[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.
____________________