[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8229-H8244]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, because sampling equals one 
vote and good science and good constitutional support, I rise to 
support the Mollohan-Shays amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Shays amendment to 
H.R. 2267, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations. This amendment if 
adopted would add language prohibiting use of any 1998 funds to make 
irreversible plans or preparations for the use of sampling or any other 
statistical method, including statistical adjustment, in taking the 
census for purposes of congressional apportionment. This same language 
is included in the Senate-passed version of the bill.
  This amendment would also create a Board of Observers for a Fair and 
Accurate Census, with the function of observing and monitoring all 
aspects of the preparation and execution of Census 2000, to determine 
whether the process has been manipulated--through sampling, statistical 
adjustments, or otherwise--in any way that biases the results in favor 
of any geographic region, population group, or political party.

[[Page H8230]]

  The constitutional requirements for the census are simple. Article I, 
section 2 clause 3, as amended by the 14th amendment, provides that the 
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according 
to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in 
each State.
  It has come to my attention that the revised language in the rule 
regarding the census which would be automatically incorporated into the 
bill does not as reported provide for an expedited judicial review to 
determine the legality and constitutionality of sampling for purposes 
of apportionment or redistricting.
  The critical test which would authorize judicial review is standing. 
From precedents we can be strongly counseled that the conferral of 
standing, especially in its definitional design of injury in fact, 
would be inadequate to authorize judicial review until the occurrence 
of the injury, the calculation of population figures showing the gains 
and losses of seats in the House of Representatives.
  The case law makes it clear that this authorization, if enacted, 
would run afoul of constitutional barriers to congressional conferral 
either of standing or ripeness or both.
  This would leave Congress in a poor light judicially, because we lack 
the power to create a definition of standing or of the imminent 
likelihood of injury giving standing that would infringe the 
constitutional requirement of standing of injury in fact or of the 
imminent likelihood of injury. This is not where this body should leave 
the issue of an accurate census for our Nation.
  Under article II, of the Constitution for a litigant to have 
standing, he must allege an injury in fact to himself or to an 
interest; if the injury has not yet occurred, he must allege a strong 
basis for fear that the injury will happen, that there is a real danger 
of the injury being felt. The quoted provisions purport to confer 
standing far beyond this constitutional requirement.
  If I recall correctly, in the last Congress, a number of proposals 
came forward which failed to limit the terms of those who serve in this 
body. Now, that the Census is upon us as a natural mechanism to 
creating turnover in the House we want a judicial challenge to the use 
of sampling that most believe is an accurate and reliable means of 
counting the population of this country.
  The legal issue is sampling. Sampling and statistical adjustment of 
the decennial population census taken for the purpose of apportioning 
the Representatives in Congress among the States, have become 
increasingly controversial during the past two decades.
  According to a Congressional Research report, the constitutional and 
statutory language relevant to sampling and statistical techniques 
appears to be clear, but never the less have been the subject of 
competing interpretations which would either permit or prohibit 
sampling and other statistical techniques in the census for 
apportionment. Although no court has ever decided the issue squarely on 
point, several courts have expressed opinions in dicta.
  Today, some Members of the House of Representatives have declared a 
political and philosophical Jihad on the use of sampling for the 2000 
census.
  As a Member of the House Committee on Science, I am here to state 
clearly that this is not a matter of political philosophy, but 
scientific fact.
  In 1990, the city of Houston, TX, was undercounted by 3.9 percent 
during that year's census which only recorded 1,630,553 residents. 
Based on sampling that was prepared for that census, but never used it 
is estimated that over 66,000 Houstonians were missed by the 1990 
census.
  It is impossible to count every resident of this country in the time 
allotted, for the census with the funds which have been appropriated. I 
am aware of the work done by three separate panels convened by the 
National Academy of Science which have recommended that the Census 
Bureau use sampling in the 2000 census to save money and improve census 
accuracy.
  The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-
perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific 
and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and 
technology and to their use for the general welfare.
  It is a fact that despite the gains made by the Bureau of the Census 
in address list development, form design, pre-notice and reminder 
mailings, and various outreach efforts, exclusive reliance on physical 
enumeration of all households cannot be successful in 2000. Based on 
the results of the 1990 census, it is highly unlikely that the Census 
Bureau can carry out this type of decennial census with acceptable 
accuracy within the current expected levels of funding.
  The ability to use sampling during the 2000 census will ensure that 
any undercounting which may occur in this census because of sparsely 
populated regions of States like Texas or more densely populated cities 
like Houston, and Dallas can be held to a minimum. Undercounting the 
results of the 2000 census would negatively impact Texas' share of 
Federal funds for block grants, housing, education, health, 
transportation, and numerous other federally funded programs. The 
census, as you know, is also used in projections and planning decisions 
made by States, counties, and city governments.
  I would ask that all of my colleagues support the Mollohan-Shays 
amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra].
  (Mr. BECERRA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I want to read from a document entitled ``How To Use The Language of 
the 21st Century'' by a pollster often used by a number of Members, 
mostly Republican Members. It states as follows, regarding Hispanic 
Americans:

       ``Our majority is at stake.
       ``Republicans barely maintained their congressional 
     majority in 1996, and a major reason their support dropped 
     from 1994 was the utter collapse of the Hispanic vote. In all 
     the large key States, California, Texas, Florida and New 
     York, the Hispanic percentage of the total vote is 
     significant and growing.
       ``We do not need a majority of Hispanics to win a majority 
     of the vote. In areas of heavy Latino concentration, any 
     Republican who wins more than a third of the Latino vote will 
     be elected. It is that simple. But if we allow our percentage 
     among Hispanics to fall below 25 percent, the Bob Dornan loss 
     in California will be repeated again and again.''

  We do not want to have a census that counts us all accurately because 
if we do there is a good chance that we will catch all those Hispanics 
that were not counted in the 1990 census. And if we look at the 1996 
election, we will see that Hispanics are not voting Republican because 
of all the assaults on the Hispanic community by this Republican 
majority.
  Does it make any sense for the Republicans to want to count all 
Latinos in this country when they are not voting for Democrats? Is 
anyone surprised that we do not want to see an accurate count come out 
of the 2000 census and count the one community that was most 
undercounted in the 1990 census?
  It makes perfect political sense. Unfortunately, we should not be 
driven by politics in deciding what the Constitution has called one of 
the most important activities in this country, and that is counting 
every single American. Unfortunately, with this bill, we do not count 
every American. If we had the Mollohan-Shays amendment, we would.
  We should vote for that amendment because it is the right thing to 
do. It is not the political thing to do.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Wicker].
  (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the Mollohan 
amendment and to the concept of census sampling.
  This vote goes to the heart of the question: Will our Nation carry 
out an honest, accurate and complete census in the year 2000? And, 
beyond that, to the question: Will the United States have a fair 
congressional reapportionment in the year 2002?
  As my other colleagues have said, my opposition to sampling is based 
on a variety of reasons. The guessing scheme is unconstitutional, it is 
contrary to statutory law, it is unreliable, and it is subject to 
abuse. The Constitution calls for ``actual enumeration,'' and actual 
enumeration means actual counting. It says count the ``whole number'' 
in the 14th amendment. The United States Code specifically precludes 
the use of sampling for determining congressional reapportionment.
  The chairman of the subcommittee is right. This may be one of the 
most significant and far-reaching votes of this entire Congress. The 
Constitution requires an actual count. Vote ``no'' on the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].

[[Page H8231]]

  (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible support 
of this amendment and also for sampling. It is the fair way to count, 
it is a proven way to count, and it is scientific. This is the fair way 
to make sure everybody is included in a democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, I am strongly in favor of this important amendment. The 
impartial, outside experts--including GAO and the National Academy of 
Sciences agree that sampling must be used in the next census for it is 
the best method as well as the most cost-effective method.
  Undercounting hurts those who are already hurting--the poor, 
children, rural area, and urban areas. If there is a method that gives 
them fair billing, why not use it--why use a method that we know, that 
we know undercounts people. The census numbers are critical for it is 
upon their foundation that most Federal dollars are distributed.
  The census undercount is not just an inner city, minority problem. 
Rural communities are undercounted, too. And poor rural areas are 
undercounted to a greater degree than the country as a whole.
  The net undercount for the Nation in 1990 was 1.6 percent, or about 4 
million people. That's the difference between the 10 million people who 
were missed and the 6 million who were counted twice, errors that don't 
cancel each other out because people who are missed don't tend to live 
in the same neighborhoods as those who are likely to be counted more 
than once.
  By contrast, the undercount of rural renters in 1990 was 5.9 percent. 
Owner/renter status is a proxy for income, so the proportion of poor 
rural people who were missed was far greater than the Nation as a 
whole. Ninety percent of the rural renters missed were not minorities.
  Mr. Chairman, in the South, in 1990, the undercount of white renters 
was 6.23 percent, representing more than 10 percent of the total 
national undercount. For American Indians living on reservations, the 
1990 undercount was more than 12 percent.
  We cannot pretend this does not affect large groups of citizens, Mr. 
Chairman. Vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  (Ms. DeLAURO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and rise in support of the Mollohan-Shays amendment.
  A sampling has been verified, it is a practice in the business 
community, it is the direction we should go.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer]. Along with the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney] the gentleman from Ohio has been extremely active 
on this issue. He is knowledgeable and has done an extremely good job.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The Romans had a phrase that captured the essence of intellectual 
corruption: ``Video'' meliora proboque deteriora sequor. It means: ``I 
see the better course of action and approve it, but the worse path is 
the one I take.'' It could describe our work today.
  Before us is a plan to count the Nation. It is legal, it is 
constitutional and supported by the broad consensus of science. The 
alternative will doom the census, the underpinning of our democracy, to 
failure. It will not be above reproach if we follow the language in the 
bill, it will be below respect.
  The heart of the argument is over the use of sampling, which has been 
a part of the census for seven decades. Now, some say that the 
Constitution requires ``an actual enumeration'', and I agree, it does. 
However, as in so many things, history is important and instructive.
  Madison and Sherman, in framing the great compromise, struggled to 
find a formula for proportional representation. Slave State delegates 
favored property as the rule for representation. They felt their slaves 
would be included as a measure of wealth and a useful substitute for 
population. Free States were hostile to slavery as a basis for any form 
of democracy and argued for an actual measurement of the number of 
inhabitants, not some measure of wealth as a partial substitute for 
population. Hence the term ``actual enumeration'' of people as opposed 
to some other method.
  So we ask, what is an actual enumeration as determined by law, by the 
Congress? Well, in 1790, Thomas Jefferson sent out 600 Federal 
marshals. It took 8 months and he missed a million people. So in the 
1800's they hired tens of thousands of temporary workers, who brought 
their disparate lists back to Washington where an army of ``census 
girls'' added them up by hand. In the end of the century, that took 
over 8 years to complete.
  So in 1890 they used a punch card machine to record and tally results 
untouched by human hands. By 1940 they introduced sampling and have 
used it ever since. And in 1960 the census used the mails to deliver 
and collect forms, counting people without ever having knocked on their 
doors, and they still do today.
  In short, as the Nation changes, techniques of actual enumeration 
have changed, but we still count population, not something else, as the 
Constitution requires. Still, it has gotten harder, so after the 
problems of 1990, the Congress did the right thing. We asked the 
General Accounting Office and the inspector general and the National 
Academy of Science's National Research Council and panels of outside 
experts who, to a one and without exception, said build on traditional 
methods, of course; use the most intensive mail and door-to-door 
techniques ever tried; and then supplement them with an expanded use of 
scientific sampling to test and improve the count.
  Will that work? Well, let us listen to Speaker Gingrich, as I have. I 
have read his book and I have listened to the tape of his course. In 
both he cites the work of W. Edwards Deming in the use of statistical 
quality control methods as one of his five pillars of American 
civilization.
  And what does Deming say? He says, in his magnum opus on the topic, 
that the census is the earliest and largest and most successful full-
scale application of statistical quality control, far beyond the dreams 
of private organizations, attributable to effective statistical work 
for continual improvement of quality and productivity.
  The Speaker knew then what he knows now. Statistical measurements 
help produce a better result. Because Deming's principles are more 
valid and compelling today than ever before, ignoring them, failing 
even to test them next spring, as this bill would prevent, will produce 
a far worse and much more expensive census.
  If Deming were alive today, he would be ashamed of us. He would say 
shame on us. He would tell us, ``I taught you the better course of 
action, but the lesser path is the one you take.'' I prefer we do the 
best we can in counting the Nation. Anything less is a step toward 
intellectual corruption and a debasement of our democracy.
  The Mollohan-Shays amendment will produce the finest count of which 
this Nation is capable. We have little choice, if we are to respect the 
constitutional mandate, but to follow it.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas, [Mr. Brady].
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, America is so large, I always marvel at the 
challenge we face each census to count every person in this country. 
But because we have been conducting a census every 10 years since our 
Nation was founded, it is remarkably accurate. Even the harshest 
critics admit the last census was nearly 99 percent accurate.
  But as good as that is, nearly 99 percent accurate is not nearly good 
enough because we rely on our census for a lot of our community goods, 
our funding and how large a voice we have in our local government, 
State legislatures and Congress.
  As we have heard tonight, the census is so important it is enumerated 
in the very first article of the Constitution. It is insisted that we 
count every person in America, not estimated, not guessed at, and not 
determined by some algorithm of a subset of the percentage of the 
combined data collection error minus the rostering factor multiplied by 
the inmoving/outmoving ratio or something complicated.
  Sampling is not constitutional. Like all statistics, it is easily 
manipulated. It is based on lowering our census accuracy to 90 percent 
and then guessing the rest. The Republican approach is constitutional, 
it is proven, and it counts real live human beings.

