Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. I join the chairman in saying that there are two things that are going to happen when this bill becomes the law of the land. There's going to be additional dollars for COPS, and NASA's not going to be cut. So I understand that the makers of the amendment have to find an offset. It's an offset that's not going to be acceptable when we come to a final resolution on this bill, but you need an offset to come to the floor. And you came to the floor to make a point that needs to be made, which is that when people call 911, there needs to be a cavalry on the way and not just the hope that there might be some help. So we thank you for bringing the amendment forward. When we finalize this bill, there will be additional dollars for the COPS program. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. We had this discussion in the full committee. You have on one side the Paralyzed Veterans Association and the National Association of Blind Veterans--every veterans group you can imagine. On the other side, you have hotel owners, who say, Look, we either can't afford it or nobody will ever want to use it or we can't get the equipment. What we have in the middle is a set of facts, which is that this regulation has been developed over a long period of time, starting back in 2004, in that, if you have a financial hardship and if you can't do it, you can waive it. If the equipment is not available, if it's not achievable, there are tax credits for it. The issue here is really whether there is enough heart among the hotel owners to make sure that Americans who are disabled have the same opportunities. That's the real question here. So we don't have a vote on this. There is no amendment pending. I just want the House to be clear that one of the reasons you don't authorize on an appropriations bill is that this is a matter for the Judiciary Committee. They've held a hearing on it. There is a set of facts that gets kind of bottled up when we're dealing with this spending of dollars; but there is no reason here for a country as big as ours and as wealthy as ours to have so little heart and compassion for those who are less fortunate, who are disabled, so that they can have access as they travel and deal with public accommodations. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman would continue to yield, so you are saying that the groups that have been identified as being for these regulations, you have convinced them to the contrary?

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The last I heard, the Paralyzed Veterans were for these provisions.

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Even though I agree with my colleague from Arizona about some of the issues related to trade embargoes with neighboring countries, in this matter I absolutely oppose him. Now, he says that the National Science Foundation, we should cut it; we should cut it to some mathematical certainty to the 2008 number. Let me just take a minute because I don't want the House to act without information. This is the premiere science research agency in the world. It is not the only one. We are not shadowboxing with ourselves. We have a country of 309 million people. Singapore, which is a country of 4.8, less than 5 million people, probably less people than in the Phoenix area alone, invests some $7 billion in their National Science Foundation. They're stealing talent from us today, hired away some of our top cancer researchers and other scientists, right? We have China, a much larger country. It's built over the last 5 years 100 science-only universities. The nation that leads in innovation and science will lead the world economically and militarily. The notion that we can unilaterally retreat in terms of investments and the development of future generation of scientists--now, the gentleman and I agreed in committee that when we have nonnative-born students here who are foreigners but who are in school here who get terminal degrees, we should invite them to stay. If we follow through with his cuts at the National Science Foundation, what we're saying to American-born students is, if you're pursuing terminal degrees in the hard sciences, that somehow we're going to cut the legs from up under you. I think this works at cross purposes. The idea that we would retreat in any respect, in terms of scientific research, should be rejected by this House if what we're trying to do is to ensure America's global leadership. Now, if this is a math exercise, we should just zero out the National Science Foundation. If we're just trying to save money, then let's zero it out. If we're trying to lead the world, as we have, in science, then we have to make these investments. We should even do more. I thank the chairman for where he set the bar, and I hope that the House, on a bipartisan basis, rejects this notion that we should cede to our economic competitors scientific superiority for our children and grandchildren and their generations that will follow. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I rise to join the chairman in opposing this amendment. Mr. Chairman, under our Constitution is the idea that, in a land of laws, we will not deny people an opportunity to have representation as they seek redress. We have thousands of veterans who have returned home after service who have faced foreclosures and have gone to the Legal Services Corporation to seek redress to hold onto their homes. We've had women who have been faced with abuse and who are in need of restraining orders and other types of assistance who use Legal Services. In fact, three out of four of the clients for Legal Services are women who are seeking an opportunity through a court of law to gain their rights. To deny them this opportunity in a situation where we are already underfunding Legal Services--and to cut it, to zero it out in terms of Federal support--makes no real sense except if you think poor people have too much access to quality legal representation or, as some would suggest, that they need fewer food stamps or less job training or affordable housing. There seems to be some kind of notion here that poor people have it going too well for them in our country and that what they need is some kind of opportunity to pursue liberty without any kind of assistance or a hand up. I'm opposed to this amendment. Legal services is one of the proudest accomplishments of a Republican administration, but we come to a day where for some reason there seems to be some partisan approach to this matter. In truth, I think all of us should hope that people throughout the country could have access to lawyers when they are in need of them, because our system requires legal representation in a court of law. And not for Democrats and Republicans, but for Americans seeking to have their case heard. I hope that we reject this amendment. And I think the House will reject it because even in a Republican majority House, I think there's an understanding that in our Constitution that not having access to the courts really in some ways strips away people's opportunity to truly be an American and for America to live up to its ideals. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I hope that the House would handle this amendment appropriately, relative to what has been said about Legal Services. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I support my colleague in his amendment. Hopefully, he'll withdraw some of the other ones, and we're in business. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. I'm trying to clarify, your amendment is amending page 78, line 17, of the bill?

Mr. FATTAH. Okay. It would seem to me that you are limiting the committee's oversight of their ability to receive information about what is taking place; is that accurate? Is that your intent?

Mr. FATTAH. Is it your intent to deprive the Appropriations Committee of this important information?

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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. I yield to the gentlelady from Texas.

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.

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 move to strike the last word.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to my good friend from Texas.