[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 109 (Wednesday, August 5, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H7184-H7255]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE 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 further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4276.

                              {time}  1025


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole

[[Page H7185]]

House on the State of the Union for the further 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. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, August 
4, 1998, a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 8 by the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Talent) had been postponed and the bill 
was open from page 38, line 4 through page 115, line 8.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendment 
to this portion of the bill is in order except:
  (1) an amendment by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) related 
to NOAA for 10 minutes;
  (2) an amendment by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) related 
to NOAA for 10 minutes;
  (3) an amendment by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) related 
to a general provision regarding fisheries for 20 minutes;
  (4) an amendment by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) to 
strike section 210 for 15 minutes;
  (5) an amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) relating 
to U.N. arrears for 15 minutes; and
  (6) an amendment by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
regarding the census for 2 hours.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Mollohan

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 105-641 offered by Mr. 
     Mollohan:
       Page 45, strike lines 9 through 19 and insert the 
     following: Provided, That the Bureau of the Census may use 
     funds appropriated in this Act to continue to plan, test, and 
     prepare to implement a 2000 decennial census that uses 
     statistical sampling methods to improve the accuracy of the 
     enumeration, consistent with the recommendations of the 
     National Academy of Sciences made in response to Public Law 
     102-135, unless the Supreme Court of the United States rules 
     that these methods are contrary to the Constitution of the 
     United States or title 13 of the United States Code: Provided 
     further, That the Bureau of the Census shall also continue to 
     plan, test, and become prepared to implement a 2000 decennial 
     census without using statistical methods, in accordance with 
     the first sentence of section 209(j) of Public Law 105-119, 
     until the Supreme Court has issued decisions in or otherwise 
     disposed of all cases brought pursuant to section 209(b) of 
     Public Law 105-119 and pending as of July 15, 1998 (or the 
     time for appealing such cases to the Supreme Court has 
     expired), and shall continue such preparations beyond that 
     date only if the Supreme Court has held statistical sampling 
     methods to be contrary to the Constitution or such title 13: 
     Provided further, That the National Academy of Sciences is 
     requested to review the current plans of the Bureau of the 
     Census to conduct the decennial census using statistical 
     sampling methods and report to the Congress, not later than 
     March 1, 1999, regarding whether these plans are consistent 
     with past recommendations made by the Academy, and whether, 
     in the judgment of the Academy (or an appropriate expert 
     committee thereof), these plans represent the most feasible 
     means of producing the most accurate determination possible 
     of the actual population.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508 and the order of the 
House of Thursday, July 30, 1998, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Mollohan) and a Member opposed each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to again focus the 
census debate on the issues of science and accuracy and remove, to the 
extent possible, the political influences which have become so 
overbearing with regard to this issue.
  The bill before us today would seriously jeopardize the 2000 census. 
The good news is that the bill provides $107 million more for census 
preparation than the President requested. The bad news is that what the 
bill gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. How?
  First, it cuts off funding for the preparation of the 2000 census in 
the middle of the fiscal year, and any expenditure thereafter would be 
dependent upon passage of additional legislation. This language could 
cause a sudden shutdown of census preparations with irreversible 
consequences, in the not unlikely event that Congress and the President 
are unable to agree on the terms of that subsequent legislation.
  Second, the reason this bill takes away from the census is it only 
allows for half of the funds to be spent till the cutoff period. By 
dividing the appropriation in half, the majority withholds funds which 
must be obligated during the first 6 months of the fiscal year. In 
fact, the Census Bureau needs to obligate about $644 million of the 
$952 million appropriation during that first half time period. This 
creates a shortfall of about $169 million.
  Why has the Republican majority proposed such a disruptive funding 
scheme? At the heart of this matter is a major dispute over the use of 
a population counting technique commonly referred to as ``scientific 
statistical sampling'' which is a method recommended by the National 
Academy of Sciences.

                              {time}  1030

  It has been adopted by the Census Bureau because it would guarantee 
that the 4 million people who were not counted in the 1990 Census, of 
which 50 percent were children, would be counted in the 2000 Census. It 
is opposed by the Republican majority because of their belief that 
including these undercounted groups will somehow disadvantage 
Republican majority control of the United States House of 
Representatives.
  We cannot allow this political debate over scientific sampling to 
kill the 2000 Census. The on-again-off-again census funding in this 
bill would be fatally destabilizing, and it is for this reason that I 
feel compelled to offer an alternative solution.
  In summary, my amendment does the following:
  First, it provides uninterrupted full funding for the 2000 Census, 
removing the language that threatens a shutdown of the Census.
  Second, it provides that the Bureau proceed to prepare for the 2000 
Census on a dual track, preparing for both a sampling and a nonsampling 
census until the Supreme Court disposes of the sampling cases currently 
pending, whereupon the Census Bureau would be allowed to move forward 
with a census incorporating sampling unless sampling has been declared 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
  Finally, and I think most importantly in some ways, this amendment 
enlists experts rather than politicians to help resolve the technical 
and statistical issues involved by asking the National Academy of 
Sciences to become involved.
  It is important to note, and let me emphasize, that as we stand here 
today scientific sampling is both legal and authorized by Congress. 
Therefore, my amendment does provide that the current Census Bureau 
sampling plan will move forward unless the Supreme Court specifically 
rules that sampling is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court finds 
that sampling is allowable under the Constitution or does not make a 
clear determination, then sampling will be allowed to proceed and 
funding will be cut off for the dual track.
  Mr. Chairman, I feel that my amendment represents a compromise that 
all parties should be able to support. There are three main arguments 
used in opposition to scientific sampling in the Census. My amendment 
sincerely attempts to adequately address all three.
  In their first argument opponents of sampling cite the Constitution. 
They assert that the Constitution requires an actual head count of the 
population. I disagree. In fact, separate opinions issued by the 
Department of Justice under President Carter, President Bush and 
President Clinton all concluded that the Constitution permits the use 
of scientific sampling and statistical methods as a part of the Census. 
But whatever my opinion, whatever the opinion of Justice Department 
officials, and whatever the opinion of my Republican colleagues, this 
issue is now before the courts, and my amendment provides for the 
courts to decide whether we can go forward with sampling in the Census. 
We should all be able to agree on that.
  In the second argument opponents of sampling say that it is bad 
science. I

[[Page H7186]]

simply defer to the experts on this matter: The National Academy of 
Sciences, the American Statistical Association, the Council of 
Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, the National 
Association of Business Economists, just to name a few professional 
organizations that have all endorsed the use of scientific sampling in 
the 2000 Census. To ensure that the scientific community stays involved 
in this process my amendment asks the National Academy of Sciences to 
take yet another look at the Census Bureau's plans and to recertify 
that they are indeed the best way to achieve an accurate 2000 Census.
  In the third argument, Mr. Chairman, opponents of sampling say that 
the Commerce Department will politicize the results of the Census. 
Well, I do not share this view. Its nature makes it impossible to 
refute through fact or expert opinion. But this concern was addressed 
last year with the creation of the Census Monitoring Board. This entity 
is already in place and will be the eyes and ears of Congress as plans 
for the Census move forward.
  In addition, I do not know of any better way to create confidence in 
the methodology that we are going to use to conduct the 2000 Census 
than by an active involvement of the National Academy of Sciences which 
is provided for in my amendment. Certainly we can all agree that the 
reputation of the National Academy of Sciences is such that the great 
majority of fair minded people would accept their opinion on a matter 
such as this.
  Mr. Chairman, having addressed the three most expressed concerns 
against sampling, only one remains: fear, fear that using sampling will 
affect the political makeup of the United States House of 
Representatives. Well, we must be careful in ascribing motives to 
people for their actions. In this case, the Republican concern about 
the consequences of an accurate census is well understood. As an 
example, be sure to read any one of the following editorials:
  The Christian Science Monitor dated April 28, 1998; the Buffalo News, 
June 15, 1998; Newsday, June 16, 1997, or the Houston Chronicle, June 
4, 1998, and these are just a few examples of a long list of editorials 
that all endorse the use of scientific sampling as the way to count 
that 1.6 percent of our population, those 4 million people who were not 
counted in 1990, and each editorial in its own way criticizes the 
Republican majority for its political motives for opposing sampling.
  To the extent that anyone is opposing sampling because of potential 
political consequences I would only say that such motives are truly 
unworthy and misplaced in the world's greatest democracy which 
absolutely requires fair representation for all of its constituent 
groups. Well, Mr. Chairman, that can only be achieved through the most 
accurate census possible, a principle clearly understood by the framers 
of the Constitution and a goal which every nonbiased expert who has 
spoken on the matter says can best be achieved in the modern era 
through the use of scientific sampling.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  The CHAIRMAN. For purposes of controlling time, the gentleman from 
Kentucky is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me start by reminding the Members what this bill 
does with respect to the decennial census and why.
  Last year on this bill the Congress and the White House agreed to 
disagree on whether the census would be conducted using a hard count or 
using an untested and legally questionable method known as sampling. My 
colleague always refers to it as scientific sampling. It is sort of 
like a toothpaste or patent medicine, scientifically proven to prevent 
cavities and so forth, all this scientific sampling, as we hear.
  So there is a temporary agreement between the President and the 
Speaker of the House, and what did it say? The agreement said, ``We 
will hold off on a final decision on whether or not to use sampling 
until the spring of 1999.'' At that time it was agreed that Congress 
and the White House would elect the method of counting in time for the 
Census Bureau to finish its final plans for the Year 2000 count.
  What did we agree would occur in the meantime? One, we agreed to test 
each method using dress rehearsals in three cities this year; it is 
going on right now. Two, the parties on each side would have the 
opportunity to test the legality and constitutionality of sampling in 
the federal courts in an expedited fashion. The Supreme Court has never 
ruled on this question, and those cases, by the way, are now going on. 
Three, we would appoint a bipartisan census monitoring board to oversee 
all aspects of the decennial census, as is being planned and carried 
out. That monitoring board now is in session, is meeting regularly.
  That, in essence, was the agreement, the President and the Speaker: 
Let us have a cooling-off period, let us proceed with plans to use both 
methods, let us let the courts rule as they may with a D-Day of next 
spring to make the final decision when hopefully all three of those 
conditions would have matured.
  So what does the bill do that we drafted?
  My colleagues, it simply implements the agreement the President 
wanted us to do. We provide a total of $956 million to fund 
preparations for the Census. That is $566 million over current 
spending. We added $107 million on top of what the President requested 
in order to have the staff and resources that the Bureau later admitted 
it needed to be fully prepared regardless of which method they 
eventually settled upon. So, we gave them more money than they asked 
for so they can prepare for both practices. We allow the first half of 
the money in the bill, $475 million, to be spent immediately so that 
necessary census preparations can continue through March 31, 1999. This 
is pursuant to the agreement the President asked us to do.
  Second, we provide the second half of the money, $475 million, once a 
final decision on a counting method is agreed to by the Congress and 
the administration as they agreed last year to do.
  To ensure that the Congress and the administration reach an agreement 
the bill requires the following:
  By March 15, 1999, the President must request the funds that he needs 
to be released and must tell Congress how much the census at that time 
will cost, after we have heard the court, hopefully, after we have 
heard the monitoring board, hopefully, and after the dress rehearsals 
in three cities around the country have been completed.
  The Congress must enact, and the President must sign, a bill to 
release the money, and the bill states that Congress shall act on the 
President's request by March 31. We bind ourselves. Submit the request 
to us by March 15, 1999, we guarantee we will act on that request 2 
weeks later, by March 31, and off we go doing the census.
  We have done everything in this bill we can, Mr. Chairman, to 
facilitate, to live up to the agreement the President asked us to do 
last year. It is all there, plus some.
  The Mollohan amendment on the other hand would strike the very 
provisions in the bill that the President asked us to put in the bill 
last year and instead gives the administration complete authority over 
how the Census is conducted contrary to the Constitution and the 
Federal statutes which give the Congress control over how the census is 
conducted.
  Neither his amendment, nor the administration which now supports it, 
seeks to live up to the agreement of last year. They are abandoning the 
agreement the President solemnly committed to last year. In fact, the 
administration supports something far more destructive than the 
amendment the gentleman from West Virginia is advocating, advocating a 
complete cutoff of funds for every other agency in this bill next 
spring until we agree to use sampling, as he wants to in the Census.
  Yes, this President says:
  ``Oh no, don't give us half the money for the Census and fund all the 
other agencies in this bill all the whole year. Cut off all the 
agencies along with the Census in March,'' the President says, ``and 
let's shut down the Drug Enforcement Administration, let's shut down

[[Page H7187]]

the FBI and the War on Drugs and the War on Crime, let's shut down the 
State Department around the world and all of the sensitive things that 
are going on around the world in America's national security 
interests.''

