Published: 2/8/2013 by the Augusta Free Press

Published: 2/12/2013 by the Capital Times

Published: 2/14/2013 by the Great Falls Tribune

Valentine’s Day was taken over long ago by cards and flowers, candy and dinners. It is now a cash cow holiday for merchandisers. In addition, for many, it has become a day to honor women and girls in a fresh way. V-Day, introduced to the world by Eve Ensler in 1998, demands an end to violence against women and girls.

Ask anyone and they would no doubt admit that they would love to be loved every day of the year, not just on one day. Ask anyone if they think violence is a way to show love and the answer would be no. Yet one in three women on the planet will be raped or beaten in her lifetime. That amounts to more than 1 billion women and girls.

This Valentine’s Day, the V-Day movement is sponsoring ONE BILLION RISING to spread awareness. One suggestion for all those participating in this V-Day Rising is to send a letter to lawmakers demanding that they prioritize legislation that protects women and girls from violence.

Congress determines how our tax dollars are spent. President Obama, in his inaugural address, exhorted, “You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country’s course. You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time — not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals.”

You might be weary of the sequester, fiscal cliff, deficit and debt palaver. But this is your chance to have a say in what you want saved in the federal budget. Many programs that protect women and girls are in that budget. Right now, the Violence Against Women Act is being debated. VAWA programs have enhanced federal, tribal, state and local responses to domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence and stalking, and other laws support lifesaving emergency shelters and services for domestic violence and other crime victims.

Does anyone doubt that domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, children’s services, prevention, community outreach, and other state and local programs that provide services for victims and families are needed? Does anyone think that states or charities alone can organize, pay for and deliver all these services? In fact, states and communities depend on the federal funds to help support their local efforts. All of this is on the chopping block.

If we could end violence against women and girls, that would eliminate the need for these services and their costs. Even Obama’s budget for 2012-13 is $26 million less than is needed to cover the needs, according to the Campaign for Funding to End Domestic and Sexual Violence.

For every service and cost today, there must be a reduction in spending or a new tax. A new tax is unlikely at best, but reductions are possible. The Pentagon has made headlines for being out of control in its spending habits: cost overruns are legendary; a lack of an audit is incredible; unneeded weapons systems astonish us; high ranking military with huge staffs loom over the needs of veterans and force structure.

The problem is that Pentagon contractor lobbyists and CEOs are protecting their own oversized incomes and driving dollars to be spent on costly Cold War era weapons that even the Pentagon and military leaders dismiss as outdated and unnecessary. Instead, we need a smart defense that is sustainable and addresses 21st century security needs. With this smarter, fiscally responsible approach at the Pentagon, we could save dollars we need to invest in ending violence against women and girls.

On Valentine’s Day, I’ll join with the 1 billion people around the world, men and women, boys and girls, raising our voices against violence. I’ll also be calling on my congressional representatives to make responsible budgeting choices that support 21st century security needs including an end to violence against women and girls.

Click here or here to see WAND staff celebrating One Billion Rising!

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.

Published: December 4, 2012 by The Hill's Congress Blog

Republished: December 22, 2012 by NJ Today

With the campaigns over, our leaders must roll up their sleeves and get to work on the serious financial decisions facing the nation. Congress has known for more than a year that automatic budget cuts and tax increases loom in January, but they’ve left all the work to be done at the last minute. They need to hear from us that we expect them to make a balanced deal to preserve programs that strengthen our nation while making sensible budget cuts to programs that are wasteful or unnecessary.

As state legislators, we battled to maintain critical investments in our states as revenues plunged with the start of the Great Recession. We provide many services to our communities in partnership with the federal government, so the possibility of further deep cuts to these programs is of great concern. Education, health care, housing, and transportation, along with an array of lesser known but equally important programs, are critically important to meet the needs of our citizens.

These programs are especially important right now as people still face significant struggles to recover from the down economy. Millions have lost their jobs, or face the daily fear of layoffs, decreased hours and reduced wages. It’s often said that we can’t afford to meet these needs and rebuild the economy, but really we can’t afford not to. It’s simply a question of government spending priorities that serve the greater good versus a handful of special interests.

Our leaders must recognize the need for investments that promote jobs and build the economy, even as we cut back on spending. Unlike most other areas of spending, the Pentagon budget has grown unchecked for the past decade. But it is not clear that these dollars are the investment we need for the 21st century. Reshaping Pentagon spending, which currently eats up more than half of the discretionary spending that Congress allocates annually, will be crucial to any deal on the federal budget.

America maintains a large and expensive nuclear arsenal from the Cold War era. For the cost of just one new nuclear submarine, we could provide body armor and bomb-resistant Humvees to all our troops overseas, house and treat every homeless U.S. veteran, and still have $2.2 billion left over to pay down debt. Our troops and security should come before pork-barrel programs.

