[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 107 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6948-H6982]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, AND JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 508 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4276.

                              {time}  1920


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal 
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, with Mr. 
Hastings of Washington in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) will each control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this will be of interest to the Members on the schedule 
for the rest of the evening so that Members may be guided about the 
rest of the evening's activities.
  It is the intent of the majority to proceed to the consideration of 
the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill and to do general 
debate and to take up the Legal Services Corporation amendment but to 
roll any votes that might be ordered until tomorrow, so that there 
would be no further votes this evening, in which case, then, the 
Committee would rise after the consideration of that amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROGERS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding, also, that we would 
not proceed in title I beyond Legal Services; is that correct?
  Mr. ROGERS. As I said, we would take up general debate and the Legal 
Services amendment only. I would have hoped that the gentleman would 
have agreed that we could do all of title I, and I would be happy to 
proceed with that if the other side would so agree.
  Mr. OBEY. But the gentleman understands that the agreement that was 
just reached at this desk with his leadership was that we would go only 
as far as the amendment on Legal Services and no further tonight in 
title I.
  Mr. ROGERS. I understand that is what the gentleman wants and I will 
abide by that. I would hope, would like, to proceed through title I and 
roll all the votes until tomorrow. And I see no reason why we should 
not do that, but I will abide by the agreement that the gentleman 
mentioned.
  Mr. OBEY. I just think it is important for Members to understand that 
there will be no votes tonight because of the understanding that we 
will not proceed beyond the Legal Services amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. I would hope that the gentleman would agree to proceed 
with title I.
  Mr. OBEY. Well, then there is no agreement. We might as well have 
motions to adjourn all evening. If the

[[Page H6949]]

agreements are not going to be stuck to for more than 5 minutes, then 
there is no reason to agree.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will suspend. 
The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) controls the time.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the House do now adjourn.
  The CHAIRMAN. The motion is not in order.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276, the Commerce, Justice, State and 
Related Agencies appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999 provides the 
funding for a multitude of programs that directly benefit the people 
that all of us represent and that we are sworn to uphold, programs that 
fight crime and drugs, secure our borders, protect against terrorism, 
and administer justice; programs that affect our daily lives and 
livelihood, like the National Weather Service; programs that support 
our Nation's diplomacy throughout the world; and programs that put 
people back on their feet after a natural disaster strikes and that aid 
our Nation's small businesses.
  But if this bill sets one priority, it is to provide increased 
funding to fight crime and empower Federal, State and local law 
enforcement with the resources they need to enforce our laws and 
prevent crime.
  Mr. Chairman, the determination of this Nation and this Congress to 
reduce crime is showing results. In 1997, serious crime fell in the 
United States for the sixth year in a row by 5 percent. Due to the 
decisions of this Congress which over the last 3 years has increased 
funding for justice programs by $5.5 billion, a 45 percent increase, 
our citizens are a little less at peril than they were before. But as 
the shooting of our two brave and heroic Capitol Police officers a week 
ago Friday demonstrates so devastatingly, we do have yet a long, long 
way to go.
  With no warning, crime can occur anywhere, any day, any minute, and 
our law enforcement officers and our citizens are at risk. We cannot 
let down our guard. This bill puts the lion's share of the resources 
available to us into law enforcement and crime prevention, and that is 
a priority that I believe every member of this House shares.
  Overall, this bill provides $33.5 billion, $1.4 billion over the 
current year, and $1 billion less than the request. Of the total, $18.3 
billion is for the Department of Justice, an increase of $524 million 
over current spending, to fight crime and drugs, strengthen our borders 
and protect against terrorism.
  We provide $4.9 billion for State and local law enforcement. These 
are your policemen, the sheriffs and State police and local law 
enforcement agencies through your cities, $400 million more than we 
were requested and $47 million more than current year spending.
  We restore the local law enforcement block grant which the President 
tried to eliminate. We put that back in at $523 million. And, Mr. 
Chairman, we included a quarter of a billion dollars for the juvenile 
crime block grant program for your localities.
  We provide $283 million for juvenile crime prevention, a $44 million 
increase. We provide $1.4 billion for the COPS program. We direct $170 
million of unobligated balances to be used for initiatives that include 
a new $25 million program for bulletproof vests for police officers all 
across the country. For the first time we are providing for this new 
program. And $20 million to help communities stop violence in our 
schools.
  We also provide $279 million for the Violence Against Women Act, an 
increase of $9 million over current spending and over the 
Administration's request. We provide $104 million in new funding to 
help States and localities be prepared against chemical and biological 
terrorism, which is new money, for a new program.
  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 was asked of us. We increase the Drug Courts funding 
by $10 million. And we give $10 million for a new program to help small 
businesses create drug-free workplaces.
  We provide a $216 million increase for controlling illegal 
immigration, including 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. We include a $47 
million interior enforcement initiative to fund 50 quick response 
teams, one in each State, to force the INS to respond to your State and 
local police in every State when they find suspected illegal aliens. As 
it is right now, your State police, your local police, arrest a vanload 
of illegal aliens, they call the INS for help in removing them to the 
Federal jurisdiction, there is not even an answer on the telephone. INS 
does not even answer the phone.

                              {time}  1930

  We in this bill create 50 new quick response teams to respond to our 
local officials and take the illegals off our hands and deal with them 
on the Federal level, as we are supposed to do. We also include $62 
million in offsetting collections from fees to fund backlog reduction 
action teams to mobilize in those districts with the longest 
naturalization backlogs, since the INS cannot seem to manage this on 
their own.
  For the Department of Commerce, Mr. Chairman, we provide $4.8 billion 
which, setting aside the increases for the Census, is at the 1998 
level.
  For the 2000 decennial census we provide $956 million. That is an 
increase of $566 million as part of the ramp-up for the preparation for 
the Census in 2000. That is $107 million more than the administration 
asked us to appropriate, but we do that so that the Census can be 
conducted as the courts may or may not declare later on under any 
scenario, hopefully including an actual enumeration.
  The Congress and the administration must come to an agreement on how 
the 2000 Census will be conducted. Based on high-level discussions last 
fall, higher than any of us in this room, the agreement was reached to 
make the decision next spring. Consequently this bill includes language 
to ensure that the decision is made at that time by reserving the last 
6 months of funding until the President submits to the Congress a 
request by March 31 to provide the funding and we agree to vote by that 
time.
  For the State Department and international organizations, United 
Nations arrearages aside, we provide $5 billion, $84 million below the 
current year, in part due to savings from the new overseas support 
system the Congress enacted last year called ICASS. For U.N. arrearages 
we provide $475 million, the amount included in the State Department's 
authorization conference report but subject to authorization. This 
ensures that U.N. reforms will have to be agreed to before this money 
can be released.
  For the Legal Services Corporation we provide $141 million. We 
continue the restrictions that have been enacted previously by the 
Congress.
  For the Small Business Administration the bill rejects the 
administration proposal to fund disaster loans out of the hides of 
disaster victims. The administration proposed zero funding for disaster 
loans. They propose zero funding for disaster loans and instead propose 
to raise by 50 percent the interest rates on loans to the very people 
who have been devastated by a hurricane or by flooding or by other 
disaster, people who by definition cannot borrow money on a commercial 
basis. We disallow that. Instead we provide $100 million to help those 
that are in need, and we are directing the administration to proceed 
accordingly.
  Mr. Chairman, before I close I want to thank the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), my very able ranking member, for his help and 
support in drafting this bill and bringing it to this point. I also 
want to thank all the members of the subcommittee: The gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Forbes), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham), the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), and 
to pay tribute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), who is 
making his last go-round on this bill. He has been a valued member of 
this subcommittee. He has chosen to leave this body after this term; he 
will be missed on this subcommittee especially.
  Finally, I would just like to say that as we wind our way through the 
issues on this bill, and there are many, when

[[Page H6950]]

it is all said and done, the funding in this bill, particularly the 
funding for law enforcement and prevention programs, are targeted to 
make the neighborhoods and cities and towns across the country safer, 
more secure places for the people we are elected to represent. It is a 
life and death issue, Mr. Chairman, and that is something everyone of 
us are now so painfully aware of.
  I urge the Members of this body to support this bill.

[[Page H6951]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.001

 

[[Page H6952]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.002

 

[[Page H6953]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.003

 

[[Page H6954]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.004

 

[[Page H6955]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.005

 

[[Page H6956]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.006

 

[[Page H6957]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.007

 

[[Page H6958]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH03AU98.008



[[Page H6959]]

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity first at the beginning 
of this general debate to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), our chairman, on the fine job he has done in putting together 
this bill. How I appreciate his willingness to consider my views and 
minority views on the issues as we have processed this legislation, and 
I want to take also an opportunity to commend our staff: Jim 
Kulikowski, Jennifer Miller, Mike Ringler, Cordia Strom and Janet 
Stormes with the Committee on Appropriations' majority, and Mark 
Murray, David Reich and Pat Schlueter with the minority, and Sally 
Gaines and Elizabeth Hall with my personal staff. They all have done an 
excellent job, worked tremendously hard on this bill and are 
indispensable to its success.
  Before discussing the bill I would like to take a moment to recognize 
the fine contributions of a very distinguished member of our 
subcommittee, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), Mr. Chairman. 
The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) is one of our subcommittee's 
most active, involved members, focusing in particular on NOAA and on 
the international accounts, and in our subcommittee, as the entire 
Congress, he works in a true bipartisan fashion. He always strives to 
elevate the debate. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) also acts 
very much according to his conscience, at times even pursuing issues 
beyond this body and into the courts. I have a great deal of respect 
for him, a sentiment that I know is shared by colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle, and just as the people of Colorado appreciate his hard 
work in regard to education, to the environment, to parks and to 
wilderness protection, we appreciate his service to this institution 
and his contributions to policy debate.
  So, Mr. Chairman, it is with real regret and fondest best wishes as 
we look to his retirement, we wish him and his family all the best in 
the years ahead and again appreciate his fine service and friendship to 
this institution.
  Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of things to like about this bill in 
addition to the contributions of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Skaggs) to it. Few will find fault with the robust sums provided for 
the Department of Justice and law enforcement. I am particularly 
pleased with the funding level provided for community policing.
  The COPS program has been extraordinarily successful. It has thus far 
put 76,771 policemen on the beat. The President is to be applauded for 
his leadership in proposing the COPS program. His vision has paid 
dividends. Proof positive of this program's success lies in the fact 
that violent crime across this country is down.
  Some were initially skeptical of the ability of a program run from 
Washington to significantly impact local crime in a positive way. Some 
thought a better way was to send the money back to the States to let 
them decide how it would be best spent. Our subcommittee took these 
views into consideration and responded by providing, in addition to the 
COPS program, a block grant to the States to permit local planning and 
local decision-making. The local law enforcement block grant program is 
again funded in this bill, and I believe that the combination of these 
two programs coming from both sides of the aisle is an approach the 
Federal Government can be proud of in terms of helping States and 
localities fight crime.
  A number of Members have expressed interest in assuring that adequate 
funds are provided for juvenile delinquency and other prevention 
programs. As my colleagues are all well aware, last year we followed 
the course outlined in the bipartisan House-passed H.R. 1818, the 
Juvenile Crime Control and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1997. We have 
once again tried to follow this path by providing 125 million for the 
juvenile delinquency prevention block grant.
  Moving on to the Commerce Department, Mr. Chairman, I feel this bill 
in most instances deals fairly with commerce. The gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has continued his support for such important 
initiatives as the Public Works Grant Program, the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership and the scientific research conducted by the 
National Institutes of Standards and Technology. Additionally, this 
bill provides needed funding increases for the critical activities of 
the National Weather Service. Also in NOAA this bill provides an 
increase for coastal zone management grants and robust funding for such 
popular initiatives as navigation safety programs, marine sanctuaries 
and Sea Grant.
  However, there are several areas in the Commerce title of the bill 
that need to be improved. For example, this bill provides only 180 
million for the ATP program, significantly less than the amount 
requested by the administration. Additionally, I regret that the mark 
of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) only provides 43 million 
for new awards. I am hopeful that we can improve these numbers as this 
bill continues through the process. Additionally, only 21 million is 
provided for the public telecommunications facilities program, much 
less than is needed to help public radio and television stations 
convert to digital systems.
  And finally with respect to Commerce I would like to express my 
opposition to the language included in this bill with regard to the 
decennial census. I intend to offer an amendment later during 
consideration of this bill to address this issue, however I think it is 
important to note at this time that the President has indicated he 
would veto this bill over the census language. As well he should, Mr. 
Chairman. This language is dangerously flawed and runs the risk of 
sabotaging the decennial census. As we move forward, I sincerely hope 
we can avoid this issue being a major stumbling block to getting this 
bill signed. I believe the amendment I will offer represents a 
compromise that should be agreeable to all parties.
  With respect to United Nations, funds are provided for payment of 
arrearages to the United Nations subject to authorization. The 
subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), has been on the forefront of demanding reform at the United 
Nations. We have made some progress in that regard.
  With regard to funding for regulated agencies under our jurisdiction, 
I just want to mention two where I have strong views. First, I am very 
concerned with the large cuts the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) 
has proposed for the salaries and expenses accounts of the Small 
Business Administration. I should say at the same time, however, that I 
understand his frustration over the gimmicks employed by OMB and budget 
crafting process, and I hope that this message does not fall on deaf 
ears.
  Second, I must express sincere reservations in the strongest terms 
about the woefully inadequate funding provided for the Legal Services 
Corporation in this bill. One hundred forty-one million is not even 
close to what is needed to provide legal, civil-legal assistance for 
our most vulnerable citizens. I intend to offer an amendment later in 
the debate to address this deficiency in our bill, and as mentioned 
earlier during debate on the rule, my amendment will increase funding 
for Legal Services from 141 million to 250 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take this occasion to further inform my 
colleagues that even my amendment will not provide sufficient funding 
for this vital program, and I intend to work with other Members hard in 
conference to improve this funding level even further, perhaps 
approaching the $300 million mark that is in the Senate bill, and that 
is closer to the mark that we ought to have.
  This list is not exhaustive, Mr. Chairman, but merely serves to 
highlight a few key areas of the bill, some areas of the bill where the 
bill is strong and some where we have a lot of work to do.
  Again I want to thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) for 
his cooperation and his consideration of minority views throughout the 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Regula), one of the very able members of our subcommittee who 
also serves as chairman of Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on 
Appropriations.

[[Page H6960]]

  (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) for yielding this time to me, and I want to say he did a great 
job of balancing the many very difficult issues in the subcommittee. It 
was tough to balance out the multitude of requests.
  One of the highlights of this bill is the initiative to combat 
juvenile delinquency. It is disturbing to note that since 1989 arrests 
of juveniles in Ohio for violent crimes have risen 44 percent and 20 
percent of all violent crimes nationally are committed by youths under 
the age of 18.

                              {time}  1945

  There are many solutions being sought, and this bill contains a $42.2 
million increase for funding for juvenile justice programs, to fund the 
same. The increased funding is directed not only toward law enforcement 
initiatives to punish violent juvenile offenders, but, perhaps more 
importantly, it is also directed to quality intervention and prevention 
programs to help our youth from falling into the delinquency trap.
  There is a lot of truth that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound 
of cure. The juvenile justice programs provide funding for the Ohio 
Attorney General's juvenile crime initiative called OASIS, Ohio's 
Accelerated School-Based Intervention Solution. This program is aimed 
at providing teens with in-depth support during the middle school years 
so they can avoid moving into a life of delinquency and incarceration.
  Project OASIS represents an effective solution crafted by a Federal, 
State and local partnership. I strongly support this, because it really 
is a partnership among all levels of government.
  I would also like to thank the chairman for once again recognizing 
the importance of engaging students in continued research and outreach 
on coastal and ocean environments under the JASON project. The bill 
includes $2 million for the second year funding for the JASON project 
to build on the successful partnership that it has developed with the 
Department of Commerce.
  The JASON project serves over 2.5 million students across the United 
States, including students in Wooster, Ohio, by providing an exciting 
interactive program of education that makes science more accessible and 
real to students. It is real time. Students can interact.
  I know in one instance in the JASON project they were on the bottom 
of the Monterey Bay, interacting with students in schools in Ohio that 
were equipped, as well as across the Nation. This additional funding 
will allow the JASON project to develop further curricula and to expand 
the number of students participating.
  Another important aspect funded in this bill is the $4.1 million 
increase above the amount requested for the Commerce Department's 
International Trade Administration. I support this increase because 
expanding exports as well as protecting domestic companies against 
unfair foreign trade practices are both crucial to the creating and 
maintaining of high wage jobs in the United States.
  The Commerce Department is performing important work by promoting 
U.S. exports abroad and enforcing U.S. trade laws at home to ensure 
that the United States companies have a level playing field in the 
global marketplace.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I look 
forward to working with the chairman when the bill reaches conference.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me time.
  I want to first express my thanks to the chairman, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan), the ranking member, and especially the fine staffs for the 
typically excellent work they have done in putting this bill together.
  The Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill funds an 
extraordinarily wide array of programs that this government undertakes 
on behalf of its people. To name just a few, our country's entire law 
enforcement corps, the criminal and civil justice systems, regulation 
of commerce, ensuring that securities and communications laws are 
enforced, research in the planet's atmosphere and oceans, our 
diplomatic corps, and on and on and on. I am glad to have worked with 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) on this bill, and especially appreciate the 
help they have given me personally on it.
  Among the many areas where I believe we have produced positive 
results are in the funding of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration effort to maintain a much more comprehensive weather 
database, information crucial to predicting long and short term weather 
disasters; funding for NIST and the NOAA Space Environment Center; 
improvement in our trade statistics, which will enable future debates 
about trade policy to be held on a much more informed basis; and many 
other requests which I am grateful to the chairman and ranking member 
for assistance.
  As both gentlemen know, I have some problems with some areas of the 
bill, particularly Legal Services, the census, and an amendment I will 
be offering on TV Marti, but I did want to engage the distinguished 
chairman briefly on one point having to do with funding for NOAA. I 
appreciate all the work that he has done to accommodate my requests in 
this area.
  One pending item in the bill that is important to U.S. weather 
forecasting and supercomputing capabilities is the High Performance 
Computing and Communication program. This offers several benefits to 
the country, including the acceleration of very site-specific weather 
forecasting warnings by 6 to 12 hours. In addition, this program has 
the potential to provide a real shot in the arm for the U.S. 
supercomputer industry. Finally, its parallel computing system can save 
us a lot of money by automatically converting millions of lines of 
computer code that will otherwise have to be done at much greater 
expense.
  I know the chairman is aware of these benefits, and I appreciate his 
inclusion of the funding and report language on the HPPC in this bill. 
So I hope the chairman will make every effort to provide full funding 
for the HPPC as we move to conference with the Senate.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKAGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me 
just say that I appreciate the gentleman's concerns. The gentleman is a 
very valued member of this subcommittee, as we have mentioned, but one 
of the most valuable contributions that the gentleman makes and has 
made has been the intellectual firepower that he brings to very 
technical subjects like this, which this subcommittee desperately 
needs.
  But the gentleman has been a very tireless and effective advocate for 
these types of programs over the years, and we are going to miss his 
counsel on this and many other subjects on the subcommittee, not to 
mention his friendship. Of course, we could go on and on about the 
gentleman, because after all, his ancestry is from that great 
Commonwealth of Kentucky, if I am not mistaken.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Grayson County, in particular.
  Mr. ROGERS. We will do what we can to accommodate the gentleman's 
concerns as we work in conference with the Senate.
  Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), one of the very able members of our subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the bill. 
As a member of the subcommittee, I know this is a difficult bill to 
work on as it funds some of the most important and diverse functions of 
the Federal Government. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who 
chairs this subcommittee, has worked with both sides of the aisle to 
craft a bill that properly reflects Congress' priorities, particularly 
in the area of law enforcement.

[[Page H6961]]

  Each year there are new and greater challenges confronting law 
enforcement officials throughout the Nation. In order to be successful, 
Federal, State and local officials need to work together in a 
coordinated effort to combat criminals that are increasingly better 
organized, more lethal, and more technologically advanced.
  My home State of Iowa, like many States throughout the Midwest and 
the West, has become inundated with methamphetamine production and 
trafficking. In fact, the tri-State Siouxland region of Iowa, Nebraska 
and South Dakota has become the meth distribution capital of the 
country, where the drug costs up to $30,000 a kilo.
  According to DEA officials, more than 20 Mexican organizations run 
operations in this region and supply 90 percent of Iowa's meth. 
However, domestic producers are also a significant problem. In 1994 
Iowa law enforcement officials seized only one clandestine meth lab, 
and 10 in 1996. Despite increased law enforcement efforts, that number 
has jumped to 111 through only half of this year.
  Our bill provides greater resources for the DEA to focus on the 
methamphetamine epidemic in America's heartland. DEA is funded at more 
than $1.2 billion, which includes a $24.5 million increase targeted at 
meth production and trafficking, and more than $4 million in increased 
funding provided to assist small communities in my district and 
throughout rural America with the expensive and technically challenging 
removal of hazardous wastes generated at clandestine meth lab sites.
  The bill directs an additional $50 million in resources to local law 
enforcement in the war on meth through the COPS Methamphetamine Drug 
Hot Spots Program. Included in this is funding to continue the 
innovative Tri-State Methamphetamine Training Center in Sioux City, 
Iowa, which provides police officers in rural areas with training in 
comprehensive counter-drug operations that their communities would 
normally not be able to afford or have access to.
  Continuing our efforts to stem the flow of illegal aliens, this 
year's bill again provides funding for 1,000 new Border Patrol agents. 
However, there are also a number of important INS-related provisions in 
our bill.
  The INS has been slow to implement a provision I included in the 
immigration reform legislation enacted in 1996 that charged INS to 
establish a program to deputize State and local law enforcement agents, 
thus enabling them to assist with identifying criminal aliens.
  However, our bill provides $21.8 million to set up 50 innovative INS 
Quick Response Teams to aid local law enforcement with identifying and 
removing illegal aliens. This is critical to areas throughout rural 
America where the INS has simply failed to respond to calls from local 
authorities to identify criminal aliens and take them into custody.
  Also included in the bill is language under the COPS Technology 
Program permitting technology such as video teleconferencing equipment 
to be purchased under this grant program. This equipment will enable 
local police to identify criminal aliens by conferencing directly with 
INS officials at regional offices. The INS is currently testing this 
innovative pilot program in San Diego County, which, again, is a result 
of my provision in the 1996 reform act.
  I would like to take the remainder of my time to thank the chairman 
for responding to the needs of Iowa. The chairman recognizes the unique 
needs of rural America and has provided law enforcement officials at 
all levels with the resources necessary to meet head-on the challenges 
they face and they will face in the coming years.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this great bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon), a very able member 
of our subcommittee.
  Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to support this bill, for in my 
opinion it is defective in basically three areas. One deals with the 
census. We have provided full funding for the census but basically say 
that they can only spend half of that money until March 31, 1999, when 
supposedly we will be able to reconcile our differences.
  The problem with that is that, unfortunately, the Census Bureau 
testimony is that they do not spend money in half year increments. So 
to fully fund but only allow them to spend half the money is to impact 
their ability to use either system to count the census in the year 
2000.
  The second is the Legal Services Corporation. If we really believe 
that people of short means, of small means, are to be represented in 
the civil courts of our country, we recognize that $141 million is not 
enough money.
  So in these two issues I think the bill is totally deficient, and I 
urge Members to support the ranking member's amendments at the 
appropriate time.
  The third issue is EEOC. There was a request, based on the backlog of 
those people who have complaints and that they should be adjudicated, 
to increase it by $37 million. We have only increased it by half that 
amount, and I hope that as we move this bill along, that we will 
increase it further.
  There are many good things. As the chairman and the ranking member 
have pointed out, the Juvenile Crime Prevention Program is funded at 
$295 million and the community COPS Program is fully funded. As several 
Members have pointed out, the methamphetamine problem in our country is 
growing, and we have dedicated $30 million to fight that battle. We 
have also provided a new program and incentive to decrease the backlog 
in the naturalization process in our country.

                              {time}  2000

  Most important for California, we have provided $585 million in 
funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, the same level 
as last year, but $85 million above the budget request.
  These are good programs, but when we look at the bill and we see that 
we are going to continue to have a deficit in the way we fund the 
Census Bureau, when we look at Legal Services and EEOC, as we move 
along, I hope that we will much improve those areas. I encourage all 
Members to support the amendments of the ranking member in those two 
areas.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith), the able chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration 
and Claims.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
for yielding time to me.
  I rise in support of H.R. 4276. This bill, Mr. Chairman, takes 
important steps to deal with illegal immigration and related crimes, 
such as alien smuggling and drug smuggling. As in previous years, the 
bill provides for 1,000 new border patrol agents and 140 support 
personnel for those agents. These new agents can help the United States 
regain control of its borders.
  H.R. 4276 also addresses the INS's longstanding unresponsiveness to 
the problems imposed on communities by criminal illegal aliens. Too 
often the INS has failed to deport criminal aliens arrested by State 
and local police officers. The bill directs the INS to set up an 
around-the-clock 800 number that State and local officers can call to 
arrange for apprehension and removal of criminal aliens.
  The bill also directs the INS to deputize State law enforcement 
officials when requested, as authorized by the 1996 immigration reform 
law, so they can assist the INS in removing criminal aliens from the 
United States. Too often the INS has released criminal aliens into 
American communities because of inefficient use of limited detention 
space. H.R. 4276 provides substantial resources for a major increase in 
detention spaces available to the INS.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the bill directs the INS to maintain the 
integrity of immigration benefits by investigating and rejecting 
fraudulent applications. Equally as important, it also mandates 
improved speed and efficiency for serving immigration applicants, and 
provides important funding for that purpose, funding which was not 
requested by the administration.
  I urge my colleagues to support and vote for H.R. 4276, the Commerce, 
Justice, State, and the Judiciary appropriations bill.

[[Page H6962]]

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is an 
outstanding Member of our full committee.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, as a former member of this subcommittee, I have an 
appreciation for the breadth of jurisdiction that the distinguished 
chairman and ranking member have to deal with, and I commend them for 
their great leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. I do 
hope, as the process moves on, that I will be able to support the bill, 
because dealing with all of the issues that we have to deal with, as 
has been mentioned, there are some controversial ones.
  One of them deals with the children of America. I do not know if 
Members have seen, but a couple of weeks ago Columbia University 
released a study that said that one in four children under the age of 
six in America lives in poverty.
  How could this be, in a country this great? Maybe one of the reasons 
is that we do not have an accurate count of our children. Fifty-two 
percent of the undercount in the 1990 Census were children. They 
represent 25 percent of those counted but 52 percent were part of the 
undercount, a gross undercounting of the children.
  That is why I support the Mollohan amendment, because I think it 
addresses the controversy of the Census in a very, very smart way. It 
accomplishes three important goals: It prevents any interruption in the 
funding of the 2000 Census; it takes into account possible action by 
the Supreme Court to review the sampling question; and it provides for 
third-party review of the Census Bureau's plan for counting the 2000 
Census.
  The 1990 Census was seriously deficient, particularly as it failed 
our minority communities, and as I have said, the children of America. 
We cannot meet the needs, minister to the needs of America's children, 
if we do not have an accurate count of those children. In the minority 
community, almost 9 million people were not counted in the process, 
including one in 10 African American males, one in 20 Hispanics, and 
one in 10 young Asian males.
  On top of this, there were 26 million errors in the last Census, 1.6 
percent of the population was undercounted, 4.5 million people were 
counted twice, and the concerns go on, which I will submit for the 
Record.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I say that the Constitution requires 
that we have a Census. Every American counts. I urge my colleagues to 
vote for the Mollohan amendment when it comes up, to bring about a fair 
and accurate Census for America's children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan amendment. The 
Mollohan amendment accomplishes three important goals--it prevents any 
interruption in funding of the 2000 census; it takes into account 
possible action by the Supreme Court to review the sampling question; 
and it provides for third party review of the Census Bureau's plans for 
counting the 2000 census.
  The 1990 census count was seriously deficient, particularly as it 
failed our minority communities. Almost 9 million people were not 
counted in the process, including one in ten African-American males, 
one in twenty Hispanics and one in ten young Asian males. On top of 
this, there were 26 million errors in the last census, 1.6% of the 
population was undercounted, 4.5 million people were counted twice and 
another 13 million people were counted in the wrong place. In fact, the 
1990 census was the first census since 1790 to be less accurate than 
the census preceding it.
  We can do better than this and we owe it to all segments of our 
communities to make the strong effort to approve the Mollohan amendment 
to keep the census fair, accurate and representative of our diverse 
population.
  Full funding is necessary. Full funding of the census is necessary to 
prevent any delays in the preparation by the Census Bureau to proceed 
with its improved plans for 2000. The Mollohan amendment still leaves 
room for the Supreme Court to act on the census question without any 
interruption of plans by the Bureau to modernize, organize personnel 
and facilities and engage in contracting now. The Bureau has a plan; 
give them the money they need to implement the plan so that a severely 
deficient process can be improved.
  Secretary Daley has stated: ``This kind of living with a sword over 
the Census Bureau's head does not lend well to long-term planning. . . 
If Congress is going to have a fight and vote over what method ought to 
be used. . . . they should not hold hostage the census.''
  The Bureau plan uses good science. The Census Bureau plan includes 
augmenting the traditional count with statistical sampling. Traditional 
methods by direct enumeration would be used to count most Americans 
through the use of mail surveys and interviews, with the remaining 10 
percent hard-to-reach households estimated based on the characteristics 
of the 90% reporting from within the census tract.
  This plan is supported by the National Academy of Sciences, the 
General Accounting Office and the Commerce Department's Inspector 
General. The General Accounting Office reports: ``Sampling households 
that fail to respond to questionnaires produces substantial cost 
savings and should improve final data quality.''
  A report of the blue Ribbon Panel on the Census of the American 
Statistical Association states: ``Because sampling potentially can 
increase the accuracy of the count while reducing costs, the Census 
Bureau has responded to the Congressional mandate by investigating the 
increased use of sampling. . .We endorse the use of sampling for these 
purposes; it is consistent with the best statistical practice.''
  On the Constitutional Question about ``actual enumeration,'' Stuart 
M. Gerson, Assistant Attorney General during the Bush Administration, 
stated in a 1991 memo to the Commerce Department's General Counsel that 
the origin of the term `enumeration' in the Constitution ``is more 
likely found in the accuracy of census taking rather than in the 
selection of any particular method. . .Nothing. . .indicates any 
additional intent on the part of the Framers to restrict for all time. 
. .the manner in which the census is conducted.'' Gerson went further 
to state that a headcount ``might be subject to political manipulation 
in the form of a congressional refusal to appropriate sufficient funds. 
. .or by overly restrictive local review procedure. On the other hand, 
Census Bureau statisticians might perform a statistical adjustment in a 
manner yielding highly accurate results.''
  ``Actual enumeration'' under the Constitution, translated into an 
actual headcount, makes no more sense today than the notion of the 
constitutional framers to count only \3/5\ of all Black male slaves in 
the census. Actually, times have not changed in that respect if you 
look at the 1990 census which was effective in counting only \9/10\ of 
our nation's Black males. We can do better than this and we have an 
obligation to utilize the best possible methods available to us.
  According to many analyses of Constitutional interpretation, the 
founding fathers were more concerned about accuracy of the census 
rather than the specific methods employed to obtain the count. The 
Carter Bush and Clinton Administrations all concluded that the 
Constitution permits the use of sampling and other modern statistical 
methods as part of the census. All of the courts which have considered 
the question have concluded that the Census Bureau may use sampling and 
other statistical methods to improve the accuracy of a good-faith 
direct counting effort. The Census Bureau should have the discretion to 
determine the best possible science and modern technology for 
conducting a fair and accurate census count.
  The Census Bureau has a plan--recommended by the National Academy of 
Sciences--for improving the 1990 census and we should put it to work. 
Accuracy is important to all communities in America--for their 
representation in Congress and for the return investment by the federal 
government. They depend on the federal dollars for roads, schools, 
senior centers, Medicaid and other vital support systems that are 
determined by the count and that improve the quality of life in their 
communities.
  Make the census accurate and let the Bureau do its work NOW. We 
cannot be happy with the fact that millions of people, and particularly 
minorities, are left out of the count. Every American counts. Vote YES 
on the Mollohan amendment to bring about a fair and accurate census for 
the year 2000.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the very able chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 
4276, the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill for the fiscal 
year 1999. I want to thank my colleagues at the committee for working 
closely with the Committee on the Judiciary in deciding what amendments 
to the substantive law should be included in this spending bill, and I 
deeply appreciate the cooperative spirit.
  The CJS bill comes to the floor on the heels of H.R. 3303, the 
Department of Justice appropriation authorization act for fiscal years 
1999 through 2000, the first reauthorization of the Department passed 
by the House in years.

[[Page H6963]]

  With respect to the Justice Department, I want to commend the 
Committee on Appropriations for producing a strong, balanced spending 
bill. Working within tight budget controls, Commerce, Justice, State 
reflects the Congress' continuing commitment to provide resources for 
America's top domestic priority, fighting crime.
  Over the past 3 years we witnessed a dramatic drop in most categories 
of crime across America. This decline has been breathtaking. Many 
factors have converged to bring it up. Some, like demographic changes, 
were purely fortuitous, but we do know that specific crime-fighting 
measures have made a difference, and Congress has played an important 
role in funding some of these measures.
  For example, tens of thousands of police officers and crime-fighting 
equipment have been put on the streets through local law enforcement 
block grants and the COPS grant program. While I believe that Congress 
should not necessarily fund these programs in perpetuity, now is not 
the time to let up on the criminals. We must continue to fight to make 
our communities safe again. This bill will provide $4.9 billion for 
State and local law enforcement, $400 million more than the President's 
budget request.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill will also provide substantial funding for 
counterterrorism, protection against biological and chemical weapons, 
and the continuing fight against drugs.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4276 is a strong, balanced bill that will, with 
respect to the Justice Department, give it the resources it needs to 
carry out its many diverse missions. I again congratulate the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and his committee for their intelligent 
cooperation with the Committee on the Judiciary, and I urge my 
colleagues to support passage of this important legislation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\3/4\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), a member of 
our full committee.
  (Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time. I want to take my time to profoundly thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman, and the ranking member, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), as well as the staffs on 
both the majority and minority side, for their courtesy and 
consideration in ensuring that the COPS bulletproof Vest initiative was 
fully funded at the figure of $25 million.
  This initiative, which was enacted into law in June of this year, was 
originally sponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo) 
and myself. It received the bipartisan cosponsorship of 306 individuals 
in this body, and was passed overwhelmingly by both Houses of Congress.
  Essentially, it provides grants for police departments throughout 
this country to buy bulletproof vests to protect their officers. Prior 
to the tragedy of 10 days ago in the Capitol, the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), as chairman, and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), as ranking member, saw the dire need for this 
legislation, given the fact that before the end of today in America two 
police officers will be shot, and one out of every four police officers 
in America today does not have a bulletproof vest.
  So I do want to thank both gentlemen, the members of the committee 
and their staffs, for doing the right thing and for saving innumerable 
lives of police officers throughout the United States of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my sincere appreciation to Chairman 
Rogers and Ranking Member Mollohan for including funding for a new 
program, the COPS Bulletproof Vests Initiative. The bill before us 
directs $25 million for the creation of a new grant program to help 
provide state and local law enforcement officers throughout the country 
with bulletproof vests.
  Funding for this program was authorized in Public Law 105-181, which 
is based on legislation that I, together with our colleague from New 
Jersey, Mr. LoBiondo, first introduced in the House last November. The 
measure received strong bipartisan support in the House, attracting 306 
co-sponsors before it was voted on and signed into law.
  Bulletproof vests and body armor have saved the lives of more than 
2,000 police officers. Unfortunately, figures indicate that 
approximately 25 percent of the nation's 600,000 law enforcement 
officers don't currently have access to a vest. The Fraternal Order of 
Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the International Union of 
Police Associations, and the Police Executive Research Forum have all 
endorsed the bulletproof vest program that is funded by this bill.
  Once again, I wish to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member 
Mollohan, as well as all of my other colleagues who helped bring this 
important program to fruition.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the 
distinguished gentleman from Indiana for his work on this issue, which 
is poignantly important, as we saw so tragically here right close to 
home in the Capitol last week. Police officers are at risk, and his 
work is certainly appreciated by all of them across the country and all 
of us. I want to compliment him.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been a number of calls into the cloakrooms 
from Members inquiring about whether or not there will be further votes 
this evening.
  For the convenience of the Members, especially, I would like to state 
that there will be no further votes tonight. We will conclude general 
debate on the bill, and consider the legal services amendment, debate 
only. The vote will be postponed until tomorrow, and after that debate, 
the committee would then rise, so Members can know there will be no 
further votes this evening.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) for the assistance that he has given me, but right 
now I rise against Republican Census politics. It does not make much 
sense, by the way, either. If Republicans have their way, it will 
return us to the days where poor people and people of color either do 
not count, or, at best, count as three-fifths of a person.
  During the last Census in Georgia, counters came from rural Alabama 
to count people in Atlanta public housing. This was not just a funny 
story about the country mouse visiting his city slicker cousin, it was 
Dixie politics. Do Members think it was an accident that the residents 
in Atlanta public housing did not get counted? Let me assure every 
Member in this House that that was no mistake.
  Nationally, this same Census missed one in ten African American 
males, one in 20 Hispanics, and one in 10 young Asian males. That is 
why every major civil rights group has endorsed the plan created by the 
nonpartisan National Academy of Sciences to correct the undercount, 
using the most modern statistical methods available.
  But the Republicans, for purely partisan political reasons, would 
like to hold the funding for the Census Bureau hostage so they can 
force the Bureau to use outdated techniques that are guaranteed to lead 
to an inaccurate count.
  Mr. Chairman, the Census is America's family portrait. I recently 
took a portrait of my Washington, D.C. staff, which looks very much 
like America. If the Republicans have their way some of my staff will 
disappear, because the Republicans do not want a fair and accurate 
Census.
  This is my staff, which looks very much like America. I call it my 
rainbow staff, and some of them are in the gallery now. Unfortunately, 
Mr. Chairman, this is my staff after a Republican Census. If I am not 
careful, I would not even be counted in the Republican Census.
  It appears that Republicans are absolutely satisfied with certain 
people not being counted because it preserves their political power. 
The only way we are going to make sure that every man, woman, and child 
is included in America's family portrait is by putting Republican 
racial fear-mongering aside and let the Census Bureau do its job. 
America needs a fair and accurate Census.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida

[[Page H6964]]

(Mr. McCollum), the very able chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time. I rise tonight to strongly support H.R. 4276, the Commerce, 
Justice, State appropriations bill. It contains numerous provisions 
that I think very much adequately fund key crime-fighting provisions 
that the Justice Department and the Committee on the Judiciary want in 
all respects.
  First of all, there is a tremendous increase in funding in here for 
the Drug Enforcement Administration. Part of what we need to take 
cognizance of is the fact that we have now seen more drugs, 
particularly cocaine and heroin, fill our streets than at any time in 
history, at lower prices. We see double the teenage use in the United 
States since 1993, and this increase is one small but significant step 
in the right direction to turn that around.

                              {time}  2015

  Secondly, we have $250 million in juvenile accountability block 
grants in this bill to support what this House passed. The Senate has 
yet to pass an authorization; we passed it last year in H.R. 3. It will 
go to those States that will assure the Attorney General that young 
people will be held accountable for the very first misdemeanor crime, 
because experts tell us that if that does not happen, they are going on 
to much more likely difficult times of greater violence later on. There 
are many other features of that bill that this provision supports.
  Third, there is $525.5 million for truth in sentencing prison 
construction grants going to those States that adopt truth in 
sentencing provisions; that is, that require those who commit violent 
crimes to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. About half of 
the States have already made that commitment; we need to get the other 
half of the States to do the same.
  Last but not least, there is $523 million to continue the local 
government law enforcement block grants that allow every city and 
county in this country to fight crime as they see fit with these 
grants, based upon their population and their crime statistics.
  These are enormously important funding provisions in order for us to 
reduce the amount of violent crime in this country. We still have far 
too much. The amount of crime at the violent level is still four times 
greater in this country per capita than it was in 1960, but the funding 
in this bill will go a long way in these particular provisions to help 
reduce that and to fight it. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding the time to 
me.
  Let me just say that I think all Americans want the most accurate 
census possible. I do not think Americans want politics to be played. I 
do not think Americans like this kind of thing. The whole purpose of 
the census every 10 years is to get an accurate description of what 
America is all about, an accurate count.
  If we look at the chart over here, it shows the estimated number of 
people who will be missed using the 2000 census plan as proposed by 
using statistical sampling. And how many people will be missed if we 
use the old 1990 method? Five million people missed, 5 million 
Americans not counted in the census if we use the 1990 method. And if 
we use the 2000 method that we are proposing, statistical sampling, 
very few people will be missed.
  That should be the bottom line for anybody. Politics should not be 
played. We should not have to do this time and time again. Everybody 
knows that the only way to get an accurate sampling, accurate 
statistics, is by using statistical sampling. The 1990 census was a 
disaster. Everybody knows that at least 4 million people were not 
counted.
  The Bush Administration census director at the time said enumeration 
cannot count everybody. So unless the census is allowed the option of 
employing statistical sampling to improve its accuracy of the count, 
the next census will miss even more people.
  So the bottom line, again, for us and for the American people should 
be, which will give us more accurately what the American population is? 
It certainly is using statistical sampling.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
kindness, and I thank the chairman of the committee for working 
collaboratively on some of the very important issues that we have 
surrounding Commerce, Justice.
  Let me acknowledge the importance of the Police on the Beat program 
that has been so effectively utilized in my community in Houston. I 
also want to comment on the need for juvenile justice prevention 
programs and would like to thank the committee for its prevention 
dollars, but also would like to say we need more of those, because I 
believe the prevention angle for juveniles is much more effective than 
incarceration.
  I am disappointed in the funding of Legal Services Corporation; $141 
million does not equate to justice for our poor and underserved.
  But I would like to speak most extensively on the need for an 
accurate and forthright count of those of us who live in this great 
Nation. To point to this particular board that shows who the victims of 
this undercount will be, I use the term ``undercount'' because no one 
likes that term. One feels badly that they are left out. Only 26 
percent of our population are children. Yet if we do not have sampling, 
52 percent of them will be undercounted. What does that mean? No 
education, no housing, and no health care.
  The 1990 census was the first in history to be less accurate than its 
predecessor. The Census Bureau has a plan that will count everyone, and 
that is sampling. It is not polling, it is statistical sampling, 
approved by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Statistical 
Association and the Population Association of America. This is not 
voodoo tricks. This happens to be real science.
  This is real science, Mr. Chairman. For all of those who have debated 
on the floor of the House to say we are simply doing polling, no, we 
are not. Sampling follows the constitutional analysis of enumerating 
and counting everyone, because how would we like to see a circumstance 
where someone attempts to count everyone on a block, they go at 4:00 in 
the afternoon and 50 percent of those who live on that block are not 
there. Their numbers will say there are only half of who actually lives 
on the block. Statistical sampling will say on this block there are 
this many numbers of people by our statistical analysis, and we will 
get the correct number of people who live on that block and not have to 
miss them because we came at 4:00 in the afternoon.
  I support the Mollohan amendment that is a fair response to this 
controversy. It says, let us get ready to take the census in the year 
2000. Let us not wait because we are in debate about whether sampling 
is constitutional. It provides for an opportunity to do both. I do not 
want 52 percent of our children to be undercounted. I want education, 
housing and health care to be fair for all Americans.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland (Mrs. Morella), chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology of 
the House Committee on Science.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time to me. I would like to engage the gentleman in a colloquy on an 
issue of critical importance to our U.S. competitiveness.
  On June 4 of this year the Subcommittee on Technology, which I chair, 
held a hearing addressing the upcoming U.S. submission to the 
International Telecommunications Union of proposed standards for the 
third generation wireless telecommunications standard, commonly known 
as 3G. One issue which seemed to generate a significant degree of 
consensus was the need to ensure that any future global standard not 
strand technologies which are currently in use. One method to ensure 
U.S. technologies are not stranded is to require backwards 
compatibility.
  The Federal Communications Commission, the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Department of 
State all share responsibility for protecting U.S. interests during the 
ITU standard-setting process. With the significant investment made by 
U.S. developers, manufacturers and service providers of wireless 
telecommunication technologies, I believe the FCC, NTIA and

[[Page H6965]]

the Department of State should work diligently to ensure that these 
investments are not rendered worthless through the international 
standard-setting process.
  Since the FCC, NTIA and the Department of State all fall within 
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations, I would ask the chairman to 
work with these agencies to ensure that no U.S. technologies are 
stranded as a result of the ITU standard-setting process.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for bringing this 
issue to our attention. I look forward to working with her and all of 
the involved Federal agencies on the issue.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I know it sounds 
complicated. It is so important. I thank the gentleman very much.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, every American deserves to be counted in the census, 
and we must have the most accurate census possible.
  The 1990 census was the first in history to be less accurate than its 
predecessor. It missed millions of Americans, predominantly children 
and minorities. The Census Bureau has a plan that will count everyone. 
For political reasons, our opponents' plan will not do that, and we 
must not let that happen. They will not fund the plan that is needed 
for the entire year.
  Virtually every expert agrees that the way to get the most accurate 
count possible is by using modern scientific methods to supplement the 
traditional head count. Here we have a list of many of the people who 
already support the plan that the Census Bureau has put forward, that 
the Mollohan amendment supports.
  Funding the Census Bureau for only six months, as the opposition 
suggests, will cripple its ability to adequately plan and prepare for 
the largest peacetime mobilization undertaken by the United States 
Government, that of counting all of our people.
  I stand in support of the Census Bureau's plan and the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just noticed from the chart that the 
gentlewoman is emphasizing the National Academy of Sciences in her 
presentation, which makes the point that after the failed 1990 census, 
this Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences, the most 
respected body that we call on time and time again to give us 
nonpartisan advice, we called upon them and asked them, how do we do 
the 2000 decennial census in a way that takes care of the problems that 
resulted in the 1990 census being a failure?
  The National Academy of Sciences came up with scientific sampling as 
the way to make sure that we counted everybody in this country. I just 
want to compliment the gentlewoman for her excellent work on this issue 
and think that this is the right starting point to emphasize that 
organization, which has such credibility in this country.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, it is not only the National 
Academy of Sciences, it is every statistical association. We have many 
editorials that I would like to put in the Record from clear across the 
country supporting modern scientific methods. Also it was approved by 
the Bush Administration, and Dr. Barbara Bryant put the plan in place 
under the Bush Administration. We were moving forward with a plan to 
count everyone.
  The only person that I know who objects to it is the Republican 
National Committee that has raised many objections to getting an 
accurate count of all Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following editorials:

                           Editorials Y2K II

       There'll certainly be hell to pay if the nation's banking, 
     power and communication systems shut down because computers 
     confuse the year 2000 with the year 1900. Government will get 
     blamed for not doing enough in advance to handle the problem. 
     But at least public officials will be able to say that the 
     disaster was not originally of their making. That's not the 
     case with the second Y2K meltdown that's impending: a failed 
     2000 Census, which took another step toward reality yesterday 
     in the House Appropriations Committee.
       On a party-line vote the committee's Republicans moved to 
     give the Census Bureau only half of its funding for next year 
     and to release the rest next March--if and when Congress has 
     voted on how the census should be conducted. This was a 
     blatant and dangerous move to keep the bureau from even 
     planning to implement statistical sampling as a counting 
     method.
       It's important that the Census Bureau be fully funded from 
     the get-go in fiscal 1999 because much of the agency's vital 
     preparatory work for 2000 needs to be done early in the 
     year--regardless of how the sampling issue finally gets 
     decided. Offices must be leased, employees hired, 
     questionnaires printed and computers bought--which can't 
     happen efficiently without full funding. Moreover, if there 
     are delays approving a second trance of funding in March, 
     offices will have to be closed and employees let go, making a 
     botched census even more likely--again, regardless of how the 
     sampling issue is resolved.
       The responsible way to handle the sampling issue is to let 
     the Supreme Court decide whether or not use of modern 
     statistical methods violates the constitutional mandate of an 
     ``actual enumeration'' of the population each decade. We do 
     not see how the Court can possibly decide that it does in 
     view of the changes that have previously been made in the 
     census. Until 1970, census-takers actually went around 
     counting the number of persons in households. Since the, 
     written questionnaires have been the main counting method, 
     supplemented by personal visits. It's been conclusively 
     determined that both methods systematically undercount the 
     population, especially in minority and poor communities. So 
     the Census Bureau wants to supplement visits and mailers with 
     sampling to achieve a more accurate count.
       We'd bet that the Court will find that what the Framers 
     meant by ``actual enumeration'' was ``a realcount'' of the 
     population--as opposed to guesswork or political logrolling--
     to determine distribution of Congressional seats and 
     government benefits. But we could be wrong. If so, there 
     won't be sampling in 2000. If the court decides that sampling 
     is OK, though. Republicans will have no legitimate reason to 
     oppose the practice. To block it, they'd have to say they 
     want minorities to be undercounted--a disgraceful proposition 
     that's unsustainable politically or morally. The GOP has 
     every right to want sampling to be conducted in an honest, 
     professional manner. But it's covered this problem by 
     creating a bipartisan census oversight board.
       So, we urge the full House--or the Senate--to assure full 
     funding for census preparations. One Y2K problem is plenty.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, July 15, 1998]

                         Games With the Census

       The House Appropriations Committee is scheduled today to 
     take up the bill that contains funds for the year 2000 
     census. It ought to provide full funding for the kind of 
     census the administration has proposed--first a normal count, 
     then the use of sampling and other statistical techniques to 
     determine how many people were missed and adjust the final 
     figures accordingly. That's the only way to combat the 
     increasing undercount of lower-income people and minority 
     groups especially that has skewed the census in recent years.
       But the Republican leadership doesn't want to do it. They 
     argue that sampling is illegal, in that the Constitution 
     requires an ``actual enumeration,'' and that even if not 
     illegal it is suspect and susceptible to manipulation. They 
     also worry that a census adjusted to eliminate the undercount 
     could cost them seats and, conceivably, even control of the 
     House in the next redistricting. On the other hand, they 
     don't want to be put in the position of seeming in an 
     election year to advocate less than full rights for minority 
     groups and the poor.
       To avoid that, they worked out a deal last year with the 
     administration. This year's appropriations bill would be for 
     six months only. They would thus be ensured of another chance 
     to vote on the issue after the election; meanwhile they would 
     have more time to seek a ruling from the courts. At the same 
     time, preparations for a census including sampling could go 
     forward, and when the big vote finally came, the 
     administration would have a hostage--both sides would, in a 
     sense--in that the census issue, because of the 
     appropriations' placement in a bill funding three 
     departments, would be intertwined with those three 
     departments (State, Justice, Commerce), and thus the conduct 
     of foreign affairs and most federal law enforcement. A veto 
     over the census issue would involve a broader government 
     shutdown for which neither party would want to be 
     responsible.
       That was the deal. The Republicans now propose to get out 
     from under it by putting just the funding for the decennial 
     census on a six-month basis. Nor would they provide even all 
     the funding needed for the six months. Next spring they'd be 
     able to hand the president a take-it-or-leave-it 
     proposition--fund the census on their terms or not

[[Page H6966]]

     at all--with no cost to themselves in terms of shutting down 
     other functions of government. In the meantime, they would 
     foul up, for lack of sufficient funding, the normal 
     preparations for the census. This would be to avoid the awful 
     prospect of an accurate count two years from now. 
     Administration officials say the president will veto the 
     current bill if it deviates from last year's understanding. 
     So he should.
                                  ____


                   [From the Scranton Times, June 27]

                     Keep of Politics Out of Census

       Samuel J. Tilden surely wished there had been an accurate 
     census way back in 1870. If there had, you see, he would have 
     been elected president of the United States in 1876.
       Mr. Tilden, who had broken up the Tweed Ring in New York 
     City, went on to become governor of New York (and later, the 
     chief benefactor of the New York Public Library). And, in the 
     presidential election of 1876, he actually received more 
     popular votes than his Republican opponent, Rutherford B. 
     Hayes.
       In the Electoral College, however, Mr. Hayes received one 
     more vote than Mr. Tilden, and became president. Only later 
     did scholars discover that, because of an error in the 1870 
     census, the Electoral College votes had not been properly 
     distributed, and that Mr. Tilden should have been elected.
       That is a dramatic example of the impact of the census, 
     even 122 years ago. Today, the census retains the potential 
     for those kinds of problems but it is even more important, 
     affecting the life of virtually every American. Census data 
     are used for everything from establishing congressional 
     districts, to distributing federal funds, to controlling the 
     test-marketing of new products.


                 gop worried about congressional seats

       Unfortunately, as the 2000 Census draws near, the only 
     issue that matters in Congress is the determination of 
     congressional districts. Republicans who now control Congress 
     actually are arguing against accuracy in the 2000 count, with 
     largely spurious claims.
       It is now known that the 1990 Census was the first one 
     since 1940 to be less accurate than the one before it. In 
     1980, the census missed about 1.2 percent of the population. 
     In 1990, it missed 1.8 percent. That would not be 
     particularly alarming but for the fact that the count 
     consistently missed certain groups more than others. It under 
     counted blacks by a whopping 4.4 percent, for example. 
     Republicans in Congress worry that actually counting those 
     folks next time would result in some congressional districts 
     more likely to vote Democratic.


                  constitution provides for innovation

       The National Science Foundation and a host of experts on 
     the census have recommended the use of sophisticated 
     statistical sampling methods to complement actual enumeration 
     in order to achieve a more accurate count, and the 
     administration plans to do that.
       Republicans have raised the spurious claim that the 
     Constitution requires actual enumeration. The Constitution 
     mandated actual enumeration only in the first census, 
     however. It states: ``The actual enumeration shall be made 
     within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of 
     the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten 
     years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.'' The 
     manner that Congress by law should direct should be 
     enumeration plus statistical sampling, using every proven 
     statistical technique at the government's disposal.
                                  ____


              [From the Buffalo News, Mon, June 15, 1998]

                   Make the Census An Accurate Count

       Why are Republicans afraid of a more accurate census?
       It's the question that remains after the courtroom 
     wrangling the other day between lawyers for House Speaker 
     Newt Gingrich and those representing cities like Buffalo that 
     have significant numbers of minorities and poor people.
       Gingrich was in federal court trying to block the Census 
     Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling methods that 
     almost all experts agree would make the 2000 headcount far 
     more accurate than the 1990 attempt.
       For reasons having to do with everything from distrust of 
     government to the transiency rates of the poor, the 
     traditional door-to-door effort to count people every 10 year 
     misses lot of minority and poor Americans. Most of them live 
     in urban cities like Buffalo and New York. With a variety of 
     federal and state aid programs pegged to population figures, 
     cities and states that are the victims of census undercounts 
     miss out on money they need and deserve.
       Equally important, the census counts also affect the 
     drawing of congressional districts. That, in turn, impacts on 
     elections and helps determine, which party controls the House 
     and state legislatures.
       The technical dispute is over the ``enumeration'' called 
     for in the U.S. Constitution. Republicans insist that the 
     term means there must be an actual head count and no 
     sampling.
       The Census Bureau, cities and minority groups, arguing the 
     other side point to accompanying language saying the census 
     shall be conducted ``in such manner'' as Congress directs. 
     Logic dictates that the framers would never have included 
     that language if they were mandating only one way to conduct 
     the census and meant to leave no room for improvements, such 
     as through sampling.
       But the argument really is more about political power than 
     logic. Republicans privately fear that a census that reveals 
     more minorities and poor people could lead to a redrawing of 
     legislative districts in ways that threaten GOP office 
     holders. That could shift the balance of power in the House 
     or in some state legislatures.
       Of course, such a fear seems to assume that Republicans 
     feel they have nothing to say to minorities or poor people. 
     Is that what GOP leaders mean to concede? Any party that 
     feels it has ideas that can compete for the minds of voters 
     shouldn't worry about the prospect of having more Americans 
     counted, no matter where they live.
       The bottom line is that the census should be as accurate as 
     possible. Instead of fighting to cheat cities like Buffalo by 
     perpetuating undercounts of certain populations, the GOP 
     should be fighting with ideas that can attract those newly-
     counted Americans.
                                  ____


         [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sun. June 14, 1998]

 Census Sense--The Use of ``Sampling'' Is Scientific and Constitutional

       Since 1790, the United States has conducted a census every 
     10 years as required by the Constitution. As difficult and 
     error-prone as this process always has been--George 
     Washington and Thomas Jefferson thought the first count was 
     too low--the task has become more difficult as the nation has 
     become bigger and more mobile. Unless an adjustment is made, 
     the 2000 census threatens to be the most inaccurate yet.
       The record for error was set in 1990--the first census in 
     recent history to be less accurate than the one before. The 
     Census Bureau estimates that 10 million people were missed in 
     the 1990 census and 6 million were double counted. Thus the 
     census undercounted approximately 4 million people. The Bush 
     administration rejected requests to adjust the figures.
       Republicans are again resisting adjustments, this time in 
     the method to be used for the 2000 census. They oppose using 
     sampling, which the Census Bureau, the National Academy of 
     Sciences and the Clinton administration say will make the 
     count more accurate--and cheaper.
       The issue may seem arcane but the stakes are high. Of the 
     $125 billion that went to state and local governments in 
     1990, about half involved calculations based on census data. 
     And, or course, the census is used to determine the 
     apportionment of U.S. House seats, a fact that worries the 
     GOP because the census disproportionately undercounts pro-
     Democratic minorities.
       Naked self-interest, however, is dressed up in respectable 
     arguments. Two lawsuits have been filed to prevent census 
     sampling, one of them brought by House Speaker Newt Gingrich. 
     The main contention is that sampling is unconstitutional, 
     because Article 1, Section 2, of the Constitution requires 
     that an ``actual enumeration'' be made.
       To read this section as saying that sampling is banned as a 
     supplement to actual counting is absurd. As the Census Bureau 
     itself notes, the Justice Department has given an opinion on 
     sampling on three occasions--during the Carter, Bush and 
     Clinton administrations--each time concluding that sampling 
     is constitutional.
       Because the opposition has been so overstated, the average 
     American could be forgiven for assuming that the Census 
     Bureau intends to go out and use a few strategic samples in 
     lieu of a count, much like public opinion or TV rating 
     pollsters. That is far from truth.
       Census forms will still be mailed out--short forms to five 
     out of six households and a long form for the sixth. Just as 
     in 1990, when only 65 percent of the forms were returned, 
     census workers will go out and try and reach those who did 
     not respond.
       But because experience shows that it is impossible to 
     contact everyone (and expensive to try), the census workers 
     will aim to reach a minimum of 90 percent of the households 
     in each census tract. The difference will be imputed on the 
     basis of the data of those who were reached in follow-up 
     visits. In addition, a sample of 750,000 households 
     nationwide will be made as a safety check on the 
     calculations.
       Sampling is not weird science; many experts in the field 
     favor the method. It also has ample precedent. As it is, the 
     Census Bureau takes 200 sample surveys each year. Some 
     sampling in a major census was done as long ago as 1940.
       As a panel from the National Research Council observed, 
     ``It is fruitless to continue trying to count every last 
     person with traditional census methods of physical 
     enumeration.'' Census day 2000 is April 1. The nation will be 
     ill-served if partisan politics obstructs the use of the best 
     way to get the most accurate count.
                                  ____


                [From the Chicago Tribune, June 6, 1998]

                     The Wisdom of Census Sampling

       Trying to count every one of the 260 million-plus people 
     who reside in the United States is a literally impossible 
     task. No matter how much time, money and effort the Census 
     Bureau expends, it can never hope to get a perfectly accurate 
     count. In the 1990 effort, the bureau concluded, it missed 
     some 8.4 million people and counted 4.4 million people not 
     once but twice. And relying on old techniques, the count is 
     getting steadily less accurate.

[[Page H6967]]

       That's of some importance, since congressional seats and 
     federal money are divided up by population. but it is a 
     deeply divisive issue in Washington.
       The Clinton administration and its allies in Congress, 
     along with the National Academy of Sciences and the great 
     majority of experts in the field, favor a census Bureau plan 
     to use a statistical method known as ``sampling'' to estimate 
     the millions of people who escape the old-fashioned head 
     count. Republicans, fearful that most of these people are the 
     sort who tend to vote Democratic, are resisting that 
     suggestion. They have filed a lawsuit challenging the method 
     on constitutional grounds and, if they lost in court, they 
     hope to block it with legislation.
       The president raised the volume on the issue last week with 
     a speech in Houston--where, he said, the last census missed 
     some 67,000 people. By this estimate, sampling would cut the 
     number of people which are missed by the census to just 
     300,000. It would also save money.
       Republicans claim the use of this method would violate the 
     Constitution, which calls for ``actual enumeration'' of the 
     population. But the full provision says, ``The actual 
     enumeration shall be made within three years after the first 
     meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within 
     every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they 
     shall by law direct''--which suggests that legislators have 
     considerable latitude.
       Nor is it obvious that ``actual enumeration'' means 
     individually counting every person, particularly when that is 
     known to be a seriously inadequate measure. George Bush's 
     Justice Department issued an opinion that sampling is 
     constitutional. A federal court is expected to issue a 
     decision on these questions next month.
       But Republicans have not made the case that a ban on 
     sampling would make for the most accurate count possible. 
     However inconvenient its political consequences for some, 
     that goal has to take priority over everything else.
                                  ____


          [From the Christian Science Monitor, Apr. 28, 1998]

                          Down for the Count?

       Every census of a vast country like the United States is an 
     estimate. Millions don't respond to the mailed census forms, 
     and every front door can't be visited by follow-up head 
     counters, particularly in tightly packed urban areas.
       The count came up so short in 1990 (at least 10 million) 
     that the Census Bureau devised a plan for using sampling 
     methods to arrive at a more accurate estimate next time 
     around, in 2000. Sampling is an almost universally accepted 
     statistical tool. But Republicans in Congress have dug their 
     heels in--no sampling!
       Why? Sampling's critics may say it's because the 
     Constitution specifies an ``actual enumeration.'' But the 
     Constitution also says that the counting shall be done ``in 
     such manner'' as Congress directs. There's nothing barring 
     techniques like sampling. The real issue here is political, 
     not constitutional. Some in the GOP don't really want a more 
     accurate count of the hardest-to-find Americans, the poor and 
     new immigrants who typically vote Democratic. Larger numbers 
     in those categories could affect the political character of 
     congressional districts allotted to states after 2000, when 
     the new census becomes the basis for reapportionment. 
     Specifically, it might become harder to create ``safe'' 
     Republican House seats.
       But the effects of an undercount go beyond representation. 
     They can slow the distribution of a range of federal 
     assistance programs, since localities partake according to 
     their populations. Beyond governmental concerns, businesses 
     assessing markets and researchers analyzing society rely on 
     census numbers.
       After 1990, the calls for improvement were loud. The 
     sampling procedures drawn up by the Census Bureau are a far 
     cry from ``guessing.'' as some charge. The counting process 
     would begin with the traditional mailed census questionnaire, 
     sent to every dwelling on a master address list for the 
     country. In 1990, about 65 percent of households responded. 
     Follow-up interviewers will contact a large number of those 
     who don't respond, with an emphasis on areas with high rates 
     of non-response. The bureau hopes this will boost the total 
     contacted to 90 percent.
       But that leaves 10 percent uncounted, and now the going 
     gets tougher. This is where sampling would have its biggest 
     impact. A sampling of 25,000 census ``blocks'' would be 
     chosen for a second close, physical canvassing of every 
     residence--a step that wouldn't be practical for the whole 
     country. The results of this canvass would be compared to the 
     earlier head count. ``Estimation factors'' would emerge that 
     could be used to correct counts in all blocks, with a close 
     eye to corresponding demographic features like homeownership, 
     race, and age of residents.
       This spring, the bureau will conduct some dress rehearsals 
     of this system in geographically varied parts of the country. 
     Congress allowed for that much. But a full-scale gearing up 
     for 2000 remains problematic.
       Preparations for the dress rehearsals have underscored 
     another problem facing the census: It's difficult to find 
     workers to conduct the count. With today's very low 
     unemployment, few jump at the short-term, no-benefits census 
     jobs. This problem will be exacerbated if Congress orders a 
     labor-intensive, no-sampling national head count.
       Meanwhile, the Census Bureau is having to split its 
     management--one part moving ahead with the sampling plan, 
     another working on contingency plans in case Congress flatly 
     rules out sampling. Congress's own General Accounting Office 
     just issued a report warning that continuing indecision over 
     census methods could imperil the 2000 count.
       One other note: If the GOP leadership in Congress has it 
     way and demands an ``actual'' count, the price could be at 
     least $1 billion higher than the sampling approach.
       For a more sensible, and accurate census, Washington's 
     politicians should back off and let the experts in the Census 
     Bureau apply their apolitical expertise.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Jan. 17, 1998]

                       Taking Leave of the Census

       The resignation of the Census Bureau's Director, Martha 
     Farnsworth Riche, does not bode well for hopes that the 2000 
     Census will be more accurate than the flawed effort in 1990. 
     Ms. Riche, a respected professional demographer, says she has 
     accomplished her goal of redesigning the census process, but 
     regrettably she will not see the difficult task to 
     completion. Her departure robs the agency of the leadership 
     needed to resist political efforts to hijack the census.
       Ms. Riche has had to battle fierce political opposition 
     from Republicans on the use of statistical sampling to 
     supplement the traditional head count in the upcoming census. 
     The 1990 Census, which did not use sampling, was the most 
     costly in history and yet missed 10 million Americans and 
     counted 6 million twice or in the wrong place, according to 
     analyses by the National Academy of Sciences. That is because 
     census counts depend entirely on locating people at specific 
     addresses. New immigrants, those in shared housing, migrant 
     workers, the homeless, the poor and young people tend to be 
     undercounted. As these populations grow, particularly in 
     larger cities, the traditional counting approach has become 
     less and less accurate.
       Professional statisticians and economists, including 
     experts convened by the National Academy, have said that 
     taking a sampling of those who do not return their census 
     forms by mail and using that sample to estimate the uncounted 
     population would be far more accurate than sending field 
     workers out to make fruitless door-to-door counts. Ms. Riche 
     has been a sensible proponent of this plan.
       But Republicans have fought sampling because they believe 
     that the missing millions could turn out to be minorities 
     living in areas that vote Democratic, possibly giving 
     Democrats an advantage since census figures are used to draw 
     state and Federal legislative districts. In a compromise deal 
     hammered out between the White House and Republican leaders 
     last November, the Census Bureau was allowed to go forward 
     with a small dress rehearsal using both sampling and 
     traditional counting techniques this year. In exchange, House 
     Speaker Newt Gingrich will be allowed to use government money 
     to bring a lawsuit to stop the use of sampling in the actual 
     census in 2000.
       Ms. Riche's departure could leave the Census Bureau without 
     a guiding force when the sampling battle resumes in Congress 
     after this testing period. It appears unlikely that the 
     Republicans will approve a nominee to the post who supports 
     sampling. Yet Ms. Riche bluntly says there is probably no one 
     in the professional community who thinks an accurate census 
     can be taken without sampling. The Administration may decide 
     to shy away from a confirmation battle by naming an acting 
     director to the agency instead. The politics that drives this 
     debate now threatens to undermine what should be a 
     politically neutral government task.
                                  ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, Oct. 2, 1997]

If the Census Is Faulty, The Cities Will Pay Dearly--GOP Opposition To 
                   Sampling Could Hit California Hard

       When a congressional conference committee takes up the 
     debate in coming days over how to conduct the 2000 census, 
     the Senate version of the bill should prevail. That version 
     would sensibly permit the Census Bureau to use scientifically 
     sound sampling methods to augment the direct count, thus 
     avoiding an undercount like the 1990 fiasco that probably 
     cost California a couple of seats in the House of 
     Representatives and up to $1 billion in federal population-
     based funding.
       If conference action fails to eliminate the House ban on 
     funding for statistical sampling, President Clinton needs to 
     make good on his threat to veto the appropriations bill that 
     funds the Commerce, State and Justice departments, a measure 
     to which the House attached its sampling ban. House 
     Republicans let the government shut down in a similar 
     standoff last year. Are they prepared to do that again?
       The Constitution requires a decennial census. This head 
     count, which is nearly as old as this nation, is becoming 
     increasingly inaccurate because of the changing face of 
     America. The growth of hard-to-count populations such as 
     immigrants, the urban poor and, in some areas, the rural poor 
     frustrates an accurate tally where individuals are physically 
     counted. The 1990 census missed 834,000 residents of 
     California, according to a census study completed after the 
     official count. That costly failure also denied many 
     Californians the fundamental right to equal representation in 
     Congress. That's unjust.
       The House GOP leadership opposes sampling, which is 
     commonly used in public

[[Page H6968]]

     opinion polling, on the grounds that it falls short in terms 
     of accuracy, constitutionality and safeguarding against 
     political manipulation. In taking that position, the GOP 
     disregards the scholarly assessment of the National Academy 
     of Sciences.
       Republicans call for a physical head count, which tends to 
     favor affluent, married suburbanites--the traditional 
     Republican voter base--over the poor, minorities, single 
     people and transients who dominate many cities. Although the 
     Justice Department in the last three administrations has 
     interpreted the Constitution as allowing sampling, GOP 
     leaders insist that the document specifies an actual 
     enumeration and they refuse to proceed without a 
     constitutional test in the Supreme Court.
       On this issue, the Republicans aren't constitutional 
     purists, they're partisans. The only heads they are counting 
     are those in the GOP column. Ultimately this debate is not 
     about population figures, it's about politics. If all 
     Americans are counted, according to some projections, 
     additional congressional districts will be required in areas 
     dominated by minorities and the poor, who traditionally vote 
     Democratic. Changes in political boundaries could cost the 
     GOP up to a dozen seats--and perhaps its majority in the 
     House--some analysts say. Those are the numbers that fuel 
     this partisan controversy.
       If the Republican majority succeeds in forcing the Census 
     Bureau to rely on outdated methods, the GOP will probably 
     save several seats. But that victory would be achieved at the 
     expense of a level playing field, especially in California. 
     The California congressional delegation, Democrats and 
     Republicans alike, should support the census takers in the 
     effort to gain a complete count. Democracy is not served if 
     the numbers don't add up.
                                  ____


         [From the Los Angeles Times Editorials, Sept. 4, 1997]

   The Next Census Has to Seek Accuracy, Not Political Gain--Modern 
             Techniques Can Ensure Fairness for California

       California lost, big time, in the 1990 census. The Census 
     Bureau believes that a severe undercount missed 834,000 
     resident, costing the state a House seat and billions of 
     federal dollars.
       To prevent another huge undercount in 2000 and to take a 
     more accurate measurement, the Census Bureau wants to use 
     scientific, statistical, computer sampling techniques to 
     augment the traditional head count. The National Academy of 
     Sciences supports this approach. So does the Clinton 
     administration. But House Republicans plan to block the 
     reform when the census spending bill comes up for a vote 
     later this month. At stake is the potential loss of up to 24 
     Republican seats in the House, some political analysts say. 
     But the fundamental right to equal representation should not 
     rise or fall on such political stakes.
       If all California residents are counted in the next census, 
     the state could gain one or two congressional seats and a 
     larger, fairer share of the billions in federal funds that 
     are parceled out on the basis of population.
       Undercounts tend to miss immigrants and ethnic and racial 
     minorities, poor people and children. Transiency is a 
     problem. To count more of the hard-to-reach population, the 
     Census Bureau plans to send out thousands of human counters 
     and four mailings, including forms and reminders. Forms will 
     also be available at post offices, churches, conveniences 
     stores, homeless shelters and other public places and through 
     community groups. A toll-free telephone line will serve 
     people who prefer to call in. Census officials claim 
     sophisticated computer software should eliminate double 
     counting caused by duplicate forms. This new community-
     oriented approach would work even better in tandem with 
     computer sampling.
       The House Republican leadership opposes the proposed 
     methodology, which is commonly used in public opinion 
     polling, on the grounds of accuracy, constitutionality and 
     potential for political manipulation. They prefer a physical 
     head count only, which tends to favor married homeowners who 
     live in suburbs--the traditional Republican voter vase--over 
     single, transient, minority renters who live in cities. The 
     critics insist that the Constitution specifies an actual 
     enumeration, although the Justice Department in the three 
     past administrations has interpreted that language to allow 
     sampling and the National Academy of Sciences offers 
     scholarly approval.
       The purely political stakes are high for both critics and 
     supporters of sampling. The heads the Democrats and 
     Republicans want counted are those represented on their side 
     of the aisle. Still, accuracy, not politics, should be the 
     key test for the 2000 census. Sampling is part of a sound 
     strategy for gaining an accurate count.
                                  ____


               [From The Atlanta Constitution, Aug. 1997]

                  Power Struggle Behind Census Debate

       A long-simmering fight on Capitol Hill over how the United 
     States counts its citizens in 2000 may strike many Americans 
     as arcane. What difference does it make, they may wonder, 
     whether the Census Bureau tries to count every nose or 
     instead uses statistical sampling techniques to fill in the 
     gaps in its tallies?
       It could make a big difference. The census of 1990 
     undercounted U.S. population by an estimated 4.7 million 
     people, the majority of whom are poor people in urban or 
     rural areas and often are hard to detect through traditional 
     means of census-taking. A more accurate census would have 
     required federal programs to redistribute funds in proportion 
     to the population findings.
       More to the point, an exact count would have meant changing 
     the political map of U.S. House districts--probably to the 
     advantage of Democratic candidates because the undercounted 
     Americans--the poor and minorities--are typically Democratic 
     constituencies.
       And that is the crux of the dispute over the methods of the 
     next census. Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are dead-set 
     against procedural changes they think could cost them control 
     of the U.S. House.
       The arguments against changing the current system are 
     flimsy. They contend the U.S. Constitution's mandate of an 
     ``enumeration'' of Americans every 10 years implies 
     ``counting one by one.'' U.S. courts have ruled otherwise, 
     maintaining that enumeration means making the most accurate 
     count possible, period.
       Some Republicans also suggest that statistical sampling 
     could be subject to manipulation by the Clinton 
     administration in 2000. That is irresponsible fearmongering. 
     The Census Bureau has a proud history of statistical 
     professionalism and independence from politics, and should be 
     relied on to resist any attempt to undermine its accuracy.
       The limited use of statistical sampling planned by the 
     Census Bureau has the enthusiastic backing of the National 
     Academy of Sciences, the community of statistics and 
     demographers and even President George Bush's director of the 
     census in 1990, Barbara Bryant, a respected Republican 
     pollster. Undoubtedly, Republicans who oppose the technique 
     for the 2000 census use it themselves to get the most precise 
     political data they can lay their hands on.
       When Congress reconvenes next month, these naysayers will 
     do their darnedest to deny this tool to the Census Bureau. 
     Fair-minded Republican and Democrats must resist them. 
     Statistical sampling is a proven and efficient way to assure 
     the most accurate and honest count of Americans humanly 
     possible.
                                  ____


                     [From Newsday, June 16, 1997]

              The Next Census Ought to Count All Americans

       The political truce that has finally allowed the flood-
     relief measure to move through Congress despite Republican 
     objections over statistical methods to be used in the 2000 
     Census was only temporary. The census fight won't go away 
     because it isn't really about statistics. It's about 
     politics, of the worst kind.
       For years, census officials and other statistical experts 
     have agreed the census has undercounted minorities, 
     immigrants and poor people in the nation's inner cities and 
     rural areas. But Republicans have long opposed techniques to 
     get a more accurate measure: They believe the people who 
     would be counted would likely be Democrats, or at the least 
     would enhance cities' political strength relative to more 
     Republican-oriented suburbs.
       That's why, before the 1990 Census, then-Commerce Secretary 
     Robert Mosbacher overruled the census director and ordered 
     that there be no adjustment for the undercount. The result: 
     The 1990 Census was the least accurate ever, with upwards of 
     200,000 uncounted in New York City alone and the loss of 
     billions of dollars in federal aid to some states, localities 
     and school districts.
       Now the bureau is preparing for the next census, and 
     intends to use some statistical sampling techniques to take a 
     better measure. The approach has been endorsed by three 
     separate panels of the National Academy of Sciences and 
     several groups of professional statisticians.
       The Clinton administration is backing the numbers 
     crunchers, and it is right. Republicans, panicked they might 
     lose congressional seats with a more accurate inner-city 
     count, intend to fight again. They are acting out of self-
     interest, not the national interest.
                                  ____


              [From the Bangor Daily News, July 27, 1997]

                           2000 and Counting

       To many Americans, one of the most puzzling things about 
     the Beltway brawl last month over disaster relief was the 
     insistence by Republican leadership that help for flooded 
     North Dakotans be tied to Census 2000.
       The census? That boring decennial national head count? That 
     mundane, constitutionally mandated enumeration of every man, 
     woman and child? What's the big deal and what's the problem?
       Well, the big deal is the census is a very big deal, if for 
     no other reason than that it determines how many members of 
     Congress, and thus how much clout, each state gets. The 
     problem is that the 1990 census, while respectably accurate 
     overall, revealed a continuing and unacceptable trend: 
     certain groups, rural Americans and blacks especially, are 
     habitually undercounted and the gap is growing.
       And, the census is getting extraordinary expensive. The 
     last one cost $2.6 billion, with much of that going to 
     conduct house-to-house follow-ups on the 35 percent of 
     Americans who did not mail back their initial forms. The 
     Census Bureau estimates Census 2000, if done with 1990 
     techniques and if it attempts to correct the chronic 
     undercount, could run as high as $4.8 billion.

[[Page H6969]]

       Congressional leadership has made it clear there is no way 
     they'll spend that much, yet, paradoxically, leadership also 
     is staunchly opposed to a proposal the Census Bureau has to 
     save as much as $1 billion by augmenting the follow-up with 
     sampling and statistical analysis.
       With overblown rhetoric that would cause most folks to 
     blush, opponents call the plan, which has the endorsement of 
     the esteemed National Academy of Sciences, a ``risky scheme 
     of statistical guessing.'' This from the same politicians who 
     use sampling and statistical analysis to gauge the public's 
     mood before every election, who use these proven and finely 
     boned techniques to declare victory five minutes after the 
     polls close.
       Unconstitutional, they say. That sacred document requires 
     an actual enumeration. Yes, it does, but if the Constitution 
     were followed to the letter, felons could buy machine guns 
     off the shelf and any Mormon male with enough hair on his 
     chest could have 16 wives. Were they to speak today, the 
     Founders might say ``Golly, we had no idea the country would 
     get so big, the population so mobile and so suspicious of 
     government. Just get most accurate tally possible.''
       The most undercounted segment of the population is black 
     America and, as the recent revisitation of the abominable 
     Tuskegee Syphilis Study reminded us, blacks have just cause 
     to be wary when someone from the government comes knocking on 
     the door to ask a lot of personal questions. Reluctance to 
     count them better raises a spectre of racism the GOP doesn't 
     need and the nation can't abide.
       GOP leadership says the main reasons they're against 
     sampling is that the census is used to determine everything 
     from congressional districts and the distribution of federal 
     money to the makeup of state legislatures and local school 
     boards, so the Clinton administration will find a way to 
     manipulate the numbers to its advantage.
       Certainly, this administration is no stranger to the 
     concept of manipulation, but the charge is a little hard to 
     take from the Party of Watergate, the mother of all 
     manipulations. A bipartisan approach to funding the census 
     and a nonpartisan approach to overseeing it is the logical 
     solution.
       But logic is exactly what's missing here. Rep. Christopher 
     Shays of Connecticut is one Republican who's appalled at his 
     leadership's stubbornness and shortsightedness.
       ``It's embarrassing to have my party opposed, supposedly on 
     scientific grounds, to something scientists support,'' Shays 
     said the other day. ``Politically, it's a mistake. The big 
     gainers from a better 1990 census would have been the West 
     and the South--defintely not Democratic strongholds. 
     Leadership is dead wrong on this.''
       Dead wrong, but there's time to get right. The Census 
     Bureau will stage a dress rehearsal of the new techniques in 
     a few selected regions next year. Congress should give the 
     trial run a fair hearing and then decide either to go with a 
     head count that is accurate and affordable or to stick with 
     the exorbitant and flawed. As it stands, Census 2000 is a 
     disaster waiting to happen.
                                  ____


           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 19, 1997]

                    GOP Plays Games With the Census

       The battle over the 2000 census is heating up again in 
     Congress. Republicans insist on an actual count of each and 
     every American--something that has long proved to be 
     impossible. The Census Bureau wants to use statistical 
     sampling to account for the last 10 percent of the population 
     that's hard to find and routinely missed. The bureau is 
     right.
       But this week, the House Government Reform and Oversight 
     Committee issued a statement attacking statistical sampling, 
     while a House Appropriations subcommittee in funding the 
     bureau's normal operations for next year prohibited any of 
     the money being used for statistical sampling.
       This is just plain bad faith. Earlier this year, 
     Republicans tried to force President Bill Clinton to accept a 
     ban on statistical sampling by including it in a disaster 
     relief bill. Mr. Clinton parried and forced them to drop it. 
     In return, the Census Bureau promised to report in 30 days 
     the details of just how statistical sampling would work. That 
     deadline hasn't yet arrived, but Republicans are going ahead 
     with their prohibition anyway, making the matter a clearly 
     partisan issue, which it is, of course, since Democrats might 
     benefit by statistical sampling while Republicans won't.
       So Republicans don't care about the facts. But they do care 
     about losing congressional seats if those people who are 
     routinely missed--mainly minorities and children--are fully 
     counted. There's no question that an actual body count will 
     miss some of them, as it did in 1990, when 4.7 million people 
     or 1.8 percent of the population wasn't counted, including 
     67,000 Missourians and 162,000 Illinoisans. Some 5 percent 
     each were Hispanics, African-Americans and Indians.
       Statistical sampling, widely used by pollsters, marketers 
     and sociologists, can overcome this problem. Several 
     committees of the National Academy of Science have endorsed 
     it, and the bureau is eager to use it. It may be reasonable 
     for Congress to wait for a detailed explanation of how 
     statistical sampling will be applied. It is unreasonable to 
     rush to judgment now. An accurate count is too important to 
     be jeopardized by partisan politics.
                                  ____


              [From The Commercial Appeal, July 19, 1997]

                          National Head Count

       To insist that the nation's census in 2000 be done by 
     tapping every American on the head, so to speak, is to ensure 
     a deliberate undercount.
       Yet that's the position of some conservative Republicans--
     for a not very honorable reason. They fear a more accurate 
     count would favor the Democrats.
       Counting every American is physically and financially 
     impossible. The census is conducted largely by mail backed by 
     enumerators pounding the streets. Even so, many are still 
     missed, largely among city dwellers, the poor and minorities, 
     who are presumed to be Democrats.
       No one really knows. Some Republicans believe a more 
     accurate count would actually favor the GOP by catching up 
     with the explosive growth of the Sun Belt.
       The count is critical because the decennial census 
     determines who gets how many House seats and who gets what 
     percentage of federal aid.
       To ensure a more accurate count, the Census Bureau plans to 
     use statistical samples, revisiting some of the households 
     that fail to answer mail questionnaires and revisiting 
     certain neighborhoods. The bureau says the extrapolations 
     will produce a count that misses only 0.1 percent of the 
     population.
       Statistical sampling is a tested technique, refined to a 
     level of great accuracy, and its use in other surveys, both 
     private and government, goes unremarked.
       However, a group of congressional Republicans is determined 
     to block any use of statistical sampling. In this, they are 
     wrong--``dead wrong,'' says Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), 
     co-chairman of the census caucus.
       In one other respect, they are right: Statistical sampling 
     can be prone to political manipulation, and certainly the 
     stakes are high enough to make it worthwhile for someone to 
     try.
       Better their efforts be directed to ensure that the 
     statistical sampling is subject to stern, independent, 
     outside scientific scrutiny and audit. The census must not 
     only be accurate but must be seen to be fair and accurate.
                                  ____


              [From the Houston Chronicle, June 23, 1997]

    Accuracy a Must--Much Riding on Correct Census Count for Houston

       In Congress, even the method for counting the American 
     people is regrettably politicized. With the 2000 Census 
     approaching, Republicans and Democrats are at odds, imagine 
     that, over what method the Census Bureau should use to count 
     the nation's population.
       Republicans want to physically count each and every one, 
     while the Democrats favor using statistical sampling, a 
     method never before used but one Census officials believe 
     will yield a more accurate count.
       For years, the Census Bureau has infamously undercounted 
     the population, particularly in Texas. In the 1990 count, 
     more than 4 million people in the country--an estimated 
     500,000 in Texas--were missed.
       Undercounting the population is not inconsequential. Texas 
     and other states where undercounts were greatest lost out on 
     additional House seats and, more important, billions of 
     federal dollars ranging from Medicaid to highway construction 
     funds. State officials believe missed heads in the 1980 
     Census cost Texas roughly $600 million in federal money. That 
     is funding that, in fairness, the state of Texas cannot 
     afford to concede again.
       The Census has been particularly inept at counting inner-
     city minorities and the poor. An estimated 5 percent of all 
     Hispanics and blacks were not counted in 1990. In Houston, 
     where Hispanics and blacks account for more than half of the 
     population, that's a major problem.
       Republicans argue that the Constitution mandates that every 
     American be physically counted. However, doing so is a 
     practical impossibility. As well, maintaining the status quo 
     with the traditional count contradicts the GOP's movement to 
     make government more accountable.
       Understandably, House Republicans are being dutifully 
     protectionist about their slight seat margin, one that they 
     feel will be threatened by more minorities being counted.
       But Texas Republicans should know better than most the 
     stakes riding on an accurate count. Houston has a great deal 
     at stake with the accuracy of the next Census, and political 
     party interests shouldn't take a front seat over the greater 
     interests of the community as a whole.
                                  ____


                      [From the Houston Chronicle]

        Counting Heads--No Reason to Keep U.S. Census Inaccurate

       The purpose of the U.S. census is to get the most accurate 
     count possible. If using modern statistical sampling to 
     augment the actual head count makes the census more accurate, 
     who could reasonably object?
       No one, but then politicians afraid of losing power do not 
     always act reasonably.
       Since Thomas Jefferson conducted the first U.S. census in 
     1790, census takers have known that there are discrepancies 
     between the actual number of residents and the number counted 
     in the census. Some people are not counted; some are counted 
     twice.
       Statistical sampling is nothing more than counting some 
     neighborhoods twice to measure accuracy. It's not a 
     guesstimate that can

[[Page H6970]]

     be manipulated for partisan advantage. It serves the same 
     useful purpose as an audit of financial records to make sure 
     the numbers are correct.
       In his visit to Houston Tuesday, President Clinton was 
     right to say that the issue transcends partisan politics: 
     ``We should all want the most accurate method.''
       However, some Republicans believe, without much evidence or 
     logic, that a more accurate count would significantly favor 
     Democrats by counting urban residents that have been missed 
     in the past. Congressional Republicans therefore oppose using 
     statistical sampling to make the count more accurate.
       They have little to fear from census accuracy. Only a 
     couple of states might lose one congressional seat each, and 
     the number of residents who show up at the polls and vote 
     Democratic will not increase no matter how many residents are 
     counted.
       An accurate census serves all Americans and harms no 
     political party. True, state and federal funding formulas 
     would be significantly affected, but wouldn't the nation be 
     better off if government spending were based upon accurate 
     rather than grossly inaccurate population numbers?
       Politicians who argue for keeping the census inaccurate 
     place themselves in an untenable position. In another context 
     they would insist the sailors compute their approximate 
     position with a sextant and reject satellite technology 
     accurate to a few yards.
                                  ____


              [From the Dallas Morning News, May 29, 1997]

             Census--Congress Needs to Fund New Approaches

       Ah, spring, and a census taker's fancy turns to . . . 
     statistical sampling methodologies conducive to enhanced 
     accuracy in the decennial enumeration. How exciting.
       But hold on there. Knowing the actual population of the 
     United States is very important indeed. Census figures serve 
     as a basis for the allocation of congressional seats and the 
     lines for congressional and state legislative districts. In a 
     democratic republic, how much more important can things get? 
     Not much.
       Yet civil service professionals at the Census Bureau are 
     warning that unless Congress extends the necessary funding to 
     upgrade the government's demographic techniques, the 2000 
     census could be the least accurate to date. Inner cities and 
     rural areas will be particularly susceptible to a worsening 
     undercount.
       Capitol Hill Republicans aren't fazed. They fear that 
     changing the status quo could undermine them and help the 
     Democrats--which is why the disaster relief funding bill, the 
     larger piece of legislation in which the sampling proposal is 
     hidden, did not come up for a vote before Congress adjourned 
     for the Memorial Day recess.
       To be sure, The Dallas Morning News has in the past 
     registered its concern over ``census adjustments.'' Still, 
     concerns such as the following have been answered one by one:
       Accuracy. The 1990 census was the first to be less accurate 
     than its predecessor. Now, even the Bush administration 
     appointee who oversaw the 1990 census has endorsed sampling 
     as promoting accuracy.
       Constitutionality. The Constitution says that all people 
     shall be counted. But numerous legal experts believe that 
     sampling is a reasonable option that would pass muster with 
     the Supreme Court.
       Politicization. Could sampling be susceptible to political 
     manipulation by one party or the other? That's a risk 
     anywhere in government. Trust has to be placed in the 
     professionalism and integrity of civil service professionals 
     at the Census Bureau.
       The most important issue in this debate over how to conduct 
     the census should be achieving the most accurate census 
     possible. That will promote fairness and confidence in our 
     political system. Toward this end--whether on the basis of 
     scientific accuracy or cost--objections to sampling are 
     falling by the wayside, and rightly so.
                                  ____


            [From the Bakersfield Californian, May 28, 1998]

                       New Census Supplement Good

       The plan by the federal Bureau of the Census to supplement 
     the actual national population count in the year 2000 with 
     statistical projections is a good one. The purpose is to make 
     up for people who are missed.
       The problem of under-representation of significant numbers 
     of people has been consistent and growing in recent census 
     counts.
       The primary purpose of the decennial census that is 
     mandated by the U.S. Constitution is to apportion the 450 
     seats in the House of Representatives among the states 
     proportionally by population. An undercount concentrated in a 
     few areas could result in a change in congressional 
     representation.
       But the data from the census also is used as the basis on 
     which federal funds for a wide variety of programs worth an 
     estimated $100 billion are distributed to states and 
     localities. Areas will large, traditionally undercounted 
     populations--often moniorities and immigrants--such as 
     California and Kern County could lose millions of dollars of 
     federal program funds to which they are entitled.
       States also use the information for how they distribute 
     funds locally, and the private sector uses the information 
     extensively for marketing research.
       It is estimated that the error rate in the 1990 census 
     averaged 1.6 percent nationally, but was higher on average in 
     California at 2.7 percent. It was higher than that in some 
     areas of the state.
       Although the undercount among whites nationally was less 
     than 1 percent, for minorities it ranged between 2.5 percent 
     and 5 percent (for Latinos). Thus, for areas with readily 
     growing minority and immigrant populations like Kern County, 
     the error can be costly.
       The problem is compounded because of a decreasing rate of 
     voluntary compliance with the census. Following the main head 
     count in the year 2000, special census takers will go into 
     selected census tracts to determine how many people were 
     missed. Then the Census Bureau will make adjustments.
       Already the decision is being swamped in phony 
     constitutional and mathematical arguments, mostly made by 
     congressional Republicans.
       Contrary to their claim, the Constitution does not bar use 
     of techniques to supplement means normally used to take the 
     census. Thus the year 2000 census should be no different 
     legally than past ones.
       Mathematically, the science of statistics can be 
     extraordinarily accurate. Much of science, medicine and 
     commerce depend on it.
       The fact that much of the objection is partisan is telling. 
     It is based on the assumption that the majority of the 
     undercounted populations are among minorities who are 
     presumptively Democrats. If so, a few congressional seats 
     might shift to democrats.
       Whether that is true or not, we would rather have an 
     accurate national profile than a count that is incorrect by 
     errors of omission for the sake of partisanship.
                                  ____


            [From the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, May 14, 1997]

                            Census Politics

       In case you don't understand why there should be a flap 
     about how to conduct the national census in 2000, it's 
     because of two factors:
       1. The nation's nose-counters apparently have never been 
     able to count everyone--not even in 1790, when America's 
     population was less than 4 million. Oddly enough, the best 
     guess is that the 1990 Census failed to find approximately 4 
     million residents. The problem is that census-takers seem to 
     be undercounting more each decade.
       2. Politics, plain and simple. More than 10 years ago it 
     became evident to professional politicians that the people 
     the census was missing were mostly urban minorities who might 
     be counted upon to vote Democratic. As a result, Democrats 
     generally favor using scientific techniques (``statistical 
     sampling'') to make up for the undercount. Republicans 
     generally oppose it, insisting upon an ``accurate'' head 
     count that the National Academy of Science says is 
     impossible.
       According to one political newsletter, Republicans fear 
     they might lose as many as 24 House seats to redistricting if 
     statistical sampling is used.
       The Constitution requires an ``enumeration,'' period.
       So the question seems to be: Do we use scientific sampling 
     in an effort to come closer to the actual number of 
     Americans, or do we count heads and settle for knowing that 
     the census is as much as 2 percent off?
       It is well to remember that the politicians who decry using 
     a scientific sampling based on 10 percent of the uncounted 
     homes are happy to stake their political futures on polls 
     that are based on much smaller samplings. As we said, this is 
     now mostly about partisan politics rather than 
     ``enumerating'' the population.
                                  ____


                 [From the Boston Globe, May 13, 1997]

                               Editorial

       For the first time in history, the 1990 Census was less 
     accurate than its predecessor, failing to find about 4 
     million Americans--roughly a million more than were 
     undercounted in 1980.
       The Census Bureau's plans to rectify this problem have 
     suddenly become a hot issue in Washington, not because of the 
     proposed sampling technique--professionals say it is sensible 
     and conservative--but because of politics.
       Most of those missed by the Census are poor, both urban and 
     rural; many are minorities. They are not fictitious people 
     whom bureaucrats theorize must exist; they are real people 
     who live in real dwellings that the bureau knows to be 
     occupied, but they have failed to return mailed Census forms 
     or answer the knock of enumerators.
       Although many of them are not registered to vote, they are 
     individuals who deserve to be counted, to be recognized, and 
     to be represented in public life. It is this last 
     consideration that has caused a flap in Washington. If a 
     significant portion of the undercount is restored, a number 
     of congressional districts--perhaps as many as two dozen--may 
     be drawn in a way that is likely to benefit Democrats.
       Republicans, led by Senate majority leader Trent Lott and 
     House Speaker Newt Gingrich, have asked Census director 
     Martha Farnsworth Riche to abandon the proposed sampling, but 
     she has responded that it is the best hope for an accurate 
     count. Congress will not and should not pay for a massive 
     personal enumeration that would track down every last 
     individual.
       House Republicans may move this week to attach a 
     prohibition against this technique to a supplementary 
     appropriation for disaster relief. The Senate backed off a 
     similar attachment, and the House should do the same.

[[Page H6971]]

       The goal should be clear: the most accurate account 
     possible, without excessive made-up estimates that would help 
     Democrats and without an acknowledged undercount that helps 
     Republicans. The country needs an accurate count of its 
     residents regardless of political considerations.

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would advise Members that the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to 
close, and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), chairman of the House Subcommittee 
on the Census.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, it is too bad that politics has 
been brought into play on this issue of the census, because the census 
should not be a partisan issue. There should not be a Republican 
census. There should not be a Democratic census.
  Unfortunately, President Clinton has decided it is going to be his 
way or no way, and he designed unilaterally this polling technique to 
use on the census.
  I know the President has written about all the times he cannot make a 
decision without reading a poll. They do polling every day at the White 
House to make decisions.

                              {time}  2030

  And he says, well, it works for me in politics, I will use polling 
for the census.
  Now, everyone says on the other side that we want to count everyone. 
Well, let me tell my colleagues so everyone knows what the plan is. The 
plan deletes and does not count 27 million people. Let me repeat that. 
There are 27 million people, approximately, that are not going to be 
counted under the Clinton plan because the Clinton plan only wants to 
count 90 percent of the people to start with.
  Of course, they want to talk 90 percent of 100 percent, and we do not 
know what 100 percent is to start with, so they will have to explain 
that one. But the fact is they are not going to count 27 million 
people. So how can we count everyone with a plan that does not count 
those 27 million?
  He has proposed a plan that is moving towards failure. The General 
Accounting Office and Inspector General says this is a high risk plan, 
and the risk of failure keeps increasing. What they are going to do 
with those 27 million that they refuse to count is they are going to 
create virtual people. They are going to clone people and then say 
these are the 27 million people.
  That is not the way the plan should be put together. We need to work 
together. We need to make a decision, Republicans and Democrats, and 
the decision is appropriately to be made next March. That is when we 
will have the results of the dress rehearsal. That is when we will hear 
more about the court cases, and that is when the monitoring board will 
issue their report.
  So let us put off the decision, as we all agree can be done, until 
next March, and we will work together. That is the only way we can have 
a census that is trusted by the American people. If we have a Clinton 
census that automatically refuses to count 27 million people, it will 
not be trusted by the American people.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. I ask the gentleman, was it not the agreement of the 
President and the Speaker of the House that the decision on how to 
proceed on the census would be postponed for the first 6 months.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Right.
  Mr. ROGERS. And that the decision would be made in February of 1999.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. In the Clinton budget submitted this past 
February the President talked about a March 1 date when the decision 
will be made. That is when we should make the decision.
  Mr. ROGERS. And does the gentleman agree with that?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Absolutely.
  Mr. ROGERS. And is that what is in this bill?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. That is what is in this bill, and the Mollohan 
amendment just wants to put off the decision and say only the President 
can make the decision and Congress is irrelevant. That is not the 
Democratic way.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, the appropriations bill covering the 
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State includes funding for Radio 
Free Europe/Radio Liberty. I want to express my strong support for this 
appropriation.
  In the euphoria following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the 
collapse of the Soviet Union, many people initially thought that Radio 
Free Europe/Radio Liberty was now part of the past and could be 
downsized or even closed. It was assumed that the surrogate radios had 
fulfilled their mission of serving as a substitute for free radio 
broadcasting that did not exist in these countries.
  But the events of the decade since the fall of the Berlin Wall have 
demonstrated that many of the Newly Independent States and the 
countries of Central and Eastern Europe have serious political and 
economic problems. Authoritarian rule--some have suggested dictatorial 
rule--threatens the future of Belarus and Slovakia. Unresolved military 
conflicts have prevented progress in Tajikistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, 
and Georgia. In still other countries--including Russia, Ukraine, and 
Romania--political and economic reforms are far from complete. 
Throughout this area, government structures remain little reformed from 
Soviet times; on the contrary, they are extraordinarily more corrupt.
  Mr. Chairman, up to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, RFE/RL 
in general played a key role in bringing critical information to people 
who were systematically denied access to any other source of news. The 
demise of Soviet power happened precisely because more and more people 
in the USSR and the communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe 
learned the truth about the Soviet system and demanded changes.
  At present, Mr. Chairman, RFE/RL presently broadcasts in 23 languages 
of Central and Eastern Europe and the Newly Independent States. In many 
of these states, RFE/RL remains a lifeline for people who want to see 
democracy flourish in their own countries, functioning much as it did 
for the last 48 years. As a surrogate radio, RFE/RL does not broadcast 
U.S. government propaganda. Indeed, it has never carried any editorials 
by U.S. government officials. Despite some press reporting to the 
contrary, RFE/RL was never simply an anti-communist enterprise. Even 
though the radio operated on the basis of funds appropriated by the 
Congress, it has been an independent radio network--with its 
fundamental commitment to accurate, factual, and timely reporting. That 
principle underlies all truly free and democratic societies.
  In the former communist countries which are making steady progress 
toward democracy and free market economies, RFE/FL has been able to 
expand its role of surrogate broadcasting into genuine partnership. In 
many of the countries to which it broadcasts, RFE/RL has opened 
bureaus, maintains extensive stringer operations, and has entered into 
contracts with local broadcasters and other media outlets. From the 
polling that is done, it is apparent that audiences want something from 
the radio as well. They demand not only news and information, but they 
also want guidance about how to make the transition from communism to 
democracy and a free market. They listen to RFE/RL programming as a 
check against what they are hearing from their own media--a check that 
helps assure the honesty of the local media, which is still dominated 
by people trained in the communist past.

  Mr. Chairman, many of the democratic leaders of Central and Eastern 
Europe and the Newly Independent States rely on RFE/RL to support the 
development of political pluralism, the reform of their economics, and 
the independence of their media. As Czech President Vaclav Havel said: 
``These radio stations are significant even after the end of the Cold 
War. . . not only because human rights are not fully respected [and] 
democracy has not yet fully matured, but also because they set a goal 
for the new independent media, creating a healthy competitive 
environment.''
  While taking on these new responsibilities, RFE/RL has successfully 
relocated, downsized, and incorporated new technologies. It has gone 
from some 1,600 full-time employees to just 432, and its budget has 
been reduced from $220 million per year to just $75 million. Such 
draconian cuts would have destroyed most organizations--but RFE/RL 
continues to flourish. There is a role--albeit a transformed role--for 
the radio in the post-Cold War World.
  Mr. Chairman, there are three important reasons for this. First, in 
recognition of what the radio has done and continues to do for the 
people of Central and Eastern Europe and the countries of the former 
Soviet Union, Czech President Havel offered FRE/RL a home in Prague at 
virtually no cost--$12 per year. Second, employees of the radio have 
shown their commitment to the ideals of RFE/RL by

[[Page H6972]]

doing more for less--producing the same number of hours of programming 
with only one quarter of the staff and one third of the budget. And 
third, many of us now realize that overcoming the communist past of 
these countries is a far more difficult task than many of us first 
assumed.

  RFE/RL has also been creative in applying new technologies to its 
tasks. For example, it is now providing news and analysis via the 
Internet. People can hear and see what is being broadcast by using RFE/
RL's website and RealAudio. More than 2.5 million people visit the 
website every month--a number that has grown dramatically over the last 
2 years. Increasingly, these are visits by citizens of the countries to 
which the radio broadcasts.
  Earlier this year, Mr. Chairman, the Congress passed and President 
Clinton signed into law legislation that directed RFE/RL to begin to 
broadcast to Iran and Iraq, two countries whose media is anything but 
free and whose governments have been less than friendly to the United 
States. We have entrusted to RFE/RL the operation of these Farsi and 
Arabic language broadcasts in recognition of its past and present role 
in promoting a free and independent media as a means to promote 
democracy and international cooperation. These two broadcast services 
will be on the air in the early fall.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that RFE/RL will continue to broadcast 
well into the twenty-first century. The radio has made and continues to 
make a dramatic difference in one of the most historic and sweeping 
revolutions of our time. With its expanded mission, RFE/RL can play an 
important role in providing a model of what responsible journalism 
truly is and in prodding the people of these nations toward the 
development of truly democratic and pluralistic societies. For all of 
these critical reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support 
the RFE/RL.
  Mr. DeLay. Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss an important issue in the 
Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. Since 1996, under 
Chairman Rogers' leadership, the Appropriations Committee has had 
before it various proposals, including implementation plans, reports 
and the like, to attempt to come to grips with the delays in the 
implementation of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act 
of 1994 of CALEA that have prevented both the telecommunications 
industry and law enforcement from complying with its provisions. 
Nothing, to date, has resolved the issue which affects all of the 
telecommunications industry, including long distance and local 
telephone companies, cellular carriers, PCS providers and equipment 
manufacturers, and the FBI. On October 25 of this year, if the industry 
is not in compliance with CALEA, fines and penalties of upwards of 
$10,000 per day may well be levied against all carriers big, as well 
as, small. Through no fault of their own, the technology and standards 
are still not set for implementation purposes nearly four years after 
enactment of the law.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope this issue can be dealt with this year by the 
authorizers. I note that on June 22, Judiciary Committee Chairman Hyde 
brought to the floor and passed by voice vote H.R. 3303, the DOJ 
Authorization bill, which included provisions to delay both the 
compliance date and reimbursement ``grandfather'' date in CALEA. 
Furthermore, last week Chairman Hyde wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary 
Committee Chairman Hatch to strongly encourage him to pass the bill in 
the Senate, a copy of which I am including in the Record. If the 
authorizers are not successful, though, we may need to again and 
finally resolve this festering problem later this year. Certainty, 
CALEA's implementation, is critical to both the FBI and the 
telecommunications industry.
                                       Committee on the Judiciary,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, July 16, 1998.
     Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, Dirksen 
         Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
       Dear Orrin: as you know, on June 22, the House of 
     Representatives passed the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriation Authorization Act'' for fiscal years 1999, 
     2000, and 2001 (H.R. 3303). That bill is now pending before 
     the Senate Judiciary Committee. This important bipartisan 
     legislation is a comprehensive three-year reauthorization of 
     the Justice Department's activities and programs.
       Authorization is the process by which Congress creates, 
     amends, and extends programs in response to national needs. 
     It is perhaps the most important oversight tool that Congress 
     can employ. With respect to the Department of Justice, the 
     law requires that all money appropriated must first be 
     authorized by an act of Congress. Notwithstanding this 
     obligation to authorize, Congress has not properly 
     reauthorized the Department's activities as whole since 1979. 
     Since that time, several attempts have failed either because 
     of bad timing or because the reauthorization bills were 
     loaded with controversial amendments.
       This 19-year failure to properly reauthorize the Department 
     has diminished the role that the two judiciary committees 
     have traditionally played in overseeing the structure and 
     funding of the Department's activities and programs. The 
     inability of our two committees to regularly reauthorize the 
     Department deprives the Congress of the institutional 
     knowledge and collective wisdom that we have gained through 
     regular oversight. H.R. 3303 is an attempt to improve the 
     efficiency of the Department and an opportunity to reaffirm 
     the authority and responsibility of the authorizing 
     committees.
       Let me now briefly summarize H.R. 3303. The bill contains 
     four titles. Title I authorizes appropriations to carry out 
     the work of the various components of the Department for 
     three fiscal years. Title I largely adheres to the 
     Department's budget request for fiscal year 1999 by providing 
     nearly $15.5 billion, and it would authorize a 5% increase 
     for fiscal years 2000 and 2001. Title II reauthorizes for two 
     additional years a number of successful programs whose 
     authorizations will expire at the end of fiscal year 1998. 
     Title III would grant permanent authorization for certain 
     inherent and noncontroversial functions of the Department. 
     The Department has requested permanent authorizing authority 
     in the past, and proposed authority has appeared in several 
     reauthorization bills since the last reauthorization in 1989. 
     Title IV would, among other things, repeal the permanent 
     open-ended authorization of the United States Marshals 
     Service.
       Included as part of the authorization legislation was 
     language amending the Communications Assistance for Law 
     Enforcement Act (``CALEA'')--amendments which I fully 
     support. Specifically, section 204 of H.R. 3303 extends the 
     time frame for CALEA compliance and clarifies the 
     ``grandfather'' status of existing telecommunications network 
     equipment facilities and services. These amendments are 
     necessary because of the unfortunate delays that have 
     prevented both law enforcement and the telecommunications 
     industry from fully implementing the provisions of CALEA.
       Because of these delays, I decided to add section 204 to 
     the Department of Justice Authorization bill. It should be 
     emphasized that section 204 does not alter the underlying 
     substance of CALEA. I have been a supporter of the CALEA 
     statute from its inception and continue to support its full 
     implementation. Nevertheless, with the statutory deadlines 
     only a short time away and recognizing the reality that 
     further work needs to be done before the CALEA requirements 
     go into effect, I went forward with section 204.
       This is to urge you to give H.R. 3303, including the 
     amendments to CALEA, your active and timely consideration. If 
     you have any questions regarding the Department of Justice 
     Authorization legislation in general, or section 204 in 
     particular, please do not hesitate to contact me or the House 
     Judiciary Committee's Chief of Staff, Tom Mooney. I look 
     forward to working with you and your staff on this important 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Henry J. Hyde,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate 
Chairman Rogers, as well as my good friend Mr. Mollohan, the 
distinguished ranking minority member, and other members of the 
subcommittee for reporting a bill that protects the American taxpayer 
while allowing the State Department and our other foreign policy 
institutions to conduct a foreign policy that promotes American 
interests and American values around the world.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human 
Rights, the principal authorizing subcommittee for the Department of 
State and our other foreign policy agencies, I am particularly pleased 
that the appropriation for resolution of the dispute over United 
Nations arrearages is made expressly conditional on enactment of an 
authorization bill. This ensures that we will not write a blank check 
to the United Nations without insisting on the reform conditions 
contained in H.R. 1757, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring 
Act--reforms which will save the American taxpayer many millions of 
dollars in the long run.
  The bill also provides adequate funding for our public diplomacy 
programs--the National Endowment for Democracy, as well as the 
international information programs, exchanges, and freedom broadcasting 
services conducted by the United States Information Agency. I am 
pleased that the Committee report expressly supports the Tibet 
Scholarships, the East Timor Scholarships, and the South Pacific 
Scholarships. This list should certainly not be read to exclude the 
scholarship and fellowship programs for students and academics from 
Burma who have been forced into exile by the military dictatorship in 
that country. These are all small programs targeted at people who 
particularly need them. They not only promote American values, but do 
so efficiently, at far less cost per participant than larger programs.
  The funding provided in the bill for international broadcasting is 
unfortunately somewhat lower than the amount authorized in H.R. 1757. 
Each of our broadcasting services--the Voice of America, Radio Free 
Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti, and 
WorldNet--works in its own way to promote freedom and democracy. I want 
to call particular attention to our ``surrogate'' services--those which 
supply people who do not

[[Page H6973]]

enjoy freedom of expression with the kinds of broadcasting they 
themselves would conduct if their governments would only allow it.

  The surrogate broadcasting service with the longest and most glorious 
history is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). It is now 
generally acknowledged that FRE/RL was an important part of the reason 
the free world won the Cold War. By providing the peoples of the Soviet 
Union and occupied eastern and central Europe with information and 
ideas to which their governments tried to deny them access, we kept 
hope alive. The end of the Cold War in Europe, however, did not make 
these services obsolete. On the contrary, they are still desperately 
needed in countries such as Serbia and Byelorussia, whose governments 
still deny fundamental freedoms. Even in countries whose press has 
become free during the last decade, RFE/RL continues to set the 
standard for professional journalism. And RFE/RL is uniquely suited to 
fill the needs of the people of Iraq and Iran for freedom broadcasting. 
As both Houses of Congress have acknowledged by passing the conference 
report to H.R. 1757, the world still needs RFE/RL, and there is no 
particular reason to believe that this need will suddenly disappear in 
the year 2000. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is not a relic but a 
treasure.
  Radio Free Asia and Radio/TV Marti also provide the message of 
freedom to people whose governments deny freedom of expression. The 
bill provides $22 million for Radio Free Asia (RFA), the amount we 
provided in H.R. 1757. This should be sufficient not only to provide 
24-hour broadcasting to China in Mandarin, Cantonese, and Wu, but also 
to initiate the important Uighur service as recommended in the 
Committee report. I also urge RFA to find a solution--more powerful 
transmitters, new transmission sites, whatever it takes--to the 
systematic jamming undertaken by the government of Viet Nam. And it is 
terribly important that we take similar action in order to bring TV 
Marti to a wider audience, rather than concede defeat to the Castro 
regime as some would suggest.
  Finally, I want to express my disappointment that the bill does not 
fund the East-West Center or the North-South Center. Each of these 
institutions promotes understanding with an area of the world to which 
other U.S. institutions give inadequate attention, and both the East-
West Center and the North-South Center operate at very lost cost 
compared to these other institutions. I particularly want to commend 
the East-West Center for its efforts to keep the line of communication 
and understanding open between policy makers in the United States and 
the Pacific Island nations. Too many ``Asia-Pacific'' institutions and 
programs seem to regard the Pacific as a place you have to fly over in 
order to get to Asia. The East-West Center is a happy exception to this 
rule. The nations of the Pacific, like those of Latin America, are our 
historic allies. They share our values. They need us, and we need them. 
I urge the funding for the East-West Center and the North-South Center 
to restored in conference.

  Mr. DOOLEY of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
bill, and to the misguided census process that this bill attempts to 
establish.
  The 1990 Census left out millions of people, resulting in the most 
inaccurate census in history. One out of every twenty Hispanics was not 
counted--meaning that a total of 1.1 million Latinos were completely 
excluded from our national census.
  To correct this problem, and to ensure an accurate Census 2000, many 
of us in Congress support the use ``sampling'', a statistical technique 
that will ensure we get the best count possible.
  And my California Republican colleagues agreed with me when we sent a 
delegation letter to the Census director in 1992, criticizing the 1990 
census. In a bipartisan California delegation letter, Republicans and 
Democrats wrote, and I quote:

       It has been widely accepted that the 1990 census missed as 
     many as 10 million people and was demonstrably flawed. . . We 
     cannot simply ignore the inaccuracies of the current data. 
     We are not professional statisticians and leave to those 
     experts at the Bureau and the others in the scientific 
     community.

  The letter went on to say, and again I quote:

       The decision on whether or not to adjust should not be a 
     decision based on the politics of one region losing 
     population while another gains population. Rather, there can 
     only be winners if there is a process adopted to more 
     accurately reflect the population of the United States.

  Well, I have news for my colleagues. We have a process to more 
accurately reflect the population of the United States, and it's called 
statistical sampling. Unfortunately, now, in spite of the empirical 
evidence indicating that statistical sampling is the best way to get an 
objective, accurate census, our Republican colleagues are doing 
everything in their power to block the implementation of a fair and 
accurate census.
  Making the census more accurate shouldn't be about politics and 
partisanship. It should be about making sure that every Amercian--
regardless of ethnicity or geography.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan Amendment, which would 
move us closer to a fair and accurate census.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  The amendments printed in House Report 105-641 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 read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he or 
she has printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. 
Those amendments will be considered read.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote of any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4276

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1998, and for other purposes, namely:

                     TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration

                         salaries and expenses

       For expenses necessary for the administration of the 
     Department of Justice, $79,448,000, of which not to exceed 
     $3,317,000 is for the Facilities Program 2000, to remain 
     available until expended: Provided, That not to exceed 43 
     permanent positions and 44 full-time equivalent workyears and 
     $8,136,000 shall be expended for the Department Leadership 
     Program exclusive of augmentation that occurred in these 
     offices in fiscal year 1998: Provided further, That not to 
     exceed 41 permanent positions and 48 full-time equivalent 
     workyears and $4,811,000 shall be expended for the Offices of 
     Legislative Affairs and Public Affairs: Provided further, 
     That the latter two aforementioned offices shall not be 
     augmented by personnel details, temporary transfers of 
     personnel on either a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis 
     or any other type of formal or informal transfer or 
     reimbursement of personnel or funds on either a temporary or 
     long-term basis.

                         counterterrorism fund

       For necessary expenses, as determined by the Attorney 
     General, $129,200,000, to remain available until expended, to 
     reimburse departments and agencies of the Federal Government 
     for any costs incurred in connection with--
       (1) providing bomb training and response capabilities to 
     State and local law enforcement agencies;
       (2) providing training and related equipment for chemical, 
     biological, nuclear, and cyber attack prevention and response 
     capabilities to State and local agencies; and
       (3) providing grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, 
     and other assistance authorized by sections 819, 821, and 822 
     of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Mollohan:
       On page 2, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.
       On page 21, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
       On page 25, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $40,000,000)''.
       On page 64, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.
       On page 70, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       On page 85, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $9,000,000)''.
       On page 92, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       On page 99, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.
       On page 99, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $109,000,000)''.


[[Page H6974]]


  Mr. MOLLOHAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to join my colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox), in offering an amendment to 
increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation. Simply stated, the 
Mollohan-Fox amendment increases funding for the Legal Services 
Corporation from $141 million to $250 million.
  As my colleagues may know, the Legal Services Corporation, LSC, has 
provided legal assistance to many of the neediest, most vulnerable of 
our citizens for 24 years. These are people who have little means and, 
therefore, no place to go for legal help. Some are in life-threatening 
situations, such as domestic abuse, many.
  The largest percentage of cases closed by LSC attorneys in 1997 was 
in the area of family law, comprising about 36 percent of the 1.5 
million cases closed in 1997.
  There are many success stories associated with the work of Legal 
Services Corporation. In my own State of West Virginia, for example, 
the Legal Aid Society of Charleston was contacted by a woman after her 
husband had forced her and her 2-week-old baby out of their house. With 
the help of Legal Aid she was able to obtain a permanent restraining 
order against her husband, sole custody of her child, child support, 
and basic health benefits for the child.
  Then there was a 47-year-old woman in Wheeling, West Virginia, in my 
district, whose only income was from Social Security disability. She 
had total renal shutdown and was on dialysis and medication. These 
expenses were being covered under a Medicaid waiver. The woman was told 
her waiver would be revoked. She did not have the funds to pay for this 
treatment. So, in effect, revocation of the waiver was a death warrant. 
The Legal Aid office got her waiver reinstated.
  Many of my colleagues will recall that in fiscal year 1996, our 
subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers), put in place a number of restrictions to increase 
accountability at the Legal Services Corporation. A competitive bidding 
system has been adopted for all grants and contracts, and all grantees 
are now required to provide audited financial statements.
  A number of prohibitions on Legal Services' grantees are in place. 
Any Legal Services Corporation grantee is prohibited from participating 
in redistricting litigation, class action suits, welfare reform 
advocacy, prisoner representation, lobbying, abortion litigation, 
illegal alien representation, and collecting attorneys' fees. Last year 
the Congress provided for debarment of grantee organizations that 
violated these restrictions.
  All this is by way of saying that the Legal Services Corporation has 
gone a long way to address the concerns many had raised with some of 
its past practices. The fact is the Legal Services Corporation has, in 
good faith, implemented these reforms.
  I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Mollohan-Fox 
amendment does not seek to change a single one of these restrictions. 
This amendment simply increases funding for grants to basic field 
programs by $109 million. Offsets for the amendment are as follows:
  Bureau of Prisons, $60 million; the Judiciary $20 million, State 
Department Diplomatic and Consular Affairs, $10 million; USIA Radio 
Construction, $9 million; Maritime Administration, title XI loan 
guarantees, $10 million; a shift of $40 million from the 
counterterrorism fund to the Office of Justice Programs to gain needed 
outlays. This does not in any way affect the amount of funds available 
or their use.
  I filed a more detailed description of these offsets in the record so 
that my intentions on all of them are clear.
  To give my colleagues some idea of how dramatically we have decreased 
Legal Services' funding, Mr. Chairman, in fiscal 1995, we appropriated 
$415 million for this purpose; 323 grantees provided services to almost 
1.7 million clients from 1,100 locations across the Nation.
  If the Legal Services Corporation funding level falls to $141 
million, as proposed in this bill, the number of clients would fall 
from 1.7 million in 1995 to less than a million. Neighborhood offices 
will decrease from 1,100 in fiscal year 1995 to about 550. Half. No aid 
will be available in thousands of counties throughout this country.
  As many of my colleagues know by now, the Senate, in its 
appropriation bill, already has provided $300 million for the Legal 
Services Corporation. Frankly, as we move through the appropriations 
process, I intend to work hard to get as near to the Senate level as 
possible. The need is there, and especially so since the recent Supreme 
Court ruling that interest on lawyer trust accounts, IOLTA funds, are 
the private property of clients.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer with my colleague, the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), this important amendment in support 
of funding for low-income legal aid assistance. I commend the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from West Virginia and his 
staff for their work on this very challenging appropriation bill. I am 
pleased to join my good friend from West Virginia and my good friend, 
the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), in offering this extremely 
important amendment.
  Last year we came to this floor and offered a similar amendment to 
restore the same funding as last year to this important program. We 
spoke of the reforms we had just recently enacted and asked Members to 
support a level of $250 million in funding. In that vote, 246 Members, 
Mr. Chairman, supported our efforts, including 45 of my Republican 
colleagues. This year we ask our colleagues to do so again to help 
assist those in each of their districts.
  I am convinced under the leadership of the new President, John McKay, 
and Chairman Douglas Eakley, the Legal Services Corporation will be 
extremely vigilant in the defense of the new reform standards this 
Congress set for Legal Services agencies. Among these reforms are 
prohibitions on class action lawsuits, redistricting and political 
advocacy as well as additional prohibitions on abortion, prisoner 
litigation and legal assistance to illegal aliens.
  Opponents of Legal Services continue to try and cite a litany of 
abuses which do not exist. While questionable activities should be 
carefully investigated by both Legal Services and Congress, the truth 
is, Mr. Chairman, that the majority of grantees are working to be 
honorable participants in the reformed system which Congress developed 
only 2 years ago. We have debated this point time and again, however, 
today I wish to focus on the good work being performed by some of these 
important local agencies.
  For instance, in my own area of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, a 
staff attorney assisted an 83-year-old woman, whose 85-year-old husband 
is now in a nursing home with Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, in 
negotiating a favorable payment arrangement with her energy company on 
a delinquent electric and gas bill. The company was threatening to turn 
off service and threatening a lawsuit as well, Mr. Chairman. The 
attorney was able to work out a payment schedule which allowed the 
woman to pay her regular bill and a small additional amount each month 
on the arrears without a termination of service or a judgment against 
her.

  The same is found true with domestic violence cases, where the legal 
aid office represented this 35-year-old female victim of domestic 
violence. As a result of their representation, and her protection from 
abuse case, she was granted exclusive possession of the marital 
residence, legal and physical custody of her children, and her husband 
was directed to attend substance abuse and gambling counseling. Several 
months after the hearing, the client related that her husband's 
counseling was proceeding well and his relationship with the children, 
as well as with the wife, was much better than it had been in years.
  So we see success is coming forward in this program. I appeal to 
those who have questions and concerns about the

[[Page H6975]]

program to take some time to reflect on the good work of their local 
programs in their districts. We are never going to agree with every 
case, but this is an issue of whether we agree with the concept of 
helping those with low-income funding so that they have equal access to 
the courts and equal representation in those courts.
  So, in closing, I want to repeat that the Legal Services Corporation 
is working hard to be a working partner with Congress, Mr. Chairman, to 
uphold the reforms and to stop grantees that are overstepping their 
bounds. In offering this amendment, we are simply trying to ensure that 
low-income individuals and families have equal access to our justice 
system.
  Please support the Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad amendment to restore funding 
to current levels for Legal Services and to ensure equal justice under 
the law.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the authorizing subcommittee 
on the Legal Services Corporation, I rise today in strong support of 
the Mollohan amendment to restore or to increase funding to this 
crucial program.
  The LSC was authorized by the Nixon administration in 1974 to ensure 
at least a minimum level of access to the system of civil justice for 
those who could not otherwise afford it. In most areas, little or no 
legal services were available for the poor before Federal support for 
this crucial program was initiated. Today, there is little chance that 
most States and municipalities, already hard-pressed to meet budgetary 
demands, will take on the additional obligation of providing legal 
services if the Federal funding is substantially reduced, as proposed 
in this bill. This is especially true, of course, in light of the 
Supreme Court's recent ruling on the IOLTA question, which will remove 
a major funding of the legal services.
  A study released by the American Bar Association 2 years ago 
concluded that approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have 
the advantage of an attorney when they are in serious situations in 
which a lawyer's advice and assistance in their civil law matters would 
make a crucial difference. Even before the 1996 cutback in Legal 
Services funding, local legal services programs were able to meet only 
a small fraction of the demands for their services. A study in 1993, 
revealed that nearly half the people who actually applied for 
assistance were turned away because of lack of program resources, and 
that was before the funding cuts.

                              {time}  2045

  With legal services funding considerably depleted and with the IOLTA 
decision, it is certain that even more people are being denied legal 
services because they cannot afford it and their Government will not 
help them get it.
  Cutbacks in legal services were implemented under the assumption that 
many attorneys were using Legal Service funds to focus on political 
agendas and class action lawsuits rather than helping poor Americans 
solve their legal problems.
  The political agenda's allegation I do not believe was ever true. 
But, in any event, Congress subsequently passed laws to address these 
concerns and they should not be before us today.
  The Legal Services Corporation helps those who cannot otherwise help 
themselves. One out of every four children under 6 and one in every 
five children under 18 lives in poverty. Seventy percent of all legal 
services cases deal with children. More than 2 million children 
received assistance from Legal Services grantees in 1996 alone.
  The great reduction of Federal funding incorporated in this bill will 
deny these children legal assistance for obtaining financial support 
from an absent parent, a decent home to live in, adequate nutrition and 
health care, relief from a violent living situation, or access to 
education and vocational skills. Legal Services also represents many 
senior citizens who could not otherwise afford representation.
  It must be acknowledged, finally, that contrary to the arguments of 
those opposing Legal Services funding, pro bono work alone cannot 
possibly provide the same caliber and quantity of legal services that 
the Legal Services Corporation does. Pro bono services are now at an 
all-time high. But even if this level of services were doubled or 
tripled, it would fall short of what would be necessary to replace 
services now being provided by Legal Services attorneys.
  Moreover, the great reduction in legal services contemplated in this 
bill for all practical purposes eliminate much of the legal services 
that we have now, would destroy the referral structure and training 
through which pro bono services are provided.
  Mr. Chairman, this Nation rests on a foundation of access to and fair 
treatment by our legal institutions. The Legal Services Corporation was 
created under President Nixon with bipartisan support in order to 
ensure that at least a minimum level of access to our legal 
institutions would be available everywhere in the United States.
  The current trend of reductions in the budget could lead an outside 
observer to believe that Congress has changed its mind and is no longer 
interested in the legal rights of those that do not have the monetary 
resources to go fight for them. I sincerely hope that is not true.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to 
maintain at least a minimal level of funding to support this program 
and by so doing to support the rights of those who need their help the 
most in order to be heard.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, thanks to my chairman the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Rogers) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the 
ranking member.
  I strongly support the Mollohan-Fox amendment to increase funding for 
the Legal Services Corporation. The people I represent direly need 
access to the legal system. The bill, as reported by the committee, 
cuts next year's funding for the Legal Services Corporation by 50 
percent. That is a very big cut, from this year's level of $238 million 
to $141 million. That is a very big cut.
  This cut is a continuation of the House Republicans' efforts to tear 
down a legal system that President Nixon and the Congress jointly 
created in 1974. Last year, the committee also recommended a level of 
$141 million. There is no budgetary need, Mr. Chairman, to cut Legal 
Services by 50 percent. There is no budgetary need for that.
  The other body, the Senate version of this bill increases Legal 
Services funding by $17 million, even though the total size of the 
Senate bill is more than $700 million smaller than the bill we are 
considering. There is no budgetary need to cut Legal Services 
Corporation.
  Do my colleagues know who the majority party seems to be attacking? 
They seem to be attacking the poor, particularly women and children. I 
have asked the head of the Legal Services of Greater Miami to tell me 
about the type of cases they serve every day. Many of these cases are 
so pitiful that it hurts to even hear them recount it.
  There is a case that involved a woman who wanted her 6-year-old 
daughter who is mentally retarded because of Downs Syndrome to attend a 
regular kindergarten in her neighborhood school. Legal Services got the 
school district to agree to mediation. As a result of this mediation 
process, the school district agreed to train the regular teacher to 
handle this child and she is now a full participant in a regular first 
grade class. This could not have happened if it were not for the 
intervention by Legal Services.
  Mr. Chairman, if these had been wealthy people, they would have hired 
private lawyers because their cause is just. But they are not wealthy, 
and so they go to Legal Services for help in getting justice. This is 
not the time, Mr. Chairman, to be cutting legal services.
  I call to the attention of my colleagues another one of the cases in 
my district. Mrs. Dee and her three young children had rented an 
apartment from the Dade County Housing Authority. For many years, there 
was a backup of sewage, garbage, and human waste from the entire 
building flowing through her apartment out of her toilets, faucets, and 
tub.
  As a result, Mrs. Dee's possessions were contaminated and they were 
water logged. Her apartment became mildewed, which exacerbated her 
children's asthma and heart conditions. These are signs of poverty.

