[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5572-H5576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN ALIENS SERVING AS TRANSLATORS OR 
                   INTERPRETERS WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
Senate bill (S. 1104) to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani 
translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States 
as special immigrants, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The text of the Senate bill is as follows:

                                S. 1104

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CERTAIN ALIENS 
                   SERVING AS TRANSLATORS OR INTERPRETERS WITH 
                   FEDERAL AGENCIES.

       (a) Increase in Numbers Admitted.--Section 1059 of the 
     National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (8 
     U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)(1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``as a translator'' 
     and inserting ``, or under Chief of Mission authority, as a 
     translator or interpreter'';
       (B) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``the Chief of 
     Mission or'' after ``recommendation from''; and
       (C) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``the Chief of 
     Mission or'' after ``as determined by''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)(1), by striking ``section during any 
     fiscal year shall not exceed 50.'' and inserting the 
     following: ``section--
       ``(A) during each of the fiscal years 2007 and 2008, shall 
     not exceed 500; and
       ``(B) during any other fiscal year shall not exceed 50.''.
       (b) Aliens Exempt From Employment-Based Numerical 
     Limitations.--Section 1059(c)(2) of such Act is amended--
       (1) by amending the paragraph designation and heading to 
     read as follows:
       ``(2) Aliens exempt from employment-based numerical 
     limitations.--''; and
       (2) by inserting ``and shall not be counted against the 
     numerical limitations under sections 201(d), 202(a), and 
     203(b)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
     1151(d), 1152(a), and 1153(b)(4))'' before the period at the 
     end.
       (c) Adjustment of Status; Naturalization.--Section 1059 of 
     such Act is further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (f); and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (c) the following:
       ``(d) Adjustment of Status.--Notwithstanding paragraphs 
     (2), (7) and (8) of section 245(c) of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255(c)), the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security may adjust the status of an alien to that of a 
     lawful permanent resident under section 245(a) of such Act if 
     the alien--
       ``(1) was paroled or admitted as a nonimmigrant into the 
     United States; and
       ``(2) is otherwise eligible for special immigrant status 
     under this section and under the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act.
       ``(e) Naturalization.--
       ``(1) In general.--An absence from the United States 
     described in paragraph (2) shall not be considered to break 
     any period for which continuous residence in the United 
     States is required for naturalization under title III of the 
     Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.).
       ``(2) Absence described.--An absence described in this 
     paragraph is an absence from the United States due to a 
     person's employment by the Chief of Mission or United States 
     Armed Forces, under contract with the Chief of Mission or 
     United States Armed Forces, or by a firm or corporation under 
     contract with the Chief of Mission or United States Armed 
     Forces, if--
       ``(A) such employment involved working with the Chief of 
     Mission or United States Armed Forces as a translator or 
     interpreter; and
       ``(B) the person spent at least a portion of the time 
     outside of the United States working directly with the Chief 
     of Mission or United States Armed Forces as a translator or 
     interpreter in Iraq or Afghanistan.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sires). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) and the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Keller) each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Translators and interpreters have been crucial to our efforts in 
Iraq, serving as a critical link between our troops and the Iraqi 
population. Because of their work for U.S. forces, many of these people 
have risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist our 
efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Now they are under serious threat. These translators and interpreters 
who

[[Page H5573]]

serve bravely alongside our troops need our immediate assistance. 
Singled out as collaborators, many are now targets by death squads, 
militias and al Qaeda.
  In Mosul, insurgents recorded and circulated the brutal execution of 
two interpreters, a stark warning to others who have assisted U.S. 
forces in the country. U.S. soldiers and embassy employees who have 
attempted to help their interpreters flee from violence have had to 
stand by hopelessly as their Iraqi colleagues went into hiding. Often 
leaving their families behind simply in order to survive.
  Congressman Jeff Fortenberry came to me with the idea, and I agreed, 
and we introduced broad, far-reaching legislation on this issue. We are 
taking up the bill before us today because the Senate already passed 
this by unanimous consent, and the urgency of the situation requires us 
to act now.
  This legislation will help quickly address this crisis by authorizing 
up to 500 special visas for Iraqis and Afghanis who put their lives at 
risk by working with the U.S. military and the U.S. embassy in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  We all realize this is not a partisan issue, and I am pleased to have 
worked with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on helping to 
get this bill before us today. The original special visa legislation 
included in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act has proved wholly 
inadequate, authorizing only 50 visas a year, creating a backlog 
estimated to take 9 years to clear at the current rate.
  As of last week, nearly 500 Iraqis and Afghanis have gone through the 
requisite background checks and have been approved for the visa. 
Because of the backlog, they are stuck in limbo waiting for a visa that 
may never come. These people need us to act. The Senate passed this 
legislation over a month ago, and the administration is supportive of 
taking this action.
  Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global 
Affairs recently said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to 
those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the U.S. military and 
embassy.'' Clearly, we owe these people a debt of gratitude. They have 
risked everything to help us out in Iraq and Afghanistan and the least 
we can do is help deliver them out of harm's way.
  But I tell my colleagues, the magnitude of the broader refugee crisis 
in Iraq far exceeds anything this bill attempts to resolve. We need to 
address the wider refugee issue, which has forced over 4 million Iraqis 
from their homes.
  The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has legislation on this 
subject, and I think will be speaking to that broader issue. No one 
should take our efforts to do this now as a notion that that satisfies 
our obligation on something that we played a part in, creating the 
situation that led to this.
  Let me just add, I see this as an emergency effort. It can't be the 
last word on this matter. We must do something to deal with the larger 
refugee issue in Iraq, as I said, and it's very possible that the visas 
we are discussing in this bill will prove inadequate for this need. 
Still, I think we need to act now so that the visas are available.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 1104 expands an existing program that provides 50 
special immigrant visas per year to Iraqi and Afghani nationals who 
have served as translators for our Armed Forces.
  Translators and interpreters would be eligible to petition if they 
are an Iraqi or an Afghani national, have served with our military for 
at least 12 months, and receive a favorable recommendation from the 
unit in which he or she served. Many of us have heard stories about 
Iraqis who have faithfully served alongside our troops bridging the 
language divide. They have been a valuable resource for the United 
States and its allies.
  Yet many Iraqi and Afghani translators have faced intense persecution 
from their communities as a result of serving the U.S. military. It is 
because of this persecution that the translator visa program was first 
established. This program allows us to reward those who worked directly 
for the United States Government in supporting our troops in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
  S. 1104, as amended in committee, increases the number of special 
immigrant visas available to translators to 500 per year for the next 2 
years. The increase to 500 visas is a direct response to the number of 
petitions that have been received and approved by the U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration Services. Without this increase, many translators will 
continue to face persecution while they wait in their home country for 
a visa to become available.
  This bill has already been approved unanimously in the Senate, and I 
urge its passage here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me time to 
speak on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1104 for all the reasons 
that have been articulated by my friend from California and my friend 
from Florida.
  Iraq today is the scene of the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in 
the world. It rivals only the problems that are being faced in Darfur.
  As has been pointed out for one group in Iraq, our moral 
responsibility is unquestionable to Iraqis whose lives are at risk 
because they helped the United States. Having cooperated with the 
United States military, the United Nations, or even a nongovernmental 
organization, can literally mean a death sentence at the hands of any 
of the many sides of this civil war. This bill is an important first 
step, expanding the current limit of the 50 special translator visas to 
500.
  I became acutely aware of the magnitude of this problem working with 
a local high school in Portland, Oregon, who were partnering with the 
members of the Oregon National Guard who had served in Iraq and 
recently returned, who were trying to bring their former translator to 
the United States, literally to save this young woman's life. But they 
kept running into bureaucratic hurdles. It took us months to, 
thankfully, secure her entry into the United States, where she is 
safely a college student today in Portland, Oregon.
  I have heard the same story over and over again. We should keep faith 
with those who have served our brave men and women in uniform. This is 
a basic moral responsibility and a simple issue of fairness.
  What we have before us in this bill is a critical first step. But as 
my friend from California pointed out, it's only the first step. We 
have 4 million Iraqis who have been driven from their homes and tens of 
thousands who are at risk because they helped the United States, not 
just as translators but as drivers and construction workers, NGO 
support staff.
  We are, sadly, failing Iraqi refugees. We have allowed into the 
United States fewer than 800 since 2003, 69 since this fall, only 1 
last month. The Swedish prime minister told me last week that Sweden is 
going to admit 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year.
  I introduced, last week, bipartisan legislation H.R. 2265, the 
Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act to address this ongoing 
humanitarian crisis by using all of the tools at our disposal, 
admitting refugees, providing assistance to the region and using 
diplomacy to ensure their well-being.
  It would allow not 50 or 500, but 15,000 Iraqis who are at risk 
because they helped the United States to come to this country, along 
with their families. It would establish a special coordinator for Iraqi 
refugees and internally displaced people, and requires the United 
States to develop, finally, plans to ensure the well-being and safety 
of these Iraqi refugees.
  It increases the number of persecuted Iraqis who can be admitted as 
refugees. This legislation has been endorsed by Amnesty International, 
Church World Service, the International Rescue Committee, Refugees 
International, the Jubilee Campaign, the Truman National Security 
Project, and many others.
  I strongly urge that we adopt this bill today. But I would implore 
the Members of this House, regardless of how they feel about the war in 
Iraq or its future, to join and cosponsor my legislation--broad, 
ambitious, a comprehensive response to the Iraqi refugee crisis--before 
it's too late, too

