OPINION
Before HUFSTEDLER, SNEED and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges.
The sole question on appeal is whether an American citizen who is employed by the Government of American Samoa (“AS”) is “in the employment of the Government of the United States” within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1430(b),1 thereby entitling her hus*155band to qualify for naturalization without meeting the three-year period of residency in the United States prescribed by 8 U.S.C. § 1430(a). We respond affirmatively.
Dr. Lee, the petitioner, is a native and national of the Republic of China who resides in American Samoa with his wife, an American citizen employed by AS as a school teacher. The naturalization examiner recommended denial of the petition on the ground that Mrs. Lee was not an employee of the United States. The district court disagreed and granted relief to Dr. Lee. (404 F.Supp. 428 (D.Haw.1975).)
The United States Supreme Court succinctly described the status of American Samoa in its opinion in United States v. Standard Oil Co., 404 U.S. 558, at 558-559, 92 S.Ct. 661, at 662, 30 L.Ed.2d 713 (1972):
“By Act of Congress, 45 Stat. 1253, 48 U.S.C. § 1661, powers to govern the islands are vested in the President, who has delegated the authority to the Secretary of the Interior, Exec. Order No. 10264,16 Fed.Reg. 6417.”
American Samoa is an “unorganized territory” of the United States: its principal executive and judicial officers are appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Although it has its own government, legislature, constitution, and local laws, ultimate control is still exercised by the Interior Department.
Section 1430 provides generous relief from the stringent residency requirements for naturalization of spouses of American citizens who are living abroad in the course of pursuing a number of different occupations that Congress believed inured to the benefit of the United States. Such persons include not only those citizens who are employed by the “Government of the United States,” but also persons who are privately employed by American firms and corporations in the development of American foreign trade and commerce and still others whose services were believed valuable in promoting the interests of our country abroad. The breadth of the classification of citizens whose spouses qualify for relief under Section 1430 plainly indicates that no unduly technical or narrow reading of “in the employment of the Government of the United States” was intended by Congress. The legislative history contains no hint that Congress intended to distinguish between American citizens who worked for American territorial governments and those who are on payrolls maintained in Washington.2
We reject the Government’s argument that the benefits of Section 1430(b) are limited to those government employees whose service abroad is involuntary. The contention is unsupported by the language of the statute. The term “regularly stationed abroad” does not connote involuntary service. For example, members of the foreign service of the United States are “regularly stationed abroad,” but their service could not be described as “involuntary.”
AFFIRMED.