The 108th Congress has considered and is considering legislation on a wide range ofimmigration issues. Two of these issues -- the transfer of immigration authorities and expeditednaturalization through military service -- relate directly to post-September 11, 2001 U.S. efforts toimprove national security. In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the 107th Congress establisheda new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L.107-296 ). DHS was tasked with preventing terrorist attacks in the United States and reducing thenation's vulnerability to terrorism, among other responsibilities. Effective March 1, 2003, P.L.107-296 abolished the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) of the Department of Justice(DOJ), the agency which had administered and enforced the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), (1) and transferred most immigration-related functions to the newly created DHS. Lingering questionsremain, however, about the division of authorities between DOJ and DHS in some areas. Pendinglegislation would amend the INA to explicitly transfer certain authorities to DHS. Like theestablishment of DHS, Operation Iraqi Freedom had a goal of protecting U.S. national security. Thisoperation prompted congressional interest in legislation to expand the citizenship benefits of aliensserving in the military. The 108th Congress has enacted a measure ( P.L. 108-136 ) that amendsmilitary naturalization and posthumous citizenship statutes and provides immigration benefits forimmediate relatives of U.S. citizen servicemembers who die as a result of actual combat service. The 108th Congress is currently debating legislation that would implement recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11Commission). The 9/11 Commission's immigration-related recommendations focused primarily ontargeting terrorist travel through an intelligence and security strategy based on reliable identificationsystems and effective, integrated information-sharing. As Congress has considered theserecommendations, however, possible legislative responses have broadened to include significant andpossibly far-reaching changes in the substantive law governing immigration and how that law isenforced, both at the border and in the interior of the United States. Other measures before the 108th Congress -- such as those on temporary workers and business personnel, adjustment of status for unauthorized aliens, and noncitizen eligibility for public benefits-- concern more perennial immigration-related questions. These include how to use the immigrationsystem to meet U.S. labor needs, how to address unauthorized immigration to the United States, andwhat types of benefits to provide to noncitizens. Of course, today's heightened security concernshave likewise added new dimensions to these old questions. In the current debate over consularidentification cards, for example, issues of unauthorized immigration and security have been raised. This report discusses these and other immigration-related issues that have seen legislative action orare of significant congressional interest. (2) The finalsection of the report lists enacted legislation andselected bills receiving action. For decades, the administrative authority to interpret, implement, enforce, and adjudicateimmigration law within the United States lay almost exclusively with one officer: the AttorneyGeneral. The most general statement of this power was found in ï¿½103(a)(1) of the INA, thefundamental statute regulating the entry and stay of aliens. With some exceptions, immigrationfunctions were delegated to INS, which was headed by a Commissioner who reported to the AttorneyGeneral. On March 1, 2003, primary responsibility for securing our borders and managing the immigration process shifted to DHS. This transfer was effectuated through general language in theHomeland Security Act (HSA; P.L. 107-296 ): Congress did not amend every affected section of theINA to change all references to the Attorney General that were effectively superceded by the generaltransfer of authority. However, Congress did amend the language of ï¿½103(a) of the INA, first inï¿½1102 of the HSA and later in Division L, ï¿½105, of the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of2003 ( P.L. 108-7 ). This section now states: The Secretary of Homeland Security shall be charged with the administration and enforcement of [the INA] and all other laws relating to the immigrationand naturalization of aliens, except insofar as this chapter or such laws relate to the powers,functions, and duties conferred upon the President, Attorney General, the Secretary of State .... Provided, however , That determination and ruling by the Attorney General with respect to allquestions of law shall be controlling. The revised language reflects the transfer of general authority, but may leave certain issues unresolved. First, exactly what immigration powers and functions are to be retained by the AttorneyGeneral? Laws to date make clear that the Attorney General is to remain responsible foradministrative adjudications by immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, and thatdeterminations and rulings by the Attorney General on questions of law are to be controlling. However, the intended extent of these and possible other retained powers may not be altogether clearat the operational level. Second, to the degree that authority over immigration is now fragmentedor overlapping, how are the respective authorities of DHS and the Attorney General to becoordinated and reconciled? It has been argued that only a section-by-section revision of the INA, replacing references to the Attorney General with references to the Secretary of Homeland Security where appropriate, willtruly clarify the allocation of authorities between the two departments. (3) A bill to replace certain INAreferences to the Attorney General with references to the Secretary of Homeland Security( H.R. 1416 ) was adopted by the House on June 24, 2003, and reported by the SenateGovernmental Affairs Committee on November 25, 2003. As passed by the House and reported bythe Senate Committee, this bill, the "Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003," wouldremove specified references to the Attorney General, INS, and the INS Commissioner in INA ï¿½103(leaving intact the controlling nature of the Attorney General's determinations of law) and in INAï¿½287(g), which concerns acceptance of state services to carry out immigration enforcement. According to the House Select Committee on Homeland Security report on H.R. 1416 ( H.Rept. 108-104 ), the bill "improves the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and honors the originalintentions of the drafters by making grammatical and technical corrections." Nonetheless, questionsmay remain as to how far this provision would fully clarify and resolve outstanding issues ofauthority. (4) Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 there has been considerableinterest in legislation to expand the citizenship benefits of aliens serving in the military. Thereported deaths in action of noncitizen soldiers have drawn attention to provisions of the INA thatgrant posthumous citizenship to those who die as a result of active-duty service during a period ofhostilities. The INA also provides for expedited naturalization for noncitizens serving in the UnitedStates military. During peacetime, noncitizens in the military may petition to naturalize after threeyears aggregate military service rather than the requisite five years of legal permanent residence. During periods of military hostilities, noncitizens serving in the armed forces can naturalizeimmediately. In the wake of September 11, 2001, and the war against terrorism, President George W. Bush officially designated the period beginning on September 11, 2001, as a "period of hostilities," whichtriggered immediate naturalization eligibility for active-duty U.S. military servicemembers. At thetime of the designation (July 3, 2002), the Department of Defense and the former INS announcedthat they would work together to ensure that military naturalization applications were processedexpeditiously. As of February 2003, there were 37,000 noncitizens serving in active duty in the U.S.armed forces, almost 12,000 noncitizens serving in the selected reserves, and another 8,000 servingin the inactive national guard and ready reserves. Of the many pending bills containing provisions concerning expedited or posthumous citizenship as the result of military service, H.R. 1588 , the "National DefenseAuthorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004," became P.L. 108-136 on November 24, 2003. Title XVIIof H.R. 1588 , entitled "Naturalization and Other Immigration Benefits for MilitaryPersonnel and Families," amends existing military naturalization statutes by: reducing the periodof service required for naturalization based on peacetime service from three years to one year;waiving fees for naturalization based on military service during peacetime or wartime; permittingdiscretionary revocation of naturalization granted on or after the date of enactment throughpeacetime or wartime service if the citizen were discharged from military service under other thanhonorable conditions before serving honorably for an aggregate period of five years; permittingnaturalization processing overseas in U.S. embassies, consulates, and military bases; providing forpriority consideration for military leave and transport to finalize naturalization; and extendingnaturalization based on wartime service to members of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve. Additionally, the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary's designee within the DHS Bureau ofCitizenship and Immigration Services is authorized to request posthumous citizenship immediatelyupon obtaining permission from the next-of-kin. P.L. 108-136 expands immigration benefits available to the immediate relatives (spouses, children, and parents) of citizens, including posthumous citizens, who die from injuries or illnessesresulting from or aggravated by serving in combat. Such relatives would remain classified asimmediate relatives of a U.S. citizen for immigration purposes, notwithstanding the death of theservicemember, and could self-petition for immigrant status. Certain adjustment requirements andthe public charge ground of inadmissibility would be waived. In addition, children and parents, aswell as spouses, of U.S. citizens who die during honorable active-duty service would be eligible tonaturalize without prior residence or a specified period of physical presence in the United States. This includes survivors of posthumous citizens who died on or after September 11, 2001. P.L. 108-136 also amends the relevant sections of the INA to change references to the Attorney General to references to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The effective date of the provisionsin P.L. 108-136 would be retroactive to September 11, 2001, except for the fee waivers andprovision for naturalization proceedings abroad, which shall take effect on October 1, 2004. (5) The report of 9/11 Commission concluded that the key officials responsible for determiningalien admissions (consular officers abroad and immigration inspectors in the United States) were notconsidered full partners in counterterrorism efforts prior to September 11, 2001, and as a result,opportunities to intercept the September 11 terrorists were missed. The 9/11 Commission contendedthat "(t)here were opportunities for intelligence and law enforcement to exploit al Qaeda's travelvulnerabilities." (6) The 9/11 Commission's immigration-related recommendations focused primarily on targeting terrorist travel through an intelligence and security strategy based on reliable identification systemsand effective, integrated information-sharing. As Congress has considered these recommendations,however, possible legislative responses have broadened to include significant and possiblyfar-reaching changes in the substantive law governing immigration and how that law is enforced,both at the border and in the interior of the United States. (7) There are several major bills that seek to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and some propose significant revisions to U.S. immigration law and policy. The bills that wouldrevise immigration law include H.R. 10 , to provide for reform of the intelligencecommunity, terrorism prevention and prosecution, border security, and international cooperation andcoordination, and for other purposes; S. 2845 , the National Intelligence Reform Act of2004; S. 2774 / H.R. 5040 , the 9/11 Commission Report ImplementationAct of 2004; and H.R. 5024 , the 9/11 Commission Recommendations ImplementationAct of 2004. Of these bills, H.R. 10 as reported by the House Committee on the Judiciaryon October 5, 2004, proposes the most extensive revisions of the INA. During the Senate floordebate on S. 2845, S.Amdt. 3807 , which added a title on "terrorist travel andeffective screening," was accepted on October 1, 2004. The major immigration areas underconsideration in these comprehensive 9/11 Commission bills include: asylum, biometric trackingsystems, border security, document security, exclusion, immigration enforcement, and visaissuances. (8) The INA provides for the temporary admission of various categories of foreign workers andbusiness personnel. Foreign nationals admitted to the United States on a temporary basis are knownas nonimmigrants. The major nonimmigrant category for temporary workers is the H visa. The Hvisa category includes the H-1B visa for professional specialty workers, the H-2A visa foragricultural workers, and the H-2B visa for nonagricultural workers, among other visa classifications. Foreign nationals also may be temporarily admitted to the United States for work- orbusiness-related purposes under other nonimmigrant categories, including the B-1 visa for businessvisitors, the E visa for treaty traders and investors, and the L-1 visa for intracompany transfers. (9) The economic prosperity of the 1990s fueled a drive to increase the levels of employment-based immigration. Both Congress and the Federal Reserve Board expressed concern at that time that ascarcity of labor could curtail the pace of economic growth. A primary response was to increase thesupply of foreign temporary professional (H-1B) workers through FY2003. The 108th Congress nowweighs whether to renew these increased H-1B visa ceilings or keep the statutory limit of 65,000. The FY2004 cap was reached in March 2004, and DHS recently announced that the FY2005 cap wasreached on the first day of the fiscal year -- October 1, 2004. The 106th Congress enacted the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000 ( P.L. 106-313 ) with bipartisan support in October 2000. That law raised the number of H-1Bvisas by 297,500 over three years. It also made changes in the use of H-1B fees for the educationand training of U.S. residents, notably earmarking a portion of training funds for skills that are ininformation technology shortage areas and adding a math, science, and technology education grantprogram. Separate legislation ( P.L. 106-311 ) increased the H-1B fee, authorized through FY2003,from $500 to $1,000. The 107th Congress enacted provisions that allow H-1B workers to remainbeyond the six-year statutory limit if their employers have petitioned for them to become legalpermanent residents. Certain labor market protections aimed at firms whose workforce is more than15% H-1B workers (known as H-1B dependent employers) lapsed at the end of FY2003. Those opposing any extension of the increased H-1B visa ceilings or an easing of admissions requirements assert that there is no compelling evidence of a labor shortage in these professionalareas that cannot be met by newly graduating students and the retraining of the existing U.S. workforce. They argue further that the education of U.S. students and training of U.S. workers should begiven priority over fostering a reliance on foreign workers. Proponents of maintaining current H-1B levels assert that the education of students and the retraining of the current workforce are long-term responses to potential labor shortages, and thatH-1B workers are essential if the United States is to remain globally competitive. Some proponentsargue that employers should be free to hire the best people for the jobs, maintaining that marketforces should regulate H-1B visas, not an arbitrary ceiling. Pending bills would make various changes to current law on H-1B visas. S. 1452 / H.R. 2849 would broaden the lay-off protection provisions pertaining to H-1Bdependent employers to cover all H-1B employers, and would give the Department of Labor theauthority to initiate investigations of H-1B employers if there is reasonable cause. H.R. 4166 would make the following provisions permanent: the attestation requirement concerningnondisplacement of U.S. workers applicable to H-1B-dependent employers and willful violators; thefiling fee applicable to H-1B petitioners; and the Secretary of Labor's authority to investigate anemployer's alleged failure to meet specified labor attestation conditions. Two other bills( H.R. 2235 and H.R. 2688 ) would suspend or eliminate H-1B visas. H.R. 3534 would amend the H visa category more generally. It would eliminate thecurrent subcategories, including the H-1B visa, and replace them with a single category coveringaliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform skilled or unskilled work. (10) Concerns have been voiced that the L visa category, which allows executives and managers of multinational corporations to work temporarily in the United States, is being misused. This visacategory permits multinational firms to transfer top-level personnel to their locations in the UnitedStates for five to seven years. Intracompany transfers enter on L-1 visas, and their spouses andchildren enter on L-2 visas. Although the number of L visas (L-1s and L-2s combined) issued hastripled in the past 20 years, the number of L visas that the Department of State issued in FY2002(112,624) is down from a high of 120,538 in FY2001. Some are now charging that firms are using the L visa to transfer "rank and file" professional employees rather than limiting these transfers to top-level personnel, thus circumventing immigrationlaws aimed at protecting U.S. employees from the potential adverse employment effects associatedwith an increase in the number of foreign workers. Proponents of current law maintain that anyrestrictions on L visas would prompt many multinational firms to leave the United States, as wellas undermine reciprocal agreements that currently permit U.S. corporations to transfer theiremployees abroad. Legislation that would amend the L-1 visa is before the 108th Congress ( S. 1452 / H.R. 2849 , S. 1635 , H.R. 2154 , H.R. 2702 , H.R. 4166 , and H.R. 4415 ). All of these bills have provisions aimed atrestricting the outsourcing of U.S. jobs to L-1 visa holders (that is, the importing of L-1 workers toperform U.S. jobs). On October 4, 2004, the Senate Judiciary committee reported S. 1635 , which was introduced by Senator Saxby Chambliss, chair of the Senate JudiciarySubcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship. As reported, S. 1635 would amend the INA to prohibit under certain circumstances entry of an alien with specializedknowledge who will be stationed primarily at the worksite of an employer other than the petitioningemployer. S. 1635 also would eliminate the six-month requirement of prior continuousoverseas employment for blanket petitions (thus subjecting all L-1 aliens to a one-year requirement),and would direct DHS to maintain L-1 statistics. H.R. 4166 has similar provisionsrevising the L visa. Among the other pending bills, H.R. 4415 would eliminatespecialized knowledge as a basis for obtaining an L visa and would limit the number of L-1 visasto 35,000 annually. Several of the bills ( S. 1452 / H.R. 2849 and H.R. 2702 ) include labor attestation requirements designed to protect U.S. workers fromdisplacement or other potentially adverse effects on the labor market brought on by importing L-1visa holders. (11) The U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the U.S.-Singapore FTA create separate categories of entry for citizens of each country to engage in a wide range of business and investmentactivities as nonimmigrants. Chapter 14 of the U.S.-Chile FTA and Chapter 11 of theU.S.-Singapore FTA address four specific categories of nonimmigrant admissions currently governedby U.S. immigration law: business visitors (parallel to the INA's B-1 visa category); treaty tradersand investors (parallel to the E visa category); intracompany transfers (parallel to the L visacategory); and professional workers (parallel to the H-1B visa category). Legislation to implement the Chile and Singapore FTAs was introduced on July 15, 2003, as S. 1416 / H.R. 2738 and S. 1417 / H.R. 2739 ,respectively. The House passed H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739 on July 24,2003, and the Senate passed them on July 31,2003. The Chile FTA implementing law is P.L.108-77 , and the Singapore FTA implementing law is P.L. 108-78 . These laws amend severalsections of the INA. Foremost, the laws amend INA ï¿½101(a)(15)(H) to carve out a portion of theH-1B visas -- designated as the H-1B-1 visa -- for professional workers entering through the FTAs. In many ways the FTA professional worker visa requirements parallel the H-1B visa requirements,notably having similar educational requirements. The H-1B visa, however, specifies that theoccupation require highly specialized knowledge, while the FTA professional worker visa specifiesthat the occupation require only specialized knowledge. P.L. 108-77 contains a numerical limit of 1,400 new entries under the FTA professional worker visa from Chile, and P.L. 108-78 contains a limit of 5,400 for Singapore. Under the laws, the FTAprofessional visa is initially issued for one year, but can be renewed without limit; by comparison,an H-1B worker is limited to a total stay of six years. The laws count an FTA professional workeragainst the H-1B cap the first year he or she enters and again after the fifth year he or she seeksrenewal. Although the FTA professional worker would remain a temporary resident and would onlybe permitted to work for an employer who had met the applicable labor attestation requirements, heor she could legally remain in the United States indefinitely. These FTA provisions on the temporary entry of business personnel and professional workers are raising concerns among many in the field of immigration because immigration law traditionallyis spelled out by Congress, not the executive branch. Some assert that the U.S. Trade Representative(USTR) negotiated these immigration provisions without any authority or direction from Congress. This assertion implies that the USTR did not honor its obligations of the "fast track authority," foundin the Trade Promotion Authority objectives of the Trade Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-210 ), to regularlyand formally consult with Congress during the FTA negotiations in return for expedited legislativeprocedures, which among other things bar amendments to the FTA enabling legislation. Moregenerally, some point out that these provisions would constrain current and future Congresses whenthey consider revising immigration law on business personnel, treaty investors and traders,intracompany transfers, and professional workers because the United States would run the risk ofviolating the FTAs. The USTR maintains that the temporary entry of professionals falls within Trade Promotion Authority objectives regarding the opening of foreign country markets for U.S. services andinvestment, and that ensuring cross-border mobility of professionals and other business persons iscritical for U.S. companies in developing new markets and business opportunities abroad. TheUSTR further argues that the temporary business personnel provisions in the FTAs are notimmigration policy because they only affect temporary entry. The USTR points out that it issued anotice of intent to negotiate provisions to facilitate the temporary entry of business persons inOctober 2001 and that it briefed congressional staff on the FTA provisions on numerous occasions. Currently, the United States has two main programs for temporarily importing low-skilled workers, sometimes referred to as guest workers. Agricultural workers enter through the H-2Aprogram and nonagricultural workers enter through the H-2B program. Pending bills ( S. 1645 / H.R. 3142 , S. 2185 , and H.R. 3604 ) propose to overhaulthe H-2A program. Among other provisions, these bills would streamline the process of importingH-2A workers and make changes to existing H-2A requirements regarding minimum benefits,wages, and working conditions. With respect to agricultural guest worker proposals, the HouseAgriculture Committee held a hearing in January 2004 to review the potential impact of suchproposals on the agricultural sector. S. 2010 and S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 would reform the H-2B program. Among other changes, both would allow the importing ofH-2B workers to perform short-term labor or services; current law limits H-2B workers to theperformance of temporary work. S. 2010 , S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 ,and other bills ( S. 2252 / H.R. 4052 , S. 2258 , and H.R. 4041 ) would increase the potential number of H-2B workers by either raising thestatutory cap on the program, currently set at 66,000 per year, or exempting certain H-2B workersfrom