[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 129 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3807-H3817]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AVERTING LOSS OF LIFE AND INJURY BY EXPEDITING SIVS ACT OF 2021
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 535, I call up
the bill (H.R. 3985) to amend the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009
to expedite the special immigrant visa process for certain Afghan
allies, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Brown). Pursuant to House Resolution
535, the amendment printed in part C of House Report 117-95, is
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3985
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Averting Loss of Life and
Injury by Expediting SIVs Act of 2021'' or as the ``ALLIES
Act of 2021''.
SEC. 2. IMPROVING AFGHAN SPECIAL IMMIGRANT VISA PROGRAM.
(a) Evidence of Serious Threat.--Section 602(b)(2) of the
Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is
amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A)(iv), by striking ``has experienced
or is experiencing'' and inserting ``has asserted a credible
basis for concern about the possibility of'';
(2) by striking subparagraph (E); and
(3) by redesignating subparagraph (F) as subparagraph (E).
(b) Activities for United States Military Personnel
Stationed With International Security Assistance of Successor
Force.--Section 602(b)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(bb) of the Afghan Allies
Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by
striking ``sensitive and trusted''.
(c) Afghans Employed Subject to a Grant or Cooperative
Agreement.--Section 602(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) of the Afghan Allies
Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by
inserting after ``United States Government'' the following
``, including employment or other work in Afghanistan through
a cooperative agreement or grant funded by the United States
Government if the Secretary of State determines, based on a
recommendation from the Federal agency or organization
authorizing such funding, that such alien contributed to the
United States mission in Afghanistan''.
(d) Eliminating Duplicative Processing Requirements.--
Sectin 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8
U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)--
(A) in matter preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
State in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland
Security'' and inserting ``the Secretary of State''; and
(B) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``a petition for
classification under section 203(b)(4) of such Act (8 U.S.C.
1153(b)(4))'' and inserting ``a request for such status in
accordance with procedures established by the Secretary of
Homeland Security and Secretary of State''; and
(2) in paragraph (2)--
(A) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ``petition'' and
inserting ``request''; and
(B) in subparagraph (D)(i) by striking ``petition'' and
inserting ``request''.
(e) Strengthening Protection for Surviving Spouses and
Children.--Subparagraph (C) of section 602(b)(2) of the
Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is
amended to read as follows:
``(C) Surviving Spouse or Child.--An alien is described in
this subparagraph if--
``(i) the alien was the spouse or child of a principal
alien described in subparagraph (A) who had submitted a
request for classification pursuant to this section or a
petition pursuant to section 1059 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law 109-163; 8
U.S.C. 1101 note) which included the alien as an accompanying
spouse or child; and
``(ii) such request or petition--
``(I) if approved, was revoked (or otherwise rendered null)
due to the death of the principal alien; or
(II) if pending, is otherwise approvable but for the death
of the principal alien.''.
(f) Applicability.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to any requests for special immigration status,
applications for special immigrant visas, or applications for
adjustment of status under the Afghan Allies Protection Act
of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) that are pending on the date of
the enactment of this Act or filed on or after such date.
(g) Rule of Construction.--The amendments made by this
section shall not diminish, replace or override any vetting,
verification of employment, approval by chief of mission, or
any other screening process required for a special immigrant
visa under the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C.
1101 note).
SEC. 3. AFGHAN ALLIES PROTECTION ACT.
Section 602(b)(3) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of
2009 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(G) Subsequent fiscal years.--Beginning on the date of
the enactment of this subparagraph, in addition to any unused
balance under this paragraph, 8,000 principal aliens may be
granted special immigrant status under this subsection. For
purposes of status provided under this subparagraph the
authority to issue visas or adjust status shall commence on
the date of the enactment of this subparagraph and shall
terminate on the date such visa numbers are exhausted.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary, or their respective
designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. McClintock) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
insert extraneous material on H.R. 3985.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3985, the Averting Loss of Life and Injury by
Expediting SIVs Act of 2021, or the ALLIES Act, makes essential changes
to the Afghan special immigrant visa program to ensure that the lives
of those who served faithfully alongside American troops in Afghanistan
are protected.
The special immigrant visa program allows those individuals who
worked for or on behalf of the U.S. Government in Afghanistan, or for
the NATO International Security Assistance Force in support of the
American mission, to seek lawful permanent residence in the United
States.
To be eligible, applicants must establish qualifying employment in
Afghanistan for 2 years, receive approval from the Chief of Mission,
and undergo rigorous background checks and national security vetting, a
process that, on average, takes 3 years.
Our 20-year mission in Afghanistan will formally come to an end in
just a few short weeks. Each day that we continue to draw down our
military presence in Afghanistan, threats to the lives of Afghans who
supported our cause are increasing exponentially.
The Biden administration has committed to relocating certain
applicants
[[Page H3808]]
to a third country. Some who have passed the national security vetting
process will be transferred to the United States to complete visa
processing.
These evacuations, which are scheduled to begin at the end of this
month, are a critical component of our withdrawal strategy. But
evacuations alone are not enough. Congress must do our part to protect
those whose lives are at risk because of their support and service to
our Nation.
First and foremost, we must ensure that enough visas are available
for eligible applicants. H.R. 3985 increases the number of visas that
may be issued to qualifying Afghans by 8,000, which would ensure that
all qualified applicants who are currently undergoing processing can
immediately receive a visa if they are approved.
Second, we must streamline visa processing to the greatest extent
possible, without compromising national security or program integrity.
H.R. 3985 does this by reducing duplicative paperwork requirements
and modifying the requirement that applicants prove the existence of an
ongoing serious threat to their lives; to reflect the fact that Afghans
who worked in support of the U.S. mission now face an obvious threat as
a direct result of their work.
Third, the bill strengthens protections for certain groups of Afghan
nationals, including surviving spouses, and children of deceased
principal applicants, individuals employed by NATO in support of the
U.S. mission, and individuals whose work was funded by a U.S.
Government cooperative agreement or grant.
Collectively, these changes will ensure that no one whose lives are
at risk because of their support to the American mission are abandoned
or forced to wait for Congress to act to authorize more visas.
Mr. Speaker, I am a proud cosponsor of this important bill. I thank
Representative Crow for championing the cause of our Afghan allies and
working across the aisle to build consensus and support for this
legislation. We must keep our promises to these brave men and women.
Their lives depend on it.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 3985, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is the culmination of 20 years of policy
failures in Afghanistan, and it comes at the same time that our
southern border has been recklessly opened to the world. This measure's
only redeeming feature is that the alternative is even worse.
Let's begin with the debacle occurring on what, until January 20, was
our southern border; finally secured by President Trump's policies.
On his first day in office, President Biden reversed those policies.
He stopped the ``remain in Mexico'' protocols that required asylum
claimants to remain there while their claims could be adjudicated. He
stopped all construction on the nearly completed border wall, leaving
construction gaps that make it all but useless. And he ordered our
enforcement agencies not to faithfully execute the law.
The result is that over a million foreign nationals have illegally
entered our country this year, with a projection of 2 million by the
end of the year. Now, that is the entire population of Wyoming, Alaska,
and Vermont combined. And the Gallup organization warns that based on
its polling, there are 42 million people just in Latin America and the
Caribbean who intend to follow. And this occurs at the same time that
20 years of failed policy in Afghanistan is culminating.
The attack on September 11, 2001, was our generation's Pearl Harbor.
It was conducted by al-Qaida, which was acting as an agency of the
Taliban government of Afghanistan, which gave it support and
protection.
Now, the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress pledged the
entire resources of the country to the war and the President pledged to
win through to ``absolute victory.'' Days after the attack on New
York and Washington on September 11, Congress voted a tepid
Authorization for the Use of Military Force--whatever that is--and the
President told us to go shopping.
For 20 years, we dithered, twiddled, postured, hesitated. We attacked
Iraq, that had nothing to do with 9/11, and put a lot of brave troops
in harm's way without giving them the support that they needed and
without our leaders ever having a clear objective, much less any will
to win.
You know, it was from that very podium in this Chamber that General
Douglas MacArthur warned that in war there is no substitute for
victory. That is a lesson our leaders have failed to learn time and
again. So this debacle is now coming to its sad, shameful, and sorry
conclusion.
The Taliban again threatened to seize this ill-fated country,
imperiling the thousands of Afghans who assisted our troops in various
ways. To encourage their help, we passed the Afghan Allies Protection
Act of 2009, which created a special immigrant visa, or green card
program, for Afghan nationals who worked with the United States
Government for at least a year, and who face retribution from the
Taliban. This program also provides green cards to their spouses and
their children.
Now, during the 20 years that our troops have been in Afghanistan,
tens of thousands of Afghans have worked for or on behalf of the U.S.
Government in one capacity or another, and to date, over 15,500 green
cards have already been issued to the principal applicants. And then
additionally, for each principal applicant, an average of 3.5 green
cards have been issued to spouses and children. That is about 70,000
that we have already taken in. That is a city the size of Bowling
Green, Kentucky. But many more are still there.
So we have before us H.R. 3985, the ALLIES Act. It makes changes to
the Afghan special immigrant visa program to accommodate the
accelerated withdrawal that the President has ordered.
The emergency created by this order means that we will not be
adequately vetting arrivals under this program. Those already admitted
have had to meet eligibility requirements. They have had to undergo
security and background checks. If we had been able to develop this
legislation the old-fashioned way, through real face-to-face meetings
and good-faith discussions, I think we could have produced a process
that protected both the American people and the Afghan families who
sided with our government. But alas, that was not to be under this
majority.
Instead, H.R. 3985 authorizes 8,000 more green cards on top of the
10,000 authorized but still unclaimed. Now, given that 15,500 principal
green cards have been processed over the 20-year life of this program,
the odds of processing a like number in a matter of months is pretty
slim; unless, of course, the administration cuts processing and vetting
corners, which I think is a given.
H.R. 3985 also increases the eligibility pool for the Afghan special
immigration visa program in two ways.
First, it removes the requirement that Afghan nationals who worked
with the U.S. coalition forces must have performed ``sensitive and
trusted'' activities for U.S. personnel. This provision was added
several years ago with the understanding that there must be limits on
the number of people who come to the U.S., and in an attempt to ensure
that the limited number of green cards available actually go to those
Afghan nationals who are most in danger.
Now, we have asked the administration how many individuals may be
eligible once this language is removed from the statute. Their answer?
They don't know. And they don't care.
Second, this bill extends program eligibility to Afghans whose
employers received grant funding from the U.S. Government or were in
cooperative agreements with the U.S. Government and who ``contributed
to the United States mission in Afghanistan.''
Well, I am concerned that we do not know exactly what can be
considered as contributing to the United States mission in Afghanistan
or how many people to whom this could apply.
The bill also eliminates the requirement that an applicant has
experienced an ongoing, serious threat as a consequence of his or her
qualifying employment. This requirement is one of the main reasons for
the creation of the program; to help ensure the safety of those in
danger because of working with the U.S.
This means that among the worthy asylum seekers, we are likely to see
[[Page H3809]]
those without merit, or worse, those who seek to do our country harm,
because the vetting process is effectively abandoned by this bill. And
this comes at a time when the asylum process is being made a mockery by
thousands of meritless claims a day showing up on our southern border
and being admitted into our country.
I wish we could have had an honest and open discussion about the
wisdom of eliminating this requirement in committee. Unfortunately, the
Democrats chose to bypass the committee process. But with the American
withdrawal fast approaching, we are left with this deeply flawed bill
on the one hand, or the very real prospect of watching Afghan patriots
being hunted down and seeing them and their families hung by
construction cranes. So I will support this bill as the least bad
option that the Democrats have left us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0930
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Crow), the sponsor of this bill.
Mr. CROW. Mr. Speaker, the ALLIES Act is a chance for Congress to
ensure that America honors its promise to our Afghan partners and
friends.
The phrase ``life and death'' gets tossed around in this Chamber, but
this bill is truly that for thousands of our Afghan friends. The
Taliban is intent on hunting down and killing Afghans that served
alongside Americans for the past 20 years.
Some Members of this body, including me, may not be here today
without the service and sacrifice of Afghans who answered the call to
serve shoulder to shoulder with us. Those Afghans knew the risk that
their service posed to them and their families, yet they signed up to
help because they believed we would have their back.
They have already demonstrated unwavering courage and loyalty by
working alongside us. They have demonstrated their commitment to
America, and they have earned a path to safety.
The U.S. combat mission in Afghanistan will come to an end in a
matter of weeks. At the same time, the threat to our Afghan partners
who served alongside men and women is increasing drastically every
single day.
Simply put, we are running out of time. They are running out of time.
We must streamline the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa process and
increase the number of visas to match the pipeline of applicants. The
ALLIES Act does just that.
The ALLIES Act removes several administrative barriers to expedite
visa processing, and it makes these changes without weakening the
important security vetting of applicants. The bill allows family
members of deceased SIV applicants to continue through the process if
the applicant is killed before visa approval.
The bill clarifies that Afghans who worked to benefit the U.S.
mission under federally funded cooperative agreements and grants also
qualify for the program. This includes Afghans who performed critical
democracy, human rights, and governance work on behalf of the U.S.
Lastly, the ALLIES Act raises the visa cap by 8,000 visas to meet the
current number of applicants.
Before I close, let me thank the Honoring Our Promises Working Group,
a bipartisan group; the Biden administration; Leader Hoyer; and the
Judiciary Committee for their partnership in crafting this bill and
getting us to the vote today.
This is personal to any of us who served with the men and women who
will be saved by this bill. But it is also a moral and national
security issue for America.
It is a moral issue because the American handshake must matter. We
must be a country that honors our promises if we are to be a beacon of
hope and democracy for the world.
It is a national security issue because America is strong, not just
because we have aircraft carriers and fighters and bombers, but because
we have friends and allies. We don't go it alone. We face many threats,
and we will continue to in the future, and we will need friends to help
us face those threats. If we turn our back on the Afghans who served
with us for the last two decades, it is going to be awfully hard to
find future friends.
Mr. Speaker, this is our chance to do the right thing. I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting the ALLIES Act.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Waltz), a veteran of the Afghanistan war.
Mr. WALTZ. Mr. Speaker, for me, as well, this is a very personal
endeavor and a very personal bill.
Speaking as a combat veteran of the Afghan war, the Afghans
supporting our troops weren't just interpreters; they became our
brothers and our sisters on the battlefield. We depended on each other
for survival.
They fought with us; they bled with us; and in many cases, they died
with us, all for the dream of a better Afghanistan, for a safer world,
for prosperity for their families, and for ripping out the dangerous
and sick extremist ideology that has tormented their country, taken
their society backward, and threatened the United States of America.
Unfortunately, the Biden administration's reckless withdrawal is
allowing the Taliban to once again seize control of Afghanistan.
The urgency of the situation on the ground is not hyperbole. Just
yesterday, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said the Taliban appears to
have strategic momentum in their offensive, and I hope that this
Congress can continue supporting the Afghan security forces to help
them halt that advance and, in the wake of it, al-Qaida's and ISIS'
inevitable rise.
No one is safe from the Taliban reprisal. We have seen in recent
weeks the mass execution of surrendering Afghan security forces and the
Afghan interpreters who worked with our troops that are now at the top
of the Taliban's target list.
The United States made a commitment to our allies in this conflict,
and these individuals have lived up to their end of the bargain. Now,
we have an obligation to honor our promises to them.
According to the State Department, the average processing time for an
SIV applicant is over 700 days. This is unacceptable, given the
urgency.
I want to be clear. The legislation before us, which I strongly
support, does not diminish or circumvent the screening process. Trust
me, before these men and women were allowed to work with our units,
they were heavily vetted, and that is before this 700-day process that
they are now going through.
I support increasing the number of Special Immigrant Visas by 8,000.
I support streamlining this process. And if it comes to it, I support
taking care of the families of those who didn't make it back, like one
of my interpreters, who we called Spartacus, who was found with
American documentation on him and taken back to his village and
beheaded along with members of his family to send a message.
It is notable, Mr. Speaker, that, in 1975, then-Senator Biden did not
support the evacuation of our South Vietnamese allies. I hope now-
President Biden will erase that sin.
It is not just a moral obligation. It is a national security
obligation because when our soldiers have to go back to deal with a
rising al-Qaida, which I sadly predict they will have to, we will need
local allies once again.
We are sending a message right now by our conduct. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support this critical legislation and ask the Senate to
swiftly pass it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 23 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from California has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. As
has been mentioned, it makes key changes in the Afghan Allies
Protection Act to ensure that the Special Immigrant Visa program, which
is part of current law, works as Congress intended to protect the lives
of Afghan nationals who served honorably alongside U.S. troops in
Afghanistan.
For the past several years, many of us have expressed grave concerns
about the challenges our allies face in navigating the Special
Immigrant Visa process. It currently takes an average
[[Page H3810]]
of 3 years to complete the process, which includes numerous forms,
applications, detailed documentary requirements, and lengthy criminal
background and national security checks.
This bill makes important changes to streamline the application
without compromising the national security interests or the integrity
of the program.