                              {time}  1045

  ``Let us shut down the Federal courts, the Supreme Court, all the way 
through to the U.S. Marshal's Office. Shut them all down,'' he says. 
``Let us shut down the Commerce Department. Let us shut down the 
National Weather Service. Let us shut down all of the institutions in 
the Commerce Department, the NOAA, the Small Business Administration, 
all of the agencies that help Americans live a better life.''
  The President says, ``Let us shut them all down so that I can have my 
way on sampling in the census.'' He says, ``Trust me. Trust me, just as 
you trusted me with the FBI files, and I pilfered through them. Trust 
me on this.'' He says, ``Trust me, even though we may have naturalized 
tens of thousands of felons so they could vote in the election of 1996. 
We gave away America's most precious gift, American citizenship, for 
the vote, but trust me.'' That is what this amendment would do, Mr. 
Chairman.
  Could it be that the administration is afraid that this radical plan 
for polling instead of counting in the 2000 Census, that he knows it 
cannot be held up to public or Congressional scrutiny? I can certainly 
see where they might be nervous, given that the last attempt they had 
to use statistical sampling in the 1990 census was an absolute failure. 
In the 1990 census the experts in 1990 pushed to statistically 
manipulate the statistical count. The Secretary of Commerce refused, 
because he thought it might be wrong. Guess who was right? Ask the 
people of Pennsylvania, for example, who would have lost a congressman 
in this House if the experts had prevailed last time, as they want to 
do this time.
  To be fair, the administration and the experts assure us that this 
time it will be different, just trust us. They say that the bugs have 
been removed from statistical sampling. Not so, says the GAO, and the 
Commerce Department's own Inspector General, in fact, both have said 
that every major component of the Census Bureau's 2000 census plan is 
at risk for quality problems and cost and growth.
  Even more disturbing, they both raise serious questions about how the 
Census Bureau plans to use a statistical manipulation of the census 
count. The IG says it is long, complex, and operating under such a 
tight time schedule that there will be many opportunities for 
operational and statistical errors.
  The GAO said ``The Bureau has made several misssteps in drawing the 
statistical sample because these errors went undetected until 
relatively late. GAO is concerned about the Bureau's ability to catch 
and correct problems.''
  In fact, the title of the GAO report says it all: ``Preparations for 
the Dress Rehearsal Leave Many Unanswered Questions.'' That is what GAO 
titles their report. Maybe that is why the administration no longer 
wants to wait until next spring to work with the Congress on a final 
decision.
  Or maybe it is because the administration is afraid the courts will 
rule sampling to be illegal or unconstitutional. That would explain why 
the Administration's own lawyers have been fighting vigorously in 
Federal court to get the pending lawsuits thrown out on procedural 
grounds, so that the courts will not rule on the merits of this issue 
in time for next spring's decision.
  Mr. Chairman, I tell my colleagues, make no mistake about it, if the 
Mollohan amendment is adopted, the very success of the 2000 Census is 
in jeopardy for the first time in America's history. If the Mollohan 
amendment is adopted, the Congress will have no say in the conduct of 
the census, contrary to the Constitution.
  We will not get to make a decision based on the dress rehearsal 
results or the reports from the bipartisan, independent Census 
Monitoring Board. We will not get to make a decision based on the court 
rulings. In fact, we will not make a decision at all. Instead, the 
Mollohan amendment asks us to trust the Clinton White House; defer to 
the same Clinton administration which pilfered through the FBI 
confidential files, which naturalized thousands of felons so they could 
vote; the most investigated administration in the history of the 
country; they say, trust us again.
  Mr. Chairman, there is an old saying back in Kentucky, ``There ain't 
no education in the second kick of the mule.'' We have learned a bit 
about this White House. ``Trust us,'' they say. We say, ``Okay, we will 
trust you, but we are going to verify. We are going to verify with an 
actual count. We do not trust you to guess on the numbers of people in 
the country for the purposes of deciding who can represent us in this 
Congress.'' That is all we are saying. They may sample if they will on 
the number of people with blue eyes, but actually count the people when 
it comes to making up this body that represents all the American people 
for all that is in the Constitution.
  The American people have a right to expect that this Congress will 
ensure the integrity of the very process that determines the nature of 
their representation in the House.
  For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge the House to live up to the 
agreement we reached with the White House. I urge the White House to 
live up to the agreement they reached with us, and vote down the 
Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), ranking 
Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who has 
worked incredibly hard on this issue. She has been at the forefront of 
ensuring that we have a fair 2000 Census.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, Mr. Chairman, and congratulate him on his outstanding leadership on 
this job.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment, which will 
fully fund the Census 2000 so that they can merely get the job done. We 
should let the Census Bureau be the Census Bureau, and the Republican 
majority should stop interfering with the Census Bureau doing their 
job. The Nation needs an accurate count of our population, one that 
includes everyone.
  In 1990 the Census missed 8.4 million people. one in 10 black males, 
one in 10 Hispanics, and one in 20 Asians was missed. Conducting a fair 
and accurate Census has become the civil rights issue of the nineties. 
The Census Bureau is working to implement a plan that is inclusive. It 
is modern, cost-effective, and comprehensive, and it will eliminate the 
undercount.
  The House leadership will say that the 1990 Census was not so bad. 
They say that missing 8.4 million people and counting 4.5 million 
people twice was okay by them. They will tell us that everyone will be 
counted if they just do more counting.
  However, the truth is, the old methods just do not work anymore. They 
will tell us that the Census plan is unconstitutional and illegal, but 
the truth is, every court that has ruled on the use of statistical 
methods in the Census has found them both legal and constitutional. 
They will tell us that the Census plan is subject to political 
manipulation. The truth is that real manipulation is doing nothing 
about the undercount.
  They will tell us that this is President Clinton's plan, but the 
truth is that Congress ordered this plan and President George Bush 
signed it into law, a mandate that the National Academy of Sciences 
come up with a plan to correct the undercount. This plan is supported 
by every major statistical organization.
  The House leadership will tell us that the plan is partisan. However, 
the truth is that nonpartisan editorial boards across this country, the 
New York Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, have all endorsed 
the use of modern statistical methods in the year 2000 Census.
  Guess who does not support modern statistical methods: the Republican 
National Committee. The Republican leadership should not be afraid of 
counting blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. What they should be afraid of 
is repeating the errors of 1990 while the Nation's minorities look on, 
knowing those mistakes could have been prevented, knowing they were 
intentionally left out.

[[Page H7188]]

  The year 2000 Census must be about policy, not politics. It is the 
right thing to do. It is right for America. I urge my colleagues to 
support full funding for the Census Bureau. Support the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Census, 
who happens to also be a doctor in statistics and marketing, and taught 
for the MBA program at his university, who is an expert on this topic.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate the chairman 
for his treatment of the Census in this appropriation bill, because 
what he proposes is basically that the President and Congress, the 
Democrats and Republicans, need to work together next spring, when the 
decision needs to be made, and this has to be done in a nonpartisan 
fashion. This is not something we can delegate to some hand-picked 
panel. This is something we need to work together on.
  The reason that this is so political is that the President has 
proposed a radically different approach, an untested type idea of using 
polling, because it is the way to go. He loves polling. He polls every 
day. Every decision is made based on polling. If it works for him, it 
should work for the Census.
  Many of the Members on that side were in Houston this past June. Let 
me quote what the President said about the Census when he talked about 
polling and sampling. Most people understand that a poll taken before 
an election is a statistical sample. Sometimes it is wrong, but more 
often than not, it is right. The President compares it with polling. 
This is what we are talking about.
  The American people are not going to trust polling to do something 
that we only do once a decade. The Constitution only requires it every 
10 years. Sampling is very appropriate in between the Census, when we 
take it every 10 years, but it is too critical an issue to be addressed 
by polling techniques at this time.
  Let me take a minute to explain the difference in the two proposals, 
because there is confusion. What we propose is basically improving upon 
the 1990 model, where we counted 98.4 percent of the people. We went 
out and counted, and enumerated fairly successfully 98.4 percent of the 
people. Yes, we did miss some people.
  Then, the second part was we did a polling sampling technique to try 
to see if we could adjust the numbers for full enumeration based on 
sampling and polling. That failed. The one attempt to use a large 
sampling model on the Census was a failure in 1990. It was not used.
  When the Census Bureau tried to adjust the data, in fact, they tried 
to adjust it three different times and never got it right. They were 
wrong. They were going to wrongly take a congressional seat away from 
the State of Pennsylvania and shift it to Arizona, and take a seat away 
from the State of Wisconsin.
  It also came out that data is less accurate for a less than 100,000 
population. So for towns and cities all across America with less than 
100,000 population, it is less accurate, on average. So if we are 
talking about accuracy, it is less accurate.
  Also, we work with Census tracts, where there are only about 4,000 
people in a tract. There is no question it is less accurate when we get 
down to that kind of data.
  What has the President proposed in the Clinton Census issue? Instead 
of trying to count everybody, what he only wants to do is count 90 
percent of the people. He wants to intentionally not count 26 or 27 
million people. We agree to count everybody, yet the Clinton plan says, 
we are not going to count 26 million or 27 million people, because what 
we are going to do is have these computer-generated people. We are 
going to have this virtual population of 26 million or 27 million 
people. That is what we are talking about, not counting 26 or 27 
million, and letting the computer come up with these people by cloning 
techniques. That is a little scary, what we are talking about doing.
  This plan, as the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) talked 
about, is a very risky plan. There is a high risk of failure. It is not 
as accurate to conduct this. The purpose of a Census is for 
apportionment of representatives.
  What are we recommending? Let us improve upon the 1990 model. There 
is there are a number of things we can do. For example, 50 percent of 
the mistake in 1990 they say was the mailing list, the address list, so 
we need to do a much better job. I commend the Census Bureau for moving 
in the direction of doing that. In fact, there is $100 million in 
additional funding for address list development. The Census Bureau is 
going to go out and verify the addresses. That is exactly what we need 
to do is get a better mailing list. That will help address 50 percent 
of the problem there.
  We are going to used paid advertising, instead of using free 
advertising, as we relied on back in 1990. Instead of having ads at 2 
o'clock in the morning, we can run them where it is appropriate to the 
undercounted population. We can target our advertising.
  We also should use local people working with the Census. The 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) and I are working on legislation 
to make it easier, so people can work part-time and not lose any 
Federal Government benefits, to work on the Census.
  For example, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) represents a 
large Haitian population. We should have Haitians living in that 
community working on the Census. We need to provide whatever 
legislation is necessary. We also need to work with outreach. That is 
something that was very successful in Cincinnati, Indianapolis, 
Milwaukee last year. We need to do it throughout the country this time 
around.
  This past week's newspaper in Northern Virginia, the Hispanic 
newspaper, the cover page talks about the United States Census 2000. It 
is talking about how we need to have a partnership, where we need to 
work together. It is talking about Census partnerships: ``We cannot do 
it without you.''

                              {time}  1100

  It talks about how there are jobs, census jobs, an equal employment 
opportunity employer. We need to work together in communities, in the 
undercounted areas, and do everything to concentrate on getting 
everybody counted, not creating these statistically or computer-
generated artifacts.
  We also should make use of whatever administrative records are 
available. If necessary, we need to pass legislation. The WIC program, 
for example, a mother may not want to fill out a form but she wants to 
get formula for her children. We should do everything we can to make 
records where there is Medicaid, WIC or what have you available.
  So what we have is a choice of whether we want a census that can be 
trusted, and working together, or we want to trust only the President 
to make that decision. Now the President is threatening to shut down 
the entire Commerce, Justice and State Departments over this issue. 
That is irresponsible. This is a President that said it was terrible to 
shut down the government back in 1995, is already threatening it today 
over this issue if he does not get his way.
  So it is wrong to try to threaten to shut down the government. We 
should not allow that to happen. Let us work together and get the most 
accurate census possible, where we count everyone, everyone counts. 
This is the plan, full enumeration, and let us do it together this 
spring.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to point out here that the 
only shutdown associated with this issue is the shutdown that is 
contained in this bill, the shutdown that is threatened by the language 
which limits the appropriation for census to midyear. That is the only 
shutdown we are talking about.
  The President had an agreement with the Republican majority. That 
agreement was untenable. That agreement is not even a part of this 
debate. I do not know why we have even alluded to it.
  The fact is the only shutdown that we are looking at is the language 
in this bill that would shut down the census at midyear next year and 
that threatens a viable census.

[[Page H7189]]

  I think it is important to understand that, that the threat to the 
2000 census is contained in the bill, and the Mollohan amendment would 
free that up, allow it to be funded for the whole year.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to address one of 
the legal issues that has been raised by the Republican majority.
  The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will talk about the 
constitutional issue, but one of the issues that the majority has 
raised is that the constitutional power of Congress to determine how 
the census will be conducted is being somehow undermined by the 
administration. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
  The Constitution, as the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs) will 
point out, clearly says that the census will be taken in such a manner 
as Congress shall by law direct, and the Congress has passed a law, 
title 13 of the United States Code, which governs the way the census 
will be taken. And that title, section 141, says that the Secretary of 
Commerce shall take a census of population in such form and content as 
he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures and 
statistical surveys.
  The Republicans seem to have a different interpretation of that. But 
clearly, the statute that is on the books allows, directs the 
administration and the census body to take this census with the use of 
statistical sampling. They seem to think that that is unconstitutional, 
and that case is going up to the Supreme Court. But several courts have 
held it constitutional and as long as the law is on the books, that is 
the law that we are obligated to follow and comply with. That is what 
we are doing.
  That is why we are here today, trying to debate this issue on an 
appropriations bill, rather than trying to attack this frontally. We 
have got a law on the books that everybody is trying to follow. They 
have no capacity to repeal the law so they are trying to do by 
indirection what they cannot accomplish directly.
  The language in the statute clearly allows, one would argue mandates, 
the use of statistical sampling. And the Republican majority is trying 
to undermine that because they cannot pass a law that repeals that law. 
They are trying to do this indirectly. We should not allow them to do 
this. We should pass the Mollohan amendment and move on with the census 
as the law now currently authorizes us to do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Latham), a very able and hard-working member of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise in strong opposition to this amendment from the gentleman from 
West Virginia. Former Prime Minister Harold MacMillan once remarked 
that the English people did not throw off the yoke of the divine right 
of kings in order to bow before the divine right of experts. I think 
there is some truth in that.
  In Congress here we have rules that we go by procedurally, but the 
ultimate rule that we have in Congress is the Constitution of the 
United States. This is the ultimate rule. Let us just see what the 
Constitution says about the idea of guessing at how many people are in 
the United States.
  Article I, section 2 of the Constitution says: ``The actual 
enumeration shall be made within 3 years after the first meeting of 
Congress of the United States and within every subsequent term of 10 
years in such a manner as they shall by law direct.''
  Let us look at the definition of what ``enumeration'' is.
  This is the dictionary that we use here. To enumerate: to mention 
separately, as if in counting; name one by one; specify, as in a list. 
I think that is pretty clear as to what enumeration stands for.
  Also in the Constitution it refers to the census. Article XIV of the 
14th Amendment, section 2, very clearly says, ``Representatives shall 
be apportioned among the several States according to their respective 
numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding 
Indians not taxed.''
  Okay. If there is any question as to what that means, I think we can 
also take the dictionary and look at what it is to count. To count: to 
check over, one by one, to determine the total number; add up; 
enumerate.
  When we were elected or sworn in to this Congress, we stood here and 
raised our hands that we would uphold the Constitution of the United 
States. I do not think that there is really a question as to what the 
Founding Fathers said. It is very clear. It is defined by Webster 
exactly what the words are.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LATHAM. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Indeed, the gentleman has referenced the source, the 
dictionary. Has the gentleman referenced any court decisions on the 
subject?
  Mr. Chairman, the real meaning of the Constitution is defined through 
our court process, through the appeal process. And every court decision 
on the subject has ruled sampling constitutional, with all due respect 
to the gentleman's dictionary interpretation.
  Mr. LATHAM. That simply is not the case. I think anyone who is sworn 
to uphold the Constitution should maybe read it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, on point, I yield 4 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Skaggs), a member of our 
subcommittee.
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time and for his leadership on this issue.
  This is not the first census debate. It is not the first decade in 
which the methodology has been called into question. This is not even 
the first century in which the census has been controversial.
  President Washington was concerned about the results of the first 
census in 1790 because he thought there was an undercount.
  Let us look at some relevant history here rather than sort of a 
Sesame Street reading of words.
  The census has its origin in the Constitutional Convention. There, 
Article I, section 2, clause 3 of the Constitution was drafted, and it 
requires that ``The actual enumeration shall be made within 3 years 
after the first meeting of the Congress and within every subsequent 
term of 10 years, in such manner as they,'' referring to Congress, 
``shall by law direct.''
  According to our Congressional Research Service, examination of the 
debates and documents of that Constitutional Convention show that 
earlier reference to a ``census'' was dropped and ``enumeration'' was 
used instead, but there is no suggestion that that was intended to 
reflect any change in meaning.
  The significance of the term ``actual enumeration'' may be discovered 
from its context. The same clause of the Constitution goes on to 
provide for specified numbers of Members from each of the original 13 
States ``until such enumeration shall be made.'' It seems clear 
therefore that the term ``actual enumeration'' was intended to 
distinguish between the rough reckonings of the then-current 
populations of the original colonies that informed the size of the 
first House prescribed in clause 3 and the later need for a real count.
  The Supreme Court has never determined whether the requirement of an 
``actual enumeration'' precludes sampling or other adjustment, or 
whether it simply contemplates achieving the most accurate count of the 
population by whatever method.
  As recently as 1996, however, in the case of Wisconsin versus New 
York, the court came very close. There, relying on the constitutional 
phrase ``in such manner as they shall by law direct,'' the court held 
that ``the text of the Constitution vests Congress with virtually 
unlimited discretion in conducting the decennial `actual enumeration.' 
''
  The lower courts that have addressed the issue all have concluded 
that the requirement of an ``actual enumeration'' means an accurate 
count, and that sampling is consistent with the Constitution if its 
purpose and its effect is to improve accuracy.
  For example, in the 1990 ruling, the U.S. District Court in New York 
concluded ``that because Article I, section 2 requires the census to be 
as accurate as possible, the Constitution is not a bar to statistical 
adjustment.''

