Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, the section that you attempt to strike from the Energy Independence and Security Act that was passed in a bipartisan way, signed by President Bush, does not specify Canadian sand oil. What it says is that you have to use the most energy- efficient source that's available. That is what our government's been doing over a bipartisan administration. It has saved billions of dollars for the taxpayers. Your offering today, on an appropriations bill--this effort to prohibit really should be handled in the Energy Committee.

Mr. FATTAH. Again, this is a little bit different than the optimism in Chicago at the Coastal Zone Conference where the Ocean Policy just had such an enthusiastic response from constituencies all around the country and in other parts of the world. The development of this is bipartisan: the Pew Foundation, headquartered in my home city of Philadelphia; the Lenfest Foundation, led by Gerry Lenfest, and their investments in studying the oceans. We've seen the work that has been done that's led to this. I would hope that we would oppose this amendment and we would work to build a further consensus and hopefully have legislation come out of the Natural Resources Committee. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I hope that we vote this amendment down.

Mr. FATTAH

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

Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. I think that maybe if the gentlewoman would withdraw the amendment, we would work with her to make sure that we think we've met what is needed to make sure that every one of these kits is analyzed. And if that's not the case, then we can revisit it between now and conference. But the chairman and I would be glad to work with you to make sure this is done because, as he said, we agree that this is vitally needed. We think we've met the requirements as needed.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?

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

Mr. FATTAH. We are prepared to accept the amendment.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. I yield 2 minutes to my fraternity brother, the gentleman representing the great State of Michigan (Mr. Clarke) to talk about the importance of science and STEM-related education.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from the great State of Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) who is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FATTAH. I'm saying if you go over to page 79, the top three lines, ``as approved by Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance.''

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. Let me sum this up because there is a lot of passion. The Constitution might be an inconvenient thing, yet it is the basis for all of our law, but let's move beyond that. This is an appropriations bill. This amendment, no matter what its result, is not going to be in this bill and this bill have the President's signature. So this is the beginning of a whole set of amendments having nothing to do with how much money we're going to spend but, rather, having to do with various political passions. Most, if not all of the amendments, are going to be stripped from this bill. So we're going to spend hours here, and we're going to debate these things, but they're not going to be part of the bill as it finally becomes the law of the land. We're not going to resolve immigration policy in this bill. So I am going to recede from using all of this time, and I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. The truth of the matter is that this is actually an appropriations bill, and these matters are going to get settled in some other way. I thank the gentlelady for offering the amendment. It does violate, within the Constitution, the notion of the separation of powers. I believe that, even in a Democrat-controlled Congress and with a Republican President, I would vote against denying the executive branch the right to have its lawyers go to court and argue whatever point of view they wanted to argue.

Mr. FATTAH. Have you called the Paralyzed Veterans of America or any of those types of organizations? Did you just call the hoteliers?

Mr. FATTAH. Let me give just one example, and then I will just stand in opposition to the amendment. On page 30, line 15, this amendment would cut the FBI by $245 million. Now, we know of the important work being done on behalf of the safety of Americans throughout the world by the FBI and, most particularly, here in our own country. Our job under the Constitution is to figure out what appropriations are needed. Under our Constitution, the Ways and Means Committee is responsible for figuring out how to pay for it. We can't say that somehow the safety of our citizens is too expensive for the wealthiest, greatest country on the face of the Earth. I stand in opposition to this amendment.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I just want the House to be aware that this would be a cut in the FBI budget of close to a hundred million dollars. There will be a cut to the DEA. We just had a major incident in which the Federal Government and our law agencies are working right now involving a mother and three children from Tennessee, where there's been a murder and kidnapping and trying to track these people down. The idea that cutting a dozen agents doesn't affect our ability to apprehend criminals or to protect the public, I think, really would be malfeasance on the House to just pass an across-the-board cut. If you want to cut an amount of money, let's examine where you want to cut it at. But it's very easy to come and just say, Well, let's slash across the board. It is true that we've held lots of hearings. It is true that we visited with our law enforcement agencies. I've been out to the counterterrorism training center. I've met with Director Mueller. This will be a cut that has an impact. So this is not frivolous, and the House Appropriations Committee has the responsibility of figuring out what needs the Nation has that need to be funded. It is the Ways and Means Committee, under our Constitution, that is supposed to figure out how to pay for it. I don't hear anyone running to the floor asking for an across-the- board tax increase because they see that as being onerous, but to cut FBI agents who are in hot pursuit of criminals, we think that's fine. I think it's wrong. I ask that we oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote on the last amendment.

Mr. FATTAH. I rise in support of the spirit of this amendment, and I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would yield for a second, or if you run out of time, I will take time and I will yield to you, either way.

Mr. FATTAH. Just so we can clarify, so section 505 begins on line 4 on page 78, ``none of the funds.'' It ends on page 79 on line 3, but lines 1 through 3 say, ``approved by the Congress; unless the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified 15 days in advance.'' So everything that precedes this says you can't use any of these funds unless you notify us ahead of time and we don't disapprove. This whole section, 505, if the gentleman would follow, is a requirement to prenotify, for instance in this instance, the Republican majority here in the House, that an administration official is planning to do something. Right? And what you do by taking this out would say if they planned on doing a private contract, they wouldn't have to tell you. They wouldn't have to notify Chairman Wolf or the committee or the staff and they could go ahead and act, and there is no way that you would know about it. So all I'm saying is that this language actually is a notice to our committee of administrative action as delineated on page 78. And so I just think that the purpose of your intent and what you are actually accomplishing are two different things.