After a year of studying Biblical peacemaking, the College and Career Class is now encouraged each month (on the second Sunday) to write a letter to a legislator concerning a peace issue currently before congress. 

Below is the current letter.  Scroll down for previous letters and topics.

fcnl.org              Peace Is Possible            8 January 2012

Some trust in chariots, and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.  They are brought to their knees and fall, but we rise up and stand firm.  (Psalm 20:7,8)

 FCNL has long argued that Congress could save $1 trillion over ten years with just a 15% cut in Pentagon spending.  From the Occupy Wall Street movement to local protests about cuts in community services, Congress now is slowly getting the message that business as usual isn't okay, that they cannot keep writing the Pentagon blank checks, nor can they cut the deficit only on the backs of the poor. 

Flanked by military leaders, the President last week announced a new U.S. military strategy that Pentagon officials hope will enable them to avoid a full $1 trillion cut in core military spending over the next decade.  The good news is that the Pentagon and military contractors recognize that they no longer have a blank check.  At the press conference, the President acknowledged that the core Pentagon budget has grown at an extraordinary pace and that some reductions were necessary.  The bad news?  Just minutes later, the President insisted that the Pentagon budget will continue to grow.

 The headlines from the President's announcement were focused on the war strategy, but many in the peace community point out that it is not new and is unlikely to be effective.  The goal of last week’s announcement wasn't only to talk war strategy.  As Undersecretary of Defense Ashton Carter told the press shortly after the President left the building, one key reason for unveiling a new strategy was to persuade Congress that current legislation which requires Pentagon cuts of up to $1 trillion is "disastrous."  The Defense Department and their military contractors are gearing up for a year-long campaign to persuade Congress not to cut the Pentagon budget so deeply. 

 Defense contractors have good reason to worry -- they have a lot to lose.  According to the Project on Government Oversight, since 2003, military spending has almost doubled, and more than half of all spending on U.S. national security has gone to Department of Defense contractors, and the percentage of the Pentagon budget that goes to pay for actual soldiers is smaller today than it was ten years ago.

 The Pentagon has (at least on paper) already acknowledged they could cut $450 billion from planned growth in their spending, but cutting only growth in spending isn't enough.  Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Pentagon contractors, and the House Armed Services Committee are trying to define these cuts as more than sufficient and argue that anything more would devastate our country's national defense.

 We must welcome a debate about how much our country needs to spend on the military.  Part of this discussion should be about hugely expensive nuclear weapons programs, including elimination of ICBM missiles and the next generation of ballistic missile submarines.  Other realistic options include reducing the number of US troops in Europe, and cutting the size of the Navy.

 Those who work for peace must stay focused on seeing the Pentagon’s budget cut by at least $1 trillion over the next ten years, and on reorienting US foreign policy in a more sustainable, and ultimately safer, direction.  If that is not done, Congress likely will end up cutting funds that should go to help state and local governments, keep children out of poverty, and prevent war through diplomacy and development.

 Sample Letter

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

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

Sen. Dan Coats   B40E Dirksen Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510

              202-224-5623               senator_coats@coats.senate.gov

Rep. Mike Pence      1605 Longworth HOB             Washington, DC  20515

               202-225-3021                           mike.pence@mail.house.gov

 Sen. _____________, Rep. Pence,

 I am writing to ask you to help save precious tax dollars and help the economy recover by working to reduce core military spending by at least $1 trillion over the next ten years.  The ending of US military presence in Iraq and the drawing down of US troops in Afghanistan is helpful, but it is not enough.  We must reduce unnecessary nuclear weapons programs, scale back our troop presence in Europe, and take other steps to actually lower defense spending by 10-15% per year.

 US military spending nearly doubled from 2003 to 2011, and it has seemed to damage our own nation as much as it did our enemies.  We must seriously redirect that wasteful, destructive flow of taxpayer dollars towards rebuilding our infrastructure, our economy, our common good, and our ability to prevent wars through diplomacy and generous international development. 

                                             Sincerely,

FCNL Legislative Director Ruth Flower -- free telephone briefing on this issue Thursday, January 12, 8:00 pm EST.  Simply call 866-802-4328 at that time.

fcnl.org    Peace Is Possible   13 November 2011

 Samuel told....the people who were asking him for a king, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do:  He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses.... Some he will assign to be commanders...., others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.... He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants...., the best of your cattle and donkeys for his own use.... When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen.....

I Samuel 8:10-18

Close Unneeded Military Bases, Not Schools
10/25/2011 

In addition to the more than 900,000 troops based in the United States, this country maintains and staffs approximately 1,000 bases around the world.  That number includes 268 bases in Germany, 124 in Japan, and 87 in South Korea, according to David Vine, a professor at American University in Washington, DC.  In these three countries alone, the United States supports more than 113,000 troops.  The total number of active duty troops deployed overseas is more than 288,000 (not including contractors and civilian personnel). 

The military face of the US presence abroad has a steep price.  The per-soldier cost to the military budget today is 43% higher than it was during the Korean War, according to the Congressional Research Service.

In 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld calculated that the US could save about $12 billion by closing a third of its overseas bases and moving 70,000 troops and their families back to the United States.  A more robust option would be to close some overseas bases and actually reduce (not just redeploy) the overall number of military personnel supported by US taxpayers. 

US overseas bases are not only expensive; they also put a military face on our country’s relations with the rest of the world.  Gordon Adams, professor of foreign policy at American University, notes that "Nations around the world now look at the face of US engagement and see a military uniform, sending a potentially self-defeating message about our intentions."  Friends Committee on National Legislation believes that US base structure overseas reflects outdated foreign policy assumptions, such as the concept that thousands of “boots on the ground” are necessary to provide reminders of US interests in the region, and to assure allies of their security. 

New bipartisan legislation introduced by Sens. Jon Tester (MT) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) would create a commission to review the costs of US overseas military bases.  They believe that closing dozens of unneeded overseas bases could save billions in wasteful spending at this time of serious concern over budget deficits, and also give our government an opportunity to reconsider its military posture in relation to the rest of the world.  Please ask your Senators to support Senate Bill 1733, the Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States Act of 2011.

Sample Letters 

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

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

Sen. Dan Coats   B40E Dirksen Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510

              202-224-5623               senator_coats@coats.senate.gov

Rep. Mike Pence      1605 Longworth HOB         Washington, DC  20515

               202-225-3021              mike.pence@mail.house.gov 

Sen. __________, 

I am writing to urge you to cosponsor S. 1733, the Commission on the Review of the Overseas Military Facility Structure of the United States Act of 2011. 

US overseas bases are expensive.  At this time of critical concern over budget deficits and accumulating national debt, when Congress is threatening to cut vital social safety net programs to rein in spending, we must rethink the waste of billions on unneeded military assets.  Your constituents here in Winchester this week voted down a small tax increase that would have paid for a new school building.  That new facility for educating our kids for the next 50 years could have been paid for with the military’s spending to keep 20 soldiers in Afghanistan for one year. 

The 1000 US bases overseas also reflect outdated assumptions about US foreign policy.  The State Department’s budget looks like an accounting hiccup compared to the Pentagon’s.  As the old saying goes, “When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”  Instead of using our military to relate to the rest of the world, the US should be investing far more in diplomacy and development. 

Please cosponsor S.1733, or explain to me why you will not do so. 

                                                Sincerely,

fcnl.org     Peace Is Possible   9 October 2011 

....he squandered his wealth in wild living.  And after he had spent everything, there was a severe famine in that whole country....”

Luke 15:13,14 

Tell Congress: Cut the Debt by Cutting the Pentagon

9/27/2011

             Right now, you have the best opportunity in more than a decade to persuade Congress to cut $1 trillion for the Pentagon budget over the next ten years.  Why? Because big cuts in government spending are on the horizon.

