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."

Something very cool, very important, and very heartening happened last week in the Senate. (How often do we get to say that?). If you’ve been following energy news from FCNL lately, you’ll know we’ve been spending our time lobbying on S. 761, the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill.

Last week, S. 761 was reported favorably by the energy committee and is on its way to the Senate floor. What this means is that all but three members of the energy committee approved of the bill and voted to send it for a vote by the whole body.

This is huge for several reasons. First, the sheer speed with which this has happened! Shaheen-Portman was introduced less than one month ago, and it has already been sent to the floor. (Rumor has it, S. 761 may make an appearance on the floor tomorrow, May 15). We hear that Shaheen and Portman, among others, are eager to get it passed by the Senate as soon as possible, and possibly as soon as the end of the month.

Second, of course, we’re thrilled by the strong bipartisan support that S. 761 has received. In addition to having bipartisan cosponsors (Sen. Shaheen is a Democrat and Sen. Portman is a Republican), the bill received a strongly bipartisan vote out of committee. Senators from states as politically disparate as Vermont and Tennessee, Washington and North Dakota all said “aye” to send the bill to the Senate floor. Given the gridlock we often see in the Senate, this may be the most important fact about the reporting of S. 761.

Third, S. 761 is being amended, and in a way that we’re happy to support. Senators Hoeven (ND) and Klobuchar (MN) are cosponsoring S. 717, which is presently an amendment to Shaheen-Portman. S. 717 would alter the provisions of S. 761 in a subtle way to allow non-profit groups to better capitalize on what S. 761 offers.

Currently, while S. 761 creates a terrific financing mechanism, it would still require a substantial amount of capital, upfront and on-hand, to begin retrofitting a building. While this is no problem for corporations, the government, and other large employers, it can prove an obstacle to non-profits—who, nearly by definition, do not have large amounts of capital on hand. S. 717 would allow non-profits easier access to these financing mechanisms.

As a non-profit, FCNL is supporting the campaign to amend S. 761 in this way. However, we’re still pushing hard for passage of the bill as a whole, and if it passes without being amended, we would not consider this a loss.

So what does this mean for Shaheen-Portman, for our work, and for your involvement? It means they’re all looking up.

Shaheen-Portman is headed in the right direction. Help us keep it going that way by taking action today!

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.

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013, Congress publicly discussed the implications of targeted killing abroad for the very first time. Senator Richard Durbin (IL) convened a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights, entitled "Drone Wars: The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing." Military leaders, experts and first-hand witnesses testified to their perspectives on the U.S. drones program. The conversation was enlightening, but it must be the beginning of a longer discussion and review of the impact of these practices overseas.

The hearing established that the drones issue is not about the rights of American citizens alone but about the rights of people around the world. The testimonies offered, and many of the questions asked, served as poignant reminders that decisions made in Washington are felt around the world. With such global influence, it is critical that U.S. leaders consider the ethics and strategic necessity of its actions abroad.

This conversation made clear that targeted killing is highly problematic. The testimony of Farea al-Muslimi, a Yemeni activist and journalist, provided a first-hand account of how drone strikes wreak havoc abroad. He described in poignant detail how drone strikes in his home country, in his home town no less, have upended local communities and killed civilians. The United States, of course, neither acknowledges their suffering nor provides compensation. Their use has led the U.S. to, as General James Cartwright testified, "cede[d] the moral high ground."

Not only do targeted strikes present humanitarian and ethical concerns, but they present strategic problems as well. Concern for blowback, the boomerang effect when actions affecting others have unexpected, harmful consequences, was shared by all but one of the witnesses. Several of the examining Senators asked questions about the potential for such reprisals from targeted killings and listened solemnly as al-Muslimi related how destructive drone strikes turn Yemeni public opinion against the United States. There is not only worry that these tactics are fueling the flames of anti-Americanism, but several of the witnesses shared concerns regarding the precedents the U.S. is setting for the use of drones in a world where the proliferation this technology is accelerating.

