Next week, Rep. Jim Moran (VA) plans to introduce a resolution that acknowledges that human activity contributes to climate change, that its impacts will be harmful if those activities are unabated, and asks representatives to commit to discussing and considering solutions. Please ask your representative to become an original cosponsor of this resolution so that when it is introduced next week there are as many sponsors as possible.

This resolution is modest in scope but profound for advancing change. Today, in stark contrast to just three years ago, we hear conspicuous expressions of denial that the earth faces a climate crisis. We believe this impasse gives our nation's leaders an opening for dialogue about both the moral and scientific aspects of climate change. We at FCNL lend support for this resolution recognizing the challenge of engaging members of Congress and the public to acknowledge climate change and possible solutions. Our hope is to advance both the spiritual call of "seeking an earth restored" and the factual premise of the scientific community's near-consensus that extreme climate change is a threat to human health and future generations.

As this whirlwind of an election year continues, FCNL sees the resolution as a way to open new conversations by providing concerned people in this country with an opportunity to talk with others about these important issues. Please encourage your representative to support this resolution today.

Thank you for your advocacy. You can see more resources on our website, including the full text of the resolution, a fact sheet about it, and an explanation of its significance by our environmental lobbyist, Jose Aguto.

Sincerely,

Diane Randall
Executive Secretary




P.S. Deepen your impact. Tell five friends to take action.

Many religious and indigenous traditions express the need for humanity’s care for creation and concern about the dangers of climate change. They call upon “respect for the ecological integrity and the sacredness of the natural world” and for humanity “to relate to Earth as God’s creation in ways that sustain life on the planet and provide for the needs of all humankind”, for “irresponsible stewardship of the Earth and global warming threaten the pacific coexistence of mankind.”

Climate change is harming peoples and communities now, and will have severe impacts upon our children and future generations and national security. As such, it is far more than just an environmental issue, but one in which we all share. Such impacts will become more severe and in some cases irreversible, if our nation’s leaders chose not to discuss the issue, much less propose and enact the necessary solutions needed to unleash the human potential capable of solving this preventable crisis.

Today, in stark contrast to just three years ago, the most conspicuous expressions about the climate crisis are by those who would deny it, or by a conspicuously muted or omitted mention by those who know of it. The national political approach to the climate crisis has reversed, yet its causes and impacts have not. We are working with Rep. Jim Moran to introduce a resolution in the House to express the sense of the House that "climate change is happening and that human activities are a key contributor to it." The majority of the American people want action, yet the needed national and international solutions remain on the drawing board. We hope this resolution opens the dialogue to rekindle discussion and enactment of those solutions.

We welcome any person’s endorsement of this resolution regardless of affiliation – including political, religious, or lack thereof. The resolution enables people to express their deeply held conviction that unabated climate change will provide our children and descendants with a future that will be profoundly and unnecessarily difficult – a future we have the ability to prevent. American citizens can take this resolution to their representatives and others seeking elected office, as a tangible marker of a candidate’s commitment to act in this and the next Congress.

This resolution is a plea to members of the House of Representatives, in affirmation of our common humanity and shared future and regardless of any affiliation, that the institution is essential to the enactment of meaningful national and international solutions. We have been reaching out to representatives of both parties to support this resolution with this non-partisan message. It is hoped that member support will result in briefings, hearings, and consideration of requisite legislative action that is currently absent within the halls of Congress.

We ask you to join this first step to rekindling action on the climate crisis, by joining this moral call to the House of Representatives to act upon it. We hope you will consider endorsing this resolution and asking your Representative to become an original co-sponsor. We cast this call as a moral one which seeks to move us all beyond political partisanship, so that all of us together, may use our talents to solve what is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced.

The Gravity of the Climate Crisis Transcends Politics

The Friends Committee on National Legislation and other organizations of faith do not seek or welcome the politicization of what we view as a fundamental moral and humanitarian issue. The Earth is warming in an unnatural way - affirmed by a virtual scientific consensus of 97% - causing disruptions that are harming peoples and ecosystems now. If we do not exercise our ability to dramatically curb the amount of greenhouse gases emissions we are causing, the future impacts will cause even greater impacts, some of which may be irreversible. Seeking to prevent a future for our children and their descendants which involves food and water insecurity, drought, sea level rise, increasing threats to national security and world peace due to population dislocation, scarcer resources, and armed conflict across the globe is not, in our view, a partisan issue.

We have the capacity to prevent this kind of future for our children and the generations to come. We must act swiftly and boldly. Today, the cooperation and will of our nation’s leaders is one of the most significant barriers to this necessary action. It is through this lens that we continue to reach out to members in both parties for sponsorship to work in true collaboration and partnership for the betterment of humanity’s collective future.

The Moral Call Rekindles the Motivation for Significant Action

The resolution seeks to complement, not replace or diminish, existing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the international, national, regional, state, tribal and local levels. The resolution explicitly states the message which is currently being avoided or downplayed in many of these efforts, but which is our fundamental reason to act: Climate change is real; human induced greenhouse gas emissions are the primary cause; these emissions are continuing unabated; the impacts of global climate disruption are and will be harmful to the Earth upon which we depend, and therefore to us in ways profound and unprecedented; and because our actions are causing it, our ingenuity, motivation and actions can and must solve it.

Understandably, this resolution is a modest step compared to just a few years ago when the nation was nearly posed to pass comprehensive climate legislation which would significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and propel the United States as a leader in international negotiations on global greenhouse gas reductions. Yet in today’s vastly different circumstances, the resolution is a modest yet important step that enables citizens to express their deep conviction directly to their representatives in the House of the urgency of the climate crisis, and hold their representatives and other candidates accountable for their response to the intent of the resolution.

The resolution seeks to foster today, open discussions within Congress, on how to significantly reduce national and global greenhouse gas emissions, as such discussions which have largely ceased. By increasing moral and popular support to act, our nation’s leaders might once again consider, introduce, negotiate, and pass the solutions which we have the capacity to implement. It seeks to affirm growing awareness from sectors like the Pentagon of the threat climate change poses to national security, and complement the tremendous accomplishments and activities being undertaken in the regional, state, tribal, and local levels.

Why a Non-Binding Resolution Matters Now

Only a few years ago, the 111th Congress, responding to the will of the American people and concerns echoed in the national media, was actively considering legislative solutions through bills aiming to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the major cause of climate change. If passed, international efforts to meaningfully to reduce global emissions – the most critical act if we are to realize sustainability of our planet and a thriving future for future generations – might have been agreed upon.

Today is a film negative of the recent past. Our national political institutions and the media are practically silent about the gravity of the climate crisis, much less willing to respond meaningfully to it. If it is openly discussed in the national political sphere, it can come in the form of a political attack to repeal and legally void the scientific finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and future generations. Today, the very fundamentals of the science of climate change, agreed upon by 97% of climate scientists, and upon which 70% of the American people want our national political leaders to act, are often attacked by a Congress with historically low approval ratings hovering around 13% since September 2011.

President Obama just recently broke the Administration’s self-imposed silence on the very mention of the phrase “climate change” in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. His statements, welcomed by many, were published on April 25th just three days after his 2012 Earth Day proclamation conspicuously omitted its mention.

The profound causes and impacts of climate change upon on Earth, the resources upon which we depend, and by inextricable extension, on present and future generations, are often not expressed as the fundamental reason to support clean energy development or other advocacy efforts. When the primary reason and motivating force for dramatic reductions of greenhouse gas emissions is not voiced outright, skeptics, particularly those who would profit enormously by inaction, fill the void. National awareness and understanding of the significance of global warming is unduly perplexed, pre-empting attempts to even discuss solutions and act in meaningfully ways.

In this atmosphere, troubling manifestations arise. During Earth Week, many representatives of the faith communities came to Washington D.C., and representatives in the Administration and Congress, regardless of party affiliation, greatly welcomed our visits, noting that for months, few constituents of any kind have been meeting with them to discuss climate change. Outside of the Beltway and in the national media, a nationally televised seven-part series was recently announced which documents the impacts of warming occurring around the Earth’s polar regions, yet intentionally avoids exploring the cause.

The general approach to climate change (or lack thereof) has nearly flipped on its head. Yet the fundamental scientific causality of climate change has not, and our greenhouse gas emissions, the present day impacts and future projections, if they have changed, have largely increased and/or worsened. This resolution is a modest first step in establishing a healthier equilibrium between awareness, knowledge and action.

We Must Create a Space that Allows Human Ingenuity and Hard Work to Solve the Climate Crisis

Fortunately, the bounty of national and international level solutions for this climate crisis, proposed by some of the world’s greatest minds across many fields and disciplines, remains intact. Through this resolution, we can create the space necessary for these solutions to be reconsidered, introduced, negotiated and implemented.

It is a modest but critical step which we must take, to begin again with very basic but critical steps, by expressly acknowledging the gravity of the climate crisis and by activating humanity’s great potential and will to solve it. This resolution is but one opportunity to renew this moral call to our shared higher purpose, re-orient the national tone, and re-connect our Congressional representatives our common purpose, so that they may participate in the solutions that will allow our planet, our children, and future generations, to flourish.

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.

This coming fiscal year, the United States is set to spend more than $640 billion dollars on the Pentagon and war, accounting for more than 60 percent of federal domestic spending. In excess of $85 billion of that will be spent on the war in Afghanistan alone.

This unfathomable amount of money was approved by the House of Representatives in the National Defense Authorization Act. These funds will serve to bring suffering and pain to innocent people, further militarize the world and undermine peace and stability for generations to come—all on the backs of those who struggle at home.

In the backdrop of such spending, we’re told that we’re in a financial crisis. Elected officials tell us it is time to make tough choices. There isn’t enough money for programs like “Meals on Wheels” and for ensuring everyone has access to adequate healthcare. Our schools and bridges must wait to be repaired. New roads and schools must remain unconstructed.

Yet some of us know better.

Last weekend in Chicago, dignitaries from around the world met for the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) Summit on Afghanistan. U.S. veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also gathered to march in protest and return our military medals to NATO. The demands were simple: No NATO, No War. Thousands joined the veterans to march to the NATO meeting location. One by one, nearly 50 of us returned our medals. Removing one medal from his chest at a time, Aaron Hughes of Iraq Veterans Against the War summed it up well when he pulled the final medal from his old military uniform: “And this one is because I’m sorry.”

As veterans, we know the cost of war firsthand. Many of us—myself included—have lost friends to death in combat, by suicide and to addiction. Rates of divorce, addiction, suicide and homelessness are at record highs among U.S. veterans. We know firsthand the stories of the widowed and divorced, the broken and the damned. We have watched friends fall apart and sometimes we’ve fallen apart ourselves. We have seen the pain on the faces of the victims of bombs made under the auspices of American jobs. We have watched as the light of humanity seemed to flicker out in the face of dehumanizing war. And many of us have left pieces of ourselves—physical, mental and emotional—in the places we’ve served.

What exactly is the benefit of spending so much on preparing for and making war? Does it really enhance our liberty and freedom? Do we really feel safer? I can’t take more than ten steps without being on some kind of camera these days. I’m constantly reminded to be vigilant as I take public transportation here in Washington, DC. Is it silly that our government is spending nearly two-thirds of the discretionary budget on “defense” and they’re relying on me to phone a hotline if I see something suspicious?

Mine aren’t the only eyebrows rising. In the years that I’ve been a pro-peace advocate since my honorable discharge from the U.S. Army in 2004, people seem to be getting the message like never before. As we marched in formation, the Chicago police lined the perimeter of the parade route. I wondered as I marched how many of them have felt recent budget cuts or watched colleagues get laid off. At one point, while chanting “Troops need healthcare, not more warfare” an officer alongside us chanted “Police need healthcare, not more warfare.” Others joined in and we picked it up. It was one of those rare moments in which we actually knew the message was reaching someone.

My hope is that more people start to receive this message. There are choices to be made. Right now, the people making these choices are not doing so in a representative way. Congress cannot continue to fund wars and weapons on the backs of the poor, elderly and shrinking middle class. Building a just and equitable society means human needs must take first priority. There is enough money; how we choose to spend it is the question.

This article was originally published on Sojourners "God's Politics" blog here.

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.

All of Congress is now on the record declaring that they have not authorized the use of military force against Iran in the latest round of legislation passed in the House and the Senate. This unanimous 'un-declaration' of war by Congress is a crucial victory, with particular significance given its passage on the eve of the U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad.

The House was the first chamber to 'un-declare war', with its inclusion of a proviso in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that this legislation does not authorize war with Iran. This stipulation that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran" is a remarkably sober note of caution and common sense in an otherwise dangerous and reckless piece of legislation. The NDAA allocates billions of dollars of weapons that could be used for an attack on Iran and requires the administration to prepare for war and dramatically escalate the U.S. militarization of the Middle East. Notably, the NDAA exceeds the limitations on Pentagon spending that Congress agreed to in the Budget Control Act by about $8 billion--much of which is allotted for the anti-Iran weaponry.

Rep. John Conyers (MI) championed this amendment to 'un-declare' war with Iran with a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Ron Paul (TX), Rep. Keith Ellison (MN), and Rep. Walter Jones (NC). In less than a week, Congress received more than 1,000 calls through FCNL's toll-free number from grassroots activists across the country who support this and other anti-war, pro-peace amendments that FCNL was working on. Partly as a result of your advocacy against war with Iran, the Conyers/Paul/Ellison/Jones amendment was considered so uncontroversial that it made its way into the NDAA as part of a package (called 'en bloc amendments') of non-controversial amendments, rather than going to the House floor for a separate vote.

'Un-declaration' is 'Uncontroversial' in House, Hotly Contested in the Senate

Anti-Iran provisions are routinely given this special shortcut into "must-pass legislation" like the NDAA, but legislation containing the word "Iran" that is not agitating for either military or economic warfare rarely qualifies as "uncontroversial."

In fact, on the same day that the House unanimously approved Rep. Conyers' amendment, senators fiercely debated the same sort of provision offered by Sen. Rand Paul (KY) clarifying that the Senate sanctions bill is not an authorization of the use of force against Iran. Sens. Lindsey Graham (SC) and Joe Lieberman (CT) blasted this 'un-declaration' of war. These objections blocked the bill from passage until a compromise was reached that retained Sen. Paul's language but also included a provision which, per the request of Senator Graham and others, echoed President Obama’s remarks that the military option is still on the table.

Why an 'Un-Declaration' of War Matters

While the legislation passed in both chambers of Congress has troubling implications for U.S.-Iran relations, the fact that Congress is now on record affirming that the legislation does not authorize war is a major achievement for the campaign against another war of choice. This 'un-declaration' of war sets a historic precedent that could be used to tone down the implications of future saber-rattling legislation.

And saber-rattling legislation is very much what this is all about.

The House's orders for drones, fighter jets, rockets, machine guns for mounting on warships, and heavy artillery systems designed to 'counter the Iranian threat' would escalate brinksmanship in the Persian Gulf, pushing the United States perilously close to the edge of war.

The Senate sanctions bill doesn't help matters either. The bill will further erode the President's flexibility, both technically and politically.  Negotiations require compromise from both sides, and the key concession that Iran has sought is a significant easing of the U.S. sanctions regime against the Iranian economy. The "Negotiator in Chief's" ability to lift sanctions in exchange for Iranian cooperation on its nuclear program is already severely compromised.

Congress' assertion that neither the NDAA, nor a far-reaching sanctions bill, authorize the use of military force against Iran demonstrates progress.

Any progress in cooling down Congress' all-too common affliction with Iran war fever improves the broader political climate. Given the fragility of U.S.-Iran relations, even slight progress can make the difference between a stand-off and a war.

Urge Congress to take the next step to prevent war, by supporting diplomacy with Iran.

Afghanistan: Pressure Builds for Withdrawal; House Approves Dangerous, Bloated Military Bill; What's New: Starving the Hungry to Feed the Pentagon; Setting Priorities for Action; Budget Expert to Speak at Quaker Public Policy Institute; Recent FCNL Statements; War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Madison, WI

Pressure Builds for Afghanistan Withdrawal

Faced with fading public and congressional support for the U.S. war in Afghanistan, the president and Congress are inching their way toward a responsible withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. But they have yet to embrace a complete change in the U.S. war strategy, which is presently incapable of delivering stability or peace for Afghanistan.

This weekend in Chicago, President Obama and other world leaders endorsed a plan that is billed as a wind-down of international combat operations and a responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan. However, continuing a failed military policy for another year at the cost of billions of dollars and countless lives is anything but responsible. As NATO allies look toward the exit, the U.S. should do the same by bringing an end to its military presence and shifting focus towards facilitating an end to the decades-long conflict.

The pressure to bring this war to an end is ever mounting, even in Washington. In Congress, 94 representatives called on the president to accelerate the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Recognizing this growing opposition to the war, on Thursday House leaders blocked a vote on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required the U.S. to end combat operations earlier than the date set by the Obama administration of December 2013.

Will this opposition lead to a change in U.S. strategy to help build a lasting peace in Afghanistan? In this election year, members of Congress need to hear from you if they are ever to act to end the war.

Photo: President Barack Obama thanks NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the opening of the NATO Summit in Chicago, Ill., May 20, 2012. (DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Chad J. McNeeley/Released)

House Approves Bloated, Dangerous Military Bill

The National Defense Authorization Act, which passed the House last week:

• Greatly increases the Pentagon budget beyond the limits in the Budget Control Act;
• Fails to guarantee the right to civilian trial for anyone arrested in the United States;
• Fails to put limits on drone strikes; and
• Could undermine implementation of the New START treaty to reduce deployed nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia.

Find out how your representative voted on these and other amendments. Now all eyes will be on the Senate, which has yet to consider its authorization bill. Senators are unlikely to support many of the amendments approved by the House.

Photo: Rob Pongsajapan via Flickr Creative Commons

What's New:

Starving the hungry to feed the Pentagon. 1.8 million people could lose food stamps. 300,000 children could lose health coverage. That would be the consequence of the House-passed budget proposal to save the Pentagon from cuts, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Your advocacy to insist that Pentagon budget cuts stay in place is more urgent now than ever, says FCNL's Katherine Philipson. Join our week of action for a peaceful budget, and plan to come to Washington this November to continue this lobbying work.

Setting priorities for action. A near-record-breaking number of Quaker meetings and churches-246-took part in the first stage of our discernment about FCNL's lobbying priorities in 2013 and 2014. Thank you! This input will be further refined by our Policy Committee during the next six months. The FCNL General Committee will then be asked to reach unity on these priorities at our Annual Meeting in November.

Budget expert Ellen Nissenbaum to speak at Quaker Public Policy Institute. Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (and former FCNL intern) Ellen Nissenbaum will help prepare you to lobby this November. Find out more and register for the Institute today!

Recent FCNL Statements:

• Stop Efforts to Block Reductions in Nuclear Weapons: Letter to the House
• Stop Funding for a New Nuclear Bomber: Letter to the House
• 28 Organizations Support Funding for the Complex Crises Fund
• Support the "Rebuild America Act"

See more recent statements

War is Not the Answer Photo of the Week: Madison, WI

FCNL's Stephen Donahoe and Emily Temple were on the road last week, taking a tour through the Midwest and meeting with our supporters, including these folks at Madison Friends Meeting.

Order your own War Is Not the Answer sign and see where this movement is showing up across the country. Find out how to submit your photo.

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

May 15, 2012

This week, as world leaders gather in Chicago to make long-term plans for Afghanistan, your representative will cast a vote that could help end the destabilizing U.S. military presence in that country.

Please call your representative using our special toll-free number: 877-429-0678. Urge your representative to vote "yes" on the McGovern-Jones amendment, amendment number 101, to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment would

• accelerate U.S. troops withdrawal, requiring the U.S. to end combat operations in Afghanistan no later than December 2013;
• attempt to ensure at most a limited U.S. military presence after December 2014; and
• call for robust negotiations leading to a political settlement and reconciliation of the internal conflict in Afghanistan.

The vote could come as soon as Wednesday afternoon, so please call today. Read the full amendment text here.

Your calls could make a real difference. The military authorization bill as currently written contains language that would pressure the president to keep tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan past the current scheduled withdrawal date of 2014. The McGovern-Jones amendment we are supporting would affirm Congress' commitment to bringing the U.S. war to a close. While we don't support authorizing more money for the military, this bill is likely to pass and presents an opportunity to make significant policy changes.

Please call your representative today: 877-429-0678. When you call, ask for your representative by name (look up your rep. here if you're unsure), then use these talking points to help you make your call.

• My name is ____ and I'm from _____(City, State)_____
• I'm asking Representative _____ to vote "yes" on the McGovern-Jones amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment would bring U.S. troops home from Afghanistan sooner and bring the U.S. war to an end.
• Thank you.

More and more people are getting the message that bullets aren't the way to bring peace to Afghanistan. In a recent Fox News poll, 78% of respondents said they "approve of the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan." Opposition in Congress has also steadily been growing. Last year, 204 representatives voted for a similar amendment offered by Reps. McGovern and Jones, and a majority of senators supported a call for an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. military troops from Afghanistan. Yet none of these provisions have yet become law. Your voice could help convince your representative to vote for an accelerated end to the war. Please call today.

Thank you for all you do to work for peace.


Sincerely,

Jim Cason
Associate Executive Secretary for Campaigns

P.S. In addition to this amendment on Afghanistan, we are also paying close attention to amendments on the military authorization bill to remove restrictions on Pentagon spending, encourage diplomacy with Iran, guarantee the right to a civilian trial for anyone arrested in the United States and more. See updates on the amendments we are watching.

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!

On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed its plan to spare the Pentagon from mandatory cuts by instead slashing food stamps, Medicaid, and other programs for people in the U.S. who are struggling.

In order to stave off the first $50 billion in reductions to Pentagon growth required under the Budget Control Act, the House proposed to slice $261 billion from investments in our communities over the next decade. Our budget lobbyist, Ruth Flower, has more detailed analysis the House proposal here.

The New York Times reports

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would push 1.8 million people off food stamps and could cost 280,000 children their school lunch subsidies and 300,000 children their health insurance coverage through the federal and state Children’s Health Insurance Program.

The House budget would shrink investments in education by 48 percent and transportation infrastructure by 28 percent compared to 2010 levels. Moreover, the elimination of the Social Services Block Grant program would drain funding Meals on Wheels, day care for children, and transportation for the elderly and disabled, harming 23 million people.

Though the House plan stands little chance of passing as written in the Senate, senators are under increasing pressure to roll back Pentagon cuts. This proposal indicates what could be possible if we don’t start to bring ballooning Pentagon spending under control.

Right Now, Your Action Matters More Than Ever

From Maine to Ohio to Washington State, FCNL supporters are meeting with their senators’ local offices to call for keeping the $1 trillion in cuts to projected Pentagon spending, as required under current law.

While we may not have the dollars of Pentagon contractors, we still have something they don’t: our collective power as voters. Studies show that direct meetings with constituents are much more influential in shaping the opinions of members of Congress than visits from professional lobbyists.

From May 28th to June 1st, your Senators will be home on recess. It’s not too late to request a visit - check out our tips here. You can also sign up here to receive reminders during our Week of Action for a Peaceful Budget this coming Memorial Day.

It’s time to stand together for programs that support the most vulnerable among us. Let’s send a clear message to the Senate: cut the Pentagon instead.

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

Last night, the House Rules Committee met to determine which of the 241 offered amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would be considered. The committee ruled the McGovern/Jones amendment out of order, preventing it from coming to the House floor for a vote. The amendment would have required the U.S. to expedite the transition out of Afghanistan, end combat operations no later than December 2013 and ensure a limited or nonexistent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after December, 2014. Last year, Representatives Jim McGovern (MA) and Walter Jones (NC) offered a similar amendment, which failed by a hair: 204-215. It was the most impressive display of congressional opposition to the war to date. This year, the amendment’s rejection by the Rules Committee was an indication that it would have likely passed had it seen the House floor. Rep. McGovern, a member of the Rules Committee, protested the decision for over an hour at the Rules Committee meeting late last night.

Despite poll after poll showing overwhelming public support for ending the war in Afghanistan across all party affiliations, the Rules Committee made the political choice to avoid this telling vote during an election cycle. Representatives whose constituents have been calling for the war to end now won’t have to make the choice between representing their war-weary constituents and acquiescing to a powerful, over-funded Pentagon.

Show your representative that there is public support for peace. The Rules Committee has allowed floor time for one of three possible Afghanistan-related amendments that FCNL was following. Representative Barbara Lee (CA) will be allowed to offer an amendment calling for funds for a safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. forces and contractors from Afghanistan, similar to H.R. 780. The House will be debating and voting on the NDAA today: call your representative today and ask for their support for Rep. Lee’s amendment.

Update on 5/17: Congress voted 401-11 for H.Res. 568, against the advice of many national security officials. However, that vote only happened after one of the leading proponents of the legislation re-defined that threshold in a sober, pragmatic way, to clarify there is no authorization for war and made clear that the Congress was not opposing a diplomatic solution that would potentially allow for Iran to have a peaceful nuclear program.

When Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff for Secretary Colin Powell, and I were visiting with members of Congress and their staff to jointly oppose a resolution that would lower the threshold for war with Iran (H.Res. 568), he warned that “this resolution reads like the same sheet of music that got us into the Iraq war”.

In less than 48 hours, Congress is expected to vote in favor of that same 'sheet of music', yet in response to an alliance of national security experts and a grassroots campaign that many of you have been a part of—many in Congress are speaking out for diplomacy, not war.

Not too Late to Call!

While Congress debated the resolution last night, Congress won’t vote on the resolution until later today or tomorrow. (As soon as there is a vote, I will update this blog post with the vote count.)

However, as of this writing, it’s not too late to take action by calling 1-855-68 NO WAR (1-855-686-6927) to contact your member of Congress and tell them to vote NO on H.Res. 568, to oppose the push for war with Iran.

Your Action has Already Shifted the Debate

Passage of this dangerous legislation would certainly erode the fragile political space the administration needs to successfully negotiate with Iran, as a host of national security experts have pointed out. Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA), Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee highlighted how this resolution could undermine negotiations, saying:

“I really believe that these negotiations should proceed without any resolutions from us right now....This is a very sensitive time. Candidly, I think diplomacy should have an opportunity to work without getting involved in political discussions about a resolution.”

However, the debate over this legislation directly acknowledged the opposition that it has encountered from national security officials, a coalition of national peace and security organizations, faith leaders, and a grassroots campaign across the country, which FCNL has played a leading role in organizing. Congress has received more than 3,000 calls and tens of thousands of emails and letters against this resolution, and even the legislation’s strongest proponents directly responded to the concerns that so many of you raised.

Berman's Clarion Call to RAISE Threshold for War with Iran

While leading the effort to support a resolution which endorses a lower threshold for war with Iran, Rep. Berman took to the House floor to deliver a clarion call to effectively RAISE the threshold for war with Iran that has become so widely accepted in Congress.

Col. Wilkerson said that the resolution is “a thinly-disguised effort to bless war” because it calls for lowering the current threshold for war from the long standing U.S. ‘redline’ of a nuclear-armed Iran to ruling out a “nuclear weapons capable Iran”, and because it effectively takes all options off the table except for the so-called ‘military option’.

‘Nuclear weapons capable’ is such a dangerous threshold because, as I’ve written about before, it is a vague term, undefined in the legislation, that could be interpreted as a call for military action now--simply because Iran has a nuclear program at all—even though the U.S. and Israeli intelligence establishment agree that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and has not made a decision to do so.

While the resolution itself doesn’t define at what point Iran would reach this point of no return for war, Rep. Howard Berman (CA), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, went to the floor to clearly define ‘nuclear weapons capable’, and to speak out for diplomacy, not war, with Iran.

Rep. Berman’s cautionary remarks carry tremendous weight because in addition to being one of the leading voices on foreign policy in Congress, he introduced this resolution with Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

In a pointed rejection of attempts by others who have hinted that the U.S. attack Iran merely for having a nuclear program, most notably Senator Lieberman, co-author of this companion legislation in the Senate and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rep. Berman defined this ‘point of no return’ for Iran according to the same lines that many U.S. and Israeli intelligence officials have endorsed.

Rep. Berman defined this point of no return, or ‘nuclear weapons capability’, by referencing a definition of the term that was given by former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair in a 2009 testimony to Congress, with a few additional caveats:

• 1) Fissile material production
• 2) Design weaponization and testing of a warhead
• 3) a delivery vehicle

Berman pointed out that Iran has a delivery vehicle (#3) but does not have #1 and #2, but are making progress on those steps.

Berman continued to explain that he would consider Iran to be nuclear weapons capable if Iran:

Will the Senate Sing a Different Tune?

In addition to Rep. Berman, several other proponents of the legislation emphasized that this resolution is not an authorization for war. They are correct—the legislation is non-binding, and doesn’t authorize war or anything else. Rather, the resolution does put Congress on the record as endorsing policies that would lower the threshold for war and push diplomacy further off the table. However, as dangerous a ‘sheet of music’ that it is, it is important to note that the debate on this script showcased how many in Congress are singing to a very different, pro-diplomacy tune cautioning against war.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution as early as this week or next on S. Res. 380, the companion legislation, introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman (CT), Lindsey Graham (SC), and Bob Casey (PA). Write and call your senators, to ask that join national security experts in rejecting a lowered threshold for war, and speak out for diplomacy, as some have in unexpected quarters of Congress.

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).