[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.

                          ____________________