[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)

                          ____________________