Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FATTAH. Let me just make a couple of comments. I think that we've seen why this is not the process for these types of riders on a bill. In States that are not covered by section 5, there have been outrageous circumstances as it relates particularly to African Americans and access to the franchise. In Philadelphia, Octavius Catto was beaten to death just a few blocks from my childhood home when he tried to exercise his right to vote. But our country has come a long way. We've made a lot of progress. But section 5 is there for a reason. In these States in the South, Nazi prisoners of war were treated better than African Americans who had served in the war. For the party of Lincoln to be on the floor of the House today on this issue, when there were really Republicans that had joined in in the passage of the Voting Rights Act, where Members of my party refused to be willing to grant these rights to African Americans and to others, I think, is unfortunate. But I think we may be at a point where we can move forward. To my friend from Georgia, who we are going to be in worship together tomorrow morning at 8 a.m., I yield to you.

Mr. FATTAH. The hour is late. Reclaiming my time, I want to thank you for withdrawing your amendment. And I thank the chairman for his previous statements in this regard.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, I thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, because we're not talking about an assessment, I want the House to be aware of that. This is not the appropriate place to deal with this matter. But if we insist on it, I would hope that we would err on the side of that young brave soldier who risked his life on behalf of our country, and that he should have whatever assistance that can be provided. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. So hope springs eternal, but here I am again opposing my friend's amendment. Let me say, this program has been around for over 30 years, and a lot of political change has swept across the world from the time that this program started. I think that it may appear to be costly, $11 million out of a $7 billion funding for the National Science Foundation, but I think that however expensive an education may be, ignorance will probably cost our country more. It is important that we understand the political dynamics, radicalization of populations around the world, how political parties operate in the former Soviet Union, all of the other issues that are being studied. I can see that you could probably bring a list of studies in front of the Congress from the National Science Foundation and get a laugh on any day. But these studies are important. They're merit based. They're decided on merit only. The fact that some of the best funded universities win has to do, in part, with the fact that they're able to have very good faculty who put together very good research projects, and they provide our country and our society a great deal of intellectual benefit. Now, there's some advantage, I guess, politically to appear to be anti-intellectual, to have some desire to know little or less about what's going on in the world about us. But it is not worthy of a great Nation. Now, Singapore has 4.8 million people. They put $7 billion in the National Science Foundation. We put $7 billion, and we spend our time tonight debating whether we want to cut some money, trying to understand how their political system got to the point of understanding that even in a very small country, it was critically important for them to become indispensable in terms of having a thirst for knowledge. I would hope that this House would reject this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chair, I oppose this amendment. Climate change is a big issue in the world we live in. It affects our economy, our ability to move goods. We've had the most severe weather season we've had in history over the last 12 months at a cost of a billion-plus dollars. Our ability to understand the weather and the climate and its impact on business and industry and agriculture is critically important. I think that the National Science Foundation-- which is an entirely merit-based system of scientific awards in which they fund less than one out of every five meritorious pieces of research proposals. There is absolutely no politics. The National Science Board, which is confirmed by the Senate, reviews these proposals, they make selections. The idea that we don't want to know more or learn more, I think is interesting. I would hope that the House would reject that, and that what we would do is seek knowledge as a way to retain our global leadership as the leading Nation in the world. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentlewoman will yield, I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentlelady from Florida.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FATTAH. I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, I didn't say that. I understand, from the press reports one could consider this profiling. All I am suggesting to you is that this is not the appropriate vehicle for us to deal with it. Profiling would be improper, and I believe the Justice Department has articulated that their position is not to profile.

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentleman. As I indicated, I commend you for raising this issue. I know it's unpopular in some areas. I'm just suggesting that, when in an appropriations bill, a rider like this, dictating to the Department that it should comply with the Constitution is similar to some other amendments we've seen today. I believe that the Department has an ongoing, everyday responsibility to comply with the Constitution. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. I'm going to be brief. This amendment seeks to intervene or prohibit a court-supervised settlement of an 18-year running litigation having to do with some very delicate issues that he has I think articulated around an endangered species of salmon. To do this at this hour of the night on this bill I think is not prudent. I'm opposed to it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the chairman for yielding. It is not inconsistent for us to want to have support for law enforcement and also that the Constitution be followed. We have access to law enforcement. If you want them to come in and brief you on these tactics and to talk this thing through, that's fine; but I don't believe that we should take a position of all the angels on one side. To the contrary, there is no police department that's perfect. The point here is that the effort is one, I believe, to comply with the constitutional restrictions that you do not operate without due process and probable cause. Let's see if we can find a way other than with this amendment to see if we can get to the heart of this.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I had an opportunity to visit, while I was in Connecticut with Chairman Larson, with a brave young soldier who lost his eyesight in Iraq. It was a situation where his ability to function required an animal to help guide him so that he could go about his normal functions of daily life. What the gentleman who made this amendment neglected to share with the House is that it has been the law that, under the ADA guidelines, you could have any animal--monkey, horse, so forth and so on--that could be of use to someone who was disabled. What the administration has done with this new regulation is limit this to only two types of animals: one are guide dogs--as we would normally know them--and the other are miniature horses that meet certain requirements, including being housebroken and so forth and so on. The reason why people who are disabled in some cases find this a more useful animal to use is that they live three times longer than a dog does and they have perfect vision. But I see that there has been some, I guess, laughter, as if this is comical. The fact of the matter is, when I met with this young soldier and his wife and their two kids, he talked about how it just made him feel whole that he could go get the newspaper from out in front of the house, that he could go to the store. So the idea that this is some new policy of the Obama administration is false, number one. Number two, it's restricting an overly broad set of allowances in this regard, and it restricts it to only two types of animals, both of which can be used by people who are disabled. So I would hope that the House, even those in the majority who seem to find, for some reason, challenges in this bill, in particular with the provisions that they want to go after that allow disabled people to use pools--and we heard yesterday how every group in the veterans associations around our country opposed this effort yesterday on the pool access, and now we're here talking about whether or not people who have lost their sight or are disabled can have a guide animal. So I oppose the amendment. I hope the House rejects it.

Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, you are aware, I assume, that this ruling was a restriction from a much broader ruling that allowed any type of animal, including monkeys--and I can go into the different other animals if you'd like. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Rather than attempt to restrict the President's efforts in this regard, I actually applaud the President's efforts. I was at the Coastal Zone Conference when the ocean policy, I think, was applauded by literally thousands of Americans from across the country when it was held in Chicago last year. We as a Nation have more responsibility for the world's oceans than any other nation on the face of the Earth. There are documented challenges to the oceans' health that have been, I think, well- documented. If you have a problem with the executive order, the problem is really not with the President of the United States; it's with the United States Congress. We have passed laws giving various responsibilities and duties to over 63 different agencies having to do with our stewardship of the oceans, and the only thing that exists in the executive order is the President's not taking any new action but to coordinate and supervise the implementation of the existing laws as passed by this Congress under the past four Presidents of the United States so that we can try to come to grips with the circumstances that afford such dire conditions in the oceans of the world. So I applaud the President. I oppose this amendment that seeks to prohibit, essentially, the executive branch from the implementation of congressional laws that have been passed by the Congress. As to this idea that there is any kind of power grab in the executive order, I would invite Members to read it. It does not do anything other than move to more efficiently implement laws passed by our Congress. I yield back the balance of my time.

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.