[[Page H7190]]

  A decade earlier, the Sixth Circuit determined that ``although the 
Constitution prohibits subterfuge in adjustment of census figures for 
purposes of redistricting, it does not constrain adjustment of census 
figures if thoroughly documented and applied in a systematic manner.''
  So there can be no real question about the constitutionality of using 
sampling to improve the accuracy of the actual enumeration. It is for 
us to decide ``in what manner'' we ``shall by law direct.''
  As the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has pointed out, we 
have done that. The census statute already contemplates the use of 
sampling and adjustment in order to improve accuracy. That is what this 
is all about. We should pass the Mollohan amendment.
  Aside from the constitutional question, history shows us that the 
level of controversy around the census waxes and wanes as a result of 
larger, social and demographic shifts and the political pain associated 
with adjusting to those changes. For example, the census was 
controversial and prone to political manipulation in the decades before 
and after the civil war, when there were issues about counting African 
Americans.
  Population counts again became controversial in the 1920's, when 
census figures showed more people living in cities than in rural areas 
for the first time. In fact, those results were so alarming to the 
party in power at the time that they simply ignored the census and 
delayed reapportioning the House.
  In short, Mr. Chairman, while this may not be quite deja vu all over 
again it's certainly not unprecedented--and it's not hard to figure out 
what's going on. Some of the changes in our country's demographics are 
uncomfortable for those defending certain conservative interests here.
  It's projected that by the year 2020, hispanic and African American 
populations will grow to represent 30% of our total populace. Current 
census methodology takes us further and further from getting an 
accurate count of these populations. This is not news. The problem has 
been known for decades. Yet when methods are proposed to get a more 
accurate count of minorities, some try to delay or prevent a better 
count for fear of losing political power.
  This year, Republicans are replaying this political battle in a way 
that is guaranteed not just to undermine progressive census reforms, 
but in a way that's likely to undermine the census itself. They have 
misguidedly decided to require an overworked group of folks over at the 
Census Bureau to plan for not just one but for two means of collecting 
population data. And then they want to cut off the Bureau's funds in 
the middle of the year, calling for a political decision at that time.
  Let me restate this crucial point: the majority party in Congress is 
saying that they middle of the most critical census-planning year, 
1999, the Census Bureau has to lurch along with half steps rather than 
do any full-year planning for a $4 billion, half-million-person 
project.
  Would any CEO of any business agree to take on a critical project 
under these terms? If this bill passes in its current form, does anyone 
doubt that Republicans next year will find and be able to document 
Census Bureau organizational problems in putting this so-called plan 
into effect?
  We should not do this, Mr. Chairman, Instead, we should do our duty. 
We should give the Census Bureau the tools it needs to do its job 
right--we should give the funds and the flexibility to produce the 
best, most accurate count possible.
  Pass the Mollahan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), a member of the committee.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) is 
recognized for 3 minutes and 45 seconds.
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  I rise today in opposition to this amendment. While I have worked 
with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia and found common 
ground on some significant issues, I must disagree with him on this 
issue because, based on solid numerical evidence which is against 
sampling, and the Census Bureau's own research after the 1990 Census 
Bureau enumeration surveys, sampling did not work in the 1990 census 
post-enumeration surveys, so why would we expect a similar plan to work 
for the 2000 census?

                              {time}  1115

  Merely increasing the sample size will not improve the accuracy of 
the survey, it will only increase the possibility of error.
  The Census Bureau's own 1992 CAPE report, Committee on Adjustment of 
Postcensal Estimates, indicated that after the second post enumeration 
survey, using the improved so-called grouping method, that sampling was 
inaccurate for areas under 100,000. Many of us have districts with no 
single area over 100,000. How can we misrepresent such a large 
percentage of our population? Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary 
of Commerce concluded in 1991, that while 29 States would benefit from 
adjusted counts, 21 would be less accurate, or lose population.
  We cannot support a plan that is good for some and not for others. 
Because these numbers are used for apportionment, failing to ensure 
equal representation is a serious threat to our democracy. Enumerate, 
not polling, not computer models. Sampling does not equal accuracy.
  Not only is sampling numerically unreliable, it is inconsistent, as 
has been pointed out by my friend from Iowa, with the Constitution, 
which does require actual enumeration. Nowhere in the Constitution does 
it state that the President has a right to decide how the census should 
be directed, which is what he is trying to do.
  And despite his statement that it was deeply wrong to shut the 
government down, that was back in 1996, the President has threatened to 
shut down the Commerce Department, the Justice Department and the State 
Department in order to implement his administration's plan. However, we 
should not support political threats with bad policy.
  Congress and the administration must work together to create a plan 
that the American people will trust. We must listen to the warnings, as 
the chairman has pointed out, of the GAO and the Inspector General and 
create a bilateral plan with the administration that will accurately 
represent the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, I firmly suggest we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the President 
saying how we are going to conduct the census, and then he said that it 
is the Congress' job to do that. I totally agree it is the Congress' 
job to do that, and we have defined in 13 USC section 141, in pertinent 
part, the Congress, in this law, has given the Secretary of Commerce 
the responsibility to conduct a ``decennial census in such form and 
content as he may determine, including the use of sampling procedures 
and special surveys.''
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, sampling simply 
does not produce the accuracy, as has been pointed out. So I would say 
to the gentleman that it is not a substitute. Sampling is not a 
substitute for accuracy.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman also know that the 
Federal statute says, ``Except for the determination of population for 
purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the 
several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, 
authorize the use of the statistical method known as `sampling'?'' but 
otherwise prohibited. ``Except for the apportionment of the House'' is 
in the Federal statute passed by the U.S. Congress.
  Is the gentleman aware of this statute?
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. I am.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer), who has been such a leader on this issue, again 
ensuring that the 2000 census is a fair one.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, we learned a great deal from the 1990 
census, but one thing was crystal clear: Our changing Nation had 
outgrown past counting techniques and the traditional censuses are full 
of mistakes. The idea that traditional counting techniques are more 
accurate is simply a myth, and the longer the door-to-

[[Page H7191]]

door counting process goes on, the more the mistakes are made.
  More than 11 percent of the information collected door-to-door in 
1990 was wrong. Of the 4.6 million people collected based on 
information from neighbors or building managers, over one-third, 38 
percent, was wrong. Nearly 20 percent of the traditional subsequent 
coverage programs was wrong. A half million people added based on 
administrative records, 53 percent were wrong.
  These are traditional counting techniques. Information collected in 
May was wrong, 6.6 percent of the time. By June, it had doubled to 
13.8. By July, it was 18.8. And from August onward, nearly 30 percent 
were counted wrong. Because of all these mistakes, census numbers at 
the block level were off by 10 to 20 percent. So let us not pretend 
that a census without scientific methods is in any way an improvement.
  We knew that in 1991, and so I joined with two of my distinguished 
Republican colleagues in asking the National Academy of Sciences to 
review census methods and recommend ways to improve accuracy. One of 
those colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), testified 
eloquently. Of the 1990 census, he asked, ``Were the methods for 
counting our population, while learning more about it, outmoded? In 
light of existing sampling techniques, I think they were,'' he 
concluded. What we needed, he said, was an independent review of the 
census to determine how to meet our data needs, in his words, ``in an 
accurate and cost effective way.'' He said that the National Academy 
was ``credible, experienced and, more importantly, independent.''
  I agreed with him then, and I urge all of us to carefully consider 
the decision we are making now. It comes down to this: Will we take a 
census in 2000, using methods recommended by those ``credible, 
experienced and independent experts'' that the gentleman from Kentucky 
recommended in 1991, or will we settle again for methods that he called 
``outmoded and dusty''?
  The gentleman from Kentucky was right in 1991 when he said that, ``It 
has become increasingly clear that we cannot repeat last year's 
decennial census process 9 years from now.'' The Mollohan amendment 
preserves the chance to take a more accurate and fair census in 2000. 
If we reject it out of hand today, we are headed for a repeat of 1990, 
and that would be tragic: A use of counting techniques that have been 
demonstrated to be clearly inaccurate.
  The census has changed dozens and dozens of times over the course of 
its 210-year history. As the Nation has changed, our ability and 
techniques for measuring ourselves has changed with it. It is 
critically important to recognize that in a time of change, such as the 
one we are in now, we need to come to grips with that change. It has 
never been more important to understand that change, to measure it, and 
to come to grips with the techniques necessary to make a count of our 
Nation accurate and, most importantly, fair.

                                     National Academy of Sciences,


                                      Office of the President,

                                   Washington, DC, August 4, 1998.
     Hon. Thomas C. Sawyer,
     House of Representatives,
     Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Sawyer: As you requested, I am providing 
     information on studies of the national census that have been 
     conducted by the National Research Council, which is the 
     operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and the 
     National Academy of Engineering. Three different Academy 
     panels have examined the issue of the use of statistical 
     sampling in the census. All three distinguished panels, 
     chaired by three different individuals, have reached the 
     conclusion that the accuracy of the census count can be 
     improved by supplementing traditional enumeration with 
     statistical estimates of the number and characteristics of 
     those not directly enumerated. The membership of these 
     committees is attached.
       I would also like to emphasize the process that the Academy 
     uses in the conduct of studies. Since 1863, the Academy's 
     most valuable contribution to the Federal Government and the 
     public has been to provide unbiased, high-quality scientific 
     advice on controversial, complex issues. The process by which 
     the Academy conducts its work ensures its independence from 
     potential outside influences and political pressures from 
     government officials, lobbying groups, or others. Committee 
     appointments are made by the President of the Academy 
     following careful review of the nominees by many experts in 
     the field of study. Committee members are nationally-
     recognized experts in their fields, and they serve without 
     compensation. The Academy balances the membership of each 
     committee to ensure that the study is carried out in an 
     objective and unbiased manner with conclusions based solely 
     on the scientific evidence. Moreover, the committee's draft 
     report is reviewed by a set of independent reviewers, revised 
     based on an evaluation of the reviewers' comments, and 
     released in final form only after meeting the standards of 
     quality and objectivity set by the Academy.
       We can assure you that the Academy's studies of the census 
     have followed these traditional procedures to ensure high-
     quality and objective scientific advice independent of 
     political influence. We hope that our advice is helpful for 
     decision-makers as they grapple with the complex issues 
     concerning the conduct of the next census.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Bruce Alberts,
     President, NAS; Chairman, NRC.
                                  ____



                             American Statistical Association,

                                   Alexandria, VA, August 3, 1998.
     Congressman Thomas Sawyer,
     Longworth House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Sawyer: Thank you for sending me the 
     Congressional Record account of debate on H. Res. 508, 
     containing the remarks of several Members regarding the use 
     of statistical sampling methods in the 2000 Census. Despite 
     obvious differences in perspective, the discussion is 
     thoughtful and well-informed, the sole major exception being 
     the incorrect statement by Mr. Miller of California that the 
     Census Bureau plans to intentionally not count 10 percent of 
     the population. The overall level of the discussion does 
     credit to the House of Representatives.
       I do wish to respond on behalf of the American Statistical 
     Association to the remarks of Mr. Miller of Florida 
     concerning the ``hand-picked'' nature of the scientific 
     panels that have recommended consideration of statistical 
     sampling methods. I refer specifically to the Blue Ribbon 
     Panel of the American Statistical Association. The members of 
     this panel are recognized by their peers as among the 
     nation's leading experts on sampling large human populations. 
     They are certainly not identified with any political 
     interest.
       The ASA Blue Ribbon Panel included Janet Norwood, who 
     served three administrations as Commissioner of Labor 
     Statistics from 1979 to 1991. On her retirement, the New York 
     Times (December 31, 1991) spoke of her ``near-legendary 
     reputation for nonpartisanship.'' Dr. Norwood is a past 
     president of ASA, as is Dr. Neter of the University of 
     Georgia, another panel member. Like these, the other members 
     of the panel have been repeatedly elected by their peers to 
     posts of professional responsibility. For example, Dr. Rubin 
     of Harvard University is currently chair of ASA's Section on 
     Survey Research Methods, the statistical specialty directly 
     relevant to the census proposals. I assure you that this 
     panel was selected solely on the basis of their widely 
     recognized scientific expertise. Their judgment that 
     ``sampling has the potential to increase the quality and 
     accuracy of the count and to reduce costs'' is authoritative.
       Mr. Miller, in hearings before his committee, has indeed 
     produced reputable academics who disagree with the findings 
     of the ASA Blue Ribbon Panel and the several National 
     Research Council panels which reported similar conclusions. 
     Those whose names I have seen lack the expertise and 
     experience in sampling that characterize the panel members. 
     Statistics, like medicine, has specialties: one does not seek 
     out a proctologist for heart bypass surgery.
       I do wish to make it clear that the American Statistical 
     Association takes no position on the political or 
     constitutional issues surrounding the census. We also express 
     no opinion on details of the specific proposals put forth by 
     the Census Bureau for employing statistical sampling. As the 
     nation's primary professional association of statisticians 
     and users of statistics, we wish to make only two points in 
     this continuing debate:
       Estimation based on statistical sampling is a valid and 
     widely-used scientific method. The general attacks on 
     sampling that the census debate has called forth from some 
     quarters are uninformed and unjustified.
       The non-partisan professional status of government 
     statistical offices is a national asset that should be 
     carefully guarded. We depend on the statistical professionals 
     in these offices for information widely used in both 
     government and private sector decisions. Attacks on these 
     offices as ``politicized'' damage public confidence in vital 
     data.
       Thank you for the opportunity to make these comments.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                   David S. Moore,
                      President, American Statistical Association.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Snowbarger).
  Mr. SNOWBARGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time.
  I want to come at this in a little different approach. In 1992, I was 
the user of census products in the reapportionment in our State 
legislature in Kansas. We have talked about an accuracy rate back in 
1990 of 98.4 percent. I think that is pretty significant.