            Government programs have been on the chopping block before, but in the past Congress has refused to consider real cuts in Pentagon spending. This time is different, and members of Congress from the all over the political spectrum are arguing for deep cuts in Pentagon spending.

            This is an opportunity to refocus government priorities -- to make sure we're not sacrificing programs our communities depend to keep fighting new wars.  In this period, when budgets for everything from libraries and schools to bridges and public transportation are being cut, Congress needs to bring the Pentagon’s ballooning budget under control.

            Taxpayer advocates, libertarians and many peace groups all agree that the Pentagon budget could be cut by almost $1 trillion in the next ten years.  But members of Congress won't act unless they hear from their constituents.

            Let your Senators know that in these tough times, war is not the answer and neither is cutting programs that our communities depend on. Urge your members of Congress to cut the deficit by cutting $1 trillion from the Pentagon budget in the next ten years. 

Freeze the Nukes, Fund the Future

9/26/2011

             Every year the U.S. spends more than $50 billion maintaining the country’s arsenal of nuclear weapons.  Today, the nuclear arsenal still exceeds 5,000 warheads. 

            Representative Ed Markey (MA-7) has written a “Dear Colleague” letter to his fellow representatives asking them to encourage the budget “super committee” to reduce spending on the nuclear arsenal by $20 billion per year over the next ten years.  The money cut could then be used to avoid reductions to other essential programs such as entitlements.

            Please urge your Representative to sign Rep. Markey’s letter to the super committee.

Sample Letters 

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

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

Sen. Dan Coats   B40E Dirksen Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510

              202-224-5623               senator_coats@coats.senate.gov

Rep. Mike Pence     1605 Longworth HOB         Washington, DC  20515

               202-225-3021             mike.pence@mail.house.gov 

Sen. __________,

As Congress looks for ways to reduce the federal budget deficit, please support cutting Pentagon spending by $1 trillion over the next ten years, as was recommended by the Sustainable Defense Task Force.  Please speak with your colleagues on the congressional "supercommittee" and urge them to recommend this cut in their proposal. 

Pentagon spending has nearly doubled in the last ten years. While our states and cities are cutting back services, our country is continuing to pour money into war and military strategies that are not making us safer. 

Please let me know if you will support cutting the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over ten years in any legislation to address the budget deficit. 

                                                Thank you, 

Rep. Pence, 

Please consider adding your signature to Representative Markey's "Dear Colleague" letter to the members of the "super committee" in regards to freezing spending on the nuclear arsenal. 

The U.S. spends over $50 billion a year maintaining a nuclear arsenal that is more than sufficient for keeping the country safe. The country's nuclear arsenal of more than 5,000 warheads is unnecessarily large.  Cutting $20 billion a year, as Rep. Markey's recommends in his letter, would create a savings of over $200 billion. 

This savings can help the super committee avoid making cuts to other important programs such as Medicare and Medicaid while still working towards lowering the country's deficit. 

Please join with your colleagues in supporting this significant reduction of spending on nuclear weapons. 

                                                Sincerely,

fcnl.org       Peace Is Possible     10 April 2011

For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Matthew 6:21

This week, the Internal Revenue Service expects all its citizens to file a report of their 2010 income, and to pay between 15-35% of it to the Treasury to finance the work of the US government.  According to analysts at Friends Committee on National Legislation, approximately 39 cents of every dollar you will pay in 2010 income tax will be used to pay for the costs of war -- 4 cents for veterans benefits, 6 cents for interest on Pentagon debt, and 28-29 cents for current Pentagon spending.  In real dollars, the total 2010 budget expenditure for all things military is over $1.1 trillion.  The annual US military expenditure is larger than that of all the other militaries in the world combined. 