[[Page H8232]]

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has 
9\1/2\ minutes and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] has 15\1/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment, and I bring to it some level of experience. From 1983 to 
1990 I enforced the Voting Rights Act in Arizona, and in 1990 I 
represented the Arizona legislature in reapportionment.
  Mr. Chairman, no less than the integrity of this Nation is at stake 
in this amendment. This is not a difficult issue. My colleagues have 
accurately pointed out that both the United States Constitution 
specifically requires an actual count and so does Federal law.
  This is not a question that is in doubt, but let me urge my 
colleagues to consider the consequences of what is being proposed by 
this amendment. Never, I repeat, never in the 200-year history of this 
country has there been a deliberate attempt to count less than the 
entire population.
  Contrary to what we just heard on that side of the aisle, what the 
census proposes in this sampling idea is to deliberately count only 90 
percent of Americans and then to stop at that point and estimate the 
rest. Until 1990, the Census Bureau rejected sampling and said it was 
unconstitutional.
  I call on my colleagues to imagine the incentives we are creating. If 
we tell America we are only going to count, actually count, until we 
get to 90 percent, and then we are going to sample from that point on, 
what motive is there for a single American to send in the form; and 
what faith will they have in this system?
  The Constitution says enumerate one-by-one and do an actual count. 
This is a bad idea and is at the heart of integrity in our government.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
  [Mr. FAZIO of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.]
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of 
the Mollohan-Shays amendment which will allow the Census Bureau to 
conduct a fair and accurate census in the year 2000.
  I rise today to urge you to support the Mollohan-Shays amendment 
which will allow the Census Bureau to conduct a fair and accurate 
census in the year 2000.
  The limited use of sampling is a crucial part of an accurate count 
and serves only as a supplement to the Census Bureau's aggressive 
direct counting effort.
  The decennial census provides the cornerstone of knowledge about the 
people of our Nation.
  State and local governments use census data to draw legislative 
districts of equal population.
  The Federal Government uses census data to distribute billions of 
dollars in grants according to population-based formulas.
  Federal, tribal, State and local officials study the patterns of 
detailed census data before constructing hospitals, highways, bridges, 
and schools.
  And businesses use census data when deciding where to locate 
production facilities and retail outlets.
  Ten percent of the count in 1990 was inaccurate, and GAO estimates an 
error rate of 26 million.
  Contrary to popular belief, an undercount affects not only those in 
urban centers, but also those who live in remote rural areas.
  Children and minorities were disproportionately undercounted, 
resulting in vital Federal services being underallocated for those who 
need them most.
  The 2000 census is an unprecedented effort by the Census Bureau to 
ensure that all Americans are accounted for wherever they live, and I 
urge you to support the Bureau's innovative plan for the 2000 census, 
including sampling, and vote for the Mollohan-Shays amendment today.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald].
  (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Mollohan-Shays amendment ensuring that each American is fairly counted.
  Mr. Chairman. I rise today in support of the Mollohan-Shays 
amendment, a bipartisan measure to allow the Census Bureau to use the 
scientific method of sampling to conduct the decentennial census in the 
year 2000. The current system is inefficient and expensive and needs to 
be fixed. There are various undercount problems that need to be solved 
before the numbers are delivered to the Congress--problems that affect 
congressional representation. These numbers also affect fundamental 
Federal community programs for the impoverished. In 1990, the 
differential undercount, where the census inadvertently omits a higher 
proportion of the minority population than the majority, was the 
highest it has been since the 1940's--4.4 percent of blacks, 5.0 
percent of Hispanics, 2.3 percent of Asians and Pacific Islanders, and 
4.5 percent of American Indians were unaccounted for, compared with 
only 1.2 percent of non-Hispanic whites.
  Sampling is not a new technique. Especially in conducting the census. 
The method used to develop socio-economic profiles of the U.S. 
population employs extensive use of sampling. For instance, the Census 
Bureau's long form is sent to only one in six households. It is used to 
obtain most of our information about income, educational attainment, 
ancestry, and housing stock, just to name a few categories.
  Sampling methods are not just limited to the Census. Tax legislation 
is written using data collected by sample surveys. Health legislation 
is based on the national health, examination, and nutrition survey. 
Even the consumer price index, whether it is ever reformed or not, will 
be calculated from two different sample surveys--the point of purchase 
survey and the consumer expenditure survey. And we rely on scientific 
sampling and analysis to improve the CPI's accuracy.
  All the Census Bureau wants to do is to expand its capabilities 
to adjust for the undercount before its deadline to report the numbers. 
Under the Constitution, these are the numbers we use to reapportion our 
congressional districts. These data are also used for revenue-sharing 
purposes. So, to oppose sampling methodology to produce one single, 
accurate figure to be reported, makes no sense. I ask you, Is there 
some reason my colleagues don't want the census results to be accurate? 
Is there some reason they don't want the more transient among our 
population--the minorities, immigrants, low income, and impoverished 
counted in the official numbers? You tell me, because I can't figure it 
out. But I agree with a statement by Barbara Baylar, vice president for 
survey research at the National Opinion Research Center. She explained 
that:

       Oftentimes the pressures are not to produce data to support 
     some position but not to produce data. All of us can name 
     examples--income data, poverty data--that exerted [such] 
     pressure. Not to produce this data in a timely and efficient 
     manner is a brand of know-nothing-ism that we cannot afford 
     to tolerate in the era of the information age, at the dawn of 
     the new millennium.

  This is a serious issue. The 1990 numbers undercounted the United 
States population by 4 million people. That's 1.6 percent. In the State 
of California alone, the nonsampling method missed 834,000 people. 
That's 2.7 percent. The Mollohan-Shays amendment would allow the Census 
Bureau to conduct its research more accurately and inexpensively, and 
should be supported by Members on both sides of the aisle. I encourage 
all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the most damning things about 
this body is the partisan deceit that takes place, partisan deceit for 
political gain.
  This bill allows a 35 percent error rate within a district. Yeah, can 
you make it up nationally. But look in the past in the gerrymandering 
and reapportionment. Do you have any doubt where that 35 percent is 
going to take place? In individual Republican districts.
  No, I do not trust. Why? If this body had operated in a bipartisan 
way, look at the White House union issue with the White House directing 
money. Look at the FBI files. Look at the INS keeping registration. And 
in San Diego, they kept Republicans from registering new Members of 
this body, of this country. Look at China and the Trie and the Huang 
and the Riady. Look across-the-board at the political manipulation.
  My mom told me, ``If you tell enough lies, you are going to go to 
hell.'' Well,

[[Page H8233]]

I want to tell my colleagues something: On Medicare, Medicaid, 
education and the environment, the Democrat leadership is going to need 
a big fan when they die.
  Do we trust the President? Absolutely not. Vote no on this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] has 12\3/4\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from West Virginia has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I have only two speakers left.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am not a great fan of calling amendments 
by Members' names. My general view is if we have campaign finance 
reform to call it the bipartisan bill for campaign finance reform and 
not attach a Member's name to it. But I want to say to my colleagues 
that I take tremendous pride today in having this be the Mollohan-Shays 
amendment.
  I really believe that the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] and others, frankly, on 
that side of the aisle are right and most of my colleagues on my side 
of the aisle are wrong.
  I believe, with all my heart and soul, that the Census Bureau needs 
to test intensive door-to-door surveys, it needs to test outreach 
programs, it needs to test advertising, it needs to test hiring 
practices and who they hire, it needs to test telephone responses, it 
needs to test multiple site form distributions, it needs to test 
polling by mail, and yes, it also needs to test and review the results 
of statistical sampling.
  What most on my side of the aisle want to do is deny the Commerce 
Department and the Census Bureau the opportunity to prove the validity 
of statistical sampling. The issue here is not whether we will do it 
for the year 2000 census, the issue is will we be able to test to prove 
its validity. Sadly, on my side of the aisle, too many simply do not 
want that to even be proven.
  Now, that is true because my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hastert], has decided to come in with an amendment that, 
basically, says we cannot even test for statistical sampling until the 
court has made a decision. But it is not the same thing.
  Here we ask for parliamentary inquiries and the Speaker entertains 
it. But we cannot ask the court for a parliamentary inquiry. We cannot 
ask them to decide the constitutionality of a particular issue before 
they have a case before them.
  So just like the line-item veto, the court might hear something and 
say, ``We cannot decide, so we will never have a decision.'' In effect, 
my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] will have 
achieved his objective. Statistical sampling will not even be allowed 
to be reviewed for determination on whether it works.
  Now, the bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is that the science, 
not the politics, but the science proves that the National Academy of 
Science, the Inspector General, Commerce Department, the General 
Accounting Office, the American Numerical Statistical Association, and 
others, believe, with all their heart and soul, that the best way and 
the fairest count is to use statistical sampling after we have gone 
four times into the community and after we have reached 90 percent of 
the households.
  One of my colleagues stood up and talked in great faith about how it 
was important to go from house to house. What do we do when someone 
leaves at 6 in the morning and does not get home until 12 at night? 
What do we do? Are we going to wait for them at 1 o'clock in the 
morning? No. We are just not going to count them.
  What are we going to do, be standing at the door? We go four or five 
times to that apartment and no one is there.
  The bottom line is we will undercount people in rural areas if we do 
not have statistical sampling, we will undercount people in urban areas 
if we do not have statistical sampling; and, yes, most of them, sadly, 
will be minorities.
  I believe that we should allow the Census Bureau to do its job, and I 
believe we should not interfere. I know we have the protection to make 
sure that statistical sampling is applied fairly. We would have an 
appointment from the Republican side and an appointment from the 
Democrat side to review this. We would have the Comptroller General, 
who, by the way, is appointed by the President, but only from three 
nominations made by four Republicans and four Democrats. I hope and 
pray that this amendment passes.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  When we cannot find those folks in the apartment houses and the 
homeless shelters, we do like people in Milwaukee did, we hire the 
homeless folks to go and seek them out. We also go out and work and 
hire postal employees to deliver the mail on weekends to find out where 
these people are. It can be done, and has been done, and should be 
done.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Barr].
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, former Treasury Secretary William 
Simon has said that ``People use statistics like drunks use lampposts, 
for support rather than illumination.'' He would feel right at home on 
the other side tonight.
  Somebody else would feel right at home on the other side tonight who 
wrote 132 years ago in a book on Alice. As Lewis Carroll had them 
saying, ``Then you should say what you mean,'' the March hare went on. 
``I do,'' Alice hastily replied; ``at least, at least I mean what I 
say. That's the same thing, you know.'' ``Not the same thing a bit,'' 
said the Hatter. ``Why, you might just as well say that `I see what I 
eat' is the same thing as `I eat what I see.' ''
  Mr. Chairman, this is a debate on the other side out of the 
``Twilight Zone.'' Let us look at reality. This administration, Mr. 
Chairman, has politicized the INS, the FBI, Department of Justice. We 
have seen Filegate, Travelgate. Let us not allow them to develop 
Censusgate.
  If any administration has ever abused its power vested in it by the 
American people, Mr. Chairman, this administration has. Should the 
American people actually believe that this administration would not 
jump at the opportunity to use the census for its own political gain?
  Fortunately, though, Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers envisaged 
that some day an administration would abuse its power and would attempt 
to manipulate the census. And Mr. Chairman, like they have done so many 
times before, thank goodness, our Founding Fathers predicted the error 
of our ways and saved us from our own demise; they provided us with a 
guide on how to run a democracy.
  That guide, which too many Members ignore, is the U.S. Constitution. 
And on the issues of the census, it is unambiguous. The constitutional 
cornerstone of a representative democracy is the right to vote, and 
that is inextricably linked to the right to be counted.
  The affirmed intent of the U.S. Constitution holds that the decennial 
census must be an actual count. Article I, section 2 of the 
Constitution states: ``The actual enumeration shall be made within 
three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United 
States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner 
as they,'' that is the Congress, ``shall by law direct.''
  In 1868, as part of the 14th amendment, there was further clarity, 
stating in part: ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the 
several States according to their respective numbers, counting the 
whole number of persons in each State.''
  Three key principles arise from a study of the Constitution on this 
issue. First, the decennial census must be an ``actual enumeration.'' 
Second, the ``actual enumeration'' must be ``a counting of the whole 
number of persons in each State.'' And third, the decennial census must 
be conducted ``in such a manner as they (Congress) shall by law 
direct.''
  The first challenge to the actual count came at the Constitutional 
Convention itself, when my own State of Georgia sought additional 
representation based on expected population growth. This was not 
allowed. The Framers' intent was that congressional apportionment must 
be based on actual count at the time of the census-taking.
  Even though census figures are used for many determinations, the only 
constitutionally mandated purpose for the

[[Page H8234]]

census is the determination of the U.S. population in order to 
apportion congressional seats. And for this purpose, the Constitution's 
requirements are crystal clear and they are mandatory.
  In the 1950's, a small group of statisticians proposed the use of 
statistical sampling and adjustments as a gap filler for the decennial 
census. Wary of the potential for data manipulation, Congress enacted a 
statutory provision (13 U.S.C. Sect. 195) restricting the use of the 
statistical sampling and adjustments, stating: ``The Secretary of the 
Commerce shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of 
sampling except for the determination of population for purposes of 
apportionment of Representatives.''
  Mr. Chairman, the Clinton administration is on the verge of creating 
a virtual America based on virtual people, but based on a very real 
violation of law and of our Constitution. Congress has not waived, nor 
can it waive, the constitutional requirement that the decennial census 
must be an ``actual enumeration,'' and the ``counting of the whole 
number of persons of each State'' is a requirement.
  Mr. Chairman, no administration should have the ability to alter the 
census for any reason, especially for political gain. This 
administration has proved it will do and say anything in the name of 
politics. Congress must not allow them to politicize the census. It is 
here that we must draw the line and defeat this amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether my colleague 
from Georgia [Mr. Barr] still believes that the Constitution suggested 
that a black person is only three-fifths of a person and that the 
Constitution also supported slavery. Does it still support slavery?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] has not stated a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Sawyer] to speak to the Milwaukee representations made by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert].
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hastert], I think justifiably lauded the effort that the city of 
Milwaukee and others made in 1990. With that effort, they were able to 
keep their undercount to about 2.2 percent. The national average, 
however, was 1.6 percent, a 30 percent higher undercount, despite their 
numerous effort.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel].
  (Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan-
Shays amendment.
  I rise to give my strong support to a fair and accurate Census 2000 
which can be accomplished through the use of statistical sampling. This 
issue should not be caught up in cynical partisan sniping.
  Three separate panels of experts convened by the National Academy of 
Sciences have recommended the use of sampling. Sampling in the 2000 
Census has also been endorsed by the American Statistical Association, 
the American Sociological Association, the National Association of 
Business Economists. These are groups for whom the census is a matter 
of science and not politics.
  The fact is that no matter how hard the Census Bureau reaches out 
(and during the 2000 Census they will be using more methods than ever 
before to reach every American) we simply cannot count every person.
  The 1990 Census failed to count 1.6 million. The majority of those 
who were missed were minorities, and residents of poor rural 
communities.
  During the last Census, African-Americans were six times more likely 
to be uncounted than Non-Hispanic White Americans. Hispanic American 
were seven times more likely to be undercounted than Non-Hispanic White 
Americans.
  These are groups who are shut out of the workings of our Government 
in so many ways. By opposing the use of sampling we are further 
alienating these people who deserve to be counted and need to be 
counted.
  In undercounting these groups we are denying them their apportionment 
of Federal funding which the Census determines.
  Some of my colleagues have characterized sampling as guessing. The 
Census Bureau will not be making numbers up. Sampling is a well-tested 
method of following-up on those households which have not responded.
  The Department of Justice under the administrations of Presidents 
Carter, Bush, and Clinton have all concluded that sampling is 
Constitutional.
  We should not tie the hands of the Census Bureau because we are 
afraid of the political ramifications, or for any other reason.
  If we want a fair census, if we want an accurate census, then we 
ought to let the Census Bureau conduct a professional census by using 
any method they deem necessary for accuracy, including statistical 
sampling.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the distinguished minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from West Virginia 
[Mr. Mollohan] for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, it is important to remember that an accurate census 
forms the foundation of our representative government and that every 
American has a right to be counted. Sampling is the most efficient, the 
most cost-effective, and the most accurate means of conducting a 
census. Sampling has the backing of the National Academy of Sciences, 
the American Statistical Association, the General Accounting Office, 
and even the census director under the Bush administration.
  So the question then is, why are my Republican colleagues opposing 
sampling? They are afraid of the truth. They are afraid that an 
accurate count might include the 4 million Americans who were not 
counted in the last census, mostly children, minorities, and people 
living in rural areas.

                              {time}  1930

  My distinguished colleague from Ohio reminded me that half of that 4 
million that was not counted in the last census were children.
  My colleagues, we are obligated under the Constitution to conduct an 
accurate census of all Americans, all Americans. Sampling allows us to 
do that. The Republican efforts to undermine the census for political 
gain is an insult to voters. It is also an insult to the Constitution 
that we, as Members, are sworn to uphold.
  I cannot help but notice on this day that the pattern in this bill 
and the case of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is the 
same. First, they do not count the people, and if that is not good 
enough, they do not count their votes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Shays 
amendment.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas].
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, up until the last speaker, I thought we 
were doing pretty well focusing on the issues in front of us. A lot of 
people think the census, and I quote from a letter that I got, the 
census is the only source of reliable, comparable, small-area data on 
income, occupation, and labor force participation, educational 
attainment, household structure, and other key demographic and economic 
data. And many Members have said, I think quite correctly, there is 
only one reason why we have the census constitutionally. It was that 
grand experiment the Founding Fathers decided to try: government by the 
people.
  Mr. Chairman, I know the gentleman, Mr. Watts, indicated and others 
propounded on, the fact that the actual enumeration in article I, is 
the manner by which Congress shall pose. I say, ``It's how you do it, 
not what you do,'' and I noticed every one of those individuals did not 
then turn to the 14th Amendment, as has been done on this side. After 
that great conflict it was determined that all people, I tell my friend 
and colleague from Georgia, that all people were to be counted, not 
three-fifths of a person, when all people

