AUS House of Representatives soundly defeat amendment to bill the would reduce defense spending by ten percent

(July 22) An amendment to make an across-the-board ten percent reduction to Pentagon spending levels authorized in the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was overwhelmingly defeated by members of both parties.

The vote

Details of the vote can be found here. The actual amendment can be found here.

The US House of Representatives voted 324 against and 93 in favor of an amendment that would have reduced the spending authorization for the 2021 Pentagon budget by ten percent. The amendment did not specify what to cut but only that the US Congress should make across the board reductions. The amendment was offered by Representative Mark Pocan a Wisconsin Democrat.

All 185 Republicans voted against the amendment but so did most Democrats 139. Only 92 Democrats voted for the amendment along with Independent libertarian Justin Amash.

Why the cut could be justified

Many would argue that the US is by far the world's most powerful nation militarily. It could easily spend less than the authorized $750 billion and yet stay safe. The $75 billion dollars could be used to meet many other pressing needs such as repairing ageing infrastructure. The economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will require extensive expenditures.

Having to cut the budget would force the Pentagon to look for administrative bloat, more closely evaluate the costs and benefits of programs and even evaluate missions to see if they are worth continuing.

As a recent article notes money is being spent on the military when other areas are underfunded: "At a time when health workers have struggled to find masks and protective gear, the Pentagon has so many extra trucks, guns, and other gear, it hands the surplus out for free to police departments — who then use it whether they need it or not, much like the Pentagon itself."

The Pentagon does not even know where all its money is spent. However, other areas such as public health, medical research, education, housing and infrastructure lack financial resources and are chronically and severely underfunded. In the appended video Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont argues for reducing the US military budget.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US House of Representatives passes as two-year $1.48 trillion military spending billl

(July 26)A $1.48 trillion two-year military spending bill easily passed through the US House of Representatives by a vote of 284 for and only 149 against.

Breakdown of votes

The Democrats were mostly in favor of the bill with 219 voting for it along with 65 Republicans. Only 16 Democrats voted against the bill. 132 Republicans and an independent voted against the bill.

President Trump was quick to applaud passage of the bill, calling it a victory for the military.

The Progressive Caucus threatened in April to tank the bill, claiming that the Pentagon outlays were out of control. However, most of the caucus ended up voting for the bill pointing to the increase in domestic spending the bill will provide.

Other responses to the bill's passage

Representatives Pramila Jayapal and Mark Pocan, co-chairs of the Progressive Caucus, said in a statement before the vote, "It's not a perfect deal by any means.This deal does not address the bloated Pentagon budget, but it does begin to close the gap in funding for families, by allocating more new non-defense spending than defense spending for the first time in many years."

Executive director of Win Without War,Stephen Miles disputed the Progressive Caucus claim that the bill has more non-defense than defense spending: "Under this deal, the Pentagon and its affiliated programs will get $1.48 trillion over the next two years. The entire rest of gov't, including the VA btw, will get $1.30 trillion. That's $178.6 billion more for the Pentagon than the whole rest of gov't. So, for the love of god, can we all stop pretending like this is somehow anything other than a continued orgy of unprecedented, wasteful, and obscene spending at the Pentagon."

William Hartung, of the Centre for International Policy's Arms and Security Project also noted that the budget deal vastly overpays the Pentagon saying: "At $738 billion for Fiscal Year 2020 and $740 billion for Fiscal Year 2021, the agreement sets the table for two of the highest budgets for the Pentagon and related work on nuclear warheads at the Department of Energy since World War II. The proposed figures are higher than spending at the height of the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and substantially more than the high point of the Reagan buildup of the 1980s. And the Fiscal Year 2020 and Fiscal Year 2021 numbers are only slightly less than spending in 2010, when the United States had 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, roughly nine times the number currently deployed."

The bill is expected to pass in the Senate

The 2020 budget bill is expected to pass in the Senate next week. Trump has said that he would sign it. The Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has along with the president celebrated the increase in military spending in the bill. The bill has significantly more funds for the military than the Pentagon requested. McConnell said the bill met the Republicans' number one priority of providing for defense.

Bill raises debt limit

As a recent article notes: "The House on Thursday passed a bill to raise the U.S. debt ceiling and set budget levels for two years, taking a step toward avoiding calamity that threatens to disrupt the economy...It sets discretionary spending at about $1.37 trillion in fiscal 2020 and slightly higher in fiscal 2021. The agreement suspends the U.S. borrowing limit for two years."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US House of Representatives passes anti-BDS bill by a huge majority 398 for 17 against

(July 23)The US House of Representatives on July 23 passed H. Res 246, a bill expressing opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement directed at Israel. The bill passed with a huge majority 398 for to just 17 against.

Rationale for the bill

Critics of BDS claim it is against US policy and is harmful to the two-state solution in the Middle East supported by the US.

The BDS

The BDS campaign is meant to put pressure on Israel over the occupation of Palestine. Specifically it puts economic pressure to cease some of its activities against Palestinians as part of the occupation.

Wikipedia describes the BDS in more detail as follows: "The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (also known as BDS) is a Palestinian-led campaign promoting various forms of boycott against Israel until it meets what the campaign describes as Israel's obligations under international law, defined as withdrawal from the occupied territories, removal of the separation barrier in the West Bank, full equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel, and "respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties".

Critics of the BDS movement claim that Israel is not an apartheid state and that there is no imposed segregation. Many critics also charge BDS is anti-Semitic.

US has long followed a pro-Israel policy on the issue

While movements boycotting countries are not that unusual, since 1977 when the Office of Antiboycott Compliance was set up, the US, especially individual states, began passing laws that try to prevent US citizens and companies from joining the BDS movement. The US has been eager to get on the record as being anti-BDS even though the House bill does not bar individuals from getting involved in the movement.

Considerable anti-BDS activity at the state level

There are now anti-BDS laws in many states with the language of the bills sometimes almost identical: "A rapid succession of states — 27 in four years — have adopted measures to curb the boycott initiative known as BDS.These new laws and executive orders have been crafted by activists, then copied from one state to the next, adopted with virtually identical language. Most require tens of thousands of state contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel — or lose their government funding. Other efforts require state pension boards to divest from companies that boycott Israel."

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has argued the bills are unconstitutional and they have been ruled as such in three states: "Last week a federal district court in Texas blocked as unconstitutional a state law that required government contractors to certify that they did not boycott Israel and would not do so over the course of their contract. With courts in Arizona and Kansas issuing similar rulings last year, that’s now three federal courts that have protected the right to engage in First Amendment-protected political boycotts—including boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements."

Ilhan Omar's resolution

Omar, a Democratic representative, offered a competing resolution which expressed support for the right of Americans to boycott other nations, including Israel. Democratic leaders claimed the resolution was "dead on arrival" even though historically boycotts have been considered part of Americans' right to free speech. That position is held by the ACLU and at least some US courts. Yet Omar's resolution is not likely to raise serious discussion in committee let alone reach a proper vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

US House soundly defeats amendment to bill that would ban warrantless spying

(June 20)Tuesday evening an amendment to a bill designed to restrain domestic surveillance under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was defeated in the US House of Representatives by a vote of 175 to 252.

Both Democrats and Republicans voted down the amendment

The no vote was passed by many Republicans and Democrats. The amendment was put forward by Representative Justin Amash a MIchigan Republican and Zoe Lofgren a Democrat from California. However, more Democrats than Republicans actually voted against the amendment.

A recent article notes: "Digital rights group Fight for the Future in a statement after the vote pointed out that more Democrats had voted against the amendment than Republicans."It’s good to know that House Democrats like Adam Schiff are 'resisting' Trump by voting to ensure that he has limitless authority to conduct mass warrantless surveillance,” Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement. 'The Democrats who voted against this common sense amendment just threw immigrants, LGBTQ folks, activists, journalists, and political dissidents under the bus by voting to rubberstamp the Trump administration’s Orwellian domestic spying capabilities.'"

The nature of the amendment

The amendment was tacked on to a spending appropriations bill (HR2740). The amendment would have banned the use of any funds to submit a surveillance request under Section 702 guidelines unless the requesting organization certified that the surveillance is not "to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States, any acquisition of a communication as to which no participant is a person who is targeted pursuant to the authorized acquisition, or any acquisition of a communication known to be entirely domestic."

Explanation

The purpose of Section 702 of the FISA is to authorize warrantless secret surveillance of foreign persons of interests who are in other countries who may be plotting against the US. However, in practice the National Security Agency (NSA) which makes the requests has been collecting significant amounts of information about American citizens without warrants in violation of the fourth amendment of the US constitution. This type of surveillance was exposed by Edward Snowden.

Trump complains and then expands US surveillance powers

Trump has complained loudly that both he and his aides were illegally surveilled by FISA when he was a candidate. However, he has done nothing to try to restrain FISA's powers. Quite the opposite, when Section 702 was up for renewal last year Trump and the US Congress expanded its authority to spy on Americans.

Amash and Lofgren vigorously defended their amendment

Since nothing was done last year, Amash and Lofgren have been trying to stop the NSA from secretly collecting data from the communications of US citizens without a warrant. Amash said: "The government can search and sweep in billions of communications, including communications of Americans, and then query that data," Amash said. "The Amash-Lofgren amendment puts in basic safeguards to allow the government to continue using Section 702 for its stated purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, while limiting the government’s warrantless collection of Americans’ communications under FISA."

So this year, Amash and Lofgren embarked on a new effort to stop the NSA from secretly collecting Americans' communications. Amash spoke passionately in defense of his amendment on the House floor last evening: "The government can search and sweep in billions of communications, including communications of Americans, and then query that data," Amash said. "The Amash-Lofgren amendment puts in basic safeguards to allow the government to continue using Section 702 for its stated purpose of gathering foreign intelligence, while limiting the government’s warrantless collection of Americans’ communications under FISA." Amash pointed out that Republicans had been saying for months that they were worried about FISA abuse and was out of control and yet many voted against the amendment. Amash said he was sick of going home to his constituency and telling people that neither Democrats nor Republicans would stand up for their rights.

The amendment was debated for only ten minutes before being defeated. Republican Jim Jordan of Ohio in spite of often being at odds with Amash supported his amendment. Notable Democrats supporting the amendment were Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex of New York. The roll call can be found here.

Previously published in the Digital J0urnal

US House of Representatives passes $619 billion defense bill

The U.S. House easily passed a defense policy bill to the tune of $619 billion. It will fund operations in Afghanistan, against the Islamic State (IS) and also halt reductions in military manpower as well as fill gaps in military readiness.

The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, 375 to 34 making it immune from any presidential veto. The Senate is expected to deal with the bill, the National Defense Authorization Act next week. It is expected to pass and be sent on to President Obama.

The legislation worked on over months by House and Senate Armed Services Committee adds a total of $3.2 billion over what the president had requested, to remedy what were considered to be readiness shortfalls. Also added, was a $5.8 billion request for more troops in Afghanistan and for increased operations against IS in both Syria and Iraq. The new bill also provides $59.5 for the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).

The new bill also gives troops a 2.1 percent pay raise as compared to just 1.6 percent requested by the Obama administration. Democratic member of the committee from Connecticut, Joe Courtney, said: “A transition is inherently fraught with risk, and to the extent that you can eliminate risk, like military pay and procurement programs, getting this done is a very positive development." The number of additional troops was upped as well. The Army will get 476,000 troops, 16,000 more than requested. The Marines will get 185,000, which is 3,000 more than requested. The Navy remains at 323,900 troops. However, weapons programs such as additional F-35 jets, F/A 18 Super Hornets and a Littoral Combat Ship were left out of the final version of the bill. Another proposal that was scrapped was a requirement that women register for the draft. This omission was largely symbolic since military service at present in voluntary.

Most Democrats supported the bill. Adam Smith, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said: "We put together an excellent product. It prioritizes the men and women who serve in the military to try to make sure that we provide for them all the training they need and all the support they need, so that when we ask them to do something they are trained and ready to do it." As in previous bills there is a provision that bars prisoners at Guantanamo from being transferred to the US. This will likely ensure Obama will not be able to close Guatanamo before his presidency ends.

The White House has not said whether Obama would attempt to veto the bill. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said: “We haven't seen the text of it, but we'll obviously review it. That may take a little time, but once we've reached a conclusion about whether or not the president will sign it, we'll let you know.”

Measure to ban transfer of cluster bombs to Saudis defeated in US House of Representatives

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly defeated a measure to ban the transfer of cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia. The vote was 204 for and 216 against. The vote against the measure was made up of 200 Republicans but only 16 Democrats.

The Obama administration had urged Democrats to vote against the measure. The closeness of the vote shows the growing opposition against Saudi Arabia's conduct of the war which shows that cluster bombs were used several times and fragments show that some at least came from the U.S. This vote comes just as the Obama administration is reported to have quietly put a hold on transfer of cluster bombs to the Saudis.

However, the administration is obviously dead against a ban on sending the weapons to the Saudis. Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, chair of the House Committee on Defense Appropriations, said during debate:“The Department of Defense strongly opposes this amendment, They advise us that it would stigmatize cluster munitions, which are legitimate weapons with clear military utility.”

The munitions scatter hundreds of thousands of miniature explosives over large areas often the size of several football fields. Some fail to explode leaving mine-like explosives that can kill civilians long after a battle. There is an international ban against cluster munitions as described in Wikipedia:The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) is an international treaty that prohibits the use, transfer and stockpile of cluster bombs, a type of explosive weapon which scatters submunitions ("bomblets") over an area. The convention was adopted on 30 May 2008 in Dublin,[6] and was opened for signature on 3 December 2008 in Oslo. It entered into force on 1 August 2010, six months after it was ratified by 30 states.[2] As of April 2016, 108 states have signed the treaty and 100 have ratified it or acceded to it.[3]

Neither the United States, China, Russia, nor Israel have signed the treaty. Neither, have Yemen nor Saudi Arabia.The U.S. position is that they are militarily useful but should not be used in densely populated areas. Representative Hank Johnson from Georgia spoke in favor of the amendment saying: “Earlier this year, the Saudi-led coalition dropped cluster bombs in Yemen’s capital of Sanaa, specifically targeting known civilian neighborhoods. One of the buildings hit was the al Noor Center for Care and Rehabilitation for the Blind, which also has a school for blind children. The destruction of the school and the injuries sustained by the children was unbearably gruesome.”

The vote came just one day after Mohammed Bin Salman, the defense minister as well as Saudi deputy crown prince met with US lawmakers to discuss among other items "the threat posed by Iranian aggression in ..Yemen and the broader Middle East." The closeness of the vote encouraged, Sunjeev Bery, of Amnesty International who said: “This is a big deal for the U.S.-Saudi Arabia alliance, More and more members of Congress are clearly getting tired of selling Saudi Arabia bombs when it is dropping them on civilians in Yemen.”

While Canada is a signatory to the ban on cluster bombs, four Canadian financial institutions have invested $565 million in companies that manufacture the bombs. This information is revealed in the report released in Ottawa by the Dutch Peace Group PAX. The four are among a total of 158 companies worldwide that have invested a whopping $28 billion in companies connected to the weapons from June 2012 to April 2016. Paul Hannon, director of Mines Action Canada wants the Canadian government to issue guidelines to ban such investments by Canadian institutions. Hannon said:"These are inhuman and indiscriminate weapons and no financial institution should be investing in them. Whether it's because they don't realize that they're doing this, whether it's because they're such huge corporations, and one arm doesn't realize what the other arm is doing, that's fine. But they now need to understand."

Named in the report are the Royal Bank of Canada(RBC), Manulife Financial, Sun Life Financial and CI FInancial. CI claims it no longer holds any shares in the US company cited in the report. Royal Bank invested $132 million and Manuflie $48 million in the US firm Textron that manufactures the bombs. RBC said:"RBC is a responsible lender and practices a high level of due diligence prior to lending funds..Our policy prohibits directly financing equipment or material for cluster munitions. We are currently working towards extending this policy beyond lending."Manulife and Sun Life did not respond to a request to comment. Suzanne Ooserwijk, author of the report noted that the Royal Bank had taken positive steps to ban investments in cluster munitions but that their policy contained loopholes. As the appended video shows some of the cluster bombs used in Yemen by the Saudis come from the UK rather than the U.S.