Now, I think back to when we voted after 9/11, and I don't think any
of us--and I will speak for myself--believed that we were starting a
20-year war, the longest war in America's history. During that war,
Afghans stepped forward to serve beside our brave military.
I am proud that veterans in this Congress, both Republicans and
Democrats, have stepped forward to work together to make sure that this
bill moves forward so that we can honor our commitment.
Mr. Speaker, we are finally leaving Afghanistan after 20 years, our
longest war. We have a moral obligation to ensure that our allies can
safely and more quickly be removed from harm, so we need to stand by
these brave men and women and pass this bill. It is in the national
interest.
If we can't keep our promises to our allies, who is going to believe
us in the future?
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crow from Colorado, in
particular, for leading on this important legislation. I urge my
colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Jacobs).
Mr. JACOBS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3985,
the ALLIES Act.
For almost two decades, American troops have fought the war on terror
in Afghanistan. Over the course of the war, thousands of native Afghans
put their lives on the line to support our American servicemembers.
They served as translators, guides, contractors, and more. Their
support was critical to the safety of our servicemembers and the
success of our operations.
They showed true bravery and risked their lives in pursuit of an end
to the Taliban's regime and a free nation. Now, their decision to help
Americans is seen as traitorous by the Taliban, and many of these
Afghans and their families have been marked for death.
This danger has only been compounded by the Biden administration's
hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan. No plans were originally put in
place to help these individuals evacuate, and now, many face dire
consequences.
We have a moral imperative to support those who served alongside our
men and women in uniform and cannot leave them behind. While the
administration has announced plans to evacuate some of our Afghan
allies, they should not have been an afterthought.
I call on the administration to expeditiously process SIV applicants
and expand their efforts to get these individuals and their families
out of harm's way immediately.
In addition to those efforts, I am pleased the House is considering
this critical legislation today. It expands and amends the Special
Immigrant Visa program to better support our Afghan allies and their
families. These combined actions are the least we can do to help them
for their service to us.
Anyone who puts their life on the line to stand alongside American
servicemembers deserves not only our gratitude, but they deserve our
protection. That is why I am proud to vote in favor of the ALLIES Act
of 2021, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R.
3985, the ALLIES Act of 2021.
First, I thank the chairman for bringing this bill forward, and I
thank my friend, Mr. Crow, for sponsoring this bill.
Recently, I met with Combined Arms, a local organization that works
with veterans and SIV recipients in Houston. They shared their
harrowing stories of the sacrifices they and their families have made
and of their fear that they have of being put to death.
They also shared with me the times that they have been waiting to
receive their SIVs. In some cases, they have waited for 10 years. This
is unacceptable.
I call on my colleagues to support this legislation so we can protect
our allies and reform the system, but also to support the immediate
evacuation of our allies in Afghanistan to U.S. soil, where we can
ensure their safety.
We can't wait any longer. We need to act now. We need to evacuate all
18,000 allies with pending SIV applications and their immediate
families who are in danger.
Mr. Speaker, I met with a young man who is now safely in Houston, but
sadly, his father has already been murdered by the Taliban. At least
300, I am told, have already been murdered, just like his father, by
the Taliban. The more we delay, the more we put families at risk.
Mr. Speaker, we need to support this bill. We need to support an
immediate evacuation. And we need to make sure that our friends who
stood with us, that we now stand with them.
{time} 0945
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding.
I stand here alongside my colleagues in solidarity that we should be
standing with the Afghans who stood together with our men and women in
uniform. There is zero question that we should do that, and every
veteran that I represent in the Texas 21 District shares that, as we
have heard here on this floor.
I am supportive of that underlying principle, however, a self-
executing manager's amendment was included that I had concerns with. It
expands the program to include nonprofits and grantees, private
organizations, that contributed to the United States mission in
Afghanistan.
We don't know who would be included. We don't know how many people
would now be eligible.
It expands the program to individuals who worked for the
International Security Assistance Force without the need to perform
sensitive and trusted activities for the United States forces. These
people do not have to be Afghans, and we don't know how many people
this would be. It weakens the standard for qualification.
Under current law, an alien has to verify that they have experienced
or are experiencing an ongoing serious threat as a consequence of the
alien's employment by the United States Government.
The new standard is, has asserted a credible basis for concern about
the possibility of an ongoing or serious threat. A credible basis for
concern about the possibility of is concerningly low, lower than even
the credible fear standard of significant possibility we currently
employ.
The bill allows for another 8,000 principal aliens to be granted this
special immigrant status. We agree we want to try to help those
principal aliens. There are 10,000 currently unused. That would be
about the 18,000 number. Let's also remember that we have 3\1/2\ people
come in per person on average. We have had about 125 to 130,000 folks
come in. This would be about another 75 to 80,000. That does not
include dealing with the NGOs.
So we are now massively expanding this program, which means we are
going to be back down here at the well talking about new numbers and
more expansions based on nebulous standards with respect to NGOs and
private entities that aren't individuals who worked for the United
States Government directly alongside our men and women in uniform.
That is more than concerning, and it brings me back to my final
point: We have got to restore regular order in this body. We are not
amending this, we are not debating it in committee, and we did not have
a hearing on the specific manager's amendment that was added. It was
just added, put on the floor, and put under the title of something that
everyone supports, which means, Mr. Speaker, that you are put in the
position of figuring out whether you are going to support the
underlying matter while all these things are added to it which have
serious concerns we should have debated in committee and debated and
amended on the floor.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stanton).
Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the ALLIES Act.
I believe, as my colleagues have stated so eloquently, that we have a
moral
[[Page H3811]]
obligation and a duty to take care of those who protected and
safeguarded American troops in Afghanistan.
Future allies will look at how we treated those who put themselves in
harm's way: the thousands of interpreters and others who aided our
mission when they are asked to help us in other times of need.
There is one particular group I would like to call special attention
to: the Afghan Female Tactical Platoon. This small group of elite
Afghan women sought a better future for their country. They were
trained by our country's Special Forces and supported our special
operation missions during the war. They gathered essential intelligence
and helped protect the lives of innocent civilians and American troops.
We owe these brave women more than our gratitude. We owe them what they
gave us: loyalty and protection.
Because of their gender, they are marked for especially heinous
retaliation and punishment by the Taliban. Without our help they will
almost certainly be raped, sold into sex trafficking, tortured, or
executed all because they helped the American people.
I want to thank Representative Crow for his steadfast leadership on
this critically important issue, and I urge my colleagues to approve
this essential bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. McCaul), who is the ranking member of the House Foreign
Affairs Committee.
Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying: No man left behind; no
woman left behind. That is the commitment and that is a promise that we
made to the interpreters, to our Afghan partners, that we would not
leave them behind in the dust to be slaughtered by the Taliban. They
have a bull's-eye on their back. I have talked to them. I have talked
to our Special Forces whom they protected in this 20-year war. They
will be killed if we don't get them out of there.
Our Defense Department is on a fast track. That entire country--the
Taliban is on the offensive--is likely going to fall to the Taliban.
The decision to withdraw completely has been made, but we have to be
prepared for the aftermath. A refugee crisis and humanitarian crisis
will occur. The women in Afghanistan will be tortured and will not be
educated. We had a school of 200 women--girls--that were blown up.
Little girls were blown up. That, Mr. Speaker, is the Taliban. That
will be the same fate for our Afghan partners if we don't get them out
of there now.
They have 700 now coming to Fort Lee in Virginia. I urge the
administration to get the rest of them. There are 9,000 interpreters,
probably 20,000 total when it comes to our Afghan partners. I ask the
President to please get them out before they are killed by the Taliban.
Our ISR, or intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance,
capability is wiped out. The Bagram air base fell to the Afghans in a
very sloppy transition, and the Taliban is going to take that over,
too. Now we can't see what China, Russia, and Iran are doing. We can't
see what ISIS and al-Qaida are doing. We are going dark, Mr. Speaker,
because we can't see anything on the ground.
But I can tell you this: The moral obligation we have to save those
whom we promised we would protect has to be fulfilled, and that is
precisely what this bill does, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Judiciary Committee for bringing
this forward.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean).
Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nadler for offering me this
minute and a half, and I thank him for his leadership for bringing this
bill to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the ALLIES Act. This bill will save
lives and protect our allies. It will also honor our commitment to the
region. Thousands of Afghans have served as interpreters, drivers, and
guides to assist U.S. troops. Their service and commitment have been
consistent over the 20 years that now marks the longest U.S. war in
history.
The Afghan Special Immigrant Visa, or SIVs, allows people who worked
for or on behalf of the United States Government to seek lawful
permanent residence in the United States. But as we prepare to remove
our troops, the Taliban continues to target our friends. The ALLIES Act
of 2021 provides for an additional 8,000 SIVs to accommodate everyone
who currently could be an eligible candidate in the pipeline. We have
an opportunity and a moral obligation to save the lives of those who
served us.
As we draw down our military presence in Afghanistan, many who served
alongside our troops continue to face increased threats because of
their service to us. We must do the right thing by our brave allies.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Crow for his service and his
leadership on this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support the
bill.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Dunn).
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Speaker, I came to speak on this bill because it means
a lot to me. My war was Vietnam, and I remember the end of that war. I
remember the friends that we left behind, I remember the families that
were torn apart, and it still weighs on me.
Now I have a son who spent years in Afghanistan, and when he talks to
me, he does not talk about taxes or healthcare. He talks about the
people he left behind in Afghanistan and what we are doing for them. We
cannot do this again. We must not do this again. We have to rise and
bring back and repatriate all the people who were so important to us in
combat.
Mr. Speaker, I know you understand that. Please do not abandon
friends of America again.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to add my appreciation to
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in moving
this bill forward and certainly to our friend and one who has served
this Nation in many ways, Congressman Crow, for his continued
consideration of our friends in Afghanistan.
As the co-chair and founder of the Afghanistan Caucus, I have gone to
Afghanistan many, many times in the early years. I know the people in
Afghanistan truly love democracy. I know the women and children want
education, and I know that in the midst of our decision on the longest-
serving war, we must find that pathway to be able to ensure democracy
prevails, both in terms of the democratic leadership of government but
also in the lives of the people.
I hesitate to read this language: ``Gunfire erupts. At least a dozen
men are seen shot to death amid cries of `Allahu Akbar', God is great.
``The victims were members of an Afghan Special Forces unit: their
executioners, the Taliban. The summary killings took place on June 16
in the town of Dawlat Abad in Faryab Province, close to Afghanistan's
border with Turkmenistan.'' It is, of course, a difficult thing to read
and to understand.
But as we begin to write the democratic principles of a constitution
so many years ago--prior to this Nation going to Iraq--people were
interested and excited about their life. Women were elected as
parliamentarians. In fact, they prided themselves on a number of
parliamentarians who happened to be women.
In the instance of that leaving Afghanistan the first time, we found
that those women, many going to their districts, were killed. Schools
for children that girls were in, schools that I took books to, were
actually burned to the ground.
So those who stood by us, those who guided our troops, those who
translated for us, and those who took us into the villages--because
many of you know the stories of our soldiers going in with money. That
was the policy at that time--this bill specifically acknowledges their
leadership.
I include in the Record three articles referencing this important
issue.
[From Human Rights Watch, Apr. 1, 2021]
Afghanistan: Taliban Target Journalists, Women in Media
New York.--Taliban forces are deliberately targeting
journalists and other media workers, including women, in,
Human Rights Watch said today. Threats and attacks
[[Page H3812]]
against journalists across the country have increased sharply
since talks began between the Afghan government and the
Taliban, heightening concerns about preserving freedom of
expression and the media in any peace settlement.
Human Rights Watch found that Taliban commanders and
fighters have engaged in a pattern of threats, intimidation,
and violence against members of the media in areas where the
Taliban have significant influence, as well as in Kabul.
Those making the threats often have an intimate knowledge of
a journalist's work, family, and movements and use this
information to either compel them to self-censor, leave their
work altogether, or face violent consequences. Provincial and
district-level Taliban commanders and fighters also make oral
and written threats against journalists beyond the areas they
control. Journalists say that the widespread nature of the
threats has meant that no media workers feel safe.
``A wave of threats and killings has sent a chilling
message to the Afghan media at a precarious moment as Afghans
on all sides get set to negotiate free speech protections in
a future Afghanistan,'' said Patricia Gossman, associate Asia
director. ``By silencing critics through threats and
violence, the Taliban have undermined hopes for preserving an
open society in Afghanistan.''
Human Rights Watch interviewed 46 members of the Afghan
media between November 2020 and March 2021, seeking
information on the conditions under which they work,
including threats of physical harm. Those interviewed
included 42 journalists in Badghis, Ghazni, Ghor, Helmand,
Kabul, Kandahar, Khost, Wardak, and Zabul provinces and four
who had left Afghanistan due to threats.
In a number of cases that Human Rights Watch documented,
Taliban forces detained journalists for a few hours or
overnight. In several cases they or their colleagues were
able to contact senior Taliban officials to intercede with
provincial and district-level commanders to secure their
release, indicating that local commanders are able to take
decisions to target journalists on their own without approval
from senior Taliban military or political officials.
Taliban officials at their political office in Doha, Qatar,
have denied that their forces threaten the media and say that
they require only that journalists respect Islamic values.
But Taliban commanders throughout Afghanistan have threatened
journalists specifically for their reporting. The commanders
have considerable autonomy to carry out punishments,
including targeted killings.
Women journalists, especially those appearing on television
and radio, face particular threats. The recent wave of
violent attacks has driven several prominent women
journalists to give up their profession or leave Afghanistan
altogether. Female reporters may be targeted not only for
issues they cover but also for challenging perceived social
norms prohibiting women from being in a public role and
working outside the home.
Journalists outside the country's main cities are
especially vulnerable to attacks because they are more
exposed and lack even the minimal protection that a larger
Afghan media, government, and international presence
provides. However, as the fighting has increasingly
encroached on major cities, these have offered decreasing
protection to journalists seeking safety from the violence in
their home districts.
A journalist covering the fighting in Helmand province said
that one of his sources told him the Taliban were looking for
him and he should lie low. ``The majority of Afghan
journalists feel intimidated and threatened,'' he said. ``All
the journalists are scared because everyone feels like they
could be next.''
Residents of Taliban-held areas have long expressed fear of
retaliation if they complain about the way Taliban forces
carry out military operations or enforce restrictions. In a
June 2020 report, Human Rights Watch documented severe
restrictions in areas under Taliban control, including limits
on freedom of expression and the media.
The Taliban leadership should immediately cease
intimidation, threats, and attacks against journalists and
other media workers, Human Rights Watch said. They should
urgently provide clear, public directives to all Taliban
members to end all forms of violence against journalists and
other media workers, and intimidation, harassment, and
punishment of Afghans who have criticized Taliban policies.
The Taliban leadership should also explicitly reject violence
against women in the media.
The United Nations and governments supporting the Intra-
Afghan Negotiations should publicly press the Taliban
leadership to adopt these recommendations, and provide
increased support, including protection, to independent media
organizations and journalists in Afghanistan, especially
those facing threats.
``It's not enough for Taliban officials in Doha to issue
blanket denials that they're targeting journalists when
Taliban forces on the ground continue to intimidate, harass,
and attack reporters for doing their jobs,'' Gossman said.
``Countries supporting the peace process should press for
firm commitments from all parties to protect journalists,
including women, and uphold the right to free expression in
Afghanistan.''
Taliban Threats to Afghan Media
Although the Taliban routinely deny responsibility for
attacks on journalists, the Afghan Journalists Security
Committee (AJSC) has said:
Since the beginning of the spike in targeted killings in
early November [2020], supporters of the group [Taliban] have
welcomed the killings of journalists on social media, calling
these killings in many cases a religious duty. Taliban
supporters accuse journalists of being agents of Western
countries, and corrupted by Western values, thereby
legitimizing any violence against journalists and the media
as not only being permissible but a key part of their war.
Taliban Threats Related to Reporting on the War
Taliban commanders and fighters have long targeted the
media, accusing them of being aligned with the Afghan
government or international military forces. If journalists
report unfavorably about Taliban actions or military
operations, the Taliban often accuse them of being spies.
District and provincial-level Taliban commanders have also
criticized journalists for not reporting incidents such as
civilian casualties from government airstrikes. Journalists
have said that the role some of them play as influential and
prominent figures in many communities has made them targets
of the Taliban. By attacking them the Taliban effectively
threaten all local media. A journalist in Helmand said:
If the more prominent journalists are targeted first, the
other journalists, who might be less influential or
prominent, are automatically intimidated and fear for their
lives . . . . Pro-Taliban accounts on social media . . .
explicitly issue warnings to other journalists, along the
lines of ``learn something from the death of this
journalist''--you can be next.
The effect on Afghan media has been profound. The killings
and threats have generated fear among journalists and media
workers, many of whom have altered their work patterns in an
effort to mitigate the danger or try to be less visible.
Taliban pressure on the media is an apparent part of an
effort to shape public debate about the war at a time of
heightened political tensions surrounding the peace talks.
Local journalists said Taliban commanders and fighters call
them to complain about published reports, questioning why a
certain issue was covered in a certain way. A journalist in
Kandahar said:
The Taliban warned me about reporting on casualties related
to a suicide attack. They wanted me to say that a lot of
people got killed but I just reported the attacker dying . .
. The Taliban threatened a couple of journalists over the
last couple years for not reporting on assassinations. They
say, 'Why don't you report the actual number?' When we argue
with them that it is the correct number, they threaten us.
When one journalist reported a Taliban attack on a civilian
facility in Kandahar, he said that within minutes he received
death threats and other warnings on his phone. The Taliban
called him to say that they had not targeted civilians but a
nearby government checkpost. The journalist said that he
lives in fear that the Taliban might still come after him.
Other journalists in Kandahar have reported being followed by
Taliban fighters. Because of such confrontations, journalists
often self-censor their stories.
In Helmand, Taliban commanders targeted journalists who
reported on military operations during a Taliban offensive in
October. Taliban forces attacked the outskirts of Lashkargah
city, overrunning Afghan government checkpoints until US
airstrikes drove them back. In the months before he was
killed by an improvised explosive device (IED) on November
11, Elyas Dayee, a journalist, had received multiple threats
from Taliban commanders in Helmand, warning him to stop his
reporting on their military operations. Another reporter
covering the fighting said that the morning after his report
came out, a Taliban commander called and accused him of
publishing reports against the Islamic Emirates and warned
that he would face consequences.
The Nature of the Threats
In Taliban-controlled provinces, threats often come from
local commanders with knowledge of the journalist's family,
work habits, and movements. These commanders maintain
individual contact with journalists and editors, and usually
communicate these threats by phone or through social media.
A radio presenter in Zabul province said that he and his
colleagues routinely receive threats from the Taliban
accusing them of giving the government publicity. The callers
always know details about the journalists they call,
including their jobs, family members' names, and often their
addresses. One caller told him that he should either leave
the area or work for the Taliban. When he refused the caller
told him he should ``count down to his death.'' He said his
relatives also receive these threats and are told to
communicate them to him.
In Ghazni province, reporters say that they have been
threatened and intimidated by various groups and do not know
who is behind every attack. However, despite official denials
from the Taliban leadership, comments by Taliban commanders
and fighters on social media have led journalists to suspect
that the Taliban are responsible for many attacks. These
commanders generally have considerable autonomy to plan and
carry out military operations independently.
The Afghanistan Journalists Safety Committee said that in
Ghazni province, the
[[Page H3813]]
Taliban had instructed the majority of the local media
outlets that they would only be permitted to continue media
activities if they followed Taliban directives. Another
journalist in Ghazni said that the Taliban commanders in the
province object to any content that is negative or critical
about them. Journalists whose reporting is perceived as
favorable to the Afghan government may immediately become a
target. Leaving their jobs is often their only recourse.
On December 21, Rahmatullah Nekzad, head of the Ghazni
journalists' union, was fatally shot as he walked from his
home to a local mosque. Although the Taliban spokesman,
Zabihullah Mujahid, denied that the group was responsible for
the attack, Nekzad had been receiving threats from local
Taliban commanders since at least 2019. He said in early
December, that the Afghan National Directorate of Security
(NDS), the country's intelligence agency, informed him that
he and 15 other journalists in Ghazni were at risk of a
Taliban attack. He described the threats he received:
I use a social media account to upload daily news. Some
local Taliban called me to accuse me of running social media
pages that post anti-Taliban news . . . Their argument was
that every time you post something on your wall, these . . .
are also your accounts. They also threatened people who
commented on the post.
In another case in mid-December, Taliban forces stopped the
vehicle in which a local journalist was traveling. He called
a contact, who then contacted a Taliban official. As a result
of this intervention, the local Taliban released him. While
he was in their custody, the Taliban accused him of working
for the government's intelligence agency and for
``foreigners.''
Journalists have also been threatened for reporting on
Taliban abuses. A radio correspondent from Badghis province
said that after he and his colleagues broadcast a report
about the Taliban extorting payments from highway drivers,
the journalists began to receive threats:
In addition to the radio, we have a Facebook page where we
publish the news of the day. After I posted this story, one
of the comments read: ``The martyrs of the Islamic Emirate
will soon kill the employees of this media station.'' The
same message came in [Facebook] Messenger. Since then, we
report less news on Facebook now. Badghis's capital is a very
small city. Everyone knows each other and I have no doubt
that they also know the address of our office.
Another journalist from Badghis said that in November, as
he was traveling from Herat to Badghis province, Taliban
fighters stopped him and forced him out of his car. They
interrogated him about whether he had cooperated with
government security forces and threatened to kill him. He
said that his family was aware that he was on the road. He
was finally released after local and ethnic Taliban elders
who knew them mediated his release. ``I am still in fear and
. . . shock from this incident,'' he said. ``Now I publish
less news of the war. Whenever I go to a press conference, I
am fearful and cautious. I only cover news from the capital
now.''
Local Taliban fighters have assaulted journalists who have
traveled into Taliban-controlled districts. A journalist from
Wardak province said that a group of Taliban fighters stopped
and beat him and another reporter, accusing them of spying
and ``going around without the Taliban's permission to take
pictures, record videos, and talk to people.'' The
journalists showed their press identification but were not
released until after they called a contact, who then informed
senior Taliban officials, who ordered them released.
Threats also come in writing. A journalist in Ghazni said
that a letter was dropped by his house ordering him to meet
with the local Taliban because his reports were not
``neutral.'' It warned him that if he did not change, his
death was ``close.'' After the warning, he left his home
district and stayed in Kabul for a few months. Eventually he
returned home but avoided his office out of fear.
The Taliban also send cell phone text messages to comment
on media coverage, often chiding reporters that they should
have included the Taliban point of view. While criticism of
media reporting is not in itself problematic, when it comes
from an armed group with a history of killing journalists,
the messages are intimidating and create fear. ``Being a
journalist is something that can put your life in danger
without even doing anything specific to antagonize the
Taliban,'' one journalist in Ghazni said.
Journalists also receive threats when they share their
political views on social media. Taliban commanders also use
Facebook to issue threats. A journalist in Ghazni said that
shortly after he posted a government statement on a military
offensive that resulted in Taliban casualties, he received a
message from a Taliban commander demanding to speak with him:
He told me not to listen to what [government officials] say
and ordered me to come see him. I had to comply. He came with
his men in a Toyota vehicle. He threatened me and told me not
to post anything more on Facebook.
Another journalist in Ghazni had a similar experience after
using Facebook to post his report on the police killing a
suspected Taliban bomber. He received a call from a man who
said he was with the Taliban and asked him why he was
publishing inaccurate information. The man warned him that
they would watch out for what he published and that he should
not publish such reports anymore.
Local Taliban commanders issue warnings about radio and
television stations airing music programs, which they
consider prohibited, and blame journalists for this practice.
One journalist described the threats he received:
Whenever the Taliban hears about music on local radio
channels, they immediately start calling you, threatening to
kill you. They told me many times that they held court
sessions about me, proving that I am guilty of broadcasting
music. They threatened to kill me. I left this job because of
these threats.
The journalist said that local Taliban officials had also
told him not to broadcast election-related news because
elections were ``US-instigated.'' He said: ``I argued with
them for a couple of months that this is not my personal
choice but the station's editorial decision. Then the Taliban
asked for my boss' number and threatened him until he left.''
Another Ghazni reporter said he had received at least six
threats in which callers warned him of vague consequences if
he did not remove music or make other changes to the
programs.
Threatening to harm relatives is a common tactic to spread
fear. A journalist in Khost said that he received threatening
calls from unknown numbers, some accusing him of working for
Christians, others accusing him of being a foreign spy. Some
specifically warn him that they know his relatives and where
he lives:
I am terrified but cannot do anything about it . . . One of
my relatives said that I should leave [journalism] because he
is scared . . . I cannot carry on with my work. I cannot go
outside freely. A caller shared a lot of information about me
as proof that they have been watching me--he told me my name,
my father's name, where I work, and the address of my house .
. . after a few days, I got a message saying ``the path you
have chosen is not the right path, so you should move on from
it or else we will decide what to do with you.''
For the time being, the journalist has changed his phone
hoping to prevent further threats.
Taliban Threats to Women in the Media
The Afghan Journalists Safety Committee reported that 14
women working for media outlets in Afghanistan were
threatened or violently attacked in 2020. An increasing
number of Afghan women in journalism have left the profession
because of worsening security and threats, a trend that
emerged after 2015 and has accelerated.
The Islamic State of Khorasan Province (ISKP), an armed
group affiliated with the Islamic State (also known as ISIS),
took responsibility for killing four women journalists and
media workers, including Malala Maiwand, the first woman TV
presenter for Enikass News, on December 10, and the March 2
killings of Mursal Waheedi, Saadia Sadat, and Shahnaz Raufi,
who worked at Enikass News dubbing foreign language news
reports.
It is often not clear whether the ISKP, the Taliban, or
other groups are responsible for some threats and attacks
against women. In Ghazni province, the Taliban have
instructed media outlets that the hosts of entertainment
programs should not be women, and that no music should be
broadcasted.
Farahnaz Forotan, one of Afghanistan's best-known
journalists noted for her hard-hitting interviews on Tolo
News, left the country in November after hearing that she was
on a Taliban blacklist and would soon be killed.
She said that the Taliban:
do not accept free media, and, in many events, they had
rejected being interviewed by women. The reason they wanted
to kill me, was because as a woman I am not accepted
according to their values . . . The situation in Kabul is
very scary. I know four journalists in Kandahar who left
their jobs. The local media does not reflect it because they
cannot. They are being threatened and the government cannot
provide protection . . . Every morning I check messages to
make sure that everyone is safe. I live with fear--it is very
difficult to live with the fear of losing a loved one.
Another Kabul-based journalist had worked as a producer for
a television news outlet but left her job in mid-2020 after
receiving threats. She said:
The Taliban threatened me a couple of times on the phone,
and they told me to leave my job. I also found a letter from
the Taliban in a hole in our door. The letter repeated that I
must not work anymore for news agencies because this job
doesn't suit me morally. If you continue, then you have no
right to complain [about the consequences].
____
[From the New York Times, July 22, 2021]
U.S. Scrambles To Move Translators From Afghanistan While Leaving Many
in Limbo
An additional 4,000 Afghans who worked with American
forces, many of them interpreters, had been approved to
relocate to the United States with their families in light of
the withdrawal of U.S. troops, State Department officials
said on Wednesday.
But officials added that evacuations were only taking place
out of Kabul, the capital, and any eligible Afghans in remote
areas were on their own in figuring out how to make the
difficult, and likely dangerous,
[[Page H3814]]
journey if they wanted to take advantage of the offer.
``In order to come on an evacuation flight, they would have
to get themselves to Kabul,'' a senior official, who
requested anonymity in order to discuss the plan in detail,
said on a call with reporters. ``Obviously, we don't have
extensive U.S. military presence. We don't have the ability
to provide transportation for them.''
``If they're staying in the north of the country and they
don't feel safe staying in Afghanistan, they could go to a
neighboring country'' and finish their application process
there, the official added.
The United States also will not provide security to
applicants outside Kabul, many of whom are under direct
threat from the Taliban for cooperating with coalition forces
during the war.
With the American military in the final phases of
withdrawing from Afghanistan, the White House has come under
pressure to protect Afghan allies and speed up the process of
providing them with special immigrant visas, and President
Biden has vowed to do so. There have been about 20,000
applicants for the special visa program.
This month, 2,500 Afghans will be sent in stages to an Army
base in Fort Lee, Va., south of Richmond, where they will
wait roughly 10 days for final processing. The next 4,000
applicants, who need further approvals, will go with their
families to other countries to complete the visa process
before coming to the United States, the senior official said.
The official did not indicate which countries those
applicants would be sent to complete the visa process.
The House is expected to pass legislation this week
increasing the number of State Department special immigrant
visas and streamlining the application process.
____
[From Time Magazine, June 15, 2021]
We Must Help the Afghan Interpreters Who Helped Us
(By Florent Groberg)
Groberg received the Medal of Honor during combat
operations in Afghanistan, and is on the Advisory Board of
With Honor Action.
I lived by these words. That includes the day a suicide
bomber hit and killed four men in my patrol in Asadabad,
Afghanistan: Sergeant Major Kevin J. Griffin, Major Thomas E.
Kennedy, Major Walter D. Gray, and USAID Foreign Service
Officer Mr. Ragaei Abdelfattah. I think about them every day.
The blast knocked me out. I woke up as my medic strapped a
tourniquet to my leg and turned to my Afghan interpreter to
assist with bandages. Patrol after patrol, year after year,
for twenty years, our Afghan interpreters have stood by our
side in harm's way. Now we have a choice to stand by them.
Taliban militants and terrorists have long targeted our
interpreters, including their wives and children. By the time
the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan in September 2021, there
will be little defense left for these loyal allies.
Another one of my Afghan interpreters reached out to me
last week. He made it out of Afghanistan but his wife and
kids are trapped and targeted. ``The situation is getting
worse day by day in Afghanistan. I am worried for my wife and
kids,'' he wrote, ``Please help.''
More than 17,000 Afghans who worked with U.S. forces, not
to mention their family members, are still waiting for a
decision from the U.S. Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program.
The process is mired in a maddening bureaucracy. Many have
waited for years after going through security checks with
practically every U.S. government agency imaginable, often at
their own expense for health screenings and other
requirements. The situation has only become more dire of late
with the U.S. Embassy in Kabul halting visa applicant
interviews because of an escalating COVID-19 outbreak in
Afghanistan.
Every soldier I have spoken with who served in Afghanistan
supports granting asylum for loyal Afghan interpreters who
have taken all the necessary security steps and are seeking
this emergency asylum. Not only is granting asylum the right
thing to do, it also benefits the U.S. by accepting talented
and hardworking people, many of whom have already put it all
on the line for our country.
Members of the For Country Caucus in the U.S. House are
leading the charge, including Democratic Representatives
Jason Crow, Jared Golden, and Seth Moulton, and Republicans
Don Bacon, Adam Kinzinger, Peter Meijer, and Michael Waltz.
These veterans have formed a task force and called on the
White House, State Department, and Defense Department to
immediately create a plan that can be executed before the
final withdrawal of U.S. forces this September. Senator
Jeanne Shaheen and U.S. Army veterans Senator Joni Ernst and
Senator Jack Reed are forming a bipartisan coalition in the
Senate.
``My concern is very simple,'' Representative Crow said,
``And that is if we pull out and don't protect our Afghan
partners, many of them will be killed.''
Earlier this year, The Atlantic reported that Taliban
militants hunted down and killed ``Mohammad,'' an interpreter
who worked with U.S. forces for a decade and then spent
nearly another decade trying to get through the SIV process
with his wife and kids. Mohammad's family just learned they
finally have been approved for humanitarian parole. They are
scheduled to be resettled in Texas shortly. My hope is we
will hear many more stories of brave Afghan families,
including that of my own interpreter, who will be granted
asylum and can begin the next chapter of their lives in peace
and shared prosperity.
This will only happen if the U.S. steps up and protects the
interpreters and families under threat. Our history points us
to solutions. The Ford Administration evacuated over 130,000
Vietnamese to Guam at the end of the Vietnam War. The Clinton
Administration did the same for Iraqi Kurds during Saddam
Hussein's regime.
Whether through an emergency evacuation, an expedited SIV
process, an expansion of other refugee and humanitarian
programs, or a combination of all of these, the Biden
administration should urgently make a plan and execute it.
I am blessed to be a first-generation American and U.S.
Army veteran who served with patriots, some of whom made the
ultimate sacrifice. Our Afghan interpreters are patriots,
too. Now is the time to open our arms and stand by them,
their wives, and their children.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I support the Afghan Special Immigrant
Visa program, and I support its increased numbers. I ask my colleagues:
Don't stop here. Let's keep going. These are our friends, and democracy
must prevail.
Mr. Speaker, against the backdrop of a war that has demanded
sacrifice and summoned patriotism, I rise in unequivocal support of
H.R. 3985, ``The Allies Act of 2021,'' which honors the contributions
of our allies in Afghanistan by strengthening the Afghan Special
Immigration Visa (SIV) Program.
I wish to recognize my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
Colorado, Congressman Crow, who valiantly served three tours of duty in
Iraq and Afghanistan, for leading this bipartisan effort to uphold our
commitment to our partners in Afghanistan.
This piece of legislation, which I am proud to co-sponsor, comes as
we conclude a multigenerational war that has accomplished its principle
objectives: rendering justice to those responsible for 9/11 and making
sure that no attack on the homeland ever emerges from Afghanistan.
Over the course of achieving this mission, we found critical allies
and made invaluable friends, among them those who leveraged their
skills and knowledge to protect our troops from harm.
The Afghan Special Immigrant (SIV) Program, created in 2009 to
provide safety for Afghan interpreters, contractors, and security
personnel assisting U.S. efforts in the country, is more than a
program.
It is a promise--a promise to our allies that when they have our
back, we have theirs.
Specifically, the bill improves the SIV application process by:
amending the credible threat requirement;
aligning applicant standards;
clarifying eligibility for certain Afghans;
streamlining duplicative procedures, and,
increasing protections for surviving spouses.
Reports on the ground indicate those Afghan nationals who worked on
behalf of the U.S. Government face extreme danger.
Time is of the essence, and this bill removes our friends and allies
from the bureaucratic barriers of additional lengthy paperwork to
establish a credible threat, when we already know that such a threat
exists for individuals with verified ties to the U.S. government.
Additionally, to qualify for the Afghan SIV Program under the current
law, Afghan nationals who were employed by the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) or Resolute Support (RS) must have performed
``sensitive and trusted'' work.
This employment requirement was removed for U.S. Government employees
in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act, but it remains for
individuals employed under ISAF and RS.
All current applicants must also submit an I-360 petition to USCIS
after completing the State Department's Chief of Mission process.
This redundancy creates duplicative applications and introduces a gap
in the process that allows for fraudulent petitions, ultimately slowing
down the processing time for all applicants.
The Allies Act of 2021 aligns standards across all types of
employment and gives the Department of Homeland Security the
flexibility to not require I-360 petitions in cases where applicants
have already proven eligibility through the Chief of Mission Process.
By making standards uniform, clear, and nonduplicative for all
applicants, this bill streamlines application processing and ensures a
more efficient safety plan for all our allies.
The bill also expands the types of individuals eligible for the SIV.
In practice, the original Afghan SIV statute only includes Afghan
nationals who worked under U.S. government contracts.
Yet we received support from many Afghan nationals under
nongovernmental cooperative agreements and grants, including many key
contacts working on critical democracy, human
[[Page H3815]]
rights, and governance work to assist the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
This bill makes clear that Afghan nationals that worked under such
non-governmental agreements to advance the U.S. mission are eligible
for the Afghan SIV program.
In addition to previously excluded contractors, we must also
acknowledge the danger surviving spouses face and place them at the
front and center in our migration support efforts as well.
Currently, surviving spouses of deceased SIV applicants are not
allowed to continue through the process if the primary SIV applicant
died before visa approval.
The immediate families of our allies are also our allies and we must
remove this dangerous obstacle for them to reach safety.
The Allies Act of 2021 allows family members of deceased primary
applicants to continue through the process if their spouse had applied
for Chief of Mission approval.
We cannot leave our Afghan allies and their spouses vulnerable to the
imminent threat of revenge from the Taliban.
They simply are not safe at home and they need our help.
The adaptations and amendments that this act offers would facilitate
a path to safety and freedom for nearly 20,000 of on-the-ground
partners whose work made possible all our advancements in that country.
Madam Speaker, I urge us to act with compassion and honor our core
American value of promoting freedom for all, for it was our reverence
for this value that characterized our extended presence in Afghanistan
in the first place.
It is time for us to ensure the safety and lives of our friends and
allies in Afghanistan.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes).
Mr. HIMES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his
leadership and for the 2 minutes, which may be the most important 2
minutes I have had on the floor in a very, very long time, because what
we debate here today is not an ideological disagreement. It is not a
question of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, Mr. Speaker. It
is a fundamental question of who we are as a country and will we abide
by the values that not only make us successful in times of war, but
which distinguish us as a people and allow us to say that we are an
exceptional nation.
When our troops--troops like Jason Crow, the sponsor of this
legislation--go to engage in combat in foreign lands, they are armed
and equipped with the very best technology money can buy. But from the
human standpoint, from the all-important humanitarian and cultural
standpoint, they are blind and deaf. That is fixed by locals who risk
everything, not necessarily for the money, but because they believe in
who we are. This is the moment when we return the favor by saying: If
you stood with us, we will stand with you.
It is far from a national security perspective, because God help
those who go into a country if we don't take care of those who helped
us in Afghanistan. But, more importantly, it is about our values.
Mr. Speaker, you know very well that our military has at its core the
value that we leave no one behind. Now we decide whether we live by
that value or whether we take the cheap, the easy, the quick, and
ultimately, the dangerous way out. It is dangerous for the next
conflict we find ourselves in and dangerous because of what that will
tell the world about our commitment to loyalty and the values that make
us exceptional.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
{time} 1000
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that my colleague from Maryland, the
distinguished Anthony Brown, is presiding, having served in Iraq and
served in the U.S. Army for a 30-year stint.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, Representative Crow, for his
leadership on this issue and in offering this legislation.
Representative Crow, like Congressman Brown, is one of the Members of
this House from a new generation of service who wore the uniform of our
country in the post-9/11 conflicts.
These veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, like
Representative Crow, understand what we must do to support our friends
who stood with us, who risked their lives and the lives of their
families with their American partners.
The mission of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan over the past 20 years
has been clear, although very extended: destroy the terrorists who
attacked us on 9/11 and deny al-Qaida a safe haven from which to
threaten global security in our country. Today, Osama bin Laden is dead
and al-Qaida has been routed. Terrorism, however, has not gone away.
Our troops are now coming home. The fate of the Afghan people will
surely be determined by them, with our help, with us standing by.
America will continue to support the Afghan Government and its security
forces, but it is up to them to show the Taliban that there is no
military solution and that their resolve is evident by their defense of
their Nation.
As American personnel return from Afghanistan, that country's civil
war will continue, and we cannot leave our Afghan partners behind. We
talk about leaving no American behind. That is an absolutely essential
premise as we send our men and women into harm's way. Nor should we
leave behind any of those who facilitated our efforts, who stood with
us, who risked their own lives and put themselves in jeopardy.
No one has any illusions about what the Taliban would do if they had
their way and what they will do in those places they already control.
They will take it out, and they will, in fact, literally take out those
who stood with us and facilitated our efforts. There can be no doubt
the punishment they would inflict on Afghans who stood alongside the
United States and our allies.
We can only imagine the horrors that would befall their families in
retribution. This legislation recognizes that these Afghan allies have
earned safety in our country for themselves and for their loved ones.
It would expand the visa program and expedite processing to help ensure
there is a path to America for Afghans who worked side by side with our
troops, our diplomats, our development professionals, and our partner
forces in carrying out our missions there.
While President Biden is already taking executive action to bring
some of these allies here, legislation is needed to ensure that all of
them can make it safely out of harm's way. It should be said, of
course, that they will all be vetted to ensure that, in fact, they are
coming to the United States and will be consistent with the security of
our country and our people.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill today in a very bipartisan
way. This is not about Democrats. It is not about Republicans. It is
about an effort that Republican and Democratic administrations pursued
and received help in doing so. Each vote is not only an assent for this
sound policy, but a gesture of our deep appreciation for the service of
our allies.
Let this vote remind the world that our country's steadfast
foundation, our highest ideal remains our bonds of friendship, loyalty,
and trust. Let us remind our friends and foes alike that Americans keep
faith with our allies, and let us practice that in this body and at the
White House.
I ask my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike: Vote for this
bill. We can argue about differences of opinion on our effort in
Afghanistan, but when we do something, whether we argue one side or the
other, when we ask people to help us in that effort, help us, America,
our men and women in uniform in harm's way, when we ask those to help
us, it is important for us to keep the faith with those who do. Vote
``yes.''
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Meijer).
Mr. MEIJER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Allies Act. It is
our moral obligation to honor the promises we made to our Afghan allies
and ensure that those who risked their lives for the U.S. mission are
safely relocated, but it is patently clear that the Special Immigrant
Visa program, as it currently exists, is not up to the task. Staffing
shortages and bureaucratic hurdles have resulted in years-long delays
in the process and a backlog of over 18,000 applications.
[[Page H3816]]
The Allies Act will help speed up the process by streamlining
duplicative procedures and removing unnecessary requirements, while
maintaining the necessary security and vetting procedures. It also
expands eligibility for those who are unfairly left out of the program,
most critically, surviving spouses and children of applicants who died
or were killed by the Taliban before visa approval.
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged by the recent news of the plans to begin
evacuating some of these Afghan interpreters, but make no mistake,
there is much more to be done. We have a responsibility to ensure that
those who risked their lives serving alongside U.S. and coalition
forces are both swiftly evacuated and given a path to safety.
This bill is a significant step toward that goal and will help ensure
that America lives up to the promises made to those brave individuals
and their families. I am proud to support this bill, and I call on all
of my colleagues to do so today. I urge passage.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in
permitting me to speak on this bill.
I never served in theater, but I have worked on this issue for 14
years. We started with Senator John McCain and Senator Kennedy, and it
moved forward on a bipartisan basis, both the House and the Senate,
with the special immigrant visa. But, sadly, it always was too slow,
too bureaucratic, and there really wasn't the sense of urgency that was
necessary to make sure that the people who put their lives on the line
to help Americans in these difficult circumstances were dealt with.
Something has changed. First of all, President Biden has made an
extraordinarily difficult call that we are going to wind down that
presence of the United States in terms of military. It is a difficult
call. It was one that needed to be made because the circumstances were
not going to change. If it was 5 years, 10 years, it would just be more
billions of dollars and more lives; putting off the day of reckoning.
I admire the President for doing so, but I hope he brings that same
sense of urgency to deal with these people who we can't afford to leave
behind.
Another thing that has changed is the energy of new Members of
Congress who served in the theater; my colleague, Jason Crow. We just
heard from Peter Meijer. They have added a sense of urgency on a
bipartisan basis that has helped us craft this legislation, that will
solve the problems if we are willing to implement it in full force.
I call upon the administration to expedite the transition. I call on
all of us to continue to make sure that we provide the resources, the
attention, and the urgency to make the program successful. But make no
mistake, we have a lot of work to do to protect people who helped us.
Being a friend should not be fatal.
Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of this legislation as an important next
step and urge that we redouble our efforts to make it successful.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moulton).
Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, 51, that is how many days until our
official withdrawal from Afghanistan; 800, that is how many days it
takes to process a single special immigrant visa; 21,000, that is how
many of our Afghan allies put their lives on the line, not just for
their country, but for ours, who are at risk of being beaten, tortured,
beheaded, and slaughtered by the Taliban. And make no mistake, if they
can get their hands on our friends, that is what the Taliban will do.
So the math is clear. We are out of time. The stakes are clear. Our
reputation as a country, our ability to find allies in future
conflicts, the willingness of people all over the globe to work for
America because they trust us to uphold our own values, that is what is
on the line.
We have to pass the Allies Act. The administration needs to conduct a
full evacuation because we do not leave people behind. We are the
United States of America. Let's remind the world of that today.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a tragedy in so many ways; the loss of so many
of the best and brightest of our youth because of political and
military leaders who were willing to put them in harm's way but without
a commitment to victory and without the willingness to back them with
the full might of the United States.
For Afghanistan, it means the best and brightest of that country, the
very people who were willing to risk their futures for freedom are the
ones who are now being forced to flee, depriving Afghanistan of the
most patriotic citizens who could otherwise have formed the core of a
free government if we had finished the job we started.
It is to be greatly hoped that like the Iranian diaspora, they will
focus their energy from abroad to support the resistance movement that
is sure to emerge under the yoke of Taliban oppression. It is to be
greatly hoped that our Nation will finally return to a tradition that
served us well for nearly 200 years; that there is no substitute for
victory and no excuse for waging war without the absolute commitment to
swiftly win it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am heartened to see Members on both sides of the aisle
speak in support of this important bill. It is vital that we pass this
legislation and it is vital that we do so quickly. As we speak, nearly
20,000 of our Afghan allies are facing increasing threats from the
Taliban and insurgent groups. The administration will begin evacuating
some individuals at the end of this month.
As Members of Congress, we must also do our part to honor the
sacrifices made by these brave men and women and pass the Allies Act.
It is much too bad that we cannot do more, but this is the least that
we can do. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this bill, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, many Members here, including myself, have
traveled to Afghanistan for years to express our gratitude to our
heroic men and women in uniform serving there. We remain in awe of
their patriotism and courage.
And just as awe-inspiring are their partners on the ground: the local
Afghan interpreters, drivers, embassy staff, contractors, security
personnel and others who have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with the
American military and our diplomatic personnel.
These Afghan partners have been vital to the safety of American lives
and to the success of our mission. They accepted an extraordinary risk
to their lives and families, with the understanding that we would stand
by them.
And now, they are under attack--facing the threat of deadly
retribution from the Taliban.
Today, with the ALLIES Act, the U.S. Congress is honoring our
promises to these brave heroes: to respect their service and to not
leave them behind.
Thank you to Congressman Jason Crow--a former Army Ranger who served
our Nation in Afghanistan and Iraq.
He, with Congressman Seth Moulton and the entire bipartisan
``Honoring our Promises'' Working Group, has been firm, principled and
relentless in fighting for this legislation and other action to protect
our ``Afghan allies.''
Earlier this summer, with their leadership, the House proudly passed
the HOPE for Afghan SIVS Act, which took the first step in that
mission.
This group has also been instrumental in coordinating Congress's
response with the Biden-Harris Administration.
As President Biden has said, ``Those who helped us are not going to
be left behind.'' And with his action this week, evacuating Afghan
partners to Fort Lee as they await final processing, that promise is
being honored.
The Averting Loss of Life and Injury by Expediting SIVs Act will fix
the Afghan Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) process, created over a decade
ago to provide safety for Afghan interpreters, contractors, security
personnel and others who worked with the United States.
Sadly and unconscionably, the SIV process has long been plagued by
severe delays and backlogs, leaving many applicants waiting years for
their visas--and hundreds have been killed before receiving approval.
Currently, there are many thousands of applicants in the pipeline,
not including their spouses and children. This delay is not only
demoralizing--it is deadly, because of the imminent danger posed by
Taliban.
[[Page H3817]]
The ALLIES Act builds on the HOPE for Afghan SIVs Act, as it
increases the Afghan SIV cap, streamlines the application process and
strengthens protections for surviving spouses and children, among other
important steps.
And it does this without compromising the strict background check and
national security vetting procedures or other processes to confirm
eligibility.
The threat facing our ``Afghan allies,'' as the national security and
defense community calls them, cannot be overstated.
According to the nonprofit organization No One Left Behind, more than
300 translators and their family members have been killed since 2014.
Many died while waiting for their visas to be processed.
Over 90 percent of the hundreds of Afghan partners report having
received at least one death threat because of their work with
Americans.
One Afghan partner, who has been waiting six years for a visa
decision, worries, ``If the Taliban take over, they'll easily find me
and kill me. Then my wife will have no husband and my daughter will
have no father.''
Another says, ``I get phone calls from the Taliban saying, `We will
kill you.' They know who I am and that I worked for the Americans. If
they find me, they'll torture me and then kill me. It's better if I
just kill myself first.''
These courageous allies cannot wait a day longer.
As the United States prepares for and executes the strategic and
important withdrawal from Afghanistan, we must do so in a way that
protects those who protected us.
With that, I urge a strong and bipartisan vote for our ``Afghan
allies.''
=========================== NOTE ===========================
July 22, 2021, on pages H3816-H3817, the statement by Ms. Pelosi
was inadvertently placed just before Roll No. 218.
The online version has been corrected to read: . . . and I yield
back the balance of my time. Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, many Members
. . . -- vote for our ``Afghan allies.'' The SPEAKER pro tempore.
All time for debate has expired.
========================= END NOTE =========================
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 535, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 407,
nays 16, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 218]
YEAS--407
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Auchincloss
Axne
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bentz
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bice (OK)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NC)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brown
Brownley
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Calvert
Cammack
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carl
Carson
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Clyde
Cohen
Cole
Comer
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donalds
Dunn
Emmer
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel, Lois
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Golden
Gomez
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gooden (TX)
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hayes
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Hill
Himes
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jacobs (NY)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kahele
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Keller
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (CA)
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
LaTurner
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Lesko
Letlow
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luria
Mace
Malinowski
Malliotakis
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mann
Manning
Mast
Matsui
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meeks
Meijer
Meng
Meuser
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (UT)
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nehls
Newhouse
Newman
Norcross
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Obernolte
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Pfluger
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Ross
Rouzer
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Salazar
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spartz
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Young
Zeldin
NAYS--16
Biggs
Boebert
Brooks
DesJarlais
Duncan
Good (VA)
Gosar
Greene (GA)
Hern
Hice (GA)
Massie
Moore (AL)
Perry
Posey
Rosendale
Roy
NOT VOTING--7
Babin
Carter (GA)
Cleaver
DeGette
Doyle, Michael F.
Higgins (LA)
Lynch
{time} 1047
Mr. DesJARLAIS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. MURPHY of North Carolina changed his vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 218.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, on July 22, 2021, I was unable to be
present to cast my vote on the Averting Loss of Life and Injury by
Expediting SIVs Act of 2021 or the Allies Act (H.R. 3985) I wish the
record to reflect that had I been present for rollcall No. 218, I would
have voted ``AYE.''
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Amodei (Balderson)
Boebert (Gosar)
Buchanan (LaHood)
Comer (Arrington)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Simpson)
Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
Granger (Calvert)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Jones (Williams (GA))
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Lawrence (Beatty)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Wexton)
Reschenthaler (Van Drew)
Ruiz (Correa)
Rush (Underwood)
Salazar (Cammack)
Stewart (Moore (UT))
Titus (Connolly)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________