Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, if the oceans die, it is impossible for us to live. The Pew Foundation in Philadelphia has put hundreds of millions of dollars behind efforts around ocean science. My friend, Gerry Lenfest, has put a lot of his own fortune behind this effort. When I first got to the Congress, I was chair of the Friends of the Caribbean Caucus. We should do better by our oceans. I ask that we oppose this, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. So when the gentleman references the Congress acting three times, when you say ``the Congress,'' do you mean both Houses of the Congress? Or, are you referring to one House?

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman, and if he would continue to yield, we can continue for one second. Because I know that you appreciate the construction of our government and the way the Constitution framed it. It is not the law of the land that one House acts on something. We need the House to act, the Senate to act, and then we need a Presidential signature or an override by a Presidential veto.

Mr. FATTAH. I rise in opposition.

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time in that colloquy. I look forward to being able to do the same in return, but I do appreciate the opportunity to communicate with my colleague, because I don't want anyone to misinterpret the facts here. Every single President has acted in this area. And these actions by this President are no different than the actions by previous Presidents in this trade space around providing amnesty. And what the gentleman strenuously and sincerely objects to is that this has benefited a large number of people whom the President has a different view of, in terms of their circumstances, because they were brought here as young children. And the President says, well, they are here, they went to school here, and this is the only country they know, and they have abided by our laws, and he is granting them this ability to stay. And the gentleman objects. But I don't want anyone to think that the Congress has taken some different view, because the Congress is two Houses--the House and the Senate--and even if both Houses were to act, the way our laws are structured, you need a Presidential signature. So, in fact, one House may have a difference of opinion. When Ronald Reagan was President, the Democrats had a difference of opinion. It didn't change the law so that we voted in some particular way. I don't want anyone to misinterpret the comments of my colleague as he has articulated his sincere objections to these issues. And then to get to the point of his amendment, what he is saying is that it is wonderful that the judiciary is responding, they are interpreting the law the way he thinks it should be interpreted, but here what he wants to do is to deny the executive branch appropriate resources to pursue its policy objectives by saying that none of the funds here can be used by DOJ in furtherance of their position. So I think it is fair for the House to have a view. The House is even suing the President about his point of view on some things. But it is unfair for us to deny the executive branch an opportunity to put forth its arguments in court on any of these matters so that we can get a proper ruling from the third branch of our government. And even though there have been rulings in the gentleman's favor, he and I both know that we are not at the final rendezvous here, and that the wheels of justice grind slowly, but there will be a final decision probably by the highest court in the land. But we should not deny the DOJ an opportunity to go into court and argue the administration's position. I think that would be unfair. Therefore, I oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate your answering my question. So what I hear is that you held some hearings, that you have legislation, that you are making progress, and that the administration has already curtailed some of these practices that you are concerned about. However, you would still like to proceed with this prohibition of funds which might be entirely appropriate. I don't have enough information, standing here today, to agree with you that that is the right thing to do, so I stand in opposition to the amendment even though I may not be, in spirit, in opposition to what it is that you are attempting to do. I just don't have enough information to join you in this effort as robustly as you are engaged in it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, who has the right to close?

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition, even though I am not actually in opposition.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. I was in support of the gentleman's first amendment; but, in this instance, we are at a different point of view. I note that the majority has a lot of enthusiasm for gun amendments on this appropriations bill, and it is making it almost impossible for us to deal with the challenges for the subcommittee around spending when we keep getting mired down in this, these gun policy riders. I would just say that it is obviously the majority's view that this somehow is an appropriate vehicle to express your love for guns of all types, ammunition of all types. I think that my view would be we should make it permissible for any gun that you could bring into the Capitol, you should be able to bring into schools or colleges, or any ammunition you could bring into the Capitol, you could use in any weapon. That might be a way to proceed. The majority doesn't have any enthusiasm for the Second Amendment when it comes to people coming into the United States Capitol because we know that guns can be dangerous. We know that people can be harmed. We know, in fact, that there were Members, when an attack happened right here on this floor--that is why we have, on the back of these chairs, certain protections--who were shot from this balcony. We know the dangers of guns and ammunition, and it is unfortunate that we would use an appropriations vehicle to move these policy matters, which are controversial. You want to attach them to a must-pass appropriations bill, one that is about our economy and about innovation, and an appropriations bill that is dealing with a whole set of issues. You make it challenging for Members who have a different point of view on some of these controversial policy issues, like guns and the access to them. Some might interpret the Second Amendment that says, if you want a bazooka or MX missile or whatever you want to have at your home, that somehow you have a right to have it. There are others of us who think that reasonable regulation might be a better course of action, like the kind of reasonable regulation we have at the Capitol, which is that you can't bring a gun into this facility, unless you have some lawful reason to do so, and we regulate that very strictly. I am in opposition to this amendment. I have nothing against my colleague, whom I enjoy working with on a whole range of issues. I agree with him on hemp, and I disagree with him on guns. I hope that we can move this bill forward, as we have been trying to do since the chairman's mark in the subcommittee, and not get it mired down in unnecessary, controversial items that are not attached to how much money we are going to spend for these various accounts to move these agencies of our government forward.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. I concur with your point of view, and I hope that the amendment is withdrawn. But I think that the maker of the proponent amendment is correct that we need to move in this direction. We not only want to make sure that the backlog is ended and that we get bad people off the street; we also don't want innocent people incarcerated for crimes they didn't commit. So this is where the science can help. But you are right that we need to make sure that there is specific direction. I thank the Chairman.

Mr. FATTAH. I understand the spirit of the chairman's statement. I just want to comment that one of the things that we have done is we have worked over a number of years and doubled the amount of money going into youth mentoring. I think that the chairman and I agree with the spirit of your amendment and that it is a much more worthy investment for the country to keep our young people on the straight and narrow than to try to repair, as has been said, a broken adult. We continue to have an interest in building this part of the appropriations bill. Notwithstanding the complicated set of rules relative to the authorized and the non-authorized portion, we continue to want to work with you as we go forward on this matter.

Mr. FATTAH. I am not sure this is the right place to be imposing on trade agreements. We would be opposed to this. We won't be seeking a recorded vote, but we would be opposed to this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, we will respect the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. I would also work with the chairman on this matter to make sure this is fully reviewed and investigated.

Mr. FATTAH. We are going to work to get to a more satisfactory resolution.