the cap. H.R. 3534 proposes to amend the H visa category more generally. Itwould eliminate the current subcategories, including the H-2A and H-2B visas, and replace themwith a single category covering aliens coming temporarily to the United States to perform skilled orunskilled work. Also before the 108th Congress are proposals to create new temporary worker programs ( S. 1387 , S. 1461 / H.R. 2899 , S. 2010 , S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 , and H.R. 3651 ). These bills would amendthe INA to establish new nonimmigrant visas. S. 1387 would establish two new visas,one for seasonal workers and one for nonseasonal workers. S. 1461 / H.R. 2899 would likewise establish two new nonimmigrant visas. One would cover aliens coming to theUnited States to perform temporary work, and the other would cover unauthorized alien workers. The new visa category proposed in H.R. 3651 would cover unauthorized aliens. Inaddition to reforming the H-2B visa, as discussed above, S. 2010 and S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 would each establish a new temporary worker visa. S. 2010 would establish a new visa for temporary workers in occupation classifications not covered bythe H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, or other specified high-skilled nonimmigrant visa categories. The new visaproposed in S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 would be for temporary workers inoccupation classifications not covered by the H-1B, H-2A, or other specified high-skillednonimmigrant visa categories. (12) Provisions insome of the above bills to enable certain aliens toobtain legal permanent residence are discussed in the next section. Estimates derived from the March Supplement of the U.S. Bureau of Census's CurrentPopulation Survey indicate that the unauthorized resident alien population (commonly referred toas illegal aliens) was 9.3 million in 2002. Almost two-thirds (57%) of these illegal residents werebelieved to be Mexican nationals. (13) Several billsbefore the 108th Congress, some of which arediscussed below, would enable certain unauthorized aliens to adjust to legal permanent resident(LPR) status. Adjustment refers to the process under immigration law by which an individualpresent in the United States is granted legal permanent residence. Some pending guest worker bills (see above) would establish special mechanisms for alien workers in the United States to become LPRs. S. 1645 / H.R. 3142 wouldestablish a two-stage legalization program for agricultural workers; aliens could first apply fortemporary resident status and then, after meeting additional requirements, could apply to adjust toLPR status. Under S. 1461 / H.R. 2899 , S. 2010 , and S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 , certain alien workers could apply directly for LPRstatus. By contrast, S. 1387 , S. 2185 , H.R. 3534 , H.R. 3604 , and H.R. 3651 do not propose special mechanisms for guestworkers to obtain LPR status. (14) A bill that would enable certain unauthorized alien students to become LPRs ( S. 1545 ) has been reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Known as the "DREAM Act," S. 1545 would establish a two-stage process through which eligible aliens would firstbe granted conditional LPR status and then after meeting additional requirements, could becomefull-fledged LPRs. To be eligible for conditional LPR status under the bill, an alien must have beenunder age 16 at the time of initial entry into the United States, have resided continuously here for atleast five years preceding enactment, and have a high school diploma (or equivalent credential) orhave gained admission to an institution of higher education, among other requirements. Related billshave been introduced in the House ( H.R. 84 , H.R. 1684 , and H.R. 3271 ). (15) In addition, legalizationprovisions in some guest worker bills and otherimmigration bills would also enable certain unauthorized alien students to become LPRs. Provisionsin the unauthorized student bills cited above related to eligibility for higher education benefits arediscussed separately below. Prior to 1996, LPRs were eligible for federal public benefits, such as Medicaid, under termscomparable to citizens, and states were not permitted to restrict access to federal programs on thebasis of immigration status. The 1996 welfare reform law ( P.L. 104-193 ) made most newly enteringLPRs ineligible for federal public benefits for five years; after five years, it allowed states to continuebarring LPRs from federal public benefits, including Medicaid and the State Children's HealthInsurance Program (SCHIP). (16) Nonetheless, allnoncitizens, regardless of status, who otherwise meetthe eligibility requirements for Medicaid, are eligible for emergency Medicaid. (17) On December 8, 2003, President Bush signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-173 ). It includes a provision to reimburse healthcareproviders for uncompensated treatment given to unauthorized aliens, aliens paroled (18) into the UnitedStates for the purpose of receiving eligible services, and Mexican citizens permitted to enter theUnited States with border crossing cards (also referred to as "laser visas"). Specifically, P.L.108-173 instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to pay local governments,hospitals, or other providers such amounts as they can demonstrate were used to provideuncompensated emergency health services to unauthorized aliens, aliens paroled into the UnitedStates, and Mexican citizens entering with border crossing cards. Funding is allocated to statesbased on a formula, and the state allotment is available to reimburse health care providers in thatstate. For each of fiscal years 2005 through 2008, the provision appropriates $250 million, of which: $167 million is designated to states based on the percentage of unauthorized aliens residing in the state compared to the total number of unauthorized aliens in the United States;and $83 million is designated to the 6 states with the highest percentage ofunauthorized alien apprehensions for the fiscal year. P.L. 108-173 also requires the Secretary of HHS to establish a process, including measures to protect against fraud and abuse, for hospitals and other health care providers to apply for reimbursement. Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA; Division C of P.L. 104-208 ) made unauthorized aliens ineligible for postsecondary educationbenefits based on state residence unless equal benefits were made available to all U.S. citizensregardless of state of residence. Bills before the 108th Congress (including S. 1545 , asreported) would repeal IIRIRA ï¿½505 and, as discussed above, would enable certain unauthorizedalien students to become LPRs. Pending House bills ( H.R. 84 and H.R. 1684 ) also would make alien students who apply for relief under their terms eligible for federalpostsecondary education benefits, such as student financial aid, while their applications are pending. S. 1545 , as reported, does not contain such provisions. (19) The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 (EBSVER; P.L. 107-173 )required that by October 26, 2004 all visas issued have biometric identifiers. Although theDepartment of State (DOS) has said that it will meet the deadline, it is not clear that DHS will havethe readers for the new biometric visas in place at all points of entry by the specified date. (20) EBSVER also established biometric requirements for visa waiver program (VWP) countries, whosenationals are allowed to enter the United States as temporary visitors for business or pleasure withoutfirst obtaining a visa from a U.S. consulate abroad. (21) The act mandated that by October 26, 2004,the government of each VWP country must certify that it has established a program to issuemachine-readable passports that are tamper-resistant and incorporate a biometric identifier. EBSVER also specified that any person applying for admission to the United States under the VWPmust have a tamper-resistant, machine-readable passport with a biometric identifier, unless thepassport was issued prior to October 26, 2004. The standard agreed upon by the internationalcommunity for the biometric identifier is facial recognition. P.L. 108-299 ( H.R. 4417 ) extended for one-year both the deadline for VWP countries to certify that they have a program to issue machine-readable passports with biometricidentifiers, and the requirement that all visas issued have biometric identifiers. The new biometricdeadline is October 26, 2005. Under P.L. 108-299 , any person applying for admission to the UnitedStates under the VWP as of that date would have to have a tamper-resistant, machine-readablepassport with a biometric identifier, unless the passport was issued prior to October 26, 2005. S.Amdt. 3933 was introduced on October 5, 2004, during the floor debate of S. 2845 , the "National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004." S.Amdt. 3933 would require that each VWP country, as a condition of being in the VWP, have a program to issuetamper-resident, machine readable visa documents that incorporate biometric identifiers which arecompatible with the biometric identifiers used in the US-VISIT program. The current debate about consular identification cards in the United States has centered aroundthe matrÃ­cula consular, the consular card issued by the Mexican government to its citizens in theUnited States when they register with a consulate. In recent years, and especially since theSeptember 11, 2001 attacks, Mexican consulates in the United States and other interested partieshave worked to gain acceptance of the matrÃ­cula consular as identification for a variety of purposes,with considerable success. The matrÃ­cula consular raises a number of questions for domestic and foreign policy. With respect to domestic policy, there is much debate about the costs and benefits of the cards in the areasof immigration, public safety and law enforcement, and homeland security. Relevant foreign policyissues include the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship, reciprocity of treatment of citizens abroad, andconsular notification in law enforcement situations. Legislation related to consular identification cards is before the 108th Congress. The House-passed Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2004-FY2005 ( H.R. 1950 )contains provisions to restrict the issuance of such cards by foreign missions. Other pendingmeasures concern acceptance of consular identification cards by U.S. federal entities( H.R. 502 , H.R. 687 , and H.R. 3534 ), and acceptance of thecards for banking purposes ( H.R. 773 and H.J.Res. 58 ). H.R. 4440 would establish consequences under immigration law for the possession or use of consularidentification cards. H.R. 10 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee wouldrequire that, for purposes of establishing his or her identity to a federal employee, an alien presentin the United States may present a valid foreign passport or an immigration document issued by DHSor the Department of Justice under the authority of immigration laws, and no other document canbe used for such purposes. (22) IIRIRA (in Title IV, Subtitle A) directed the Attorney General to conduct three pilot programsfor employment eligibility confirmation (i.e., to confirm that new hires are legally eligible to work). It further directed the Attorney General to establish an employment eligibility confirmation systemto be used by employers participating in the pilot programs. Each program was authorized initiallyfor four years. P.L. 107-128 extended the life of each program from four years to six years. The first program to be implemented, known as the "basic pilot program," began in November 1997. Under IIRIRA, the basic pilot is to operate in at least five of the seven states with the largestestimated unauthorized alien populations. Currently, it is operating in six states (California, Florida,Illinois, Nebraska, New York, and Texas). Although some employers are required to participate ina pilot program, participation in the programs is, for the most part, voluntary. S. 1685 , as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would amend IIRIRA's pilot program provisions. It would extend each program for an additional five years, therebyauthorizing the basic pilot program until 2008. S. 1685 also would provide for theoperation of the basic pilot program in all states by December 1, 2004. It would not change theIIRIRA provisions concerning voluntary or mandatory participation. During Senate floor consideration, S. 1685 was amended to add unrelated provisions concerning the immigrant investor regional center pilot program. These provisions,which were previously passed by the Senate in another bill ( S. 1642 ), are discussedbelow in the "Other Legislation Receiving Action" section. S. 1685 , as amended, waspassed by the Senate and House. On December 3, 2003, the President signed the bill into law ( P.L.108-156 ). Earlier in the session, a related bill ( H.R. 2359 ) had been considered in the House. As reported by the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 2359 , like S. 1685 ,would have extended each pilot program for an additional five years and would have provided forthe operation of the basic pilot program in all states. Additionally, H.R. 2359 wouldhave allowed the pilot program confirmation system to be used for government inquiries about anindividual's immigration status. A separate provision of IIRIRA (ï¿½642(c)) directed the former INSto respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertainthe citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agencies for anypurpose authorized by law. H.R. 2359 would have provided that such inquiries maybe submitted and responded to using the employment eligibility confirmation system. A modified version of H.R. 2359 , which contained all the above provisions, wasconsidered on the House floor on October 28, 2003. A motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill,as amended, failed. The 231 to 170 vote on the motion fell short of the required two-thirds vote. The refugee ceiling for FY2004 was 70,000, with 50,000 of these numbers allocated among the regions of the world and the remaining 20,000 comprising an "unallocated reserve" to be used if, andwhere, the need for additional refugee slots arose. Actual FY2004 refugee admissions totaled52,868. The proposed refugee admissions for FY2005, provided to Congress during the annualrefugee consultation, again sets the refugee ceiling at 70,000 and includes 20,000 unallocated refugeenumbers. Refugee numbers that are unused in a fiscal year are lost; they do not carry over into thefollowing year. The "Lautenberg amendment" requires the Attorney General to designate categories of former Soviet and Indochinese nationals for whom less evidence is needed to prove refugee status, andprovides for adjustment to LPR status for certain former Soviet and Indochinese nationals deniedrefugee status. P.L. 108-7 extended the Lautenberg amendment through FY2003. The ConsolidatedAppropriations Act for FY2004 ( P.L. 108-199 ) extends the amendment through FY2004. Inaddition, it amends the Lautenberg amendment to also require the designation of categories ofIranian nationals, specifically religious minorities, for whom less evidence is needed to prove refugeestatus. Another provision in P.L. 108-199 instructs the Secretary of State to utilize private voluntary organizations with refugee-related expertise in the identification, referral, and processing of refugeesoverseas. Currently, the identification and referral of refugees for the U.S. refugee program is doneprimarily by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The "McCain amendment," first enacted in 1996, made the adult children of certain Vietnamese refugees eligible for U.S. refugee resettlement. P.L. 107-185 revised and re-enacted the amendmentfor FY2002 and FY2003. Among its provisions, this law enabled adult children previously deniedresettlement to have their cases reconsidered. In the 108th Congress, H.R. 2792 wouldextend the amendment, as revised by P.L. 107-185 , through FY2005. Resettlement Funding. For FY2003, Congress provided $478.0 million for HHS's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). This total included$34.2 million transferred to ORR from the former INS for the unaccompanied alien minors program,pursuant to P.L. 107-296 . For FY2004, P.L. 108-199 provides $450.3 million for ORR programs. The Bush Administration's request for ORR for FY2005 is $473 million. On September 9, 2004,the House passed H.R. 5006 , the FY2005 appropriations for the Departments of Labor,Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (L-HHS-ED), and included$491.3 million for ORR. H.R. 5006 also would give ORR the authority to carry overunexpended funds. The Senate reported bill for the FY2005 L-HHS-ED appropriations( S. 2810 ) included $477.2 million for ORR. (23) North Korean Refugees. Since the constitution of Republic of Korea (i.e., South Korea) guarantees citizenship to all Koreans, and given thediplomatic complexities