May, 19 2020, 12:00am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Nissa Koerner: 202.225.2661
Lee, Pocan Lead 29 Dems Demanding Defense Spending Decrease Ahead of NDAA Talks
Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) led a group of 29 Democrats demanding that this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorize a level of spending below last year's budget, in a letter to House Armed Services Committee (HASC) leadership this morning.
WASHINGTON
Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Mark Pocan (D-WI) led a group of 29 Democrats demanding that this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorize a level of spending below last year's budget, in a letter to House Armed Services Committee (HASC) leadership this morning.
Since the start of the Trump Administration, defense spending has increased every year--over $100 billion, almost 20%, in three years. Now more than ever, in the middle of a global pandemic, we cannot allow this ballooning spending to be directed towards this president's warmongering. Over 90,000 Americans have died from COVID-19, and we must focus our spending efforts on the expansion of testing, contact tracing, treatment, vaccine development and relief for the people of this country. Last year's NDAA authorized $738 billion in defense spending for FY20, while the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) got 1/90th of that: less than $8 billion.
"Year after year, the Pentagon budget has inflated to historic levels while the vital needs of everyday people are left unmet," said Congresswoman Lee. "The COVID pandemic has laid bare how America has failed to make its budgets reflect the real needs of our everyday families. It's long past time that we address our bloated military budget and retarget resources towards policies and programs that matter the most for keeping us safe, healthy, and secure."
"We are facing a crisis in this country and billions of dollars in defense spending increases won't solve it," said Congressman Pocan. "Year after year, we see taxpayer dollars line the pocket of defense contractors instead of supporting the American public. The enemy we're fighting right now is COVID-19, so our sole focus should be on expanding testing, tracing and treatment, funding towards vaccine development, and relief for the American people. Increasing defense spending now would be a slap in the face to the families of over 90,000 Americans that have died from this virus."
Last year's House NDAA passed out of the House of Representatives in July with zero Republican votes and eight Democratic "NO" votes--both Pocan and Lee voted against last year's defense spending increase. Republicans withstanding, 19 Democrats would need to vote "NO" this year for the bill to fail. 29 Democrats signed this letter.
This letter was co-signed by Representatives Blumenauer (D-OE), Cohen (D-TN), DeFazio (D-OR), DeGette (D-CO), Espaillat (D-NY), Evans (D-PA), J. Garcia (D-IL), Grijalva (D-AZ), Huffman (D-CA), Jayapal (D-WA), H. Johnson (D-GA), Kennedy (D-MA), Khanna (D-CA), A. Levin (D-MI), McGovern (D-MA), Napolitano (D-CA), Norton (D-D.C.), Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Omar (D-MN), Pressley (D-MA), Raskin (D-MD), Sarbanes (D-MD), Schakowsky (D-IL), Serrano (D-NY), Tlaib (D-MI), Velazquez (D-NY), and Watson Coleman (D-NJ).
The letter was endorsed by Peace Action; Public Citizen; Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL); Just Foreign Policy; Pax Christi USA; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies; American Friends Service Committee; Global Ministries of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the United Church of Christ; Council for a Livable World; CODEPINK; Women's Action for New Directions (WAND); Indivisible; Center for International Policy; Beyond the Bomb; Demand Progress; Win Without War; Physicians for Social Responsibility (including the Greater Boston, San Francisco Bay Area, Maine, and Washington Chapters); and Washington Against Nuclear Weapons Coalition.
See the full letter below and here.
The Honorable Adam Smith Chairman
House Armed Services Committee 2216 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Mac Thornberry Ranking Member
House Armed Services Committee 2216 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry:
We write to request a reduction in defense spending during the coronavirus pandemic.
As you draft this year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), we encourage you to authorize a level of spending below last year's authorized level. Congress must remain focused on responding to the coronavirus pandemic and distributing needed aid domestically. In order to do so, appropriators must have access to increased levels of non-defense spending which could be constrained by any increase to defense spending.
In the last three years alone - during a time of relative peace - we have increased annual defense spending by more than $100 billion, almost 20 percent. This has occurred during a period without any military action authorized by this Congress. Right now, the coronavirus is our greatest adversary. It has killed more than 90,000 Americans, far surpassing the number of casualties during the Vietnam War.1 We must remain focused on combating the coronavirus and not on increasing military spending that already outpaces the next 10 closest nations combined (China, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil).2 At some point, spending more than every other nation on earth must be enough.
America needs a coronavirus cure, not more war. We need more testing, not more bombs. In order to reopen our nation in a data-driven, safe manner, we need to focus our spending efforts on the millions of additional coronavirus tests and tens of thousands of additional contract tracers we will need, as well as covering treatment costs, developing therapeutics, and distributing future vaccines.
We thank you for your service as Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee and your consideration of this request. These are unparalleled times. We encourage you to constrain defense spending during this pandemic so that we can defeat the greatest threat to our nation - the coronavirus.
Sincerely,
Mark Pocan, Barbara Lee
Congresswoman Barbara Lee, a Democrat, represents the 13th District in California.
LATEST NEWS
2024 Still on Track to Be First Full Year That Breached 1.5°C
"No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts," said one climate scientist.
Dec 09, 2024
Data from the first 11 months of 2024 reaffirmed that the globe is set to pass a grim mile stone this year, according to the European Union's earth observation program.
The E.U.'s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said in a report Monday that November 2024 was 1.62°C above the preindustrial level, making it the 16th month in a 17-month stretch during which global-average surface air temperature breached 1.5°C. November 2024 was the second-warmest November, after November of last year, according to C3S.
"At this point, it is effectively certain that 2024 is going to be the warmest year on record and more than 1.5°C above the pre-industrial level," according to a Monday statement from C3S. With data for November in hand, the service estimates that global temperature is set to be 1.59°C above the pre-industrial level for 2024, up from 1.48°C last year.
C3S announced last month that 2024 was "virtually certain" to be the hottest year on record after October 2024 hit 1.65°C higher than preindustrial levels.
"This does not mean that the Paris Agreement has been breached, but it does mean ambitious climate action is more urgent than ever," said Samantha Burgess, deputy director of C3S.
Under the 2015 Paris agreement, signatory countries pledged to reduce their global greenhouse gas emissions with the aim of keeping global temperature rise this century to 1.5ºC, well below 2°C above preindustrial levels. According to the United Nations, going above 1.5ºC on an annual or monthly basis doesn't constitute failure to reach the agreement's goal, which refers to temperature rise over decades—however, "breaches of 1.5°C for a month or a year are early signs of getting perilously close to exceeding the long-term limit, and serve as clarion calls for increasing ambition and accelerating action in this critical decade."
Additionally, a recent paper in the journal Naturewarned of irreversible impacts from overshooting the 1.5ºC target, even temporarily.
Climate scientist and volcanologist Bill McGuire reacted to the news Monday, saying: "Average temperature for 2024 expected to be 1.60°C. A massive hike on 2023, which itself was the hottest year for probably 120,000 years. No surprise at all, but still shocking news. Will temperatures drop below 1.5°C again? I have my doubts."
The update comes on the heels of COP29, the most recent U.N. climate summit, which many climate campaigners viewed as a disappointment. During the summit, attendees sought to reach a climate financing agreement that would see rich, developed countries contribute money to help developing countries decarbonize and deal with the impacts of the climate emergency. The final dollar amount, according to critics, fell far short of what developing countries need.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ABC Anchor Rebuked for Claiming Popular, Cost-Saving Medicare for All Won't Happen
"The D.C. media insists nothing can ever happen," said one progressive journalist. "It's the press corps' Jedi mind trick."
Dec 09, 2024
Advocates for a government-run healthcare program applauded U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna for pushing back during a Sunday morning interview in which ABC News anchor Martha Raddatz casually dismissed Medicare for All as a proposal that has no chance of ever being implemented.
Khanna (D-Calif.) spoke to Raddatz days after the fatal shooting of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in New York City—an event that brought to the surface simmering, widespread fury over the for-profit health insurance industry's denial of coverage, high deductibles, and other obstacles placed in the way of Americans when they try to obtain both routine and emergency healthcare.
The congressman said he was "not surprised" by the response to the killing, in which the suspect has yet to be named or found by authorities five days later.
"I mean, people are getting denied cancer treatment," said Khanna. "It's absurd in this country, what's going on."
Raddatz noted that Khanna last week reposted a message from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on the social media platform X, in which the senator pointed to the country's exorbitant spending on healthcare administrative costs—15-25% of total healthcare expenditures, or as much as $1 trillion per year.
