(WASHINGTON) — The 11 Republicans in the group of senators trying to work out a bipartisan infrastructure deal are sending a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer saying no GOP member will vote “yes” to start debate on any measure Wednesday, according to a senior lawmaker close to the continuing talks over how to pay for the $1.2 trillion package.
Schumer had set the high-stakes vote to try to force progress on a top priority for President Joe Biden, but he needs the Republicans to get past the 60-vote threshold to advance legislation.
“I don’t think any Republican votes yes tomorrow. I don’t think we should, because we’re not ready,” the senior lawmaker said. “My hope is, by the end of the day, we should know a lot more.”
Instead, the GOP negotiators’ letter to Schumer will say that Republicans, who have been warning they won’t vote on advancing a bill that’s not yet written, are prepared to support starting debate on Monday, the senior lawmaker said.
The group, which has been working around the clock, along with White House officials, is “close,” to a deal on how to pay for roads, bridges and other “traditional infrastructure,” according to numerous members involved. They were meeting again Tuesday afternoon — joined by senior Biden aides – to try to finalize a bill.
The White House said it continued to support Schumer’s tactics.
But the bipartisan group of lawmakers won’t get a final agreement by Wednesday, according to multiple negotiators.
At the same time, the senior lawmaker expects the legislation to be finalized by Monday, and that includes the nonpartisan analyses by various agencies breaking down all of the financing options, how much revenue would be produced, and a final price tag.
Republicans, in particular, will be looking to show that the $579 billion in new spending is fully paid for.
As of Tuesday afternoon, it didn’t appear as if Schumer would delay the vote, but he could minimize the impact, should it be headed for failure.
If it is, Schumer could switch his vote to the losing side at the last minute, enabling him as majority leader, under Senate rules, to call up the vote again for reconsideration.
He could do so on Monday, when GOP members of the negotiating group say they’ll be ready to go.
Might a failed vote Wednesday poison the well for GOP negotiators?
No, says the senior lawmaker close to the talks, and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, a member of the negotiating group.
The Wednesday vote is to start debate on a shell bill because there is no final bill from the negotiators. It would serve as a placeholder should negotiators strike a final deal.
The measure is separate from a much larger bill Biden and Democrats are pushing that would spend $3.5 trillion on so-called “human infrastructure” such as child care.
Democrats plan to push that through the Senate with no Republican votes, using a budget tool called “reconciliation.”
(WASHINGTON) — A fully vaccinated spokesperson for House Speaker Pelosi tested positive for COVID-19 this week after interacting with several infected Texas Democratic state legislators who traveled to the capital.
“Yesterday, a fully-vaccinated senior spokesperson in the Speaker’s Press Office tested positive for COVID after contact with members of the Texas state legislature last week. This individual has had no contact with the speaker since exposure,” Pelosi spokesperson Drew Hammill told ABC News.
“The entire press office is working remotely today with the exception of individuals who have had no exposure to the individual or have had a recent negative test. Our office will continue to follow the guidance of the Office of Attending Physician closely,” he added.
A fully vaccinated White House official also tested positive for COVID-19 off-campus, the White House disclosed Tuesday. News of both “breakthrough” infections was first reported by Axios.
“I will say that we — according to an agreement we made during the transition to be transparent and make information available, we committed that we would release information proactively if it is commissioned officers. We continue to abide by that commitment,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Tuesday.
At least six of the more than 50 Texas Democrats who fled Austin last week to block dual Republican-backed bills that would revise the state’s voting and election laws in ways voting rights advocates say would make it harder for Texans to cast a ballot have since tested positive for COVID-19 in Washington. The infections prompted a flurry of contact tracing on Capitol Hill and at the White House, where they have met with legislators and senior administration officials, including Vice President Kamala Harris.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., on Tuesday suggested that House leaders could discuss “whether going back to [masks on Capitol Hill] work,” but added that the Office of the Attending Physician, who addresses the medical needs of Congress, “has not suggested” a return to the practice.
In a memo distributed to House offices on Tuesday, Attending Physician Brian Monahan did not announce any changes to House masking policy.
“Vaccinated individuals seeking to further reduce their risk of disease, or further reduce potential risk of transmitting disease to vulnerable household members, may consider additional protective actions such as wearing a well-fitted, medical-grade filtration mask when they are in a crowded or interior location,” he wrote. “Individuals have the personal discretion to wear a mask and future developments in the coronavirus Delta variant local threat may require the resumption of mask wear for all as now seen in several counties in the United States.”
(NEW YORK) — GOP Sen. Rand Paul on Tuesday stepped up his months-long fight with the nation’s top infectious disease expert, Dr. Anthony Fauci, suggesting he lied to Congress about whether the National Institutes of Health funded gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and triggering an angry shouting match.
At a Senate Health Committee hearing meant to update lawmakers on the country’s COVID-19 response, the Kentucky Republican began by asking Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, if he’s aware that it’s a crime to lie to Congress.
“On May 11, you stated that NIH has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,” Paul said. He claimed that gain-of-function research — which could, in theory, enhance the transmissibility of a virus — was performed in the lab and referred to an academic paper by a Chinese scientist, which he then asked to be entered into the record and for a copy to be given to Fauci.
“Dr. Fauci, knowing that it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11, where you claimed at the NIH never funded gain-of-function research and move on?” Paul said, repeating his unsupported accusation.
Fauci flatly rejected Paul’s suggestion.
“Sen. Paul, I have never lied before the Congress. And I do not retract that statement,” he said.
Paul suggested Fauci and the NIH could be partly responsible for the pandemic and the deaths of 4 million people worldwide.
The virology expert explained that the paper Paul referenced does not represent gain-of-function research, and when Paul interrupted, the shouting match ensued.
“Let me finish!” Fauci said, when Paul tried to interject. “Sen. Paul, you do not know what you’re talking about, quite frankly. And I want to say that officially, you do not know what you’re talking about.”
Continuing their ongoing feud, the two argued over the definition of gain-of-function. NIH Director Francis Collins, in a statement earlier this year, warning of misinformation, said, “neither NIH nor NIAID have ever approved any grant that would have supported ‘gain-of-function’ research on coronaviruses that would have increased their transmissibility or lethality for humans.”
But Paul would not be swayed.
“You’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around them from a pandemic,” Paul said.
At that point, Senate Health Committee Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., told Paul to let Fauci finish — though the senator continued to interrupt his witness.
“I totally resent the lie that you are now propagating, senator,” Fauci said. “If you look at the viruses that were used in the experiments, that were given in the annual reports, that were published in the literature, it is molecularly impossible–“
Paul interjected, “You are obviously obfuscating the truth,” to which Fauci replied, “I’m not obfuscating the truth — you are.”
“You are implying that what we did was responsible for the deaths of individuals. I totally resent that,” Fauci said.
Paul interrupted, “It could have been.”
“If there is any lying here, senator, it is you,” Fauci shot back, pointing his finger at Paul.
With Paul’s time expired, the lawmaker up next, Sen. Tina Smith, D-N.M., gave Fauci the chance to “counteract these attacks on your integrity that we’ve all just witnessed.”
“I don’t think I have anything further to say,” Fauci said. “This is a pattern that Sen. Paul has been doing now at multiple hearings based on no reality. He keeps talking about gain-of-function. This has been evaluated multiple times by qualified people to not fall under the gain-of-function definition.
“I have not lied before Congress. I have never lied, certainly not before Congress. Case closed,” Fauci said.
(WASHINGTON) — A tri-partisan group of senators on Tuesday introduced legislation designed to claw back national security powers, delineated in the Constitution, from the executive branch that the Senate trio says have been flowing away from Congress after decades of inaction by lawmakers.
“The founders envisioned a balance of power between the executive and legislative branches of government on national security matters. But over time, Congress has acquiesced to the growing, often unchecked power of the executive to determine the outline of America’s footprint in the world. More than ever before, presidents are sending men and women into battle without public debate, and making major policy decisions, like massive arms sales, without congressional input,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee a bill cosponsor, along with Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Mike Lee, R-Utah.
The three-pronged National Security Powers Act would place Congress in a more proactive role of having to affirm executive action on more controversial arms sales — particularly of lethal weapons, including air to ground munitions, tanks, and armored vehicles, as opposed to the current method requiring lawmakers to reject a sale with a veto-proof majority; would replace the 1973 War Powers Act with new policy that would require congressional authorization of military operations by a President after just 20 days instead of the current 60; and require that Congress approve a national emergency declaration after 30 days from presidential enactment.
“The president can declare a national emergency and act on that for a 30-day period, but after that, if Congress chooses not to enact a law to approve of the move, (called a joint resolution of approval) — that ability for the president would expire after 30 days,” according to a senior Senate GOP aide briefing reporters on the proposal.
President Donald Trump, in a highly controversial move in 2019, declared a national security emergency on the southern border to build his wall in that space. There was bipartisan support at the time to stop him but not a veto-proof majority. The Murphy-Sanders-Lee legislation would “flip the script” and put Congress in a position to more easily stop such executive action.
What senators also discovered at the time was that some 30 national emergency declarations were still in effect going back decades. The proposed legislation would sunset those declarations without explicit Congressional approval, putting a five-year limit on future moves.
The tri-partisan proposal comes as Washington is moving to rescind a 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) approved ahead of the Iraq war. There is also growing support to rework or possibly end the 2001 AUMF that led to America’s longest war in Afghanistan where U.S. troops have just been sent home. Under the newly-introduced legislation, those AUMF’s would expire, and all future AUMF’s would require an expiration date.
The new legislation, which is sure to spark heated debate among hawks and those who doubt Congress’ authority to rein in executive powers where national security is concerned — despite the Constitution’s delineation that Congress has the sole power to declare war — would more strictly-define “hostilities” as any that require U.S. troops, as opposed to the current unwritten rule that basically requires U.S. service member boots on the ground.
“Presidents of both parties have usurped Congress’s prerogative to determine if, when, and how we go to war. Now America’s global standing, treasure, and brave service members are being lost in conflicts the people’s legislators never debated. In areas where the Constitution grants broad powers to Congress, Congress is ignored. The National Security Powers Act will change that and return these checks and balances to our government,” Lee said.
It is unclear where support lies for the proposal in Congress, particularly among leadership, and Senate aides close to the matter say that there was no consultation with the White House or Administration officials.
Still, the group says the time to act is now.
“Before it’s too late, Congress needs to reclaim its rightful role as co-equal branch on matters of war and national security. The bipartisan National Security Powers Act will make sure that there is a full, open and public debate on all major national security decisions, such as war making, arms sales and emergency declarations,” Murphy said.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden’s top COVID officials are set to testify before Congress on Tuesday as guidance on masks is splintering at the local level — with some cities and medical organizations recommending a return to universal mask wearing, despite federal guidance that vaccinated Americans can go without masks.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief White House medical adviser, said Monday that it was “reasonable” for a leading group of pediatricians to push back against federal guidance that vaccinated Americans can go without masks.
“The CDC always leaves open the flexibility at the part of local agencies, local enterprises, local cities and states to make a judgment call based on the situation on the ground. So, I think that the America Academy of Pediatrics — they’re a thoughtful group, they analyze the situation — and if they feel that is the way to go, I think that is a reasonable thing to do,” Fauci said in an interview with CNN after the AAP’s guidance came out.
The group on Monday called for schools to enforce universal masking mandates because so many children won’t be protected by fall and schools have no way of verifying COVID vaccine status yet. The AAP warned that the honor system has failed to keep many people safe in the face of the delta variant.
“AAP recommends universal masking because a significant portion of the student population is not yet eligible for vaccines, and masking is proven to reduce transmission of the virus and to protect those who are not vaccinated,” the AAP wrote in it’s Monday statement. “Many schools will not have a system to monitor vaccine status of students, teachers and staff, and some communities overall have low vaccination uptake where the virus may be circulating more prominently.”
People who are fully vaccinated — a term used to describe a person two weeks after their last shot — are still considered safe from serious illness or death, even if they are exposed to the delta variant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 99.5% of hospitalizations are people who weren’t immunized.
Because vaccinated people are considered to be safe, the CDC has said immunized adults and teens can go without a mask, including inside schools.
While CDC Director Rochelle Walensky didn’t directly respond to the AAP’s guidance on Monday, she spoke on a panel that afternoon and urged parents to vaccinate their children — a solution that grants children full protection from the virus but that hasn’t been accepted as eagerly by parents who are nervous to give their kids the vaccine.
“Being vaccinated will allow our kids to safely get back to the things they have missed — in-person school, playing with friends and participating in sports activities,” Walensky said at the panel on Monday.
But Walensky also argued that it could protect kids’ lives.
“Vaccinating our children is more than just a way of getting them safely back at school. It’s a way to save lives,” she said, citing the 489 pediatric deaths from COVID-19 and other risks to children who survive the disease, like longterm symptoms and multisystem inflammatories syndrome, “a rare but serious complication which is affected over 4,000 children in the United States, leading to more than 37 pediatric deaths,” she said.
The public health agency has noted, however, that local officials should still decide to enforce mask mandates if COVID cases climb and vaccination numbers are low. And the CDC said that schools can still embrace universal masking if they can’t verify vaccinations or have large numbers of students too young to qualify.
“In areas where there are low numbers of vaccinated people, where cases are rising, it’s very reasonable for counties to take more mitigation measures,” like the mask rule in Los Angeles, Biden’s surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, told ABC “This Week” co-anchor Martha Raddatz on Sunday.
“And I anticipate that will happen in other parts of the country — and that’s not contradictory to the guidance the CDC issued,” he added.
Fauci, too, noted that guidance will have to be tailored to specific groups, whether that’s Los Angeles or school children, because the CDC’s guidance is broad and relies on data that isn’t always immediately available.
“That is an understandable, human reaction to really want to be more safe rather than sorry. And I believe that is the reason why they’re doing that,” he said, speaking about the American Academy of Pediatrics’ guidance for school children.
But Fauci also acknowledged that it created confusion to have different guidance for various settings.
“That does lead to some sort of confusion sometimes when people see an organization making one recommendation, in general, for the whole country, and then local groups, local enterprises, local organizations, in order to get that extra step of safety, say something different. And you’re right, that does indeed cause a bit of confusion,” he said on CNN Monday.
And it’s this approach — allowing states and local communities to decide and essentially putting Americans on the honor system — that’s in question after COVID cases have risen in nearly every state.
Dr. Jerome Adams, who was surgeon general under President Donald Trump, said he made a mistake early on in the pandemic urging people not to mask up because he feared a shortage of masks for health care workers. Adams said he’s afraid the CDC is making another mistake now by not putting more pressure on everyone to wear a mask.
“Instead of vax it OR mask it, the emerging data suggests CDC should be advising to vax it AND mask it in areas with cases and positivity- until we see numbers going back down again,” Adams tweeted.
“CDC was well intended, but the message was misinterpreted, premature, & wrong. Let’s fix it,” he added.
The Biden administration though is in a tough spot. The CDC had been under extraordinary pressure earlier this year to show skeptical Americans the benefits of vaccination, including being able to go without a mask and not having to quarantine after being exposed.
And so far, number studies have shown that all three vaccines – Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Moderna – protect people against all known variants. The vaccines also are shown to provide more durable protection than a natural infection.
Also, any federal mandate for vaccines or masks would no doubt trigger a swift backlash among conservatives.
Responding to the former surgeon general calling on CDC to bring back masks, conservative firebrand Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas tweeted: “No. No. No. Hell no.”
For his part, President Joe Biden has suggested in recent remarks that he’s worried about the science of the vaccinations and masks, only the people who were choosing to ignore it.
“Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated,” said Biden Friday.
And in a speech on Monday, he said, “Virtually all hospitalizations and deaths are occurring among unvaccinated Americans. These tragedies are avoidable. … If you’re unvaccinated, you are not protected.”
(WASHINGTON) —The Capitol Police Department has a new chief, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
They confirmed to ABC News that J. Thomas Manger has been selected to be the leader of the department.
Manger has previously served as the police chief in Montgomery County, Maryland, and in Fairfax County, Virginia. He was also the president of the Major City Chiefs of Police Association.
He replaces acting Chief Yogananda Pittman.
Capitol Police referred questions from ABC News to the Capitol Police Board which picks the new chief.
This is a developing news story. Please check back for updates.
(ATLANTA) — For the first time in 20 years, the Senate Rules Committee held a field hearing on Monday, this time in Atlanta to discuss voting rights as Democrats push for federal reform in the wake of sweeping legislation in Georgia — and in GOP-led legislatures across the country — which Democrats argue will make it harder for voters to cast their ballots.
“It is no coincidence that this assault on the freedom to vote is happening just after the 2020 election, when nearly 160 million Americans cast a ballot — more than ever before — in the middle of a pandemic, in an election that the Trump Department of Homeland Security Declared the most secure in history,” Committee Chair Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said as she opened the hearing.
Witnesses included Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., and state lawmakers and voters who would be affected by the law — which, in part, adds a voter ID requirement and results in fewer drop boxes available in the Atlanta-area.
Those testifying focused their ire on Senate Bill 202 (SB 202), a Georgia state bill passed in March that shortens the periods between elections and runoffs, bans early voting on holidays, and makes it a crime for someone who is not an election worker to give food or drinks to anyone waiting in line.
Republican Senate Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., criticized the hearing in a statement as it kicked off Monday, deeming it all “phony hysteria.”
“This silly stunt is based on the same lie as all the Democrats’ phony hysteria from Georgia to Texas to Washington D.C. and beyond — their efforts to pretend that moderate, mainstream state voting laws with more generous early voting provisions than blue states like New York are some kind of evil assault on our democracy,” the GOP leader said.
But Warnock testified Georgia was “ground zero” for GOP efforts to suppress the vote.
“What we did in Georgia this last election, in terms of turnout, should have been celebrated, by everyone, regardless of political party. But instead it was attacked by craven politicians, who are more committed to the maintenance of their own power than they are to the strengthening and maintaining of our democracy,” Warnock said.
Citing restrictions in Georgia’s new law, particularly how it would prohibit non-poll workers from handing out water and would let people challenge others’ votes, Warnock called for federal voting right protections and emphasized the urgency of those efforts: “We Americans live in a great house that democracy built. Right now, that house is on fire.”
Georgia State Rep. Billy Mitchell also argued SB 202 was moved overly quickly through the Georgia legislature to the governor’s desk.
No Republicans were present at the hearing, but Republicans from Georgia — including Gov. Brian Kemp — criticized the event in a call with reporters later on Monday morning.
“Today’s hearing is just the latest attempt by the Democrats to ignore the catastrophe up in Washington, DC and also to really change the narrative that couldn’t get the federal takeover of elections in S1 [the For the People Act voting rights bill] passed through the Senate or the Congress,” Kemp said.
Klobuchar said that Republicans were invited to join; Kemp said that he was in a hearing about crime during the voting hearing, and that he does not believe Klobuchar’s hearing was fair.
The hearing comes as Senate Democrats put pressure on their colleagues across the aisle to move forward in unison on the stalled For the People Act, an expansive package that would transform federal elections, voting and congressional redistricting, which passed the House in March.
A more measured proposal with some Republican support named for the late Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., which would restore pieces of the Voting Rights Act struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, has also failed to advance through Congress.
Democrats argue lawmakers must act with more urgency on voting legislation also in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court deciding last month to uphold voting restrictions in Arizona that Democrats and voting advocates have called discriminatory on the basis of race.
Monday’s hearing also comes at a busy time in Washington.
Both chambers of Congress were back in session Monday as Democrats in the Texas State Legislature took harbor in the capital for a second week in order to prevent Republicans in Austin from taking up the proposals in a special legislative session. While they had planned to push voting rights legislation on the hill, five members have tested positive for COVID-19.
And just days after Congressional Black Caucus Chair Rep. Joyce Beatty was arrested along with other activists in a display of civil disobedience on Capitol Hill, the “Women’s Moral Monday March on Washington” rally, organized by the Women’s March and Poor People Campaign, added their voices with a demonstration in front of the Supreme Court Monday.
The group demanded that Congress take action on issues such as ending the filibuster and expanding voting rights.
Sixteen states have enacted 28 laws that would restrict voting access, out of hundreds that have been introduced throughout the country, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.
ABC News’ Libby Cathey and Trish Turner contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — The House will vote on Thursday to expand and expedite the special visa program for Afghan workers who aided the U.S. military campaign and are trying to leave the country, adding more openings to the program just weeks before the first evacuation flights are scheduled to begin.
The bipartisan Allies Act, introduced by Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., would raise the cap on the Special Immigrant Visa program by 8,000, while also removing requirements the authors said could lengthen the application process by several months.
Specifically, it would create a presumption that applicants face threats to their lives in sensitive roles as interpreters, translators or security contractors for the U.S. military, waiving the requirements that they obtain and submit sworn and certified statements.
The House will advance the bill this week as the Pentagon has notified lawmakers that it could temporarily house Afghan visa applicants at Fort Lee, an Army installation in central Virginia, while they complete the application process, aides briefed on the potential plans told ABC News.
Crow, a former Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, said he owed his life in part to the Afghans who worked alongside U.S. troops as interpreters. His district director in Colorado, Maytham Alshadood, is a successfully resettled Iraqi who worked as an interpreter and translator with the U.S. military before immigrating.
“He’s a perfect success story to the contributions these folks can make, and they’ve already proven themselves to be patriotic Americans and people that have served the country,” he told ABC News. “We owe them a great debt.”
The bill would also expand eligibility for the program to roughly 1,000 Afghans working with nonmilitary organizations that have partnered with the United States, such as the National Democratic Institute and the U.S. Institute for Peace.
“The Taliban is not going to make a distinction between someone who was working for USAID, or a grantee of the U.S. government promoting independent journalism or women’s rights and someone who was a driver or translator,” Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., another cosponsor of the legislation, told ABC News. “So we shouldn’t make those distinctions, either.”
Earlier this summer, the House passed a similar measure that waived the requirement for applicants to receive a medical examination on the front end of the process, and would allow them to receive an exam as soon as possible once resettled in the United States.
In the Senate, both measures have the support of Republicans and Democrats, who are weighing whether to add the provisions to an emergency spending package funding the Capitol Police, which could clear the chamber before the August recess.
“There are a lot of people in Afghanistan that have been loyal to us,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee negotiating with Democrats over the package, said last week. “We cannot leave them behind.”
The White House announced Operation Allies Refuge last week, and said the first flights to evacuate visa applicants would begin in the last week of July.
There are now 20,000 applicants for the program, with roughly 10,000 still required to finish various stages of their applications, according to the State Department.
Approximately 2,500 applicants have been approved through the security vetting process and segments of that group could be transported to military bases in the U.S., under humanitarian parole, to finish their applications, the State Department spokesman said.
Afghans who have not yet completed their applications could be sent to third-party countries around Afghanistan or to U.S. military facilities in the Middle East, Crow said.
(WASHINGTON) — The Pentagon will temporarily house Afghan workers who aided the U.S. military campaign and are trying to leave the country at Fort Lee, an Army installation in central Virginia, while they complete the application process for a special visa, according to the State Department.
Spokesperson Ned Price said Monday that the State Department requested that the Defense Department house 2,500 Afghans who are the furthest along in the vetting process for the special visa program, have passed “thorough” security vetting and whose work for the U.S. has been certified by the embassy in Kabul.
They’ll be provided services, such as housing, at Fort Lee as their visa applications are processed, according to Price, but he didn’t specify when the applicants and their family members may arrive beyond before the end of July.
John Kirby, Defense Department press secretary, said Monday afternoon that there are still other domestic and overseas locations also being considered.
Separately, the House will vote on Thursday to expand and expedite the special visa program for these Afghans, adding more openings to the program just weeks before the first evacuation flights are scheduled to begin.
The bipartisan Allies Act, introduced by Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., would raise the cap on the Special Immigrant Visa program by 8,000, while also removing requirements the authors said could lengthen the application process by several months.
Specifically, it would create a presumption that applicants face threats to their lives in sensitive roles as interpreters, translators or security contractors for the U.S. military, waiving the requirements that they obtain and submit sworn and certified statements.
Crow, a former Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, said he owed his life in part to the Afghans who worked alongside U.S. troops as interpreters. His district director in Colorado, Maytham Alshadood, is a successfully resettled Iraqi who worked as an interpreter and translator with the U.S. military before immigrating.
“He’s a perfect success story to the contributions these folks can make, and they’ve already proven themselves to be patriotic Americans and people that have served the country,” he told ABC News. “We owe them a great debt.”
The bill would also expand eligibility for the program to roughly 1,000 Afghans working with nonmilitary organizations that have partnered with the United States, such as the National Democratic Institute and the U.S. Institute for Peace.
“The Taliban is not going to make a distinction between someone who was working for USAID, or a grantee of the U.S. government promoting independent journalism or women’s rights and someone who was a driver or translator,” Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J., another cosponsor of the legislation, told ABC News. “So we shouldn’t make those distinctions, either.”
Earlier this summer, the House passed a similar measure that waived the requirement for applicants to receive a medical examination on the front end of the process, and would allow them to receive an exam as soon as possible once resettled in the United States.
In the Senate, both measures have the support of Republicans and Democrats, who are weighing whether to add the provisions to an emergency spending package funding the Capitol Police, which could clear the chamber before the August recess.
“There are a lot of people in Afghanistan that have been loyal to us,” Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Committee negotiating with Democrats over the package, said last week. “We cannot leave them behind.”
The White House announced Operation Allies Refuge last week, and said the first flights to evacuate visa applicants would begin in the last week of July.
There are now 20,000 applicants for the program, with roughly 10,000 still required to finish various stages of their applications, according to the State Department.
Approximately 2,500 applicants have been approved through the security vetting process and segments of that group could be transported to military bases in the U.S., under humanitarian parole, to finish their applications, the State Department spokesman said.
Afghans who have not yet completed their applications could be sent to third-party countries around Afghanistan or to U.S. military facilities in the Middle East, Crow said.
ABC News’ Trish Turner and Matt Seyler contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — With financial markets down sharply Monday over whether the new delta variant would endanger the recovery, President Joe Biden on Monday pushed back on inflation fears also giving investors jitters, insisting that his policies will create a strong economy and that higher prices are only a short-term growing pain.
“There’s nobody suggesting there’s unchecked inflation on the way, no serious economist. That’s totally different — I mean, look, the stock market is higher than it has been in all of history, even when it was down this month. Even down this month,” Biden said in White House remarks touting the recovery six months into office.
Biden also took a moment to hit former President Donald Trump for his focus on the stock market, noting there are other ways to judge economic health.
“Now, I don’t look at a stock market as a means by which to judge the economy like my predecessor did. But he’d be very, he’d be talking to you every day for the last five months about how the stock market is so high. Higher than any time in history. Still higher than any time in history. So, that’s not how I judge whether or not we’re having economic growth,” Biden said.
While pushing his infrastructure policies to lawmakers, he also made the case that inflation is merely temporary, a result of lingering supply chain challenges and an uneven restart after an unprecedented economic upheaval.
“Reality is you can’t flip the global economic light back on and not expect this to happen,” Biden said.
Biden noted that 60% of price increases, according to some economists, are due to global supply chain challenges, such as the shortage of semiconductors that has spurred a spike in car prices, and the increase in lumber prices. Calling price increases temporary, Biden worked to assure Americans he won’t let inflation get out of control.
“I want to be clear. My administration understands if we were to experience unchecked inflation over the long-term, that would pose a real challenge to our economy. So while we’re confident that isn’t what we’re seeing today, we’re going to remain vigilant about any response as needed,” he said.
“Reality is, you can’t flip the global economic light back on and not expect this to happen.”
During remarks about economic recovery, Pres. Biden says increase in prices is expected to be temporary but that his administration will remain “vigilant.” https://t.co/JIlsEYpYvZpic.twitter.com/kGl3EkF4P4
Biden also noted that he has assured Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell that he is committed to the independence of the Fed, and encourages Powell to take whatever steps necessary to keep the economy strong.
Biden then turned to the elephant in the room — the $4 trillion+ in additional government spending he’s pursuing.
“If we increase the availability of quality, affordable child care, elder care, paid leave, more people will enter the workforce. These steps will enhance our productivity, raising wages without raising prices. That won’t increase inflation. That will take the pressure off of inflation,” Biden said, referring to the $3.5 trillion “human infrastructure” plan Democrats on Capitol Hill are seeking to pass without any bipartisan support through special Senate budget rules.
MORE: Biden, bipartisan senators say they have $1.2 trillion framework infrastructure deal
“If your primary concern right now is inflation, you should be even enthusiastic about this plan,” Biden added.
“What we can’t do, is go back to the same old trickle-down theories, that gave us nearly two trillion dollars in deficit finance corporate tax giveaways, that did nothing to make our economy more productive or resilient,” Biden warned. “We can’t go back to the old failed thinking.“
With a key procedural vote this week in the Senate on the bipartisan infrastructure framework, Biden reminded lawmakers they already had a deal.
“Whatever different views some might have on current price increases, we should be united in one thing: Passage of the bipartisan infrastructure framework which we shook hands on. We shook hands on,” Biden said.
Despite attempting to sell his spending packages, Biden did not address the fact that so many questions about the packages remained unanswered ahead of Wednesday deadlines set by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: a key procedural vote on a bipartisan $1.2 trillion traditional infrastructure spending bill, and a self-imposed deadline for members of his own party to reach agreement on a $3.5 trillion spending package, which covers the majority of Biden’s American Families Plan agenda, including childcare, free community college, and provisions to lower health care costs.
Top Republican negotiator Sen. Rob Portman expressed frustration Sunday with the state of the talks.
“We shouldn’t have an arbitrary deadline of Wednesday. We should bring the legislation forward when it’s ready… it’s got to be done in a thoughtful, bipartisan way. We don’t want to rush this process or make mistakes,” Portman said in an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
One remaining hurdle is how to pay for all the spending, after Democrats agreed to drop IRS tax enforcement provisions that were estimated to net $100 billion over ten years in the face of Republican pushback. President Biden has called for both spending bills to be fully paid for, mostly through tax increases on the wealthy and corporations.
“How do we vote on something which is not yet written as we try and get it right?” Senator Bill Cassidy, R.-La., asked in a “Fox News Sunday” interview. “We can get it done, but if they refused to cooperate on the pay-fors, it’s not going to pass. They know that.”