We also learned from this hearing that there is near-unanimous consent for a constructive review of these policies. From Rosa Brooks, law professor at Georgetown University, fellow at the New America Foundation and former Counselor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, to Colonel Martha McSally of the U.S. Air Force, all of the witnesses highlighted their willingness to examine the legal and procedural rules surrounding targeted killing. All of them highlighted their belief that it is critical to increase oversight, to thoroughly vet those being targeted, and to reduce civilian casualties as much as possible. Even those witnesses who supported and spoke to the virtues of drones favored the codification of a better review process, a larger oversight role for Congress and a court for reviewing the legality of conducted attacks and for appropriately compensating the families of victims. While these measures would not end U.S. targeted killings abroad altogether, they could rein in some of the program's worst offenses, more accurately define and protect civilians, and reduce the total number of strikes -- particularly signature strikes based on observed behavior rather than intelligence reviews.

This groundbreaking hearing could be the first step in maturing the national dialogue on drones. In recent months, members of Congress have made public statements, held hearings, introduced and sponsored legislation and written letters to the administration challenging the federal government's right to deploy drones to infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens at home or abroad. Finally, the scrutiny is shifting to the administration's opaque counterterrorism policies across the world. Congress should use this eye-opening discussion as the starting point to further question the drones program: hold another hearing; introduce legislation; and let the administration (whose decisions to neither provide a witness at the hearing nor make public the remaining Department of Justice memos was well noted) know that it is just as concerned about the ethical and strategic implications of targeted killing. With this hearing we are one step closer to meaningful transparency and accountability. We must move quickly to take the next.

This article previously appeared in The Huffington Post.

Ahead of last Saturday's formal discussion between the United States and Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai signaled his willingness to consider a Pentagon proposal to maintain the nine U.S. bases in his country after 2014. President Karzai's statement, just two months after accusing the U.S. military of colluding with the Taliban-led insurgency, appears to highlight movement towards the signing of the Bilateral Strategic Agreement (BSA) and the deepening of the relationship between the United States and Afghanistan. But there is reason to doubt that a meaningful partnership is coming. Because the Americans and Afghans are likely still far apart on critical aspects of the BSA, such a military-first partnership would do little to support the Afghan political and economic basis for stability during the transition. More importantly, Congress' plummeting interest in spending generally, and in Afghanistan specifically, threatens to scuttle any ongoing relationship between the two countries.

The negotiations over the BSA are still in their infancy. The Pentagon's recommendation of nine bases and President Karzai's contemplation of that number are simply starting points in a greater debate; the Pentagon wanted to know how large a presence the Afghans will tolerate. President Karzai's remarks are a test balloon for national and regional reactions. Waheed Wafa of Kabul University surmises that Karzai is interested in assessing the appetite for continued Western presence among Afghan society and Iranian and Pakistani leaders. While nine bases would probably be a large presence for many to stomach on both sides, such a bargaining position leaves considerable wiggle room for a potentially amenable middle ground. Whatever numbers the two sides might float at this point, discussion of bases and troop numbers becomes merely rhetorical unless two thorny issues, namely U.S. commitment to side with Afghanistan in a future confrontation with Pakistan and legal immunity for U.S. troops, are dealt with.

Will a BSA that keeps U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014 serve anyone's interests? While President Karzai insisted that any BSA needs to be tied to a U.S. agreement to heightened resolve to support Afghanistan's political and economic transitions, leaving U.S. troops in Afghanistan for counterterror operations will work against those projects. Negotiations should deal with partnership and cooperation on improving governance and access to services, strengthening the internal economy and promoting regional stability and trade. Only after the extent of American commitment to these challenges is defined should the issue of future troop levels be discussed. Otherwise, the United States again risks contributing the men and women of the military, as well as significant financial resources, without any clear political strategy. As much as this would hurt the United States, the impact of a prolonged military-first strategy would be even more devastating for Afghan society.

