Bobby Rush

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give praise and to acknowledge one of my Congressional Black Caucus summer interns, Ms. Delisha Reese. Mr. Reese represents a continuum of outstanding Congressional Black Caucus Foundation interns serving my office and this body. During the past several weeks, Ms. Reese has been an integral part of my staff, assisting with case work and other office duties. In her short tenure in my office, Ms. Reese performed her tasks admirably, and in doing so she has done an outstanding job of representing the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Intern Program. Ms. Reese is a constituent from my district, and I am delighted to have had her work to serve her friends and neighbors. Now Ms. Reese will be leaving to pursue other endeavors. As she departs, I wish to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues to join me in wishing Ms. Reese our sincerest best wishes for a bright and successful future. I am pleased to enter these words of commendation for Ms. Delisha Reese into the Record.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a proud member of a body that was created to allow for differences of opinion and stands for the kind of bipartisan debate and discussion that provides for true representation of all Americans. It is with great sadness and considerable regret that I learned that my Republican colleagues believe that, in this great House, there is room only for their political opinions and their lock-step ideology--an ideology that smacks of racism, antisemitism, and sexism. And, as evident by the latest GOP fundraising tactic--a liberals ``Wanted'' poster--this is an ideology that provokes violence and the worst possible kind of hatred. The Republican Party clearly knows no bounds when it eagerly targets lawmakers like myself and likens us to outlaws and criminals. How shameful, that in the age of terrorism that has already struck in Oklahoma City and has made a virtual fortress out of the Nation's Capitol, the Republicans have made my picture into a virtual bull's eye that dares any right wing extremist to take aim and to shoot. I will not allow a bounty to be placed on my head or on the heads of other black, Jewish, hispanic, or female Members of Congress. Those of us whose faces are plastered on the GOP's Wanted poster speak for thousands of Americans who have sent us to these hallowed halls so that their voices will be heard. And even a gimmick as dirty and as sinister as this poster will not silence our voices. We will continue to speak out loudly and clearly as the members of the loyal opposition who dare to take issue with Republican cuts in medicare; with Republican proposals to do away with student aid; and with a Republican agenda that seeks to disenfranchise all but the handful of rich fat cats that fill the Republican coffers. It is with bitter irony that, after spending much of my lifetime as a target of the FBI, the Chicago police department, and others, my face appears [[Page H 7154]] on a Wanted poster only after becoming a Member of Congress. And the individuals who put me there are my own colleagues. I and the American people have seen these Republican scare and divide tactics before. I well remember the days of Watergate and Richard Nixon's enemies list. Now it looks like Newt Gingrich and the Republican Party has their own hit list too. Those of us who are targets of this cheap shot are ready to fight back. But, ours will be a fair fight. One that is based on the issues that the American citizens who sent us here care about. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record an editorial from the Buffalo News, as follows: [From the Buffalo News, July 16, 1995] Nasty Politics From Paxon--Poster Targets Minorities But Demeans GOP The National Republican campaign machine, with a crude ``wanted'' poster, has identified itself with racial politics again. This time it's a Western New Yorker, Rep. Bill Paxon, coming up with a gimmick that puts an ethnic face on ideas that should be debated on their own merits. The disproportionate loading of the now-infamous poster with the faces of African-American, Jewish and female members of Congress is hard to read as inadvertent. The poster says ``liberal Democrats'' who voted against at least seven out of 10 provisions of the Contract With America are its target. But the pictures below show a group that others might have chosen as demonstrating a positive picture of the diversity of this country--a diversity that is still all too poorly represented in the ranks of Congress. By Paxon's own statement, more than 170 Democrats ``failed the Contract With America test.'' Yet, of the 28 members pictured, 10 are black and eight are Jewish. Nine also are female. Those numbers in no way reflect the make-up of the Democratic caucus or Democratic opposition to the contract's regressive, counterproductive provisions. The poster was released as part of a fund-raising letter by the National Republican Congressional Committee. As head of the committee, Paxon must take full responsibility for its divisive tenor. The Republicans should have learned their lesson after the infamous Willie Horton campaign in 1988 linked the Democratic Party to minorities in a way calculated to frighten white voters. But here, the pattern seems to be repeated. Paxon, who represents a carefully gerry-mandered safe Republican district stretching from Amherst east to Auburn, has little to lose personally no matter what campaign tactics he becomes identified with. But the nation loses when politics sinks to a level that panders to ethnic fears. The selection of pictures says to the white male voters who increasingly make up the Republican base that the GOP's enemies are the people who don't look like them. That, in turn, is likely to appeal to the anger many on the economic margin already feel over declining economic opportunities that Republicans want to blame on blacks and women trying to penetrate the job markets. The incident doesn't say much for Paxon's confidence in the Republican platform or the party's ideology. The Republicans should learn to rely on the power of their ideas to win voters' support. Paxon and the other party honchos are defending their poster. Instead, they should be acknowledging it as a mistake and backing away from what it implies as fast as they can move.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I was not available to vote for rollcall numbers 478, 479, 480, and 481 because I was at an official meeting with the President of the United States at the White House during that time. Had I been present I would have voted NAY on rollcall numbers 478, 479, 480, and 481.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to 10 outstanding students of the Neal F. Simeon Vocational High School located in the First Congressional District. These students are Marcus Patterson, Michael Washington, Eric Maxwell, Audrey Haynes, Bradford Young, Kareem Forte, Terry Batey, Tamaya Williams, Jeffery Shelton, and Spencer Donerson. They are the top 10 graduating seniors of Simeon's class of 1995. Mr. Speaker, while it is not unusual for a Chicago public high school to produce top-ranking graduates, this Simeon graduating class is unique in the fact that eight of its top 10 graduates are African- American males, including the valedictorian, Mr. Patterson and salutatorian, Mr. Washington. In today's society, much has been written and said about the plight of our African-American males. Virtually all of it has become negative. I am therefore, extremely proud of these young men for what they have accomplished. I am proud that these young men have recognized the value of a good education. By their example, I believe that all of our youth can be encouraged to achieve their academic goals. Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend to these 10 outstanding students of the Neal F. Simeon Vocational High School, the entire student body, the principal, Mr. John E. Everett, and the faculty and staff my sincerest congratulations. I am honored to enter these words of commendation into the Record.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Evelyn Christine Hall who passed from this life on April 16, 1995, at the age of 60. Evelyn Hall was born on November 8, 1934, in Covington, TN. Fondly referred to as ``Mickey,'' Evelyn was a loving wife, mother, and friend who touched the hearts of many. After completing high school in 1952, Evelyn moved to Chicago where she met her husband, Johnnie Marshall Hall. To this union were born five loving children, two sons and three daughters. She was employed by the U.S. post office in 1964, and retired from service in 1976. However that did not slow her down. In 1985 she received her salespersons license in real estate and eventually her brokers license. She even added another feather to her cap in 1994 when she received her associate of arts degree from South Suburban College in Illinois. Evelyn leaves to cherish her memory, a loving husband, Johnnie M. Hall, Sr.; 2 sons: Rev. Gregory R. Hall and Johnnie M. Hall, Jr.; 3 daughters: Natalie D. Hall, Cora J. Layrock, and Shiela A. Hall- Frazier; a stepdaughter, Margaret A. Hall; 2 brothers: Eddie and Lloyd Coward; 16 grandchildren; 2 great-grandchildren; 1 special aunt, Evelyn Bates; and a host of cousins and friends. As you can well see, she will be greatly missed by many. I am honored to enter these words of tribute to Ms. Evelyn Christine Hall into the Record.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this last vote, I would have voted ``yes'' resoundingly. personal explanation

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, on this last vote, I was in the Chamber. I had my card in the machine. I pushed the button twice, but it did not do anything. I ran down here in order to vote, and you closed the vote off. Before I got in, the clerks on the outside yelled, ``One more, one more.'' I came in and yelled again, ``One more, one more,'' and I was not allowed to vote.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to offer my sincerest congratulations to three truly wonderful seniors, who on Tuesday, the 16th of May, will receive special recognition from the Social Security Administration for having reached the extraordinary age of 100 years old. The recipients of this special honor are Mr. Frank Howard, Ms. Mary Simmons, and Ms. Bertha Williams. Each of these distinguished centenarians have touched so many people over the years, and they are to be applauded for their achievements over the past century. I wish to extend to each of them my best wishes on this wonderful occasion, and am proud and honored to enter these words of commendation into the Record.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to offer my sincerest congratulations to five truly wonderful women, who on Tuesday, the 16th of May, will receive special recognition from the Social Security Administration for having reached the extraordinary age of 100 years old. The recipients of this special honor are Ms. Edith Gutridge, Ms. Margaret Van Huben, Ms. Margaret Byrne, Ms. Anna Conner, and Ms. Ruth Kennedy. Each of these distinguished ladies have touched so many people over the years, and they are to be applauded for their achievements over the past century. I wish to extend to each of them my best wishes on this wonderful occasion, and am proud and honored to enter these words of commendation into the Record.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the more than 1.5 million victims of Armenian genocide who perished 79 years ago, and their families who still to this day remember this crime against humanity with the same intensity and pain that was felt during 8 years of murder, plight, and savagery. For 3,000 years, Armenians and Armenian culture had thrived in the area covered by the Ottoman Empire. The Turkish authorities in power in 1915, however, systematically wiped out nearly two-thirds of its Armenian population. They first executed intellectuals and doctors, then adult males, leaving the elderly, the very young, and women defenseless, as the Turkish Government forced them on death marches through the deserts. In 8 short years, Turkey managed to slaughter a vibrant, thriving, indigenous population, [[Page E1009]] whose descendants today are ever vigilante in their reminding the world never to repeat crimes of this magnitude again. For too long, people have ignored or forgotten this unimaginable atrocity. The time has come for the United States, and people everywhere, to remember and honor the victims of this brutal crime against humanity. It is imperative that we all remember the incredible inhumanity of which people are capable, for to remember is to be vigilant. And vigilance is the only way we can ever keep such atrocities from reoccurring. Through these efforts we can promote peace and goodwill among all nations and cultures. We must, for if not all that we consider humanity will be lost.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. It is with great sadness that I rise today to honor the late Henry Athalone, who passed from this life on March 4, 1995. Henry Athalone was born on July 20, 1918, in the town of Steiner, MS. After moving to Chicago in 1952, he worked at the Lindberg Engineering Co. until his retirement. Active in his community, Mr. Athalone was a member of the Holy Garden of Prayer Church under the leadership of Elder Jeffro Williams. Henry was a devoted family man. He was married for nearly 56 years to his wife, the former Elnora Overton. To this union were Martha, and Denise; and one son, Samuel. Mr. Speaker, Henry Athalone was a very dear friend to his family and neighbors, and was a loving father figure to those around him. He touched those who knew him with his intelligence, humor and sensitivity. He will be truly missed. I am honored to enter these words of tribute to Mr. Henry Athalone into the Record.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my extreme dismay and strong concerns about the recent actions of the Turkish Government. The government in Turkey has once again decided that it is easier to address dissention around its borders with military force than to sit down to talk with those whose only wish is to seek freedom from overwhelming oppression. You will hear from the Turkish Government that this recent excursion into Kurdish-held areas in Iraq is only aimed at stopping Kurdish rebel groups from making raids into Turkey. We must not be fooled by what they say. It is accepted policy in that country to deny official acknowledgement of a group that comprises close to 20 percent of its total population. Because they have no special protection under Turkish law, Kurdish civilians have been victim to a policy of discriminate harassment, persecution, even killing and wounding at the hands of the Turkish establishment. The Turkish Government has been condemned time and time again by the United Nations, Helsinki Watch, and Amnesty International for denying Kurds the basic civil liberties. These include the right to freedom of self-determination and the right to freely express the richness of their cultural heritage. Mr. Speaker, this current situation is no different. Thousands of Turkish-born Kurds are now living in northern Iraq, after fleeing Turkey last year because of harassment from Turkish officials. Their lives have been shattered because of the incessant attacks on their heritage, culture, and indeed, their very existence. These civilians have been caught in the crossfire for too long. These civilians only seek the freedom to choose their own destinies. At the very least, this Government's response should be to say in no uncertain terms that they be allowed to pursue this very basic right. However, Mr. Speaker, we may be also partly to blame for the ongoing crisis in the mountains of Iraq. Not only does the Turkish Government receive vast amounts of United States financial aid, we and our allies also supply their government with large amounts of military hardware. These weapons are in turn being used to wipe out whole villages, to kill innocent women and children. We should follow the lead of the German Government and look to end our weapons trade with Turkey. I believe, Mr. Speaker, all United States aid to Turkey should be reviewed in light of their history with other ethnic groups in Cyprus and Armenia. And just as important, that government's current activities in the mountains of Iraq should further make us question our priorities in that region. Mr. Speaker, Turkey does have the right to protect its borders and to protect its citizens from terrorism. However, this very right cannot be used to justify continued harassment and persecution of innocent civilian populations. We have supported the right of Iraqi-born Kurds to pursue independence from the regime in Baghdad. Our troops are in the mountains of northern Iraq at this moment, protecting Kurds from the Iraqi military. However, Mr. Speaker, we should look to protect the rights of all Kurds, regardless of where they were born. The United States has warned the Turkish Government that we are watching. I will say also that the whole world should watch this situation very closely. This will not only hold that government accountable but will also force this country to reevaluate its foreign priorities and practices.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, last night we witnessed an all-out war waged by the Republican majority against the most vulnerable of our society, our impoverished children. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will tell us that block grants will actually provide more services for less money. Well, Mr. Speaker, let me tell the American people that this is not the case. Under the Republican plan, actual disbursement funds for school lunches and WIC programs will be cut by more than $2 billion. Over the past several weeks I have received thousands of letters, cards, and drawings from young children in my district, who under this plan, will be forced to carry the burden of tax cuts for the wealthy on their tiny shoulders. They tell me how much they need these programs to grow up healthy and strong. They tell me that without school lunches they will go to school hungry and not ready to learn. Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing an all-out attack on the most defenseless of our society by the majority party in Congress. We must make a stand against these callous actions. We cannot let the poor and the hungry in the Nation fall victim to this outdated and cold-hearted legislative agenda.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mink substitute. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the substitute offered by my colleague from Hawaii, Patsy Mink. I do so as an original cosponsor of her proposal because in the real world, it helps people find real solutions to their real problems: Jobs. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate surrounding the welfare reform bill. I have been disturbed to hear the name of a constituent of mine who was killed last year, young Eric Morse. His name was invoked several times by majority party members as a way of compelling support for H.R. 1214. I agree with those Members that Eric's death was a senseless tragedy, and that Eric and nearly 100,000 of my constituents who reside in public housing live--and sometimes die--amidst great hardship. However, I vigorously disagree with the conclusions that my Republican colleagues draw from his death. Mr. Chairman, it escapes me why those who support the coldblooded, coldhearted Republican bill feel that anything it contains could have prevented Eric's death. I also fail to understand why all of the discussions have merely been about symptoms rather than diseases. There is certainly no better example of that sort of public policy nonsense than H.R. 1214. I challenge each Member from the other side of the aisle to come to the south side of Chicago and ask a dozen of my constituents what is the most important missing element in their lives or in their communities. I guarantee to you that every single one of that random group would have one answer and one answer only: We need jobs. And that, Mr. Chairman, is the reason why we must attach Congresswoman Mink's substitute to the underlying bill. For, despite the Republican bill's requirement that recipients work, it does nothing to help them find and keep real jobs. Nor does this bill make sure that jobs are made available in areas like my district which have astronomical unemployment rates. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues, if you indeed have genuine respect for the memory of little Eric Morse, to vote in favor of the Mink substitute to provide jobs. Only by doing so can this Congress bring about genuine welfare reform instead of welfare window dressing and fake, sound bite reform.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with great sadness to ask my colleagues to join me in expressing our respects and sympathies to the family of Leroy Harris, who passed from this life on March 20, 1995, at the age of 81. Mr. Harris was born in Mobile, AL. He was both a businessman and professional athlete, having been a semi-professional baseball player in the old Negro Baseball League from 1935-45. After his career as a pitcher, which was reported to be exemplary, Mr. Harris worked at American Radiators and later was an employee for the New York Telephone Co. in Buffalo, N.Y. until his retirement in 1977. Always a hard worker, Mr. Harris bought a taxi company and successfully ran the operation there until his health failed him in 1992. Since that time, he was fortunate to spend his remaining days with his family and friends in Chicago, IL. Mr. Harris leaves behind a large family of sons, daughters, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. I ask my colleagues, then, to join with me in expressing our deep condolences to the extended Harris family. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield back my time.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavailable to cast my vote on the Archer en bloc amendment, rollcall No. 258. I had been in a meeting off the floor during this 5-minute vote, and was unable to return to the floor before the 5-minute period had ended. Had I been present I would have voted ``no'' on the Archer en bloc amendment.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in strong opposition to the mean-spirited and remarkably calloused rescissions bill which we are in the process of considering in this body. I do so with a heavy heart and a strong sense of foreboding about the effects of many of the random cuts in worthwhile programs within this bill. There are several which I felt particularly strongly about, and therefore I had authored and filed amendments to restore three particular rescissions. However, due to the restrictive rule which was authorized for consideration of H.R. 1158, I am regrettably unable to offer these amendments. This is another in an incessant progression of restrictions placed upon me and other Members of this Congress who, while striving to represent their constituents, have been prevented from doing so by the majority. Three especially onerous rescissions, in my opinion, are those regarding public housing, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program [LIHEAP], and the summer jobs program. In districts like Illinois' First Congressional District whose residents have largely not yet benefited from the improvements in the Nation's economy, the succession of economic blows which these rescissions will land squarely on the backs of those who can least afford such brutality is utterly unconscionable and perhaps even somewhat bewildering. The bill strikes more than two billion dollars for public housing operating subsidies, modernization and development. Mr. Chairman, nearly one fifth of my constituents live in public housing. Among the developments in my district are some of the more notorious in the Nation, including the Robert Taylor Homes and many others. Working in close conjunction with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros and with the support of the first President in more than a decade that understands and cares about what happens to the Federal Government's tenants, we have been laboring mightily to improve the plight of public housing residents. I am shocked, appalled and dismayed at the sweeping and damaging nature of the public housing-related rescissions which are under consideration today in this body. For Chicago alone, the public housing operating subsidy reduction would be more than $68 million, the modernization reduction would be more than $25 million, and millions more would be taken out of funding for development and major reconstruction of obsolete public housing units. These cuts add genuine injury to the insults which public housing residents have endured for time immemorial. Speaking of insults, what justifications can this body's appropriators offer to defend their complete elimination of the summer youth employment program? Can they really believe that prison construction and lip service to false, Jack Kemp-style ``empowerment'' can be the only substitute for creating genuine economic opportunity, real reduction of reliance on welfare, and consequent real reductions in crime? Chicago's youth will pay a drastic price for these reductions: of the $35 million which Illinois received last year, more than one third went for jobs programs in the city of Chicago. There is an identifiable human component to these cuts: some 65,000 Chicago youth have been helped by this program in the past 5 years, but over 10,000 additional youths, most of whom will have no alternative employment prospects of any kind, will be left on the street in the future as a result of the elimination of this program. Moreover, as my colleagues from northern States know, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program plays an essential role in keeping many low-income families warm throughout the winter months. I should point out that a large percentage of these families are either elderly or have young children, which are the two segments of society that are the most vulnerable to the elements found in colder climates. And Mr. Chairman, it is important to add that not only do States in the north rely on this program, southern States also utilize LIHEAP to assist families to pay cooling bills in those areas that are subject to extreme summertime temperatures. Again, these families from the south that utilize LIHEAP funding are mostly elderly or live with young children. The State of Illinois alone receives 6 percent of total available LIHEAP funding. This means that over 238,000 families received an average of $258 in the last program year. If this rescission package passes this body with the cuts in LIHEAP funding intact, all of these Illinois families will have to look elsewhere for help in paying their heating bills. In my district, if you consider that \1/3\ of these families are on AFDC, and one third are elderly Americans on Social Security, and \3/4\ of the total number of families receiving LIHEAP are headed by single mothers, you are left with a painful and unanswerable question: how will these families come up with money to pay their heating bills? Many will be forced to make decisions on what other basic necessity must be foregone in order to pay heating costs. Elderly recipients will be forced to choose which prescription they will leave unfilled; mothers will have to choose which child will go hungry; and families will be sent into homeless shelters because they cannot pay their monthly obligations. As was the case with the public housing and summer jobs funding, I had hoped to offer an amendment to restore funding for LIHEAP and remove the program from the rescissions hit list. My friends who support eliminating LIHEAP just do not get it--millions of families around this Nation rely desperately on LIHEAP support. This program is not a boondoggle, but rather is a matter of life and death for many, pure and simple. Mr. Chairman, the actions that the majority in House are sanctioning today are a direct, blatant attack on the poor and disadvantaged in this country. There are a host of other programs which will also be decimated, including Community Development Block Grants--some $7.6 million of which was earmarked for Chicago--and all funding for the groundbreaking Community Development Financial Institutions Fund on which I and others worked hard in the 103d Congress. I can only hope, once the hugely detrimental effects of these and other proposed cuts come home to the American people, that my colleagues in the majority will be justifiably and permanently restored to the minority party status which they are so richly earning.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 956, the so-called Common Sense Product Liability and Legal Reform Act. There is nothing even vaguely common-sensical about this bill. On the contrary, this bill is nothing more than a thinly disguised, let's kill all the trial lawyers bill. Mr. Chairman, unlike so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am not an attorney. But, unlike many who support this bill, I do not view the trial lawyers to be inherently greedy or evil. Instead, it is my strong and considered opinion that a good lawyer can be a wronged party's only friend just when he or she needs one the most. The overwhelming majority of our nation's products liability plaintiffs are not just nameless, faceless individuals but hard-working Americans with mortgages and families. Their right to seek compensation for faulty or defective workmanship in consumer products cannot and should not be denied. Many States are also moving to harm consumers and working Americans by placing arbitrary limits on monetary damage awards in product liability suits. The Governor of my State, for example, signed into law today a measure that caps punitive and pain and suffering awards while making it harder for wronged citizens to see justice served in Illinois State Courts. My colleagues, this is an outrage. We must work ever harder to see that these efforts are defeated at all levels of government. The bill before us today would make sure that many of these persons will have nowhere to turn to redress their injuries. The rights of working-class American consumers have never been more under threat than they are now. I therefore implore my fellow Members on both sides of the aisle to oppose this extremely underhanded and reckless bill. We must work together to see that it is defeated.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this exclusionary rule, this move to enact H.R. 666. Mr. Chairman, as I sat in my office and listened to the debate, I must tell Members of this body that I became more terrified about this piece of legislation than I have been about any legislation that I have been asked to consider as a Member of this body since I was elected to this office representing the First Congressional District of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I am the only Member of this body to ever have been victimized by illegal search and seizure by a member of the police force in this Nation, the city of Chicago police force. A little over 25 years ago, Mr. Chairman, there was an illegal search and seizure conducted by the Chicago Police Department within the city of Chicago. As a result of that illegal search and seizure, admittedly illegal search and seizure by the Chicago Police Department, two individuals were killed, seven individuals were wounded. They also, the survivors of that particular raid in the city of Chicago, had the right to sue. They did sue. The county of Cook settled out of court, but it did not bring life back to the two individuals who were killed. That was December 4, 1969. December 5, 1969, Mr. Chairman, my apartment was also raided illegally, supposedly in search of guns. They did not come with a warrant. They came with weapons pulled, weapons blazing. They shot my door down. Fortunately I was not at the apartment. My family was not at the apartment at that time. They entered my apartment, did not find any weapons, but yet and still, they justified it, Mr. Chairman, Members of this body, by saying that they, in fact, did find contraband in my apartment; they did find a bag of what they identified at the time, a bag of marijuana in my apartment. Mr. Chairman, upon further research and upon actions by my attorneys at the time, my attorneys took them to court, and in court they indicated that that bag of marijuana where they had shot my door down, guns blazing, threatening; had I been there, I would have been killed also, and my family would have been killed, wiped out totally, they found that that bag they called marijuana was nothing more than bird seed. Mr. Chairman, Members of this body, there is no such thing as giving the police force exclusionary rights. Those individuals who are advocates of this particular measure, they can rush to judgment, they can rush to enacting this piece of legislation simply because of the fact that it might look good on their resume to their voters in their districts, it might sound good in terms of being politically correct, and that they are tougher than tough in regards to enforcing the laws of this Nation. It might sound like they are friends of the police departments, and we all understand that the police departments are under siege right now from a number of sources throughout the Nation. But, Mr. Chairman, in human context, in human terms, this legislation in more instances than not would mean life and death for certain individuals, individuals who have been ostracized, cast aside by law enforcement officers and by the status quo.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's inquiry is absolutely correct. Right now in the city of Chicago, the police are authorized to go to any judge, be they a sitting judge or be they any other type of judge, they can go to a judge on a 24-hour basis, any judge within the city of Chicago, any judge within the county of Cook, any Federal magistrate. They can go to any judge and get a warrant to enter into anyone's home to search anyone's home or vehicle or whatever, their private possessions. They do have that authority at this moment in time.

Mr. RUSH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I must say to you that although at the time, 25 or more years ago, a little over 25 years ago, back in the city of Chicago we felt power of this Nation was coming down on our backs as young men who felt, young men and young women, who felt that we wanted to challenge the status quo. I must say that it was Members of this body led by the distinguished gentlemen from Michigan who did come into Chicago, the Congressional Black Caucus, and put the skids, put the skids on the type of police atrocities and police violations of the law and police murder that was occurring in the city of Chicago, put the skids on that. They came in, and they conducted a hearing, and because they did focus national attention on what was happening in Chicago, police forces there backed up and subsequently were found, they admitted, that they had no legal grounds to murder two individuals, and so they had no legal grounds to come into my apartment to seize and to search and seize in my apartment and to charge me with a felony of which it was baseless. It was groundless. It was only an excuse, only an excuse, Mr. Chairman, to take my life away. I must tell you that today that is the issue that is at stake for many, many Americans, whether or not we are going to have police forces throughout this Nation, any police force, given the arbitrary power for political reasons to invade someone's privacy, to invade their homes under the guise of arbitrary decisions that they want to make.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to salute a gentleman who is a Chicago institution and a lifelong friend of the underdog and of the working Chicagoan. Leon Despres, who turns 87 years young today, played a crucial role in the Chicago City Council during the senior Richard Daley's tenure as major of Chicago. This role, that of the loyal and principled opposition, is one that my Democratic colleagues and I are growing to appreciate more and more as we settle into our new roles in the 104th Congress. Unfortunately, I did not have the honor of serving in the Chicago City Council during the 20 years that Mr. Despres served there. However, he served as Parliamentarian of that body under the late, great Council. Len Despres is well known as a tireless advocate of such bread-and-buter issues as racial equality, civil rights, fair housing and open government. Unlike so many of his contemporaries, he advocated many of these controversial issues during a time before they were fashionable and frequently did so in the face of great opposition. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune published an article about Mr. Despres in its January 22, 1995 edition, and I submit this article, which captures the essence of Mr. Despres quite accurately to be entered into the Congressional Record in honor of Mr. Despres' 87th birthday. [From the Chicago Tribute, Jan. 22, 1995] Still in the Swim (By M. W. Newman) Leon Despres gets to bed around 9 o'clock on most weeknights and sleeps the sleep of babes and sages. At 4:50 a.m. he's up and ready to go. That's the Despres way. Thirty-five minutes later, he's downstairs at 59th Street and Stony Island Avenue, waiting in the icy darkness for the CTA's No. 6 express bus. It's a January morning, 4 degrees above zero. A prairie wind shivers in. No problem: Despres has had 86 years of getting used to it. Nearly 87. The No. 6 at this hour is a working folks' bus. The passengers are regulars. As on most mornings, Despres is the only white person aboard. Almost certainly he is the only 86- year-old. Beyond doubt, on this trip he is the only Loop lawyer, former alderman and certified civic role model, all in one. The bus swings downtown along South Lake Shore Drive. Despres loves the lakeside run but notes the pileup of parking lots and convention halls and traffic ramps where trees or open water once held sway. ``Civicide'' is one of his words for voluntary treeslaughter. Until a few years ago, he enjoyed bicycling to work on the lakefront until he was rammed from behind and knocked cold by another biker. ``I took that as a warning; you can't hear a bicycle,'' he says--and gave up the bike for early-a.m. swimming. By about 5:50 on this morning, as on all weekday mornings, he's in the University Club, a polished neo-oldie cloister at 76 E. Monroe St. The club building dates from 1908, the year Despres was born at 41st Street and Michigan Avenue. It has dark wood paneling and baronial fireplaces, but he skips all that and is in the basement pool by 6 a.m. Despres is not there to float around. He does his 52 laps, a half-mile, moving from backstroke to breast stroke to crawl as steadily as a swimmer a quarter of his age. Usually a half-dozen other swimmers join him. But no one else even shows up on this ice-cold morning. ``The whole gang chickened out,'' he says with a laugh. He's in the water by himself for 42 minutes, comes out lit up and follows with poolside coffee, rolls and bagels: the Despres routine. ``It makes my day,'' Despres says in that strong, clear voice of his. ``Absolutely makes my day.'' But his day is just starting. By 7:45, Monday through Friday, he's in his office at 77 W. Washington Blvd. for a full round of work. He doesn't knock off till 5:15. Leon Despres, generally known by his nickname of Len, is an enduring natural wonder of Chicago. For 20 years ending in 1975, Despres was the City Council's independent icon, the finger-wagging conscience from Hyde Park snipping at old Boss Mayor Richard J. Daley and the party machine. Daley has been dead since 1976 and the machine long since has lost firepower, but Despres goes on. He thrives on lawyering, the hands-on kind. He relishes phone calls, conferences, clients new and old. He's not a man for long lunches, and sometimes grabs a salad at Morton's Cafeteria, an old-line hangout for old-line Lop types at 120 W. Madison St. He takes time out only for a half-hour afternoon nap ``to recharge my batteries.'' Office routine elates him. ``I enjoy clearing titles, drafting wills, advising people,'' he says. Mind you, this has been going on since he started practice in 1929. The man is an institution: the Phi Beta Kappa liberal, independent Democrat and best friend of underdogs who wouldn't go along and consequently never got to be a judge or a congressman. In his time in office you couldn't beat City Hall, and Despres didn't. But now try walking with him anywhere near that hall without someone coming up and saying, ``Hello, Alderman.'' ``Everybody wants Leon's blessing,'' says his friend Herbert M. Kraus, a veteran publicist and civic doer. ``He's a Renaissance man in hustling Chicago.'' Despres may not hustle, but he gets there just the same. He's tall and erect, with an assured manner, handsome features, silvery hair and a silver tongue to go with it. These days he's trying to take off 10 or 15 pounds. Otherwise he doesn't look all that different than he did during his warrior times in the council. ``Leon was born with a great deal of energy and can do whatever he sets out to do,'' says his wife, Marian. She is an eminent Chicagoan herself and a member of the Chicago Landmarks Commission. But when he gets up early to go swimming, she confides, ``I roll over and go back to sleep.'' `horatio at the bridge' Despres' fan club includes some members who at times crossed swords or at least words with him. Seymour Simon, now 79 and a former justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, was an alderman and ward committeeman in the Daley vs. Despres years. He calls Despres ``the best alderman in the United States.'' ``He was Horatio at the bridge,'' says Simon. ``Wise, brilliant, with a great grasp of details and sense of humor.'' John Hoellen, 80, served with Despres from 1955 to 1975. Hoellen was that exotic aldermanic import, a Republican. He and Despres once got into a row over a James Baldwin novel that was required reading at Wright Junior College. It wasn't any of the City Council's business, but Hoellen challenged Despres to read aloud some of the homoerotic passages. Despres replied by asking Hoellen if he would ban the Bible because it had sex in it. But all that was 30 years ago. Hoellen now describes Despres as a ``super person, thoughtful, considerate, decent, compassionate.'' Probably nobody, however--starting with Despres--expected him to go on being a successful lawyer into his late 80s. He is at a peak of achievement, says his 45-year-old partner, Thomas Geoghegan. Despres long has been an attorney for labor union, and his clients in the firm of Despres, Schwartz and Geoghegan now include the Teamsters under the reform leadership of Ron Carey. In the 1980s, Geoghegan was the firm's point man in an embittering fight to win a settlement for the bereft employees of Wisconsin Steel after it shut down. A $14.8 million payout was awarded in 1988. Despres' Steeltown ties go back a long way--to the days when there really was a Steeltown. Ed Sadlowski once was the youngest district director in the United Steel Workers of America, with Despres as his attorney. Sadlowski hadn't even been born in 1937 when Chicago police killed 10 labor demonstrators at a Memorial Day gathering. The shooting came to be known in labor history as the Republic Steel Massacre. In the stunned aftermath, a protest rally was held in the Civic Opera House. ``Did you know Despres helped to organize the rally?''says an admiring Sadlowski. ``He's had 60-odd years of being consistently good. He was over at my house the other day and he's as sharp as ever. I wonder what he drinks that keeps him that way.'' Said Sadlowski's wife, Marlene: ``Exercise!'' Remembering Clarence Darrow Like Cole Porter penning a lyric, Despres always seems to know what his next word should be. He can spout in four languages and quotes Thucydides, Ovid, Homer, Shakespeare and the fabled Chicago lawyer of yester-year, Clarence Darrow. Darrow died in 1938, but Despres recalls a long talk he once had with the brooding old titan. ``He had an office right in this same building,'' he says. ``We keep his photograph in our conference room. He was an inspiration, a great trial lawyer--selflessly interested in the fight against discrimination and the death penalty.'' Every year on the anniversary of Darrow's death, Despres helps to conduct a memorial ceremony for him in Darrow's beloved Jackson Park. Despres, of course, is not the rumpled, suspenders-thumbing showman and yarn-spinner that Darrow, was. He keeps his hair combed, wears a pressed suit and a neat tie, and cannot be accused of cracker-barrel charisma. But Despres has shown how to bring ``justice to the city,'' Geoghegan wrote in ``Which Side Are You On?'' his impassioned book about organized labor published in 1991. Despres never has left much doubt about which side he is on. The elder Daley's gumshoes spied on him for years, it turned out after Despres left the council. They may have wondered why they bothered, because he seemed to favor lost causes and oddball fancies like racial equality and fair housing, civil rights, open government, budget economy, freedom from censorship, controls on lead-paint poisoning. Despres was even tailed to a Halloween benefit party in 1972 at the First Unitarian Church on 57th Street. Buy a funny thing happen on the way to the 21st Century. Musclebound Chicago loosened up. Despres has lived long enough to see many of his causes embraced or least grudgingly accepted by the party wheelhorses. ``You don't have the top-heavy load of payrollers anymore,'' says Hoellen. ``There's more sensitivity to problems.'' battling the boss But there's less comic relief. Despres' tiffs with Boss Daley, sire of the present mayor, had an ``Odd Couple'' sense of antic timing. The Boss was maximum leader of the troops, had the votes and presided over the City Council, so he couldn't lose. Despres learned early to talk fast before the beet-fased mayor could grow irritated and cut off his aldermanic microphone. That happened at times. ``I couldn't count on any 10 minutes,'' Despres explains. Seymour Simon summons up remembrance of a Daley-Despres sideshow of the late 1960s. Despres ``was the instigator'' on that occasion, according to Simon, and was needling superintendent. It was a ticklish matter. Chicago had never fully reclaimed face after a 1960 ``burglars-in-blue'' scandal that was all but etched on the city seal. Daley flared back and called Despres ``a faker,'' Simon remembers. That brought Simon into the game. He urged the mayor to cool it. At the time, Simon had begun wearing his hair in a replay of Samson before Delilah got her shears. Baseball players and hard hats often look that way now. But in the 1960s hair around the ears looked like aldermanic heresy to the Boss. ``Why don't you go get a haircut?'' he snapped at Simon. Legend has it that Despres proposed that the council's forestry committee set standards for the foliage of aldermen, though he says he doesn't remember that quip now. Even that wasn't the last word. Two days later, Daley telephoned Simon. ``Sis [Daley's wife, Eleanor] tells me I got to apologize,'' he said. ``No need,'' Simon replied. ``We're grown men.'' ``Sis tells me I got to apologize,'' the Boss repeated. a civic landmark Despres rarely heard apologies. Ald. Vito Marzullo despaired of him as a ``nitwit.'' Ald. Thomas Keane, Machiavelli of the council, complained that Despres was a ``loudmouth.'' That was before Keane was sent up for mail fraud. Aldermen who stayed clear of prison yelled ``shut up'' at Despres. He never did. What's more, he remained on the council scene after retiring from it by serving as parliamentarian for two mayors: Jane Byrne (``always interesting and she gave great parties'') and Harold Washington (``a great mayor''). It was all in a day's routine for a man used to 100-hour work weeks when he was an alderman. Despres never was your trademark civic father. He is a connoisseur of books, opera, theater, architecture, food, fine wines and world travel. He founded the Friends of WFMT to support that FM radio station in a struggle with its board. His firm went into battle to ensure that the station would maintain its fine- arts character. But Despres is first of all and most of all a Hyde Parker. He went to school there, he built his political base there. In 1967 he was mugged and shot there, on 55th Street, and lived to explain that it could happen anywhere. He and his wife--who have a son, Robert, in Connecticut, and a daughter, Linda Baskin, in Chicago--have been married for 63 years. They celebrated their 60th by chartering a cruise boat and inviting some 200 friends to join them. In the Despres mode, the voyage was educational as well as sentimental: skyline sightseeing with a tour guide. The boat explored Chicago's Old Ma River, both branches, and Len says: ``It's the greatest Chicago trip. You see the buildings in a way you never saw them before.'' Despres will be 87 on Feb. 2, a Thursday. He expects it to be a workday as usual. He'll board the No. 6 bus in the darkness, swim 52 laps or maybe more, have a bagel and coffee, and get to work. ``I have been very fortunate,'' he says. And that is Chicago's own good fortune.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the amendment which our colleague from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has offered to H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. Mr. Hall's amendment is designed to make certain that Congress specifically studies and deliberates any reductions in programs which make up our Nation's weakening social safety net. is a distinct possibility that reductions in the basic Federal poverty programs--AFDC, child nutrition, food stamps, medicaid, and SSI--could be reduced without a specific vote on that reduction. At a time when the majority has called for increased accountability and responsibility on the part of Congress, this should be an absolute no-brainer for this body. Even during the Reagan budget-cutting frenzy of the mid-1980's, there was a specific exception to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget deficit act for all of these programs. They are the lifeblood of our Nation's poorest citizens, and therefore deserve the deliberate and conscious protection which this amendment would ensure. This amendment would by no means assure that reductions will not occur in the funding allocations for these budget items. However, it would guarantee that a separate floor vote and committee analysis be accomplished before such reductions could be enacted. In a commonsense manner, this amendment would provide that reductions of this type be treated as unfunded mandates. This is particularly appropriate, since States and local governments would undoubtedly have to make up for such reductions with their own funds. Mr. Chairman, I implore my fellow Members on both sides of the aisle to support this extremely worthwhile amendment.

Mr. RUSH

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably called away on personal business on Thursday, January 26, 1995. I was, therefore, not available to vote for rollcall Nos. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, and 51. Had I been present I would have voted nay on No. 41, aye on No. 43, aye on No. 44, aye on No. 45, aye on No. 46, aye on No. 47, aye on No. 48, nay on No. 49, aye on No. 50, and nay on No. 51.