Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 1104, a bill to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants. The bill improves upon an earlier effort made by Congress to address this matter. The intent that underwrites this bill is a noble one, and the improvements it makes to current law are needed. I am concerned, however, by the limited scope of the authorities provided by the bill before us and that is under consideration.

Section 1059 of P.L. 109-163 allows for 50 Iraqi and Afghan translators or interpreters who work in support of United States Armed Forces in those countries to petition the United States Government and be approved for entry into the United States under special immigrant status. The opportunity to immigrate to the United States has proved to be very popular among translators who work with the United States Armed Forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These individuals are generally the targets of incidences of violence or threats of violence from certain individuals or groups due to their close association with the United States Armed Forces. Reportedly, there is a six year waiting list for the 50 slots authorized by Section 1059 of P.L. 109-163. Unfortunately, Section 1059 of P.L. 109-163 did not provide similar opportunities for translators and interpreters who work with civilian departments and agencies in Iraq and Afghanistan who, like their colleagues who serve alongside the United States Armed Forces, are subject to incidences of violence or threats of violence from insurgents, militias, criminals, and terrorists operating in those countries. S. 1104, the legislation before us today, would expand existing law to authorize 500 special immigrant visas annually for the next two years, and expand eligibility for the visas to include both translators and interpreters working for the Chief of Mission or the United States Armed Forces in Iraq or Afghanistan.

This bill would make useful and important changes to current law. The House Committee on the Judiciary notes in House Report 110-158 that accompanies S. 1104, ``that there are potentially dire consequences in delay'' of this legislation and that ``the Committee chose to consider the Senate-passed legislation in the interest of expediting its enactment.'' I commend my colleague from Michigan and the Chairman of the House of Representatives' Committee on the Judiciary (Mr. Conyers), my colleague from Texas and the Committee's Ranking Member (Mr. Smith), and the members of the Committee for their prompt work toward reporting this legislation for consideration by the full House. Simply put, their efforts on this bill in Committee, and our favorable consideration of this bill on the floor, will directly result in the saving of the lives of some incredibly brave individuals.

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

While this bill represents progress in this regard, it alone will not completely fulfill this moral obligation.

The Committee notes in House Report 110-158 that, ``[i]n approving this bill for expedited consideration, the Committee acknowledges the issues that are left unaddressed.'' The Committee, in its report accompanying this legislation, comments that, ``[t]here appears to be little reason to limit this relief to those serving with our Missions in Iraq and Afghanistan as a translator or interpreter. Iraqis and Afghans are serving in many different functions in aid of our Missions there, and as their lives come under threat as a result, they would seem similarly deserving of our help in delivering them from harm's way.'' House Report 110-158, furthermore, notes that, ``[t]here is also the question of whether these would-be refugees should be granted access to refugee assistance programs promptly once they arrive in the United States.'' I fully understand and recognize that this is a complicated issue. But it is my hope that comprehensive Iraqi and Afghan refugee legislation can be considered and agreed to by this body in the near future.

I would hope that such comprehensive Iraq and Afghan refugee legislation, at a minimum, would provide the authority for at-risk Iraqi and Afghan individuals and their family members--who serve in any capacity--alongside, in support of, or in close coordination with United States or Coalition military and civilian personnel--to be eligible to petition the United States Government and be approved for entry into the United States under special immigrant status. Specifically, I would hope that such comprehensive refugee legislation would, at a minimum, provide petition authority and approval eligibility for at-risk Iraqis and Afghans who are direct hires of United States Government or Coalition country departments, agencies, and military services; Iraqis and Afghans who work as contractors for, or in support of, United States Government or Coalition country departments, agencies, and military services; Iraqi and Afghan public sector employees or elected members of government who work alongside, or who are closely or commonly associated with, United States and Coalition country military and civilian personnel; and Iraqi and Afghan business owners and operators and laborers who have performed work on construction, service, or other contacts financed by United States Government or Coalition government funds.

Success achieved by United States and Coalition military and civilian personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan to date can be, in part, attributed to the efforts of the local nationals in those countries. Those Iraqis and Afghans, for the most part, believe in democratic, peaceful and prosperous futures for their countries and their families. That is why they choose to stand for election to public office, why they serve alongside United States and Coalition personnel, whether as translators, cultural advisors, or the myriad other roles that these brave individuals perform in support of our missions in those countries, and why they perform work on reconstruction projects financed by the United States Government and the governments of Coalition countries. By doing so, however, they and their family members are exposed to extreme risks.

