[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 110 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4755-S4757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              AFGHANISTAN

  Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to talk about a moral obligation 
and a national security obligation.
  We are leaving Afghanistan after 20 years, the longest war in the 
country's history. During the entirety of that 20 years, there were 
brave people in Afghanistan--Afghanistan people--who helped us, who 
were translators, who were guides, who assisted us in the struggle 
against terrorism and in the struggle against the Taliban.
  And as we leave, those people are in grave danger. The Taliban has 
made no secret of the fact that they are in grave danger. They have 
already started killing them.
  If we leave without providing for the safety of those people, 
providing them a way to maintain their lives, it will be a stain on 
this country that will exist for generations.
  Not only is it a moral and ethical obligation, though, it is a 
national security obligation because if we don't take care of the 
people who took care of us, who is going to come to our aid the next 
time? Who is going to come to the aid of the Americans who turn their 
backs on those that risk their lives on behalf of this country? The 
answer is no one.
  So this is not only an ethical and moral obligation, this is a matter 
of national security in terms of our standing in the world and our 
ability to work with allies and others against adversaries of this 
country and other countries in the world.
  The average time, I am told, it now takes to process the paperwork 
for one of the people whom we are trying to get out of Afghanistan 
through the special visa program is 600 days. We are going to have a 
military presence in Afghanistan less than 90 days. There is a mismatch 
there.
  We have got to take steps to protect these people. Now, maybe its 
surging--we have talked about military surges; let's surge some 
paperwork people to get this work done faster. But I don't believe we 
are going to be able to do that.
  Now, by the way, I am not saying we open the door to everyone--there 
are 18,000 people on their list; that is not to mention their 
families--that we just open the door and say everybody come here 
because, as we know, Afghanistan has been the home to very dangerous 
terrorist groups, al-Qaida, ISIS, and others.
  So we do have to have some processing, but we have to be able to 
process these people in a way that protects

[[Page S4756]]

us in terms of our national security but also gets them out of harm's 
way. One possibility--and I am delighted that just a few hours ago, the 
President mentioned that he is going to be working with other countries 
to find a safe place to move these people while we are doing the 
processing. I think that is exactly what we have to do. We can't just 
hope that when we leave in August or September 11, as the deadline the 
President has established, that we just hope that the Taliban won't 
take over Kabul, that the Taliban won't take over other regions of the 
country and start murdering people who helped us.
  This isn't a speculative problem. This isn't something we think may 
happen. They have told us it is going to happen. And I have learned all 
my life, believe people when they tell you what they are going to do, 
and this is one of those situations. We know what is coming. If what 
ends up coming is a bloodbath, that blood is on our hands.
  I have talked about the national security, but I think, more 
important, this is a moral and ethical obligation to meet the safety 
needs of those people who have helped us. I have friends who have 
fought in Afghanistan, and they are agonized about this. They are 
agonized about what is going to happen to people that they know, that 
they have worked with, and that have put their lives on the line for 
America. What is going to happen to those people when we leave?
  This is a moment of test for this country. This is a trial for us, 
and history is going to judge us as to how we meet this test. This 
isn't something--we are not talking about landing a man on the Moon or 
some kind of terrible technological challenge; this is just putting 
resources in the right place and making the arrangements to take care 
of these people. It can be done. It can be done. And if it isn't done, 
shame on us.
  I know that is a phrase that is often used, but it fits in this case. 
If we don't protect those who protected us, shame on us.
  On December 1, 1862, Abraham Lincoln came to this Capitol to talk 
about the course of the Civil War and what was happening. And he was 
trying to move the Congress out of the politics as usual as they dealt 
with this extraordinary crisis. His final words echo over the last 100-
plus years, and I think they apply exactly today. Here is what Abraham 
Lincoln said:

       Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this 
     Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite 
     of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, 
     can spare one or the other of us. The fiery trial which we 
     [now] pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the 
     latest generation.

  This is a test of the moral integrity of this country. We must--we 
must--defend those who have defended us from a peril that we know is 
imminent.
  This fiery trial through which we pass this summer, will light us 
down--we in the Congress and the administration, as Lincoln said, 
``will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, let me commend the stirring and thought-
provoking words of my colleague from Maine, Senator King, about our 
responsibility with respect to those who aided and assisted us in 
Afghanistan and the status of this Special Immigrant Visa Program.
  I think we have to begin with the decision to leave, which puts these 
individuals at risk. In many respects, President Biden's hands were 
tied from the outset with regard to our policy in Afghanistan. He 
inherited a flawed agreement from the Trump administration, which 
required the United States to withdraw all military forces by May 1 in 
exchange for the Taliban's agreement not to attack the U.S. and 
coalition forces and to constrain al-Qaida from using Afghanistan as a 
safe haven.
  It does not appear that the Taliban has observed many of the 
conditions of this agreement, but we have observed the condition of 
leaving promptly. The President originally set a date of September 11, 
but military personnel have been able to rapidly redeploy, and within 
weeks, we should be moving all of our military personnel.

  The manner in which this agreement was reached was also deeply 
flawed. It was negotiated exclusively between the Trump administration 
and the Taliban, keeping our allies, even the Afghan Government, out. 
President Trump's go-it-alone, rush-to-the-exits mentality led to a 
deal where the Taliban emerged as the key benefactor while the United 
States and our allies won very little. And while the Taliban has held 
the condition of not attacking the United States or its allies, as I 
indicated before, the remaining conditions were virtually 
unenforceable. By any measure, the Taliban has clearly violated the 
spirit of the agreement as overall violence inside Afghanistan has 
steadily increased over the last year. The Taliban has also not made 
clear that it will constrain al-Qaida as required by the agreement.
  During this transition period, the Taliban has gained enormous 
momentum on the battlefield. As the Washington Post recently reported, 
Taliban commanders, motivated by their battlefield gains, have 
``overrun a number of Afghan bases, even as U.S. air support for the 
Afghan army has dwindled, and set up numerous checkpoints along the 
main highways leading in and out of Kabul.''
  At least 24 Afghan commandos and police officers were killed in an 
ambush by the Taliban in northern Afghanistan just last week.
  It appears that the Taliban's tactics will only continue to intensify 
as the transition of U.S. and coalition personnel continues, especially 
as our airstrikes decline. According to the New York Times, there have 
been multiple instances where the Taliban, taking advantage of the 
situation, has been able to negotiate the surrenders of Afghan forces. 
By their count, since May 1, at least 26 outposts and bases have 
surrendered after such negotiations.
  Violence has increased against the civilian population as well, 
including a horrific attack against a school outside of Kabul, 
chillingly timed to target teenage girls leaving class.
  The Taliban's steady gains are contrasted with peace talks in Doha 
that appear to be going at a glacial pace. With these dynamics, the 
Taliban has no strategic interest to sit down and discuss power 
sharing. The government of Afghanistan appears to hold a much weaker 
hand in these negotiations, having proven unable to govern in a way 
that earns the confidence of the people.
  These concerning political and security developments are playing out 
against the backdrop of regional players that should have high 
incentives to cooperate to ensure stability and security of 
Afghanistan. However, nations like Iran, Russia, and China may in fact 
be working at cross-purposes to the U.S. interests, and others, such as 
Pakistan, could be using their influence in a much more constructive 
manner than they are today.
  Taken together, these dynamics create a highly challenging landscape. 
If not addressed deliberately, they could cause a cascade of 
instability both inside Afghanistan and across the region. To mitigate 
such an outcome, we must exercise caution and plan prudently.
  And again, echoing the comments of Senator King, this brings me to 
one of the most immediate and pressing consequences of the situation. 
How do we help those whose lives were put on the line because they 
assisted the United States?
  There are many press reports of the Taliban threatening Afghan 
civilians who helped us. USA Today profiled one Afghan interpreter who 
explained: ``If the U.S. forces leave Afghanistan . . . I cannot 
guarantee for one minute what's going to happen with me, with my 
family.''
  These threats cannot be ignored. We must demonstrate that we have the 
capacity to protect those who have a target on their backs because of 
their association with the United States. More than that, we must 
ensure that we continue to secure the irreplaceable assistance of the 
people who willingly risk their lives to help the United States the 
next time our servicemembers are in a conflict in a distant land. If we 
set the example of leaving those who assisted us behind, who will 
assist us in the future?
  Currently, the processing of Afghan candidates through Special 
Immigration Visas or SIVs, which the State Department says is the 
primary focus, may prove too little, too late. While

[[Page S4757]]

the backlog of candidates is 18,000 today, it is unclear how many 
potential SIV candidates will feel compelled to apply as conditions 
change on the ground. Processing applications has been further 
complicated by a long vetting process, declining security conditions, 
and a recent spike in COVID cases across Afghanistan, which has forced 
the Embassy to shut down visa interviews. In order to handle the 
demand, we must add at least 20,000 additional visas for the next 
fiscal year and do so immediately and find other ways to further 
streamline the process, as Senator King described.
  We may also come to find that the SIV category does not encompass all 
those Afghans who would likely be targeted by the Taliban. We should be 
identifying others who may be at risk and start planning to ensure the 
safety of those who would seek asylum as a consequence of a potential 
Taliban takeover or if control of the country fractures.
  Now is the time to think about creative solutions and, importantly, 
understand what will be necessary to ensure that we live up to our 
moral obligations. I know full well that the United States is capable 
of this. We have been publicly assured by the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs, General Milley, and Commander of Central Command, General 
McKenzie, that the military can carry out such an evacuation, if 
directed to do so. We have successfully conducted evacuations of 
refugee populations in the past, including a significant number of 
Vietnamese refugees in 1975, Iraqi Kurds in 1996, and Kosovo Albanians 
in 1999. It is imperative that we deliver upon our promises now.
  Providing safe harbor for these Afghans who are most vulnerable is 
front of mind, but we must also ensure that there is a farsighted 
planning process across the board to ensure success following the 
transition of our military forces. And I would like to quickly 
highlight several key questions.
  First, can the United States and its allies and partners continue to 
constrain the threat from terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS that 
would seek to use Afghanistan as a base for operations?
  The Biden administration has discussed its intent to conduct over-
the-horizon operations, but we need to ensure that we have accounted 
for this complexity and are postured for success.
  Second, how will the United States continue to distribute and oversee 
aid to the Afghan Government and Afghan security forces? The Afghan 
Government remains unable to generate enough revenue to independently 
fund its military operations, instead relying almost solely on foreign 
contributions.
  We must have robust mechanisms in place to ensure the aid is provided 
and goes to the intended places.
  Third, how can the international community assist the Afghan security 
forces with maintaining readiness, particularly air power--after all 
international contractors depart the country? Again, that is another 
term of the Doha agreement. After 20 years, we have not created a cadre 
of individuals inside Afghanistan who can independently conduct high-
level maintenance on its aircraft, which raises serious questions about 
how the Afghans can continue air operations without international 
contracting support.
  Fourth, does the international community have real leverage to affect 
Taliban behavior through political and diplomatic channels? Now is the 
time to understand what levers are available to mitigate a potentially 
disastrous situation for the people of Afghanistan, and particularly 
that of women and girls.
  Fifth, will NGOs be able to continue activities to benefit the people 
of Afghanistan? There appears to be a lack of coordination, including 
by the Department of Defense, to ensure deconfliction methods are 
appropriately transitioned to the Afghan Government, which puts 
humanitarians at risk and could delay the delivery of lifesaving 
assistance to populations living in hard-to-reach areas.
  The time to address these challenges is now. I urge the Biden 
administration to continue to work through these pressing issues, and I 
call upon Congress to assist where we can. The consequences of inaction 
are too great to risk. We must rapidly increase the number of SIV 
visas, and we must, along with the administration, plan for all the 
contingencies that I have outlined.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

                          ____________________