Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. Graves. I appreciate your yielding time and I appreciate your bringing this amendment.

I rise in strong support of the concept in the amendment. Although I know it's going to be withdrawn, the concept is important, and we need to address this issue in this Congress.

This amendment would address the going crisis of discriminatory taxes placed on rental car transactions. I don't need to tell my colleagues how frustrating it is to go rent a car and see huge taxes on your bill, taxes put on your bill by legislative bodies that you don't get a right to vote on most of the time and that you don't get to vote on.

It's a simple thing for people to do. It's cheap taxes from State and local officials to let tourists pay their taxes for their sports arenas and other facilities. ``Don't tax me; don't tax thee; tax that guy behind that tree.'' That is not the kind of tax philosophy we should encourage, and we should make our State and local officials do taxation in the proper manner which is supposed to be with either property taxes or sales taxes or income taxes but not these types of taxes that discriminate. And my jurisdictions have done as well, but it doesn't make it right.

Rental car taxes target air travelers, but they also hurt low-income people who don't own cars and must rent instead. The 1994 FAA reauthorization bill included a provision to prevent taxes targeting air travelers to pay for projects that have nothing to do with air traffic. But State and local governments have exploited a loophole and raised billions of dollars through these taxes.

Since 1990, more than 117 discriminatory rental car excise taxes have been enacted in 43 States and the District of Columbia. I was in the Tennessee Legislature for 24 years, and we did our share. I tried to oppose some of them.

It's wrong and we need to act.

So I urge support for the amendment when it comes back up. I thank Congressman Graves for his work on the issues, and I look forward to working with him in the future to see this become a law in our Nation.

Madam Speaker, this week I plan to introduce a bill that will allow States to submit three statues for display in the United States Capitol.

This bill seeks to include more diversity among the honored in our Capitol by increasing that number of statues to include more notable women, minorities, and other ethnic groups that have contributed significantly to our history.

Currently, there are 100 statues on display given by the States, and only 16 are women or minority groups. Ten are women with three Native- Americans; three statues are Native-American males, two are Hispanic, and one is a Pacific Islander. Although there have been many noteworthy African Americans and Asian Americans in our history, no State has submitted a statue honoring one of them. This disparity must be rectified.

If you walked through the Capitol and looked at the statues, you would think all the heroes and leaders were granite white men. This bill is to express that equal representation of all Americans is essential in our historical perspectives and the educational value that the Capitol offers its thousands of visitors.

I urge my colleagues to look at the bill, to support it, and to have more diverse representation among the statuary in the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, I was detained from voting on Wednesday, March 16, 2011. If present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes: rollcall 183, rollcall 184, rollcall 185, rollcall 186, and rollcall 187.

I would have voted ``nay'' on the following rollcall vote: rollcall 188.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Memphian, saxophonist, manager and promoter Cato Walker III. Mr. Walker has been on the music scene in Memphis for many decades and was a huge proponent in the revitalization of Memphis's Beale Street. He also served as the longtime vice president of development at Performa Entertainment Real Estate.

Cato Walker III was a beloved member of the Memphis music community. Mr. Walker came from a very musically talented and well-known family, and he and his family have contributed so much to the musical community. His father, Cato Walker, Jr. was B.B. King's original road manager in the 1950s while his beloved mother, Polly Walker, confirmed all show bookings and travel arrangements. Cato Walker III, continuing his family's legacy with B.B. King, became the band leader and road manager during the late 1970s. He also later worked with Lou Rawls, The Barkays and J. Blackfoot.

Mr. Walker has influenced future musicians through his work by teaching recording at the Kansas Vocational Technical Center and as an adjunct professor at Memphis State University. Through running his own record label, Strick 9, he helped advance the musical careers of many contemporary Memphis musicians, including Academy Award winning group Three 6 Mafia.

Cato Walker has touched the lives of many and influenced a great variety of musicians from the 1970s to today. Mr. Walker will be remembered forever in the heart of not just his family and friends, but also Memphians and musicians everywhere. He is survived by his wife, VanEsta Walker, two sons, Tondtrict Dixon, and Dietrich Dixon, stepson, Ahmed Jenkins, stepdaughter, Angela Cunningham, and sisters, Lora Walker, Thelma Brim and Joanna Brown. His was a life well lived.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Chairman Upton's dirty air act.

In 2007, the Supreme Court issued the Massachusetts v. EPA decision, directing the EPA to examine greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on the public health. EPA conducted a highly credible, peer-reviewed scientific analysis under the Bush EPA and the Obama EPA, both concluding that greenhouse gases harm our health.

This was not a political analysis; it was a scientific analysis. But that has not stopped the chairman from trying to legislatively undermine scientific fact. According to the EPA, President Nixon's Clean Air Act will prevent 230,000 premature deaths and result in $2 trillion in economic benefits in 2020.

But, Chairman Upton has decided, with much help from corporate polluters' lobbyists, that the fiscal and physical well-being of the American people are less important than Big Oil's importance and Big Oil's billion dollar bottom line next quarter.

The bottom line for America is that undermining EPA science will cost trillions.

Mr. Speaker, the majority has now been in power for 10 weeks and has yet to offer a plan for job creation. Instead, they have chosen to ignore the warnings of economists from across the political spectrum and are promoting a continuing resolution that threatens to derail and reverse our Nation's recovery.

Instead of slashing programs that are vital to job creation and economic growth, we need to carefully examine the budget and eliminate all wasteful spending. That is why I am introducing the Surface Transportation Earmark Recision, Savings and Accountability Act of 2011, and I'd ask for bipartisan support on this. This legislation will reduce the deficit by $584 million by rescinding unspent funds authorized by Federal transportation projects requested by Members of Congress that date back to 1978.

Instead of eliminating research at the National Institutes of Health or eliminating funding to protect our air and water, let's focus on elimination of wasteful, unnecessary spending. I encourage you to work with me to include this language in the continuing resolution.

Mr. Speaker, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is located in Memphis, Tennessee. It is, according to U.S. News and World Report, the world's greatest children's and catastrophic illness research hospital.

The Republican budget that passed this House talks about a lot of issues, but it cuts $2.5 billion from the President's requests for the National Institute of Health, $2.5 billion less than the President recommends, and a $1.6 billion cut from last year. For the children and the adults and everyone who has cancer and needs a cure, which they are finding with the help of the NIH and St. Jude and other research hospitals, that's a death sentence. People will die.

If there is a place the Republicans should not cut, Mr. Speaker, it's at NIH grants to find cures for cancer, for Alzheimer's, for Parkinson's, for diabetes, for heart disease. I ask you for the living Americans to not cut grants to the National Institute of Health and let us have lives that go further than they otherwise would because of these crippling, catastrophic illnesses.

I want to thank Ranking Member Rahall for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 662, the Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2011. Last Friday, I was in Millington, Tennessee and I joined with Chairman Mica and Mr. Fincher on a transportation bill listening session. Chairman Mica went all across the country listening to folks on the needs of transportation. We heard from all kinds of folks saying how important this is for the future of our country, getting goods to market, and improving our infrastructure. The listening session focused on those needs of a new surface transportation authorization. And while this legislation is just another extension of SAFETEA-LU, it is important that we act quickly and extend the surface transportation authorization before it expires on Friday.

My hope is that H.R. 662 will be the final short-term extension Congress uses to extend SAFETEA-LU because this country needs a comprehensive, long-term surface transportation authorization. Chairman Mica has promised everybody on the tour that we're not going to have more extensions, that we're going to pass a bill just like we did with the FAA reauthorization. Seven extensions was enough. We need to move this country forward and get those programs started.

By continuing to extend SAFETEA-LU and not passing a new authorization, Congress has created uncertainty in the transportation sector which has limited the ability to invest in a crumbling infrastructure network. The importance of immediate passage cannot be emphasized enough. Not only will reauthorization create millions of quality jobs--jobs that are needed by Americans now and that have been neglected thus far in Congress--and provide States and MPOs a known, dedicated funding stream, but it will also address the dire need for investment in the Nation's transportation system.

