For Immediate Release: April 30, 2009      

Contact: Christina Cernansky | 202-544-5055 | will@wand.org

Hundreds of Women State Legislators Join Voices to Urge Congress to Make Changes in Federal “Security” Budget

In a letter delivered in April 2009, nearly 400 legislators from across the country urge Congress to support the administration’s moves to change priorities in Pentagon budget. The legislators call for shifting the federal budget away from Cold War weapons and toward a new approach to security.

Representing millions of constituents, state lawmakers say cutting these weapons systems would free up billions of dollars to invest in public projects that would create more jobs and lay the foundation for a safer and more prosperous future.

The letter: www.wand.org/WiLL fed budg ltr fy10.pdf

WASHINGTON, DC – More than 380 women state legislators from across the country signed a letter delivered last week to every Member of Congress, urging support for the administration’s plans for the proposed FY10 federal budget. They cite recommendations from Defense Secretary Gates and President Obama, and say these changes would benefit the country’s security – and, importantly, the economy.

The letter, organized by Women Legislators’ Lobby (WiLL) says to Congress: “We need your help in realizing reforms that will make our country stronger in the reality of today's threats.” In April, Gates outlined his plan to change the "priorities of America's defense establishment" – away from high-tech weapons from the Cold War, toward programs to support troops and veterans. His changes would shift funding away from "exquisite," expensive, futuristic systems; and toward relatively low-tech systems best suited for irregular (guerilla) war.

“The Cold War ended in 1991, but Congress just keeps on funneling billions of dollars into weapons systems that were designed to fight the Soviet Union,” says state Senator Nan Grogan Orrock (GA), President of WiLL. “These high-tech systems have done little or nothing to keep us safe from the threats of today.” The letter notes that today’s threats come from terrorist cells and rogue states, as well as internal vulnerabilities. “We should be directing our security dollars toward these pressure points,” says Orrock. Currently, the budget outline spends seven times as much on military force as on international affairs and homeland security combined.

“We should invest in the other prongs of a well-rounded defense program,” says the letter: offense (military forces), defense (homeland security), and prevention (non-military international engagement, including diplomacy, nonproliferation, foreign aid, peacekeeping, and contributions to international organizations). We should spend a sufficient amount on homeland security services such as rail and transit security, emergency preparedness and public health. We should invest in efforts to remove or secure all vulnerable fissile nuclear materials.”

“All this makes common sense,” says Orrock, “Why do we keep funding those outmoded weapons? The answer is simple -- they provide jobs in Congressional districts. Cutting a military contract that offers jobs is a hard discussion.

The good news is that redirecting federal dollars – away from Cold War weapons and toward other public projects --  makes sense for our economic recovery. In the current economic climate, when we are doing all we can to invest in programs that create jobs and stimulate the economy, we can do better by spending money on public projects other than the military. A groundbreaking economic study from the University of Massachusetts** found that investing federal funds in public projects (such as transportation and health care) yields more jobs and economic return than investing in the military.”

“This is clearly a win-win equation all around,” says Orrock. “We need Congress to face the truth and have the courage to make the hard calls. In the long run, we’ll be safer and more secure for a prosperous and healthy future.”