Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has an elaborate set of rules and regulations to ensure that Members' commitment to the public interest is never undermined by a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the very House body charged with enforcing these rules and regulations is itself suffering from a conflict of interest.

At the start of this year, three Republican members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct were removed by their party because they were not friendly enough to the leadership. Two of the replacement members have given $15,000 to a legal defense fund for a member of the Republican leadership who likely will become subject to an ethics investigation.

Does any Member believe these two Members can fairly and independently, without bias, judge a Republican House leader while at the same time helping to pay his legal bills? The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct has not even yet met, but the deck is already stacked against getting to the real truth and restoring the high standards of this House. The American people should be rightfully troubled and outraged.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month and to celebrate the lives and accomplishments of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in U.S. history. I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus for organizing this special order. I thank the gentleman very much.

Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the most diverse congressional districts in our Nation, with African Americans, Hispanic Americans and Anglo Americans, each making up about 30 percent of my Los Angeles- based district. Los Angeles' Korea Town, also in my congressional district, is home to 80,000 Asian Americans, who make up roughly 13 percent of my constituency. My congressional district includes Sony Studios, Capital Records, American Film Institute and Raleigh Studios. It is the home of our Nation's and a great deal of the world's entertainment industry. Today, I want to address the need for adequate and accurate representation of Asian Americans in film and television.

Many of my colleagues speaking today have already mentioned the fact that there are over 13 million Asian and Pacific Islanders living in the United States and that by the year 2050, there will be an estimated 33.4 million self-identified Asian Americans in the United States. However, while the Asian American and Pacific Islander communities continue to grow, our Nation's entertainment sector continues to fall behind in recognizing their presence through film and television and their influence in shaping the course of our Nation.

Just last week, the National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium released a report called ``Lights, Camera, and Little Action,'' detailing the shortage of Asian-American characters on prime time network television. The report finds that while Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders make up 5 percent of the United States population, they represent only 2.7 percent of regular characters on prime time television. The report also finds that virtually no Asian actors are cast in situation comedies, and the characters they play in dramas tend to have less depth and development than most regulars, with minimal on- screen time and few romantic roles.

For example, programs such as ``King of Queens,'' set in a New York City borough, features no regular Asian characters despite the fact that almost one in five residents of the city are Asian Americans. The show ``Charmed'' on the network WB also includes no Asian actors, despite being set in San Francisco where a third of the population is Asian American. Such whitewashing of prime time television not only fails to reflect reality, it also denies viewers the opportunity to learn about other cultures and the chance to further cross-cultural understanding and communication.

And, finally, I think an equally disturbing trend is the study's finding that when AAPIs are depicted on a television show, they are placed in roles that reinforce stereotypes. Let me give the Members an example. While the 2000 U.S. census showed that half of AAPI adults do not have college degrees, all of the Asian American characters on prime time television have professional jobs that often require advanced degrees. These are admittedly very positive portrayals, and many ethnic groups have railed against their negative portrayals in the media as gang members, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Nonetheless, any ethnic stereotyping by media, even positive stereotyping, tends to eliminate the larger public's understanding of the real conditions of the ethnic group.

Mr. Speaker, the contributions of Asian Pacific Americans to the growth and success of this Nation cannot be overstated. The history of their struggle and triumph in the United States must be captured and remembered. One of the most effective means of commemoration is through the accurate portrayal of AAPI characters in film and television that illuminates their hopes, dreams, and struggles. The AAPI communities have played instrumental roles in advancing the freedom and equality of all Americans; yet we do not see their achievements adequately documented and reflected by the media.

Mr. Speaker, in commemorating this year's Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, I call on the entertainment industry to further improve their depiction of the AAPI communities and urge everyone to remain vigilant about the roles the media play in capturing the shared heritage of Asian and Pacific Islander communities in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, earlier this year, the House Republican leadership purged the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct of three of the Republican Members. Serving on this committee, where one is charged with investigating and possibly reprimanding one's own colleagues is not an easy assignment, but it is a very important one.

The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) wanted to continue to serve on the committee, a committee unlike most in this Chamber, that worked in a bipartisan fashion. Could that have been their downfall?

After losing his chairmanship, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) told The Washington Post, and I am quoting, ``There's a bad perception out there that there was a purge in the committee and that people were put in that would protect our side of the aisle better than I did.''

He continues, ``No one should be there to protect anybody; they should be there to protect the integrity of the institution.''

Madam Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. The integrity of the House is much more important than any one Member. It is time the Republican leadership learns that lesson.

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this year, the House Republican leadership has worked to undermine the ethics process here. First, the leadership floated an ethics proposal that would have allowed Members of its leadership to continue to serve in leadership if they were indicted. When that did not go over too well, the leadership decided it could protect one of its own by making it more difficult to investigate unethical behavior. The leadership rushed through a new rule that would end an ethics compliant after 45 days if no agreement could be reached on how to proceed. Under the old rules, if the two parties could not come to an agreement, a subcommittee was automatically appointed to investigate.

Finally, to guarantee that Republican leadership would be able to quash any ethic complaints, they purged the committee of three members, including the chairman, who were not always willing to toe the party line. Then they replaced them with party loyalists.

Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is going to extreme measures to weaken our ethics rules. It makes one wonder just whom they are trying to protect. Ethics and morals have been overtaken by hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 504, a bill to rename a post office located in Los Angeles, California, the Ray Charles Post Office, is a small act to commemorate one of the true giants of the 20th century in popular music.

Ray Charles is both a national treasure and a international phenomenon. He was also a long-time resident of Los Angeles and the 33rd Congressional District, living right around the corner from me.

The story of Ray Charles's life is full of paradoxes. It is about rags to riches, the sacred and the profane, and triumph overcoming tragedy. It is the material of Horatio Alger and Mark Twain. It is a uniquely American story; and his music, a melting pot blend of pop, country, gospel, blues and jazz, brilliantly reflects the rich American cultural and musical tapestry in its various shades, shapes, and premonitions.

Much has been written about Ray Charles's life, and his rise from poverty and obscurity in St. Augustine, Florida, to his decision to migrate to Seattle, a decision he made by asking a friend to find him the farthest point from Florida on a map of the Continental United States.

Many of you have probably seen the movie ``Ray,'' and the Oscar- winning performance of Jamie Foxx. What we learned from the life of Ray Charles is that he constantly persevered in the face of adversity and often overwhelming odds. He learned very early that the two constants of life are change and adaptation. Those qualities are reflected in spades in his music.

He secularized gospel music, wed it to jazz rhythms and sensibilities, and popularized, almost singlehandedly, music known as rhythm and blues.

But the music of Ray Charles, as true to his legacy, cannot be confined to one

genre or type of music. In 1962, Ray Charles spit in the eye of conventional wisdom, as well as his producers, and recorded one of the great country albums, ``Modern Sounds in Country and Western.'' Billboard Magazine listed it as the number one-selling album for 14 weeks in a row, a feat that has not been duplicated since then.

Ray Charles's accomplishments were all the more profound when we consider that the races in America were still largely segregated, particularly in the South. Ray Charles's revolutionary approach to music was also reflected in his politics and his deep and abiding commitment to Martin Luther King and the plight of the African Americans.

Ray Charles may not have been on the front lines, but he put his money where his mouth was. In his autobiography, Ray Charles wrote about his life-long love affair with music. ``I was born with the music inside me,'' he wrote. ``That is the only explanation I know of. It was, of course, already with me when I arrived on the scene. It was a necessity for me like food or like water.''

Ray Charles has provided comfort to millions of Americans from all races and backgrounds and made their lives brighter with the genius of his music.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would note that this legislation, to name a post office in honor of Ray Charles, is but a small tribute to a man who started from nowhere and ended up as a national treasure and a global phenomenon. God bless, Ray Charles.

Mr. Speaker, the public may now know Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr., as a high-profile, superbly dressed, superstar attorney with a signature smile that swayed everyone he met, including many of the multi-million dollar clients that he represented.

However, as a personal friend of Johnnie's, I saw another side. Yes, he did everything with class, style, dignity and extreme care; but in addition he was a warm, loving, caring, attentive friend and community leader.

Johnnie Cochran was a brilliant attorney whose untimely death is a loss to the world. His legal genius was compared to Justice Thurgood Marshall, his hero and his idol; Clarence Darrow; F. Lee Bailey; Professor Charles Ogletree and other legendary legal scholars.

Johnnie Cochran was an incredible human being who really cared about the plight of the poor and disadvantaged regardless of race, color, creed, or religion. Johnnie was often fond of saying, ``The clients I cared about the most are the No Js, the ones who nobody knows.''

Attorney Cochran truly believed in justice for all. Even after death, Johnnie's legal legacy was larger than life. His funeral last week in Los Angeles, entitled ``Johnnie's Journey To Justice,'' was a celebration of his incredible life.

The A-list of celebrity clients were among more than 5,000 admirers saying good-bye to their hero who fought for civil rights, police reform, and basic human rights for everyone.

The Reverend William Epps, Johnnie's home pastor of the historic Second Baptist Church of Los Angeles, the first church that Martin Luther King spoke in when he came to Los Angeles, and Reverend Calvin Butts of Abyssinia Baptist Church, Harlem, New York, presided over this joyful funeral service, which was held in the great West Angeles Cathedral in my district.

I would say that Johnnie led a very important life for a lot of people, and we will remember him always for bringing justice to not only the poor but middle class and wealthy. May God bless his soul.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 167, the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which strengthens our Nation's intellectual property rights system and further protects and rewards our Nation's artists for their creative products.

I supported this bill during the last Congress, and I look forward to seeing its eventual enactment in the coming weeks. This bill closes several significant gaps in our copyright laws that have contributed to the epidemic of digital piracy today. It outlaws camcording of movies off of theater screens by making it a Federal crime. It also empowers judges to impose up to 5-year prison terms for persons convicted of distributing copyrighted songs and movies on file-sharing networks for financial gain. I believe these provisions create crucial tools to combat the theft and redistribution of valuable intellectual property.

With our movie industry losing about $3 billion to piracy every year, it is time that Congress demonstrates its support for our Nation's creators and artists by strengthening protection of copyrighted products. In addition, the bill strengthens our Nation's film heritage by reauthorizing the National Film Preservation Board and the National Film Preservation Foundation that have worked successfully to preserve historically or culturally significant films. Their fine work will ensure our collective artistic heritage will be preserved for generations to come.

Finally, I want to point out that despite my overall support for the bill, I disagree with title II of the legislation, which shields companies that make movie-filtering systems from liability for copyrighting infringements. The intent of the movie-filtering technology is to sanitize movies to protect children. While I support a family-friendly entertainment, I believe this method is not only a violation of film makers' copyright protections but also an infringement of their artistic vision.

Just yesterday, the Washington Post reported that companies sanitizing films removed 24 minutes from the part of the movie ``Saving Private Ryan'' depicting the landing at Omaha Beach on D-Day and eliminated racial epithets uttered by police officials against African American boxer Rubin Carter in ``The Hurricane.'' Both are central to the themes of the movies. Such editing may be done in the name of protecting children, but often reflect our political or ideological biases of the censors. I want to make it clear that my general support of the bill is no way an endorsement of film sanitization.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support S. 167, and it is my hope that we will keep the dialogue open regarding the ever-changing landscape of technology, censorship, and creativity in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256 because this bill does nothing to address the epidemic of identity theft or protect its victims.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Josie Gray Bain, a brilliant woman who was a dedicated wife, mother, and pioneer educator, who I had the distinct honor to work with closely when I served on the Los Angeles School Board.

Josie Gray Bain was born in Atlanta, Georgia, where she attended elementary and high school. Shortly after graduation from high school, she met and married Reverend John C. Bain of Los Angeles. In the fall of 1930, Josie Bain relocated to Spring Hill, Tennessee, where she and her husband began their first ministerial appointment. Their son, John David, was born soon thereafter. Both Josie and her husband enrolled at Drake University, where Josie received her B.S. degree with honors and continued to do graduate work there.

In 1942, Josie Bain moved with her husband to Los Angeles, California. She completed her graduate studies at California State College in Los Angeles, Immaculate Heart College, and the University of Southern California.

In 1948, she began her career in education with the Los Angeles Unified School District as an elementary schoolteacher at Marianna Avenue Elementary School. After teaching several years, she was promoted to positions of ever-increasing responsibility. Josie ended her brilliant career as Associate Superintendent of Instruction, the first African American in the history of the Los Angeles Unified School District to be appointed to the position.

Josie Bain was an active member of several professional and civic organizations, including Delta Kappa Gamma, Education Sorority; Delta Sigma Theta, Education Sorority; National Council of Negro Women; the Urban League; United Methodist Women; and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. She founded and served as president of the Interchange For Community Action, which provided scholarships for many disadvantaged minorities for more than two decades.

Josie Bain devoted her life to her family, God, community, and her church. She lived her life with style, grace, integrity, and vitality. Her dedication to helping children was recognized by all those whom she touched, and her accomplishments were evidenced by numerous awards and honors bestowed upon her throughout her life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a recently deceased great American, Ulysses Bradshaw Kinsey.

As a boy, Mr. Kinsey grew up on a large farm where he shared responsibilities with his older siblings. Mr. Kinsey's values of fairness, compassion, and personal integrity were learned from his father and mother. He closely observed and admired his beloved father's fair treatment of people regardless of race and stature. He also admired his mother for her kindness and compassion towards others. This strong foundation would become the basis for Mr. Kinsey's personal and professional values.

While attending Florida A&M, he met and married his wife of 63 years. With their children they were loving and unfailing in their devotion. Mr. Kinsey believed that the best way to love his children was to love their mother. He encouraged independence of action and attitude while loyally supporting them and allowing them to develop in directions of their own choosing.

At the same time, he set well-defined limits that were firm and consistent. Mr. Kinsey's focus on the individual development and welfare of each child was transferred to his professional life in a long distinguished career as an educator. In 1941, he began his career as a social studies and history teacher at his high school alma mater. By 1943, he became assistant principal and also served as school treasurer, junior class sponsor, and athletic director.

In September of 1950, at the birth of his sixth child, Mr. Kinsey became principal of Palmview Elementary School, formerly an industrial high school. And by 1953, he had earned his masters degree in education and supervision from Florida A&M college. He also attended Lincoln University Law School in St. Louis, Missouri, during his summer vacations and completed his legal education.

Although Mr. Kinsey decided to become an educator partly because of the financial demands of a growing family, he never regretted that decision; and that decision was a fortunate one for the thousands of children who passed through Palmview's doors during Mr. Kinsey's long tenure as a principal.

As a leader, he focused on two rudiments of education, one, critical thinking through the development of reading and writing skills, and quantitative reasoning. His emphasis on these educational basics may explain why Palmview Elementary School, an institution located in an inner-city community with an 86 percent African American student population, was so hotly pursued by suburban parents during the early turbulent days of integration in the South.

Palmview, an educational oasis, was distinguished from other schools by its clean, safe environment, intensive extra-curricular activities in art and music and computers in the classrooms.

With a calm, careful demeanor, Mr. Kinsey led the way academically, not only for African American children but also for all children in West Palm Beach County.

His impact on his community also influenced many others beyond the children who became part of the Palmview family. His work as a community organizer and leader began in the early 1940s. U.B., along with other African American educators, employed Thurgood Marshall and he was successful in bringing integration of the teachers and giving them the back pay they deserved.

His contributions are countless to education and he serves as a role model for others and leaves a very rich legacy.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that on rollcall vote No. 67, I would like the record to reflect that I inadvertently voted ``nay.'' I would like the record to reflect that I intended to vote ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on every issue our Nation faces it is our responsibility to ensure that the policies we pursue are consistent with the values that we cherish. The Bush Administration's 2006 budget fails in every respect. It is fiscally reckless, adding trillions of dollars to the deficit over the next 10 years.

It is morally irresponsible in funding for key homeland security, veterans benefits, health care and educational programs. And despite the fact that the President has called privatizing Social Security his top domestic priority this year, his budget includes no details on this plan.

Mr. Speaker, this money that it is going to take to institute his plan

could be money going to education, going to health care, going to address the infrastructure of our Nation.

