[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 129 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H7755-H7759]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2267, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE,
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
ACT, 1998
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 239 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 239
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2267) making appropriations for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,
and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1998, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendment printed in part 1 of the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of
the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the
original bill for the purpose of further amendment. Points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure
to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. Before
consideration of any other amendment it shall be in order to
consider the amendment numbered 1 in part 2 of the report of
the Committee on Rules, if offered by the Member designated
in the report, which may amend portions of the bill not yet
read for amendment. The amendments printed in part 2 of the
report of the Committee on Rules may be offered only by a
Member designated in the report and, except for the amendment
numbered 1, may be offered only at the appropriate point in
the reading of the bill. The amendments in part 2 of the
report of the Committee on Rules shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against
the amendment numbered 2 in part 2 of the report of the
Committee on Rules are waived. Points of order against the
amendments numbered 1 and 3 in part 2 of the report of the
Committee on Rules for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
further amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether
the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for
that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be fifteen minutes. At the conclusion of consideration
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dayton,
OH [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order H.R. 2267, the
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, and related agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998 under an open rule. It waives
all points of order against provisions of the bill as amended by this
rule, containing unauthorized appropriations or constituting
legislation in appropriations bills.
The rule self-executes the adoption of an amendment contained in the
Committee on Rules report providing for judicial review of census
sampling. It also makes in order three additional amendments contained
in the report and provides the appropriate waivers. The rule also
contains the standard procedures for priority recognition of amendments
and the rolling of votes on amendments, as the reading clerk has
outlined.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very reasonable rule that allows the House to
work its will on a number of very contentious issues. It provides
several options for dealing with the issue of reimbursing individuals
paid by the Clerk of the House for legal expenses in conjunction with
an unjustified Department of Justice prosecution.
It provides for the consideration of compromise language in the form
of an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, dealing
with the Legal Services Corporation.
The rule also provides for a Mollohan-Shays alternative on funding
for Census 2000 and the use of funds for activities related to
sampling.
At the request of the minority, the Committee on Rules increased the
debate time on that amendment from 30 minutes to 80 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we have every right to be concerned about the Census
Bureau's proposal to use statistical sampling to determine our Nation's
population, especially since our U.S. Constitution very specifically
states actual enumeration should take place. Statistical sampling is
fraught with the potential for abuse.
One can only imagine how an administration policy which has actually
led to the registration of noncitizens with criminal records to vote
could also potentially lead to the abuse of statistical sampling.
I would like to commend the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the
chairman, for his tremendous effort in putting together a bill that
reflects our Nation's values and priorities. It provides additional
funding for State and local law enforcement, juvenile crime control,
State prison grants and drug enforcement, including efforts to stop
drug trafficking across our borders.
The bill recognizes the ongoing financial burden that States bear for
incarceration of illegal aliens. States such
[[Page H7756]]
as my State of California and others heavily impacted by illegal
immigration will be able to finally get additional relief from those
burdens.
The bill also contains very important funding for the National
Endowment for Democracy, which has played a key role in the peaceful
transitions to democracy in Poland, Chile, and South Africa. On a
budget of just $30 million, Mr. Speaker, the National Endowment for
Democracy works in over 90 countries helping democratic forces.
Countries like China, Cuba, Burma, Iraq, the Sudan, Nigeria, and the
Republics of the former Yugoslavia have benefited from programs of the
National Endowment for Democracy.
In China, the International Republican Institute, an organization
with which I am happy to be affiliated, has made tremendous strides in
bringing real democratic reforms in village elections across that
country. By educating over 500 million Chinese people in the principles
of democracy, the International Republican Institute and the National
Endowment for Democracy are creating the foundations for a more
prosperous and democratic China.
Mr. Speaker, since history shows that nations living under freely
elected democracies are not military aggressors, spending a few million
dollars for democracy building today will save billions of dollars
later in defense spending because there will be fewer threats to our
national security or our interests.
The bill also reduces funding for the Department of Commerce while
maintaining the necessary resources to monitor and enforce our trade
agreements, preserve core scientific programs, and refocus the
Department toward its basic functions of trade promotion and public
safety.
