fcnl.org           Peace Is Possible           8 August 2010

"No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength...."    Psalm 33:16

 

A World Free of Nuclear Weapons
 

April 8, 2010, was a big day for the effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons. US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).  This treaty will further reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons in both countries' arsenals.  It has the support of many political leaders, but now comes the hard part -- convincing 67 US Senators to vote for ratification.
 

By failing to move START ratification to the Senate floor before the August recess, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week missed one of its last opportunities this year to approve the new START agreement with Russia.  This delay is a major setback for advancing us toward a world free of nuclear weapons.
 

Advocates for that world free of nuclear weapons must make it clear to their Senators that it is hugely important for the New START to be ratified before the end of 2010.  Time is of the essence.  Since the first START treaty expired in December 2009, the US has not been able to send inspectors to verify Russian compliance with the old treaty. 
 

Senator Dick Lugar finally in recent weeks publicly expressed support for ratification.  The treaty is supported by almost every past and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, by former Secretaries of State George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Colin Powell, and former Secretaries of Defense James Schlesinger, Frank Carlucci and William Cohen. 

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence      1605 Longworth HOB    Washington, DC  20515          202-225-3021               mike.pence@mail.house.gov
Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Off. Bldg.     Washington, DC 20510        202-224-4814         senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Sen. Evan Bayh   131 Russell Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510        202-224-5623            senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov

 

Dear Sen. ___________,

 

During this August recess, please speak out publicly and urgently in favor of ratification of the New START treaty with Russia, and please call on your Senate leadership to make floor time to vote on this agreement soon after Congress returns to Washington.  I'm concerned that the crowded Senate calendar this fall could prevent a vote from happening.

 

This treaty is necessary to maintain a stable and confident strategic relationship between the U.S. and Russia.  It would also reduce the number of deployed nuclear weapons in both the United States and Russia from 2200 to 1550.

 

I am grateful for Senator Lugar's recent public support for New START ratification, and for his statement in early August that this treaty is a matter of vital national security.  Since the first START treaty expired in December 2009, the inspection and verification so important to U.S. security has stopped, and the United States cannot send inspectors to verify Russian compliance with the old treaty limits.

 

Please take a public stand now for Senate ratification of the New START treaty, speak out often on this issue, and please use your considerable influence to urge Senate leaders to act soon on this treaty. 
      
                                                                                                      Sincerely,

 

   

Key Congressional Committees Boost Funds to Prevent Nuclear Terrorism
House and Senate Appropriators Fund 27% Increase in Nonproliferation
July 23, 2010
 

Two key Congressional committees this week gave a big boost to the Administration's efforts to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of violent extremist groups. Both committees fully funded the administration's request for a 27 percent increase for two Energy Department programs to secure vulnerable nuclear materials in other countries.
 

 "The nuclear nonproliferation initiatives of the Obama administration have enjoyed strong bipartisan support," explains David Culp, a lobbyist for the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers). "These significant budget increases reflect the concern of many members of Congress in securing bomb-grade nuclear material internationally. They also are a result of a concerted lobbying effort by the Energy Department, Vice President Biden, and Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher."
 

 The House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee voted July 15 to fully fund the administration's request for these funds.  Its Senate counterpart subcommittee followed suit on July 20, with the full Senate Appropriations Committee adopting the increase on July 22.
 

 The Bush 43 administration began the Global Threat Reduction Initiative program in 2004 and they expanded the International Nuclear Material Protection and Cooperation program. The two Bush programs enjoyed strong support from Sen. Dick Lugar (IN), one of Obama's foreign policy mentors. Obama developed the idea of accelerating the "loose nukes" programs on the campaign trail and included the funding increases in his budget this year.  President Obama had pledged during his campaign to secure all vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within four years.
 

 The full House Appropriations Committee has not yet scheduled the bill for final approval, but may take it up the week of July 26. A House-Senate conference committee will hammer out the differences in the two bills, probably as part of a larger, year-end "omnibus" appropriations bill in a lame-duck session of Congress in November and December.

 

fcnl.org                Peace Is Possible               11 July 2010

 

Environmental Protection is a Peace Issue
       This month, with oil continuing to gush into the Gulf of Mexico and the loss of lives and treasure continuing unabated in Iraq and Afghanistan, members of Congress and candidates running for Congress are especially aware of the importance of passing effective legislation to set the United States on the path away from fossil fuel over-consumption and toward reduced greenhouse gas pollution.

       Global warming threatens the survival of the planet.  If the international community does not act now to mitigate global warming and dramatically diminish the human contribution to it, the human species could face a catastrophic global change that would affect all life on Earth. 

 
        The root causes of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are multiple and complex, but no one can deny that US dependence on (and protection of access to) petroleum imported from the Middle East is one of the major ones.  Hostility towards the US in that region is unlikely to end so long as Americans are perceived to be there for the oil.  The sooner that dependence and perception ends, the better.

       The cap and trade legislation passed by the House in 2009 (and similar legislation debated in the Senate) did not take us in the right direction.  Senators Maria Cantwell (WA) and Susan Collins (ME) provide a simpler, fairer, and more effective means to reduce fossil fuel consumption and subsequent green house gas pollution in the Clean Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act (S. 2877). 

       In April 2010, a group of 40 faith-based organizations appealed to the other 98 Senators to give serious consideration to the CLEAR Act,  pointing out that it is their fellow-believers "in the global South whose lives are being most harmed by planetary warming, even though they have contributed least to greenhouse gas emissions."  They note that this is a critical moment as the environment dies and "countries around the world race for leadership in sustainable energy markets.  The United States simply must not fall behind..... in reducing its carbon footprint while encouraging the development of alternative, sustainable energy systems." 

 

Highlights of the CLEAR Act:
-- It is simple; the bill is a mere 39 pages long.
-- The CLEAR Act stipulates 100 percent auction of pollution permits, meaning that those most responsible for harmful greenhouse gas emissions will have to pay commensurate to the amount they pollute. Although this measure is designed to encourage the most efficient emissions reductions, it will also increase carbon-based energy prices. To ensure that low- to middle-income consumers are unharmed, the CLEAR Act provides an "energy security dividend," which will return 75 percent of the pollution revenue collected by the government equally to all U.S. residents on a monthly basis.  The remaining 25 percent of carbon revenue would be deposited into a fund to be used in the annual congressional appropriations process.
-- The CLEAR Act does not include carbon offsets to substitute for U.S. industry pollution reductions.  Offsets delay research and investment in new alternative energy, and they are very difficult to consistently verify as real emissions reductions.
--The CLEAR Act maintains the Environmental Protection Agency as the government entity to set verifiable and enforceable emissions standards and then hold all greenhouse gas emitters to them.
-- Food and fuel prices rose in 2008-09 in part because of excessive speculation in commodity markets, triggering food insecurity and riots in countries around the world.  The same would be true of unregulated carbon markets.  The CLEAR Act limits participation in the carbon market to only those companies who must turn in carbon permits for compliance -- leaving Wall Street and other traders out.

 

The letter concludes that the entire balance of life on Earth is at stake.  The CLEAR Act offers the most straightforward, long-term politically feasible route to respond to this crisis and guide the US to a future with domestically-produced sustainable energy.

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence      1605 Longworth HOB      Washington, DC  20515       202-225-3021       mike.pence@mail.house.gov
Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Off. Bldg.     Washington, DC 20510  202-224-4814       senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Sen. Evan Bayh   131 Russell Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510     202-224-5623        senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov

 

Dear Sen. ___________ / Rep. Pence / candidate __________,

 

        It is increasingly apparent that global warming threatens the survival of the planet, and that human consumption of fossil fuels is a major cause of that warming.  It also is clear that our dependence on access to the imported oil with which we've warmed the earth is responsible for significant loss of lives and treasure in the wars of recent years.

 

        Working together, the United States and other nations have the resources to chart a new course -- to end oil conflicts and address global warming by creating a new global economy based on renewable energy.   

 

         Time is of the essence.  I am writing to ask you to support legislation like that introduced by Senators Cantwell and Collins (the CLEAR Act, S.2877) that would provide simple, fair and effective means to actually slow fossil fuel consumption and reduce greenhouse gas pollution.  If you will not support such a bill, please tell me why you will not.

 

                                                                                                           Sincerely,

 

 

fcnl.org                     Peace Is Possible                   13 June 2010

 

Full Funding for the Civilian Response Corps
If only you had known the things that would bring you peace....
--Jesus of Nazareth (Luke 19:42)

 

Imagine the United States government sending civilian experts – instead of military troops - to Afghanistan to help foster development and support national reconciliation.  Imagine the U.S. government sending civilian experts to Kenya to support civic education, help monitor elections, and prevent new outbreaks of violence.  Imagine the U.S. government sending well-trained civilians to help prevent crises and resolve global problems, rather than relying on military force, which endangers civilians and often escalates conflict further.

