In mid-May, Rep. Lamar Smith (TX) wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post. In his piece, Rep. Smith argues against regulations to control the amount of pollution we can pump into our air. The op-ed seems reasonable at first glance: inflated rhetoric likely does get in the way of substantial policymaking on this issue; this is a call toward acting reasonable and sensible. But when it comes to policy proposals, Rep. Smith gives us nothing but the status quo. It is one thing to have a sound debate about the role of government in protecting our communities; it is quite another to have a debate about facts that have long been settled. Unfortunately, the latter is where the Congressman’s argument ends up.

The truth is that climate scientists have been remarkably accurate in their predictions. The truth is that we can already see the effects of climate disruption; 2012 was the warmest year on record and featured several of the most destructive weather events in history. The truth is that 97% of scientists say that climate change is happening.

There are three instances where the congressman’s arguments are misleading at best: the numbers on the Keystone pipeline, the accuracy of climate science, and the impact of climate change on communities home and abroad.

First, Rep. Smith argues that Keystone will create jobs and will not add pollution to the atmosphere—and, as a result, the Obama administration should quit delaying the approval process. He is mistaken on both counts. A March review by the company constructing the pipeline revealed that Keystone could create as few as 35 permanent jobs. Further, burning the oilsands transported by Keystone will cause a 36 percent increase from current production—the equivalent of more than 4.6 million cars—not including increased emissions from upgrading and refining that oil.

Second, climate science is settled. It is not in doubt that the climate is changing and that we’re the cause. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that it is caused by human activity. A survey examined 12,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers written by 29,000 scientists over the past 20 years. Only 83 of those 12,000 papers—0.7 percent—disputed that climate change is caused by human activity.

A recently released paper confirms the accuracy of climate predictions. The paper “show[s] that [climate] scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade… to within a few hundredths of a degree.” This consensus and accuracy cannot be called “uncertain” as Rep. Smith does.

(Note that this is different from the argument that any individual extreme weather event is caused by climate change, which is nearly impossible to prove; this is the argument that climate change is a sustained phenomenon that happens over years and increases in severity).

Finally, climate change is already affecting everyday life around the world. More than 180 native communities in Alaska could be forced to move from their homes due to rising sea levels. A report by the US Army Corps of Engineers predicted that the highest point in the village could be underwater by 2017; there is no way to protect the village in place. These towns “are flooding and losing land because of the ice melt that is part of the changing climate.”

Closer to Rep. Smith’s home, a Cargill meat plant in Plainview, TX has shut down due to drought conditions in the town. This closure isn’t just a loss of jobs and livelihood and community—though it is all of those things. In the case of some families, it is literally a life-and-death issue; some, told they were going to have to move, instead attempted suicide. Drought, flooding, and increasingly severe weather patterns are driving conflict and strife in Somalia, Syria, and myriad other communities around the globe. That unrest in turn threatens the security of the United States.

Rep. Smith says climate regulation is a job issue. He’s right. We cannot have jobs or stable communities if we do not address the effects of climate change. But it’s also a human rights issue and a security issue. Without policies to protect the only Earth we’ve got, many more communities are going to look like Newtok, Plainview, or Tel Abyad. The United States is going to be threatened by increasingly unstable states, rocked by climate change, or we’ll be dragged into conflicts around the world as we work to protect our interests and allies from the increasingly severe effects of climate change.

There is a legitimate policy debate to be had about the proper form of climate regulations, but Rep. Smith does this debate a disservice by posturing with misleading arguments or incorrect facts. The fact is the climate is changing and humans are the cause; scientists are certain of this. The fact is we have the power to same communities here and abroad from strife. I hope Rep. Smith will join those of us working to shape policy and legislation to confront climate disruption that threatens us all.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

As General Joseph Dunford, commander of all international and U.S. troops in Afghanistan, prepares to appear before the Senate and House Armed Service Committees this week to discuss his plans to wind down the war, just under a week after Army General Martin Dempsey recommended that NATO retain between 8,000 and 12,000 troops in Afghanistan after 2014, you might reasonably believe that Afghanistan only exists insofar as there are U.S. military personnel fighting there. Such a view ignores the ongoing challenges that Afghanistan will face after international forces leave – problems that not only affect the people of Afghanistan but the region and the world. Refusing to acknowledge and confront the political and economic issues posed by the transition threatens to undermine those who wish to overcome them.

