Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

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

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I would join and sign such a request to the IG. Secondly, I do think that, given what you said and given the overreach, we do need to see if we can work with the authorizing committee and if, perhaps, a package that could be acceptable to the authorizers, it could even be included in such a conference committee when we finalize this bill, because we should protect Americans from the loss of property absent due process. So what you have explained is a process that is backwards under our system of laws. Before someone is penalized, there should be an allegation, there should be a fact hearing, people should have a chance to answer and hear from their accusers, versus a circumstance where their property is taken and then they have to fight a rear guard action to try to get it back. I am very concerned about this. I would be glad to work with the chairman.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I want to acknowledge the great work of the gentleman from Texas on patent reform. We worked together and he led the effort that has reformed our patent system, I think, in a remarkable way. The majority leader and I spent some time on one of the last vote days here to go over to NIH and hear from Dr. Collins about great research, particularly interested in pediatric cancers and the like. So these are two gentlemen, the authors of this amendment, who have been very positive and focused in a number of areas that I share with them. However, this amendment is misguided, and I want to speak in opposition to it. The notion that we would want to eliminate certain investigations by the National Science Foundation into economic science or behavioral science, when we talk about disasters, the reason why we have saved so many lives, it is not just that we have improved weather forecasting, even though that would be eliminated in terms of the moneys here for investigative purposes by the National Science Foundation, but also understanding the behaviors of people facing disasters is very important. That would be cut. This area of posttraumatic stress is a critical area. We know now that many of our returning soldiers face posttraumatic stress, but we also know that children living in very difficult circumstances in our country are more traumatized than if they were living in a war zone, an active war zone in another country. So eliminating, cutting back scientific investigations in this regard would be, I think, disastrous. That is why I am hoping that whatever is causing this, there will be some reversal of it eventually. But in the meantime, I want to suggest to the House that we should oppose this amendment, we should oppose the notion that somehow we don't want to know certain things. I was at the University of Pittsburgh. I saw some results of National Science Foundation funding that started out 30 years ago that a Member on this floor would be on the floor complaining about now. It was the examination of what happens in the neurons of a monkey when they move their arm, what neurons fire off in their brain. Well, that research today, 30 years later, literally has a woman who, because of a disease, has no control of her body, but can now move an artificial arm through her thoughts. This is the result of research by the National Science Foundation. It is the world premier basic science foundation, it is the model for our economic competitors. They are imitating it. A small country like Singapore with less than 5 million people is investing $7 billion in their national science foundation. Here we are, the wealthiest country in the world, and we are putting $7.4 billion, which is the highest ever, and I thank the chairman. But now we want to put handcuffs on the agency about what it is that they can look at in terms of improving the life chances of Americans. The research has paid off. That is why we are the great country that we are today. The World Economic Forum says our Nation and our Nation's economy is driven by innovation. The last thing that we should be doing on the floor of this House is equivocating or compromising or making it more challenging for those who are engaged in the innovation ecosystem to do their work. Even though I compliment the gentleman, Mr. Smith, and the majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for all their efforts, I can't imagine for the life of me why we would be on this floor tonight debating a retreat on behavioral science, on economic science. It makes no sense. I would hope that the House, notwithstanding the fact that the majority is held by the other team, I hope in this instance, as the chairman said, we would realize that this is not a competition between Democrats and Republicans. We are competing against countries that have big and plus populations like China and India, they want to eat our lunch economically, and what we need to do is stop the bickering back and forth and figure out what is best for our country. The chairman and I voted for Simpson-Bowles. We were one of just less than 40 Members who did so. I might be in the minority on this vote, but I am going to vote on what is in the best interest of our Nation, and that is to continue to invest in innovation. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, in defense of the National Science Foundation and in opposition to these cuts, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Congressman Holt. This is another one of these amendments that works against the effort of the committee, which is to try to increase--in fact, we did increase--the National Science Foundation's budget.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, in reclaiming my time, there will also be another amendment on NSF that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) may speak to, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who represents, in part, one of the greatest research triangles in the country outside of Philadelphia.

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

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

Mr. FATTAH. I am opposed to this amendment. I do, however, want to yield to the gentlelady from the great State of Florida--part of the Space Coast, and who does an extraordinary job--to speak on behalf of Legal Services. Before I do that, I want to make one point. Last year alone, Legal Services helped 41,000 veterans of the United States of America who were facing foreclosure and had other challenges related to disability claims. This notion that we should do away with access to courts for people who have worn the uniform to protect our rights, I think, is wrongheaded. I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Castor) to speak further on this subject.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, in closing, I participated with the former Attorney General, Dick Thornburgh, in a pro bono effort for some of our major law firms, which is great. However, national Legal Services in many of these rural communities, unlike a big city like Philadelphia, don't have the benefit of the law firms where they can have pro bono partners and the like. If they are going to have a lawyer for a soldier, a veteran who needs help on a foreclosure, it is going to be Legal Services. So to cut off their access to the court is the wrong thing for us to do, and I oppose the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. As for myself, I believe that America and our ideals, the notion that someone could have their liberty taken, be held with secret evidence, be denied an opportunity to appear before a court of law, be denied counsel or outside contact, is something that our country would never engage in. The problem with this theory is that we are engaged in it. The problem is that, under President Bush, Sr., he would say about China: You all are arresting people with no charges, no public evidence, no tribunal of any sort, and that this is not part of the civilized world. I remember questioning the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. We had a talk right after 9/11. He was talking, and I said: Well, if we are a Nation of laws, how are we going to reconcile that in this new circumstance? He said: It is going to be very difficult. And here we are. It is very difficult. We are spending $3 million per prisoner to house people in a foreign land under charges that we are not prepared to make public, no offering of a trial, most of whom were turned over for bounty or for ransom paid out by our government. I don't know how it is that we suggest that we want to project to the rest of the world what a Nation of laws actually looks like, but as for me and my district, I am going to cast a vote in favor of this amendment because the Constitution of the United States was drafted and written and signed in Philadelphia, and somehow I believe that the notion that our country would ever come to this moment is the voice from the source of those who wrote that document at that time. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points. One is that this requirement is in place now and has been in place, and it has not disrupted life. It has saved lives, however. This requirement does not actually apply to normal shotguns or to hunting rifles. I think it is important for the House to understand that it applies to semiautomatics that are greater than a .22 caliber and that can hold a detachable magazine. All this says is, if somebody shows up and buys 1,000 of these, the Federal firearms license dealer needs to report that multiple sale. It is a reasonable thing. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member on Appropriations.

Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, I would now like to yield to the gentlelady from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is an attempt to authorize on an appropriations bill. These buffer zones that have been put in place under the expertise of NOAA have been part and parcel to making sure that the salmon in the hatchery system work properly. I think for us to delve into this at this point is difficult, and the wording is challenging. Rather than deal with it here, I would ask if we could talk about it and see what we could do in conference, and that would be a good thing. I would hate for us, after having invested tens of millions of dollars in the salmon, to be taking a rash action here on the floor.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman, and I would like to work with you on this.

Mr. FATTAH. In reclaiming my time, it is true that I represent an urban area, yes. I would be glad to continue to yield.

Mr. FATTAH. Reclaiming my time, the United States taxpayers have invested a lot of money for the help of salmon in your neck of the woods. I am all for it. I like to make sure that whatever we are doing is correct. We have got treaty obligations. We have got hatcheries. We have got all kinds of stuff going on with both the Native Americans and the commercial fishermen operations there. All I am saying is I don't want to come to the end of the night, after we have been debating this bill for 2 days, and rush something forward that may not be the way to go. It is interestingly worded. I know that you have good intentions. I would like to work with you and the majority staff and see where we are. I just can't support this, given the complexities of the issues and the limitations of me being from an urban area. I want to make sure I have a complete grasp on the issue.

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.