"'Healthcare is a human right. We need Medicare for All,'" Raddatz read before adding her own perspective: "That's not really going to happen, so what would you say to those Americans who are frustrated right now?"
Khanna quickly pushed back, saying he believes Sanders is "absolutely right."
"I believe we can make Medicare for All happen," he said, pointing out that Sanders was responding to billionaire Tesla founder Elon Musk, who President-elect Donald Trump has nominated to lead a proposed body called the Department of Government Efficiency, denouncing high healthcare administrative costs last week.
That spending is far higher than the 2% spent by Medicare on administration and results in lower life expectancy, more preventable deaths, high infant and maternal mortality rates, and other poor health outcomes.
Skepticism of the for-profit healthcare system from one of Trump's closest right-wing allies mirrors public support for Medicare for All, which comes from across the political spectrum.
In 2020, a Gallup poll found that 63% of Americans backed at single national health plan to provide coverage for all Americans, including more than a third of Republicans and Independents who lean Republican, and 88% of Democrats. Another American Barometer survey in 2018 found 52% of Republicans supported Medicare for All.
Khanna said Musk's comments indicate that "finally, after years, Sanders is winning this debate and we should be moving towards Medicare for All."
Kenneth Zinn, former political director of National Nurses United, asked, "Who is Martha Raddatz to say" that Medicare for All—which would cost $650 billion less than the current for-profit system, according to a Congressional Budget Office analysis—is "not really going to happen."
"This is how the corporate media tries to shut down the discussion or narrow the parameters. The majority of Americans support Medicare for All," said Zinn.
David Sirota of The Leverapplauded Khanna's "direct pushback" against the commonly accepted assumption that expanding the popular and efficient Medicare program to all Americans is an impossibility.
"The D.C. media insists nothing can ever happen," he said. "It's the press corps' Jedi mind trick. Ro called bullshit—which is the right response. [Medicare for All] won't happen overnight, but it CAN eventually happen."
In 2019, Khanna himself slammed "Beltway pundits" for dismissing Medicare for All as "unrealistic and too expensive" even as the U.S. was shown to spend twice as much per capita on healthcare as other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
"Points well-taken, Congressman," said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner on Sunday. "The United States is the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare. It is immoral, unacceptable, and costly not to have Medicare for All."
Keep ReadingShow Less
EPA Bans Known Carcinogens Used in Dry Cleaning, Other Industries
"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," said one environmental campaigner.
Dec 09, 2024
The Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a permanent ban on a pair of carcinogenic chemicals widely used in U.S. industries, including dry cleaning services and automative work.
According to the Washington Post:
The announcement includes the complete ban of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE—a substance found in common consumer and manufacturing products including degreasing agents, furniture care and auto repair products. In addition, the agency banned all consumer uses and many commercial uses of Perc—also known as tetrachloroethylene and PCE — an industrial solvent long used in applications such as dry cleaning and auto repair.
Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, applauded the move but suggested to the Post that it should have come sooner.
"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," Kalmuss-Katz.
The EPA's decision, reports the New York Times, was "long sought by environmental and health advocates, even as they braced for what could be a wave of deregulation by the incoming Trump administration."
The Timesreports:
TCE is known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and to damage the nervous and immune systems. It has been found in drinking water nationwide and was the subject of a 1995 book that became a movie, “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. The E.P.A. is banning all uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was overhauled in 2016 to give the agency greater authority to regulate harmful chemicals.
Though deemed "less harmful" than TCE, the Times notes how Perc has been shown to "cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer," and can also damage the functioning of kidneys, the liver, and people's immune systems.
Environmentalists celebrated last year when Biden's EPA proposed the ban on TCE, as Common Dreamsreported.
Responding to the news at the time, Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the EPA, by putting the ban on the table, was "once again putting the health of workers and consumers first."
While President-elect Donald Trump ran on a having an environmental agenda that would foster the "cleanest air" and the "cleanest water," the late approval of EPA's ban on TCE and Perc in Biden's term means the rule will be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), meaning the Republican-control Senate could reverse the measure.
In his remarks to the Times, Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that if Trump and Senate Republicans try to roll back the ban, they will be certain to "encounter serious opposition from communities across the country that have been devastated by TCE, in both blue and red states."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular