Bobby Rush

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. William McCoy on his 31 years of service as Chief Apostle and CEO of Brothers Keeper Community Outreach Church. Dr. William McCoy, through his calling of spreading the word of God, has done great work for his community by way of his organization's involvement with kingdom building feats like jail ministry, and parole chaplaincy, which are just a couple of examples of his many deeds that shine as a beacon of hope for those in need. Dr. McCoy began his pastoral career in 1986, serving first at God's House of Deliverance Holiness Church in 1989, and then he earned his Certificate of Ordination from the Pentecostal Apostolic Assemblies of Jesus Christ. In 1991, he graduated from the United Theological Seminary, and in 1993, Dr. McCoy received an Honorary Doctorate of Divinity from the Apostolic Baptist Seminary in Evansville, Indiana. In 1994, he was consecrated as the Presiding Prelate Bishop of IPAE and AIMBK by Bishop Lester P. Bell, and earned his Prison Fellowship Training Diploma. In 1995, Dr. McCoy earned his Doctorate of Philosophy in Pastoral Theology from the International College of Bible Theology. The Brothers Keeper Community Outreach Church was created to call attention to the need for a message of deliverance from substance addictions, domestic abuse and other challenges plaguing the lives of some of God's children; the organization has done great work at conveying its belief in the importance of teaching deliverance through parole chaplaincy training, ministerial training and other outreach practices. Dr. William McCoy has served his community outside of his work with the Brothers Keeper Community Outreach Church as well, some positions such as an Auxiliary Chaplain of the Cook County Sheriff Department since 1994; as a board member of the Cook County Jails Alternative Schools L.S.C., since 1997 and as the Superintendent Parole Chaplain of Cook County. In 2002 Dr. McCoy was elected to serve as President of the Illinois Community Chaplaincy Council, and in 2009, he became President of the South Suburban Action Conference and became a member of the IPAE-NETWORK Cook County Sheriff's Department Re-Entry Initiative and the Advisory Board of Cook County Clergy United, Inc. Dr. William McCoy in his many roles and his work with the Brothers Keeper Community Outreach Church has not only been inspirational, but vital to the life we live as both God's children and Americans. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Dr. William McCoy for his many years of dedicated service and wish him continued success and happiness in the future.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, within the last hour or so, there was a decision by the Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby in the investigation of the death of Freddie Gray, a Black man who died under questionable circumstances; circumstances that kind of made us all wonder where the truth lies; circumstances that cause young people and others to take to the streets across this Nation; circumstances that brought into a sharp, bright light the question of justice in America, the question of police misconduct in America, the question of mayhem in America, the question of poverty in America, and the question of bias in America. Freddie Gray's murder, Freddie Gray's death, and the questionable circumstances around his death brought into sharp relief all of these issues of race and living in an urban center--brought into sharp relief, Mr. Speaker, 50 years or more of abject, determined, and callous disinvestment in our urban areas, 50 years or more of joblessness, bad schools, bad housing, bad health care, and 50 years of hopelessness. In the last few minutes, Mr. Speaker, this brilliant, young, African American woman, Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby, made a decision; and she decided that, yes, notwithstanding all the differences of opinion, the changed stories, the moving target, notwithstanding all of these things that happened, she decided that Freddie Gray was murdered--Freddie Gray was murdered--and that she would indict the police officers who were responsible. By indicting the Baltimore City police officers who were responsible for Mr. Gray's murder, she made a giant, enormous step for justice for young people, young African American men and women, young people who live in our urban areas. By her decision today, just a few moments ago, she has done this Nation an invaluable service, especially for young people, especially for the African American and other minority youth. These young people have, for decades now, sought and yearned for justice as it relates to police misconduct, police brutality, and, yes, police murder. This new standard for justice is a standard that now transcends Baltimore and transcends even the entire State of Maryland. It transcends and it reaches to other points all across this Nation-- Ferguson, New York City, Chicago, Cleveland, and other places all throughout this country. Mr. Speaker, as an African American male who represents the South Side of the city of Chicago, I know firsthand about police misconduct, police mayhem, and police murder. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that, in my 68 years living mostly in the city of Chicago, I have never seen the wheels of justice move so profoundly, so pointedly, and so purposefully as I have witnessed with Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby's actions. She has raised all kinds of standards. She has captured the imagination of all of us who fight for justice, who want to see justice delivered in the true American way, and who want to see an end to all the machinations, excuses, turning away, and closing our eyes to police misconduct in our urban areas. This wonderful, courageous, young city State's attorney has raised the standard for prosecutors all across our great Nation. She has raised the standards for mayors, chiefs of police, and other law enforcement officials. She has raised the standard for even those who are in this body. Open your minds, open your eyes, and see the truth. Let me just say right now, Mr. Speaker, that the police officers of this Nation, the overwhelming majority of them, are good, hard-working defenders of the community. They are not lawbreakers. They are there to serve and protect. We honor them, and we lift them up; but there are a few who think that they can get away with all kinds of illegal actions just because they can get away with it because the system has a tendency and a habit of rising to protect even those who violate not only the laws of the Nation, but the spirit of the laws of this Nation, these laws that keep this Nation together, these laws that make us have an identity as one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. These police officers, this minority of those on the urban police forces across this Nation, these are the ones that abrogate the Constitution, short-circuit our Constitution, short-circuit our quest for justice, our appeal for justice, our right for justice, and short- circuit those just for their thrill of the moment. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, being handcuffed and leg-cuffed, laying down facedown in the back of a paddy wagon driven not accidentally recklessly, determined by those police officers who were driving, who had him in custody, to maim, harm, and brutalize him, different speeds driven by the driver of that van, tossed about because of sudden stops? You are in the back of a paddy wagon, handcuffed and leg-cuffed, and these police officers are getting a thrill out of tossing you around in a steel-encased paddy wagon, not caring about the broken parts of your body that might occur, not caring about whether you really live or die, not even caring about their oath that they were sworn to when they were hired and when they took that oath to serve and protect. All those things became secondary to their thrill of seeing how much havoc and harm they could cause to this Black man in Baltimore. Yeah, they thought they would get away with it, that no one would even think to question their decisions, their thrill-seeking, their conduct. Thank God there is a woman in Baltimore who said to them, to all the police officers who are like minded such as them, said to this Nation: No more. No more, not this time. You are going to be indicted, and you are going to be charged, and that is the way it is. Grieving mothers, Mr. Gray's mother, his father, his relatives, his loved ones, his friends, and his neighbors can all now say that there will be justice for Freddie Gray. I said, in Chicago, there will be justice for Freddie Gray. From this Nation's borders, young people are rejoicing now. The day is soon to be justice for Freddie Gray. Mr. Speaker, Ms. Mosby's actions, her courage, her dedication, her commitment, and her decisiveness have spoken to the idea that is creating this movement for justice all across this Nation. She has very clearly and profoundly and without hesitation spoken to all of us, to this Nation. Her actions have shouted out that Black lives do matter, that Black lives do matter, that all lives in America matter, and that Black lives matter also. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, Mother's Day is soon approaching, and as we, our Nation, take time to honor our mothers, I would like to make a special appeal to African American mothers across this country that they begin to use their awesome powers to take back our streets from the daily violence that far too many of our youth, far too many of our families, and far too many of our communities are experiencing each and every day. It is now time, time right now, for Black mothers to once again rise up to stop the unmitigated and endless violence that is occurring often--far too often--in our Nation's streets. Madam Speaker, there is no power like the power of a mother. Beside me today is an image that many across the Nation have seen, and it is the subject of conversation all across our country. It is the image of a strong Black mother giving her son what I will call a ``love whipping''--a ``love whipping,'' Madam Speaker--to snatch him back from the grips of senseless violence that is currently plaguing the city of Baltimore, Maryland. As this picture demonstrates, Madam Speaker, mothers can and mothers must be the mobilizing force to take back our streets. Mothers feel the pain of a loss of a child unlike any other. The primal scream of a mother at the sudden death and departure of her child is unlike any other outcry known to mankind. As my own history has demonstrated, I am not one to excuse police brutality and police murder and police mayhem and police utter disrespect for the citizens that they are pledged and sworn to serve and to protect. And as a former member of the Black Panther Party, we in the party have always said, and I quote, that ``spontaneity is the art of the foolish.'' What the Baltimore rioters and other rioters across this Nation fail to understand, particularly those who are in Baltimore, what they fail to understand and what they fail to consider is how many people in that neighborhood were depending on the CVS drug store, or how many older neighbors of those same young people were looking forward to the day that they could call that burned-down senior citizens home a home for themselves, and they were looking forward to it being completed. ``When is the move-in date?'' They were looking forward to the comfort of that senior home. Simply put, Madam Speaker, senseless destruction of your own neighborhood is not protesting; it is pillaging. It is not political; it is pillaging--nothing more, nothing less. It is pillaging your own neighborhood. That is unintelligent. That makes no sense. That is eating the wrapper and throwing the candy bar away. It makes no sense to pillage your own neighborhood and deny your own people. Beyond Baltimore, Madam Speaker--yes, and there is a beyond Baltimore. Beyond Baltimore, we must look at the whole picture of violence in our Nation. The violence that has plagued Baltimore didn't come out of nowhere. It wasn't just a spark out of nowhere. Instead, Madam Speaker, it was sparked by the frustration that so many African Americans feel with the reports of the death of yet another young African American man at the hands of our Nation's police. It was sparked by the flame of frustration that far too many of our Nation's youth are facing each and every day of their lives: unemployment, disrespect, broken-down homes, broken-down communities, failed education systems. All these frustrations, frustrations that deny them a sense that there is a future for them in this Nation, these frustrations inflame all the fires in Baltimore or in other places across this Nation. That said, Madam Speaker, from my friend Fred Hampton, my friend Michael Clark in 1969 to Michael Brown and Eric Garner and Tamir Rice and now Freddie Gray in 2015, we have seen far too many young men of color fall victim to the very same people who were sworn to serve and protect. This mother is demonstrating the power of a mother's love and the power of a mother's courage. She walked into harm's way straightforward, directly to, located her son. And she is demonstrating a power that is beyond imagination and beyond all selflessness. To honor her and the important role that all mothers, mamas, our mothers--including my own mother--to honor them and to honor the important role that they play in taking back our streets and ending the violence that plagues our communities all across this Nation, I humbly call on America's mothers, those in the African American community and outside of the African American community, those in urban areas and those in rural areas, all American mothers, to wear yellow, to wear yellow, to wear yellow on Mother's Day in a symbolic show of solidarity and to create a ``Mothers in Yellow'' movement to end the violence that plagues this Nation's cities, this Nation's communities, this Nation's neighborhoods. Mothers, rise up now. Use this as an occasion to take back the streets. Your pain, the pain that you feel, your sense of loss of hope for your child, your sense of finality in terms of a future of your child, that pain must stop, and you have the power to stop it. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 535, the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, and I want to join with my colleague, Mr. Welch, in congratulating all in the leadership: Mr. Whitfield, Mr. Welch, Mr. Pallone, and the chairman of the full committee. Mr. Speaker, this is a modest but, most importantly, a bipartisan piece of legislation that combines three separate energy efficiency titles. This bill was passed by unanimous consent out of the Senate just this last month. The bill before us today is also similar to H.R. 2126, which passed out of this House in the last session of Congress on an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 375-36. The first title of this bill, Madam Speaker, is the Better Buildings Act, which was introduced into the Congress by my friends and colleagues, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley) and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch). This title simply directs the General Services Administration to develop model leasing provisions and best practices to encourage commercial building owners and their tenants to invest in cost-effective energy efficiency measures. These model leasing provisions may then be used in Federal leases and, along with the best practices, Madam Speaker, shall be made available to all State and local governments. Additionally, section 103 directs the Department of Energy to conduct a study on the feasibility of significantly improving energy efficiency in commercial buildings through the design and construction of separate tenant spaces with high-performance energy efficiency measures. Section 104 directs the EPA to develop a ``Tenant Star'' program within the ENERGY STAR program to promote energy efficiency in separate spaces leased by tenants in commercial buildings. This data can then be used to establish an ENERGY STAR rating system to recognize tenants in commercial buildings that voluntarily achieve high levels of energy efficiency in separate spaces. Madam Speaker, title II of this bill, the Grid-Enabled Water Heaters bill, was introduced by my colleague and my good friend, Chairman Whitfield, along with Mr. Welch, Mr. Latta, Mr. Loebsack, Mr. Cramer, and Mr. Doyle. This section establishes a separate energy efficiency standard for grid-enabled water heaters, which are used in utility demand and thermal storage programs. Finally, Madam Speaker, title III of this bill, the Energy Information for Commercial Buildings bill, which was introduced into Congress by my friend and colleague, Ms. Castor of Florida, requires Federally leased buildings without ENERGY STAR labels to benchmark and disclose their energy usage data in most cases. It also requires the Department of Energy to complete a study of best practices for and impacts of, one, State and local performance benchmarking and disclosure policies for commercial and multifamily buildings; and, two, utility policies for providing aggregated information to owners of multitenant buildings to assist with benchmarking programs. In addition, Madam Speaker, the DOE is required to maintain a database to store and make available public energy- related information on commercial and multifamily buildings. Madam Speaker, in recent history, we have not been able to pass bipartisan energy legislation through both Chambers and into law, so it is important that we move this bill to the President's desk so that we can demonstrate once again to the American people that this Congress is still capable of functioning properly and legislating on their behalf. Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently missed rollcall Votes 151 and 152. Had I been present I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, this is deja vu all over again, as for the umpteenth time the majority party is trying to jam the Keystone XL pipeline through this Congress despite the fact that President Obama has made it pretty clear to all who will listen that this bill is headed to a veto if it ever reaches his desk. Madam Speaker, instead of going through regular order and the committee process and working on bipartisan legislation that would ultimately create hundreds of thousands of good-paying American jobs, such as building up our infrastructure, fixing our roads and bridges, and modernizing our energy grid, instead of looking at the interests, the real interests of the American people, and working to provide the American people much-needed jobs, my friends on the other side of the aisle have repeatedly spent valuable time, time that this Congress will never, ever see again, trying to grant a regulatory earmark to the TransCanada Corporation by short-circuiting the normal permitting process and forcing President Obama's hand. This is not a jobs bill. Madam Speaker, we need a jobs bill. But where are the jobs in this bill? Every time we talk about jobs, every time jobs develop on the floor of this House, the Republicans all run to one place: that all we need is to build the Keystone XL pipeline and that will solve America's job problem. I beg to differ with my friends on the other side of the aisle. The State Department--our State Department--consulted with TransCanada and found out that the construction of this pipeline would directly result in about 4,000 jobs in the early stages just to build the pipeline. These jobs, Madam Speaker, will last no more than 12 months--365 days of work provided to the American people. What kind of jobs bill are we trying to perpetrate on the American people? In addition, Madam Speaker, by building the pipeline, 42,100 1-year jobs will be created indirectly across the United States. After the Keystone XL pipeline is completed, operation, where the permanent jobs are, the real operation where the lasting jobs are, the jobs that will provide a future for American families--college education, mortgages to pay for their home, put dinner on the table-- these jobs would only amount to about 35 permanent jobs in this Nation--35. A franchise burger joint on the corner will provide more permanent jobs than this whole Keystone XL pipeline is purported to do. Let's put these figures into perspective. In 2014, the U.S. economy created nearly 50,000 jobs per week--50,000 per week in 2014; 230,000 jobs per month. So even taking the most favorable estimates for all the indirect and direct jobs, the Keystone XL pipeline will produce fewer jobs than the economy is already creating on its own in just 7 days--in just one week. Taking the lowest estimate for the 35 permanent jobs again, the Keystone XL pipeline will produce even fewer jobs, in all of