority communities and maybe immigrant communities, Mr. Chairman, and I think the whole Nation is an immigrant community, 

you know how extended families are. 

So I am trying to be sensible about this. I would think, in light 

of your constituent, you had a mother and father and then siblings. 

So I would ask you about this family member scenario, whether 

you would be willing, or whether your legislation would focus on 

the siblings. You say relatives, but keeping it in that definition. 

And then also your flexibility on, you know, some of the waivers. 

As you well know, there are many, many waivers here, but I 

think this is an excellent idea and I would like to find common 

ground. I would like the Members to comment on what they think 

about the sibling concept as it relates to including them in this 

process. 

Ms. SOLIS. You are absolutely right. This issue is a very important issue. I am very open to crafting something a little bit more 

definitive. In the case of Francisco Flores Martinez, his sister is 

currently not in status. And this certainly would be an opportunity 

for someone like that to be able to petition. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I appreciate it. 

Mr. ISSA. I think what I said earlier when we are talking about 

fallen heroes we are talking about a very small group that we can 

give nothing to that person any longer. We can grant them citizenship, but what is that—I don’t see written it on the tombstone normally, it probably won’t say Lance Corporal U.S. Citizen Posthumously. So it may be the best example where we can reach out 

and try to expand anything and everything that we can give, if you 

will, to say thank you to that soldier. And perhaps siblings could 

be that appropriate stretch that would be uniquely granted to those 

who gave this last measure. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Yes, just to reiterate the point you shouldn’t 

have to die to finally become an American citizen. There are so 

many other ways that people are becoming American citizens, 

number one. I think what Congresswoman Solis does and what 

many of the other proposals do is very excellent because if I am a 

national of Mexico, as many of those who have died recently in Iraq 

or of Guatemala, and I apply for my spouse, takes, 5, 6, probably 

close to 7 years before that visa becomes available. So in other 

words, I join the Armed Forces, I serve for my 3 years, whatever 

I am still waiting another 3 years, 4 years before her visa becomes 

37

available. And that of my minor children. My mom and dad, I can’t 

even do it. 

So I think it would be good for this Committee to fashion something so that a soldier doesn’t die, pay the ultimate tax, has his 

wife waiting for that visa, and because he died his petition for his 

wife died with it, that that doesn’t happen in this country anymore. 

I think it is a great suggestion. And maybe one of the things is to 

have some charts, count how long it takes for minor children, 

spouses, and who is eligible. And I think the Committee can do a 

wonderful job in helping to remedy that. 

Mr. FROST. Can I make one other observation, Chairman? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. We were going down the row. 

Mr. JONES. Ms. Jackson Lee, I would be very open to reviewing 

such a proposal as it would move forward. I am one that with 

Camp Lejeune, Cherry Point, Seymour Johnson Air Force base, I 

think all of our men and women in uniform are very special and 

their needs are very special. There are family needs as well. And 

we need to review it as a Congress. 

Mr. FROST. The only other observation I would make is that I 

would urge the Committee to keep in mind that what we are doing 

is changing permanent law and do that in a comprehensive and 

forward looking way as you can. The President, under existing law, 

has the right to issue executive orders as he did in this particular 

case, which, in fact, shortened the time frame. But what we are 

looking—by this legislation, what all of us are looking to do is to 

a change in permanent law, which would bring some order out of 

all of this. 

And it would extend through peacetime, not just through a particular national emergency, that we just faced. Because we need 

some certainty and some fairness in dealing with immigrants to 

this country who are being asked to join our Armed Services, not 

just in an immediate wartime situation, but in the interim. And 

there will be a lot of interims, I believe, in the future as we are 

the only superpower in the world and may be called upon to address a variety of situations. I would hope the Committee would 

keep that in mind of bringing some refinement and order to current, to permanent laws as it exists right now. Thank you. 

Mr. HASTINGS. The focus of this Committee, the focus of all of 

our legislation because of what happened in Iraq to people that 

were not soldiers, that were not citizens of this country. Whenever 

you draft legislation like this, there are always consequences that 

go beyond what you are focusing on initially. I would just—I would 

certainly be open to looking at whatever those consequences would 

be. But I think what I would advise the Subcommittee to look on 

is how that, how some of these suggestions would either complement or not, complement current law as it relates to those. So 

that would be my only condition. But I would certainly be open to 

looking at all of them. But let’s not lose sight of what we are trying 

to do is for the individual who gave his or her life in defense of our 

country, and that is where we ought to be focusing on. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think that is an excellent situation. Whenever we write legislation, we have to be sure that we have our T’s 

crossed and I’s dotted, and certainly, you know, every Member I 

know knows the complexity of immigration law, hear about it from 

38

your district offices. I think your point, along with Mr. Frost’s point 

and the other Members, consistency and order would help a great 

deal. If we can get that out of this, I think that would be very important. 

I thank the Chairman very much for yielding to me. Again, I 

think you have moved us quickly forward, but I do think that this 

is appropriate time to move quickly on this issue. Thank you very 

much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman. And this Subcommittee 

is used to second rounds of questioning so we have another Member, Mr. King, that would like to ask the panel another question. 

Recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interest of time, I 

would just ask for a quick answer to a couple of questions. One 

would be the percentage of those who were killed in action that 

were non citizens. Does someone on the panel have that number? 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I don’t know the exact number. I think it was 

seven. 

Ms. SOLIS. Excuse me, there were 10. 

Mr. ISSA. It is roughly the same percentage as who served. 

Mr. KING. The question was going to be——

Mr. FROST. 3 to 5 percent is what you are saying. 

Mr. KING. Does that extrapolate across the full services for those 

also that were killed in training? 

Mr. ISSA. No. Killed in training? 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. ISSA. I don’t think anyone had training figures. But it probably is fairly similar. In this case, Marines took the heaviest percentage of combat deaths just because of their role. 

Mr. KING. I raise this question because of Mr. Jones’ testimony. 

Killed while in the service, killed while—my concern is this: That 

if we go down that path we also are careful that we don’t also confer automatic and honorary citizenship on someone who is happens 

to be in the service who is killed while committing an act that does 

not contribute to an honorable discharge. 

Mr. ISSA. The posthumous award has its own criteria. It is not 

just you die you get a posthumous citizenship. So we never envisioned changing the rules for posthumous citizenship in my legislation. It has its own rules. But I will say that you know, the second—first lieutenant who replaced me as XO of a company a week 

after I left, he went on Return of Forces to Germany which used 

to be call REFORGER, and a helicopter hit a power line and 

flipped over and he was killed. That could have just easily been 

me. We were in time of peace, but we were preparing for the Soviets coming over the Czech border. I do believe when we look at 

training accidents most often, those accidents they are not the guy 

who is off duty in a Jeep, but those training accidents have everything to do with being prepared for the kind of success we just had 

in Iraq. 

Mr. KING. Absolutely. We overlook those training accidents and 

those deaths. I think we should bring that to more light than we 

do, because it is a sacrifice. And maybe as many as 5 to 6,000 accidents in the period of time between Desert Storm 1 and our operVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:26 Jun 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\050603\86950.000 HJUD2 PsN: 86950
39

ation in Iraq, just to be ready. So I want to take a careful look at 

that language. 

I didn’t hear any testimony that addressed that particular criteria, but I think it needs to be service that contributes to an honorary discharge rather than if we have somebody off base who commits an act. 

Mr. HASTINGS. I do say that your citizenship would be revoked 

on other than honorable discharge. You may want to look at that 

and tighten it up and make some adjustments, but my legislation 

does specifically address that issue. 

Mr. KING. We come at it with the same philosophy. So that concludes my curiosity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the 

panel for an excellent presentation today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the panel for your presence and your 

contribution to the record as well as this very important issue. And 

Members of the Subcommittee are advised that the record will stay 

open for five legislative days to revise and extend. That the point 

the business of the Subcommittee being completed, the Committee 

is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSWOMAN SHEILA JACKSON LEE

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, as a 

minor with no parents, he qualified for permanent residency and was taken in by 

a foster family. He graduated from high school and studied at a junior college before 

joining the Marine Corps. 

On March 21, 2003, in a battle with Iraq’s Republican Guard troops, Lance Cpl. 

Jose Gutierrez was killed in the service of the country he loved. According to Martha Espinosa, one of his former foster mothers, ‘‘He once told me, ’I was born the 

day I arrived in this country.’′′ Jose was one of four fallen Marines who deserve special mention because they 

died in service to a country they could not yet call their own. The other three were 

Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose Angel Garibay, and Lance Cpl. Jesus 

Suarez del Solar, all born in Mexico. 

Immigrants have long seen service in the U.S. military as a gateway to citizenship, education and economic opportunity, and the deaths of these four Marines 

echo those of other non-citizens who died for this country before them. Their valor 

is well documented. 

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 example, Section 328 of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows non-citizen members of the military in peacetime to become citizens after three years of 

service, instead of the usual five-year wait required of non-military applicants. 

In addition, 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. This opportunity becomes available when the President designates by Executive Order that the armed services are or were engaged 

in armed conflict with a hostile foreign force. 

Under Section 329 of the INA, 143,000 non-citizen military participants in World 

Wars I and II, and 31,000 members of the U.S. military who fought during the Korean War, became naturalized American citizens. Executive Orders following Vietnam and the Persian Gulf War collectively led to more than 100,000 members of 

the U.S. military becoming American citizens. Notwithstanding this history of generosity towards people who have served in our armed forces, the provisions on military service based naturalization can be improved. 

The bills that are the subject of this hearing offer improvements in a number of 

areas. For instance, some of the bills would reduce the three-year wait for peacetime 

service. Some of my colleagues would like the time reduced to two years. Others 

would eliminate the wait entirely and permit a peacetime soldier to begin the naturalization process immediately when he or she begins active duty in the armed 

forces. 

The area that concerns me the most is posthumous naturalization, which is granted when a soldier dies while on active duty during a period of military hostility. As 

presently written, the posthumous naturalization provisions explicitly state that the 

soldier’s spouse and children will not benefit from the grant of posthumous citizenship. Several of the bills would remove this exclusion and specify that the spouse 

and children will be eligible for immigration benefits on the basis of the posthumous 

grant of naturalization. 

I believe that we must go further. We need to show the extent of our gratitude 

towards the soldiers who die for this country by making citizenship readily available 

42

to their surviving spouses who are already lawful permanent residents of the United 

States. 

Ordinarily, a lawful permanent resident must be married to a United States citizen for a period of three years before he or she can apply for naturalization as the 

spouse of a United States citizen. Section 319(d) of the Act waives that requirement 

in the case where the lawful permanent resident spouse is married to a citizen 

spouse who dies during a period of honorable service in the Armed Forces. That provision should be revised to apply in the case where the soldier’s citizenship is received posthumously. 

The only difference between the two situations is that the one addressed by current law applies to a soldier who receives his citizenship while he is alive, 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. If anything, the posthumous situation is more compelling than the other situation. Posthumous citizenship is given when a soldier dies during a period of military hostility. 

This additional step should be taken. Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN BOB FILNER

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson-Lee and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I have come here today as California’s Border Congressman to try to make clear 

what it means to live on the border between the United States and Mexico. To those 

of us who live there, the border is not merely a line separating the United States 

from Mexico, but it is an inter-related community where people conduct business 

and cultures meld together. The people living on the other side of that line are not 

merely Mexicans—they are family and friends—and shoppers! 

For generations in the border region, children and their parents have been participating in events in both countries that range from shopping, to joining in a holiday 

parade, to receiving medical care. Unfortunately, the tragic events of September 11, 

2001 have put those activities and that community at risk. 

Recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Ridge and Undersecretary for Border 

and Transportation Security Hutchinson visited my district. I appreciated the 

chance to discuss these new policies with them. I will share with you now the main 

issues we discussed:

1. Border and Transportation Security and the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services are concentrating too many resources and personnel on 

ALL who want to cross the border, rather than focusing their attention on 

high-risk crossers—and using modern technology to handle the frequent 

crossers. Studies have shown that more than 95% of the 150,000 daily crossers at San Ysidro, the world’s busiest border crossing, are ‘‘frequent 

crossers′′—crossing at least once a week, sometimes crossing many times a 

day—for school, work, housing family and shopping. Our economy—not to 

mention our families—requires efficient crossing, not unpredictable waiting 

times of sometimes 2 or 3 hours. ALL crossing gates should be open 24 hours 

and high-technology ‘‘smart cards′′—issued after extensive background 

checks and containing fingerprints or other biometric data. Any desired level 

of security could be built into the cards—and the border can become both secure and efficient!

2. In the past, in order to accommodate the unique relationship in the border 

area, the local Port of Entry Directors had the authority to grant tourist visa 

waivers to some low-risk, non-immigrant border crossers, including children 

with regular medical appointments or children who are competing in sporting events or cultural activities. Since the terrorist attacks however, the Department of Homeland Security has changed their policy and now the visa 

requirements, costing $100 per person, are strictly enforced. This has had 

devastating effect on the border community. Over the last four decades, the 

Valley Orthopedic Center in Calexico, CA, has treated 125,00 children with 

severe deformities resulting from birth defects or serious injury without 

charge, using volunteer doctors and nurses. These children are very poor and 

cannot afford the specialized care they require. The $100 fee for a tourist 

visa is simply out of reach for these families. Let me point out that a minimum wage worker in Mexico makes only $94.50 a MONTH. This clinic is 

often their only hope, but without the visa, they are turned away when they 

try to enter the U.S. Denying these children visa waivers for regular medical 

care makes the U.S. an uncaring neighbor. The same could be said about 

43

school trips to the world-famous San Diego Zoo and school bands participating in Christmas parades. Visa crackdowns on low-risk crossers from 

Mexico are hurting our relationship with our neighbors rather than building 

a strong relationship in order for us to work TOGETHER with them in the 

fight against terrorism.

3. I also discussed with them the poorly handled National Security Entry-Exit 

Registration System (NSEERS), hundreds of men who came to register were 

arrested, and their families were not told what happened to them. These 

were people who were following our rules and coming to register, and our 

government arrested them and did not grant them due process. We should 

be working with the immigrant community and encouraging them to cooperate with the government—not using un-American scare tactics. This only encourages immigrants to avoid contact with our government. When that happens, we lose a great opportunity to instill confidence in the government and, 

more importantly, we have the potential to miss out on key security information that could be provided by the immigrant community.

I was encouraged by the Secretary’s and Undersecretary’s responses to my concerns and look forward to the opportunity to work with them to ensure that our borders are safe, but also efficient and that the United States continues to be a good 

neighbor and a bastion of freedom and justice for all.

Æ