[[Page H6976]]

  Despite the extreme seriousness of the situation, Mrs. Dee was unable 
to convince the Housing Authority to either repair the building 
plumbing or transfer her to another apartment. Therefore, she sought 
the services of Legal Services of Greater Miami.
  Legal Services sought an immediate transfer of this family and 
compensation for the loss of Mrs. Dee and her family's possessions. 
After heated negotiations, Legal Services recovered enough money for 
the lost possessions and a transfer to another apartment.
  I repeat that this is not the time to cut the Legal Services 
Corporation in that they are providing a function, particularly for the 
poor, particularly for children.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to favorably support the amendment 
being offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the 
ranking member, and also my colleague the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Fox).
  In our Nation, where we guarantee those who have been alleged to have 
committed the most atrocious criminal acts the right to counsel, for 
this Congress to do anything less than our absolute best to provide 
legal services to Americans who cannot afford it I think would be 
shrinking from our responsibilities.
  So I rise in support of this amendment. I would ask that my 
colleagues look at the fine tradition of Legal Services, understand how 
it has made a positive impact on the life chances of literally millions 
of Americans in terms of their pursuit of all of those things that we 
hold dear as a society.
  I hope that this House would find it within their collective resolve 
to overwhelmingly support this amendment.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to restore 
$109 million funding for the Legal Services Corporation. We must bring 
up the House appropriation level for this worthy program. Even $250 
million is not enough, but it is a step in the right direction.
  The Supreme Court recently restricted certain legal service programs. 
Now is the time to increase the current level of $283 million rather 
than to cut the budget in half. Legal Services programs have been 
unfairly targeted by those who wrongfully believe that they are 
political. These accusations are merely a smoke screen for denying 
funding for the programs that help those who need it the most.
  Legal Services programs are the livelihood for the poor, and those 
are the rights that they are entitled to. One of the key things that we 
must recognize is that these individuals have rights. Many of our legal 
protections today came from the cases made possible by the Legal 
Services work. Protections such as due process, voting rights, property 
rights, women's rights, and many other areas came from the Legal 
Services Corporation programs.
  In today's society, we need lawyers, as my colleagues well know, and 
any person's rights that are violated, everyone else is in danger, 
rights such as voting rights violations, other violations about not 
getting the minimum wage, other violations that involve withholding of 
wages for outrageous reasons. Other violations includes paying women 
less for the same type of work that men are doing. Other violations 
include youngsters not having access to textbooks because of various 
other reasons.
  I urge my colleagues to raise the level and to vote on this 
particular key amendment. I ask my colleagues to vote in assuring that 
these individuals have certain rights.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the 
gentleman from Texas, for his kindness. I join the gentleman in 
supporting the Legal Services Corporation and the Mollohan amendment. I 
rise to support it.
  The gentleman is right, there is a great need for this service all 
over the Nation and particularly in Texas. I have seen the Gulf Coast 
Legal Foundation in my community work very hard in helping victims of 
domestic violence, helping with divorce cases, helping children in 
poverty, assisting the elderly and representing migrant farm workers.
  We are told with these terrible cuts we will see neighborhood offices 
fall from 1,100 to 550. We will see lawyers fall from 4,800 Legal 
Services attorneys to 2,150 and there will be only one Legal Service 
Corporation attorney for 23,600 poor Americans. That is injustice. That 
is not justice.
  Just as an example, helping Michelle Blue and her son Cody, who had 
been beaten and threatened with a knife by Michelle's husband, although 
Michelle wanted a divorce she could not afford an attorney so the abuse 
continued. It took a lawyer from the Legal Services Corporation to help 
Michelle in order to avoid the beating and the stalking and to get her 
a restraining order.
  They also help homeless children who have been evicted from their 
homes and have problems with getting back into the schools. They go and 
help those who are most in need.
  This terrible cut, putting them down to $141 million, cutting them 50 
percent, is going to make our country not the country of laws and 
justice but one of unequal justice.
  I believe that the Mollohan amendment answers the great concern of 
ensuring that this Nation does not discriminate, whether you are poor 
or not poor; that you have the same kind of justice, the same kind of 
freedom and the same kind of rights.
  I hope that our colleagues will join us on behalf of all of those 
across this Nation, and particularly those who reside in my district in 
the State of Texas, as the gentleman has so ably represented. There is 
a great need for all Americans to have the right kind of justice.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the 
gentlewoman totally, and I recognize that anyone's rights that are 
violated, we run the risk of losing our own rights. It is important for 
us to understand that and recognize that. I urge my colleagues to raise 
the level of the spending by $109 million and to vote for the 
amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment to 
increase Legal Services Corporation funding by $109 million to $250 
million.
  Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation is important to 
assisting vulnerable people in our society. Women and children are 
among the most vulnerable, who without assistance often find themselves 
in abusive situations that they cannot control.
  The impact of these situations is significant and may result in 
homelessness and the loss of necessary financial resources for food, 
maintenance and health care.
  To give one example from my own district, as a result of domestic 
violence and in fear for her safety and that of her five children, a 
woman left her husband of 15 years. He had been the primary support for 
the family. She was able to on her own obtain housing, although it was 
still neither decent nor safe.
  Still, because of her financial situation, she was threatened with 
eviction. Legal Services helped her to get section 8 housing and the 
family was able to relocate to decent housing with adequate space. This 
stabilized the family during a very disruptive and unsettling time, to 
say the least.
  Millions of children are the victims of abuse from their parents and 
others who are responsible for their care. This abuse goes on somewhere 
in the country every minute of the day. Legal Services in Maryland 
represents children who are neglected or abused. Such neglect or abuse 
ranges from a child being left alone by a parent or not being provided 
a nutritional meal, to physical or sexual abuse that results in severe 
injury and all too often death.
  Legal Services has helped the infant that has been abandoned at 
birth, the child who is left unattended, the child who is beaten, 
burned by cigarette butts because he would not stop crying, or scalded 
by hot water to teach him a lesson.
  These children are vulnerable, and without the protection of the law 
they

[[Page H6977]]

would be endangered and lost. Legal Services advocacy, on behalf of 
children, assures that they will not be the subject of abuse. It helps 
to secure services for children such as housing support, health care, 
food, educational programs and necessary counseling.
  The work of Legal Services on behalf of families and children touches 
at the heart of what we value in this country: Decent housing, adequate 
health care, food and a safe environment.
  Because of the importance of safety in our society, Legal Services 
programs have supported legislation to prevent abuse and to protect the 
abused. In general, the States are not allocating funds for civil legal 
services for poor citizens, and without this federally funded program 
the most vulnerable members of our society will not have the ability to 
get inside the courtroom door to seek judicial protection of their 
rights.
  I urge support for the amendment.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment. For 
over a decade now, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I have 
worked to reform the Legal Services Corporation. The gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has offered considerable help to this effort as 
well. But tonight we are not debating whether or not to reform the LSC 
or change the delivery system for legal services altogether. We are 
simply setting a funding level where the Legal Services Corporation can 
continue to function and provide civil legal care for those in our 
country who cannot otherwise afford it.
  I fully understand the arguments for taking a hard look at changing 
our current delivery system for providing legal services to the poor. I 
intend to continue a careful examination of how we provide daily legal 
support for low-income individuals, and I hope to work with the 
authorizing committee to see if we can address this matter in the 
appropriate context. But until that happens, I support continuing to 
fund the Legal Services Corporation at $250 million for fiscal year 
1999. This is exactly the funding level which the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. McCollum) and I proposed in our LSC reauthorization bill 
of the 104th Congress.
  All of the arguments we might hear tonight come down to one 
fundamental question, whether we believe that the Federal Government 
has a role to play in ensuring that the poor have access to the courts. 
I believe that they do. I will be the first one to tell my colleagues 
that the LSC has had its share of problems over the years and I am sure 
we will hear about some of them tonight. And while I am not convinced 
that the current structure is the best way to deliver these services, I 
am not willing to demolish the LSC absent any other well-developed 
approach to caring for the people that depend on legal assistance in 
their daily lives. But that is precisely what we will do if we cut 
their funding to $141 million.
  As a lifelong supporter of a balanced budget, I understand budget 
realities and know we cannot fund every program at the level we want. 
That is why I commend the sponsors of this amendment who have worked 
extremely hard to find the offsets to pay for this amendment in a fair 
and reasonable manner.
  Finally, it is important to remember that we continue all of the 
restrictions agreed to on the Legal Services Corporation in the effort 
to make sure that this program works for its original purpose. And 
while LSC may not have been perfect over the past year, I do believe 
they have made sincere efforts to abide by these restrictions. In my 
State of Texas, it is very noticeable.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words, and I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I walked over here a minute ago from my office. It is a 
beautiful night here in the Nation's capital. The sun is setting, the 
temperature is pleasant, one of our fine military bands is performing 
on the Capitol steps. It is easy to feel pretty good about things. At a 
time of economic prosperity, thank goodness, we all generally do feel 
pretty good about things, but we should bear in mind that there is an 
enormous underclass in this society that is hurting. And to the extent 
that we deny them redress of their legal grievances by so shamefully 
underfunding the Legal Services Corporation, we issue an invitation to 
their abuse, by landlords, by employers, by estranged partners who are 
tempted to domestic violence because they know that without the funds 
being raised to some decent level in this bill, the chance that there 
will be a lawyer able to handle the case, to right the wrongs that 
these people are enduring, is minimal. And so it is an invitation to 
further wrong in this society.
  That band that is playing out there on the Capitol steps and its 
sister organizations throughout the United States military is funded at 
a level now that exceeds what this bill proposes for the Legal Services 
Corporation. And so the amendment that the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) is proposing and which I rise to support is absolutely 
essential to get us up into some more decent range. But make no 
mistake, we will have barely scratched the surface. Far more people out 
there that will need legal representation because they cannot afford to 
hire a private lawyer will go unserved than will go served, even with 
this increase.
  This program was created by that noted social engineer back in the 
late 1960s, Richard Nixon. For all of the problems that we associate 
with President Nixon, he understood that this Nation, if it is to be a 
proud Nation, if it is a Nation that is going to live up to its stated 
principles of equal justice for all, has got to do something about this 
problem. That is what the Legal Services Corporation is all about. 
There are tens of thousands of private lawyers out there that work on a 
pro bono basis, but even with that free help to go along with the 
daunting efforts made by the underpaid legal services programs lawyers, 
we are barely scratching the surface.
  We should be proud of this program, Mr. Chairman. This is something 
that lives up to the fundamental ideals that we hold as a people. And 
rather than having been cowed and intimidated and compromised into 
being grateful for a few crumbs, this Congress ought to stand up and be 
proud that we recognize our responsibility to the least among us, to be 
true to our principles to fund this program at a decent level. I trust 
we will adopt this amendment, but in doing so, let us not delude 
ourselves that we have solved the problem.
  I rise in support of this amendment to restore some of the basic 
funding for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC).
  It is fitting we are considering this amendment during the portion of 
the bill containing funding for the Department of Justice because this 
amendment is fundamentally about justice. Our constitutional guarantee 
of equal justice under law is a hollow promise without equal access to 
the courts. For the nation's poor, not having a lawyer effectively 
means not getting to court or even to an administrative hearing. LSC 
provides representation to those who would otherwise go without it. We 
owe it not only to the poor, but to that first principle of equal 
justice for all, to fund legal services sufficiently for the poor to 
have real access to the civil justice system.
  While I certainly support this amendment, it is only a start. We need 
to do more--much more than is in this amendment, and much more than we 
have been doing in recent years. The combination of budget cuts and 
unwarranted restrictions on the ability of LSC to effectively represent 
clients is slowly strangling legal services programs and gutting the 
principles upon which it was founded.
  We must take this modest first step toward bringing LSC funding back 
to a decent level.
  LSC provides legal representation to this nation's poorest citizens. 
When it was founded by President Richard Nixon in 1974, LSC was 
designed to become a permanent, vital part of the American justice 
system.
  Cases involving families and children, housing, income, and consumer 
protection account for over 80% of LSC's work. Without the Mollohan 
amendment, this bill would cut LSC by almost 50%. It's not hard to 
figure who will pay the price for any further funding reductions--
women, children, and low-income older Americans, farmers and veterans.
  Mr. Chairman, LSC's work is carried on by staff lawyers who are 
willing to work for reduced pay. Last year, over 150,000 private 
attorneys participated as volunteers providing pro bono representation 
for Legal Service Corporation clients. As a former volunteer attorney 
for LSC, I can attest that the lawyers I

[[Page H6978]]

worked with were far too busy trying to meet the basic legal needs of 
their clients to engage in some of the activities that detractors 
assert.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are going to ensure that justice is not available 
only to the highest bidder, the work of LSC must continue. This 
amendment is the right thing to do; it is the least we can do.
  I strongly urge a yes vote.
  Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all before the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Skaggs) leaves, I have heard some of the debate here tonight. We will 
deeply miss him for his heartfeltness for all Americans in this 
country. It has been an honor and privilege for me to have the 
opportunity to serve with him. He will be missed.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment 
tonight. I also do appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for their work on the 
reforms that they have done. I find it interesting that every year for 
the last 6 years that I have been here that this particular amendment 
comes back every year, year after year after year. I go home and I talk 
to my legal service providers, and I talk to them about what this 
budget in particular means to them. It is providing about 50 percent of 
their budget. They already are turning back half of those applying for 
legal services because of lack of resources. With more than 2 million 
individuals living below the poverty line in Florida, I fear that 
drastic reductions in funding for these services will deeply impact the 
ability to meet the needs of the people who truly cannot afford the 
high cost of legal services.
  Mr. Chairman, people's rights as citizens of this country have little 
use if they are not protected. Programs funded by Legal Services 
Corporation are needed to ensure that everyone, regardless of their 
income, operates on a level playing field in our judicial system. 
Otherwise, America's poor have few ways of pursuing their right to 
equal treatment under the law. In my home State of Florida, Legal 
Services Corporation provides more than 43 percent of legal aid funding 
for legal counsel for about 1.6 million people below the poverty line. 
This program, and I need to emphasize this, is a partnership between 
public funding and private pro bono work. Contrary to what Members 
might hear, this program does not go to fund left-wing litigation but 
is instead used to help real people with real, everyday problems. These 
are ordinary Americans facing difficulties that may not be resolved if 
they have not received legal help.
  Here are a few examples from my own district of what the Legal 
Services Corporation is really used for, and these are but just a 
sample. When a 13-year-old child in need of emergency surgery for an 
intestinal hernia found herself caught in bureaucratic red tape, the 
local Legal Services Corporation helped her grandmother prepare the 
required legal paperwork and get the needed hearing so that she could 
get the operation done in the next day. When a woman was beaten, locked 
out of her house and custody of her children was given to her abusive 
husband, Legal Services was able to help her get that custody and 
receive child support. Both went into counseling, and this is important 
because we hear a lot of stories about how they just want to break up 
marriages, and eight months later the two agreed to a trial period of 
living together. The divorce was dropped, and they have been doing well 
ever since. When SSI turned down benefits to a 14-year-old child who 
had suffered a serious skeletal disability since birth, Legal Services 
stepped in and helped him schedule a hearing with a judge. Today he now 
receives the benefits that allow him to obtain the necessary treatments 
and enjoy a better quality of life.
  Mr. Chairman, the current low funding level for Legal Services 
Corporation would hurt real people like the ones I just described. Over 
half of all the cases deal directly with family and housing issues. All 
people, regardless of their income, have a right to be represented in 
court. If Legal Services is not funded adequately, what rights will be 
taken away? In order to preserve the principle of equal justice for 
all, we must continue to maintain this needed program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment to restore 
funding for the Legal Services Corporation. The Legal Services 
Corporation plays a vital and indispensable role in providing access to 
our civil justice system for the poor and destitute in our Nation who 
would otherwise be financially incapable of seeking justice in our 
courts of law.
  Today many critics of our justice system believe that justice belongs 
solely to those who can afford it. With the ever increasing cost of 
litigation, the legal landscape in this country lends some credence to 
this perspective. The Legal Services Corporation serves as a safety net 
for the poor in that it gives them the ability to pursue their rights 
as American citizens, irregardless of economic status. Without such a 
safety net, these Americans would not be able to petition the courts 
for a remedy for their wrongs they may have suffered. For these 
Americans, their rights would be no rights at all. For where there is 
no remedy, there is no right. Unfortunately, this bill cuts funding for 
the Legal Services Corporation in half compared with the funding level 
for this year. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill and restore 
funding for this program to restore the rights of our fellow Americans.
  In my own congressional district, thousands of residents are in need 
of these services on a daily basis. I also take my hat off and commend 
and congratulate all of those Legal Services attorneys, paralegals and 
other personnel who make use of their talents and skills each and every 
day to try and make sure that the poorest members of our society have 
access to our judicial system. Especially do I commend that group of 
attorneys and paralegals whose offices are down the hall from mine in 
my district office, where I see countless people coming in and out 
every day who would not be able to have any redress except for the fact 
that they are there.
  Again, I commend the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) for this amendment and would 
urge that we make America one America when it comes to justice and the 
pursuit of it by providing legal services for all of our citizens.

                              {time}  2115

  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, today I want to speak in support of the Mollohan-Fox-
Ramstad amendment to restore funding to the Legal Services Corporation. 
If this amendment is not accepted, the Legal Services Corporation will 
suffer another devastating blow. As currently written, this bill 
provides only $141 million for the Legal Services Corporation. This is 
a 50 percent reduction, or a cut, of 142 million from Legal Services 
funding year 1998 budget.
  Mr. Chairman, such a reduction would crush an already vulnerable 
Legal Services, thereby rendering it even more difficult to provide 
legal services for the poor.
  Let us be clear. Legal Services has already been cut to the bone. 
This worthy program cannot survive another massive reduction in funds. 
We have cut legal services from a budget of 415 million in fiscal year 
1955 to 283 million in fiscal year 1998. The effects of these cuts are 
already being felt by those low-income clients that depend on legal 
services organizations.
  Mr. Chairman, in my own State of California the Legal Services 
Corporation provided legal services to 217,015 clients in 1997. Those 
represented included our most vulnerable citizens, including the 
elderly, battered women and families who are barely surviving poverty. 
Moreover, if the Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad amendment is not accepted, we, as 
legislators, would effectively be abandoning the longstanding 
commitment to legal services for the poor.
  To make matters worse, in the State of California many of the poor 
are already without service because of Governor Pete Wilson's veto of 
the State bar fee authorization last year. The poor in California have 
been failed by their Governor, and this amendment is really their last 
hope.

