Rep. Kucinich, HR1673, proposes US Department of Peace

[paineinthearse]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich will be introducing legislation next week, proposing the creation of a Cabinet Level U.S. Department of Peace. HR1673 is not yet in Thomas, but I will be posting here when I get a copy from Rep.McGovern's office (hopefully tonight or tomorrow).

===========================

Received from PDA-MA. Attn: New England DU'ers......

On Saturday - Mar 5, Rep. James McGovern (D-MA3) will speak in Concord in support of the US Department of Peace. This is important legislation for progressives and peaceworkers and the folks drawn to this issue are natural allies.

Rep. McGovern is one of 54 co-sponsors of legislation to establish a Cabinet Level U.S. Department of Peace. He will speak about the importance of the bill, H.R. 1673, submitted by Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich.

The meeting will run from 3 - 5 PM. First Parish Church, 20 Lexington Rd, Concord, Massachusetts.

[Maat]

1. I think that I will request ...

that my esteemed representative, Issa (R), support the creation of a Department of Peace.

I'm sure he will abide by my wishes (not!)!

[benburch]

2. My rep is Dennis Hastert...

But I wrote him anyway, just to annoy him.

[paineinthearse]

7. Good for you!

Maybe he'll grow a conscience!

[benburch]

8. Ann Coutler would be more likely to become sexy.

And you KNOW that's not happening.

[no name no slogan]

33. In MN, our local DoPeace group has talked to Republican Reps

In fact, they're still in a continuing dialogue with one of them. There's a very real possiblity that this conservative, suburban Republican could sign on as a co-sponsor of the legislation.

Keep your eyes open...stranger things have happened. :thumbsup:

[sarahlee]

51. That is WONDERFUL news!

Thats the way it is done. Win him over or not, that it the kind of grassroots lobbying that it takes.

Thanks!

[genius]

3. The California Democratic Party endorsed the DoPeace in Sept, 2004

They called on all Democratic Representatives in CA to back it. It was backed by the legislation committee and then the E-board which speaks for the Party. Make sure that if you have a Dem rep from CA, you notify them of this and demand they back the bill.

[paineinthearse]

6. Floor statement from the 108th Congress.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:1:./temp/~r108DnaEYP::

OFFICE OF PEACE -- (House of Representatives - April 08, 2003)


---
(Mr. KUCINICH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, in a moment I will introduce legislation with 46 cosponsors to create a Department-level office of peace and the Department of Peace is introduced at this moment when it seems that war is inevitable, when our troops are in the streets of Baghdad, when members of the administration talk about the possibility of invasion of Iran and the possibility of invasion of Syria.

This is the moment when we need to ask whether war is inevitable or not. This is the moment when a Department of Peace can take steps to making nonviolence an organizing principle in our society and when we can create a structure in our government where we can strive to make war itself archaic.

Forty-seven Members of Congress have put their names on this legislation because we are at a moment in the history of our Nation and in the world where we need to be asking questions. Is war inevitable? Forty-seven Members of Congress say no. Is peace inevitable? The answer must be yes.

END

=======================================

[Spacejet]

9. So did Texas

I was one of the DK delegates getting signatures at the convention. The party leaders wouldn't let it come to a vote, however if you collected X number hundreds of signatures you could force a vote. Enough signatures were obtained.

One of the other DK delegates stood up and told the chair to bring it to a vote, the chair started saying it couldn't be done, and another one of our delegates walked over to him and slammed down a HUGE stack of signatures. He didn't know what to say.

Anyway, it came to a vote and passed by a large margin.

[dweller]

11. California and Texas

what strange bedfellows.

Now, how many other states can this happen in?

and welcome to DU Spacejet! :hi:

dp

[no name no slogan]

37. Damn, that's a GREAT story!

We did something similar in Minnesota. The resolution came up through our caucus system to the state convention, where it was "conveniently" left off the report from the platform committee.

Thankfully, the Kucinich campaign had at least 1/4 of the delegates on the floor, and the support of well over an additional 30%, in addition to the best-run floor organization in the state. We got the DoP added to the MN platform by a floor vote. :)

[LWolf]

55. Buck McKeon

won't suppport the DOP. I'll let him know, anyway.

[dweller]

4. an idea whose time has come

:kick:


dp

[bush_is_wacko]

5. I second that motion. Let's see what kind of reception it gets from

thuglicans!

Can't wait to read this one!
:kick:

[dweller]

16. you don't have to wait

the Nay-Say brigade has shown up here already.

:eyes:

dp

[bush_is_wacko]

20. Someone posted a link to it though did you see it. I KNEW the thugs and

naysayers wouldn't be far behind. Someone needs to do something like this. You can't really legislate peace, but you can bring a nation together by PROMOTING peace throughout the country rather allowing church groups to promote hate. This is the perfect counteraction to "moral values" IMO!

[Spacejet]

10. Can you imagine a bush appointment to such an office?

He would probably appoint nothing but inanimate objects.

[Robeson]

14. He'd probably turn it into a Faith Based initiative and it would....

...end up with tax dollars going to the churches...

[Jacobin]

12. That is what the Department of State does/should do

Silly silly silly silly

We just need a functioning democracy back, i.e, an independent media, and all the rest of it would fall into place.

[Mairead]

45. Not so. The DoS simply does foreign relations. The DoP

would operate internally and externally, and on a different basis.

Do please be fair and informed.

[dolstein]

13. How about a Department of Huggs and Kisses?

A Department of Puppy Dogs and Lollipops?

Sorry, but this is just plain silly. We have a Department of State already. If you don't like the administration's foreign policy, adding a new department won't do anything to change that.

[Dragonfly]

24. I was an early skeptic

because I had a dim view of the similar-sounding U.S. Institute of Peace and didn't know much about Cong. Kucinich's evolution, either as a person or federal rep.

Then I read the entire Department of Peace conceptual framework a few years back and became attracted to the across-the-board conflict resolution theme. Looks like 54 or so members of the House think it's a pretty good notion, as well.

I would respectfully ask you and Penguin 31 to look further into the legislation before either deeming the measure "silly" or hoping that a State Department ruled by Condi/Bush, et al, can become champions of true global peace and justice.

[Selatius]

25. I think one question I have is the cost of building a new dept.

We don't have the money, do we? With Bush's fiscal policies dumping us in a pool of red ink? As a result, I think the most sensible solution is to "denazify" the federal government, break up the news media oligarchy, and find an orderly way to disentangle ourselves from the mess Bush started.

I think it's a worthy idea, but I'm willing to try less radical structural reforms first before falling back to this plan.

[no name no slogan]

35. We HAVE the money-- it's a matter of having the right priorities.

It would take the amount of $$ the Defense Dept. gets in ONE DAY to fund the entire Department of Peace for a year. And, given the fact that the Pentagon cannot account for over $1 TRILLION right now, it's a very small price to pay.

We have the money to do this, and many other things-- like pay for true universal health care. We only have to decide that peace is more important than killing more innocent Iraqis or Afghanis.

[LWolf]

56. across-the-board conflict resolution

What makes this so powerful is that the U.S. would have to work on "inner peace" along with peaceful international relationships.

Let's think about that for a moment. If we stepped back from trying to rule the world, and cleaned our own house of hate, violence, and injustice....

If we worked to resolve conflicts in our families, streets, neighborhoods, communities, and cities, making peace a reality in our daily lives at home, and then extended that process to the rest of the world?

That's a vision for America that I can support. If that's what America stood for, being an American might mean something to me.

[IndianaGreen]

26. We got a nazi b*tch running the State Department

Sorry, but this is just plain silly. We have a Department of State already. If you don't like the administration's foreign policy, adding a new department won't do anything to change that.

Don't tell me you love this crowd of goons!

Peace is better than war. We could have 1,500 GIs alive today if Bush and his enablers had not gone to war in Iraq to fatten the pockets of their corporate friends. I won't mention the larger number of brown skinned people that we have slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to satisfy our blood lust.

[no name no slogan]

31. You're not very informed about this bill, are you?

Before you dismiss it with a knee-jerk reaction, I'd recommend you learn something about it first.

The Department of Peace would NOT replace the State or Defense Departments. Nor would it focus exclusively on peace efforts outside of the US. A large part of the Department of Peace's mandate would cover the teaching and practice of non-violent conflict resolution in our schools and communities.

Of course, had you bothered to research any of this, you would have known that.

We now return to your regularly-scheduled Kucinich-bashing... :eyes:

[Penguin31]

15. Sounds like something out of 1984

</tinfoilhat>

Seriously, I could DEFINITELY picture this legislation proposed, then the administration of Chimpus Maximus twisting it to their vision of promoting "liberty" "peace", and "democracy" (which, as we've learned, means they plan to do the exact opposite)

[goodhue]

17. Find out more here . . .

http://www.dopcampaign.org/

In Minnesota, 3 of our 4 democratic reps have already signed on.

[sarahlee]

52. There are other countries

working to enact Dept. of Peace initiatives as well. Just wait and see - a couple of yeard down the line and all the other countries will have their DoP's and like Kyoto, the US will still be sitting on its hands.

The time has come.

[moggie12]

18. There was a thread recently asking if he could get elected President

This is one reason he can't -- this is way too 60's. The country is in the grip of a propaganda-induced patriotic flag-waving fervor -- this sounds like something from the Age of Aquarius. Peace and love, Dennis, but you're living in la-la-land.

(Yes, I know, I'm cynical. But stuff like this just provides cannon fodder for the RW nuts.)

[Desertrose]

22. How exactly do you propose to change things??

Sixties my ass...since when is peace only about the 60's?

How do you intend to counter the insanity going on in this country?? You don't think after loosing 1500+ soldiers that NO ONE is interested in peace? Have you read the DoP proposal?


For all those who feel this is a stupid idea, then you support what is currently going on?
More & more people are signing on to this everyday....those who make fun of it should be willing to send their loved ones off to war then,right?

Believe me when I tell you we spend too much time worrying worrying about cannon fodder for the RWers. Hell, we all know they'll make it up anyway. we need to do what is right and what helps the country & people.

Kucinich is a visinary and let me tell you, we sure as hell need a better vision than what has been provided so far!!!

[moggie12]

28. I'm sorry if I sounded like I was making fun of it, I wasn't

Though very well-intentioned, I truly believe it is a counterproductive effort. The goals as articulated in his proposal are laudable, but the "Department of Peace" things makes him sound very "out there" -- it will automatically turn off many, many people. Like I said, I'm cynical: I think the RW guys can take this and use it as one more thing to drive away easily-manipulated voters from the Democratic Party. They will use it to paint the Dems as advocating peace at any cost (e.g., as in, "Oh the peacenik Democrats these days, they want peace no matter what - if those guys were in charge back during the 40's, they wouldn't have gone to war to stop Hitler".) I'm sorry, but I really do worry about this being cannon fodder. I want to fight back hard against the Bushies, but I truly don't believe this particular effort is helpful.

[LWolf]

57. Thank you, DR.

The notion that the concept of "peace" was invented in, and is restricted to, the 60s, is ludicrous.

The opposition expressed here to the DOP is a graphic illustration of why we have not yet achieved global peace; peace is not a mainstream American value.

I think it should become part of our values system; and I think starting at home, with ourselves, is the right way to go about doing that. The DOP opens the door to that evolution.

:hug:

[carpetbagger]

19. Uh, Dennis, it's called the State Department.

In the hands of a marginally competent Secretary of State, the department would work to avoid conflict through diplomacy, as well as work on international issues both in collaboration with other nations as well as through aid and relief programs run through the department.

If he wanted to make a point, he'd call for the creation of a Department of State.

[genius]

32. No it's not. This covers more than foreign matters.

I wish people would read the bill before looking like illiterates.

[sarahlee]

53. Read the bill

and it is more than that - it is in part (I think) about providing a window for a shift and counter from violence as the only option to both domestic and foreign problems.

If you studied psychology, you would have a better understanding of the importance.

[goodhue]

21. FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions
Updated 9/29/04 Many more to come...

http://www.dopcampaign.org/faq.htm

Question: Isn't this legislation a duplication of systems we already have in place and won't it just create more government?"

Answer: The Department of Homeland Security combines dozens of agencies. They saw a need for it, they created it. It will take a span of 10 years in operation to gather enough evidence to clearly examine its systems of operation. There is nothing that the DoP duplicates, it is a whole new concept. The DoP would reorganize the current systems we have and extend new funding to effective intervention. There are eight Federal areas that the DoP would bring together.

Q: Given the roles of other federal agencies and domestic and international organizations, why should the American public support the Department of Peace?

A: Again, there is currently no overall organized approach by the U.S. government that aims at creating peaceful solutions to the problems we face domestically and internationally. There are some programs that address aspects of peace work, but none that offer any overall structure to a broad-based approach to making the work of peace a national calling. We need to focus on peace proactively, giving peace the stature of a cabinet level position.

We are beginning to be able to predict wars through economic and social indicators. The CIA has compiled the data and developed powerful predictive indicators based on child mortality rates, access to markets and a voice in their government. Our international policies and strategies need to include this awareness as well as the implementation of preventative measures. In addition we need to continually provide our presidents with nonviolent alternatives to war.

Similarly, we can predict the likelihood of criminal behavior subsequent to incarceration. It is common knowledge that early success in school leads to continued educational success, and economic success reduces the urge toward violence. Trainings like “Alternatives to Violence” and “Nonviolent Communication” decrease prison violence and recidivism rates. Our national investments need to reflect these understandings.

Q: What would the DoP do about terrorism?

A: Terrorism is a challenge. 9/11 proved it. The issues go beyond the scope of the diplomacy between nations, which is the focus of the state department. It's time to reach out to other nations and take care of issues before they become problems. The DoP realizes that there are many ways to confront terrorism before it reaches a breaking point. It is peculiar where, in a discussion of causality, so few talk about cause and effect. People don't seem to get the connection. There still hasn't been a national discussion about why 9/11 happened. Internationally many people feel critical of US policies, economic and political. An international dialogue to better understand these issues is long overdue.

Q: There are so many departments not getting the funding they need. Where is the money for the DoP coming from?

A: The budget for the Department of Peace suggested in the bill is 2% of the defense budget. But the deeper issue is that we need to fund that which we want to see become a reality. Ultimately violence is too expensive a strategy. The work of the Department of Peace is to prevent violence, both domestically and internationally. The cost of any war in which we engage is billions. We spent $2 billion in Somalia and $500 million in Rwanda. Iraq has cost us more than $150 billion to date. Preventing even one war would more than offset any expenses up front.

Similarly, in our own country, murder and manslaughter take 16,000 live per year. Every 15 seconds a woman is abused by a current or former husband/partner. The cost of incarceration is over $30,000 per year, per person. Yet the cost of programs that teach alternatives to violence in schools and prisons with a proven track record in reducing crime and domestic violence operate at a fraction of these costs. People who are operating these services receive no assistance in implementing and expanding their programs. We can’t afford not to implement programs that will save us money in the long run and reduce suffering dramatically. We know what to do.

We have the chance to change the world. It is more a matter of where will we find the money in the future if we don't more seriously look at stopping violence? What's the cost of violence? The DoP offers transformation in areas such as police departments, schools and prisons, because if you lessen the violence, you lessen the cost.

Q: Is it unrealistic to believe Congress will support the DoP with such a tight budget?

A: In tight budgetary times we need to ask ourselves, what investments cultivate the future we desire? What programs will reduce crime, violence and war? What are our options? Just as we are beginning to understand that there are numerous ways to approach our personal health by considering not only the options of allopathic medicine and a surgeon, we also visit a naturopath and a nutritionist to consider all of our options to restore and build health. A healthier diet and gym membership costs money, but less than open-heart surgery or a stroke. The Department of Peace will research and create alternatives to war and fund programs that reduce the violence within our society. Most of our current spending is responsive to violence and the threat of violence. What we cannot afford is to continue to spread our military so thin and expose our troops to an ever-widening spiral of violence around the world. And we cannot afford the growing costs of crime and punishment. Ultimately, peace is a more profitable path.

Q: People have been violent forever, isn't that just how people are?

A: We need to ask ourselves – do we have the capacity to evolve? We have a chance for an evolutionary growth. Only some have been fighting and dragging others along. Each has the potential for violence. The question is: How do we challenge ourselves to be more than we are, better than we are? In these times, it's our obligation to be more than we are, to stand for a better future.

Q: Can the Department of Peace be construed as anti-war, considering the controversy surrounding the United States' involvement in the recent war in Iraq?

A: Some certainly will. However, it is not inherently anti-war. The long-term goal is to make war unnecessary. It does not in any way specifically address the Iraq war. The DoP legislation addresses a wide range of issues both domestic and international in scope. The legislation was originally introduced in the House of Representatives in July of 2001, before the War in Iraq, and before September 11, 2001. Peace is not the absence of war; war is the absence of peace. We must remember with our combined efforts towards a common vision, that peace is possible.

[dansolo]

23. Sorry, but there are far more important matters

Sometimes I wish that Kucinich would focus on more important matters. What is he trying to prove here? There are issues that deserve more attention. Personally I think the notion of a Department of Peace is rediculous. I don't have a problem with promoting peace, but that should be the job of the State Department.

[Wilms]

27. You are correct. There's a much more important issue to be dealt with.

And that's stopping the war.

Why didn't he propose an "End the Wars Dept.", instead? :shrug:

[dweller]

38. he voted against the Iraq war

and is also seeking an investigation into the missing $9billion.
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=5326


a platform of his presidential campaign was to have the troops home in 90 days of UN approval.
http://www.kucinich.us/bringourtroopshome.php

dp

[no name no slogan]

40. He also won the Gandhi prize in 2004

from the Gandhi Institute, a non-profit institute run by Mohandas Gandhi's grandson, in Tennessee.

He's also one of the few House Democrats who has any credibility speaking out against the war, as he has been against it from the start, and has voted against additional funding for the war, too.

[goodhue]

47. Gandhi peace award.

Actually, Kucinich received the Gandhi Peace in 2003. The award has been given annualy since 1959 by Promoting Enduring Peace (PEP), founded by Dr. Jerome Davis, in the late nineteen forties.

http://www.pepeace.org/tmpl/gandhi.html


The Gandhi Institute is a different organization founded in 1991 by the grandson of Mahatma Gandhi, Arun Gandhi, and his wife, Sunanda. Arun Gandhi endorsed Kucinich for president.

http://www.gandhiinstitute.org/


Here is link to Dennis Kucinich’s Acceptance Speech for the 2003 Gandhi Peace Award . . .

http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech20.php

[genius]

30. war and peace are unimportant?

[genius]

29. Guys, if you haven't read the bill, please do. It's a great bill.

It is about a new way of looking at peace both inside and outside our country.

[zulchzulu]

34. Yeah...this is going to happen with Repugs controlling everything

While the notion is very cool, it's got a rat's chance in hell of passing. If anything, this is nothing more than marketing to get money for a campaign.

Peace, Inc.

[no name no slogan]

36. Not so fast-- some Republicans may co-sponsoring the bill

In MN, or local DoP group has approached all four of our GOP congresscritters. Two of them refused to meet with them, but the other two agreed to a dialog. One of these two is in a continuing dialogue with them, and it's quite possible he may sign on as a co-sponsor.

They said the same things about about other "impossibilities" before. Twenty years ago, nobody could have guessed that the USSR and every communist country (except Romania) would be freed by peaceful, non-violent revolutions. Nor did anybody last month guess that Lebanon's Syrian-dominated government would resign en masse, without a shot being fired.

There's countless other examples throughout history of peaceful, non-violent revolution changing things. It may have taken some time, but it did happen. The Dept of Peace bill has more co-signers now than it did last session. If it doesn't pass this session, it will be back the next-- until it passes.

[zulchzulu]

39. I understand the hope behind this and totally agree with the priniciple...

...but it will never happen. I'd suggest devoting time and money to causes already happening now that need funding and support now...setting up such a department while we have the Bush administration being the everbloody PNAC war criminals at the same time would be a folly. But hey, it could raise money for someone running for office...hence my iteration about "Peace, Inc."

Start here for links to groups that need help NOW:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/peacelinks.html

[dweller]

41. why do you think money is all this is about?

could it be that Kucinich was able to actually pay off his campaign debt and so must be in need of money in your opinion?

did any other candidate actually pay off their debt?

just curious, because this is not about raising money, imo.

dp

[Wilms]

42. Like this??

In the past campaign, if there was a voice for peace (not just against the Iraq War, but for peace for peace' sake!) it was Dennis.

Ditto for the environment.

There's a post above where they had to fight to have this concept included in the Dem Party Platform.

He put these ideas out on the table. What support I can lend the other groups, I can and will offer him the same.

It ain't either, or. It's AND. :)

[eridani]

43. So, what's wrong with getting out there for something we'd like to see?

With all the damn Lakoff threads bitching about how Dems haven't articulated a positive vision, why the kvetching when someone actually DOES propose something visionary?

It is highly unlikely that ANY bill proposed by Dems will ever make it out of committee, including the very critical voters' rights bills. Hell, only two Repubs even signed on to Ensign's bill.

I say put everything we have out there and at least make them say "no" publicly.

[sarahlee]

54. All we are saying, is give Peace a Chance....

"I say put everything we have out there and at least make them say "no" publicly."

Exactly!

[dweller]

44. an early morning

:kick: for Peace.

dp

[T Town Jake]

46. A Department of Jaw-Jaw...

..."Peace" is a condition defined by an absence of conflict; such a "Department" as is proposed in this bill would be nothing more or less than a huge conglomeration of talk-fests & seminars, churning out reams of think-tank style essays by the thousands, and running to millions of largely unread pages.
All of the cute chatter would ultimately lead to nothing of any lasting significance--though several forests would perish in the effort--other than giving those bulging egos whom live to preen the official imprimatur of a government agency, and it's attendant letterhead. And all at taxpayer's expense.
No thanks.

[Mairead]

48. ...which is always better than waw waw

Your attitude is as reductionistic and shortsighted as the people who dismissed the Harvard Negotiation Project as a waste of money. After all, people had been negotiating for tens or even hundreds of thousands of years.

But it wasn't a waste. We now have ways to negotiate that work faster, cost less, and yield more supportable results than we ever had in the past.

[no name no slogan]

49. Have you even read the bill?

"Peace" in the broadest sense of the word is not just about the "absense of conflict", it's about living in a world without fear. It's about living without the fear of homelessness, hunger, or harm.

The DoP is not just about thinktanks and seminars-- it also involves training programs and teaching peace as not just a way to avoid armed conflict, but as a way to resolve them in non-violent ways.

Conflict resolution education WORKS. It's been used in schools and prisons to cut down on violence and has been successful.

Hell, we've spent how many billions on "Star Wars" since Reagan, and it still hasn't succeeded on any of its missions. Just a fraction of this amount could fund a Department of Peace for a decade or more.

[Dragonfly]

50. Uninformed cynicism holds little

weight in a meaningful debate on how to actually help "stop the rain."

Mairead and no name no slogan each spoke eloquently in their own way on this subject. Thanks for your passionate truth.

[dweller]

58. oh, thank you JarJar

... "War" is a condition defined by major armed conflict between nations or organized parties within a state. Such "Departments" ie. Department of State and others comprised of huge conglomerations holding talkfests and seminars, closed meetings, conferences, think tanks, board meetings, tete a' tetes, secret agreements, strongarming and force have resulted in hundreds of thousands (must we imagine millions) of dead and mutilated wounded human bodies. Worth a page or two to perhaps read from a different book for a change, no?
All of the destructive activity has 'lead to nothing of any lasting significance-though' several whole landscapes, populations, ethnicities, have been eradicated 'in the effort' and lo and behold------it's all perished 'in the effort to give those bulging egos whom live to preen the offical impirmatur of a gov't agency and it's attendant letterhead'. And it's ALL been at taxpayer's expense.

WE'VE SEEN WHAT HAS BEEN THE NORM

give me a fresh new idea anyday. It's time to climb out of the rut.

dp

[paineinthearse]

59. Kucinich - GOLDEN SPINE RECIPIENT

Liberals hope Dean stiffens party's spine

February 26, 2005

By Malia Rulon Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A year ago, an activist group from the Seattle area gave Howard Dean a thin, golden statue of a backbone. The Oscar-like award honored the former Democratic presidential candidate and Vermont governor for standing up against the Iraq war and other Bush administration policies. Now, as Dean settles into his new role as head of the Democratic Party, that golden spine has come to represent, for many liberal Democrats, Dean's potential to develop a tougher, take-no-prisoners attitude among the party faithful.

<snip>

"So many Democrats can't wait to get started. They want to grow our party from the ground up. And that's exactly what we're going to do," Dean said. Dean traveled Thursday to upstate New York and to Washburn University in Topeka, Kan., where he criticized President Bush for suggesting Social Security faces a big crisis. As for the president's plan to create personal investment accounts as part of Social Security, Dean said, "I don't believe the way to fix Social Security is to have Wall Street run it so that it can be invested in Enron and Tyco and MCI."

Bill Moyer, executive director of the Backbone Campaign, said he hopes Dean will continue to be a leader among liberal Democrats and that his chairmanship will mark a turning point for the party. "Dean is the link to this progressive movement," Moyer said. "The Democratic Party can either use that or squander it." The latest recipient of the golden backbone was Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones of Ohio, who challenged Ohio's electoral college results from last November's election in Congress, forcing a rare debate in the House and Senate. Tubbs Jones said having a backbone, for Dean, may mean bringing liberal Democrats to the table with the rest of the party. "There are some that worry that he will move the party too far to the left, but I'm not worried about that," she said. "I think he will give definition to the party and allow Democrats to define the party instead of allowing Republicans to define us."

Another golden spine recipient, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, said the Democratic Party's problem is that it needs to stop talking in generalities and start articulating its message: "I don't know why the Democratic Party even exists if it can't advocate for universal health care and ending the war in Iraq."

more....

On the Net:

Democratic National Committee: http://www.dnc.org

Backbone Campaign: http://www.backbonecampaign.org/

[paineinthearse]

60. Rep. Jim McGovern's speech.

The bill will be introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the next few days (not yet in Thomas, will be H.Res 1673).

This text was received via email from Rep. McGovern's staff. Enjoy.

================================================================

Massachusetts Campaign for a US Department of Peace
First Parish Church
20 Lexington Road
Concord, MA
3:00 PM – 5:00 PM
{3:15 M- 4:15 PM: JPM remarks and Q& A}


WHY I SUPPORT A US DEPARTMENT OF PEACE


Thank you, Pat, for those kind words of introduction.

I want to thank Dave Dunn, Carol Dwyer and Pat Simon for inviting me to participate in this special event.

Please let me begin by expressing my own appreciation and support for the efforts of everyone in this room to make this world a more peaceful place.

It means a great deal to me to meet people and organizations that are committed to building a more peaceful world and using peaceful, non-violent means as a tool of action, as a tool to create social change.

I know that you all have the skill, the experience and the commitment to work towards improving the human condition. I know that you believe, like I do, that by working together, we can develop creative and innovative ways to increase the impact of peace-building at all levels of society, nationally and internationally. And if there is one thing I am sure of, it’s that we can make a difference.

I know that Dave just summarized the key elements of H.R. 1673, which was the bill number in the 108th Congress, of legislation to establish a Cabinet-level U.S. Department of Peace. I know that my good friend and colleague, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, plans to reintroduce this legislation soon, and I am already on his list as an original cosponsor of this bill.

This bill – and the vision of Congressman Kucinich – embrace a broad-based approach to non-violent conflict resolution, both here at home and internationally. A Department of Peace would actually serve to promote non-violence as an organizing principle in our society, and promote non-violence as a fundamental value of our society. In effect, it seeks to help create the conditions for a less violent, more peaceable world.

Domestically, the Department would be responsible for developing policies to address such issues as domestic violence, child abuse, and the mistreatment of the elderly. Internationally, it would make recommendations to the President on the protection and promotion of human rights, and the prevention and de-escalation of international conflict.

One aspect of this bill that I like very much is that the Department would have an Office of Peace Education to work with educators in elementary, secondary and higher education on the development and implementation of curricula to teach students in conflict resolution skills. It would also create a Peace Academy, modeled after our military service academies, where the best and the brightest would receive instruction in peace education and offer opportunities for graduates to serve in programs dedicated to domestic or international conflict resolution.

Many people might dismiss this proposal out of hand as utopian, but let me talk about a couple of aspects of this proposed Department that demonstrate how efforts in this direction are already underway.

Let me start with the Peace Academy. I happen to be the Democratic Co-Chair of the Congressional Hunger Center. My Republican counterpart is Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri. The Hunger Center is dedicated to training up the next generation of leaders in the fight against hunger. Many people think ending hunger is an idealistic and impossible goal. I don’t. I think it’s a matter of political will. And I can tell you that every year, we are flooded with applications from some of the best graduate students in the country to spend one year working as fellows in domestic hunger organizations and domestic hunger policy-making offices – or two years working one year as a fellow in an overseas placement targeting hunger and then one year back here in the United States in an international policy-making placement addressing hunger issues.

I can guarantee you that many of these young men and women would have been happy to apply for admission to a Peace Academy, if they had been offered such an opportunity.

We need to remember – once upon a time, there was no Peace Corps; there was no VISTA program; there was no Department of Education, for that matter. It took leaders with visions to create these programs and agencies. This case is no different.

War is always presented as something inevitable, a tragic aspect of human nature, and an unfortunate, but necessary, means of ensuring peace and stability.

Well, war is not inevitable unless we refuse to work – patiently and tirelessly – for peace.

War with Iraq was presented as inevitable. In fact, it was presented as so necessary that the failure to go to war would result in the demise or imminent harm of the United States. Except it was all a lie. No weapons of mass destruction. No ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist network. No imminent threat whatsoever. And yet, those of us who raised questions about the rationale leading up to the war are still held up to public criticism, even though the questions we were raising were correct – and even though the alternative action we were proposing, namely letting the UN arms inspectors complete their mission, would have resolved all the unanswered questions.

Isn’t it time to insist that our leaders suspend their incessant talk of preventive war? Of their presumed right act unilaterally? Isn’t it time that we insist upon “preventive diplomacy” and our obligation to lead and work with the world community on matters of global security?

I have a vision of nations working together, using what President Roosevelt called the “science of human relationships” to end conflicts before they flare into full-fledged armed war. That is the basis for the creation of a Department of Peace.

When Walter Cronkite first heard that legislation had been introduced in the Congress to create a Department of Peace, he stated “there is an urgency to its adoption. In this dangerous world, where the strength of the United States is needed to keep the peace, we need a visible manifestation of our intention to play that role, without the arrogance that cost us friends and allies among the nations and peoples of the world.”

Well, I agree with Walter Cronkite.

There is an urgency. There is a need. And this is the time for vision and for action.

We need to continue to press our government – and governments around the world – to work within the international system of law and justice.

You must continue to use your voice to demand change in U.S. policies that escalate conflict, violence, the violation of human rights, and war.

And I will continue to help you in this effort by playing a similar role in Congress.

I know that together, we will succeed.