By enacting something in statute, which we know takes considerable effort, it means that it may be difficult in the future, that much more difficult in the future, for future generations to have a clear, solemn and meaningful oath. I think that the best way to move forward at this point is to hear all of the stakeholders on this issue, which I know that the Department of Homeland Security has been doing, and I can say that the Commission did; and then, move ahead with the regulatory process, which is a meaningful process; it is notice and comment rulemaking that should take place, and all Americans should be heard in this manner.

That way, we will have a meaningful oath today, for today's new citizens, and the next generation, if they feel they need to update it for good reasons they can go through a similar process. That process will guarantee the same protections, I believe, that a Congressional process would, but it won't mean that it will be that difficult to change in the future if necessary.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what do we gain, you've asked us, what do we gain by, besides the difficulty of changing statutory language, is there some suggestion of us being safer, that this has sort of a grounding in the changing mode that we're in after 9/11 as it relates to a citizenship pledge? Is there any argument that we could make that the times have changed and that we require statutory intervention? Is there any argument that you would see valid at this time?

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. Not at this time. I believe that the Department is as committed as the Congress is to making sure that our country is protected from any security risks. Our process guarantees that. I am not concerned in the least that the Executive Branch process would result in any security risks to our country. Therefore, on the whole, I think we would be much better off going down that path.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.

I thank the Chairman.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes himself for 1 minute out of order. Dr. Schoenholtz, why would you think that the people directly elected by the citizens of this country would be less able to determine the oath of citizenship through statute than would the Executive Branch, selected by an electoral college and regulators, those very important employees in the Executive Branch that are not elected by citizens but that are appointed, employed, hired by that Executive Branch, why would you think that they would be more capable of doing that than would the people directly elected by the citizens?

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. Mr. Chairman, I apologize if you thought I was saying that the Congress is less able than the Executive Branch. That is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that the Executive Branch is perfectly capable of doing this, and the division of power that has existed in our immigration laws in general and specifically regarding the naturalization oath, has worked just fine. And that is Congress should be focusing on the major policies set forth by our immigration laws.

Those are difficult enough to achieve. It has traditionally left to the Executive Branch the implementation of those laws, and I think that is the better system that we should continue to follow.

It was certainly not meant to suggest that Congress is not capable of doing this; Congress is. But the Congressional process would also make it not only difficult now, but in the future to effect such change, whereas, I think the procedures, through the APA—we are talking about notice and comment rulemaking-that have traditionally allowed all of the stakeholders to play a role in this process, and I have seen it done very well; I work with a lot of people in the field, and I am sure that the talented people at this table and others will be coming forth to make excellent suggestions on how to develop the new oath. So I believe they are also capable of doing this.

Thank you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn, for 5 minutes.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you all, and thanks for letting me step back in the hearing, Mr. Chairman. We had a markup next door in Government Reform, so I had to get over there for a few moments.

Dr. Schoenholtz and Mr. Aguilar, I would like to direct my first question to you and have a quick answer from each of you.

What is your stated goal, very concise stated goal and reason for changing the oath? Mr. Aguilar, if you will go first.

Mr. AGUILAR. Our main goal is to make sure that the Oath of Allegiance is comprehensible and that it follows the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act but that people understand-this is a homeland security interest-that people understand what they are swearing allegiance to.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay; Dr. Schoenholtz?

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. Congresswoman, the Commission's intent was to ensure that the oath is comprehensible, solemn and meaningful. To do that, they felt that the five elements needed to be placed in a language that our modern American understands when they take a very serious oath.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay; thank you both. I appreciate hearing your responses to that and knowing that that is your stated goal in the outcome, and I would like other than that, that was the only other question that I had; I wanted to hear from each of you what your purpose, what you were desiring to achieve out of this actually was.

Other than that, Mr. Ryun, I want to thank you for bringing your bill. I think that it is a worthy bill, and I look forward to hearing more from you as we go forward on the legislation.

Sir?

Mr. RYUN. If I may respond.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes, please do.

Mr. RYUN. First of all, thank you for your question.

I would just like to respond to your question in the sense that I think in some respects, we are all headed toward the same objective: comprehensible, sound, meaningful. But the forum in which that should take place is what I think this debate is partly about. I believe it should be done within the oversight of Congress as opposed to an outside body. Keeping the intent is very, very impor

tant, and, you know, the five principles, again, staying within this body I think is significant, and that is why this is being offered. Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady.

I want to once again thank the panel of Members, the panel for coming out today and discussing this very important issue. Your insight and your input is invaluable in this discussion of a very important part of American life for those who have come here and have worked diligently to become citizens. So I want to thank you for that and remind Members of the Subcommittee that all Members will have seven legislative days to add to the record, to revise and extend their remarks.

Yes, the gentlelady from Texas is recognized for a question.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Yes, I wanted to ask a question. Let me—is the can I just ask Dr. Schoenholtz again, I want to pursue this statutory question. The present oath is regulatory, and it has been regulatory for, now, a good century, I guess.

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. 1952 was the last time that the regulation was-that the oath was put into the regulation.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But we've had an oath since early 19—et cetera.

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. Going back a long, long, time, now, to the beginning.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And we have managed to frame it as the culture has changed, America has changed. Again, let me just focus on the fact that we have had 9/11 and the fact that we have a new wave of immigrants. Does this in any way suggest some discriminatory approach because we have a new wave of immigrants coming from different regions, that we would want to put this oath in statutory language?

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. Congresswoman Jackson Lee, I don't believe that those changes suggest that the naturalization oath needs to be placed into statutory language. If you are suggesting that Congress is going to be more protective of our national security interests than any other branch of our Government, I fully believe that every branch of our Government will do its utmost to protect the American people. And I believe that the Executive Branch is fully committed to this. We now have the Department of Homeland Security that will exercise this regulatory duty, as the inheritor of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

So I am confident that they will be able to carry this out well, and I don't see any added benefit, in that sense, from Congress taking this on.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And what I would simply say in the course of accessing citizenship or becoming a citizen, we have the same stringent requirements that would weed out those seeking citizenship to do us harm, seeking it under fraud, fraudulent purposes. And so, by the time that you reach the oath, is it my understanding that you have been completely vetted, and you are now ready, simply, to make your commitment to the United States? The oath does not serve as a weeding-out document; it is simply a document that confirms your willingness to accept the responsibilities of citizenship; is that not clear?

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. That is absolutely correct.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And so, statutory intervention might bog down that already-vetted process rather than enhance it.

Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. That is true.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. That is a possibility?
Mr. SCHOENHOLTZ. Mm-hmm.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady.

Once again, the Chair reminds the Members that we have seven legislative days to revise and extend for the record.

The business of this Subcommittee being completed, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]