Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. There's some 309 million Americans, and some 200,000 will be getting this form, right?

Mr. FATTAH. So 250,000. First and foremost, it's an opportunity for a sampling. As politicians, we know what sampling is all about. It is to take from a smaller group of people information that you can then extrapolate and make broader judgments about. So if you're only asking less than 1 percent of 1 percent, the notion that this is some intrusive governmental activity, I think--

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, maybe Congress will, and you've offered us an opportunity to do so. You pointed out Canada. I guess you're recommending their system and the way they do things. For our purposes, the country seems to run pretty well by having the census data, having a capability of understanding of what the water needs may be, what the transportation needs may be, understanding what the conditions are in American families so that we can get appropriate public policy. But if you think we can do that better being in the dark in terms of this data, fine. The Census Bureau says even though they don't really enforce the fine, they know for a certainty that absent a requirement, they will get less data back. I know the gentleman is attempting to help our country. I'm just not clear exactly how this does it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Obviously, it would be a different population if one were asked to volunteer versus one selected through a random sample.

Mr. FATTAH. I'm opposed to the idea that in a country of laws we want to deny the opportunity for our issues to be raised in a court of law. That's how we settle matters in our Nation, and I think it sets the example for the rest of the world. So this consistent attempt that we see here now, whether on the Affordable Care Act or on other issues, to deny funds for the Department of Justice on behalf of the executive branch to bring issues before a court of law, I think, flies in the face of the American ideal. I oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. As best as I'm able to determine, this is a bipartisan vote of the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, just saying that there should be reasonableness in the process of looking at this question. We have a lot of young people who get themselves involved in circumstances young, at early points in their lives, but we do want them to be gainfully employed and productive citizens in our various States. But, nonetheless, this is a matter that has been litigated in various courts and, to some degree, I think it's helped to bring a more commonsense approach to this process. But here again, to deny funds for the lawyers of the Federal Government to be able to handle these matters in a court of law I don't believe is the appropriate way to go. So I stand in opposition to this amendment. I stand for the notion that we should be trying to reengage people in productive lives, in employment, reunite them with their families and build stronger communities, and I think that's the purpose of much of the work that we're doing related to reentry. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I am glad to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, we're not trying to decide parochial kinds of decisions about which might be purchased and which not. The law, as passed by a Congress and signed under President Bush, requires the Department to act in terms of energy efficiency and to save taxpayers money. You want to prohibit that on behalf of what you think is a more appropriate way to go. We should make an amendment to that law, bring it to the floor, bring it through the Energy Committee, and not attach it to a rider on this appropriations bill because we can't have a full debate on the merits thereof. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. So we first had an amendment that said that we can't require people with a fine that's never enforced. Now we have an amendment that says you can't do the survey at all. We've been doing surveys in the long form since 1790 as a Nation. It is critically important. Let me give you a for-instance. The gentleman who just spoke, my good friend from Florida, who served as speaker and as leader in both the House and Senate there, respectively, we're spending $200 billion a year on Alzheimer's alone. There are various forms of dementia as our populations age, Pennsylvania being the second State in the country in terms of aging population. It's important for us to know, unlike what was stated, the survey doesn't ask you whether you are forgetting things; the survey asks whether there are people in your home who might be suffering. It's important from a health perspective because it will guide our efforts. I'm leading an effort on brain research now to try to help us think through how we can develop more appropriate efforts to head off some of these challenges. But the idea that we don't want to ask a couple hundred thousand citizens a question about something so that we can better plan for a country of 300 million, the idea that filling out a few pieces of paper is too much to be asked for for your country to help create a better Union of a citizen, I think citizens would welcome. In fact, the reason you don't have to fine anyone is because people do fill out the form. But we know something with certainty. The idea that we are going to lead the greatest country in the world with less information about the conditions of communities and of our families, and that we are going to do that appropriately, defies logic. It is intellectually dishonest. Now, we have done this survey for a very long time as a country. I suspect we will continue to do it. But for whatever reason, we are here today debating this. I welcome the debate. At least for myself and for my caucus, we stand in opposition.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I just wanted to enlighten the House on one small matter. We've had a number of votes on repealing the Affordable Care Act and the like. There's no possibility that the President is going to sign this bill if this amendment was in there. So, you know, we're spending a lot of time, but the election will come in November. There will be an opportunity for the country to sort some of these issues out. But as for this appropriations bill, what we're trying to do is fund needed law enforcement activities in relationship to the Justice Department, whose principal duty is to protect our country since post- 9/11 in terms of terrorism. I was out at the Terrorist Screening Center. I met with the FBI director and other officials from the Department. It's important that we pass this appropriations bill on time, and I thank the House leadership for scheduling it. This amendment is not going to be a part of this law no matter the result of the vote here today. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. I join my colleague, the chairman. I appreciate the offering of the amendment; however, I'm opposed to the offset. We have a need to have loan forgiveness for public servants, both in terms of law enforcement and prosecutors, but teachers, police officers--you can go through a whole range. In fact, embodied in the reconciliation act that carried the Affordable Health Care Act, we created a loan-forgiveness program for public service that will start to take effect in 2014. This is needed, but we can't use this offset. And I would hope that we'll have an opportunity to work together on this because I do think if we had $4 million last year, we can continue to find additional resources as we go to conference. We are hamstrung by a lower allocation, which means some of the things that Members may be interested in are going to have a lower funding level as this bill leaves the House but a higher funding level when it leaves conference. So it's part of the process, and I appreciate the amendment. I hope that the gentleman would consider working with me and the chairman as we go forward, if your desire is to actually find resources for this important endeavor.

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

Mr. FATTAH. There is nothing in the gentleman's amendment that I think anyone could disagree with. The amendment doesn't speak about Attorney General Holder. It doesn't speak about any particular matter that's been referenced in the comments on the floor. It just says that you can't use dollars provided under this act to give misinformation to the Congress. I think every Member should support this. I think, however, I want to, and I think many Members would separate themselves from these accusations that are baseless. In fact, they've been investigated, and there's no evidence that the Attorney General provided any misinformation to the Congress. In fact, he's testified seven times. He's provided thousands of documents. And what we do know is that this Congress, under Republican control and a Republican administration, started endeavors to track illegal guns that were very similar to the operation that's been referred to, and some of those guns fell into the wrong hands. But to attack Federal law enforcement that's trying to catch bad guys, who are operating sting operations, even when they go poorly, I think, is just the wrong place for Federal lawmakers to be. I'm in support of Federal law enforcement. And even if their policies in this particular way were wrong, and they've been corrected, that is, in fact, once the Attorney General knew about it, he stopped it. Everyone in the line of responsibility here, those have been removed. So when the gentleman suggests on the floor of the House that no one's lost their job, no one's been changed, that's entirely inaccurate. But I do want to make this point. We should be in support of Federal law enforcement. We should support them. And to attack career ATF agents who are risking their lives trying to catch bad guys along the border, I think it's the wrong way for us to proceed just because we want to go at this administration. Now, if there's an election in which there's a change in Presidency, the other side will get a chance to name an Attorney General. Under our Constitution, the Attorney General serves at the pleasure of the President. And the President has made it clear that Attorney General Holder, and I think in many people's minds, is one of the best that's ever served in this position. Regardless of what you think about the political appointees in the Department, to attack career ATF agents for doing their job, while they risk their lives on behalf of the American citizens, I think, is the wrong thing to do. But I support the amendment. There's nothing in this amendment at all connected to these baseless allegations, none of which have been proved. And I think it's wrong to come to the House, defame public servants, say that they've lied to the Congress, when, in fact, there's nothing in the record that suggests that whatsoever. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Since President Clinton initiated the COPS program, there has been a tendency for there to be partisan fights around it. The truth of the matter is there is nothing partisan about cops in your community. Every community throughout our country, no matter the voting patterns or predictions of voting patterns, rely on police officers for public safety. The Congress--this Congress, under a Republican President and Republicans in the House and Senate, has spent billions on policing in Iraq. We have just seen President Obama make commitments in Afghanistan for security services and resources well into the next decade. Here in America, we should be at least as willing to support police on our streets. I want to assure the gentlelady from Oakland--her city I visited. I know many of the challenges in cities similarly situated, including my own. I know that the chairman of the subcommittee wants to see more cops on the beat, but we have a difficult allocation. We are hopeful, and I think with some degree of certainty that we will be able to increase the resources put into this area. This is not partisan. This is a program that works. Ever since the COPS program was implemented, every single year the crime rate has gone down; violent crime has gone down in cities where this has been implemented. So I thank the gentlelady for her offering of the amendment and for her willingness to withdraw it. And I thank the chairman for reserving rather than acting on his point of order. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH

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

Mr. FATTAH. I'd be glad to yield.

Mr. FATTAH. Let me reclaim my time. This is not an assessment; this is a fact. So, this was the regulation. The new regulation retreats and constrains the regulation to two animals versus a multiplicity of animals.

Mr. FATTAH

Mr. FATTAH. I thank the gentlelady. I want to commend Steny Hoyer and Eric Cantor, the majority leader, for their work on this. I rise as a long-time supporter of the Ex-Im Bank, and particularly in the last few months they've done over $17 billion in sales, financed with some $14 billion. And no tax dollars involved. I would like to commend the work particularly of the first vice president, Wanda Felton, who is a graduate of my alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, and also a graduate of Harvard Business School, helping to lead this agency. They're doing tens of millions of transactions with companies in my district and they're doing billions throughout the country, with 129,000 jobs just in the last 11 months supported through this agency. This is an important vote. I thank the bipartisan leadership of the Congress for bringing this agreement to move forward and reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank.