What would the resolution do?

The resolution calls upon representatives to acknowledge the grave dangers which climate change poses to our children, future generations, and our Earth, and to commit to actions that would prevent and reduce these dangers. It is a non-binding statement that sets out a framework that will need to be followed up with detailed legislative prescriptions. Read the full text of the resolution.

Why is this resolution necessary and helpful to move congressional action on addressing climate change forward?

This resolution is a necessary and important first step towards rekindling acknowledgement and awareness of the climate crisis because, currently, little discussion, much less the urgency to act, is occurring in Congress on the gravity of global climate disruption. Yet the emission of global greenhouse gases due to human activities - the primary driver of climate change - continues largely unabated.

The document provides representatives in the current House with the opportunity to express a formal commitment to acknowledge and address the climate crisis. Discussions with congressional offices about this resolution can help re-open a dialogue within Congress about how to solve together the challenge before us all, in our shared aspiration for a healthy future for our children and future generations.

More specifically, the resolution can create interest in discussions, briefings and hearings within the Halls of Congress regarding the threats climate change poses now and in the future, and in turn, legislative strategies that respond in ways commensurate with the threats.

How else can this resolution be effective in creating change?

Discussions about the resolution provide a way to raise the awareness of people in the United States and the national media of the import of the risks and correspondingly, the urgency of implementing solutions on the national and international levels.

If candidates running for Congress and other public offices are asked about this resolution, it provides those candidates with an opportunity to declare an acknowledgement of the climate crisis and resolve to address it if elected.

What can you do?

FCNL requests your endorsement of this resolution and that you consider urging your member of the House of Representatives to become a co-sponsor.

If you are able to attend candidate forums, town hall meetings, or other public events, consider asking your candidates if they would support this resolution if elected.

FCNL is opposed to all broad, indiscriminate sanctions against Iran, including the Senate's latest sanctions package (S. 2101) passed by Congress on Monday, May 21st, despite objections to additional sanctions from the U.S. business community and Iranian human rights activists. However, we are encouraged that the Senate declared that this bill does not authorize the use of force, and that one of the leading proponents of this legislation has clarified that it is the intent of U.S. policy to support approved, humanitarian trade, and called on the administration to take additional steps to clarify this policy.

FCNL has worked with a wide coalition of organizations that take a variety of stances on Iran sanctions, including agricultural and industry groups calling for humanitarian exceptions to be maintained in any Iran sanctions legislation. These advocacy efforts prevented further erosion of what is left for protections in place for humanitarian trade to Iran.

In a landmark statement, Senator Tim Johnson (SD), Chair of the Senate Banking Committee, clarified that "it is not and has not been the intent of U.S. policy to harm the Iranian people" by prohibiting licensed humanitarian trade. Senator Johnson called on the administration to emphasize that law-abiding banks facilitating these humanitarian transactions will not be punished:

"The practical financing difficulties arising today between banks and those engaging in licensed humanitarian trade can best be addressed by U.S. government officials, who should do more to make it clear that no U.S. sanctions will be imposed against third-country banks that facilitate OFAC-licensed or exempted humanitarian trade. The Administration must make that clear in public statements, in private meetings with foreign financial institutions, and elsewhere as appropriate."

Senator Johnson went on to express strong support for the humanitarian exemptions in the current Iran sanctions regime:

"Misinterpretation of U.S. law by foreign financial institutions should no longer deny the people of Iran the benefit of OFAC-approved humanitarian trade."

Read the full statement in the congressional record (p.2).

Will Administration Take the Next Step?

The next step is for the Administration to take Senator Johnson's lead in making a clear public statement that it is not the intent of U.S. policy to harm the Iranian people by prohibiting licensed humanitarian trade, and that companies that facilitate humanitarian trade or transactions should not be punished.

FCNL calls for robust, sustained diplomacy, and an end to all indiscriminate sanctions against Iran. However, even the simple step of speaking out for a humanitarian exception to the U.S. sanctions regime would make a profound difference in the lives of ordinary Iranians, and improve prospects for a diplomatic resolution to the conflict over Iran's nuclear program, and other crises in U.S-Iranian relations.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMr. MORAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to theCommittee on____________

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives thatthe energy, environmental, and foreign policies of theUnited States should reflect appropriate understandingand sensitivity concerning issues related to climatechange, as documented by credible scientific findings andas evidenced by the extreme weather events of recentyears.