[[Page H7192]]

  What people need to understand is that when you are using this census 
today to develop districts, we are looking on a block-by-block basis. 
We take one block, add it to another block, we aggregate those blocks 
together and, sooner or later, we have a Representative district or a 
Senate district or even a Congressional District. Right now, by the 
census's own numbers, the accuracy rate at the block level is plus or 
minus 35 percent. Thirty-five percent.
  It has been mentioned here several times this morning that sampling 
is inaccurate at the town and local level. Even the Census Bureau 
reports that sampling counts are less accurate than an actual head 
count. It is inaccurate because of this polling scheme. Small towns, 
including the majority of Kansas, are going to be at risk, and that is 
a fact.
  The Census Bureau's own studies prove this. The 1991 Undercount 
Steering Committee said, ``It is understood that for smaller areas, 
those with less than 100,000 population, proportionately more units 
would have less accurately adjusted counts than unadjusted counts.''
  We just cannot use this polling method that penalizes small cities 
and towns. Not only does this undercount or miscount small towns and 
cities, but the current scheme also eliminates the right of those 
cities to contest the numbering. The adjustments are going to occur so 
late that there is no way for the census Local Review Program to be 
carried out, which would allow the cities to see if the counts are 
accurate and make their own input into the Bureau. That has all been 
taken out because of the timing of this program.
  Frankly, the polling population scheme shuts out small town America 
and denies them the right to challenge. Enumeration is essential, and I 
would urge my colleagues to defeat the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment to restore full funding for the Census Bureau so that the 
agency can get on with the business of conducting an accurate census 
that includes everybody. Placing a 6-month cap on the funding of the 
Census Bureau and making only one-half of the funds available is an 
obstruction to an accurate and efficient census.
  We have heard by now that the 1990 census was the first in this 
Nation's history to be less accurate than the preceding census. Mr. 
Chairman, in particular, 834,000 people were never counted in the State 
of California. African Americans were undercounted by 7.6 percent and 
Hispanics by 4.9 percent compared to the 2.3 percent undercount for 
whites. In fact, the City of Inglewood, a city in my Congressional 
district, had the State's highest undercount rate among major cities. 
In addition, 342,095 of California's children were missed altogether by 
the last census.
  In the last census the monies allocated for schools, school lunches, 
Head Start, senior citizens centers, health care facilities, and 
transportation never reached the communities where people were not 
counted. Simply put, if individuals were not counted in the last 
census, they did not receive their fair share of Federal fundings for 
public services.
  We have a chance to correct the errors of the past census by 
employing modern techniques that have been proven to be efficient and 
cost effective. It is illogical for this body to profess to be a 
democratic institution but, at the same time, refuse to adequately fund 
a census which employs a method which counts everyone. It seems the 
right wing faction of the party would prefer to have no census rather 
than have an accurate census.
  The Mollohan amendment is a reasonable one. It would restore the full 
funding to the Census Bureau so that it may do its job without 
interruption. The amendment further provides that funds for a 
statistical counting will be cut off if the Supreme Court finds 
sampling unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, it is unreasonable not to proceed without this kind of 
obstruction.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan 
amendment. I do not believe politics should play a part in the 2000 
census. It is too important to our country.
  We all know how important polls are to the Clinton administration. 
They base most of their decisions on polls. But do we want them to base 
the 2000 census on a poll? I think not. The American people understand 
that polls are not very accurate and, as we have heard, even President 
Clinton understands that. He has called the 2000 census scheme a poll. 
Sometimes it is wrong, he has said.
  Do we really want to use an inaccurate poll as the basis for 
representation of all levels of government for the next 10 years? Can 
the American people really trust a census that is based on a poll taken 
by the Clinton administration? Mr. Chairman, the American people 
deserve a census that is honest and reliable, one they can trust, not a 
population poll.
  Let me show my colleagues a poll conducted last week by McLaughlin & 
Associates. People were asked in a scientific survey, a national 
survey, ``Do you approve or disapprove of the Clinton administration's 
plan to replace an actual head count with statistical sampling in order 
to conduct the 2000 census?''
  Here are the results. Overall, 19 percent approved, 66 percent 
disapproved, 14 do not know. Black, 33 percent approved, 52 percent 
disapprove and 14 do not know. Hispanic, 22 percent approve, 62 percent 
disapprove, 15 percent do not know.
  We can see the results.

                              {time}  1130

  The bottom line is all groups in society, over 50 percent, 
disapprove. If the Clinton administration likes polling, if they 
believe polling, he ought to listen to the people. This is an updated, 
recent poll.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am amazed that my Republican colleagues are saying it 
is the President and the administration who are politicizing the 
census. That is not true. But do not take my word for it.
  I would like to borrow some of the words from editorials published 
all across this Nation which make it crystal clear who is interjecting 
politics into the census debate.
  The Christian Science Monitor, April 28, 1998. It says,

       The real issue is political, not constitutional. Some of 
     the GOP party don't really want a more accurate count on the 
     hardest-to-find Americans, the poor and new immigrants, 
     larger numbers in those categories could affect the political 
     character of congressional districts. Specifically, it might 
     become harder to create ``safe'' Republican seats.

  Consider this. Buffalo News, June 15, 1998:
       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.

  Consider this also. Newsday, June 16, 1997:

       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.

  Consider the Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1998:

       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 who 
     are afraid of losing power do not always act reasonably.

  There you have it, from many different sources. It is my Republican 
colleagues, not the President, not the administration, who are trying 
to manipulate the census count for political advantage and not for the 
Nation's interest.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan Amendment.
  The year 2000 will usher in a new decade, a new century and, for the 
first time in at least ten generations, a new millennium.
  Perhaps more than any other time in history, every citizen should be 
counted, and the count should be accurate.

[[Page H7193]]

  The Mollohan Amendment will ensure that every citizen is counted.
  On the other hand, the Bill, as written, will cost more and count 
less.
  Do we really want a repeat of 1990, Mr. Speaker, when millions were 
double counted and millions more were not counted at all?
  Do we really want to once again exclude poor people, minorities and 
rural residents? There is an under count in rural areas contrary to 
some in the majority.
  The 1990 undercount of 4 million people also had a disproportionate 
impact on women and their children, particularly women on ranches and 
farms.
  If small farmers and ranchers are struggling to survive, and they 
are, think of what is happening today to women on those ranches and 
farms.
  If we accept the current census count, of the nearly 2 million farms 
in the United States, only six percent are operated by women.
  According to the current census data, among all the farms in my 
state, North Carolina, only three-fourths of one percent are held by 
women.
  And, because of the current data, in 1992, women in North Carolina 
received only twelve percent of the loans from the Commodity Credit 
Corporation and only about one-half of one percent of Government 
Payments.
  The data collected by the year 2000 Census will affect social, 
economic, and political decisions for years and years to come.
  The current census data simply does not include many of the women who 
actually own farms.
  This low count can be corrected, in part, but using sampling 
techniques to supplement the actual count.
  The inaccurate picture of women on ranches and farms is also due to 
the type of information collected by the Census Bureau and the 
Agriculture Department in their yearly count.
  Currently, federal forms allow only one individual to be listed as 
the ``primary producer''--or ``owner'' of the farm.
  If a man and woman jointly own a farm, usually it is the male whose 
name is on the census form.
  If a woman's name is not on the form, the woman in not counted.
  These uncounted women, then, did not have the opportunity to benefit 
farm training, technical assistance, loans, and other programs that can 
help farm women.
  These women farm owners were not factors in funding decision, setting 
agricultural policy, and forecasting markets and future needs.
  The Mollohan Amendment will give the professional counting experts 
the resources they need to do the job they must do.
  The Mollohan Amendment will ensure that we have a fair count in 2000, 
a count that treats every American the same.
  Mr. Chairman, the Census determines representation and taxation in 
America. Women farmers and ranchers deserve to be counted. They too are 
American. I urge support for the Mollohan Amendment.

 Census Data in the United States Do Not Adequately Capture the Number 
 of Citizens in Rural Areas Including Minorities and Women Who Own and 
                             Work on Farms


                     that is why we need sampling!

       Some women jointly own farms with their husbands, because 
     of the way the data are collected, they are not counted.
       In 1992, women received only 12% of the Commodity Credit 
     Corporation Loans and .06% of Government Payments.
       Additionally, women who work on farms are not adequately 
     counted either because they work one part of the day in one 
     location and the other part in another location.
       Without accurate census data, such as that achieved with 
     sampling, in 1990 millions of citizens were counted twice and 
     millions more were not counted at all.
       Without accurate census data, such as that achieved with 
     sampling, in 1992 of the 1.9 million farmers counted 
     nationally: Only 18,816--(less than 1%) were Afro-American; 
     only 29,956--(less than 1.5%) were Hispanic; only 8,346--
     (less than \1/2\%) were Native American; and only 145,000--
     (less than 7%) were women farmers.
       Without accurate census data, such as that achieved with 
     sampling, in 1992, of the approximately 2,500 farms counted 
     in North Carolina, .075--(less than 1%) were reported as 
     being controlled by women.

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
  (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the only way in 
which anyone can have a disagreement on the question of the census is 
that Republicans are purely political and the Democrats take the usual 
high moral ground, they are right and we are wrong. That is 
interesting.
  I love the quote about ``telling the truth is a political, not a 
moral matter,'' which was in today's Washington Post, and I think that 
sums up a lot of the response of my colleagues on the Democratic side. 
We are playing politics, they are not.
  The Chief of Staff sent a letter saying, ``There is no need for a 
Government shutdown. But if there is one, it will be because 
Republicans have either not done their job on time and finished the 
budget or have decided to short-change critical investments in our 
Nation's future.''
  The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) clearly outlined the 
President's position. That is, he wants to shut the entire Department 
of Commerce, Department of State, Department of Justice down over this 
vote.
  Now, I can understand why he wants to shut down the Federal 
Judiciary. We know that when he reappointed Janet Reno that the 
Department of Justice was pretty well shut down. But clearly, the 
Department of State, the first department created, that department 
which deals with international relations, ought to at least extend the 
full year given the President's emphasis on international relations. 
Now his statement and White House Chief of Staff Bowles' is not a 
political statement that he wants to shut those down for 6 months.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) I am sure offers a 
well-intentioned amendment. If you have read it carefully, what it does 
is it locks in the sampling position. Why does he have to lock it in in 
his amendment? Because, frankly, the Constitution is on our side, the 
laws are on our side, history and precedent are on our side.
  But, no, the Democrats cannot make this an argument over the 
Constitution, article I, section 2; it has to be about race baiting, it 
has to be about political advantage. It is not possible that 
Republicans believe the Constitution says what it says.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not have time to yield. I do not 
even have enough time to go through the points that I think absolutely 
need to be made.
  If my colleagues will examine what they are asking to do, contrary to 
current law, is to poll. They use the term ``sampling.'' Sampling is 
polling. It is creating a piece and then extrapolating to the whole.
  Their argument is that is more accurate than counting. Have we had 
infallible counts in the past? No. Are we bound and determined to do a 
good job? Yes. Is there disagreement right now? Yes. Will we have more 
information in February and March? Yes. Should we make a decision now? 
No.
  When we take a look at polling, sampling simply fills in the blanks. 
Probably my colleagues saw Jurassic Park, in which they had most of the 
DNA code, but they had to fill in the blanks with what they thought was 
the appropriate profile on the DNA code.
  What these people are asking us to do is to count some Americans and 
then fill in the rest. But it is more insidious than that, because 
sampling does not just do that. It is not like normal polling, where 
they take a random sample and assume the universe from that random 
sample.
  What they actually are going to do is count people and then not count 
them. They are going to replace people who have actually been counted 
with virtual people that the statisticians make up. And that is not 
political?
  Let me talk about politics. We created a bipartisan census oversight 
board to assist us in trying to come to a very difficult, very complex 
constitutional decision. Guess who they appointed? They appointed a 
fellow by the name of Tony Coehlo. A lot of people do not know Tony 
Coehlo.
  In 1988, a book was written by Brooks Jackson, who was then a Wall 
Street Journal reporter, called Honest Graft. What he did was follow 
Tony Coehlo around for a year and then wrote a book about what he saw.
  He says in the introduction, ``Congressman Tony Coehlo runs a modern-
day political machine, a sort of new Tammany Hall, in which money and 
pork barrel legislation have become the new patronage.''
  Tony Coehlo did it better than anyone else. He moved rapidly through 
the ranks of Democratic leadership, became Majority Whip; and then in 
the

[[Page H7194]]

words of those famous poet songwriters, Paul Simon & Garfunkel, he was 
``one step ahead of the shoe shine, two steps away from the county 
line; he was just trying to keep his customers satisfied, satisfied.''
  He resigned from the House of Representatives. He is the one that 
they chose out of everybody in the world to be the key person on this 
oversight board. Talk about politics.
  What the chairman is advocating in this proposal, fund it for a year, 
fence it for the last 6 months, get better information, and then make a 
solid constitutional decision is exactly the right thing to do. Vote 
down the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), who 
also has been a real leader on this issue.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Mollohan 
amendment.
  The census is critical to our country as it is the basis upon which 
decisions are made that directly impact every community in our Nation.
  Without a fair and accurate census, States lose their fair share of 
an annual $170 billion in Federal funds that could support children's 
education, senior health services, and job training programs. 
Communities could also lose state and local government funds for 
services and infrastructure, and many communities will lose jobs and 
economic opportunities since businesses use census data to make 
decisions like the hiring and the firing of employees and the opening 
of new businesses.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people cannot afford to have us repeat the 
grievous mistake of the 1990 census when 4 million people were missed, 
80 percent of whom were urban Americans, 50 percent of whom were 
children, and 80 percent of whom were Latinos, African-Americans, 
Asian-Americans, and American Indians living on reservations.
  And many States lost as a result of the 1990 undercount, as well. For 
example, the 1 million Californians that were not counted resulted in 
the State of California losing 1 congressional seat and at least $1 
billion in Federal funds.
  Mr. Chairman, the stakes are very high. It is outrageous that the 
Republicans are forcing the Census Bureau to use outdated technology 
that will again miss millions of Americans. If we are willing to ignore 
communities of people and make then victims of neglect, what does that 
say about us as a country?
  I ask the Republican leadership to put the interest of the country 
ahead of politics and support the Mollohan amendment to make every 
person in the country count.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on some of the language being 
used by the opposition.
  Tony Coehlo. I do not know how Tony Coehlo gets in this debate. I 
guess if on the merits they do not have anything more to say that they 
start ad hominem discourse or even attack somebody who is not even 
here. So I hope we do not continue doing that.
  Also, I would like to comment about the use of words like ``polling'' 
and ``cloning'' techniques. These are very unscientific terms. They are 
disparaging terms. It just makes me have to ask, why does every 
statistical association, professional association line up in favor of 
statistical sampling, they do not use words like ``polling'' and 
``cloning.'' These words are not a part of the vernacular of these 
professionals who recommend statistical sampling in this context.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would simply comment on the repeated 
references to the unconstitutionality of sampling or the court's ruling 
that sampling is not valid.
  That is absolutely the opposite. Every Federal district court, 
circuit court that has looked at this has said that sampling is 
constitutional and lawful.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).
  (Mr. PETRI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mollohan Amendment. The 
Constitution provides for an actual enumeration of our nation's 
population every ten years.
  Speaking of possible tax levies on the states, Alexander Hamilton 
said in ``The Federalist 36,'' ``the proportion of these taxes is not 
to be left to the discretion of the national Legislature: but is to be 
determined by the numbers of each State as described in the second 
section of the first article. An actual census or enumeration of the 
people must furnish the rule; a circumstance which effectually shuts 
the door to partiality or oppression.'' Hamilton was wise. We open 
ourselves to partiality and oppression if we open the census to 
manipulation.
  From the first constitutionally mandated census in 1790 to the most 
recent in 1990, our government has used the most modern means available 
to perform as complete an actual head count of our population as 
possible. Now, for the first time, our census bureau proposes to 
undertake less than a complete census and then to adjust its count to 
what experts estimate to be a complete count. One reason advanced for 
this departure from 200 years of practice is that an incomplete count 
would save money. Well, this Congress is prepared to spend the money 
necessary for a first class full enumeration. And, I dare say, recent 
advances in communications and data technology should enable the bureau 
to successfully complete a more accurate actual enumeration than ever 
before in our nation's history.
  ``But doing a 90% count and then adjusting it will be cheaper, more 
accurate, and fairer,'' says the census bureau. Leaving aside the fact 
that you can't possibly know when you have completed 90% because you 
don't know what 100% is; and leaving aside the fact that the Congress 
is manifestly prepared to appropriate the funds required for a first 
class census rather than an economy model; what's wrong with adjusting 
the numbers to reflect estimated non-participation in the census 
process by residents who, for whatever reason, fail to participate? 
What's wrong is that this is a zero sum game. To the extent the census 
bureau adjusts the figures to increase the numbers for non-
participants, it reduces the representation and flow of federal funds 
for others who discharge their civic responsibility to participate in 
the census process.

  And there will be a tremendous price to pay in civic morale if this 
unprecedented change if forced into effect on a partisan basis.
  First of all, whether warranted or not, the fact that this change is 
insisted upon and forced into effect along largely political party 
lines will give rise to the belief that the census adjustment is being 
implemented for partisan advantage.
  Secondly, the fact that the change to an administratively determined 
adjusted census figure is most strongly advocated by those whose power 
and authority will be increased by this new approach, will give rise to 
the conviction that the adjusted figure is the result not of a search 
for greater truth, but rather of the pursuit of advantage for those in 
control of the adjustment process.
  And thirdly, the fact that actual participation in the census will no 
longer really affect the count will result in a decline in 
participation and in an increase in skepticism, and public cynicism, 
toward basic institutions of government.
  Finally, I plead with my colleagues not to play partisan games that 
could jeopardize the census. Do not insist, on a partisan basis, for 
the first time, on an incomplete count and adjustment. Let us go 
forward, as we always have in the past, with a complete enumeration and 
do all that we can to make it as complete as is humanly possible. Then 
adjust if you think it improves things and we will settle it in court.
  But to do a partial count and adjustment going in, without even 
attempting a complete count, will confront our people and the courts 
with a fait-accompli. If the courts then throw out that sampling-based 
census, we'll have to do it all over again, at tremendous cost, 
possibly delaying redistricting, and inviting public disgust.
  Defeat the Mollohan Amendment!
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it curious how many times the Constitution seems 
to get in the way of this administration. It did so in Kyoto, when 
rather than get a treaty agreed to by the Senate, they are trying to 
put it in effect by regulation. They did it with the INS during the 
last election.
  Now the Constitution is in the way again because they want a poll to 
find out who lives in America, count 90 percent of them and poll the 
rest. And guess who they are?
  Polling is what statistical sampling is. I know my colleagues do not 
want

[[Page H7195]]

to use that word because the President sent a memo saying do not use 
that word. They tested it and it does not test very well. But 
statistical sampling is polling.
  I oppose the Mollohan amendment. I support the carefully crafted bill 
of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). The chairman has succeeded 
in crafting an effective plan to ensure that the administration and the 
Congress jointly decide how to conduct the 2000 Census.
  Unfortunately, the Mollohan amendment undermines their plan in favor 
of an untested, unproven population polling scheme. Supporters of the 
Mollohan amendment are always quick to cite the National Academy of 
Sciences as a supporter of their population polling ideas. 
Unfortunately, much like sampling, the statement appears true in the 
abstract but falls apart under scrutiny.
  Is it true that the National Academy of Sciences has created an ad 
hoc committee to study the census? Absolutely. Is it true that these 
committees are composed of National Academy member scholars? Absolutely 
not. In fact, only one Academy member serves on the 15-member committee 
looking at the 2000 census.
  Are the committee members carefully selected for service? Absolutely 
not. Are they carefully selected to get a broad range of views? 
Absolutely not. The panel members come from liberal think tanks and 
Democrat politics and are chosen because of their pro-polling views.
  In my review of the panel members, I could not find a single neutral 
thinker, much less a conservative one. How easy it must be to get a 
favorable report from a hand-picked panel stacked with sympathetic 
thinkers.
  When your panel believes in population polling as a concept, the only 
question they are left with is how, not why or whether.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, when answering why or whether to engage in this 
population estimation, even this much-trumpeted, hand-picked, Democrat-
defined pro-population polling panel would agree with me that even if 
sampling works in theory, it can fail in practice. It can, it has, and 
it will. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Mollohan amendment and 
support the base bill.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. SAWYER. Let me just offer a rejoinder on behalf of the National 
Academy of Sciences from its president in a letter sent to me 
yesterday:

       Since 1863, the Academy's most valuable contribution to the 
     Federal Government has been to provide unbiased, high-quality 
     scientific advice on controversial, complex issues. Committee 
     members are nationally recognized experts in their fields, 
     and they serve without compensation. The Academy balances the 
     membership of each committee to ensure that the study is 
     carried out in an objective and unbiased manner with 
     conclusions based solely on the scientific evidence. The 
     committee's draft is then reviewed by independent reviewers, 
     released in final form only after meeting the standards of 
     quality and objectivity set by the Academy.
  Mr. LINDER. I have no doubt that the chairman thinks he is a fine 
person.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).
  (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Mollohan 
amendment. Not long ago, minority communities were prevented from being 
represented through violence and repression. Today's method is far more 
subtle.
  Let us be honest. Today's debate is not about the way we should 
conduct the census. This is a debate about whose voice will be heard 
and whose voice will be silenced. By not counting minorities, opponents 
of a fair census can justify slashing resources to these communities. 
In New York City alone, just looking at seven Federal programs, 
including Head Start, the city lost more than $400 million as a result 
of the 1990 undercount.
  Worst of all, political representation will be denied at every level. 
Think of the message you are sending to minority communities. You are 
telling the American people that these communities do not deserve 
proper representation.
  My colleagues, conducting an accurate census is a matter of basic 
fairness and democracy. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Mollohan 
amendment, quite simply because it would allow the Census Bureau to 
continue preparation for the 2000 census without the risk of funding 
disruptions in the middle of their crucial planning process.
  We all remember the impossible situation the government shutdown of 3 
years ago placed on the ability of government agencies to continue 
necessary work. I believe it is important that we not place the Census 
Bureau in that position again as it prepares for one of the most 
important government functions outlined by the Constitution: obtaining 
an accurate count of all Americans.
  I want to emphasize that accuracy is critical, in fact, the only 
relevant issue as we prepare for the 2000 census. We all acknowledge 
that millions of people were missed in the 1990 census. While much of 
the debate on correcting the undercount of the census is centered 
around the number of people not counted in urban areas, as one who 
represents a rural district I want to highlight the fact that people in 
rural areas of the country are missed as well. In fact, some rural 
areas are undercounted to a greater degree than the entire country.
  According to the Census Bureau, the net undercount for the Nation in 
1990 was 1.6 percent, while renters in rural areas were undercounted at 
a rate of 5.9 percent. That means rural renters were undercounted 
nearly four times the national average. It is important that we give 
the Census Bureau the resources necessary to ensure an accurate count 
for all Americans in rural and urban areas.
  The Mollohan amendment ensures the Census Bureau will be able to 
obtain the most accurate count possible in a cost-efficient manner. In 
a time when we have such pressing budget needs like home health care, 
independent oil and gas needs, drought assistance and many other 
crucial areas, it is not responsible to restrict the Census Bureau from 
using a cost-efficient plan that utilizes sound science.
  The Census Bureau, under the direction of President George Bush 
appointee Barbara Bryant and the National Academy of Sciences, 
developed the Census Bureau's plan to use modern scientific methods to 
obtain the most accurate count possible; not all of the other 
allegations we have heard today. This came from that individual and 
that plan and that is the way it should be. This plan is supported by 
scientists and statistical experts in the field. The plan uses the same 
methods that determine the gross national product and the national 
unemployment rate.
  On Friday national figures on unemployment rates will be released. I 
cannot imagine that anyone will rise up in outrage questioning the 
validity of those numbers. Why is it that in so many other government 
functions, such as unemployment rates, that science is not questioned? 
Why should we abandon science for partisanship in this issue?
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment so the Census 
Bureau can use its cost-efficient plan to obtain an accurate count in 
2000.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and I rise in very strong opposition to the Mollohan amendment. I 
oppose it because it is dangerous, I oppose it because it is 
fundamentally unfair to minorities, and particularly to the most 
undercounted minority in the last census, and I speak from experience.
  In the 1990 census I worked as a lawyer in the Arizona legislature 
advising the legislature on restricting. I worked every day on census 
tracks and census blocks. I can tell Members that while

[[Page H7196]]

sampling, or polling, as the proponents of the Mollohan amendment want, 
may work in theory, in practice it will not work. And beyond that, the 
census sampling proposal by the Census Bureau this year is 
fundamentally unfair to minorities.
  Let us start with the beginning. Number one, many of my colleagues 
have pointed out that sampling is less accurate in small areas. The 
most important part of sampling is redistricting.
  Redistricting is built from very small census blocks, which can be as 
small as 10 or 20 people or as large as thousands of people. But when 
you go and work on the maps as I did in 1990, and you are working with 
tiny little blocks that have 200 or 300 people in them or less, 
guessing, or sampling, will produce incredible inaccuracies. It is in 
that regard less accurate.
  Second, they propose that we are going to do an actual count of 90 
percent and then guess the last 27 million people, another 10 percent. 
My 12-year-old son can tell me, ``Dad, how do I know if I've got 90 
percent if I don't know what 100 percent is?'' Their answer to that is, 
``We're going to guess at what 100 percent is.'' Therefore when we say 
we have gotten to 90 percent, that will be a guess. That is a massive 
invitation for fraud and problems.
  But let us talk about the human motivations. Since the founding of 
this country, we have told Americans, ``It is your duty to turn in your 
form and to tell the government about your family, fill out your census 
form.'' This year we are going to send a very different message under 
the Mollohan amendment. We are going to tell people, ``Send in your 
form but, oh, by the way, it doesn't matter because we're not going to 
count you.'' As a matter of fact, as was pointed out earlier by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), we may even take you when you 
turn in your form and reject your form.
  But let us talk about the most important issue, fundamental fairness 
to Native Americans. Their proposal, if they were concerned about 
fairness, is insane. They say that the current system undercounts 
minorities. The single most undercounted minority in the last census 
was Native Americans. Yet under the Census Bureau plan, for no rational 
reason, Native Americans will not be sampled.
  We will sample Hispanics, we will sample blacks, we will sample inner 
cities, but Native Americans we are going to actually count. We will 
not even sample for them, yet they were the most undercounted in the 
last census. Their proposal is fundamentally unfair to the most 
undercounted Americans in this Nation.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the Mollohan amendment as unfair and 
flawed.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not a statistician. It just amazes me that some 
Members in this debate would kind of hold themselves out to making 
final conclusions about methods of conducting the census and 
disparaging statistical sampling when they are not experts, I do not 
think they have been qualified as experts, and they are really going up 
against the major statistical professional associations in the country, 
and they are opposing their view that sampling is valid and the best 
technique to get a real count of the number of people in our country.
  Let me just list them again. Recommending the use of statistical 
sampling in the 2000 census to get an accurate count of the number of 
people in this country are none less than the American Statistical 
Association, the Population Association of America, American 
Sociological Association, the Council of Professional Associations on 
Federal Statistics, the Consortium of Social Science Associations, and 
the National Academy of Sciences rounds out that very distinguished 
group, just so folks understand what they are coming up against.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, much has been said about this 
debate. Much is going to be said. But after all is said and done, there 
are some facts that will remain the same. Fact number one, African-
Americans and the poor have been undercounted in this country since 
1790. Even the Constitution allowed for African-Americans, for blacks, 
to be counted as three-fifths of a person. Now there are those who 
would tell us 200 years later that it is all right for the poor to be 
undercounted because they are hard to find. It is all right because you 
do not know where they are. It is all right because they live way out 
in rural America. It is all right because they live under the viaducts 
in the big urban cities.
  The only way that the people of this country will be counted is to 
pass the Mollohan amendment. We missed almost 9 million people the last 
time, 9 million of the poorest people in America. Millions of dollars 
of entitlement moneys should have gone to them and to their cities. It 
is amazing to me that someone could come to the floor of this House and 
suggest that sampling is unfair to the minorities in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge, let us be real, let us be serious. Every 
newspaper in America, and we do not live by newspapers, but the Chicago 
Tribune, the Sun Times, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Buffalo 
Times, Commercial Appeal, from Memphis to Maine, all of the newspapers 
have said that scientific sampling and full funding of the census is 
the way to go.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Mollohan amendment for two 
reasons. First, this amendment strikes language in the bill that 
restricts funding for the Census Bureau. The amendment allows the 
Census Bureau to proceed with its plan to conduct the fairest and most 
accurate Census to date.
  The 2000 Census is perhaps one of the most important issues of our 
day. We are charged with the responsibility to ensure that everybody is 
counted. Because if you are not counted you do not count. Since the 
first Census in 1790, there was a significant undercount especially 
among the poor and disenfranchised. 200 years later in 1990, it is 
estimated that the census missed 8.8 million people.
  In Chicago, the City of the big shoulders, the 3rd largest City in 
the nation, a city with one of the largest concentrations of poverty in 
urban America, the undercount was about 2.4 percent, or about 68,000 
people which translates into at least 2 million dollars of entitlement 
money which could have and should have been used to feed the hungry, 
clothe the naked and provide shelter for the homeless. It is 
inconceivable that we could allow this to happen again and that is 
exactly what will happen unless we fully fund and implement a 
scientific approach to the census. The African American undercount in 
Chicago was between 5 and 6 percent. Most of those who were not counted 
were people living in cities and rural communities, African Americans, 
Latinos, Asians, and the poor.
  None of us believe that newspapers are always right, but we must 
admit that a cross section of them often have their fingers on the 
pulse of the people and all the way across America, Roll Call here in 
D.C., the Chicago Sun Times, the Buffalo News, the Chicago Tribune, the 
Christian Science Monitor, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, 
the Atlanta Constitution, the Bangor Maine Daily News, the St. Louis 
Post Dispatch, the Commercial Appeal in Memphis, the Houston Chronicle, 
the Dallas Morning News and others have all written about scientific 
sampling and full funding for the Census.
  They knew that when every American is not counted America loses, 
cities lose and people are denied valuable resources and representation 
in Congress, State Legislatures, County Boards and City Councils.
  Secondly, I am supporting this amendment because it avoids the risk 
of a census shutdown and serious disruptions to census preparation. 
This amendment ensures that the census bureau has sufficient funding to 
carry out its plan.
  This is a common sense amendment that allows the census bureau to 
move forward with their important work of making sure that we have the 
most accurate census possible. I urge my colleagues to support accuracy 
and support the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
  (Mr. PAPPAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Constitution 
and our Founding Fathers' wisdom to call for a ``full enumeration'' 
census and not a statistical sample that is bound to be flawed.
  Mr. Chairman, the census is one of the most important activities our 
government undertakes each decade and we should take it very seriously.
  The U.S. Constitution requires that a census be conducted every ten 
years in order to apportion the House of Representatives among

[[Page H7197]]

the 50 states. The entire configuration and redrawing of legislative 
districts from federal to state to local jurisdictions is based on the 
census and helps ensure the democratic principle of equal 
representation.
  But despite the seriousness of the census, the Administration has 
moved to ensure we have a failed census. Listen to the Government 
Accounting Office and even the Administration's own Commerce 
Department's Inspector General who have stated this sampling plan is 
``high risk.''
  Mr. Chairman, it is time to get serious about the census and follow 
the Constitution of the United States of America. I certainly have 
faith in our founding fathers belief in the importance of conducting an 
accurate census and we should as well. We should work for nothing less.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the chief deputy whip of the House.
  (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I am convinced that we are at the 
crossroads at the terms of the decennial census. Either we will pursue 
a census with the goal of actual enumeration or we will allow the 
Clinton administration to gamble on a population polling scheme with 
the stated aim of not even trying to count everyone in the system.
  I am sorry my good colleague from Illinois talks about bringing in 
racism in this thing. Not at all. What we really need to do is to look 
at this issue and make sure that every American is counted. We need to 
make an extraordinary effort to make sure that every American is 
counted. Every American should stand up and be counted in this country, 
not to be some statistic.
  What really happens in actuality, you take 90 percent of the people, 
those people who turn in their forms, that do the things they were 
requested to do, and then if you have 95 percent of the people that 
turn this in, you throw away 5 percent. You uncount people. That is 
wrong. That is absolutely wrong. It should not be done.

                              {time}  1200

  Then they take a statistical guess at who makes up the rest of that 
10 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, as my colleagues know, what we need to do is what is 
right for the American people. We need to count the American people, we 
may need to make an extraordinary effort so that every American is 
counted, and that is in the cities and countryside and suburbs and 
everywhere, that we have a true representation of who the American 
people are, who that American portrait is, because it is tied to 
something else. It ties the representation of this House. And, if we 
guess who the American people are, then we guess who should be 
represented in this House of Representatives.
  Mr. Chairman, that is not good enough for the American people.
  We need to move forward, we need to not take the advice of Barbara 
Bryant, who was the person who headed the 1990 Census that some people 
say 5 million miscounted or 9 million miscounted. We need to go forward 
and count and do the job that cities like Milwaukee and Indianapolis 
and Cincinnati did do, and even the guesstimate of the 5 million people 
was wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to be wrong on the 2000 Census.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the House Subcommittee which 
formerly had jurisdiction over the Census Bureau, I rise in opposition 
to the Mollohan amendment. I am convinced we are at the crossroads in 
terms of the decennial Census. Either we will pursue a Census with the 
goal of actual enumeration; or we will allow the Clinton Administration 
to gamble on a population polling scheme with the stated aim of not 
even trying to count everyone.
  I think it is important that the American people understand how the 
Clinton Administration is proposing to conduct our Census. Rather than 
trying to count people one-by-one, the Census Bureau is proposing a 
complicated, and highly risky, population polling scheme. In essence, 
they propose to count 90 percent and guess the rest. Why do they favor 
such a risky scheme?
  When asked, the Census Bureau claims ``trust us'' it will be more 
accurate and cost less. I beg to differ.
  While I wholeheartedly support both these goals of saving taxpayer 
dollars and making sure everyone is counted, I am not convinced that 
polling is the solution. In fact, the more I understand about the 
Administration's plan, the more I am convinced that polling will lead 
to a less accurate and ultimately more costly Census. Or, more likely, 
a failed Census.
  We have a basis to judge the Bureau's claim that polling will lead to 
a more accurate Census--the Post Enumeration Survey conducted during 
the 1990 Census. The results of this guesstimate suggested that 5 
million persons were not ``counted.'' The only problem is that these 
so-called ``scientific'' calculations were wrong. Because of a glitch 
in the computer software, 2,500 cases were misidentified. While 2,500 
cases in a census of 250 million seems trivial, because of the use of 
sampling this mistake was magnified many times. In 1990, once the error 
was identified, the Census Bureau reduced it's estimate of the 
undercount by a million persons. As the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted 
just last week, ``garbage in, garbage out.''
  As disturbing as the potential for technical errors is--and the 
General Accounting Office noted that similar software problems 
persist--I am particularly concerned about what will happen to Census 
forms turned in on time, by real people. Because of the use of 
statistical adjustment, real people will be deleted from the Census. 
Let me repeat--the Clinton Administration proposes to delete real 
people from the Census. Once again the 1990 Census poll illustrates 
this point. Had we used statistical adjustment for the 1990 Census, 
people in 9 counties in my home State of Illinois would have been 
deleted from the Census. Yes, Mr. Chairman, they would have been 
dropped from the Census because some poll said they did not exist, even 
though they turned in their forms--this is wrong. But don't take my 
word for it, Howard Hogan, the Acting Chief of the Decennial 
Statistical Studies Division, admitted that nearly 1.5 million records 
would have been subtracted had adjustment been used.
  To me, the Census is not just a process. It is a decennial portrait 
of the Nation. Every 10 years, each person has the affirmative right to 
be counted. What do we say to the person who lives in Elgin, IL, who 
says ``I am a 24-year-old American of Irish descent, who lives in an 
apartment with my husband and 3-year-old son, and my form was deleted 
from the sample?'' I, for one, am not willing to tell her: ``Don't 
worry. Although, we did not count you, we polled people like you and 
our odds of guessing your information correctly are quite good.'' I ask 
you, how can this be more accurate?
  I have pointed to several problems I see with the Bureau's plan to 
supplant enumeration with polling. I also have pointed out that our 
experience with polling during the 1990 Census was not a good one. 
Although the Census Bureau assures us that we should not worry, that 
the problems of 1990 are in the past, I remain unconvinced for a 
variety of reasons:
  First, the Census Bureau has not solved many of the operational 
problems which plagued the 1990 sampling plan. During the  2000 Census, 
the Bureau plans to poll 750,000 households in less time than it took 
them to poll only \1/5\ of that number in 1990. And, given the strict 
deadlines that the Bureau faces to get the population numbers 
reported--at the same time Americans will be struggling with their tax 
forms--shouldn't we be concerned about quick fixes, made on-the-fly, to 
the adjustment models in order to get the results done? Do we really 
want this much power in the hands of a dozen people at the Census 
Bureau?

  Further, a critical element of the population polling scheme, the 
Master Address File, is seriously flawed. The GAO pointed out that, for 
two test locations in 1995, the Master Address File did not include 
about six percent of the addresses identified through field 
verifications; and that some of the addresses belong to commercial 
buildings, not households. How can the Census Bureau conduct a random 
poll of all the households in America if it can't even identify where 
people live?
  Finally Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the potential for 
political manipulation in this plan. Although the Clinton 
Administration has assured us that politics will not be part of this 
census, I am not convinced. They have said ``trust us'' before, 
remember Citizenship USA. For instance, the decision to count only 90 
percent of the population is itself an arbitrary figure. I have heard 
no scientific rationale why 90 percent is the magic number. What if 
they are not able to reach this goal? Does this mean that the Census 
will have failed? Not according to the Census Bureau. The dirty little 
secret of this plan is that the poll, not actual enumeration, is their 
first priority. In short, under the Census scheme proposed by this 
Administration, actually counting people is incidental to the final 
count--our population, and it's characteristics, will be determined by 
polling guesstimates. Why did the Census Bureau decide that they needed 
to count 90 percent of the population? Mr. Chairman, it is my belief 
that this figure itself was chosen for political reasons--it was the 
smallest number they felt the Congress and the American people

[[Page H7198]]

could swallow. The plan to count 90 percent is a fig leaf, a 
subterfuge, a sham designed to cover-up their population polling 
scheme. Make no mistake about it, the final numbers will be determined 
by a poll and they will not be dependent in any way, shape, or form 
upon actual enumeration. Furthermore, if for any reason the polling 
scheme fails, we are up the proverbial creek because the Census Bureau 
will have stopped counting at 90 percent.
  Let me be clear, I strongly support the goal of a more-accurate 
census. However, I believe we can accomplish this using methods we know 
work. First, the linchpin of any good census plan, is to insure that 
the Master Address File is accurate. As of this date, we have no 
assurance that this will be done in time. Secondly, we need to engage 
in a significant outreach program to get local and state officials, as 
well as community leaders, involved in the census. Finally, we need to 
engage our local communities. We need to organize census events and 
educational programs. We need to reach out to minority leaders. We need 
to assure people who, for whatever reason view participation in the 
Census with suspicion, that all their specific information is 
confidential.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we can do an accurate Census; one in which the 
goal is to count everyone--certainly not count some and guess about 
others. As Chairman of the Subcommittee formerly with jurisdiction over 
the Census, I asked the Commerce Department's Under Secretary in charge 
of the Census a simple question: If a bank teller gave you a stack of 
one dollar bills and told you that he thought that there were $1,000 
there, how would you react? Would you accept the guess, or would you 
count them? With reluctance, the Under Secretary finally admitted that 
in order to be sure he got all his money, he would count it.
  Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more. In order to be accurate, let's 
count all the people in 2000 and not bank our future on a population 
polling scheme. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Mollohan Amendment 
and to support an accurate count.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we all agree on that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of a fair and 
accurate census have implied that both the Inspector General and the 
GAO have said that the 2000 Census is headed toward failure because of 
the use of statistical methods. In fact, just the opposite is true. The 
Inspector General said in testimony before Congress:

       I have fully supported and have been recommending sampling 
     for some time. In fact, the Bureau needs to increase the 
     amount of sampling over that presently planned.

  Nye Stevens, who directs this issue at the GAO, also testified before 
a Republican controlled Congress and said:

       We are particularly encouraged by the decision to adopt 
     sampling among the nonresponse population. We have long 
     advocated this step.

  Both the GAO and the Commerce I.G. have endorsed the use of 
statistical methods in the census and have criticized the Census Bureau 
for not using them more.
  Mr. Chairman, the risk of a failed census is increased by those who 
want to cut off funding for the census in midyear. Earlier this year 
the GAO said the longer this disagreement between Congress and the 
administration continues, the greater the risk of a failed 2000 Census.
  The American people deserve an accurate count.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have to rise in opposition to this 
amendment, and the question today is quite simple to me: Do we decide 
to use polls to conduct the census, or do we actually count the people 
as required under the Constitution? Can we trust this President to do 
what is right?
  Now this amendment makes it easier for this administration to use 
polls to conduct the census. As the President said in Houston, if I can 
have that brought over here:

       Most people understand that a poll taken before an election 
     is a statistical sample, and sometimes it's wrong, but often, 
     more often than not, it's right.

  So, every time the Mollohan amendment supporters say ``sampling,'' 
have the word ``poll'' in mind, because, Mr. Chairman, this is taking 
polling to a very new level.
  What is next? Should we poll to see if the Clinton campaign broke the 
law in the last election? Should we poll to see if Ken Starr is doing 
his job? Well, Mr. Chairman, the President is a master when it comes to 
manipulating the polls, but sometimes polls are not enough. Sometimes 
the American people need to know the truth. And when it comes to the 
census, the Constitution requires that we know the truth.
  The most amazing thing about this polling scheme is that it will 
delete real people who happen to be members of a demographic group who 
are overrepresented. Can my colleagues imagine that? Deleting real 
people? Do my colleagues think that the Founding Fathers ever imagined 
a census count that actually uncounted citizens of this country? That 
is what they are proposing: uncounting citizens of this Nation.
  So, Mr. Chairman, we have to defeat this amendment and stop this 
polling madness. The Constitution requires a count of the people, not a 
poll of the people.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, it is becoming very clear that there is a real fright 
in this House among some Members if we go out and truly count all of 
the American people, something we have never been able to do. The 1990 
Census, as we know, undercounted about 4 or 5 percent of Americans, and 
that is as close as we have ever come in trying to head count people. 
But there is a real concern on this side of the aisle in going after 
those groups that are traditionally undercounted, so much so that this 
House is preparing to pass legislation that would provide half-year 
funding for a whole host of agencies, not the least of which is the 
Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, no American would go out and shop for half a house. No 
American would go out there and buy half a car. No American would plan 
for half an education for his or her children. No American would buy 
half a loaf of bread. What we want is something that we can plan for in 
the future, and we do not have it in this bill.
  That is why the Mollohan amendment says:
  Let us fund the Department of Commerce, the Department of Justice and 
certainly the Bureau of Census all the way through, and if the courts 
should say that we are wrong in going with statistical sampling, and I 
cannot yield to the gentleman although I would love to yield if he 
yielded me time to do so.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Becerra), and, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman understand that this 
bill funds the entire year for all these agencies and only half a year 
for the Census Bureau?
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, that is not the way I see it. But I see 
what this majority has done is funded.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I tell the gentleman that that is not so.
  The gentleman is completely uninformed about what the bill does. We 
fund all of these agencies for the full year. The White House wants to 
cut it off after 6 months.
  Mr. BECERRA. And the chairman was very artful in the way he describes 
this.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I can 
straighten this out?
  Mr. BECERRA. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct with regard to the 
important pertinent part of this bill, and that is the Census Bureau. 
Indeed the Republican leadership in the House and the administration 
were, previous to our marking up the bill, talking about not funding 
the whole bill but only half the year. Well, that was nonsense. We did 
not do that. We funded the whole bill for half the year, except we 
carried on the nonsense with regard to the census, so in this bill only 
the census is not funded for the whole year. It stops at half a year, 
and it creates the same kind of malarkey and nonsense and instability 
in the census that we would have created with the whole bill if we had 
done the same thing.

[[Page H7199]]

  It is a bad thing to do. We just did it with the census and not the 
rest of the bill, which is horrible, and that is the reason the census 
is threatened, the very point the gentleman makes, that we are only 
funding the census for half a year, and that is why the 2000 Census is 
at risk. I thank the gentleman for making the point.
  Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, in 1991 then Congressman Newt Gingrich, 
now Speaker Newt Gingrich, said: ``Use statistical sampling to adjust 
the count from 1990 because my State of Georgia is not going to have 
everyone counted.''
  1998, the Republicans under the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) 
are trying to stop what he asked for in 1991. Why? Because there is 
such fright out there.
  Now who are we going to trust? The National Academy of Sciences and 
the scientists, the experts, who do counting? Who? President Bush?
  Then President Bush, said: ``Please tell us how best to do this.''
  He said: ``Let us use statistical sampling.''
  Or folks who said, ``We want you to use statistical sampling,'' when 
it benefited them but now are concerned about it?
  I will tell my colleagues this: Who should the American people trust? 
I would trust those who are devoted and have devoted a career to 
science, not to people who are devoted to a career of politics. That is 
what we have today.
  Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the American people could see through 
the charade and understand that there are some political risks that 
some folks are very concerned about, and, as a result, they are willing 
to play with the lives of American people who have never had a chance 
to participate in this process.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  The Commerce, State and Justice bill has become part of the Clinton 
regain-credibility-by-shutting-down-the-government strategy.
  We have a disagreement, or let us say Clinton has a disagreement. He 
wants to renege on last year's promise and shut down the government 
using any excuse to do it. And what was last year's bipartisan 
agreement? To maintain two tracks on the census:
  Number one, the constitutional route. Remember that little rule book 
so carefully crafted by our Founding Fathers which many on this side 
and the administration consider a suggestion book, but the Constitution 
says, ``You will count people head by head to make sure no one is left 
out and no one, wink wink, is put in who doesn't exist.''
  And then the Number Two: There is the polling method advocated by the 
President. The polling method is where we simply go out and we sample 
some of the population, we fill in the blanks on whatever discretion or 
whatever numbers we need.
  That is what this argument is about.
  Now think about this administration who has politicized the FBI, the 
BATF, the Immigration Service, the National Park Service, the Travel 
Service, the USDA and the EPA. Now they are doing the census service by 
bringing them into politics. And where is this Census Bureau who is so 
worried about their budget, so worried about the census crisis; where 
are they?
  Well, we have done a little investigation, Mr. Chairman, and here is 
where they are:
  Number one, the itinerary for the executives and the head bureaucrats 
over at the Census Bureau, they have got a busy month coming up:
  Rome, Italy, Trevoli Fountain, the Coliseum by moonlight. Paris, 
France, Champs Elysee by summer. Wiesbaden, Germany. I am getting ready 
for Octoberfest, beat the rush on the beer. Armenia. Well, everybody 
knows Armenians are experts in the census and then of course there is 
Malawi and Zomba, Malawi, which, as my colleagues know, I do not know 
exactly what they are, but I know they are real good at counting people 
and we need to go down there. And of course Rio de Janeiro. In case we 
miss Carnivale, we can go down there in the summertime. And then 
Taiwan. Of course. Census crisis, go to Taiwan. Makes sense to me. Will 
not have problems with missile technology transfers with their 
neighbor.
  The point is, if Clinton decides to shut down the government over 
this legislation, at least the Census Bureau will have enough frequent 
flyer points in the bank to keep running around the globe for another 3 
months.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who I am sure will speak to the 
issues in this debate.
  (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Repubs one 
question: What is this? Some kind of a treatise on the Clinton 
administration? What is it? An inquiry on the Clinton administration? 
Or is it a dissertation on the census? That is what we are here for. We 
are here to talk about the census.
  And I want to tell my colleagues something. It is not funny to me. It 
is not funny because they have undercounted the people I represent, and 
they not only undercounted them, they did it in the last census and 
they are doing it again.

