Tag: Senator Lindsey Graham

Introduction of New Proposed Afghan Adjustment Act 

On July 13, 2023, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (Dem, MN) with five co-sponsoring Democrat Senators and six co-sponsoring Republican Senators introduced a new proposed Afghan Adjustment Act (S.2327). The Democrat co-sponsors are Senators Coon (DE), Blumenthal (CT), Shaheen (NH), Durban (IL) and Menendez (NJ), and the Republican co-sponsors are Senators Graham  (SC), Moran (KS), Mullin (OK), Murkowski (AK), Wicker (MS) and Tillis (NC). After two readings the bill was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[1]

On the same date the identical bill was introduced in the House of Representatives by Miller-Meeks (Rep., IA) with 11 Republican co-sponsors and 12 Democrat co-sponsors and was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

At that time, Senator Klobuchar said, “Giving our Afghan allies a chance to apply for legal status is the right and necessary thing to do. This bipartisan legislation will help provide Afghans who have sacrificed so much for our country with the legal certainty they deserve as they rebuild their lives. I will continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this bipartisan legislation and provide Afghans who sought refuge in the U.S. with the opportunity for a stable future in their new home.”

Klobuchar also said on the Senate floor that many Afghans vouched for by U.S. top military leaders ”took bullets for us, literally. And we must stand by them. The decision we make for them of whether we live up to the covenant we made to our Afghan allies is going to reverberate militarily and diplomatically for longer than any of us will serve in this body.” Klobuchar added that the U.S. did not leave Hmong and Vietnamese people in limbo when they were evacuated. Generations later, Hmong people have become police officers, elected officials, firefighters and “pillars of our community.” These Afghans “can’t go back—they’d be killed by the Taliban.” Noting support from many U.S. retired generals  and leaders of congressional armed services committees, she said, “It is really a military priority.”

Republican Senator Graham made a similar statement: “It is imperative that America assist those Afghans who supported our country and that fled the oppressive regime of the Taliban. We must let the world know that we do not abandon those who aid America.  This bill works toward that goal while ensuring strong vetting to protect America’s own security,”

The press release by Senator Klobuchar’s office noted that this “legislation has received the endorsement of many groups including The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Blue Star Families, and more.

Senate Co-Sponsors Comments About the Bill

Senator Blumenthal observed, ““I know firsthand about the translators and guards and others who served putting their lives on the line. And now in Connecticut, I’ve had the privilege of calling many of them [and their families] my friends. It is a promise. Great nations keep their promises. These individuals are among our most loyal friends. The test is that they put targets on their back from the Taliban. They knew they and their families would be at risk if the Taliban ever took over. Now the Taliban has done it, and they cannot return. Nor can their families.”

Senator Coon said, ““We owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the Afghan people for the ways they supported U.S. forces for almost 20 years, often at great personal risk. The Afghan Adjustment Act is a first step toward keeping our word as a nation and honoring that debt. This bipartisan legislation would provide a pathway to lawful permanent status for certain Afghan civilians, offering them a way out of legal limbo and the looming threat of deportation with great risk to their personal safety, and after failing to pass this bill last year, we should take it up and pass it swiftly now. Congress has a track record of passing similar legislation on humanitarian grounds, and it is shameful that we have not done so yet.”

Coon also observed that this Act was “modeled after bipartisan bills that Congress has passed in the wake of other humanitarian crises and the Vietnam War.”  More specifically, the Afghan Adjustment Act would:

  • “Allow Afghans on humanitarian status who submit to additional vetting – including an in-person interview – to apply for permanent legal status. For these Afghans, the primary options under current law to gain permanent status are through our asylum system or the burdensome SIV process;”
  • “Expand the SIV program to include previously omitted groups, including the Female Tactical Teams of Afghanistan, the Afghan National Army Special Operations Command, the Afghan Air Force, and the Special Mission Wing of Afghanistan;” and
  • “Establish a task force to develop and implement a strategy for supporting Afghans outside of the United States who are eligible for SIV status and require the Department of State to respond to congressional inquiries about SIV applications.”

Senator Moran stated the bill would “allow Afghans who sought refuge in the United States to apply for permanent legal residency after undergoing additional vetting.. . . Allowing Afghan allies to apply for permanent legal residency will help provide certainty as they build their lives in the United States.”

Senator Murkowski stated, ““The United States must ensure that we keep our promises to our Afghan allies, and provide certainty for those who fled to the United States and have no place to return. I am proud to join my Senate colleagues in legislation to give innocent Afghans hope for a safer, brighter future.

Conclusion

In the final days of the last session of Congress, the prior version of the Afghan Adjustment Act had strong support in the House and Senate, but Iowa’s Republican Senator Chuck Grassley opposed and prevented its passage because he claimed there were “security concerns” due to purported inadequate vetting of projected beneficiaries of the bill.[2]

Therefore, now is the time to pass this bill!

================================

[1] S.2327, Afghan Adjustment Act (July 13, 2023); H.R. 4627, To provide support for nationals of Afghanistan who supported the United States mission in Afghanistan, adequate vetting for parolees from Afghanistan, adjustment of status of eligible individuals, and special immigrant status for at-risk Afghan allies and relatives of certain members of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes (July 13, 2023); Sen Klobuchar, Press Release, Klobuchar, Graham, Coons, Moran, Blumenthal, Murkowski, Shaheen, Wicker, Durbin, Tillis, Miller-Meeks, Blumenauer Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Allow Afghan Allies in the United States to Apply for Permanent Legal Status, (July 14, 2023); Sen. Blumenthal, Press Release, Blumenthal Calls for Path to Permanent Legal Status for At-risk Afghan Allies (July 21, 2023); Sen. Cooss, Press Release, Senator Coons, colleagues introduce bipartisan legislation to allow Afghan allies in U.S. to apply for permanent legal status (July 17, 2023); Sen. Moran, Press Release, Sen. Moran, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Allow Afghans Allies in the United States to Apply for Permanent Legal Status (July 17, 2023); Sen. Tillis, Press Release, Tillis Co-Introduces Legislation to Protect Afghan Allies (July 18, 2023). Rao, Two years later, a renewed push to help Afghan evacuees gain citizenship, StarTribune (July 30, 2023).

[2] Need To Prod Congress To Enact Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com (Dec. 17, 2022). See also prior posts about Afghan Adjustment Act, dwkcommentaries.com.

More House Republican Efforts To Impede U.S.-Cuba Reconciliation

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives continue inserting into appropriation bills provisions to impede U.S.-Cuba reconciliation. Here are three more.

Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 2016 [1]

On June 11, the House passed, 278-149, the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 2016 (H.R.2685). According to the Appropriations Committee press release, the bill would provide $578.6 billion to fund “critical national security needs, military operations abroad, and health and quality-of-life programs for the men and women of the Armed Forces and their families.”

The bill also would bar the use of funds (i) “to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or [other non-U.S. citizens or non-members of U.S. Armed Forces at Guantanamo Bay Cuba on or after June 24, 2009] (Section 8100); (ii) “to construct, acquire, or modify any facility in the United States, its territories, or possessions to house any [such] individual” (Section 8101); and (iii) “to transfer any individual detained at . . . Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity except in accordance with section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014” (Section 8102).

Also on June 11 the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, 27-3, its defense- funding bill for $575.9 billion. Although only three Democrats voted against the bill, the Democrats’ leaders said they would block the bill on the floor because it continues the sequestration of funding, which they oppose. However, the committee did vote 18-12 to adopt a measure by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (Dem, NH) to express the sense of the Senate that the budget caps should be lifted.

Moreover, Democratic senators are threatening to block consideration of all spending bills unless the Republicans agree to a budget summit. In addition, the White House is threatening to veto any such measure that has the sequestration caps.

A motion to amend the bill was offered by Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (IL) and Diane Feinstein (CA) to allow the Obama administration to transfer Guantánamo Bay detainees to maximum-security prisons in the U.S., but it was defeated, 14-16.
Durbin argued that it cost $3.2 million per year to house a detainee at the Cuban prison, versus $70,000 at a super-max facility in the U.S. while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a retired Air Force colonel and a 2016 presidential candidate, argued the funding for Guantánamo is “money well spent” and hoped “we fill the damn place up.”

The White House has threatened a veto of these bills over insufficient funding and the above provisions relating to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

State Department Appropriations Act FY 2016 [2]

On June 11 the House Appropriations Committee unanimously approved the appropriations bill for the State Department and Foreign Operations for FY 2016. It would provide nearly $47.8 billion, which is 11% ($869 million) less than the White House’s request.[3]

The bill contains provisions that impede U.S.-Cuba reconciliation. The main one is Section 7045 (c)(3)(A) (pp. 175-76), that would bar the use of funds (i) “for the establishment or operations of a United States diplomatic presence, including an Embassy, Consulate, or liaison office, in Cuba beyond that which was in existence prior to December 17, 2014;” or (ii) “to facilitate the establishment or operation of a diplomatic mission of Cuba, including an Embassy, Consulate, or liaison office, in the United States beyond that which was in existence prior to December 17, 2014.”[4]

There are still other references to Cuba in the bill. Section 7045 (c)(1) allocates $30 million “to promote democracy and strengthen civil society in Cuba: Provided, That no funds shall be obligated for business promotion, economic reform, entrepreneurship, or any other assistance that is not democracy-building as expressly authorized in the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity (LIBERTAD)Act of 1996 and the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA) of 1992.” Section 7045 (c)(2) prohibits use of certain funds to establish any organization to carry out the existing broadcasting and related programs for Latin America and the Caribbean region or to alter the structure of Cuba Broadcasting. Others are Section 7007 (p. 64)(no funds for “assistance or reparations for the governments of Cuba, North Korea, Iran or Syria”); and Section 7015 (f) (p. 76-81)(no funds for assistance to Cuba and certain other countries).

Reacting to the Committee’s previous release of a draft of the bill, the White House budget director Shaun Donovan said the funding level “will pose a significant constraint on USAID and the Department of State’s ability to conduct diplomatic engagement. Taken together, these cuts would impede our ability to conduct effective diplomacy and development, essential components of our national security,” Donovan also criticized the ban on funds for a new embassy in Havana. He said it would interfere with the executive branch’s ability “to make the best decisions consistent with our national security.”

The bill also has a provision to withhold 15 percent of the State Department’s operational funds, unless it turns over documents faster to the congressional panel investigating the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Treasury Department Appropriations Act FY 2016[5]

On June 10 the Appropriations Committee released the draft Financial Services Bill FY 2016. According to the Committee’s press release, the bill allocates $20.2 billion for the Treasury Department, the Judiciary, the Small Business Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission and several other agencies. It purportedly prioritizes “critical national programs to enforce U.S. laws, maintain a fair and efficient judicial system, and help small businesses grow.” It also “reduces or eliminates lower-priority programs and cuts funding to poor-performing agencies—including an $838 million reduction to the Internal Revenue Service.”

The Committee’s press release also discloses that the bill contains prohibitions on (a) “travel to Cuba for educational exchanges not involving academic study pursuant to a degree program;” (b) “importation of property confiscated by the Cuban Government;” and (c) “financial transactions with the Cuban military or intelligence service.” I searched, but could not find these provisions in the 156-page draft bill, and I solicit comments to identify these provisions. Here is an outline of the bill to assist in such an endeavor

Title Pages Subject
I 2-27 Department of Treasury
II 27-41 Executive Office of the President
III 42-50 Judiciary
IV 51-61 District of Columbia
V 61-96 Independent Agencies
VI 96-111 General Provisions—This Act
VII 111-146 General Provisions—Government-Wide
VIII 146-156 General Provisions—District of Columbia
IX 156 Additional General Provision

The draft bill on June 11 was submitted for markup to the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, but so far no information is available about the result of that markup. It will be before the full Committee for markup on June 17th.

Conclusion

I already have expressed my disgust at these anti-reconciliation measures and at the tactic of including them in appropriations bills and thereby running the risk of partial or complete government shutdown if the President vetoes some or all of such bills.

Therefore, all supporters of U.S.-Cuba reconciliation should contact their representatives and senators to urge them to seek to eliminate these provisions. Contact information for senator and representatives is available online.

===========================================================

[1] Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2016 (H.R. 2685); House Appropriations Comm., Press Release: House Appropriations Committee House Releases Fiscal 2016 Defense Bill (May 19, 2015); House Appropriations Comm., Press Release: House Passes Fiscal Year 2016 Defense Appropriations Bill (June 11, 2015); Matishak & Wong, OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: House passes defense spending bill, The Hill (June 11, 2015); Assoc. Press, House Passes Defense Spending Bill, N.Y. Times (June 11, 2015).

[2] House App. Comm., Draft Bill Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes (June 2, 2015); House App. Comm, Press Release: Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2016 State and Foreign Operations bill, (June 2, 2015); Reuters, U.S. House Panel Seeks to Ban Funding for U.S. Embassy in Cuba, N.Y. Times (June 2, 2015); House Appropriations Comm., Press Release: Appropriations Committee Approves Fiscal Year 2016 State and Foreign Operations Bill (June 11, 2015); Matishak, Funding bill advances despite criticism of Benghazi provision, The Hill (June 11, 2015), Shabab, WH budget chief: GOP spending bill would interfere with diplomacy, The Hill (June 10, 2015); Assoc. Press, House Panel Oks Bill Punishing State Over Benghazi Response, N.Y. Times (June 11, 2015).

[3] A prior post discussed the draft of this bill.

[4] The above prohibited use of funds would “not apply if the President determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the government in Cuba has met the requirements and factors specified in section 205 of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 (22 U.S.C. 6065).” (Section 7045 (c )(3)(B).)

[5]  House Appropriations Comm., Press Release: Appropriations Committee Releases Fiscal Year 2016 Financial Services Bill (June 10, 2015); House Appropriations Comm., A Bill Making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016 and for other purposes (June 10, 2015);  Shabad, House Republicans propose $838 million cut to IRS, The Hill (June 10, 2015).