of the Korean peninsula, residents of Democratic People's Republic ofKorea (i.e., North Korea) generally have not been considered eligible for refugee status. (24) H.R. 4011 , The North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, passed by the House andSenate on October 4, 2004, would require that a national of the North Korea not be considered anational of the South Korea for purposes of eligibility for refugee or asylum status. H.R.4011 would also require the Secretary of State to facilitate the submission of applicationsfor refugee status from North Koreans. In addition, the bill would require the Secretary of State tosubmit a report to Congress which describes the situation of North Korean refugees, and explainsU.S. government policy towards North Korean nationals outside of North Korea. Furthermore, H.R.4011 would require annual reports for six years on North Korean who applied for andreceived asylum and refugee status. P.L. 108-99 extends a provision in immigration law that allows for the admission of immigrants to perform religious work. These religious workers enter under the fourth preference category ofemployment-based immigration, known as "special immigrants," and are subject to an annual capof 5,000. P.L. 108-99 extends this religious worker provision for five additional years, throughSeptember 30, 2008. Ministers of religion are treated separately from religious workers; the specialimmigrant provision covering them is permanent. Prior to the Immigration Act of 1990 ( P.L. 101-649 ), ministers of religion were admitted to the United States without numerical limits, and there was no separate provision for religious workers. Religious workers immigrated through one of the more general categories of numerically-limited,employment-based immigration that were in effect at that time. The Immigration Act of 1990amended the INA to redefine the special immigrant category (which is subject to an overall cap) toinclude ministers of religion as well as religious workers, and created a new nonimmigrant (i.e.,temporary) visa for religious workers, commonly referred to as the R visa. The 1990 Act alsocontained a "sunset"of the special immigrant provision for religious workers on September 30, 1994. The provision was subsequently extended through September 30, 1997, and then again throughSeptember 30, 2003. (25) P.L. 106-386 created a new nonimmigrant category, known as the T visa or T status, for aliens who are victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons. To qualify for the T category, in additionto being a victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the alien must: be physically present in the United States, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or a U.S. port of entry because of suchtrafficking; have complied with any reasonable request for assistance to law enforcementin the investigation or prosecution of acts of trafficking, or be under age 15;and be likely to suffer extreme hardship involving unusual and severe harm uponremoval. To receive T status, the alien must also be admissible to the United States or obtain a waiver of inadmissibility. The act also makes aliens who have a bona fide application for T status eligible toreceive certain public benefits to the same extent as refugees. Additionally, the spouse, children,and, in some cases, parents of an alien granted T status may be given derivative T status in order toavoid extreme hardship. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 ( P.L. 108-193 ) changes eligibility for T status by: (1) raising the age of the exemption for complying with reasonablerequests for assistance in the investigation and prosecution of traffickers from age 15 to age 18; (2)making unmarried aliens under age 18, who are the siblings of trafficking victims who are under age21, eligible for derivative T status; (3) preventing the aging-out of children who were under age 21when their parents filed applications for T status; and (4) removing public charge as a ground forinadmissibility to T status. P.L. 108-193 also authorizes $15 million in each of fiscal years 2004 and2005 for the Secretary of HHS to provide services to victims of trafficking. The Social Security program provides monthly cash benefits to qualified retired and disabled workers, their dependents, and survivors. Generally, a worker must have 10 years of SocialSecurity-covered employment to be eligible for retirement benefits (less time is required fordisability and survivor benefits). Most jobs in the United States are covered under Social Security. Noncitizens (aliens) who work in Social Security-covered employment must pay Social Securitypayroll taxes, including those who are in the United States working temporarily and those who maybe working in the United States without authorization, with some exceptions. By statute, the workof aliens under certain visa categories (e.g., H-2A agricultural workers) is not covered by SocialSecurity. On March 2, 2004, the President signed into law the Social Security Protection Act of 2004 ( P.L. 108-203 , H.R. 743 ), under which an alien whose application for Social Securitybenefits is based on a Social Security Number (SSN) issued January 1, 2004, or later is required tohave work authorization at the time an SSN is assigned, or at any later time, to be eligible forbenefits under the Social Security program. Aliens whose applications are based on SSNs issuedbefore January 1, 2004, would have all Social Security-covered earnings count toward eligibility,regardless if they never had authorization to work in the United States. (26) The diversity visa lottery offers an opportunity for immigration to nationals of countries that do not have high levels of immigration. Aliens from eligible countries had until noon on December30, 2003 to submit their applications for the FY2005 diversity visa lottery. Aliens who are selectedthrough the lottery, if they are otherwise admissible under the INA, may become legal permanentresidents of the United States. Participation in the diversity visa lottery is limited annually to 55,000aliens from countries that are under-represented among recent immigrant admissions to the UnitedStates. In FY2001, over 8 million aliens from around the world sent in applications for the FY2003lottery. Of the diversity visas awarded in FY2002, European immigrants comprised 39.4% of thediversity visa recipients and African immigrants received 38.1% While the diversity lottery has not been directly amended since its enactment in 1990, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (NACARA) temporarily reducesthe 55,000 annual ceiling by up to 5,000 visas annually. Beginning in FY1999, the diversity ceilingbecame 50,000 to offset immigrant visa numbers made available to certain unsuccessful asylumseekers from El Salvador, Guatemala, and formerly communist countries in Europe who are beinggranted LPR status under special rules established by NACARA. While the offset is temporary, itis not clear how many years it will be in effect to handle these adjustments of status. Some question the continuation of the diversity visa lottery, given that family members often wait years for a visa to immigrate to the United States. They state a preference that the 55,000 visasbe used for backlog reduction of the other visa categories. Supporters of the diversity visa, however,point to the immigration dominance of nationals from a handful of countries and argue that thediversity visa provides "new seed" immigrants for an immigration system weighteddisproportionately to family-based immigrants. (27) The House Judiciary Subcommittee onImmigration, Border Security and Claims has reported H.R. 775 , which would eliminatethe diversity visa lottery. S. 710 , as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would make aliens who commit acts of torture, extrajudicial killings, or severe violations of religious freedom abroadinadmissible to, and removable from, the United States. Aliens who committed acts of torture orextrajudicial killings also would be ineligible for asylum, refugee status, or withholding of removal. In addition, S. 710 would expand the authority of the Office of Special Investigations,within DOJ's Criminal Division, to detect, investigate, and take legal action to denaturalize alienswho participated in torture, extrajudicial killings, or genocide abroad. The bill would authorize suchsums as necessary to ensure that the Office of Special Investigations can carry out its new obligationswhile continuing its original duties regarding Nazi War criminals. S. 1129 , as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would create procedures for DHS officers to follow when they encounter an unaccompanied alien child, and would requirethe establishment of procedures to determine the age of an unaccompanied minor. S. 1129 also would establish conditions for the detention of unaccompanied alien children, and wouldallow an unaccompanied alien to be released to specified persons other than the child's parents. Thebill would require that unaccompanied alien children have counsel to represent them in immigrationproceedings, and would require the establishment of a pilot program to study providing guardians ad litem to assist unaccompanied alien children involved in immigration proceedings. Iraqi Scientists. S. 205 , as passed by the Senate, would amend the INA to provide for the nonimmigrant admission of certain scientistsand others with information about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program, and their families. S. 205 would place a numerical limit of 500 on this category. The bill also would grantthe Attorney General discretion to adjust these nonimmigrants to LPR status. Irish Peace Process Program. H.R. 2655 , as passed by the House, would amend and extend through FY2008 a visa program that enablesyoung adults residing in Northern Ireland or certain counties within the Republic of Ireland to worktemporarily in the United States. Immigrant Investor Pilot Program. S. 1642 , as passed by the Senate, would extend the immigrant investor regional centerpilot program for five additional years. It also would authorize DHS to give priority in processingimmigrant investor visa petitions to aliens seeking admission under the pilot program. The text of S. 1642 was added as an amendment to an unrelated bill to extend and expand theemployment eligibility verification pilot programs ( S. 1685 , discussed above) duringconsideration of that bill on the Senate floor. S. 1685 , as amended to include the textof S. 1642 , was passed by the Senate and House, and signed into law by the Presidentas P.L. 108-156 . State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP). SCAAP provides reimbursement to state and local governments for thedirect costs associated with incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens. For FY2003 and FY2004,the INA authorizes the appropriation of such sums as necessary for SCAAP. P.L. 108-199 provides$300 million for SCAAP for FY2004. S. 460 , as passed by the Senate, would authorizeappropriations for SCAAP, as follows: such sums as necessary for FY2003; $750 million forFY2004; $850 million for FY2005; and $950 million each year for FY2006-FY2010. The Housecompanion bill is H.R. 933 . Other pending bills ( H.R. 1095 , H.R. 1519 ) would authorize different levels of funding for SCAAP for FY2004 throughFY2008. H.R. 4754 , the Commerce, Justice, State Department Appropriations whichpassed the House on July 8, 2004, included $325 million for SCAAP and the Senate version, S. 2809 provided $220 million for the program. S. 2809 was reportedfavorably on September 15, 2004. (28) Waivers for Nonimmigrant Physicians. Foreign physicians in the United States on J-1 visas must return to their home country after completing theireducation or training unless they are granted a waiver. Waiver recipients are eligible to change statusto H-1B status, which is discussed above. State departments of health can request waivers under the"Conrad 30" or "State 30" program. Under current law, the "Conrad 30" program provisions applyto foreign physicians admitted to the United States in J-1 status, or acquiring such status, before June1, 2004. Pending bills, including H.R. 4453 , would make changes to the "Conrad 30"program. H.R. 4453 , which has been approved by the House Judiciary Subcommitteeon Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, would strike the June 1, 2004 cut-off date and insteadmake the Conrad program provisions applicable to foreign physicians admitted in or acquiring J-1status before the date that is one year after enactment of the bill. In addition, H.R. 4453 would exempt state-sponsored waiver recipients from the H-1B cap. On September 30, 2004, theHouse Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 4453 after adopting a substitute amendmentthat would extend the program until June 2006. It would allow five physicians in each state topractice in areas not specifically designated as "under-served" by the Department of Health andHuman Services. These physicians however, must still provide care to under-served populations. (29) Nonpayment of Child Support. S. 1609 , as reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would establish consequences underimmigration law for failure to pay child support. The bill would amend the INA to makenonpayment of child support a ground of inadmissibility as well as a basis for determining that anindividual is not a person of good moral character for various purposes, including naturalization. P.L. 108-7 ( H.J.Res. 2 ). Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003. Includes provisions related to transfer of immigration authorities to DHS and refugee-relatedprovisions. Passed House on January 8, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, on January 23, 2003. House and Senate agreed to conference report ( H.Rept. 108-10 ) on February 13, 2003. Signed onFebruary 20, 2003. P.L. 108-77 ( H.R. 2738 ). United States-Chile Free Trade AgreementImplementation Act. Reported by Ways and Means Committee ( H.Rept. 108-224 , Part I) on July21, 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept. 108-224 , Part II) on July 22, 2003. PassedHouse on July 24, 2003. Passed Senate on July 31, 2003. Signed on September 3, 2003. P.L. 108-78 ( H.R. 2739 ). United States-Singapore Free Trade AgreementImplementation Act. Reported by Ways and Means Committee ( H.Rept. 108-225 , Part I) on July21, 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept. 108-225 , Part II) on July 22, 2003. PassedHouse on July 24, 2003. Passed Senate on July 31, 2003. Signed on September 3, 2003. P.L. 108-99 ( H.R. 2152 ). Amends INA to extend special immigrant religiousworker program for 5 additional years. Reported by Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept. 108-271 ) onSeptember 16, 2003. Passed House on September 17, 2003. Passed Senate on October 3, 2003. Signed on October 15, 2003. P.L. 108-136 ( H.R. 1588 ). National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year2004. Reported by Armed Services Committee ( H.Rept. 108-106 ) on May 16, 2003; supplementalreport ( H.Rept. 108-106 , Part II) filed on May 21, 2003. Passed House on May 22, 2003. PassedSenate, as amended, on June 4, 2003. Signed on November 24, 2003. P.L. 108-156 ( S. 1685 ). Basic Pilot Program Extension and Expansion Act of2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without written report) on November 6, 2003. PassedSenate, as amended, on November 12, 2003. Passed House on November 19, 2003. Signed onDecember 3, 2003. P.L. 108-173 ( H.R. 1 ). Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, andModernization Act of 2003. Passed House on June 27, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, on July7, 2003. House agreed to conference report ( H.Rept. 108-391 ) on November 22, 2003; Senateagreed on November 25, 2003. Signed on December 8, 2003. P.L. 108-193 ( H.R. 2620 ). Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Actof 2003. Reported by International Relations Committee ( H.Rept. 108-264 , Part I) on September5, 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept. 108-264 , Part II) on September 29, 2003. Passed House, as amended, on November 5, 2003. Passed Senate on December 9, 2003. Signed onDecember 19, 2003. P.L. 108-199 ( H.R. 2673 ). Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004. Originallyintroduced as the FY2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill. Includes refugee-related and SCAAPprovisions. Reported by Appropriations Committee ( H.Rept. 108-193 ) on July 9, 2003. PassedHouse on July 14, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, on November 6, 2003. House agreed toconference report ( H.Rept. 108-401 ) on December 8, 2003; Senate agreed on January 22, 2004. Signed on January 23, 2004. P.L. 108-203 ( H.R. 743 ). Social Security Protection Act of 2004. Addresses alien eligibility for Social Security benefits. Reported by Ways and Means Committee ( H.Rept.108-46 ) on March 24, 2003. Passed House, as amended, on April 2, 2003. Reported by SenateFinance Committee ( S.Rept. 108-176 ) on October 29, 2003. Passed Senate, as amended, onDecember 9, 2003. Signed on March 2, 2004. P.L. 108-299 ( H.R. 4417 ). Amends the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 to modify certain deadlines for machine-readable, tamper-resistant entryand exit documents. Passed House on June 14, 2004. Passed Senate on July 22, 2004. Signed onAugust 9, 2004. H.R. 10 (Hastert). 