In the 2012 Department of Transportation budget proposal, President Obama lays out a bold vision for a surface transportation authorization. The President understands the United States will not maintain its mantle as the greatest Nation in the world without an intermodal transportation system that enables America to compete in the 21st century global economy.

To that end, the President has called for a $556 billion, 6-year surface transportation authorization that includes a $50 billion ``up front'' economic boost to jump-start job creation. Jobs.

As the President said in his State of the Union, now is not the time to stand pat. This is why I believe we need to pass a surface transportation bill that increases revenue, makes a significant investment in maintaining existing infrastructure, and spurs development of innovative infrastructure networks such as high-speed rail and aerotropolis transportation systems.

I appreciate Chairman Mica including aerotropolis language in the FAA reauthorization bill and look forward to seeing that same language included in the surface transportation reauthorization act which was discussed in Memphis.

As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, ``We must win the future, not eat it.'' I look forward to working with Chairman Mica, Subcommittee Chairman Duncan, and Ranking Members Rahall and DeFazio in seeing that we pass a comprehensive surface transportation authorization that strengthens our infrastructure, spurs innovation, creates jobs, ensures safety and wins the future. We are winners.

Mr. Speaker, by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion from the budget, the majority is trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. They claim that $60 billion in cuts creates $60 billion in savings and deficit reduction. But this claim is simply untrue, for many of the underfunded or eliminated programs actually save the government far more money than they cost. These cuts are penny wise but pound foolish. By eliminating funding for these cost saving programs, the majority is not reducing spending; they are increasing it.

As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman said, the majority's cuts are designed to eat the future by cutting spending in a way that undermines the nation's health and long-term prospects. Nowhere is this failure in fiscal policy more apparent than when it comes to the physical health of the American people. H.R. 1 cuts $60 billion in Fiscal Year 2011 spending, but it increases the deficit dramatically as a result of unseen healthcare costs associated with the degradation of the food we eat, water we drink, and air we breathe. Moreover, H.R. 1 slashes the National Institute of Health's funding for research to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, diabetes, and cancer.

I believe that it is morally objectionable to leverage our physical health for perceived short-term fiscal and political health. But that is exactly what H.R. 1 does. It allows the majority to fulfill a political promise made during the last campaign. But in doing so, the majority is undermining the long-term health of our citizens and our country by:

Cutting funds for the Food and Drug Administration by $241 million below 2010 and $400 million below the Administration's 2011 budget request.

Cutting funds for the Food Safety and Inspection Service by $88 million below 2010 funding levels and $107 million below the Administration's 2011 budget request.

Cutting appropriations for the National Institutes of Health by $1.6 billion below FY 2010 and $2.5 billion below the President's budget.

Cutting funds for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent.

Cutting funds for the Environmental Protection Agency by $3 billion, a nearly 30 percent cut from spending in 2010 and the largest percentage cut in EPA's overall budget in 30 years.

Cutting appropriations for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by $458 million below FY 2010 and $634 million below the President's budget request.

These fiscal cuts have severe physical impacts on the American people and jeopardize the health and well-being of our children. H.R. 1 cuts funding for the Food and Drug Administration's ability to test and regulate medical drugs. It is counterintuitive to think that drugs that people take to cure illnesses may actually create more health problems than they solve. But that is an unfortunate experience that many Americans know all too well. For instance, thousands of Americans took the weight loss drug Fen-phen only to find out years later that it caused severe heart problems and had killed people who had taken the drug for only a short period. The sad truth is that Fen-phen is only one example of a drug that did not undergo the necessary FDA testing and scrutiny, and H.R. 1 will ensure that many more medical drugs receive similar inadequate levels of review. Cutting spending for testing and regulating drugs does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future.

I believe it is important for parents to be confident that the food they feed their children is making them healthier and not killing them. Unfortunately that is not the case. In the last year alone, we have had food recalls for spinach, peanuts, chicken, eggs, and dozens of other foods. It was not long ago that millions of Americans were combing through their pantries throwing away anything containing peanut butter. This feverish action was a result of a salmonella contamination that claimed the lives of 8 individuals and poisoned more than 500 Americans in 43 states, half of which were children. And it was only a few years ago that E. coli in spinach was responsible for 5 deaths and more than 200 hospitalizations.

The American people deserve better. They deserve the peace of mind of knowing the food they eat and feed their children is safe. But by slashing millions of dollars for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, H.R. 1 denies the American people that peace of mind. In 2010 alone, an estimated 76 million people got sick with foodborne illness and 5,000 individuals died because of the food they ate, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cutting spending that would prevent many of these deaths and illnesses is not fiscally or physically responsible. It is eating our future.

The irony of H.R. 1 is that not only does it make the American people sicker, but it dramatically cuts funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to develop cures for diseases, instances of which will increase as a result of H.R. 1's attack on safe food, water, and air. The NIH conducts cutting edge research to cure the diseases that plague millions of Americans, from infants to seniors. Nearly every American has watched a friend or loved one fight Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or cancer or has fought one of these life-threatening battles first-hand. For years, Congress has provided NIH the necessary tools to help people win these battles. But H.R. 1 stops NIH in its tracks by cutting funding for research that would save American lives. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future.

Although more than 70 percent of the earth is covered in water, only about 1 percent of all the water on the planet is safe to drink. H.R. 1 would reduce that 1 percent by allowing major corporations and developers to pump toxins into our water and by failing to invest in the necessary infrastructure to maintain, treat, and deliver safe drinking water. H.R. 1 reduces the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent, a program that provides low and no-interest loans to states to fund drinking water infrastructure improvement projects. Already too many Americans are suffering from lead poisoning and chronic diarrhea as a result of antiquated infrastructure. We cannot afford to exacerbate the rate of these serious health threats by cutting funding to maintain and repair our water infrastructure. Doing so, does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future.

H.R. 1 eliminates several million dollars of funding for EPA to implement revised standards for the amount of mercury, lead, and other toxic air pollutants that cement plants across the country can emit into the air we breathe. These revised standards will safeguard the American people from breathing air that will harm their brains, hearts, lungs, and livers. But H.R. 1 strips EPA of any funding to implement this life-saving standard.

Mercury and lead target the developing brains of children and can cause devastating brain damage and death. Millions of American children already suffer from debilitating asthma and brain damage as a result of the dirty air they breathe. H.R. 1 does not try to clean the air; it makes the air even dirtier and exposes more children to air that will impact their health for the rest of their life or in some cases kill them.

According to EPA, these standards will save more than 2,500 lives a year and prevent 50,000 new cases of asthma and respiratory symptoms. But H.R. 1 cuts these funds. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy to me. It is eating our future.

H.R. 1 will also increase the number of individuals in hospitals and doctors' offices as a result of illnesses related to polluted air, dirty water, and bacteria-filled food. And the kicker is that H.R. 1 will make these medical trips more expensive for these individuals and for the government. By eliminating funding for critical components of the Affordable Care Act, millions of Americans will not have access to affordable insurance to cover their respiratory medications to remedy the polluted air they breathe. Parents will have to pay out of pocket-- if they can pay at all--for the treatment their children receive thanks to the E. coli in the hamburger they had for dinner. And seniors will no longer have access to free preventative care visits, which are imperative to detect possible ailments caused by inhaling harmful toxins with every breath.

Worse than any of these medical costs is the heartache associated with the tens of thousands of deaths that will occur as a result of the dirtier air, water, and food every American will be consuming thanks to H.R. 1. It is clear that the American people will not be able to afford these costs, so this financial burden will continue to increase our deficit. That does not seem like smart fiscal or physical policy. It is eating our future.

The Republican majority is touting H.R. 1 as a fiscally responsible budget. Sure it looks nice on paper when you take the $60 billion dollars in cuts as $60 billions in savings. But by looking a bit deeper into the programs being cut, one can recognize that many of these cuts will end up costing the federal government billions of dollars. Not to mention that H.R. 1 will reduce the physical health and wellness of millions of Americans.

I urge the majority to go back to the drawing board and create a truly cost-saving budget that looks at cost holistically. I encourage them to create a budget that not only restores the fiscal health of this nation but the physical health as well. And I strongly recommend that we develop a budget that wins the future rather than eats it.

Mr. Speaker, by recklessly slashing more than $60 billion from the budget, the Republican majority is trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility. Yes, fiscal. Sometimes we in politics have problems with pronunciations, and sometimes we have problems with concepts. There are two ``fiscals.'' There is the ``fiscal'' dealing with dollars, F-I-S-C-A-L, and there is the ``physical,'' P-H-Y-S-I-C- A-L. They are trying to assume the mantle of fiscal responsibility.

Within the $60 billion, there are certainly some cuts that should be made that would be cost effective, and there are other cuts that weren't made that should have been made from the Defense Department, farm subsidies and other places. Many of the programs that were cut or that were severely underfunded are programs that have a significant financial return. In fact, many of these underfunded or eliminated programs actually save the government far more money than they cost.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

So the Republican claims that they are saving the Federal Government more than $60 billion is simply untrue. Yes, they are eliminating $60 billion from the budget, but in reality they are increasing the deficit in other areas that do not appear in the budget--or certainly not this year.

As Paul Krugman would say: Eat the future or lose the future. They're not concerned about the future. It's about today; and if it's the future, it's the 2012 election.

The problem is that the Republicans' so-called ``budget hawks'' fail to look at this holistically. The only costs they see are numbers on a page that they want to hold up as talking points.

This slide shows some of the cuts. The Food and Drug Administration received funding $241 million below 2010 and $400 million below the administration's 2011 budget request. That's the Food and Drug Administration. Remember thalidomide babies? Remember Fen-Phen? Remember the problems with meat, chicken, poultry, and spinach?

Food Safety and Inspection Service: It makes cuts of $88 million below the 2010 funding levels and $107 million below the administration's 2011 budget request.

The National Institutes of Health: Cuts appropriations for the NIH by $1.6 billion below FY 2010 and $2.5 billion below the President's budget. You know the National Institutes of Health--they're trying to find cures for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and diabetes and cancer. Oh, let's cut them by $1.6 billion.

Clean drinking water: The Republican bill slashes the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent. EPA: The bill includes an undesignated $300 million recision to EPA.

Medicare: Cuts appropriations for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by $458 million below fiscal year 2010 and $634 million below the President's budget request.

However, what they failed to consider are the benefits associated with these costs, many of which generally exceed the cost. And by failing to consider money saved, the Republicans are increasing the deficit and increasing cost.

Nowhere is this failure in fiscal policy more apparent than when it comes to the physical health of the American people. The Republican's continuing resolution will increase the deficit dramatically as a result of unseen health care costs associated with the degradation of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat.

Now the physical impact of the Republican cuts. The FDA: $241 million. The Republican majority is working to undo this historic improvement and reduce food safety by cutting FDA's food safety programs by about $241 million. In the United States, an estimated 76 million people get sick each year with food-borne illnesses and 5,000 die, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of the medical costs and economic losses associated with food-borne illnesses add up to a staggering price of $152 billion, says the Pew Charitable Trusts. By slashing funding from the FDA's food safety programs, more and more people will get sick, and the $152 billion annual pricetag is going to climb even higher. That doesn't sound like a responsible physical or fiscal policy to me.

Clean water: Although more than 70 percent of the Earth is covered in water, only about 1 percent of all the water on the planet is safe to drink. H.R. 1 will reduce that 1 percent by allowing major corporations and developers to pump toxins into our water, and by failing to invest in the necessary infrastructure to maintain, treat, and deliver safe drinking water. It reduces the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund by 56 percent, a program that leverages significant private finances by providing low and no-interest loans to States to fund drinking water infrastructure improvement projects.

Leaking pipes and deteriorating mains lead to costly bacteria contamination and cause chronic health problems to thousands of Americans.

As you can see, the physical health of our Nation is being threatened, not just the fiscal health. We need to be concerned about the physical health of our children and be concerned about how the long-term effects of this will be.

Mr. Speaker, today is the last day of Black History Month, a month when we reflect back on African Americans who have contributed so much to our country and our world. One man whose life encapsulates the African American struggle was Thurgood Marshall. George Stevens produced a play called ``Thurgood'' at the Kennedy Center. The play has been put to film on HBO. I think it's still available on HBO; at least on demand.

It is the story of a man who was committed to justice. Through the NAACP, he argued Brown v. Board of Education, the most significant civil rights case, maybe the most significant Supreme Court case of all time. He became the first African American solicitor general in this country and the first African American Supreme Court justice and served honorably on that court.

He was a man that never forgot where he came from. His responsibility and duty to see that he carried on justice and the fights that he carried with him as an attorney and on the court to see that social justice and America became the country that was promised in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence but had not become except through Supreme Court rulings.

Thank God for Thurgood Marshall. I urge everybody to watch George Stevens' production on HBO and learn about this great man's life.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate jazz saxophonist Kirk Whalum for receiving the 2011 Grammy Award from The Recording Academy for Best Gospel Song. The award winning song, ``It's What I Do,'' is from his album, The Gospel According to Jazz Chapter III. Kirk Whalum, a Memphian, is the son of the late Reverend Kenneth Whalum, Sr., and Dr. Rosie Whalum. The Whalum family is known for their musical, spiritual and community involvement in the Memphis area. In addition to receiving the Grammy Award, Mr. Whalum was named the President and Chief Financial Officer of the Memphis-based Soulsville Foundation in April of 2010.

Mr. Whalum has been part of the music community for many years, and it is great to see him be recognized for his tremendous talents. Over the years, he has received multiple Grammy nominations and has won many other awards. He has received two Dove Award nominations, a NAACP Image Awards nomination and has won two Stellar Awards. In addition to his awards, Mr. Whalum has worked with impressive musical artists including Barbara Streisand, Al Jarreau, Luther Vandross, Larry Carlton, Quincy Jones and Whitney Houston.

Kirk Whalum and the Whalum family are no strangers when it comes to community service and musical talent. His father was a prominent minister at Memphis's Olivet Baptist Church and also served two terms on the Memphis City Council. Kirk Whalum's brother, Reverend Kenneth Whalum, Jr., took over their father's post at the Memphis church and is also the father of recognized saxophonist, Kenneth T. Whalum III. Kevin Whalum, the third Whalum brother, is known for his talents as a jazz vocalist. Kirk Whalum's uncle, Hugh ``Peanuts'' Whalum, is a recognized singer, composer and multi-instrumentalist.

Kirk Whalum is a true ambassador of the city of Memphis. He is doing great things with his new post at the Soulsville Foundation, which oversees the Stax Museum of American Soul Music, the Stax Music Academy and The Soulsville Charter School. Through the Soulsville Foundation, he is able to further enrich the musical talents of the youth in Memphis and serve as a mentor to budding musicians. His dedication to music and musical talent has led him to receive not only many awards but has earned him much deserved accolades from the music community. Mister Speaker, I ask the House to join me in congratulating Kirk Whalum for receiving the 2011 Grammy Award for Best Gospel Song.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the Khojaly massacre by Armenian forces on February 25-26, 1992 in the town of Khojaly in the Nagorno Karabagh region of Azerbaijan. Khojaly, now under the occupation of Armenian forces, was the site of the largest killing of ethnic Azerbaijani civilians. Khojaly, once the home to 7,000 people, was completely destroyed. Six hundred thirteen people were killed, of which 106 were women, 83 were children and 56 were purported to have been killed with extreme cruelty and torture. In addition, 1,275 people were taken hostage, 150 went missing and 487 people became disabled. Also in the records maintained, 76 of the victims were teenagers, 8 families were wiped out and 25 children lost both of their parents while 130 lost one of their parents. According to Human Rights Watch and other international observers, the Armenian armed forces were reportedly aided by the Russian 366th Motor Rifle Regiment.

At the time, Newsweek magazine reported: ''Azerbaijan was a charnel house again last week: a place of mourning refugees and dozens of mangled corpses dragged to a makeshift morgue behind the mosque. They were ordinary Azerbaijani men, women and children of Khojaly, a small village in war-torn Nagorno-Karabakh overrun by Armenian forces on 25- 26 February. Many were killed at close range while trying to flee; some had their faces mutilated, others were scalped.''

As part of the Khojaly population that tried to escape, they encountered violent ambushes that led to abuses, torture, mutilation and death. The Russian organization, Memorial, stated that 200 Azerbaijani corpses were brought from Khojaly to Agdam within four days.

Time magazine published the following description: ``While the details are argued, this much is plain: something grim and unconscionable happened in the Azerbaijani town of Khojaly 2 weeks ago. So far, some 200 dead Azerbaijanis, many of them mutilated, have been transported out of the town tucked inside the Armenian-dominated enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh for burial in neighboring Azerbaijan. The total number of deaths--the Azerbaijanis claim 1,324 civilians have been slaughtered, most of them women and children--is unknown.''

The extent of the cruelty of this massacre against women, children and the elderly was unfathomable. Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan is a strong ally of the United States in an important and complex region of the world. I ask my colleagues to join me and our Azerbaijani friends in commemorating the tragedy that occurred in the town of Khojaly.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this has been an interesting debate as we look at the 150 years back in history and we look at the Civil War. And as we look back at the Civil War, some people reenacting it as if it was a good event, we look at kind of a retreat in history here tonight.

It was 1965 when Griswold v. Connecticut, the 7-2 Supreme Court decision, said Planned Parenthood could not be prohibited by the government from giving contraceptive advice to married people, and we have come a long ways since then in terms of liberty. And I am kind of surprised as we get here in 2011 and we look at this House, and part of this House which claims to be so concerned about liberty and individual freedoms and individual rights is more hung up on the Tenth

Amendment and something to do with States and Federals, rather than the Ninth Amendment and the penumbra right that gives women and individuals the right to make certain decisions.

We have got a group over there really concerned about earmarks, yet what this is I would submit is not a bill of attainder; it is a reverse earmark, because you are saying who we can't give money to. And the logic I have heard from my friend from Georgia was that because even though we have the Hyde amendment which says Planned Parenthood can't use Federal funds for abortion because they do other Planned Parenthood activities, helping with HIV-AIDS screening, helping with cervical and breast cancer exams and treatments and other birth control-type activities other than abortion, because they do abortion too, this helps contribute in the milieu of their overall funding. With that logic, we wouldn't fund any hospital, any health clinic or any doctor that any part of their practice or any part of their operation has anything to do with abortion because the funds get commingled and it helps contribute to their ability to provide abortion.

So the bottom line is this isn't is about Planned Parenthood. It is not the reverse earmarks that it is, that it picks out only Planned Parenthood, including Planned Parenthood in Memphis, Tennessee, that provides health care to over 5,000 women a year, low-income women a year who need information about how to plan their families other than just abstinence, that we know from Alaska to Florida has failed. This is an effort to take away from people an individual choice and to require and make the government, this government, this Congress, Big Government, the decider of individuals' lives rather than giving them some choice.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, the State Department is in the process of determining whether it should grant a Presidential permit for the construction of TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline, which could deliver up to 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil a day from Alberta, Canada--over 2,000 miles--to refineries on the U.S. gulf coast.

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline will put communities along its path at unnecessary risk by using conventional technology to carry a blend of raw tar sand oil called diluted bitumen. Diluted bitumen is more corrosive and more likely to cause pipeline leaks than conventional oil. Already the Keystone I Pipeline, which came online just 6 months ago, has experienced seven leaks, and that is for a pipeline that TransCanada claims is the ``safest ever built.''

Considering the significant dangers of piping bitumen, I find it troubling that the pipeline's route goes directly through the Ogallala Aquifer in the Midwest, which provides clean drinking and irrigation water to most of America's heartland. Despite the dangers of tar sands oil, U.S. regulators do not delineate between this new product and standard petroleum.

We need new regulations. We need to put on hold the planned tar sands pipeline Keystone XL.