Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

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

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

Mr. FATTAH. Before we finish with this, you will be able to have a weapon, you will be able to suppress the sound on it, and you won't have to identify yourself by these characteristics that are attacked in this amendment, but I want to just kind of set the facts straight. First of all, this information has been required since 1968. I know people are excited about it tonight, I know there is a lot of enthusiasm about ridding the Nation of having this information, but since the Gun Control Act of 1968, prospective firearm purchasers have been required to record their race. Now, sometimes, you know, we hear in law enforcement people trying to be politically correct and say, well, we don't want you to be too descriptive of a suspect in a crime, identifying them by race or something, but, you know, the reason why we have this information has nothing to do with prohibiting people's Second Amendment rights. This is about how to track down someone who has done something wrong, who was the original purchaser of the gun that was used in a crime. The information is not held by the Federal Government, notwithstanding the excitement on the House floor tonight. It is held by the dealer. It is not centralized in any way, but it is a law enforcement data point. Sometimes we actually need data, we need information so that if something has been done with a gun that is unlawful, somebody can figure out who purchased it; and you can also clarify who these people are, if they have similar names, similar backgrounds, or whatever may be the case. So it is just basic information that any law enforcement person would want to have, the race and ethnic background of the owner of the weapon that was used in a neighborhood near you to harm one of the people whom you have been elected to represent, and to decide tonight, well, what we want to do is strip this information away under some pretense. What we just heard was an argument that somehow someone was trying to say that the Second Amendment discriminated against somebody on a racial basis, and of course anyone can win that straw argument because it is nonsensical. No one is arguing that. We are talking about basic information that is needed for law enforcement purposes that the majority tonight wants to deny from the ATF. That is something that I would hope the majority wouldn't do, but they obviously have the votes to do as they please. I will be against it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I am not opposed to the amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. I am not opposed to the amendment. I am prepared to accept the amendment and support it, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I speak even for the chairman in this matter. We are ready to rock and roll, so we accept the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. They must have some special kind of deer in North Carolina. They are running around in the woods with bulletproof vests on. The idea that a sportsman needs an armor-piercing bullet to go after a deer, I mean, I don't really buy it; but if the majority is willing to buy it at this hour of the night, it is fine with me. On a serious note, for those who are in law enforcement, who are out in dark alleys, and who have to confront circumstances that they don't know the exact dangers that they are going to face, the fact that we want to have weapons that suppress the sound--now, we want to have bullets that can pierce armor and that we want to make sure that are under the guise of the Second Amendment, that you can have all manner of armament, without any type of reasonable speed bumps that might protect the American public is something that I am not sure that the majority would want to take such an enthusiastic effort around. Obviously, they do, and they have decided that this bill is the bill for it, that this bill is the place where they want to do this activity, right? I think it is unfortunate. As for me and for my side, we will be in opposition, and we will let the majority work its will. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just hope that none of my good friends on the other side decide to test this theory about whether or not it can pierce armor, that you don't take the rhetoric to an extreme here. It is a fact that there is some concern about what this means for law enforcement. I know that the majority would want to be seen, and I think truly is, in support of law enforcement. Why would we want to put this type of ammunition in guns that we want to suppress the sound on, in which we want less information about the purchaser, at a time like this in our Nation I don't actually understand. But there is obviously some thread that runs through the other team over here that suggests that this is the time for them to proceed along this line. I think that the American public will have to make whatever judgment they want to make about that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. I would like, at this point, unless there are more comments, to assert the point of order.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding the doctor's remarks, the truth is that almost no research has been put into marijuana in terms of its medical efficacy. You have epilepsy and a whole host.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I know a little bit about this subject. The bottom line is that in terms of its medical viability, in terms of epilepsy and a lot of other issues, there is some need for a real study of this, not just about the way that we have proceeded so far. I think that this amendment and what is happening in the States should be allowed to go forward. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for an opportunity to close on this subject. At that point then I would yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield such time as he may consume, as long as he doesn't go over 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming the balance of my time, I think I hear that echo again about the right to be left alone. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my colleague from Pennsylvania. Again, I think this is a similar thrust to the previous debate, so I won't prolong it. But we need to be exploring relief for families in which no other relief is available and for individuals in which no other relief is available. This provides an opportunity for potential relief. We should explore it. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to object, but I am in opposition to the amendment. So as long as the chairman will yield me half of the time, I think we are fine.

Mr. FATTAH. Go right ahead.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. And just as strongly as the chairman supports it, I oppose it. Even though I supported your last amendment, this one is headed in the wrong direction. We have a need to deal with the challenges around our stewardship of the planet Earth and the questions around climate and working with our international neighbors. I want to commend the administration for getting an agreement with China around some of these issues. It is necessary for our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren that we act as proper stewards. It is our obligation, at least in most of our religious teachings, that we have a responsibility to be good stewards. So we can't ignore even for the point of profits. You mentioned how this might interfere with business interests. It is beyond the question of business interests. We need clean water, clean air, we need a climate that is capable of human habitation, at least until we can have Europa as a second exit opportunity. This is the only planet for human beings that we know of and we, therefore, have a responsibility. And the President under our Constitution is the carrier of our international activities in terms of the conduct of foreign policy, not this President or some other President, but the President of the United States has that burden and that responsibility under our Constitution. So I would hope that the House would vote this down. I know we won't. But I also know that there will be another day in which this legislation will have to be considered in a format in which it won't be just the House majority making these decisions. And thank God for that, because even the House majority could be wrong every once in a while, as proven by this amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.