Whereas an overwhelming majority of credentialed scientists,in the United States and abroad, support the findingsthat climate change is happening and that human activitiesare a key contributor to it;

Whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) has concluded that human emissions of greenhousegases, particularly carbon dioxide, are responsiblefor global warming;

Whereas the average surface temperature of the Earth is predictedto increase by 3.2°F to 7.2°F by the end of the21st century relative to the temperatures experienced inthe 1980 to 1990 timeframe;

Whereas the average rate of warming over each inhabitedcontinent is very likely to be at least twice as large asthat experienced during the 20th century;

Whereas an increase in temperature will have major adverseimpacts on both the natural and man-made environmentsand cause significant human suffering due to heat waves,prolonged droughts, water scarcity, food insecurity, risingsea-levels, intensification and frequency of extremeweather events, and extinction of some species;

Whereas greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide trap radiationfrom the sun and warm the planet’s surface;

Whereas as concentrations of these gases increase, morewarming occurs than would happen naturally;

Whereas in the United States, fossil fuel use accounted for95 percent of carbon dioxide emissions in 2010;

Whereas the United States was responsible for 18 percent ofthe estimated 30,313 Teragrams (Tg) of carbon dioxideadded to the atmosphere through the global combustionof fossil fuels in 2009 alone;

Whereas the United States relies on electricity to meet a significantportion of its energy demands;

Whereas United States electricity generation from fossil fuelsemitted 42 percent of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuelcombustion in 2010;

Whereas in order to stabilize the Earth’s climate and preventcatastrophic global climate change, the levels of worldwidecarbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissionsneed to be reduced;

Whereas many religious faiths in the United States andabroad have issued proclamations about the moral obligationto be good stewards of the Earth and about themoral imperative for action on climate change;

Whereas economists in the United States and abroad recognizethe great potential for job creation in renewable energy,energy efficiency, and other innovative practices;

Whereas United States national security experts recognizethat climate change acts as an accelerant of instabilityand conflict;

Whereas public health experts have documented the healthimpacts of rising temperatures, the expansion of vectorborne infectious diseases, risks to worldwide food supplies,as well as the direct physical effects of more frequentand extreme weather events; and

Whereas a growing number of political, scientific, business,and religious leaders believe steps must be taken to avoidcatastrophic effects of climate change: Now, therefore, beit:

1 acknowledges that human activities are a primary cause of climate change;
2 recognizes that climate change poses unacceptable risks to the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the United States;
3 accepts its responsibility to safeguard the welfare of the people of the United States;
4 acknowledges that the welfare of the people of the United States is best protected by policies that—
(A) reduce energy consumption and in12crease energy efficiency;
(B) shift power supply strategy from oil, coal and natural gas to wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources to reduce dependence on fossil fuels;
(C) capture and store carbon by planting and greening of urban landscapes and improving land and forest management practices; and
(D) help people of the United States and abroad prepare for and withstand the significant impacts of climate change that are already occurring and that are likely to accelerate in years ahead; and pledges to promptly introduce and enact legislation to achieve these goals.

Update (5/18/2012): This amendment was passed by a vote of 238-162.

As the House debates and votes on the defense authorization bill Reps. Rehberg (MT) and Lummis (WY) will offer and amendment that would add an unnecessary provision to the NDAA to undermine the U.S. ability to implement the 2010 New START Treaty. The amendment would impose a one-for-one reduction implementation process that is impractical and militarily unnecessary. FCNl joined with 28 other organizations and experts to send a letter to members of the House in opposition of the Rehberg Amendment. Read the letter below.

Oppose Rehberg #59 Amendment to Undermine New START Treaty

May 17, 2012

Dear Representative,

We are writing to urge you to oppose an amendment that would add yet another unnecessary provision to the NDAA to undermine the U.S. ability to implement the 2010 New START agreement. Other similar provisions in the bill (Secs. 1053-1059) have led the White House to issue a veto threat because they would “impinge on the President's ability to implement the New START Treaty and to set U.S. nuclear weapons policy.”

The amendment offered by Reps. Rehberg (MT) and Lummis (WY) would block U.S. implementation of New START unless the Russian Federation makes “a commensurate reduction, conversion, or decommissioning pursuant to the levels set forth under such treaty.” New START, which was approved by a bipartisan majority in the Senate, establishes common, verifiable limits on strategic deployed warheads (1,550 each) and deployed delivery vehicles (700 each) that must be met by 2018. At the United States insistence, New START allows each side to implement the treaty at its own pace and to structure its forces as it sees fit.

The amendment attempts to impose a one-for-one arms reduction implementation process that is impractical and militarily unnecessary. Further, the amendment attempts to protect the nuclear delivery systems in the districts of the authors from reductions into the indefinite future regardless of decisions about security needs and requirements that might be made by this or future administrations.

We strongly urge you to oppose the Rehberg #59 amendment. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carol Blythe, PresidentAlliance of Baptists

Susan Gordon, DirectorAlliance for Nuclear Accountability

Terri S. Lodge, Director for Nuclear SecurityAmerican Security Project

Eric Sapp, Executive DirectorAmerican Values Network

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive DirectorArms Control Association

Ambassador Robert Grey, DirectorBipartisan Security Group

Katie Heald, CoordinatorCampaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

Melissa A. Kaplan, Msc, Deputy Director of Government RelationsCitizens for Global Solutions

Joni Arends, Executive Director Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, NM

T. Michael McNulty, SJ, Justice and Peace DirectorConference of Major Superiors of Men

John Isaacs, Executive DirectorCouncil for a Livable World

David Culp, Legislative RepresentativeFriends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Bobbie Paul, Executive DirectorGeorgia Women’s Action for New Direction

Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director of Security and SustainabilityGlobal Green USA

Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach, DirectorMennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office

David Krieger, PresidentNuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jay Coghlan, Executive DirectorNuclear Watch New Mexico

Marie Dennis, Co- presidentPax Christi International

Kevin Martin, Executive Director Peace Action

Alicia Godsberg, Executive DirectorPeace Action New York State

Jon Rainwater, Executive DirectorPeace Action West

Jerry Stein, Coordinator of the BoardPeace Farm, Amarillo, TX

Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive DirectorPhysicians for Social Responsibility

Joel Rubin, Director of Policy and Government AffairsPloughshares Fund

Marylia Kelley, Executive DirectorTri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Lisbeth Gronlund, Co-Director and Senior Scientist, Global Security ProgramUnion of Concerned Scientists

Rev. Michael Neuroth, Justice and Witness MinistriesUnited Church of Christ

James E. Winkler, General SecretaryUnited Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

Susan Shaer, Executive DirectorWomen’s Action for New Directions

Update (5/18/2012): This amendment was rejected by a vote of 112-308.

As the House debates and votes on the defense authorization bill Reps. Markey (MA), Welch (VT) and Conyers (MI) have offered an amendment to delay the development of the new, long-range, nuclear-capable bomber by 10 years and delete $292 million in spending for FY 2013. Delaying the new bomber would save $18 billion over 10 years and still allow the Pentagon to deploy the same number of bombers as planned under New START. FCNL joined with 28 other organizations and experts to sen a letter to the House in support of the amendment. Read the letter below.

Support Markey-Welch-Conyers Nuclear Bomber Amendment to Save $18 Billion

May 17, 2012

Dear Representative,

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) increases spending for several wasteful nuclear weapons and missile defense programs. In a time of an ongoing budget crisis, Congress should not waste billions of dollars on programs that do not enhance national security. In order to help reduce spending in the NDAA to a sensible and sustainable level, we urge you to support the following key floor amendment.

SUPPORT. #11. Markey (MA); Welch (VT); Conyers (MI). New Nuclear-Capable Bomber.Would delay the development of the new, long-range, nuclear-capable bomber by 10 years and delete $292 million in spending for FY 2013. Delaying the new bomber would save $18 billion over 10 years and still allow the Pentagon to deploy the same number of bombers as planned under New START.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Carol Blythe, PresidentAlliance of Baptists

Terri S. Lodge, Director for Nuclear Security American Security Project

Eric Sapp, Executive Director American Values Network

Daryl G. Kimball, Executive DirectorArms Control Association

Ambassador Robert Grey, DirectorBipartisan Security Group

Katie Heald, Coordinator Campaign for a Nuclear Weapons Free World

William D. Hartung, Director, Arms and Security ProjectCenter for International Policy

Melissa Kaplan, Deputy Director of Government RelationsCitizens for Global Solutions

Bob Kinsey Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War

David Culp, Legislative Representative Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers)

Bobbie Paul, Executive Director Georgia Women's Action for New Direction

Dr. Paul F. Walker, Director of Security and Sustainability Global Green USA

Tom Carpenter, Executive Director Hanford Challenge, Seattle

David Krieger, PresidentNuclear Age Peace Foundation

Jay Coghlan, Executive DirectorNuclear Watch New Mexico

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator Nuclear Watch South, Atlanta

Marie Dennis, Co-President Pax Christi International

Kevin Martin, Executive DirectorPeace Action

Alicia Godsberg, Executive Director Peace Action New York State

Jon Rainwater, Executive Director Peace Action West

Jerry Stein, Coordinator of the BoardPeace Farm, Amarillo, TX

David Hart, Director of Security Programs Physicians for Social Responsibility

Joel Rubin, Director of Policy and Government Affairs Ploughshares Fund

Jean Stokan Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, Institute Justice Team

Liz Woodruff, Executive DirectorSnake River Alliance, Idaho

Marylia Kelley, Executive DirectorTri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA

Stephen Young, Senior Analyst, Global Security ProgramUnion of Concerned Scientists

James E. Winkler, General Secretary United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society

Susan Shaer, Executive Director Women's Action for New Directions

We encourage you to read the resolution and our introduction to it, below, and show your or your organization’s support for the resolution by endorsing it with your name, state, and organization name if applicable. Public support is a key component of this effort. Congress needs to see that there is a real and growing understanding of the problems posed by anthroprogenic climate change, which has manifested as a set of real-world problems. The American people, indeed all people,  need real world solutions. Please write your representative and encourage him or her to support this resolution.

Please urge your representative to support this resolution today!

Of the 222 who voted for the bill, 216 were Republicans and 6 were Democrats. Of the 205 who voted against, 182 were Democrats and 23 were Republicans.

Democrats voting Yes:

• Barrow (GA)
• Berkley (NV)
• Boren (OK)
• Matheson (UT)
• McIntyre (NC)
• Peterson (MN)

Republicans voting No:

• Amash (MI)
• Bartlett (MD)
• Bass (NH)
• Berg (ND)
• Biggert (IL)
• Broun (GA)
• Davis (KY)
• Diaz-Balart (FL)
• Dold (IL)
• Garrett (NJ)
• Gosar (AZ)
• Hanna (NY)
• Huelskamp (KS)
• LaTourette (OH)
• McClintock (CA)
• Meehan (PA)
• Paul (TX)
• Platts (PA)
• Poe (TX)
• Rivera (FL)
• Rohrabacher (CA)
• Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
• Wolf (VA)

Return to story on Violence Against Women Reauthorization in the House.

Dear Senator,

We write as the Prevention and Protection Working Group, a coalition of human rights, religious, humanitarian, anti-genocide, peace and other organizations dedicated to improving U.S. government policies and civilian capacities to prevent violent conflict, mass atrocities and protect civilians threatened by such crises. On May 9, the House State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY13 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill. We write to express deep concern over several provisions that, if enacted, would significantly hamper the United States' ability to prevent violent conflict, mass atrocities and protect civilians around the world. Specifically, we urge you to reject the House subcommittee's deep cuts and fully fund the Administration's FY13 request for the following accounts:

We also urge that funding for conflict prevention and civilian protection not come at the expense of other effective humanitarian and development funding, which works together to serve the common goal of building a safer and more prosperous world. Recent crises in Syria and Libya remind us that mass violence continues to threaten civilians in addition to regional and state stability. It is for these reasons that civilian agencies and international partners must be well-equipped to respond flexibly and decisively to mitigate escalating crises before atrocities occur. Because these difficult economic times require prudent spending, we urge careful investment in the aforementioned accounts that will undoubtedly save lives and prevent the United States from incurring costly military and reconstruction expenditures.

