On that day in 2009 few foresaw just how serious and deep a recession we were entering. State budgets were slashed just as more and more people needed services to prevent economic catastrophes in their own lives. Congress engaged in heated debates about spending, and almost allowed the government to shut down. We at WAND were pleased to see that after a decade of unchecked growth in the Pentagon budget, there was finally some action in Congress to limit Pentagon spending, but there is still much more to be done. We will continue to work with members on both sides of the aisle to bring fiscal discipline to Pentagon spending. We cannot afford to spend money on weapons we don’t need and pad Pentagon contractors’ pockets. We must fight for investments in the things that make us strong here at home and counter the influence of Pentagon lobbyists.

President Obama campaigned for an end to the Iraq War and he quickly followed through on that promise. He is also bringing an end to the war in Afghanistan. Yet we know that even as our troops come home, we must ensure that women and children in Afghanistan do not lose the gains they have made. We must continue to work for political, not military, solutions to the conflict in Afghanistan. We can
also do more to ensure the rights of women all over the world with ratification of CEDAW, the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and passing legislation in support of the National Action Place on Women, Peace, and Security.

Successful, bipartisan ratification of the New START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was a huge victory in December 2010. We will continue to push for ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. President Obama’s speech in Prague in the spring of 2010 was a reminder that while we may have a long road ahead of us, a world free of nuclear weapons is a goal worth working for. First up, we must stop pouring billions of dollars into maintaining and modernizing these Cold War-era relics. WAND has been working for a world safe from the threat of nuclear weapons for over thirty years. We’ll continue this fight in the next four years of President Obama’s administration.

Finally, how could we not celebrate the record number of women entering Congress this year? We are eager to get to work with returning champions on our issues and bring newly elected women into critical debates about our national security and budget priorities. This year’s Inauguration Day falls on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. As he so powerfully said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” We may be starting this term with less unbridled optimism, but we know that our priories are worth fighting for and we will continue to work hard with all of our WAND members for a better country and a better world.

But hang on for the ride – there will be a few more fiscal “cliffs,” “curbs,” “mudslides,” “berms,” or whatever bumpy metaphor you might like to use. Decisions about spending cuts of the so-called “sequestration” were not part of this deal. Instead they were passed off to the next Congress being sworn in on January 3, 2012 to figure out with a new March 1 deadline. And by the way, the budget for Fiscal Year 2013 was never completed. Instead Congress passed a stop-gap Continuing Resolution funding the government until March 27. We need a deal by then to keep the government running. In addition, we are reaching the debt ceiling. Without congressional agreement to raise the debt ceiling, we risk government shutdown, defaulting on loans and economic disasters.

Ready for more? In the midst of this roller coaster start to 2013, there will be plenty of need to raise the issue of budget priorities. We cannot afford to make cuts to everything else while letting the bloated Pentagon budget escape fiscal discipline. Fortunately, some new voices are starting to recognize this, too. Conservative leader of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, says that, “Serious conservatives need to declare that they, that taxpayers, are looking at the entire budget and saying, ‘where can we be more efficient and more effective?’ We have a rather large Pentagon budget, larger than most of the other countries in the world that have armies, navies, and air forces combined.”

Nevertheless we know well that the defense industry lobbyists are ready to make the case for more nuclear weapons, more F-35s, maybe even more bayonets and a cavalry, too.

We hope you are as ready as those lobbyists – ready to make the case for budget priorities that will lead us to safety, strength and prosperity, even if we have to make it through a few bumps and spins to get there.

Cutting the Overall Pentagon Budget /Cutting Pentagon Waste

The Good News – One Bipartisan Step Towards Budget Restraint

Thank you to those who made calls urging cuts to excessive Pentagon spending. We do have some positive news to report. The Mulvaney (R-SC) and Frank (D-MA) bipartisan amendment to freeze Pentagon spending at Fiscal Year 2012 levels was adopted 247-167 with 89 Republicans voting for it. This is the first time in more than a decade that Congress has been willing to apply any restraint to the Pentagon budget. While it is fair to note that this freeze amendment is a very modest restraint (in fact the Pentagon is still getting more money than the Administration requested), it is a hopeful first step. As Congress moves towards ever more intense end of the year budget battles, this vote should indicate that a strong majority in Congress is unwilling to exempt the Pentagon from fiscal discipline. See House debate on defense bill spending finds one bit of bipartisan light in the Washington Post.

Congressional Women Stars Shine, But Congress Doesn’t Follow the Light

We applaud the women in Congress who offered a number of amendments to make deeper cuts to overall Pentagon spending, or cut wasteful unnecessary programs, or even just require an audit of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, all of these amendments failed and showed a steep partisan divide:

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment, co-sponsored by Chris Van Hollen (D-MD and Ranking Member on the Budget Committee) and Adam Smith (D-WA and Ranking Member on the House Armed Services Committee), to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $7.6 billion, would have brought spending in line with budget caps that Congress agreed to last year. It was rejected 171-243, July 19, 2012. Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to reduce the overall spending in the bill by $19.2 billion was rejected 87-326, July 19, 2012.

Lynn Woolsey’s (D-CA) three amendments to cut Pentagon spending by specific amounts were all rejected: 114 - 302 (Roll Call # 481), 106 - 311 (Roll Call # 483), and 91 - 328 (Roll Call # 484), July 18, 2012. (Rep. Lynn Woolsey is retiring this year and noted that this was her last opportunity to offer amendments to cut excessive military spending and shift budget priorities.)

Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) amendment to withhold a portion of Department of Defense spending until the Pentagon is able to pass an audit fell by a point of order.

Betty McCollum’s (D-MN) amendment to cut funds for military bands, a reduction of $188 million, was rejected 166-250, July 18, 2012.

(And some good amendments to cut offered by men in Congress – also failed …)

Jack Kingston’s (R-GA) amendment, supported by Betty McCollum (D-MN) to cut funds for the military to advertise at NASCAR races was rejected 202-216, July 18, 2012.

Mike Quigley’s (D-IL) amendment to reduce funding for one DDG-151 Destroyer by $998 million was rejected 60-359, July 18, 2012.

Mike Coffman’s (R-CO) amendment to ensure that the President's proposal to remove two Army brigades from Europe and replace them on a rotational basis is upheld, which would limit funding for the continued permanent deployment of the 170th and 172nd infantry brigades in Europe, was rejected 123-292, July 19, 2012.

Cold War Time Warp

When it comes to nuclear weapons and related missile defense spending, it seems that Congress is firmly stuck in a time warp. Common sense amendments to cut back on Cold War era weapons system expenses failed. On top of that, retro amendments to restrict arms control efforts and block nuclear weapons reductions were adopted.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to reduce funding for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) missile defense system by $75 million, bringing the funding level back to the President’s request, was rejected 150-268, July 18, 2012.

Ed Markey’s (D-MA) amendment to limit the fleet of land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to 300 (currently there are 450 Minuteman III ICBMs) was rejected 136-283, July 18, 2012.

Michael Turner’s (R-OH) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to reduce U.S. nuclear forces to implement the Nuclear Posture Review Implementation Study, modify the Secretary of Defense Guidance for Employment of Force, or the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, was adopted 235-178, July 19, 2012. 

