Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with a good deal of sadness, and a great deal of respect and admiration, that I recognize the passing of the influential gay rights activist Barbara Gittings.

I submit the following celebration of her life published in The Washington Post into the Congressional Record. I draw attention to Barbara's life and work as one of our country's finest civil rights advocates. Ms. Gittings exhibited an amazing amount of courage, tenacity, resiliency, and generosity in her fight for equal rights spanning a remarkable 50-year career. I am tremendously thankful for her efforts on behalf of all Americans, and hope the

occasion of her passing provides a small moment of reflection on our collective fight for equal rights.

A gay activist long before people were even calling themselves ``gay,'' Barbara provided the first face for the burgeoning gay rights movement in the 1960s when she took an active part in protesting federal employment discrimination.

She was instrumental in having homosexuality removed from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders in 1973 and worked tirelessly within the American Library Association to make materials with GLBT content more accessible to the reading public.

When told she was the Rosa Parks of the gay rights movement, this modest activist stated that any success she enjoyed was always the result of a collaborative effort.

I think Barbara's lifelong accomplishments provide an important measure of how far we've come in the fight for equal rights for all Americans. To be sure, Madam Speaker, her death also serves to remind us that there is work yet to be done in ensuring all citizens can live lives free of discrimination, prejudice, fear, and the threat of violence. Sadly, today there is one less champion to do it.

[From the Washington Post, Feb. 20, 2007]

Gay Rights Pioneer Barbara Gittings, 75

(By Adam Satariano)

Barbara Gittings, 75, one of the earliest activists to push

the U.S. government to provide gay men and lesbians with

equal rights, died Feb. 18 at an assisted living center in

Kennett Square, Pa. She had breast cancer.

In 1965, Ms. Gittings and several gay men and lesbians were

the first to hold demonstrations outside the White House for

equal rights for homosexuals. She later played a key role in

the American Psychiatric Association's removal of

homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973.

``Gay people didn't have a face until Barbara started

demonstrating in 1965,'' said Mark Segal, publisher of

Philadelphia Gay News. ``Up until that point, no gay face had

been seen in the newspaper, on television or in the movies.''

Her involvement in the gay rights movement started in the

1950s, when she helped form the New York City chapter of the

early lesbian organization Daughters of Bilitis.

Around the same time, Ms. Gittings became estranged from

her family, which did not approve of her championing of gay

rights, Segal said.

Ms. Gittings headed the American Library Association's Gay

Task Force to attract more attention to gay literature and

urge libraries to provide more information on sexuality and

gay issues.

William Kelley, a Chicago lawyer who first attended a

national gay rights gathering with Ms. Gittings in the 1960s,

said he remembered her saying that when she was young, she

had to look in the encyclopedia to find out more about her

sexuality. ``It was her thought that libraries should be

encouraged to offer more information to people about

sexuality,'' he said.

Ms. Gittings also was an editor of the lesbian journal the

Ladder in the mid-1960s.

In Ms. Gittings's lifetime, she saw a change in the

perception of the gay rights movement. In the 1960s, she

picketed in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on the

Fourth of July. In 2005, she attended a ceremony at which the

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission placed a

historical marker recognizing the gay rights struggle across

the street from Independence Hall.

Ms. Gittings was born in Vienna, Austria, where her father

worked as a U.S. diplomat. She was raised in Delaware.

Survivors include her partner of 46 years, Kay Lahusen, and

a sister.

Madam Speaker, make no mistake about it, the change that took place in this body over the course of November 7 is directly related to this war in Iraq. And the presence of a number of people who are here now is directly related to the will of the American people to end this war, which never should have been started.

The fact is, the strategy to escalate the troops is not new, it has been tried at least four other times. It won't work this time, it didn't work those times. The thing to do now is to engage diplomatically and politically. That is what this situation calls for and that is the only thing that will bring success in this conflict at this time.

Support the troops? Of course. Of course, support the troops. Always we support the troops. But there comes a time when you cannot get the success that you seek at the barrel of a gun, you have to talk it out, you have to engage diplomatically, you have to engage politically. There is no substitute for that.

Support the troops, but bring them home. Support the troops, redeploy them, and allow the Iraqi people to seize and protect their country at this time.

I carry a message here today on behalf of people like Phil Steger and the Friends For a Nonviolent World, on behalf of Chapter 27 of Veterans For Peace, on behalf of every patriot who stands for peace, in the frigid cold, every Wednesday night on Lake Street Bridge in Minneapolis.

