The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT OF 2001” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2901-H2903 on June 6, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
CHILD STATUS PROTECTION ACT OF 2001
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1209) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to determine whether an alien is a child, for purposes of classification as an immediate relative, based on the age of the alien on the date the classification petition with respect to the alien is filed, and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 1209
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Child Status Protection Act of 2001''.
SEC. 2. USE OF AGE ON PETITION FILING DATE, PARENT'S
NATURALIZATION DATE, OR MARRIAGE TERMINATION
DATE, IN DETERMINING STATUS AS A CHILD OF A
CITIZEN.
(a) In General.--Section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1151) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(f) Rules for Determining Whether Certain Aliens Are Immediate Relatives.--
``(1) Age on petition filing date.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), for purposes of subsection
(b)(2)(A)(i), a determination of whether an alien satisfies the age requirement in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) of section 101(b)(1) shall be made using the age of the alien on the date on which the petition is filed with the Attorney General under section 204 to classify the alien as an immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i).
``(2) Age on parent's naturalization date.--In the case of a petition under section 204 initially filed for an alien child's classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(2)(A), based on the child's parent being lawfully admitted for permanent residence, if the petition is later converted, due to the naturalization of the parent, to a petition to classify the alien as an immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), the determination described in paragraph (1) shall be made using the age of the alien on the date of the parent's naturalization.
``(3) Age on marriage termination date.--In the case of a petition under section 204 initially filed for an alien's classification as a family-sponsored immigrant under section 203(a)(3), based on the alien's being a married son or daughter of a citizen, if the petition is later converted, due to the legal termination of the alien's marriage, to a petition to classify the alien as an immediate relative under subsection (b)(2)(A)(i), the determination described in paragraph (1) shall be made using the age of the alien on the date of the termination of the marriage.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act and shall apply to all petitions and applications pending before the Department of Justice or the Department of State on or after such date.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1209, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1209, the Child Status Protection Act of 2001, was introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
This bill is another example of Congress having to clean up a mess made by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Under current law, aliens residing in the United States who are eligible for permanent resident status must adjust their status with the INS. However, INS processing delays have caused up to a 3-year wait for adjustment. For alien children of U.S. citizens, this delay in processing can have serious consequences, for once they turn 21 years of age, they lose their immediate relative status.
An unlimited number of immediate relatives of U.S. citizens can receive green cards each year. However, there are a limited number of green cards available for the adult children of U.S. citizens.
If a U.S. citizen parent petitions for a green card for a child before that child turns 21, but the INS does not get around to processing the adjustment of status application until after the child turns 21, the family is out of luck. The child goes to the end of the waiting list. The child is being punished because of the INS ineptitude, and that is not right.
H.R. 1209 corrects this outcome by providing that a child shall remain eligible for immediate relative status as long as an immigrant visa petition was filed for him or her before turning 21.
The fact that we have to consider debate and pass this bill is just one more reason why the Immigration and Naturalization Service needs to be dismantled and restructured. I await eagerly for the administration's INS reform proposal, because it cannot come too soon. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to offer my support for the Child Status Protection Act of 2001 and to thank our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), for joining me and leading on this particular initiative, which is the result and the culmination of a bipartisan agreement, that addresses the status of unmarried children of U.S. citizens, who turn 21 while in the process of having an immigrant visa petition adjudicated. In particular, Mr. Speaker, let me say that we have been working on this for a very long time, and we are delighted that the House will have an opportunity to vote on this today.
The age and marital status of the offspring of U.S. citizens determine whether they are eligible for immigrant status as immediate relatives or under the family-first preference category. Briefly, H.R. 1209 would protect the status of children of United States citizens who age out while awaiting the processing and adjudication of immediate relative petitions.
Let me thank our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers). I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his remarks in support of this legislation today and join him in realizing that we all look forward to the INS restructuring in order to have these problems internally fixed.
In this instance, we have had to fix this by legislative initiative. The child of a U.S. citizen is eligible for admission as an immediate relative. Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens are not subject to any numerical restrictions. Again, this is a focus on accessing legalization or ensuring that those immigrants who are here are able to seek legalization and become citizens or legal residents, as is important.
That is, visas are immediately available to immediate relatives under the statute, subject only to the processing time required to adjudicate the immediate relative visa petition. Thus, the only wait that such children are required to endure is the time it takes to process their paperwork. When a child of the U.S. citizen ages out by becoming 21, the child automatically shifts from the immediate-relative category to the family-first preference category.
{time} 1100
This puts him or her at the end of a long waiting list for a visa. It, therefore, diminishes the ability to access legalization.
Generally, 23,400 family-first preference visas are available each year to the adult, unmarried sons and daughters of citizens. As of January 1997, 93,376 individuals were on the waiting list. For nationals of Mexico, visas are now available for petitions filed by April 1994. For nationals of the Philippines, visas are now available for petitions filed by May 1988. Thus some sons and daughters of citizens will have to stay on a waiting list from 2 to 13 years entirely because the INS did not in a timely manner process the applications for adjustment of status on their behalf.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1209 addresses the predicament of these immigrants seeking legalization who, through no fault of their own, lost the opportunity to obtain an immediate relative visa before they reach age 21.
This bill corrects the problem of aging-out under current law. However, once children reach 21 years of age, they are no longer considered immediate relatives under the INS. Thus, instead of being entitled to admission without numerical limitation, the U.S. citizens' sons and daughters are placed in the back of the line of one of the INS backlog family-preference categories of immigrants.
This bill, with the new added compromise language that I proposed last year, will solve the age-out problem without displacing others who have been waiting patiently in other visa categories. In essence, Mr. Speaker, we have a bill that provides a solution, but is also equitable. It is fair to all who are now under this particular process; and more importantly, it gives the INS the tools it needs to work with to be fair to those who are themselves seeking to be governed by the laws of the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our chairman, our ranking member of the full committee, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the subcommittee chairman; and I look forward to further bipartisan agreements in the future.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims.
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
The explanation of the bill as offered by both the chairman and the ranking minority member of the subcommittee in question suffices to place on the record an opportunity for the House of Representatives and eventually the entire Congress to approve this piece of legislation. My biggest fear that it might not pass is that it makes sense. The bill makes adequate, perfect common sense. That has always been a drawback to final successful passage of legislation as we have noted over the years.
Why does it make common sense? It simply makes certain that an individual who is a minor at the time that his or her parents filed for the adjustment of status and who then turns 21, under the current law, is thrown into a completely different category and could wait years for final adjudication of that particular status. What this bill does is treat the person who turns 21 as if he were or she were a minor at the time that the status was first filed.
What I hope this is is a signal to all that our subcommittee and the full Committee on the Judiciary have been and will continue to be very sensitive to individual cases of injustice on a whole range of issues. These injustices were perpetrated in this particular set of circumstances inadvertently by the way that the original law was fashioned. What we do here today is adjust, through the use of common sense, a bad situation. We know that horror stories of other types will confront us, but at least we have a chance to correct a series of horror stories here today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask for everyone to support this legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I simply want to conclude by saying that we worked two sessions on this legislation. We believe that this will reunite families. This is what our immigration laws are all about, to unite families.
Again, I want to offer my thanks to the chairman of the full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee, as well as the ranking member of the full committee.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague, George Gekas, Chairman of the Immigration and Claims Subcommittee, and Subcommittee Ranking Member Sheila Jackson-Lee for introducing H. R. 1209, the ``Child Status Protection Act of 2001.''
This legislation addresses a problem I have been concerned about since the last Congress. Children of citizens are penalized because it takes the INS an unacceptable length of time--often years--to process adjustment of status applications. In some cases the wait is so long that minor children become adults while waiting for the INS to act. When they become adults, they lose the privileged status of immediate relatives of citizens and are placed at the end of the first preference waiting list. This means an additional wait of 2-13 years for their green cards.
H. R. 1209 provides that an alien child of a U.S. citizen shall remain eligible for immediate relative status as long as an immigrant visa petition was filed before the child turned 21.
I hope that after Congress restructures the INS and the federal government provides immigration benefits in a more professional and expeditious manner, we won't need to pass bills such as H. R. 1209.
I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 1209, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of those present have voted in the affirmative.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
____________________