its massiveness, in all of the hyperbole that comes from the other side, than the economy is already creating in just 1 hour. In the next hour, Mr. Speaker, the American economy will produce more jobs than the entire Keystone XL pipeline in all of its duration--in just the next hour. This is not a jobs bill. Where are the priorities for the other side? Why are we wasting time on this? Let me remind my friends on the other side, in just 2 weeks--just 2 weeks--the Homeland Security Department will run out of money, putting all of the American people, our entire Nation, at risk, in just 2 weeks. Where are your priorities? Doesn't that make more sense than wasting our time on creating 35 jobs--35 permanent jobs? We are going to be out of this place at the end of the week. Where is the priority for American security? Where is the priority for us to spend our time? What are the priorities of the majority if we are going to waste our time? Here we go again, valuable time. Homeland Security running out of money, folks being laid off, our borders are being compromised, terrorists are going to have or could have a field day because we have not funded Homeland Security. Yet we are here, wasting valuable time. Let's use this time to fund the Department of Homeland Security, and let's get off some of this nonsense that makes no sense at all. I cannot believe, Mr. Speaker, that the American people have sent us here to work on behalf of TransCanada and to ignore the Department of Homeland Security. I can't in my wildest imagination believe that they didn't even know, that they didn't even imagine, that they didn't even think that we are here with the Department of Homeland Security on one side and the Keystone XL on the other side. Go figure. Where are their priorities? Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary. This bill will be vetoed by President Obama, and it will be sent back here DOA. We have far more important work that we should be doing on behalf of the American people. I urge all of my colleagues to turn down this unnecessary, ill-timed, ill-conceived notion that we should be spending our valuable time on the Keystone XL and ignoring the funding for the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase Elvis Presley: let this body return this bill to sender, return it to sender, address unknown, no such problem, no such home. Mr. Speaker, let's send this bill back to committee where it can go through regular order, and we can have a thorough discussion on these important issues before voting on such a consequential bill.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for his leadership and for his positive contributions to this entire institution. Mr. Speaker, I am here to oppose H.R. 351 because, once again, it is a proposed solution to a problem that we can't find, a problem that we have searched high and low for. This problem, Mr. Speaker, simply doesn't exist. Here we are, here we go once again, coming up with solutions to a problem that doesn't even exist. When will my colleagues on the other side do something productively in this Congress and come up with real solutions to problems that do exist for the American people? Mr. Speaker, currently, the Department of Energy, as we speak today, has already approved not one, not two, not three, not even four, but five applications--five--for existing LNG, and there are four more conditional approvals pending. Altogether, Mr. Speaker, the approved applications authorize the export of over 10 million cubic feet per day of LNG. The pending applications collectively seek an additional 27.5 billion cubic feet of LNG exported each and every day--27.5. Where is the problem? Show me the problem. Show me the way. Point out the problem. Mr. Speaker, this 30-day deadline that arbitrarily mandates the DOE application process would short-circuit the public interest review-- short circuit--cut it short. The public doesn't have any input. No review by the public.

Mr. RUSH. This arbitrary mandatory 30-day deadline would unnecessarily fast-track the DOE to hastily make a decision on export applications, regardless of how complex the application may be. The result of this ambiguous 30-day deadline may negatively affect DOE's ability to soberly and thoroughly assess the impact that cumulative exports may have on natural gas prices. What would be the effect of gas at the station, at the pump, on the American people, and we all of a sudden, without any study, without any conversation, without any consideration, just force the DOE to arbitrarily meet this 30-day deadline? What is going to be the effect on the consumer in terms of these gas prices at the pump? Are they going to skyrocket as a result of this hasty, irresponsible action? Tell me, do you have answers to that? It may even result in the unintended consequence of actually denying applications if the agency does not have the time to complete its due diligence. This is insane. This is the utmost of insanity. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this bill because at the end of the day when you skim away all of the rhetoric and all the hyperbole around this bill, it will not speed up energy exports to Europe and it will not speed up exports to our other allies.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, again, I wanted to return to the floor because the thought occurs to me, as it should to all of the American people, that we should consider the impact of this bill, the impact of LNG exports, and the impact that it would have on U.S. manufacturing. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, let us protect, by all means, American jobs. Let us protect American manufacturing. Cheap domestic natural gas prices are providing a big boost and competitive advantage to U.S. manufacturing. We can all agree on that on both sides of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, the disagreement occurs when the other side, the Republicans, are asking us in this Congress to make a hasty decision that could undermine the advantage that we are now experiencing in the rapid increase in manufacturing. This bill runs the risk of reducing our competitive advantage that we have now in the manufacturing sector. It requires DOE to rush its process and make final decisions on pending applications to export a huge quantity of LNG. If all of the pending applications are granted, DOE will authorize the export of approximately 38 million cubic feet per day of LNG. That is more than half of the total U.S. natural gas consumption. It is more than the world's largest LNG exporter, Qatar, currently makes each and every day. There is no question, Mr. Speaker, in my mind or in the minds of the American people that exports of that magnitude will increase the domestic price of natural gas. It just makes common sense, and it is what the EIA found when it studied the economic impact of increased LNG imports. Where is your study? How do you answer the conclusions of the EIA when it found again that the economic impact of increased influence will increase the domestic price of natural gas? What amount of American manufacturing? What amount of American jobs? Let's protect American manufacturing. Let's protect American jobs. Because this bill truncates DOE's public interest review, the Department may not even be able to fully analyze the impacts of the very high level of LNG exports on American consumers, on American jobs, and on American manufacturing. My friends on the other side--and they are indeed my friends--always want to talk about American manufacturing, how we have to support American manufacturing, how we have to raise the level of American manufacturing, how we have to increase the American manufacturing sector, how we have to increase the American manufacturing jobs. This very bill could undermine all that sense of goodwill and all those pronouncements from the other side. What about American manufacturing and what about American manufacturing jobs? Don't abandon American manufacturing. Don't abandon American manufacturing jobs. Don't abandon the American people. Let's slow this process down. All we are doing, Mr. Speaker, is jeopardizing American manufacturing and American manufacturing jobs.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, and I strongly disagree with this abhorrent process that the majority side has undertaken in order to hastily bring H.R. 3 to the floor after only 1 hour of debate and denying the minority the ability to offer one single, solitary amendment. Truth be told, Mr. Speaker, it is unclear how this legislation would actually be of benefit to the American people. A 2014 report by the State Department concluded that the Keystone pipeline would create 35 permanent, full-time domestic jobs, which is roughly the same amount of jobs that would be created by opening a new corner fast-food burger joint, albeit with more risk to the American environment. And furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill is unnecessary because there is already an independent process that is taking place at this very moment, and H.R. 3 short-circuits this approval process. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, let it be fully understood by all Members of this House, the President has indicated that he would veto this bill. This bill is dead on arrival if it ever reaches the President's desk. The State Department has already released its final supplemental environmental impact statement and has begun the review period to determine whether the pipeline is in the national interest. Mr. Speaker, more than 2.5 million Americans have contributed comments on how this foolhardy project would impact the national interest, and their voices, the voices of 2.5 million Americans, deserve to be heard. I have said it before, Mr. Speaker, and I say it again: this bill is about seizing power away from the American people.

Mr. RUSH. This bill is about seizing power away from the American people by seizing power away from our duly-elected President. It will prevent the thorough, sober consideration of complex issues that could have serious security, safety, environmental, and other ramifications. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this body to vote ``no.'' The Keystone XL pipeline is a Republican pipe dream.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, on a prior rollcall vote on H.R. 37, I inadvertently voted ``aye,'' and I would like to be recorded as voting ``no.''

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of our Special Order.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, 21 years ago, January of 1993, I was sworn into the 103rd Congress as the 28th Representative of the historic First Congressional District of Illinois. One of the first Members of Congress to welcome me with the most heartwarming words and smile was none other than my friend from the great State of Michigan, Congressman John David Dingell, Jr. John Dingell has trained me, worked with me, and inspired me far more than most other Members of this House. I can't think of any other Member in Congress who has spent the kind of time and energy teaching me the ropes than John Dingell. John Dingell, Mr. Speaker, will go down in U.S. history as being one of the most powerful House committee chairmen of all times. That is why, Mr. Speaker, around Washington, D.C., throughout the Nation, and throughout this Congress, he was and will continue to be respectfully known as the ``lion of the House.'' While some may ascribe that honor to his forceful personality, Mr. Speaker, in my experience with John and watching him operate as chairman, he used a scalpel more than a sledgehammer to score his legislative wins and to gather up and earn the respect of all the Members not only of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but the Members of this House on both sides of the aisle. Many will say that the secret to John's success has been his unrivaled mastery of parliamentary procedures and institutional memory. I would agree that he has superb parliamentary knowledge of the parliamentary procedures, and there is a remarkable aspect to his institutional memory. But what made John Dingell successful and a genuine American treasure--he was just last week awarded the highest civilian award that this Nation bestows upon an individual, the Presidential Medal of Freedom--is that he knows how to deal with people. He knows how to work with people. John doesn't go around talking about all his great exploits. I recall a few years back, Mr. Speaker, I was traveling to Michigan to campaign for John. He was in a primary challenge. Little did I know that the man who I was championing had at one time been scorned in his own district because he voted for the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I didn't know that about John Dingell. I didn't know that, but my respect for him mushroomed to the top even more than it had been before because he was a man who when he believed in something has the commitment and courage to stand behind his beliefs. Mr. Speaker, John means what he says, and he says what he means. Nobody can say anything different about John David Dingell. John Dingell, Chairman Dingell, my friend, I wish you continued health. I wish you continued strength and prosperity as you leave this House of Representatives, this House of the people, and return to your family and friends and constituents in Michigan. May God bless you and keep you. I will forever hold you dear. I will forever look toward your example in terms of committee work and work on this floor. I want to thank you, John Dingell, for all that you have contributed to this Nation, to your constituents, to this House, and certainly to the Committee of Energy and Commerce. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Texas, the ranking member of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I want to just remind people that we have a growing list of speakers.

Mr. RUSH. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, the one who will ascend to the dean of the House, the legendary civil rights icon.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Barton), the former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee,

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank the chairman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Illinois, Mr. John Shimkus.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the previous speaker, my friend from Michigan, Mike Rogers, for his distinguished service to this Nation and to this Congress. I had the privilege of meeting Mike when he first became a Member of this House. I remember his exuberance, the energy that he displayed, the hopeful look in his eye, and I watched him as he has matured into a great legislative leader and a leader for the Nation. But I guess the paradox of our Nation is probably exhibited in the fact that I was kind of interested, to say the least, in the fact that Mike Rogers was a former FBI agent, and I had to process that fact in a rather unique way. I had not known many FBI agents prior to shaking hands with Mike. Those that I did know, I had questions about their character and their qualities. So I was somewhat quizzical and interested in this fellow. As I listened to his final speech before the House, the thought occurred to me that one part of me certainly agrees with his notion of a Nation that represents so much hope to the rest of the world, but I also, to be quite honest, know that the America that should be even greater has not yet found the greatness that it is called to be. These times are tumultuous times within our Nation. These times are creating pain and suffering for far too many of our citizens. These times extinguish the hope of the young African American child. These times call into question the high ideals that should inspire us. These times are times of difficulty; times, indeed, of desperation, times of despair in the life and the hopes and aspirations of far too many of our citizens. W.E.B. DuBois wrote a seminal classic back at the turn of the century titled, ``The Souls of Black Folk,'' and there was one sentence in this book that really kind of rises up to question and to challenge the Nation that the previous speaker portrayed and the Nation that is a reality for me and for so many of my constituents. DuBois made the statement in 1903 that ``the problem of the 20th century is the problem of the color line.'' I don't think that W.E.B. DuBois, who was an eminent scholar, a graduate of Harvard with a doctorate degree, could ever in his wildest imagination believe that this one sentence written in 1903 would still be a sentence that would define a Nation to many of its citizens. The problem of the 20th century is also the problem of the 21st century: the color line, the problem of race, the problem of discrimination, racial inequities. These are current problems, even in today's America. Forty-five years ago, on this very same day, December 4, way back in the year 1969--45 years ago--in the wee hours of the morning at 4 a.m. in a two-bedroom apartment at 2337 West Monroe, the Chicago Police Department, in collusion with the FBI, led a raid on an apartment which resulted in the death of two young African American men, Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, and the wounding of seven others. They came in the middle of the dark hours of the morning in a van, Illinois jail van. Some went to the rear of the apartment at 2337, and some went to the front door. Members of the organization that I was proud to be a member of and am proud today to have served in, the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party, they were in the apartment. Fred Hampton and the mother of his son were in the back room, and other members of the Panther Party were sleeping in different parts of the apartment. There was a knock on the door. Mark Clark answered, ``Who is it?'' He heard a voice from the other side of the door saying, ``Tommy.'' Mark asked, ``Tommy who?'' The other voice on the other side of the door said, ``Tommy gun,'' and started firing into the apartment. This was at the front of the apartment. When those police officers at the rear heard the fire from the front, they came in, burst in through the rear door, shooting wildly and recklessly. After a few quick moments, the shooting subsided. There was a shout from the rear bedroom where Fred Hampton and Deborah Johnson had been sleeping, and there was a voice that came from a closet saying, ``Stop shooting. Stop shooting. There's a pregnant woman in here.'' So all the Panthers were pulled from the various areas and in the rooms. And then Michael Voss, a member of the Chicago Police Department, went into the bedroom where Fred Hampton had been shot, said that, ``Oh, he's not dead yet,'' and shot him pointblank in the head. He came out of that room and boasted, ``He's good and dead now. He's good and dead now.'' The Panthers were taken to hospitals, and some were taken straight to--well, they all were taken to the jail, Monroe Street Station. I was supposed to have been in that apartment. The information by the informant, William O'Neal, that was given to the FBI stated that I and other leaders of the Illinois chapter of the Black Panther Party were in that apartment. And we had been there less than 5 hours before because we were having a leadership meeting. Because we did not have enough sleeping areas, it was decided that some of us would not sleep there that night. Three members of the leadership group, two other members and myself, we went to our homes, thinking that tomorrow morning, or the next morning, that we would reconvene and continue our leadership meeting. Fred Hampton, Mark Clark were killed. I got a call about 4:45 that morning from another Panther Party member. Another member of the organization said that there had been a shootout at Chairman Fred's apartment, so I immediately got dressed and went to the basement apartment of Barbara Sankey, who lived in the 2200 block of West Monroe. Other members of the leadership, we gathered there, and we turned on BBM radio to see what the latest word was. About 6:15, 6:30 that morning, we heard the news on the radio that Fred Hampton had been killed. 45 years ago, December 4, 1969. Our thoughts--my thoughts that morning, I was 23 years old, just had made 23--my thoughts were scattered and confused because my friend had been murdered. I immediately gathered myself, and we called our attorneys and got our attorneys on the phone, and waited awhile. Around 10:30 that morning, we emerged from that basement apartment to go a half a block west to see what had really happened. Just as the cowardly police came in undercover, under the wraps of camouflage, they quickly, after murdering Fred and murdering Mark, they ran from the community and left this apartment open. They didn't secure the premises, left it wide open, doors open, all the evidence right there, the bloody mattress that Fred slept in, the door, the front door where it was later discovered, through grand jury testimony, that possibly one bullet came from inside of the apartment, but there were 99 bullets, 99 bullets from the outside to the inside, and one possible from the inside to the outside. When we walked through that apartment, we saw the evidence. In later testimony given in various sources, including the special grand jury they convened a few years later, there was a machinegun used by the police, the State's Attorney police, and it showed on the walls, the evidence of where the machinegun, just almost in a diagonal form, fired up and down and up and down throughout the length of that wall, a machinegun used by the police. Our attorneys examining the evidence secured the door that had been left behind, and with one hole in it, secured the mattress where Fred Hampton slept. We had a toxicologist that our attorneys hired, and the toxicologist said that Fred Hampton had been drugged the night before, that he had enough Seconal in his body, enough Seconal to render an elephant unable to move. So Fred was drugged by the police and their agents, murdered in his bed. I want to be very clear here in this House, on this 45 years later. This was the first time that I am aware of--and I read history, I love history--before or since where an American citizen has been assassinated by official Federal, State, and local law enforcement, the first and only time that an American citizen had been assassinated by law enforcement and the political status quo. So you can understand somewhat how I felt, and how I continue to feel about the FBI. And I am not here to castigate the FBI. This is not the purpose of this colloquy or soliloquy. This is not my purpose for being here on the floor. I am talking about the history of the FBI and the history of J. Edgar Hoover. This is the FBI I grew up with. I grew up under the J. Edgar Hoover FBI, and he considered me and others like me in my organization to be the greatest threat to the security of this Nation. I had been honorably discharged from the military for 4 years--a veteran, serving 4 years in the U.S. Army. I volunteered for the Army, and all of a sudden, some 3 years later, I am the number one threat to the security of the Nation to which I had pledged to give my life only 6 years earlier. Why did they kill Fred? Why did they kill Fred Hampton, the Fred I knew, the Fred Hampton I spent time day in and day out with? Fred Hampton, the man full of humor and compassion, strong-willed, but softhearted; the Fred Hampton who could move crowds with his eloquence; the Fred Hampton who wanted me and others to learn the art of speaking, who would take us and force us to listen to the speeches of African American preachers and other orators; the Fred Hampton whose laughter was infectious, strong-voiced; the Fred Hampton who said what he meant and meant what he said; the Fred Hampton you could count on and call on, a spokesman for the voiceless--yes, Fred allowed his voice to be an instrument for those without a voice; the Fred Hampton who could take complex and philosophical thought and break them down and make them relevant to even those who were uneducated and unconcerned; The Fred Hampton who would say, ``I am so revolutionarily intoxicated that I cannot be astronomically intimidated,'' which meant that Fred Hampton was going to fight for the least of these; The Fred Hampton who was the inspiration for the Rainbow Coalition-- not just for Black people, but for poor people in general--the Rainbow Coalition that reached out to Appalachian Whites in the uptown area and that reached out to the Young Lords in the Hispanic west town area, and said: ``Let's coalesce. We have the same kinds of interests, the same kinds of problems. So, preacher man, I am going to use my voice and speak to the problems of black lung disease and of the poverty in Appalachia, and I am going to use my voice to speak to the problems of migrant workers and the problems of the Latino community, not just for Blacks''; The Fred Hampton who told some of my liberal friends, ``I understand your willingness to work, and I understand your cries for justice, and I understand how you want to sacrifice for justice, but we don't necessarily need you to organize in the Black community. You need to go and organize in the White community to tell your brothers and your sisters that we are all in this struggle together, that we are all a rainbow of a coalition for justice and equality here in America''; The Fred Hampton who loved to dance and loved to play basketball; the Fred Hampton who never smoked or drank; the Fred Hampton who loved his mother and his father and who loved his brothers and sisters; The Fred Hampton who was tried and convicted of robbing a Good Humor Man for $310 worth of ice cream bars on a summer's day in Maywood, Illinois. Fred would say to anyone who would hear, ``I am a big man, but I can't eat 310 ice cream bars.'' Even those who prosecuted Fred said that if he took the ice cream bars from the Good Humor Man, then he passed them out, that he gave them to the young people in the hot summer Sun there in Maywood, Illinois, so even those who prosecuted him had to admit that, if he did, he robbed the rich and gave to the poor. This was the Fred Hampton I knew. This was the Fred Hampton of my life, this man who had such an unabashed commitment to the great ideals of this Nation, in that this Nation should be a Nation where everybody is equal and everybody has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He was one of the better spirits that this Nation produced. He only lived to be 21 years old. His family's loss was great, and his friends' loss was great, but this Nation's loss was even greater because, had he lived, he would have been a tremendous, incomparable, and unconquered advocate for those high ideals that inspire all segments of this society. There was a grand jury that convened and a report that was issued that stated that 99 bullets were fired into that apartment on December 4, 1969, and possibly one fired out of that apartment. The political machine in Chicago--the Daley machine, the political establishment, those who were in power--thought by killing Fred and Mark and wounding seven others, that they would be heralded as heroes. Little did they know, when they left that apartment wide open-- unsecured--then, step by step, person by person--men, women, and children alike--marched through that apartment and observed for themselves what had gone on and what had happened on the morning of December 4, 1969. They reached the conclusion that Fred Hampton and Mark Clark had been murdered and that one Edward V. Hanrahan--the State's attorney who later that same morning, on December 4, went before the television cameras and cried out how his police officers had been attacked viciously by the members of the Black Panther Party, the residents of that apartment--lied; yet instead of being heralded as heroes, the very same community--the very same people--denounced him as a murderer. In the election that came a few years later, this very same community defeated this State's attorney in his bid for reelection. He was being lifted up, and he was being paraded around as the heir to the Richard J. Daley machine. He was going to be Mayor Richard J. Daley's successor, but the African American community--the Black community--said, ``No, you will not,'' and they elected a Republican State's attorney, Bernard J. Carey. It was the first time that the Black community, en masse, told the Daley machine, ``No, we will not vote with you. We are going to vote against you.'' That independent action--that independent and courageous act, that astounding act--defined urban politics not only in Chicago, but in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in New York, and in many other places. You see, because Fred Hampton died, then Harold Washington became the first African American mayor of the city of Chicago, which, again, astounded the world. The rising up of the Black community body politic created the necessary conditions to elect Harold Washington as mayor of the city of Chicago; created the necessary conditions to elect Carol Moseley Braun as the first African American U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois and in the history of the U.S. Senate; created the conditions to elect Barack Obama as the U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, the first African American male to be a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois; created the conditions, yes, for Barack Obama to be elected President of the United States; created conditions for the 1984 and 1988 campaigns for the Reverend Jesse Louis Jackson when he ran for President. Fred. Mark. 45 years ago, they assassinated Fred while he was drugged beyond any capacity to defend himself. Even today, W.E.B. Du Bois, your statement is troubling this Nation even today. We travel beyond the 20th century. We are in the 14th year of the 21st century, and even today the problem of the color line is still the problem of this Nation. When we look at Ferguson, Missouri, in the case of Michael Brown and his murder and the horrendous conclusions drawn by the grand jury and the atrocious acts of the Governor of Missouri, the problem of the color line is preeminent. Justice for Michael Brown still has not occurred. Police brutality is still the main issue that we have regarding the establishment. Young Black men are still being murdered by police even today. New York City, Eric Garner, a father of six, the grand jury could not even respond adequately to the evidence that everyone who has eyes to see can see that this man, Eric Garner, was choked to death by racist police in New York City. Even today, Trayvon Martin still cries out for justice in this Nation, even today. And there have been so many, from border to border, the North, South, East, and West. Young Black men are being murdered in the streets by law enforcement who know beyond the shadow of a doubt that they can kill young Black men and that the culture of the police across this Nation won't protect them, that they will not be called to answer for their atrocious actions for the killing of young Black men, be they students, be they fathers, be they 12-year-old babies, such as what happened in Cleveland. When will the lunacy end? The lunacy that is in law enforcement must come to a screeching halt. The police and the police departments all across this Nation are not viewed as officer friendly, are not viewed as protectors who serve and protect. They are viewed as occupying forces who are at war with young Black men. That is the lunacy that we are confronted with even today. So, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, for the last 45 years, I have carried in my heart, in my spirit, the pain, the agony of losing my great friend and my great leader, Fred Hampton. Yes, he inspires me in my daily walks, but there is still pain that I carry with me in my heart. I won't forget, and I won't allow this Nation to ever forget as long as there is breath in my body, the legacy and the life of this 21- year-old American revolutionary, this simple yet brilliant man, this man who had insurmountable courage, the man who could move crowds with his eloquence and his sincerity, the man who had not even reached the fruit of his promise and potential, who was murdered, assassinated after he was drugged the night before, the man who was wounded in his bed and an animal, an armed animal walked in the room and fired two bullets in his head and said: He is good and dead now. We can't forget. We have to remember. We have to keep a fire lit. Only when we can deal with justice for everybody can we ever achieve the greatness that we have promised each other. Don't leave young Black men, young Hispanic men, don't leave them out of the equation. When you speak about justice and the greatness of this Nation, include them in in meaningful ways; not with just platitudes but with everyday practices, include them in. Mr. Speaker, I have come this evening because we have to embrace the truth, and Scripture tells us: Know ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free. Today, Mike Brown, Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, and a young 12-year- old lad from Cleveland are crying from their graves. They want justice. The young people who are marching throughout the Nation want justice. And I want to say to those young people, fight on, march on, protest on, and don't stop. I believe in the power of the youth, the power of the youth won't stop. Fred Hampton lives today in the hearts, the minds, and the spirits of some of these young people today who are taking to the streets in protest of police brutality here in our Nation, police murder here in our Nation. I say to you that Chairman Fred, my friend, Chairman Fred still lives. His spirit permeates the minds and hearts of all justice-seeking people, particularly the young people, even today. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I would love to ask my colleague from Chicago, Mr. Danny K. Davis, I yield to him.

Mr. RUSH. Well, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Danny K. Davis, from my home State, my former city council colleague and my compatriot in all things that are in the nature of justice, equality, and standing for the goodness of not only this Nation. I just want to say to you when you mentioned me, I just have to, in a humble way, the most humble way--and it didn't have anything to do with me. I am a devout Christian, a pastor, theologian, seminary graduate, and pastor of a church, so I know it wasn't me, but I have had to remind you and others that the very next morning after December 4, on December 5, which ironically was my mother's birthday, the police came to my apartment to kill me and shot my door down, but I had gone underground.