Except for entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare), the Pentagon’s 39% share of the federal budget is far larger than any other portion of government spending.  The next largest expenditures are for health care (20%), responses to poverty (17%), interest on public debt (9%), economic recovery (6%), actual operations of government (5%), energy/science/environment (3%), and diplomacy/development/war prevention (2%). 

In last week’s epic, rancorous debate over government spending cuts of $38-40 billion for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the Pentagon got almost a total pass.  In fact, when all the numbers are totaled up, FY’11 current military spending will actually be $516 billion, $10 billion higher than it was in FY’10! 

The House’s proposed cuts in spending targeted programs that specifically assist the poor and vulnerable -- and the Senate’s plan wasn’t a lot better.  In early April, over 30,000 Christians and other concerned citizens went on a much-publicized fast in solidarity with the poor whose suffering will be increased because of our national blindness to income disparity and our obsession with military overkill. 

As Tax Day passes by this week and you contemplate the money you’ve sent to the Treasury, send your elected representatives a reminder that their employers -- the people who elected and pay them -- expect them to come up with a spending plan that protects and provides for the most vulnerable US citizens by ending our bloated spending on the military, and to work for a much more equitable system of taxation.

Sample Letter 

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

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

Sen. Dan Coats   B40E Dirksen Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510

              202-224-5623               senator_coats@coats.senate.gov

Rep. Mike Pence      1605 Longworth HOB             Washington, DC  20515

               202-225-3021                           mike.pence@mail.house.gov

Dear Sen. ___________/ Rep. Pence, 

Although I am glad that a government shutdown was averted on April 8, I am writing to express my sorrow and disgust that in the budget compromise which passed for fiscal year 2011, Congress drastically cut or eliminated relatively small, efficient programs that improve our communities and our lives, while at the same time actually increasing military spending. 

The Pentagon has an acknowledged history of waste, fraud, and abuse. Members of Congress -- and other leaders across the political spectrum -- have publicly stated that the military’s budget could readily be reduced without jeopardizing vital US security, and yet these cuts are not on the congressional agenda.   

It is my conviction that both wasteful Pentagon spending and our oversized military footprint in the world make us less secure, not more.  Programs that keep people healthy, fed, educated, and meaningfully employed are the way to promote true security.  In any further discussions of budget cuts for FY 2011 and FY 2012, please put reduced Pentagon spending on the table first.

                                               Sincerely,

fcnl.org       Peace Is Possible     13 March 2011

You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.  But I tell you:  Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be the children of your Father in heaven.

--Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 5:43-45) 

How About a True Libyan No-Fly Zone?

March 9, 2011; adapted from Matt Southworth, Friends Committee on National Legislation

 Although Libya’s humanitarian crisis is of great concern, as with Afghanistan and so many other conflicts, there is no military solution. The humanitarian crisis should be handled through aid and relief by expert humanitarian organizations, not with bullets and bombs by military intervention.  A no-fly zone imposed over Libya—whether by NATO, the UN, or the US—would neither improve the growing humanitarian crisis nor ensure the removal of President Muamar Qaddafi from power.  The US should not intervene militarily for several reasons: 

First, war rarely if ever improves a humanitarian crisis. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told the House Armed Service Committee, “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses...., an act of war and a big operation in a big country.”  Trying to leave Iraq and bogged down in Afghanistan, the US cannot afford another “big operation” in yet another country.

 Second, it is a near certainty that innocent civilians would be killed in establishing and enforcing a no-fly zone.....  No-fly zones and crippling sanctions from 1990-2003 in Iraq were directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, yet failed to depose Saddam.  The outcome would very likely be similar in Libya.

Third, US strategic interests in promoting democracy and human rights in Libya would not be helped by military intervention.  Going to war or attempting to occupy Libya with even a small, temporary force and the best of intentions would end up harming those interests.

 Fourth, some contend that the US has significant energy interests in Libya.  The Economist reports, however, that Libya contributes only about 2% of the world’s oil supply.  And according to Reuters,  ”Over 85% of Libya’s crude is exported to Europe, only 5 percent to the United States.”  And, 80% of Libya’s oil supply is now controlled by anti-Qaddafi rebels. 

Lastly, American intervention has brought neither peace nor stability to Iraq or Afghanistan, and is unlikely to bring them to Libya either.  In fact,  military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has disrupted the local power structures which US officials failed to take the time to understand.  Many of those same officials now are leading the rhetorical charge in the Senate, the House, and elsewhere in the US government for a military solution in Libya.  Let us be reminded: all of these people were wrong on Iraq in 2003; they are almost certainly wrong on Libya in 2011. 

The term “no-fly zone” is a misnomer.  If one was imposed over Libya, the skies would not suddenly be empty.  They would be very visibly filled with US and NATO aircraft claiming the right to sovereign Libyan airspace by virtue of superior equipment and firepower.  Most likely they would be initially welcomed by many Libyans but eventually resented by most.   

The impulse to impose a quick, “simple“ solution on Libya is understandable, but it ignores the truth of history, the multiple unknowns, and the unpredictable variables that always accompany war in places and cultures we do not know well.  The no-fly zone we should be talking about is one that applies to us also, the one into which our military aircraft don’t fly.

Sample Letter 

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

Sen. Dan Coats   B40E Dirksen Senate Off. Bldg.   Washington, DC  20510  202-224-5623               senator_coats@coats.senate.gov

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

Dear Sen. ___________/ Rep. Pence, 

I am deeply saddened by the death and destruction occurring in Libya’s civil strife.  Like most freedom-cherishing Americans, my first impulse is to wish that the US military could restrain Muamar Qaddafi’s forces and assist the Libyans seeking a more democratic government. 

However, I am writing to ask you to oppose US participation in imposing a no-fly zone over Libya or in any other offensive military action there.  Similar efforts in Iraq failed to dislodge Saddam Hussein and inflicted unimaginable harm and suffering on the very Iraqi people we claimed to be helping.  In addition, we may never recover from the cost to our treasury and to our standing in the world.  We certainly must not repeat the error in Libya. 

Please support generous provision of US humanitarian and diplomatic assistance to the Libyan people.  Please do not vote for, and please use your influence to help prevent, any offensive US military action in Libya.  Violence will only beget more violence.  We cannot afford another lethal, costly entanglement.

                                                                      Sincerely,

fcnl.org       Peace Is Possible     14 November 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

On April 8, 2010, 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 and military leaders.

On September 16, 2010, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (of which Sen. Richard Lugar is Ranking Member) approved a Resolution of Advice and Consent for the New START Treaty by a vote of 14-4. The treaty now awaits consideration by the full Senate.

In a November 9 email, Sen. Lugar wrote,

            “The New START treaty would limit the number of U.S. and Russian strategic offensive nuclear warheads to 1,550 and place limits on launchers. It also would re-establish arms control verification and transparency measures between the United States and Russia.  Arms verification inspections have been suspended since December 5, 2009, when the START I Treaty expired.

            New START advances U.S. security by allowing American technicians on the ground in Russia to collect data on the Russian arsenal and verify their compliance. Simply put, ratification of the New START Treaty is the only way we will be able to insert U.S. inspectors into Russia to conduct intrusive inspections that are critical to our national security. Since the inception of the START regime, the United States has conducted more than 600 nuclear weapons inspections in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus. These inspections greatly reduce the possibility that we will be surprised by future advancements in Russian weapons technology or deployment. Rejecting this treaty would inhibit our knowledge of Russian military capabilities, weaken our non-proliferation diplomacy worldwide, and potentially ignite an expensive arms competition that would further strain our national budget.”