 

Those possibilities already exist with the Civilian Response Corps (CRC), a cadre of civilians with development expertise and other skills to help prevent and rebuild after wars.  In 2008, Congress passed legislation authorizing the creation of the Civilian Response Corps. These civilian experts can be sent to potential conflict zones or countries emerging from conflict. The Corps consists of U.S. government employees trained in skills such as agriculture, community development, rule of law, and justice systems to help countries recover from or prevent war.  In 2009, CRC members carried out projects in countries including Colombia, Uganda, and Sri Lanka.

 

If fully funded and staffed, the CRC would include three kinds of members: active, standby and reserve. Two hundred and fifty full-time active members could leave in 48 hours. Two thousand standby members could leave within 30 days. Two thousand reserve members could leave within 45-60 days.

 

FCNL has lobbied for the creation and full funding of the CRC. In its FY 2011 budget request, the Administration asked for $184 million for the Civilian Response Corps and the office that oversees it. Unfortunately, Congressional appropriators have already indicated that they may not fully meet that request.

 

Please ask your members of Congress to fully fund the Administration's request of $184 million for the Civilian Response Corps and the office that coordinates it.

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence   1605 Longworth HOB  Washington, DC  20515        202-225-3021               mike.pence@mail.house.gov
Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Off. Bldg.     Washington, DC 20510     202-224-4814     senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Sen. Evan Bayh   131 Russell Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510     202-224-5623         senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov

 

Dear Sen._______, Rep. Pence,

 

As Congress takes up the President's FY2011 budget request, I urge you to support investing in diplomacy, development, and international cooperation to help prevent wars and avoid costly military interventions.

 

Specifically, I urge you to voice your support for a Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that fully funds the President's request for $184 million for the Civilian Response Corps and the office that oversees it.  This corps provides expert civilians to help prevent, mitigate, and rebuild after wars.

 

We have already spent over $1 trillion and grievously harmed our economy waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the past eight years.  The cost of the CRC's effort to prevent future wars, and to repair the damage caused by the current ones, amounts to only six hours of US military spending at the height of the Iraq war.  Surely we can afford to invest that meager amount towards preventing new, costly military entanglements.

 

I am counting on you to use your considerable influence in Congress to support the full funding of $184 million in the FY2011 budget for the Civilian Response Corps.  Please advise me if you will support this effort, or if you will not, why not.

 

                                                                                                    Sincerely,

 

 

fcnl.org                   Peace Is Possible                 9 May 2010

 

After nine years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, people in the United States are tired of war, saddened by the loss of lives, and upset at the amount of money spent.  Instead of continuing down this path, our government needs to invest in diplomacy, development, and international cooperation, tools to prevent wars instead of fighting them.  Less than 2% of President Obama's FY2011 budget request is dedicated to these tools, whereas 39% would go to the military and war spending.

 

Congress can take concrete steps now through diplomacy, development, and international cooperation to prevent war in the future.  One such step in diplomacy would be to support the President's request for $100 million in the FY'11 budget for a Complex Crises Fund to help prevent and mitigate developing conflicts.  If authorized and fully funded, the Complex Crises Fund's  flexible pool of money would allow the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to respond quickly to emerging crises. 

 

Why is this needed?  As one example, in 2007 Kenya erupted into violence after disputed elections.  The State Department struggled for weeks to find funds it could use to support the African-led mediation effort (mostly just a few thousand dollars to fund regional mediators' air tickets) that helped halt the crisis.  The Complex Crises Fund would have allowed the State Department and USAID to respond far more quickly to the emerging crisis, saving many lives.

 

The Complex Crises Fund would take money which the Pentagon has previously exercised influence and veto power over and give it instead fully into the hands of the State Department and USAID.  It would put a civilian job back in the hands of civilian agencies, and it is an important step in rebalancing a bloated Pentagon budget. 

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence   1605 Longworth HOB      Washington, DC  20515
               202-225-3021               mike.pence@mail.house.gov
Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Off. Bldg.     Washington, DC 20510
              202-224-4814                   senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov
Sen. Evan Bayh   131 Russell Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510
              202-224-5623               senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov

 

Dear Senator ________, Rep. Pence:

 

After nine years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the American people are tired of war, saddened by the loss of lives, and furious over the amount of money spent.  Instead of continuing down that path, our government needs to invest in diplomacy, development, and international cooperation -- tools for preventing wars instead of fighting them. 

 

Less than 2% of President Obama's FY2011 budget request is dedicated to those tools for peace, whereas 39% would go to the military and war spending.  As Congress takes up the President's FY2011 budget request, I urge you to support investing in diplomacy, development, and international cooperation to help prevent wars and avoid costly military interventions.

 

Specifically, I urge you to voice your support to authorize and fully fund the President's request for $100 million to establish a Complex Crises Fund.  This fund would allow the State Department and USAID to respond quickly to emerging conflicts.

 

We have had enough of war.  It's time to start investing in peace.  Please use your position in Congress to help lead the way.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

fcnl.org                   Peace Is Possible             11 April 2010

 

The primary work of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund is to create a legal option for conscientious objectors to the payment of war taxes.  Such an option is proposed in the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund bill (H.R. 2085), legislation last introduced in Congress in April 2009 that would establish a fund to receive the tax payments of people who certify that they are conscientious objectors to war according the definition in Selective Service law.  The Treasury Department would be charged with dispersing the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund to nonmilitary accounts in the federal budget.  Representative John Lewis (GA) is the bill's main sponsor and is seeking to add to the current list of 18 cosponsors that includes maverick libertarian Representative Ron Paul of Texas.  No Indiana Representatives have yet cosponsored H.R. 2085.  The bill has been mired "under referral" to the House Ways and Means Committee for the past year.

 

Under current law, there are few options for conscientious objectors to military taxes.  Some radically simplify their lives so that their cash income falls below the taxable level, or they give away substantial funds so as to minimize the taxes they owe.  Others pay only a calculated "nonmilitary" portion of their taxes – a choice that is not supported by federal law.  In a few cases where the Internal Revenue Service has chosen to prosecute war tax resisters, the resisters have been sentenced to prison, had property and wages siezed, etc.

 

Peace Tax Fund legislation, first introduced in 1972, serves as an affirmation of the campaign's central principle, that "each individual has the right not to be coerced into participation in killing other human beings -- whether that participation is physical or financial.  Ultimately this right is based in the freedom to exercise religion according to the dictates of conscience."

 

New cosponsors have joined in support of the legislation each year, and the House of Representatives held hearings on the proposal in 1992.  Whether or not the bill passes in the near future, its existence on the congressional docket creates openings for meaningful conversations between people of peace and their legislators on the importance of the rights of conscience in the panoply of rights protected by the US Constitution.

 

The US is not the only nation with an active Peace Tax Fund campaign.  Sixteen other countries have active campaigns seeking legal recognition of conscientious objection to the payment of war taxes.  United Nations Commission on Human Rights acknowledged war tax resistance in 1989 "as a legitimate exercise of freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB     Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021                                mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

Rep. Pence,
      
During this week when I send my income tax return to the IRS, I am writing to ask for your support for the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act, H.R. 2085.

 

As a follower of Jesus -- who teaches me to love my enemies -- I object as a matter of conscience to being required to help pay for the military pursuits of our government.  Given the opportunity, I would divert the full amount of my tax payments to other government programs that could care for people and create a more peaceful world.

 

Rep. John Lewis' Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act, H.R. 2085, is important to the support of religious freedom in this country.  It would accommodate the beliefs of sincere conscientious objectors to military taxes, allowing them to divert their tax payments to a government fund which would, in turn, allocate funds to nonmilitary programs.

 

I believe strongly in the free exercise of religion, and I am told that you do too.  It is one of the unique strengths that makes the USA a great nation to be cherished.  As an expression of your support for that excellent freedom, I hope you will become the first Hoosier cosponsor of H.R. 2085 and will work with Rep. Lewis to see it passed into law.

 

                                                                                         Sincerely,

 

fcnl.org                         Peace Is Possible                      14 March 2010

 

Chart a New Course in Afghanistan
        War is on many people's minds as the seventh anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq approaches on March 19. This is a time to encourage people to join the effort to end the war and insist on a new U.S. policy in Afghanistan.
        Last week, Rep. Dennis Kucinich's resolution to require the speedy withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Afghanistan was voted down, 65 to 356. According to Congress-watchers, it was the first Congressional debate about the merits (not in the context of an emergency supplemental war funding bill) of our being at war in Afghanistan since our 2001 invasion following 9/11.  The vote demonstrates how much work still needs to be done to persuade Congress to abandon the failed war strategy in Afghanistan.  The debate right now in Congress tends to break down between "get out now" and "keep on fighting." The debate we need in Congress is about a strategy that will end the fighting, bring U.S. troops home, and support efforts by the Afghan people to rebuild their country.