The Pentagon might want to know what sort of presence the Afghans will accept, but they need to check with the civilian leaders who write their checks too. Congressional lawmakers are not interested in investing either that many men or that much money in any U.S. presence in Afghanistan. Their willingness to continue providing for so many bases going forward will only diminish. If, as reported, it would take 6,000 U.S. troops to maintain two large bases in Kabul and Bagram, operating nine bases of undisclosed sizes would require considerable manpower. The Pentagon continues to fail to accurately budget for this conflict, making it impossible to precisely predict the unwieldy expenses for a proposed long-term military commitment. Expecting Congress to provide more funding for State Department and USAID initiatives in Afghanistan, given its unrelenting reluctance to shift away from the military to provide these agencies with essential funding and desire to close the book on the war, is unrealistic.

Military and political discussions of troop levels and political and economic commitments aside, a long-term relationship with Afghanistan sits on the chopping block unless Congress has a change of heart. With the Pentagon and President Karzai's opening propositions far afield of congressional will to spend on Afghanistan, it is unlikely that a BSA, or any other framework, will take hold and continue to receive annual funding. It is critical that Congress be convinced that investing in Afghanistan's political and economic future is not only in U.S. interests but can be done with significantly fewer resources than ongoing military operations.

This article originally appeared on The Huffington Post.

After years of little or no movement to fix the broken immigration system, the 113th Congress has hit the ground running on comprehensive immigration reform. A bipartisan group of eight senators has finally introduced a bill, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744). The bill is 844 pages long, and covers three general topics: border security, fixing the legal immigration system, and addressing the status of 11 million people in the U.S. without authorization. The Senate Judiciary Committee will begin considering amendments to the bill on May 7, and will continue with “mark-up” sessions every Tuesday and Thursday through the month of May. The bill could come to the Senate floor as soon as early June, after the Memorial Day recess.

What’s FCNL’s take on the bill?

S. 744 represents a compromise. Many provisions in the bill are very positive; some will cause greater problems. For instance, FCNL has long opposed the militarization of the U.S.-Mexico border and the enormous cost and environmental damage it entails. But the bill includes plans for more fences, agents, and military equipment at the southern border – with a $4.5 billion price tag. We are encouraged by the provisions in the bill that would grant legal status and a path to citizenship for the 11 million people currently in the U.S. without legal status. However, the bill makes progress on the path to citizenship contingent upon the completion of the border security plans and the establishment of a universal electronic employment eligibility verification system (E-Verify).

Here is a summary of the bill and concerns that FCNL is raising about some sections.

What happens now – and how can you help?

The next few weeks will move very quickly. What members of Congress hear from their constituents will be extremely important. There will be many opportunities to make a difference on immigration.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are:
Patrick Leahy, VT, chair
Dianne Feinstein, CA
Charles Schumer, NY
Richard Durbin, IL
Sheldon Whitehouse, RI
Amy Klobuchar, MN
Al Franken, MN
Chris Coons, DE
Richard Blumenthal, CT
Mazie Hirono, HI
Charles Grassley IA, ranking member
Orrin Hatch, UT
Jeff Sessions, AL
Lindsey Graham, SC
John Cornyn, TX
Mike Lee, UT
Ted Cruz, TX
Jeff Flake, AZ

And many other senators are important “opinion leaders” on the topic of immigration, so don’t discount your senator, even if he or she is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

We have a better chance now to achieve positive immigration reform than we’ve had in years – let’s make the most of it.

If you would like to receive one or two emails a month about ways you can make a difference on immigration reform, sign up here.

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.

U.S. intelligence officials announced today that they suspect the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against the people of Syria. Last August, President Obama said Syria’s use or transfer of chemical weapons would be a “red line” that would change the administration’s calculus on its approach to the conflict. The White House has continued to echo this sentiment—just today in a press conference with reporters, a White House official reiterated: "It is absolutely the case that the President's red line is the use of chemical weapons or the transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups,” but said more investigation is needed.

Amid all the uncertainty and political posturing, one thing is still clear: U.S. military intervention in Syria is not the answer to saving lives and ending this conflict. Rather, U.S. military intervention would only exacerbate the conflict and lead to even larger-scale bloodshed. There is no place for “red lines” in effective diplomacy—at least not when what lies on the other side of the line is another U.S. war.

