[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4068-S4081]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS ACT OF 1997

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                            Amendment No. 64

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, amendment No. 64 is 
now in order. There are 4 minutes of debate equally divided.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, in 1866, Congress passed a mining law 
called Revised Statute 2477. Here is what it said:

       The right-of-way for the construction of public highways 
     across public lands, not reserved for public uses, is hereby 
     granted.

  That was the law until 1976 when we repealed it. And we repealed it 
because there are literally thousands and thousands of potential 
rights-of-way, which the States could claim for purposes of building a 
highway across Federal lands. In 1988, Donald Hodel, who was the 
Secretary of the Interior at the time, established a policy. Listen to 
this:

       Under that policy, a right-of-way could be established by 
     mowing high vegetation, by moving a few rocks, by filling in 
     low spots.

  The State of Alaska has passed a law making every section-line in the 
State a right-of-way, over 900,000 miles. Here is the kicker, Mr. 
President. These rights-of-way would cross national parks, wilderness 
areas, national monuments, and other protected areas. These highways 
cross all of those areas that we have since taken out of the public 
domain and made national parks and other reserved areas.
  If we don't pass this amendment, every State--but particularly 
Alaska, Utah, and Idaho--will have the right to build roads on every 
one of those claimed rights-of-way, according to the language of the 
Stevens amendment. This issue is not an emergency. To hold the people 
in the Dakotas and Arkansas and other States hostage for something as 
foolish as this is, would be foolish in the extreme.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. Alaska has not 
even been surveyed yet. There aren't many surveyed section-lines in my 
State yet, except in very few portions of the State. The Nation's 
national parks have coexisted safely under Revised Statute 2477 for 
over 100 years. Our wilderness areas have not been paved, despite all 
the threats we have had. We have had 30 years of the Wilderness Act 
under Revised Statute 2477 and there has been no complaint at all.
  Last fall, we put in the appropriations bill for the Interior 
Department this section:

       No final rule or regulation of any agency of the Federal 
     Government pertaining to recognition, management, or validity 
     of a right-of-way pursuant to Revised Statute 2477 shall take 
     effect, unless expressly authorized by an act of Congress 
     subsequent to enactment of the date of this act.

  That was agreed to by the administration. The President signed that 
bill. It came about after negotiation with the President, as a matter 
of fact.
  Now, by edict, the Secretary of the Interior has determined a new 
policy will go into effect and he will make

[[Page S4069]]

property laws for the Federal Government establishing how rights-of-way 
are created on Federal lands throughout the West. It should not happen.
  I yield to the Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCain. Mr. President, we have heard a very spirited debate on 
the issue of rights-of-way across Federal land today. Both sides are 
passionate.
  On one hand, States worry that the Federal Government will exercise 
their authorities to invalidate, bona-fide historic rights-of-way. On 
the other hand, the Interior Department worries that States will 
liberally define their rights-of-way which could pose environmental 
threats to Federal lands, including parks and wildlife refuges.
  Mr. President, I believe that there is ample room for principled 
compromise in this dispute. States should not be denied their bona-fide 
rights-of-way, nor should excess or unreason be permitted to threaten 
our Nation's parks and pristine areas.
  Clearly this situation must be resolved, because if this stalemate 
persists, and the Secretary is precluded from proceeding under 
reasonable parameters, I don't believe we will have any official 
process or method for administratively assessing a claim. Such a 
stalemate serves the interest of no one and cannot stand.
  I've been engaged in an effort to find a process by which the 
Secretary, Governors, and local officials can work together to 
determine what constitutes a valid right-of-way; what methods and 
standards will be used to recognize the claim, and how such rights will 
be managed.
  I believe we can achieve a reasonable compromise and an appropriate 
process. While time does not permit us to reach an agreement before we 
must vote now, I will continue to work with the Senators from Alaska, 
Senator Bumpers, and the Interior Department to try and reach some 
agreement that we can all be proud of, one which will protect States 
rights, Federal interests and most of all the public interest.
  I appreciate the Senator from Alaska's support for that effort and I 
look forward to working with him to resolve this matter before the 
conference.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion of 
the Senator from Alaska to lay on the table the amendment of the 
Senator from Arkansas. On this question, the yeas and nays have been 
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 51, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--51

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Warner

                                NAYS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  Mr. HATCH. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider that action.
  Mr. NICKLES. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                           Amendment No. 231

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, the distinguished chairman, Senator 
Stevens, and myself, Senator Glenn, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Gregg, 
and others now have worked out the Department of Commerce compromise on 
the census. I have an amendment that reflects that compromise at the 
desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be in order and 
the clerk be allowed to report.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. STEVENS. What was the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request is that the amendment from the 
Senator from South Carolina be in order.
  Mr. STEVENS. We have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distinguished Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings], for 
     himself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Gregg, and Mr. Glenn, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 231.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 47 strike lines 14 through 18 and insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 303. None of the funds made available in any 
     appropriations Act for fiscal year 1997 may be used by the 
     Department of Commerce to make irreversible plans or 
     preparation for the use of sampling or any other statistical 
     method (including any statistical adjustment) in taking the 
     2000 decennial census of population for purposes of the 
     apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the 
     States.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, what it allows is the Census Bureau to 
continue to plan to conduct a census that uses statistical sampling but 
the Congress under the leadership here of the distinguished Senator 
from Alaska, and our chairman and ranking member of the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction as the authorizing committee, 
can change that in the future after careful review and oversight.
  There is a deep misgiving among some of the Members with respect to 
any kind of taking of polls or handling of numbers or statistics 
particularly after somehow the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
at the Department of Justice naturalized a million immigrants to be 
able to vote last November. And so it is natural that they wanted to 
make certain that the statistical sampling related to the year 2000 
census be taken in a totally professional manner. We have it, we think, 
on course to be as professional as it can be. Ms. Riche and the 
professional staff at the Bureau of the Census are just outstanding.
  What the Members need to understand that what really occurred after 
the 1990 census was it became clear that all kind of undercounting and 
overcounting occurred, varying in areas. The undercount was especially 
severe among low-income people, minorities, and rural areas. Congress 
told the Census to find a way to conduct the next census in a more 
accurate way at less cost. The Census Bureau went to the National 
Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences, after a thorough 
study, says go ahead, send the forms out, which are really reported 
back about some 60 percent or so. We get another 30 percent by going 
around door to door, through telephone calls, and followup. That last 
10 percent is next to impossible in some

[[Page S4070]]

places to find, in the innercity, in the rural areas, and in areas with 
high native American populations. Some of the census takers 
themselves--we got some 300,000 earning around $13 an hour--they might 
get fatigued some afternoons or near a weekend, or not be willing to 
enter into some areas or buildings. The way it was handled in 1990, the 
followup was far too subjective.
  So the Academy of Sciences looked at, studied, and have had the best 
of minds in a bipartisan fashion--this has not been a partisan issue--
and they recommended that census find a new way to estimate those hard 
to reach populations. They told census to use the same statistical 
methodologies that the bureau uses for all its products that this 
Nation relies on. They recommended to go ahead with this kind of 
sampling advancing forward to take the census for fiscal year 2000.
  We really were disturbed in the Appropriations Committee that if we 
did not allow it to continue at this particular point--this is 
absolutely not final, of course--that we were going to set a course 
whereby we were going to have to spend another half a billion bucks 
trying to go door to door with the same ailments and disturbances and 
inaccuracies that we suffered back in the 1990 census. And we would end 
up not only paying more but getting back into court with lawsuits again 
and everything else of that kind.
  Mind you me, there is over $100 billion in Federal programs allocated 
according to this census data, the Members of the House of 
Representatives are apportioned according to this census, and we want 
to be as nonpartisan and as thorough and as scientific as we can 
possibly be in its taking.
  To the credit of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which is the 
authorizing committee, they have been working diligently on this issue. 
Our distinguished chairman, Senator Thompson of Tennessee, I have 
talked with him, and our ranking member, Senator Glenn. They have 
already experienced two hearings which have more or less confirmed that 
we are on course, but they have yet to finalize any action taken this 
particular year.
  So what we wanted to do at the moment in this particular emergency 
supplemental was not stop anything but express our outright concern 
that this particular census is not to be used politically. It has to be 
done professionally.
  I thank the distinguished chairman of our Appropriations Committee, 
Senator Stevens, and his distinguished staff for going along working 
with the Department of Commerce and myself all last evening and this 
morning. I think this particular compromise here will allow us to 
continue on course but not lock in the short form irrevocably. Census 
can continue to do its planning and dress rehearsals to ensure that the 
next census is more accurate.
  With that said, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. GLENN. Madam President, I commend my colleagues, Senator Stevens 
and Senator Hollings, for working out this amendment, because it will 
let the Census Bureau proceed with planning and testing of statistical 
sampling.
  We need the best possible information before making a final call on 
the design of the 2000 census. The language we have agreed upon, as my 
distinguished colleague from South Carolina has just said, will let us 
get that information and get it in good shape, I believe. Thousands of 
Americans are waiting for the disaster relief to be provided by the 
legislation on the floor today, and they need this money to rebuild 
their homes and their lives. I am very relieved we are working together 
to get this aid to those needy people.
  I know full well the Census Bureau's plan to use sampling is highly 
controversial. I do not like sampling any better than anybody else. The 
only problem is, there is no better way to get a more accurate count of 
all the people in this country than by using all the regular procedures 
we have used before plus the sampling. There is no better way, even 
though none of us like it. We wish it were a perfect situation where we 
could go out and count every single American, just like the 
Constitution says we are supposed to do. But, as Senator Hollings said 
just a moment ago here, you cannot do that. We normally do not get full 
returns on all the census reports. We wind up traditionally with about 
10 percent of the people not sending returns back, even though census 
takers call multiple times on their domicile or their businesses. So we 
wind up having to do some sampling to get a more accurate census, and 
that is what the whole thing is all about.
  So, it is controversial. Some people say the sampling does not meet 
the constitutional requirement for an actual enumeration. Those are the 
words, ``actual enumeration,'' in the Constitution. Some say sampling 
is inherently subjective because it is based on statistical 
assumptions, as it has to be.
  We have been arguing about this ever since 1990, when post-census 
surveys showed that 1.6 percent of the population had been missed. That 
may not sound like a big figure, but it is big if you are laying out 
plans for Federal appropriations that have to apply to these certain 
areas. The Bush administration decided finally not to use sampling to 
adjust that census. They decided the census statistical adjustment plan 
had too many problems. Here we are 7 years later. I must admit that, 
like my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, I, too, have some 
reservations about sampling.
  But we have to remember that the Census Bureau is not looking at 
sampling because they think it is the ideal method. Quite the contrary, 
an accurate, direct count would be the best. The problem is, a direct 
count has never worked in the past. And every census is more difficult 
than the last one. That is because our population keeps getting larger. 
It is more mobile. It is more culturally diverse, while public 
cooperation keeps declining. That is why the bureau is looking at new 
approaches.
  A complete sampling ban would require the bureau to cancel current 
testing plans and contracts, and that would just waste money that has 
already been spent for good purposes.
  A complete ban would require hurried development of new plans for 
next year's Census Dress Rehearsal. That would waste more money. 
Finally, a complete ban would require hurried development of a new plan 
for conducting the 2000 census. That would require many more census 
takers and would cost a lot more money. This is the tragic part, it 
might lead to a much less accurate census, more  litigation, and more 
suspicion of Government. The language we have worked out prevents all 
that waste and keeps all our options open. At the same time, it lets 
the Census Bureau know the seriousness of our concerns.

  Let me tell you a little bit about the 2000 census--something the 
Governmental Affairs Committee is looking at right now. The census will 
set a new record as the largest peacetime mobilization in American 
history. The Bureau will hire 600,000 temporary workers, knock on 120 
million doors, and count about 270 million people.
  By statute, the entire process has to play out smoothly over 9 
months. The questions will begin on Census Day, April 1, and the 
results have to be given to Congress by December 31. Census Bureau 
officials tell us that, if they use sampling, they can keep the cost of 
the 2000 census down to about $4 billion, a little less than the 1990 
cost of $25 per household. Without sampling, it will cost the taxpayers 
a whole lot more--perhaps as much as another billion dollars.
  Most important of all, the census is a highly serious enterprise. It 
is the process we use to make sure that every American--every 
American--is fairly represented in the governing of this great country. 
It is so fundamental to our democratic system that the Constitution 
specifically requires an actual enumeration of our population once 
every 10 years.
  These facts tell me that the decennial census calls for our very best 
thinking, our very best planning, and the very best scientific tools 
the statistical community has to offer. To quote the Commerce Inspector 
General:

       We continue to believe that, if carefully planned and 
     implemented, sampling can be employed by the Bureau in the 
     2000 census to produce overall more accurate results than 
     were produced in the 1990 census, at an acceptable cost. We 
     further believe that the Congress should allow the Bureau the 
     freedom to complete its work on sampling and then select the 
     optimal census design based

[[Page S4071]]

     on all of the available information. According to the 
     bureau's plan, fundamental work on all potential uses of 
     sampling will be finished by December 1997. We do not believe 
     an informed design decision can be made until this work is 
     completed and the various design components are tested during 
     the April 1998 dress rehearsal.

  I think the Commerce IG gave us some very good advice, because some 
hard facts have begun to emerge from the wealth of opinion about 
sampling.
  Fact: The Bureau has been using statistical sampling in the decennial 
census for decades. The census Long Form--which goes to only one in six 
households--is a perfect example of a kind of sampling that is widely 
accepted. If Congress bans sampling completely, we will not be able to 
use sampling for the Long Form any more. But the information gathered 
by the Long Form is still required by law. So we will have to send the 
Long Form to every single household across the country. And the 
American taxpayers will have to foot the bill.
  Another fact: It is inherently impossible to count everybody 
correctly the traditional way. All the experts agree on that. There 
will never be enough time or money. There will always be people not at 
home no matter how many times the census taker calls. When President 
George Washington received the first census data in 1790, he also got 
an estimate of the undercount. That has been the story ever since. In 
1990, the census missed 10 million people. It counted 6 million people 
twice. And it counted another 10 or 20 million people in the wrong 
place. After that experience, everyone involved agreed that a better 
plan, a scientific plan, had to be developed for 2000.
  Another fact: The undercounted people are some of the most vulnerable 
in our society, minorities, poor people, both rural and urban, the non-
English speaking, the homeless. These are the people we are excluding 
from the democratic process.
  Still another fact: Virtually all statisticians say that our 
scientific tools have been developed and tested to the point that we 
can finally fix the undercount problem. That view is supported by GAO, 
the Commerce IG, the National Academy of Sciences and a host of other 
professional organizations.
  Yes, 1990 sampling methods were flawed. That is precisely why the 
Census Bureau has spent 7 years developing a reliable plan for 2000. It 
is precisely why the Census Bureau needs to keep testing and planning, 
and it needs to go on with that right now and not have it cut off.
  What about the constitutional arguments? On April 16, at one of our 
committee's two recent hearings on the census, we heard testimony from 
Wisconsin's Attorney General James Doyle. He led the charge against 
sampling in 1990 because statistical adjustment of that census would 
have given California an additional House seat at Wisconsin's expense. 
Mr. Doyle testified recently:

       I think the Constitution requires that we make the best 
     effort we can to an actual headcount, and I recognize that is 
     a very complex task, and I recognize that within that task, 
     we have to leave a good deal of discretion to the Census 
     Bureau to, in fact, make some counts where you are not 
     actually counting actual human beings.
       For example, you go to a locked apartment building and you 
     go back there 5, 6, 7 times. At some point, somebody has to 
     make a reasonable estimate on how many people are in that 
     locked apartment building, and there are other kinds of 
     procedures that the Census Bureau has built up over time to 
     try to build that accuracy.
       So I recognize that there has to be a good deal of 
     discretion given to do things other than summon everybody to 
     Bethlehem and count how many people are there.

  At the same hearing, we also heard testimony from Stuart Gerson, the 
Assistant Attorney General who advised the Bush administration not to 
adjust the 1990 census.
  Mr. Gerson said, and remember, this is a person who advised against 
sampling in the Bush administration:

       Whatever an enumeration means, it does mean an accurate 
     count and that should be our guideline--it does appear that 
     the Constitution would permit a statistical adjustment if it 
     would contribute to an accurate count.

  Note the caveat: ``if it would contribute to an accurate count.'' 
Both of those legal experts agree, and again, one of them led the fight 
against adjustment in 1990, that the key to the constitutional 
requirement for an ``actual enumeration'' is accuracy. They both agree 
that sampling is legally acceptable under two conditions: The Census 
Bureau has to make a good faith effort to count everybody the 
traditional way; and the Bureau has to demonstrate that sampling 
improves accuracy.
  Let us look at whether the Census Bureau's plan can meet those 
requirements. The plan itself was described in our committee hearing of 
March 11. We heard from Commerce Secretary William Daley, from Ev 
Ehrlich, the Commerce Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, and from 
Martha Richey, Director of the Census Bureau. As they explained, the 
first proposed use of sampling is to help count people who don't send 
back their census questionnaires by mail. The Bureau won't even start 
this sampling until after they have first made the greatest effort in 
the history of census-taking to convince Americans to send back their 
questionnaires.
  First, questionnaires will be mailed to every household found on the 
combined Census/Postal Service national address list. To insure the 
most complete national address list possible, the Bureau will also get 
several updates from local governments. Every household in America will 
get precensus letters and post-mailout reminders. Questionnaires will 
be available in town halls, post offices, community centers, and even 
stores. And finally, the Bureau plans an aggressive outreach campaign 
of school presentations, community meetings and paid advertising--all 
to give every single American every possible opportunity to participate 
and be counted in the time-honored way. I would say that passes the 
first test of constitutionality, a good faith effort to do an actual 
head count.

  Even with all this effort, experts project that only 65 percent of 
the American public will be counted using these methods. Our population 
is just too big, too mobile, too diverse, and too apt to ignore 
Government requests for information--even when it is this important.
  The question for the Bureau is, how do we count that last 35 percent? 
As the lawyers have told us, the Constitution and Federal law require 
our best effort.
  The census plan is to follow up the mail process with a large sample 
of those who did not send back a questionnaire. That sample will be 
large enough to make sure that census takers contact at least 90 
percent of the people in each census tract. Yes, that means census 
enumerators will go into communities, just as they always have, to 
count at least 90 percent of Americans in the traditional way, by 
headcount. Then, and only then, will statistics be used to estimate the 
last 10 percent of the population.
  What about the second constitutional requirement? Can the Bureau 
demonstrate that sampling improves accuracy? At our second oversight 
hearing on April 16, we heard testimony from Prof. Lawrence Brown of 
the Wharton Business School. He strongly opposed adjustment of the 1990 
census based on the sampling plan the Bureau used to generate the 
``corrected'' counts. Professor Brown didn't think the Bureau's sample 
was large enough, and he didn't think the statistical model was valid. 
But he told our committee last month that the Census Bureau's plan for 
2000 addresses the concerns he had in 1990. He told us the Bureau's 
plan can work. And he told us we will again have an undercount if we do 
not use sampling.
  On the charge that sampling is inherently subjective, Professor Brown 
said:

       Certainly, there is some subjectivity in how the process is 
     designed and how the analysis is--conducted. But if all of 
     this planning is done in advance, it is very very hard for me 
     to see how one could direct these subjective decisions 
     towards any desired goal.

  Notice the caveat: ``if all of this planning is done in advance. * * 
*'' That is just what the Census Bureau proposes to do over the next 
year. And this new language we have agreed on today will permit that 
work to move ahead and still give Congress the final decision.

  As Professor Brown's testimony proved--even for experts who 
questioned sampling in 1990--the Census Bureau seems to be on the right 
track for 2000. At this point in time, it is very hard to find even one 
statistician who doesn't think that sampling should be able to improve 
the accuracy of the 2000 census. The Bureau is doing its research; it 
is testing its plans; and it is having its plans reviewed by experts.

[[Page S4072]]

  Everything the Governmental Affairs Committee has learned so far 
tells me we need to keep the sampling debate open. And we need to give 
the Census Bureau a fair hearing. To disrupt the planning process now 
would set the Bureau back a year or more. And it would lock the Bureau 
and the Congress into a traditional census that we know will cost much 
more and we know will be inaccurate.
  I have already told you that I have some personal reservations about 
sampling. I wish it were possible to get an actual head count directly 
on every single American. I am sure the American public has concerns as 
well. We all get survey calls at home, around dinner time, usually. We 
also know about polls--surveys that conclude one thing or another--
often depending on who paid for the poll. We know all this. We know 
that surveys can be used in many different ways. So, we have to agree 
that the Census Bureau has a very heavy burden to prove to Congress and 
the American people that its survey methods are objective and 
scientifically sound, and that they will produce accurate, reliable 
information. The Constitution requires no less.
  What is critical right now is for census to continue its planning 
process--continue to appear before congressional committees--as it is 
doing before our committee--and continue to explain and review its 
plans. Only after this process is complete can we decide if the 2000 
census will be a success.
  At this point in the debate, I am less worried about the 
constitutional and scientific issues than I am about the Census 
Bureau's management capacity. GAO and the Commerce IG agree with me on 
that. The viability of sampling depends on the Bureau's capacity to 
design and faithfully execute a good plan. Our debate here today proves 
that Congress is not yet sure of the Bureau's abilities.
  The Bureau has to give us more information. And we have to be willing 
to listen. The Bureau also has to show us that they have the management 
capacity to carry out a sampling plan if we approve it. These are the 
questions I think we should be focusing on.
  It is time for some plain talk--about the stakes involved here. Most 
of those people undercounted in last census were poor, and many of them 
belong to ethnic and racial minorities. We cannot tolerate any 
undercount. Our system of government guarantees equal representation 
for all Americans--regardless of race, ethnicity or economic 
circumstances--certainly regardless of political affiliation. I can 
only hope that my colleagues will not trade off this fundamental 
principle of democratic government for assumptions about partisan 
political advantage.

  Let me remind you about where the undercount is found. Look at the 
States that had high undercounts in 1990--New Mexico, 3.1 percent; 
Montana, 2.4 percent; Texas, 2.3 percent; Mississippi, 2.1 percent; 
Idaho, 2 percent. This is not a Democratic versus Republican issue. The 
undercount is a problem for every Member of this body. We undercount 
people in rural areas--that is a third of the 1990 undercount. We 
undercount people who are renters rather than homeowners. And we 
undercount over 12 percent of native Americans who live on 
reservations.
  Let's not throw away our opportunity to fix the undercount, without 
taking a good hard look at whether we have to and what are our options. 
Funding formulae, equal protection, civil rights, State and local 
planning, school building, targeted aid, business planning--almost 
every aspect of American life--would benefit from the best possible 
census in the year 2000.
  My heart goes out to all the Americans who are counting on us for the 
disaster relief this bill will provide. I want go give them that 
relief. I want to vote for this bill. So, I strongly urge my colleagues 
to join me in supporting this amendment. I congratulate Senator 
Hollings, Senator Stevens, and their staff for working this out. Let 
the Census Bureau get on with planning what could be the best census, 
the finest census in American history. And let us get on with providing 
relief to those tens of thousands disaster victims who are counting on 
us.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I commend and agree with my colleague on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Glenn, with regard to the 
purpose of the census and how important it is. I commend Senator 
Hollings and Senator Stevens for working out some language that will 
get us over this temporary hurdle and will not cause us to have to stop 
in midstream and make a decision today as to exactly what we ought to 
do, because I do not think anybody knows exactly what we ought to do 
right now. I do not think attention has been focused on this issue.
  We in the Governmental Affairs Committee, however, have been focused 
on it for a while. When I became chairman, we had a meeting on the 
staff level and started to engage the people at the Census Bureau and 
the Department of Commerce and explained to them what our intentions 
were in terms of having hearings and gathering information as to the 
right way to proceed.
  We have had two hearings, as Senator Hollings has pointed out, 
considering specifically these sampling issues that we are talking 
about, keeping in mind how important it is.
  It is important that people have confidence in this census. Clearly, 
we base a lot of things on it in terms of distribution of Federal 
moneys, academic research, and things of that nature that are dependent 
on it, and last, but not least, the apportionment for the House of 
Representatives. So we need to do it cautiously and carefully and not 
based on who is going to benefit politically in the outcome, not based 
on some supposition of what the outcome is going to be.
  I made a commitment early on that we would hear this fairly, we would 
bring in the experts and proceed carefully, but that the administration 
was going to have to convince us and the American people that the way 
they were going to proceed would be a fair, objective way. Of course, 
that brings us to the heart of the sampling issue, and it is not an 
easy issue to resolve. In fact, I think we are right in the middle of 
resolving it. We have asked for a lot of additional information in 
order that the Census Bureau can convince us that this will be done in 
the right way.
  Everybody is for doing something about the undercount, which I think 
most people agree that we have. We need to do something about this. We 
need to proceed in the fairest, most objective way in order to address 
that particular problem.
  But the question still is out there whether or not sampling is the 
right way to proceed. In the first place, I think we need to realize 
that the proposal that is on the table now really involves two levels 
of sampling: 90 percent is contact directly, 10 percent is sampling, 
and then there is another level of sampling which is supposed to take 
care of the undercount. So we have a couple of different levels of 
sampling. It has not been perfected yet.
  Back in 1990 when they did the census, they considered adjusting the 
census numbers based on sampling. Based upon the information that they 
initially had there, they made an error of one seat. One State would 
have improperly gotten a seat and another State would have improperly 
lost a seat. They caught it in time and decided not to use sampling 
back then.
  There are constitutional issues; there are legislative issues. It is 
not just a constitutional question. We are familiar with the fact that 
the Constitution requires, in some people's minds, an actual head 
count. It is somewhat debatable, but to some legal experts, it is even 
a greater question as to whether or not Congress has constructed a 
legislative pattern that would forbid sampling.
  There has been a lot of sampling legislation passed and some of it is 
inconsistent. It would be a tragedy, indeed, if we went through all 
this process and we used sampling and spent $4 billion in order to 
carry this out and then find out we did not have the constitutional 
authority or that we have the constitutional authority but did not have 
the legislative authority. So if we go through with sampling, I think 
we are going to need additional legislation to clear that up.

  There is another question involved as far as the expense. Some of the 
witnesses originally told us that if we did not sample, it would cost 
us an extra billion dollars. We are getting information now which says 
the cost would be

[[Page S4073]]

much less than that. We need to clear that up.
  I think this is an appropriate way to proceed, but I want to 
emphasize to the administration, and I want to emphasize to the Census 
Bureau, that those of us who will be dealing with this thing directly 
are going to be looking to them to convince us and convince the Senate 
and convince the American people that they will conduct this thing in a 
fair and objective way. A lot of people are concerned that this 
administration, which has shown in times past the willingness and the 
ability to use the authority of the administration for political 
purposes--witness the Immigration and Naturalization Service before the 
election last time--that an administration that is willing to do that 
would be willing to tamper with this process.
  It is a matter that is somewhat new to us in this body for this 
particular purpose--that is, one of apportionment--and it is not going 
to be something we will readily latch on to. I am not saying it is the 
wrong thing to do, but I am saying the burden is on the administration, 
the burden is on the Census Bureau, not only that this is 
scientifically acceptable, which I think a lot of people think it is, 
but, second, that we are not going to have to be worrying about some 
people in a bureaucracy somewhere who are going to be having their 
fingers on the scales of justice, as has happened in other instances.
  So, with that, I leave it for another day. I look forward to working 
with the members on the committee and others on the Appropriations 
Committee in trying to come up with the best system that is fair to 
everybody, not based on who benefits or who suffers from a political 
standpoint, but based on what is fair and accurate, not only in terms 
of the result, but in terms of the process in getting to that result.
  With that, I thank the Chair.
  Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, the amendment that Senator Hollings has 
presented is acceptable, and I am pleased to cosponsor it. It is a 
provision that I put in the bill, or I offered as an amendment to the 
bill when it was in committee.
  A full count of the population for the purpose of apportioning seats 
in the House of Representatives is required by the Constitution. 
Article I calls for an ``actual Enumeration * * * '' and section 2 of 
the 14th amendment reads: ``Representatives shall be apportioned among 
the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the 
whole number of persons in each State * * *''. Title 13 U.S.C. section 
195 states: ``Except for the determination of population for purposes 
of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several 
States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the 
use of the statistical method known as ``sampling'' in carrying out the 
provisions of this title.''
  When the Secretary of Commerce declined to approve a statistical 
adjustment to the 1990 census, at least 50 law suits were filed. The 
Supreme Court upheld the Secretary's decision in one of these cases, 
Wisconsin versus City of New York. The Court held that the Constitution 
``vests Congress with virtually unlimited discretion in conducting the 
`actual Enumeration' * * * Through the Census Act, 13 U.S.C. section 
141(a), Congress has delegated its broad authority over the census to 
the Secretary.'' The Court noted that the adjustment being recommended 
to the Secretary in 1990 differed from other statistical adjustments 
used in 1970 and 1980 because it ``would have been the first time in 
history that the States' apportionment was based upon counts in other 
States.''
  If a sample is employed for the 2000 census, endless litigation 
challenging the constitutionality of using this technique is likely. By 
directing the Census Bureau today to employ a full count, we are giving 
the Bureau sufficient time to redirect their efforts before 2000. The 
additional cost of a full count is estimated to be $400 million. The 
increase is bound to be less than the Government's cost of defending 
against lawsuits which will result from using a sample.
  There is also an issue of fairness. The Census Bureau will get a 90-
percent count of a census tract and use sampling to determine the 
remaining 10 percent of the population in that census tract. An 
estimation does not seem to be a fair way of determining the 
population.
  The Census Bureau has claimed a full count of the population without 
sampling will cost an additional $400 million. As soon as this 
amendment prohibiting the use of sampling appeared, the cost went up to 
$1 billion.
  I have reviewed the most recent Census Bureau cost sheet, and it 
seems to me the Census Bureau can do a full count well within the range 
of $400 to 500 million. Any attempt to claim it will cost a billion 
dollars is a red herring to deflect attention away from the real issue, 
and that is the constitutionality of conducting the count by sampling.
  The cost of the census should not be an issue. Under the 
Constitution, Congress has the duty to direct an ``actual Enumeration'' 
of the American public for purposes of apportionment. When carrying out 
our constitutional responsibilities, cost is immaterial.
  In 2000, The Census Bureau wants to estimate 10 percent of the 
population of this country. In 2010, the Census Bureau may want to 
estimate 30 percent of the population. The Census Bureau claims 
sampling will solve the problem of undercounting. It is difficult for 
me to accept that an estimation will ensure everyone is counted.
  Concern about not counting all Americans is not a new issue. Then-
Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson was in charge of the first U.S. 
census in 1790, and he was gravely concerned that there had been an 
undercount.
  The Census Bureau, in an effort to devise new techniques to ensure 
the most complete count possible, has determined that conducting a 
sample of nonrespondent citizens on a census tract level is the most 
effective means of achieving numerical accuracy. Which is more 
important? Numerical accuracy or distributive accuracy?
  On March 20, 1996, the Supreme Court held that distributive accuracy 
was more important than numerical accuracy in deciding Wisconsin versus 
City of New York. In this case, the Court upheld the Secretary of 
Commerce's decision not to approve statistical adjustment to the 1990 
Census. The Census Bureau plans to sample in each census tract across 
the nation. They plan to estimate who lives in a neighborhood or 
village based on a sample.
  The Census Bureau claims the language in this bill as reported from 
committee will require them to send a long form to all households.
  The Census Bureau says sending a long form to one out of every six 
households is a sample, and thus the language in this bill would 
require them to send the long form to all homes. The language in this 
bill was not intended to prohibit the Census Bureau from using the 
short form. I would have no objection to amending the language to 
ensure the Census Bureau can continue to use the long and short forms.
  The question arose: what would happen to a census form that was 
mailed in late, after the Bureau had begun a post-census sampling 
process? The original answer was that the late response would be 
discarded because it would interfere with the sample established by the 
Census Bureau. Since the actual enumeration of citizens has a long and 
venerable history, this answer was a shocker.
  The Bureau now says that a late response will be counted, even if it 
came from a household that was not in the followup sample area. They 
admit this will complicate the estimation process. Obviously the 
inconvenient appearance of a real person's response does damage to a 
theoretical sampling construction.
  The Governmental Affairs Committee has held two hearings on the plans 
for Census 2000, including one exclusively on the legal and statistical 
propriety of using sampling. There are many troubling questions about 
the Census Bureau's plan to implement sampling techniques in the next 
census.
  The problem of undercounting in the cities has been a problem, and 
the Bureau says sampling will help correct this undercount. But what 
about the problem of undercounting in rural areas? Does the Census 
Bureau really know what it doesn't know? We are asking to take the 
remainder of this year to scrutinize the Census Bureau's

[[Page S4074]]

plans for the next census, and particularly their plans to use sampling 
techniques.
  Sampling could well be inaccurate, illegal, or unconstitutional. 
Congress must decide whether sampling is consistent with the 
Constitution's requirement that the census should be an ``actual 
Enumeration'' of the American public for the purpose of providing a 
basis for apportioning Congressional representation among the States.
  In the 1990 census, the Bureau made extensive efforts to reduce the 
undercount of actual persons. It sought out ``traditionally 
undercounted populations'' and expanded assistance for non-English-
speaking residents. But there was no plan to create hypothetical 
respondents, although there was an effort to statistically adjust the 
total. This adjustment was ultimately rejected by the Secretary of 
Commerce.
  That is the problem now. The sampling would be the basis for an 
educated guess under the proposal that was presented to us. I am 
pleased to see the text has been modified so what we are concentrating 
on is the constitutional requirement to enumerate the population for 
the next census, and on that basis, I support the amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, when it comes to sampling, I think 
everyone should understand that we are very familiar with it. Almost 
every product put out by the census, or from data supplied by the 
Census Bureau is based on sampling. We quote the gross domestic 
product. The Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and others use GDP and 
inflation statistics based on very small samples. The monthly 
unemployment rate that all the members listen for. Well that is based 
on sampling of some 60,000 household of the 115 million households in 
this Nation. That is less than 1 percent. And, with the full decennial 
census, the Bureau has been using sampling for the long form for almost 
60 years.
  And if there is one group that really believes in sampling, it is 
Members of Congress. We come here with a poll taken, every one of us. 
And for a State my size with 3.5 to 4 million people, a sample of 870 
to represent that number of people is readily considered authoritative. 
So we are doing the best and we are doing it professionally. I believe 
that we are on course now with this particular compromise.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that my complete statement 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Statement by Senator Hollings Regarding the Census

       Madam President, the bill before us is an emergency 
     supplemental appropriations bill to deal with flooding, other 
     natural disasters, and support for our troops in Bosnia. It 
     also includes a provision that was inserted by the majority 
     that prohibits the Census Bureau from using funds to conduct 
     or plan to use statistical sampling in any way in the conduct 
     of the year 2000 decennial census.
       The census of the United States is required under Article 
     I, section 2 of the Constitution. Since the original census 
     in 1791, it is a basic government function that is performed 
     every ten years. To many in this body it probably seems like 
     a dry, academic subject. The census is about data and 
     numbers. It is the sport of demographers and statisticians.
       Yet, the census impacts Americans' daily lives in so many 
     ways. Clearly, as noted in Article I, it is the basis for 
     apportionment in the House of Representatives. It also has 
     become the basis upon which over $100 billion in Federal 
     program aid is allocated. Programs from Low Income Energy 
     Assistance to Community Development Block Grant to 
     Transportation grants all rely on census data. But, the 
     census also is the main vehicle with which we are able to 
     describe the characteristics of our democratic society. It 
     tells us how many men and women live in each State and in our 
     nation. It tells us about racial diversity and employment and 
     literacy. Having accurate and unbiased population and 
     economic statistics is a basic requirement for a democratic 
     nation as diverse and geographically varied as the United 
     States.


                  Census Has Striven For More Accuracy

       The history of the census has been one of progressively 
     seeking more detailed information about our people. And, it 
     is a history of striving for more accuracy in the accounting 
     for the residents of this nation.
       The Senators who put this prohibition in the bill seem to 
     think that by proposing the use of statistical sampling to 
     aid the census enumeration, that the Census Bureau has broken 
     new ground. Well, that's just not the case. The accuracy of 
     the census was brought into question with the very first 
     census. When Thomas Jefferson transmitted the census data in 
     1791, he also provided his own estimates. He stated that ``we 
     are upwards of four millions; and we know in fact that the 
     omissions have been very great.'' You might say that he 
     provided the first ``post enumeration survey.'' Through much 
     of the 19th Century, the Census was run by Marshals who 
     reported to the U.S. Senate. They didn't have standard 
     procedures and census forms did not exist until the 1830's. 
     In fact, the Census Bureau itself was not created until 1902.
       Statistical sampling dates back to 1940. In that year Dr. 
     Demming, the noted management expert who once worked for the 
     Bureau, proposed the use of sampling in the conduct of 
     census. It was adopted to reduce the number of Americans who 
     received detailed questions that we now call the census Long 
     Form. Similarly, the issue of undercounting the poor and 
     minorities always has been a problem. When this nation 
     adopted the draft to prepare for the Second World War, the 
     census first realized the magnitude of this problem. When the 
     call went out to serve the nation, we found that 3 percent 
     more men were in this country than the Census Bureau had 
     estimated in the 1940 decennial census. Among black males, 13 
     percent more showed up to the call of duty than the census 
     said even resided in America.
       Relative to statistical sampling, it is used in almost 
     every type of data that the Census Bureau collects and uses 
     for its products. It is used in the Long Form so that only 1 
     in 6 Americans are asked detailed questions about employment, 
     housing, family background, etc. A very small sample is used 
     to get economic data every month so we can tell Alan 
     Greenspan and Wall Street if Gross Domestic Product 
     increased, or if inflation has increased. Take unemployment. 
     Every month every Senator listens to what the monthly 
     unemployment rate is. ``It's about jobs'' as our former Trade 
     Representative Mickey Kantor would say. Well that 
     unemployment data is collected by the Census Bureau. It is 
     based on a survey of only 60,000 households out of 115 
     million households in this country. That is a sample of far 
     less than 1 percent! So with this census issue, let's not act 
     as though the use of statistical sampling is something new or 
     some gimmick adopted by the census. The fact is that our 
     Census Bureau is the Federal Government's premier statistical 
     agency.


            The 1990 Census Debacle and Statistical Sampling

       Now, the current situation we find ourselves in is an 
     outgrowth of the 1990 census debacle. The 1990 census was the 
     most expensive census we had every conducted and for the 
     first time it was LESS accurate than previous censuses. It is 
     widely acknowledged that it was seriously flawed. Nearly 10 
     million people were NOT counted and 6 million people were 
     counted twice. There were lawsuits by groups that were 
     undercounted. Suits that ended up in the Supreme Court six 
     years later. So Congress told the Census Bureau to figure out 
     how to do a census that is: (1) more accurate and (2) more 
     cost effective.
       The Census Bureau did the right thing. It went to an 
     outside group of experts. They went to the National Academy 
     of Sciences in 1993 and asked for their recommendations. The 
     Academy studied the issue and recommended that the Census 
     Bureau incorporate statistical sampling in the conduct of the 
     year 2000 census. The academy concluded that a rerun of the 
     1990 process would produce even less accurate data in the 
     year 2000 and would cost more per household, primarily 
     because voluntary citizen cooperation with the census is 
     declining. They concluded that traditional census taking 
     methods will always yield a differential undercount because 
     some populations are just hard to count, such as rural and 
     inner city poor people. The Academy recommended, in fact, 
     that the Census Bureau continue to work until it achieved a 
     70 percent response from residents and then use statistical 
     sampling for the remaining 30 percent.
       The professionals at the Census Bureau adopted the 
     Academy's recommendation--a well designed statistical sample 
     to correct over and undercounting before the census counts 
     are finalized. The only change they made was to reduce the 
     amount of sampling. They concluded that they would work until 
     90 percent of residents were counted and use direct 
     statistical sampling to estimate the remaining 10 percent.
       Now, Madam President, I think there is a great deal of 
     confusion on how the census is conducted and what is meant by 
     these numbers. The Federal Government sends every resident a 
     census short form. The Census Bureau makes extensive efforts 
     to get these forms returned. Approximately 65 percent of the 
     population does so. After that the greatest expense of the 
     census comes into play. The question is how much effort and 
     how much do we have to spend to get people to respond who 
     have not sent back their questionnaires. The Census Bureau 
     makes phone calls, goes door to door, and literally employs 
     an army of 300,000 census takers to find individuals and 
     households who did not respond. In the past, one of the 
     reasons for inaccurate counts, is that finding those ``hard 
     core'' of non-respondents is quite subjective. It isn't easy. 
     These are in remote rural areas and in poor urban areas. It 
     is commonly acknowledged that follow-ups are not conducted in 
     a scientific fashion. It is a well

[[Page S4075]]

     known fact that census takers would rather falsify data than 
     go into some of those areas.
       In the case of the Census Bureau's plan, they are proposing 
     to estimate those remaining 10 percent of impossible to reach 
     non-respondents. They are proposing to do so in a scientific 
     way that is statistically reliable. It is a methodology that 
     takes subjective judgement out of the process.


                    this amendment casts a wide net

       The amendment in this bill not only prohibits the Census 
     Bureau from moving forward with its statistical sampling 
     plans I've discussed, but it also casts a very wide net and 
     prohibits all other statistical sampling. It would prohibit 
     the Long Form from being sent to 1 in 6 Americans. This type 
     of sampling has been underway for almost sixty years. So, the 
     Census lawyers tell us that every American would have to be 
     sent the Long Form under this congressional prohibition. It 
     would prohibit the Census from working with the Postal 
     Service and sampling to find vacant housing units that are 
     currently on address lists. It would prohibit the Census from 
     carrying out statistical sampling in its dress rehearsals 
     that are now underway. It would prohibit the Census from 
     planning to do quality assurance samples to ensure that 
     census data is not falsified by census takers. It is, in 
     short, a clumsily worded amendment that is quite far reaching 
     in its consequences.
       Now during our debate in Committee, the Chairman criticized 
     the Long Form. I believe the gist of what he said was that 
     the Long Form asks too many questions of too many people. 
     Well, Mr. President, I'd like to know which questions. 
     Questions about industry were added in 1820. Veteran status 
     in 1840. Education in 1850. Housing in the 1930's and 1940's. 
     Income level in 1940. We added a category to determine if a 
     respondent considered themselves to be of Hispanic origin in 
     1970. Telecommunications questions began in 1980. In each 
     case these questions came about because Congress directed 
     them in statute.


             issue belongs with the authorization committee

       This amendment doesn't belong in an appropriations measure, 
     especially an emergency appropriations bill. It belongs with 
     the Committee of oversight, the Governmental Affairs 
     Committee. Now the irony is that the Senate Governmental 
     Affairs Committee has been, in fact, holding oversight 
     hearings on the year 2000 decennial census. They have heard 
     from a number of outside witnesses and they have been hearing 
     the pros and cons on statistical sampling.
       Senator Glenn has written to Senator Stevens and Senator 
     Byrd requesting that his Committee be allowed to continue to 
     do its job. That the Appropriations Committee not interfere. 
     He is right.


                            increases costs

       What the Appropriations Committee should be concerned about 
     regarding this issue is the cost. The irony is that the 
     amendment inserted by the Chairman will greatly increase the 
     costs of the year 2000 decennial census. The current estimate 
     for the total cost of the 2000 census is $4 billion! If the 
     Census Bureau is required to make a full enumeration effort 
     and NOT allowed to sample for 10 percent, then the costs will 
     increase to $4.4 billion to $4.5 billion. That's because we 
     will keep on the payroll that army of door-to-door census 
     takers who will make around 13 dollars an hour.
       The Commerce Department tells us that if you look at the 
     cost impact of all the ramifications of this prohibition, 
     including prohibiting sampling for the Long Form--then the 
     cost of the year 2000 census will be about $1 billion higher. 
     So through this amendment the Appropriations Committee, which 
     is supposed to be concerned about the budget and costs, will 
     be taking a $4 billion census and turning it into a $5 
     billion census.
       So we tasked the National Academy of Sciences to come up 
     with a methodology is more cost effective and accurate 
     census. If we approve the prohibition in this bill we will be 
     doing the opposite. We will be conducting a less accurate and 
     more costly census.
       There is a sense of absurdity about all this. The costs I 
     have cited are the full multi-year costs of conducting the 
     census. We are starting from a fiscal year 1997 Census Bureau 
     year 2000 decennial census appropriation of only $84 
     million. That was a cut of about 21 percent from the 
     President's FY 1997 request of $106 million. Under the 
     Census Bureau's $4 billion plan using sampling, the 
     appropriation needs to grow to $2.3 billion within three 
     years. Dollars are tight. Our section 602(b) allocations 
     for our Commerce, Justice, and State Subcommittee have 
     been billions below the President's request for our 
     Subcommittee. And, the Census Bureau competes against the 
     Justice Department and the Judiciary which now account for 
     two-thirds of our bill.
       The reality is that Senator Stevens and the Committee are 
     not going to give us the money to fund the Census Bureau's 
     less expensive $4 billion plan using sampling let alone his 
     notion of a $5 billion census that employs no sampling.
       And that is what disturbs me most. We have an agency that 
     is trying to economize and find a way to save costs. And here 
     is the Appropriations Committee getting into an area outside 
     our jurisdiction and then telling them to do their job in a 
     more expensive way. I truly fear that we are going to mess up 
     the year 2000 census. That it will be the least accurate 
     census ever.


                               conclusion

       I have received a number of letters from outside interest 
     groups, from demographers and statisticians asking me to get 
     this onerous language out of the bill. Senator Glenn's 
     observations have been especially forceful. Yesterday, our 
     Committee received a letter from the Commerce Department's 
     Inspector General who has done a great deal of work on the 
     Census. I will include the full statement in its entirety, 
     but let me just quote a few lines:
       ``We strongly disagree with this provision. We believe that 
     such a prohibition would make it almost impossible for the 
     Census Bureau to carefully research, test and implement an 
     optimal design for the 2000 census. Over the past two years, 
     we have issued reports, testified, and briefed bureau, 
     departmental, and congressional principals and their staff 
     members on our support for the use of statistical sampling in 
     the 2000 census. We continue to believe that, if carefully 
     planned and implemented, sampling can be employed by the 
     bureau in the 2000 census to produce overall more accurate 
     results than were produced in the 1990 census, at an 
     acceptable cost. We further believe that the Congress should 
     allow the bureau the freedom to complete its work on sampling 
     and then select the optimal census design based on all of the 
     available information. Halting the design effort at this 
     critical juncture would mean that the substantial effort made 
     to date would be left incomplete and unevaluated.
       Madam President, I have been working with Chairman Stevens 
     and Senator Gregg trying to find a reasonable compromise on 
     this issue. It clearly was not their intention to require the 
     long form to be sent to every American. And, it is the 
     concern of many members on the opposite side of the aisle 
     that the Census Bureau not proceed with statistical sampling 
     for the short form in a manner that is irreversible.
       Accordingly, I am pleased to report that we have worked out 
     a compromise amendment that achieves both aims. It allows 
     planning and preparation by the Census Bureau to continue and 
     it allows the Committee of Jurisdiction, the Senate 
     Government Affairs Committee, to continue its review and 
     oversight of the Census' plan for the year 2000 decennial 
     census. Finally, the compromise allows the Census Bureau to 
     continue to send the long form to only 1 in 6 Americans and 
     to therefore get essential data.
       Madam President, I think this is a good compromise and I 
     trust my good friend the senior Senator from Alaska will 
     uphold the Senate position in Conference with the House.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
letter from the inspector general, the Department of Commerce, and the 
letter from Secretary Daley be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           Department of Commerce,


                                        The Inspector General,

                                      Washington, DC, May 5, 1997.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: We have learned that S. 672, the 
     Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions Act of 1997, as 
     reported out of the Committee on Appropriations, includes a 
     provision that would prohibit any appropriated fiscal year 
     1997 funds to be used to plan for the use of statistical 
     sampling in the 2000 decennial census. We strongly disagree 
     with this provision. We believe that such a prohibition would 
     make it almost impossible for the Census Bureau to carefully 
     research, test, and implement an optimal design for the 2000 
     census. Over the past two years, we have issued reports, 
     testified, and briefed bureau, departmental, and 
     congressional principals and their staff members on our 
     support for the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 
     census. We continue to believe that, if carefully planned and 
     implemented, sampling can be employed by the bureau in the 
     2000 census to produce overall more accurate results than 
     were produced in the 1990 census, at an acceptable cost. We 
     further believe that the Congress should allow the bureau the 
     freedom to complete its work on sampling and then select the 
     optimal census design based on all of the available 
     information. Halting the design effort at this critical 
     juncture would mean that the substantial effort made to date 
     would be left incomplete and unevaluated.
       The bureau has only recently decided on the type and degree 
     of sampling to be used in the 2000 census. These decisions 
     are driving the bureau to complete the required research on 
     important details. According to the bureau's plan, 
     fundamental work on all potential uses of sampling will be 
     finished by December 1997. We do not believe an informed 
     design decision can be made until this work is completed and 
     the various design components are tested during the April 
     1998 dress rehearsal. Even if the prohibition against the use 
     of funds for sampling is lifted in fiscal year 1998, we 
     believe that the bureau will simply not have enough time to 
     develop a complete, detailed sampling design for testing in 
     the dress rehearsal. Consequently, the bureau will not be 
     able to conduct a ``one-number census'' using sampling in 
     2000 without a significant risk of reduced accuracy,

[[Page S4076]]

     increased cost, and delay. Some of our specific concerns are 
     discussed below.


                    Sampling and Estimation Research

       If appropriated funds cannot be used for sampling work, 
     important research needed for key sampling design decisions 
     will not occur. Various aspects of this research are 
     interdependent, with one research result feeding into others. 
     For example, according to its research plan, the bureau is 
     scheduled to decided in October on the optimal sampling 
     designs for both nonresponse follow-up and the postal vacancy 
     check. Included in this research is determining how the 
     different sampling applications affect one another at 
     different levels of geography. This information will, in 
     turn, feed into a decision on the optimal Integrated Coverage 
     Measurement survey design, scheduled for December. Aspects of 
     this decision include how to allocate the survey sample to 
     each state to ensure equity among states; which combination 
     of demographic characteristics to focus on to reduce the 
     differential undercount; and how to deal with people who have 
     moved either into or out of a household. Additionally, 
     critical work on how to combine all the different enumeration 
     methods into ``one number'' may be irretrievably delayed.


                                Staffing

       The bureau will not be able to hire or contract for the 
     expertise needed to conduct and oversee the sampling and 
     estimation work. Specifically, the bureau will not be able to 
     acquire the staff resources it needs to complete work on the 
     ``one number census;'' it will not be able to gain much 
     needed information on the effects of sampling on accuracy at 
     the block and small tract areas; and it will not be able to 
     convene an expert oversight panel this summer, as planned.


                                 Costs

       Prohibiting the use of sampling in the 2000 census would 
     drive up cost and drastically reduce the accuracy of the 
     census. Although, the cost increase cannot be precisely 
     estimated, depending on the response to the initial mailing, 
     it is clear that the additional costs would involve hundreds 
     of millions of dollars.
       We strongly urge the Committee to allow the bureau the 
     freedom to complete its work on sampling and then select the 
     optimal census design based on all of the available 
     information. To do otherwise would leave the 2000 census in a 
     most precarious position. We are available to discuss these 
     concerns with you and/or your staff at your convenience. 
     Please feel free to call me at (202) 482-4661 or Jessica 
     Rickenbach, our Congressional Liaison Officer, at (202) 482-
     3052.
           Sincerely,
     Francis D. DeGeorge.
                                                                    ____



                                    The Secretary of Commerce,

                                   Washington, DC, April 29, 1997.
     Hon. Ernest F. Hollings,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Senator Hollings: I am writing to urge deletion of 
     language contained in the supplemental appropriations bill 
     that would prohibit the Census Bureau from using fiscal year 
     1997 money to prepare for the use of sampling in the 
     decennial census. The Administration strongly opposes this 
     provision in the disaster relief supplemental.
       This language is premature. It would short circuit a 
     process that is underway in other Congressional committees to 
     evaluate the use of sampling in the decennial census. This 
     matter is far too important to be decided without full 
     debate. A prohibition on statistical sampling this year also 
     will seriously impair our ability to develop and plan for the 
     best possible decennial census.
       This provision will result in a less accurate, more costly 
     Census 2000. The country deserves an accurate census count 
     that is right the first time. We should not repeat the same 
     mistakes of the 1990 decennial census which did not utilize 
     sampling. Using the failed techniques of the 1990 census 
     would result in an unacceptable undercount. This undercount 
     can be virtually eliminated with statistical sampling.
       Congress instructed us to convene the Nation's experts 
     through the National Academy of Sciences. They concluded that 
     statistical sampling is the most reliable method for ensuring 
     an accurate census.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William M. Daley.

  Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank my distinguished chairman, Senator Stevens.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill contains language that prohibits the Census Bureau 
from preparing to use any funds in the current fiscal year to ``plan or 
otherwise prepare for the use of sampling in taking the 2000 decennial 
census.'' I opposed this provision in the committee mark-up because the 
National Academy of Sciences [NAS], at the request of Congress, found 
sampling resulted in a more accurate census and that without sampling, 
the national effects have long-standing negative ramifications. I 
support Senator Hollings' amendment.
  A statistical sampling study was done by the National Academy of 
Sciences at the request of Congress. Others continue to question if 
sampling produces accurate data. I welcome that debate, but I believe 
this is not an issue to be decided in the emergency supplemental 
appropriations bill. There have been several congressional hearings on 
this subject, and I support that those committees should be given the 
opportunity to finish their work. I believe it would be unwise for 
Congress to stop further work on this issue in an emergency 
supplemental. Other supporters of using statistical sampling include 
the American Statistical Association, the Population Association of 
America, and the National Conference of Mayors.
  Sampling results in a more accurate census. The National Academy of 
Sciences concluded from their study that sampling was necessary for an 
accurate census count, and strongly recommended its use in the 2000 
census to account for nonresponding households. The census is 
responsible for counting all residents in this country, including those 
overlooked by traditional polling methods. The process of sampling 
helps the Census Bureau count U.S. residents that may not respond to 
traditional outreach methods, that is, those who do not speak English 
well, or those who can not read or write proficiently. Big cities all 
across this country are home to many of these overlooked Americans. 
Relying solely on mailed responses and face-to-face visits, so-called 
direct enumeration, while critical, will guarantee an inaccurate census 
because we will essentially be saying if we can not find you, then we 
will not count you, and therefore you do not exist. The Constitution 
does not tell us to only count those who are at home, or who has time 
to fill out the form. The Constitution says every resident must be 
counted.

  Without sampling, the effects have long-standing negative 
ramifications. The National Academy of Sciences found in the 1990 
census racial minorities were severely undercounted, compared to 
whites. Without sampling, the costs will increase due to added manpower 
and work hours involved. More census takers will have to be hired, 
trained and will have to knock on more doors, requiring a greater drain 
on the Nation's resources. For the 1990 census, those forms that were 
not returned by mail cost the U.S. Government at least 6 times more to 
enumerate than those who mailed back their forms. Using field staff to 
find the most reluctant respondents raised the cost as much as 18 
times.
  Because of California's large racial minority population, California 
was more severely harmed by the undercount than other States. We need 
an accurate census because many important Federal programs depend on 
census data to allocate funding. In the 1990 census, it is estimated 
that 837,557 Californians were not counted, which caused California to 
be shorted more than $5 million in several Federal programs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 231) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, we have five amendments that, as soon 
as Senator Feingold has presented his position on one amendment, we 
will be able to handle by consent.
  I urge Senators to come to the floor to see if we can work out these 
amendments. We still have some 26 eligible amendments. When I am able 
to confer with the Senator from West Virginia, I do want to announce a 
policy with regard to amendments that the Parliamentarian has indicated 
are not in order under cloture.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, what is the pending business?

[[Page S4077]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is the Reid amendment No. 
171.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Reid 
amendment be temporarily laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 83

 (Purpose: Prohibit use of funds for ground deployment in Bosnia after 
                          September 30, 1997)

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 83 and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 83.
       On page 7, line 24, insert before the period, the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That none of the funds made 
     available under this Act may be obligated or expended for 
     operations or activities of the Armed Forces relating to 
     Bosnia ground deployment after September 30, 1997''.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I rise today to offer an amendment to 
the Supplemental Appropriations Act that would effectively set an end 
date for deployment of ground troops in Bosnia.
  The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1997 provides an additional 
$1.5 billion in fiscal year 1997 funds for the ongoing Bosnia 
operation. But what my amendment will do, Madam President, is seek to 
set a date certain for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from participation 
in the NATO-led Stabilization Force, or SFOR. Specifically, it 
prohibits the use of funding provided for under the Supplemental Act 
for United States Armed Forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 
September 30, 1997, the end of our current fiscal year.
  Madam President, I recognize very sincerely that the Dayton Accord 
and the deployment of the NATO-led Implementation Force, IFOR, to 
enforce it, has not been without some real benefit. People are no 
longer dying en masse in Bosnia. And U.S. troops, in conjunction with 
troops from other countries, should be warmly applauded for having 
largely succeeded in enforcing the military aspects of the agreement. 
We should also be very thankful that there have been virtually no 
casualties.
  I think a special note should be made to commend the courage and the 
dedication of the U.S. military personnel in the region. These men and 
women continue to work tirelessly in an environment which has been 
challenging and very complex. Service men and women from across the 
United States have served in this mission with distinction and there 
should be no confusion between the honor and the admiration which they 
have earned and, Madam President, the need to terminate this operation.
  The issue of whether the United States should continue to deploy 
ground troops in Bosnia is a separate question from the outstanding 
performance of our military forces.
  Madam President, I have had strong reservations about United States 
troop deployment in Bosnia ever since it was initially announced in 
1995. As some in this Chamber may recall, I was one of only a few 
Members of Congress, and the only Democrat in the Senate, to vote 
against the deployment of U.S. men and women to support the Dayton 
Accord.
  I said then that I doubted the value of a heavy U.S. investment in 
the region. I felt then that administration promises to have American 
men and women out of the region within a year's time were unrealistic 
and would not be kept. And I questioned then whether or not the Dayton 
plan would level the playing field between the Serbs and Moslems such 
that peace would reign in the region.
  So where are we today, Madam President? United States troops have now 
been on the ground not just for a year in Bosnia, but for nearly 18 
months. And the concerns that I had then remain with us today.
  My concerns, Madam President, are twofold. One has to do with a 
mandate for a military operation that continues to grow, yet has 
increasingly less value. The other relates to the ever-spiraling cost 
of United States involvement in Bosnia.
  Let me first take up the question of the mandate under which our 
troops are operating.
  Madam President, when, in late 1995, the President first announced he 
would be sending United States forces to Europe to participate in the 
IFOR mission, he and many others promised the Congress and the American 
people that the IFOR mission would be over within 1 year. And this 
promise was reiterated by the President on several occasions and 
continually backed up by senior American military and diplomatic 
officials in public statements and in testimony before Congress, 
including in response to my own questions in the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee. There were repeated assurances that this would be 
over within 1 year.
  We all understood that that promise meant that our military men and 
women would be withdrawn from the region by December 1996, or at least 
very shortly thereafter. But, Madam President, in November 1996, the 
President announced that he would extend the U.S. mission for an 
additional 18 months. A mission that was promised to be only 1 year was 
just suddenly and very quietly extended by 18 months beyond that year 
through June 1998, for participation in the NATO force now known as the 
Stabilization Force, or SFOR.

  Despite the baptism of a new mission, Madam President, we all know 
that SFOR, although a bit more limited in scope, in reality represents 
just an extension of the original IFOR mandate that was supposed to 
expire within 1 year. The President's announcement of an extended 
deadline signaled that the United States would continue to be drawn 
deeper into a situation from which it has become harder and harder to 
extricate itself.
  Madam President, the war in Vietnam was called a quagmire. We 
referred to continued United States troop deployment in Somalia as 
``mission creep.'' I fear that the Bosnia operation is presenting the 
same dilemma. With indicted war criminals still at large, refugees 
still unable to return to their homes, and the timing for upcoming 
local elections still in doubt, there will obviously continue to be 
many reasons to call for an ongoing U.S. military presence on the 
ground without any clear end in sight.
  In the meantime, in the heart of the conflict is the fact that the 
strategic political goals of the warring factions remain unchanged.
  Madam President, I have a copy of a November 26, 1996, editorial from 
the Wisconsin State Journal. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           [From the Wisconsin State Journal, Nov. 26, 1996]

                    Bosnia Mission Devoid of Vision

       President Clinton said a year ago that most U.S. troops 
     would be out of Bosnia within a year. Now he says the United 
     States is prepared to keep troops in that shattered Balkans 
     nation for another 18 months.
       Here's a preview of what Clinton's decision could mean for 
     those troops as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     mission in Bosnia drags on.
       For 11 months, displaced Muslims have been waiting 
     patiently for the NATO force to deliver on the biggest 
     promise made to them through the Dayton peace agreement: The 
     right to return to their homes.
       For refugees living in camps near the town of Celic this 
     month, patience ran out.
       After learning that their empty homes in Gajevi and Koraj 
     were being blown up by the Serbs, the refugees tried to take 
     matters into their own hands. About 600 of them, mostly women 
     and children accompanied by some armed men, tried to walk 
     back to their villages.
       They were turned back by American soldiers who got caught 
     in a crossfire between the Muslims and the Serbs. No 
     Americans were hit, but one Muslim man was killed by Serb 
     gunfire.
       When the American troops returned to Celic the next day to 
     confiscate weapons from a Bosnian army storage site, an angry 
     crowd of several thousand blocked their way. ``Pretty soon 
     rocks were bouncing off helmets and soldiers were being spit 
     on,'' one soldier told the Chicago Tribune.
       Almost a year after the Dayton peace agreement committed 
     U.S. troops to Bosnia, U.S. commanders there describe the 
     situation on the ground not as ``peace'' but rather the 
     ``absence of war.'' Almost no freedom of movement exists. Few 
     refugees have been able to return to their homes and 
     elections two months ago, while essentially fair, only served 
     to harden deep ethnic divisions.
       Nothing has been done to make the Serbs accept resettlement 
     of the Bosnians, and NATO commanders have not been able to do 
     anything to track down war criminals responsible for ``ethnic 
     cleaning'' during Bosnia's long civil war.

[[Page S4078]]

       So, what's the point? Why does Clinton propose to keep 
     American troops in Bosnia, long past his original schedule?
       U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., said he believes the whole 
     Bosnia policy was ``sold on a phony basis'' to Congress and 
     the American people. Meeting this month with members of the 
     State Journal editorial board, Feingold observed, ``Three 
     billion dollars later, we're still in this thing. We continue 
     to be drawn deeper and deeper into a situation from which we 
     appear unable to extricate ourselves.''
       By leaving the U.S. mission in Bosnia open-ended, Clinton 
     gives the Serbs every reason to continue thumbing their nose 
     at the Dayton agreement and our European allies less reason 
     to take ownership of a peace-keeping mission that should be 
     their primary concern.
       Members of both parties in Congress are starting to ask 
     hard questions about the goals and duration of the U.S. 
     mission in Bosnia. It's time to hold Clinton's feet to the 
     fire--before American troops find themselves caught in the 
     middle again.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.
  This editorial, in one of our State's leading newspapers, notes as 
follows:

       By leaving the United States mission in Bosnia open-ended, 
     [President] Clinton gives the Serbs every reason to continue 
     thumbing their nose at the Dayton agreement and our European 
     allies less reason to take ownership of a peace-keeping 
     mission that should be their primary concern.

  By this analysis, the presence of U.S. troops may actually serve to 
harden rather than soften the ethnic tensions in the area. The longer 
the Moslem refugees are prevented from returning to their homes, the 
more determined they are of the right to do so. At the same time, the 
Serbs are thwarting resettlement efforts and ignoring indictments from 
the War Crimes Tribunal against their own leadership.
  As this newspaper editorial reminds us, the ``U.S. commanders [in 
Bosnia] describe the situation on the ground not as `peace' but rather 
as the `absence of war.' ''
  Madam President, I believe that the open-endedness of this mission 
may actually be helping to keep the warring parties from truly 
fulfilling their commitments under the Dayton accord.
  Madam President, let me turn to my second major concern. And it is 
really the crux of this amendment. That relates to the bill that the 
United States taxpayer is bearing with regard to the Bosnia operation.
  Congress and the American people were originally told that the Bosnia 
mission would cost the United States taxpayer some $2 billion; a lot of 
money. Then sometime in 1996 that estimate was revised up to $3 
billion. But subsequent to the President's announcement extending the 
deadline for troop withdrawal, we learned that cost estimates have been 
revised again, and now, according to statements by the Department of 
Defense on this matter, the figure is estimated to be at a minimum, by 
the middle of 1998, $6.5 billion for this Bosnia operation. Madam 
President, that represents a more than threefold increase from the 
administration's original estimate.
  To put this in perspective, the United States over the course of 30 
months in Bosnia--in Bosnia alone--expects to have spent an amount 
equivalent to just over half of what our country spends in the entire 
world in our foreign operations budget for the current fiscal year.
  What we have here with United States involvement in the Bosnia 
operation is not just mission creep, it has become dollars creep for 
the United States Congress and the American people. And this is all 
happening at the very moment, at the very key moment when we are 
straining hard to eliminate the Federal deficit. We need to plug up the 
hole in the Treasury through which funds continue to pour into the 
Bosnia operation.
  In the supplemental request before us today, the administration is 
asking the Congress now to sign off on an additional $1.5 billion for 
the Bosnia operation. This request represents only a portion of the 
threefold increase in the estimate. So it is clear to me--and I think 
it is clear to everyone--that this request will not be the last. It is 
just another installment on this $6.5 billion cost that we already know 
the Bosnia operation is going to involve.
  Madam President, what my amendment would do is retain the Bosnia-
related funding in the supplemental, but it would prohibit the use of 
those funds after the end of the current fiscal year. This amendment 
would then effectively establish an end date for the deployment of 
ground troops in Bosnia. This is the only hope we have to plug up that 
hole in the Treasury.
  By establishing an end date for the funding of the deployment of U.S. 
troops, I would like to think that my amendment serves a dual purpose. 
First, it prevents mission creep, and, second, I think it would put an 
end to the dollars creep that is beginning to become very troubling 
with regard to the Bosnia operation.
  At this point, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagel). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 177 to Amendment No. 83

(Purpose: To change the date for prohibition of use of funds for ground 
                         deployment in Bosnia)

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, Senator Feingold's amendment, I think, 
certainly lays down a marker. Senator Feingold and I cosponsored an 
amendment--actually a resolution--earlier that asked that we have more 
parameters around this Bosnia mission because many of us were concerned 
that we did not know enough about what would be done.
  As you know, the administration has missed one deadline. It was 
supposed to be a 1-year mission. That was passed 5 months ago. Now we 
are facing another commitment for a resolution that I think is June 30, 
1998. Not only has the administration said that June 30, 1998, would be 
the end of the Bosnia mission, but Secretary Cohen has been very firm 
in saying I promise the Congress that is the end, and he is planning 
for that. I want to make sure that is set in concrete, that Congress 
speaks on this issue, and that Secretary Cohen has the ability to plan 
by knowing that the funds would be cut off in this supplemental 
appropriation at June 30.
  Now, Senator Feingold has a September 30, 1997, date in his 
amendment, so I am going to ask unanimous consent to call up second-
degree amendment No. 177 to the Feingold amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows.

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchinson] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 177 to amendment No. 83:  Strike out 
     ``September 30, 1997'' and insert in lieu thereof ``June 
     30, 1998.''

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. This is a simple amendment. It basically says what 
the administration has promised is going to happen, and that is June 
30, let us go ahead and plan so that we can let everyone know, our 
allies know, that that is a firm date. The President has said so. The 
Secretary of Defense has said so. As Senator Feingold said earlier, I 
think we have accomplished the mission the President wanted to 
accomplish. I do not think it serves a purpose for us to be taking 
funds from training, from readiness of our troops for this mission in 
Bosnia. In fact, that is why we are here doing the supplemental today. 
We are trying to put the money that has gone into Bosnia back into the 
defense budget. We need money for parts. We need money for airplanes. 
We need money for training and retraining the troops that have come out 
of Bosnia. We need to have the money for the pay raises and the quality 
of life for our military.
  That money has been spent in Bosnia. I am not going to quibble about 
spending the money in Bosnia because if my troops are there, I want 
them taken care of. But I do not want to hurt our ability to train the 
other troops for readiness to make sure we are able to fight two 
simultaneous or nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts.
  So we have a job to do. That is what the supplemental is for. My 
second-degree amendment does in fact put a June 30, 1998, deadline, 
which is the promise of the President, onto this amendment. Then I 
think all of us will be ready to prepare for the eventual withdrawal of 
our troops and that money going into our training and our spare parts 
and our airplanes and all of the factors to make sure that our troops 
are ready to go in case of need.
  I thank the Chair. I appreciate Senator Feingold taking this 
initiative

[[Page S4079]]

and for his work on this very important issue.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to commend the Senator from Texas 
for her leadership regarding the issue of troop deployment in Bosnia, 
and will support her second-degree amendment.
  The language drafted by the Senator from Texas changes the date of 
the funding prohibitions in my amendment, as she indicated, from 
September 30, 1997, which is the end of the current fiscal year, to 
June 30, 1998, which is the date the administration is now using as its 
target end date for this mission.
  Of course, Mr. President, I would have preferred the earlier date, 
the September 30, 1997 deadline, which would effectively require the 
administration to begin plans to withdraw at least some of our troops 
starting tomorrow. That would be the quickest way for the United States 
to get out of a situation that, I think, is getting worse the longer we 
stay there.
  But I, of course, recognize there are concerns from a number of 
Senators that trying to dismantle an operation the size of the United 
States troop deployment in Bosnia within a 5-month timeframe would be 
difficult to accomplish. I also recognize that there is more support in 
this body for the later date that the Senator from Texas has suggested. 
There are many Members who are willing to allow the mission to continue 
through June of next year if, in exchange for that, they get a solid, 
firm, and irrevocable commitment to an end date. So I am prepared to 
support the end date of June 30, 1998.
  A point I want to emphasize is that if Congress does not establish an 
end date to our involvement in Bosnia, this mission will continue to 
drag on and on and on. Therefore, I am willing to accept the second-
degree amendment of the Senator from Texas. I congratulate her for her 
efforts in this area. I have joined as a cosponsor of a freestanding 
bill that she is introducing to also help us accomplish this goal. 
Regardless of the result of today's debate, she and I will continue to 
press for an end date to this deployment.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the original amendment would prohibit the 
expenditure of funds after September 30, 1997. There are no funds in 
the bill for defense to be spent after September 30, 1997. The 
amendment of the Senator from Texas would prohibit spending funds after 
June 30, 1998. No funds in the bill will be expended after June 30, 
1998. So the amendments take on an image perspective, from the point of 
view of this Senator. I am certainly not going to oppose them on that 
point. But I emphasize that they are just a statement of policy. It 
amounts to a sense-of-the-Congress position about the expenditure of 
funds. They would not be a barrier to the expenditure of funds under 
the circumstances of this bill.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. STEVENS. Yes.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I know what we are really doing is supplementing the 
money already spent on Bosnia. But I appreciate the fact that the 
Senator from Alaska says that this is a sense of the Senate and that it 
does say that all of us now are serious about the end strategy, the 
preparation for the end strategy. The President has promised it and the 
Secretary of Defense promised it. Now Congress will, in a sense, be 
saying, look, this is real, this is now something that we are all in 
agreement on; the time has come for to us make sure that we have that 
end game in sight and that the money for training and quality of life 
will be there for our troops all along the way.
  So I appreciate the Senator from Alaska pointing that out. I do agree 
that it will be a sense of the Senate. I think it will be a unanimous 
one, and I think it will be significant.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have been informed that others wish to 
speak on this amendment. Under the circumstances, I suggest the absence 
of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 131

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Delaware River Basin Commission)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Biden, Mr. 
     Reid, and Mr. Roth, proposes an amendment numbered 131.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 48, strike lines 15 through 23 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 306. DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION; SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 
                   BASIN COMMISSION.

       (a) Compensation of Alternative Members.--During fiscal 
     year 1997 and each fiscal year thereafter, compensation for 
     the alternate members of the Delaware River Basin Commission 
     appointed under the Delaware River Basin Compact (Public Law 
     87-328) and for the alternate members of the Susquehanna 
     River Basin Commission appointed under the Susquehanna River 
     Basin Compact (Public Law 91-575) shall be provided by the 
     Secretary of the Interior.
       (b) Immediate Contribution.--As soon as practicable after 
     the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall make a contribution to each of the Delaware 
     River Basin Commission and the Susquehanna River Basin 
     Commission for fiscal year 1997 an amount of funds that bears 
     the same proportion to the amount of funds contributed for 
     fiscal year 1996 as the number of days remaining in fiscal 
     year 1997 as of the date of enactment of this Act bears to 
     the number 365.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, this amendment deals with Delaware and 
Susquehanna River Basin Commissions. It was offered by Senators Biden, 
Reid, and Roth. It would direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
provide compensation to the Federal representative to the Delaware and 
the Susquehanna River Basin Commissions, without indicating who that 
individual would be.
  The second-degree amendment makes the Secretary of the Interior, or 
his designee, the representative. It does not provide for compensation 
above that otherwise earned by that employee of the Department of the 
Interior. I trust that both amendments will be before the Senate at the 
same time. The second one is amendment No. 224.


                 Amendment No. 224 to Amendment No. 131

 (Purpose: A 2nd degree amendment to amendment No. 131 providing that 
the Federal representative to the River Basin Commissions shall be the 
               Secretary of the Interior or his designee)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 224 to Amendment No. 
     131.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike line 5 of amendment No. 131 and all thereafter and 
     insert the following:
       The Secretary of the Interior or his designee shall serve 
     as the alternate member of the Susquehana River Basin 
     Commission appointed under the Susquehana River Basin Compact 
     (Public Law 91-575) and the alternate member of the Delaware 
     River Basin Commission appointed under the Delaware River 
     Basin Compact (Public Law 87-328).

  Mr. STEVENS. I urge adoption of Amendment No. 224.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 224) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the first-
degree amendment No. 131.
  The amendment (No. 131), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S4080]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 70

  (Purpose: To set aside certain funds for the project consisting of 
   channel restoration and improvements on the James River in South 
                                Dakota)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Johnson, for 
     himself, and Mr. Daschle, proposes an amendment numbered 70.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 19, line 6, before the period, insert the 
     following: ``: Provided further, That, of the funds 
     appropriated under this paragraph, $10,000,000 shall be used 
     for the project consisting of channel restoration and 
     improvements on the James River authorized by section 401(b) 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 
     99-662; 100 Stat. 4128)''.

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I have to my right a satellite image of 
the James River in South Dakota; on the left, depicting the river in 
its normal course prior to the flooding. On the right is a satellite 
image showing the current state of the James River--swollen, in places 
miles across, with water in a circumstance where less than 5 percent of 
the farmland in the James River Valley, from North Dakota to Nebraska, 
will be planted this year. This imagery was provided by the aerial data 
center in South Dakota. I think it very ably shows the dire 
circumstances that people in the James River area are facing.
  Amendment No. 70 is an amendment offered by myself and by my 
colleague, Senator Daschle, which addresses the extensive damage that 
has taken place in the James River Valley and which needs to be 
addressed. This amendment addresses the problem, where up to 75 percent 
of the trees in this area have been lost, where bank sloughing and 
levee sloughing has filled the channel and reduced its capability to 
handle water. The amendment would provide a $10 million appropriation 
through the Corps of Engineers to the James River Water Development 
District to use for the badly needed repair and restoration work on the 
James River.
  This is a 25-percent cost share. I am pleased that this amendment has 
been cleared and approved by the majority and the minority of the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. I thank Senator Chafee and 
Senator Baucus and their staffs for their willingness to work with us 
on these amendments. I also thank the appropriators, Senator Stevens 
and Senator Byrd, Senator Domenici and Senator Reid from the Energy and 
Water Appropriations Subcommittees and their staffs, for their 
willingness to work with us on the language of this amendment, and to 
accept it as part of the supplemental appropriations legislation being 
considered by the Senate today.
  Mr. President, this amendment will go a long way toward restoring the 
James River and its water-carrying capacity, to restore its wildlife, 
to restore the economic life of the area on either side of this river, 
and it will do a great deal to assure residents of this area that we 
will not see flooding of this magnitude, of this devastating scope, any 
time soon again.
  I had the opportunity to fly over the James River to take an aerial 
survey of this area this past month, flying out of Pierre, SD, flying 
over Mitchell, then back over Aberdeen, over Sand Lake Wildlife Refuge 
to gain a full appreciation of the magnitude of this flood.
  We have a great deal of flood problems in other areas of South 
Dakota, but this amendment addresses the dire circumstances that the 
people in the James River Valley face.
  I thank, again, my colleagues for their cooperation and their 
assistance with this amendment. It certainly is my hope that we can 
very expeditiously pass the supplemental appropriations bill, get it to 
the President's desk for his signature and to get on with rebuilding 
the lives of our communities, of our businesses and of our families, in 
this case, in the James River Valley.
  I yield back the remainder of my time, Mr. President.


                 Amendment No. 225 to Amendment No. 70

 (Purpose: A second degree amendment to amendment No. 70 making funds 
  contingent upon a finding by the Secretary of the Army that channel 
     restoration and improvements of the James River constitute an 
                               emergency)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for himself and Mr. 
     Domenici, proposes an amendment numbered 225 to amendment No. 
     70.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On line 7 of amendment No. 70, following ``(Public Law 99-
     662; 100 Stat. 4128)''; insert the following: ``if the 
     Secretary of the Army determines that the need for such 
     restoration and improvements constitutes an emergency.''
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the first-degree amendment by Senators 
Johnson and Daschle would provide $10 million of funds provided in this 
act for the flood control and coastal emergencies and would be used for 
channel restoration and improvements on the James River.
  My second-degree amendment inserts the requirement that the $10 
million be provided only if the Secretary of the Army determines that 
the need for channel restoration and improvement constitutes an 
emergency.
  I urge adoption of the amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the second-degree 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 225) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the first-degree amendment, 
as amended.
  The amendment (No. 70), as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider that vote on both amendments and 
ask that the motion be laid on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                            Amendment No. 90

 (Purpose: To provide funding for the Partners in Wildlife Program of 
 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to pay private landowners 
   for the voluntary use of private land to store water in restored 
                               wetlands)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Daschle, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 90.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       At the appropriate place, insert the following:


 united states fish and wildlife service partners for wildlife program

       For the Partners in Wildlife Program of the United States 
     Fish and Wildlife Service, $5,000,000 to pay private 
     landowners for the voluntary use of private land to store 
     water in restored wetlands.

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in 
order to consider a technical modification to amendment number 90.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. STEVENS. I send that modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 90), as modified, is as follows:
       On page 21, strike line 7 through the word ``fire'' on line 
     11 and insert the following: ``For an additional amount for 
     ``Resource Management'', $8,350,000, of which $3,350,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1998, is for fish 
     replacement and for technical assistance made necessary by 
     floods and other natural disasters and for restoration of 
     public lands damaged by fire, and of which $5,000,000, to 
     remain available until September 30, 1999, is for payments to 
     private landowners for the voluntary use of private land to 
     store water in restored wetlands.''

  Mr. STEVENS. The amendment, as modified, would provide an additional 
$5 million to the Fish and Wildlife

[[Page S4081]]

Service to pay private landowners for the voluntary use of private land 
to store water in restored wetlands. These funds were not provided to 
any specific region and should be allocated on a competitive basis.
  This amendment has been cleared on both sides and the version I have 
submitted to the desk is a modification of the original amendment No. 
90.
  I urge its adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 90), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 144

   (Purpose: To make technical amendments with respect to education)

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Stevens], for Mr. Domenici, 
     for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Brownback, and Mr. Roberts, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 144.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO DISCLOSURES 
                   REQUIRED WITH RESPECT TO GRADUATION RATES.

       (A) Amendments.--Section 485 of the Higher Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(3)(B), by striking ``June 30'' and 
     inserting ``August 31''; and
       (2) in subsection (e)(9), by striking ``August 30'' and 
     inserting ``August 31''.
       (b) Effective Dates.--
       (1) In General.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     amendments made by subsection (a) are effective upon 
     enactment.
       (2) Information dissemination.--No institution shall be 
     required to comply with the amendment made by subsection 
     (a)(1) before July 1, 1998.

     SEC.   . DATE EXTENSION.

       Section 1501(a)(4) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6491(a)(4)) is amended by 
     striking ``January 1, 1998'' and inserting ``January 1, 
     1999''.

     SEC.   . TIMELY FILING OF NOTICE.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary 
     of Education shall deem Kansas and New Mexico to have timely 
     submitted under section 8009(c)(1) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7709(c)(1)) the 
     States' written notices of intent to consider payments 
     described in section 8009(b)(1) of the Act (20 U.S.C. 
     7709(b)(1)) in providing State aid to local educational 
     agencies for school year 1997-1998, except that the Secretary 
     may require the States to submit such additional information 
     as the Secretary may require, which information shall be 
     considered part of the notices.

     SEC.   . HOLD HARMLESS PAYMENTS.

       Section 8002(h)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7702(h)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' after the 
     semicolon;
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) for fiscal year 1997 and each succeeding fiscal year 
     through fiscal year 2000 shall not be less than 85 percent of 
     the amount such agency received for fiscal year 1996 under 
     subsection (b).''.

     SEC.   . DATA.

       (a) In General.--Section 8003(f)(4) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(f)(4)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)--
       (A) by inserting ``expenditure,'' after ``revenue,''; and
       (B) by striking the semicolon and inserting a period;
       (2) by striking ``the Secretary'' and all that follows 
     through ``shall use'' and inserting ``the Secretary shall 
     use''; and
       (3) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall apply with respect to fiscal years after fiscal year 
     1997.

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the following 
amendment to S. 672. This amendment involves the New Mexico Department 
of Education's intent to take credit for $30 million of Federal impact 
aid funds. I am offering this amendment on behalf of the 331,000 public 
school children of New Mexico.
  New Mexico is one of three States in the country which uses an 
equalization formula to distribute educational moneys among its school 
districts. Presently, 40 out of New Mexico's 89 school districts 
qualify for $30 million dollars' worth of impact aid. The New Mexico 
Department of Education relies on impact aid in calculating the amount 
of State funds which will be used to equalize educational funding among 
all 89 school districts.
  Without this amendment, the New Mexico Department of Education would 
not be permitted to consider $30 million of impact aid in its formula 
for distributing State education moneys among its school districts. The 
inability to consider Federal funds would create an imbalance in the 
distribution of educational funds between nonimpact aid school 
districts and impact aid school districts.
  This amendment allows the U.S. Department of Education to recognize 
as timely New Mexico's written notice of intent to consider impact aid 
payments in providing State aid to school districts for the 1997-98 
school year.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to give some remarks on an 
amendment being offered today by myself and by Senator Roberts as well 
as my colleagues from New Mexico, Senator Domenici and Senator 
Bingaman.
  This amendment, which is revenue neutral, is critically important to 
education in the State of Kansas.
  It should be noted that this amendment does not cost the Federal 
Government any money. In fact, it simply allows the Department of 
Education in Kansas to grant deductibility in the school finance 
formula for impact aid funding. Without this amendment it is likely 
that the Kansas taxpayers would have to pay an extra $6 million in 
taxes to fully fund the State's education programs.
  This amendment corrects for a potentially very expensive 
technicality. I therefore urge the timely consideration of this very 
important and time sensitive amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. These technical amendments were passed by the Senate 
unanimously April 16. The bill is now pending in the House. These are 
amendments that are deemed to be important and should be considered on 
a timely basis. That is why they are being added to the bill at this 
time.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 144) was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mr. GORTON. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as in morning 
business for not to exceed 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________