President Obama’s determination to end the war has been apparent since his decision to expand it. Since surging in 30,000 troops in December 2009, his public addresses place heavy emphasis on fulfilling his promise to draw down American involvement by 2014 and to give our domestic issues his undivided attention. Most of his references to the future of U.S.-Afghan relations focus on military cooperation. Only after emphasizing the strategy defeat of the regional al-Qaeda threat and highlighting the on-going security transition does he briefly mention the other problems left behind for the Afghan people to deal with and his desire to help address them. Rarely in these remarks will he detail the efforts of government agencies like USAID and the State Department to support Afghan political and economic stability.

Congress’ support for the war plummeted over the past months and years; its interest in an ongoing relationship with Afghanistan is practically non-existent. Many among them suffer from war fatigue. Others are opposed to all global engagement altogether. This anti-war group of progressive, constituent-conscious and conservative members creates an effective voice, but it will likely crumble as the military footprint diminishes. There is little appetite for long-term political and economic assistance on the Hill.

Media give the issue minimal support as well. Coverage of Afghanistan focuses heavily on the battlefield and the United States’ shrinking role therein. Headlines, to the extent that the war reaches them, explore the difficulties of asymmetric conflict and the struggles of training local security forces to achieve what international forces have been unable to do. From newspapers to broadcast journalism to blogs, nothing gets as much exposure as President Obama’s statements announcing that more troops are coming home. It is impractical to expect the public to engage Congress about Afghanistan’s future if it is not properly educated.

Despite reluctance to talk about the other aspects of the transition, there is certainly more to discuss. Economic concerns abound as protecting aid personnel becomes a greater challenge and the international community struggles to maintain its financial commitments. Without further development and investment, the fragile Afghan economy could collapse upon the roughly thirty-million people whose livelihoods depend on it. Politically, there is reason to believe that the government is not taking the necessary steps enumerated in the Tokyo Mutual Accountability Framework (TMAF) to increase efficiency and transparency. The peace process remains precariously stalled with the Taliban refusing to negotiate with the Karzai government they deem illegitimate. Unless at least some of these issues are addressed by April 2014, a corrupt nation-wide presidential election could destroy what popular legitimacy the government has and precipitate its disintegration.

There is a great deal the United States and the international community can do to help Afghanistan address these problems and ensure that the moderate gains of the past eleven years are only the beginning of Afghanistan’s revival. Programs like the National Solidarity Programme that funnel development funds through the national government into local institutions should continue to operate and promote community empowerment. They can motivate economic and political stability by upholding their financial commitments from TMAF in exchange for Afghan governance reform and engaging the region in economic roundtables. Politically, they can provide expertise and assistance in forming unbiased electoral oversight committees and ensuring voter participation and encourage Afghan leaders to communicate openly and work with the public regarding plans for a stable, transparent and peaceful country. Bolstering the legitimacy of the Afghan government while decreasing foreign military involvement could create the situation on the ground where diplomacy can effectively promote talks between the government and the insurgency.

While the U.S. government and others already support many of these initiatives, failing to promote them sews uncertainty in the minds of the Afghan people. There is considerable concern in Afghanistan that its future could look like its past: in 1992 another insurgency toppled another ineffective, unpopular regime that sparked a brutal civil war between the country’s ethnic and ideological groups. Just as last time, there is fear that the world will turn its back. If not addressed with a clear response, such pessimistic perceptions can spread exponentially, diminish popular buy-in and potentially increase the likelihood that such a nightmare scenario comes to pass.

U.S. leaders and the Obama administration in particular need to make clear to the American and Afghan people alike that remain committed to a candid and positive relationship with Afghanistan through 2014 and beyond – a partnership irrespective of military support. Demonstrating that the U.S. is openly involved in productive activities to promote political legitimacy, stability and peace will do much to quell Afghan fears of international abandonment and to encourage Afghan political leaders to take reforms seriously. We all understand that the U.S. war in Afghanistan is ending. It’s time to articulate what will happen next.

This piece originally appeared on The Hill. It also appeared on The Huffington Post.

Last month, over 100 students and committed environmental activists joined us here in Washington for our annual Spring Lobby Weekend. We heard from congressional staffers, communications specialists, and climate experts; we planned and practiced our lobby visits; and we put on a Congressional briefing featuring some of the voices that are least heard in the climate debate. (You can see the briefing notice, or watch the full briefing). In the end, we totaled nearly sixty lobby visits, about fifteen of which were with members of Congress themselves. It was an amazing weekend.

On a more personal level, it was tremendous to meet the living and breathing people who corresponded to the names on spreadsheets that I’d been dealing with for months. I felt as though I’d really gotten to know you all through months of phone calls and emails, but it was great to meet everyone in person and to see everyone so excited about our speakers and about the chance to lobby.

If you haven’t had a chance to check out the pictures from the weekend, you can see them here! You can also watch a video featuring some of our young adult lobbyists. They told us: “Any student that comes to FCNL to lobby should come back again and again.”

Over and over, we heard from Congressional offices that we’re doing exactly what needs to be done, and that they’re not hearing from enough people who are passionate about climate change. The offices told us that they need to be hearing from those who aren’t the "usual suspects" on climate issues: people of color, people of faith, and young people. We also heard that we should keep up our great grassroots work, writing letters to the editor and visiting our representatives in-district to make sure that those who represent us know that we care about climate change and are going to make sure they take action.

The good news is that we’re focusing -- every single day -- on increasing the volume and quantity of the voices they mention, working in coalition with a variety of faith and diversity groups; and working to increase the grassroots momentum for action on climate change.

The even better news is that we have over 100, and counting, newly minted environmental lobbyists! Even if you weren’t able to attend spring lobby weekend, you can join us now. Take some time this weekend to help increase this momentum:

Have questions about how to go about any of this, want some guidance, or just want to chat about the asks once more? Great! You can write to me (hannah at fcnl.org) or to Annie (annie at fcnl.org) anytime and we’d be thrilled to continue this conversation.

What Spring Lobby Weekend taught me is that we’re doing exactly what’s necessary but that we can’t, and shouldn’t, let up now. Please consider joining us and the incredible citizen lobbyists to make a difference on climate change.

Tensions are high on the Korean Peninsula. In between North Korea’s several threats to strike the United States or its allies with nuclear weapons, and the United States sending nuclear-capable B-2 and B-52 bombers to South Korea, it seems increasingly likely that even a minor incident on the Korean Peninsula could lead to violent conflict. For many obvious reasons, that would be a mistake.

Simply put, war cannot be the answer, ever. It wasn’t in Iraq or Afghanistan, and it won’t be in North Korea either. Diplomacy and renewed dialogue must be the avenues with which we seek to demilitarize the Korean Peninsula.

It has a history of working. In 1994, the United States and North Korea signed an Agreed Framework treaty that halted the North’s nuclear program for eight years. In this treaty, North Korea agreed to lock up fuel reactors and allowed international inspectors to guard them. In exchange for this, the United States and an international consortium would send light water reactors to North Korea to help generate electricity. The Framework even went so far as to say that the United States and North Korea would normalize relations in the future.This Framework worked for eight years. So what happened? One issue was that the light water reactors were never delivered to North Korea. Another issue was that, in 2002, North Korea was listed as a member of the “Axis of Evil,” and officials in power at the time famously said, “We don’t negotiate with evil--we defeat it.”

That is the wrong attitude to take, and the Obama Administration would do well to remember the 1994 agreement. The ramped up military actions on the Korea Peninsula, like the nuclear capable bombers and joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, are sending the wrong message to North Korea. The United States is engaging in risky behavior that could lead to an outbreak of violence and conflict. Diplomacy and negotiations worked in the past. They would work again.

After all, once the treaty ended, international inspectors were removed from North Korea, the country withdrew itself from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and then began conducting nuclear tests. It can be agreed that the decision not to continue diplomatic relations and negotiations with North Korea were a major failure, and have allowed North Korea to proliferate nuclear weapons.

War will not be the answer to North Korea. The United States and its allies must use all diplomatic channels possible, even if it’s basketball diplomacy (much like Ping-Pong diplomacy back in the 1970s with China).

Here at FCNL, we seek a world free of war and the threat of war. We also seek a world free of nuclear weapons. Diplomacy is the best way to achieve both those ends. Let your representatives know you support a peaceful solution with North Korea.

Lately I've been thinking a lot about how and why Quaker faith is so often lived out through social action. One way to engage with this query is to consider each of the Quaker testimonies and explore how they lead Friends to powerful witness for a better world. In my monthly newsletter to FCNL Contacts at Quaker meetings and churches, I have begun this conversation with the peace testimony.

Where does the peace testimony come from?

The first thing about Quakerism I felt confident in explaining to others was our belief in that of God in everyone. So many beautiful things evolve from that one conviction—Friends pedagogy that centers education on the whole child, open business processes that invite all members of the community to share divinely-inspired messages and, of course, the position that no other being should be harmed.

FCNL staff members prepare to race in the Baltimore Marathon wearing t-shirts that read "Don't Iraq Iran." Diplomacy is an important tool for promoting peace.

One expression of this sentiment that speaks to me is the peace statement made by New Zealand Yearly Meeting in 1987: “The primary reason for this stand is our conviction that there is that of God in every one which makes each person too precious to damage or destroy. While someone lives there is always the hope of reaching that of God within them: such hope motivates our search to find non-violent resolution of conflict. Peacemakers are also empowered by that of God in them. Our individual human skills, courage, endurance, and wisdom are vastly augmented by the power of the loving Spirit that connects all people.”

How do we build peace?

Though peace is a widely recognized tenant of Quakerism, I believe this principle has a deeper and more complex significance than some may think. In a recent conversation, our Executive Secretary Diane Randall said, “I see what we do [at FCNL] as straddling the idea of witness and working pragmatically for change. Certainly we witness, we are a Quaker presence and voice in Washington. But we also go beyond that because we work strategically and effectively.”

My concern for a conversation about peace is that it be grounded in reality. As someone who believes in peace, I fear I may not be taken seriously until others see that I understand the implications of my position. Peacemaking is hard, emotional work that can only be accomplished if individuals and groups put aside petty differences and exclusive self-interest. Truly building peace does not only call for a thoughtful, nonviolent response to conflict — it requires that the root causes of conflict be addressed before they lead to violence. This is where I see the FCNL community bring together the prophetic and the pragmatic.

A student from Carolina Friends School tells his members of Congress about his priorities for the federal budget.

The first assertion in FCNL’s statement of principles is simple: "We seek a world free of war and the threat of war." Yet this statement reveals how much Friends have delved into the pragmatic thinking necessary to create the prophetic vision we have for the world. This statement is one of the many reasons I am proud to be a member of this community. It shows that we witness to our conviction that peace is an ethical imperative and that violence is an unacceptable means of resolving conflict. Further, we understand that as long as the causes of conflict are left unaddressed, the world will live under threat of war.

The FCNL community is working to create a world in which humans need not use violence to obtain resources, to assert their human rights against oppressors or to defend themselves against violent acts motivated by intolerance and hate. Peace, then, does not simply imply demilitarization of our nation—though of course that is crucial. It calls for investment in the positive development in everything from sustainable resources at home and abroad, to multicultural education that fosters understanding and respect between different peoples of the earth. Working for peace means disarmament, but it also requires the promotion of community building and peaceful methods of conflict transformation on every level. True peacebuilding is a positive creation, it is well-informed, and it is proactive.

The FCNL community’s work in context

From this fundamental position, FCNL has developed a variety of legislative programs that comprehensively address the task of peacemaking. Folks like you continue to be a crucial part of this work—whether you are led to work for more funding for atrocities prevention, revise U.S. economic policy to make resources accessible to everyone, or stop climate change from fueling conflict worldwide. I see that the FCNL community articulates a powerful vision for how the world should be—and works to persuade Congress to take concrete steps to make this vision a reality. I'm so grateful to being doing this work with you all.

Sequestration, Continuing Resolutions, FY14 Budgets, Appropriations, oh my! With budget policy leaping from one crisis to another, it’s difficult to see the big picture. Here at FCNL, we’re looking for two things to protect the human services that our communities rely on: significant cuts to the Pentagon budget and increased revenues. While we are finally seeing cuts to the Pentagon, the need for new revenue still exists. Cuts to vital human services cannot be avoided without significant new tax revenues. Revenue positive tax reform would help the government balance its books. More importantly, though, it could stop taxes from further exacerbating economic inequality.

The FCNL policy statement reads: “The federal budget should allow for adequate spending to meet the actual needs of the nation.” The nation’s needs are not being met by our current budget; unemployment hovers around 7-8 percent, one in six households didn’t have enough money to feed their family at some point in 2012 and the U.S. has the second highest child poverty rate of all rich countries. Despite the fact that many families rely on federal programs to stay afloat, Congress is considering cuts to benefits such as Pell grants, the Earned Income Tax Credit or SNAP (food stamps). At the same time, Congress is protecting a tax code that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest taxpayers.

As this chart from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) shows, the vast majority--66 percent--of all tax expenditures benefit only the richest 20 percent of taxpayers. Conversely, the middle 60 percent of all taxpayers benefit from only 31 percent of tax expenditures. The current system of tax expenditures--through loopholes, credits, deductions and other benefits--disproportionately favors the wealthy. The numerous tax expenditures in the tax code are also very expensive, costing about $1.1 trillion a year. This is more than non-defense discretionary spending, more than Social Security, and more than Medicaid and Medicare combined.

Consider child care. The federal government subsidizes child care through both spending, in the form of both mandatory and discretionary programs, and tax credits, through the Dependent Care Tax Credit. There is a key difference between these two subsidies. Child care assistance for low-income families is capped, and only one out of every six qualifying families receives any assistance. In contrast, the tax subsidy is open-ended, so every family that with dependents receives it. Thus, even families with very high incomes receive a tax credit they do not need, while most low-income parents who truly need help do not get any.

See where your 2012 tax dollars went.

Child care is just one example of a tax subsidy that could be reformed to raise new revenues and reverse the injustice embedded in the tax code. Congress could change the Mortgage Interest Deduction so it no longer subsidizes the purchase of a yacht or a vacation home, or it could place a limit on the tax savings through certain deductions and exclusions that wealthy individuals can receive. That’s only looking at the individual tax code -- even more revenues could be raised if we ventured into corporate taxes.

The U.S. has seen economic inequality rise steadily in recent years. Instead of protecting the current system of convoluted credits, deductions and loopholes that predominately benefit the wealthiest in this country, Congress should take this opportunity to make a more just (and fiscally responsible) tax code. Whenever a fiscal deal does become law, it should include new revenues raised from those who can most afford to contribute instead of cutting essential programs from our communities.

For the last two and a half months, members of the Interfaith Immigration Coalition and I have been meeting with staffers in Senate offices to discuss comprehensive immigration reform. As people of faith, we’ve shared the principles we believe should guide reform legislation, emphasizing the importance of keeping families together and providing a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. We’ve also listened to the concerns of the staffers and the senators they work for. They have different opinions about certain components of immigration reform, but every single staffer we talked to agrees that our immigration system is broken and that Congress must pass a bill this year to fix it.

Where are we in the legislative process?

Committees in both houses have held hearings on various aspects of the immigration system, including border security, family unity, detention and law enforcement, and employment visas. In January, a bipartisan group of eight senators released their framework for immigration reform (read Ruth Flower's initial comments on the framework). Members of Congress now await the introduction of a bill from this group, which will likely be in mid-April.

We at FCNL are particularly concerned at the news that the bipartisan group of senators is considering eliminating visas for siblings and married adult children of U.S. citizens. As we wrote in a letter to the members of this group:

Families play a crucial role in the development of healthy individuals and communities, aiding in the integration of new immigrants, and contributing to the local and national economy…Cutting family visa categories also increases pressures for illegal immigration, exacerbating the problems of the country’s broken immigration system. Evidence indicates that many of the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. came here to be reunited with their families, but had no legal means to immigrate. Congress will not fix the broken system by dividing families and reducing legal avenues for family migration.

As members of Congress await the introduction of a bill, they will be listening carefully for feedback from their constituents on the proposed framework - this means that now is an ideal time to make your voice heard! Staffers tell us that their offices usually hear much more from constituents who oppose humane immigration reform than from those who support it. Right now is a good time to send an e-mail to let your representative and senators know that you support humane reforms that will treat people with dignity, keep families together, and make the immigration system work for everyone involved.

This coming Wednesday, President Obama will travel to the Middle East, marking his first visit to Israel as president. Along with Israel, he will make a five-hour stop in the West Bank and end the trip with a visit to King Abdullah in Jordan.

In advance of this trip, FCNL's Diane Randall sent a letter to the White House urging the President to visit people and groups working nonviolently for peace in Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

In the letter, Diane asked President Obama to consider visiting a variety of people and places:

In Israel, we hope that you would meet with one of the many former Israeli security officials who have staunchly opposed a military attack on Iran. Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, called an attack on Iran “the stupidest thing I ever heard” and warned against the indefinite continuation of the Israeli military occupation, which emboldens extremists on all sides of the conflict.

In the West Bank, we hope that you will witness the Palestinian nonviolent movement. If you venture beyond the Palestinian Authority’s compound, you will see Palestinians and Israelis working for nonviolent solutions at homes and hospitals under demolition orders, accompanying children facing down the threat of militant settlers, and protesting against the separation barrier, and even planting olive trees where they have been torched.

As the Palestinian parliamentarian Mustafa Barghouthi noted, “U.S. recognition of the Palestinian nonviolence movement against the occupation would send a powerful signal that nonviolence will succeed in ending the occupation and securing a just future for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

See the rest of the letter here.

Are you traveling to Israel? If you, a friend, or your members of Congress have plans to travel to Israel or the Palestinian Territories, consider consulting our exhaustive list of organizations and places to visit. The organizations on the list are valuable for members of Congress, congressional staff, and the U.S. public to visit in order to gain a greater understanding of the conflict, and to witness first-hand the work of Israeli and Palestinian peacebuilders to bring about a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.

March 4-5, 2013 marked an historic event. Over those two days, representatives from 127 governments and 16 national and international organizations convened in Oslo, Norway to attend the Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons. Sponsored by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), this was the first conference conference of its kind.

The conference had three main topics of discussion:
1. the immediate humanitarian impact of a nuclear weapon detonation;
2. the wider impact and longer-term consequences; and
3. the humanitarian preparedness and response capacity.

This conference was significant in many ways. As I mentioned above, this was the first time that a conference discussing the humanitarian aspects of nuclear weapons had ever been held. World leaders, such as Peter Maurer, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross; Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; and Rashid Khalikov, the Director of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, attended and spoke. 25 nations submitted official statements.

So did the United States participate? Our country is, after all, the only nation to have ever used one of these weapons, and we still have thousands of them in storage and deployed around the world.

No. The United States did not participate. Of the nine nations that have nuclear weapons, only India and Pakistan participated. Even Iran sent delegates. This was a missed opportunity by the United States. The same president who, in 2009, said, “So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” should have sent some sort of delegate to affirm to the world that he was being serious, that the United States is still committed to this goal.

Even though most of the nuclear powers did not attend, there is a renewed feeling of hope that we can rid the world of nuclear weapons. People from all walks of life are starting to acknowledge the inherent immorality and unconscionable existence of these weapons. Nuclear weapons have no place in our world.

During the conference, videos and presentations about the devastating effects of nuclear weapons were shown and given. It was acknowledged that thousands, if not millions, of people would die if a nuclear bomb were to be dropped. The radiation effects would spread for hundreds of miles and affect millions. The blast could lift hundreds of thousands of tons of ash into the air, creating a nuclear winter that would disrupt agricultural cycles and possibly cause the starvation of more than a billion people. A nuclear weapon could be used accidentally—with a human, technical or mechanical error. We can’t wait for that moment to happen.

The delegates who attended aren’t waiting around for the nuclear powers to disarm themselves. They know the time to act is now.

And they need your help! We have an obligation, not only to ourselves, but to the world—to the environment, and to the billions of human beings who share this planet. Our country is one of the ones who possesses these weapons. Our government has been allowed to perpetuate technologies of mass destruction under our watch. Our silence is no longer justifiable. We should not, and cannot, sit by any longer.

Join the movement. Write to your representatives. Send a ‘Letter to the Editor’ to your local newspaper. Think of our children and grandchildren. We can’t leave them a legacy of death and destruction. Let’s leave them a legacy of a more peaceful world.

Folks who work with me have likely already heard the story of how I came here. What some readers may not know is that it really was a joint effort. I would say that the universe coordinated the whole thing pretty beautifully. In my senior year at Haverford, I was excited about the potential of working with a variety of Quaker organizations. These included experiences ranging from intentional living, hospitality, direct service, and working on policy at the national and international level. FCNL was certainly on my list, but I didn’t know a lot about exactly what they did. Sound familiar?

It just so happened that I “became super Quaker” last year. I was living in Quaker House, returned to a Quaker nonprofit in Mexico City to conduct thesis research, and was working for the Quaker Affairs Office at Haverford. As such, my supervisor asked me to represent Haverford at the Quaker College Fair that took place at the Arch Street Meeting House in Philadelphia in March of 2012. Thank goodness I did.

There I met Matt Southworth, FCNL’s lobbyist on Afghanistan and a lead organizer of Spring Lobby Weekend. Matt and I are both friendly people, so we easily got to talking. Once he heard that I was applying to FCNL, he said, “Oh – you have to come to Spring Lobby Weekend.” I offered all of my best excuses about thesis deadlines and midterms, but he would have none of it. He convinced me that this was important – more important even than the hours of homework time I would lose or the classes I would need to miss. He couldn’t have been more right.

Lucky for me, a couple of HaverFriends were already planning on coming. (Community and fun is key to organizing people to make change.) We got our bus tickets, scheduled meetings with the appropriate congressional staffers, and made our way to Washington less than two weeks after I met Matt.

To be perfectly honest, I really didn’t know what I was getting myself into. I had known the acronym “FCNL” since childhood, and of course always recognized the blue “War is Not the Answer Signs.” Generally I knew that FCNL worked to make change happen at the national level, but I really didn’t know what it meant to lobby as a constituent, or to lobby from a Quaker perspective.

You know those conferences you go to, and by the end of it you’re not quite sure what the point was? People are very well-meaning, but the workshops aren’t that cohesive and the overall message is lost? Spring Lobby Weekend was the opposite of that. It was an absolute whirlwind of new knowledge, skills, and empowering togetherness. Even better, I went on two whole lobby visits just with my fellow college students. I left feeling exhilarated by the experience of confronting what previously felt like a foreboding power, and finding common ground with congressional staffers who were open to talking with me even when we disagreed.

Quakerism is fundamentally an experiential religion, so it makes sense that I didn’t really “get” what FCNL did until I got in on the action. For me Spring Lobby Weekend was a resonant experience. Sometimes I hear “convinced” Friends say that they have actually been Quakers their entire lives, they just didn’t find Quakerism until recently. I felt like that after Spring Lobby Weekend. I had no idea that a group of thoughtful, committed citizens had been testifying through compassionate, patient lobbying for decades. Events like Spring Lobby Weekend are perhaps the most effective way to share what FCNL is all about - so if you've been waiting for the right moment to take the plunge and get to know FCNL a little better, this is it.

A community is coming together to witness in Washington March 16-19. It's time for Congress to take action on climate change, and Spring Lobby Weekend 2013 is the moment to turn protest into policy change. We're going to speak truth to power. I hope you'll consider joining us.