Today marks the 100th day of the hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay prison. For more than a decade, people have been held without charge or trial. Now, at least 100 of the 166 men who remain in Guantanamo are depriving themselves of food to draw attention to their plight. Twenty-one of them are being painfully force-fed and five are hospitalized. Here in Washington, DC activists are gathering for a major protest at the White House. You can take action today to close Guantanamo.

While the majority of people in Guantanamo have already been cleared for release, they remain imprisoned year after year because of their citizenship and ongoing political gamesmanship in the U.S. Not only is indefinite detention at Guantanamo a gross violation of human rights and dignity, it's also expensive, costing U.S. taxpayers $800,000 per detainee per year.

One detainee, Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel, recently told his moving story in a New York Times op-ed. Om Abdurahman, the mother of another detainee, writes:

My son Abdulrahman Al Shubati … has been cleared for release since as far back as January 2007 … Abdulrahman left Yemen to teach in Pakistan and never returned. I found out he was being held at Guantanamo through a newspaper. … To image my son in such a loveless place, refusing nourishment to protest his detention; to think of him being painfully force fed - it breaks my heart every second of every day… My daughter in law, Abudlrahman's wife, was pregnant when he was taken. He has never met his daughter, who is now 12 years old.

In a letter sent to President Obama last week, FCNL's Executive Secretary Diane Randall joined other faith leaders in calling on the president to close Guantanamo. They wrote, "Guantanamo Bay is a place where our government tortured prisoners, and it continues to be a place where many are detained indefinitely without trial. We believe that our government has a moral obligation to close the prison at Guantanamo."

Due to mounting pressure over the strike, the president has recently begun to speak out again, saying "I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantanamo is not necessary to keep America safe. It is expensive. It is inefficient. It hurts us, in terms of our international standing. It lessens cooperation with our allies on counter-terrorism efforts. It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed." But he has not yet acted. This year, the Department of State shut down the office responsible for closing the prison. And reports indicate that the military has requested almost $196 million to upgrade facilities at Guantanamo.

There is a safe, secure, and just alternative to Guantanamo: each detained person could either be charged and fairly tried in U.S. federal court, or be released to a country that will respect his human rights.

Over the next few weeks, the markup and renewal of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) offers a critical opportunity to lift some of the obstacles to closing Guantanamo.

Last year's NDAA placed restrictions on the transfer of people detained to other countries, as well as to to the United States -- whether for fair trial or release.

Please take a moment today to urge your members of Congress to speak out and vote to repeal the transfer restrictions.

For more background, see Amnesty International's brief on closing Guantanamo or their in-depth report: "Guantánamo: A Decade of Damage to Human Rights."

The Pentagon is looking at ways to further reduce U.S. stockpiles of nuclear weapons and exploring at least at a theoretical level abandoning the doctrine that requires the US to have the ability to launch nuclear weapons from land, sea and air.

This was the headline my colleague David Culp came back with from a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee last week and I think that's good news. It's also evidence that as budget cuts begin to take effect the Pentagon is having to take a look at the huge amounts of money our country wastes on nuclear weapons.

Eliminate the Triad?

"Reducing one of the legs of a triad would be something that would be really big. So it would be a reasonable option to look at," explained Madelyn Creedon, an Assistant Secretary of Defense. The triad is the nuclear doctrine that states the US must have the ability to launch nuclear weapons from air, land and sea. Under Congressional pressure, Creedon acknowledged that such changes would require a revision of current US nuclear weapons policy.

These comments drew strong protests from some members of the Armed Services Committee who sought assurances that eliminating the triad would not become US policy. So far, Pentagon officials are suggesting that eliminating the triad is an intellectual exercise, not something they are actively working on. But my question is why aren't they working on that possibility and why isn't Congress cheering?

As the Washington Post reported this week, there's something very troubling about Congress trying to block the Pentagon from even considering ways of changing the US nuclear weapons forces in a changing world. In addition to protesting the discussion of eliminating one leg of the triad, the House leadership now says it will hold back money to implement the new START treaty with Russia until the Obama administration states it will not seek additional reductions in deployed nuclear weapons without Congressional authorization.

Now of course the FCNL community has been calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons for decades and that position has gained strong support within the broader faith community. But whether members of Congress support or oppose reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the US arsenal, I would think Congressional leaders would want to encourage a broad debate that is already taking place within the US military.

In the FCNL community, our opposition to nuclear weapons comes first from a faith perspective. We also share the belief -- now articulated by former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz -- that eliminating the US nuclear weapons program would be good public policy.

The United States is set to spend more than $600 billion over the next decade on nuclear weapons and related spending. You don't have to represent a Quaker peace lobby to argue that In this time of fiscal constraint and changing threats, it doesn't make sense to spend billions of dollars on weapons systems that are unnecessary.

The good news is that although some members of the House Armed Services Committee are trying to block any reductions in nuclear weapons expenditures, Rep. Ed Markey has introduced legislation that could lead to at least a $100 billion cut in spending on nuclear weapons over the next ten years. Please ask your representative to support this legislation and work for its passage.

Joe Volk served as FCNL's executive secretary from 1990 until 2011.

We at FCNL lost a friend and colleague last month. Bob Edgar died at his home in Burke, VA on April 23. He was 69. Bob served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1974 to 1986. He represented the 7th congressional district of Pennsylvania.

We at FCNL extend our deepest sympathies to Bob's wife, Merle, and their family. We join with them in celebrating a life well lived, and, as Friends sometimes say, one who was well used by the Lord.

Probably no other member of Congress has so consistently voted for legislation endorsed by FCNL. Our FCNL voting records reflect a person who sought to be a problem solver, answering to the needs of "the least of these."

On hearing this sad news of Bob's death, my first thought was, I admit, odd: "Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy." Four fictional characters in a classic Cold War novel, cum movie. Those four served as a foil for one, real person, Bob Edgar, who all by himself was "Pastor, Congressman, President (Claremont School of Theology), and Advocate of the People." He believed deeply in government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

He died too young. In this age, when many, if not most politicians, use policy problems for political and personal advancement, Bob Edgar set a different direction. He sought ways to solve problems, no matter the political or personal costs to him.

While Bob was General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, he addressed FCNL's General Committee at Annual Meeting. He said that the National Council of Churches would try to lead a national movement to eliminate poverty and that they would be counting on FCNL to try to lead a movement to dramatically reduce U.S. military spending, which, as President Eisenhower had said, is a theft from the needs of the poor. We enjoyed that partnership. Today, we at FCNL continue our work to cut military spending, inspired by Bob Edgar's remarkable living testament of the Good News. We will miss him.

This week, powerful senators from both major political parties suggested that the projected cuts in planned Pentagon spending over the next few years are likely to remain in place for some time in part because of the Pentagon's poor record of controlling spending.

The Pentagon, meanwhile, escalated it's own rhetorical warnings about the impact of the combined spending reductions from the Budget Control Act and the sequester. In a series of Congressional hearings, Pentagon officials used words like "irresponsible" and "devastating" to describe the cuts.

Sen. McCain Criticizes "profligate" Pentagon

The Senate, however, is not longer buying this argument. “I think one of the reasons that members of both parties are willing to allow this sequestration to proceed is a widespread belief that a profligate Department of Defense is unwilling to rein in runaway costs on underperforming programs,” declared Arizona Senator John McCain in a hearing this week.

Across the political aisle, Senator Dick Durbin is also asking some hard questions about Pentagon spending, including the new F-35 jet fighter.

“The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the premier argument for revisiting our acquisition policy. We’re deep in the sauce when it comes to some of these projects and whether they will ever meet the defense needs of our nations,” Durbin said. The Illinois Senator also acknowledged, in an interview with Politico, that the military contractor's success in dividing up the manufacturing of the F-35 among many different congressional districts will make cutting off funding for this program more difficult

Senator Durbin's comments are particularly important because he is the new chair of the subcommittee on military spending of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

A Highly Militarized Society

Military contractors are coming under well deserved scrutiny. Earlier this month, Colorado Representative Mike Coffman wrote the chair of a key appropriations committee a letter highlighting ways in which Pentagon spending could be cut. That will be a massive job.

Military contractors continue to rake in the largest amount of money from government contractors, according to a new study by Bloomberg Government. Of the $516 billion in contracts that the federal government let out in 2012, fully one-third of the money went to five Pentagon contractors: Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman.

Perhaps the most amazing conclusion in the Bloomberg report is that Pentagon contracts accounted for two-thirds of all of the government's private-sector spending measured in this study. The longterm work of demilitarizing our society will require sustained lobbying and also careful attention to make sure that the individuals impacted by this transition are provided support as our country moves to a more peaceful economy.

I heard more testimonies to the importance of this transition during consultations by colleague Katherine Philipson has been holding with our supporters in some key states. The vast sums of money our country is spending on the military is resulting in many other important programs being starved for resources.

While the cuts to planned Pentagon spending to date have primarily focused on planned growth, other areas of federal spending that help local communities are already seeing real cuts in spending that result in real cuts in services. As we talk with people around the country, we are hearing stories of education programs for children that are shutting down, or families that rely on food getting fewer meals (and faith communities often struggling to provide more) and of housing programs that are making painful choices between people in need.

Your senators need to also hear these stories over the next few months.

A handful of Democratic and Republican senators are considering a rewrite of 60 of the most consequential words to ever pass through Congress. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), passed after the attacks of 11 September 2001, and provides the legal cornerstone for the so-called US "war on terror". Only one brave Congress member opposed it. It allows the US government to wage war at anytime, any place and on anyone deemed a threat to national security – with remarkably little evidence needed.

The consequential nature of these words is self-evident: the AUMF opened the doors to the US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya; attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Mali; the new drone bases in Niger and Djibouti; and the killing of American citizens, notably Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old noncombatant son. It is what now emboldens the hawks on the warpath to Syria, Iran and North Korea.

Rather than doubling down on war policy, as some senators are inclined to do, Congress should repeal the 2001 law. This "blank check" approach to warfare has to stop. And while the rewrite is being framed by members of both chambers (Senators John McCain and Bob Corker, Representative Buck McKeon and others) as an act of congressional oversight, it is doubtful that these hawks will curb any military authority. They have only ever called for more wars, not fewer. That means more Libyas, Yemens and al-Awlaki's.

It is time for members of Congress who truly care about rule of law, oversight and the financial security of this country to speak up. Why? Because, first and foremost, the AUMF continues to contravene congressional oversight. For example, when the Obama administration sent 100 "military advisors" to Uganda in the name of counterterrorism in 2011, Congress received a simple note from President Obama. No oversight.

More recently, after unilaterally negotiating a "status of forces" agreement with Niger, the administration sent a note to Congress saying that it was sending 100 troops to the country. This week, we sent troops to Mali. Again, no oversight.

This is the new normal. Statistics provided by Special Operations Command (pdf) indicate that special forces groups were operating in 92 different countries in March 2013. The AUMF premise, no matter how it gets tweaked, is enabling a system of eternal warfare, a reality that is not only financially untenable for a nation in deep debt, but also ethically indefensible.

Second, the AUMF continues to undermine rule of law. There are clear laws that apply to wartime situations or imminent threats, and a broadened AUMF could undermine these further. That the US already broadly categorizes individuals and groups that are loosely or tacitly associated with extremists – in secret and sometimes without evidence – is already setting a dangerous precedent.

As counterterrorism technologies, like drones, expand, the US and international community may soon see these tactics used in intra-state conflicts, with possible violations of human rights law. If targeted killings by drones are justified as acts of war, they must be subject to international law on the use of lethal force within the borders of another sovereign nation. Without a clear showing of permission to use lethal force within another nation, or an imminent threat from that nation, these killings seriously undermine prohibitions in international law against the use of deadly force.

Third, given the lack of campaign finance reform, too often defense policy is driven not by military strategy or legitimate threats, but by the defense contractor's bottom line. This is the case with the AUMF and the defense industry. The defense industry spent more than $130m on lobbying efforts in 2012 alone, and in the first quarter of 2013, weapons maker Northrop Grumman spent $5.8m on Congress, posting its third biggest lobbying quarter in company history.

There's a reason why unnecessary weapons systems like the F-35 joint strike fighter, a program that now costs the American taxpayer hundreds of billions of dollars, never go away. It's the same reason why new systems will be developed to drive policy decisions: money. The industry continues to claim the need for new weapons to face new threats. It is becoming clear that the defense industry's loyalty is first to the financial security of its shareholders, and only secondarily to the security of this country.

It is time to send the 2001 AUMF into the sunset, and to return the checks and balances that policy-makers put in place: the executive and legislative branches must deliberate before waging war. We are making enemies through a feckless, dangerous approach, and it is time to return some censure to our defense apparatus. Otherwise, the AUMF will continue to make us hemorrhage – both blood and, especially, treasure.

This article originally appeared on The Guardian website and appeared on The Huffington Post website as well.

Pentagon contractors are escalating their campaign to roll back planned cuts in Pentagon spending that would impact their bottom line. In a private meeting with Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel this week, the Wall Street Journal reports that Northrop Grumman CEO and other top industry leaders expressed anxiety about the cuts.

Such anxiety would make sense. If the Pentagon budget, after growing by about 50% in real terms in the first part of this century, is finally being reduced it would make sense that the contractors would begin to feel the pinch because the parts of the budget that pay salaries for troops -- some one-third of the budget -- are largely protected from the estimated $1 trillion in Pentagon cuts that are part of current law.

Pentagon Contractors Not Feeling Big Cuts

But the Washington Post reports that so far Pentagon contractors are not seeing large drops in sales. Profits at Northrop Grumman were essentially flat and Lockheed Martin reports that they don't expect much impact on their sales in 2013.

The contractors themselves also seem to have plenty of cash around to pay their top officials. The Federal Times reported in late April that just as the Pentagon was announcing that their budget might begin to fall last year, Lockheed raised the salary of their CEO from $23.4 million to $27.5 million. Read more about profits of contractors.

The good news is that there's really a lot that can still be cut from the Pentagon budget. The Stars and Stripes newspaper reported last month that military has nearly $900 million in replacement spare parts for one military vehicle that will probably never be needed. And the Center for Public Integrity reports that the primary contractor supplying food to US troops in Afghanistan may have overbilled the US governemnt by about $757 million.

Gen. Identifies Belt Tightening for Pentagon

The Pentagon is certainly aware of the problem. In an interview with the New York Times last month, Gen. Martin Dempsey said "“We’ve been living with unconstrained resources for 10 years, and, frankly, we’ve developed some bad habits."

Several weeks later reporters from the Christian Science Monitor asked for more specifics and Gen. Martin Dempsey offered a list: acquisition programs, health care costs, military bases, the reliance on military contractors

Now here at FNCL we think cutting the Pentagon is about more than just efficiency. As this great video developed by our colleague Colin Browne illustrates, even a $1 trillion reduction in planned Pentagon spending and the conclusion of two wars, Pentagon spending is still projected to be higher than during most of the Cold War and the Vietnam war.

But reading the newspapers over the last year, I've read over and over again a narrative that suggests the world will come to an end if Pentagon spending is reduced dramatically, that economic growth will come to a halt and that the US economy may not recover.

I don't doubt that our heavily militarized economy will suffer some setbacks as our country begins to cut back on Pentagon spending. And in my view no one should discount the real pain that some individuals and communities may feel as federal funding is cut (Which is why FCNL is also supporting transition assistance for impacted communities).

But as we've said over decades, this isn't just a debate about cutting Pentagon spending. While the growth in Pentagon spending is being stopped, spending on a lot of other government programs that feed people who are hungry, provide housing for the homeless and education for our future have already seen real cuts in spending.

The debate about federal spending will probably continue for most of this year. And as we go through this debate, I'm reminded of what one Congressional staff person told me during a visit to a district office earlier this year: "We need to hear from you. Not once, not twice, but regularly on this issue. Because believe me we're hearing from people who don't want to see the Pentagon cuts every day."

The debate in Congress about where to cut spending and where to raise revenue is expected to continue through the summer and into the fall. We all need to figure out how we can keep coming back to these offices, bringing the same people and bringing new people to keep delivering that message.

This week both the House and the Senate passed legislation to ease the long lines and delays at airports. The legislation, passed at lightning speed in less than a week, demonstrates that elected officials can act with speed to pass legislation.

Although I'm delighted to see Congress pass legislation to address the budget mess, I'm outraged the Senate would choose to act to reduce long lines and delays at airports without addressing the long lines at food shelters, or programs to help the homeless, or the long lines of unemployed. This legislation just continues a long tradition of exempting the powerful and the privileged from the pain that the rest of the country is facing. What next? If Congress provides relief for airline travelers, will they next provide a special exception for military contractors?

Call your senators

Please call your senators today. Urge them to block any legislation that helps airline passengers unless it helps the rest of the country as well. You can use our website to find their contact information.

The Senate should not pass relief for airline travelers without also:

The stories we are all hearing a heartbreaking. One more of special interest to FCNLis a story from Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. On that reservation they have had 110 suicide attempts in the last 100 days. The reservation had been promised to suicide prevention counselors to help with this epidemic, but now they are told they counselors will not be showing up.

The good news is we now know the House and the Senate can act, in a bipartisan manner, to address budget issues when they have sufficient motivation—look how fast they acted to help frequent fliers. Now we need to persuade Congress to focus attention on the very real needs that the poor and the powerless in our society now face.

Tell Congress What You Think

Step one is to tell Congress we will not accept action to bail out frequent fliers that doesn't also address the impact of sequester on people with much less means.

The bill to cut delays at airports is scheduled to come back to the Senate next week for a technical fix. All it takes is one senator speaking up to block this legislation, which just continues a long tradition of allowing the powerful and the privileged minorities of people to be exempt from the pain that the rest of the country is facing.

Urge your senators to block any legislation that helps airline passengers unless it helps the rest of the country as well.

Urge your representative to develop legislation that addresses the real crisis facing the country. Congress needs to act. But they can’t just bail out frequent fliers.

This blog post was updated Monday to reflect FCNL's understanding that the legislation will have to come back to the Senate for action before it becomes law.

In 2011, the war in Afghanistan was at a pivotal point. For twelve long years the United States had been militarily engaged in Afghanistan. Operation costs for military, civilian and development efforts had cost U.S. taxpayers more than $600 billion dollars and more than 2,000 U.S. lives. At home, the popularity of the war was declining among the American public, U.S. strategy was being questioned by the left and right, and the Obama Administration was struggling to determine future U.S. policy. These statistics did not adequately capture the toll of human suffering—from broken families to suicides and contributions to humanity that will be forever lost, the human costs are incalculable. This is to say nothing of the human suffering endured by Afghans or the long term costs to the U.S. reputation abroad. In short, there were so many drawbacks to the U.S. war in Afghanistan, it was hard to see how one could try to justify it.

Yet, around Capitol Hill, the war had been justified by many congressional offices when the Obama administration announced an escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2009. In fact, many offices—even those that had initially been critical of U.S. engagement in Iraq—fell largely silent. Some anti-war elected officials persisted, but there was a notable and precipitous decline in support of anti-war legislation in the Democrat-controlled House and Senate. Herein lay the problem: the coalition of members exercising congressional oversight went off duty and the war went further off track. Those responsible for authorizing the war and appropriating funds to fight it no longer had a clear picture of what was happening on the ground.

In an effort to erode the so-called reality gap by bringing members of Congress and staff to Afghanistan, FCNL chose to organize an under-the-radar Congressional trip (i.e., one without official US Government help) to the region. Congress does have protocol for trips abroad—especially when traveling to places like Afghanistan. These delegations, known on Capitol Hill as Congressional Delegations (Co-Dels), take members overseas with huge security entourages, usually for 48 hours or less. Staff delegations (Staff-Dels) sometimes last longer, but have equal constraints around security. Since the Pentagon provides security and the State Department organizes the trip, these delegations are inherently biased.

Organizing an under-the-radar delegation presents a set of unique challenges. First, it is highly irregular for elected officials to go to a war zone without security for an obvious reason—it is tremendously dangerous. Second, since organizing such a trip without U.S. Departments of State and Defense is generally taboo, congressional members are reluctant to participate. Third, there are endless logistical hurdles to overcome, from getting approval of congressional ethics committees to raising funds to acquiring visas and so on.

For these and many other reasons, planning the trip required several iterations. The first focused on bringing members of Congress and key staff to Afghanistan. The State Department sternly cautioned these members against traveling outside of congressional norms, and they thus backed out. However, staff in some offices remained interested, so the trip shifted from a Co-Del to a Staff-Del. We then decided to include journalists and other NGO leaders.

In short order, $30,000 was raised, the House Ethics Committee approved the trip and the schedule came together. The Friends Committee on National Legislation coordinated with Wilmington College, a Quaker school in Wilmington, Ohio, to finalize the details.

In the end, the group consisted of two congressional staff, two journalists, three policy experts (including Matt Southworth) and an academic (Michael Snarr.)

We spent a total of five days at a safe house in the capital, Kabul. Due to security concerns we did not venture outside of the city, spending nearly all of our time shuttling to and from meetings on a mini-bus. Most of the meetings were with Afghan and Western nongovernmental groups. The former included the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Com-mission, Integrity Watch – Afghan-istan, and a former Taliban leader; the latter included Oxfam, CARE International and the Institute for War and Peace Reporting. We also met with Afghan governmental agencies, such as the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and Ministry of Refugees and Repatriations, as well as U.S. governmental organizations like the United Institute of Peace.

We had many highly informative discussions on a wide array of topics, including human rights, terrorism, agriculture, refugees, and poverty. Though each meeting focused on the particular work each group did, in the end, we asked every group the same question: “With the United States planning to dramatically draw down troops by 2014, what can the U.S. do between now and then to reduce the chance of violence or even civil war?”

These discussions brought several interesting themes to light. There were some issues on which the groups disagreed, such as the timing of U.S. and NATO withdrawal. Some groups thought immediate withdrawal would be best to stabilize the country, while others thought a quick removal of foreign forces would lead to even greater instability. Despite some of these disagreements, there were also points on which there was widespread agreement. What we found particularly interesting was that so many of these strongly coincided with the wisdom of Quakers. Below we highlight those findings that should not surprise Quakers.

Lessons for Friends

These are just four of many lessons that we took from our trip to Afghanistan. We could certainly break down each of these lessons into their own essay with many subsets of points. We also approached the conflict in Afghanistan with a perspective that is uniquely American, which may not be consistent with Afghan perspectives on these issues. What we found particularly interesting, though, was that these lessons closely match Quaker wisdom. The clearest example is that there is not a military solution to Afghanistan. Since we both are fully immersed in Quaker institutions, these findings were especially affirming for us. We think other Friends will share this sense of affirmation.

This article was co-authored by Matt Southworth, FCNL, and Professor Michael T. Snarr of Wilmington College.

This article first appeared in the April, 2013 edition of Quaker Higher Education, a publication of the Friends Association for Higher Education.

This week, a majority of senators voted for legislation intended to prevent felons, domestic abusers and potentially violent people with mental illnesses from buying guns to hurt themselves, loved ones or others. But 45 senators were able to block the legislation from moving forward. What happens next depends on us.

The failure of the legislation on Thursday is being pinned in part on lawmaker's fear that supporters of background checks do not have the same "enthusiasm" and focus as opponents. You can help show that this is not so. Find out how your senators voted and call their offices today. After you call, please follow up with an email letting them know how you feel and then ask ten friends to do the same with an email.

What we do in the next few days could determine when and if this legislation is brought up for a vote again. Will you help us make sure that members of Congress here your views when they pick up the phone, read their email or go to public events over the next few days and weeks?

Requiring Background Checks

We at FCNL support legislation that would require gun-buyers to pass a criminal background check, prevent civilians from buying high-capacity weapons and ammunition and make gun trafficking a federal crime.The Senate held votes on all of these issues this week.

But the focus of the senate action was on legislation sponsored by Senators Pat Toomey (PA) and Joe Manchin (WV) that would make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to obtain guns by expanding background checks during gun purchases. The Toomey-Manchin bill was a good first step toward common sense reform of US gun laws and it had bipartisan support.

Here's why the senate focused on this issue: today, fully 60 percent of all people who purchase a gun go through a 4 to 7 minute background check. But 40 percent of gun sales take place at gun shows or other places where background checks are not required. If 60 percent of gun buyers are willing and able to undergo background checks, why not require this quick procedure for the remaining 40 percent?

The good news is that more senators voted for criminal background checks than have voted for any gun reform legislation in 17 years, according to the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The list of which Senators voted for, and against, this measure also provides a good starting point for our next efforts on gun control. (Senator Reid supports the measure but voted "no" at the last minute to preserve his right to bring the legislation forward again)

Now every senator needs to hear your voice. The FCNL community has a particularly important role to play in this effort because we have strong Quakers and other grassroots advocates in swing states such as Maine, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Alaska. Those senators who supported this legislation need to receive your thanks and those who opposed the bill need to hear that you hope they will change their position.

Please also consider letting others in your community know about the importance of staying engaged either through email or by circulating this information in printed form.

Other Votes on Assault Weapons As Well

The Senate also voted 60 to 40 in mid-March to defeat an amendment sponsored by Senator Diane Feinstein to regulate assault weapons and large capacity magazines. Legislation sponsored by Senator Patrick Leahy to make gun trafficking a federal crime was also narrowly blocked by a vote of 58 to 42. (Sixty votes are needed to move ahead with this legislation.)

Other resources and commentaries

We are FCNL are working closing with the organization Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence. We also follow closely the work of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign and the other good groups and individuals working to address the problem of gun violence. As I write this blog, I was particularly moved by the New York Times column posted today by former Representative Gabriel Giffords. Let us know what you think on these issues below. Senator John McCain's statement on the floor of the senate is also worth reading.

Uncertainty around U.S. military base closures has caught some attention (“Obama campaigned against military base closures now in his budget,” April 10), but uncertainty about the ongoing U.S. war in Afghanistan has gone largely unnoticed. In fact, there is so much uncertainty around President Obama’s plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Afghanistan that the government can’t even properly budget for it — unlike the base closures, which did have a budget request.

“Final decisions about the pace of the drawdown in Afghanistan have not yet been made” according to the budget request. “As a result, the Budget includes a placeholder for DOD’s 2014 [Afghanistan and Iraq war] funding, equivalent to the amount provided [$96.7 billion total, $88.5 billion for Afghanistan] in the President’s 2013 Budget.” This is a remarkable admission by the administration.

In his February State of the Union address, Obama announced the U.S. would withdraw 34,000 troops — roughly half of the current force — in one year. Few other details about the pace of this withdrawal, the nature of continued U.S. involvement or the long-term future of U.S.-Afghan relations have emerged, alarming many members of Congress and Afghans alike.

Perhaps most alarming is that the administration has even less to say — at least publicly — about how it will work with Afghans to manage the withdrawal of significant U.S. funds and political support over the coming year. At a minimum, we need a plan to manage this withdrawal and mitigate financial and political instability.

The Obama administration should announce its plan for the pace of troop withdrawals, as well as its political and economic transition plans. Eliminating strategic and budgetary uncertainty is a crucial part of ensuring any transition is as smooth as possible — base closures and war alike.

This post originally appeared in The Hill here.

April 9, 2013

Since 2011, the budget battles over debts and deficits, revenues and spending cuts have been exhausting and accompanied by an endless array of partisan posturing in Congress with seemingly no solution in sight. A deal to avert the across the board cuts on March 1, or sequestration, was never reached and we went over the fiscal cliff. The President’s FY2014 budget, to be released this Wednesday April 10, sets the stage for the next round of deal making in this long trajectory of budget processes. A media leak last Friday on the President’s budget revealed some important yet concerning information.

President Obama’s $1.8 trillion deficit reduction package over 10 years borrows from an earlier proposal made to Speaker Boehner during initial negotiations around the fiscal cliff.

So, what should we expect in this budget Wednesday?

With the House and Senate budget resolutions introduced last month, so ideologically varied, the President’s budget seeks to insert itself somewhere in the middle. But this middle ground is precarious. Although there are no current plans for the House and Senate to go to conference on their budgets, perhaps, in an attempt to end the incessant partisanship in Congress and bring the two disparate chambers together, the Administration is making concessions. Negotiating disadvantageous entitlement reform (like chained CPI) in order to trade-off for revenues and Pentagon cuts in a deficit reduction package is not balanced. And certainly, the Pentagon should pay its fair share in any deficit reduction deal. Even Secretary of Defense Hagel acknowledged the reality of the $1 trillion dollar cut facing the Pentagon in his address at the National Defense University.

This Wednesday, FCNL will be watching closely to learn the details and specifics of what the President’s budget entails. Will the concessions in President Obama’s budget finally bring Democrats and Republicans to the negotiating table? If so, if a grand bargain is reached, will it be a fair and balanced one, that protects low-income and vulnerable populations, raises new revenues, and cuts the Pentagon by $1 trillion over 10 years?

The budget decisions made now will resonate for a decade.

Daniel Wertz is the program officer for the National Committee on North Korea, a nonpartisan coalition that advances, promotes and facilitates engagement between citizens of the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

Over the past few weeks, North Korea has grabbed headlines with a series of provocative threats and actions, including: abandoning the armistice which ended the Korean War sixty years ago, threatening to launch a nuclear strike against the United States, restarting a nuclear facility that had been shuttered under a 2007 denuclearization agreement, and warning foreign diplomats in Pyongyang that it could not guarantee their safety. Most recently, North Korea has taken steps toward shuttering the Kaesong Industrial Complex, the inter-Korean investment zone that stands as the last symbol of a period of warmer relations between the two Koreas.

After North Korea launched a satellite into orbit last December—which foreign governments argued was a cover for a long-range missile test—it looked like we were headed back to an all-too-familiar cycle of provocations, posturing, and sanctions. The U.N. adopted a resolution condemning the launch, and North Korea replied by conducting its third nuclear test, bringing the country closer to having a viable nuclear arsenal.

The U.N. responded to the nuclear test by adopting further sanctions, with the Obama administration also deciding to make a show of military force. Amid annual U.S.-South Korean joint military exercises (which regularly cause tensions with the North), the U.S. sent nuclear-capable aircraft to conduct mock bombing runs in South Korea, and had a nuclear submarine surface in the South Korean port of Busan for a photo-op. However, this muscle-flexing appears to have only escalated the level and frequency of North's threats, and the U.S. now seems to be rethinking its tactics.

Although Kim Jong Un's motivations for ratcheting tensions up so high are not clear, there are a few possible explanations. He could be attempting to consolidate domestic support by creating an internal sense of crisis, or trying to pressure the world into accepting North Korea's nuclear status. His apparent willingness to shut down Kaesong, which is a cash cow for the regime, seems to indicate that North Korea wants more than a new influx of international aid.

While it is extremely unlikely that the North's young leader would intentionally launch a war he would surely lose, there is a risk of conflict starting by mutual miscalculation. After the North launched a pair of limited attacks on South Korea in 2010, then-President Lee Myung-bak came under criticism for not responding strongly enough. His successor Park Geun-hye has pledged to meet force with force in the event of a further such attack - a stance which could mean that a relatively small military exchange could quickly escalate into a broader conflict.

Tensions may ease somewhat after the joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises end on April 30. Kim Jong Un could declare victory and refrain from new provocations, saying something to the effect of 'I stood up to the Americans plotting to invade our country, and now they've backed down.' But even if this scenario plays out, the Korean Peninsula will remain a tinderbox, one spark away from a disastrous conflagration. Rather than accept this status quo, the U.S. must be willing to engage in dialogue with North Korea, finding out what Kim Jong Un's motivations truly are, and making it clear that reform and opening - rather than nuclear brinksmanship - are what will bring the security and international legitimacy North Korea desires.

In 2000, FCNL shared this newsletter with its network, advocating for an international code of conduct regulating the sale of small arms. 13 years later, the U.N. has finally adopted a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to help prevent conventional weapons from fueling atrocities.

This Tuesday, countries across the world voted in support of an agreement text that, though imperfect, establishes the following:

Once 50 states have ratified the treaty, it will officially go into effect.

Despite some major challenges (including a recent Senate amendment that would prevent the U.S. from joining the ATT), the U.S. delegation ultimately voiced strong support for the agreement. The next step for U.S. advocates is ensuring that President Obama signs the agreement when it opens in June – and ensuring that the U.S. continues to think critically about its own regulations for foreign arms sales.

While arms control activists maintain that the ATT will have an impact either way, the support of the world’s major arms suppliers – including the U.S. – is critical to the treaty’s implementation. And though the U.S. often cites its relatively strong arms trade standards, ongoing transfers to regimes like that in Bahrain raise serious questions about U.S. commitment to human rights.

Still, the treaty’s adoption alone remains a tremendous success and a big step forward for a $70 billion market left unregulated until now. Send a message today thanking President Obama for his support, and urge him to sign on to the treaty as soon as possible. For many around the world most impacted by the irresponsible sale of small arms, this week was true history in the making – and it’s time for the U.S. to be on the right side.

According to a recent Harvard report, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will end up costing U.S. taxpayers up to $6 trillion in the long term. The report by Linda Bilmes, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School estimates the final cost to be around $4-6 trillion. It is staggering that the estimate ranges by $2 trillion given that just five years ago, Bilmes co-authored a book called “The Three Trillion Dollar War.”

While long term costs are difficult to accurately calculate, the estimates are overwhelming. War costs through the end of 2013 are around $1.4 trillion, or roughly 23% of the total expected cost. This figure covers the Pentagon, State and Veterans Administration (not the CIA or other covert operators). The U.S. will budget for less than $100 billion for Afghanistan war funding in 2014 and significantly less than that annually beyond 2014.

Much of the long term cost depends on how long the veterans of these wars live. With nearly one million of 2.5 million veterans having already filed disability claims, we can expect costs to be on the higher end of estimates. The vast majority of the cost—most of the other $4.5 trillion—will be the cost of veteran care.

Of the wars, Bilmes writes “this legacy is debt - promises and commitments that extend far into the future.” As Danger Room put it, the biggest threat to U.S. national security is the wars.

Of course we know the legacy of these last twelve years of war is so much more than just the debt. These twelve years have changed how the U.S. will engage in future wars. The ongoing use of counterterrorism tactics such as training missions, covert operations and drone strikes all over the world—Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Libya and so on—exemplify this alarming shift in foreign policy.

”War-Lite” Approach Won’t Work

Some argue that one way to reduce the cost of war is to use these counterterror tactics and advanced technologies. Yet recent data visualization of drone strike casualties by Pitch Interactive disputes the idea that the U.S. can “surgically and strategically” kill extremists around the world with impunity. The U.S. is killing a lot of people and very few of them are extremist leaders.

Between 2001 and now, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,105 people , including 175 children and 535 civilians. The majority of those killed—2,348 people categorized as “other” in the graphic—are alleged low-level insurgents. Given the way the administration has counted some of these casualties, these numbers are suspicious. A mere 47 people (1.5%) are considered high profile targets.

The legacy of the “war on terror” may not just be debt, but perpetual war. As General Stanly McCrystal, former Special Forces operator and commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan said, "What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world […] The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one...”

Taking Action

Calculating the cost of war and trying to find ways to build an enduring peace are not easy tasks. Over the years, Members of Congress have grown to understand the immense human and financial costs involved in these wars. Recently, Reps. Walter Jones (NC) and Bruce Braley (IA) introduced H.R. 1238, the True Cost of War Act. The bill would require the Obama administration to present official government cost projections for the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—something that has not yet been adequately done .

You can take action by writing your member of Congress and asking them to cosponsor H.R. 1238: The True Cost of War Act.

We are at a crossroads for U.S. foreign policy and engagement around the world. As the U.S. ends the bulk of its military involvement in Afghanistan in the coming year, we have an opportunity to reevaluate our engagement around the world. To simply double down on a “war-lite” approach will only lay a foundation for future major wars that we cannot afford.

Thanks in part to advocacy from FCNL’s network and others, Senator Coons has introduced a resolution focused on continued U.S. support for peace in Kenya. As Kenyans await verdicts on some important court cases – including one challenging the results of Kenya’s presidential election, due to be decided in a few days – Friends have emphasized that violence prevention and peacebuilding are as critical now as they were on Election Day.

The resolution (S. Res. 90), which is co-sponsored by Senator Cardin and Senator Flake, states its purpose as:

standing with the people of Kenya following their national and local elections on March 4, 2013, and urging a peaceful and credible resolution of electoral disputes in the courts.”

In bringing this forward, these senators have offered a signal that the U.S. will continue to stand with those working toward peace and social justice in Kenya long after the polls have left the headlines. And while U.S.-Kenya policy is far from perfect – still raising major concerns about the impacts of U.S. military assistance, for example – this focus on peaceful prevention is a big step in the right direction.

Write to your senators now to encourage them to join S. Res. 90, and add their names to those who recognize what so many Kenyans are doing to prevent violence and make change in their communities. In the weeks following the court cases and beyond, our voices will continue to call for U.S. engagement that helps support, rather than undermine, efforts toward long-term peace.

March 23, 2013

Since the tragic murders of 20 young children and six teachers in Newtown, CT last December, we’ve seen more discussion about guns, violence and what can be done than we’ve heard for years. This is an important national dialogue—raising questions of the costs of gun violence to our public health system, the fissures in our mental health system, the quest for personal safety and the meaning of the Constitution. We are a divided country on this issue. Public opinion polling about gun control shows big differences from urban to suburban to rural communities and across racial differences.

These differences are reflected in Congress, where—despite unprecedented advocacy from those who want to establish new restrictions—a majority of the US Senate is unlikely to renew a ban on assault weapons. But by mid-April, it appears that Congress will vote on a bill for federal background checks on gun purchases and new penalties on federal gun trafficking. Other measures to curb gun violence such as an assault weapons ban or limits on ammunition clips are considered will likely be considered as amendments. Congress is on recess right now and it appears that the specifics of how a universal background checks system would operate are being negotiated before a final bill emerges. Many lawmakers would be happy to not take any action on gun violence unless their constituents press them.

On April 9, FCNL will be participating in a national Faith Call-In Day to encourage members of Congress to support sensible legislation to reduce gun violence. We’re working with other organizations to encourage people of faith across the country to voice their requests for action from all our political leaders—with particular emphasis in Maine, Indiana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Louisiana and North Carolina. The leadership from churches and families in Newtown and from other communities and families that have been scarred by gun violence inspire all of us to give voice to common sense policy.

We have heard from many FCNL supporters who are working locally on gun violence prevention including participation in marches, petition drives, and public forums in which victims’ families are pleading for action. Others are engaging in dialogue within their faith communities, their families and their circles of friends. Perhaps because of the strong feelings and opionions about guns, our Quaker listening for that of God in everyone we meet is more important than ever. The questions being raised deserve and need the perspective of people who work for peace and justice. Are there ways we can reduce violence in our communities? Who are the victims of violence? What are the seeds of violence? Why does someone use a gun to harm himself or someone else? Do laws which restrict guns violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution?

As we work for “communities in which every person’s potential may be fulfilled,” and a “society with equity and justice for all,” we know that it is essential and possible to practice non-violence and promote effective public policy that can reduce all forms of violence.

On Thursday, Congress sent the president a stop-gap bill to fund the federal government through the September end of the fiscal year, but lawmakers ducked many of the tough budget issues including whether to cut the Pentagon budget.

The "continuing resolution" approved by the House of Representatives on Thursday is a stop-gap measure that allows the federal government to continue writing checks and avoids a government shut-down. The good news is that despite intense lobbying by military contractors, Congress did not bow to pressure to prevent cuts in Pentagon spending going into effect in March. The bad news is short term spending measure will also result in cuts in some domestic programs that are important for the health of our society.

The Budget Debate Through The Summer

The stop-gap measure approved this week does not resolve any of the fundamental policy debates about what mixture of revenues and expenditures are appropriate for our federal budget. That debate is now likely to extend at least into the summer as negotiators talk about how much revenue to raise from taxes and other fees and how much should be spent on the Pentagon, retirement plans and health care for the elderly and from all of the other categories of federal spending.

The first window on this broader debate came in mid March as the House and Senate passed competing budget proposals. The House first voted 84 to 327 to reject the Progressive Caucus Budget Proposal that would have cut Pentagon spending and freed up money for job creation. Then the House narrowly approved the budget offered by Rep. Paul Ryan that protects the Pentagon from further cuts while reducing payments for Medicaid and food stamps, among other vital programs.

On Friday, the Senate was expected to approve a different budget proposal prepared by Senator Patty Murray (WA) that includes nearly $1 trillion in new tax revenues, cuts Pentagon spending by an additional $240 billion over ten years and invests in job creation. The National Priorities Project has prepared a useful summary of these proposals.

A trillion cut in Pentagon Spending

Neither the House nor the Senate budget proposals include the full $1 trillion cut in Pentagon spending that FCNL believes should be the minimum reduction in military spending over the next ten years.

Yet one very important piece of good news is that majorities in both chambers of Congress now agree that planned Pentagon spending should be reduced by at least $500 billion -- a tremendous success for all of the lobbying that the FCNL community and others have been engaged in for the last two years. Now the challenge is what do all of us in the FCNL community do next?

I hear from many people in the FCNL community who say they are tired of lobbying to cut the Pentagon budget. Why do we need to keep doing this as Congress keeps avoiding the big decisions and moving the decision point into the future? Is Congress listening?

During our lobbying for Spring Lobby Weekend this past week and during the Quaker Public Policy Institute late last year, many of us heard repeatedly from Congressional staff that we we need to keep coming back again and again and bringing new voices into this debate. "Just at the point when you are sick and tired of lobbying us, that's when we will really start to listen," one staff person told a group of FCNL grassroots lobbyists.

I'd say we're doing better than that. Congress is already listening. Despite millions and millions of dollars in expenditures, and dire warnings about the safety of the nation, Congress has accepted that our country can and should cut military spending dramatically. The question now is can we continue to press for more cuts so that ten years from now our nation is not spending as much on the Pentagon as it was during the heights of the Cold War and Vietnam?

What do we do now? The April 15 deadline for filing tax returns is an excellent time to remind your neighbors how much money our country spends on war. Then we hope you'll already begin thinking about what is the broader coalition of business, labor, faith people from your community that might join you in lobbying your senators during the Memorial Day recess. The next big decision point will come sometime this summer or early fall when Congress again has to vote on raising the federal debt limit.

The good news is, having worked with so many of you around the country, I'm confident we can continue to press for real cuts in Pentagon spending so that our country can invest in preventing wars, providing jobs, protecting the poor and provide education, health care and full retirement benefits for everyone in our society.

Anniversaries are often a time to look back and reflect. It was ten years ago today that the United States brought “shock and awe” to Iraq under the false pretenses of Iraqi involvement in 9/11 and possession of weapons of mass destruction.

We in the U.S. have all but forgotten those days, even after nearly 4,500 U.S. service members died in Iraq and over $800 billion were spent. The Iraq War was once the focus of a plethora of media coverage and congressional debate—it was even a campaign issue as late as the 2008 presidential election. The Iraq War, its false justification and the crimes committed to cover up the truth are now distant memories for most Americas, only 53% of whom think the Iraq War was a mistake.

This is a sobering realization on a day when car bombs killed fifty people in Baghdad. Ten years after the U.S. invasion, Iraq is a dangerous, violent and unstable place—but not because Iraqis are violent or “have been fighting for thousands of years and always will” as many have remarked over the years. Iraq is unstable today because of U.S. action there—beginning in the 1970s.

In 2003, after a decade of crippling sanctions that failed to displace Saddam Hussein’s regime, the U.S. upended the political order, killed an unknown number of Iraqis, created a huge humanitarian crisis, gave legs to a formidable insurgency, and then left with no real plan for political transition to mitigate violence. According to the UN, there are currently over 1.2 million internally displaced people and about half a million Iraqi refugees. The Iraqi government has been ranked as one of the most corrupt in the world. Political violence caused the deaths of nearly 300 Iraqis in the last six weeks alone.

These statistics pale in comparison to the true cost of the Iraq War: human dignity. The true legacy of this unnecessary war is pure tragedy.

I deployed to Iraq in 2004 under the guise of freedom and democracy--noble ideals for a 19-year-old. Yet the reality of war creates the exact opposite conditions. War does not liberate; it oppresses. War does not solve political problems; it creates them. The effects are devastating and lifelong. The most tragic stories aren’t captured in the ‘killed in action’ numbers. The story of the child growing up without a parent or photos of a grieving family are hardly news, but the effects will last for generations.

Since 2001, about 2.5 million servicemen and women—less than 1% of the U.S. population—have served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Of these, some 450,000 have pending claims with the Veterans Administration for either Post Traumatic Stress or Traumatic Brain Injury, or both. The VA currently has 900,000 claims pending altogether from Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, with an average wait time of 273 days—and much longer for some vets. Substance abuse, homelessness and domestic violence are issues many veterans face as well. In short, we are failing our veterans.

What of the countless Iraqis affected by the war? No one knows exactly how many Iraqis have been killed in the last ten years. Some 29 million people live in Iraq: every single one of them has been directly affected by the war. Many are dealing with political violence to this day. But there isn’t a backlog in Iraq because there are no equivalent services. We cannot calculate the loss to the world that this represents.

All of this considered, there is no accountability for those who marched us into Iraq under false pretenses. There is no grand jury, no meaningful investigation, and no one (except whistleblowers) who will serve time in prison. This can only be described as a mischarge of justice that history must right. Instead, the U.S. seems to be trudging head on into the next wars—Iran, Libya, Mali, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia…the list goes on.

I am not hopeless. I know after nearly four years in Washington that the voices of ordinary people can make a difference. I saw it again this weekend when FCNL brought over 100 young adults to Capitol Hill to lobby their elected officials. Students talked; staff and members listened. Dialogues took place and the foundations of long-term relationships were laid. Only sustained efforts will ensure these relationships lead to policy change.

One thing I’ve learned is that many people undervalue their own voice. If we want to help prevent the next war, we must use our voices, draw on lessons learned from the Iraq War and others, and act. The stakes are too high to stay silent.

This week saw the release of two house budget plans that couldn’t be more varied on the ideological spectrum. The first, known as “The Path to Prosperity,” or the Ryan budget, was introduced by the House Budget Committee and Rep. Paul Ryan (WI-1). The other, “The Back to Work Budget,” is an alternative budget plan of the Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chaired by Rep. Keith Ellison (MN-5) and Rep. Raúl Grijalva (AZ-3).

Our budget lobbying work here at FCNL over the past two years has been focused on advocating for a trillion dollar cut in Pentagon spending over the next ten years. Throughout this budget crisis in Congress, we have been asking for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that cuts Pentagon spending by $1 trillion dollars over the next ten years, protects domestic human needs programs, restores lost revenues, and makes investments in job creation. The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) alternative to the Ryan budget, “The Back to Work Budget” is a truly progressive piece of legislation that highlights many of the principles advocated for by FCNL.

On the Hill, FCNL is known for being the group that talks about Pentagon spending cuts. Throughout these budget negotiations in Congress we have continued to call on the Pentagon to pay its fair share. We have used Pentagon spending reductions as a lens through which we talk about a variety of other issues impacted by our over-bloated Pentagon budget. The CPC budget brings these things into perspective. Finally, here is a budget document that not only reflects many of the values and principles we have, but uplifts these issues in a piece of legislation that will see votes on the floor.

Highlights from “The Back to Work Budget:”

Pentagon Spending

This section of the budget states, “There are significant and more responsible savings on par with sequestration levels that can be achieved over the next decade” – What does that mean?  Massive pentagon reductions equivalent to the amount of the across the board spending cuts in sequestration, the amount we have been lobbying for!

• $897 billion in savings in the base Pentagon budget without reductions in military personnel wages or benefits, returning the base budget to 2006 levels.
• A speedy withdrawal from Afghanistan, limits FY2014 funding to adequate levels supporting a drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. The budget ends war funding known as OCO (Overseas Contingency Operation) beginning in FY2015.
• Significant reductions in private contractor personnel, a need for a Pentagon audit, reductions in expensive weapons systems, and "reducing the nuclear arsenal as outlined by Rep. Ed Markey’s SANE ACT.”

And what to do with all the money freed up from the Pentagon?

With all the reductions in Pentagon spending, the CPC budget seeks to increase funding for diplomacy and development programs to “provide vital … humanitarian assistance, and increase tools to combat the horrors of drug and human trafficking and nuclear proliferation.”

Many of the policy suggestions of this budget document are aligned with FCNL’s advocacy for reductions in Pentagon spending. The indiscriminate across the board method of sequestration was never meant to be an effective tool for deficit reduction.  In this budget, the CPC repeals sequestration for the Department of Defense, yet maintains the level of cuts, pairing it with thoughtful and smart policy.

As well, along with massive savings in the Pentagon, this budget offers a series of progressive tax reform options that would generate new revenue, including some corporate tax reform, a $25 per ton carbon tax (with provisions for refundable credits for low income households), as well raising rates on high income earners. The budget also makes substantial investments in job creation, as the title “Back to Work” implies. The budget will create 7 million jobs in the first year alone through such reforms as providing aid for public works job programs, investing in infrastructure, and reinstating laid-off teachers.

The focus of “The Back to Work” budget is economic stimulus not austerity, as we have seen so much in Congress. Through good spending, responsible revenue, and smart reductions mostly in the Pentagon, this budget not only reduces the deficit by 4.4 trillion, but more importantly frames our budget conversations as a question of priorities.

This plan will be voted on next week. Please call your representative and ask her or him to vote for the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ Back to Work Budget.

.

Last July, the U.N. couldn’t come to agreement on a global Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) to help prevent weapons from reaching those who would use them to commit atrocities. Next week, they’ll have a second chance.

From March 18th-28th, delegations from around the world will gather in New York to discuss guidelines and regulations for the international sale of arms. After a draft failed to gain conclusive support during an initial conference last year, hopes are that a second try might lead to an agreement.

While an ATT wouldn’t mean an end to the dangers of arms sales, it could establish some important standards for a multibillion-dollar market that’s currently without regulation (many point out that bananas and mp3 players have more binding multilateral rules than weapons). In a letter to President Obama last month, FCNL joined 35 groups in noting the U.S.'s particular responsibility to advocate for standards that are both strong and effective. As the world's leading arms supplier, the letter read, the U.S. needs to urge support for a treaty with a deep commitment to human rights and a comprehensive scope – including regulation of ammunition, something the administration has resisted in negotiations so far.

Meanwhile, the U.S. also has a particular responsibility to address the gaps in its own foreign weapons trade standards. Though the U.S. often states that its controls are stronger than many, they're undoubtedly far from perfect: while the Obama administration has criticized Russia for its sales to the Syrian government amid the ongoing crisis, it has simultaneously continued its own sales to the oppressive regime in Bahrain.

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has heard a lot of negative feedback on a potential ATT – and continues to resist a critical examination of its own international arms trade. Groups including the NRA have claimed that a treaty would impact the 2nd Amendment, though it would in reality have no effect on domestic gun rights. And when it comes to U.S. arms sales, those deemed "strategic" are quick to gain support even with potentially dangerous consequences for civilians.

Despite this atmosphere, there are still some members of Congress who have spoken out in support of both strong international and U.S. arms control standards. Write to your representative now to urge co-sponsorship of Rep. Raul Grijalva’s Arms Sale Responsibility Act, which would help prevent U.S. weapons from being sold to those who would commit atrocities and human rights abuses. At the same time, ask your member of Congress to join Rep. Grijalva’s letter to President Obama, which voices support for a robust and effective ATT.