On behalf of the 3,100 Americans killed, including Minnesotans, I carry that message. On behalf of 24,000 scarred and wounded young Americans, including 372 Minnesotans, I carry the message. On behalf of the families and the loved ones of the damaged and deceased, I carry the message that the American soldier has done what has been asked, and it is time for politicians to step forward and do their job, which is to seek a political and diplomatic solution to this conflict, something that this latest escalation cannot do.

On behalf of the $8 billion we send to Iraq each month, hard-working American tax dollars that could be used to enrich the lives of the 86,000 uninsured children of Minnesota, or for nearly the 700,000 Minnesota Medicare patients, I carry the message that we need peace. We need to pursue it vigorously, unwaveringly, and urgently.

On behalf of the Americans who purposefully misled repeatedly, including the administration as related to these weapons of mass destruction where none existed, on behalf of the people who claim falsely of the collusion between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein where none existed, on behalf of the people who said that regime change would be welcomed with flowers instead of IEDs, I say stop the deception, start telling the truth.

On behalf of the people who say that the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for this war instead of draining the American Treasury of over $400 billion, I say stop the deception, start telling the truth.

On behalf of those Americans who told us, repeatedly, facts which got us into this war in the first place, and which they are trying to sustain us in this war now, I say stop the deception. Stop the killing. Stop the carnage. Support our troops, do not support this escalation. Send a clear signal to the President that this is the wrong way to go.

For 6 years now, while the deception has deepened, we were told to shut up, bite your tongues, you are not as patriotic as me, you don't love America as much as I do. None of that is true. We have to stop this polarizing language and really focus on the best way out of this.

Even people who support the escalation can't claim that we are going to be in Iraq forever. What is your plan for eventually getting out of this thing? We say let's start the withdrawal now, let's start the diplomatic solution now, let's start the political solution now.

I want to say, on behalf of those who really thirst for peace, who believe that peace really is the answer, that we need to look at the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. He said, ``There comes a time when silence is betrayal.'' And so it is.

And so, in keeping in line with the legacy of Dr. King, I want to talk about peace today. To those people who believe in the principles of peace and that peaceful dissent that guided Dr. King, those people should know that for you to raise your voice on behalf of peace is a patriotic act, it is a good thing.

To those people who say they believe in peace and believe peace is the right way to go, let me wrap up my remarks by just reminding you that Marine General Peter Pace, somebody who knows a little bit about warfare, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, just last week said, There is no doubt in my mind that the dialogue here in Washington strengthens our democracy, period. He added, Potential enemies of the United States, they may take comfort in rancor, but they do not know anything about how democracy works. The fact is that peace is patriotic. Dissenting from an ill-fated policy of the President is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is our obligation.

So please continue to stand up for peace and never forget that peace is the answer, and peace is going to prevail.

Mr. Speaker, the days of this House rubber-stamping President Bush's failed war policies have ended. So far this year, House and Senate committees have held over 52 hearings on Iraq. And now this week, over a 4-day period here on the House floor, we will be debating the President's plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq.

The bipartisan bill is simple. It states that the House will continue to support our troops, but that we oppose the President's troop increase plan. Some of my Republican colleagues say that if you really support the troops, you must support the President's plan. But this makes no sense.

Do my colleagues not realize that our troops in Iraq were polled on the President's plan? Only 41 percent of them supported it. Not even a majority of our troops say that this plan of the President's is a good plan. What about our generals? Both retired and active duty military leaders have said that the President's plan will not reverse the devastating civil war that is now taking place in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we listen to those military leaders and our troops and voice our opposition to the President's plan.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 93 and 94, for travel reasons I was unable to be present for the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, the President submitted his budget for our Nation. In that budget, it would be easy to look at it and say, this is all about numbers, it is just a rational approach, it is just a plan, it is an impersonal thing. But, in fact, Madam Speaker, what a budget is is a moral statement about who matters in our society.

What a budget is is a reflection of our own humanity. It talks about who counts, who doesn't, who matters, who doesn't, what are our priorities. In fact, what the budget shows, Madam Speaker, is our values and what we hold dear, and what we believe is really just not that important.

Let me say as we approach this budgetary season, this process in Congress, it is very important to remember that this budget will tell much, much more about our society and who we are than we might imagine. In fact, we should use some guiding principles as we approach this budget. And one of them is very simple, and it is a quote that comes from the great late Senator Hubert Humphrey from my State of Minnesota.

Senator Humphrey said, ``The moral test of any government is how it treats those in the dawn of life, the children; those in the dusk of life, the elderly; and those in the shadow of life, the disadvantaged.''

This budget is a measure of how we stand, how we fit along these very important metrics that Senator Humphrey laid out for us. And by that test, the proposal that the President set forth fails. It doesn't value the hardworking investment, the hardworking energy, the blood, sweat and tears of Minnesotans or Americans.

This budget proposal diminishes the importance of health. It includes $78

billion in Medicare and Medicaid cuts and billions in new premiums that threaten to endanger Minnesota's 691,000 Medicare patients' access to care that they need to lead healthy, independent lives.

This budget proposal does not value children in the dawn of life. It underfunds by $10 billion the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The administration itself argues that it needs $15 billion just to continue covering those children already enrolled in the program. With only $5 billion proposed to cover its neediest children, we will almost certainly add to, not subtract from, the already 86,000 uninsured children in Minnesota.

Minnesota's 407,000 veterans will undoubtedly be hurt by the President's proposed VA funding cuts. Nearly one-half of the military servicemen and women in Iraq and Afghanistan will require health care services for the physical and psychological impairments and traumas of war, yet the President's budget cuts in half the minimum annual increase needed, according to the Veterans Health Administration.

The President freezes funds for college work-study funds and zeroes out Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants at a time when tuition and fees at schools like the University of Minnesota have soared nearly 50 percent in just 4 years.

It eliminates two of Minnesota's most effective local crime fighting tools, the COPS, Community Oriented Policing Service program, and the Justice Assistance Grants.

It reduces Minnesota's Community Block Grant Development program by $17.2 million, which is the cornerstone of Minneapolis and the Fifth Congressional District's affordable housing and revitalization program.

And it goes on: public housing cut by $450 million; Section 8 housing vouchers cut by $500 million; Section 11 disabled housing cut by $121 million; elderly housing cut by $160 million; lead paint prevention cut by $38 million; zero funding for Brownfields redevelopment.

Madam Speaker, a budget is a moral barometer of a nation. It is a reflection of our values. This budget proposal does not value people, but it does value the privileged, because it proposes to maintain permanent tax breaks for the President's wealthy friends.

The President proposes making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. This includes reducing rates on capital gains and dividends, a phaseout of the temporary repeal of the estate tax, educational tax incentives and child tax credits. The cost to you and me? Well, that is $373.9 billion over 5 years; $1.6 trillion over 10.

Remember the cuts the President proposes? Kids, COPS, Justice Assistance Grants, Community Block Grants. The fact is, Madam Speaker, we have to build a new politics of inclusion, a new politics of generosity, a new politics of peace, a new politics that says that our parents and our seniors are precious, our students are precious, our veterans are precious, and we value them.

And tax cuts for the most privileged people amongst us, there is just not time for that right now. We have to ask all Americans of all wealth positions to pony up for the good of the whole Nation.

Mr. Speaker, soldiers don't choose to go to war. Soldiers do not allocate funds for which they use to fight the war. Soldiers may face danger, soldiers may risk their lives and sometimes lose their lives, but the least a Nation can do that sends a young person into harm's way is to fully support, fully equip and fully allow that young person to be successful to protect their own lives.

And yet this administration has not done that. We failed in the early part of this war to provide Kevlar. This administration has failed to provide Humvees that were fully armored for our young people, and now what we see is tens of billions in backlog on maintenance so that the equipment that young people are relying on to protect their lives and to fully do their duty is unavailable.

This is wrong, and we must call attention to this wrong, and we must do something about it now.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to lend my voice with all of the people who voted for a change for America, but especially to lend my voice with my fellow new Congressmen, the freshmen. I rise because I believe that we were sent here to pursue an agenda for America, to set our country on a new course, a new course which put the public good at the center of our efforts, a new course which said that politics must be in service to the average citizen.

This past November, the winds of change took on a gale force in American politics. American people took back their government. They sent a loud and clear message that the government was here for them, by them and of them. No more, no big contracts. No more legislation written behind closed doors by and for the special interests, no more whittling away the constitutional rights that we were fighting, and no more bridges built to nowhere. No more rubber-stamp administration.

We are going to have an active and engaged Congress that really believes in the principle of oversight, and no more escalating an oil war that we believe is sacrificing innocent young Americans for no legitimate purpose. The American people voted in record numbers and demanded that their voices be heard. They wanted their government to respond to their needs, and their needs are not the needs of the big oil companies, the big pharmaceutical companies or the Halliburtons of this world.

American people want a new politics of inclusion, of generosity. The American people want a new politics which says everybody counts and everybody matters. The Democrats heard them.

In record time, 100 hours, we made history by passing a people's agenda. Yes, within 100 hours, minimum-wage workers were able to say that they were getting a raise; within 100 hours, lifesaving research, so that people could have a real chance at a cure for their loved ones and themselves. Within 100 hours, real implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations, and within the 100 hours we made a real statement about education being affordable for all Americans.

I am proud to be a Member of this new class of freshmen, proud to be a Member of these folks who came here to make a change to put the public interest first. The public interest is a very good idea, and I am very proud to say that I have been a part of it.

I thank the gentlewoman from California. And I was told early on, Madam Speaker, that the gentlewoman from California wanted to feature Congress people who had voted for the war in Iraq and then had subsequently changed their minds. I was persistent in trying to be a part of tonight's special order, and I thank the gentlewoman from California for allowing me to, because I just wanted to point out that back in 2003 I had no idea that I would ever be standing in the halls of Congress, but I did know in 2003, in March, that this war was wrong and we needed to stand absolutely against it.

But I respect those Members of Congress who came forward tonight and pointed out that this war is wrong, was wrong, and we have to get out of Iraq now.

Today--after 6 long years of subsidies to big oil companies with outrageous profit margins--we made a bold change for America.

Today we gave America an energy policy that will move the Nation towards a day in which no young American will ever again have to fight another oil war for any President--especially this one.

The President finally admitted last Wednesday night what most Americans have known for a long time.

His Iraq policy is a failure.

I rise today to strongly oppose this President's solution to that failure--a surge of American troops.

Surge in Bushspeak is plain and simple--an expansion of the same disastrous policy in Iraq.

The vast majority of our country's top military and foreign policy experts disagree with the viability of the President's approach.

This list includes the current Joint Chiefs of Staff, current military commanders in the region--General Abizaid and Casey, the Baker-Hamilton commission and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel told it like it is last week: ``I think this speech given last night by this President represents the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.'' As a Vietnam Veteran he should know.

Our military leaders state we must view Iraq policy as a three-legged stool.

Each leg of the stool represents a key strategy to support reconstruction of Iraq--one leg represents our military strategy, one economic and one political.

All 3 legs have to be present, and strong, to ensure Iraqi success. If one strategy is over-emphasized--and others don't even exist--the stool and our strategy falls apart.

The President's plan is--at best--a one-legged stool--our military involvement. A one-legged stool cannot stand.

Nor should it--when it is built on the lives of 22,000 young Americans.

I am not a military expert, but experts of counterinsurgencies look at Iraq and recommend a military force of a quarter million, to a half million troops for any hope of success.

[Let me be clear I am not for any increase in our troop levels in Iraq]

But, 22,000 troops don't even come close to making this critical military benchmark.

Ted Carpenter of the Cato Institute stated last week:

. . . A lesser deployment would have no realistic chance to get the job done. A limited surge of additional troops is the latest illusory panacea offered by the people who brought us the Iraq quagmire in the first place. It is an idea that should be rejected.

This is a reckless and irresponsible proposal. To allow the President to place these selfless young Americans in a virtual shooting gallery is wrong.

Since last night, 3,012 of America's most promising young men and women have lost their lives in Iraq--and over 22,000 more have been grievously wounded.

We have squandered more than $350 billion of our Treasury in Iraq with no end in sight.

Three hundred fifty billion dollars would fund 48 million kids a year of Head Start; it could provide 17 million students 4 year scholarships at public universities; we could build 3 million additional housing units; or we could hire 6 million more public school teachers for one year.

Instead, we've dug 3,012 graves and mortgaged our children's future. Enough is enough.

Monday, we celebrated Dr. Martin Luther King's life and work. In one of Dr. King's last speeches in which he criticized our Vietnam policy, Dr. King stated that: ``a time comes when silence is betrayal.''

That time has come--and our continued silence will be our Nation's betrayal. The immediate withdrawal of our troops is the only new way out of Iraq:

Lt. Gen. William Odom, of the Hudson Institute said, (and I quote): ``The wisdom and moral courage to change the course for strategic purposes is what we need today, not mindless rhetoric `about staying the course.' `Cutting and running' from Iraq is neither cowardly nor imprudent. It is the only way to recover from what is turning out to be the greatest strategic mistake in American history.''

I concur wholeheartedly.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for her courage and persistence in the pursuit of peace; the pursuit of a saner and safer world for our children, and all the children of the world.

Madam Speaker, somewhere In Minneapolis or Jackson or Baltimore, somewhere In America today, there is a young couple that is feeling vulnerable. Maybe one has been laid off due to outsourcing, and maybe, the other is working for something close to a minimum wage. They probably have no medical benefits. Today real income is lower for the typical family than in 2000, while the incomes of the wealthiest families have grown significantly. Things are tough for working people, but in America, we often turn to our faith in tough times.

When our couple shows up for worship service, probably on a Sunday, there is no doubt that the preacher will tell them of God's unyielding love. ``God loves you.'' But the next thing the preacher tells them is crucial--not only to the young couple, but to us all. The next message from the preacher may help to shape, not only the next election results, but the political landscape of the Nation.

Will the preacher tell our young couple, ``God loves you--but only you and people like you?'' Or will the preacher say ``God loves you and you must love your neighbors of all colors, cultures, or faiths as yourselves''? One message will lead to be a stinginess of spirit, an exclusion of the ``undeserving,'' and the other will lead to a generosity of spirit and inclusion of all.

In America today, we are encouraged to believe in the myth of scarcity--that there just isn't enough--of anything. But in the story of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, Jesus, who the Muslims called Isa, found himself preaching to 5,000--not including the women by the way--at dinner time, and there didn't appear to be enough food. The disciples said that there were only five barley loaves and two fish. We just have to send them away hungry. We simply don't have enough. But Jesus took the loaves and the fish and started sharing food. There was enough for everyone. There was more than enough. What was perceived as scarcity was illusory as long as there was sharing, and not hoarding.

The idea here is not that there is a boundless supply of everything. Such an idea leads to waste and dispensability of everything. But the idea is that there is enough.

If scarcity is a myth, then poverty is not necessary. America need not have 37 million Americans living below the poverty line. It is a choice. Hunger is a choice. Exclusion of the stranger, the immigrant, or the darker other is a choice.

We can choose generosity. In America today, we spend more on health care than any other industrialized Nation, yet 46 million people have none. Canada spends half of what we spend and covers everyone. Perfectly? Of, course not. But adequately. That's more than what a lot of people have right now.

We live in a society which says that there is enough for a tax break for the wealthy but not enough for an increase in the minimum wage for national health care. There is enough for subsidies to oil and coal companies but not for families who are struggling to afford child care or a college education. But it doesn't have to be this way.

We need a politics of generosity based on the reality of abundance as opposed to a politics of not enough. The richest 1 percent of the Nation, on average, owns 190 times as much as a typical household. The child poverty rate in the United States is the highest of 16 other industrialized nations. Employers are shifting health insurance costs onto workers. Not only are fewer employees receiving health insurance through their employers, but those who still do are paying more for it.

Recently, I have become the focus of some criticism for my use of the Qu'ran for my ceremonial swearing in. Let me be clear: I am going to be sworn into office like all Members of Congress. I am going to swear to uphold the United States Constitution. We seem to have lost the political vision of our founding document--a vision of inclusion, tolerance and generosity.

I do not blame my critics for subscribing to a politics of scarcity and intolerance. However, I believe we all must project a new politics of generosity and inclusion. This is the vision of the diverse coalition in my congressional district. My constituents in Minnesota elected me to fight for a new politics in which a loving Nation guarantees health care for all of its people; a new politics in which executive pay may not skyrocket while workers do not have enough to care for their families. I was elected to articulate a new politics in which no one is cut out of the American dream, not immigrants, not gays, not poor people, not even a Muslim committed to serve his Nation.

Mr. Speaker, if you are a young person who has been waiting to see a stop in these galloping prices of college education, today is a good day. Just like last week, if you were a senior, waiting for prescription drug prices to have a sane policy, last week was a good week. Just like if you were a hardworking minimum wage worker, you saw that last week was a good week.

Now, we have been waiting around for about the last 12 years for good weeks to happen for the hardworking people of the United States, and this week and today those days are coming to fruition.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, let's vote, let's pass this tuition decrease, let's pass this cutting in student loan interest rates. Let's make college more affordable for all Americans. And let's remember that the party opposite had a long time to solve these problems. They didn't. We did. Thank goodness for it.

Mr. Speaker, for over a year now, senior citizens in my State of Minnesota have been subject to a sink hole that the administration calls Medicare part D, the prescription drug program.

It was really never meant for our seniors. It was written for and by the pharmaceutical companies and the insurance companies at the expense of our senior citizens and paid for by the American taxpayer.

In 2006, companies like Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Merck and Novartis made record

profits. Meanwhile, Minnesota seniors are at the mercy of complex and confusing drug company rules, matched by the rising cost of drugs, costs that make gas prices seem stable.

Prescription drugs have increased at twice the rate of inflation. Medicare folks pay as much as 10 times more than vets do through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat the greatest generation. We can and must do right by them. We must end the drug company charade and enact real prescription drug reform. It is time to let HHS negotiate just like the VA.

Today, the House will pass the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act. Let us end the scam and give the greatest generation the dignity they so deserve. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 4.

I thank the gentlewoman from California for allowing me to participate in the Out of Iraq Caucus. I do formally request membership in such caucus at this moment and anxiously await being a full-fledged member of the Out of Iraq Caucus.

Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise today really in the mindset of this coming weekend, which is Martin Luther King's birthday celebration. Martin Luther King, we all know, was a valiant defender of civil and human rights, also stood up strongly for the poor, but in this day and time must be recognized as one of the clearest voices for peace that this country has ever known.

As I stand before you asking this country to join this Out of Iraq Caucus of the Congress, the whole United States should rise up, one and all, and join the caucus. And I just want to mention that it is important now to remember that those voices of peace, of which Martin Luther King was a key voice, need to be listened to, need our attention.

Today, it is important to point out, as we walk toward the Martin Luther King holiday, that it was he who spoke up for peace, and he didn't do it in a way that was easy. Martin Luther King was arrested over 30 times as he was talking about peace. In 1967, and it is important to remember this, in 1967 he gave a speech in which he said that silence could continue no more. And then on April 4 of 1967, 1 year before his death, he said that we have got to get out of Vietnam.

And he didn't just say that Vietnam was the issue. He said Vietnam was critical, and Vietnam was what he was talking about at that time, but he actually projected a greater vision than

just Vietnam. He talked about a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation. In fact, what he talked about was a generosity of spirit, a politics of spirit in which we all could live in peace with each other.

We need to say, no escalation, get out of Iraq now, but America needs to adopt as its guiding principle, America needs to say the thing that guides us the most is peace. It is not living in superiority to the nations of the world, but living in brotherhood and sisterhood with the nations of the world. We need to talk about a peace of generosity, a peace of inclusion, and a peace that will allow us to look our constituents in the face and say we will not send your brothers, your sisters, your children, your parents into a war zone to be one of 20,000 more targets.

We are going to stand up with courage, just like Martin Luther King did. We will withstand the criticism of those detractors who just don't get it. We will stand with the people who need peace, which is our constituents, and with the soldiers. Today, my colleagues, we are actually protecting our soldiers, as they protect us, by calling for no escalation. Withdraw from Iraq. Peace now.

Mr. Speaker, today the hardworking men and women of America have reason to rejoice. Today from the people's House, the House of Representatives, we have heard the call of the people of America, and we will today say that labor has dignity and the working people of America deserve a raise in pay.

It has been a long time coming, about 10 years; too long in fact, too long. Fifteen million people will benefit. But the people who get the pay increase, they will not be the only beneficiaries. You and I will be able to claim a generous Nation that believes that all labor is dignified and must be honored with fair and decent pay.

Poverty has increased every year over the last 6 years. The ranks of the uninsured have increased every year over the last 6 years; and something else has increased over the last 6 years, executive pay.

An average CEO makes more before lunch than the average minimum wage worker makes all year long.

Today, the House recognizes that all labor is important; all workers deserve dignity.

Today, the House recognizes that 37 million people living in poverty is not acceptable.

And this should mark a new beginning.

Toward concerning all--because a loving nation looks out for the health and wellness of all its people.

Today's a step towards a livable wage--not just a minimum wage.

Toward economic justice.