                              {time}  1215

  But it is funny to you. But it is not funny to me, because since the 
beginning of this country, you have grinned and scoffed at freedom for 
the people I represent.
  There are a lot of things in this census that you are not even 
thinking about. The Voting Rights Act is in there. My people died for 
the right to vote. If you are going to skew the figures because you do 
not want to count them correctly, that removes the humor from this 
situation for me. For the past six censuses you have undercounted 
African-Americans. It is time to tell this country we want everybody 
counted.
  I have been working on this census issue since the 104th Congress. 
Mr. Clinger was the chairman of the committee at that time. I could not 
get a sentence to the front. Once we got a sentence to the front, we 
could not get a hearing. So it has been just a sequential means of 
gagging the Democrats about the census.
  Now the time for this gag is over. You may as well cut it out, 
because we are going to let the American public know that you are 
taking the right that the Constitution gave us, enumeration. Define it 
for me. I have never seen it defined in the Constitution. It does not 
say that you count every head, that that is enumeration. Enumeration 
could include sampling. You cannot prove to me through any kind of 
empirical observation that it means what you are saying it means.
  Now you are telling me today that you know that there will be an 
inadequate count, you know there is going to be an undercount, yet you 
are taking the risk to say so.
  My good friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and we are 
good friends, but he discussed this morning that we are working on 
something to help this counting, this regular enumeration.
  How are we going to do it? I offered an amendment to the Republicans. 
They hardly let me get in the door of the Committee on Rules, let alone 
let the amendment be declared eligible for the floor.
  There is no way we are going to be able to use these people who work 
in the neighborhoods to help bring about an adequate count, even by 
their own best estimate, and that is using enumerators. I have not been 
able to get that through the census.
  I want to say one more thing, and then I am going to yield, because I 
know the gentleman is frustrated. What you have been doing is saying we 
are going to throw a pile of money at the census just so we can utilize 
these old, worn-out, tired methods. You are going to put as much 
megabucks in there as you can.
  But I do not care how much money you put there, you are not going to 
be able to count them all. You have got to use some method to count 
them. But that is not why I am here. I am saying again, use the best 
method you can.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I completely agree with the 
gentlewoman that we need to get people.

[[Page H7200]]

When I was on the floor earlier, I spoke about how we need to work 
together to get people in the local communities. In the Haitian 
community in Miami, we need to get Haitians. We will get legislation to 
give the government all the possibilities. That is exactly what we need 
to do.
  Mrs. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I trust the 
gentleman, but I do not trust those other people helping you make these 
decisions, because if we do not use some people in the neighborhood, we 
will not get an accurate count. It is fruitless to try to count every 
person with that old traditional method. It did not work before, it is 
not going to work now. My appeal to you, to this Congress, is that it 
is impossible.
  So I draw one conclusion, and I will sit down: There are some that do 
not want an adequate census.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Davis), a member of the Subcommittee on Census.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Mollohan amendment.
  We have heard a great deal about the National Academy of Sciences and 
their endorsement of the population polling scheme for Census 2000. Let 
me let you in on a little secret: The distinguished members of the 
National Academy of Sciences have not endorsed the plan. Indeed, the 
entire membership of the National Academy never endorses anything.
  So what then are these three blue ribbon panels at the National 
Academy? The NAS regularly convenes these panels to study important 
problems facing the country or government, but members of the 
committees need not be members of the National Academy of Sciences. 
Indeed, most of the time there are very few National Academy of 
Sciences members on the committee at all.
  Let me give an example. One of the three panels endorsing the use of 
polling to adjust the census was called the Panel on Census 
Requirements for the Year 2000 and Beyond. There were 20 people working 
on that committee. How many actual members of the National Academy of 
Sciences? One. That is right, just one.
  The other 19 members were handpicked so that the panel would know 
what the answer was before they even asked the question. We are dealing 
with a stacked deck, Mr. Chairman. I, for one, am not buying it.
  After the panel finished its work and delivered the inevitable 
report, did the entire National Academy of Sciences address the report? 
Of course not. There are members of the National Academy of Sciences 
who oppose the projected polling scheme. There are other panels you can 
say the same kind of thing for.
  The American Statistical Association created a handpicked blue ribbon 
panel to inform the public about sampling. While all the members of 
this panel may have been members of the American Statistical 
Association, again, the horse was put before the cart. The answer the 
panel would have delivered was known ahead of time.
  These phony panels are akin to asking Popeye if spinach should be the 
national vegetable. Do we ask the Seven Dwarfs to be objective about 
Snow White? Of course not.
  Do not believe the hype. If you have no objective scientific evidence 
for the reliability of the population polling scheme, then we have to 
reject it. The GAO has already expressed their doubts about this 
scheme.
  There is too much at stake here. We think that this amendment should 
be defeated. During the dress rehearsal, the GAO discovered that the 
Master Address File did not include between 3 and 6 percent of the 
households. It is fatally flawed. Reject the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority 
leader.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Chairman, there is a great saying by a great person 
who once said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to 
repeat it.'' Republicans have failed to learn from our past experiences 
with the 1990 census, at the cost of leaving out millions of Americans 
in the year 2000 count.
  We are here today debating the Mollohan amendment simply because our 
Republican colleagues have forgotten about what happened in 1990, when 
the census failed to count over 6 million people in this country. Their 
collective amnesia will condemn us to repeat another failed census 
which disproportionately undercounts Hispanic and African Americans, 
children and rural residents.
  Republicans like to act like they have learned the lesson of past 
mistakes on the great civil rights issues of our generation, when many 
in their party were on the wrong side of efforts to extend voting 
rights and desegregate public places in our country.
  The census is today's great civil rights issue, and once again 
Republicans are standing against what is right and what will give us an 
accurate census. They are determined to ensure that the 2000 census has 
an even greater undercount by limiting funding to the Census Bureau in 
the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations bill to only six months.
  The Republicans' action in this legislation would directly undermine 
the ability of the Census Bureau to plan and prepare for the year 2000 
census, and it would undermine the constitutional responsibility that 
James Madison laid before this body to use the best data available to 
conduct the decennial census.
  Rather than providing the Census Bureau the full funding it requires 
to ensure that every American is counted, the Republicans have decided 
to place their own partisan political interests above a fair and 
accurate count of every person in this Nation.
  The Census Bureau has created a plan that will count everyone. It is 
a plan that relies on the most modern scientific methods to supplement 
the traditional head count, and will save us hundreds of millions of 
dollars in costs.
  Not only does the overwhelming majority of the scientific community 
support the Census Bureau's plan, the National Academy of Sciences has 
concluded that using scientific statistical methods is the most valid 
and cost effective way to count the population. Most importantly, the 
Federal courts have given the Commerce Department and the Census Bureau 
the authority to determine what are the best methods for conducting the 
census. Republicans ignore the expertise of the scientific community 
and the decisions of the courts. Their political position flies in the 
face of the facts.
  Republicans are repeating the mistakes of the past. Democrats have 
learned from these mistakes and are working towards achieving a better 
census and a more accurate count of all Americans.
  The Mollohan amendment would require the Census Bureau to continue 
planning for the 2000 census until the Supreme Court makes the final 
determination of what is constitutional. It is the only logical choice 
for Democrats and Republicans alike who want to see preparation and 
planning for the 2000 census proceed without political interruptions.
  Let me add one further point. If we do not get an accurate census, it 
will have enormous economic implications for every community in this 
country. I have had both Republican and Democratic mayors say to me 
that this issue is the most important economic issue for their city, 
their town, their county, their village.
  This is not just about politics, although, unfortunately, it has 
become that. It is about the economic future of every city, village and 
town in this country. Democratic and Republican mayors alike want 
sampling because they realize it is the only way we are going to get an 
accurate census.
  Vote for the Mollohan amendment. Let us keep the promise of the 
Constitution. Let us get an accurate count. Let us do the right thing 
for the American people.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. MICA).
  (Mr. MICA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, this is not a complex issue. This is an issue 
about

[[Page H7201]]

the very basis of our representative form of government. You do not 
have to have a Harvard degree to understand what the Constitution says. 
Article I, Section 2, says the actual enumeration shall be made. The 
14th Amendment says counting the whole number of persons in each State.
  I defy anyone to come and show me where the Constitution, this is the 
Constitution, where it says we conduct polling, we conduct statistical 
sampling, we conduct statistical methods.
  We are spending $4 billion to conduct the census to determine our 
representative form of government and who comes here and represents the 
people, the very foundation of our democracy. The very least we can do 
is count each and every individual.
  Two thousand years ago, citing Luke 2, Verses 1 through 7, in those 
days Caesar Augustus published a decree ordaining a census of the 
world, and then they counted, 2,000 years ago, every person. Today we 
can do at least the very same for representative government.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in 2000 years.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, earlier my colleague from Florida mentioned to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), ``I do not trust you.''
  I would like to really respond to some of the statements that the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) has made on this floor and in the 
many meetings we have had in the Committee on Census. He has often 
referred to a book called ``How to Lie about Statistics'' written by 
Darrell Huff, and he uses this as an example in his arguments against 
the use of modern scientific methods.
  Well, I decided not only to read the book, but to call the author. 
And, guess what? He supports modern scientific methods. I quote from 
Darrell Huff: ``I do not think there is any controversy among 
professionals about the validity of sampling studies or statistical 
methods. They are universally used and in some cases they are the only 
methods possible.''
  Mr. Chairman, I will put into the Record quotes from leading experts 
on statistics and quotes from editorial boards across the Nation, 
including Barbara Bryant, former Director of the Census Bureau.

   Census 2000: Experts Support an Accurate Census Using Statistical 
                                Sampling

       The National Academy of Sciences resolved in 1995 that, 
     ``[P]hysical enumeration or pure `counting' has been pushed 
     well beyond the point at which it adds to the overall 
     accuracy of census. . . .Techniques of statistical estimation 
     can be used, in combination with the mail questionnaire and 
     reduced scale of follow-up of nonrespondents, to produce a 
     better census at reduced costs.'' And again in 1997, the 
     National Academy of Sciences concluded, ``It is fruitless to 
     continue trying to count every last person with traditional 
     census methods of physical enumeration.'' [Report of the 
     Panel on Census Requirements in the Year 2000 and Beyond, 
     Committee on National Statistics, 1995; U.S. Department of 
     Commerce, Bureau of Census, Report to Congress ``The Plan for 
     Census 2000,'' August 1997]
       Dr. Barbara Bryant, Director of the Census Bureau under 
     Former President Bush wrote in a letter to Speaker Gingrich, 
     ``[O]ur social and economic development as a nation will be 
     served best by striving for the most accurate census 
     possible. In every decade, that will be one which combines 
     the best techniques for direct enumeration with the best 
     known technology for sampling and estimating the 
     unenumerated.'' [Dr Barbara Bryant of the University of 
     Michigan Business School's National Quality Research Center 
     in a letter to Speaker Gingrich, 5/12/97]
       The American Statistical Association stated, ``It is unwise 
     to prevent the use of `statistical sampling,' which is a long 
     established and fundamental component of statistical science 
     . . . it is essential to obtain as accurate a measure as is 
     possible using the best statistical tools available at the 
     time of a census. The environment and methodologies are 
     different today from those 200 years ago, and they will be 
     different again in the 21st century. We urge you to support 
     using the latest scientific methods to assure that the Census 
     2000 results are the best current knowledge and science can 
     provide.'' [ASA Letter, 6/13/97]
       The General Accounting Office said it is ``encouraged that 
     the Bureau has decided to sample those households failing to 
     respond to census questionnaires rather than conducting a 
     100-percent follow-up as it has in the past . . . Sampline 
     households that fail to respond to questionnaires produces 
     substantial cost savings and should improve final data 
     quality.'' [1997]
       Department of Commerce's Inspector General, Frank DeGeorge, 
     remarked, ``The Census Bureau has adopted a number of 
     innovations to address the problems of past censuses--
     declining accuracy and rising costs. One innovation, which we 
     fully support, is the use of statistical sampling for non-
     response follow-up.'' [October 1995]
       The National Research Council concluded, ``Change is not 
     the enemy of an accurate and useful census; rather, not 
     changing methods as the United States changes would 
     inevitably result in a seriously degraded census.'' [The 
     Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census Methololgies, 
     ``Preparing for the 2000 Census: Interim Report II,'' June 
     1997]
       The Population Association of America's President, Douglas 
     S. Massey, asserted, ``The planned and tested statistical 
     innovations [in the census] . . . have the overwhelming 
     support of members of the scientific community who have 
     carefully reviewed and considered them. If their use is 
     severely limited or prohibited, the 2000 Census planning 
     process will be obstructed, and the result could be a failed 
     census.'' [June 1996]
                                  ____


                    [From Roll Call, July 16, 1998]

                                 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 tranche 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 then, 
     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 real count'' 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

[[Page H7202]]

     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 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, 1998]

                      Keep 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 
     undercounted 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, 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 
     years misses lots 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, 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, of 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

[[Page H7203]]

     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.
       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 sample 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 its 
     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

[[Page H7204]]

     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 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, 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 
     residents, 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 statisticians 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 Republicans 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.

[[Page H7205]]

     
                                  ____
              [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.
       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 Memphis 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.

[[Page H7206]]

       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, June 4, 1998]

        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 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, 1997]

                       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 with 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]

       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.