So the President's plan clearly needs help. And his failure to provide a clear and honest accounting of the difficult tradeoffs between increases in debt, benefits cuts and tax increases shows a failure in leadership.

Madam Speaker, we held two public forums in the 33rd Congressional District in Los Angeles, California; and I would like to just quote from three of the speakers that participated.

This one is from Miss Nina Diamantle Vera, and she is worried that the proposal for private accounts would put her hard-earned retirement savings at the mercy of the stock market. She was compelled to write me a letter to warn me of the perils of private investment. And she said: ``I lost $90,000 in the stock market. The privatization program will only make stockbrokers richer. It is the stupidest thing that President Bush has done.'' That is the quote.

The stock market is a fluctuating vehicle for savings. It goes up, but it also goes down. The administration should be working with Congress to promote personal wealth and savings through investment but not at the cost of Social Security.

Then Ms. Verdine F. Alston. Ms. Alston is an 89-year-old widow. She is concerned about the Republican proposals for Social Security. This is an American that has contributed to society for most of the 20th century. And she states: ``Please stop President Bush from privatizing Social Security. I have paid into Social Security since it started and before I was to vote. I am now 89 years old and a widow. My husband has been deceased for 10 years, and his pension just expired. I am dependent solely on Social Security.''

Now, it is unacceptable to pull the rug out from under our senior citizens. A proud American, Ms. Alston stressed the wisdom of a past President and said, ``The very first time I voted was for President Roosevelt when I was 21 years old. Social Security is not welfare.''

And according to the National Partnership For Women and Families, Social Security provides 90 percent or more of the total income for 44 percent of nonmarried women 65 and older, 66 percent of nonmarried Hispanic women 65 and older, 74 percent of nonmarried African American women 65 and over, and 35 percent of all nonmarried men 65 and older.

Now, Marvin Tavlin, who is a 90-year-old legislative chairperson for the Westside Chapter Alliance of Retired Americans, said it is important to remember that our country is made up of compassionate Americans, many of whom study the history of our great country. And during the town hall meeting that I just held in February, Mr. Tavlin asked if he could share his modern Gettysburg Address with us, and it goes like this:

``Three score and 10 years ago our fathers brought forth to this Nation a new idea, a compact between the government and the people to promote the general welfare and for the first time in our history to guarantee the Social Security of our senior citizens. We are now engaged in a great political battle testing whether the new concept can truly endure. The dedicated men and women, living and dead, who fought so long to achieve this worthy goal inspired us to carry on their tradition. It is now up to us, the living, to rededicate ourselves to the great task remaining before us, to guarantee that this renowned social program for the American people who have worked and struggled so long and so hard for their families, their communities and their country; yes, that this great social program shall never perish from the land.''

We gave him great applause because I think he spoke for most Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to the rule for H.R. 310. Yesterday, I too offered several amendments with my colleagues that would require broadcasters to perform minimum public- interest obligations and ask GAO to study the link between indecency and media ownership. I am very disappointed that they were not made in order, and I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this rule and requesting an open rule.

Mr. Speaker, while we all believe in the need to reduce indecency in media, I do not believe increasing fines addresses the root causes of the problem, namely, the current trend of unfettered media conglomeration and its impact on creative voices. This bill is a response to the anger felt by millions of parents and consumers regarding our dumbed-down media culture today.

The bottom line is, a consolidated media market controlled by profit- driven conglomerates is bound to produce indecent, shock-value programming for the sake of viewership. That is why I joined my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), in offering an amendment that would request a GAO study on the connection between media ownership and indecency. I am very disappointed that the amendment was rejected.

Furthermore, when big media gets bigger and the race for audiences turns to the lowest denominator in trash programming to appeal to the broadest possible audience, those conglomerates move further away from quality programming and the principles of diversity, localism and competition, crucial for the service of the public interest.

This was why I supported an amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who has been a champion in restoring the fairness doctrine. The Slaughter-Watson amendment would have made basic public-interest obligations an element of the broadcast licensees' renewal requirement. That includes the coverage of diverse interests and viewpoints in the local community, the requirement of holding two public hearings each year to ascertain the needs and interests of the communities licensees are serving, and documentation requirements of such public interest coverage.

Mr. Speaker, the indecent media culture we are witnessing today cannot be simply modified by increased fines. It needs to be transformed through less media consolidation and greater requirements on broadcasters to serve the public interest. I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. Vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think at the beginning of Negro History Month it is important to report on the Joint Baptist Board Meeting that was held January 24 to 27, 2005, where they jointly, through their presidents, affirmed the following points of agreed action that stem from the forum sessions presented during that meeting.

They said: we call for an end to the war in Iraq and withdrawal of U.S. military personnel. The war in Iraq, described by the Department of Defense as Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a costly and unnecessary military action begun on grossly inaccurate, misconstrued, or distorted intelligence against a nation

that did not pose an immediate or realistic threat to the national security of our Nation. No weapons of mass destruction have been discovered in Iraq, despite intense efforts to locate them.

The brutal regime of Saddam Hussein and its terror on Iraqi society has been replaced by the brutality and chaos of an ongoing war, which has ravaged the land, ransacked cherished aspects of Iraqi history and culture, and threatened the prospect of what even U.S. intelligence analysts fear could be a civil war.

More than 1,400 U.S. military personnel have lost their lives, and more than 10,000 have been wounded in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Over 5,000 of the wounded casualties have been severe enough to prevent return to action. Quoting from a front page story in the January 26, 2005 issue of U.S. Today, it says: ``The Baptists look upon the sorrow, suffering, and financial cost of the war in Iraq and remember the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., a black Baptist preacher who challenged the military engagement in Vietnam more than two generations ago.

King's call that we admit the wicked and tragic folly about our self- righteous choice for war rather than peace and nonviolent change reminds us that preference for war always reflects the wrong values. Unnecessary and unjust war does not produce genuine peace, only death, suffering, more violence and more hate.

What King said in 1967 when he began his public outcry against the war in Vietnam is still true today. ``A true,'' to quote him, ``revolution of values will lay hands on the world order and say of war: 'This business of settling differences is not just.' This business of filling our Nation's homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of people normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, love or an election.

``A Nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.''

As religious leaders whose constituents have family members in the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, we pray for the security of our Nation and the safety of our military personnel. We weep with families who mourn the deaths of their loved ones, and we share the anxiety of families concerning the well-being of those who press on in service.

Our call that our Nation end its military involvement in Iraq does not rise from a lack of support for our Armed Forces, disregard for national security, or lack of resolve concerning freedom and democracy. Rather, we are concerned about our troops and our military families whose loved ones have been ordered to fight and stay in a war that our leaders refuse to even send their own children and the children of the wealthy into.

Mr. Speaker, I implore the President to bring our troops home now.

As religious leaders whose constituents have family members in the U.S. armed forces serving in Iraq and elsewhere around the world, we pray for the security of our nation and the safety of our military personnel. We weep with families who mourn the deaths of their loved ones and we share the anxiety of families concerning the well-being of those who press on in service. Our call that our nation end its military involvement in Iraq does not rise from lace of support for our armed forces, disregard for national security, or lack of resolve concerning freedom and democracy. Rather, we are concerned about our troops and our military families whose loved ones have been ordered to fight and stay in a war that our leaders refuse to even send their own children and the children of wealthy families to fight. Again, we quote Dr. King's words:

I am as deeply concerned about our troops there [Vietnam]

as anything else. For it occurs to me that what we are

submitting them to in Vietnam is not simply the brutalizing

process that goes on in any war where armies face each other

and seek to destroy. We are adding cynicism to the process of

death, for they must know after a short period there that

none of the things we claim to be fighting for are really

involved. Before long they must know that their government

has sent them into a struggle among Vietnamese, and the more

sophisticated surely realize that we are on the side of the

wealthy and the secure while we create a hell for the poor.

The war in Iraq is not only creating a hell for the poor in Iraq. The grief and suffering it has wrought have been disproportionately forced onto the lives of poor and struggling families in our nation. These families, far more than those who are wealthy, send their loved ones to serve as members of the active force or as reservists and members of the National Guard. It is not just or patriotic for our leaders to thrust the sons and daughters of low income families into unnecessary military engagements.