Our national security priorities must include a reduction in drawn-out expensive wars with massive price tags and lasting negative effects felt here at home and in the nations where wars are waged. We are still stuck in Afghanistan – America’s longest war. We need an exit strategy that focuses on a political solution in Afghanistan, with particular concern for the welfare of women and children.

Responsibly reshaping Pentagon spending would free up money for much-needed investments here at home. Programs that keep us safe, like border security, disaster relief, and air traffic control, and programs that are investments in our long-term economic stability, like education, all face cuts in the coming year. Necessary funding to state and local communities is also on the chopping block. This November and December, we must urge our leaders to find a balanced approach to the so-called “fiscal fiasco” that does not exempt Pentagon spending at the expense of crucial domestic programs.

We are at a critical crossroads in deciding how we as a nation want to spend our money and build our economy. Do we want to invest in education? Roads and bridges? Safe communities and safe borders? Or do we want to continue pouring money into wasteful programs that the Pentagon doesn’t want or need? Will we reshape the Pentagon budget to address 21st century threats, or continue to waste money on Cold War-era weapons?

The good people of Georgia and all fifty states are relying on Congress to find a balanced approach to put us back on the path to prosperity. Our vote on November 6 expressed a belief that Americans, working together, can craft solutions and rebuild our national economy. The votes have been counted. Let’s get to work.

Published: October 25, 2012 by the MetroWest Daily News and the Framingham TAB

Again, ignorance is effective. But blaming the U.N. for anti-Americanism is a dangerous way of shielding the public from some of the very real opposition to our actions in the world: the invasion of Iraq, for example. And let’s not forget how important the U.N. is to cleaning up the mess we helped make for women and children in Afghanistan. U.N. Resolution 1325 “urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for the prevention, management, and resolution of conflict.” Our President has expressed his support for this resolution with his executive order to institute the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security.

So let’s have a U.N. Day that echoes with strong support for the world’s longest attempt to subdue fear and ignorance in all its countries and build a mutual support system for peace and security. Let’s make sure Washington knows our budget priorities and understands the vital role of women in peace processes. And let’s remember that world problems such as hunger, war, climate change, and human rights demand an organization containing all the world’s countries.

Once again, this letter travels to our waste-basket.

Published: August 30, 2012 by The Worcester Telegram & Gazette

Labor Day and school openings seem to go together. For me, it’s time for the social welfare policy course I teach at the Boston University School of Social Work each fall. Throughout the semester I will hear stories from students about their clients who desperately need jobs, housing, education, food, and health care.

Evidence the students present will show that the services and programs designed to help them climb out of poverty continue to dwindle. The narratives are heartbreaking, and often horrific. They are accounts of people who would do anything to improve their lives, make changes, and leave the poverty, hunger, homelessness, joblessness, and loneliness behind.

When, in 1894, Congress enacted legislation making Labor Day a national holiday, the intention was to celebrate the social and economic achievements of American workers and the contributions workers have made to the prosperity and well-being of our country. The hard truth is that our current national unemployment rate is 8.3 percent. Not all Americans who want to work are working and almost one in four American children is living below our national poverty line. Things clearly need to improve in this country for the unemployed and the working poor in order for all of us to truly be able to celebrate the intended meaning of Labor Day.

These sobering statistics can change if we reprioritize how we spend our federal dollars. Two minutes’ worth of federal spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would pay for two high school graduates to attend Boston University for four years each. Two minutes of war. Two undergraduate degrees.

The $16.6 billion in taxes from Massachusetts that went into the Department of Defense’s FY2012 budget could have funded 1.9 million Head Start slots in Massachusetts for a year. Currently, more than 20,000 children who should be enrolled in Head Start in Massachusetts, are not.

Taxpayers in Boston paid $1.3 billion toward the FY2012 Department of Defense budget. For the same amount of money, more than 16,000 Boston elementary school teachers could be hired full-time for one entire school year.

Some say cutting the Pentagon budget means military industrial complex jobs will be lost. However, a shift in dollars to create jobs in other employment sectors would both increase the number of jobs and employed Americans, as well as increase the value of those jobs to our country. This makes good political and economic sense.

The University of Massachusetts Political Economy Research Institute studied how many jobs could be created with $1billion of federal spending; the reality is that investing our tax dollars in education, health care, mass transit, weatherization, or middle-class tax cuts, creates more jobs than Pentagon spending does.

We are spending more than $30 billion per year to maintain our oversized and outdated nuclear weapons arsenal. There are many expensive weapons that the Pentagon does not need or want, but Congress votes to keep the funds flowing anyway. There are ridiculous cost overruns and wasteful spending on military contractors. Procurement scandals are almost the rule rather than the exception.

This spring, Americans learned of a $17,000 oil pan made by a politically connected defense contractor. Defense lobbyists work for corporate self-interests that result in congressional dysfunction.

Congress needs to stop appropriating limited dollars as pork for well-heeled defense industry contractors.

With automatic “sequester” cuts (a plan to cut federal spending over the next decade) scheduled to go into effect in January 2013, it is time to critically examine our Pentagon budget. It makes up 56 percent of federal discretionary spending and has increased every year since 1998.

Some members of Congress want to exempt the Pentagon budget while domestic programs like public education, mass transit, medical research and clean energy are slashed even further. It is far more important to our security to ensure that our economy is prospering through job creation based on innovation and entrepreneurship, than it is to stockpile nuclear weapons and line the pockets of overpaid defense contractors.

This Labor Day, let’s celebrate our economic achievements as a nation, as we have many. Let’s also shift our priorities as a nation. Let’s move forward with a budget and spending plan that is driven by American values like hard work, equal opportunity, humanitarianism and democracy. Let’s get people trained and retrained, and employed and better employed. Let’s pay for programs and projects that help get people out of poverty and into jobs.

And let’s put an end to this outdated, excessive, militarized spending.

Sharon Zimmerman is the deputy director of Women’s Action for New Directions (WAND), an adjunct professor at the Boston University School of Social Work, and sits on the board of Greater Boston’s Association of Parents, Friends and Families of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

In a call today, military vets, state leaders and budget experts outlined the possible impact of automatic budget cuts on Georgia’s economy and why military and civilian leaders believe U.S. could afford necessary reductions in Pentagon spending.

For Immediate Release:                                                                          Date: August 23, 2012

Contacts:Rachel Wisch, Public Information Officer
Women’s Action for New Directions & Women Legislators’ Lobby
Cell: 202-599-0746 Email: rwisch@wand.org

Sara DuBois, Communications Director
National Security Network
Cell: 202-289-7113 Email: sdubois@nsnetwork.org

Georgia – A Georgia state senator was joined by a local military veteran and experts on national security and the Pentagon budget on a call today to address those fanning fears about automatic budget cuts slated for next year instead of finding a comprehensive, safe and secure alternative budget. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is expected to speak tomorrow morning at the College of Coastal Georgia in Kingsland as part of a series of town hall meetings discussing these automatic “sequestration” cuts.

LISTEN to the call here

In addition to participation in this call, GA Senator Nan Grogan Orrock and Master Sergeant Bob Farquhar (ret.) will also attend Senator Chambliss’ town hall meeting tomorrow and will be available for comment on-site.

State Senator Nan Grogan Orrock (D-GA-36), President for the Women Legislators’ Lobby of Women’s Action for New Directions, delineated the specific devastating impacts ‘sequestration’ would have on nondefense programs, education and veterans. “The sequestration arrangement calls for across-the-board cuts to both Pentagon as well as domestic spending. Now we hear from the contractors that the Pentagon budget should be sacrosanct, that there should be no cuts there. What that of course would mean is that the cuts to the states, to the programs, to the jobs and services would be even deeper.”

Dr. Lawrence Korb, former Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration and retired Naval Flight Officer, explained that defense contractors' fear-mongering about the impact on jobs is disingenuous, military bases would not be closed, contracts would not be terminated, and that the Pentagon has ample funds and options to meet 21^st century security challenges. “Even John McCain, who’s opposed to sequester, calls the way the Pentagon manages its weapons systems a scandal and a tragedy… I have to laugh when I see people from companies running around and saying ‘Whoa, if you have these cuts we’re going to have to lay off all these people’…In the last five years, from 2006 to 2011, the defense budget went up by 13%. Lockheed actually had 10% less employees. If the budget goes up and you’re going to lay off people, it’s just really, really absurd.”

Master Sergeant Bob Farquhar (ret.), decorated 24-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, nuclear policy scholar, resident of Bonaire, GA, described a Cold War nuclear program as one area where spending could be reduced or shifted to the benefit of U.S. security. “There’s a B-61 freefall bomb [defense hawks are] wanting to upgrade at a cost of $10 billion, and this was a bomb from the 1960’s. We have roughly 4-500 of them in our inventory, but… why do we need these things anymore? The Cold War is now over for more than 20 years. There’s no rational reason that I can see or that anyone’s been able to provide to me as to why we need to maintain such a large nuclear force. Nuclear weapons are one way that we can save a considerable amount of money.”

Heather Hurlburt, National Security Network Executive director, former White House and State Department speechwriter and policy planning official, detailed the consensus among military and national security leaders that Pentagon spending should be on the table. “The idea that’s being peddled by some members of Congress that we can somehow solve the defense problem separate from the rest of the sequester problem is just not realistic. In fact, our Pentagon leaders know that, and both the current and former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have asked Congress to come up with a comprehensive solution that funds the domestic economy as well as the military going forward.”

 ####
 

Additional Resources:

-            "Sequestration's Impact on Nondefense Jobs and Services," Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education report, 7/25/12

-            “The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic Spending  Priorities: 2011 Update,” Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 12/11

-            "Spending Even Less, Spending Even Smarter: Recommendations for National Security Savings, FY 2013 to FY 2022--Deficit Reduction: $688 Billion," Project on Government Oversight, 5/8/12

-            “"Execs: Sequestration Hype Could Hurt Firms," William Swanson via Defense News, 7/22/12

-            “"We are only as strong as those three pillars – diplomatic, military and economic – can interrelate," Martin Dempsey, 1/12/12

-            “I have said from the beginning that I think defense has to be on the table," Michael Mullen via Defense News, 7/10/11

-            “Sequester was supposed to be … a trigger so irrational that the prospect of it would … drive the leadership to do what was needed, which was to put together an overall budget package for the nation’s finances that could win wide support, ” Ashton Carter via Washington Times, 5/30/12

-            POLLING ROUND-UP: “Hunt the Hawk,” Slate, 8/1/12

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

Time to hold a magnifying glass to national security spending

This Fourth of July, as we celebrate our nation’s independence, we need to think about what programs will do the most to guarantee our freedom and strength for years to come. Our nation‘s Pentagon budget has grown unchecked since 1998 at a cost of trillions of dollars to taxpayers. And now the news from Washington is devastating, draconian cuts to essential investments while the Pentagon gets yet another boost.

Pentagon spending includes spending on wars, nuclear weapons, and military construction. Our nation’s greatness and future security are not served by a bloated nuclear arsenal, unnecessary weapons systems, and endless war. Our future will be best served with investments in education, jobs, healthcare, science and technology and a clean environment. To make those cuts we must cut bloated Pentagon spending.

As president of the Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL) and a Georgia State Senator, I work with a network of women from across the country. My fellow state legislators are battling budget shortfalls year after year. After 9-11, state budgets have taken on massive new costs for homeland security measures. National Guard and other returning veterans need state and local services. The women state legislators who are a part of WiLL understand that increases in Pentagon spending mean their strapped state budgets get further shortchanged. With the impacts of this great recession and the end of stimulus funding, states cannot afford the devastating cuts that would come with the Ryan Budget or the planned sequestration cuts to nondefense spending.

The Ryan budget increases Pentagon spending for the coming year by $8 billion more than what was agreed to last August in the Budget Control Act. That difference would be paid for by slashing even further every other funding priority.

The House approach also exempts the Pentagon from the looming automatic sequestration cuts by taking more from all of the other programs and investments. Congress will have to slash from k-12 and higher education, national parks and clean water programs, medical and scientific research, clean energy – you name it. Everything would be cut while the Pentagon trough gets filled.

We all want a common defense that works. We agree that veterans and their families deserve the best in recognition of their sacrifice. They also deserve to come home to a strong, vibrant economy with plenty of job opportunities.

What we don’t want are redundant and unnecessary weapons that don’t address today’s security needs, mismanaged projects that go far over budget due to lack of Pentagon audit, and defense industry lobbyists lining their coffers at our expense. Former Defense Secretary Gates says, “We can't hold ourselves exempt from the belt-tightening. Neither can we allow ourselves to contribute to the very debt that puts our long-term security at risk."

What we do want are jobs. Some claim that cutting excessive Pentagon spending means losing good jobs. On the contrary, economic studies have shown that federal investments in any other category, including education, healthcare, or clean energy, create more jobs than federal dollars spent in the military sector. These are the sustainable jobs that we need for our future. Let’s choose teachers, doctors, nurses, first responders, home weatherization, and wind turbines over building bombs that we don’t need and can’t afford.

It’s time to hold a magnifying glass to Pentagon spending. Other domestic spending is equally important to the future of our nation. Jobs, education, health care, a clean environment, safe roads and bridges and mass transit, are all a part of our national security.  These are essential components of fulfilling our nation’s obligation to secure a bright future for America.

Many domestic, religious and nonprofit groups agree and are speaking up. Even fiscally responsible conservatives are mobilizing. If we are ever to rid ourselves of ghastly cost overruns, end exorbitant contractor fees, stop no-bid contracts, and massive, unnecessary weapons systems, shouldn’t we hold the Pentagon accountable for its spending?

Congress must responsibly reduce Pentagon spending. This Independence Day, we will truly let freedom ring if we have a budget that makes investments in the future rather than continuing wasteful Pentagon spending. Let’s send that message to our members of congress.

-Nan Grogan Orrock, WiLL President and state senator in Georgia