 

Whata Ya Know?  People whose tax dollars (to the tune of $300 billion or more) are going to wreak long-term havoc on a country halfway around the world probably ought to know at least a little about that country.  How do you score on the following quiz?

 

1) Which is the correct list of countries bordering Afghanistan?
a. China, Iran, Pakistan, India
b. China Iran Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan
c. China, Iraq, Iran, Uzbekistan, Russia
d. Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Iran

 

2) Which number is closest to the number of U.S. and International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) military bases in Afghanistan?
a. 50             b. 150            c. 300             d. 400

 

3) General McCrystal said which solution would be the inevitable outcome to the conflict in Afghanistan?
a. Military         b. Political         c. Economic         d. Social

 

4)  President Obama talked about a 'surge' of American civilian expertise going to Afghanistan from the State Department and USAID. How many civilians does the U.S. government hope to have in country in the near future?
a. 1,000                  b. 2,000                       c. 5,000                d. 10,000

 

5) By the summer of 2010, how many U.S. troops will be in Afghanistan?
a. ~20,000             b. ~33,000               c. ~74,000              d. ~98,000
 

6)  How much money is the Obama Administration expected to request for the Afghanistan war supplemental (to be applied to FY2010)?
a. $80 million             b. $12 billion             c. $22 billion           d. $33 billion

 

7)  What ethnic group do the largest number of people in Afghanistan belong to?
a. Pashtun          b. Tajik             c. Hazara           d. Uzbek         e. Aimak

 

8) How many countries contribute ISAF troops to the war in Afghanistan?
a. 14                      b. 30                            c. 42                         d. 50

 

Congress likely will have a chance to take up this issue again soon. Legislation to require the administration to prepare an exit strategy from Afghanistan could be voted on this spring. 

 

There are two things Friends can do to let your voice be heard on this important issue:
--Go to FCNL's home page <www.fcnl.org> and help them reach 5000 people signing the petition calling for a clear Afghanistan exit strategy
--Write to your members of Congress to let them know that more war will not win more peace, and ask them to support a speedier draw-down.

 

 

Sample Letter

Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510

                   202-224-4814                senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

 

Sen. Evan Bayh    131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.    Washington, DC  20510
                   202-224-5623                 senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        

 

Rep. Mike Pence           1605 Longworth HOB                Washington, DC 20515
                      202-225-3021                mike.pence@mail.house.gov    

 

Dear Sir:
       This month, we observe the seventh anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq.  One cannot think of that without realizing also that we are well on our way to the ninth anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan.
        The American people and our wallets are weary of war.  We have spent more in the past eight years on these wars than it would have cost to give every American topnotch health care for at least ten years.  War spending has enriched a few Americans but impoverished our country.
         As your constituent in Randolph County, I call upon you to offer leadership in Congress for charting a new course that brings US troops out of Afghanistan sooner than the President has requested.  The US should begin a thoughtful, deliberate withdrawal of our troops; halt offensive operations against the Taliban and focus on political reconciliation among all Afghan groups; engage Afghanistan's neighbors, including Iran and Pakistan, to promote reconciliation and regional security; and channel US development aid through Afghan and multilateral organizations.

                                                                            Sincerely,       

 

  

Quiz Answers:  b,d,b,a,d,d,a,c

 

 

fcnl.org                            Peace Is Possible                        14 February 2010

 

Iran Sanctions -- the Wrong Move

 

Late last year, the Senate and House passed separate, different versions of legislation that would impose an embargo of refined gasoline on Iran.  The intent was to punish the Islamic regime for intransigence regarding its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and for an unfair election and subsequent violent government crackdown on protesters who took to the streets.  Not a single Senator was willing to publicly oppose the legislation when it came to the Senate floor.

 

During February, House and Senate negotiators are discussing how to bring the gasoline embargo legislation to a final vote in both chambers.  The news this week from Iran of government crackdowns on renewed popular protests against the Islamic regime should persuade Congress to rethink its recent bills that would mandate a gasoline embargo of that country.  FCNL analysts are not optimistic that Congress will make the right move.

 

Blocking Iran's gasoline imports (upon which it depends for 40% of its needs) would impose hardship on ordinary Iranians and lend credence to the claim that the United States is hostile to the people of Iran.  The proposed sanctions also make no sense when a persistent Iranian reform movement struggles now to win popular support, and when Iran's government is debating whether to reform and whether to engage with the United States.  In this debate, alleged U.S. hostility is the best argument of Iran's hardliners against both reform and engagement.

 

The Obama administration, the U.S. business community, many U.S. allies, and many knowledgeable experts on Iran agree that imposing U.S. gasoline sanctions on Iran would be a mistake, would be ineffective, and would alienate our allies.

 

In early February, President Obama announced that the United States is working for new, multilateral sanctions on Iran that would not harm the Iranian people but that would focus on groups involved in Iran's nuclear program and on violators of human rights.  He also announced narrowly focused U.S. sanctions on the leadership of the Revolutionary Guard.

 

No new sanctions would be the smart U.S. strategy.  If sanctions are to be used, however, then focused multilateral action is far preferable to the indiscriminate, punitive measure that Congress is preparing to send to the President.

 

Equally important, Congress and the administration need to lay out a clear path to a negotiated agreement with Iran on its nuclear program, and to assure that possibilities for U.S.-Iranian cooperation on Iraq, Afghanistan, and other issues remain open.  Engagement through diplomacy takes time and patience.  The elections looming in November threaten to lure the Congress to rush into unwise, counterproductive petroleum sanctions.

 

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.    Washington, DC  20510          202-224-4814           senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

Sen. Evan Bayh    131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.     Washington, DC  20510         202-224-5623            senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        

 

 

Dear Sen. ____________,

 

I am writing to urge you to publicly oppose the petroleum sanctions on Iran that currently are being reconciled by a Senate-House conference.  Iran depends on gasoline imports for 40% of its people's needs.  The proposed embargo would impose significant hardship on ordinary Iranians and lend credence to the claim that the United States is hostile to the people of Iran.  That message would play right into the hands of the Islamic regime precisely at a time when a persistent Iranian reform movement struggles to win popular support.

 

Veteran Iran watchers stress that, despite recent renewed bluster and violent crackdowns on protesters, Iran's government is debating whether to reform and whether to engage with the United States.  In that debate, alleged US hostility is the best argument of Iran's hardliners against both reform and engagement.

 

The Obama administration, the US business community, many US allies, and many knowledgeable experts on Iran agree that imposing US gasoline sanctions on Iran would be a mistake, would be ineffective, and would alienate our allies.  If you must support punitive action against Iran, I urge you to instead call for narrow, United Nations sanctions that do not unduly harm the Iranian people and that are focused on the regime, the Revolutionary Guard, and individuals accused of violating human rights.

 

                                                                                                Sincerely,

 

 

 

fcnl.org                Peace Is Possible             January 2010
In wisdom You made everything; the earth is full of Your creatures.... Let them praise the name of the Lord, for His name alone is exalted; His splendor is above the earth and the heavens. (Psalm 104:24;  148:13)

 

         The climate debate in the 111th Congress was dominated last year by the cap and trade bills pushed by a few powerful members of Congress with the support of a coalition of business and a few environmental groups called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.
         The political trade-offs that were brokered in the House-passed cap and trade climate bill undermined the original intent of the policy to such an extent that FCNL did not support final passage.  Giving away free money to polluting industry, subsidizing coal, and including billions of tons of dubious "offsets" were a few of the reasons FCNL believed H.R. 2454 was a step in the wrong direction.
         The bipartisan bill introduced on 11 December '09 by Sens. Maria Cantwell and Susan Collins, Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act (CLEAR), S. 2877, is written to address many of the problems that FCNL and others have been working overtime to fix.  It directs the Secretary of the Treasury to establish a program to regulate the entry of fossil carbon into commerce in the United States to promote clean energy jobs and economic growth and avoid dangerous interference with the climate of the Earth, and for other purposes.

 

Seven Ways Cantwell-Collins Gets it Right

 

1. 100 percent auction of pollution permits
There are no free giveaways to industry; every emitter of a ton of fossil fuel carbon dioxide pays an equal price.

 

2. Refund of pollution revenue
Although putting a price on carbon will increase prices in the short-term, 80 percent of the public will feel no net financial impact because 75 percent of the pollution revenue collected by the government is returned to every resident of the United States.

 

3. Protection from market manipulation
To address concerns of Wall Street traders driving up or down the price of carbon purely to make profit and potentially jeopardizing the entire pollution-reduction system, CLEAR limits who can participate in the carbon market to those who must turn in carbon permits.

 

4. No offsets
CLEAR contains no offsets. Carbon offsets are used in other climate legislation to substitute for industry pollution reductions, but the Government Accountability Office concludes that offsets are impossible to verify as real emission reductions.

 

5. Does not pick technology winners and losers
CLEAR does not subsidize nuclear power, coal, or renewable energy. Instead it puts 25 percent of the carbon revenue into the normal congressional appropriations process to be allocated separately every year.

 

6. "Upstream cap"
CLEAR requires compliance as high up in the economy as possible – at the wellhead, coal mine, or import point. This reduces the administrative burden to only 2 to 3 thousand producers and importers and ensures catching the vast majority of fossil carbon that enters the U.S. economy.

 

7. Keeps Clean Air Act protections
The ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to set minimum standards for greenhouse gas-emitters is left intact.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.    Washington, DC  20510

                   202-224-4814                senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

 

Sen. Evan Bayh    131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.     Washington, DC  20510
                   202-224-5623                 senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        

 

 

Dear Sen. ____________,

 

I am writing to ask you to cosponsor and support the bipartisan Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal Act (CLEAR), S. 2877, introduced last month by Sens. Cantwell and Collins. 

 

This bill is a significant improvement over the cap and trade legislation that got so much attention last year.  It has a real chance to reduce carbon emissions by fairly placing the cost of polluting on its actual emitters.  Its revenues would be returned to residents to enable them to cope with short term price increases, and it would prohibit Wall Street traders from manipulating the cost of carbon through speculation. 

 

Another important feature of S.2877 is its keeping in place the EPA's authority to enforce Clean Air Act protections and set minimum standards for greenhouse gas emissions.

 

It is imperative for the United States to do its part in taking steps towards achieving a cleaner, healthier environment for all the world's people.  Please let me know when you will cosponsor S.2877, or if you will not, why not.

 

                                                                        Sincerely,

 

 

fcnl.org                Peace Is Possible             December 2009

 

No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength. A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.  But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear Him, on those whose hope is in His unfailing love.....        Psalm 33:16-18

 

Ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
      

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a global agreement to prohibit test explosions of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.  It developed significant support in the 1990s and now has been signed (accepted in principle) by 180 countries and ratified (made into binding law) by 146 countries, including every major US ally.  The Clinton Administration made the USA a signatory of the CTBT, but the US Senate in 1999 rejected its ratification, partly due to Clinton's political problems, and partly due to doubts about technical capacities for monitoring and verification of other countries' compliance and concerns over maintaining the safety and reliability of the existing US nuclear arsenal without testing.  Despite those concerns, the US has observed a moratorium on nuclear test explosions for nearly 20 years. 
      

One sad result of the US Senate's 1999 rejection of the CTBT was a lost opportunity to get India and Pakistan to ratify the treaty.  In a volatile regional arms race, both countries had conducted nuclear test explosions in 1998 that brought them to the brink of war.  Acknowledging the peril that posed, both countries in 1999 expressed interest in ratifying CTBT, but both walked away from the talks after the US Senate's failure to ratify.
      

Pres. Obama campaigned on a commitment to pursue arms reductions and to build bipartisan consensus for ratification of the CTBT.  In speeches given during his first year in office, and most recently in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, the President has repeatedly called for new global engagement in limiting nuclear arsenals and working towards a world free of the threat of nuclear war. 
      

Technological advances in the past ten years have largely mooted the 1999 Senate's concerns regarding monitoring/verification and arsenal maintenance.  In 1999, the Vienna-based CTBT monitoring regime had only 20-25 "listening posts" around the world; today it has over 300, and they have much more advanced and sensitive seismic instruments for detecting even the smallest nuclear explosions anywhere on the planet.  As for arsenal reliability, the National Academy of Sciences has asserted since 2002 that the constantly- improving Stockpile Stewardship Program can and does ensure the arsenal's safety and reliability.  The Departments of Defense and Energy jointly certify that fact each year.
      

CTBT ratification has broad political support in the US population.  A 2004 opinion poll found that 87 percent of all US citizens (including 85 percent of registered Republicans) supported ratification.  Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William Perry, retired Gen. John Abizaid, former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Sam Nunn, and numerous other leaders have spoken strongly in support of ratification.  Internationally, Vatican policy calls for global ratification of the CTBT.  Even the Chinese government is now expressing interest in discussing CTBT ratification with the US.
      

FCNL identifies Indiana's Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, as the key vote in the next attempt to gain US ratification of the CTBT.  Lugar voted against the treaty in 1999, largely due to the concerns over verification and stockpile safety.  If he were now to vote for ratification, he likely would bring enough other Senators' votes with him to provide the 67 needed to make the treaty law.  His legislative assistant for nuclear affairs told FCNL's Annual Meeting in November '09, however, that Sen. Lugar will not even discuss CTBT ratification until a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia is concluded and signed.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.    Washington, DC  20510

                   202-224-4814                senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov         

 

Sen. Evan Bayh     131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.     Washington, DC  20510

                   202-224-5623                 senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        
                                 
Dear Sen. _________,

 

I am writing to urge you to help make the world safer by reducing all nations' nuclear weapons stockpiles, and by finally adding the USA to the list of 140+ other countries (including all our major allies) that have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  I agree with what President Obama said in his Nobel  acceptance speech:  nuclear weapons today threaten us more than they protect us.  Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, and many others from both political parties also are working for a world free of nuclear weapons.  The Senate should join them in leading the way towards a world without nuclear weapons.

 

The CTBT Organization's detection/verification technology today is far superior to what it had when the Senate rejected ratification in 1999.  New technologies also have greatly improved the Stockpile Stewardship Program's ability to certify the current arsenal as reliable and safe, without the need for test explosions.

 

I understand that you will likely consider two treaties in the coming year: a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty that the President is negotiating with Russia, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.  There is broad, bipartisan support across the US electorate for these measures.  Americans sense that our condemnations of Iran, North Korea, and other countries that aspire to have nuclear weapons ring hollow while we refuse to ratify test ban and nonproliferation agreements.

 

For all of us in Indiana who long for a safer, less threatening world, and for the future generations of Hoosiers who will inhabit that world, I ask that you speak out publicly before Christmas in support of ratifying START and CTBT into law at the earliest opportunity in the new year.

 

                                                              Sincerely,

 

 

fcnl.org            Peace Is Possible          November 2009

 

Do not be deceived; God is not mocked, for you will reap whatever you sow.    (Galatians 6:7)

 

It's Still Time to Stop Sowing Cluster Bombs
 

        Cluster bombs are canisters that open in midair and release hundreds of smaller bombs.  These small bombs are designed to explode and spew deadly shrapnel over swathes of land the size of several football fields.  Many of the bomblets don't explode, however, lying in wait on the ground instead like landmines long after combat ends.
         Many nations use cluster bombs, but the US has been the most prolific producer, stockpiler, exporter, and user of this weapon.  The US has used cluster munitions in civilian-populated areas of at least three countries in the past ten years.  Worldwide, over 400 million people live with the threat of direct contact with unexploded cluster bombs.
         The Pope, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the International Red Cross, UNICEF, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have all condemned the manufacture, export, and use of cluster munitions.  In December 2008, at least 95 nations (including some of America's closest allies) met in Oslo, Norway, to sign a global treaty banning cluster munitions.  Before taking office, President Barack Obama promised he would review the US decision not to participate or ban them.  That review apparently has not yet been completed.
         The Pentagon, many people in other parts of the government, and the munitions industry that profits from making them don't want to give up these weapons.  President Obama will be much more likely to act if he has political support in the Senate, which will have to ratify the global cluster bomb treaty.
         The Senate is considering legislation that would effectively stop the United States from using these weapons, which kill many more civilians than soldiers.  As of 8 September '09, 24 Senators (but neither Lugar nor Bayh from Indiana) have cosponsored the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S. 416), which has slight bipartisan support.
         This bill states that, "Cluster munitions will not be used where civilians are known to be present or in areas normally inhabited by civilians."  It also bans the use of any weapons that leave behind more than 1 percent of their submunitions unexploded on the ground — effectively turning them into landmines.
 

 

Sample Letter

 

Dear Sen. Lugar/Bayh,

 

I'm writing to urge you to cosponsor the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S. 416).

 

Surely you agree that cluster munitions are indiscriminate, highly lethal weapons, and surely you are aware that research shows they kill many more civilians than soldiers around the world.  The one-year anniversary has already passed of the agreement by 100 other governments to ban the use, export, production, and stockpiling of cluster bombs.  The United States has not yet joined the treaty, but legislation to effectively ban cluster bombs has already won the support of almost one-quarter of the Senate. 

 

In the coming weeks, key Senate supporters of this legislation plan a new push to add additional cosponsors to this bill.  Your support right now could build momentum for passage of this legislation and a decision by the US government to join the majority of world nations in banning these weapons.

 

                                            Sincerely,

 

 

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                                            Sen. Evan Bayh         

306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                   131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.    

Washington, DC  20510                                Washington, DC  20510
       202-224-4814                                                 202-224-5623            

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov            senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov

 

 

fcnl.org            Peace Is Possible          October 2009

 

War Is Not the Answer.....In Afghanistan
      Will President Obama, lately announced as the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, call for an end to the war in Afghanistan?  The administration is divided on whether to send more troops, and members of Congress and others are starting to question more war.
      Quaker public policy analysts at FCNL are not divided - more troops won't bring more peace.  As the Nobel Committee deliberated, FCNL sent President Obama a letter urging him not to send more troops, and outlining a four-step plan to de-escalate the war and strengthen U.S. diplomatic and development efforts.

 

The United States should:
    * halt new offensive operations against Taliban strongholds and end the war fighting;
    * engage Afghanistan's neighbors - including Russia, China and Iran - in the stabilization process;
    * start the withdrawal of U.S. troops and articulate a policy leading to withdrawing all U.S. troops; and
    * expand development and diplomatic efforts.

 

      FCNL lobbyist Jim Fine argues that the U.S. public is ready for these steps, but Congress still needs to catch up.  Your action now can help strengthen the voices calling for a new U.S. strategy.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Dear Sen. Lugar/Bayh,
      After eight years of war-fighting in Afghanistan with no end in sight, I am writing to ask that you oppose sending more troops to Afghanistan.
Success in Afghanistan requires a very different course from the one pursued in the past, and a very different course from the options now being discussed which rely on military force.
      More troops won't bring more peace.  Instead, please support a new strategy that includes a ceasefire, troop withdrawal, negotiations, and expanded development aid and diplomacy.

 

                                                     Sincerely,

 

 

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                                            Sen. Evan Bayh                

306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                     131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.    

Washington, DC  20510                                Washington, DC  20510
       202-224-4814                                                 202-224-5623             
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov                senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov
 

 

 

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible    September 2009

 

Urge Your Representative to Oppose Oil Embargo of Iran

 

Congress could vote this fall on the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R.2194), a bill that would block gasoline exports to Iran.  Rep. Howard Berman (CA), the bill's sponsor, argues that it will pressure Iran to comply with U.S. demands. In reality, the legislation would reduce the chances that Iran will continue to allow international inspections of its nuclear program and could endanger U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iran has considerable influence.

 

Hundreds of representatives (including Mike Pence) have already cosponsored this sanctions bill.  Write your representative today, and urge him or her to oppose this legislation.  These harsh additional sanctions could severely undermine prospects for a sustained diplomatic resolution of U.S.-Iran disputes.  

 

Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 - Bill #H.R.2194
Original Sponsor:  Howard Berman (D-CA 28th)
Cosponsor Total: 305   (last sponsor added 09/10/2009)
  150 Democrats,   155 Republicans
 
About This Legislation:  This bill would prevent companies that sell, ship, or insure refined petroleum deliveries to Iran or invest in Iran's domestic oil industry from doing business in the United States.  This bill encourages an international oil embargo against Iran.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB          Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021                                mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

Rep. Pence,

 

I was disappointed to learn that you are a cosponsor of legislation that calls for new sanctions to block gasoline exports to Iran and that this legislation could be passed in the House this fall.  The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194) will weaken prospects for a democratic opening in Iran, reduce the chances of resolving the Iranian nuclear issue, and endanger U.S. efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

I am writing to ask you please to withdraw your cosponsorship of H.R. 2194 and urge Rep. Howard Berman not to let this legislation come to a vote this year.

 

Three decades of U.S. sanctions have failed to resolve the outstanding conflicts between our country and Iran.  President Obama, with the backing of five former secretaries of state, is working to open diplomatic talks with Iran.  The government of Iran insists it is not developing nuclear weapons and even the Israeli intelligence agency says Iran could not develop such weapons until at least 2014. 

 

I encourage you to read the letter from the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), a Christian organization my church supports, for details on why sanctions are the wrong approach to take with Iran. http://www.fcnl.org/issues/

 

Please don't let Congress undermine prospects for negotiations that could help resolve existing tensions over Iran's nuclear program and enlist Iran in efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

                                             Sincerely,

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible      August 2009
Love does no harm to its neighbor.  Love is the fulfillment of the Law.
(Romans 13:10)

 

Urge Senators to Write an Effective Climate Bill

         Because we inhabit a crowded, interconnected, and rapidly developing planet, our treatment of the environment is a peace issue.  In the USA, 5-6% of the world's population consumes over 25% of the world's fossil fuel energy, adding greatly to the pollution and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that change the climate for the other 95%.  Many view that consumption by the few, without regard for its impact on the many, as hostile.
         Additionally, massive amounts of military power have been deployed around the globe for many decades, and several recent wars have been waged, in order to protect consumers' access to petroleum energy resources.  Decreasing US dependence on others' petroleum and shifting to a renewable, clean energy economy clearly is one important way to work for peace.

 

        The Senate is deciding right now what to include in climate change legislation that will be introduced this fall.  Urge your Senators to work for an effective climate bill that will:
      STOP OFFSETS: International offsets delay domestic reductions by allowing polluters to purchase dubious foreign reductions instead of making real reductions at home.
      REDUCE FREE ALLOWANCES:  Giveaways of pollution allowances steal the incentive for polluting industries to reduce carbon emissions at the expense of the consumer and environment.       START NOW:  Delayed carbon reductions would mean more dramatic climate change. Climate change legislation that includes high numbers of offsets and free allowances will not rapidly reduce carbon emissions in the United States.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                                         Sen. Evan Bayh
306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.              131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.     
Washington, DC  20510                         Washington, DC  20510
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov        senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov

 

Sir: 
         I'm writing to urge you to work for a climate bill that responsibly addresses the urgent climate change threat. The recent House-passed climate legislation includes compromises that undermine the primary goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
         Specifically, I ask you to support reducing or eliminating the number of "offsets" that polluting companies can use to buy their way out of meeting required cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.  In the House-passed bill , offsets allow U.S. polluters to increase emissions for over a decade.
         I ask you also to insist that the legislation cut greenhouse gas emissions to at least 25 percent below the level of 1990 by 2020 as is called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
         Please also work to ensure that the government auctions pollution allowances rather than giving them away, and to protect the citizens who are most vulnerable to energy price increases.
         Please advise me of what you will do to support these specific efforts towards a genuinely effective climate bill.

 

              Sincerely,

 

H.R.2404 - Require An Exit Strategy for Afghanistan

 

Original Sponsor:  James McGovern (D-MA 3rd)
Current Cosponsor Total:   96  (89 Democrats, 7 Republicans)
About This Legislation:   This bill would require the Secretary of                Defense to submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2009,               outlining a U.S. exit strategy for Afghanistan.

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB          Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021                                mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

Rep. Pence,
         I wrote to you in June asking that you cosponsor H.R. 2404, a bipartisan bill that would require the Secretary of Defense to present an exit strategy for U.S. forces from Afghanistan.  I have received no response from you, but I see that you have not yet cosponsored H.R. 2404. 
         While I have waited for your response, the US casualty rate in Afghanistan has soared, and new plans seem to surface weekly for sending still more troops into the fray.  Those increases will guarantee even more dead and injured US and coalition troops, Afghan soldiers, and civilians, and more US money spent on destruction rather than on rebuilding our economy.
         I remain gravely concerned that eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, with ever-increasing violence in the region, there are no public detailed plans for a future U.S. withdrawal.
         I again ask that you convey to the President the urgency of a planned, orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Please advise me of when you will cosponsor H.R. 2404, or if you will not, why not.

 

                                             Sincerely,

 

 

fcnl.org                Peace Is Possible                   12 July 2009

 

Lawmakers vote to continue production of F-22 jets
By RICHARD LARDNER and DONNA BORAK – June 25, 2009

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional supporters of an advanced jet fighter won battles Thursday to build more of the aircraft. But with the Obama administration threatening to veto the move, they're a long way from winning the war.  The Senate Armed Services Committee announced it had added $1.75 billion for seven more F-22 jets to the proposed 2010 defense budget. Earlier, the House voted to include a $369 million downpayment for 12 additional fighters to its version of the defense budget bill.

 

The extra money would extend production of the F-22 beyond the 187 aircraft that Defense Secretary Robert Gates says are needed. Buying any more of the jets, which cost about $140 million each, undermines the ability to increase the size of U.S. ground forces and purchase gear for fighting unconventional wars against terror groups and insurgents, Gates has argued.

 

Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the committee approved the $1.75 billion boost by a narrow 13-11 vote. Levin, along with Arizona Sen. John McCain, the committee's top Republican, voted against the addition.  "I think we should have terminated the F-22, and I voted that way," Levin said. "I don't think anyone is looking for a battle here with the White House."

 

The full Senate must still vote on the committee's recommendation. That budget bill must then be reconciled with the House version, a process that won't be completed until later this year.  Last week, the House Armed Services Committee voted 31 to 30 to include the F-22 downpayment. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wanted to eliminate the money during the debate over the budget bill by the full House of Representatives.  But procedural rules prevented Frank from offering his amendment, and the House approved the overall defense budget bill by a vote of 389-22.

 

Supporters of the aircraft say capping production of the F-22 at 187 aircraft is too risky in an unstable world where Iran, North Korea and China all loom as potential adversaries that can't be ignored. 

 

Urge Senators to Oppose Funding for Additional F-22s

 

For decades, the federal budget has supported a vision of the United States as a dominant military power. The  majority of people in the United States have a different vision of the country.  FCNL advocates shifting money from the military budget to advance the peaceful prevention of deadly conflict through diplomacy and to better meet human needs for education, health care, the environment, infrastructure, and help for the most vulnerable in the United States and the world.

 

The Senate Armed Services Committee added $1.75 billion to the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2010 to purchase seven additional F-22 fighter jets, a weapons program that the president's budget proposed cutting.  President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates, and the nation's top military leaders all agree that the U.S. doesn't need any more of this Cold War-era aircraft, which have never been used in combat.

 

The Senate will vote on the Defense Authorization Bill early next week. Contact your senators now and urge them to oppose funding for any additional F-22 production in the Defense Authorization Bill.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                                     Sen. Evan Bayh                    
306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                 131 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 

Washington, DC  20510                            Washington, DC  20510                  

202-224-4814                                                    202-224-5623                      

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov           senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov  

 

Sen. Evan Bayh, Sen. Richard Lugar,

 

I am disappointed that the Senate Armed Services Committee recently chose to add $1.75 billion in funding for new F-22 fighter jets to the fiscal year 2010 military authorization bill.  Especially in this time of economic hardship, we should not be wasting money on military systems we do not need.  Spending those funds on nonmilitary needs will create far more jobs and help everyday Americans to have a better life.

 

President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates, and the nation's top military leaders all agree that this country does not need any more of these Cold War-era aircraft, which have never been used in U.S. Combat. The president has called for a more fiscally responsible federal budget. The F-22 is a prime example of wasteful federal spending, and I don't want my tax dollars to go toward its production.

 

I am counting on you to vote against any new funding for the F-22 when the bill comes to the Senate floor for a vote.  If you plan to vote otherwise, please explain to me your reasoning for that choice.
 

    Sincerely,

 

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible      June 2009
June 11, 2009

 

House Approves Landmark Bill To Expand Diplomacy, Prevent War

 

       For the first time in years, the House of Representatives passed legislation on Wednesday that would significantly boost U.S. capacities to help prevent and respond to international crises, the Friends Committee on National Legislation reported today. The Foreign Relations Authorization Act (H.R. 2410), approved by a vote of 235 to 187 today, authorizes a significant expansion of the Foreign Service to support U.S. diplomacy and development, directs the United States to pay down its debt to the United Nations, and strengthens the United States' commitment to prevention of deadly crises around the world.
       Key provisions in the legislation would enable the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to hire 2,200 new Foreign Service Officers to fill vacancies in under-resourced embassies abroad and better prevent crises from emerging. The bill would also authorize hundreds of millions of dollars in new funds for a civilian response corps, as well as require the Secretary of State to develop a government-wide strategy to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, as called for by the Albright-Cohen Genocide Prevention Task Force.
       "Too often in the past the U.S. response to mass atrocities has been ad hoc," says FCNL Executive Secretary Joe Volk. "A unified government strategy that focuses on early and effective prevention would enable the United States to truly say 'never again' to such human disasters."
       The Quaker lobby expressed disappointment at several sections of the bill that could have the effect of undermining the effectiveness of U.S. strategies to prevent war. FCNL is concerned about language added to the bill on the House floor that could undermine the president's diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East and increase chances of a war with Iran.
       FCNL also concerned about the implicit endorsement of U.S. military aid. Yet the lobby did express support for human rights monitoring and reporting requirements included on military assistance sent to Mexican, Central American, and Caribbean governments and the increased oversight of military aid. "We appreciate this bill's effort to implement rigorous oversight of U.S. military aid, including an assessment of the human rights impact of these weapons," said Lora Lumpe, FCNL Lobbyist.
       "This is an important piece of legislation," reports Bridget Moix, lobbyist on the Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict. "It fully authorizes the increases in diplomatic and development personnel that President Obama has requested, emphasizes the importance of crisis prevention, and puts in place a strategy to truly avert mass atrocities and the deadly conflicts that lead to them. The House has taken a very important step. It's time now for the Senate to act."
Require An Exit Strategy for Afghanistan
Bill # H.R.2404

 

Original Sponsor:  James McGovern (D-MA 3rd)

 

Cosponsor Total:   86  (last sponsor added 06/09/2009)
       80 Democrats, 6 Republicans

 

About This Legislation:   This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2009, outlining a U.S. exit strategy for Afghanistan.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB          Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021                                mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

Rep. Pence,
      
I strongly urge you to cosponsor H.R. 2404, a bipartisan bill that would require the Secretary of Defense to present an exit strategy for U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

 

H.R. 2404 does not dictate what that exit strategy should be.  It simply requires that the Secretary of Defense develop and report an exit strategy to Congress by the end of the year.  Although President Obama has said "there's got to be an exit strategy," he made no pledge for eventual U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in his announced policy plan.

 

I am gravely concerned that nearly eight years after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, with ever-increasing violence in the region, there are no public detailed plans for a future U.S. withdrawal.

 

As my voice in Washington, I ask that you convey to the President the urgency of a planned, orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Please advise me of when you will cosponsor H.R. 2404, or if you will not, why not.

 

                                             Sincerely,

  

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible      May 2009
updated 2 May 2009

 

The National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund is working to create a legal option for conscientious objectors to war taxes.  A new fund is proposed in the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund bill (H.R. 2085), which would receive the tax payments of people who certify that they are conscientious objectors to war according the definition in Selective Service law.  The Treasury Department would be charged with dispersing the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund to nonmilitary accounts in the federal budget. Representative John Lewis (GA-5) is the bill's main sponsor and is seeking more cosponsors.

 

Under current law, there are few options for conscientious objectors to military taxes.  Some radically simplify their lives so that their cash income falls below the taxable level, or they give away substantial funds so as to minimize the taxes they owe.  Others pay only a calculated "nonmilitary" portion of their taxes – a choice that is not supported by federal law.  In a few cases where the Internal Revenue Service has chosen to prosecute war tax resisters, the resisters have been sentenced to prison.

 

Peace Tax Fund legislation, first introduced in 1972, serves as an affirmation of the campaign's central principle, that "each individual has the right not to be coerced into participation in killing other human beings -- whether that participation is physical or financial.  Ultimately this right is based in the freedom to exercise religion according to the dictates of conscience."

 

New cosponsors have joined in support of the legislation each year and the House of Representatives held hearings on the proposal in 1992.  Whether or not the bill passes in the near future, its existence on the congressional docket creates openings for meaningful conversations between people of peace and their legislators on the importance of the rights of conscience in the panoply of rights protected by the US Constitution.

 

The US is not the only nation with an active Peace Tax Fund campaign.  Sixteen other countries have active campaigns seeking legal recognition of conscientious objection to the payment of war taxes.  United Nations Commission on Human Rights acknowledged war tax resistance in 1989 "as a legitimate exercise of freedom of thought, conscience and religion."

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB          Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021                                mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

Rep. Pence,
      
I am writing to ask for your support for the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act, H.R. 2085.

 

As a follower of Jesus -- who teaches us to love our enemies -- I object as a matter of conscience to being required to help pay for the military pursuits of our government.  Given the opportunity, I would divert the full amount of my tax payments to other government programs that could care for people and create a more peaceful world.

 

Rep. John Lewis' Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act, H.R. 2085, is important to the support of religious freedom in this country.  It would accommodate the beliefs of sincere conscientious objectors to military taxes, allowing them to divert their tax payments to a government fund which would, in turn, allocate funds to nonmilitary programs.

 

I believe strongly in the free exercise of religion, and I am told that you do too.  It is one of the unique strengths that makes the USA a great nation to be cherished.  As an expression of your support for that excellent freedom, I hope you will consider cosponsoring H.R. 2085 and working with Rep. Lewis to see it passed into law.

 

                                             Sincerely, 

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible      April 2009
No king is saved by the size of his army; no warrior escapes by his great strength.
A horse is a vain hope for deliverance; despite all its great strength it cannot save.
  But the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear Him, on those whose hope
 is in His unfailing love.....        Psalm 33:16-18

 

 

Begin Advocating Now for Ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

       The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is a global agreement to prohibit test explosions of nuclear weapons anywhere in the world.  It developed significant support in the 1990s and now has been signed (accepted in principle) by 180 countries and ratified (made into binding law) by 146 countries, including every major US ally.  The Clinton Administration made the USA a signatory of the CTBT, but the US Senate in 1999 rejected its ratification, partly due to Clinton's political problems, and partly due to doubts about technical capacities for monitoring and verification of other countries' compliance and concerns over maintaining the safety and reliability of the existing US nuclear arsenal without testing.  Despite those concerns, the US has observed a moratorium on nuclear test explosions for nearly 20 years. 
       One sad result of the US Senate's 1999 rejection of the CTBT was a lost opportunity to get India and Pakistan to ratify the treaty.  In a volatile regional arms race, both countries had conducted nuclear test explosions in 1998 that brought them to the brink of war.  Acknowledging the peril that posed, both countries in 1999 expressed interest in ratifying CTBT, but both walked away from the talks after the US Senate's failure to ratify.
       The arrival of the Obama Administration to Washington in January 2009 presents a new opportunity for ratification of the CTBT.  Obama campaigned last fall on a commitment to pursue arms reductions and to build bipartisan consensus for ratification of the CTBT.  In speeches given during his recent trip to Europe, the President called for new global engagement in limiting nuclear arsenals and working towards a world free of the threat of nuclear war. 
       Technological advances in the past ten years have largely mooted the 1999 Senate's concerns regarding monitoring/verification and arsenal maintenance.  In 1999, the Vienna-based CTBT monitoring regime had only 20-25 "listening posts" around the world; today it has over 300, and they have much more advanced and sensitive seismic instruments for detecting even the smallest nuclear explosions anywhere on the planet.  As for arsenal reliability, the National Academy of Sciences has asserted since 2002 that the constantly- improving Stockpile Stewardship Program can and does ensure the arsenal's safety and reliability.  The Departments of Defense and Energy jointly certify that fact each year.
       Another positive sign for CTBT ratification is its broad political support in the US population.  A 2004 opinion poll found that 87 percent of all US citizens (including 85 percent of registered Republicans) supported ratification.  Former Secretary of State George Shultz and numerous other leaders have spoken strongly in support of ratification.  Internationally, Vatican policy calls for global ratification of the CTBT.  Even the Chinese government is now expressing interest in discussing CTBT ratification with the US.
       FCNL identifies Indiana's Sen. Richard Lugar, ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, as the key vote in the next attempt to gain US ratification of the CTBT.  Lugar voted against the treaty in 1999, largely due to the concerns over verification and stockpile safety.  If he were now to vote for ratification, he likely would bring enough other Senators' votes with him to provide the 67 needed to make the treaty law. 
       FCNL asks Indiana Friends during 2009 to urge your Senators to take a fresh look at the science and the geopolitical realities that make ratification of the CTBT a wise step towards a safer world.

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar   306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.    Washington, DC  20510 

                  202-224-4814                senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

 

 

Sen. Evan Bayh     131 Russell Senate Office Bldg.     Washington, DC  20510
                   202-224-5623                 senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        
                                 
Dear Sen. _________,

 

I am writing to urge you to support the President's effort to make the world safer by reducing all nations' nuclear weapons stockpiles, and by finally adding the USA to the list of 146 other countries (including all of our major allies) that have ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

 

The CTBT Organization's detection/verification technology today is far superior to what it had when the Senate rejected ratification in 1999.  New technologies also have greatly improved the Stockpile Stewardship Program's ability to certify the current arsenal as reliable and safe, without the need for test explosions.

 

There is broad, bipartisan support across the US electorate and among former government leaders for CTBT ratification.  Americans sense that our condemnations of Iran, North Korea, and other countries that aspire to have nuclear weapons ring hollow while we refuse to ratify test ban and nonproliferation agreements. 

 

For all of us in Indiana who long for a safer, less threatening world, and for the future generations of Hoosiers who will inhabit that world, I ask that you lend your considerable influence in the Senate to help ratify the CTBT into law at the earliest opportunity.

 

                                             Sincerely, 

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible      March 2009
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.
Romans 12:18

 

"You'd ban them for sure, if you had them here."
~ Soraj Ghulam Habib, 17, who lost both legs after picking up a cluster submunition in a park in Herat, Afghanistan when he was ten

 

 

Urge Your Senators to Ban Cluster Bombs
 

Before taking office, President Barack Obama promised he would review the US decision not to ban cluster bombs. Now he needs our help.

 

Weapons of mass destruction in slow motion is how former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described victim-activated weapons like landmines and unexploded cluster munitions.  In the past decade, the United States has used cluster bombs in civilian-populated areas of the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Cluster bombs pose a danger to civilians during and after conflict, since malfunctioning bomblets scatter over a wide area and leave behind minefields. During the 1991 Gulf War, US-dropped cluster submunitions were the single most deadly weapon encountered by US troops.

 

President Obama should seek Senate ratification of the Global Mine Ban Treaty and the Oslo Treaty to Ban Cluster Bombs as a first signal that the US government will protect civilians first. The world is awash in weapons, and civilian casualties far outnumber those of combatants. The United States should work with other governments to staunch the flow of weapons into regions of conflict. 

 

The Pentagon and many people in other parts of the government don't want to give up these weapons. President Obama will be much more likely to act if he has political support in the Senate, which will have to ratify the global cluster bomb treaty.

 

In February, 16 Senators introduced legislation to effectively stop the United States from using these weapons, which kill many more civilians than soldiers.  FCNL has already persuaded more Senators to cosponsor the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S. 416), which now has bipartisan support.  Unfortunately, neither Sen. Richard Lugar nor Sen. Evan Bayh has yet cosponsored S. 416.  You can help move US policy in the right direction by urging your Senators to cosponsor S. 416, the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act.

 

Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act -- Bill # S.416
Original Sponsor:  Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Cosponsor Total:  22  (last sponsor added 03/03/2009)
19 Democrats, 1 Independent, 2 Republicans

 

This bill bans the use of cluster munitions in or near civilian populated areas, as well as the use of weapons that leave behind more than 1 percent of their submunitions unexploded on the ground—effectively turning them into landmines.

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                               
306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                                     
Washington, DC  20510                    
 202-224-4814 

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

 

Sen. Evan Bayh
131 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 
Washington, DC  20510
202-224-5623
senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        
                                 
 

Dear Sen. _________,

 

I am writing to urge you to cosponsor the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act (S. 416) and to work for its passage in the Senate.

 

I'm concerned that the United States has not banned cluster bombs, terrible weapons that kill many more civilians than soldiers around the world. The president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the head of Evangelicals for Social Action, the president and CEO of CARE, the heads of communion of seven major US churches, two former US ambassadors, and one former Senator have called on President Obama to joint the global movement to ban these weapons.

 

I am counting on you to support S.416, and I look forward to hearing from you about this issue.

 

                                             Sincerely,

fcnl.org      Peace Is Possible      February 2009
Do to others as you would have them do to you.  (Luke 6:31)
....whatever you did for the least of these brothers of Mine,
you did for Me  (Matthew 25:40)

 

 

President Bans Torture; Congress Should Act Too

 

On January 22, President Barack Obama issued executive orders outlawing torture, banning secret CIA prisons, and calling for the closure of the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay.  He also explicitly revoked former President George W. Bush's order that attempted to limit US interpretation of the relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions.

 

Obama has taken a dramatic step toward restoring this country's image in the world and lifting up a core value of respect for the human rights of all.

 

The work is not done, however, until Congress adds its voice to the process.  Urge your senators to support legislation introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA) to outlaw the CIA's coercive interrogation program, require the government to close the Guantánamo Bay prison, end secret detentions, prohibit interrogations of detainees by government contractors, and require greater cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

 

Lawful Interrogation & Detention Act of 2009 - Senate Bill S.147
Original Sponsor:   Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Cosponsor Total:  4 Democrats  (last sponsor added 01/06/2009)

 

Did Your Representative Vote to Ban Torture?   ('fraid not)
In March 2008, President Bush vetoed a bill that would have banned the CIA and other US interrogators from using inhumane techniques, including waterboarding.  The bill uses the Army Field Manual as the standard for what is allowed and prohibited. Bush said it would tie the CIA's hands and give terrorists information re. US interrogation procedures.

 

The House failed to override that veto. The 225-188 vote was well short of the two-thirds majority needed to pass the legislation.  Rep. Mike Pence voted to support Bush.
 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                               
306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                                     
Washington, DC  20510                    
 202-224-4814

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

 

Sen. Evan Bayh
131 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 
Washington, DC  20510
202-224-5623
senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        
                                       
Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021
mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

Dear Sen. _________,

 

Please cosponsor S.147, the Lawful Interrogation and Detention Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA).

 

This legislation would outlaw the CIA's coercive interrogation program, would require the government to close the prison at Guantánamo, end CIA secret detentions, prohibit interrogations of detainees by government contractors, and require greater cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

 

I was pleased to learn that President Barack Obama has issued executive orders addressing many of these concerns. This legislation is still necessary, however, to write into law our intention as a nation not to engage in torture - now or in the future.

 

Please let me know when you will cosponsor this bill, or if not, why not.

 

                                             Sincerely,

 

 

FCNL.org       Peace Is Possible      January 2009
Is anything too hard for the Lord?   (Genesis 18:14)

 

Gaza Crisis: Ceasefire and Lifting the Blockade Are Urgent First Steps

 

Both the House and Senate have passed one-sided resolutions on the crisis in Gaza that do not call on both Israelis and Palestinians to implement an immediate ceasefire.  The UN Security Council has unanimously passed a legally binding resolution calling for a Gaza ceasefire, but the United States' abstention from the vote keeps the resolution from having significant political force.

 

A durable ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that includes an end to the blockade of Gaza is easily within the reach of US diplomacy. Urge your members of Congress to speak out publicly in favor of (1) an immediate ceasefire for all warring factions, (2) inclusive peace talks, and (3) lifting the blockade of Gaza.  Your messages are particularly important right now because the debate early in this session of Congress could set the tone for policy for the next four years.

 

Beyond stopping the killing and ending the blockade, the compelling US, Palestinian, and Israeli interest is to resolve the conflict before it leads to more fighting and regional instability.  Israelis, Palestinians, and Jordanians with whom FCNL Legislative Secretary Jim Fine talked during his recent visit to the region all agreed that a determined US effort in the coming months is essential to preventing more deadly conflict and achieving peace.

 

Urge your members of Congress to affirm that Israeli-Palestinian peace is a vital US national security interest.  Encourage the incoming Obama Administration to engage with all parties including Hamas, and to make Middle East peace a priority from day one.

 

What Congress Should Be Saying
"To support Israel and to ease the humanitarian crisis facing the people of Gaza, the United States must work actively for an immediate ceasefire that ends the violence, stops the rockets, and removes the blockade of Gaza."
~ Rep. Donna Edwards (MD)

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                               
306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                                     
Washington, DC  20510                    
 202-224-4814

senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          

 

Sen. Evan Bayh
463 Russell Senate Office Bldg. 
Washington, DC  20510
202-224-5623
senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov        
                                       
Rep. Mike Pence
1605 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC  20515
202-225-3021
mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

 

 

Dear Sen. _________, Rep. Pence,

 

Congress needs to act now to stop the killing in Gaza and call on both Israelis and Palestinians to implement an immediate ceasefire.

 

I urge you to speak out publicly for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, for an end to the Gaza blockade, and for peace talks with all parties to the conflict, including Hamas.

 

The US government must drop its refusal to talk with all parties to the conflicts in the Middle East.  That policy has shown itself in recent years to be ineffective, if not downright dangerous.  For the US to have any credibility in future developments in the region, we must recognize the humanity of all the people of the Middle East and call all of them to the table of peace. 

 

Please use your influence in Congress to help the US forge a new way forward in its dealings with Israel, Palestine, and their neighbors.

 

                                                Sincerely,

 

fcnl.org                          Peace Is Possible                     December 2008

 

Contact New or Returning Members of Congress

 

 

Sample Letter

 

 

 

Dear Representative __________________:

 

My name is ________________, and I live in _____________.
 

I want to congratulate you on your recent {election/re-election} to serve in Congress.  

 

I am deeply concerned about the current economic crisis, and the way the US has used money in the past several years.  Our country has spent billions invading and occupying Iraq while efforts to improve the lives of people here in the United States have lacked adequate funding.

 

With a possible end to the war in Iraq, we will have the unique opportunity to reclaim the Iraq War portion of our military budget as a "home dividend." I'm urging you to use this money to invest in improving access to health care, proving scholarships for university students, hiring more elementary school teachers, and investing in renewable energy.

 

By January 2009, taxpayers in Indiana will have paid $10 billion for the Iraq war. This money would have provided 2.96 million Hoosiers with health care for a year, 1.3 million scholarships for university students, 175,000 elementary school teachers for a year, or 9.5 million Hoosier homes powered by renewable electricity for a year.

 

I look forward to working with you to better invest our tax dollars. Thank you for your service.

 

Sincerely,

 
 

November 9, 2008                              Peace Is Possible                                        www.fcnl.org
Friends Committee on National Legislation

 

As Jesus approached Jerusalem and saw the city, He wept over it and said,
"If you had only known on this day what would bring you peace...."
(Luke 19:41,42)

 

The Next Step of a Movement  --  by Joe Volk, FCNL Executive Secretary
       Barack Obama, as he himself acknowledged Tuesday night, didn't win this election on his own. It took a movement to take him to the White House and to make history.  If the movement drops Barack Obama off at the White House portico and goes home to other things, then Obama will be history, but he won't make history anymore. Political forces, practical circumstances, and the inertia of institutions will mire him in the muck of the status quo. As Obama said Tuesday night, the movement that brought him to the White House needs to reach out to the rest of the country and invite them into the project to change this nation. Mobilized, thoughtful, concerned citizens who organize themselves into movements can give him the traction needed to pursue the changes we need in the US government.

 

Where Next for the Movement?
       After rejecting the world community and trying to go it alone for eight years, maybe the US body politic has had an insight: Security for just one does not exist. The world is a community of interdependent people and interrelated actions and reactions of religion, culture, military and foreign policies, finance, credit, trade, and environment. This historic election casts a new light on two outcast ideas, engagement and understanding.
       The United States needs to re-engage with the world to address the real problems and to take the real opportunities of the 21st century.

 

What Are Those Problems and Opportunities?
       Terrorism is a serious problem, but war is not the answer. The so-called global war on terror is making the problem worse, undermining our constitution, skewing federal spending priorities, and transforming our civilian president into a permanent commander-in-chief. President Obama and Congress should end the misguided and ineffective war on terror.
       Global climate change is a serious problem, but full spectrum domination of the world will not answer that problem. Virtually all people of the world face an existential threat from global warming. The United States should lead the world to new practices, new technologies, and new infrastructures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions deep and fast.
       Fossil fuels have reached peak production and generate global warming. Fossil fuels are the problem. Military adventures to ensure access to fossil fuels and more drilling will not solve the problem. Our government should lead the way to sustainable energy sources.
       Nuclear weapons proliferation presents the world with serious security threats. The US government should demonstrate a new spirit of international cooperation and determination by ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in 2009 and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
       Weapons of mass destruction in slow motion is how former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan described victim-activated weapons like landmines. President Obama should seek Senate ratification of the Global Mine Ban Treaty and the Oslo Treaty to Ban Cluster Bombs as a first signal that the US government will protect civilians first. The world is awash in weapons, and civilian casualties far outnumber those of combatants. The United States should work with other governments to staunch the flow of weapons into regions of conflict.
       Militarization of US foreign policy is a problem. President Obama and Congress should take steps to demilitarize US foreign policy by erecting the three pillars of Peaceful Prevention of Deadly Conflict: development, diplomacy, and international cooperation.
       Civil liberties, checks and balances, and compassion for people have been trampled on, from domestic spying to immigration raids and from presidential signing statements to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Our government should lead in another direction, toward respect for human dignity and for the three branches of government, away from fear of others and toward compassion for them.

 

Let us try what respect and compassion may do to mend a broken world.

 

 

 

Sample Letter

 

Sen. Richard Lugar                                    Sen. Evan Bayh                                    Rep. Mike Pence
306 Hart Senate Office Bldg.                 463 Russell Senate Office Bldg.                1605 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC  20510                      Washington, DC  20510                     Washington, DC  20515
       202-224-4814                                         202-224-5623                                         202-225-3021
senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov          senator_bayh@bayh.senate.gov           mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 

President-Elect Barack Obama                Sen. Barack Obama
The White House                                   713 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC  20500                            Washington, DC  20510
                                                         senator_obama@obama.senate.gov

 

Dear  _________,

 

According to Bread for the World, nearly one billion of earth's 6.6 billion people live in hunger.  An average of 16,000 children die from hunger-related causes every day -- one child every five seconds.  Ten percent of Americans live in food insecurity (35 million, including 12 million children, numbers now steadily climbing), and nearly 50 million have no health insurance.

 

As the Congress gathers after the election to consider how to spend additional billions to address the economic crisis, please do not send us another $600 check that does a bit for individuals but nothing for the common good.  Please don't send more billions to major banks and industries so they can continue paying big salaries and huge bonuses to executives who are part of the current problem.  And please reduce the record $600+ billion budgeted for the Pentagon in FY'09, on top of the $862 billion already spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

Instead, please send us new legislation that increases the number of people eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the Women, Infants, and Children Program (WIC), and free school lunch programs -- and increases the size of the benefit.  Send us a reformed health care system that stimulates the economy by providing an adequate baseline of medical care for every American while spreading the burden throughout the entire citizenry.  Send us a new minimum wage law that actually provides a survivable income to someone willing to work.  Send us emergency public works and renewable energy legislation that infuses tax dollars into the economy by employing workers to rebuild the sagging US infrastructure, protect the environment, and develop a clean energy future.  Send us legislation that makes money available to prevent citizens from losing their homes to foreclosure in this abnormal credit environment.

 

I am counting you to provide wise, prudent leadership to the Congress and the nation for finding a way out of this crisis.  Please inform me of what you will do.

 

       Sincerely,