Tate Zeigler (202-224-5972) or Kevin Bishop (864-250-1417)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement on the transfer of Afghanistan’s Parwan Detention Facility to Afghan control.

“The transfer of the Parwan Detention Facility is a significant achievement and major step forward in the planned transition from American to Afghan control of the war.

“I have seen the cautious, balanced approach on prison transfer develop from its beginning stages to full implementation.  I also know from my own personal experiences that those who worked on this project have kept American and Afghan security interests at the forefront of their thinking.  For this reason, the agreement contains important checks and balances addressing the potential release of individuals likely to go back to the fight.

“During my travels to Afghanistan, I have constantly reinforced the message with Afghan President Karzai that if you push prisoner transition from American to Afghan control too far and too fast -- resulting in a release of a detainee who commits a future act of violence -- it would do serious damage to American support for the mission.

“There are two groups of prisoners who have to be cautiously dealt with.  The first is third-country nationals who have been captured in Afghanistan and linked to the highest levels of the Al-Qaeada movement and other terrorist organizations.  These prisoners, in my view, should never be placed in the Afghan legal system.  They should remain in U.S. custody as they represent great national security threats to our nation.  They are also good candidates for detention at Guantanamo Bay.

“The second group is Afghans who have been labeled as enduring security threats by our forces because of their ties to the Taliban or Haqqani network.  We must never transfer these high value threats until the Afghan legal system has proven to be sound and capable of dealing with such cases.  I’m confident General Allen and the Obama Administration will be rightly cautious when it comes to transferring prisoners who represent a high security risk.  We will continue to work with the Afghan government to resolve the future of this small category of prisoners.

“My goal has always been to enhance Afghan sovereignty while never losing focus on U.S. force protection.  I am hopeful this prison transition will create a partnership between U.S. and Afghan military and intelligence forces allowing us to gather intelligence as well as keep enemy forces off the battlefield.

“I have seen no inclination by U.S. forces or the Obama Administration to transition control of the prison in a haphazard manner or to wash our hands of this problem.  Quite the contrary, I have seen a focused effort to ensure this is done correctly in both the short and long-term.

“Looking forward, I believe the transfer of the Parwan facility can become a model for how to achieve Afghan sovereignty in other areas as well.  With continued mentoring and resources, the Afghans have the will and ability to chart their own destiny to a better, brighter future.

“Congratulations to General Huber and his team at Task Force 435, along with their U.S. Embassy counterparts, in making this transfer successful and timely.  Under their leadership, the facility has become a model for Law of War detention.”

Tate Zeigler (202-224-5972) or Kevin Bishop (864-250-1417)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) on Wednesday urged a return to regular order when bringing legislation to the floor.  In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada), Wicker and Graham point to the resolution of previous logjams as a way to move forward.

In part, the letter states:

“In 2005, when an aggrieved majority proposed rules changes that would have resulted in limiting the rights of Senators to debate judicial nominations, a bipartisan group of members pulled the Senate back from choosing the so-called nuclear option.”

“We believe a similar outcome is within reach at this juncture.  In our view, the current conflict is less about specific Senate rules than it is about how those rules are used either to stifle debate or frustrate the will of a clear majority.”

Text of the letter follows.

August 1, 2012

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader

U.S. Senate

Dear Majority Leader Reid:

We are writing to express our concern regarding your recent remarks suggesting major changes to the rules of the Senate -- changes that would severely compromise the rights of the minority.  We fear that such statements threaten far-reaching consequences for the institution of the Senate and its current and future membership.

Particularly troubling is your apparent reversal regarding when and how you might amend Senate rules requiring a two-thirds threshold to invoke cloture.  Last year, at the beginning of the 112^th Congress, you explicitly rejected what you now propose: making significant alterations to the rules by simple majority.  On January 27, 2011, you affirmed, "We've agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate -- that is the so-called ‘constitutional option’ -- and he (Leader McConnell) won't in the future."

Mr. Leader, the agreement and course set that day were correct.

The Senate tradition of unlimited debate derives from the institution’s constitutional origins as a body of careful deliberation, designed especially to be a protector of minority rights.  In explaining the broad utility of the filibuster in 2005, you asserted that the practice is “very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the framers of our Constitution, limited government, separation of powers, and checks and balances.  The filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check.”

In 2005, when an aggrieved majority proposed rules changes that would have resulted in limiting the rights of Senators to debate judicial nominations, a bipartisan group of members pulled the Senate back from choosing the so-called nuclear option.  Accommodations were made to the minority to achieve the necessary consensus, and a procedure was agreed upon that allowed the Senate to process the majority’s priorities while maintaining regular order and the rights of the minority.

We believe a similar outcome is within reach at this juncture.  In our view, the current conflict is less about specific Senate rules than it is about how those rules are used either to stifle debate or frustrate the will of a clear majority.  The rights of the majority do not include the right to restrict the opportunity to offer amendments.  Similarly, the Senate tradition of open and extended debate does not provide carte blanche for interminable debate, designed to deny a democratic outcome.

We respectfully recommend you employ your knowledge of the institution and its procedures, as well as your unique position of influence as Majority Leader, to achieve an agreement that is respectful of both the prerogatives of the majority and the liberties of the minority.  We believe tactics such as filling the amendment tree and liberal use of the filibuster should be utilized sparingly and with appropriate restraint.  We suspect most Senators agree.  We pledge our support to developing a way forward on these matters in the hope of preserving the traditions and character of this, the greatest of parliamentary bodies.

Sincerely yours,

Roger F. Wicker

Lindsey Graham

Tate Zeigler (202-224-5972) or Kevin Bishop (864-250-1417)

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), a strong supporter of the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, opposes the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty.

“As a strong defender of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, I have serious concerns about the dangers posed by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty,” said Graham.  “Our country’s sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed.”

“The NRA, our four million members and the tens of millions of law-abiding Americans who own firearms will never surrender our right to keep and bear arms to the United Nations,” said Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “That is why the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty has been met with the full opposition of the NRA. We are grateful for the efforts of these senators to oppose this encroachment of international tyranny.”

Graham made his opposition clear and listed out shortcomings with the current language in a letter to President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The letter, circulated by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), was signed by 50 United States Senators: Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Max Baucus (D-MT), John Barrasso (R-WY), Mark Begich (D-AK), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Bob Casey (D-PA), Dan Coats (R-IN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Corker (R-TN), John Cornyn (R-TX), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Dean Heller (R-NV), John Hoeven (R-ND), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), James Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Mike Lee (R-UT), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Ben Nelson (D-NE), Rand Paul (R-KY), Rob Portman (R-OH), Mark Pryor (D-AR), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Jon Tester (D-MT), John Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA), David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Webb (D-VA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS).

The full text of the signed letter is below and the PDF version can be found here.

July 26, 2012

President Barack Obama

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

2291 C St., NW

Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton:

       As defenders of the right of Americans to keep and bear arms, we write to express our grave concern about the dangers posed by the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. Our country’s sovereignty and the constitutional protection of these individual freedoms must not be infringed.

       In October of 2009 at the U.N. General Assembly, your administration voted for the U.S. to participate in negotiating this treaty. We understand that the final treaty text will not be publicly available until it has been agreed to, on a consensus basis, by all the nations at the conference to be held in New York in July. But having reviewed the Chairman’s Draft Paper made available by the United Nations, we are concerned that the Arms Trade Treaty poses dangers to rights protected under the Second Amendment for the following reasons.

       First, while the Draft Paper nominally applies only to “international arms transfers,” it defines such transfers as including “transport” across national territory. It requires signatories to “monitor and control” arms in transit, and to “enforce domestically the obligations of this treaty” by prohibiting the unauthorized “transfer of arms from any location.” This implies an expansion of federal firearms controls that would be unacceptable on Second Amendment grounds. 

       Second, the Draft Paper requires nations to “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory,” including the identity of individual end users. This information is to be reported to the U.N.-based Implementation Support Unit. The Draft Paper thus appears to suggest the creation of an U.N.-based firearms registry for all firearms that are either imported into or transit across national territory, which raises both Second Amendment and privacy concerns. 

       Finally, the Draft Paper requires that nations “shall take all appropriate measures necessary to prevent the diversion of imported arms into the illicit market or to unintended end users.” This clause appears to create a presumption in favor of the adoption, at the federal level, of further controls on firearms. We are concerned that, in this regard as well as in others, the treaty will create an open-ended obligation that will in practice be defined by international opinion, and will be used to push the U.S. in the direction of measures that would infringe on both Second Amendment freedoms and the U.S.’s sovereignty more broadly. 

       We acknowledge, with gratitude, that your administration has clearly stated that the treaty must not infringe in any way on the Second Amendment. Notwithstanding, we must state with clarity what this entails. 

       First, the treaty should explicitly recognize the legitimacy of hunting, sport shooting, and other lawful activities – including the collection and display by individuals and museums of military antiques – related to the private ownership of firearms, and related materials.

        Second, the treaty should not include the manufacturing, assembly, possession, transfer, or purchase of small arms, light weapons, ammunition, or related materials that are defined under domestic law by national authority as legal for private ownership, nor should it contain any open-ended obligations that could imply any need to impose controls that would have any domestic effect on any or all of these items.

       Third, the Draft Paper is based in part on recognizing the inherent right of all states to individual or collective self-defense. We certainly agree that this right is inherent, at least, in all democratic and law-abiding states. But we also believe that the right of personal self-defense is a human right that is inherent in the individual. U.N. organizations, by contrast, have in the past argued that gun control is mandated by international human rights law, and that the right of self-defense does not exist. The treaty should clearly state that any assertion of the inherent right of all states to individual or collective self-defense cannot prejudice the inherent human right of personal self-defense.

       As the treaty process continues, we strongly encourage your administration not only to uphold our country’s constitutional protections of civilian firearms ownership, but to ensure – if necessary, by breaking consensus at the July conference – that the treaty will explicitly recognize the legitimacy of lawful activities associated with firearms, including but not limited to the right of self-defense. As members of the United States Senate, we will oppose the ratification of any Arms Trade Treaty that falls short of this standard.

       We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response.

#####