[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H10909-H10916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2267,
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 330
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the
conference report and against its consideration are waived.
The conference report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order the fiscal year 1998 Commerce,
Justice, and State conference report, the final appropriations bill for
fiscal year 1998. This is the standard rule for conference reports,
waiving points of order against the conference report and its
consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report be
considered as read.
That is it. Another great rule from the Committee on Rules under the
leadership of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] to get the job
done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. Goss] for yielding me this time.
As he has described, this resolution, House Resolution 330, is a rule
that waives all points of order against the conference report on H.R.
2267. This is a bill that makes appropriations for the Departments of
Commerce, Justice and State, and related agencies. It is with great
relief that I address this House on this, the last of the 13 regular
appropriation bills. It is the one measure standing between us and the
conclusion of the session this year.
The conference report contains major increases in funding for law
enforcement programs, especially those aimed at preventing juvenile and
drug-related crimes. The measure provides about $4 billion for the
State Department, which is an increase above the levels in the House
and Senate bills, but still less than the administration's request.
This money is necessary to extend America's diplomatic presence abroad
and assist with vital international peacekeeping efforts.
The conference contains a compromise which does not bar using
statistical sampling in the Year 2000 Census. This will permit the
Census Bureau to give statistical sampling a small-scale test. A
commission will report on the results of the test. Unfortunately, this
compromise also includes objectionable language calling on the House
general counsel to file a civil suit to block sampling.
Mr. Speaker, I do not support everything in this bill, but we are
already 6 weeks into the fiscal year. We should have wrapped up this
process a long time ago. I urge adoption of the rule. Let us do our job
and pass the bill, and let us go home.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time. The rule is not
controversial. We are prepared to yield back as soon as the gentleman
is.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have 3 or 4 speakers that I know of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the Commerce, Justice, and State bill is fatally flawed,
and because of that, later today I will urge my colleagues to vote
against it.
Earlier today we changed the House rules so that the Republican
leadership could create a new subcommittee to investigate the census.
Is the reason that we need this new subcommittee, is it because the
current one is so overburdened that it cannot get all of its work done?
No. There has been only one hearing in this Congress on the census, and
that hearing had only two witnesses.
This new subcommittee is the latest effort by the leadership to
politicize the census and make sure that millions
[[Page H10910]]
of minorities and poor are left out of the count. They try to hide
behind the Constitution, but they do not care whether sampling is
constitutional or not.
Look at this quote from one Republican leader. He admits that they do
not care if sampling is constitutional, and then later he says if the
court says it is constitutional, we simply will not fund it.
During the negotiations over the census language in this bill, the
White House lawyers tried to improve the language to assure that the
case would make it to the Supreme Court. Those improvements were
rejected by the same people who claim to be worried about a
constitutional census. Their concerns are not constitutional; they are
political.
The scientific and professional support for sampling is overwhelming.
Over 175 studies from the General Accounting Office, the Commerce
Department, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Census Bureau
have shown that sampling gives results that are more fair and accurate.
Still, the Republican leadership opposes it. Why? They fear the
political consequences of a fair and accurate census.
The opponents of sampling say they are worried about the
administration using sampling to manipulate the numbers. However, when
the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] proposed a blue ribbon
commission to guard against manipulation, they rejected it on a party-
line vote.
The opponents of sampling have raised one false claim after another
to try and discredit sampling because they do not want a fair and
accurate census. The language in the Commerce-Justice-State bill is one
more attempt to stop a fair and accurate census.
This time, their tactics are to tie the Census Bureau up in the
courts, to force them to run two censuses at once, and to confuse the
public by issuing four sets of numbers instead of one. This will not
work and we should not let it happen. I urge my colleagues to vote
against the Commerce-Justice-State conference report, but to vote for
the rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reluctantly
oppose this conference report. I agree with all of the good things that
we have heard and will continue to hear about.
However, I have some serious concerns regarding the census component.
The so-called census compromise leaves several loopholes which could
seriously hamper the ability of the Census Bureau to utilize sampling
as a technique to conduct the 2000 Census. In essence, this compromise
allows opponents of sampling an opportunity to disrupt, discredit, and
dismantle an accurate census.
The census is far too important to become so politicized. I would
like to support this agreement. However, it does not ensure a fair and
accurate census count. In this democracy every American must be counted
in order to count. In the last census we missed over 4 million people.
This agreement bestows upon the Speaker the unprecedented power to
file a lawsuit on behalf of the House to challenge sampling. If we
allow this agreement to go forward, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian
Americans and other minorities can expect to have significant numbers
of their population undercounted. Therefore, these communities will be
underrepresented, not only in the halls of Congress but throughout
government. I believe that every person must count; therefore, every
person must be counted.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman New
Jersey [Mr. Pascrell].
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a prepared statement which I will
present. Mr. Speaker, this is serious business. For a moment I would
like to address the Members of the other side.
{time} 1815
Every time that I have come to the well or up here, I have tried to
make my comments as nonpartisan as possible. I think the Record will
indicate that. I came here to build bridges. We are making a very, very
serious mistake on the language agreed to in the conference committee
on the census and sampling.
I have in my hand here the materials that go back to 1994, 1995,
1996, concerning the city that I was mayor of, in Patterson, NJ, the
third largest city in New Jersey. We were one of three communities that
agreed to try out the new techniques of the U.S. Census. Sampling was
used. Not only was it used, but it was proven to be very effective in
that the city statistics for Patterson were changed by 8,000.
I ask the other side to please listen. I have here the letter from
the U.S. Census which is dated September 12, 1995. In that letter, it
specifically says that because of the work that we did in the city of
Patterson, the letter was sent to us by Martha Farnesworth Rich,
Director of the Census, the population change had been made officially
to the city of Patterson. Not only do most scientific organizations in
the United States support scientific sampling, but more important than
that, in the areas that this was tried, it worked.
We talk on the other side about austerity and tightening our belts.
We would agree with that. Do Members know how much money we spent to do
this test in 1994 and 1995? This Government, through the Congress,
spent $35 million. So now we want to shift to the dress rehearsal of
1998, and regardless of what comes out in that dress rehearsal, the
leadership has said they are going to kill it in 1999.
I ask Members in good conscience, how can they accept that? In 1970,
in 1980, in 1990, towns went to court against the census and the
Department of Commerce, spent millions of dollars, lawyers got rich.
All this document is going to do, this conference report, is make
lawyers richer, put more antagonism on the floor of this House, and
throw in the face of science what has already been proven.
What will we have accomplished? We are already past, way past, the
time when one person-one vote is a reality. It is supported by the law.
There are undercounts in small towns as well as large towns. All we
want is an honest count. I ask Members, this conference report, while
it has many good things in it, deserves to be sent down the tubes
because of this unreasonable attempt to fly in the face of the state of
the art and science.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], who has done
extraordinarily good work on 245(i).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring everyone's
attention to a provision in this pending bill which will eventually
phase out section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act,
245(i), which is a loophole for the sole benefit of illegal aliens.
For the 3 years this provision has existed, 245(i) has allowed anyone
in the world to come to the United States illegally, find a sponsor,
and then pay the Immigration and Naturalization Service a $1,000 fee to
have their illegal status changed to legal. Sixty-two percent, 62
percent, of those who benefited from 245(i) came to the United States
by sneaking across our borders. The rest came here on temporary visas
and overstayed them.
With 245 intact, we have been talking about enforcement of our laws
out of one side of our mouth and, with the other side, encouraging
people to break our laws. This is what George Orwell called doublespeak
in his classic novel ``1984.''
Although I am pleased that the Commerce-Justice-State conference has
drafted a bill that will end 245(i) in the future, I still have
concerns about the agreement that the conferees have come up with. The
new compromise still allows all those who have been living in the
United States illegally or those around the world who want to come to
the United States illegally to pay $1,000 to become legal. All they
have to do is find a sponsor to petition the INS within 60 days of the
time this bill is signed into law.
I would like to remind my colleagues that there are currently 5
million illegal aliens living in the United States. News of the 60-day
grace period has already sent them the message that they must quickly
find a sponsor, go to the nearest INS office, and file a petition that
puts them on the 245 illegal alien amnesty list. Just last week, crowds
of illegal aliens in southern California stood in line for hours at
packed INS offices because they heard on television that, for a limited
period of
[[Page H10911]]
time, they can become legal permanent residents.
In addition to illegal aliens who are already here, this grace period
sends a message to prospective illegal aliens around the world that the
U.S. borders are wide open for the next couple of months. All that is
required is a sponsor and $1,000.
Mr. Speaker, there is also a provision in this conference agreement
which allows anyone to come here on a temporary visa and overstay it
for up to 6 months. Even after violating the terms of their visa, these
people will become permanent legal residents without having to return
to their countries and go through the proper process. We are once again
compromising the integrity of our immigration process for those who
have broken our laws.
These provisions do not go far enough with this compromise to uphold
the integrity of the Illegal Immigration Reform Act that we passed last
year. Let us make sure this is the last time that we have to compromise
on this measure. Let us make sure we stick to our guns, because if we
ever, ever compromise again on this issue of illegal aliens coming in
here and then getting their status adjusted, no immigrant will ever
trust our word again. We will have floods of illegal immigrants into
our country.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker I yield 7\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Becerra].
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of the Members of this House to vote against
this rule today for a number of different reasons. I want to first say
that a number of things that did come out of this rule are good, and
there are actually many good provisions in this. One is the section
245(i) that my friend and colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr.
Rohrabacher], just railed against.
I will say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the
230-some-odd Members, bipartisan Members in this House, who voted to
preserve section 245(i) did it for a number of reasons: First, because
it preserves the integrity of our families; U.S. citizens are involved
in this. Also, because the business community said they did not want to
see a disruption of services, and also the opportunity for people to be
employed. So section 245(i), fortunately, we did something good on
that.
Where we did something very wrong was on the census. I would like to
concentrate my comments on the census with regard to the Commerce-
Justice-State appropriations bill. As much as it involves so many other
things, let me focus on the Census.
Mr. Speaker, if Members recall, back in the 1990 census, we did a
dismal job of counting the people of the United States of America,
dismal because some 5 million people in America were not counted, 5
million people who were absent, 5 million people who disappeared for
purposes of political representation in this body and for purposes of
the distribution of tax dollars which they contributed to the Federal
Treasury, which never went back to their communities, because they were
not counted and they were not in the formulas that determined how much
money would go back to these communities.
If we take a look at what we have in the census, we find that a State
like California, which probably had an undercount of some 1.2 million
people, probably will suffer worse consequences if we do not act upon a
system for the Bureau of Census which will allow it to have the most
accurate count of the people of the United States of America.
The Bureau has said that based on what the experts have told it,
statistical sampling, a methodology used by technicians and the experts
in the field, and they have talked to the National Academy of Sciences
that has done research on this, that the experts are saying that
statistical sampling is what is needed to try to give us the most
accurate count possible.
If we take a look at the language of the bill, let me read one of the
findings that we are supposed to support in this legislation under the
census.
Finding No. 7 says, ``The Congress finds that the use of statistical
sampling or statistical adjustment in conjunction with an actual
enumeration to carry out the Census with respect to any segment of the
population poses the risk of an inaccurate, invalid, and
unconstitutional Census.''
Now, this finding is just what it says, it is a finding. It is not
conclusive, nor is it constitutionally binding. But what we see is a
manifesto here. This is a document which is being created by the
majority to construct the ability to wage a campaign. This is a
document to allow the majority and those opposed to statistical
sampling to wage a campaign, both in the courts and on the streets,
against the use of the most accurate method to count all of America.
Why? Because there is a fear that the politics will turn against them
if all Americans are counted. Why? Because most of the people who are
missed are people who are poor, are people who are minorities, people
who do not often have a chance to vote. There is a fear that we will
empower them if we do count them.
How do we empower them in this manifesto? Well, one, we give anyone
in this country the right to sue the Government of the United States,
to say we are being injured by the use of statistical sampling, and we
bootstrap this by saying, you can go directly to the court, and even go
directly to the Supreme Court on an appeal in this matter.
Not only that, but read this. It says that the Speaker, unilaterally,
without ever having taken a vote of the 435 Members of this body, can
file a suit to oppose the statistical sampling. Not only can the
Speaker unilaterally file a suit, but the Speaker can employ the House
counsel, at our expense, and of course at the taxpayers' expense, to do
this litigation. Not only that, but the Speaker unilaterally could hire
outside counsel to do the work.
So we are going to be using taxpayer dollars to let the Speaker,
without ever having a vote in this House, hire attorneys to do the
litigation for all of us, even though we may never even be asked to
vote on that issue.
What else does this do? It gives a board that will be created the
power to oversee what the Census Bureau does. What is the problem
there? For the first time, I believe, in the history of conducting the
census, a body will be given access to private documents. For the first
time, I believe, in the history of this country taking the census, and
we have done it since we have become a Republic, a body that is not
affiliated directly with the Census, which is under strict
confidentiality requirements, will have access to every single bit of
data that the census Bureau collects.
Remember, Mr. Speaker, this is the utmost of private information
which we tell Americans that will not be disclosed, and not even the
FBI and CIA in lawsuits have been able to obtain some of this data. Yet
this board will be able to take every single piece of information that
the Census Bureau collects. What is wrong with that? This board, under
this legislation, must share this with congressional bodies,
committees.
{time} 1830
We just voted today with strong opposition from the Democrats to
create another subcommittee of the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight to look into the census. What is wrong with that? Well, that
committee can disclose some of this information. Even though there are
privacy concerns, for the first time there will be an opportunity to
disclose information, because this legislation will provide that
committee, that with body of Congress, with that opportunity.
All of that is to say that we are licensing with this manifesto a
campaign, if not legally, then certainly politically, on the streets
against statistical sampling. And what will be done is this, I
guarantee: In the next year or so after we do the dress rehearsal where
we test all the statistical sampling, we will see a comparison of the
actual numbers of people counted to those that we created as a result
of an actual count with statistical sampling, and hundreds of
thousands, if not millions, of dollars will be spent to say, look, the
count was not much different between the two. Let us not go with what
we speculate will be the real count through statistical sampling. Let
us go with what we know will be the count.
[[Page H10912]]
And, of course, that message will be directed to the State that will
see their population shrink or not grow, because those are States that
may lose representation in this body as a result of shifts in the
demographic population of this country. The result, we are going to
have an uproar of people saying, ``You mean to tell me that the census
will use some sampling method to say that this is the number of people
beyond what we actually counted, and that might cost me a
representative?'' No way.
And we are going to have a political fight in our land which we
cannot overcome because it will be difficult to ever convince the
American people that what we have done is actually done the best job of
providing an accurate census.
We heard many Members on the majority side of the aisle say we cannot
let this go. I heard one Member say this is the Republican Jihad,
religious war. There is a fear that if there is a count, if this is
allowed to occur, if we get that accurate count, those minorities,
those poor will be counted, and they may start to get engaged in the
political process. Heaven forbid. That is where we are heading.
So, as much good as was done by the chairman and ranking member on
this Committee on Appropriations, I must ask Members to vote against
this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, in a moment of uncharacteristic optimism, I
felt earlier that there was a possibility we might actually debate the
rule. And since it is such a good rule and really not controversial, I
thought we could dispose of it rather quickly. However, some very fine
words have been uttered, and some of the provisions of the measure that
the rule carries forward, and it seems that we are in a debate. So I
yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hastert].
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Goss] for yielding me the time.
My colleagues, a Republican Jihad? What kind of language is that?
What kind of insinuation is that? But I tell my colleagues something.
If we want to take a diversion from what this country has done for over
200 years, and that is to count the men and women and children in this
country one by one, in a very methodical way, and say, instead of doing
that, we are going to guess how many people are in this country, we are
going to make some assumptions, and we are going to put some equations
in place, and then we are going to put numbers in that equation, and if
that equation does not meet the assumptions that we want, then we are
going to do a statistical adjustment to make sure that the numbers that
did not come out the way we want will meet the assumptions we put in
the first place.
My colleagues, I think that this Congress has a responsibility first
of all to itself, secondly to the Constitution, third to the taxpayers
of this country that when we do the census, we do it right. What this
bill has done, and of course the White House has worked with this to
make sure that that language is in place and is fair and serves the
interest of all people, that, number one, we do a test, we do a dress
rehearsal; and in that dress rehearsal there will be enumeration, and
there will be statistical sampling and statistical adjustment. And when
we are done with statistical sampling, we have some transparencies. So
we know what the numbers are. We know what the science is. We know what
the technology is. And this Congress has the responsibility to do the
census, has the ability to make good judgments.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTERT. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS. Two questions quickly. One is has the Bureau of the
Census and Department of Commerce and the White House all signed off on
this proposal?
Mr. HASTERT. Reclaiming my time, that is correct.
Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield. Number
two, in the history of the United States of America, have we ever in
the census done anything like they are proposing, sampling or
statistical adjustment? Had we ever done that before?
Mr. HASTERT. Never in the history of this country.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Hastert] yield?
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield.
What I would like to do is also say, on my time, that one of the
things that the gentleman said over on the other side of the aisle is
that, my gosh, the Congress wants to look at these private numbers.
These are not private numbers. These are numbers that belong to the
people of this country, numbers that we need to take a look at, numbers
that we need to judge with.
Let me tell my colleagues, I put together a map or two in my
political life, and I could tell them, when we go down to census
blocks, the very most simple geographical components of map-making that
we have to have, we have to have very accurate numbers.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HASTERT. I will not yield.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from New Jersey
is not recognized. All Members will show courtesy to Members who are
speaking.
The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert] has 2 minutes remaining and
may proceed.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, when we put together these census blocks
for most simple geographical areas, the test that was done on this
statistical sampling, or statistical guessing, in 1995 had a plus or
minus 35 percent accuracy, plus or minus 35 percent accuracy. That
means, if there is a census block and it could be 100 people in it,
well, it could be 65, or it could be 135. We do not know. But when we
put those census blocks together and they become the building blocks
for any representative district, whether it is county board, school
board, city council, State representative, State Senate seat, we have
to have accurate building blocks to put these together, because I tell
my colleagues, when we go to the Federal court, they choose what
program they are going to take on what maps are most accurate, which
map has the least deviation.
In Illinois, in 1991, the Federal Court said that the map that they
chose was because 19 out of the 20 districts had a zero deviation, and
one district, the southernmost district in Illinois, had plus 2. That
takes pretty accurate measurement. That takes pretty accurate block-
building, census block by census block.
Now, if we wanted to use statistical sampling and say, guess how many
people are in the United States, 277 million, we probably would get a
pretty accurate number; or how many people lived in a State, 15 million
people, we would probably get a pretty accurate number; or how many
people are in a city, 3\1/2\ million, we probably would get a pretty
accurate number.
When we get down to census block and census block, we need to put a
name and address with a place and census block so that we can start to
put together those legislative and representative districts that bring
people to this body. The taxpayers of this country, the Constitution of
this country, expects the very best, and that is what we should give
them.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Waters].
(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentleman
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer]
and the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney] and all of those who
have worked so hard to try and make sense out of all of this. I know it
has been difficult. I know that they were trying to do everything that
they possibly could to see to it that we get a better count, because we
have had an undercount, almost 4.8 million people undercounted, and we
all know and believe that sampling could correct that. I understand
what they had to do.
But what I think most people do not understand is this: In an attempt
to work out the fact that there are people who want sampling, people
who do not want sampling, none of us have realized that really sampling
would help us all. It would help Democrats. It would help Republicans.
We would get a better count. This would inure to
[[Page H10913]]
everybody's benefit. But because Republicans are so afraid of sampling
and getting a better count, they were willing to literally go into the
back room and form a deal that, in the final analysis, is not in their
own best interest, and they do not even know what the deal is.
The fact of the matter is what has been agreed upon is that there
will be a way by which we can do sampling in the rehearsal, and they
will not interfere with that, in exchange for some bad language that we
allowed them to have that basically said that sampling is
unconstitutional maybe, and that somehow it is not in the best interest
of the American people. And then we gave standing to the Speaker, or
his representative, to go into court and the money to go along with it
to say, now they can go and fight us, and we are going to let them
fight us because we believe we can beat them in the court.
Well, in my estimation, it is a bad deal for everybody. I do not like
these schemes. I do not like these schemes because I think this bad
language that we allow them to put in the bill could be used as intent
language in the court, and they could say, ``Well, they voted for
something that they said you thought that it was not constitutional.''
I do not like this language, because I do not like the idea of giving
the Speaker all the resources he would like to have in order to go in
and fight us on sampling.
But let me tell my colleagues some other things I do not like. I do
not like the way this board is constructed. I do not like the idea that
we are about to set up and design a confrontation. We are going to give
the board resources and the ability to have confidential information.
We are going to kick up the arguments. And the debate and
confrontation, all of the radio talk shows are going to be talking
about sampling versus nonsampling. What we are going to have is a great
big nasty fight in America over sampling. And we have one side, my
side, who is saying, ``Trust me, we could beat them in court.'' And we
have the other side saying, ``Give me standing, and we will beat them
in court.''
Let me tell my colleagues what I think. I think that the Supreme
Court has ruled on this more than one time, and the Supreme Court said
sampling is fine. But further, the Supreme Court has said that the
Secretary has the right to use any statistical method he or she deems
necessary in order to get a good count.
If it was left up to me, I would let my colleagues do whatever they
would want to do, and I would take the findings of the court, and I
would go in court and I would proceed, and I would defend my position
in court, and I would enjoin any language that they would attempt to
have legislatively to say that it interferes with my ability as
Secretary to get the job done. I would fight them head on. I would not
have this diabolical scheme where most Republicans do not know what is
in the deal, most Democrats do not know what is in the deal, and we
have good people who are guessing at this and saying, ``Trust me, trust
me, trust me.''
I do not want to lose, and I think a head-up fight is a good fight. I
think we take all of the schemes out of it, and we go at it in court
straight up. I would ask for a no vote on this. I do not like the deals
that were made in the back rooms that Republicans should be afraid of
and Democrats alike.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise all Members that the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I yield such time as he
may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr.
Cunningham], the Duke.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why not sampling? Why not sampling? My
parents always told me to cut to the quick. And two times in a
political environment, people dance around the issue. It is because we
do not trust you. And I will be specific. We do not trust the liberal
leadership of the Democrat Party. The partisanship that has existed
since we have taken the majority in every single case, we do not trust
you. You want to guess. We want to count. For the first time in 200
years, you want to guess.
The White House has bought off on that language. The White House. So
I guess the White House is part of that Jihad that my colleague talked
about. No. We want an actual count. Let us take a look at some of the
issues. Anything goes to win. The end justifies the means.
{time} 1845
There is a story about a turtle and a snake. The snake could not swim
across a river and it was poisonous, so he jumped on the turtle's back
and said, ``If you take me across the river, I won't bite you.'' And
the turtle says, ``No, you're venomous. I'm not going to take you.''
The snake says, ``I give you my word. I'm not going to bite you.''
So the turtle takes the snake across. As soon as he gets on the other
side, the snake bites the turtle and in his death throes the turtle
says, ``But you gave me your word you wouldn't bite me.'' The snake
looks at him and says, ``I don't know what your problem is. You knew I
was a snake.''
We do not trust you * * * all the way through since 1994 in
partisanship. We do not trust you. Thirty-five percent error is allowed
within sampling in each district. Where do you think that 35 percent
error is going to take place? It is going to take place in Republican
districts. Look at INS in San Diego. We had 2,000 new immigrants.
Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman's words be taken down.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not speak in respect to anybody specifically.
Mr. HEFNER. Snake-like tactics. That is not complimentary. That is
not accurate. That is the gentleman's own opinion, and I ask that the
gentleman's words be taken down when he referred to the snake-like
tactics from duly elected Members of this body. I ask the gentleman's
words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All Members will suspend.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to the gentleman I have been very careful
not to specifically mention anybody.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would ask Members to suspend.
The Chair would ask the gentleman from California if he is
withdrawing his words.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I will not withdraw. I have not spoken to anybody
specifically.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Clerk will report the words.
{time} 1900
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Does the gentleman from
California seek recognition?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if I may restate my words, the gentleman
said it was really a deer and lion and not a snake and a turtle, and I
did not mean to infer, and I was very careful not to mention, anybody's
name. So I will restate it. By ``snakelike tactics'' I mean in general,
and I will be specific, but I will not apply to anybody specifically on
it, but I will point out some instances with different departments
within the Government that I think have used tactics that are, like was
said, we may not trust either one, sampling or counting, and if the
gentleman would accept that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to
withdraw the earlier words?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the
earlier words.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman may
proceed.
There was no objection.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, specifically what I was speaking to:
In San Diego, for example, there were 2,000 new citizens sworn in,
2,000. The Republican Party asked if they could have tables to
register, and they were told by Mr. Reed, head of the INS, no, they
could not. They went down to the ceremony itself, and there were 10
Democrat tables set up inside the building ready to go to register
people.
That kind of tactic we disagree with, and we think it is unfair.
I look at the INS and the Sanchez case refusing to give documents up
and apply and go toward the subpoenas. We think that was unfair.
I look at the Lincoln bedroom, the Vice President with the Buddhists,
and the money to the DNC.
[[Page H10914]]
I look to Charlie Trie, and Riady, and Lippo Bank, and the DNC and
dollars to that, Ron Brown, special deals with the buses, John Huang,
the DNC illegal campaign contribution, the FBI files, the IRS attacking
businesses, Secretary Babbitt up for deals with tribes to give money to
the DNC, and the whole point is, if my colleagues want to guess instead
of actually counting, we are not going to buy it. I think that if
looking at all of the different history, if it was different, we
probably would say, okay, let us take a look and let us see which one
works better.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. PASCRELL. Is the gentleman from California aware that in the past
four censuses that we did not have a nose count, that 85 percent of the
people were counted through normal means and the rest was due to an
adjustment?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar
because California underwent when we picked up many seats, and I
understand exactly the process. But we are saying an actual count of
individual noses is much fairer and more accurate than just guessing
which allows for 35 percent error in each district, and we do not feel
that that will be used on the up and up, and that is the reason why we
oppose sampling.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall]
for yielding this time to me.
I want to say a word about the census and then about the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. I hope that youngsters and students
have not been listening to this debate about statistical sampling
because, if so, they have had a royal miseducation about the science of
statistics and statistical techniques.
I want to suggest an alternative constitutional theory, that if this
body approves a method of taking the Census that deliberately gets an
undercount, that raises a constitutional question, and because we know
that statistical sampling is more accurate, that is the constitutional
issue before the body.
Mr. Speaker, I am a former chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. I appreciate that in conference $2.5 million was added to
the EEOC's appropriation after the Women's Caucus wrote the conferees
concerning stark underfunding of that agency. While this is $4 million
less than the President's request, this amount does represent an
increase.
I am pleased that the $7 million increase that was forthcoming from
the Watt-Norton amendment last year actually helped reduce the backlog
30 percent, and we should continue to fund the agency so that it can
continue to do that.
The Women's Caucus wrote the conferees in addition concerning
committee report language that remains in the bill and that could have
a chilling effect on EEOC's small litigation intervention program.
Historically, the complaint has been that the EEOC does too little, not
too much, litigation, and that is still the case.
In our letter, we express concern that the language could discourage
the EEOC from intervening in cases like the notorious Mitsubishi case
which protected the interests of hundreds of women who were not
included in the private litigation.
The Women's Caucus has another concern as well. In 1994, the Women's
Caucus supported and the Congress passed with strong bipartisan support
the Violence Against Women Act. An important provision of that act
allows for a suspension of deportation during a period in which an
abused immigrant spouse is granted an exemption to pursue legal
residency through self-petition.
Because the immigration section 245 provision in this bill does not
contain that specific exemption for qualified immigrants, these
battered spouses will be subject to deportation to obtain their green
cards, making it harder for women and their children to leave
dangerously abusive relationships with U.S. citizens. The women are
often intimidated and reluctant to leave as it is. They may be subject
to continuing abuse by their spouses and even to stalking if they
return to their countries.
The immigration provisions of the Violence Against Women Act were
written to provide a way out of violent relationships for battered
immigrant women and children. We believe that it is a serious mistake
not to include this exemption.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York [Mr. Engel].
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for all the
reasons that were mentioned in terms of the Census. But I also want to
call attention to another very, very important issue, and that simply
is the money that the United States owes in arrearages to the United
Nations, which is not in this either and which is another reason why I
oppose this.
Today our President is trying to reinvigorate the International
Coalition Against Iraq so that our young men and women will not have to
fight alone should the need arise. But just as we are readying the
Nation for some kind of action in the coalition, Congress may take this
disastrous step to undercut our ability to build a coalition of nations
at the U.N. This makes no sense. If we do not begin today the effort to
repay our arrearages to the U.N., our ability to forge a solid
coalition against Iraq will be severely in jeopardy.
I want to be absolutely clear. I believe that in paying off our debt
to the United Nations, it is in America's interest and it is justified
on its own merits by the good work the U.N. does around the world.
However, because of the threat emanating from the Persian Gulf, the
danger of not paying our arrears is now much greater as American troops
could be put at risk.
So I oppose this amendment, I oppose this rule, because of the Census
and because of the U.N. arrearages.
Today, our President is trying to reinvigorate the international
coalition against Iraq so that our young men and women will not have to
fight alone, should the need arise.
I voted for the Gulf War and will support the President again if
armed force is needed to reach Iraq a lesson.
But, just as we are readying the nation for military action, Congress
may take a disastrous step to undercut our ability to build a coalition
of nations at the U.N.
If we today do not begin the effort to repay our arrears to the U.N.,
our ability to forge a solid coalition against Iraq will be severely in
jeopardy.
I want to be absolutely clear: I believe that paying off our debt to
the U.N. is in America's interest and is justified on its own merits by
the good work the U.N. does around the world.
However, because of the threat emanating from the Persian Gulf, the
danger of not repaying our arrears is now much greater as American
troops could be put at risk.
It is unfortunate that only a potential military crisis can reawaken
the Congress to the need to pay what we owe to the world body.
Soon, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will offer a motion to
recommit this bill with instructions to waive the authorization
requirement for the $100 million repayment of the money the U.S. owes
the U.N.
I urge my colleagues to support the motion and, by doing so, support
our troops in the Gulf.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes 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. Speaker, I do not know if there could
be a more crucial determination than the one we might be making today.
How sad it is that on the shadow of the closing of this first session,
this important decision on how the census will be taken to count every
American is now being forced upon those of us who have fought to assure
that those who are homeless and those who are undercounted, those who
are rural, those who are urban, those who are Hispanic, those who are
African-American, those who are Caucasian and Asian, and those who are
others would not be counted.
It is tragic that we would have individuals of our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle begin to talk about snake tactics and
accusations of mistrust when it is well known that the National Academy
of Sciences has documented that sampling is the very best
[[Page H10915]]
way to ensure that all Americans are counted, rich or poor, black or
white. And this is a tragic response to the need for counting.
Might I say that there are points in this bill that I applaud, the
acknowledgment of the Peer Review Justice Center on Juvenile
Prevention. But yet I come to disappointment, the disappointment that
under 245(I) battered women who may be immigrants will be excluded and
therefore will not be allowed to stay in this country while others with
less concern will be.
But let me turn my attention to this census. How false to be able to
acknowledge that sampling is not an accurate count. It is, and the
Republicans know that it is, and the misguided language in this bill
that suggests that it is risky to suggest that this Speaker of the
House could threaten the sampling process and rush to the court system,
this denial of the state of the law that says that sampling is
accurate, this choice of these particular cities and the possibility
that they may not give us the ability to judge sampling in its
accuracy.
Mr. Speaker, on the last day of this session, do we not want to say
to the American people that our business is their business, that this
count can count all of them, that the resources of this Nation are
intended to meet all of their needs and not be falsely misrepresented
by Republicans who say, oh, we do not want sampling?
Mr. Speaker, we need to vote down this rule because it is not about
the American people, it is about pure politics in this body. What a
disgrace, a disgrace. Vote down this rule.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this is the way it is.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding this
time to me. The argument of sampling really boils down to this very
simple chart. Under the United States Census called for by the
Constitution, the way it has always been done, they go house to house,
door to door, and they count. Go to the first house, 3 people; the
second house, 7; third house, 6; and we come up with 16 people. Pretty
clear, pretty explicit, very understandable.
Now, as the last speaker said, Democrats' sample-matics is all about
politics. Go to the first house, 3 people; go to the second house, 7
people; go to the third house; and, really, they do not go because they
do not feel like it, it is time to knock off for lunch or do whatever
people do when they work for the Government. So then they say, well,
how many do we really need? We need 15 to 25 people? Well, we will just
do that because we did not go to the third house.
That is what this is all about. If my colleagues like sampling, how
would they like it done in their election? If my colleagues like
sampling, sample their next IRS return and see how their administration
backs them on that. Sample their golf score, sample their bookie; I do
not know.
Mr. Speaker, this is the way to do a Census. Count it head by head,
door by door.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Sawyer].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 2
minutes.
{time} 1905
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in deep gratitude for the passion and
commitment of a number of the Members, including the gentlewoman from
California [Mrs. Waters], the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra],
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell], the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Davis], the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] and
others. They are absolutely right about sampling.
The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pascrell] is right when he says
this is important. Several sampling techniques were evaluated in 1994
and 1995. Some were found to be woefully wanting; they were rejected.
One enumeration method including sampling was selected, and now must be
refined in the context of a full census-like environment known as a
dress rehearsal.
This is not a reflection of a lack of confidence in sampling. It has
been planned from the beginning of the decade. Like war game exercises,
it is a needed step in preparing for this huge national undertaking.
When the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra] suggested that 5
million people were missed, I suggest that he underestimates. In fact,
10 million people were missed in 1990, 6 million were doubled, for a
net undercount of 4 million, but an aggregate error of 16 million.
I am grateful for this support for sampling, and I share that
support. I will vote differently on this bill. This bill is not a
pretty piece of legislation. It is kind of a Rube Goldberg contraption.
It is not a permanent victory for sampling; it is not a permanent
defeat. The provisions regarding the census, however, reflect a clear
victory for supporters of keeping sampling alive so it can be
appropriately tested. There is no realistic chance for an injunction.
Confidentiality is protected by current law.
I support this rule; I support going forward with sampling; I support
keeping it alive until its accuracy can be verified in a census-like
environment, in a dress rehearsal in 1998, and evaluated in 1999.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that actually this debate was
supposed to be on the rule. I did not hear much objection to the rule.
Actually I heard some praise for it. I think it is a fine rule, and
perhaps we can get on with the debate about the census, which I know we
have all been waiting for eagerly.
I would like to compliment the gentleman from Louisiana, Chairman
Livingston, and the gentleman from Kentucky, Chairman Rogers, and the
ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey, for the fine
work they have done through the appropriations process, which we now
hope is drawing to a close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Without objection, the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and
agree to House Concurrent Resolution 137 will be reduced to 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 285,
nays 113, not voting 34, as follows:
[Roll No. 636]
YEAS--285
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clayton
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Cook
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
Delahunt
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
[[Page H10916]]
Kim
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Manzullo
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Price (NC)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Adam
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tanner
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tierney
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Vento
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--113
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baldacci
Becerra
Bentsen
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bonior
Borski
Boyd
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Cummings
Danner
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Doggett
Engel
Ensign
Evans
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E.B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Klink
Kucinich
Lampson
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Martinez
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McKinney
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Nadler
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Stabenow
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Torres
Towns
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--34
Baker
Blumenauer
Combest
Cubin
Dickey
Ehlers
Flake
Fowler
Furse
Gonzalez
Green
Houghton
John
LaFalce
Lipinski
McInnis
Miller (CA)
Myrick
Nussle
Ortiz
Pickett
Pryce (OH)
Riley
Roemer
Schiff
Smith (OR)
Snyder
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Watkins
Wexler
White
Wise
Yates
{time} 1931
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Riley for, with Mr. Yates against.
Mrs. LOWEY changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DELAHUNT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________