[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6781-H6790]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1630
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4276, DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, 
JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 
                              ACT, FY 1999

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 508 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 508

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4276) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, 
     and

[[Page H6782]]

     related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1999, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill 
     shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     2(l)(6) of rule XI, clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 401(a) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 
     6 of rule XXI are waived. The amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and 
     only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, 
     shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against the amendments printed in the report 
     are waived. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. McInnis) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of the debate 
only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 508 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4276, the Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary 
and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999.
  The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2(1)(6) of rule 11, requiring a 3-day 
layover of the committee report, and clause 7 of rule 21, requiring 
relevant printed hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior 
to the consideration of a general appropriations bill. The report has 
been available for the required time, but a printing mistake 
necessitates the rules waivers.
  The rule also waives section 401(a) of the Budget Act, prohibiting 
consideration of legislation, as reported, providing new contract, 
borrowing or a credit authority that is not limited to amounts provided 
in the appropriations acts. This is simply a technical waiver.
  House Resolution 508 provides for one hour of general debate, divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority Member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations and legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, 
and clause 6 of rule 21, prohibiting reappropriations in a general 
appropriations bill.
  House Resolution 508 provides for the consideration of the amendments 
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, which may only be 
offered by a Member designated in the report and only at the 
appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for the time specified, and shall not be 
subject to further amendment or to a demand for a division of the 
question. The rule also waives all points of order against amendments 
printed in the Rules Committee report.
  The rule also accords priority and recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, and allows the 
chairman to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting 
time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in 
any series of questions is not less than the traditional 15 minutes. 
These provisions will facilitate consideration of amendments and 
guarantee the timely completion of the appropriation bills.
  House Resolution 508 also provides for one motion to recommit, with 
or without instructions.
  H.R. 4276 appropriates a total of $70.89 billion for fiscal year 
1999. The bill provides ample funding for the Departments of Justice, 
State, and local law enforcement, the Violence Against Women Act, and 
restores Local Law Enforcement block grant funding.
  I am also pleased to say that the bill provides $533 million to 
combat juvenile crime, including $283 for juvenile crime prevention 
programs, $5 million more than President Clinton has requested.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 508 is an open rule, an open rule, Mr. 
Speaker, providing Members with every opportunity to amend this 
appropriations bill.
  In addition, the Committee on Rules has made three additional 
amendments in order. The rule makes in order an amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) dealing with fisheries and 
enforcement.
  In addition, we have made in order the Hefley amendment, that will 
prevent funds from being implemented to enforce Executive Order 13087 
and Executive Order 13083. I am concerned, frankly, Mr. Speaker, that 
the President has decided to use executive order strategy to 
incrementally implement portions of an agenda.
  One of the President's advisers has recently put it best when he 
described the President's intent with this flurry of executive orders, 
which I think is causing an immense problem for this Congress: ``The 
stroke of the pen, the law of the land. Kinda cool.'' Mr. Speaker, it 
is Congress' sole authority to make law. We must restrain the abuse of 
executive orders.
  The Committee on Rules has made in order an amendment to be offered 
by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) dealing with the 
Census. In this bill, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has 
crafted a plan to ensure that Congress and the administration jointly 
decide how to conduct the 2000 Census.
  Unfortunately, the amendment says that the U.S. Congress has no role 
to play in the 2000 Census, and the administration can move forward 
with a risky new plan that uses statistical sampling methods. Let me 
read the current law: ``Except for the determination of population for 
purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the 
several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, 
authorize the use of the statistical method known as 'sampling'.'' The 
law is clear, sampling is illegal for the purposes of reapportionment.
  Mr. Speaker, every American must be counted. We should not allow the 
government bureaucrats to guess. We should not jeopardize the 2000 
Census with an idea that the GAO and President Clinton's Commerce 
Inspector General call ``high risk.''
  In addition, we cannot gamble with the trust the American people have 
in a successful Census. In the past, by naturalizing criminal aliens in 
time for the 1996 election, the Clinton administration has proven they 
will abuse power for political purposes. President Clinton should not 
be allowed just to delete certain American citizens from being counted.
  Our plan will safeguard the Census. This bill provides $956 million 
for the Census, including $4 million for the Census Monitoring Board, 
an increase of almost $600 million over fiscal year 1998, and $107 
million over the President's request. This Congress is insisting that 
we pay whatever it takes to do a good job counting every American, just 
as the United States Constitution requires us to do.
  It is not a poll, it is not guesswork, it is an enumerated count of 
the American people. We cannot afford to let this administration guess 
about the official Census count. We will fulfill our constitutional 
duty to count the people in full. We must make sure we count every 
American.

[[Page H6783]]

