Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, Iranians and Saudis are uniting to try to avoid a war in Lebanon while the U.S. stays on the sidelines. Meanwhile, the Bush administration is isolating our Nation from Europe and trying to force Europe to block Iranian exports and freeze assets.

The U.S. should be standing for peaceful resolution of conflict. Instead, the White House escalates conflict: escalates with Iran, escalates in Iraq, escalates violence, escalates deaths, and escalates the Federal deficit.

I want the Bush administration to know there will be constitutional consequences for the President and the Vice President if this administration continues to move towards war with Iran.

Madam Speaker, so what is the state of our Union? It is war. It is neglect of an overt agenda. The President will come to our country tonight, and he will give us more war, 21,500 troops sent to escalate the war in Iraq, a war that has cost the lives of 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians.

We need our President to realize that it is time to take a new direction, and that direction is out of Iraq. It is time to end the occupation, to withdraw our troops, to close the bases. It is time for us to work with the international community in an overall peace plan, which I presented to this Congress. The Kucinich plan calls for not only ending the occupation, withdrawing troops, closing the bases, but also an international peace plan that enables the Iraqi people to have the security they need through reconciliations, through reparations, and through paying for reconstruction.

The United States must lead the way with the international community in a plan for peace. The President must take a new direction.

Mr. Speaker, a State of the Union Address is an opportunity for the Nation to take stock of where it is at this exact moment.

It is obvious that the entire domestic agenda has been swallowed up by the war in Iraq. With over 3,000 U.S. soldiers killed in action; with over 650,000 innocent Iraqi civilians dead in the war; with this Nation's having spent over $400 billion in the war and, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stieglitz, will spend up to $2 trillion for the war in Iraq, we have seen the hopes and the aspirations of the American people for more jobs, for better housing, for decent health care, for education for their children just swept aside as the administration focuses intently not only on the war, but escalating the war.

I think all across this country people are hopeful that America will have a new agenda, one which will recognize that we must focus on America's basic needs. It is time for America to come home. Come home and start taking care of the needs of our people here for decent housing, the needs of our people for health care. Over 100 million Americans either have no health insurance or lack access to adequate health insurance, and yet we are about destroying the health of the people of Iraq instead of focusing on the needs of our people here back home.

Martin Luther King said it years ago in his speech at Riverside Church in New York. He said that the hopes and the aspirations of people of two countries were being set aside. He was speaking of Vietnam and the United States. Today the hopes and the aspirations of people of two countries, of Iraq and the United States, are being set aside in this head-long rush to escalation of a war.

Now, what should be our policies, and what steps should we take? First of all, this isn't just about opposing escalation. I would say that is pretty easy to do based on the record of this administration's conduct of the war. But we should be taking a strong stand against the occupation. We should be demanding that the United States end the occupation, that we bring our troops home, that we close our bases. That then will set the precondition that is necessary for the world community to come together and support a peacekeeping and security mission in Iraq. That then sets the stage for the Iraqi people to reach a moment of possibility for reconciliation between the Shiites, the Kurds, and the Sunnis. It is absolutely imperative that the United States announce that it is going to end the occupation because it is the occupation which is fueling the insurgency.

Tonight the Nation is waiting for a new direction. It is not looking for more war. It is not looking for more casualties. It is not looking for a continued destruction of our domestic agenda. So we are here to state that there is a plan, and I have submitted it.

The Kucinich 12-point plan is the plan that sets the stage for America to take a new direction. That direction is out of Iraq, but it is also a direction of reconciling with the world community because the way this administration responded to 9/11 separated us from the world community. At a moment when the whole world was ready to embrace the United States in its suffering and

to work with us to meet the challenges of security, we set ourselves apart with strategies of unilateralism, first strike, and preemption. We need to replace that with strategies of embracing the world community, of working together, of recognizing that the world is interdependent, interconnected. And because of that, we understand the common fate which we all have on this planet to work together, to put together structures of peace internationally.

And the United States must take that direction. We must engage with Iran and Syria. We must reach out to the region and look for a solution and find that solution which will enable us to bring our troops home. We can have our troops home in 3 months if we can come up with an agreement and a new direction, and we should be about that work.

Mr. Speaker, the American people want health care. The American people want jobs. The American people want education for their children. The American people want retirement security. And our whole domestic agenda is sacrificed for this war.

It is time for a new direction. It is time for a State of the Union which celebrates what we have in America that needs to be improved, which restates the American vision of a Nation for all, and which takes us away from policies of endless war.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Arthur F. Westfall, whose personal service to the Valley View community in Ohio is a shining example of the commitment and devotion that holds this great country together. Arthur's life was marked by his dedication to country, community, and family.

Arthur graduated from Cuyahoga Heights High School and worked as a homebuilder as a young man, before he was elected mayor in 1971--a position he held for almost 30 years before he retired in 1999, along with being a public insurance adjuster. During these years, his work and commitment as a mayor helped Valley View prosper and become one of the main economic power centers in Northeast Ohio.

Throughout his life Arthur was enthusiastic about and devoted to the citizens of his community. As a public insurance adjuster, he did appraisals that helped claimants receive compensation from insurance companies following catastrophes. And, as a devoted citizen and mayor, Arthur studied law enforcement and criminology at Case Western Reserve University to inform development of a strong police department.

Arthur also helped to improve infrastructure for the citizens of Valley View by building capacity in the water supply, developing a transportation program, as well as a number of benefits for the elderly, things that were not available for the small farmland village back in 1971.

Arthur's legacy continues through his wife, Helen; three children, Sharon White, Randall and Lance; six grandchildren; and three great- grandchildren.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring the memory of Arthur F. Westfall as a loving community leader. Arthur's lifelong commitment to both community and family is a great example of how one man can dedicate his life to helping others.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Don Schirmer and his many years of service to the community of Maple Heights as a high school varsity football referee. Don's five decades of tireless dedication to the game of football is a testament to his heartfelt love of sports and the Maple Heights community.

Don began his tenure as a referee in 1954 in Maple Heights, where his knowledge of sports translated into a position as a varsity official. Over the years, the students playing the game changed, but their referee, Don Schirmer, remained a staple of the community. Through all the victories, losses, and dramatic twists of the sport, one man has stood behind it all.

More than just a referee, Don served as a pillar of his community by volunteering, often cooking for the homeless. It is this spirit of giving, sharing, and brotherly love that Don Schirmer has contributed to the community of Maple Heights. A modest man of many accomplishments, Don can count being an umpire in Major League Baseball, a veteran of the U.S. Navy, and the Captain of the Maple Heights Fire Department all as notches in his all-American belt of experience.

Even at the ripe age of 79, Don's energy, passion, and love of life are at an all-time high. An avid hunter, Don is giving up his striped referee uniform for an orange vest. Though nearly an octogenarian, his zesty vigor keeps him active in the outdoors.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Don Schirmer as a true American sportsman. His undying presence on the field has been a joy, honor, and privilege to the students of Maple Heights for over 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, assuming we get there, how strange the politics of today will seem to future generations. Here we are debating whether to send more troops into a nation we are already illegally occupying for oil. Here we are contemplating the U.S. invading another nation, Iran. I wonder if we would be having that discussion if Iran did not have a tremendous amount of oil.

All around us we are in conflict because we are addicted to oil. Our energy consumption choices are causing global warming which is causing weather patterns to change. Think about what we have seen in the last few weeks alone: snow in Los Angeles, billions of dollars in damage to California citrus crops because of a freeze.

The burning of fossil fuels has contributed to erratic weather. Last year, we had the warmest weather in the United States continent in 112 years.

Now, instead of separating the world with our politics, it is imperative that we bring the world together to meet the challenge of global climate change. I am hopeful that in his State of the Union Address next week, the President is going to take a direction to do that.

My colleagues, a few years ago I was doing some climbing of hills and mountains in Colorado, and when I had started my journey I looked up into the hills and it looked like it would take a few hours to climb to a hill. I started my climb and I finally got there, it took about a half a day. And when I got to the top of this hill, when I was first starting I thought I would just get there and I am right at the top, I am at my destination; but as I got to that top of that hill, I saw there was another hill, and I had to climb another half day.

This Congress is about to climb a hill, and that hill is opposition to the escalation. But when we climb that hill, we are only going to be halfway there because the top of the hill we've got to reach, that second hill, is called ``ending the occupation.'' Stopping the escalation is only half the journey here, we have to end the occupation.

Similarly, people say, well, now they oppose the war. Well, opposing the war, well, that is halfway up that hill. Take that journey. But going all the way up the hill you are going to have to say, stop the funding for the war. The Kucinich plan enables us not only to stop the funding for the war, but to secure Iraq and create a whole new America and world.

Madam Speaker, it has been said several times but bears repeating. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Our dependence on oil-- foreign and domestic--requires us to stop making the problem worse by giving oil companies billions upon billions of dollars in truly unnecessary subsidies that worsen our dependence. This bill redirects $14 billion away from these subsidies and toward more sustainable energy production.

The transition to a renewable energy economy is not optional. The question is whether we will wait so long to create the transition that we do not make it on our own terms. Europe gets it. They are pouring orders of magnitude more money into research on renewables, positioning their industries to thrive in the future. On the other hand, this Administration has been digging its heels in by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at an industry that made record profits on the backs of hard working Americans. We have a long way to go to catch up and this bill steers us firmly in that direction. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as the first person on either side of my family to be able to have the opportunity to graduate from college, I understand what it is like for members of American families to have this dream of higher education and to have to work full-time, sometimes two jobs, and to go to school and to try to balance all that and see tuition keep climbing and climbing and the reach of a higher education starting to elude one's grasp.

Millions of Americans are facing this. This is why the College Student Relief Act is so important. Last year, over the strong objections of students and many Members of Congress, Congress cut approximately $12 billion

from the Federal student aid program. But at the same time the price of a college diploma at a public university has continued to grow at a rate that far outpaces inflation. Since 2001, tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation.

Now, are students suddenly finding themselves in a market where they are making 41 percent more? Not a chance. They are lucky to have a job at all. Are their parents making more money? No. Most of their parents are maxed out on their credit cards. This bill is critical when we consider what the needs are.

We have to encourage innovation and talent of our youth and ensure that every American is given the skills and training necessary to reach their fullest potential. This Congress must work together to help ensure that every American, regardless of their income level, has the opportunity to continue their education.

Our Nation benefits from an educated and skilled workforce. We must not hesitate to invest in education for our students. The passage of this bill is a vital step in our efforts to increase access to college. With the passage of this bill, we can take the first step towards increasing access to college and ensuring that students graduating from college are not weighed down for life with debt.

I rise in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act.

Last year, over the strong objections of students and many Members of this body, Congress cut approximately $12 billion from Federal student aid programs.

However, the price tag on a college diploma at a public university has continued to grow at a rate far outpacing inflation. Since 2001, tuition and fees at public universities have increased by 41 percent after inflation.

The prior Congress cut student aid, as the costs of attending a public university continued to rise.

Therefore it is no surprise that over the next decade financial barriers will prevent 2 million high school graduates from continuing on to post-secondary education, even at a local community college.

Furthermore, as Federal student aid programs have faced funding cutbacks, students have increasingly been forced to rely on loans as their primary source of support.

It is outrageous that easy access to a college education be restricted to the wealthy while students from less advantageous circumstances must either do without or be saddled with a paralyzing debt.

These plights make the passage of H.R. 5 all the more necessary. Cutting these interest rates is a first step towards ensuring the rising cost of tuition does not continue to place a college education beyond the means of many Americans.

Today, with the passage of this bill, this House can take the first step toward increasing access to college and ensuring that students graduating from college are not weighed down for life with debt.

When the interest rate reduction in this legislation is fully phased in the average borrower will save approximately $4,400 over the life of their loan. This action will cut the cost of college for over 5 million students.

This Congress must work together to help ensure every American, regardless of their income level, has the opportunity to continue their education.

The benefits of expanded access to college are not limited to the individuals continuing their education, but extend to society as a whole.

We must encourage the innovation and talent of our youth and ensure that every American is given the skills and training necessary to reach their fullest potential.

Our Nation benefits from an educated and skilled workforce and we must not hesitate to invest in the education of our students.

The passage of H.R. 5 is a vital first step in our efforts to increase access to college and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, Congress is beginning to focus on the necessity to take a new direction with respect to Iraq. There are some in the administration who are saying well, there is no plan. What can we do? We have to stay the course. We have to send more troops. We have to make a renewed effort.

Once again I am offering for the attention of this Congress a plan that I put together that meets the requirements of being able to bring our troops home and create stability in Iraq and reunite the United States with the world community in the cause of peace and security.

Here are the elements of the Kucinich plan:

First, the U.S. announces it will end the occupation, close military bases and withdraw.

The insurgency has been fueled by the occupation and the prospect of a long-term presence, as indicated by the building of permanent bases. A U.S. declaration of intention to withdraw troops and close bases will help dampen the insurgency which has been inspired to resist colonization and fight invaders and those who have supported U.S. policy. Furthermore, this will provide an opening for parties in Iraq and in the region to set the stage toward negotiations and peaceful settlement.

Second, the U.S. announces it will use existing funds to bring the troops and the necessary equipment home.

Congress appropriated $70 billion in bridge funds on October 1 for the war. Money from this and other DOD accounts can be used to fund the troops in the field over the next few months and to pay for the cost of the return of the troops, which has been estimated at between 5 and $7 billion while a political settlement is being negotiated and preparations are made for a transition to an international security and peacekeeping force.

Number three, order a simultaneous return of all U.S. contractors to the United States and turn over all contracting work to the Iraqi government.

The contracting process has been rife with corruption with contractors stealing from the U.S. Government and cheating the Iraqi people, taking large contracts and giving a few percentages to Iraqi subcontractors. Reconstruction activities must be reorganized and closely monitored in Iraq by the Iraqi government with the assistance of the international community. The massive corruption as it relates to the U.S. contractors should be investigated by congressional committees and Federal grand juries. The lack of tangible benefits, the lack of accountability for billions of dollars while millions of Iraqis do not have a means of financial support, nor substantive employment, cries out for justice. It is noteworthy that after the first Gulf War, Iraqis reestablish electricity within 3 months despite sanctions. Four years into the U.S. occupation, there is no water or reliable electricity in Baghdad despite massive funding from the U.S. and the Madrid Conference. The greatest mystery involves the activities of private security companies who function as mercenaries. Reports of false flag operations must be investigated by an international tribunal.

Fourth, convene a regional conference for the purposes of developing a security and stabilization force in Iraq.

The focus should be on a process which solves the problem of Iraq. The U.S. has told the international community, ``This is our policy and we want you to come and help us implement it.'' The international community may have an interest in helping Iraq, but it has no interest in participating in the implementation of failed U.S. policy.

A shift in U.S. policy away from unilateralism and toward cooperation will provide new opportunities for exploring common concerns about the plight of Iraq. The U.N. is the appropriate place to convene, through the Office of the Secretary General, all countries that have interests, concerns and influence, including the five permanent members of the Security Council and the European Community, and all Arab nations.

The end of the U.S. occupation and the closing of military bases are necessary preconditions for such a conference. When the U.S. creates a shift of policy and announces it will focus on the concerns of the people of Iraq, it will provide a powerful incentive for nations to participate.

It is well known that while some nations may see the instability in Iraq as an opportunity, there is also an ever-present danger the civil war in Iraq threatens the stability of nations throughout the region. The impending end of the occupation will provide a breakthrough for cooperation between the U.S. and the U.N. and the U.N. and the countries of the region. The regional conference must include Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan.

The fifth point in the Kucinich plan is to prepare an international security and peacekeeping force to move in, replacing U.S. troops who then return home.

Mr. Speaker, this is a 12-point plan, and I will be presenting more features of it in future sessions.

Madam Speaker, today I received a petition, an appeal for redress from over 1,000 active duty members of the armed services. Many of these honorable soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have served in Iraq. They did not challenge their orders, they did not challenge their duty to serve, they do assert their constitutional rights and their military code rights to speak with Members of Congress.

Article 3.5.7, Department of Defense directive 1325.6 provides the right of servicemembers to request redress and grievances against the actions of their commanders. The action taken and presented to me by individual servicemembers is an appeal for redress to end the war in Iraq.

Troops are risking their careers to present this message to Congress. They have all individually signed the following statement:

As a patriotic American proud to serve the Nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to support the prompt withdrawal of all American military forces and bases from Iraq. Staying in Iraq will not work and is not worth the price. It is time for U.S. troops to come home.

Thank you, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Lewis and all Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, as we honor Dr. King's legacy, let's remember it is a living legacy. We are not talking about cold prose and someone who is so distant from this moment. His ideas are so alive today and so needed today; that is why a month from now, I will be introducing legislation to create a Cabinet level Department of Peace, which takes Dr. King's vision of an America which organizes around principles of nonviolence and brings it to life in addressing the issues of domestic violence, spousal abuse, child abuse, violence in the schools, racial violence, violence against gays, police, community relations conflicts, and provides the resources so that we can deal with these as a living testimony to the love that we are showing today for Dr. King.

But he also was a visionary on the matter of war. He spoke many times warning this country about the danger of what happened in Vietnam. He spoke about the price that was being paid for the people of two nations in a speech at Riverside Church nearly 40 years ago. At Ebenezer Baptist Church he spoke about the interrelationship of all people, but how all people are one. It was that understanding of oneness that drove him to take a stand for peace.

Let us celebrate not only his life, but let the principles of his life continue to guide us as Americans. This is the moment to take a stand as we grapple with the question of Iraq.

I met with representatives of over 1,000 soldiers today who say it is time to get out of Iraq. Let us protect Dr. King's memory by standing for peace.

Madam Speaker, I would like to put into the Record Dr. King's speech from Ebenezer Baptist Church and part of his speech from Riverside Church, which need to be read today. I would also like to put in the Record a speech that I gave recently called ``Out of Iraq and Back to the American City,'' which shows that only when we take a stand for peace are we able to get the resources that we need to provide jobs and health care and education and retirement security and housing for the American people.

Make Dr. King's legacy a living legacy.

A Christmas Sermon on Peace

Dr. King first delivered this sermon at Ebenezer Baptist

Church, where he served as co-pastor. On Christmas Eve, 1967,

the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired this sermon as

part of the seventh annual Massey Lectures.

Peace on Earth. . . .

This Christmas season finds us a rather bewildered human

race. We have neither peace within nor peace without.

Everywhere paralyzing fears harrow people by day and haunt

them by night. Our world is sick with war; everywhere we turn

we see its ominous possibilities. And yet, my friends, the

Christmas hope for peace and good will toward all men can no

longer be dismissed as a kind of pious dream of some utopian.

If we don't have good will toward men in this world, we will

destroy ourselves by the misuse of our own instruments and

our own power. Wisdom born of experience should tell us that

war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served

as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an

evil force, but the very destructive power of modern weapons

of warfare eliminates even the possibility that war may any

longer serve as a negative good. And so, if we assume that

life is worth living, if we assume that mankind has a right

to survive, then we must find an alternative to war--and so

let us this morning explore the conditions for peace. Let us

this morning think anew on the meaning of that Christmas

hope: ``Peace on Earth, Good Will toward Men.'' And as we

explore these conditions, I would like to suggest that modern

man really go all out to study the meaning of nonviolence,

its philosophy and its strategy.

We have experimented with the meaning of nonviolence in our

struggle for racial justice in the United States, but now the

time has come for man to experiment with nonviolence in all

areas of human conflict, and that means nonviolence on an

international scale.

Now let me suggest first that if we are to have peace on

earth, our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than

sectional. Our loyalties must transcend our race, our tribe,

our class, and our nation; and this means we must develop a

world perspective. No individual can live alone; no nation

can live alone, and as long as we try, the more we are going

to have war in this world. Now the judgment of God is upon

us, and we must either learn to live together as brothers or

we are all going to perish together as fools.

Yes, as nations and individuals, we are interdependent. I

have spoken to you before of our visit to India some years

ago. It was a marvelous experience; but I say to you this

morning that there were those depressing moments. How can one

avoid being depressed

when one sees with one's own eyes evidences of millions of

people going to bed hungry at night? How can one avoid being

depressed when one sees with one's own eyes thousands of

people sleeping on the sidewalks at night? More than a

million people sleep on the sidewalks of Bombay every night;

more than half a million sleep on the sidewalks of Calcutta

every night. They have no houses to go into. They have no

beds to sleep in. As I beheld these conditions, something

within me cried out: ``Can we in America stand idly by and

not be concerned?'' And an answer came: ``Oh, no!'' And I

started thinking about the fact that right here in our

country we spend millions of dollars every day to store

surplus food; and I said to myself: ``I know where we can

store that food free of charge--in the wrinkled stomachs of

the millions of God's children in Asia, Africa, Latin

America, and even in our own nation, who go to bed hungry at

night.''

It really boils down to this: that all life is

interrelated. We are all caught in an inescapable network of

mutuality, tied into a single garment of destiny. Whatever

affects one directly, affects all indirectly. We are made to

live together because of the interrelated structure of

reality. Did you ever stop to think that you can't leave for

your job in the morning without being dependent on most of

the world? You get up in the morning and go to the bathroom

and reach over for the sponge, and that's handed to you by a

Pacific islander. You reach for a bar of soap, and that's

given to you at the hands of a Frenchman. And then you go

into the kitchen to drink your coffee for the morning, and

that's poured into your cup by a South American. And maybe

you want tea: That's poured into your cup by a Chinese. Or

maybe you're desirous of having cocoa for breakfast, and

that's poured into your cup by a West African. And then you

reach over for your toast, and that's given to you at the

hands of an English-speaking farmer, not to mention the

baker. And before you finish eating breakfast in the morning,

you've depended on more than half of the world. This is the

way our universe is structured, this is its interrelated

quality. We aren't going to have peace on earth until we

recognize this basic fact of the interrelated structure of

all reality.

Now let me say, secondly, that if we are to have peace in

the world, men and nations must embrace the nonviolent

affirmation that ends and means must cohere. One of the great

philosophical debates of history has been over the whole

question of means and ends. And there have always been those

who argued that the end justifies the means, that the means

really aren't important. The important thing is to get to the

end, you see.

So, if you're seeking to develop a just society, they say,

the important thing is to get there, and the means are really

unimportant; any means will do so long as they get you

there--they may be violent, they may be untruthful means;

they may even be unjust means to a just end. There have been

those who have argued this throughout history. But we will

never have peace in the world until men everywhere recognize

that ends are not cut off from means, because the means

represent the ideal in the making, and the end in process,

and ultimately you can't reach good ends through evil means,

because the means represent the seed and the end represents

the tree.

It's one of the strangest things that all the great

military geniuses of the world have talked about peace. The

conquerors of old who came killing in pursuit of peace,

Alexander, Julius Caesar, Charlemagne, and Napoleon, were

akin in seeking a peaceful world order. If you will read Mein

Kampf closely enough, you will discover that Hitler contended

that everything he did in Germany was for peace. And the

leaders of the world today talk eloquently about peace. Every

time we drop our bombs in North Vietnam, President Johnson

talks eloquently about peace. What is the problem? They are

talking about peace as a distant goal, as an end we seek, but

one day we must come to see that peace is not merely a

distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we

arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through

peaceful means. All of this is saying that, in the final

analysis, means and ends must cohere because the end is

preexistent in the means, and ultimately destructive means

cannot bring about constructive ends.

Now let me say that the next thing we must be concerned

about if we are to have peace on earth and good will toward

men is the nonviolent affirmation of the sacredness of all

human life. Every man is somebody because he is a child of

God. And so when we say ``Thou shalt not kill,'' we're really

saying that human life is too sacred to be taken on the

battlefields of the world. Man is more than a tiny vagary of

whirling electrons or a wisp of smoke from a limitless

smoldering. Man is a child of God, made in His image, and

therefore must be respected as such. Until men see this

everywhere, until nations see this everywhere, we will be

fighting wars. One day somebody should remind us that, even

though there may be political and ideological differences

between us, the Vietnamese are our brothers, the Russians are

our brothers, the Chinese are our brothers; and one day we've

got to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. But in

Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile. In Christ there is

neither male nor female. In Christ there is neither Communist

nor capitalist. In Christ, somehow, there is neither bound

nor free. We are all one in Christ Jesus. And when we truly

believe in the sacredness of human personality, we won't

exploit people, we won't trample over people with the iron

feet of oppression, we won't kill anybody.

There are three words for ``love'' in the Greek New

Testament; one is the word ``eros.'' Eros is a sort of

esthetic, romantic love. Plato used to talk about it a

great deal in his dialogues, the yearning of the soul for

the realm of the divine. And there is and can always be

something beautiful about eros, even in its expressions of

romance. Some of the most beautiful love in all of the

world has been expressed this way.

Then the Greek language talks about ``philia,'' which is

another word for love, and philia is a kind of intimate love

between personal friends. This is the kind of love you have

for those people that you get along with well, and those whom

you like on this level you love because you are loved.

Then the Greek language has another word for love, and that

is the word ``agape.'' Agape is more than romantic love, it

is more than friendship. Agape is understanding, creative,

redemptive good will toward all men. Agape is an overflowing

love which seeks nothing in return. Theologians would say

that it is the love of God operating in the human heart. When

you rise to love on this level, you love all men not because

you like them, not because their ways appeal to you, but you

love them because God loves them. This is what Jesus meant

when he said, ``Love your enemies.'' And I'm happy that he

didn't say, ``Like your enemies,'' because there are some

people that I find it pretty difficult to like. Liking is an

affectionate emotion, and. I can't like anybody who would

bomb my home. I can't like anybody who would exploit me. I

can't like anybody who would trample over me with injustices.

I can't like them. I can't like anybody who threatens to kill

me day in and day out. But Jesus reminds us that love is

greater than liking. Love is understanding, creative,

redemptive good will toward all men. And I think this is

where we are, as a people, in our struggle for racial

justice. We can't ever give up. We must work passionately and

unrelentingly for first-class citizenship. We must never let

up in our determination to remove every vestige of

segregation and discrimination from our nation, but we shall

not in the process relinquish our privilege to love.

I've seen too much hate to want to hate, myself, and I've

seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many white

citizens' councilors, and too many Klansmen of the South to

want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to

myself, hate is too great a burden to bear. Somehow we must

be able to stand up before our most bitter opponents and say:

``We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our

capacity to endure suffering. We will meet your physical

force with soul force. Do to us what you will and we will

still love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your

unjust laws and abide by the unjust system, because

noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is

cooperation with good, and so throw us in jail and we will

still love you. Bomb our homes and threaten our children,

and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you. Send your

hooded perpetrators of violence into our communities at the

midnight hour and drag us out on some wayside road and leave

us half-dead as you beat us, and we will still love you. Send

your propaganda agents around the country, and make it

appear that we are not fit, culturally and otherwise, for

integration, and we'll still love you. But be assured that

we'll wear you down by our capacity to suffer, and one day

we will win our freedom. We will not only win freedom for

ourselves; we will so appeal to your heart and conscience

that we will win you in the process, and our victory will

be a double victory.''

If there is to be peace on earth and good will toward men,

we must finally believe in the ultimate morality of the

universe, and believe that all reality hinges on moral

foundations. Something must remind us of this as we once

again stand in the Christmas season and think of the Easter

season simultaneously, for the two somehow go together.

Christ came to show us the way. Men love darkness rather than

the light, and they crucified him, and there on Good Friday

on the cross it was still dark, but then Easter came, and

Easter is an eternal reminder of the fact that the truth-

crushed earth will rise again. Easter justifies Carlyle in

saying, ``No lie can live forever.'' And so this is our

faith, as we continue to hope for peace on earth and good

will toward men: let us know that in the process we have

cosmic companionship.

In 1963, on a sweltering August afternoon, we stood in

Washington, D.C., and talked to the nation about many things.

Toward the end of that afternoon, I tried to talk to the

nation about a dream that I had had, and I must confess to

you today that not long after talking about that dream I

started seeing it turn into a nightmare. I remember the first

time I saw that dream turn into a nightmare, just a few weeks

after I had talked about it. It was when four beautiful,

unoffending, innocent Negro girls were murdered in a church

in Birmingham, Alabama. I watched that dream turn into a

nightmare as I moved through the ghettos of the nation and

saw my black brothers and sisters perishing on a lonely

island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material

prosperity, and saw the nation doing nothing to grapple with

the Negroes' problem of poverty. I saw that dream turn into a

nightmare as I watched my black brothers and sisters in the

midst of anger and understandable outrage,

in the midst of their hurt, in the midst of their

disappointment, turn to misguided riots to try to solve that

problem. I saw that dream turn into a nightmare as I watched

the war in Vietnam escalating, and as I saw so-called

military advisors, sixteen thousand strong, turn into

fighting soldiers until today over five hundred thousand

American boys are fighting on Asian soil. Yes, I am

personally the victim of deferred dreams, of blasted hopes,

but in spite of that I close today by saying I still have a

dream, because, you know, you can't give up in life. If you

lose hope, somehow you lose that vitality that keeps life

moving, you lose that courage to be, that quality that helps

you go on in spite of all. And so today I still have a dream.

I have a dream that one day men will rise up and come to

see that they are made to live together as brothers. I still

have a dream this morning that one day every Negro in this

country, every colored person in the world, will be judged

on the basis of the content of his character rather than

the color of his skin, and every man will respect the

dignity and worth of human personality. I still have a

dream that one day the idle industries of Appalachia will

be revitalized, and the empty stomachs of Mississippi will

be filled, and brotherhood will be more than a few words

at the end of a prayer, but rather the first order of

business on every legislative agenda. I still have a dream

today that one day justice will roll down like water, and

righteousness like a mighty stream. I still have a dream

today that in all of our state houses and city halls men

will be elected to go there who will do justly and love

mercy and walk humbly with their God. I still have a dream

today that one day war will come to an end, that men will

beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into

pruning hooks, that nations will no longer rise up against

nations, neither will they study war any more. I still

have a dream today that one day the lamb and the lion will

lie down together and every man will sit under his own

vine and fig tree and none shall be afraid. I still have a

dream today that one day every valley shall be exalted and

every mountain and hill will be made low, the rough places

will be made smooth and the crooked places straight, and

the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh

shall see it together. I still have a dream that with this

faith we will be able to adjourn the councils of despair

and bring new light into the dark chambers of pessimism.

With this faith we will be able to speed up the day when

there will be peace on earth and good will toward men. It

will be a glorious day, the morning stars will sing

together, and the sons of God will shout for joy.

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House of Representatives, last week the President of the United States gave a speech to this Nation that he intends to escalate the war against Iraq. Compounding his speech was the point-by-point recitation of his intention to continue to escalate tensions between the United States and the sovereign nation of Iran.

At this moment, when this Congress has honored the memory of Dr. King, it bears reflection as to whether or not we in this Nation have the capacity to begin to pursue a path of nonviolence in our relations with other countries.

Our President is intent on escalating a war against Iraq. He is intent on precipitating a war against Iran. Whatever happened to the science of human relations? Whatever happened to using our head in dealing with people so that war is not an acceptable option, but that peace becomes inevitable because we pursue talking to one another?

If we had taken the case for Iraq to the U.N., we would not have gotten approval for an attack against Iraq. How much better it would have been if this Nation had not decided to attack Iraq, because Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, did not have the intention or capability of attacking the United States, was not trying to get uranium from Niger, did not, in effect, constitute a threat to the United States of America.

And yet, we attacked a nation which did not attack us, at tremendous consequence, the death of over 3,000 American men and women who served this country valiantly, the deaths of over 650,000 innocent Iraqis, according to the Lancet Report, during the conduct of the war; complete annihilation of so much of the cities of Iraq.

What are we doing? What do we stand for as a nation? Does this really represent what America is all about? Or does America have a higher destiny? Is it our destiny to rule the world with our military might? Or is it our destiny to hold up our values of peace and justice, and to live them in our own

Nation, and to nourish them abroad through following international law?

It is a critical moment for America, Mr. Speaker. This Congress must stand up. We must not just set aside the escalation, we must set aside the occupation. We must not simply challenge this President and his buildup to war in Iran. We must let this President know that any action he takes against Iran will have constitutional consequences.

We are at a moment when we need to defend our Constitution. We need to stand up for the American way, which is not the way of war. It is not the way of aggressive war. It is not the way of preemption, unilateralism and first strike.

Mr. Speaker, it is really time for America to take a new direction in the world, and that direction is to work with the nations of the world.

I put forth a 12-point plan for Iraq. It called for America to announce the end of the occupation, the closing of the bases, withdrawal of our troops. But we cannot do that unless, simultaneously, we let the nations of the world know that we are going to take a new direction in world affairs. We need to ask the world community to help us, to mobilize a peacekeeping and security force that will move in as our troops move out so that the people of Iraq can be secure. When we do that we can build a basis for a reconciliation in Iraq between the Kurds, the Shiites, the Sunnis. When we do that we can have a legitimate program for reconstruction and reparations for the Iraqi people. We can help safeguard their oil wealth for the people of Iraq, not for private American oil companies.

Iraq should be a turning point for this Nation. It should be a turning point away from war as an instrument of policy. It should be a turning point where we address the needs of the people of the United States, the real human needs, for health care, education and jobs. And that is what my 12-point program leads to.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and accomplishments of Dee Benson, whose fierce dedication to family, friends, faith and community serves as a model for all who have been blessed by her presence.

Born in Altoona, Pennsylvania to Edward and Maggie Heintel, Dee demonstrated her strength and determination from an early age. When she was only a year old, Dee wandered on to a scorching floor grate that severely burned her feet; pneumonia set in during her bed rest. With the support of friends, family and many faiths, Dee recovered and went about dedicating her life to the forces that helped her preserve it.

In 1945, fate introduced Dee to Private Bud Benson, and a year and a half courtship culminated in their 1947 marriage. Dee and Bud moved to Cleveland, Ohio to put down roots and start a family, giving birth to Robert, Patrick, Jacqueline, Mary, Elizabeth, Denise and Christine. Dee never wavered from her family, in fact she redoubled her efforts in the most trying times. During Bud's battle with health problems, she never left his side; when her granddaughter needed open-heart surgery, Dee kept vigil by her side.

Dee's generosity of spirit extended to her friends and the larger community as well. Dee has never passed up an opportunity to help a friend or even a complete stranger. All the while, Dee has sustained herself with the abiding commitment to faith that delivered her from her early challenges. When her sons served in Vietnam, prayer supported her; when she herself battled health problems later in life, faith carried her through. She even helped found Saint Anthony of Padua Parish.

Moreover, Dee has committed herself to civic engagement and community empowerment, embodying the ethic that ``all politics is local.'' Dee has served as precinct committeewoman and has held numerous leadership positions in Democratic institutions throughout Northeast Ohio.

Madam Speaker and colleagues, please join me in honoring Dee Benson, whose generosity, kindness and vitality have and will continue to inspire all who cross paths with her.

Mr. Speaker, on one hand we hear from the opposition that this bill will not save seniors money. But then we hear that Medicare's negotiation of prices is tantamount to price controls. To make that argument, one has to assume money will be saved. Which is it? Will it save money or won't it? The answer is that of course it will save money.

It's particularly interesting that Pharma's response is to threaten to reduce innovative new drug research by withholding research funding. Pharma will not reduce their lobbying army that outnumbers Members of Congress. They will not reduce their profits which average almost $5 billion dollars among the top 8 Pharma companies in 2006 alone. They will not reduce their army of salespeople dedicated to influencing the prescribing habits of doctors. They will not stop paying scientists to influence clinical trial data that is supposed to be the basis for impartial judgment of a drug's efficacy and safety. No, they are threatening to cut research funds, which they claim will affect innovation. But they will not tell you that the number of truly innovative drugs they are producing has been declining since 1999 according to the Government Accountability Office. Why? Because they are instead spending their money on making minor changes to existing drugs in order to extend their highly profitable patent life. And by asking us to reject negotiation of prices for Medicare, they are asking us to fund not only their sub-par research agenda but their entire influence industry. I'm not buying it.