Mr. Speaker, this rule does not attempt to hide the fact that there
are a number of, as I said earlier, contentious issues in this bill,
but it deals with those issues in a fair and balanced way that allows
all sides to be heard, and ultimately the House will work its will.
{time} 1415
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues' support of both the rule and
of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me the time. This is an open rule.
It will allow full and fair debate on H.R. 2267, which is a bill that
makes appropriations for the Department of Commerce, Justice, and State
and related agencies.
Under the rule, germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute
rule and the normal amending process in the House. All Members on both
sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments as
long as those amendments do not violate House rules.
Also the rule itself executes an amendment by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hastert] substituting new language for a provision in the
bill regarding statistical sampling in the 2000 census.
In addition, the rule waives points of order against three proposed
floor amendments. One of these, to be offered by the gentleman from
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays], is a bipartisan effort to resolve a conflict over statistical
sampling in the census. I appreciate the Committee on Rules making this
amendment in order. Unless this amendment passes to change the bill's
census provision, the administration will consider vetoing the bill.
Also, the rule also makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] concerning the payment of litigation expenses when
a defendant prevails in Federal prosecution. The administration also
here has threatened to veto the bill if this amendment is included
because of the chilling effect it could have on Federal prosecutions.
I want to point out that the bill includes $2 million for Small
Business Development Center defense economic transition initiatives.
This assists small businesses that make the transition to a peaceful
economy after the end of the cold war. And one of the centers is
located in Kettering, OH, which is in my district. It has a very
successful record of helping former employees of the Defense
Electronics Supply Center of Kettering which was closed through the
defense base closure process. It has also helped with transition of the
Energy Department's Miamisburg Mound plant which shut down its nuclear
weapons operation.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules reported this rule in a voice
vote, and I would urge adoption of this open rule and of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter], my very good friend from Lincoln, the chairman
of the Subcommittee on International Economic Policy and Trade.
(Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule, and I
thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, but I wanted to take
this opportunity to speak about a subject that will be covered by the
legislation which this rule makes in order, and that is the growing
problem of alien smuggling facing Nebraska and other Midwestern States.
Mr. Speaker, Nebraska and Iowa are a major destination today for
illegal aliens and alien smugglers due to extremely low unemployment
rates, the number of meat packing plants and other labor-intensive
industries, and the two major interstate highways which cross our two
States, I-80 and I-29. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, the
INS district office in Omaha which covers all of Nebraska and all of
Iowa, has responded to 25 alien smuggling cases, and I say responded
because there are many that they have not been able to respond to, and
they have arrested 754 illegal aliens since October 1, 1996. As I said,
they could not respond to some approximately 55 possible instances of
alien smuggling involving 382 suspected illegal aliens in Nebraska and
Iowa because the resources needed to respond were unavailable.
The INS Omaha district office has a staff of 19 special agents who
handle all the enforcement responsibilities in the States of Iowa and
Nebraska. The INS office in Denver has, on the other hand, 44 special
agents, and the INS office in Kansas City has 32 special agents. While
several of the larger districts in the INS central region have anti-
smuggling units in place, the district covering Nebraska and Iowa does
not.
September 3 to September 5 the INS district office responded to 2
cases of suspected alien smuggling, apprehending 2 groups, one
containing 33 illegal aliens and one containing 18 illegal aliens.
However, it did not respond to a third incident concerning 14 suspected
illegal aliens. The reason given by the INS district office was to
respond to groups of illegal aliens smaller than 15 is discretionary,
given its limited capability, and on that day the Omaha office did not
have the necessary staff available due to the fact that some of those
personnel from the Omaha office were on assignment in Guatemala, El
Salvador, and south Texas.
This is a prime example, I believe, of the limitations placed on this
district office's enforcement duties because of limited resources. It
is clear that the Omaha INS district office needs more personnel and
specifically designating an antismuggling unit; this problem is not
being addressed.
In closing, this statement is intended to provide additional
information explaining the reason for a colloquy that will be conducted
with the chairman of the appropriation subcommittee, the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], by the gentlemen from Iowa, Nebraska. It is an
important issue for my constituents and the States of Nebraska and
Iowa, and it cannot be overlooked.
I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make certain that Members on
both sides of the aisle understand that if they are interested in
either party's position on the census question and on sampling, there
is absolutely no reason
[[Page H7757]]
whatsoever to vote against this rule. The rule provides on a self-
executing basis for the insertion of what will be considered the
Republican preference on the issue. It also provides a straight
opportunity for the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] to
offer an amendment which would in essence allow sampling to go forward,
as is the Democratic preference.
So, on either side of the aisle there is no reason to oppose this
rule. Both sides have been accommodated fully.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative
and Budget Process and, of course, the chairman of the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
greater San Dimas, CA, and the surrounding metropolitan area, the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the
Committee on Rules, for yielding time. I rise in support of this open
rule. This continues a trend of fair and responsible rules to get us
through this year's appropriation process in an orderly fashion despite
perhaps what some might call some dilatory tactics now and then.
I would like to begin by congratulating the gentleman from Kentucky
[Mr. Rogers] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for
their work on this important package. It is not a perfect bill, as we
all know, but given some very fiscal and political constraints that are
real I think they have done an extraordinary job.
This appropriations bill, probably more than any other that we have,
demonstrates the importance of making tough choices when we are
spending our precious tax dollars. There are obviously many national
priorities housed in the agencies and programs funded by this
particular legislation. Fighting crime, winning the war on drugs,
representing our interests overseas, securing our national borders are
just prime among many others. There are also clearly some wasteful
programs and agencies that come under the Commerce-Justice-State label
that need to be trimmed back, perhaps phased out altogether, something
we shall no doubt discuss through the debate under this open rule.
As a starting point for that discussion this bill does a good job of
increasing our commitment in the highest priority areas while scaling
back expenditures on what many consider lower priority items. For
example, the bill provides $300 million for a new juvenile crime block
grant that helps States attack a growing threat of crime in our
communities. I think that will be well received. The incredible rise in
crimes committed by young people is known everywhere. This trend has
hit hard in my district, too, in southwest Florida. These dollars will
enable local folks to develop local solutions, and they seem to work.
I am especially pleased that the bill provides a $100 million
increase for the State criminal alien assistance program. By fully
funding this program we have acknowledged the dilemma that States like
Florida face every day in a big way, how to pay for the incarceration
of criminal illegal aliens, and unfortunately we have too many in
Florida. Securing our borders is a Federal responsibility. So when we
fail to do that, live up to that responsibility, we need to face up to
the consequences and provide the States with the necessary resources to
do the job we could not do in Washington.
The bill also makes a strong case about our commitment to winning the
war on drugs rather than just accepting stalemate. I am fully
supportive of the $34 million allocation for a new Caribbean antidrug
initiative as part of the overall increase in funding for drug
enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, we know this bill is not perfect. The Economic
Development Administration, a relic of what I would call the Great
Society, remains intact despite mountains of testimony to its
ineffectiveness, and to that end I support the gentleman from Colorado
[Mr. Hefley] in his effort to scale back the EDA to the Senate-passed
level.
But overall this is a good bill, it deserves our support, and as we
have heard testimony from both sides of the aisle, there is no reason
not to support the rule. So let us pass the rule and get on with the
debate and finish this appropriations bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for
yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I would like to take this
opportunity to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], and the distinguished
ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], for
their fair consideration of the issues and for this rule. I am pleased
that the Committee on Rules recommended an open rule for consideration
of this bill that allows all Members on both sides of the aisle the
opportunity to debate these serious issues thoroughly.
Although this rule self-executes the Hastert amendment related to
judicial review of the 2000 census, it also makes in order a substitute
to be offered by myself and the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
While I am strongly opposed to the Hastert language, I appreciate the
Rules Committee making the Mollohan-Shays amendment in order and
providing for such a generous time for debate. Let me also thank my
chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] for supporting my
request for the Committee on Rules. It is in keeping with his overall
constructive approach to legislating.
I will not address the details of the sampling amendment at this
time; however, I do want to let my colleagues know that both Chairman
Rogers and I worked diligently in good faith to try to reach an
acceptable compromise on this issue. However, in the end we were unable
to reach an agreement, and the Hastert language has at least two fatal
flaws which have forced us to offer this substitute Mollohan-Shays
amendment.
It is important to note that the President's senior advisers will
recommend that he veto this bill if it is passed in its current form.
The new fiscal year is almost upon us, Mr. Speaker, and it is time that
we pass this bill and send it to the President for his signature. If
the Mollohan-Shays amendment is not adopted, we jeopardize the future
of all funding provided in this important measure.
The rule before us today also allows for a consideration of an
additional amendment that I, along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. Fox], intend to offer. It will increase funding for Legal Services
by $109 million, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It
is very similar to the one that was proposed and adopted last year.
In conclusion, this is a fair rule which allows for an open debate on
the merits of sampling on the floor, and other important issues, and I
urge my colleagues to support the rule, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we do not at this time have any additional
speakers. I do not know what the status of the other side is.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida [Mrs. Meek].
(Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I stand to support the Mollohan-
Shays amendment and the rule.
Today I think this is a good rule. It permits the Census Bureau to
continue planning for use of sampling.
The census always fails, Mr. Speaker, to count some people, but the
under count is always higher among blacks and minorities, and if my
colleagues can look at these data here which show the last six censuses
and the under count that occurred at that time, they will note here
beginning in 1940 each census, in each census the under count for
blacks was more than 3 percent larger than it was for the whites.
{time} 1430
The difference between the black undercount and the white undercount,
Mr. Speaker, was greater, as you can see, in the 1990 census, which is
here. In the 1990 census, 4.4 percent among blacks, more than any other
census since the beginning of the count of the census. The 1990 census
failed to count 1.4 million African-Americans. It also failed to count
2.6 million. So I am here
[[Page H7758]]
to say to Members that this particular rule hopefully will support
later on a greater accountability in our census. But the percentage of
blacks that were not counted in 1990, 5.7 percent, was much larger than
the percentage of whites not counted in 1990, which was 1.3 percent, as
we can see from the chart. If we look here, those of us who can see the
chart here, it was much greater in 1990.
Not counting, Mr. Speaker, African-Americans in the census did not
originate recently; it originated with the Founders of the Constitution
when they put in Article I, section 2 of the Constitution, way back in
1788.
To summarize, I am showing here that more blacks than non-blacks have
been missed in the census. This rule is a good rule. It is a rule that
understands that every American should be counted. The undercount has
been significant. Let us be sure this time that we have an appropriate
count.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman
from Oregon [Mr. Blumenauer].
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to express my support
for the rule that will in fact permit us to have hopefully a rational
discussion dealing with the year 2000 census. I am afraid that part of
this discussion that we have been subjected to is a very clear example
of the cold hand of partisan politics on something that needs to be
enshrined, I think, in a very positive and constructive fashion.
The census is clearly designed to get an accurate count of the
Nation's population. But according to the director of the census under
President Bush, the current enumeration methods fall far short and
simply ``cannot count everybody.''
Minorities and low income populations in cities are often
underrepresented as a result, meaning that people who often need help
the most are often not counted by their Government and are denied their
fair share of government funding. It means billions in States like
Texas and California.
Rather than wasting taxpayer money and pouring millions of dollars
into a census effort trying to deal with a head count which ultimately
will in fact fail, we propose a commonsense solution to save the
taxpayers money and come up with a more accurate count.
Under the sampling plan, 90 percent of the population would still be
counted using traditional methods. Sampling would only be used in those
areas where the census response rate is dramatically lower than normal,
and any adjustment would rely as much as possible on existing
statistical information.
The scientific community is overwhelming in their endorsement of this
approach. The Justice Department in the last three administrations,
Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, has held that sampling is in fact
constitutional. If we rely on old census methods, millions of Americans
will be missed in the next census, tax dollars will continue to be
wasted. Including census sampling in the next census will ensure we
have the fairest, most accurate census in our Nation's history.
The irony is that the politicians, who when the chips are down spend
hundreds of thousands of dollars based on sampling techniques, are not
willing to allow this methodology to be used to guarantee an accurate
and fair census. That is an outrage.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule because the rule allows
this bill to be amended freely and this bill needs to be amended. It
allows an amendment to increase funding for the Legal Services
Corporation, which we need to do, and it allows an amendment to have a
fair census, which we need to do.
We are going to hear arguments about which party benefits maybe from
a revised census count, but this is not a partisan issue. It is really
about fairness to every single citizen in the United States. And to the
extent that we fail to count any one individual in our Nation, we do a
disservice to our process.
We make it possible for some people to have greater representation
than other people, and we should make sure that that does not happen.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to have no speakers from here, but I did
want to point something out, that this is the debate on the rule, and
we all agreed this was a very important subject, the question of how we
do the census constitutionally and accurately. It matters to everybody
in this country.
We had therefore almost tripled the amount of time at the request of
the gentleman from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the
distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, my former
chairman and good friend, and I thought we provided for ample debate.
I suggest we take this noncontroversial rule and support it and get
it passed and then get to the orderly process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I will be voting for the
amendment offered by the ranking member of the subcommittee.
The effort to get a Supreme Court decision on the census before we
take the census simply will not work. The American Constitution is very
clear. For once I wish some of my colleagues paid more attention to the
very clear writing of Justice Scalia. You cannot by statute constitute
the U.S. Supreme Court as an advisory body to tell us in advance of
what happens.
There is an amendment that says you cannot go forward with the census
sampling until the Supreme Court has decided it, but the Supreme Court
will disregard this. Have we not learned from what happened with the
line-item veto? The requirement that there be an actual case or
controversy and an aggrieved party is something that is strictly
enforced by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, if Members want to ban sampling, they ought to offer
that as a vote. I would not be for it. But no one should console
themselves that we can vote to have the Supreme Court by our
instruction take a case which constitutionally they will not take and
then have solved the problem.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and rise in support of the rule and the Mollohan-Shays amendment.
Mr. Speaker, we have never performed a census that did not contain an
undercount. As long ago as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson lamented
the inability to perform an accurate census. As a result, the Census
Bureau has constantly reviewed the practices and worked with scientists
to develop the most accurate census possible.
Years of work and years of scientific advancements have led this
Census Bureau and the National Academy of Sciences to conclude that
using sampling in addition to enumeration is the best possible option
for an accurate census.
We spent in 1995 as a Nation $33 million to test the value of
sampling. Where is the logic in appropriating $33 million to test the
science of sampling, and then throw out the results afterwards? There
is no logic. It is convoluted.
In my own City of Patterson, NJ, the census did a sampling and
increased in 1995, because there were three cities involved, 8,000 the
number of people there.
Think of how many people are undercounted throughout America. Think
in those areas where there are overcounts as well. The experiment of
1995 proved quite clearly the value and necessity of sampling. We
cannot count noses by simply counting noses.
Some have argued that sampling is unconstitutional. The counsels of
three separate administrations have ruled to the contrary.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink].
(Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and
extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
me time.
[[Page H7759]]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, because it will allow
this body to have an opportunity to listen to the debate on the
Mollohan-Shays amendment, which will rectify the severe injustice
contained in the bill itself. I speak of the question of the census and
the necessity of making it possible for the undercount that occurred in
the last census to be corrected.
It was a very serious, inaccurate count, and requires that this body
pay attention to it and correct it. Ten percent of the count of the
census was wrong. GAO estimates an error rate of 26 million, including
people who were missed, counted twice, or in the wrong place.
Equally disturbing is the undercount of the number of racial and
ethnic groups in the last census that were not counted. Hundreds of
thousands of Asian-Pacific Americans were not counted in the census, an
estimated rate of 2.3 percent; for Hispanics, a rate of 5 percent; and
African-Americans, a rate of 4 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I urge that this rule be adopted and a serious debate on
the Mollohan-Shays amendment occur.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am willing to say that the majority is prepared to
stipulate that this is a good rule; in fact, a very good rule. The
majority is prepared to stipulate that it is noncontroversial. The
majority is prepared to stipulate that we could get on with the debate
and we will, therefore, reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________