[[Page H8235]]

were to be counted. The second clause of the 14th amendment says 
``whole number of persons,'' ``whole number of persons.''
  I noticed also that as the minority side propounded its 
constitutional arguments; that is, that it is constitutionally 
permissible to sample, I never heard the Supreme Court mentioned once. 
I heard the Department of Justice under Democrats, I heard the 
Department of Justice under Republicans. I never heard the Supreme 
Court. What we are proposing to do is to say all right.
  Now I tell my friend from West Virginia, the problem is not bad 
science the folks are concerned about, it is science. When we 
statistically sample, we must necessarily adjust. Adjustment means 
changing the numbers. Inevitably when we adjust, we take numbers from 
real people that were counted and substitute them for people who have 
not been counted. The Constitution does not say that can be done. We 
will be subtracting real people and counting people who have not been 
counted. That is the fundamental basis of adjustment.
  Frankly, to tell me that professional statisticians are in favor of 
statistical adjustment is like going to a cattlemen's association 
annual convention and having two items on the menu, beef and fish. 
Guess which one they will choose?
  Statistically, I guess we could say this is a bipartisan amendment; 
three Republicans will support it. That is the problem with statistics. 
But, as my colleagues know, we do concede that America is a mobile 
society and that information that we were talking about is useful and 
valuable. What we find, as has been pointed out by colleague after 
colleague, in the statute in section 195 says, ``You can sample. You 
can statistically adjust. You can over that 10-year period attempt to 
make the numbers reflect where the people are.'' But it says, ``When 
you count for enumeration, you count, you do not estimate.''
  Technology can help us and creativity can help us be a lot more 
effective in our count. The gentleman from West Virginia and the 
gentleman from Ohio said, correctly, the 1990 census was only 1.6 
percent off. Why in the world, if we were only 1.6 percent off, do we 
back up to count, as the gentlewoman from New York said, only 90 
percent? Why do we not focus on that 1.6 percent that we did not count? 
We have been told who was not counted. Great. Let us go count the ones 
we are told were not counted. If it takes more money, put more money 
in.
  Every day somebody visits those households, they know where they are. 
Why have people who do not know the neighborhood do the counting? My 
colleague from Illinois mentioned mail carriers. Those people are 
available. We should use them.
  How about this: Create a lottery. The ticket for the lottery is one's 
filled in form. I think we will have a couple of drawings that will 
increase the numbers significantly. Educate. School kids, ``just say no 
on drugs,'' was a very useful message started in the schools. Let us 
get some programs going about how important it is to count. It just 
seems to me that there are any number of ways that we can assist.
  But I want to spend the final minute or 2 on this business of 
politics. This amendment offers us a board of observers to ensure 
fairness. Now remember, under the Constitution, the only reason we have 
the census is to make sure that the People's House is based upon 
people, that it is the House of Representatives. The proposed board of 
observers says the President gets one vote, the House and the Senate 
together get one vote, and the Presidential appointment gets the third.
  Hey, we do not have the President, that is OK. In the next census, if 
we are lucky, we will be able to elect a President, and we might have 
the 2 to 1 ratio. Read the fine print. This board dissolves itself in 
2001. After it is done, they are dissolved.
  But fundamentally, my colleagues, the Founding Fathers knew what they 
were doing. They knew what politics was all about. They knew what power 
was. Go back and reread Federalist 10. They knew perfectly well the use 
and abuse of power. That is why they said, with clear intent, an actual 
enumeration.
  A noble experiment, government by the people, this is embodied in the 
Constitution. Count whole people. The fundamental distribution of power 
in this society is to be based upon real people, not estimated people, 
but less than 10 years after that was propounded and agreed to, then 
Gov. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts figured out a way to beat the 
system. They went ahead and took the census, and then they drew 
districts that were not fair, and I guess as a place in history, it is 
now known as the gerrymander.
  For more than 150 years, when we did a fair census, it was taken away 
from the people by politics. For more than 150 years, we did not have 
real representation by the people. And then the Court acted. The Court 
said one man, one vote. How ironic. When we finally have buried the 
gerrymander, the census 2000 proposes to leave us, if the Mollohan 
amendment is adopted, the Clintonmander.
  Honor the Founding Fathers' wisdom. For representational purposes. 
Count. Do not estimate.
  Vote ``no'' on the Mollohan amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) 
has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
distinguished minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt).
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, let me urge Members to vote for this 
bipartisan amendment, and let me start by saying that the Census Bureau 
and a number of other important objective authorities have supported 
the targeted use of statistical sampling for the 2000 census to improve 
accuracy and to eliminate, as best we humanly can, the problem of 
undercounting.
  This tool of sampling is to be used through the whole period that we 
are actually trying to count our citizens. As I understand it, the 
Census Bureau is intending to have the most aggressive, elaborate, 
door-to-door, human count that can possibly be made. Everybody wants 
that; everybody expects that; everybody anticipates that.
  But what the experts are telling us who are going to do this is that 
they need statistical sampling as a tool throughout the period so they 
can target problems and then direct people to go out and make a better 
count so that we can get the best possible human count we can get at 
the end of the day.
  Mr. Chairman, all the scientific evidence points to sampling as the 
best way to ensure the best count. Leading experts such as the National 
Academy of Sciences support the use of statistical sampling as the best 
way. The Department of Justice under Presidents Carter, Bush, and 
Clinton all issued opinions supporting the constitutionality and 
legality of using sampling in the census. Every Federal court that has 
addressed the issue has held that the Constitution and Federal statutes 
allow sampling. Barbara Bryant, the Republican appointed director of 
the 1990 census, supports sampling in the year 2000 census as 
consistent with the work she began back in 1990. Every authority that 
has talked about this, the agency that is supposed to do it, is saying 
that they can do a better job than they did 10 years ago if they are 
allowed to use statistical sampling.
  Now at the end of the day, we have to ask why in the world would we 
not want to support this amendment to see that this important census, 
which is to ensure one person, one vote, the thing that James Madison 
fought hardest for in the constitutional convention, is not realized.
  I urge Members to vote for this amendment. It is a bipartisan 
amendment; it is a sensible amendment; it is based on science; it is 
based on all the authorities. We know that the last time we had an 
undercount of anywhere between 4 million and 10 million people, and we 
are having all the experts tell us they can do much better than that if 
they are allowed to properly use statistical sampling.
  Vote for the Mollohan-Shays amendment. It is the best way to get this 
done right.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-
Shays amendment.
  Seldom is an issue debated on this floor that is as clear in its 
importance and value to

[[Page H8236]]

the American public as the upcoming Census 2000. An accurate, reliable, 
and inclusive census count is undeniably in the best interests of the 
American people, and allowing the Census Bureau to use statistical 
sampling is the best way to achieve that goal.
  Census data on family status, housing, employment, and income levels 
gives the country a sense of who we are and where we are headed in the 
future.
  For American businesses, census data is a valuable tool that helps 
them better understand their changing client bases and effectively plan 
for continued growth and economic well-being.
  For Federal, State, and local governments, census data is critical 
for developing effective public policies that meet the future needs of 
Americans throughout the country. Census data is also the basis upon 
which $150 billion in Federal dollars is distributed to State and local 
governments each year.
  As a result, a census undercount could have a devastating impact on 
States whose needs go unrecognized. Those with large urban and rural 
populations are especially vulnerable. For example, the 1990 census had 
a national undercount of 10 million people. In my home State of 
California, with an estimated undercount of 1.2 million, Californians 
were denied a stronger voice in determining public policy and lost 
millions of critically needed dollars for public facilities and 
services.
  Mr. Chairman, history does not have to repeat itself.
  The Census Bureau's proposal to use statistical sampling in Census 
2000 is fiscally and scientifically sound. The National Academy of 
Sciences and a host of other reputable organizations and local 
government associations have recommended the use of statistical 
sampling to achieve an accurate count.
  In addition, the Department of Justice under the Carter, Bush, and 
Clinton administrations, as well as every Federal court addressing the 
legality of statistical sampling, have held that the Constitution and 
Federal statutes permit its use.
  Given the benefits of sampling and the fact that experts recommend 
its use, why are we having this debate?
  Mr. Chairman, it is purely political. Although there is no evidence 
to support their assumption, many in the majority party fear that a 
statistically adjusted census will result in their party being 
disadvantaged.
  We must put the American people first.
  I, therefore, ask my Republican colleagues to abandon this ill-
advised political gamesmanship and allow the Census Bureau to use 
statistical sampling for a more accurate and inclusive census that is 
indisputably in the best interests of all Americans.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the 
Mollohan-Shays amendment. The amendment removes the bill's current 
provision that is an impediment to provide for a fair and accurate 
census in the year 2000. This issue is very important to the people in 
my district. In fact, this is an issue that is important to all my 
House colleagues. We must work to ensure that all individuals are 
counted so that their voices may be heard.
  The 1990 census missed at least 4 million people because, as the Bush 
administration's Census Director at the time said, ``enumeration cannot 
count everybody.'' We in Congress must take steps to resolve and 
correct this situation. The Mollohan-Shays amendment seeks to address 
the issue and make the 2000 census more accurate.
  The National Academy of Sciences and virtually the entire statistical 
profession, including the American Statistical Association, has 
endorsed sampling as the best and most efficient way to achieve an 
accurate census count.
  The Justice Department under the Reagan, Bush and Clinton 
administrations has consistently held that sampling is constitutional.
  Opponents of the amendment claim that sampling opens up the census 
count to political manipulation. In response, the sponsors of the 
amendment went out of their way to address that issue. An independent 
board of experts will monitor every aspect of the census to guard 
against any bias or manipulation. This safeguard creates a more 
effective barrier against fraud and error than under the present 
system.
  The Congressional Research Service analyzed the Hastert census 
language that is currently in the bill, and it is quite clear that this 
language will not work. According to the memorandum, ``The case law 
makes it clear that this authorization, if enacted, would run afoul of 
constitutional barriers to congressional conferral either of standing 
or of ripeness or both.'' The memorandum goes on to say ``* * * it 
appears extremely likely that the Supreme Court would either strike 
down the provision, or disregard it.'' If my House colleagues are 
concerned about constitutionality they cannot support the Hastert 
language.
  The Mollohan-Shays amendment works toward a fair and accurate census. 
I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Shays amendment.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, in the 1990 census, the census missed an 
estimated 4.7 million people, 1.58 percent of the population. We are 
bound to have some undercount; but the undercount of minorities and 
inner city populations is unacceptably out of proportion to the 
national average. For minorities, the undercount was nearly tripled: 
The census missed 4.4 percent of the African-American population and 
4.9 percent of the Hispanic population.
  We need an accurate census. A count that does not leave minorities 
and inner city and rural populations behind. Without accurate census 
information, minorities, inner cities, and rural areas do not receive 
equal political representation or distribution of government resources. 
State and local governments with missed populations lose millions of 
dollars in Federal aid.
  Sampling is not a new issue. In 1991, Congress passed a law requiring 
the Census Bureau to determine improved census methods and to consider 
the use of sampling to get a more accurate count of the population. 
Sampling is simply a way to get the most accurate census from available 
information. Based upon detailed analysis of areas that the Census 
Bureau counts by hand, it can quite accurately determine the population 
of similar places for which inaccurate or incomplete data was 
collected.
  We all agree that we need an accurate count. Why do Members on the 
other side of the aisle oppose sampling? Because they fear it would 
mean counting more Democrats? Since its beginning, the Census Bureau 
has abstained from political posturing and continues to remain 
independent. We must let the Census Bureau do its job and use the 
method that is most accurate, and that avoids unfair undercounts. That 
is the American way.
  Ms. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment 
to restore credibility to the 2000 census. Unless we approve this 
amendment, the year 2000 census will again undercount millions of 
Americans.
  The traditional methods of physical enumeration does not yield an 
accurate and honest count of Americans as required by the U.S. 
Constitution. Statistical sampling is a tested technique, refined to a 
level of great accuracy. It has been reviewed and studied by three 
separate panels of experts convened by the National Academy of 
Sciences, the independent inspector general of the Commerce Department, 
and the GAO. These prestigious groups of scientists have all 
recommended the use of sampling and endorsed the Census Bureau's plan.
  The Mollohan-Shays amendment does not mandate sampling. It simply 
allows the use of the most advanced methodologies to obtain a more 
accurate count of the American population. If we limit the Census 
Bureau's ability to use all of the scientific tools at its disposal the 
accuracy of the census count could be compromised.
  An accurate count of our population has enormous political and social 
consequences. The apportionment of our elected offices is affected. The 
allocation of Federal and State funds is affected. And if people of 
color and the poor are not accurately counted, their voice in our 
Government will be even more muted. The Mollohan-Shays amendment will 
achieve a more national profile of America as she lives and where she 
lives.
  We are here today to say that everyone counts--whether you are a 
person of color, poor, or elderly, whether you are a recent immigrant 
or a citizen, whether you live in an urban or rural area. Support the 
Mollohan-Shays amendment. Tell the American people we want all to be 
counted in the next census.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment, which would provide full funding to the Census Bureau to 
conduct a fair and accurate census. It seems amazing, but the 
Republican leadership will stand in this chamber and do anything they 
can to stop fair representation for all people in this country. Not 
long ago, minority communities were prevented from being represented 
through violence and repression. Today, the methods being used are far 
more subtle.
  During the last census, 26 million people were either missed, counted 
twice or counted in the wrong place. The biggest losers as a result of 
this undercount are minority and poor rural communities. In 1990, over 
1 million Latinois were not counted. In poor rural communities, 1 out 
of every 16 people was missed. But the Republican leadership says 
that's okay.
  But this is really not a debate about the way we should conduct the 
census. This is a debate about whose voice will be heard and whose 
voice will be silenced. By not counting minorities and the poor, 
opponents of a fair census can justify slashing resources to these 
communities. By pretending that millions of people don't exist, 
political representation is denied at every level--from school boards 
all the way up to Presidential elections.
  We cannot allow fair representation to suffer at the hands of 
partisan politics. Expert after

[[Page H8237]]

expert has made it clear that using sampling will produce the most 
accurate count. Yet our opponents are desperate to continue to force 
the Census Bureau to use inaccurate, unfair methods of conducting the 
census. Earlier this year, they were willing to allow flood victims in 
the midwest to suffer in their attempts to prevent an accurate count. 
Now, they are trying to slash the Census budget by two-thirds in order 
to carry on this attack against poor and minority communities. The 
Molohan amendment would restore that funding so the Census Bureau can 
do their job properly.
  We must make sure that every person living in this country is counted 
in the census. We must not allow anyone to pretend that minorities and 
the rural poor do not exist. We will continue to expose these efforts 
for what they are--partisan attempts to silence the voice of minorities 
and the poor. Who is willing to stand here and tell the American people 
that the poor don't deserve proper representation? Who is willing to 
stand here and tell the American people that Latinos and African-
Americans don't deserve proper representation? This a matter of basic 
fairness and democracy, and it is something that we will continue to 
fight for.
  I strongly urge a yes vote on the Mollohan amendment.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Shays 
amendment prohibiting the use of fiscal year 1998 funds to make 
irreversible plans for the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 
census.
  The Census Bureau has acknowledged that at least 4 million Americans 
were not counted in the 1990 census. Twenty percent of these 
undercounted individuals reside in California. California is home to 12 
percent of all U.S. residents. An undercount in the census places a 
disproportionate burden on our State. Scientific sampling is a 
necessary tool to achieve the most accurate census in the most 
difficult to reach areas and populations.
  We all know that some population groups are missed in the census far 
more than others. African-Americans are 7 times as likely to be missed 
as whites. In 1990, children accounted for 52 percent of the 
undercount.
  Statistical sampling will improve accuracy in counting minorities, 
children and the poor, all traditionally undercounted during the 
census. California is home to the largest Hispanic and Asian Pacific 
Islander populations among all 50 States. Between 1989 and 1993, the 
number of poor children, age 15 to 17, increased from 894,000 to nearly 
1.4 million. An undercount denied significant Federal funding for 
education, child care and housing programs, among others.
  An undercount as significant as 1990's denies equal representation 
for people of color at all levels of Government, including this body.
  The National Academy of Sciences, American Statistical Association, 
Population Association of America, National Association of Counties, 
National Conference of Mayors, Council of Chief State Schools Officers 
have all endorsed the use of sampling to account for households that do 
not respond to census questionnaires or visits.
  Accountability in sampling is increased through the Mollohan-Shays 
amendment, which creates a special board of observers to monitor the 
census process and protect it from any manipulation.
  I urge my colleagues to support the most accurate census possible. 
Vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan-Shays amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment and urge 
the support of my colleagues as well. The key issue before us here is 
whether or not we will make a commitment to a fair, accurate census 
which counts everyone.
  The Census Bureau's plan to sample is the only way to count those 
men, women and children who will otherwise be missed. Without sampling, 
the Census will cost more and be less accurate. Barbara E. Bryant, the 
Republican-appointed director of the 1990 Census, says that ``I am very 
much in favor of the plan the Census Bureau has. It builds on work I 
started back in 1990.''
  Bryant began that work to try to improve the count during the 2000 
Census. By most estimates, the 1990 Census, which used little sampling, 
missed at least 4 million people.
  Scientists know that sampling can reduce the undercount--the people 
missed and uncounted--from 2% to one-tenth of one percent. A recent 
study by the National Science Foundation, the objective group of 
scientists to which Congress turns for scientific advice, concurs that 
sampling is a fair way to count people who would otherwise be left out. 
And business groups agree. That's why the most recent Business Week 
magazine ran an article that said that science, not politics, should 
settle this issue.
  Objective Republicans and Democrats who have looked at the facts 
agree: sampling is more accurate, and more fair.
  Let's put this question to the American people: we have two options. 
One will give us inaccurate information and cost more. The other will 
give us more accurate information, and cost less. More accuracy for 
less money--how can there even be a debate?
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Shays amendment, and 
thank my colleagues for offering us this opportunity to correct a 
serious wrong.
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment, and in support of a fair and honest Census count in the year 
2000. In 1990, the census missed an estimated 4 million Americans. Four 
million left out of our democracy, hundreds of thousands of Georgians 
not counted, silenced, voiceless, left out and left behind.
  This amendment supports a fair and honest census through 
``sampling''--the best way we know to conduct a fair and accurate 
census. The experts support it, the Justice Department under the last 
three Administrations--under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton 
support it. In 1990, even the Speaker of the House supported it.
  But what we are debating today is not what is the best policy, but 
instead the best politics, the best Republican politics.
  The census is more than just a political football, it is about 
fairness for every American--whether they live in North Georgia or 
Northern California. Every American--rich or poor, young or old, black, 
white, yellow, red or brown--deserves to be counted. No one should be 
left out or left behind. It is time to stop playing politics with the 
census.
  Support the best census in the history of the Nation. Support the 
Mollohan amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Mollohan-Shays amendment
  The Census Bureau needs the full $381.8 million appropriation in 
fiscal year 1998 to prepare for Census 2000 now--not pending expedited 
judicial review. Preventing the Census Bureau from spending any money 
on planning, preparing, or testing for the use of sampling would 
jeopardize all components of census preparation, including the dress 
rehearsal and the preparation of the long form.
  As Members of Congress, we depend on the accurate information 
provided by the census to give us insight into our changing communities 
and constituencies. If this amendment is not passed, and data is not 
collected in Census 2000, we will lose the only reliable and nationally 
comparable source of information on our population. Both the private 
and public sectors, including state, county, and municipal agencies; 
educators and human service providers; corporations; researchers; 
political leaders; and federal agencies, rely on the census long form.
  The Mollohan-Shays amendment is critical if we are to prevent the 
mistakes made in 1990. I served on the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service during the 1990 census, and I saw first-hand the mistakes 
that were made. According to the GAO, the 1990 Census got 10 percent of 
the count wrong. Over 26 million people were missed, double counted, or 
counted in the wrong place. Let me quote from the GAO Capping report on 
the 1990 census, which makes it clear that a straight count will not 
work:
  GAO reported that ``* * * the current approach to taking the census 
needs to be fundamentally reassessed.'' ``The current approach to 
taking the census appears to have exhausted its potential for counting 
the population cost-effectively.'' Historic methods of trying to gather 
data on each nonresponding household is costly both in dollars and 
accuracy. ``Specifically, the amount of error in the census increases 
precipitously as time and effort are extended to count the last few 
percentages of the population. * * * ''
  There is strong scientific evidence that sampling will result in the 
most accurate Census possible. The experts agree that spending more 
money to go door-to-door will result in errors as large or larger than 
1990 and that the 2000 census will be more accurate for all 
congressional districts than 1990, and 19 times more accurate for the 
nation.
  As a result of the GAO evaluation and bipartisan direction from 
Congress, the Census Bureau turned to the National Academy of Science 
for advice. the first panel said ``* * * physical enumeration or pure 
`counting' has been pushed well beyond the point at which it adds to 
the overall accuracy of the census.''
  The panel went on to recommend a census that started with a good 
faith effort to count everyone, but then truncate physical enumeration 
and use sampling to estimate the characteristics of the remaining 
nonrespondents.
  Following those recommendations, the Census Bureau announced in 
February 1995 a plan for the 2000 Census which makes an unprecedented 
attempt to count everyone by mail, followed by door to door enumeration 
until reaching 90 percent of the households in each census track. A 
sample of households is then used to estimate the last 10 percent. The 
GAO Capping Report pointed out that in 1990 nearly half of the 14 weeks 
of field work were spent trying to count the last 10 percent, and 
resulted in increased error rates.

[[Page H8238]]

  The census plan has received overwhelming support from the scientific 
community including: National Academy of Sciences Panel on Census 
Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond; National Academy of Sciences 
Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methods: American Statistical 
Association; American Sociological Association; Council of Professional 
Associations on Federal Statistics; National Association of Business 
Economists; Association of University Business and Economic Research; 
Association of Public Data Users; and Decision Demographics.
  And to close, I want to read a quote from the Blue Ribbon Panel on 
the Census, American Statistical Association, September 1996. ``Because 
sampling potentially can increase the accuracy of the count while 
reducing costs, the Census Bureau has responded to the Congressional 
mandate by investigating the increased use of sampling. We endorse the 
use of sampling for these purposes; it is consistent with best 
statistical practice.''
  I hope that my colleagues will heed the advice of our nations' 
experts and join me in supporting the Mollohan-Shays amendment. To do 
otherwise would jeopardize the content and accuracy of Census 2000.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and the 
inclusion of provisions to require the Census Bureau to conduct, as the 
Constitution says, an actual enumeration rather than using the 
statistical technique known as sampling. Following the 1990 census we 
had a debate over whether to use the number resulting from the actual 
enumeration or a number adjusted by sampling. This time the Bureau does 
not even intend to try to count everyone. As I understand it, the plan 
is to try to count 90 percent of the people and estimate the rest.
  I oppose the use of sampling for several reasons. It would leave the 
census numbers open to political manipulation and would tend to 
undermine the public's confidence in the census. We have seen various 
administrations manipulate the FBI, IRS, and reportedly even the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service for political gain. Once we move 
away from a hard count what guarantee do we have that this or a future 
administration will not manipulate the census numbers for partisan 
gains?
  A Member of the other body has stated that we should all support 
sampling since we all rely on something similar, public opinion polls, 
to get elected. The problem with this thinking is that we may use polls 
to guide us but we don't let them determine the winner.
  I would have no objection if the Bureau uses sampling to determine 
where there may have been an undercount, and then goes back in and 
redoubles its efforts to count those people. That would be analogous to 
the way we use opinion polls. To rely on sampling rather than a 
physical count is comparable to changing election returns if they are 
at variance with the polls.
  Sampling is said to adjust for undercounts in major cities. But once 
you estimate how many people are in a given city, to what wards, 
neighborhoods, and precincts do they belong? How can State legislatures 
and school boards and city councils be apportioned if we don't know 
where these estimated people live? Is sampling really accurate enough 
to tell us if some small town has 3,300 people instead of the 3,000 
from a hard count?
  When a State, such as Wisconsin, has hundreds of towns of such size, 
will sampling adjust for an undercount there the way it might in Los 
Angeles or some other major city? In 1990 an entire ward in one town in 
my district was missed. The community leaders pointed this out during 
the post-census review and the mistake was corrected. For 2000 the 
Bureau will not do a post-census review presumably since no one can 
know what mistakes were made since everyone wasn't supposed to be 
counted anyway.
  Will the undercount of Indian reservations, of which there are 
several in Wisconsin be corrected? My understanding is that the bureau 
plans to do a hard count on Indian reservations. Yet native Americans 
were among the most undercounted in the last census. So how can it be 
claimed that the reason the bureau wants to use sampling is to correct 
for past undercounts?
  The main argument of those supporting sampling is that it will save 
money. Well that may or may not be true but that can't be the only 
basis for designing the census. The cheapest possible census would be 
if the numbers were just made up altogether. We obviously aren't going 
to do that but the point is that saving money is not the only goal. 
Fairness is a goal and sampling is unfair to smaller communities and 
rural States. Following the Constitution, which calls for an actual 
enumeration, is a goal and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the 
issue.
  What happens if we complete the 2000 census using sampling to 
estimate 10 percent of the population and then the Supreme Court throws 
it out? Then we will have wasted the $4 billion spent on the original 
census not to mention who knows how much in litigation. Rather than 
saving money, sampling could end up costing the taxpayers two or three 
times as much money as a hard count if we have to redo the whole thing. 
I believe a greater effort should be made to reach all Americans to 
provide an accurate hard count. Fifty percent of the undercount from 
the last census was caused by people never receiving the forms. Better 
mailing lists and better coordination with the Post Office and local 
governments can correct this problem. Approximately 32 percent of the 
undercount can be corrected through the use of easier to read forms and 
perhaps an 800 information number. The rest will have to be reached 
through better outreach. Instead the Bureau plans to spend less money 
on outreach, figuring that sampling can make up the difference.
  I don't believe the bureau's plan will provide for the fairest and 
most accurate census. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 228, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 475]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte

[[Page H8239]]


     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cooksey
     Gonzalez
     McDermott
     Roukema
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2001

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, before we go to final passage on this bill, about seven 
Members have requested colloquies that should consume maybe 15 minutes 
or so before we get to final passage. So for Members' interest in that 
question, that is about the length of time we expect.
  Mr. Chairman, with that mind, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Ms. DeGette].
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  First of all, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I appear tonight on behalf of 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton] who was unavoidably detained at a speech in her district with 
some constituents. The gentlewoman and I are both concerned, as she is 
the former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and I 
am a former employment lawyer. We would like to commend the chairman on 
the fine job he has done in putting together this bill. We believe that 
this is fairly bipartisan and equitable.
  However, we do have an area of concern, and we ask to bring this 
issue to the chairman's attention. The chair has a formidable backlog, 
caused in part by very new and very complicated jurisdictions. The 
commission is our Nation's principle enforcer of such landmark 
legislation as the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Age 
Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities 
Act.
  We are concerned that without an increase in funding for the EEOC, we 
will not be able to decrease this backlog in cases. The EEOC received 
roughly $240 million in its fiscal year 1997 budget, and it has been 
appropriated the same amount for the fiscal year 1998 budget, but yet, 
we have an increase in backlog of cases. The President has requested 
$246 million, which we feel is a modest increase, but which will help 
us attack the backlog of approximately 80,000 cases.
  My colleague, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, and I, as well as others, were prepared to bring 
an amendment to the floor tonight that would have brought the EEOC 
funding level to the President's request. However, in deference to the 
negotiations on this bill and the tight fiscal constraints, we would 
like to work with the chairman in conference to work out this 
discrepancy in funding.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado, Ms. 
DeGette, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, as well for bringing this important issue to our 
attention.
  As the Members know, I share the concern about the existing case 
backlog at the commission, and I will be happy to work with them and 
anyone else towards reaching the President's request to address this 
problem as the bill is considered in conference.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman's yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to engage in a 
brief colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee.
  First, I want to thank the chairman for the increase he has given to 
the National Weather Service in its base operating account. As we know, 
the NOAA proposal to eliminate important staff positions at the 
hurricane center in South Florida during the past year caused enormous 
anxiety throughout Florida. Forecasters as well as their support 
personnel are vital to the safety of coastal areas like my district in 
the event of a hurricane, and my district goes from mid Miami beach all 
the way up to north of Palm Beach to Juno Beach at the south end of 
Jupiter.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman knows, the bill provides 
$642 million for the National Weather Service, and including a $15 
million increase over fiscal year 1997 appropriated levels for base 
operations, and a $17 million increase over fiscal year 1997 
appropriated levels for modernization activities.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the increase. I am, 
however, concerned that these funds can be raided by other divisions at 
NOAA.
  Mr. ROGERS. I understand the gentleman's concern. The funds that are 
appropriated to the National Weather Service cannot be removed and used 
for other non-Weather Service activities in NOAA without prior 
consultation with our subcommittee. Under section 605 of this Act, all 
agencies must notify the committee through our reprogramming procedures 
prior to any shift in funds.
  Mr. SHAW. I thank the chairman for clarifying the position of the 
National Weather Service. This information should be of great comfort 
to all residents in hurricane-prone areas, whether they be in Florida 
or elsewhere. I know in my district this issue is an especially 
important one, as hurricanes threaten our coastlines on an annual 
basis.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Brady].
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I 
and many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are very concerned 
about the funding provided in this bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brady].
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, I and many of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle are concerned about the funding provided in this bill for the 
Maritime Administration, and specifically, the six State maritime 
academies. This year the report to accompany the House Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill has not provided the specific funding 
level for the State academies. At the level provided for the overall 
operations and training account, it is likely this would threaten the 
ability of the academies to carry out their Federally-mandated mission 
of educating and training our Nation's licensed merchant mariners.
  Mr. Chairman, the Texas State Maritime Academy has a ship for its use 
called the Texas Clipper. The ship's sole purpose is to meet the 
Federal mandate for training U.S.-licensed merchant mariners. Adequate 
funding is needed not only for this training but for the annual 
drydocking, fuel costs, retrofitting requirements, and general upkeep.
  To conclude, Mr. Chairman, the Senate report makes available 
approximately $9.5 million for the State academies. The Senate language 
is also clear that the training ships where this money is used are 
Federal ships training U.S. maritime officers, and that is a Federal 
responsibility.

[[Page H8240]]

