Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. I think with the understanding that the chairman has laid out, your accepting this amendment would move us forward, and I agree. I think we have a clear understanding that you are accepting it, but we will work together to make sure it doesn't have any unintended consequences.

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I supported the gentleman's last amendment. I strongly oppose this amendment. It is impossible for me to conceive that we want to run the greatest country on the face of the Earth without data, without information, without knowledge of what the circumstances of the citizens of the country are--how many daycare slots, where to locate VA hospitals, all of the other information that is generated through this community survey. Now, I note that there is talk about a fine, but we haven't been able to identify anybody who has ever been fined. We do know that our neighbors to the north, when the Canadians moved to a voluntary system in their rural areas, they stopped getting almost any compliance. If the Federal Government is going to plan in terms of Federal highways, in terms of Federal programming, and a whole range of items that flow through formal grants, not through earmarks, but by knowledge of what is happening in communities, these surveys are critical. The idea that we would say we are going to run this great country, we don't want any information, we are going to put on blindfolds and just kind of hope for the best when we are making public policy about education and housing and transportation needs or health care needs, it doesn't make a lot of sense. It may have some popularity politically, but as a notion for actual intentional leadership for our Nation, to say that we want to separate ourselves from actual information about what is going on in these communities, I think that the gentleman, as right as he was in the original amendment that I supported him on, in this particular matter I think he is headed in the wrong direction. I would ask my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--put the party aside, put the national interest first, and know for certainty that no person would ever--you are always talking about running the government like a business--no one would run a business without utilizing data to understand the marketplace. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, how much time is remaining between the gentleman who is the proponent and myself?

Mr. FATTAH. And I assume he has the right to close?

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me remind the House that we had another Texan--he was the President of the United States--and it was under his administration that the questions that were put together in the community survey were developed under that administration.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, well, then at this point, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me close by just saying that I just want to make sure that, because there is some antipathy about, sometimes, anything that may emanate from this administration, I just want to make it clear that this was not some Democratic scheme here to gather up people's private information; that this is actually a legitimate activity of the Federal Government. It is one joined in by the Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations who tell us that this is vitally important. I think just from a commonsense basis, we actually know as politicians, because when we are engaged in activities that are important, we try to get a lot of information. So we know it is important. It is actually important for making sure that Federal programs are focused on the priorities of your community. And if we don't have the knowledge of how many people need daycare slots or how many veterans there are or what the other circumstances are in a particular community, it is impossible to do the planning that is necessary. I would ask that we reject this amendment and that we continue to use data as a basis to make informed decisions here at the national level. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I am not planning on strongly objecting to this, but I want to make a few points. One is that this is something that should be dealt with in an authorizing circumstance, but I think because it is on an appropriations bill, it could have unintended consequences. As I understand the plain English of what is being said, an administration faced with, for instance, the Gulf oil spill could not have been involved in a settlement in which various entities received dollars to try to find redress for harm that was created in the Gulf. I think that that would be very problematic because there were a lot of groups--fishermen, other associations, chambers of commerce, others-- who received support through that settlement. I just think we ought to be careful. It would probably be better that there be hearings and that there be an understanding around what this actually means. I have offered my own bipartisan-supported legislation that would create a congressional framework for settlements. I am not opposed to the thrust of what is being said here. I do recognize that there have been circumstances in past administrations. I am not aware of the instances that the chairman speaks of now, but I would just hope that rather than rushing forward, we would be mindful that this is probably the kind of thing that we really would want authorizers to handle and not have it tucked into an appropriations bill at this time. Plus, if you really think that the executive branch is using their authority, the idea that they would then sign it away by signing our appropriations bill, if it is so meaningful to them, it might slow down the passage of our very important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I know the chairman is quite aware of how these words, ``donation,'' ``mandatory,'' ``settlement,'' so forth and so on, might be applied and abused in various ways. Again, obviously, if this is something the majority wants to do, they will do it. I just think that it may have unintended consequences; and this administration, the next administration, and various administrations going forward, there should be a congressional framework for settlements. I have offered legislation that is bipartisan in that regard. I am not opposed to creating a congressional framework. I just think that we don't want to have unintended consequences here if we can avoid it. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman from Texas would join me in a quick colloquy.

Mr. FATTAH. This is the amendment relative to trust and gun trust and whether there needs to be a background check or not?

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FATTAH. Right. Now, in this instance, in 2006, our information is that there were 4,600 of these applications, and then that grew to 40,000 in 2012 and then 72,000 in 2013 and 90,000 in 2014. Are those numbers relatively accurate, as best as you know?

Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Judge. Reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to this. It is clear, given the majority that we have, that we won't be on a successful vote count on this. I do want to make the point, right, that the Second Amendment, as it was ruled on by the Supreme Court, says that there can be reasonable regulation, and so that is our job. That is where we come into this picture at. We are supposed to be the reasonable regulators. We are supposed to decide where and when and under what circumstances there should be some speed bump. The question here is, for these types of circumstances, where someone is going to have a weapon in which discerning that it has been fired, you are going to be less able to do it, whether that is something where someone should have to have a small speed bump on the way to getting it. Now, it doesn't seem like there is a major hurdle here because we have jumped from 4,600 of these in 2006 to 90,000 in 2014. I don't know, unless we are going to just have a universal access to them, there doesn't seem to be a major impediment.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FATTAH. Judge, I will just say this then, reclaiming my time, that everybody, even those who are not involved in law enforcement, understands the challenge of having a firearm in which the sound is suppressed. We just had an incident in one of our Capitol buildings where someone tried to bring a weapon in. We know that weapons are dangerous. That is why you can't bring them into the U.S. Capitol. Making them more accessible in the communities and among the people that we represent, if we think that is a great thing to do, the majority will have its way on this. I stand in opposition to it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition, even though I am not actually in opposition.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I think that what we should be for is effective law enforcement techniques. We know by every empirical evidence that profiling does not work, and our experts in every aspect of law enforcement--local, State, and nationally--tell us that it doesn't work. So I agree with the gentleman and I support his amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.