Sincerely,

3P Human Security
Alliance for Peacebuilding
American Jewish World Service
Amnesty International USA
Auschwitz Institute for Peace and Reconciliation
Better World Campaign
Church World Service
Citizens for Global Solutions
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Enough Project
Foreign Policy in Focus
Franciscan Action Network
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Georgia Coalition to Prevent Genocide
Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
Humanity United
Jewish World Watch
Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, University of San Diego
Kurdish Human Rights Watch
Oxfam America
Rainbow/PUSH Coalition
Refugees International
Resolve
San Francisco Bay Area Darfur Coalition
STAND
United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
United to End Genocide

Report Card: How the U.S. Treats Its Indigenous Peoples

Countries that sign a declaration like the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) customarily welcome visits from “reporters” or “rapporteurs” who travel in the country and speak with affected people. The rapporteur then submits a report on the nation’s progress toward compliance with the intentions expressed in the declaration. The U.S. has had a visit from United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, James Anaya, who met with Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian people in various places in the U.S. and with administration and State Department representatives. He was unable to arrange visits with members of Congress, however. A fairly comprehensive statement which he issued at the conclusion of his visit is available here. He is preparing a final report to the United Nations Human Rights Council regarding the U.S. endorsement of the UNDRIP in December 2010.

Native American Legislative Update - May 2012

First Tribal National Park

The Oglala Sioux Tribe has partnered with Department of Interior and the National Park Service to establish the first tribal national park in the Badlands of South Dakota. Read more here.

American Indians Conserving Energy

The White House has recognized Harold "Gus" Frank, chair of the Forest County Potawatomi Community as a "Champion of Change," for his leadership in helping the community to conserve energy, promote the use of renewable energy, and reduce the community's carbon foot print in other ways. Read more here.

Upcoming Senate Hearings

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has scheduled oversight hearings on government to government relations (May 17) and on services for Native American veterans (May 24).

Funding to Keep Native American Communities Safe

Appropriations season has begun. Even though each chamber of Congress recognizes that it is very unlikely that its own appropriations bills will actually go through the whole congressional process and be signed by the president this year, each chamber is still working to finalize a set of bills outlining its spending priorities. When final spending decisions are made, probably in the “lame-duck” session after the elections, these appropriations bills will form a platform for negotiations between the two houses.

Last week, the first of twelve FY 2013 appropriations bills came to the floor of the House. The Commerce/Justice/Science (“CJS”) appropriations bill (H.R. 5326) funds the Departments of Commerce and Justice, various science agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and justice-related agencies, such as the Legal Services Corporation. The House considered dozens of amendments during debate on the measure.

Of particular interest in the CJS appropriations bill is funding to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for Indian Country law enforcement programs, including:

The Senate is Spending More than the House. Why?
Almost all House appropriations bills will provide lower funding than Senate appropriations bills, because the House bills are based on the House-passed budget resolution, which limits total appropriations a level that is $19 billion less than the limit set in last summer’s Budget Control Act.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is relying on the total discretionary spending allowed for FY2013 in the Budget Control Act ($1.047 trillion). As a result, the Senate CJS appropriations bill generally sets higher levels for Indian Country law enforcement programs – a total of $81.5 million specifically for tribal programs in the Senate CJS bill (S. 3535) versus a total of $59.5 million in H.R. 5326. This wide gap between the Senate and House levels will make post-election negotiations all the more complicated.

Violence Against (Some) Women Act -- Reauthorized in the House

Congress has now approved two versions of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act.

The Senate approved S. 1925 on April 26 with a strong bi-partisan vote of 68 – 31. That bill continued the various grant programs that have assisted in the prevention and prosecution of domestic and other violence against women since 1994. It also included provisions specifically recommended by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Judiciary Committee to

• Authorize tribal police to arrest and detain a person suspected of domestic violence, even if the person is not Native American,
• Permit tribal courts to exercise full civil jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, so that they can issue and enforce protection orders and other controls, even if the person impacted by the order is not Native American,
• Allow federal prosecutors to seek sentences similar to those that would be applied by nearby state laws, for certain kinds of serious assaults against Indian women in Indian country.

These specific provisions would help to create a greater sense of safety for Native women living on reservations, sometimes far from police support or legal help. In addition, the Senate bill included improvements that would enhance safety for immigrant women and prohibit discrimination against victims on the basis of sexual orientation.

The House approved its version – H.R. 4970 – on May 16. Among other differences, the House bill left out the jurisdictional clarifications for Indian country (as described above), as well as the protections for immigrant women and prohibitions against discrimination. There was substantial and rancorous debate on the House floor, much of it touching on the provisions that would protect Native women. But there was little in the debate that demonstrated an understanding – within either political party – of the particularly complex jurisdictional issues that get in the way of Native women seeking help to prevent domestic violence or to arrest a perpetrator.

For a description of these nearly insurmountable hurdles, see FCNL’s Winter 2010 Indian Report: “Part of the Problem.”

The White House issued a policy statement opposing the bill because of the omission and others.

The House vote was closer than the Senate vote; with a vote count of 222 - 205, the bill passed by a 51% margin. Of the 222 Yes votes, 216 were Republicans and 6 were Democrats. Of the 205 No votes, 182 were Democrats and 23 were Republicans. See a list of Democrats who voted "yes" and Republicans who voted "no."

To go forward, the bills will need to be considered in a conference committee to arrive at a single version that both houses can approve. Action: Write to your representative and senators. Urge their approval in conference committee of a version that addresses the jurisdictional quagmire in Indian Country. Refer them to the description of this quagmire in the Winter 2010 issue of FCNL’s Indian Report.

See more articles in the May 2012 NALU.

Tribal Advocates Speak Out on Fracking and Energy Issues

April 19 was a big day for Indian energy hearings. In the morning, the House Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held an oversight hearing on "fracking" - "Bureau of Land Management's Hydraulic Fracturing Rule's Impacts on Indian Tribal Energy Development." Invited witnesses, representing tribes with significant involvement in oil and gas industries, expressed frustration about the lack of consultation with tribes in the Bureau of Land Management's rule making process regulating fracking. A summary of the hearing is available here.

In the afternoon, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs considered Vice Chairman John Barrasso's bill (S. 1684) called the "Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-Determination Act Amendments of 2011." The bill, introduced last October, would streamline the federal government processes for energy leasing and for approval of tribal energy resource agreements. These processes attempt to balance the long-term uses and effects of using Indian lands for energy development with tribal needs for economic development and self-determination.

Invited witnesses supported the legislation, with some commenting that it would be stronger and more useful if it included additional provisions, such as those included in Senator Dorgan's bill in the last Congress. Witness testimony is available on the committee's web site.

A Quest toEnd a Native American Epidemic

We reported in March that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Research and Analysis, had recently released a report showing that diabetes was becoming more prevalent among children in Indian Country, and that nearly 17 percent of Native Americans and Alaska natives have type 2 diabetes – the highest rate of any group in the nation. That month, the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) convened a meeting of tribal leaders and representatives to discuss reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, which will expire in FY 2013. This program is critically important to help Native communities control diabetes.

Since March, an emerging development may bring attention not just to controlling diabetes , but to finding out why it is so prevalent and so damaging among Native Americans and Alaska Natives. Tribal Chairman Steve Cadue of the Kickapoo Nation is gathering interest within Native communities around the country in finding and addressing the cause for the high incidence of diabetes among Native peoples. He has set up a foundation called the “National American Indian Diabetes Foundation, Inc.” The foundation’s website, which will launch June 1, will have more information about the campaign.

Even More on Energy in Indian Country

The Department of Energy has released a draft policy on the purchase of electricity from tribally owned producers. The policy would give preference to tribes and tribal majority-owned businesses producing electricity from renewable resources, products and by-products. The Department of Energy will be consulting with interested tribes in two sessions later this month, in Oregon and New Mexico. More information is available on the Department's website.

will soon vote on whether to authorize war with Iran. Starting today, the House is debating the military authorization bill, formally known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). One of the amendments would declare that this act is not an authorization of the use of force in Iran.

Rep. John Conyers (MI), Rep. Ron Paul (TX), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), and Rep. Keith Ellison (MN) have offered this bipartisan amendment in response to widespread concern about how this bill would push the United States toward war, with billions in weapons designed to be used to attack Iran and dramatically escalate the U.S. military presence in the Mideast.

Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) has also offered an amendment to call for a special envoy for robust diplomacy with Iran, which would lift the current "no contact" policy that bars U.S. diplomats from speaking with their Iranian counterparts. 

Please call your representative TODAY using FCNL's special toll-free number, 855-68-NO WAR (855-686-6927). Ask for your representative by name and urge her or him to support the Conyers/Paul/Jones/Ellison amendment to ensure that the NDAA does not authorize war with Iran, and to support the Lee pro-diplomacy amendment.

Here are talking points you can use.

• My name is _______ and I'm calling from _________

For more info, see the full list of amendments that FCNL is tracking on Afghanistan, Pentagon cuts, and other issues, find out more about the pro-war provisions in the NDAA, and see the full text of Iran amendments and Iran-related sections in the NDAA.

May 15, 2012

Senator Tom Harkin
731 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Harkin:

We are writing to thank you for your dedication to making real improvements to the economy by creating jobs, strengthening the middle class, and pursuing tax reform. We want to express our solid support for the bill you introduced in late March 2012, the Rebuild America Act (S. 2252), which will give our economy the boost it needs to fully recover.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the month of April, 12.5 million people were unemployed with 5.1 million of those considered long-term unemployed. Although the official unemployment rate has dropped to 8.1 percent, many more workers have given up looking for employment, and continue to experience a stagnant economy. Tax reform discussions and proposals have focused on tax breaks, on the disproven theory that lowering taxes for businesses would generate more job growth.

We support many provisions in the Rebuild America Act, including the following:

As a Quaker organization, we believe strongly in creating an equitable society where every person's potential may be fulfilled. The Rebuild America Act would allow the economy the space and foothold needed to recover fully and to allow access to economic security for all. We applaud your efforts and support the Rebuild America Act as it moves forward in the legislative process.

Sincerely,

Ruth Flower
Associate Executive Secretary for Legislative Programs
Friends Committee on National Legislation

FCNL sent a letter (signed by 29 faith based organizations) to all Representatives in the House last night, asking representatives to VOTE AGAINST H.R. 4970 (which is a watered down harmful version of the Violence Against Women Act).

Not only would the bill (H.R. 4970) NOT provide key protections to immigrant women, Native Americans, and the LGBT community that the Senate VAWA bill included (S.1925), it would actually roll-back on protections that are in place for immigrant victims of violence. For more details about these harmful provisions, visit www.4vawa.org.

The bill is expected to come onto the floor Wednesday afternoon. Call your representative ASAP to make sure they are voting NO on H.R. 4970 and to ask their to encourage their colleagues in the House to vote NO as well!

Use this number 877-429-0678 to call your rep today!

What to say...

• My name is ____ and I'm from _____(City, State)_____
• I'm asking Representative _____ to vote "NO" on H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization bill in the House. This bill takes away key protections to immigrant victims of violence, Native Americans, and the LGBT community that the Senate VAWA bill included (S.1925). Please ask Representative _____ to encourage House leadership to allow for open debate on the House floor in order for protections to these vulnerable groups to be added back into the House Bill, similar to the Senate version of this bill (S.1925)which has already been passed.
• Thank you.

Alabama:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Alaska:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Arizona:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Arkansas:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

California:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Colorado:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Connecticut:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Delaware:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Florida:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Georgia:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Hawaii:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Idaho:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Illinois:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Indiana:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Iowa:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Kansas:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Kentucky:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Louisiana:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Maine:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Maryland:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Massachusetts:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Michigan:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Minnesota:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Mississippi:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Missouri:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Montana:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Nebraska:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Nevada:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

New Hampshire:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

New Jersey:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

New Mexico:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

New York:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

North Carolina:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

North Dakota:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Ohio:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Oklahoma:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Oregon:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Pennsylvania:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Rhode Island:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

South Carolina:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

South Dakota:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Tennessee:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Texas:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Utah:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Vermont:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Virginia:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Washington:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

West Virginia:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Wisconsin:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents

Wyoming:
For Congressional Visits
For Constituents