Floor Statements

First of all, I want to commend Mr. Waxman and thank him for leading us on the subcommittee in such a profound and effective way, leading the minority on the subcommittee and also on the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, this is much to-do about nothing. As a matter of fact, I would strongly urge the members of this committee and the members of the majority side of the committee to get on their feet and apologize to the American people for this waste of time, energy, and resources because this piece of legislation that we have before us is legislation that doesn't solve any of the American people's problems, that doesn't acknowledge any of their concerns, and that certainly doesn't speak to the pain that they are suffering day to day, moment by moment, week by week as we stand here posturing solely for a few political points in the November election.

I would ask the Members of this body to refer to comments made just about 30 days ago in USA Today. It was an article dated August 15, 2012, entitled, ``This Congress could be least productive since 1947.''

The authors analyzed records of the U.S. House's Clerk's Office and determined that, in 2012, a measly 2 percent of the close to 4,000 bills introduced by Members of the 112th Congress became law--that 2 percent of 4,000 bills actually became law. We are not proud of these figures. I want to quote from this article:

These statistics make the 112th Congress, covering 2011-

2012, the least productive 2-year gathering on Capitol Hill

since the end of World War II. Not even the 80th Congress,

which President Truman called the ``do-nothing Congress'' in

1948, passed as few laws as the current one, records show.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again. It's another charade, another empty gesture, another misguided approach, another insensitive response to the pain and the plight of the problems of the American people. Here we go again. On this floor today is another prime example for the American people of why this has been the least effective Congress in over 60 years.

After taking the last 6 weeks off, we come back into session here in Washington, D.C., for a pathetic 8 days total in the month of September. And what are we doing? Instead of working on bipartisan legislation to create jobs and put Americans back to work, my Republican colleagues--you men and women on the other side--come back here to Washington and bring to this floor yet one more ill-conceived, unwanted, and unnecessary messaging bill, its only purpose being to gather some political advantages over the Obama administration.

Shame on you. We need to apologize to the American people. This no- more-innovation bill is not a serious piece of legislation.

My Republican colleagues, you know full well that this bill would never become law. It would die before it even gets to the front door of the Senate. Yet here we are in front of the cameras hoping to score more political points before we head into this fall election.

As the ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, which is where this horrendous excuse for legislation originated, I must confess, unfortunately, that the subcommittee and the Energy and Commerce Committee as a whole have certainly contributed to the do- nothing, accomplished-nothing label for this 112th Congress. With over 30 hearings and over a dozen subcommittee and full committee hearings on bills that have originated from the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Congress has enacted one piece of legislation. We've had 30 hearings and one piece of legislation, and that is part of our record.

While this would be a sad and pitiful record at any time, it is even more egregious when you look at all of the extreme weather events that have occurred in this past year and is a reminder of why the work of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and this Congress overall is so necessary and so important.

This past summer, two-thirds of the country experienced severe drought, causing crops to wither and spurring the earliest corn harvest in 25 years. At the same time, the water levels in four of the five Great Lakes has plummeted due to high evaporation rates and insufficient rainfall.

While America burns, House Republicans twiddle their thumbs and have brought messaging bills to the floor of the Congress instead of working in a bipartisan fashion to address the real issues facing the American people.

It is past time for this Congress, it is past time for my Republican colleagues

to get serious with the business of governing and not just voting on political posturing legislation to express their displeasure over President Obama.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and colleague and the Dean of the Illinois Delegation, Congressman Jerry Costello.

Congressman Costello has been a fixture of these halls since his arrival in 1988. Since my own arrival to Congress in 1993, I have known Jerry Costello to be a kind, diligent, and caring public servant for the people of Illinois and the United States.

Whether working towards FAA reauthorization, creating local jobs, or saving Scott Air Force Base from closure, Jerry Costello has shaped and improved Southwestern Illinois.

I will miss Jerry Costello's collegiality and his leadership. Just because he is departing Congress does not mean there is not much work left for him to do. I look forward to seeing what the next chapter of his life brings and, on behalf of my wife, Carolyn, myself, and the people of the First Congressional District of Illinois, I wish him well on his journey.

Congratulations, Jerry!

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend my fellow colleagues in the House for their leadership, for their vision, and for their votes today to strengthen the U.S.-Africa economic and trade relations. Passage of H.R. 5986 will also solidify the U.S. long-term investment in Africa.

I want to commend my colleagues for voting to extend AGOA, the African Growth and Opportunity Act. And I would also like to applaud all of those advocates who worked tirelessly to pass H.R. 5986, the long overdue extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, AGOA, including the third-country fabric provision as a part of AGOA.

This third-country fabric provision will enable eligible countries in sub-Saharan Africa to ship thousands of goods to the United States without paying import duties. This provision, which has been set to expire this September, on September 30, waives the duties on clothing from most AGOA countries, even if the yarn or fabric is made in a ``third country,'' such as China, South Korea, or Vietnam. With passage of this important legislation, sewing jobs for hundreds of thousands of African workers will be protected and also created.

The first beneficiaries for this bill will be the women of Africa, because about 70 to 80 percent of the workers in these burgeoning apparel and textile industries are women. Mr. Speaker, when women are working, families are fed and stability is a result.

I am so pleased, Mr. Speaker, that once again AGOA will become the law and that the President will sign this law in the near future.

The Death of Ghanaian President John Atta Mills

Next, Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House well today to send my deepest sympathies, the sympathies of the people of the First Congressional District of Illinois, and to send our prayers to the Ghanaian people and to the family of the recently departed President John Atta Mills, the late president of Ghana. His death is a terrible loss not only for Ghana and its people, but for the entire world.

Mr. Speaker, President Atta Mills was a tremendous leader. He solidified the foundation for peace and prosperity in the nation of Ghana, creating confidence in the Ghanaian political, socioeconomic system that led to massive foreign direct investments in Ghana, which resulted in the creation of millions of jobs for the Ghanaian people. He will be greatly missed.

I also want to congratulate His Excellency, Mr. John Dramani Mahama, the new leader of Ghana.

Mr. Speaker, the peaceful transition of power in Ghana clearly demonstrates that Ghana has embarked into an unwavering path and process for democracy and the democratic principles we all hold near and dear. Within hours of the passing away of the President, late President John Atta Mills, the Vice President was sworn in as the new President.

The political violence that we witnessed after the passing of President Umaru Yar'Adua of Nigeria and President Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi simply did not occur. This, Mr. Speaker, is evidence, sheer evidence that Ghana's democratic institutions are viable and are getting much stronger day by day.

This just did not happen. It took strong leadership from previous Presidents of Ghana in order to lay the right foundation for this smooth transition of power in Ghana over the last week. People like former President Jerry Rawlings, who was elected in 1996. And lest we not forget Mr. Rawlings' party lost with a narrow margin, but he didn't try to fight and hold back the willful decision of the Ghanaian people. He conceded the election without any controversy.

I also commend former President John Kufuor for his strong stance in support of the Ghanaian democratic march, the principles, and the democratic values that we cherish here in the United States.

It is for these reasons that I stand here today to commend the Ghanaian people, the Ghanaian leadership, and the Ghanaian institutions for their stable, forward-thinking, and mature leadership. I commend them all this evening.

Niger Delta Crisis

Mr. Speaker, on my final note before this body, I rise today to also urge this Congress to pass H. Con. Res. 121, a resolution to save the Niger Delta region, which is located in Nigeria. Over the last few years and months, a lot has been said and a lot has been written about the Niger Delta crisis that is occurring right now in Nigeria as we speak.

Just about a year ago, the United Nations Environment Program released a report, a startling report, a report calling for an urgent response to reverse the environmental destruction and devastation in the Ogoniland region of the Niger Delta wetlands. That report again was startling, intense, and accurate. It also called for the establishment of a $1 billion cleanup fund to finance the restoration and the cleanup of the Niger Delta region.

Mr. Speaker, to give you some perspective on the scope of the destruction and on the devastation, it is estimated that the cleanup of the Niger Delta could take as many as 30 years to complete. Of course, Mr. Speaker, strong voices have begun to emerge and strong actions have taken place to do more to publicize these environmental atrocities.

Just recently, I watched a movie directed by a brilliant Nigerian- born filmmaker whose name is Jeta Amata. It was a movie titled ``Black November: Struggle for the Niger Delta.'' This movie raises the awareness of the tragedy of the Niger Delta and the Niger region. ``Black November,'' the movie, is based upon the true story of the people of the Niger Delta, the communities in the Niger Delta that suffer extreme environmental degradation and extreme poverty in this oil-rich Niger Delta region.

Mr. Speaker, the people of this Nation, we cannot, the American people cannot remain indifferent to the struggle of the people of the Niger region, the Niger Delta, as they struggle to clean up the pollution created by mostly American and other Western oil and petroleum companies. Most of the Niger Delta's 31 million people live on less than $1 a day, although this region is the very backbone of Nigeria's economy, with oil and gas extraction accounting for over 97 percent of Nigeria's foreign exchange revenues.

The Niger Delta region, which consists of nine states, makes up about 12 percent of Nigeria's total land mass, and it is one of the world's 10 most important wetlands and coastal marine ecosystems.

Mr. Speaker, the social unrest, the criminality, illegal oil trade, the bunkering, and the general corruption have hindered oil and gas investment and production, as well as the Niger Delta region's development.

Mr. Speaker, these numbers are alarming. The World Conservation Union and the representatives from the Nigerian federal government and the Nigerian Conservation Foundation calculated in 2006 that up to 1.5 million tons of oil had been spilled in the Niger Delta over the last 50 years--1.5 million tons. That is 50 times, that's right, 50 times, Mr. Speaker, the pollution released in the Exxon Valdez tanker disaster in Alaska a few years ago.

This pollution, this oil spill, this devastation has severely limited the local inhabitants' access to clean water and has largely destroyed the fishing stock that the majority of the delta inhabitants depended on to make their daily living. A result also has been that illegal oil and gas refineries have become a source of income for these poor people who have unfortunately diverted their activities from fisheries destroyed by the oil spills. Illicit oil trade and illegal refineries are booming, and they are consequently threatening the economy, the security, and the environment of this very vital region in the world.

Mr. Speaker, more importantly or just as importantly, in too many of the communities in the Niger region, people drink water from wells that are contaminated with benzene, which is a known carcinogen.

They drink this water, which has been estimated to be 900 times above the level that the World Health Organization uses as its guideline, 900 times above the standards set by the World Health Organization.

Since 2010, Nigeria has become one of our main strategic partners on the continent of Africa. This nation, Nigeria, is our Nation's second- leading trading partner behind Great Britain. Mr. Speaker, these and other facts mean that the struggle of the people of the Niger Delta-- the struggle of the Nigerian people--is also the struggle of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, the destiny of the two economies, the Nigerian economy and the American economy, are interconnected, interrelated, and intertwined. We cannot, and I emphasize, this Nation cannot afford to stay indifferent to the struggles of the people of the Niger Delta and the cleanup of the pollution that has been devastating this region for over the past 50 years. The struggle of the people of the Niger Delta is indeed our struggle, the struggle of the American people.

I have led, and with cosigners, have introduced H. Con. Res 121 to urge all the stakeholders in the Niger oil and gas industry to come together, to work together, to collaborate together, and to address collectively the environmental impact of the oil and gas production in the Niger Delta.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we should commend this Congress--and I certainly commend President Goodluck Jonathan for presenting the new Petroleum Industry Bill, the PIB, to the Nigerian Parliament, which has the support of all the stakeholders and has the input of all of the stakeholders.

I also want to commend President Goodluck Jonathan for announcing the creation of the Hydro-Carbon Pollution Restoration Project, HYPREP, to look into the Ogoni land degradation, destruction, and devastation from the aforementioned oil spills. I applaud President Goodluck Jonathan for taking these initiatives. These are very important, critical first steps. It is my hope that all of the affected stakeholders will again come and meet again soon and collaborate strongly together to make the cleanup and rebuilding of the Niger region become a success story that the world will admire and that the world will celebrate.

The new energy regulatory framework that's being created must be fair, it must be transparent, and it must create an appropriate avenue for the economic empowerment for local Niger Delta communities affected by the industry, including the women and the youth.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot stand by. We must assist in this effort. The clock is ticking. We must support the people of the Niger Delta.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Committee and let him know how much I appreciate not only his leadership on other issues, but particularly his leadership on this issue here.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here astounded, amazed, and bemused at the remarks of the past speaker. You know, he wants the American people to be convinced that fly ash is as healthy to them as it can be and that they should, in fact, maybe go out and go to their local drugstore and ask for a bottle of fly ash so they can sprinkle it over their dinner meal as they would maybe a salad dressing. I don't think that the American people would be pleased with that.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this motion to instruct. At a time when we are facing historic levels of joblessness in communities around the country, in the African American communities and other minority communities, Republicans are playing chicken with the transportation bill, which is intended to provide American jobs and repair our aging infrastructure. It is not to further the contamination of the water supplies, the air supplies in our most vulnerable communities, so why don't we stop the charade. Why don't we stop the asthmatic assault on the most vulnerable segments, the most vulnerable communities in our Nation.

This motion to instruct contains a deadly and dangerous provision that would only allow more poison, more disease, and more death from one of our Nation's biggest waste products--the deadly, cancerous coal ash that's under discussion today.

Coal ash, I want to remind you, is a waste leftover after thousands of tons of coal are burned at coal-fired power plants, and it is laden from top to bottom with toxins such as mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, and lead. These are pollutants that cause cancer, that cause organ disease, breathing problems, neurological damage, developmental problems, and even the final problem, which is death.

Mr. Speaker, title V of H.R. 4348 gives companies an unprecedented ability to pollute under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, even though the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, found some coal ash ponds pose a 1-in-50 risk of cancer related to residents drinking arsenic-contaminated water, a risk that is 2,000 times the EPA's regulatory goal.

Dangerous coal ash disposal affects thousands of U.S. communities, but research informs us that income and race remain strong predictors of the amount of pollution that Americans face. The majority of coal ash is disposed in grossly inadequate dumpsites, which are primarily located in low-income communities, disproportionately impacting those who are least equipped to respond to water contamination and the onslaught of toxic dust in the air.

Mr. Speaker, low-income citizens are more likely to rely on groundwater supplies and less likely to have access to medical insurance and health care.

Mr. Speaker, title V of H.R. 4348 fails to protect communities and their drinking water from toxic coal ash or from another messy spill like the disaster that occurred in Kingston, Tennessee, in 2008.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that my State alone produces 4.4 million tons of coal ash annually, and at least 19 coal ash dumpsites have contaminated local water supplies. Additionally, each and every day a steam-fired steamship, the SS Badger, dumps 4 tons of coal ash into Lake Michigan, my beloved city of Chicago's primary water supply system.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote against the motion to instruct.

Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the 112th Congress, we have held over 30 Energy and Power Subcommittee and joint subcommittee hearings. We have held over a dozen subcommittee and full committee markups, and including H.R. 4480, which we will vote on today, we have had 10 bills that originated from the Energy and Power Subcommittee that have been voted on by the full House.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, from all of that time and all that effort, the Energy and Power Subcommittee has produced exactly one substantive bill. Let me repeat: only one substantive, significant bill, the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Act, the only one that has actually become law.

Mr. Chairman, instead of focusing our efforts on trying to create the clean energy jobs of the 21st century, the majority party has spent the past 18 months lobbing partisan attacks against the EPA and the Clean Air Act in order to appease Big Oil and some of the more extreme constituencies that the Republican Party represents.

Mr. Chairman, most Americans would like to see us utilizing our time working in a bipartisan manner to address critical issues, such as access to jobs, clean air, and clean water, less dependence on foreign oil, enhanced energy-efficiency measures, and an increased reliance on the cleaner and renewable energy sources of the future.

Instead, here we are again debating yet another bill that would continue the concerted effort by the majority party to weaken the authority of the EPA and to delegitimize the Agency's regulations as job killers.

Mr. Chairman, with just a little over 20 days remaining before the August recess, we should be focusing our limited time on legislation that will create jobs and move America forward toward a smarter energy future that is less vulnerable to the whims of the world oil market. However, nothing in this bill accomplishes that.

The most offensive provision of this bill, the Gasoline Regulations Act, would fundamentally change a cornerstone of public health law, the Clean Air Act, and I ask my colleagues: Why, to what end?

This bill will not create any jobs but, rather, would block EPA rules to make the fuel we put into our cars cleaner. This bill would also block rules that would cut toxic air pollution from refineries.

This bill blocks the EPA from requiring new refineries from cutting carbon pollution that causes climate change, and it even blocks the agency from revising the national air quality standard for ozone to reflect the best-available science and medical evidence about how much ozone is safe to breathe without serious health effects.

Mr. Chairman, one truth remains, and that truth is that H.R. 4480 isn't really about jobs, isn't really about lowering gasoline prices. It is about an excuse to push a profoundly anti-environmental agenda and provide oil companies with more items from their election year wish list.

Oppose this bill because it would strike at the heart of the Clean Air Act and would not provide any tangible benefits to the American people. I urge all of my colleagues to oppose it as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from my home State of Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle), a fine member of the subcommittee and a distinguished member of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

I yield another 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to one of the most remarkable leaders that this Congress has ever

seen, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on this side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).

Mr. Chairman, I intend to close, so I will reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

There is widespread opposition to the Republican oil-above-all bill. The Obama administration opposes the Republican bill. Its Statement of Administration Policy says:

The administration strongly opposes H.R. 4480, which would

undermine the Nation's energy security, roll back policies

that support the continued growth of safe and responsible

energy production in the United States, discourage

environmental analysis and civic engagement in Federal

decisionmaking, and impede progress on important Clean Air

Act rules to protect the health of American families.

If the President were presented with H.R. 4480, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill. Numerous public health organizations oppose this bill, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and various others.

Mr. Chair, this bill is nonsensical and is another bill in a long list of Big Oil giveaways pushed by the most anti-environmental House in the history of our Nation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, while gas prices have subsided over the past few months, Americans are still very concerned about the issue of jobs and high unemployment. In my district and in the African American community in general, joblessness is far higher than the national average with some communities experiencing unemployment rates of up to 60 percent. Yet even with these staggering figures, we are here today debating a bill that will do absolutely nothing to address this critical issue that the American people are facing. Nada, zip, zero will it do.

Mr. Chairman, the House will only be in session a little over 20 more days before we recess in August; and after that, this House will barely be in session until after the November elections. During this limited time, we should be focusing our attention on legislation that will create jobs and move America forward towards a smarter energy future that is less vulnerable to the whims of the world's oil market.

However, there is nothing in this bill, H.R. 4480, that will do anything to address the issues most important to the American people. Neither jobs nor gas prices are dealt with in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment, the amendment that I'm offering today, gets right to the heart of the matter and simply states that:

Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this

Act, the administrator of the Energy Information

Administration shall make a determination as to whether

implementation of this Act is projected to lower gasoline

prices or create jobs within the United States within 10

years.

That's what my amendment says--clearly, simply, concisely.

However, if the administrator of the EIA determines that implementation of this act is not projected to lower prices or create jobs in 10 years, then the most egregious provisions of this bill, sections 205 and 206, which attack existing Clean Air Act protections, will sunset and cease to be in effect.

Mr. Chairman, provisions in this bill, such as title II, the Gasoline Regulations Act, use the backdrop of high unemployment and fluctuating gas prices as a ruse to once again attack the EPA and the Clean Air Act, without doing a single thing to actually reduce the cost that Americans are paying at the pump or to deliver more jobs to the American people.

Mr. Chairman, Congress should not remove long-standing Clean Air Act requirements for EPA to set ambient air quality standards at the level necessary to protect human health.

Nor should the majority attempt to block and delay several EPA air quality and public health provisions under the guise of falsely claiming that these attacks on EPA will actually create jobs or reduce gas prices. Time and time again over the past year and a half, this Congress, under the majority party's leadership, has voted to roll back provisions of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Rush amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am so glad you used the story and told the story of your neighbor, because your neighbor is not unlike my neighbors. They're suffering from unemployment; they're suffering from high gas prices. But what confuses me and what's gotten me astounded is the fact that in this bill, your neighbor, her problems, my neighbor's problems, the problems of all the Members of this body, all of our neighbors' problems, our problems aren't addressed.

All I'm asking for is that if the EIA--a fairly knowledgeable agency, an agency that is respected--if they determine after looking at the provisions of this bill and say that this bill will not create one job, this bill doesn't address rising gasoline prices----

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank the ranking member of the full committee for recognizing me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to instruct. A mandatory approval of the Keystone XL pipeline does not belong in our transportation bill. This provision jeopardizes the entire transportation bill and all of the American jobs that the transportation bill will provide and produce.

The southern portion of the Keystone XL pipeline from Oklahoma to the gulf is already moving forward with the President's support, but the northern portion does not yet have a final route through the State of Nebraska. President Obama has made it clear that he will not short- circuit the normal approval process and deprive the American people of their opportunity, their right, to have input just to benefit a foreign company and foreign interests.

As it stands now, it is very unclear if this project would benefit the hard-pressed communities of this Nation, such as the one that I represent, with jobs and contracts and other economic opportunities that we have been hearing so much about and that has been bandied about by the proponents of this pipeline. We desperately need jobs and contracts and economic opportunity, but we have no guarantees that this XL pipeline will produce the same.

So, regardless of whether you believe this pipeline should be built or not, including the Keystone XL pipeline approval--mandatory approval, I might add--in the transportation bill, which the President already promised he will veto, it may not necessarily further the pipeline, but it may doom the same. It may doom the entire transportation bill.

If you care about American jobs, then the number one priority should be to pass the transportation bill all by itself. Pass the transportation bill to create and preserve American jobs for the American people. Don't burden the jobs-producing transportation bill with extraneous gimmicks and extraneous gestures. The passage of this motion to instruct conferees will be a stumbling stone for Keystone.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of my friend and brother beloved, Deacon Lamoune Carlos Glover who made his heavenly transition on Tuesday, May 8, 2012. Deacon Glover was born April 23, 1968, in Chicago, Illinois to the late Robert and Lorraine Glover. A product of the Chicago Public Schools system, Lamoune attended Mollison Elementary School and Jean Baptiste Pointe DuSable High School, and later went on to attain an Associate Degree in Applied Science.

Lamoune's love for Christ started at an early age. At 6, his ``play mother'' May Turner took him to church. Lamoune was baptized at the age of twelve at the Gospel Temple Church, under the leadership of Pastor Warren L. Turner. There, he served as a member of the usher board and in the youth ministry.

Later in his journey, Lamoune began attending the Beloved Community Christian Church where I am privileged to serve as pastor and teacher. In 2002, Lamoune experiencing the transformative power of Jesus Christ and being led by the Holy Spirit re-dedicated his life to Christ. At Beloved, he served as a trustee, church steward and member of the Men's ministry.

In July 2003, Lamoune met his ``better half'' Joyce Lemon. After a loving three-year courtship, Lamoune and Joyce married on August 19, 2006. To this union, one beautiful, daughter was born, Ahrmani Glover.

In 2011, after nine years of devoted Christian service, I installed Bro. Lemoune as Deacon of the Beloved Community Christian Church. It was one of his proudest moments, for no matter what life threw Lamoune's way, he always somehow knew that with God, he would be ``okay''.

Mr. Speaker, in the Exodus story, as Israel did battle with the Amalekites, Moses stood on a hill with the staff of God in his hands, whenever Moses raised his hands Israel prevailed. When Moses hands grew tired so that he was forced to lower them, Israel suffered in battle, but Aaron and Hur, Moses' armor bearers, held Moses' hands up and Joshua and Israel defeated Amalek. Lemoune was such an armor bearer.

Deacon Lamoune Carlos Glover's life has been seen through the lenses of personal sacrifice, love, reconciliation, and perseverance. My sincerest thoughts and prayers are extended to his loving wife, Joyce, his children Otisha Pitts, Jakwon Webb and Ahrmani, grandchild Javion Goss, brothers, Robert Glover and Marvin Harvey, sister Bernadette Glover, his Beloved Community Christian Church family, and host of other family and friends. I am privileged to enter these words in the Congressional Record of the United States House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the death of Trayvon Martin is, indeed, an American tragedy. Too often this violent act that resulted in the murder of Trayvon Martin is repeated in the streets of our Nation.

I applaud the young people all across the land who are making a statement about hoodies, about the real hoodlums in this Nation, particularly those who tread on our laws wearing official or quasi- official clothes.

Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum.

The Bible teaches us, Mr. Speaker, in the book of Micah 6:68----

These words:

He has shown you, O man----

What is good. What does the Lord require of you? To do justly

and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

In the New Testament, Luke 4:18 20 teaches us these words:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because He has anointed me to proclaim the good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners----

And to recover sight to the blind, to set the oppressed free.

I urge all who hear these words to heed these lessons.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, in the book of Ecclesiastes 3:1 2, these words are recorded:

To everything there is a season, and a time to every

purpose, and to everything under the sun, a time to be

mourned and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to

pluck up that which is planted.

Madam Speaker, today a giant oak tree has fallen. There's a gaping hole in the forest. Don Payne has moved from an earthly life into an eternal heavenly life. A time, a purpose, a season.

Don Payne did not take his time, his season, nor his purpose for granted. Every moment, every season, the purpose for which he was created meant something to him and he gave his life. He spent his life working on his time, his season, and his purpose.

Last Thursday, Don, through his chief of staff, asked me to come to the hospital; and we talked for awhile and he whispered some words to me, some directions for me, some orders from his hospital bed. But what stands out to me on that occasion last Thursday was his last words spoken to me. We were in the middle of votes, and he said: Make those votes. Don't miss those votes.

Here, a man who knew he was spending his last hours on this Earth, he knew that his life was coming to an end. He had told me some weeks before that he had pancreatic cancer and he didn't know what was going to happen, but his last words to me were not ``Woe is me,'' but he was thinking about public service. He was thinking about this House. He was thinking about me and the vote that I was to cast. He was thinking about a time and a purpose and a season.

In the book of Micah, life really becomes quite simple. God asked the Prophet Micah:

What do I require of thee, O man, but to love mercy and do

justice and walk humbly before your God.

Madam Speaker, I know that Don passed God's requirement. He lived his life with purpose. He was a son of Africa, but he was also a servant of Africa and a servant of the world.

We're all going to miss Don. We all looked to Don being a beacon in terms of public service. I will miss him, and my condolences go out to his entire family and his entire staff.

I might add that just this morning my staff and I went to his office, as others have. We sang a song together, ``Jesus, Keep Me Near the Cross.''

Don not only had the cross in mind, but now he sits in his heavenly home in a better place.

God bless you, Don. God bless you.

I want to thank the ranking member for this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I find it remarkable that we are here today debating a bill that is essentially a regulatory earmark for just one company, and that company is called TransCanada. And we're here debating whether to build a pipeline through the heart of our country without even allowing the appropriate State and Federal agencies to completely conduct their due diligence and their oversight responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, this legislative gift wrapped in fine gift-wrapping to TransCanada on behalf of my Republican colleagues will completely circumvent the State Department and the other State and Federal agencies, those agencies that have the know-how and the expertise, to thoroughly examine this process, and Mr. Chairman, they will require that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, issue a permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline within 30 days of the receipt of the application.

If FERC does not act on the permit application within the meager 30 days, the permit shall be considered approved automatically.

Mr. Chairman, how insane can insanity get? How ridiculous can ridiculous be when we are telling an agency that if they don't pass this permit within 30 days, if they don't do all their investigations within 30 days, then this permit will automatically be approved?

Mr. Chairman, the Keystone XL project is too big, too consequential, too important to the American people for this Congress to completely ignore all the established protocols that have existed prior and exist now and set a precedent of bypassing State and Federal oversight procedures. The very people whose lives will be most affected by this pipeline deserve to have the responsible agencies complete their review process to ensure the American people that this project has been thoroughly examined and vetted.

Mr. Chairman, even my colleagues who may support the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline are appalled--and they should be appalled--at the majority party's attempt to hijack the process and circumvent the appropriate State and Federal agencies in order to hastily, irresponsibly green-light this project.

This sentiment can be summed up best by a letter sent to me on February 9 by a citizen of this Nation, a Nebraskan rancher by the name of Randy Thomas, who said:

The short circuiting of the process leaves those of us who

live and work along the proposed pathway of this project with

many lingering doubts about its safety, and the impacts it

could have on our livelihoods.

Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve better than this shoddy attempt to provide TransCanada with a regulatory earmark that allows them to bypass the established rules and procedures we have in place. I cannot support this, and I ask my colleagues to join me in not supporting this particular bill.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, why is it that the proponents of this bill are smiling and smirking while walking around this Capitol?

It's because this bill requires the hasty approval of an unprecedented permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. They're smiling and smirking because their friends, the Big Oil companies, are big winners with this bill while the little people, the private property owners along the path of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, will be the big losers.

Mr. Chairman, people might be surprised to learn that TransCanada has been bullying the American people--American landowners--and has been pressuring them to allow the company to build a pipeline through their land. In fact, during the subcommittee hearing, we heard testimony from witnesses who live along the path near the proposed route of this pipeline that TransCanada is doing just that--bullying them. They don't even have a permit to build the pipeline, yet we are told that

they are threatening American citizens with eminent domain, basically telling people, If you don't give us access to your land, if you don't give us your land, then we're going to take it.

Mr. Chairman, this is wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong. Why are we rewarding a private foreign company that is trying to intimidate and coerce American citizens with this regulatory earmark?

In order to protect private property owners along the path of this pipeline, I am offering an amendment that will restrict the use of eminent domain. My amendment requires that a permit for this pipeline would only be issued if it prohibits the use of eminent domain to take someone's private property against his will.

Mr. Chairman, my office was in contact with a Nebraska rancher by the name of Randy Thompson, who wrote me a letter dated February 9, and I want to read an excerpt of it for my colleagues.

He wrote:

Dear Congressman Rush, I would like to express to you, sir,

my concerns about the bill introduced by Representative Terry

to fast-forward the permitting process for the Keystone XL

pipeline. It seems inherently wrong to me that a foreign

corporation can actually force American citizens to

forfeit their individual property rights through the use

of eminent domain. With the denial of a permit,

TransCanada has, for the time being, suspended their land

acquisition process in the State of Nebraska. I can assure

you, however, that they will be back on our doorsteps with

a vengeance once a new route has been determined and a

permit has been granted. It appears to me that some

Members of Congress are all too eager to subsidize the Big

Oil companies, not only with our tax dollars, but now with

land that belongs to American citizens.

Mr. Chairman, we have a duty to protect our citizens from being bullied into giving up their land against their will for the gain of private foreign companies. Let us wipe the smiles and the smirks off the faces of the proponents of this bill. Pass this amendment. Protect the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire as to how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that as Members of this Congress, we were elected to this body to protect the American people, to protect our citizens, to protect their property.

And, Mr. Chairman, the action that's occurring by the Republican majority is going to pass. But it's also going to turn that responsibility, that obligation, the reason for our existence here in this Congress upside down. It's going to make it just meaningless for the protection of the American people.

Why don't you protect the landowners, the private landowners?

Why don't we protect the landowners, the property holders in our Nation? We are elected here to protect them and not let a big oil company, TransCanada, a foreign company, come in and just take----

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the life and legacy of my friend and constituent Dr. Timuel D. Black, Jr. on the occasion today of the unveiling of the ``Timuel D. Black Jr. Papers'' at the Vivian G. Harsh Research Collection of Afro-American History and Literature of the Chicago Public Library's Carter G. Woodson Regional Branch.

The grandson of slaves, Dr. Black was born in Birmingham, Alabama in 1919. He and his family, who were part of the first big wave of African-Americans to migrate from the South, came to Chicago when he was just 8 months old. He is the product of the Chicago Public Schools system, graduating from DuSable High School and completed his undergraduate degree at Roosevelt University and graduate degree at the University of Chicago.

Dr. Black taught in the Chicago Public Schools for 40 years, served as a Dean of Transfer Programs and Vice President in the City Colleges of Colleges. He is Professor Emeritus of Social Science at the City Colleges' Harold Washington College. Dr. Black is a revered political and social activist, community leader, oral historian, and philosopher.

It was while teaching in the City Colleges system that Black trained himself to be an oral historian. His collection includes the extended versions of the 400 interviews that were excerpted for Black's celebrated two-book series, Bridges of Memory: Chicago's First Wave of Great Migration, which chronicled black Chicago history from the 1920s to the present.

Dr. Black was a pioneer in the independent, progressive black political movement in Chicago which eventually saw the rise of Chicago's first Black Mayor, the late Harold Washington. Black has spent his life furthering the cause of social justice, and promoting the political, educational and social empowerment of African Americans.

The ``Black Papers'', containing nearly 260 archival boxes, is the largest collection assembled at the historic Vivian G. Harsh Research Collection in more than two decades. It contains material from the 1963 March on Washington, rare photos of Black with the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and a vast jazz collection featuring Duke Ellington and others.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Timuel D. Black, Jr.'s life has been seen through the lenses of discrimination, restrictive housing covenants, marches and protests for human rights and dignity, and struggles for social and political self-determination and empowerment that have been preserved and will be unveiled for Chicago, this nation, and indeed the world to now see. I commend him and the Chicago Public Library for their forethought in capturing, recording, and displaying an important part of American history. I am privileged to enter these words in the Congressional Record of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Ms. Hortense Brice, a dedicated teacher from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. We can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that one of the greatest services a citizen can offer our nation is dedicating their lives to teaching the next generation. Passing wisdom, knowledge, and inspiration is the greatest gift in one of the most honorable professions.

It is in that tradition, Mr. Speaker, that Hortense Brice has dedicated her life for the last forty one years. A life dedicated not only to the education of others but to her personal education as well. She worked hard not only for her Bachelor of Science Degree from Illinois State University but also for her Master's Degree in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Illinois at Chicago. After her Master's degree she trained for 36 hours in Science Education at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

For most people, graduating from college marks the end of their academic careers and the beginning of their financial ones. For Hortense however this was not the case. Her drive for knowledge pushed her to enroll in further workshops, conferences, and graduate-level courses in a number of scientific fields and at many respected institutions of higher learning. She did this not just for a love of learning but also, so that when teaching her pupils, she would be able to pass on an expertise and deep seated knowledge that they would not be subject to otherwise. This is exactly what she did when she created the first biotechnology curriculum in the Chicago Public School system.

To teach is to lead. Hortense Brice has embodied, and still embodies, such a principle. She created the first Biotechnology Center of Excellence at Lindblom Math and Science Academy, supporting professional development for Chicago Public School teachers. The belief that it is just as important to teach the next generation of teachers as it is the next generation of pupils was at the foundation of Hortense's work. She arranged for high school teachers from the Chicago Public Schools to enroll in a 2-year biotechnology training course at the University of Illinois, and secured a grant from the National Science Association that helped provide further training for more high school educators.

While doing all of this Hortense Brice still taught elements of biotechnology at Whitney M. Young Magnet High School, and the first full-year biotechnology course at Lindblom Math and Science Academy in Chicago, Illinois. She taught by example and her hard work ethic inside and outside the classroom served as an inspiration to pupils and colleagues alike.

With her experience and education she had a unique insight into what the education curriculum lacked and what it needed. For example, in 2006 after noticing a gap in the curriculum she worked with the After School Matters program to develop a successful pharmaceutical drug curriculum for high schools pupils.

Even with her retirement in June 2009 Hortense still continues to attend science training programs, including a five-day biotechnology immersion program held by the Biotechnology institute at the BIO International Convention. Though her teaching career is over her pursuit of knowledge will never be. It is this love of knowledge that has made her such an inspirational teacher and educational advocate. It is why she was recognized as an outstanding educator, researcher and trainer for the next generation of young scientists by the iBio Institute, who gave her the Knowledge Builder Award for grades 6-12. It is the very same reason why I am speaking about her today.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe that to be ignorant is to be left in the darkness, the only thing that can conquer such darkness is the light of education. Hortense Brice embodies such a light.

It is for that reason that I rise today to recognize Hortense Brice for her dedication to the teaching of advanced science in high school students in the Chicago Public Schools and to congratulate her on her retirement.

I thank the gentleman, Mr. Larsen from Washington State, for recognizing me and sharing the time with me. I am here to express my full support for this bill, H.R. 2845, the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011.

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a bipartisan effort and a good- faith compromise by Members from both sides of the aisle, from multiple committees, and of course across both Chambers of Congress.

During negotiations on the final bill language, I was very fortunate to have Administrator Cynthia Quarterman of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Agency accept my invitation to come out to my State and to discuss pipeline safety with representatives from the Illinois Commerce Commission, as well as with officials from Will County, which accounts for a larger percentage of pipelines than any other county in my home State.

Mr. Speaker, many of the same serious issues regarding pipeline safety that were discussed in these meetings are addressed in this piece of legislation. I am very pleased with the final product.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to thank Members from both sides of the aisle, chairman emeritus of the full committee and dean of the House, John Dingell; Energy and Commerce Chairman Upton; and Ranking Member Waxman, as well as Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Whitfield, for working with my office to include language that will require a comprehensive report examining the levels of engagement and participation of minority-owned, women-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises and contractors involved in the construction and the operations of pipelines in this country.

Additionally, this report will look at the methods for facilitating this type of involvement in order to increase the participation of minorities and women in the very lucrative pipeline industry. This study will be a first step in a process to make sure that the builders and contractors in charge of rebuilding America's aging and expanding pipeline system will represent the variety of groups and businesses that are here in our Nation, including those who are most desperate for jobs and economic opportunity.

I'm pleased to support this legislation, and I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in voting for it.

I want to thank the ranking member for his outstanding leadership and for yielding time to me.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this ill-conceived, nonsensical, and in all ways awful bill, H.R. 1633, which could have a devastating effect on the EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act on the basis of both procedural and substantive grounds.

Mr. Chairman, the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, scored this bill and determined that it would cost $10 million in discretionary spending over a 5-year period for the EPA to cover the cost of carrying out changes to existing emission control standards, as well as other activities to study the need and feasibility of modifying the EPA's national monitoring network for particulate matter, as this bill requires.

Since this $10 million is not appropriated anywhere in this bill, this bill would directly violate the discretionary CutGo policy that this majority, that my friends on the other side, voted for that they put in place at the beginning of this Congress.

If we pass this bill, it will be the height of hypocrisy for this atrocious bill to get through this House.

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, on the issue of substance, I oppose this bill because it would dramatically weaken the Clean Air Act by eliminating the EPA's ability to regulate particulate matter from a broad range of sources, as well as jeopardize existing State and Federal regulations that apply to fine and coarse particulate matter.

Although the title of this bill suggests that it only covers dust from farms, this bill creates a whole new broad, new nonscientific category of pollution called ``nuisance dust,'' which it would exempt from the Clean Air Act completely. Nuisance dust would be exempted from the Clean Air Act totally without any basis and science, no scientific evidence whatsoever; and in doing so, this bill would do harm to the public's health.

The bill would exempt from the Clean Air Act any particulate matter pollution that is emitted from sources such as open-pit mines, mining processing plants, sand and gravel mines, smelters, coal mines, coal- processing plants, cement kilns, and waste and recovery facilities. These very facilities emit fine particulates, coarse particulates, arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium, zinc, chromium, and other heavy metals--all of which would fall under this bill's broad exemption from the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, as the American Lung Association noted, under the provisions of this bill, our country's most vulnerable populations-- poor people, people who depend on the EPA to protect them from the harmful effects of coarse particulates will be most affected.

Children, teens, senior citizens, low-income people, people with chronic lung disease such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema will be especially at risk of being sickened by coarse particulates if this bill were to become law.

Additionally, people with other chronic diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, and congestive heart failure, they will all be placed at greater risk if this bill becomes law.

Mr. Chairman, as I've noted before, this bill is a solution in search of a problem, and it does more harm than good. This bill should fail. I oppose this bill.

I want to thank the ranking member for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to share with the Members of this body the administration's position on this particular bill that is under discussion right now. This is a Statement of Administration Policy:

``The administration strongly opposes H.R. 1633. As drafted, this bill would create serious problems for implementing Clean Air Act public health protections that have been in place for years while adding uncertainty for businesses and States. The bill, therefore, goes far beyond its stated intent of prohibiting the EPA from tightening national standards for coarse particles, which the administration has repeatedly explained that it has no intention of doing.''

It goes on to say: ``This ambiguously written bill would create high levels of regulatory uncertainty regarding emission control requirements that have been in place for years. Specifically, the bill's exclusion from the entire CAA of a new class of air pollutants called `nuisance dust,' an imprecise and scientifically undefined term, could be used to roll back existing public health protection limiting pollution from mining operations, industrial activities, and possibly other sources.

``The bill also raises serious issues about whether the EPA could continue to implement the existing health-based fine and coarse particle programs, which play a vital, ongoing role in preventing adverse health effects of air pollution, including premature deaths, childhood asthma attacks, and other respiratory problems.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

``This administration remains committed to commonsense approaches to improving air quality across the country and preserving the competitiveness of every economic sector. Because H.R. 1633 is not only unnecessary, but also could have significant adverse public health consequences, the administration strongly opposes this bill.

``If H.R. 1633 were presented to the President, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto this bill.''

Why are we wasting our time on this nuisance which is nonsense?

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, if the premise of this bill is to simply provide regulatory certainty to rural farmers and reiterate what Administrator Jackson has already publicly stated--that EPA would not alter the Bush-era standards for coarse particulate matter--then the Rush amendment would satisfy that objective.

During the subcommittee hearing on H.R. 1633, we heard testimony from the bill's sponsor that the intent of this legislation was to address the regulatory uncertainty over ``farm dust.'' However, during that same hearing, we heard testimony from the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation, Gina McCarthy, where she expressed a serious concern over the ambiguous language in the bill and the overly broad impact it could have on existing Clean Air Act programs.

Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would remove the ambiguity and provide clarity to the bill's intent so that we can keep in place standards to protect our Nation's most vulnerable populations. At the end of section 2, my amendment would add the following: ``Nothing in this Act precludes the Administrator from proposing, finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the national primary ambient air quality standard or the national secondary air quality standard for PM2.5.'' Additionally, because there is such widespread suspicion that the real intent of this bill is to roll back existing Clean Air Act protections, my amendment would strike section 3 altogether, which contains the most overly ambiguous and excessively broad provisions of the bill. In section 3, the bill's exclusion for particulate matter from combustion would not exclude particulate pollution from sources such as open-pit mines, mining processing plants, sand and gravel mines, smelters, coal mines, coal-processing plants, cement kilns, and waste and recovery facilities.

Mrs. McCarthy raised serious concerns about the effect of this bill on existing health-based standards due to the fact that the term ``nuisance dust'' is not a scientifically-defined term, and it would be very difficult to incorporate into a scientifically-based program. As Mrs. McCarthy noted, ``Coarse particles have been linked to a variety of adverse health effects, including hospitals visits related to cardiovascular and respiratory disease, and premature death. While the body of scientific evidence is much more limited for coarse PM than for fine particles, the agency's review of the studies indicate that short- term exposures to coarse particles remain a concern.''

Mr. Chairman, the Rush amendment would provide regulatory certainty to rural farmers while also protecting our Nation's most vulnerable population, including our children, our senior citizens, people with low incomes, and people with chronic lung disease such as asthma, chronic bronchitis, and emphysema.

I urge all my colleagues to support my amendment.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month some of our darkest fears came to light. As parents and mentors of young children, we were horrified to hear and read about news allegations of a sexual abuse scandal involving the Penn State University football program.

In piecing the news together, there were clues and red flags along the way, suggesting that the allegations are regrettably and probably true. Based on what is known now, it is also not inconceivable that the horrible actions alleged to have occurred at Penn State could have just as easily occurred at any other major collegiate sports program in the country.

What this sad and tragic episode affirms is that the abuse of children is real and alive in the sports world today. And it is just as alive and real in collegiate sports as it could be in any institutional system that has commonalities with big-time college sports.

A little more than a week ago, even before the news of this scandal broke, I hosted two collegiate sports roundtables here in our Nation's Capitol. I invited sports journalists, economists, parents of former big division athletic scholarship recipients, and current professionally qualified basketball players and former collegiate student athletes to speak openly.

They were asked what they thought about some of the NCAA's new proposed reforms, like compensating student athletes with a stipend and increasing academic accountability of student athletes who play in Bowl Conference Series tournaments. The roundtables dispelled some of the widely held myths about the manner in which the colleges go about recruiting high school athletes. They also corrected some persistent misunderstandings about what and how much NCAA athletic scholarships and medical insurance cover. And they did an excellent job of exposing hardships that student athletes and their families face for being unable to come up with the extra money to pay the differences in the medical costs and the costs of these athletic scholarships.

The roundtables sadly affirmed that, just as the scandal does, the business of college sports is not beneath using--and can even thrive upon, in too many instances--collusion, corruption, and cover-ups.

As part of its core purpose, the NCAA says its mission is to ``integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student athlete is paramount.'' But, unfortunately, I must say that I am highly suspicious of this creed, in that the NCAA system culture has increasingly become more shadowy and exceedingly exploitative. Exploitation maximizes revenues for colleges and conferences. Exploitation also helps member conferences and athletic programs hide behind flimsy excuses that doing more to support student athletes financially would be unprincipled and unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we must hear the voices of young victims, pray for their healing, and dedicate ourselves to doing all that we can to end outrageous abuse of vulnerable children. We, as Members of Congress, have two primary responsibilities: one, to protect our Nation against foreign enemies, and, two, to protect our children.

God bless America, and God bless our children.