also co-directs the certificate program in refugee and humanitarian emergencies at the university. Before going to Georgetown, he served as the deputy director of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, and prior to this, Dr. Schoenholtz practiced immigration, asylum and international law with the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling. Dr. Schoenholtz has conducted fact-finding missions in Haiti, Cuba, Germany, Croatia and Bosnia to study refugee protection, long-term solutions to mass migration emergencies and humanitarian relief operations. Dr. Schoenholtz holds a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a Ph.D. from Brown University. Gentlemen, thank you for your presence here today. Congressman Ryun, the floor is yours, and you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement. STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM RYUN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS Mr. RYUN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the kind introduction. I want to thank you and Ranking Member Jackson Lee for holding this hearing on H.R. 3191 and inviting me to testify before the Subcommittee on what I consider a very important issue. The Oath of Allegiance has served as the gateway for American citizenship for over 200 years. When immigrants speak its forceful words, they pledge their unfettered allegiance to America, our Constitution and our laws. The Oath of Allegiance was first used in 1790. A standardized Oath of Allegiance was issued in 1929, and the current, powerful text of the Oath of Allegiance has been in place since the 1950's. The words of this important symbol of American citizenship and commitment to the Constitution are not specified by law, however, and can be changed at the whim of a Government bureaucracy. In fact, such a change was to take place on September 17, 2003, which is Citizenship Day, the day on which we celebrate the signing of the Constitution. The proposed changes intended to make the language more modern but instead would have transformed an absolute commitment to the Constitution into a conditional statement and thereby weaken our citizenship. It appears that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services hastily drafted and proposed these changes. Seemingly, they intended to implement the changes without going through the standard 60-day period for public comment. Most concerning are the substantive changes to the text that would have eliminated several forceful words and phrases, substantially weakening the charge to uphold and be faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Specifically, it eliminates the call to, "bear true faith and allegiance to," and to, "bear arms on behalf of the Constitution of the United States." The addition of the words, "where and if lawfully required," before the charge to defend the Constitution causes me to wonder when we are not required to defend the Constitution. In addition, the Oath of Allegiance currently calls on Americans to, "renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty," while the proposed Oath of Allegiance renounces allegiance only to foreign states. We should continue to welcome legal immigrants into our country. Yet, as we continue to fight the war on terror, we must maintain a forceful and uncompromising Oath of Allegiance. Many of our terror threats are not from organized geopolitical states but rather from groups like al-Qaeda, led by the likes of Osama bin Laden. On March 11 in Madrid, we were reminded of the very real presence of organized, non-state-sponsored terrorism aimed at the United States and our allies who are committed to eliminating global terrorism. The threat of terror and the attempts to infiltrate American society have not passed, nor has the need for a strong renunciation against all foreign sovereignties. Now is not the time to water down the words of commitment necessary to become citizen of the United States of America. That is why I introduced H.R. 3191, which would establish the Oath of Allegiance as Federal law and give it the same protection as the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem. My bill does not prevent the language in the Oath of Allegiance from being modernized or changed. Codifying the words of the Oath of Allegiance is simply a logical step and necessary step to ensure that the Oath of Allegiance is held in high regard and protected from destructive changes. Throughout our history, our nation has been strengthened by immigrants who came here to pursue the American dream. Establishing the Oath of Allegiance as the law of the land would remind all Americans, recent immigrants and lifelong citizens alike, that pursuing that dream also requires a full-time commitment to citizenship; a commitment unlike what Thomas Paine once called the summer soldier and the sunshine patriot that shrank from the service of his country in times of crisis. The scores of letters and phone calls I have received from constituents indicate an overwhelming desire to preserve the forceful language of the Oath of Allegiance. Should there ever be a sentiment to change this great oath, however, it should only be done after careful consideration that results in the strengthening of the meaning of citizenship. With the passage of H.R. 3191, such changes would occur only by an act of Congress. The Oath of Allegiance should continue to support freedom, democracy and Constitutional rights. I believe that we can ensure this for decades to come by establishing the Oath of Allegiance as Federal law, and I urge the Judiciary Committee to pass H.R. 3191 and send it to the full House of Representatives. And I thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Mr. Ryun follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM RYUN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS I would like to thank Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee for holding a hearing on H.R. 3191 and inviting me to testify before your Subcommittee on this important issue. The Oath of Allegiance has served as the gateway to American citizenship for over 200 years. When immigrants speak its forceful words they pledge their unfettered allegiance to America, our Constitution, and our laws. The Oath of Allegiance was first used in 1790 and a standardized Oath was issued in 1929. The current, powerful text of the Oath of Allegiance that has been in place since the 1950s requires immigrants to say, "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or a citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." While the text of the Oath of Allegiance is not specified by federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1448 provides five principles of what the Oath of Allegiance must contain. They include, "1) to support the Constitution of the United States; (2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen; (3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; (4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and (5)(A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or (B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or (C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law." Since these principles are only guidelines, however, the text of the Oath of Allegiance can be changed on the whim of the government bureaucracy. In fact, such a change was to take place on September 17, 2003, which is Citizenship Day-the day on which we celebrate the signing of the Constitution. The Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services proposed to change the Oath of Allegiance to read, "Solemnly, freely, and without any mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution and laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God." The proposed changes intended to make the language more modern, but instead would transform an absolute commitment to the Constitution into a conditional statement and thereby weaken our citizenship. It appears that the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services hastily drafted and proposed these changes. They rushed to implement the changes without going through the standard 60-day period for public comment. Even more revealing were the several grammatical errors throughout the text. Most concerning are the substantive changes to the text that would have eliminated several forceful words and phrases, substantially weakening the charge to uphold and be faithful to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. Specifically, it eliminates the call to "bear true faith and allegiance to" and "bear arms on behalf of" the Constitution. The addition of the words, "Where and if lawfully required," before the charge to defend the Constitution causes me to wonder when we are not required to defend the Constitution. In addition, the Oath of Allegiance currently calls on Americans to "renounce, and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty," while the proposed Oath of Allegiance renounces allegiance only to foreign states. We should continue to welcome legal immigrants into our country. Yet as we continue to fight the war on terror, we must maintain a forceful and uncompromising Oath of Allegiance. Many of our terror threats are not from organized geopolitical states, but rather from groups like al Qaeda, led by potentates like Osama bin Laden. On March 11, 2004 in Madrid, we were reminded of the very real presence of organized, non-state sponsored terrorism aimed at the United States and our allies who are committed to eliminating global terrorism. The threat of terror and the attempts to infiltrate American society have not passed, nor has the need for a strong renunciation against all foreign sovereignties. Now is not the time to water down the words of commitment necessary to become a citizen of the United States of America. That is why I introduced H.R. 3191, which would establish the Oath of Allegiance as federal law and give it the same protection as the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem. Codifying the words of the Oath of Allegiance is a logical, necessary step to ensure that the Oath is held in high regard and protected from destructive changes. Throughout our history, our nation has been strengthened by immigrants who came here to pursue the American dream. Establishing the Oath of Allegiance as the law of the land would remind all Americans-recent immigrants and life-long citizens alike—that pursuing that dream also requires a full-time commitment to citizenship; a commitment unlike what Thomas Paine once called the "summer soldier and the sunshine patriot" that shrank from the service of his country in times of crisis. The scores of letters and phone calls I received from constituents indicate an overwhelming desire to preserve the forceful language of the Oath of Allegiance. Should there ever be a sentiment to change this great Oath, however, it should only be done after careful consideration that results in a strengthened meaning of our citizenship. With the passage of H.R. 3191, any such change could only occur by an act of Congress. The Oath of Allegiance should continue to support freedom, democracy, and our Constitutional rights. I believe that we can ensure this for decades to come by establishing the Oath of Allegiance as Federal law. I urge the Judiciary Committee to pass H.R. 3191 and send it to the full House of Representatives. Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Congressman Ryun. STATEMENT OF ALFONSO AGUILAR, CHIEF OF THE OFFICE OF Mr. AGUILAR. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing on such an important topic to our nation. As you have raised the issue of the Department of Homeland Security's possible administrative revision of the Oath of Allegiance last September, I will start my testimony by providing some additional insight on exactly what happened last year. In the broader context of making the naturalization process more meaningful, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began researching what work had already been done in this area. In our research, we noted the recommendations of the bipartisan Barbara Jordan Commission, a Congressional commission, which, in its final report to Congress in 1997 recommended that the Oath of Allegiance be revised. We considered the language and found that it would be a good starting point. Although DHS worked on an interim rule to revise the oath, the rule was never published in the Federal Register. It was never issued. In fact, a draft version was prematurely leaked to the media and was unfortunately interpreted to be an effort to undermine the current oath. DHS chose not to issue this rule due to the considerable public reaction, both positive and negative, to this potential change. But the reaction is the most telling evidence that the concept and meaning of U.S. citizenship is relevant to people from all walks of life, from all political parties and backgrounds. And based on this, we decided that no action should be taken without participation from Congress and the American public. Now that I have given some insight on what happened last year, I would like to speak about the bigger picture of naturalization and civic integration. Last year, the United States welcomed more than 455,000 new Americans through the process of naturalization. As we prepare our immigrants for U.S. citizenship, we must foster a sense of allegiance to their new country. Congress and the Presi dent recognized this through the creation of the Office of Citizenship within the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and since its creation, the Office of Citizenship has taken an ambitious and critically important agenda designed to promote civic integration among newly-arrived immigrants and also to promote awareness of the rights and responsibilities associated with U.S. citizenship. Preparing immigrants to integrate into the civic culture of the United States requires reaching out to new immigrants at the earliest opportunity to provide them with information they need to adhere to American constitutional principles, develop loyalty to America and actively participate in U.S. civic life. It also requires making the process of naturalization more meaningful, so that immigrants who choose to become citizens have a real understanding of the commitment they are making when they take the Oath of Allegiance. The significance of the naturalization process is highlighted in the Department of Homeland Security's strategic plan, and I quote, citizenship through naturalization is the ultimate privilege of the immigration system. We will place renewed emphasis on a national effort to cultivate an awareness and understanding of American civic values and to underwrite commitment to United States citizenship. We will promote education and training on citizenship rights, privileges and responsibilities to not only enhance the naturalization experience but also to ensure that the immigration system promotes a civic identity for diverse citizens. Now, although the Oath of Allegiance is critical to the process of naturalization in many ways, its primary purpose is legal rather than symbolic, unlike the national anthem or Pledge of Allegiance. Taking the Oath of Allegiance at a public naturalization ceremony is typically required in order to effect the applicant's change of status from lawful permanent resident to citizen of the United States of America. The oath has legal significance. In fact, an individual can be subject to denaturalization if he or she is found not to have taken the oath in good faith and without mental reservation. We have heard from a broad variety of stakeholders from across the political spectrum that the Oath of Allegiance should be updated for several reasons. First, the language of the current oath has been described as archaic by some stakeholders, including representatives of the Citizenship Roundtable, a joint project of the American Legion and the Hudson Institute; second, the current Oath of Allegiance has been criticized for its convoluted, legalistic and cumbersome grammar and sentence structure. In 1997, the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended that the oath be revised to make it comprehensible, solemn and meaningful. Finally, we have heard concerns that a revision of the current oath might result in weaker language, and this is totally contrary to the goal of a revision, which is to strengthen the Oath of Allegiance and make it relevant in today's society. Congress has acted on the oath. It established principles for the Oath of Renunciation and Allegiance and codified them in section 337(a) of the Immigration and Naturalization [sic] Act. With regard to the grammar and sentence structure, the current oath includes legalistic and cumbersome phrasing. It also has un |