U.S. military intervention would be no guarantee that the Assad regime would not continue to use chemical weapons--the Assad regime could actually be more likely to use chemical weapons in that case, as Assad has threatened.

We believe that the U.S. has a moral imperative to use its diplomatic leverage and resources to intervene in Syria and help end the carnage.

But how should the U.S. help?

Instead of honoring a politically charged “red line,” the U.S. must evaluate how to have the most impact without escalating the violence.

The U.S. can help end this conflict by supporting a comprehensive political solution. Now is the time for the U.S. to redouble its diplomatic engagement with Assad’s allies in Russia and Iran. Since Russia and Iran have more influence on the Assad regime than other countries, it is essential that Russia and Iran reiterate that Assad’s use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. Russia and Iran must also call on Assad to allow the U.N. to investigate its chemical weapons use.

As FCNL has long pointed out, a diplomatic solution is the only way to ensure a true end to this conflict.

Here at FCNL, we talk about the federal budget as a moral document. The way the country invests its resources and prioritizes spending is a direct expression of the values of the nation. And we’re not the only ones to frame the budget in this way.

Last week, the faith-based advocacy community on Capitol Hill released this year’s Faithful Budget, “Fiscal Year 2014: Priorities for a Faithful Budget, Acting with Mercy and Justice as One Nation Under God.” It’s a blueprint for a budget that reflects the faith community’s hope for a future where all enjoy the abundance of this earth and each person is empowered to live a life of dignity free from hunger and poverty.

This year’s Faithful Budget builds upon the campaign that began in 2011 and produced the Faithful Budget for FY2013 last March. FCNL and our diverse coalition partners launched this fiscally-focused effort to lift up an alternative budget to various proposals from Congress and the White House. At the heart of this document is justice and economic opportunity for all. The principles read:

Though FCNL works on many of these issues, our experience lobbying for Pentagon cuts led us to focus especially on the principle, ”Prioritizing True Human Security.” This section describes a Faithful Budget that respects the rights of all persons and seeks security not through a culture of fear and violence, but rather through relationship and community. Current U.S. policy threatens true human security through reliance on military solutions, an unjust immigration system, and a prison justice system that violates basic human rights. Instead, the Faithful Budget calls for deeper investments in long-term human security and peacemaking, in our communities at home and abroad.

The first step outlined urges leaders to recognize both the human and financial cost of war. To this end, the budget advocates setting up a system to audit the Pentagon to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. The document also requires the Department of Defense and State Department to review all contracts and place limits on them. Both of these recommendations have been popular for a while. However, the True Human Security section is particularly noteworthy for its third proposal:

Substantially cut the Pentagon budget and recognize that investments in education, clean energy, and health are more cost-effective and contribute more to the long-term security and well-being of communities than do investments in the Pentagon.

This point is a big step forward in our efforts to craft a more just and peaceful U.S. because it reflects a new, growing trend of faith leaders and organizations speaking out against growing Pentagon spending. FCNL, in line with our historic Quaker peace testimony, has long championed refocusing the nation’s resources from Pentagon spending to human needs programs. As recent budget debates have threatened to undercut the most valuable services in the federal budget, the movement has expanded to include many other faiths, as demonstrated by the Faithful Budget.

Many more faith organizations signed onto the preamble of the Faithful Budget this year, with forty-four different advocacy groups granting their official endorsement. This is not only a grand representation of the way the faith community is united to protect the most vulnerable among us, but a practical tool each of you can use in your grassroots lobbying. I encourage you to scan the list of signatories and bring the Faithful Budget – or at least the preamble! – with you to engage members of other faiths in your community in a discussion about how we can craft a federal budget to better serve the great needs of our country.

You can read the entire Fiscal Year 2014 Priorities for a Faithful Budget here.

The Preamble to the 2014 Faithful Budget with full list of signatories can be found here.

www.noaa.gov

April 22 is Earth Day, an event celebrated in recognition of the beautiful planet we live on.

Since its inception in 1970 when 20 million Americans participated, Earth Day has grown to include 192 countries, 22,000 partner organizations and more than one billion people, making it the largest civic observance in the world.

And for good reason. Now, more so than ever, is the time to start thinking about the environment, and our impact on it, more. Our summers are getting hotter and drier. Our winters are colder and longer. Our springs will be rainier, causing massive flooding. Extreme weather is becoming more extreme. It is imperative that we do something, and that we do it now.

Which begs the question, what can one do? Even the smallest steps can make a larger difference.

Last month, FCNL hosted our annual Spring Lobby Weekend, bringing more than 100 people to Washington, D.C. to lobby their representatives on the environment. One of the bills people lobbied for, the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act (S. 761), was introduced by Sens. Rob Portman (OH) and Jeanne Shaheen (NH) last week. A bipartisan bill, it creates incentives for businesses to invest in renewable energy. Contact your representative today and ask them to cosponsor the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act.

But it is also important you try to think green at home. The Huffington Post listed 12 ways to be more environmentally-friendly on Earth Day, and every day. It can be incredibly simple to be more conscious of what you do. Unplug the TV when you’re not watching it. Turn off the light in rooms you’re not using. Carpool to work with a coworker or two. Recycle more. Go meatless one day a week. Small steps like these taken every day can make a larger difference.

At the risk of sounding cliché, our planet is the only home we have. It sustains us and provides us with everything we need and more. Not only does it provide life’s necessity for us, but it harbors extraordinary beauty and wonder that we need to preserve and cherish. Check out this photo gallery of amazing pictures of our world. These are things that need to be protected and valued.

On this Earth Day, take a moment to appreciate the world around you. It’s the only one we have. It probably is the only one we ever will have.

P.S. Want to learn more? CNN has an Earth Day quiz, and Slate has listed 15 facts about our planet. You can also take a quiz that will show you your footprint and then give suggestions on how to reduce it.

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.

The Administration released its 2014 budget request last week. This budget request is used as a resource by Congress as the House and Senate draft their appropriation bills for 2014. The numbers are useful as a predictor for what will happen with the final 2014 appropriations bills, and they show what the Administration's priorities are.

The President’s request for international affairs--and atrocity prevention/Middle East peace-related programs in particular--was mostly hopeful this year. All of our priority peacebuilding accounts were included by name. There was a risk that the Administration wouldn't request any money for the Complex Crises Fund, for example, but that fund was included. Unfortunately it was requested at the lowest level yet: $40 million. Last year the President requested it at $50 million, and it ultimately was funded at $40 million. A request of $40 million means the CCF could be funded at an even lower amount. We'll be lobbying over the next few months to ensure the CCF is funded at the full requested level.

How did these accounts do compared to last year's request?

What are these accounts?

The Complex Crises Fund provides much‐needed, unprogrammed money for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to prevent and respond to emerging or unforeseen crises.

The Conflict Stabilization Operations account funds the Conflict Stabilization Operations bureau. This bureau focuses on preventing deadly conflict by assessing and planning an effectiveresponse to countries struggling with or at risk from conflict or civil strife.

The Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) account fundsU.S. peacekeeping dues.

The Contributions toInternational Organizations (CIO) account funds the UN Regular Budget and U.S. dues to anumber of other international organizations the U.S. participates in.

The Transition Initiatives (TI) account supports programs that help fragile or conflict-prone countries transition to peace and stability. Since 1994, OTI, part of USAID's Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, has laid the foundation for long-term development in 31 conflict prone countries by promoting reconciliation, jumpstarting local economies, supporting nascent independent media, and fostering peace and democracy through innovative programming. In countries undergoing a transition from authoritarianism to democracy, violent conflict to peace, or pivotal political events, these initiatives can serve as catalysts for positive political change. TI has developed a strong track record over 15 years in applying short-term assistance to leverage opportunities for advancing peace and mitigating violence. TI continues to work in Kenya, where the risk of renewed violence in advance of the country's next national elections remains high. Since 2008, TI has played an important role in reaching areas most impacted by past deadly conflict, supporting Kenyan communities if efforts to build peace and promote greater transparency within their government.

The Migration and Refugee Assistance account provides protection and assistance needs ofrefugees, conflict victims, stateless persons, and vulnerable migrants worldwide. Funds primarily support the programs ofinternational organizations, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Committeeof the Red Cross (ICRC), the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and theInternational Organization for Migration (IOM), as well as non‐governmental organizations (NGOs).

The Palestinian Development Assistance account provides crucial economic funding and budgetary support for the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza. U.S. development assistance to the Palestinian Authority is an important investment in the long‐term stability of the Middle East. This funding has repeatedly come under threat from Congress, as some lawmakers have sought to punish the Palestinian Authority and Palestinians as a whole for seeking U.N. statehood recognition and for pursuing reconciliation efforts between the political parties of Hamas and Fatah. FCNL urges Congress to reject punitive efforts against the Palestinian Authority for seeking a non‐violent, multilateral approach to self-determination at the U.N. and to encourage comprehensive negotiations.

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.

Four years ago this month, President Obama traveled to Prague and gave a landmark speech where he outlined his vision for a world without nuclear weapons (you can read the speech here).

President Obama acknowledged that nuclear weapons are the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War, and that a renewed commitment to arms control is necessary to progress towards the goal of no nuclear weapons. Obama then listed a few concrete steps the United States would take to move forward:

1. Negotiate a New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START) with Russia.
2. Pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
3. End the production of weapons-grade material that is used to produce nuclear weapons.
4. Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
5. Secure all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years.

So, four years later, where is the United States in relation to achieving these five steps?

The first step, negotiating a New START Treaty with Russia, was successful. Signed into law by President Obama in April 2010, it was then ratified by the Senate in December of that year and went into effect in the beginning of 2011. The New START Treaty sets a limit of 1,550 deployed warheads, reducing the U.S. and Russian arsenals by about a third.

The final step, securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within four years, is on track to be completed by the end of 2013. The Czech Republic just became the most recent nation to be rid of all its nuclear material (watch this video to find out more), making it the 11th nation to be cleared of dangerous materials.

But what about the other steps?

The Obama Administration has not pursued ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. There is worry about its chances of passing—67 votes would be necessary for ratification, a high number in a highly divided Senate. The U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty would be a strong statement to the world about its seriousness in reducing the threat of nuclear weapons.

As for ending the production of weapons-grade material and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the events over the past few months bring the success of these steps into question. North Korea has continued to proliferate, and has recently tested a nuclear weapon. The United States maintains relations with nuclear weapons-states that have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Nuclear weapons are indeed the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War, possibly the most dangerous legacy ever left to us by our fathers. Now is the time to renew our own commitment to their elimination. But Congress will not act without hearing your voice. The abolition of nuclear weapons can start with a small step—send a letter to your representative about stopping funding for extending the life of the B61 nuclear bomb, a seemingly small action that will make a difference.

With your help and encouragement, President Obama and Congress can make good on the promises the president made four years ago.

I’ll leave you with this quote, made during Obama’s speech in Prague:

“. . . we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century . . . we cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it . . . there are those who hear talk of a world without nuclear weapons and doubt whether it's worth setting a goal that seems impossible to achieve. But make no mistake: We know where that road leads. When nations and peoples allow themselves to be defined by their differences, the gulf between them widens. When we fail to pursue peace, then it stays forever beyond our grasp . . . Let us bridge our divisions, build upon our hopes, accept our responsibility to leave this world more prosperous and more peaceful than we found it.”

Last week, the president released his budget for FY 2014. This is just one of many offers on the table—others include the Ryan budget, the Murray budget, the Congressional Progressive Caucus Budget. Congress needs to pass budget legislation before it comes to the president's desk, so this budget is just a proposal right now. Still, it gives some insight into President Obama's priorities for the coming year.

Check out reactions from Matt Southworth (Afghanistan) and Tila Neguse (Budget).

Stay tuned for our reactions to the President's budget. Initial thoughts: not enough Pentagon cuts. whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

— FCNL (Quakers) (@FCNL) April 10, 2013

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.