[[Page H6979]]

  Moreover, the deep cuts in legal services will mean that whole 
sectors of our society will be left without access to the Legal 
Services Corporation. In many poor and rural regions of the country 
there will be no publicly-funded legal assistance available to the 
poor.
  We must not forget that 40 percent of the 23 million people over 18 
who live in poverty in this country are the working poor. They also 
depend on legal services organizations for legal assistance. One Legal 
Services Corporation for every 23,600 poor Americans is simply not 
enough. In fact, the number of Legal Services lawyers servicing the 
poor will fall from 4,871 in funding year 1995 to a mere 2,115 in the 
next fiscal year. This means that thousands of poor people in the 
South, Southwest and large parts of the Midwest will have virtually no 
legal services representation.
  The American public supports federally-funded legal services for 
those individuals who would not otherwise be able to afford an 
attorney's service in certain civil matters. The provision of adequate 
Federal funding for legal services cannot be provided elsewhere. Pro 
bono services will never be able to replace federally-funded legal 
services. In fact, most pro bono services are provided through legal 
services organizations. Private attorneys are recruited by and use the 
system of legal services organizations to volunteer their time.
  I have worked alongside Legal Services attorneys throughout my life 
in public office, and I have seen firsthand the work they do. It is 
tremendous. Many of my constituents and many of my colleagues' would 
have no other legal representation without the existence of Legal 
Services Corporation.
  It is for these reasons that I call on my colleagues to support the 
Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I alluded to senior citizens, and this particular group 
in our society must have some support and some services from their 
government. Many of them are being caught up in schemes where they are 
losing their homes. There are many unscrupulous individuals out there 
who misrepresent who they are, and it is spreading across this Nation. 
We are going to find that these particular problems will be dropped in 
the laps of Congress because the States are not protecting our seniors 
from those who put their sights on their homes and come up with all 
kind of sophisticated schemes by which they take these people's homes. 
Mr. Chairman, the only defense they have are the Legal Services 
Corporations. If we reduce the amount of money that we are going to put 
to support Legal Services Corporation, that means more seniors are 
going to lose their homes to these unscrupulous schemes.
  I ask my colleagues to please support this amendment.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment, and I 
ask my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Chairman, imagine what our country would be like if there were no 
court system, if there were no access to a means to resolve disputes in 
our country, and then you can see what it is like for poor people who 
do not have access to the courts.
  It used to be that we had in our country a system of resolving these 
disputes by simply going out into the middle of the street and pulling 
out a sword and dueling. That is not a very satisfactory way to resolve 
a dispute. What we have when you do not have access to the courts is 
the most sinister people, the most powerful people having the ability 
to take advantage of the most vulnerable people in our society.
  So, when people have access to the courts, who does it benefit? It 
not only benefits poor people, because they can resolve their 
differences through an orderly process, it benefits rich people because 
they do not have to pay for the results of not having the ability of 
people to resolve their disputes in an orderly way. It makes for an 
orderly society, which is really what our whole system of justice and 
our system of courts is designed to do.
  This amendment is especially important this year because the Supreme 
Court recently held that interest that is paid on lawyers' trust 
accounts can no longer be converted to legal services for the poor.
  When I was the president of the Mecklenburg County Bar in Charlotte, 
North Carolina, we were wrestling with this problem of how to provide 
legal services for the poor, as most States were wrestling with that 
problem, and over time people came up with this idea that since lawyers 
put money from real estate closings and other transactions into their 
trust accounts and interest cannot be distributed or paid on those 
trust accounts, that perhaps we could take the interest from those 
trust accounts and pay for legal services for the poor, and that became 
a multi-million-dollar source of revenues for the payment of legal 
services for the poor.
  But recently the Supreme Court of the United States said that cannot 
be done because those trust funds that go into those lawyer trust 
accounts, if they are to draw interest, that interest belongs to the 
people who own the money that went into the trust account in the first 
place. So that money has to be distributed to the individuals who own 
the trust funds. That is not poor people.
  So the major source of legal services for the poor went out the 
window several months ago, a source of funds that actually was 
providing more legal services to poor people in this country than the 
appropriations that are provided in this appropriations bill or in last 
year's appropriations bill.
  So, this year this amendment is doubly, triply important if poor 
people are going to have legal services and access to the courts.
  What is this about? It is about an orderly means of resolving 
differences between people. Rich people are not the only ones that have 
disputes; poor people have them too. They should have access to the 
courts.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad 
amendment.
  From 1980 to 1986 I served with the Native American Program of Oregon 
Legal Services, and as someone who grew up in South Africa, a country 
which at that time had no regard for civil rights, I really know how 
important it is to protect and enhance, and I stress ``enhance,'' 
citizens' access to legal services.
  Legal Services Corporation provides something that is very special. 
It provides special expertise that is not available if someone just 
goes out and seeks a random pool of pro bono lawyers. The Legal 
Services Corporation provides dependable quality legal services for 
those who cannot afford it, and this program needs full funding. What 
that full funding will mean is it will prove that Congress has 
commitment to the poor.
  But I want to talk about a very special group. We have heard a lot 
about children and women who are affected, but I want to talk about a 
very special group of people who will be very affected by the Mollohan-
Fox amendment. Those are the group who are tribal governments, poor 
tribal governments who rely in many cases on the Legal Services 
Corporation to provide a special expertise in a body of law that not 
many people understand, which is the body of Indian law. Indian law 
protects a very special treaty and natural resources rights of Indian 
tribes.
  The Indian tribes come to the eight States that have Native American 
programs. There are already eight States attached to the ordinary Legal 
Services Program, and these States provide that very special expertise 
and, even more important, dependability. Because if we look into Indian 
cases, cases of treaty rights or natural resource rights, we will see 
that those cases last sometimes two decades. Well, a pro bono lawyer 
cannot be expected to cover that case for that amount of time, but in 
order to protect those treaty rights and those special natural 
resources rights it is absolutely essential to have that dependability, 
and above all, to have that expertise, and that is what the Legal 
Services Corporation provides.
  So although there are many, many good attorneys providing legal 
services across the country on a pro bono basis, they cannot provide 
the long-term service, and in the case of Native American tribes it is 
very hard for them to provide the expertise.

[[Page H6980]]

                              {time}  2130

  So I am very pleased that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) and the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad) have put this amendment in to 
restore the funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
  This is not just ordinary law. This is law that is provided on a very 
special basis and without it, without it we would see a great 
diminishment of the civil rights not only of poor people, but also of 
those tribes that we have in this Congress a very special 
responsibility, a trust responsibility.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Mollohan-Fox-Ramstad 
amendment to restore the funding for the Legal Services Corporation.
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment 
to increase funding for the Legal Services Corporation by $109 million. 
I particularly want to congratulate the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fox) for 
bringing forward this amendment, again, because it is a very valuable 
effort.
  The Legal Services Corporation was established by Congress in 1974 to 
ensure that all Americans, Americans of every stripe, have equal access 
to the justice system. We should not go back on that commitment, and we 
cannot expect that some process or program of solely voluntary 
donations, which has been suggested, by wealthy Americans, will provide 
poor Americans who cannot afford to pay for access to the justice 
system, that they would be provided that equal access.
  But the bill before us would cut Legal Services funding by 50 percent 
from last year, and that would have an immediate effect on Legal 
Services clients. Thousands of low income people would be denied their 
chance of equal justice in my district alone, and that can be 
multiplied all over the country.
  Funding over the last four years has gone from $400 million in fiscal 
year 1995, to $278 million in fiscal year 1996, to $283 million in 
fiscal year 1997 and again $283 million in fiscal year 1998, all of 
those years when we have been trying to get control of the enormous 
deficits that built up year after year during the Reagan and Bush 
administrations.
  It is truly mind-boggling to me that in fiscal year 1999, a year when 
we are expecting a multi-billion dollar surplus, that this Republican 
Congress would propose cutting Legal Services funding by 50 percent, to 
a number lower than the funding for Legal Services has been at any time 
since 1980 under Republican and Democratic Presidents.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I could cite dozens of legitimate cases of legal 
services being provided in my district compared with those that have 
been suggested as illegitimate cases by various people, as abusive 
cases of the program, but I just want to cite one that shows the vital 
role that Legal Services plays in the lives of ordinary people.
  A woman from my district separated from her husband because of 
physical abuse, and she had custody of their children. While she was 
hospitalized recovering from that very physical abuse, her abusive 
husband obtained a custody order that she was in no position to 
contest, being that she was in the hospital, and placed the children 
with his parents.
  With Legal Services' assistance, this mother was able to regain 
custody of her children, she was able to end that abusive relationship, 
obtain housing, and then go on to obtain a Bachelor's Degree, so she 
can now support herself and her children on her education. We need to 
ensure that every citizen has access to equal justice.
  Last year, in similar circumstances, this House voted for the same 
Mollohan-Fox amendment by a vote of 246 to 176 in a recorded vote. I 
urge my colleagues to pass the Mollohan-Fox amendment this year by an 
even larger margin than it was voted by last year, and send an 
obviously correct message.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan-Fox amendment to 
restore some of the cuts in legal assistance for the poor. As a former 
Legal Services program board chairman who helped to establish a Legal 
Services program over 20 years ago, I can attest firsthand to the 
importance of Legal Services to individuals in my district who cannot 
afford a lawyer.
  As a result of legal aid, many of the unscrupulous businesses who 
once operated with relative impunity are now held in check. I am 
concerned that if we further reduce the Federal support for these 
programs, we will give license to the resurgence of such operators to 
prey on those who are vulnerable and unable to respond because of the 
cuts in Legal Services.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the existence of Legal Services programs for 
the poor, there have never been sufficient funds to reach anywhere near 
the number of people who need assistance. For example, the American Bar 
Association in 1995 did a study that revealed that 43 percent of those 
asking for services had to be turned away because of lack of funding to 
provide for services.
  The 1995 funding level was $415 million. Last year the Legal Services 
Corporation received only $283 million, and even with this amendment, 
the funding will only be $250 million.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have already drastically cut the funding for 
Legal Services. At this point there is no justification for so 
drastically reducing the Legal Services Corporation as the current bill 
requires. I hope that we will assure at least the minimum Federal 
support that this amendment calls for, so that some of those who are 
defenseless and helpless against the unscrupulous in our society will 
have some recourse.
  I implore my colleagues to support the modest funding for Legal 
Services for the poor by supporting the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Mollohan-Fox amendment. Cutting 
the funding of the Legal Services Corporation to $141 million would be 
a disaster for families living in poverty across this Nation.
  Legal Services attorneys deserve our thanks and our appreciation. 
They help our poorest and most vulnerable citizens navigate the 
complicated bureaucracy of our court system in search of justice and 
fairness.
  Many of my colleagues may not think of Legal Services as a women's 
issue, but it is. More than two-thirds of the clients served by Legal 
Services are women. The funding cuts in this bill will force Legal 
Services to abandon many of the critical legal services that it 
provides to poor women, particularly victims of domestic violence.
  In 1997, Legal Services programs handled over 58,000 cases in which 
clients sought legal protection from abusive spouses. In fact, family 
law, which includes domestic violence cases, makes up over one-third of 
the cases handled by Legal Services programs each year.
  In addition to helping domestic violence victims, the lawyers at the 
Legal Services Corporation help poor women to enforce child support 
orders against deadbeat dads. They also help women with employment 
discrimination cases. Slashing funding for Legal Services means barring 
the door of the courthouse for tens of thousands of women who have 
nowhere else to turn for help. How can we at this time abandon these 
women to violence and abuse and greater poverty?
  Please support Legal Services. Let us protect poor families who need 
this help desperately. Let us vote for this amendment.
  Mr. McHALE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I speak not from a prepared text, but from experience. 
In 1977 I graduated from Georgetown Law School. I returned home to the 
Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania, where I served for approximately 5 years 
as a volunteer lawyer with Lehigh Valley Legal Services.
  Mr. Chairman, during that period of time I became aware of how 
extraordinarily important this program is for equal justice under the 
law. In 1981 the Legal Services program in which I participated had 13 
attorneys; today, we have six. Offices have been closed; 
representation, because of inadequate funding, has been denied.
  Mr. Chairman, when I was a student at Georgetown, I used to walk 
between this building and the Supreme Court of

[[Page H6981]]

the United States. When I did so, on hundreds of occasions, I would 
look up to those words carved over the entryway to the Supreme Court 
and I, for one, would be inspired: ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' If we 
fail to pass the Mollohan amendment, we establish, as a matter of 
policy, our lack of faith in that commitment.
  At home today in the Lehigh Valley, a citizen will obtain competent 
representation in cases that involve an immediate and essential 
hearing, typically on matters of housing, domestic relations and 
custody. The cases in my hometown where this representation is provided 
rarely, if ever, involve politically oriented issues or ideologically 
explosive issues. This is about equal justice to ordinary citizens who 
happen to be poor.
  What confronts this Chamber tonight is whether or not we will provide 
to those citizens, in matters of basic civil justice, the kind of 
representation that is available to other citizens who are financially 
better qualified.
  I am leaving the Congress of the United States at the end of this 
term, and I am going to close a loop. One of the first things I am 
going to do as a private practitioner when I return to the Lehigh 
Valley is to volunteer my time and energy representing those people. 
But we who are volunteers cannot possibly carry the burden alone.
  Legal Services, federally funded in the case of my hometown to the 
extent of almost 50 percent of the annual budget, must be provided if 
we are going to stand true to what I read so many years ago carved over 
that doorway to the Supreme Court of the United States. Tonight, when 
we vote, we will decide whether or not we truly believe in equal 
justice under law. To carry forward that principle, I strongly urge an 
affirmative vote for the Mollohan-Fox amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of 
the Mollohan amendment which will govern how we proceed on H.R. 4276, 
the Commerce Justice, State Appropriations bill. I am grateful to the 
Rules Committee for allowing the Mollohan amendment to be considered 
which would restore full funding for the Legal Services Corporation in 
FY 1999 at $415 million. This cut will result in the virtual 
abandonment of the long-standing federal commitment to the legal 
protection of working poor Americans, including victims of spouse and 
child abusers, dead-beat parents, and consumer fraud.
  The programs funded by LSC have provided effective and meaningful 
access for the poor to our courts. In 1997, LSC-funded programs 
provided services to almost 2 million clients, benefitting 
approximately 4 million individuals, the majority of them children 
living in poverty. The vast majority of cases handled by programs are 
noncontroversial, individual cases arising out of the everyday problems 
of the poor.
  Cutting this funding will mean that the number of clients will fall 
from 1.7 million in FY 95 to less than a million; the number of 
neighborhood offices will fall from 1,100 in FY 95 to approximately 
550, the number of LSC attorneys serving the poor will fall from 4,871 
in FY 95 to 2,150; there will be only one LSC lawyer for every 23,600 
poor Americans; no legal assistance to clients in thousands of counties 
throughout the country; and legal services programs will be forced to 
severely limit their services, resulting in the substitution of brief 
advice and referral for complete legal representation in most cases.
  While domestic violence occurs at all income levels, low-income women 
are significantly more likely to experience violent victimization that 
other women, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. 
Medical researchers assert that 61 percent of women who head poor 
families have experienced severe physical violence as adults at the 
hands of male partners. The Legal Aid Society of Charleston, West 
Virginia was contacted by a woman after her boyfriend put her and her 
2-week baby out of the home at gunpoint. She obtained a 90-day domestic 
violence petition against him in magistrate court. She needed the 
assistance of the Legal Aid lawyers in getting a permanent restraining 
order and custody. The Legal Aid lawyers obtained a final court order 
awarding the woman custody of the child.
  A woman in Oklahoma was hospitalized for several months as a result 
of suffering years of physical and psychological abuse at the hands of 
her husband. In the subsequent divorce and child custory battle the 
husband used her hospitalization against her. With the help of the 
Legal Aid laywer, the woman was granted a divorce, custody of their 
child, and a permanent restraining order against her ex-husband. We 
must restore the money to the Legal Services Corporation.
  In 1997, LSC-funded programs closed some 146,000 cases in which the 
client was 60 or older. This represents approximately 10 percent of all 
LCS cases. Some LSC-funded programs have special elderly law units, but 
all programs provide services to the elderly.
  One out of every four children under six and one in every five under 
eighteen live in poverty. Elimination of federal funding of legal 
services will deny them legal assistance on obtaining financial support 
from an absent parent, a decent home to live in, adequate nutrition and 
health care, relief from a violent living situation, access to 
education and vocational skills. The working poor represent 40 percent 
of the 23 million people over eighteen living in poverty in the United 
States. Access to legal services can preserve employment that makes the 
difference between remaining productive and independent or joining the 
ranks of the dependent poor. We need to restore, the funding of the 
Legal Services Corporation for our poor, our elderly, women who are 
victims of domestic violence, and migrant workers. Please support the 
Mollohan-Fox Amendment.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Chairman Rogers for 
his work to fund the programs of the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology (NIST).
  NIST is the nation's oldest Federal laboratory. It was established by 
Congress in 1901, as the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) and 
subsequently renamed NIST.
  As part of the Department of Commerce, NIST's mission is to promote 
economic growth by working with industry to develop and apply 
technology, measurement, and standards. As the nation's arbiter of 
standards, NIST enables our nation's businesses to engage each other in 
commerce and participate in the global marketplace.
  The precise measurements required for establishing standards 
associated with today's increasing complex technologies require NIST 
laboratories to maintain the most sophisticated equipment and most 
talented scientists in the world. NIST's infrastructure, however, is 
failing and in need of repair and replacement.
  NIST currently has a maintenance backlog of almost $300 million. In 
addition, NIST requires new laboratory space that includes a higher 
level of environmental control (control of both vibration and air 
quality) than can be achieved through the retrofitting of any of its 
existing facilities. In order to meet this pressing need, NIST must 
construct an Advanced Measurement Laboratory (AML).
  As part of the sums appropriated for NIST, H.R. 4276 includes $56.7 
million for construction, renovation and maintenance of NIST's 
laboratories. This funding level is below the $67 million authorized by 
the House when it passed H.R. 1274, the NIST Authorization Act of 1997, 
but matches the President's request.
  While a considerable amount of money still needs to be appropriated 
before the AML's construction is fully funded, this year's 
appropriation, when is combined with the $95 million appropriated last 
year for construction and maintenance, is a significant down-payment on 
the laboratory. I am hopeful that with Chairman Rogers' continued 
support, we can find the money next year to complete funding and begin 
construction of the AML.
  I would like to again thank Chairman Rogers for his support of NIST 
and its facility needs.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation often 
strays from its primary mission of providing legal counsel in cases to 
people who cannot afford it. It is clear that the LSC often pursues an 
activist and ideological agenda that hardly benefits its poor clients.
  It is ridiculous that we continue to fund a program so irresponsible 
that the Congress would actually have to take the kind of action we 
took in fiscal year 1996 and spell out what ought to be clear ahead of 
time for an organization funded with federal taxpayer dollars. Congress 
actually had to make explicit that the LSC may not get involved in 
redistricting, they may not get involved in abortion litigation, or 
prison litigation, or welfare litigation, or pro-union advocacy, or 
union organizing, or fee-generating cases, or representation of public 
housing tenants charged with possession of illegal drugs or against 
whom eviction proceedings have begun as a result of illegal drug 
activity, and a prohibition on representing illegal aliens. That is an 
indictment right there on the inclinations of the individuals in this 
irresponsible agency.
  I believe as much as anyone in protecting the rights of poor people, 
but I do not believe we have to build a bigger and bigger welfare 
state, of which this is a part, in order to accomplish those 
objectives.
  If legal representation of the poor at public expense is so 
important, let the attorneys donate their time, let the States handle 
the matter, where they are a little closer to the people and where 
these kinds of abuses cannot continue to occur. And yes, they do 
continue to occur.
  For example, when it comes to protecting children, the LSC has 
actually been often

[[Page H6982]]

counterproductive to that goal. In 1997 Northwest Louisiana Legal 
Services argued for preserving a woman's parental rights to her 
children, despite clear evidence she had physically abused them. The 
case began in 1991. The State investigated it. They assumed temporary 
custody. Legal Services still got involved, claiming that terminating 
parental rights was improper. These children had been severely beaten 
and burned, and yet our taxpayer dollars went through Legal Services to 
defend this type of individual.
  Providing free legal services to the poor is perfectly appropriate 
for local and State entities to carry out. I think we will not end the 
abuses as long as the remote Federal Government continues to fund a 
program of this sort.
  Obviously these organizations have no interest in respecting the 
intent of Congress, when we have cited repeated violations of the very 
restrictions that were already in the law that continue to happen. This 
is not the job of the United States government. It is the job of the 
State governments or of local bar societies.
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleagues from Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia in sponsoring this amendment to prevent the drastic 50% 
cut in Legal Service Corporation funding.
  Without adequate funding for Legal Services, our poorest, most 
vulnerable citizens will be unable to have legal representation in 
civil matters.
  ``Equal Justice Under Law,'' which Americans read every day across 
the street on the Supreme Court building, will be empty words.
  This proposed 50% cut, to $141 million, follows a 33% reduction in FY 
1996, and no increases in FY 1997 or FY 1998. This amendment would be a 
great improvement from the current level in the bill, but it still 
represents a $33 million cut from last year's appropriation.
  In my home state, severe cuts in LSC funds have ready meant that tens 
of thousands of Minnesotans who needed legal help had to be turned 
away. Because of reduced funding, Legal Services in Minnesota closes 
4,000 fewer cases each year.
  Legal services in my state is struggling in spite of generous support 
from state and private sources. In Minnesota, over 3,000 attorneys 
already donated over 30,000 hours of legal services--worth over $3.5 
million--each year. Minnesota lawyers pay an extra $50 in their annual 
licensing fee to support legal services. Individual lawyers and firms 
currently contribute over $500,000 each year.
  Even greater numbers of poor people have been shut out of the civil 
justice system in other states, where private support is not as strong: 
LSC programs across the nation are already serving 300,000 fewer low-
income Americans because of decreased resources. If limited to this 
bill's drastic level they will have to turn away an additional 400,000 
vulnerable Americans.
  On top of this, a recent Supreme Court decision is further 
threatening resources for legal aid to the poor. In 1997 Interest on 
Lawyer Trust Accounts (IOLTA) programs accounted for 11% of funding for 
LSC programs, But, now, the availability of IOLTA funding for legal aid 
programs has been called into question by the courts.
  Some claim that private bar can step in and meet the legal needs of 
the poor if funding for the LSC is cut by this magnitude. But 
throughout the country the private bar and individual lawyers are 
already working hard to provide legal services for indigent people.
  However, they cannot meet these critical needs alone, any more than 
doctors can treat all the medical needs of the poor or grocers can feed 
all the hungry without pay.
  We cannot effectively provide legal services to the poor without a 
public-private partnership. LSC funds are critical in matching private 
lawyers with needy clients, and LSC-funded staff is needed to handle 
intake, screening, referral, training and support for private lawyers.
  Although government entities are not often known for efficiency, 
ninety-seven cents of every LSC dollar go directly to delivery of legal 
assistance. And federal oversight and accountability over those dollars 
are ensured.
  Tight restrictions required by Congress are being enforced by LSC 
under the strong leadership of President John McKay: no class action 
suits; no lobbying; no legal assistance to illegal aliens; no political 
activities; no prisoner litigation; no redistricting representation; 
and no representation of people evicted from public housing due to 
drugs.
  Some of my colleagues point to a few, well-publicized cases that 
appear to be abusive. There is almost always more to the story, and in 
many cases no LSC-funded program was involved or the LSC is enforcing 
sanctions against the abuses. But even if all of the alleged abuses 
were true, these would represent a mere handful of aberrations in a 
program that last year served 2 million clients, benefiting 4 million 
Americans, most of whom were low-income seniors, women and children. I 
wish all federal programs could have such a remarkable record.
  Legal Services actually saves taxpayers money by establishing child 
support orders and maintaining private health insurance for children. 
Legal Services protects the victims of domestic violence and child 
abuse. Legal Services combats consumer fraud and unlawful 
discrimination.
  If our justice system is only accessible to the wealthy--to those 
with means--then it cannot truly be just. I urge my colleagues to 
support basic fairness and equality under the law by restoring Legal 
Services funding.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) will be postponed.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 
4276) making appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, 
and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________