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Reported by Intelligence Committee ( H.Rept. 108-724 , Part I), Armed Services Committee ( H.Rept. 108-724 ,Part II), and Financial Services Committee ( H.Rept. 108-724 , Part III) on October 4, 2004. Reportedby Government Reform Committee ( H.Rept. 108-724 , Part IV) and Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept.108-724 , Part V) on October 5, 2004. H.R. 775 (Goodlatte). Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act of 2003. Amends the INA to eliminate the diversity immigrant program. Forwarded bySubcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims to Judiciary Committee on September14, 2004. H.R. 1416 (Cox). Homeland Security Technical Corrections Act of 2003. Reported by Select Committee on Homeland Security ( H.Rept. 108-104 ) on May 15, 2003. PassedHouse, as amended, on June 24, 2003. Reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee( S.Rept. 108-214 ) on November 25, 2003. H.R. 1950 (Hyde). Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005. Reported by International Relations Committee ( H.Rept. 108-105 , Part I) on May 16, 2003;supplemental report ( H.Rept. 108-105 , Part II) filed on June 12, 2003. Reported by Armed ServicesCommittee ( H.Rept. 108-105 , Part III) on June 30, 2003. Reported by Energy and CommerceCommittee ( H.Rept. 108-105 , Part IV) on July 11, 2003. Passed House on July 16, 2003. H.R. 2655 (Walsh). Amends and extends the Irish Peace Process Cultural and Training Program Act of 1998. Reported by Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept. 108-260 , Part I) onSeptember 4, 2003. Passed House, as amended, on October 7, 2003. H.R. 4011 (Leach). North Korea Human Rights Act of 2004. Reported by International Relations Committee ( H.Rept. 108-478 , Part I) on May 4, 2004. Passed House, asamended, on July 21, 2004. Passed Senate, as amended, on September 28, 2004. House agreed toSenate amendment on October 4, 2004. H.R. 4453 (Moran). Access to Rural Physicians Improvement Act of 2004. Forwarded by Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims to Judiciary Committeeon June 3, 2004. Reported by Judiciary Committee ( H.Rept. 108-730 ) on September 30, 2004. H.R. 4754 (Wolf). Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005. Appropriates funds for the State Criminal AlienAssistance Program (SCAAP). Reported by Appropriations Committee ( H.Rept. 108-576 ) on July1, 2004. Passed House, as amended, on July 8, 2004. H.R. 5006 (Regula). Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005. Includes funding for the Office ofRefugee Resettlement (ORR) and gives ORR authority to carry over unexpended funds. Reportedby Appropriations Committee ( H.Rept. 108-636 ) on September 7, 2004. Passed House, as amended,on September 9, 2004. S. 205 (Biden). Iraqi Scientists Immigration Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without written report) on January 30, 2003. Passed Senate on March 20, 2003. S. 460 (Feinstein). State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization Act of 2003. Passed Senate on November 25, 2003. S. 710 (Leahy). Anti-Atrocity Alien Deportation Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee on November 6, 2003; S.Rept. 108-209 filed on November 24, 2003. S. 1129 (Feinstein). Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without written report) on June 3, 2004. S. 1545 (Hatch). Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee on November 25, 2003; S.Rept. 108-224 filed on February9, 2004. S. 1609 (Hatch). Parental Responsibility Obligations Met through Immigration System Enforcement Act. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without written report) on May 13,2004. S. 1635 (Chambliss). L-1 Visa (Intracompany Transferee) Reform Act of 2003. Reported by Judiciary Committee (without written report) on October 4, 2004. <108> S. 1642 (Leahy). Extends the immigrant investor regional center pilot program for five additional years and authorizes giving immigrant investor visa priority to aliens seekingadmission under the program. Passed Senate, as amended, on October 3, 2003. Provisionsincorporated into S. 1685 ( P.L. 108-156 ). S. 2809 (Gregg). Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005. Appropriates funds for the State Criminal AlienAssistance Program (SCAAP). Reported by Appropriations Committee ( S.Rept.108-344 ) onSeptember 15, 2004. S. 2810 (Specter). Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005. Includes funding for the Office ofRefugee Resettlement (ORR). Reported by Appropriations Committee ( S.Rept. 108-345 ) onSeptember 15, 2004. S. 2845 (Collins). National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004. S.Amdt. 3807 (McCain-Lieberman), adds title on terrorist travel and effectivescreening, agreed to in Senate on October 1, 2004; S.Amdt. 3933 (Cantwell), requiringbiometric identification information on travel documents of aliens seeking to enter the United States,agreed to in Senate, as modified, on October 5, 2004.

Summary: The 108th Congress has considered and is considering legislation on a wide range of immigration issues. Chief among these are the immigration-related recommendations of theNational Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11Commission), expedited naturalization through military service, and foreign temporary workers andbusiness personnel. Several major bills that seek to implement recommendations of the 9/11 Commission propose significant revisions to U.S. immigration law: H.R. 10 , S. 2845 , S. 2774 / H.R. 5040 , and H.R. 5024 . Of these bills, H.R.10 proposes the most extensive revisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The major immigration areas under consideration in these comprehensive 9/11 Commission billsinclude: asylum, biometric tracking systems, border security, document security, exclusion, and visaissuances. The 108th Congress has enacted a measure on expedited naturalization through military service. P.L. 108-136 , the FY2004 Defense Department Authorization bill, amends military naturalizationand posthumous citizenship statutes and provides immigration benefits for immediate relatives ofU.S. citizen servicemembers who die as a result of actual combat service. In the area of foreign temporary workers and business personnel, the 108th Congress has enacted legislation to implement the Chile ( P.L. 108-77 ) and Singapore ( P.L. 108-78 ) Free TradeAgreements. These agreements address several categories of temporary workers and businesspersonnel currently governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), including professionalworkers. Separate legislation on H-1B professional workers ( S. 1452 / H.R. 2849 , H.R. 2235 , H.R. 2688 , H.R. 3534 , and H.R. 4166 ) and L intracompany transfers ( S. 1452 / H.R. 2849 , S. 1635 , H.R. 2154 , H.R. 2702 , H.R. 4415 , and H.R. 4166 ) has also been introduced. Also pending are proposals to reform existingguest worker visas ( S. 1645 / H.R. 3142 , S. 2010 , S. 2185 , S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 , H.R. 3534 , and H.R. 3604 ) and establish new guest worker visas ( S. 1387 , S. 1461 / H.R. 2899 , S. 2010 , S. 2381 / H.R. 4262 ,and H.R. 3651 ). Since the Homeland Security Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-296 ) created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Congress has considered legislation to clarify the allocation of immigrationauthorities between the Secretary of DHS and the Attorney General. P.L. 108-7 amended the INAin an apparent effort to clarify the authority that was to remain with the Attorney General. H.R. 1416 , as passed by the House and reported by the Senate Governmental AffairsCommittee, would further amend the INA to remove certain references to the Attorney General. Among other immigration-related legislation receiving action are adjustment of status of unauthorized alien students ( S. 1545 ), noncitizen eligibility for Medicaid ( P.L.108-173 ), consular identification cards ( H.R. 1950 ), elimination of the diversity visalottery ( H.R. 775 ) and employment eligibility verification pilot programs ( P.L.108-156 ). This report will be updated as legislative developments occur.