Rick Berg’s (R-ND) amendment to prohibit use of funds to reduce the number of the nuclear weapons delivery vehicles of the United States including (1) Heavy bomber aircraft, (2) Air-launched cruise missiles, (3) Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines, (4) Submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and (5) Intercontinental ballistic missiles, was adopted 232-183, July 19, 2012.

Mo Brooks’ (R-AL) amendment to prohibit funds from being used to share classified information about missile defense systems with Russia was agreed to by voice vote, July 19, 2012.

Afghanistan

While amendments to accelerate ending the war and bring home troops failed, other amendments to cut Afghanistan and Pakistan aid were successful. This confused approach indicates a bumpy road ahead for Afghanistan. Pushing a failed military solution will not work, and the funding and support for a transition doesn’t seem to be forthcoming. We note that Congress should put its focus on supporting a transition towards developing a sustainable peace and Afghan women should play a leading role.

Barbara Lee’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $21 billion from war funding to end the U.S. involvement in the Afghanistan war safely and responsibly, which would limit funding to bringing the troops home, was rejected 107-312, July 18, 2012. 

John Garamendi’s (D-CA) amendment to cut $12.6 billion for the war accounts due to the “steady drawdown” of troops after the surge troops are withdraw in 2012 was rejected 137-278, July 19, 2012.

Walter Jones’s (R-NC) amendment to reduce funding for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund by $412,287,000 was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Ted Poe’s (R-TX) amendments to eliminate the entire $1.3 billion in aid to Pakistan under the coalition support fund program was withdrawn, but a second amendment to cut the account by $650 million was agreed to by voice vote, July 18, 2012.

Steve Cohen’s (D-TN) amendment to reduce the Afghanistan Infrastructure fund by $175 million was adopted 228-191, July 18, 2012.

David Cicilline’s (D-RI) amendment to strike the $375 million in funding for the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund was rejected 149-270, July 18, 2012.

In addition to these amendments, on Wednesday, July 18^th, fifteen members of Congress spoke on the costs of the continuing war in Afghanistan and the need to bring the troops home now. The bipartisan effort, led by Reps. Jim McGovern (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC), included statements by four Republicans and 11 Democrats: Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC), Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), Rep Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY), Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA). See excerpts on YouTube.

-Kathy Crandall Robinson, Public Policy Director

First, some overall numbers:

The Federal budget Request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 is $3.67 trillion. (We will spend $3.8 trillion - including money authorized in FY 2012.)

$2.27 trillion (about 62%) goes to mandatory spending – including earned-benefit programs like Social Security and Medicare.

$1.15 trillion (about 31%) goes to discretionary spending. This is the part of the budget that Congress debates and votes on each year. There are a whole variety of competing program priorities in the discretionary budget with everything from spending on transportation, energy and environment, education, foreign affairs, military spending and more.

The deficit is projected to be $901 Billion.

Within the discretionary budget, about $639 billion, or 56 % goes to military spending.

Included in military spending is: the Department of Defense base budget of $ 525.4 billion, War Spending of $88.5 billion, Nuclear Weapons and related spending about $18 billion and the FBI and other defense related activities is another $7.2 billion.

Who pays the austerity price? With the fiscal crisis, we all knew that there would be pressure to make spending cuts in this budget.

This year the Department of Defense did break its decade of phenomenal budget growth with a modest 1% reduction in the coming year. The Pentagon is starting to tighten its belt – by reducing its planned rate of growth over the coming decade. It’s a good start, but we think deeper reductions are needed to create a sustainable budget geared to national security needs of this century.  See our latest blog post titled “Helping the Pentagon to Fitness” for more information.

Spending on wars is also down for 2013, dropping from $115 billion to $88.5 billion. With the Iraq war ended and the announcement that withdrawal of combat troops, we think that this budget could come down more. We note that the President proclaimed in his State of the Union Speech that we should, “Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”  We agree with the sentiment, but we need to make deeper cuts to war spending in order to do this.

• Please take action to urge accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Not all military spending went down though.  When it comes to nuclear weapons, our love affair with Cold War is alive and well. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) weapons activities account that funds nuclear weapons complex production rose by 5% compared to 2012. At the same time, the NNSA program to dismantle nuclear weapons dropped by 9.4%. Dismantlement continues at a ponderously slow rate, leaving hundreds of nuclear weapons waiting for decades to be dismantled. The NNSA also cut back on some of the most crucial nuclear nonproliferation programs helping to secure nuclear materials and prevent nuclear terrorism. Instead a large portion of funds dedicated to nuclear nonproliferation are being spent on a dangerous expensive plutonium fuel program.

• The President is now preparing guidance shaping U.S. nuclear policy. Sign our petition telling the President to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.
• Then tell Congress to the cut nuclear weapons budget with the SANE Act (Smarter Approach to Nuclear Expenditures).

In contrast to military spending, other overall discretionary spending shrinks more – by about 5%. Here are a few illustrative examples of heartbreaking cuts in discretionary spending. (Note the impact that these cuts will have on state budgets.)

• Cut by 48 % ($329 million) Community Service Block Grants providing grants to States, territories, and Indian Tribes for programs that provide services and activities to reduce poverty. Domestic violence shelters are often funded by under this program.
• Cut by 15 % ($359 million) the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) CleanWater and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), which provide capitalization grants to States for their own water infrastructure revolving funds. States provide a 20 percent match and, then, make loans to municipalities for water infrastructure projects, with repayments returned to their revolving fund, allowing them to finance additional projects.
• Cut by 13% ($452 million) Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to help struggling families make ends meet by offsetting some of their home heating and cooling costs.

Are these the places in the budget you would have cut first? If not, it’s time to speak up.  Stay tuned as WAND provides more information and analysis of the budget (our famous pie charts are coming soon!)

• Please join us on February 28 for a special Webinar with expert budget analysis from the National Priorities Project’s Chris Hellman.

We also urge you to Join WAND and take action - this year will be full of opportunities to speak up for budget priorities that reflect your values.

The United States isn’t broke; we’re the richest country on the planet and a country in which the richest among us are doing exceptionally well. But the truth is, our economy is broken, producing more pollution, greenhouse gasses and garbage than any other country. In these and so many other ways, it just isn’t working. But rather than invest in something better, we continue to keep this ‘dinosaur economy’ on life support with hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money. The Story of Broke calls for a shift in government spending, including military spending, toward investments in clean, green solutions that can deliver jobs AND a healthier environment (sounds a lot like WAND's mission, right?). It’s time to rebuild the American Dream; but this time, let’s build it better.

To learn more about what WAND has been doing to help shift the federal budget debate, please visit our resources page here.

Check out the Story of Broke video below:
•

Cut Out Last-Century Defense Spending

October 4, 2011

Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND) has been working for thirty years to redirect excessive military spending to unmet human and environmental needs. Now as Washington takes aim at deficit reduction, lawmakers are targeting vital programs that sustain America.  What is not being scrutinized for spending cuts? The Pentagon budget that makes up over half of annual discretionary spending.  This is not fair, and not effective. Worse, much of the unchecked Pentagon spending is directed at last-century strategies, leaving us vulnerable as we fail to address 21^st century security needs. Pentagon spending discipline is needed to contribute to deficit reduction and to maintain our nation’s strength and security. We have some ideas about where specific cuts could be made. Here are three examples.

1.  Stop Sinking Dollars into Nuclear Submarines:
   News flash – the Cold War is over. Yet, twenty years after the fall of the Berlin wall, the United States plans to spend an estimated $700 billion on nuclear weapons and related costs in the coming decade. There are now about 5,000 nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal deliverable by land, air and sea, including 12 nuclear submarines that are out cruising the world’s oceans at any given time.  With each one carrying multiple nuclear warheads, a single submarine is capable of destroying all major cities in Russia and China.  The plan is to replace the submarine fleet, maintaining this overkill capability into the middle of the next century at a lifecycle cost of nearly $350 billion..
2.   Stop Amassing Huge Armed Forces Abroad and Cut Contractors:
   Since 9/11 troop levels have increased by 118,500 soldiers and marines. The Bush Administration agreed with the Iraqi government to withdraw all U.S troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. The Obama Administration promised to complete the withdrawal of all U.S. armed forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.  These pledges should be fulfilled. As we are getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan it is time to cut the size of ground forces.  Further, do we really need to maintain the 80,000 active-duty personnel stationed in Europe? Not all personnel costs come from men and women in uniform -- a staggering amount of Pentagon spending goes to contractors. We recommend a reduction of at least 10% in Department of Defense related contracts. 
3.  Stop Frittering Funds on the Joint Strike Fighter:
   The Joint Strike Fighter is the poster child of how weapons systems contracts get out of hand.  With multiple plane designs, built by multiple contractors in Congressional Districts all over the country – spending boondoggles are proliferating like bunnies. Beyond cost growth, the joint Strike fighters have performance and reliability issues.  Do we need them at all?  We already have lower cost planes like the F-16 and the F/A0-18. The Congressional Budget Office and others agree that those planes can more than do the job. See also Sayre Speaks: A  Plane Costing As Much As A War?

To download these recommendations as a PDF, please go here: Recommendations for Deficit Reductions

1) Let’s get more women at the table.

The leadership that came up with this deal included only one woman. And even with as vigorous a leader as Nancy Pelosi is, more women are needed. Women who live longer and are often the primary caregivers for children and other family members have a vital perspective. As Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA), recently stated, it is “Women are used to having three toddlers and two cookies, and so they know how to solve problems.” It will soon come time to select 12 members for the special Congressional panel to to divide the remaining cookies and aim for further deficit cuts. Let’s make sure women leaders are at this table in significant numbers.

2)      Let’s really put Pentagon cuts on the table.

And not just as light appetizers. We are glad that there has been attention drawn to military spending–it does make up over one half of annual discretionary spending, after all.  However, upon closer inspection of plans made under the debt ceiling deal, we are worried that cuts to Pentagon spending could be insufficient when push comes to shove. Initially some substantial cuts might come from other areas of so-called “security” spending, like funds for the State Department’s foreign aid and diplomacy. Plus the initial planned “cuts” for the Pentagon budget really only reduce the rate of planned growth. Moreover, it is all too easy to push  any  Pentagon cuts so far off into later years that they really happen somewhere in the mythical Neverland. Instead, we need to tackle real cuts now with a strategic approach evaluating what is really needed in 21^st century security.

And if we are looking for strategically smart cuts to outdated Cold War weapons, we could start with nuclear weapons. Although some in Congress think we need more stealth nuclear bombers to “penetrate the Soviet Union,” most military experts are looking at 21^st century threats and raising questions about nuclear policy and spending plans. Many are beginning to realize that perhaps indefinitely maintaining thousands of nuclear warheads with destruction capable of being “delivered” with multiple expensive weapons systems is Dr. Strangelove-era overkill that we can no longer afford.

3)      Let’s find a way to grow more for the table.

Most everyone agrees that creating jobs is what our economy desperately needs. Investments are required to do that.  Some will tempt us to rely on military spending as a jobs program. Certainly that tactic has been used to push production of expensive weapons systems that even the Pentagon doesn’t want. But that is a short-sighted and unsustainable way to create jobs, not to mention that it does not serve U.S. security needs. Instead, federal investments in other sectors like education and clean energy development produce more jobs that are sustainable and will move our economy forward. Read more about a study done by economists at the University of Massachusetts that shows how a billion dollars spent on a variety of domestic priorities – mass transit, home weatherization, education and health care – would produce more jobs than the same amount spent on the military. Meanwhile, we should let security needs of today guide our strategy and spending priorities for the defense budget.

Help us move the debate forward for sound security and sensible spending. Join us this September 18-20 in Washington, DC at our “Women at the Table of Power” biennial conference, where 150 women state legislators and community leaders will gather for training, education and conversation with policymakers. Register today.

Read more:

“What if We Really Cut the Pentagon Budget”, William Hartung, Center for International Policy op-ed in Huffington Post, August 2, 2011

“Looking for Defense Cuts? Go Nuclear” Tom Z. Collina, Arms Control Association, op-ed in The Hill, August 2, 2011

-Kathy Robinson

WAND Public Policy Director

Senator Gillibrand

Read below for statements from WAND/WiLL women on the debt ceiling.

SENATE

Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

“Today we acted to prevent a catastrophic default that would have hurt every American. But let’s be clear: This was a Republican-made crisis.

“Never before in our nation’s history has one party held the full faith and credit of the United States hostage and taken our country to the brink of a default in order to push its extreme ideological agenda. It was reckless, it was wrong and we must ensure it never happens again.

“I am pleased that we took steps to protect Social Security, Medicare and other critical lifelines for our most vulnerable citizens. Now we must turn our attention to our country’s most pressing priority: creating jobs and strengthening our economy.” – Aug. 2, 2011

Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY):

“I strongly believe America must reduce its debt and rein in federal spending. Earlier this week, I supported over $2 trillion in spending cuts without additional revenues, and last December I voted to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans that are blowing a hole in the deficit. However, I do not believe this proposal is a fair, well thought out, or balanced deal for our fragile economy or the millions of middle class families struggling to make ends meet.

“The fact is, there is nothing in this deal that will address the significant jobs crisis we are facing. This deal, cut behind closed doors with zero transparency, is an unbalanced approach that cuts deeply into discretionary spending while being overwhelmingly stacked in favor of large corporations who exploit loopholes and the wealthiest among us. It is simply not in the best interests of the middle class and the larger economic recovery.

“I have not been in Washington long, but long enough to know it is broken. As I travel across New York, the people I meet are focused entirely on jobs and economic security for their families. Congress should take this charge as its own. I will continue to look for bipartisan ways to reduce the debt in a responsible way and create jobs in this struggling economy. The truth is, today we could have gone further in reducing America’s debt with a sensible compromise that both cut discretionary spending and raised revenues. It is unfortunate Congress missed that opportunity.”  - Aug. 2, 2011

Patty Murray (D-WA):

“Tomorrow, I plan to vote to prevent the United States from defaulting on its obligations for the first time in our nation’s history. It is a vote to avoid an economic blow that would be felt across the globe, including in the lives, homes, and finances of nearly every Washington state family.

“To be clear, this plan is not ideal. While we protected Medicare and Social Security from painful cuts today and prevented repeating this crisis in just a matter of months, it is undeniable that the spending cuts included in this package are serious and impactful. These cuts, not unlike those that have been made by struggling Washington state families during this recession, will be difficult sacrifices that are a reminder of the trying economic times we are in.

“I’m also deeply disappointed that Republicans refused to allow millionaires, billionaires, and oil companies to sacrifice alongside those who will be affected by these cuts. I strongly believe that everyone must sacrifice, not just middle-class families who have been sacrificing over and over. That’s why the Joint Select Committee set up by this compromise will be so important in building a balanced approach to addressing our long-term debt and deficit.