  H.R. 4276 was favorably reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations, as was the open rule by the Committee on Rules. I urge 
my colleagues to support the rule so we may proceed directly to the 
general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of 
H.R. 4276, pursuant to House Resolution 508, debate on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) printed in 
House Report 105-641 be extended to 2 hours.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is our understanding that this agreed-to 
increase in debate time on that particular amendment is premised on the 
understanding that this would be the only amendment offered with 
respect to the Census.
  Is that the understanding of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FROST. Yes, that is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. McINNIS. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of House Resolution 508. 
This rule is a mixed bag. While it provides for the consideration of 
the appropriations for the important functions of the Departments of 
State, Justice, and Commerce, it also makes in order an amendment which 
overturns an executive order which prohibits discrimination in 
employment in the Federal Government based on sexual orientation.
  While the rule makes in order an amendment by the subcommittee 
ranking member to allow full debate on the issue of the manner in which 
the year 2000 Census will be conducted, the Committee on Rules did not 
allow for an amendment which would have aided in the hiring of Census 
enumerators, who will be necessary to ensure that an accurate count is 
made of all the residents of this country.
  While the bill provides $20 million for programs to combat school 
violence, the Republican majority did not allow an amendment which 
would have earmarked $100 million for specific programs which would 
give schools and communities even greater opportunities to reduce 
violence in our public schools.
  I hope the bill can be improved and that amendments which may trigger 
a veto can be defeated. I would also like to address the three issues I 
have just outlined.
  To begin, Mr. Speaker, the provisions in the committee bill relating 
to the year 2000 Census are unreasonable and, quite frankly, 
unacceptable to Democratic members and to the administration. The 
committee has only provided for 6 months of funding for this massive 
and constitutionally required project, and has placed restrictions on 
planning that will result in delays and disruption in the management of 
the project.
  The Republican majority, in their quest to force a political showdown 
with the administration over the issue of sampling, is risking not only 
a veto of this bill, but also a failed Census. The Republican 
majority's insistence on denying the Census Bureau the option of using 
statistical sampling as a means to aid in the gathering of an accurate 
and complete count of the number of individuals who are residing in 
this country is dangerous.
  I am pleased that the rule will allow for the consideration of an 
alternative amendment to be offered by the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) which will remove these restrictions on funding, to 
allow planning for this enormous undertaking to go forward so that the 
count will be as accurate as possible. Mr. Speaker, we must allow the 
Census Bureau to go forward in its planning for the year 2000 Census. 
It is incumbent on the Members of this body to support the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Republican majority 
has seen fit to include in the rule the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). The Hefley amendment seeks to 
reverse Executive Order 13087, which was issued on May 28 by the 
President. As Members are very well aware, this executive order 
prohibits discrimination against individuals in Federal hiring because 
of their sexual orientation.
  Mr. Speaker, this amendment is nothing but veto bait, and it is 
unfortunate that the Republican majority must use this issue as 
material for campaign brochures and speeches. I am sorry that the 
extreme agenda of the ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party 
must use the civil rights of gays and lesbians as a way to hold up 
funding for the important functions of the Departments of State, 
Justice, and Commerce.
  There are other amendments which, if adopted, could trigger a veto. I 
urge my colleagues to resist adding language or reducing funding which 
would jeopardize the timely enactment of this bill.
  If this bill is vetoed, Mr. Speaker, we risk providing timely funding 
for important Justice Department programs, such as providing $25 
million to help State and local law enforcement agencies provide 
bulletproof vests for police officers, which is funded as part of the 
total $1.4 billion for the hugely successful COPS program.
  To date 76,771 additional police have been put on the beat on the 
streets of our cities and towns since this program began in fiscal year 
1994. The funding in this bill will allow for an additional 17,000 
officers to be hired. COPS is a successful program, and has played a 
large part in the reduction of violent crime in this country. Its 
funding should not be jeopardized.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill also includes an important earmark of $20 
million for the unobligated balances of the COPS program, to be used 
for grants to policing agencies and schools for programs aimed at 
preventing violence in our public schools. This is a fine beginning as 
we struggle with the issue of violence in our schools. I commend the 
committee for including these funds.
  In June I met with about 30 school administrators and schoolteachers 
in my congressional district to talk about what can and should be done 
to instill discipline in the classroom and to combat violence. The 
times have changed since I grew up in Fort Worth. Listening to these 
dedicated educators drove home that point.
  Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to learn that more than 6,000 students 
were expelled from schools across the country last year for bringing a 
firearm to school, just as I had been shocked and deeply saddened by 
the violence that has taken the lives of 14 students and teachers and 
injured 47 others since last October.
  But I came away from that meeting with a concrete idea of what we can 
do here in Washington to help schools in our home towns deal with 
disruptive students, gangs, drugs, and guns, because those concerned 
educators told me that one of their most pressing needs was more 
uniformed police officers in schools. They told me that having law 
enforcement officers in a school not only cuts down on crime, but also 
gives the students the opportunity to talk to an authority figure about 
what is happening on campus.
  I have introduced H.R. 4224, the Safe Schools Act of 1998, as a 
follow-up to this forum. My bill would provide $175 million in funding 
to allow local communities to hire sworn law enforcement officers to 
patrol in and around their schools. This money will allow up to 7,500 
police to be hired, in addition to the 100,000 new police who have been 
or will be hired under the COPS program.
  While these funds are not part of this bill, it is my intention to 
work to see them included in next year's appropriation.
  Mr. Speaker, some schools already have uniformed law enforcement 
officers. In fact, a number of school districts in my own congressional 
district already do. I would like to quote Sergeant James Hawthorne of 
the Arlington Texas Police Department, who has endorsed the 
continuation and expansion of this idea.

                              {time}  1645

  ``It is worth every penny. You cannot put a price on a child's life. 
And above and beyond that, you hope to be a positive influence on kids 
throughout their lives.'' I could not agree more, Mr. Speaker.

[[Page H6784]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule specifically 
because it includes the Mollohan amendment to restore full, 
uninterrupted funding for the 2000 Census preparations.
  Opponents of the Census Bureau's plans for 2000 say that we ought to 
take the census the same way we have for the last 200 years. They call 
the plan a ``radical new approach to conducting the census.'' Nothing 
could be further from the truth.
  The truth is that the census has changed immensely throughout its 
history because it has had to keep pace with a Nation that itself is 
changing. Counting the population in 2000 the same way we did in 1960, 
much less the way we did in 1790, would be simple folly.
  In 1790, U.S. Marshals, 600 of them, went out on horseback and 
counted and tabulated information for about 4 million people in the new 
Nation. They missed about 100,000. They added enumerators over the 
year, but by 1850, the number of Americans had quadrupled, far too much 
information for census takers to add up on their own. So, for the first 
time, they sent the forms to Washington to count.
  Thousands of clerks in hot, sticky rooms leafed through millions of 
forms by hand, while the population doubled again. By then it took 8 
years to tabulate the 1880 census. Fortunately, the punch card arrived 
in 1890, allowing for automated tabulation. A radical new approach, but 
it saved time and money.
  Our population would nearly triple over the next 50 years. By 1940, 
punch cards could not keep up and by 1950, crude computers took over 
the job.
  In response to Americans' impatience with the growing response 
burden, the Bureau developed sampling techniques to gather vital data 
on everything from education to veterans status. But compiling the 
numbers was not the only problem. There were too many people in too 
many households spread out across four times more land area than in 
1790. Workers knocking on every door were making more mistakes than the 
Nation could tolerate.
  So, in 1970, the census underwent perhaps the most radical change in 
its history: counting people by mail, not by enumerator. That worked 
fairly well for a while. In 1970, 80 percent of the people returned 
their forms, but by 1990, only 65 percent did. That meant a half a 
million census workers had to knock on 35 million doors. The cost of 
the census skyrocketed, while the results worsened badly.
  The 1990 census missed more than 8 million Americans, counting 4 
million people twice and millions more in the wrong place; not because 
the Census Bureau did not know how to do its job, but because the 
methods it developed to count the country in previous decades were 
outdated by 1990.
  So once again in 2000, the Census Bureau will make changes. It will 
make forms more widely available, pay for first-class advertising, and 
use widely accepted scientific methods to include all Americans this 
time around.
  Take the census the same way we have done for 200 years? There is no 
``same way.'' The census has been changing from its beginning, just as 
the country has.
  A radical new approach in 2000? Nope, just trying to keep up with a 
growing, changing, and moving Nation, the same way they always have.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) who is not only chairman of the committee, but 
also the sponsor of the bill.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
McInnis) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, obviously, of this rule. It is an 
open rule, as is usual with appropriations bills. It waives all points 
of order against the bill as reported.
  The important fact, I think I need to say, is that we need to take 
action on this bill as quickly as we can. This is the bill that 
provides the funding for our Federal law enforcement agencies: all of 
the Justice Department agencies, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement 
Administration, most all of the law enforcement agencies of the Federal 
Government.
  We provide funding to our State and local law enforcement agencies; 
all of our sheriffs, all of our police departments, all of the local 
law enforcement folks out there who need the Federal assistance is in 
this bill.
  We fund, of course, the Federal courts, from the Supreme Court all 
the way down, and most of the agencies that work with the courts, such 
as the Marshals Service.
  We provide the funding for the National Weather Service and the 
modernization efforts of the National Weather Radar System that is 
increasingly providing advanced warning to our constituents of 
dangerous weather.
  We provide, of course, in the State Department portion of the bill, 
all of our diplomacy operations around the globe. We provide assistance 
to small businesses in our communities and a host of other vital and 
necessary functions.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it is important that this bill proceed and be passed 
and be signed and become law.
  There are some controversial matters in the bill, but let us not lose 
sight of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is vitally necessary in 
so many areas of our national life.
  If we set one priority in this bill, it is to provide increased 
funding for the fight against crime and to empower Federal, State, and 
local law enforcement with the resources they need to enforce our laws 
and prevent crime.
  Mr. Speaker, thanks to this Congress and the work of this 
subcommittee and the full Committee on Appropriations, but most 
importantly the Congress, over the last several years we have 
fundamentally increased the funding for the law enforcement agencies, 
which I think is having a major impact on crime. We are seeing 
reductions of crime for the first time in many years in this Nation, a 
lot of which I think can be attributable to the fact that we have 
provided the funding in this bill, not just for the Federal agencies, 
but perhaps more importantly for the local law enforcement agencies by 
the billions of dollars. Now, over the last couple of years, we have 
funded the fight against juvenile crime and juvenile delinquency and 
juvenile crime prevention in this bill.
  We provide in the bill that is before us an increase of over a half 
billion dollars for the Department of Justice crime programs.
  We provide $4.9 billion for State and local law enforcement, $400 
million more than was requested by the White House and $47 million more 
than the current spending.
  We restore the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant to give local law 
enforcement agencies monies to spend for their specific needs. We give 
them maximum flexibility to spend according to their requirements. That 
figure is $523 million.
  Mr. Speaker, we provide also a juvenile crime block grant to allow 
States and localities for their needs to prevent juvenile crime, a 
quarter of a billion dollars. The President proposed to eliminate this 
in his budget request. We restore it to the bill.
  We provide $283 million also for juvenile crime prevention, most 
important in this era, a $44 million increase over current levels. And 
for the first time, Mr. Speaker, the Congress passed a bill recently 
authorizing bulletproof vests for our local police. This bill for the 
first time provides the money to buy and pay for the bulletproof vests 
that protect the lives of the people that protect us. That is in this 
bill.
  We provide $104 million in new funding to help States and localities 
raise their level of preparedness for chemical and biological 
terrorism. First time funding, first time we have done this so that our 
local fire departments, rescue squads and local responders now have 
funds in this bill to train, to educate, to equip themselves to help 
fight off the awful things that may happen in our cities or localities 
that we would call terrorism. In this building, we know now what that 
really means.
  We provide more than $8.4 billion for the war on drugs, including a 
$95 million increase for the Drug Enforcement Administration, $31 
million more than they requested. We put $10 million more into the drug 
courts in localities which are doing wonderful work throughout the 
country, and $10 million for a new program to help small businesses 
create drug-free workplaces.
  We provide a thousand new Border Patrol agents to guard the border, 
$216

[[Page H6785]]

million more than they have now for controlling illegal immigration. 
The bill provides a $47 million Interior enforcement initiative to 
force the INS to respond to State and local police in every State when 
they find suspected illegal aliens. Now, the INS simply does not answer 
the phone when the State police calls and says they have a vanload of 
illegals, and they are turned loose. We put money in here to respond to 
that, to give State and local police a way to have the INS assist in 
the removal of the illegal aliens they watch.
  This rule will allow us to move forward. I am very appreciative of 
the Committee on Rules. They have done a wonderful job.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule to allow us to move ahead 
with this vitally important bill, vitally important to every Member and 
every district in the country.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I would like to take this 
opportunity to thank the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon), chairman of the Committee on Rules, for his fair 
consideration of our requests. I also want to thank my good friend, the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking 
member, for his guidance and advocacy of our interests in the 
development of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I am pleased that the Committee on 
Rules recommended an open rule for the consideration of this bill, for 
the same reasons our chairman just mentioned. It allows for all Members 
on both sides of the aisle to debate the issues thoroughly.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased that this rule makes in order my 2000 
Census amendment, the ``Let's Count Everybody Amendment,'' and allows 2 
hours of debate on the issue. It is a very complicated matter, and any 
less time would not have allowed for a meaningful debate.
  First, the 2000 Census is just around the corner, and what does this 
bill do? It cuts off funding for the census preparation in the middle 
of the year, putting at risk funding for the census preparation for the 
rest of the year. That is no way to do business. We cannot plan for a 
professionally run census with that kind of a funding scheme. My 
amendment fixes that. It guarantees funding for the whole fiscal year.
  Second, I must note the seriousness with which the administration 
takes its duty to make sure that the 2000 Census is as accurate as 
possible in accounting for everyone in America: the urban and the 
rural, majorities and minorities, adults and children, especially the 
children.
  During the 1990 failed census, one-half of those people who were 
never counted, the missed, the overlooked, the forgotten, were 
children. The administration is committed to veto this measure unless 
the Census Bureau is allowed to incorporate the recommendations of the 
National Academy of Sciences by employing scientific sampling in the 
conduct of the 2000 Census, so that those who were left out of the 1990 
Census will be included in the 2000 Census. Everyone in our country.
  If the language contained in the bill is not amended, we will end up 
with a census that is not credible to anyone. I believe my amendment 
provides an equitable approach to this issue, and hope that it 
represents a compromise that at the end of the day, everyone can 
support.
  Our chairman, the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
obviously disagrees with the merits of my amendment, but to his credit, 
he argued for my right to offer the amendment. The gentleman's 
friendship and bipartisan nature have made working on this subcommittee 
a pleasure and an honor and we thank him.
  The open rule, of course, also allows for consideration of an 
additional amendment I intend to offer to increase funding for the 
Legal Services Corporation by $109 million. For the last 2 years, the 
subcommittee has recommended funding the Legal Services Corporation at 
$141 million. Consequently, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) 
and I have offered an amendment in each of the last 2 years to increase 
funding to $250 million. We again find ourselves in a similar situation 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for that amendment.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my disappointment that 
this rule makes in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley). This amendment would in part prevent funds 
from being used to enforce an executive order prohibiting employment 
discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman's amendment is misguided. It plays 
to fears and prejudices, and I hope the debate on this amendment will 
not degenerate as it has on similar amendments in the past. In any 
event, this bill is certainly not the appropriate vehicle for this kind 
of an amendment.

                              {time}  1700

  Additionally, I would like to note that my colleague, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), testified before the Committee on Rules on 
two separate and unrelated amendments, and I regret that the rule makes 
them in order together.
  In conclusion, I think that this is a fair rule, and I urge its 
support.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, to respond to the previous speaker, this is a very fair 
rule. We appreciate his support. We have made it fair because we want 
open debate on this in regards to the Hefley amendment. This is not 
where that debate should take place. That debate should take place in 
the general debate. We are prepared to debate it, but the key here is 
openness and open debate by the Members of this body.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is entitled to that open 
debate, just the same as I am entitled to that debate, just the same as 
anyone on that side of the aisle is entitled to that debate, so that is 
why that is in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
rule, and I thank the committee for ruling the Mollohan amendment in 
order.
  I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his extraordinary leadership in 
working towards achieving an accurate census for 2000. The Nation needs 
an accurate census of our population, one that includes everybody. The 
Census Bureau has a modern, comprehensive plan for 2000 to eliminate 
the undercounting of the population and produce a more accurate census.
  We should not be satisfied with a census which underrepresents 
millions of people, as the census did in 1990. Only with modern 
improvements in the census will we be able to achieve this.
  We should not be satisfied with a census which underrepresents 
people. The Mollohan amendment allows the Census Bureau to move forward 
with the census by striking a provision in the bill that fences off 
half of the 1999 fiscal year appropriation. Americans in every 
community benefit from having a more accurate census. Census data 
helped direct Federal spending for schools, health care. Programs for 
seniors and children, businesses, industry, local governments and local 
communities all rely on accurate census data to make decisions. Without 
an accurate census, local communities will not receive their fair 
share.
  We need to fund the census for the whole fiscal year. We cannot cut 
off funding in the middle of the year. They will not be able to do 
their job. We owe it to our country to ensure that we have the most 
fair and accurate census of all of our people that we can produce.
  Let us put politics aside and allow the professionals at the Census 
Bureau to do their job. Let us fund it properly. Let us move forward. 
Let us support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill. I most especially want to 
thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.

[[Page H6786]]

Rogers) for his leadership in bringing forth a bill that is very 
beneficial to all of the agencies that are affected by this 
appropriations bill and a bill that is going to be positive for the 
country.
  One of the aspects of the bill that I am proud of is the funding that 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has provided for Radio and TV 
Marti, especially TV Marti. Because year after year this program comes 
under attack by those who are grabbing at straws, trying to find 
anything that they can to excuse their longstanding history of 
supporting excessive government spending and wasting taxpayer funds, 
and they come and use this bill in order to hide from these attacks. 
And year after year their target, unfortunately and unfairly, is TV 
Marti, which is one part of a two-prong strategy to reach the Cuban 
people, to inform them about the world outside their island prison, and 
to educate them about the democratic principles through the 
implementation of some of democracy's most important liberties, which 
is freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which are denied to 
them daily in Cuba.
  TV and Radio Marti are reaching the Cuban people. If it were not, the 
Castro regime would not be obsessed with its demise. If it were not 
effective, Castro officials would not be roaming the halls of Congress 
lobbying for an end to these transmissions.
  I ask my colleagues to remember the immortal words of a leader like 
Martin Luther King who said, Let freedom ring. Let the Cuban people 
then hear and see TV and Radio Marti. Let the echoes of democracy reach 
the enslaved Cuban people. Let them witness firsthand what it means to 
be free. Through these transmissions they can see what is going on in 
our country and in other free countries.
  The United States has the tools to accomplish these lofty goals, and 
one of those tools is Radio and TV Marti. If we are truly committed to 
bringing all of the countries in our hemisphere into our democratic 
fold, if we are truly committed to helping the Cuban people free 
themselves from the enslavement, then we must render our full support 
for the rule and the bill, Commerce, State, Justice appropriations.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for bringing forth this amendment and also the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) for his work on the census and my 
colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The fact of the matter is that the Mollohan amendment made in order 
by the rule will affect the future of everyone living in this country. 
We can either choose to miss the 8.4 million people residing in the 
United States, as we did in 1990, or we can make the best effort 
possible to count them. That is the choice that will be presented to us 
after the rule. Five percent of Latinos, 4 percent of African Americans 
and 2.3 percent of Asian Americans were not counted in the last census, 
and that is simply not right.
  The Census Bureau wants to do the best it can to count every 
American, but this bill, as it exists, does not allow it. Instead, it 
ties the Census Bureau's hands and renders them ineffective. When some 
Americans are not counted, all Americans are diminished.
  Undercounts affect the decisionmaking of 100 Federal programs that 
dispense over $100 billion in funds to our communities. Undercounts 
negatively affect economic empowerment and the decisions that flow from 
that undercount. Undercounts negatively affect political 
enfranchisement and political empowerment. Undercounts negatively 
affect business decisions, where to invest, what markets to pursue. The 
lasting effects of undercounts to communities, to Hispanic Americans, 
to African Americans are devastating in the long run.
  So let us count every American in the new millennium. We do that by 
providing the appropriate resources to the census and by adopting the 
Mollohan amendment. That is why it is important to vote for the 
Mollohan amendment. We want to ensure that every American gets counted 
in this next census, the next census of the new century. It will be 
important to all of our communities.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
the Commerce, Justice and State appropriation bill that the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) is presenting and we will be debating next 
week.
  I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for the handling 
of the census issue in this bill. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) provides over $100 million more than was provided, requested in 
the President's budget. Over $100 million more has been provided 
because we want to count everyone. It is going to cost money to do 
this. We are going to spend $4 billion.
  This is not something we should play around with on polling to do 
that. We are talking about $4 billion of real money. We are providing 
$100 million more this year. And we all agree, Republicans and 
Democrats, that we want to count everybody. We should not miss anyone. 
It is hard work to do the census. We are prepared to put the resources 
in there to do the hard work.
  This has to be done in a nonpartisan fashion. This should not be a 
partisan issue. We agree it should not be a partisan issue. There 
should not be a Democratic census. There should not be a Republican 
census. There should not be a Clinton census. There should not be a 
Newt Gingrich census. This has to be done in a bipartisan fashion.
  It is very unfortunate that the President interjected politics on to 
this and said, it is going to be done my way or no way. That Congress 
is irrelevant in the issue, the President is, in effect, saying. 
Actually, the Mollohan amendment says the same thing, because he says, 
only let the President make that decision, that we in Congress have no 
input to the decision. It is only $4 billion. Let the President decide 
how to spend that money. Let the President decide whether he wants to 
have a failed census or not.
  Hey, the Constitution says it is Congress' responsibility to design 
how the census is done. And now the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) says, no, no, no, no, Congress, you are not relevant anymore. 
We want to decide, and we are going to do it our way.
  What the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has proposed is that we 
are going to make a decision next March. The Census Bureau agrees the 
decision should be made in March of next year. The President's own 
budget talks about a March 1 date. At hearings, under oath, they said, 
we can decide by March 1 of next year. So let us make the decision 
together then.
  And the reason that date was chosen is partly because we have that 
much time. The other reason is, we will have dress rehearsals. We will 
not know the results of the dress rehearsals until the end of this year 
or the first of next year. The monitoring board will give their 
results, and we will have a report from them early next year. Some 
court cases will be heard, and maybe we will have some results from 
them by then.
  So there is no reason the decision has to be made today, and there is 
no reason we should give the President total choice of the plan he 
wants to do. Why? Because the plan he has proposed is moving towards 
failure. It is based on this polling idea.
  I know the President loves polling. He makes all his decisions on 
polling. But this is serious business. We all agree this is serious 
business. This is a basic democratic system which is dependent on this 
census. It is a trust in our system of government. Most elected 
officials in America are dependent on the census, whether it is a 
school board member, a city council person, State legislators and, yes, 
the House of Representatives, are going to be impacted by the census.
  If we do not have a census we can trust, and that means a bipartisan 
census, it has got to be done together, then we are not going to have 
one that is going to be trusted by the American people. We must work 
together to get a census that is not based on polling, that says this 
will work out best for me.
  We have to do everything we can to count everybody, everyone. Let us 
put the resources into counting everyone, and we are committed to doing 
that, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) put over $100 million 
more into the appropriation for the Census Bureau this year alone.

[[Page H6787]]

  We are moving towards failure. This idea of polling was attempted in 
the 1990 census. It was a failure in 1990. And now the administration 
says, we want to totally rely on this failed idea. That is 
irresponsible, in my opinion.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman is chairman of the 
House Subcommittee on the Census, in charge of authorization and 
oversight on the census. Before he came to this body, did the gentleman 
have any expertise in this field? I know the gentleman does not like to 
brag. If I may say so, is the gentleman not a professor of statistics?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Well, I taught at Georgia State University 
Atlanta, taught statistics for many years. It was the Department of 
Quantitative Methods up there. I taught at the graduate and 
undergraduate level, and the MBA. I have taught statistics for years at 
LSU, University of South Florida, Georgia State University.
  I respect statistics. Polling has a relevant role. We all use polling 
all the time, especially if we do not have the time or money to do 
something else.
  But statistics is a very dangerous thing. My first lecture, whenever 
I taught statistics, was based on a book, How to Lie with Statistics, 
because you can use statistics to achieve your point. People use it all 
the time. The way graphs are designed, what base years are used, there 
is a whole variety of ways.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, 
well, if the Constitution says, as it does, that we have to have an 
actual enumeration for the purposes of reapportionment of this body, 
not for business decisions, not for finding out how many people have 
blue eyes on the third Sunday of every month, but for the 
reapportionment of the House of Representatives, as a doctor of 
statistics, what is your opinion that the drafters of the Constitution 
meant when they said, you must have an actual enumeration?

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. We need to have actual counts. We should not 
use polling. And we need to work together to trust the system of 
government. It is too important to play politics with this issue. The 
President is playing politics with it. It is very clear. We need to 
count everybody. We need to put the resources in. There are a lot of 
good ideas, from paid advertising this time, and working in outreach 
programs, whether we need to use the WIC program. Why do we not use the 
WIC program to help count kids? Why do we not use Medicaid records? We 
can provide the resources to do that. We can come together and get a 
good census.
  Mr. ROGERS. Does the gentleman say we should do away with this vote 
board up here and just guess on how the vote is going to go?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. That is right.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Committee on Rules has brought 
forth an open rule for consideration of the Commerce, Justice, State 
appropriations bill and I am happy to say that I plan to support that 
bill. But as a member of the Subcommittee on Census, I would like to 
express some of my concerns about the portion of the bill which places 
restrictions on the funding for the Census Bureau.
  Withholding or conditioning funds for the Census Bureau places the 
2000 census at risk. An inaccurate census affects everyone. More than 
$100 billion annually in Federal aid is allocated using census data. 
And when it comes to the census, the fact is if you are not counted, 
you do not count. You do not count when it comes to Federal dollars for 
road repair and mass transit. You do not count when it comes to helping 
public schools or for using Federal funds to fight juvenile crime. 
Everyone has a stake in making sure that the 2000 census is counted in 
a way that is fair and accurate. Just as we do when we determine 
unemployment statistics and the gross domestic product, just as we do 
when we determine labor statistics and statistics regarding our 
economy, we need to use the most modern statistics and methods 
possible. Let us put politics aside and let the professionals at the 
Census Bureau do their job. The Mollohan amendment helps us do this. I 
hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting the Mollohan 
amendment to remove these restrictions and fully fund the Census 
Bureau.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for making this rule in order and I would like to thank the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for his leadership on this 
issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the rule which 
makes in order the Mollohan decennial census amendment. The debate on 
this amendment will say volumes about the People's House's desire to 
conduct the census in a fair, accurate, cost-effective and 
scientifically based way. It will also send a message to the low-income 
people living in socially and economically isolated urban and rural 
areas, especially people of color, women and their children, children 
who were undercounted by 50 percent. They want to know where they stand 
and whether they count. If you support a census that is fair, that is 
accurate, and that is inclusive, then support the Mollohan census 
amendment. I urge its passage for the sake of all the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman 
for yielding time.
  My father used to tell us that half a loaf is better than none. I 
would say that that is all right, except we are not talking about 
bread, we are talking about the census. And we are talking about 
counting all of the people. I can tell Members when it comes to 
counting the people, one-half is not enough. Three-fifths is not 
enough. None is not enough. Somebody is going to be miscounted, 
disenfranchised and left out. I wonder who those are going to be. It is 
already clear. They are going to be the poor, those in big urban 
centers, those in rural America, those who need every dime, every cent, 
every penny, those communities that are on the verge of collapse, who 
need all of their entitlement moneys, all of their entitlement 
programs, but even need representation more than they do anything else. 
We can cure this defect and we can cure it with the Mollohan amendment. 
We can cure it because we want to say to every American citizen that 
your dream of citizenship rights does not need to be deferred.
  I know what it means to be uncounted, three-fifths of a person. Women 
know what it means not to count, not to be able to vote, not to be 
looked at on the landscape. I would urge that we vote for the Mollohan 
amendment and count all of the American people so that they will know 
that they do indeed count.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important subject we are 
talking about. To set aside sampling and the science is to guess at 
what the population is.
  Let me repeat. In Paterson, New Jersey, in 1995, with two other 
communities throughout the United States, $30 million was spent by this 
Congress, the gentlemen here, the ladies here, to absolutely do 
sampling and test other methodologies. Are you going to have us 
conclude, after the science has been supported by the National Academy 
of Sciences, that what the results were in those three tests are to be 
put aside so we can really go to the methodology that has been chosen 
by the other side, to guess?
  You cannot count every nose in a census. You know it and everybody 
else on this side of the aisle knows it. We need to come together on 
this issue. It is critical. There are too many people out there who do 
not respond to the census questionnaire as it is. What you

[[Page H6788]]

are going to do is establish even more questions and more anxiety. Do 
you want to have wasted $30 million? That is not including what we are 
spending right now to go through dress rehearsals. This is wrong. We 
need to accept the science, we need to understand that it was 
acceptable in 1995 where we prepared for the sampling, where we 
prepared for the testing and methodology. It was not done helter-
skelter. Stop the guessing and support sampling.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the test in Paterson, New Jersey 
is a good illustration of why polling does not work. We have got real 
problems with polling, especially when you get down to census block 
level. When you get down to census blocks and census tracks, the error 
rates are too great. We need to count everyone and we need to put the 
resources into it. It is hard work to count people. You do not count 
homeless people from 9 to 5 Monday through Friday. You may have to 
count them at 2 o'clock in the morning on a weekend. You work through 
homeless shelters. We are willing to put the resources in so everyone 
should be counted. Everyone should be counted. We should do it in the 
best way possible, working together. There are a lot of good ideas that 
have come out of past census tests and we can do that. But sampling or 
polling is the dangerous one and it will not be trusted by the American 
people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, the National Academy of Sciences just 
turned over. To compare sampling with guessing or to compare sampling 
with any other methodology, they each are very different. It does not 
mean polling. Polling is a very different kind of situation. Sampling 
is science. Polling is not. You show me the definition where they both 
mean the same thing. What you have done is confused those definitions, 
on purpose, so that we in arguing sampling are going to fall into your 
trap about guessing and polling. They are very different.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, polling is based on sampling. We 
use polling all the time as based on sampling. President Clinton was 
down in Houston here a couple of months ago saying how great polling is 
for the purposes of the census. He is the one that used the comparison 
in Houston, Texas and some of your colleagues were right there in 
Houston when President Clinton specifically used the analogy of 
polling. Polling is based on sampling. Sampling is very appropriate 
where you do not have the time and money to go out and do an actual 
count. This is a $4 billion thing. This should not be the largest 
statistical experiment in history. That is what we are talking about, 
the largest statistical experiment in history. This is not an 
experiment we should test.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Mrs. Meek).
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in one short minute I just want to 
say to my colleagues, let us not fool ourselves. You cannot count 
everyone.
  Now, you say, ``Well, the Constitution says enumeration.'' The 
Constitution did not define enumeration. It did not say that you could 
not use a sampling technique. It is going to be difficult and almost 
impossible for you to count everyone. Show me how you are going to not 
have the undercount you had in the last two censuses. You overlooked a 
great proportion of the African-American community and the Hispanic 
community. Do you want to do that again? Do you want to send that 
message to this country that we want an undercount? If you look at this 
chart, you will see that the census had a big undercount in African-
Americans. We do not want that again. We want a good count. Let us be 
real. You cannot do it by counting every head. That is just impossible. 
Last of all, you cannot count every head. And because you cannot count 
every head, let us use some scientific methodology that has been proven 
and approved by the scientific world so there will not be any more of 
this guessing. Let us have an accurate census. We are tired of 
inaccurate censuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following table for the Record:

            MORE BLACKS THAN NON-BLACKS MISSED IN THE CENSUS
                            [Percent missed]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Non-
                                                      Blacks     Blacks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census:
  1940............................................        8.4        5.0
  1950............................................        7.5        3.8
  1960............................................        6.6        2.7
  1970............................................        6.5        2.2
  1980............................................        4.5        0.8
  1990............................................        5.7        1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment which provides full funding for the 2000 census, including 
the use of statistical sampling. Fundamental to our democracy is the 
notion that everyone counts. In 1990 the census missed millions of 
people. The Bureau believes it missed 1.8 million Americans. Most of 
those who were not counted were low-income people living in cities, in 
rural communities, African-Americans, Latinos, Asian Americans, 
immigrants and children. Almost 50 percent of the individuals not 
counted in the 1990 census were children. Are they not a part of this 
country? Funding for many of our school programs depends on an accurate 
count of our children. The goal of the Census Bureau is to achieve the 
most accurate count possible using the most up-to-date scientific 
methods and the best technology available. We are not talking about 
polling as you do in political campaigns. The use of statistical 
sampling will ensure that people who have historically been left out 
are counted and are included. Our responsibility is to ensure that 
every American counts. If you are not counted, you are irrelevant. No 
one in this country should be rendered irrelevant.
  I urge passage of the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Addressing the previous speaker, I am a little surprised by her 
comments. She says fundamental to our democracy, and I am quoting, 
everyone counts.
  That is exactly why we are going out and counting everybody. That is 
exactly the benefit. I take it from her comments that she supports our 
position. So I welcome that. I also would hope that she supports the 
rule.
  In fact, during this debate today, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard 
anyone say they are going to vote against the rule. That is what we are 
debating right here. We are going to have, and in fact the Committee on 
Rules was generous to allocate two full hours to this debate, so I 
think it is about time that we move rapidly to a vote on the rule. Let 
us get into the debate.

                              {time}  1730

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal of reference to 
polling. The fact is that the plan for this 2000 census is very 
different from a poll.
  It starts with an effort to contact personally and count virtually 
every single person in every single household in the country. Sampling 
is then used to further improve the results, but with a far larger 
sample than is ever used in political polls.
  Sampling would be used to supplement that basic count in two ways. 
One is in following up on households that do not respond; and, second, 
sampling would be used to help check on those who might still have been 
missed even with these new procedures.
  A very large, scientifically-selected sample of blocks would be 
drawn, 125,000 of them across the country, with approximately 750,000 
households. If a poll were taken this way, with a major effort to 
contact everyone in the district, followed by a very large sample to 
account for those who did not respond, followed by another large sample 
of the whole district to further account for nonrespondents and errors, 
the results would be extremely accurate indeed, vastly more accurate 
than the failed techniques employed in the 1990 census.

[[Page H6789]]

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me correct what is being 
proposed this year by this polling plan of the President.
  He is intentionally not going to count 10 percent of the people 
initially. He is not going to go out and count everyone.
  In 1990, they tried to count everyone. They got 98.4 percent of the 
people. And, yes, we are not going to count everyone, we are going to 
miss a few people, but we need to do everything that we can to reach 
that 100 percent level.
  But this time around they are only going to count 90 percent of the 
people intentionally. They are intentionally going to not count 10 
percent of the people. Then they are going to do this second sample. 
That is correct. They are going to count 90 percent of the people.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. Every 
effort will be made to reach 100 percent of the people more times than 
ever done in the past.
  Mr. MILLER of California. No, that is not true. Reclaiming my time, 
that is absolutely not true. They are intentionally, intentionally 
going to not count 10 percent of the people and then use this ICM, this 
sample, to try to impute what the numbers are. That is where the 
problem of sampling is. They are going to have 60,000 separate samples 
to get to that 90 percent number. It is extremely complex. GAO, 
Inspector General are both saying it is a high-risk plan.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment because it restores full funding for a fair and an accurate 
Year 2000 census.
  The goal is to count 100 percent of the people. That is what we are 
talking about here on our side of the aisle, and let me just tell my 
colleagues what census data does:
  It determines the distributions of 170 billion Federal dollars every 
single year. The dollars go to basic programs: Social Security, 
Medicare, better roads, child care for low-income families and middle-
income families, school lunches. An accurate census will ensure 
sufficient funds to protect the well-being of American families, to 
protect child care, healthy meals for kids and security for our seniors 
in their golden years.
  This should not be a political issue, but my Republican colleagues do 
not seem to get the message. Instead, they declare war against 
accuracy.
  These tactics are not surprising. They have played politics with 
campaign finance, with tobacco, with health care and now with the 
census.
  Stop the political games. Put families in this country first. Vote 
for a fair and accurate census with a hundred percent of the people 
counted in this country.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear the preceding speaker make the 
statement we are declaring war against accuracy by saying that we want 
to count everyone. It kind of does not make much sense, and the 
statement, I think, would probably would be appropriate if it were 
clarified.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, on the last gentlewoman's statement:
  They can sample all they want on all of the decisions that they just 
talked about, such as for Social Security, funding for States and 
localities--sample all they want. All we are talking about here is not 
sampling for purposes of the reapportionment of the House of 
Representatives. We are only talking about prohibiting sampling on the 
apportionment of who represents whom in this body. We are not limiting 
sampling on all of the other aspects of the census. Only on the 
decennial census for the purposes of the apportionment of the House of 
Representatives do we require actual enumeration.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The gentleman from West 
Virginia is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman from Florida if I 
might. I am very impressed with his credentials, and I appreciate his 
position in this argument and his learned debate. It does puzzle me, 
though, how the gentleman, and he is a member of the American 
Statistical Association?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I taught statistics in the School 
of Business at Georgia State University on quantitative methods, MBA 
program.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I am sorry. I misunderstood that.
  It puzzles me how he can develop a position with his learned 
background that is so at odds with not only the National Academy of 
Sciences, which has had three panels look at this issue and in a very 
scientific way with lots of, I think the gentleman would concede, 
learned people, had a lot of learned people look at this and conclude 
after the 1990 failed census, when the Congress asked the National 
Academy of Sciences to look at it and come up with a better technique 
and they recommended scientific sampling, how the gentleman's position 
can line up against the National Academy of Sciences' three panels and 
about six or seven scientific statistic organizations on the issue, all 
of whom recommended using this new science in trying to count everyone 
in this country.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. If the gentleman would yield further, I 
respond there is real division within the academic community, and we 
have had academics, prominent academics, before our committee, and we 
are going to have another hearing in September.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reclaiming my time on that point, indeed I am sure we 
can get individual academicians and statisticians to come up with any 
view. The thing that impresses me so much is that these associations 
have come up with a consensus position supporting sampling.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. The Academy of Sciences is a respected 
organization, but not beyond politics, and sadly I think they have been 
used.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time of the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has expired.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that I have about 
4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Academy of Sciences is 
generally a respected organization, but it has been politically used. 
It was a hand-picked panel. For example, the chairman of the panel was 
a very partisan Democrat, Mr. Schultz, who, as my colleagues know, was 
head of the Council of Economic Advisors under Jimmy Carter and Lyndon 
Johnson.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Which organization is that?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. The Academy of Sciences study. It was a very 
partisan Democrat that led the study. There is a division within the 
academic community, and if I was a statistician looking at this, I 
would say, wow, the largest statistical experiment in history? 
Statisticians love to have experiments; statisticians love to play 
around with numbers. This is their opportunity, this is a golden 
opportunity for them to run some tests. That is what they are in favor 
of.
  But let us run a test, and let us conduct a count of everyone to 
start with. At least use the model of 1990 as a minimum where we try, 
as the gentleman

[[Page H6790]]

from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) was saying, count everyone and then do a study 
on a statistical sample for test purposes or an ICM of some type.
  So there are ways to do that, but we have to start basically with 
counting everyone first, and I yield.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman, Mr. Speaker, is suggesting that the one 
panel was compromised in some political way. Is he suggesting that the 
other two at the National Academy of Sciences was politically 
compromised? And what about all these other organizations?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, they were a hand-picked 
panel. We can create a panel of prestigious academics, will come up 
with a different study.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. It is quite a conspiracy.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I have the time, if I might say, so the thing 
is we need to trust the system. It has to be done where we work 
together, Republican and Democrats, and we should not delegate it. It 
is something we do not delegate to some hand-picked group of academics 
over at the Academy of Sciences. It is our responsibility, not their 
responsibility.
  It is our responsibility to do that. We need the input and advice of 
all the sources, but it is not going to be trusted if we turn it over 
to a group of academics who want to have this great statistical 
experiment, and I think I am excited for them to have this great 
statistical experiment, but let us just count everyone.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is obvious from the discussion we are going to have a lively 
evening, and we have got some real substance here as we have two very 
well-educated gentlemen going back and forth.
  I think, in regards to the census part of this rule, I think it was 
best summarized by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), and that 
is, as my colleagues know, it is fundamental, and I quote her again 
because I think it was an excellent quote, fundamental to our democracy 
that everyone counts.
  That is exactly the point that the gentleman from Florida is making, 
and that is this is not the time for a census experiment. This is not 
the time to put experimental aircraft in the side of this count. This 
aircraft has to fly and has to fly for a long time. Let us do it, and 
let us do it right. Sure, it is going to cost a little more money, sure 
we have got to count everybody, but that is what the Constitution 
demands.
  That issue aside, the issue of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley):
  His amendment is certainly to bring up some lively debate that it is 
in order that that debate be allowed on this floor.
  And finally, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that 
throughout the number of speakers that we have had today in regards to 
this rule I have not heard anyone that objects to the rule. The 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), my good friend from the Committee on 
Rules, said, I think, and I quote that he reluctantly supported it. We 
have got the support for the rule. It is time to move the rule. It is 
time to get on with the general debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________