[[Page H5574]]

late for people whose only crime was working with Americans.
  It is also clear that it is not just these Iraqis that we ought to be 
concerned about. If we cannot keep faith with refugees that the United 
States has a responsibility for, it sends a very unpleasant message 
about the reliability of working with us, and, sadly, it sows the seeds 
for additional instability in the region. With 1 million Iraqis in 
Jordan, it creates an untenable situation for the long-term stability 
of that country.
  I strongly urge passage of this bill, but I do hope that each of my 
colleagues will look at the comprehensive legislation that I introduced 
and determine what they are going to do to stop the fastest-growing 
humanitarian crisis in the world today.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who is the sponsor of the 
companion House version of this legislation and has been a leader in 
the House on this important issue.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Florida. First, I should 
also thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Berman of California, for 
his leadership on this important issue, his support and his 
partnership. I appreciate your efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the plight of courageous 
Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters who are assisting our 
military and our government. Given the vigorous and necessary debate 
about America's involvement in Iraq, this important humanitarian issue 
should not be overlooked. It warrants immediate attention as we move 
toward the stabilization of Iraq.
  Every day in Iraq, and Afghanistan, American forces receive critical 
help, the kind of help essential for progress. An acute sense of duty 
has led thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis to aid American forces since 
late 2001.

                              {time}  1515

  Some of these brave men and women have worked alongside our troops 
providing invaluable assistance serving as translators and 
interpreters. Although they do not receive much attention, often by 
design, the translators and interpreters have been instrumental in 
supporting U.S. military operations. Mr. Speaker, they face mortal 
danger. They are considered traitors by the terrorist insurgents, and 
are targets often with bounties on their heads. Many find themselves 
without secure homes due to their dangerous work. They must conceal and 
vary their daily routines to preserve their safety. Most do not tell 
their immediate family about their work.
  In 2006, the Defense Department authorization bill established a 
program that allows translators and interpreters who have worked for 
the U.S. military for at least 12 months to come to the U.S. on special 
visas. The program, as we have heard, allows up to 50 visas for Iraqi 
and Afghani translators each year. But since mid-April of this year, 
510 applications have been received, 440 have been approved, 16 denied, 
and 54 are pending. Under the current cap of 50 allowable applicants 
per year, it will take until approximately the year 2016 to admit those 
currently in the queue for entry into the U.S.
  To correct this problem, I, in partnership again with my 
distinguished colleague Mr. Berman of California, recently introduced 
legislation that would increase the annual limit for these visas from 
50 to 500. The Senate bill before us today does exactly that for the 
next 2 years.
  I believe it is right and just to offer refuge to those who have 
risked their own lives to help our troops and our Nation. These 
translators and interpreters are performing crucial work to assist the 
United States Government in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They have been 
invaluable to our efforts in the Middle East. It is my hope that our 
Nation will provide them the protection and asylum they need in honor 
of their service to our country and in honor to the commitment that 
they have made.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding to me in a gracious fashion, and I think there is another 
viewpoint that this Congress should be considering before we bring this 
to a vote on this suspension bill.
  I start out with I believe there are two things wrong with this 
legislation that is before us here on the floor. The first one is 
current law limits the numbers to 50 interpreters who could be brought 
in legally, and we have a great big problem understanding the rule of 
law here in America.
  Now, I haven't received satisfactory answers from the U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services or the State Department on how it 
is that, with a statutory limit of 50, and it says no more than 50, how 
was it that USCIS processed nearly 500 applications on an annual basis; 
and how was it that the State Department was poised to grant, but 
prohibited by law from granting, these visas for the interpreters from 
Iraq?
  Now, I join my colleagues in praising and celebrating the brave 
service to our coalition personnel by the interpreters that have done 
such a good job in saving probably dozens or hundreds of American lives 
over there. In fact, I have a personal friend who served as an 
interpreter, and he carries a scar on his wrist from one of Saddam's 
henchmen who attacked him for being lined up with our side of this 
argument. I understand from a very personal basis what kind of risk is 
there and how their lives are at risk, but I would point out that we 
have such a thing as the rule of law.
  Mr. Speaker, current law said 50. I offered an amendment, and that 
amendment would have limited the amount of applications that could be 
processed by USCIS to the statutory limit. It wasn't because I think 50 
is the right number, and I don't take a position on whether I think 500 
is the right number, but it was because I believe the rule of law is 
sacrosanct. And if we are going to allow USCIS process up to 500 
applications, and then come here to this Congress and say, well, gee, 
we must have been wrong because we have 500 applicants, not 50; or, we 
have no choice because it is implicit that we have promised these 
people that we are going to grant them the visas, how did we make a 
promise that exceeded Federal law? And what do we do if there are 2,500 
the next time the USCIS processes? How do we adhere to the rule of law 
if we react to people who stretch the limits? The people within USCIS, 
who I actually don't blame at this point, but we are here trying to 
keep our word. At the same time, we are ignoring the rule of law.
  Those two things don't sit very well with me. That is the number one 
issue.
  And the next issue is something I do think we need to think about, 
and that is the tactical side of this. This results in not 1,000 new 
interpreters, but 900, because 500 was the annual limit. So it is 900 
over a 2-year period of time. So that is 900 fewer interpreters to save 
more lives of American and coalition forces. Tactically we need to 
consider that. We need to understand that someone needs to be there to 
rebuild Iraq, someone needs to be there to defend Iraq. If 25,000 go to 
Sweden, that is another 25,000 of some of the finest citizens that will 
not be there to put Iraq back together.
  Our job isn't to bring everybody here to save their livelihood here 
in the United States. We need to export our way of life; we need to 
encourage the Iraqis to rebuild their country. This depletes the 
resources.
  But that is only, Mr. Speaker, my secondary argument. My primary 
argument is the rule of law. The rule of law should be sacrosanct and 
shouldn't be violated. And if we are going to pass this legislation, we 
should have adopted my amendment that limited the applications that 
USCIS can process to the statutory limit. If we did that, then I would 
have some confidence that we are going to adhere to the rule of law. As 
it is, I do not believe we will do that, and I think this turns out to 
be not probably the last, but the first amnesty bill that might pass 
off the floor of the 110th Congress. And if we don't have any more 
respect for the rule of law than we are showing here, then we are 
reacting to our own bureaucrats that, I will submit, that it is going 
to be difficult for us to adhere to the rule of law when it is 12 
million or 20 million as opposed to 400 or 500 or 900 people.
  I think that makes my point, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from

[[Page H5575]]

Florida for his consideration and the time to make my case.
  Mr. KELLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from Iowa makes interesting arguments, but to some extent 
undermines those arguments. He says rule of law is important, and, 
therefore, the committee should have accepted an amendment in the 
committee to make illegal what folks in our embassies and in our 
missions did, thereby undermining the argument that in any way there 
was any law violated.
  There was no law against expending funds to process these visas. 
There were no promises made to Iraqi interpreters and translators they 
would be guaranteed a visa. But when our folks in the field see a 
situation developing where the people who have allowed them to do their 
job, at great risk for their life and limb, are in desperate need for 
them and their families to essentially be appreciated and rewarded for 
that life-threatening effort, and they tell their folks that they work 
for in the Defense Department and in the State Department and the folks 
in Congress who are dealing with these issues that we need to do 
something about them, and we respond, that doesn't constitute a promise 
that no one had authority to make, a violation of the rule or law.
  And, by definition, I understand, and we have had many discussions on 
our immigration issues; in fact, the gentleman and I are both here now 
rather than at a hearing on the immigration issue. I understand the 
gentleman has a definition of amnesty which is wider than mine, but I 
never realized how much wider it was, that a bill that adds to the 
number of visas that can be given, after background checks and going 
through the regular process to ensure the security interests that we 
have before we issue a visa, that a bill that would increase the number 
of visas for these people who have put themselves in harm's way on 
behalf of the United States is an amnesty law. This takes that very 
expansive definition the gentleman has and I think expands it even 
further.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman, and I ask him for that 
privilege because I know he is a reasonable individual and very 
thoughtful on the immigration policy. But I am under the understanding 
that we are here changing the law almost after the fact to comply with 
the limitation that has been exceeded in its anticipation by the people 
who were promised that they would have an opportunity to get a visa if 
they served the United States in that capacity as interpreters.
  Isn't that true?
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. I certainly don't know that that is 
true, and I would be stunned if it were. I would be stunned if our 
dedicated employees in a very difficult foreign mission or in the 
military were out promising things they couldn't deliver. I don't think 
our folks operate like that. I think they were processing applications 
in case and in the event that we increased the number of visas because 
the demand was so urgent. The gentleman from Oregon talked about 4 
million refugees. We are talking about an infinitesimal subset that 
worked for us in our campaign efforts in Iraq.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. And I thank the gentleman. But for a point of 
clarity, we are here. We are amending current law because we 
essentially have a promise we can't keep without amending current law. 
And that fits within a definition of amnesty, to amend current law, 
because if we enforce current law, there will be some people that will 
be penalized by that. And I don't take so much issue on this as I do 
the law.
  Mr. BERMAN. Let me reclaim my time just to respond to that. We have a 
law that gives 50 visas a year, but the next year it gives 50 more and 
then 50 more. Is the gentleman suggesting that we should not process 
any more than the first 50?
  There are people who would be allowed the next year and the year 
after. Why wouldn't you give these visas to the people who were first 
in line? I know the gentleman loves the sanctity of the line. Give 
these to the people who are first in line. Why wouldn't we process 
applications of people who weren't going to get visas that year but the 
next year? Why 5 years later would you take somebody who hasn't been 
waiting in line for 5 years and approve their visas?
  Mr. KING of Iowa. If the gentleman would yield, I would submit that 
Congress needs to set the number. And for USCIS to process the 
applications beyond the statutory number is a waste of resources. But 
if we believe that we should raise that number, then we should come 
back and grant that authority to do so.
  I see us as reacting to promises that were made that went beyond the 
limitations of the statute. That is why we have to change the statute 
today. That could preserve the rule of law and still preserve the 
numbers that the gentleman is proposing.
  Mr. BERMAN. Reclaiming my time. And at this point I think maybe we 
should end the debate. But no part of Mr. Fortenberry's or my 
motivations for introducing the bill, and I wouldn't speculate on the 
Senate's motivations, but no part of our motivation was to take the 
administration out of an embarrassing place where they have been making 
promises that couldn't be kept.
  We thought that justice, fairness, American tradition, and the risks 
that these people have taken to help our Armed Forces and our diplomats 
in one of the most difficult, hazardous situations in the world gave 
them a claim that we should respond to, not a promise made by somebody 
that we are forced to keep. We wanted them to have these visas. We 
weren't responding to pressure to take the administration and their 
people in Baghdad out of an embarrassing situation.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1104, a bill 
to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters 
who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants. The 
bill improves upon an earlier effort made by Congress to address this 
matter. The intent that underwrites this bill is a noble one, and the 
improvements it makes to current law are needed. I am concerned, 
however, by the limited scope of the authorities provided by the bill 
before us and that is under consideration.
  Section 1059 of P.L. 109-163 allows for 50 Iraqi and Afghan 
translators or interpreters who work in support of United States Armed 
Forces in those countries to petition the United States Government and 
be approved for entry into the United States under special immigrant 
status. The opportunity to immigrate to the United States has proved to 
be very popular among translators who work with the United States Armed 
Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These individuals are generally the 
targets of incidences of violence or threats of violence from certain 
individuals or groups due to their close association with the United 
States Armed Forces. Reportedly, there is a six year waiting list for 
the 50 slots authorized by Section 1059 of P.L. 109-163. Unfortunately, 
Section 1059 of P.L. 109-163 did not provide similar opportunities for 
translators and interpreters who work with civilian departments and 
agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan who, like their colleagues who serve 
alongside the United States Armed Forces, are subject to incidences of 
violence or threats of violence from insurgents, militias, criminals, 
and terrorists operating in those countries. S. 1104, the legislation 
before us today, would expand existing law to authorize 500 special 
immigrant visas annually for the next two years, and expand eligibility 
for the visas to include both translators and interpreters working for 
the Chief of Mission or the United States Armed Forces in Iraq or 
Afghanistan.
  This bill would make useful and important changes to current law. The 
House Committee on the Judiciary notes in House Report 110-158 that 
accompanies S. 1104, ``that there are potentially dire consequences in 
delay'' of this legislation and that ``the Committee chose to consider 
the Senate-passed legislation in the interest of expediting its 
enactment.'' I commend my colleague from Michigan and the Chairman of 
the House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary (Mr. Conyers), 
my colleague from Texas and the Committee's Ranking Member (Mr. Smith), 
and the members of the Committee for their prompt work toward reporting 
this legislation for consideration by the full House. Simply put, their 
efforts on this bill in Committee, and our favorable consideration of 
this bill on the floor, will directly result in the saving of the lives 
of some incredibly brave individuals.

  But the United States Government can and must do more. We have a 
moral obligation to do all that we can to protect all of those 
individuals and their family members who are targeted for death or are 
subject of acts of intimidation or violence as a result of their 
employment by, or close association with, United States and Coalition 
military and civilian personnel operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[[Page H5576]]

While this bill represents progress in this regard, it alone will not 
completely fulfill this moral obligation.
  The Committee notes in House Report 110-158 that, ``[i]n approving 
this bill for expedited consideration, the Committee acknowledges the 
issues that are left unaddressed.'' The Committee, in its report 
accompanying this legislation, comments that, ``[t]here appears to be 
little reason to limit this relief to those serving with our Missions 
in Iraq and Afghanistan as a translator or interpreter. Iraqis and 
Afghans are serving in many different functions in aid of our Missions 
there, and as their lives come under threat as a result, they would 
seem similarly deserving of our help in delivering them from harm's 
way.'' House Report 110-158, furthermore, notes that, ``[t]here is also 
the question of whether these would-be refugees should be granted 
access to refugee assistance programs promptly once they arrive in the 
United States.'' I fully understand and recognize that this is a 
complicated issue. But it is my hope that comprehensive Iraqi and 
Afghan refugee legislation can be considered and agreed to by this body 
in the near future.
  I would hope that such comprehensive Iraq and Afghan refugee 
legislation, at a minimum, would provide the authority for at-risk 
Iraqi and Afghan individuals and their family members--who serve in any 
capacity--alongside, in support of, or in close coordination with 
United States or Coalition military and civilian personnel--to be 
eligible to petition the United States Government and be approved for 
entry into the United States under special immigrant status. 
Specifically, I would hope that such comprehensive refugee legislation 
would, at a minimum, provide petition authority and approval 
eligibility for at-risk Iraqis and Afghans who are direct hires of 
United States Government or Coalition country departments, agencies, 
and military services; Iraqis and Afghans who work as contractors for, 
or in support of, United States Government or Coalition country 
departments, agencies, and military services; Iraqi and Afghan public 
sector employees or elected members of government who work alongside, 
or who are closely or commonly associated with, United States and 
Coalition country military and civilian personnel; and Iraqi and Afghan 
business owners and operators and laborers who have performed work on 
construction, service, or other contacts financed by United States 
Government or Coalition government funds.
  Success achieved by United States and Coalition military and civilian 
personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan to date can be, in part, attributed 
to the efforts of the local nationals in those countries. Those Iraqis 
and Afghans, for the most part, believe in democratic, peaceful and 
prosperous futures for their countries and their families. That is why 
they choose to stand for election to public office, why they serve 
alongside United States and Coalition personnel, whether as 
translators, cultural advisors, or the myriad other roles that these 
brave individuals perform in support of our missions in those 
countries, and why they perform work on reconstruction projects 
financed by the United States Government and the governments of 
Coalition countries. By doing so, however, they and their family 
members are exposed to extreme risks.

  Here in Washington, DC it is all too easy for us to distinguish 
between the roles and responsibilities of Iraqis or Afghans who are 
direct hires of the United States Government and the governments of 
Coalition countries, Iraqis and Afghans who work on contract in support 
of United States and Coalition personnel, and Iraqis and Afghans who 
are employees of their governments. Each has a distinct role and 
relationship with the United States and Coalition governments and the 
missions pursued by their personnel. But these distinctions are not 
similarly considered by insurgents, militias, criminals, and terrorists 
who wish to do these individuals harm. That is, the enemy does not 
first review their employment situations and statuses of Iraqis and 
Afghans, draw distinctions, and then issue threats or conduct acts of 
intimidation or violence accordingly. The enemy kills, kidnaps, and 
intimidates ``enablers'' without discrimination. The Iraqis and Afghans 
who work alongside our personnel know this reality all too well. 
Comprehensive legislation to address this issue should, to the best of 
our ability, not draw distinctions or discriminate either.
  S. 1104, as noted by the Committee in its report to accompany this 
bill, is not a comprehensive response to the problem before our country 
with respect to Iraqis and Afghans who are at-risk of violence and 
intimidation as a result of their association with United States and 
Coalition country departments, agencies, and military services' 
operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I recognize the 
urgency of enacting the limited reforms to current law contained in the 
language of this bill; and, therefore, I support its passage. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill and to continue to work in 
support of comprehensive refugee legislation with respect to the 
service of Iraqi and Afghan nationals.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the Senate bill, S. 1104, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. BERMAN. 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 question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________