Here in Washington, DC it is all too easy for us to distinguish between the roles and responsibilities of Iraqis or Afghans who are direct hires of the United States Government and the governments of Coalition countries, Iraqis and Afghans who work on contract in support of United States and Coalition personnel, and Iraqis and Afghans who are employees of their governments. Each has a distinct role and relationship with the United States and Coalition governments and the missions pursued by their personnel. But these distinctions are not similarly considered by insurgents, militias, criminals, and terrorists who wish to do these individuals harm. That is, the enemy does not first review their employment situations and statuses of Iraqis and Afghans, draw distinctions, and then issue threats or conduct acts of intimidation or violence accordingly. The enemy kills, kidnaps, and intimidates ``enablers'' without discrimination. The Iraqis and Afghans who work alongside our personnel know this reality all too well. Comprehensive legislation to address this issue should, to the best of our ability, not draw distinctions or discriminate either.

S. 1104, as noted by the Committee in its report to accompany this bill, is not a comprehensive response to the problem before our country with respect to Iraqis and Afghans who are at-risk of violence and intimidation as a result of their association with United States and Coalition country departments, agencies, and military services' operating in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I recognize the urgency of enacting the limited reforms to current law contained in the language of this bill; and, therefore, I support its passage. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bill and to continue to work in support of comprehensive refugee legislation with respect to the service of Iraqi and Afghan nationals.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1104) to increase the number of Iraqi and Afghani translators and interpreters who may be admitted to the United States as special immigrants, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Translators and interpreters have been crucial to our efforts in Iraq, serving as a critical link between our troops and the Iraqi population. Because of their work for U.S. forces, many of these people have risked their lives and the lives of their families to assist our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now they are under serious threat. These translators and interpreters who

serve bravely alongside our troops need our immediate assistance. Singled out as collaborators, many are now targets by death squads, militias and al Qaeda.

In Mosul, insurgents recorded and circulated the brutal execution of two interpreters, a stark warning to others who have assisted U.S. forces in the country. U.S. soldiers and embassy employees who have attempted to help their interpreters flee from violence have had to stand by hopelessly as their Iraqi colleagues went into hiding. Often leaving their families behind simply in order to survive.

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry came to me with the idea, and I agreed, and we introduced broad, far-reaching legislation on this issue. We are taking up the bill before us today because the Senate already passed this by unanimous consent, and the urgency of the situation requires us to act now.

This legislation will help quickly address this crisis by authorizing up to 500 special visas for Iraqis and Afghanis who put their lives at risk by working with the U.S. military and the U.S. embassy in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We all realize this is not a partisan issue, and I am pleased to have worked with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee on helping to get this bill before us today. The original special visa legislation included in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act has proved wholly inadequate, authorizing only 50 visas a year, creating a backlog estimated to take 9 years to clear at the current rate.

As of last week, nearly 500 Iraqis and Afghanis have gone through the requisite background checks and have been approved for the visa. Because of the backlog, they are stuck in limbo waiting for a visa that may never come. These people need us to act. The Senate passed this legislation over a month ago, and the administration is supportive of taking this action.

Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs recently said, ``We are committed to honoring our moral debt to those Iraqis who have provided assistance to the U.S. military and embassy.'' Clearly, we owe these people a debt of gratitude. They have risked everything to help us out in Iraq and Afghanistan and the least we can do is help deliver them out of harm's way.

But I tell my colleagues, the magnitude of the broader refugee crisis in Iraq far exceeds anything this bill attempts to resolve. We need to address the wider refugee issue, which has forced over 4 million Iraqis from their homes.

The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) has legislation on this subject, and I think will be speaking to that broader issue. No one should take our efforts to do this now as a notion that that satisfies our obligation on something that we played a part in, creating the situation that led to this.

Let me just add, I see this as an emergency effort. It can't be the last word on this matter. We must do something to deal with the larger refugee issue in Iraq, as I said, and it's very possible that the visas we are discussing in this bill will prove inadequate for this need. Still, I think we need to act now so that the visas are available.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friend from Iowa makes interesting arguments, but to some extent undermines those arguments. He says rule of law is important, and, therefore, the committee should have accepted an amendment in the committee to make illegal what folks in our embassies and in our missions did, thereby undermining the argument that in any way there was any law violated.

There was no law against expending funds to process these visas. There were no promises made to Iraqi interpreters and translators they would be guaranteed a visa. But when our folks in the field see a situation developing where the people who have allowed them to do their job, at great risk for their life and limb, are in desperate need for them and their families to essentially be appreciated and rewarded for that life-threatening effort, and they tell their folks that they work for in the Defense Department and in the State Department and the folks in Congress who are dealing with these issues that we need to do something about them, and we respond, that doesn't constitute a promise that no one had authority to make, a violation of the rule or law.

And, by definition, I understand, and we have had many discussions on our immigration issues; in fact, the gentleman and I are both here now rather than at a hearing on the immigration issue. I understand the gentleman has a definition of amnesty which is wider than mine, but I never realized how much wider it was, that a bill that adds to the number of visas that can be given, after background checks and going through the regular process to ensure the security interests that we have before we issue a visa, that a bill that would increase the number of visas for these people who have put themselves in harm's way on behalf of the United States is an amnesty law. This takes that very expansive definition the gentleman has and I think expands it even further.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time. I certainly don't know that that is true, and I would be stunned if it were. I would be stunned if our dedicated employees in a very difficult foreign mission or in the military were out promising things they couldn't deliver. I don't think our folks operate like that. I think they were processing applications in case and in the event that we increased the number of visas because the demand was so urgent. The gentleman from Oregon talked about 4 million refugees. We are talking about an infinitesimal subset that worked for us in our campaign efforts in Iraq.

Let me reclaim my time just to respond to that. We have a law that gives 50 visas a year, but the next year it gives 50 more and then 50 more. Is the gentleman suggesting that we should not process any more than the first 50?

There are people who would be allowed the next year and the year after. Why wouldn't you give these visas to the people who were first in line? I know the gentleman loves the sanctity of the line. Give these to the people who are first in line. Why wouldn't we process applications of people who weren't going to get visas that year but the next year? Why 5 years later would you take somebody who hasn't been waiting in line for 5 years and approve their visas?

Reclaiming my time. And at this point I think maybe we should end the debate. But no part of Mr. Fortenberry's or my motivations for introducing the bill, and I wouldn't speculate on the Senate's motivations, but no part of our motivation was to take the administration out of an embarrassing place where they have been making promises that couldn't be kept.

We thought that justice, fairness, American tradition, and the risks that these people have taken to help our Armed Forces and our diplomats in one of the most difficult, hazardous situations in the world gave them a claim that we should respond to, not a promise made by somebody that we are forced to keep. We wanted them to have these visas. We weren't responding to pressure to take the administration and their people in Baghdad out of an embarrassing situation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me in a gracious fashion, and I think there is another viewpoint that this Congress should be considering before we bring this to a vote on this suspension bill.

I start out with I believe there are two things wrong with this legislation that is before us here on the floor. The first one is current law limits the numbers to 50 interpreters who could be brought in legally, and we have a great big problem understanding the rule of law here in America.

Now, I haven't received satisfactory answers from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the State Department on how it is that, with a statutory limit of 50, and it says no more than 50, how was it that USCIS processed nearly 500 applications on an annual basis; and how was it that the State Department was poised to grant, but prohibited by law from granting, these visas for the interpreters from Iraq?

Now, I join my colleagues in praising and celebrating the brave service to our coalition personnel by the interpreters that have done such a good job in saving probably dozens or hundreds of American lives over there. In fact, I have a personal friend who served as an interpreter, and he carries a scar on his wrist from one of Saddam's henchmen who attacked him for being lined up with our side of this argument. I understand from a very personal basis what kind of risk is there and how their lives are at risk, but I would point out that we have such a thing as the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, current law said 50. I offered an amendment, and that amendment would have limited the amount of applications that could be processed by USCIS to the statutory limit. It wasn't because I think 50 is the right number, and I don't take a position on whether I think 500 is the right number, but it was because I believe the rule of law is sacrosanct. And if we are going to allow USCIS process up to 500 applications, and then come here to this Congress and say, well, gee, we must have been wrong because we have 500 applicants, not 50; or, we have no choice because it is implicit that we have promised these people that we are going to grant them the visas, how did we make a promise that exceeded Federal law? And what do we do if there are 2,500 the next time the USCIS processes? How do we adhere to the rule of law if we react to people who stretch the limits? The people within USCIS, who I actually don't blame at this point, but we are here trying to keep our word. At the same time, we are ignoring the rule of law.

Those two things don't sit very well with me. That is the number one issue.

And the next issue is something I do think we need to think about, and that is the tactical side of this. This results in not 1,000 new interpreters, but 900, because 500 was the annual limit. So it is 900 over a 2-year period of time. So that is 900 fewer interpreters to save more lives of American and coalition forces. Tactically we need to consider that. We need to understand that someone needs to be there to rebuild Iraq, someone needs to be there to defend Iraq. If 25,000 go to Sweden, that is another 25,000 of some of the finest citizens that will not be there to put Iraq back together.

Our job isn't to bring everybody here to save their livelihood here in the United States. We need to export our way of life; we need to encourage the Iraqis to rebuild their country. This depletes the resources.

But that is only, Mr. Speaker, my secondary argument. My primary argument is the rule of law. The rule of law should be sacrosanct and shouldn't be violated. And if we are going to pass this legislation, we should have adopted my amendment that limited the applications that USCIS can process to the statutory limit. If we did that, then I would have some confidence that we are going to adhere to the rule of law. As it is, I do not believe we will do that, and I think this turns out to be not probably the last, but the first amnesty bill that might pass off the floor of the 110th Congress. And if we don't have any more respect for the rule of law than we are showing here, then we are reacting to our own bureaucrats that, I will submit, that it is going to be difficult for us to adhere to the rule of law when it is 12 million or 20 million as opposed to 400 or 500 or 900 people.

I think that makes my point, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from

Florida for his consideration and the time to make my case.

I thank the gentleman, and I ask him for that privilege because I know he is a reasonable individual and very thoughtful on the immigration policy. But I am under the understanding that we are here changing the law almost after the fact to comply with the limitation that has been exceeded in its anticipation by the people who were promised that they would have an opportunity to get a visa if they served the United States in that capacity as interpreters.

Isn't that true?

And I thank the gentleman. But for a point of clarity, we are here. We are amending current law because we essentially have a promise we can't keep without amending current law. And that fits within a definition of amnesty, to amend current law, because if we enforce current law, there will be some people that will be penalized by that. And I don't take so much issue on this as I do the law.

If the gentleman would yield, I would submit that Congress needs to set the number. And for USCIS to process the applications beyond the statutory number is a waste of resources. But if we believe that we should raise that number, then we should come back and grant that authority to do so.

I see us as reacting to promises that were made that went beyond the limitations of the statute. That is why we have to change the statute today. That could preserve the rule of law and still preserve the numbers that the gentleman is proposing.

Mr. President, yesterday's Washington Post included details from a memo by our Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, in which he makes a strong case that we need to do more to make it possible for Iraqis employed by our government to come to the United States.

Ambasador Crocker emphasizes the growing danger facing these Iraqis, who as he states ``work under extremely difficult conditions, and are targets for violence including murder and kidnapping.'' According to the article, Ambassador Crocker has called for establishment of an immigrant visa program for these Iraqi employees.

In fact, Senators Smith, Biden, Hagel, Lieberman, Leahy, Levin, and I have introduced legislation which establishes a program to do precisely what Ambassador Crocker calls for.

Our legislation establishes an immigrant visa program for Iraqis who have worked for or directly with the United States government for at least 1 year. Our Government now provides such special immigrant visas but only for Iraqi and Afghan translators and interpreters. Our bill expands it to include Iraqis in other professions who have been employed by us or who have worked directly with us.

In addition, our legislation creates additional options for Iraqis who are under threat because of their close association with the United States to apply to our refugee resettlement program.

The Senate is obviously divided on the best overall policy to pursue on the war. I thought it was a mistake from the beginning. That is no secret. Some of our colleagues are convinced that continuing the use of military force in Iraq is necessary to protect our national security.

But our divisions on that issue should not obscure the fact that all of

us on both sides of the aisle agree that America owes an immense debt of gratitude to these Iraqis, and we have a special responsibility to help them. They have supported our effort, saved American lives, and are clearly at great risk because of it.

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, recognized this obligation and called for action in a June 12 article in ``The Hill.'' He recalled a Vietnamese friend who did not make it out of Vietnam when the U.S. left, and said, ``There are in Iraq today untold numbers of people like my Vietnamese friend who rushed to our aid when we arrived and have worked with us since. If we abandon them, they may not be so lucky.''

Similarly, in a June 24 op-ed in the Washington Post, Julia Taft called for swift action to assist Iraqis whose lives are in danger because of their work with our government. Ms. Taft served as director of the Interagency Task Force for Indochinese Refugee Resettlement in the Ford Administration and was later Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees and Migration. She wrote about an Iraqi couple working for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad who had been kidnapped and executed.

She said:

They are among the most recent of thousands of cases in

which Iraqis affiliated with the United States have been

forced into hiding, tortured or, often, killed . . . I found

myself thinking of this husband and wife last week . . . and

struggling with a terrible contradiction. The United States

is the world's most generous contributor to refugee relief,

and we have always taken the lead on resettling refugees. Yet

our country has done the bare minimum to help these Iraqis

facing death and exile.

In her call for action, Taft said, ``The administration and Congress cannot waste any more time. Their lack of political will has cost too many people their lives. . . .''

In a July 19 op-ed in USA Today, Michael Medved, a conservative Republican who supports the ongoing war effort, and Lanny J. Davis, a liberal Democrat who supports the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, called for swift and bold action to help Iraqi refugees.

They wrote:

One issue should bring together all factions of the ongoing

debate, and that is America's moral obligation to open our

doors--immediately--to Iraqis who face danger and death

because of their assistance to our forces.

They specifically called for action on our legislation, saying:

Last month, a bipartisan group of senators, including

Kennedy, who is anti-war, and Lieberman, who supports the

war, introduced legislation that would provide special

refugee status for Iraqis who are in danger because of their

association with the United States or its contractors. This

legislation, or something like it, needs strong support from

the administration as well as from citizens across

ideological and partisan lines. . . . days, even hours, could

mean the difference between life and death for people who did

nothing wrong other than help Americans.

Many Iraqis have been working with our Armed Forces, our diplomatic mission, and our reconstruction teams in Iraq and have performed valiantly, and their lives are at risk. Many have lost their lives and many more have lost their homes, their property, and their livelihood. For some, it will be too dangerous to ever return home.

America has a special obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis who now have a bulls-eye on their back because of their association with our Government.

Our bipartisan legislation will establish the kind of process that Ambassador Crocker, David Keene, Julia Taft, Roy Medved, Lanny Davis, and many others have called for to help these Iraqis who have sacrificed so much for the United States. I ask unanimous consent that the Washington Post article and other articles I have mentioned be printed in the Record.

I urge my colleagues to support our legislation, S. 1651, to keep the faith with the many brave Iraqis whose lives are in great danger because they have the courage to work with the United States.

I appreciate your courtesy in permitting me time to speak on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of S. 1104 for all the reasons that have been articulated by my friend from California and my friend from Florida.

Iraq today is the scene of the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world. It rivals only the problems that are being faced in Darfur.

As has been pointed out for one group in Iraq, our moral responsibility is unquestionable to Iraqis whose lives are at risk because they helped the United States. Having cooperated with the United States military, the United Nations, or even a nongovernmental organization, can literally mean a death sentence at the hands of any of the many sides of this civil war. This bill is an important first step, expanding the current limit of the 50 special translator visas to 500.

I became acutely aware of the magnitude of this problem working with a local high school in Portland, Oregon, who were partnering with the members of the Oregon National Guard who had served in Iraq and recently returned, who were trying to bring their former translator to the United States, literally to save this young woman's life. But they kept running into bureaucratic hurdles. It took us months to, thankfully, secure her entry into the United States, where she is safely a college student today in Portland, Oregon.

I have heard the same story over and over again. We should keep faith with those who have served our brave men and women in uniform. This is a basic moral responsibility and a simple issue of fairness.

What we have before us in this bill is a critical first step. But as my friend from California pointed out, it's only the first step. We have 4 million Iraqis who have been driven from their homes and tens of thousands who are at risk because they helped the United States, not just as translators but as drivers and construction workers, NGO support staff.

We are, sadly, failing Iraqi refugees. We have allowed into the United States fewer than 800 since 2003, 69 since this fall, only 1 last month. The Swedish prime minister told me last week that Sweden is going to admit 25,000 Iraqi refugees this year.

I introduced, last week, bipartisan legislation H.R. 2265, the Responsibility to Iraqi Refugees Act to address this ongoing humanitarian crisis by using all of the tools at our disposal, admitting refugees, providing assistance to the region and using diplomacy to ensure their well-being.

It would allow not 50 or 500, but 15,000 Iraqis who are at risk because they helped the United States to come to this country, along with their families. It would establish a special coordinator for Iraqi refugees and internally displaced people, and requires the United States to develop, finally, plans to ensure the well-being and safety of these Iraqi refugees.

It increases the number of persecuted Iraqis who can be admitted as refugees. This legislation has been endorsed by Amnesty International, Church World Service, the International Rescue Committee, Refugees International, the Jubilee Campaign, the Truman National Security Project, and many others.

I strongly urge that we adopt this bill today. But I would implore the Members of this House, regardless of how they feel about the war in Iraq or its future, to join and cosponsor my legislation--broad, ambitious, a comprehensive response to the Iraqi refugee crisis--before it's too late, too

late for people whose only crime was working with Americans.

It is also clear that it is not just these Iraqis that we ought to be concerned about. If we cannot keep faith with refugees that the United States has a responsibility for, it sends a very unpleasant message about the reliability of working with us, and, sadly, it sows the seeds for additional instability in the region. With 1 million Iraqis in Jordan, it creates an untenable situation for the long-term stability of that country.

I strongly urge passage of this bill, but I do hope that each of my colleagues will look at the comprehensive legislation that I introduced and determine what they are going to do to stop the fastest-growing humanitarian crisis in the world today.