[House Report 107-127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 107-127
======================================================================
FAMILY SPONSOR IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2001
_______
July 10, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 1892]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1892) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
to provide for the acceptance of an affidavit of support from
another eligible sponsor if the original sponsor has died and
the Attorney General has determined for humanitarian reasons
that the original sponsor's classification petition should not
be revoked, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 1
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 4
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Vote of the Committee............................................ 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 4
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 4
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 6
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 7
Markup Transcript................................................ 9
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Family Sponsor Immigration Act of
2001''.
SEC. 2. SUBSTITUTION OF ALTERNATIVE SPONSOR IF ORIGINAL SPONSOR HAS
DIED.
(a) Permitting Substitution of Alternative Close Family Sponsor in
Case of Death of Petitioner.--
(1) Recognition of alternative sponsor.--Section 213A(f)(5)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)(5))
is amended to read as follows:
``(5) Non-petitioning cases.--Such term also includes an
individual who does not meet the requirement of paragraph
(1)(D) but who--
``(A) accepts joint and several liability with a
petitioning sponsor under paragraph (2) or relative of
an employment-based immigrant under paragraph (4) and
who demonstrates (as provided under paragraph (6)) the
means to maintain an annual income equal to at least
125 percent of the Federal poverty line; or
``(B) is a spouse, parent, mother-in-law, father-
in-law, sibling, child (if at least 18 years of age),
son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
grandparent, or grandchild of a sponsored alien or a
legal guardian of a sponsored alien, meets the
requirements of paragraph (1) (other than subparagraph
(D)), and executes an affidavit of support with respect
to such alien in a case in which--
``(i) the individual petitioning under
section 204 for the classification of such
alien died after the approval of such petition;
and
``(ii) the Attorney General has determined
for humanitarian reasons that revocation of
such petition under section 205 would be
inappropriate.''.
(2) Conforming amendment permitting substitution.--Section
212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii)) is
amended by striking ``(including any additional sponsor
required under section 213A(f))'' and inserting ``(and any
additional sponsor required under section 213A(f) or any
alternative sponsor permitted under paragraph (5)(B) of such
section)''.
(3) Additional conforming amendments.--Section 213A(f) of
such Act (8 U.S.C. 1183a(f)) is amended, in each of paragraphs
(2) and (4)(B)(ii), by striking ``(5).'' and inserting
``(5)(A).''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall
apply with respect to deaths occurring before, on, or after the date of
the enactment of this Act, except that, in the case of a death
occurring before such date, such amendments shall apply only if--
(1) the sponsored alien--
(A) requests the Attorney General to reinstate the
classification petition that was filed with respect to
the alien by the deceased and approved under section
204 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1154) before such death; and
(B) demonstrates that he or she is able to satisfy
the requirement of section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of such Act
(8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(C)(ii)) by reason of such
amendments; and
(2) the Attorney General reinstates such petition after
making the determination described in section 213A(f)(5)(B)(ii)
of such Act (as amended by subsection (a)(1) of this Act).
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1892 provides that in cases where a U.S. citizen or
permanent resident has petitioned for permanent resident status
for an alien relative and the petitioner has died before the
alien has received such status, and if the Attorney General
determines for humanitarian reasons that revocation of the
petition would be inappropriate, a close family member other
than the petitioner would be allowed to sign the necessary
affidavit of support.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Section 205 of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides
that ``the Attorney General may, at any time, for what he deems
to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any
[immigrant visa petition] approved by him under section 204.''
INS regulations provides for automatic revocation of the
petition when the petitioner dies, ``unless the Attorney
General in his or her discretion determines that for
humanitarian reasons revocation would be inappropriate.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 8 C.F.R. Sec. 205.1(a)(3)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consequences are severe for a beneficiary when his or
her petitioner dies before the beneficiary has adjusted status
or received an immigrant visa. If no other relative can qualify
as a petitioner, then the beneficiary would lose the
opportunity to become a permanent resident. For instance, if a
petition is revoked because a widowed citizen father dies after
petitioning for an adult unmarried daughter, the daughter would
have no living mother to file a new petition. If another
relative can file an immigrant visa petition for the
beneficiary, the beneficiary would still go to the end of the
line if the visa category was numerically limited. For
instance, if the daughter's mother was alive she could file a
new first family preference petition. However, the daughter
would lose her priority date based on the time her father's
petition had been filed with the INS and would receive a later
priority date based on the filing date of her mother's
petition. Given that first family preference visas are now
available to beneficiaries from Mexico with priority dates in
April 1994, and are available to those from the Philippines
with priority dates in May 1988, this can result in a
significant additional delay before a visa is available.
As stated, the INS's regulations do allow the Attorney
General to forego revoking the petition in such a case if
revocation would be inappropriate for ``humanitarian reasons''.
However, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 requires that when a family member
petitions for a relative to receive an immigrant visa, the visa
can only be granted if the petitioner signs (alone or with a
co-sponsor) a legally binding affidavit of support promising to
provide for the support of the immigrant.\2\ If the petitioner
has died, he or she can obviously not sign an affidavit. Thus,
even in cases where the Attorney General feels a humanitarian
waiver of the revocation of the visa petition is warranted,
under current law a permanent resident visa cannot be granted
because the affidavit requirement is unfulfilled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Pub. L. No. 104-208, Sec. 531, 110 Stat. 3546 (1996) (codified
at INA Sec. 212(a)(4)(C)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1892 simply provides that in cases where the
petitioner has died and the Attorney General has determined for
humanitarian reasons that revocation of the petition would be
inappropriate, a close family member other than the petitioner
would be allowed to sign the necessary affidavit of support.
Eligible family members of beneficiaries would include spouses,
parents, grandparents, mother and fathers in law, siblings,
adult sons and daughters, adult son and daughters in law and
grandchildren. In order to sign an affidavit of support, the
family member would need to meet the general eligibility
requirements needed to be an immigrant's sponsor. He or she
would need to:
Lbe a citizen or national of the United States
or an alien who is lawfully admitted to the United
States for permanent residence;
Lbe at least 18 years of age;
Lbe domiciled in a State, the District of
Columbia, or any territory or possession of the United
States; and
Ldemonstrate the means to maintain an annual
income equal to at least 125% of the Federal poverty
line.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ INA Sec. 213A(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
No hearings were held on H.R. 1892.
Committee Consideration
On June 6, 2001, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill
H.R. 1892, as amended, by a voice vote, a quorum being present.
On June 26, 2001, the Committee met in open session and ordered
favorably reported the bill H.R. 1892 with amendment by a voice
vote, a quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
There were no recorded votes. An amendment offered by Mr.
Issa passed by a voice vote. The amendment expanded the list of
family members who could serve as substitute sponsors to
include grandparents and grandchildren. The bill was ordered
favorably reported by a voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
Performance Goals and Objectives
H.R. 1892 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause
3(c) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives
is inapplicable.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of House Rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 1892, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, July 5, 2001.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1892, the Family
Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1892--Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.
CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1892 would result in no
significant cost to the Federal Government. The bill could
affect direct spending and receipts, so pay-as-you-go
procedures would apply, but we estimate that any such effects
would be insignificant. H.R. 1892 contains no intergovernmental
or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Current law requires that applicants for family-based
immigrant visas be sponsored by an immediate relative who will
provide financial support if necessary. If the sponsor dies
while the application is pending, then a new application must
be filed. In this situation, H.R. 1892 would permit the
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to allow certain
other relatives to replace a deceased sponsor and to proceed
with the approval process without filing a new application.
Based on information from the INS, CBO expects that the
bill's provisions would aid no more than several hundred
applicants each year. Thus, any effects on fees collected by
INS or the Department of State would be insignificant. INS fees
are classified as offsetting receipts (a credit against direct
spending); and the State Department fees are classified as
governmental receipts (i.e., revenues).
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz,
who can be reached at 226-2860. This estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in article I, section 8, clause 4 of the
Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
Sec. 1. Short Title
Section 1 of the bill provides that the bill may be cited
as the ``Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.''
Section 2. Substitution of Alternative Sponsor if Original Sponsor Has
Died
Section 2(a)(1) of the bill amends section 213A(f)(5) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that a sponsor
of an alien does not have to meet the requirement of section
213A(f)(1)(D) (that the sponsor be the petitioner for admission
of the alien) of the INA if:
1) Lthe sponsor is a spouse, parent, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, sibling, child (if at least 18 years of
age), son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law,
grandparent or grandchild of a sponsored alien or a
legal guardian of a sponsored alien;
2) Lthe sponsor meets the requirements of section
213A(f)(1)(A)-(C) and (E) of the INA;
3) Lthe sponsor executes an affidavit of support with
respect to the sponsored alien;
4) Lthe petitioner (under section 204 of the INA) of
the sponsored alien died after the approval of the
petition; and
5) Lthe Attorney General has determined for
humanitarian reasons that revocation of the petition
(under section 205 of the INA) would be inappropriate.
The terms child, son, daughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law
and grandchild are meant to include a stepchild (provided the
child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the
marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred).\4\ The
terms parent, mother-in-law, father-in-law, and grandparent are
meant to include a stepparent.\5\ Siblings are meant to include
half brothers and half sisters.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See INA Sec. 101(b)(1)(B).
\5\ See INA Sec. 101(b)(2).
\6\ See 3 Gordon, Mailman & Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and
Procedure Sec. 38.05 citing Matter of Mahal, 12 I. & N. Dec. 409 (BIA
1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee does not intend this bill to restrict the
Attorney General's ability to revoke any petition, whether as a
result of the death of the petitioner or otherwise, for good
sufficient cause, and the bill does not alter in any way
section 205 of the INA or its current regulations at 8 C.F.R.
Sec. 205.
Section 2(a)(2)-(3) of the bill are conforming amendments
to section 212(a)(4)(C)(ii) and 213A(f) of the INA.
Section 2(b) of the bill provides that the amendments made
by section 2(a) shall apply with respect to deaths occurring
before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the bill,
except that, in the case of a death occurring before such date,
such amendments shall apply only if:
1) Lthe sponsored alien requests the Attorney General
to reinstate the classification petition that was filed
with respect to the alien by the deceased and approved
(under section 204 of the INA) before such death;
2) Lthe sponsored alien demonstrates that he or she is
able to satisfy the requirement of section
212(a)(4)(C)(ii) of the INA (relating to the affidavit
of support requirement) by reason of the amendments
made by this bill; and
3) Lthe Attorney General reinstates such petition after
making the determination that revocation would be
inappropriate for humanitarian reasons pursuant to
section 205 of the INA.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--IMMIGRATION
* * * * * * *
Chapter 2--Qualifications for Admission of Aliens; Travel Control of
Citizens and Aliens
* * * * * * *
general classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas and ineligible
for admission; waivers of inadmissibility
Sec. 212. (a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or
Admission.--Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens
who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are
ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to
the United States:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Public charge.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Family-sponsored immigrants.--Any alien
who seeks admission or adjustment of status
under a visa number issued under section
201(b)(2) or 203(a) is inadmissible under this
paragraph unless--
(i) * * *
(ii) the person petitioning for the
alien's admission [(including any
additional sponsor required under
section 213A(f))] (and any additional
sponsor required under section 213A(f)
or any alternative sponsor permitted
under paragraph (5)(B) of such section)
has executed an affidavit of support
described in section 213A with respect
to such alien.
* * * * * * *
requirements for sponsor's affidavit of support
Sec. 213A. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Sponsor Defined.--
(1) * * *
(2) Income requirement case.--Such term also
includes an individual who does not meet the
requirement of paragraph (1)(E) but accepts joint and
several liability together with an individual under
paragraph (5)(A).
* * * * * * *
(4) Certain employment-based immigrants case.--Such
term also includes an individual--
(A) * * *
(B)(i) * * *
(ii) does not meet the requirement of
paragraph (1)(E) but accepts joint and several
liability together with an individual under
paragraph (5)(A).
[(5) Non-petitioning case.--Such term also includes
an individual who does not meet the requirement of
paragraph (1)(D) but who accepts joint and several
liability with a petitioning sponsor under paragraph
(2) or relative of an employment-based immigrant under
paragraph (4) and who demonstrates (as provided under
paragraph (6)) the means to maintain an annual income
equal to at least 125 percent of the Federal poverty
line.]
(5) Non-petitioning cases.--Such term also includes
an individual who does not meet the requirement of
paragraph (1)(D) but who--
(A) accepts joint and several liability
with a petitioning sponsor under paragraph (2)
or relative of an employment-based immigrant
under paragraph (4) and who demonstrates (as
provided under paragraph (6)) the means to
maintain an annual income equal to at least 125
percent of the Federal poverty line; or
(B) is a spouse, parent, mother-in-law,
father-in-law, sibling, child (if at least 18
years of age), son, daughter, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, grandparent, or grandchild of
a sponsored alien or a legal guardian of a
sponsored alien, meets the requirements of
paragraph (1) (other than subparagraph (D)),
and executes an affidavit of support with
respect to such alien in a case in which--
(i) the individual petitioning
under section 204 for the
classification of such alien died after
the approval of such petition; and
(ii) the Attorney General has
determined for humanitarian reasons
that revocation of such petition under
section 205 would be inappropriate.
* * * * * * *
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 2001
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. F. James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Committee will be in order. A
working quorum is present.
The next item on the agenda is the adoption of H.R. 1892,
the ``Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.''
[The bill, H.R. 1892, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, the Chairman of the Subcommittee
on Immigration and Claims, for purposes of making a motion.
Mr. Gekas. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims reports favorably the bill H.R. 1892 with a single
amendment in the nature of a substitute and moves its favorable
recommendation to the full House.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the bill will be
considered as read and open for amendment at any point. And the
amendment in the nature of a substitute reported by the
Subcommittee will be considered as the original text for
purposes of amendment, considered as read, and open for
amendment at any point.
[The amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 1892
offered by the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, Mr. Gekas, to strike the last word.
Mr. Gekas. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Chairman, the title of the bill actually tells the
whole story, the Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001.
Congressman Calvert and our colleague on the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Issa, thought it wise to try to close a big
loophole in the current law, and that is what this bill is all
about.
As everyone knows, a petitioner for an immigrant, for
establishing the status of an immigrant, has to sign an
affidavit of support, so that during the pendency of the
person's status as a resident in our country, the taxpayers
would not have to tow the bill for the purposes of sustenance
of this individual.
What happens, though, if a petitioner dies in the course of
the immigration process? Does the source dry up and, therefore,
the immigrant then becomes a ward of the State, as it were?
This is what Congressmen Calvert and Issa want to cure.
They allow, through this bill, a substitution of certain
people in the line of consanguinity, as we call it, who can
substitute for the petitioner. And that then fills that gap and
allows the petition to continue with the new substitute, shall
we say, for the petitioner's affidavit of support.
That's what this bill does, and we're asking for the
support of the Committee for the passage of this bill.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Conyers.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to introduce into
the record a statement from the ranking Subcommittee
chairwoman, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, who is otherwise
engaged on the floor at this moment.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection, the statement
will be entered in the record.
[The statement of Ms. Jackson Lee follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I support H.R. 1892, the ``Family Sponsor Immigration Act of
2001.'' With bipartisan support, we are correcting a ``glitch'' in
current immigration law.
As the law currently stands, the consequences of the law toward a
beneficiary when his or her petitioner dies before the beneficiary has
a chance to adjust status or receive an immigrant visa are too harsh.
H.R. 1892 will amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow
an alternative sponsor--a close family member other than the
petitioner--as a substitute if the original sponsor of the affidavit of
support has died, assuming all requirements are met.
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And without objection, all Members'
statements on this bill will be entered into the record at this
point.
[The statement of Mr. Issa follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Darrell Issa, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for bringing forward H.R. 1892,
the ``Family Sponsor Immigration Act of 2001,'' to the full Judiciary
Committee in an expeditious manner. I also want to commend Congressman
Ken Calvert, author of this bill, and the Immigration Subcommittee
staff for assisting in crafting this legislation. This bill will
correct the Immigration and Nationality Act to allow another family
member to become a sponsor of an applicant by signing an affidavit of
support if the original sponsor has died.
Current INS regulations set up by the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 allows sponsors to sign an
affidavit of support to transfer sponsorship of an applicant.
Unfortunately, if a sponsor dies without signing an affidavit of
support, the applicant must start the long process over again. Due to
the immense number of applicants filing for permanent residency, the
application process for the INS can take more than a decade.
In my district, I have a constituent, Myrna Gabiola, who wanted to
become the sponsor of her two brothers, who were applying to become
permanent citizens after their father passed away. Ben and Renan Patao
had their father petition for visas in 1984 but their father, a
naturalized American citizen who emigrated from the Philippines, died
of stomach cancer in 1994 without the INS having processed the
petition. The family was so focused on the health of the father that
they did not realize that the father had to sign an affidavit of
support allowing another family member to take over the application
while he was still live. There was no indication of a problem until
Renan and Ben Patao had interviews and did not have the required
affidavit of support. They were subsequently denied. This family waited
over sixteen years to be granted an interview for permanent residency
and were then sent to the back of the line to begin the process over
again because there was no other recourse.
This family tried to immigrate legally and waited patiently for
years and were punished for having their father, the original sponsor,
die in the process. These two brot hers are fortunate enough to have a
sister that is willing and financially able to sponsor them. This bill
is intended to keep families together and to avoid two tragedies that
stem from one unfortunate event.
Again, I thank the Chairman for holding this markup and for his
leadership on this well intended immigration bill.
Are there amendments?
The gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There's an amendment at the desk.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The clerk will report the
amendment.
The Clerk. Amendment to the Subcommittee amendment----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Could the clerk please move the
mike closer?
The Clerk. Amendment to the Subcommittee amendment in the
nature of a substitute to H.R. 1892 offered by Mr. Issa and Mr.
Cannon. Page and line numbers refer to H1892SUB.RPT.
Page 2----
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Without objection the amendment is
considered as read.
[The amendment to the Subcommittee amendment in the nature
of a substitute to H.R. 1892 offered by Mr. Issa and Mr. Cannon
follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And the gentleman from California,
Mr. Issa, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And this is fairly simple substitution, and I won't use my
whole 5 minutes.
In reviewing our original language and in consultation with
Members on both sides and Mr. Calvert, we discovered that there
are a large number of times in which private bills are brought
forward specifically because a grandparent or grandchild is
able to be an alternate sponsor but is not presently allowed.
We believe that the original language deals with most other
situations that occur and believe we are going to have plenty
of opportunity to look at a broader immigration document at
some further time.
I also would like to the chance to thank Mr. Calvert again,
who worked diligently sort of outside the Committee to bring
consensus on this bill.
The--as you know, under current law, if the sponsor dies
without signing an affidavit of support to another family
member, the applicant goes to the back of the line, even though
there is another family member willing to be a sponsor.
We believe that this bill as amended will take care of that
problem in the vast majority of cases, and look forward to
working with Members on the Committee , the Subcommittee, in
the future to deal with other issues that are broader than this
one. But I think this, for today, takes care of it very well.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Cannon. Will the gentleman yield?
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Issa. Yes?
The gentleman will yield.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Issa.
I just wanted to add that this is a good bill. The
amendment is one we agreed to consider in the Subcommittee, and
I think we've come to a consensus on the issue.
I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
I might also note that in our discussions it has become
clear that the--there is some concern about half-brothers,
half-sisters, adopted children. And my understanding is that
the staff will include language in the report that will clarify
that.
And so I would urge my colleagues to support this
amendment, and yield back, or----
Mr. Gekas. Will the gentleman yield----
Mr. Issa. And reclaiming my time, I would yield to Mr.
Gekas.
Mr. Gekas. Yes, I thank the gentleman.
And I want to announce to the assembled Members that we're
ready to accept the amendment. And so I yield back--I thank the
gentleman----
Mr. Issa. And I would recognize Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Yes, I support the amendment, and I support
the bill.
As I mentioned at Subcommittee, I don't believe there is a
very good reason for the current rules that prohibit
nonpetitioning family members for being the sponsors. And I had
hoped that we might be able to remedy that situation.
The example I gave is actually one I--it's a true life
story in my own district where you have the biological mother
who is petitioning for her child and her husband is the
stepfather. Or you might have a grandparent who would want to
be the sponsor, but they cannot because they are not the
petitioner. There is no real good reason for that.
But I do note that that amendment, a broader amendment,
would, number one, not be germane to this bill; number two, in
talking with my colleagues across the aisle, as well as Mr.
Calvert, there is a great passion to get this bill passed and
to deal with other issues later.
So I did want to note that that issue has not been
overlooked. It's just achievable today. And I look forward to
working further with those--on those issues with Members of the
Committee on both sides of the aisle, and do support this
amendment.
And I yield back and thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, and reclaiming my time, in closing,
this is just a first step, but I think it's a big one and it's
going to go a long way.
And I look forward, on a bipartisan basis, to working on
broader immigration reform. And I think our Chairman has
started us off down that road. Knowing that that is a longer
road, it will--that would exceed the scope of today.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The question is on the amendment to
the Subcommittee amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment is agreed to.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments?
The gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. Frank. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Frank. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to raise an issue,
and I am glad that we are doing this. I think this is a
significant advance.
Another issue involving family rights, though, I think has
now become important for us to deal with.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the distinction in our
law between mothers and fathers who are not married with regard
to children. And we have had in our law a provision protecting
the right of the mother to adopt her child, for immigration
purposes, but not the father with similar rights in certain
circumstances.
And I assume that was based on the age-old sense that you
could be much more certain of the identity of the mother than
the father. DNA has clearly made that no longer a valid
distinction.
The Supreme Court just decided very narrowly that we had a
right to maintain that distinction. And without arguing with
that constitutional decision, it does seem to me that we ought
to be acting legislatively to abolish it.
Now that it can be ascertained to a certainty who the
father is, not giving the father adoptive rights equal to the
mother seems to me to be an unfortunate example of
discrimination in our law and contrary to the family values
that we all agree to.
What we are talking about is someone who fathered a child
in circumstances in which he shouldn't have but who
subsequently has decided to exercise some responsibility and
show some responsibility. And we make it harder than it should
be. We make it automatic for the mother and not the father.
So I would hope that this is something, now that the
Supreme Court has refused to remedy it, that we would approach.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there further amendments?
The question is on adoption of the amendment in the nature
of a substitute to H.R. 1892 as reported by the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims.
Those in favor will signify by saying aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
amendment in the nature of a substitute is agreed to.
The Chair notes the presence of a reporting quorum.
The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R.
1892 favorably as amended.
All in favor will say aye.
Opposed, no.
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
motion to report favorably is adopted.
Without objection, the bill will be reported favorably to
the House in the form of single amendment in the nature of a
substitute, incorporating the amendments adopted here today.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to move to go to
conference pursuant to House rules.
Without objection, the staff is directed to make any
technical and conforming changes.
And all Members will be given 2 days, as provided by House
rules, in which to submit additional dissenting, supplemental,
or minority views.
-