  As we move to conference with this bill, I urge the chairman on 
behalf of our State Maritime Academies and on behalf of the maritime 
industry to work with the Senate to fully fund these academies.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Lowey].
  Mrs. LOWEY. I thank the chairman for yielding to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I, too, am concerned about the viability and 
sustainability of our six State maritime academies under this bill's 
funding level for MARAD operation and training accounts. These six 
academies currently provide 75 percent of our Nation's licensed 
mariners at approximately one-third the cost of the U.S. Merchant 
Marine Academy. In addition, the graduates enjoy an impressive press 
100 percent job placement upon graduation.
  Mr. Chairman, it is because of this great return on our investment 
that I am concerned about adequate funding. The report language notes 
that additional funding may be available for State Academies via the 
sale for scrap of vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet. 
However, EPA regulations currently prohibit such scrapping.
  I would like to work with the chairman to resolve this problem, but 
in the meantime, I urge the chairman and Members of the subcommittee to 
work with the Senate in conference to ensure adequate funding for the 
State Maritime Academies.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Texas and the gentlewoman from New York for bringing up this important 
issue.
  Funding requirements for the State Academies have been somewhat 
reduced because two of the five State Schoolships are now funded out of 
the Ready Reserve Force Program. In addition, MARAD has used the Vessel 
Operations Revolving Fund and unobligated balances to provide 
additional support for State Academies during the past year. A 
provision is currently pending in the defense authorization conference 
that would provide another source of revenue through the scrapping of 
vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet.
  As we move into conference with the Senate on this bill and we 
receive additional clarification about the availability of these and 
other resources for the State Academies, I will be happy to work with 
you and other Members to address your concerns.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
[Mrs. Johnson].
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to 
congratulate the gentleman on his thoughtful and effective leadership 
of this important appropriations subcommittee. It is a pleasure to work 
with him.
  At this time I wish to engage him in a colloquy with regard to the 
Women's Business Center program and the National Women's Business 
Council, both administered by the Small Business Administration. I 
strongly support these programs.
  Over the last decade, the growth in women's business ownership has 
created an enormous demand for the type of business training and 
technical assistance that is provided by the women's business centers. 
Within the last year alone, women's business centers have assisted 
approximately 17,500 women start and grow their businesses. I am joined 
by many of my House and Senate colleagues in supporting this program.
  The Women's Business Centers program is unique because it builds upon 
a private-public partnership that is, in itself, unique. Once the 
Federal funding cycle is complete, which is only 3 years, the centers 
become self-sustaining in their local communities. They are able to do 
so because the programs are designed locally by women, for women, to 
meet each community's needs.
  Women business owners have played a large role in the economic 
expansion that the United States is currently enjoying, and the country 
has a stake in seeing these businesses succeed and grow. The centers' 
training and technical assistance programs are an important part of the 
infrastructure that supports women-owned businesses.
  The second and vital aspect of this infrastructure for women 
entrepreneurs is the National Women's Business Council. The council 
serves as an independent advisory body to Congress and the President 
with approximately 8 million women business owners in the United States 
today. The council provides this growing constituency a voice with the 
Government and a direct conduit to the Congress to learn its views.
  This week, the House passed a bill which would increase the 
authorized funding levels for these programs. On that note, I want to 
express my hope that funding can be increased for the Women's Business 
Center program and the National Women's Business Council.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, the bill now includes $3 million for the 
women's business centers and $194,000 for the National Women's Business 
Council. Given the strong support within the Senate and the worthy 
goals of both programs, I am committed to working with the gentlewoman 
to ensure that these programs receive the necessary funding as the bill 
moves through conference.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
his time and for his consideration of this worthy program.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman and the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the excellent job they 
did with this very complicated and difficult bill. I rise to engage in 
a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, the Senate included in its bill language which I 
introduced in this body, language to require that the Legal Services 
Corporation include only the income of the client when determining the 
eligibility for services in cases of domestic violence only.
  Out of deference to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and his desire to 
keep this kind of authorizing language off his appropriations bill, I 
chose not to offer the amendment at the time of the bill. But it is 
important. More than 4 million women each year are abused by their 
husbands or partners. Eligibility for legal services is now determined 
by household income, leaving open the frightening possibility that 
victims of domestic violence would be denied legal assistance because 
the abuser's income exceeded the threshold for household income 
requirements.
  The Senate provision ensures that legal aid clinics will not be 
forced to turn domestic violence clients away based on the income of 
their abusers. Today I seek the gentleman's assurance, Mr. Chairman, 
that we can work together to address this issue during conference. We 
must ensure that no victim of abuse will be refused legal assistance 
based upon the economic status of the abuser.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership 
on this issue. I understand the importance of providing access to legal 
services for victims of domestic violence and look forward to working 
with her and her colleagues on this important issue in the conference.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  I would like to also express interest in this issue on behalf of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and will include his statement in 
the colloquy for the Record, except to just add that Legal Services 
Corporation's programs handle more than 50,000 cases involving clients 
seeking protection from abusive partners. This is a very important 
provision that we are asking for. I thank the chairman for his 
cooperation.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following statement:
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express support for this 
important provision. Last year, Legal Services Corporation programs 
handled more than 50,000 cases involving clients seeking protection 
from abusive partners. This language is essential to ensure that women 
in poverty have equal access to these legal services, and to continue 
our fight against domestic violence.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers] 
has expired.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield 
to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen] for a colloquy with the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].

[[Page H8241]]

  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to 
this bill to assist the Shriners Hospital for Children in my district 
that provides free orthopedic medical care for indigent children from 
the southwest United States and northern Mexico. The Shriners offers 
free patient care to children who suffer from diseases of bones, 
joints, muscles, and burns.
  The Shriners Hospital in Houston has a service area which includes 
northern Mexico. The patients which they accept for treatment would not 
be able to receive comparable care in Mexico, and the Shriners 
completely cover the costs of their travel and treatment to Houston, 
Texas.
  Regrettably, the visa processing fee, as provided in the Foreign 
Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 1994 and 1995, that is 
required to be charged on all immigrants entering the U.S. causes an 
undue hardship for these children, their families, and in particular 
the Shriners who volunteer their time and funds to assist them.
  My amendment would have prohibited the use of funds contained in this 
bill to enforce the visa processing fee for children entering the U.S. 
for prearranged medical care at a charitable hospital such as Shriners 
as well as for their accompanying parents and guardians. My office has 
been successful in obtaining an INS waiver of the border crossing free 
they charge for these children and their parents or accompanying 
guardian.
  As the State Department apparently does not have the authority to 
waive the visa processing fees under the Foreign Relations 
Authorization Act, it is my hope that the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims will take this matter under consideration, in particular, 
providing for the authority to waive such fees when special situations 
such as the case of Shriners Hospital for Children in Houston warrants 
it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the point my friend 
from Texas is making. I am sure the subcommittee will be happy to 
consider the proposal and to evaluate the gentleman's situation. I 
thank him for calling it to my attention.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
consideration of this.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Traficant].
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend both the gentleman 
from Kentucky and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for 
their leadership on this bill. There is growing concern, Mr. Chairman, 
over developments in Albania, and there are those that believe that 
Albania could become the next Bosnia.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier this month there was an assassination attempt 
made on a Democratic Party member, a member of the minority in Albania. 
The attempt was made by a member of the Socialist Party of the 
Parliament. Since taking power, the Socialist Party, the old Communist 
Party, has denied members of the opposition freedom of speech, freedom 
of assembly, and freedom of the press.
  I am asking that the committee insert report language in the 
conference report directing the State Department to investigate the 
allegations that the Albanian Socialist Government has denied freedom 
of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly to both 
Albanian citizens and to the opposition Democratic Party, and to report 
back to this appropriations subcommittee on these matters in a timely 
manner.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, we will work with the gentleman to obtain 
the language that he seeks in the statement of the managers.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I 
yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member 
very much.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. 
Mollohan], and as well I would like to thank the chairman of this 
committee for listening and providing assistance on the issue of the 
Prairie View A&M University Juvenile Prevention Center.
  Many of my constituents are involved in this university and 
particularly are interested in ways of preventing juvenile crime. This 
center has been designated by the State legislature in Texas to assist 
training individuals who would be involved in preventing juvenile 
crime, teachers, professionals, and probation and other professionals 
dealing with this issue. I was delighted to be able to support the 
Riggs-Scott amendment that heavily relied upon prevention as opposed to 
incarceration of our juveniles.
  The Senate mark on this bill does have provisions in funding for the 
Prairie View A&M University Juvenile Crime Prevention Center. I would 
hope that both the ranking member and the chairman, who worked so very 
hard on this very strong bill on the issue of prevention, would look to 
provide support to this particular center as it will serve not only the 
citizens of Texas and those citizens who reside in the 18th 
Congressional District, but as well citizens throughout the Nation who 
are interested in being trained or preventing juvenile crime.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to draw my colleagues' attention to the 
question of funding for the establishment of a National Center for the 
Study and Prevention of Juvenile Crime and Delinquency at Prairie View 
A&M University, located outside of Houston, TX.
  I have worked during the appropriations process with many of my 
colleagues in an effort to find such funding in the Commerce-Justice-
State appropriations bill. While we were not successful in getting that 
funding into the House version of the bill, the Senate has included in 
its version, $500,000 for the establishment of the Prairie View center. 
And it is my understanding, through conversations my staff has held 
with committee staff, that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan 
agree that funding for the juvenile justice center at Prairie View 
could be incorporated into the conference report. I would like to thank 
both Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan for their support of 
this important project.
  The National Center for the Study and Prevention of Juvenile Crime 
and Delinquency at Prairie View A&M University will fill some very 
important functions: First, conducting academic programs, including 
continuing education and training for professionals in the juvenile 
justice field; second, conducting policy research; and third, 
developing and assisting with community outreach programs focused on 
the prevention of juvenile violence, crime, drug use, and gang-related 
activities.
  The importance of such a center is evidenced by the fact that across 
America, violent crime committed by and against juveniles is a national 
crisis that threatens the safety and security of communities, as well 
as the future of our children. According to a recently released FBI 
report on crime in the United States, law enforcement agencies made an 
estimated 2.7 million arrests of persons under 18 in 1995.
  Studies, however, show that prevention is far more cost-effective 
than incarceration in reducing the rates of juvenile crime. A study by 
the Rand Corp., titled ``Diverting Children from a Life of Crime, 
Measuring Costs and Benefits'', is the most recent comprehensive study 
done in this area. It is clear that juvenile crime and violence can be 
reduced and prevented, but doing so will require a long-term vigorous 
investment. The Rand study determined that early intervention programs 
can prevent as many as 250 crimes per $1 million spent. In contrast, 
the report said in investing the same amount in prisons would prevent 
only 60 crimes a year.
  Children hurting children on the streets of our Nation is costly for 
the moral fabric of our society and the burden on our Government. 
Public safety is now becoming one of the most significant factors 
influencing the cost of State and local governments. We can begin to 
bring those costs down and make both short-term and long-term positive 
differences in the lives of our young people by targeting the 
prevention of juvenile crime.
  In Texas, the historically black colleges and universities are 
forging ahead. The Juvenile Justice Center at Prairie View A&M 
University will become a State and national resource. It will perform a 
vital collaborative role by focusing on measures that target the 
prevention of juvenile violence, crime, delinquency, and disorder. The 
university will provide comprehensive teaching, research, and public 
service programs. There is no single answer to this problem, but this 
center will be a start to bridging the programs that work for the State 
of Texas and other States.
  I would again like to thank both the chairman and the ranking member 
for their support of the National Center for the Study and Prevention 
of Juvenile Crime and Delinquency and to encourage that funding for 
this center be included in the conference report.

[[Page H8242]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments?
  Hearing none, the Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       This Act may be cited as the ``Departments of Commerce, 
     Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 1998''.

  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I implore the House Conferees on the 
Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations Bill for Fiscal 
Year 1998 to maintain the House silence on the issue of splitting the 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Senate made a hasty decision to 
include a provision in their version of the bill which would split the 
Ninth Circuit without the appropriate and necessary study, and the 
Senate language would mandate that the split occur immediately, with 
only two years to wind up the circuit's administrative matters. The 
proposed split would not solve the backlog of cases, as some proponents 
argue; in fact, it would serve only to delay the cases currently on the 
docket even more.
  There is overwhelming opposition to splitting the Ninth Circuit, both 
among the legal community in the Ninth circuit and national 
organizations, such the Federal Bar Association. The Judicial Council 
of the Ninth Circuit, the circuit's governing body, has repeatedly 
voted in opposition to division of the circuit. H.R. 908, which was 
passed on a voice vote by the House on June 3, 1997, calls for a 
commission to investigate structural alternatives for the Federal Court 
of Appeals. It is crucial that a costly and precedent-setting move such 
as splitting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals be carefully considered 
prior to implementation. No circuit has ever been divided without 
careful study and the support of the judges and lawyers within the 
circuit.
  Splitting the Ninth Circuit would create the only two-state circuit 
in the country and would take away the important federalizing function 
of the court of appeals. Additionally, judges would be 
disproportionately allocated between the two new circuits--the 15 
judges in the new Ninth Circuit would have a 44 percent higher caseload 
per judge than the 13 judges of the newly-created Twelfth Circuit.
  The House Judiciary Committee and the Administration oppose the 
Senate language on the grounds that it constitutes legislating on 
Appropriations. I urge the House/Senate Conferees on the Commerce, 
Justice, State Appropriations bill to maintain the House position on 
this matter and call for further study on the issue before taking such 
decisive and potentially damaging action.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by congratulating 
Chairman Rogers for his subcommittee's work to fully fund the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST].
  NIST is the Nation's oldest Federal laboratory. It was established by 
Congress in 1901, as the National Bureau of Standards [NBS], and 
subsequently renamed NIST.
  As part of the Department of Commerce, NIST's mission is to promote 
economic growth by working with industry to develop and apply 
technology, measurements, and standards. As the Nation's arbiter of 
standards, NIST enables our nation's businesses to engage each other in 
commerce and participate in the global marketplace.
  The precise measurements required for establishing standards 
associated with today's increasingly complex technologies require NIST 
laboratories to maintain the most sophisticated equipment and most 
talented scientists in the world. NIST's infrastructure, however, is 
failing and in need of repair and replacement.
  NIST currently has a maintenance backlog of over $300 million. In 
addition, NIST requires new laboratory space that includes a higher 
level of environmental control--control of both vibration and air 
quality--than can be achieved through the retrofitting of any of its 
existing facilities. In order to meet this pressing need, NIST must 
construct an Advanced Measurement Laboratory [AML].
  As part of the sums appropriated for NIST, H.R. 2267 includes $111 
million for construction, renovation and maintenance for NIST's 
laboratories. Of that total, $94 million is reserved until NIST, 
through the Department of Commerce, submits its construction plan to 
Congress.
  The Report accompanying the bill specifically states:

       The Committee has included funding above the request to 
     address NIST's facilities requirements identified in this 
     plan, but has included language in the bill providing for the 
     release of the $94,400,000 increase only upon submission of a 
     spending plan in accordance with section 605 of this Act. 
     This spending plan should reflect the priorities identified 
     in a long-term facilities master plan.

  Mr. Chairman, the AML is indeed NIST's number one new construction 
priority. In NIST's just released ``NIST Laboratory Facilities: 
Planning Status Report,'' NIST states that ``all of the analysis 
leading to the new [construction] plan has verified the need to 
construct an Advanced Measurement Laboratory [AML] in Gaithersburg.'' 
It is my expectation that when the construction plan is finally 
released by the Department of Commerce and the Office of Management and 
Budget, the AML will top the list of construction projects for NIST.
  I would like to again thank Chairman Rogers for his support of NIST 
and its facility needs.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to final passage of 
H.R. 2267, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill, despite my 
strong support for certain provisions of the bill. I fully support most 
provisions in H.R. 2267 which provides funding for the Commerce, 
Justice, and State Departments, the judiciary, and other related 
agencies. However, as the Representative for a rural, tobacco growing 
district in North Carolina, I oppose final passage of this legislation.
  I support those provisions in H.R. 2267 addressing crime, 
environmental protection, and technology advancement. Specifically, of 
the $30 billion included in the bill, I favor the $5.3 billion for the 
Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, the $497 million increase for the 
Immigration and Naturalization Service which would provide for 1,000 
new border control agents and 2,700 more detention cells, the increase 
by $129 million for the Drug and Enforcement Administration, $112 
million more for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
$250 million for the Legal Services Corporation [LSC], including more 
thorough oversight by the Congress of the LSC without overburdening its 
effective administration, the Advanced Technology Program [ATP], 
National Endowment for Democracy, and increase by $1 million for fiscal 
year 1998 funding for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to 
equip the agency to defend national, state, local and territorial law 
adversely affected by international agreements.
  The bill also contains an important provision passed by amendment 
which I co-sponsored, the Hoyer-Cardin-Etheridge amendment, to add $3 
million to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's [NOAA] 
National Ocean Service Account to respond effectively to pfiesteria and 
pfiesteria-like conditions throughout the Eastern Seaboard. NOAA has 
the mechanisms in place to study and assess the causes of pfiesteria 
and how we can begin to control it. Our natural resources and waterways 
are simply too valuable for us not to act to protect both them and the 
public health. I hope this marks the beginning of a strong federal-
state partnership to protect North Carolina's citizens and our 
waterways.
  There are two provisions however to which I am strongly opposed: the 
Doggett amendment included in the bill and the bipartisan Mollohan-
Shays amendment which is not. The Doggett language prohibits the use of 
funds in the bill to promote the sale or export of tobacco or tobacco 
products, and prohibits funds in the bill to be used to seek the 
reduction or removal by any foreign country of restrictions on the 
marketing of tobacco or tobacco products. I also strongly oppose the 
bill's language on statistical sampling as part of the 2000 Census. 
Statistical sampling will provide a more accurate census of the 
population and demographic groups of our country, including rural areas 
such as the Second District of North Carolina and save millions in 
taxpayer dollars.
  I am hopeful the conference committee will correct these two 
provisions in the bill which hurt my district so that I may vote in 
favor of the crime, environmental, and advanced technology provisions I 
wholeheartedly support.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment that the Fiscal Year 1998 Commerce-Justice-State House 
Appropriations bill once again eliminates all funding for the East-West 
Center in Honolulu, Hawaii.
  The Asia-Pacific Region is an emerging economic and military power of 
increasing importance to the United States economy and national 
security. The United States now trades more with countries in the Asia-
Pacific Region than with NAFTA countries or the European Union. In 
addition to trade and security, the United States and Asian Pacific 
countries continually seek to learn from each other about education, 
health care, new technologies, and development of alternative forms of 
energy. We cannot undervalue the importance of continuing close ties 
with this Region. One important way to show our long-term investment in 
U.S. Asian-Pacific relations is through the East-West Center.
  For almost four decades, the East-West Center has played a key role 
in strengthening relations between the governments and people of the 
Asia-Pacific Region and the U.S.
  The Center helps prepare the United States for constructive 
involvement in Asia and the Pacific through education, dialogue, 
research and outreach. Over 43,000 Americans Asians, and Pacific 
Islanders from over 60 nations and territories have participated in the 
East-West Center's programs.
  In a region where nations and cultures have become more 
interdependent, the Center's

[[Page H8243]]

purpose is more important than ever. To carry out its mandate, the 
Center provides grants to undergraduate and graduate students, provides 
research and study fellowships, and sponsors conferences, workshops, 
seminars and meetings for training, research, and outreach purposes.
  The East-West Center has already suffered a 58 percent reduction in 
direct federal support during the last two fiscal years. As a result, 
the Center overhauled its programs by reexamining their mission, 
prioritizing their activities, and streamlining operations. The Center 
has eliminated 122 of 255 staff positions as well as require research 
staff to raise 50% of their salaries from external sources.
  To eliminate funding would be not only a blow to the center itself, 
but to our commitment to the Asian Pacific region. Elimination of all 
funding would ensure the closing of the East-West Center. We as a 
nation would be sending the message that the United States no longer 
cares about the Region and that U.S. Asian-Pacific relations are no 
longer a priority. Placing short-term goals of budget cutting ahead of 
long-term economic and international security in the Asia-Pacific is 
short-sighted and ill advised. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting efforts to restore funding to the East-West Center in the 
final Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Chairman, as the debate on the Commerce, Justice, 
State and the Judiciary Appropriations bill comes to an end, I would 
like to mention a small but vital Small Business Administration 
program--the National Women's Business Council. The Council was created 
by Congress in 1988, and it is charged with being an independent, 
bipartisan advisor to Congress and the President on women's 
entrepreneurship. The members of the Council are prominent women 
business owners and leaders of national women's business advocacy 
organizations, who are devoted to helping other women start and expand 
businesses.
  Recent studies have shown that only 1.6 percent of the investments 
made by venture capitalists go to women-owned businesses despite the 
proven success of women's businesses, and this shows that we still have 
a long way to go in leveling the playing field for women-owned 
businesses. The National Women's Business Council is working to correct 
these and other inequities women's businesses face. The Council 
promotes bold initiatives, policies, and programs designed to foster 
women's businesses at all stages of development.
  The National Women's Business Council seeks to become the nucleus of 
a national network of women business owners and their advocate to the 
executive and legislative branches. It helps provide information for 
women starting new businesses on how to access capital, credit training 
and technical assistance, and it distributes information on the success 
and innovation of women-owned businesses.
  In my home district, in Sacramento, California, there are over 50,000 
women-owned firms, employing over 85,000 people and generating over $10 
billion in sales. These firms represent thirty-nine percent of all 
firms in the Sacramento metropolitan area. The National Women's 
Business Council has been instrumental in helping many of these firms 
become the successes that they are.
  We must continue to encourage women to start businesses and provide 
them the assistance they need to remain viable. I commend the members 
of the National Women's Business Council on their hard work, and I 
encourage my colleagues in Congress to do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further amendments, under the rule, the 
Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Gillmor) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration 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, pursuant to House 
Resolution 239, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry 
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  2030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gillmor). Under the rule, the previous 
question is ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment?
  Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is a separate vote demanded on any other 
amendment? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment on which 
a separate vote has been demanded.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Part II amendment printed in House Report 105-264:
       Page 116, strike line 16 and all that follows through line 
     2 on page 117 and insert the following:

     SEC. 616. ATTORNEYS FEES AND OTHER COSTS IN CERTAIN CRIMINAL 
                   CASES.

       During fiscal year 1997 and in any fiscal year thereafter, 
     the court, in any criminal case pending on or after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, shall award, and the United 
     States shall pay, to a prevailing party, other than the 
     United States, a reasonable attorney's fee and other 
     litigation costs, unless the court finds that the position of 
     the United States was substantially justified or that other 
     special circumstances make an award unjust. Such awards shall 
     be granted pursuant to the procedures and limitations 
     provided for an award under section 2412 of title 28, United 
     States Code. Fees and other expenses awarded under this 
     provision to a party shall be paid by the agency over which 
     the party prevails from any funds made available to the 
     agency by appropriation. No new appropriations shall be made 
     as a result of this provision.

  Mr. ROGERS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bonior

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. BONIOR. I am, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Bonior moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2267 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The motion was rejected.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 199, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 476]

                               YEAS--227

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Coble
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Luther
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan

[[Page H8244]]


     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--199

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Barcia
     Bartlett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Burton
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hostettler
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (KS)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Gonzalez
     McDermott
     Roukema
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                              {time}  2050

  Messrs. COX of California, OWENS, ENGEL, GIBBONS, and RILEY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HERGER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________