“Over the course of the last month, Washington state families have written me in record numbers to lend their voice to this debate. Many, who had never e-mailed or called their elected official before, wrote to ask for compromise and sanity in this debate. They told me about the tough but reasonable choices they made to rein in their own finances and how they couldn’t understand why it was so difficult for Washington, D.C. to do the same.

“If we are going to do the broad and necessary work to get Americans back on the job and kick-start economic growth we need to heed the call of these Washington families. The ‘my way or the highway’ approach to governing needs to end. It’s time to stop careening from political crisis to crisis and start coming together on a vision for a nation that puts its people before politics and partisanship.”  - Aug. 1, 2011

Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH):

“This compromise achieves four critical things – it avoids a default that could have devastated our economy; it gives businesses the certainty they need to grow and hire by resolving this issue until 2013; it makes significant reductions in our long-term deficit and debt; and it protects Social Security and Medicare benefits. Although this is not the plan I would have designed, and while I remain concerned about the level of cuts still possible to programs that are important to New Hampshire families and businesses, this plan is a compromise and I will support it.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):

"If America had defaulted for the first time in our history, senior citizens and middle class families would have faced higher interest rates, cuts to Social Security and Medicare benefits, and reduced retirement accounts.  It's extremely frustrating that some in Congress created so much economic uncertainty for so long by refusing to compromise. I'm glad that cooler heads finally prevailed to pass a bipartisan agreement to significantly reduce the deficit and avoid another blow to our economy.

"It is critical that Congress now focus on the top priority for our families-strengthening our economy so businesses can create jobs." – Aug. 2, 2011

HOUSE

Tammy Baldwin (D-WI-02):

“While preventing a default crisis is a necessary step, the deal before us today is not a good deal for hard working Wisconsinites.

Throughout the frustrating debate over raising the debt ceiling and reducing our nation’s deficit, I have held fast to three essential criteria.  I will vote for a deal that creates jobs, lowers the deficit, and protects the middle class through shared sacrifice.  The bill passed in the House today does not meet that test.

Real solutions to our fiscal problems are readily available. We could lower the deficit by ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In addition, we could close tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest among us to avoid paying their fair share while shifting the burden to the middle class

We could create jobs here at home through investments in infrastructure and vocational and technical training to give American workers the skills employers need.

We could bolster the middle class and put more money in family pocketbooks by allowing Medicare to buy prescription drugs in bulk at discounted prices.

We could do all that, and more.

Yet, Republicans reject these commonsense solutions.  They have no interest in shared responsibility and ask nothing, I repeat, nothing, of millionaires, billionaires, and corporations that use tax loopholes to ship jobs overseas.  Instead, they expect middle-class Americans, struggling to pay their own bills, to pay all the country’s bills, as well.

These political games threaten to set back our fragile economic recovery.  We need balanced, bipartisan solutions to get our economy moving.  I cannot, in good faith, short change the middle class and small businesses while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Shelley Berkley (D-NV-01):

"There is a lot in this legislation I would change, but a vote against this bipartisan compromise negotiated by leaders of both parties is a vote for a devastating default that could lead to a financial collapse that kills thousands of jobs, denies seniors Social Security checks, denies pay to our active duty military and eliminates benefits for veterans.  This bipartisan agreement is far from perfect, but it cuts our nation's debt by trillions, while safeguarding Social Security, Medicare and VA beneficiaries.  It's time for us to move forward and focus on getting our economy back on track and on creating jobs for the people of Nevada and our nation."– Aug. 1, 2011

Judy Biggert (R-IL-13):

“It’s been a long, tough negotiation, but the end result is a solid compromise that will help put this economy on a stronger path.  It will give Americans the peace of mind they deserve by preventing a default, cutting spending, and holding Congress and the President accountable for spending decisions down the road.  Most importantly, it doesn’t raise taxes or give the President a blank check.

“It’s not perfect, but this deal will be part of the solution -- not part of the problem.  By placing real controls on the debt, we can restore confidence in the economy and generate job growth.  That has to be our number one priority, and I appreciate that a majority of my colleagues were willing to do what’s right for the American people and for the economy.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Lois Capps (D-CA-23):

“Today I voted for the Budget Control Act to avoid default and ensure that America continues to pay its bills.

“This is not the bill I would have written – far from it. The package of cuts in this bill doesn’t follow the balanced approach that I support and believe is necessary to reduce the deficit, but we have run out of time and out of options. The Budget Control Act is a bitter pill that must be swallowed in order to maintain the full faith and credit of the United States.

“I look forward to moving on and doing what the American people expect us to do – put aside our differences and get to work creating jobs and growing our economy. That means investing in education, innovation and infrastructure to rebuild and renew our economy and global competitiveness. Indeed, these investments are the most effective way to reduce our deficit and restore economic growth. It means bringing down our deficit by eliminating tax cuts for the super-rich, and closing loopholes for Big Oil and corporations that ship jobs overseas. And, it means preserving essential programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid that our nation’s seniors and most vulnerable citizens depend on.

“The American people are fed up with the intransigence in Washington – and they should be. Going forward, I hope we can work together to address their needs. In fact, we can start this week by coming together to pass a short term extension of Federal Aviation Administration programs and ensuring that construction workers across this country, including right here on the Central Coast, keep their jobs.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Congresswoman Judy Chu

Judy Chu (D-CA-32):

"After carefully examining the agreement, I could not in good conscience vote in favor of legislation that would have drastic short-term and long-term consequences to our economy.  While I do not believe we should default on our debt, this was a crisis manufactured in Washington by those with extreme views determined to hold the financial health and well-being of our nation hostage to make a political point.

"Working families are facing a tough economy, rising unemployment and cuts to state and local services. Not one piece of the plan addresses working family priorities.

"My constituents are telling me to focus on job creation, closing special interest tax loop holes and protecting social safety net programs. The Budget Control Act allows unemployment benefits to expire, does not close any corporate tax loop holes and allows for a select few in Congress to decide whether or not my constituents will sacrifice their Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid.

"I am committed to putting our economy back on track and to fixing our fiscal problems but the Budget Control Act does neither. It is a shame that this debate hasn’t been about putting America back on the path for prosperity—instead, it has been an ideological power play that has already done damage to the financial reputation of the United States. Fighting for legislation that will put working families back to work, grow U.S. businesses and strengthen our economy is my priority." – Aug. 1, 2011

Yvette Clarke (D-NY-11):

“While I have voted to lift the debt-ceiling before, the deficit reduction/ ceiling bill before us is not a balanced approach and is harmful to the well-being of the people I represent.  It provides no sense of shared sacrifices and it does not address revenues, a key component required to achieve economic stability and to reduce our nation’s deficit.  The legislation makes spending cuts which is ultimately at the expense of our working poor and middle class, while asking nothing of the wealthiest Americans,” stated Congresswoman Yvette D. Clarke.  “To add insult to injury, there is the exemption of the overseas contingency funds that fuel the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which have been totally exempted from the provisions of this legislation.”

“This deficit reduction plan will dismantle domestic programs that affect vital services for working class Americans, without asking for any sacrifices from wealthy Americans and corporations.  Right now, the American people need our nation to produce jobs,” added Clarke.  “The fact of the matter is that with staggeringly high unemployment, jobs are a much more urgent and pressing matter than this fabricated deficit reduction crisis.  This legislation does nothing to create jobs.  In fact, it will in all likelihood cause the shedding of jobs as government contractors are cut in the public, private and non-profit sectors.”

“While Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are protected in the initial phase of this deal, there are no guarantees that the special deficit reduction committee will leave these American lifelines, entitlement programs intact in future negotiations,” stated Rep. Yvette D. Clarke.  “There are too many people in my district and New York City that heavily depend on these benefits to survive.  Over 3 million people in New York City are enrolled in Medicaid.”

“I have always been a strong advocate for bringing a clean debt-ceiling bill to the House floor.  I never bought into the notion of tying the ‘raising of the debt-ceiling’ to a slash and burn deficit reduction plan.  The truth of the matter is the Republican/Tea Party has taken the American economy hostage during a simple procedural vote required to raise our nation’s debt-ceiling, which has been done dozens of times under previous Administrations.  I refuse to play politics with the fragile state of our economy.  I will continue to fight on behalf of those individuals, our children, seniors and the aspiring middle class, who unfortunately will be hurt the most by this high stakes game of political brinksmanship.  I believe we should come to together as Americans and as Members of Congress to bring real solutions to the table that will rescue our economy, and achieve the goal of eliminating our nation’s debt, without the disproportionate harm to our most vulnerable communities.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Susan Davis (D-CA-53):

“I want to thank my constituents for being so engaged and letting me know how they feel.  I’ve been as frustrated as they have been.  On top of all the things my constituents are worried about today, I regret that we’ve caused them additional concern.

“This agreement was the best of no good alternatives.   The bottom line is America must pay its bills.  Washington has no business jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the world’s strongest economy or endangering the savings, benefits and lending opportunities of the American people.

“My constituents aren’t interested in political theater—they want us to compromise so that we can solve their problems and get our economy back on track.

“There is much in this bill that concerns me deeply, such as the lack of new revenue from closing tax loopholes for the wealthiest Americans and corporations.  However, I am pleased that the measure allows us more time to address our challenges thereby giving us more of an opportunity to stabilize the economy.   It also protects Social Security and Medicare.

“Now that we’ve bought some time, we need to refocus on job creation and making sure the American Dream is alive and well for everyone, especially middle class Americans.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Diana DeGette (D-CO-01):

“After reviewing the details of this so-called compromise, I could not in good conscience vote for this bill. Since the beginning, I have stated that all of our economic issues should never have been conflated in this debate.  We have serious economic challenges and they are far are too important to be held hostage to preserving the full faith and credit of the United States.

“Yet here we are at the 11th hour, with a gun to our head, being asked to accept an extreme, unbalanced proposal that places too great a burden on the middle class while failing to ask for any shared sacrifice from corporations and the nation’s wealthiest. Frankly, after months of what of could have been productive negotiations to develop a balanced economic path for our country, I resent being forced into this choice.

“The proposal we voted on tonight is a ’smoke-and-mirrors’ piece of legislation that I, along with many economic analysts, fear may have a potentially devastating impact on our fragile economy.  The bill calls for extraordinary cuts in spending, but as opposed to previous versions of a deal, we have no idea where those cuts will come from. All we know is they will likely be determined by the same appropriators who have already this year slashed critical programs that protect American families.

“Our nation is still in crisis, and the American people deserve a balanced solution, with reasonable cuts to spending – like agricultural and ethanol subsidies, combined with common-sense revenue enhancements – like closing tax loopholes for corporations and the ultra-rich. Such a solution would have enabled us to begin to get our nation’s fiscal house in order, while investing in programs that create jobs and train our workforce to compete in the global economy.

“It is long past time for this Congress to truly focus on getting Americans back to work, yet tonight, after holding our nation’s credit rating hostage we instead passed a bill that may actually jeopardize those efforts.

“I must also say it was truly wonderful and emotionally overwhelming for us all to welcome back my brave colleague Rep. Gabrielle Giffords on the Floor tonight. She is truly an inspiration to us all.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03):

“I am glad that we passed an agreement in time to avoid default - the consequences of which would have been disastrous for middle class families. And while I did earlier support a more responsible version of the agreement raising the debt ceiling, I could not support this legislation as I believe it will have a harmful effect on job creation and further weaken the economic security of millions of American families.

“The spending cuts specified in this deal will slash critical investments in education, infrastructure and research, among other things— public investments critical to job creation and economic growth. The majority’s insistence that these priorities are to blame for our deficit problems is simply untrue. The primary reasons deficits have grown so large is because revenues are lower than they have been in sixty years, thanks to the recession and the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy, and we initiated two wars on the nation’s credit card. If this majority were at all serious about deficit reduction, they would at least allow for additional revenue by asking the wealthiest Americans and corporate special interests to share in the sacrifice rather than protecting them.

“Without assurances that Congress will pursue a balanced approach, the additional cuts called for in a few short months as part of the agreement will threaten the promises made to generations of hard-working Americans by ending Medicare as we know it, cutting Medicaid, and compromising the future of Social Security. I could not in good conscience support such an unbalanced approach that places the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of middle class families and our seniors while further weakening our shaky economy.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Donna Edwards (D-MD-04):

“After much consideration, I stood with over half of the Democratic Caucus in opposing this unfair, unbalanced attack on the poor and working families,” said Congresswoman Edwards.  “Our most vulnerable have been asked to sacrifice time again, while corporations and the wealthy are required to give little or nothing.  Unfortunately, I felt this legislation continues that unacceptable trend.  I remain resolved to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and programs that benefit millions of Americans.

“I look forward to the work of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction in hopes that a truly fair and balanced approach can be taken to address our short- and long-term budgetary challenges that includes revenue increases, an end to our costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and an end to tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations that ship jobs overseas.

“The real agenda should be one that creates jobs, rebuilds our roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, and grows our economy for future generations.”

“In addition, it was uplifting to see my friend and colleague Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) on the House floor today.  Her unwavering determination is a source of inspiration for us all, and I wish her continued strength in her ongoing rehabilitation.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Anna Eshoo (D-CA-14):

"I voted today to raise the debt ceiling. Were it not to pass, it would result in a national and international economic catastrophe, and I could never sit by and allow this to happen to our great country. While I'm very disappointed that the plan is not a balanced one, including closing corporate tax loopholes and raising revenue, I accept the fact that compromise is necessary in order to protect our country.

"It has been inexcusable for some Members of the House to have created this extended crisis which has raised the anxiety of my constituents, angered others, and caused confidence to plummet. It never had to be this way." – Aug. 1, 2011

Marcia Fudge (D-OH-11):

"I voted no because this is a job killing bill that puts our nation's economy at risk. I can't in good faith tell my constituents that Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are safe under this plan because we don't know what will happen. We don't know what cuts the Committee will come up with, but it is a safe bet that the largest mandatory spending programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will be at the top of the list. Above all, the deficit is not the biggest obstacle to the nation's prosperity; the lack of jobs is."

"What is clear now is the fact that children, seniors, and the poor will have a tougher road ahead. This plan puts at risk the nation's most important programs such as Medicare and Social Security as well as public investments in education, transportation and infrastructure, medical research, and scientific innovation. It most certainly is not a compromise," said Congresswoman Fudge.

"Under this legislation we know there will be cuts, but there are no guarantees of revenue increases. The plan fails to address some of the most common sense reforms, including closing tax loop holes for corporations making billions in profit every year and revising the tax code to make sure the top 2% of the highest income Americans are paying their fair share." – Aug. 1, 2011

Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX-03):

“Today, I voted in support of the Budget Control Act Agreement in order to raise our nation’s debt limit and prevent our nation from falling into the disastrous economic abyss of default. The bill passed today is far from ideal and was a difficult choice, but I did not want to send our country into default and continue partisan gridlock that plagues both chambers of Congress at the expense of our economy. This bill represents the most reasonable agreement that has the support of the House, Senate, and the President.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Barbara Lee (D-CA-09):

“Of course, I don’t want to see our nation default, but after having reviewed this deal in detail, for a number of reasons, I am simply unable to support it.

“First, it totally fails to address the urgent and most pressing crisis in the country: the lack of jobs and economic growth.  At a time when investments are needed to jump start our economy and put people back to work, I believe this deal and its cuts-only approach is the wrong approach. Clearly, allowing the false link between the debt ceiling and the deficit to gain any credibility was a mistake. And it is an outrage that we stand here today.  A clean debt ceiling vote and a reasonable and balanced approach to deficit reduction is what has long been required.

“Second, while I can appreciate that some provisions to limit the impact of the cuts were included, the bill falls short of achieving the balance necessary.  The hard reality is that cuts of this size will likely result in massive cuts to vital human needs and safety net programs and will cripple our ability to help our must vulnerable communities, including seniors, the poor, and low income people who are struggling every day to just get by.  And it includes no revenues and no guarantee of revenues going forward.

“With over forty five million people living in poverty and the wealth gap at astronomical levels, we must demand that the super rich, big oil and other big corporations that enjoy tax giveaways and loopholes also contribute to deficit reduction.

“Finally, it is entirely unacceptable to me that this deal would open the door to cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Enough is enough. We cannot allow the extreme Tea Party Republicans to advance their agenda to dismantle our government by rewarding their extreme tactics with this bad deal. I continue to support the President using the 14^th amendment if necessary to raise the debt ceiling.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Nita Lowey (D-NY-18):

“It is outrageous that the need to prevent a default on the federal debt enabled ideologues to push our economy to the brink of another depression.  Painful cuts to health, education, and infrastructure priorities will make it harder – not easier – to create jobs and grow the economy.  However, default would have even more catastrophic consequences for Americans’ jobs, interest rates, retirement and investments, and economic security.

“Our current debt challenge was caused by charging fiscally irresponsible special-interest tax breaks, costly wars, and a prescription drug benefit to the national credit card – policies advanced by some of the very individuals who now refuse to pay for them.  Now and in the future, the budget must not be balanced on the backs of senior citizens, hard-working middle-class families, and vulnerable Americans.  That is why I am pleased this legislation does not slash Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare benefits.

“I am hopeful that this legislation has opened the door for comprehensive tax reform that creates jobs, simplifies the tax code, and closes indefensible special interest tax breaks and loopholes.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Carolyn Maloney (D-NY-14):

"If this had been a clean vote to raise the debt ceiling, I would have supported it-- as I have in the past, and as our nation has done 78 times since 1960.

"But this was far from a clean vote. The cuts were too large, there were no revenues, no plan for job creation, and thus it was an unbalanced approach to the deficit problem.

"Although cuts to Medicare and Medicaid were averted in the first round of cuts, the 'sequestration trigger' included cuts to Medicare providers which would hurt my district, and could ultimately hurt Medicare recipients as well.

"What's more, making such large budget cuts now, in the midst of a struggling recovery will lead to a further loss of jobs-- at a time when there are already five Americans out of work for every one job opening. This deal makes things worse; it would slow economic growth.

"The process by which this deal was reached was no less ugly. This issue was taken hostage by the most extreme parts of the Republican Party, who put forward non-negotiable demands, which is not how democracy works.

"By refusing to even consider closing tax loopholes and ending special-interest subsidies, the Republicans made clear who should pay for their extreme agenda: those who can least afford it.

"I will not be a party to a plan which is likely to hurt the interests of my district, my city and my country as it struggles to emerge from the worst economic crisis since the Depression.” – Aug. 2, 2011

Grace Napolitano (D-CA-38):

“This bill makes steep cuts to critical programs that seniors and working families rely on, including possible future cuts to Medicare, in order to protect unnecessary tax breaks and loopholes for oil companies and millionaires.

“We should not be balancing our budget on the backs of those least able to bear the burden, especially when the wealthiest among us have not yet had to make a single sacrifice.

“In recent days, hundreds of my constituents have called or emailed my office to express their opposition to this bill, and with good reason. It is unfair, unbalanced, and a blow to all of the working people in this country who are already struggling to make ends meet.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01):

“This is the absolute worst thing to do to the economy right now, when families are still struggling and too many people are out of work. These cuts take so much money out of the economy that they will almost certainly lead to more businesses failing and more people losing their jobs.”

“Congress has wasted way too much time, jeopardized the nation’s credit rating and frightened seniors and veterans.  “And in the end the deal they come up with is fundamentally unfair. There is no balance to a deal that asks working families to pay while tax breaks for millionaires and big oil companies are protected.”

“Republicans have made it clear they want to end Medicare as we know it, and although this bill doesn’t go quite that far it could begin chipping away at this vital program.” – Aug. 2, 2011

Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09):

“For weeks Republicans in Congress, led by radical Tea Party members, have held hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, refusing to pay America’s bills until they could force huge spending cuts.

“Their mission has been to eviscerate everything from Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. Republicans intentionally created a crisis in order to get their way.

“This is the wrong medicine for a sick economy.  This bill could increase unemployment, slow economic growth and deepen already historic income inequality.

“Though I have voted to raise the debt ceiling in the past, I cannot in good conscience support this deal which requires $1 trillion in spending cuts that make the middle-class, the poor and seniors sacrifice while millionaires and billionaires are not asked to pay a single penny for deficit reduction.

“It is clear where my district stands. Hundreds of constituents called my office today -- 20 to 1 opposed to this bill.

“Looking ahead, Congress must focus on the immediate crises:  a disappearing American dream crisis, a jobs crisis, a foreclosure crisis, and an income inequality crisis.

“The fight is not over after this vote.   I will work to make sure that job creation is our number one priority, that the wealthiest Americans pay their share and that our seniors are protected from harmful benefit cuts.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Allyson Schwartz (D-PA-13):

“First and foremost, this bill removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy and ensures America meets its obligations.

“There are rare moments that have been this dramatic and few votes that could have caused such serious consequences for every American.

“Had we defaulted, current and prospective homeowners, small business owners, students and their families, and so many other Americans could have seen interest rates skyrocket. If Congress had not acted tonight, interest rates paid by the government would have increased, leading to higher costs for every taxpayer.

“America has never failed to meet its obligations and Congress has never threatened to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States. And, led by President Obama, we would not let that happen.

“Let’s be clear, this is not the perfect bill. There were other proposals that would have made better choices for our country by taking a balanced approach and making more substantial spending cuts than the bill we voted on tonight.

“But, this is a moment that demanded compromise and action

“This legislation cuts $2.7 trillion from federal spending over 10 years. It protects Medicare and Social Security for America’s seniors, does not inhibit our economic recovery, and is fair to middle class Americans.

“It is now time for Congress to focus our efforts on promoting an environment for private sector job growth.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Terri Sewell (D-AL-07):

“Today, I voted in favor of the Budget Control Act of 2011.  While it is not a perfect bill, this bipartisan measure prevents this nation from going into default and protects Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security – essential programs relied upon by our nation’s seniors and middle class families.  The bill that passed today removes the cloud of economic uncertainty from our global markets and ensures that this nation will meet its fiscal obligations.  I voted in favor of this bill not because I am a Democrat, but because I believe in the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.

Legislation is the art of compromise and there are plenty of provisions in this bill that are unsettling.  The drastic cuts coupled with no revenues I believe threatens our economic recovery.  However, the bill does provide a significant down payment on our nation’s debt and creates a process for reducing the deficit.

As we continue working toward strengthening the economy, the burden cannot simply fall on our seniors, students, middle class families and the most vulnerable. The solution must include shared sacrifice from us all.

Ultimately, allowing America to default on its obligations was simply not an option.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY-28):

“I waited until the debt ceiling legislation passed and then I voted against it because it was awful. We should have had a clean vote on the debt ceiling. Instead, we have created a dummy committee and while it does its work, it will keep the economy in a constant state of turmoil. The process by which this legislation was brought up was appalling from beginning to end and the fact that the money we’re saving is coming from the most vulnerable in our society is terrible.”

“Today's agreement will only endanger the potential for new jobs while asking absolutely nothing of those who are most well off. Democrats will continue to vigorously fight for Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare to ensure that not a penny is cut from the checks of seniors and working people who rely on these programs every day. It is a contract.

“We believe that ultimately we must take a balanced approach to reducing our deficit.  Tax loopholes for corporations must be closed, and those who have benefited the most in this country must be asked to pay their fair share.

“And regardless of the outcome of today's bills, these are the priorities for which I will continue to fight.” – Aug. 2, 2011

Jackie Speier (D-CA-12):

“I said from the very beginning that tying our nation’s full faith and credit to a controversial deficit reduction proposal was a mistake. Congress had to raise the debt ceiling to ensure the United States continued to meet its obligations. I believed the best way forward was to lift the debt ceiling with no strings attached and I voted for such a bill in May. This deal is full of strings and in some ways ties our future in knots. Nonetheless, I had to vote to stave off economic disaster tonight. Country must always come before party.

“In the months ahead, as a result of this deal, Congress will have to make some tough decisions on deficit reduction. I will continue to insist on a balanced approach that protects seniors and other vulnerable populations and asks millionaires and corporations to pay their fair share. In addition, we must address an even greater crisis—the jobs deficit.

“Our country will not default and I am grateful for that. But just not being a deadbeat is nothing to celebrate. In the future, we must do better.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Niki Tsongas (D-MA-05):

“My vote this evening in support of this measure was a difficult one and was first and foremost intended to ensure that our nation does not default on commitments we already made for the first time in its history.

“Although we never should have ended up in the position we find ourselves today, and I am frustrated with the process it took to get here, we are finally taking the responsible step of agreeing to pay our bills and avoid the economic catastrophe that would have been caused by defaulting on our obligations, far worse than what we faced in 2008 with worldwide ramifications.

“Thousands of seniors who rely on every dime of their Social Security to pay their bills and put food on the table might not have received their checks.  Nonprofit organizations which provide essential services to residents in my district and around the nation would have seen their funding abruptly cutoff.  Troop pay, border security, and veterans benefits would be similarly put at risk if Congress did not act this evening.

“Beyond the termination of these essential government services, the resulting economic disruption from a default would have destabilized our still fragile recovery.  Interest rates on mortgages, college tuition, and on all forms of borrowing would have risen dramatically for millions of middleclass families already struggling to make ends meet.  State and local governments already forced to make painful cuts to important services could have been threatened with bankruptcy.  These are just some of the reasons why a default would have been catastrophic for average Americans.

“In my own city of Lowell, for example, the Lowell Community Health Center is attempting to expand to serve thousands of additional low-income residents while creating hundreds of jobs in our community.  Rising interest rates that would have resulted from a default or even a short term increase in the debt limit would have put this project in jeopardy.  Extending the debt limit until 2013 returns certainty to our markets, small businesses, and lenders.

“This is not the bill I had hoped we would have the opportunity to vote on.  Just as we need fiscal discipline, we need to create jobs and grow our economy.  Real steps to cut the deficit must include sensible tax reforming measures that generate revenues.  That has to be part of the package.

“But, there are some features of this compromise that represented steps in the right direction.  In addition to preventing default, this compromise begins to reduce our unsustainable deficit.  The plan includes significant spending cuts that will be phased in over ten years so that, as the Director of the United States Office of Management and Budget stated, they will not damage our recovery.  A major portion of these cuts come from the Department of Defense, the first cuts we’ve made to this Department in decades, which is an appropriate step for us to take as we wind down our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan.  And, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not touched by the initial round of spending cuts and are shielded from any potentially harmful future cuts.

“Finally, the bill requires the formation of a bipartisan, bicameral committee tasked with crafting a larger deficit reduction plan.  This committee would be able to consider reforms to our tax code such as ending billions of dollars in tax breaks for oil companies, eliminating tax writes offs for expenses such as corporate jets, and closing loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas.

“Again, it is my hope that with the passage of this measure to avert economic disaster, we can begin the critical task of rebuilding our economy and creating jobs for the future.” – Aug. 2, 2011

Frederica Wilson (D-FL-17):

“My decision today is ultimately a decision to support President Obama in forging a historic bipartisan compromise to raise the debt ceiling. I want to see the President continue to lead our nation forward for the next five years. President Obama did his best in the face of extreme and selfish opposition from the Tea Party, which has been singularly focused on making him a one-term president.

“Although the deal is tough medicine to swallow, I believe it’s necessary. This bipartisan deal will remove the cloud of uncertainty hanging over our economy, reduce the deficit with significant savings from the defense budget, and set the stage for a more balanced plan. I remain committed to protecting Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-06):

“Along with my fellow progressives, I voted for a clean debt ceiling increase this spring.  And over the weekend we voted for the Reid compromise.

"But I said on Saturday that I wouldn’t vote for anything worse than the Reid compromise, and this is worse.  I won’t hold my nose again.  I will not vote for this bill.

“This is not a balanced approach.  It doesn’t ask for shared sacrifice.  It puts virtually the entire burden on working families and the middle class while asking nothing from billionaires, millionaires, and companies that send jobs overseas.

“This deal does nothing to address the single greatest challenge we face today – creating jobs.  For ordinary Americans who are just barely getting by, who are struggling to pay the bills, who go to bed worried every single night, this deal has nothing to offer them.

“I can’t believe something as routine as a debt ceiling increase is being used to extort $2.4 trillion in cuts from investments that the American people need.

“We can reduce spending without taking it out of the hides of ordinary people.  They didn’t cause this deficit; it’s not their responsibility to fix it.  We can meet our fiscal challenges in a way that’s fair, with all Americans doing their part.” – Aug. 1, 2011

Statements compiled by Kathleen Kang, WAND intern, Washington, DC office

Today the House completed consideration of the Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations Act, passing it by a vote of 336 to 87. The overall bill provides about $530 billion for the Department of Defense base budget- a $17 billion increase over this year. This does not include war spending or spending on nuclear weapons. Additionally, $119 billion is provided for war spending.

At the same time that we spend more money at the Pentagon, other programs are subject to cuts and caps.  Lawmakers are in the midst of fevered negotiations to find a way to cut deficit spending and reduce the debt. As Barney Frank (D-MA) said, “The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch.”

Below are some highlighted amendments related to military spending cuts, the war in Afghanistan, and Libya.

Highlighted Amendments to Fiscal Year 2012 Defense Appropriations Bill

Military Spending Cuts (to Defense Department’s Base Budget):

Freeze DOD at This Year’s Level - Offered by Mulvaney (R-SC): Would have cut the Defense base budget by $17 billion, freezing the budget at the Fiscal Year 2011 level.

Defeated 135-290 (click here to see how your Rep. voted)

Scale Back Increase to DOD Budget - Offered by Frank (D-MA)-Campbell (R-CA)-Holt (D-NJ)-Jones (R-NC)-Moore (D-WI)-Paul (R-TX): Would have scaled back the planned FY 2012 increase in the Defense base budget of $$17.3 billion by $8.5 billion (approximately one half). The amendment stipulated that none of the reduction in expenditures would come from payroll for military personnel, Department of Defense health programs and emergency war spending. Given the scale of our nation’s fiscal problems, the proposed $17 billion increase in non-war spending in the reported bill shows an insufficient commitment to the necessity of cutting waste and unnecessary spending.  THANK YOU to those who made calls yesterday supporting this modest amendment.  Even though it failed we were pleased to see a fairly close vote, indicating that there are rising concerns about the Pentagon budget.

Defeated 181-244

New nuclear bomber - Welch (D-VT)-Paul (R-TX)-Woolsey (D-CA) offered: Amendment would have eliminated $297 million in funding for a new nuclear weapons bomber.

Defeated 98-322

B-1 bomber - Offered by Neugebauer (R-TX): Bars retirement of any B-1 bombers; six are slated to be retired so we need to maintain all of the bombers we have and build more. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA) said that these bombers are important to preserve “the ability to penetrate China or the Soviet Union or wherever we might have to penetrate at some point.” Apparently the news that the Soviet Union no longer exists hasn’t penetrated Congress.

Approved by voice vote

Reducing Troops in Europe - Offered by Polis (D-CO) – To take 50,000 troops out of Europe and save $800 million.

Defeated 113 to 307

Pentagon bands - Offered by McCollum (D-MN): To cut funds for Pentagon bands by $124.8 million. Kudos to Rep. Betty McCollum for her perseverance on this issue – she was finally able to “drum up” enough support for this common sense cut.  Schools across the country are cutting music programs, Maybe we could scale back military bands just a bit…

Approved 226-201

Pentagon sponsorship of NASCAR races - Offered by McCollum (D-MN): Would have limited spending on Motor Sports sponsorships to $20 million. Well, so much for common sense after all. Thanks to  Rep. McCollum for trying.

Libya:

Congress continues to flirt with a shifting line in the sand on Libya. There are clearly many concerns and efforts to limit the U.S. role, but so far Congress has not been willing to pull the plug to stop all funding for Libya.

Limiting Activities in Libya - Offered by Cole (R-OK): “None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Department of Defense to furnish military equipment, military training or advice, or other support for military activities, to any group or individual, not part of a country's armed forces, for the purpose of assisting that group or individual in carrying out military activities in or against Libya.”

Approved 225-201

Libya and War Powers - Offered by Sherman (D-CA): Bars spending that violates the War Powers Act, which, according to Sherman, would limit the Administration from spending on any military activities not currently underway. (On June 13, the House voted 248-163 for a similar Sherman (D-CA) amendment to the Military Construction appropriations bill.)

Adopted 316-111

Limit Spending - Gohmert (R-TX): Would have limited spending on Libya operations with no  funds made available by this Act may be obligated, expended, or used in any manner to support military operations, including NATO or United Nations operations in Libya or in Libya's airspace.

Defeated 162-265

Stop Funding: Offered by Amash (R-MI)-Kucinich (D-OH):
“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used for the continued deployment of United States Armed Forces participating in North Atlantic Treaty Organization Operation Unified Protector.”

Defeated 199-229

Stop Funding- Offered by Kucinich (D-OH): Amendment would ban funds for Libya unless there is a declaration of war.

Defeated 169-251 (Vote tally pending – Check http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll530.xml)

Afghanistan:

End the War – Cut $33 Billion - Offered by Lee (D-CA)-Nadler (R-NY)-Woolsey (D-CA)-Olver (D-MA)- Stark (D-CA)- JacksonD-CA)-Honda (D-CA); Conyers (D-MI);-Grijalva (D-AZ)-Paul (R-TX);-Amash (R-MI): Would have cut $33 billion, to end the funding for combat operations in Afghanistan but provide funds to bring our troops home in a safe and orderly manner.

Defeated 97-322

Drawdown to 25,000 in 18 Months - Offered by Garamendi (D-CA): Would have cut $20.9 billion to wind down the war in a responsible way over the next 18 months so that at the end of the 18 months-- December 31, 2012-- there'd be no more than 25,000 troops in Afghanistan.

Defeated 133-295

Operations Transfer Fund (Slush Fund) Cut - Offered by Lee (D-CA)-Jones (R-NC): Would have cut the $5 billion of the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund

Defeated 114-314

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund - Offered by Cohen (D-TN):  Would have cut $200 million for Afghanistan security forces.

Defeated 210-217

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund - Offered by Cohen (D-TN): Would have cut $4 billion for Afghanistan security forces

Defeated 119-306

Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund - Offered by Cicilline (D-RI): Would have cut $475 million from the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund.

Defeated 145-283

Cut Emergency Response Program - Offered by Welch (D-VT): Would have barred spending of more than $200 million for the Commander's Emergency Response Program.

Defeated 169-257

Child Soldiers

To end on a hopeful note …

Offered by Fortenberry (R-NE): Bars spending on military training for child soldiers in six countries.

Approved by voice vote

Thanks to John Isaacs from Council for the Livable World, Stephen Miles from Win Without War and Paul Kawika Martin from Peace Action for their help in tracking and summarizing key amendments.  WAND DC Intern Kathleen Kang also helped with research for this summary.

Read the FY2011 and FY2012letter here: Budget Letter for Organizations

The letter was signed by over 160 organizations and was delivered to all members of Congress on April 8, 2011.

This letter is an important first step, but we also need to raise awareness of this issue in our communities. Getting our message in the media will help counter the industry shills lobbying Congress to block change and hang on to “their” military dollars.

We strongly encourage you to weigh in to your local media with comments on the federal budget and your efforts to shift our nation’s priorities and meet your state’s needs.
We have composed a variety of resources for you:

• Sample press release about the letter: Sample Press Release PDF
  Download the Word document here: Sample Press Release
  
• Sample letter to the editor about the letter: Sample Letter to the Editor PDF
  Download the Word document here:  Sample Letter to the Editor
• Talking points about national budget priorities: Talking Points PDF
  Download the Word document here: Talking Points

FURTHER RESOURCES:

• Check out what leaders are saying about military spending here!
• Check out the FY2012 Full Budget Pie with descriptions of the pieces of the pie:
  Full color: Download Pie and Guide
  Black and white: Download Pie and Guide