On 7 November, Sen. Lugar spoke at length with a National Public Radio interviewer and stressed that New START should be ratified during the 2010 lame duck session of Congress rather than leaving it to the more partisan Senate taking office in January.  Hear the 11-min. interview at:

<http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131142837> 

Advocates for a world free of nuclear weapons must make it clear to their Senators that it is hugely important for the New START treaty to be ratified before the end of 2010. 

Sample Letter

 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. Lugar,

Thank you very much for your words on National Public Radio on November 7 making it clear that the new START treaty should be ratified as soon as possible after the Senate returns to work in November.  Your principled stand and leadership on this issue, in the midst of the noise and chest-thumping of the recent election campaign, made me very thankful that you are our Senator.

Thank you for your service not only to Indiana, but to the whole nation in this matter.  Please know that you are in our prayers as you attempt to get the Senate to vote on ratifying the New START treaty. 

Sincerely,

Dear Sen. Bayh,

Please make it your priority to get the Senate to vote on ratifying the New START treaty with Russia during the lame duck session that begins in mid-November.

Please give us something by which to remember your Senate service

affirmingly.  Join Sen. Lugar in publicly declaring your support for the New START treaty right away, and call on your Senate leadership to schedule a floor vote this month.

It is of huge importance that the New START treaty be ratified by this Congress rather than waiting for the next one to begin.  Please do your part -- on behalf of all of us in Indiana who long for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.

Sincerely,

fcnl.org         Peace Is Possible   10 October 2010

They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.... Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.  ....They will neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mountain....  (Isaiah 2:4; ll:9)

End the Endless War

In the days following the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress rushed to provide the Bush administration with the tools to wage a “war on terror.”  One piece of legislation remains the law of the land today. Since its passage, it has been used to authorize US military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; US unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen; torture; indefinite detentions; significant increases in military spending; and extravagant and ineffective spending of tens of billions of tax dollars on so-called intelligence.

That legislation, the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (Public Law 107–40), was signed into law on September 18, 2001.  Nine years later, the evidence is in -- war is (still) not the answer.  Yet, the Administration continues to use that congressional authorization to justify drone attacks, and it could provide the legal basis for new wars in the future.

 

Repealing the Authorization

Congress should repeal this law. Rep. Barbara Lee (CA) has introduced legislation that would do just that.  Her bill, H.R. 6282, states:  “Congress finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force….signed into law on September 18, 2001, has been used to justify a broad and open-ended authorization for the use of military force, and such an interpretation is inconsistent with the authority of Congress to declare war and make all laws for executing powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.”

Your help is needed to persuade 100 members of Congress to cosponsor Rep. Lee’s repeal of the authorization for the use of force for the “war on terror.”  A hundred cosponsors will increase the chances that the next Congress will act to stop the “endless war.”  Asking your congressperson to cosponsor Rep. Lee’s repeal also provides you with an opening to speak with your representative about why providing the President – any President – with a blank check for war is a bad idea and how the evidence of the past nine years makes a compelling case that war is not the answer.

Repeal of the Authorization for Use of Military Force

Bill # H.R. 6282 

Original Sponsor:  Barbara Lee (D-CA 9th)

 Cosponsor Total: 10    (last sponsor added 09/29/2010)

  2 Republicans

  8 Democrats        

Status:

09/29/2010: Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs    

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

 Rep. Pence,

 I am writing to urge you to cosponsor H.R. 6282, Rep. Barbara Lee’s bill to repeal the 2001 “Authorization for the Use of Force” (Public Law 107-40).

 This authorization has been used to justify far more than just the US military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Under its cover, the US has carried out military operations in many other countries.  Claiming the authority of PL 107-40, our personnel have conducted torture, held detainees indefinitely, grossly increased military spending, and squandered tens of billions of tax dollars on extravagant and ineffective so-called intelligence.

 The misuse of PL 107-40 has wrecked our economy, disheartened our citizenry, inflicted great harm upon our reputation in the world, and set the stage for war without end.  I urge you to support H.R. 6282.  If you will not, please tell me why not.

                                                 Sincerely,