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

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

WAND was also involved in educating EAD participants about the defense budget. WAND Policy Director Kathy Robinson joined a panel of women experts to lead the workshop Budget Hysteria: How Can we be Both Fiscally and Morally Responsible on the Budget? Kathy discussed how our nation’s unbalanced budget priorities are compromised byexcessive military spending, including money spent on nuclear weapons.

At the WAND table, staff used a “bean poll” to survey EAD participants about how they would spend their tax payer money. Results indicate that most EAD attendees would rather have more of their taxes go towards education, health care, and the environment instead of the military! Even our nation's leaders are speaking out about military spending. See what our elected officials have to say!

Let’s continue to build on the momentum of the federal budget debates to reduce wasteful military spending and fund basic human needs!

"I'm concerned we are spending too much on foreign wars and foreign bases and not enough on infrastructure and education here." – Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), town hall meeting, March 22, 2011

“I think Republicans for too long have resisted the idea that defense needs to be part of what we’re looking at,” Blunt said on a conference call with reporters Thursday. “Let’s be sure we’re spending our defense money wisely.” – Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO), March 18, 2011

“We can save money on defense and if we Republicans don't propose saving money on defense, we'll have no credibility on anything else." – Governor Haley Barbour (R-MS), March 15, 2011

“We have to re-examine: what’s the right approach? Honestly, we can’t afford what we’re doing.” – Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), referring to defense spending, Senate Budget Committee Hearing, March 10, 2011

“I’m saying the message is clear that we need to do some things now, and the Defense Department can’t be absolved from those challenges.” – Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Senate Budget Committee Hearing, March 10, 2011

“Well, it may look that way, but it’s not, in light of the debt we have and the crisis that is happening in the country.” – Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), in response to Bill Lynn’s remark that the military’s budget was “pretty reasonable,” Senate Budget Committee Hearing, March 10, 2011

“Part of what I’m concerned about is we’re looking at a double standard with respect to inefficiency.” – Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), referring to scrutiny of military vs. domestic spending, Senate Budget Committee Hearing, March 10, 2011

“We had a commission put together that a bunch of us supported. We created the deficit reduction commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson. They gave us a pretty good roadmap of how to get to a more fiscally responsible place in the next few years, cutting some $4 trillion out of the budget deficit. What they said is that pretty much everything needs to be on the table--domestic spending, defense spending, entitlement programs, tax expenditures, tax credits, tax deductions, tax rates. They have suggested a proposal that cuts the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, about two-thirds of that on the spending side and maybe one-third or so on the revenue side. I think it is a pretty good approach, and I commend the 18 members of the commission who endorsed that approach.” – Senator Tom Carper (D-DE), March 9, 2011, Senate Floor

“An honest look at our deficit would not just go after education and research and investment in our infrastructure. It would look across the board, as the Bowles-Simpson commission did. How can we rationalize at this moment in time cutting Head Start for hundreds of thousands of kids across America, denying money to the poorest school districts in America where they literally struggle day to day to try to turn around the lives of children who are in very dire circumstances?” – Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), March 9, 2011, Senate Floor

“Our colleagues in the House have diagnosed a patient with heart disease--and prescribed amputation. Their proposed cure would do little to heal the disease of budget deficits, and in the meantime, do a lot of damage to the patient. They propose to solve our budget woes by slashing nondefense discretionary spending--which makes up a mere 15 percent or so of the Federal budget. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office told us just this week that if we eliminated all nondefense discretionary spending--every last dime of it--we would still run budget deficits by 2016. We cannot solve the budget problem this way, no matter how hard our Republican friends try to convince Americans that we can.” – Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), March 9, 2011, Senate Floor

“We have a Pentagon that we can't audit, and we haven't been able to audit for decades. It is frustrating that we don't have business systems in place that allow transparency and that allow wise choices in terms of the expenditure of dollars.” – Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), March 9, 2011, Senate Floor

“We have to be more efficient with the dollars we spend at the Pentagon, and we will not be if we always say yes and we never say no. There will be no incentive to find savings or to find more jointness among our different military branches in terms of administrative costs if we always say yes and never say no. So the pain has to be felt at the Pentagon too. We cannot do this without pain being felt at the Pentagon.” – Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), March 9, 2011, Senate Floor

“We have increased military spending by 120 percent since 2001. We have doubled military spending. I am for a strong national defense. I believe it is a constitutional function of the Federal Government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the preeminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing. But that being said, we cannot every 8 years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.” – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), March 9, 2011, Senate Floor

"I just have no confidence that regardless of how long we stay, or how many dollars we pour into this, the situation is going to be any better -- whether we leave in 6 months, 6 years, or 20 years," Rendell said. "And weighing that against $100 to $150 billion a year we're spending, to the $60 to $70 billion dollars we've put into repairing the Afghani infrastructure -- compare that to our needs as a nation. The question is, is it the best expenditure of American dollars?" – Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA), December 7, 2010

The bill and its amendments make major cuts to federal discretionary domestic and international spending, including vital programs in clean energy, health care, and education. Overall, every category of spending was cut, with the one exception of the Department of Defense and war spending.

There were hundreds of amendments offered in the House. With the exception of the successful Rooney amendment to cut funds for the second F-35 engine, those amendments which sought to responsible cuts to military spending were defeated. Here are some of the amendments we were watching:

Jones Amendment No. 95
Defeated 135 – 294

• Would have cut $400 million in funds for Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund
• Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll047.xml

Nadler, Lee, Stark Amendment No. 232:
Defeated 98 – 331

• Would have cut all but $10 billion for the war in Afghanistan, with the remaining money to be used to withdraw troops
• Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll091.xml

Polis Amendment No. 46:
Defeated 74 – 351

• Would have cut Armed Forces personnel in Europe to no more than 35,000
• Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll118.xml

Lee Amendment No. 141:
Defeated 76 – 344

• Would have cut Pentagon funding to Fiscal Year 2008 levels.
• Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll128.xml

Lee Amendment No. 222:
Failed on point of order

• Would have limited Department of Defense spending until an audit is completed.

Other amendments to cut the defense budget offered by Members of both parties were also defeated. The Council for a Livable World offers a complete list here.

Also troubling was the adoption of an amendment that would eliminate the US Institute for Peace. Created by Congress and signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, USIP is the only independent U.S. government agency that is dedicated solely to conflict prevention and resolution:

Weiner Amendment No. 100:
Passed 268 – 163

• Eliminates the $43 million that the bill provides for the U.S. Institute of Peace, and increases by the same amount the State Department Foreign Operations portion of the  bill's spending reduction account.
• Roll call: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll076.xml

The Senate has yet to consider the CR. While the current CR expires on March 4, it is expected that an extension will be passed to allow more time for Senate consideration and for negotiation between the House and Senate. We can expect to see more about funding for FY 2011 this spring.