[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.

                          ____________________