Chaka Fattah

Mr. FATTAH

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 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 yield to the gentleman from Utah.

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

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. Let me reclaim my time just so we can clarify this one matter of fact here, okay, in that the regulation prior to this adjustment allowed for service animals of any type--including a dog, a horse, monkey, bird, rat--trained to assist and alert, okay, that's number one. So this is a move by the Obama administration to restrict it to two types of animals. So I just want the House to be able to operate off of actual information because this is an effort to both help those who are disabled, and also to avoid unnecessary circumstances in which regulations are too broad.

Mr. FATTAH. I would be glad to yield.

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

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Any one of millions of Americans--and we have an increase this week of people filing for new mortgages--have answered all of those questions, plus some. So if you think it's strange that people have to answer questions, if they can do it for a bank, they can maybe do it for their country. But here's my question: You said this was new and it hadn't been done before. This was fully implemented in 2005 under President Bush. So why would you stand on the House--I mean, I don't understand. This is not new.

Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chair, let me seek unanimous consent that we have a recorded vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.

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. I am glad to yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. FATTAH. That is my understanding. And reclaiming my time, any of the Members who are going to run in a competitive race without doing any polling, I assume they'll be voting for this. For those who want information in order to make good decisions, the government needs this information. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FATTAH. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. FATTAH. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas, was here with me in 2005 when, in fact, we had a President from Texas. This survey was done then. It was done in the same identical way. In fact, this would be the first time that we would act in a way contrary to our constitutional responsibility. It is important to note that this is an authorized activity of the Census Bureau, not just directly related to our constitutional responsibilities but also Title 13 of the U.S. Code, and it has been judged in numerous courts to be appropriate. It is important for Congress and for our government to be able to act in ways, in terms of public policy, in which we have information. I'm trying to figure out what's different now than in 2005. In fact, the development of this survey and these questions even happened prior to this administration. So I'm trying to figure out exactly why we're here today and what it is that we're trying to accomplish and why we want to create suspicion about the fact that we need to have information about the population, like the question about toilets that flush or things like this. We do this with the Millennium Challenge grant, which was set up under the Bush administration, looking at developing countries and looking at some of the challenges in terms of population and when we want to know about the state of our own communities. So I wonder why we're here. I do know one thing: I'm going to vote against this. I'm sure the gentleman has some reason why this was okay before and now it's not okay. The House will work its will on it.

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

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