Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on February 13 through 16, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, am requesting a leave of absence from the House.

Mr. Speaker, on February 6 and 7, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, am requesting a leave of absence from the House.

Mr. Speaker, on January 3 to January 6, January 9 to January 10, and on January 13, 2017, circumstances beyond my control necessitated my absence from the House and I, therefore, missed votes. I expect my absence to continue through February 3, 2017 and therefore am requesting a leave of absence from the House.

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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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

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.

I want to thank the chairman.

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

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

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

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and honor, Mrs. Bonita M. Herring on the occasion of her re-election as the 24th International Grand Basileus of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority Inc. is a leading international, non-profit community service organization founded by seven African American educators November 12, 1922, on the campus of Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana.

The mission of Sigma Gamma Rho is to enhance the quality of life within the community through public service, leadership development, and the education of youth. With more than 500 chapters in the United States, Bermuda, Virgin Islands, Germany, and Korea, Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. has grown tremendously in Sisterhood, Scholarship, and Service.

Mrs. Herring embodies the highest ideals of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. She has served her community locally, regionally, and nationally with vigor and grace for over 40 years. Mrs. Herring's leadership and interpersonal skills are unparalleled. She has served on a myriad of boards, such as the Southeast Chamber of Commerce of Illinois and the National Coalition of Black Meeting Planners, and as Director of Recruitment for the College of Education at Chicago State University.

As the newly re-elected International Grand Basileus, Mrs. Herring represents the highest ideals of Sigma Gamma Rho which is encapsulated in the words of their motto: ``Greater Service, Greater Progress.'' Mrs. Herring also served as the 22nd International First Grand Anti- Basileus from 2008-2012 and as Executive Director of the sorority for 23 years. She is the only Soror of Sigma Gamma Rho to hold the distinction of serving as both Executive Director and International Grand Basileus.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Herring is the recipient of a Bachelor of Arts degree in English from the University of Illinois-Chicago and a Masters of Arts degree in Communications and Training from Governors State University. Mrs. Herring is married to Mr. Chester Herring, a Certified Public Accountant. They have one daughter, Ms. Chevonne Herring who is also a Certified Public Accountant and member of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.

Mrs. Herring lives by the mantra, uttered by Harriet Tubman, ``Every great dream begins with a dreamer. Always remember, you have within you the strength, the patience, and the passion to reach for the stars to change the world.'' Mrs. Herring's passion and impact on society are immense. She has cultivated a rich legacy as a woman that is fair, dedicated, business oriented, and honors the importance of the power of kindness and sisterly support.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to recognize the achievements of International Grand Basileus Bonita M. Herring. Her commitment to Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. and indeed this nation is commendable. I am privileged to enter these words into the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to begin by thanking the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Waxman, for his outstanding leadership on this and other matters that have come before the Energy and Commerce Committee. I want to say to him that his leadership has been inspiring on so many issues.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with the process that the majority's side has undertaken in order to hastily bring H.R. 5682 to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the Keystone pipeline is not key to America's energy future. If we just disregard the merits or the lack thereof of the Keystone pipeline itself, the majority just recently in the past couple of weeks has made promises to the American people that it will return to regular order for bills to be brought to the floor of this Congress. Mr. Speaker, here we are once again: promises made, promises broken. This bill was brought to this floor after 1 hour--1 measly hour--of debate and without the ability for the minority side to bring forth any amendments. Not one amendment can we bring to this bill. Where is the promise of bipartisanship of the other side on this particular matter regarding this bill?

Promises made to the American people equals promises broken by the majority.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will automatically approve the Keystone XL pipeline even though this pipeline has no legal route through the State of Nebraska, where there is a case pending in a court before a local judge regarding some of the siting issues that surround this illegal pipeline. Why can't the people of Nebraska, the citizens of Nebraska, have the time and the consideration just to make sure that this pipeline is safe for them and their aquifers and also for their environment? There are other States that this pipeline is going to be traveling through.

Mr. Speaker, as President Obama pointed out, there is an independent process taking place, and this

bill shortcuts the approval process and would allow, Mr. Speaker, this bill would allow a foreign company to preemptively seize property from American people, from the landowners, particularly those in Nebraska.

Additionally, this bill seeks to usurp the President's ability and authority to ultimately approve or reject the project and instead uses this pipeline as a political football to score some elective advantages.

Mr. Speaker, eight times we have brought this bill or a version of this bill to the floor. Eight times. Don't we get it. As the popular TV series used to pronounce to us all, ``eight is enough.'' Eight is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor now because of a serious concern, a deadly concern even, that the people of my district, the First Congressional District of Illinois, the citizens of the great city of Chicago, and indeed those from around our country, that they are experiencing and that they are witnessing, and that is the preponderance of violence, killings, young people killing each other, and innocent bystanders shot down on the streets of my city.

They leave victims of gun violence perpetrated by young men, older citizens, retirees, victims of gun violence in my city.

One will get the notion that the name attributed to my city is apropos, that it is a worthy name, Chiraq, a nickname that has been associated with my city.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to say that this great city that I love, these people--worthy people of the First Congressional District, these hardworking Americans who have contributed greatly to the greatness of this Nation, they don't live in a place called Chiraq. Chiraq is not apropos.

We wholeheartedly and determinedly resist and repudiate any references to our city with the inappropriate--grossly inappropriate name of Chiraq. We don't embrace Chiraq and none of its implications.

Yes, there is a focus on the violence that occurs in our city, but, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this functionality in Chicago and in other places across the country is a direct result of decades-long failed governmental policies, failed public policies, policies that have emanated out of this very institution, this Federal Government, policies that have emanated out of State capitals all across this Nation and city halls, village halls, all across this Nation, decades- long.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about just the vestiges of slavery and that dark period of American history. We are not just speaking about segregation and all of the abuses and all of the trauma that segregation has caused upon African Americans.

We are not just talking about Jim Crow laws that were a result of public policies. Mr. Speaker, we are not just talking about all of the policies that emanated out of this institution, the housing policies in my very city that until the seventies denied African Americans in my city to actually acquire a mortgage which was and still is the foundation of a middle class lifestyle, a foundation for the American Dream. Without the ability to get a mortgage, to own a home, the American Dream becomes an American nightmare.

That is what we have experienced over these last decades--structural inequities, structural discrimination. Mr. Speaker, I am here to say this evening that there are three d's that define the structural inequities, structural problems in my city and other cities across this Nation.

At the foundation of the violence that we are witnessing today--and I would just plead with anyone in this Chamber, anyone who is viewing this today in any capacity, on any platform throughout the Nation, please do not mistake anything that I say or feel as being an attempt to coddle criminals, to somehow give a sense of relief to those who are killing innocent people in our communities. They are just as wrong as they could ever be, and I am not in any way trying to give them cover.

But if we want to get some real answers, then we are going to have to ask some real questions. Know ye the truth, the Bible says, and it shall set you free.

The truth of the matter is that this violence can be summed up for the most part in terms of its causes by these three d's.

Discrimination. Years and years, decades and decades of discrimination. Discrimination that has denied hardworking Americans access to the best that this Nation can provide. Discrimination not of the southern type, more subtle, more insidious, even in some ways more deadly than anything that the Ku Klux Klan could ever devise. This subtle institutional discrimination that has been a part of the culture in my city for too long and that takes on different characteristics is able to mask itself. Even with the good intentions of some of our friends, some people who will recall at the assault, that they might have mistakenly involved themselves at some point in time in being a part of the problem rather than a part of the solution.

Discrimination is alive and well in my city, even today. The hopelessness that young people find themselves facing and embracing here in the year 2014 in this Nation, the hopelessness just completely engulfs their very existence. Every waking hour, they are confronted every day of the week, every week of the month, every month of the year. Year by year by year by year they are faced with total despair and utter hopelessness that erupts and stands tall in this institutional framework that is built upon discrimination. Discrimination rises up and causes all types of dysfunction in those who are discriminated against. Discrimination, the first d.

Discrimination leads very quickly to disinvestment, the second d. You can discriminate against a community, against a people, and thereby you can disinvest in those communities--on the south side and the west side and the north side of the city, particularly on the south and the west side. My friend Congressman Davis is here and he can speak very, very appropriately and eloquently to the discrimination of people on the west side of the city.

But the disinvestment, the stark disinvestment can't be denied. These patterns of disinvestment in our schools, in our business districts, in our housing, in our recreational opportunities, in our parks, on our streets, this rampant disinvestment decades long has led to a sense of frustrated rage. When there is no way out for families, for neighbors, for neighborhoods, for communities, then psychologists will tell you that violence is a byproduct of that failure to believe and to hope and to be assured that you have a future, that you have a stake. Life loses its meaning when there is no significant and righteous investment in the future of any of our citizens, particularly those who are young and those who have easy access to guns.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the National Rifle Association on this one matter: guns don't kill people; people kill people. But I disagree with them, and I want to take it a little further, because that is only one side of the coin. We are not just talking about people. We are talking about a hopeless people. People without hope for the future. Anybody, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or nationality, anybody when you are caught, caged into a corner with no hope of getting out, you are going to turn violent. That is a part of the human makeup. Your violence is going to be directed to somebody. So the NRA, if it is going to be truthful, then it just cannot deal with any kind of people. It has got to deal more pointedly at people who have no hope.

This disinvestment has led to staggering intergenerational unemployment. The bottom didn't fall out of the economy on the west side and the south side of the city of Chicago in '07, '08, and '09. The bottom fell out 25 years ago, 50 years ago, and it never has been repaired. There is no safety net in my city. It is like a bottomless pit. Generations yet to be born are still facing those desperate conditions, still will face that despair, still will face this gross disinvestment.

Why aren't there jobs in my city for my community, for my district, no light manufacturing?

Why is it that in my city we have to fight the labor unions in order to get employment or labor jobs? Why don't we have summer jobs for young people?

Government policies have created this nightmare, and this nightmare that we find ourselves in keeps getting darker and darker and darker and darker and deadlier and deadlier and deadlier.

Discrimination, disinvestment.

When the mayor of my city stands proudly and takes credit for closing 54 public schools--mostly on the south and west side of the city of Chicago--that is nothing but a continuation of the decades-long disinvestment in good quality schools.

If you look back at the history of my city, some of my most ferocious battles with the powers that be centered around the inequities in the public school system. Dropouts are produced at an alarming rate in my city because of the disinvestment in public education.

Discrimination is the first d, and disinvestment is the second d.

And then, Mr. Speaker, in recent times, we have seen rampant, gross depopulation of my city. Poor people have been almost run out of my city. Public housing is a failed public policy in my city.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, what happened.

Yes, there were mammoth public housing developments in my city. Some we pejoratively called ``projects.'' Yes, there were a lot of social ills associated with public housing or projects, and some of those public housing buildings needed to be restructured, demolished, or redesigned. But unlike New York City, which took its public housing developments and invested money in those developments, my city didn't.

What you had, Mr. Speaker, are former residents of public housing pushed into struggling lower, middle class communities; and that is when the disruption of those heretofore struggling middle class communities could not sustain themselves against this avalanche of former public housing residents into those areas, and those communities started experiencing extreme dysfunctionality.

There is one beat in my city, beat 624. This is the most violent beat in the city of Chicago. In recent years, two police officers were killed in that beat. Day-to-day violence occurs in that beat. Six weeks ago, a brilliant special education teacher who worked part-time as a real estate agent stopped by temporarily to drop some forms off in her office on West 79th Street and lost her life. She was shot in the head by a stray bullet fired in beat 624.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. Beat 624 is in the heart of a community known as Chatham. When I was a young man growing up, Chatham was the model of middle class lifestyle for the African American community. It was exalted in many ways. Everybody thought that living in Chatham was the place to be. When you lived in Chatham, you lived in nice homes with manicured lawns, clean streets, garages, homes, good schools, a good business district, safe communities, and stable communities.

This was the Chatham of my youth. But that Chatham is a long-ago memory now because of the disinvestment and because of the failed public housing policies that emanated out of this Federal Government.

Discrimination, disinvestment, and lastly, depopulation.

I grew up in an area called Cabrini-Green. It no longer exists.

Gentrification has conquered the community of Cabrini-Green, and it is well on its way to conquering other communities.

The public dollars over these last 20 or 30 years--maybe even longer than that--have been away from the communities and toward The Loop and the businesses around The Loop.

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

I want to thank my friend, Congressman Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that in the central business district of Chicago, or The Loop as it is known far and wide, there is a close- in circle around The Loop. They have created three communities. One is called the Near North Side, where public dollars and enormous investments have occurred. This is the area that used to house Cabrini- Green, the Near North Side.

In recent times, we have had gentrification occur in the Near West Side. When I was a young man growing up in Chicago, there was never such a community, never such a time, never such an identity called the Near West Side.

And, Mr. Speaker, there is now something called the Near South Side.

All of these are gems of gentrification. But if you go further west, further south, you see a stark difference in Englewood and Garfield Park. You see a stark difference in capital investments in these communities, where hopelessness and despair dominate the lives and the thoughts and the culture.

That is where the violence emanates from. Unless we deal with these issues, we will never, ever be able to deal with the violence and the increasing murders that are everyday news in the city that I love, the city of Chicago.

Thank you so much, Congressman Davis.

I know that you have a response to what I am going to say because I am sure you share the same feeling.

I talked about discrimination earlier, and there is one aspect of discrimination that is probably of little notice. You have these youngsters in your community and in my community--in your district and in my district--and they are shepherded, to a great extent, to these prisons across the State. Most of these prisons are located in small towns, and these prisons are the economic engines for these small towns.

So young people inside the city of Chicago, in your district and in my district, are actually the raw material of a lifestyle--a middle class lifestyle--for these small towns that surround these prisons because they are in the prisons, and their families and parents are working for the prisons. Their college educations are paid for by their salaries from the prisons, as are their homes, their mortgages. So they are creating an economic boon for these small towns, but we are suffering all of the issues.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and honor the Illinois National Baptist State Convention (INBSC) on the occasion of the celebration of their 100th year Centennial Anniversary.

The state affiliate of the National Baptist Convention of America, International, INBSC has been formally structured and rooted in the Baptist Doctrine since its inception. INBSC has a longstanding commitment to the advancement of the Kingdom of God on earth through the teachings of Jesus the Christ. Their dedication to Christian education, evangelism, and home and foreign missions has been the strength of their ministry.

We are encouraged and uplifted by their efforts to help grow and develop church ministries and are reminded of the words of the Apostle Paul in his Ephesian writing: ``and he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.''

Mr. Speaker, the Illinois National Baptist State Convention has been a strong beacon of light in the State of Illinois and indeed the nation. I salute their State President, the Reverend Dr. Joel D. Taylor, the Convention officers, Member churches and Pastors and pray that they remain steadfast and unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that their labor is not in vain in the Lord. I am honored to pay tribute to their historic 100th anniversary celebration and am privileged to enter these words into the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to address the statement made just yesterday by NBA Commissioner Adam Silver.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Silver dealt swiftly, decisively, and broadly with the reprehensible racist tirade that has been attributed to Los Angeles Clippers owner, Mr. Donald Sterling.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to applaud Commissioner Silver for his swift, forward-thinking, decisive action and for taking a meaningful step forward in improving racial relations here in America, and having a very progressive impact on the culture of our Nation by forbidding the racial and racist attitude of any individual that may seek to hide behind the popularity and celebrity status that we give to our athletes and other entertainers.

Commissioner Silver's response to Mr. Sterling's appalling statements sent a message to all those who may hold racial or discriminatory attitudes that there is no place to hide here in the United States of America.

Whether it comes from the floor of the House, whether it comes from the other body, whether it comes from any quarter, we should all be outraged at the racial attitudes of intolerance and indifference and the hatred that is being spewed across the airways of our Nation. Three times over this last month we have heard reprehensible commentaries by others. We should all have felt a sense of enormous outrage at the comments of these individuals.

Much is left to be done, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing that is before the Nation and the NBA is that the owners have to do what they are required to do. I urge the owners to do what is best for the Clippers, what is best for the players in the NBA and the NBA itself, what is best for the fans of the NBA, and what is best for the Nation. I ask the owners this morning to remove Mr. Sterling from the privileges of owning an NBA team and remove him from the equation that he currently operates in. And do that finally, firmly, and quickly.

We need a decision by the NBA owners now to remove Mr. Sterling.