Peace issues discussed with president, Washington, D.C. Sept. 30. Delegation from the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom leaving the White House today after discussing peace issues with President Roosevelt. The women plan to campaign during the month of October. In the group, left to right: (front) Miss Dorothy Detzer, recently returned from the world Peace Congress in Brussels; Mrs. Hannah Clothier Hull, President of the League; Dr. Gertrude C. Bussey, of Goucher College; Mrs. Ernest Gruening. Back row, left to right: Mrs. Frank Aydelotte, of Swarthmore, Pa., and Mrs. Mildred S. Olmstead, who just made an expensive trip through the West and Middle West speaking on the need for peace

The House and Senate have agreed upon a catastrophic military spending bill.

The House has happily tossed under the bus the following measures that had been in its version prior to “compromising” by going with what the Senate (and the campaign funders) wanted:

Cleaning up Vieques.

[UPDATE: silver lining on Vieques!]

Justifying the Supposed Benefit of Every Foreign Base.

And all of these are virtually or entirely gone:

–repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

–prohibit military force in or against Iran.

–prohibit support to and participation in the war on Yemen.

–prohibit the sale of air-to-ground munitions, used in the conflict in Yemen, to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

–prohibit funds from the Special Defense Acquisition Fund to aid Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates if such assistance could be used to conduct or continue hostilities in Yemen.

–prohibit funding the transfer of weapons to Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates under the emergency authority of the Arms Export Control Act.

–prohibit funding for missiles noncompliant with the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.

–support extending the New START Treaty, and prohibit the use of funds to withdraw from New START.

–require that the U.S. military provide Congress with the cost and the national security benefits of every foreign military base or foreign military operation.

–require the EPA to designate all PFAS (chemicals with which military bases poison ground water) as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

–require the EPA to revise the list of toxic pollutants under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to include PFAS.

–prohibit DoD funding to house any foreign nationals who are in the custody of and detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

–study potential cost savings with respect to the nuclear security enterprise and force structure.

–study cost increases for the W80-4 nuclear warhead life extension program and prevent $185 million from being obligated or expended until the study is completed.

–prohibit the use of funds for an exhibition or parade of military forces and hardware.

–prohibit the use of funds from being obligated or expended at properties owned by the President or that bear his name.

–amend the current statutory prohibition on members of Congress contracting with the federal government to include the President, Vice President, and any Cabinet member.

–codify a Department of Defense policy to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System service members who are prohibited from purchasing firearms.

The only good thing in this apocalyptic legislation that stayed in, in some significant part, is this one:

“The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 1250K) that would express the sense of the Congress concerning North Korea and diplomatic efforts to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea.

“The Senate bill contained no similar provision.

“The Senate recedes with an amendment that would express the sense of Congress that, among other things, a sustained credible diplomatic process based on concrete measures to achieve the denuclearization of North Korea and an eventual end to the Korean War should be pursued. The amendment would also express that continued actions by North Korea that run counter to diplomatic negotiations call into question North Korea’s intentions and commitment to a diplomatic solution.”


Original Post: