[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.
____________________