[[Page H7207]]

       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 redrawn 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.
       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.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), the very able and distinguished chairman of 
the full Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, hearing some of these speeches from the 
Democrat side, I have to believe that I am in George Orwell's ``Animal 
Farm,'' and I am hearing doublespeak. A real count equals polling 
estimates. Yet, the words ``enumeration'' and ``actual head counting'' 
means undercounting. Up is down, down is up. Nonsense reigns. If they 
counted by head 2,000 years ago, we have come a long way, baby. We can 
estimate how many people are out there in the world.
  Mr. Chairman, 200 years ago they were a little behind the times, too. 
They used the word ``enumeration,'' ``actual enumeration'' every 10 
years to determine congressional seats and shape the districts for 
elected officials, both in Congress and all around the country in local 
offices, State legislatures and local school boards.
  They knew what they were talking about. They knew they had to go 
around and count people. But that is passe, because we are above that. 
According to the arguments by the minority, the Administration's 
polling plan for the year 2000 Census is fine. It would count 90 
percent of the population, and estimate, estimate by polling, the 
remaining population. We can be sure we are right.
  How can we be sure we are right when we are not counting people? What 
statistics reveal is very interesting, but what they conceal is vital. 
A central problem with polling is the political temptation, which we 
have seen a lot of in recent years, to adjust the results. Political 
objectives can shape the assumptions that must be made to frame any 
formula for making final rulings. That is why we are opposed to it.
  Michael Barone, the author of the ``Almanac of American Politics,'' 
says, ``This is a White House that had no scruples about getting the 
INS to drop criminal checks on applicants for citizenship so that more 
Democrats could be naturalized in time for the 1996 elections; why 
would it suddenly develop scruples about adjusting Census numbers for 
political purposes?''
  George Will, in an op-ed piece, said ``Clinton's proposal for 
sampling--forever severing this constitutionally mandated exercise from 
its anchor against politicization--comes in the context of Clinton's 
lawlessness. Regarding the undeniable potential for political abuse of 
sampling, Clinton's position is: ``Trust me.'' ' That is George Will, 
and both he and I say, no, thank you. We have tried that before.
  The Clinton polling proposition will not work. The GAO and the 
Commerce Inspector General said that, The President's sampling plan, 
his polling plan, is ``high risk.'' The Census Bureau tried polling in 
the 1990 Census and it failed. Despite this failure, the Clinton 
administration is proceeding with a polling plan that is five times as 
large as 1990, and which must be accomplished in half the time.
  The Census Bureau's own study shows polling is less accurate for 
cities and towns under 100,000 people, where the majority of Americans 
live. The President has threatened to shut down the entire 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, 
unless he gets his way.
  That is a blatent attempt by the President to gain political 
leverage, but of course that is a trick that he has not employed 
before, by some accounts. The fact is, it is a violation of the 
agreement reached between the Speaker and the President last year. We 
should not take cops off the beat. We should not shut down the courts. 
We should not hamstring our Nation's foreign policy over this problem.
  Republicans want and have provided the resources to count everyone, 
to count everyone. How clear does it have to be? That is not Orwellian, 
that is not doublespeak; to provide the resources to count everyone.
  We have provided $107 million more than the President's fiscal 1999 
request. We fenced off the last 6 months of Census funding so that a 
decision on polling can and will be made in the spring of 1999. That 
was the deal that the Speaker and the President agreed to last fall. Is 
there an undercount? Was there an undercount in 1990? We can address 
that, too.
  Kenneth Blackwell, the cochairman of the U.S. Census Monitoring 
Board, Treasurer for the State of Ohio, argues that a better way than 
polling to reduce the undercount is to use administrative forms to fill 
in the gaps. Forms filed with the government agencies that administer 
public programs are available with up-to-date information.
  For example, children under 18 represent 52 percent of the undercount 
in 1990. Yet, as of 1996, Medicaid had records on 18.3 million people 
20 years of age and under. A single mother struggling to make ends meet 
might not have time to fill out her Census form, but would certainly 
take the time to fill out Medicaid forms. We do not need polling, we 
need to count people.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
the very distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) to speak to 
this horse and buggy versus modern transportation debate that we have 
going on here today.
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, let me clarify. Within just this past week, 
the GAO has testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee 
that the Census Bureau's plan will improve the accuracy of census 
counts for the Nation, for States, for counties, for cities, and even 
census tracts, which are the basic building blocks of our democracy. 
They come to that conclusion because they know this has nothing to do 
with a poll.
  The plan is very different from a poll. The Census Bureau will be 
making an unprecedented effort to contact virtually every household in 
the United States to fill out and return the Census questionnaire, and 
everyone who responds in all of the different ways, the unprecedented 
number of ways, will be counted. They will not be thrown out.
  Beyond that, then, finally, sampling and statistical techniques would 
be used to supplement that effort in two ways. First is in following up 
on those households that do not respond, and sending people to them. 
Then, sampling will also be used to help check on those who might still 
have been missed or miscounted, even with those new procedures.
  If polls were taken in this way, with a major effort to contact 
everyone in the country, followed by a very large sample to account for 
those who did not respond, followed by another large quality check, the 
results would be vastly more accurate, not only than any poll, but 
certainly than the 1990 Census.
  None of this bears any resemblance to the way public opinion polls 
are taken. That is why the American Statistical Association has been so 
adamant in their finding that estimation based on statistical sampling, 
the use of these techniques to improve counts, is a valid and widely 
used scientific method. The President of that organization wrote that 
``The general attacks on sampling that the Census debate has

[[Page H7208]]

called forth * * * are uninformed and unjustified. The truth is the 
Members of these panels are pulled together by their peers among the 
Nation's leading experts on sampling large human populations.''
  My friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), has said that he 
can produce reliable and reputable academics who disagree. The chairman 
and the president of the American Statistical Association agrees that 
that is the case.
  But he writes that ``Those whose names I have seen lack the expertise 
and experience in sampling that characterize the panel members. 
Statistics, like medicine, has specialties; one does not seek out a 
proctologist for heart bypass surgery.''
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has worked 
so hard on this issue.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I have heard pretty horrible things on 
this floor, but I just heard the worst that I have ever heard. To say 
that someone has the time to fill out a Medicaid form but does not have 
the time to fill out a census questionnaire misses the whole point. 
What if you never got a questionnaire in the first place? Oh, there is 
the rub.
  I have heard on this floor a tremendous amount of discussion with 
little anchor in reality. I have been in two censuses. The enumerators 
worked very hard to find those people who either, one, did not fill out 
their questionnaire, or two, never got one in the first place. But in 
order to get to those people, you have to know where they live. You 
have to have a housing unit on your form.
  The secret, by both Democrats and Republicans, and past 
administrations have admitted this, the secret to getting an accurate 
census is to have accurate addresses. In a five-family house, if we 
have 22 mailboxes, that should give us a clue that we are not going to 
be able to do this by questionnaire alone. They missed the whole point, 
and they do it deliberately. They do it deliberately.
  This is serious business we are talking about. We cannot call someone 
who ran the Census under President Bush out of a Democratic liberal 
think tank. Give me a break. She believes that there is a way, through 
statistical methods, to come up with an accurate sample. We need to 
count as many as we can possibly find, and as possibly have filled out 
census forms, but there will always be those groups or families within 
units who are never contacted; who do not even know, perhaps, that a 
census is even going on, for all kinds of reasons, some real and some 
unreal. But get to the heart and the practice of doing a census. Then 
we can come to an agreement on what is acceptable and what is not 
acceptable.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, cities and counties cannot afford an 
undercount in the next Census. I know that from personal experience. 
Before coming to the Congress 3 years ago, I served on the Board of 
Supervisors for Santa Clara County for 14 years. We worked hard during 
times of declining county revenues to maintain vital services like 
health care for poor children.
  Every city and county needs an accurate Census that counts everybody 
in order to serve everybody, because each year Census data determines 
$180 billion in Federal spending. It helps determine money that goes 
into schools, transit systems, senior citizens' centers, and health 
care facilities.
  People do not disappear when they are not counted. When there is an 
undercount, as there was in 1990, local taxpayers end up paying for 
Federal programs. That is why lawsuits were filed in California after 
the 1990 Census by both Democratic and Republican local officials, 
because an inaccurate census is not fair to local taxpayers.
  In 1990, the undercount in the State of California was estimated to 
be over 834,000 people. After the last Census we put our thinking caps 
on. The scientists came together and they came up with a scientific 
recommendation for a scientific count.
  I have heard a lot of discussion here today, but I think the American 
people are going to be able to figure out what is going on. Some people 
here are concerned that the people found through scientific methods 
might vote for Democrats. I do not know whether they will or not, but 
out in the real world, real local government officials of both parties 
want an accurate count that the scientists can provide us, so we can be 
fair to local taxpayers. I urge support of the Mollohan amendment for 
that reason.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the very able 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, there is no one I respect more in the 
House than the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Alan Mollohan). He is 
one of our great Members. I disagree with him on this.
  This debate is about the Constitution. If the Congress of the United 
States wants to conduct the Census by sampling, sampling, the Congress 
of the United States should be able to pass a two-thirds amendment vote 
to the Constitution of the United States.
  I chose to come to the floor for several reasons. Number one, I am 
hearing all these plaudits about scientists. If the Founders thought so 
much about scientists, we would be electing scientists, not citizen 
politicians. People should start being proud of being a politician. We 
do the work of the people in America.
  Let me remind this Congress about a recent study. Ninety-three 
percent of scientists in America do not believe in God. They said 
scientists do not believe in God because they are superintelligent, 
they are so smart. Beam me up, Mr. Chairman. Many of these scientists 
cannot find a toilet.
  The bottom line is this: Every community should be assisting to help 
conduct a reliable head count Census.

                              {time}  1245

  Let me warn the Democrats, sampling is an axe that can cut both ways. 
Those in fact who support it one day may oppose it another. Those who 
may benefit one day may get ripped off the other day.
  I just want to close out by saying Congress should confine itself to 
some basic parameters, which include following the Constitution. We 
were elected and we took an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the 
charter of the United Nations or some scientific methodology by a group 
of scientists who, in fact, are not aligned with mainstream America in 
just their matters of theology. The world was once flat, all the 
scientists told us that.
  My community, they say, will be hurt without sampling. My community 
will be hurt if we do not have an honest head count because, in the 
final analysis, whoever is doing that sampling some day might not like 
the makeup of my district.
  I oppose this amendment. I urge that we defeat it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from West Virginia for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in support of the Mollohan amendment to ensure an accurate 
count and the most cost-effective census in the year 2000. I am glad to 
follow my good friend from Ohio, because I pray that we will have an 
accurate count so we are on the right side of theology. That is why 
this amendment is so important.
  I am glad the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations agreed that 
in 1990 there was an undercount. There was, not only in my district in 
Houston but in the State of Texas and around the country.
  In its current form the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations act 
would hinder the 2000 census. It funds the census only for 6 months and 
it continues the funding only after Congress determines the counting 
method to be used. We are not going to be here from October, November 
or December, maybe half of January, so we are going to set back the 
census planning even in the year 1999.
  This action is shortsighted and will hinder the Bureau's attempt to 
plan and prepare for the census. The Mollohan amendment will strike 
that restriction.

[[Page H7209]]

  It has been estimated that the 1990 census undercounted my home town 
of Houston by 67,000 people. It is unfair that these people were not 
counted. The State of Texas lost a billion dollars in Federal funds 
because of the undercount. That is a billion dollars in title I 
funding, road construction, senior citizen services. The undercount was 
so severe that President Clinton actually came in June to the district 
that I am honored to represent to highlight the needs of an accurate 
census count.
  Dr. Mary Kendrick, Director of the City of Houston Health Department, 
said at that meeting that accurate census count data is critical to 
public health. She noted that the census data on child poverty helps 
determine nutrition and children's nutrition health programs.
  Many people are not easily counted, whether they are in an urban area 
like mine because sometimes they fear the government, or maybe in a 
rural area like Montana they may not want to send back that form that 
the government sent, they may not want to answer that door when that 
enumerator comes by and knocks on that door. But they still deserve to 
be counted, even if they do not want to be. That is why this amendment 
is so important.
  The Houston Chronicle, on two separate occasions, reported on the 
need for a fair and accurate census in their editorial. The June 23 
editorial said, ``But Texas Republicans should know better than most 
the stakes riding on a fair and accurate count. Houston has a great 
deal at stake with the accuracy of the next census.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following editorials:

              [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 interest shouldn't take a front seat over the greater 
     interests of the community as a whole.
                                  ____


               [From the Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1998]

        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 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 that sailors compute their approximate 
     position with a sextant and reject satellite technology 
     accurate to a few yards.

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).
  Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Chairman, the 1990 census was the first U.S. 
census to be less accurate than the one before it. Approximately 6 
million people were not counted in the 1990 census. In the City of 
Chicago 68,000 people were missed. That is enough people to fill every 
seat at Soldier Field in Chicago. Those empty seats in our census cost 
Chicago hundreds of millions of dollars in Federal assistance. It costs 
your community millions of dollars, too.
  Three presidential administrations, the National Academy of Sciences 
and the General Accounting Office, all looked at the problem of 
undercounts and determined that using modern statistical methods would 
help eliminate these mistakes in the future and avoid the kinds of 
undercounts that resulted by using the old model.
  The reasonable approach is to use the same methods that we use when 
we compute agricultural production, crime statistics, unemployment 
figures, as well as countless other governmental statistics.
  Let us use common sense. Support the Mollohan amendment which does 
not place restrictions on its ability to provide a fair and accurate 
count.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky for yielding me the time.
  I stand with the children. I support the Mollohan amendment. And then 
I would like to convey to all of us words:
  ``I respectfully request that the census numbers for the State of 
Georgia be readjusted to reflect the accurate population of the State 
so as to include the over 300,000 which were not previously included. 
Without the adjustment, minority voting strength in Georgia will be 
seriously diluted. Based on available information, without an 
adjustment to compensate for the undercount, minorities in Georgia 
could lose two State Senate seats and 4 to 5 House seats. As a result 
of conversations with black legislators, it is my understanding that 
they have not only concurred with this request but stated that they 
believe it is required under the Voting Rights Act.''
  Representative Newt Gingrich's letter to Robert Mosbacher, Secretary 
of Commerce, April 30, 1991.
  Let us get away from Republican politics. Vote for statistical 
methods and the Mollohan amendment. Let us count every single American, 
no matter who they are, and count the children.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak on the rule 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 a fair 
and accurate census.
  The subject of the Census was addressed in Article I Section 2 of the 
Constitution of the United States as 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.''
  With that goal in mind the Bureau of the Census conducted the first 
National Census in 1790. The census also places our population in a 
particular location as of census day so

[[Page H7210]]

Congress can be reapportioned and the state and local governments 
redistricted while federal monies can be apportioned.
  The ability to use scientific methods during the 2000 Census will 
insure that any undercounting which may occur in this census because of 
sparsely populated regions of states like Texas or hard to count urban 
populated areas like Houston, can be held to a minimum.
  Undercounting the results of the 2000 Census would negatively impact 
Texas' share of federal funds for block grants, housing, education, 
health, transportation and numerous other federally funded programs.
  In 1990, the city of Houston was undercounted by 3.9 percent in that 
year's Census using the current ``head count'' method which only 
recorded 1,630,553 residents. That is why I have personally joined a 
lawsuit along with the mayor of Houston to allow statistical methods to 
be utilized by the census bureau to be able to count every person.
  Based on the scientific method that was prepared for that Census, but 
never used it is estimated that over 66,000 Houstonians were missed by 
the 1990 Census.
  African-Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians were 
missed at a much greater rate than whites. The 1990 Census undercounted 
approximately 4 million people, about the same number who were counted 
all together in the first census 200 years ago. Even more troubling, 
this last census was, for the first time in history, less accurate than 
its predecessor. The use of modern statistical methods to count in the 
2000 census will eliminate undercounting the poor children by 52% and 
Hispanics and African-Americans.
  The undercount was 33 percent greater than the undercount in the 1980 
census.
  Every American deserves to be counted in the Census. 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. In fact, homeless 
children are particularly vulnerable; without counting them there will 
be no seats in school for them, no immunizations for them and no 
housing for them.
  Virtually every expert agrees that the way to get the most accurate 
census possible is by using modern scientific methods to supplement the 
traditional head count. The Census Bureau's plan will not only produce 
the most accurate census--it will save literally hundreds of millions 
of dollars. The Republican plan is geared to undercount the people to 
their advantage.
  Using the 1990 methods will cost close to a billion dollars more and 
still miss millions of Americans.
  Funding the Census Bureau for only six months will cripple its 
ability to adequately plan and prepare for the largest peace-time 
mobilization undertaken by the U.S. Government.
  The Mollohan amendment requires the Bureau to continue planning for a 
Census whether it uses modern statistical methods, or the older, less 
accurate ones, until there is a definitive ruling from the Supreme 
Court. We need a statistical method, we need an accurate Census in 
2000.
  Finally, the Constitution states specifically, ``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 direct by Law.'' If the 
Republicans would step aside from politics, clothed in the Constitution 
we could all absolutely support the Mollohan amendment and support 
statistical methods for the count.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).
  (Mr. BLUNT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. I do not 
think there is a single Member of this House that would allow polling 
to be used to decide election results. We should not allow it to be 
used for this purpose either.
  I rise today in strong opposition to the Mollohan amendment.
  Republicans are prepared to fund an unprecedented effort to count all 
Americans because we believe that every American counts.
  In fact, Chairman Rogers has provided $100 million more than the 
President requested to help ensure that every American is counted.
  The Clinton administration plan will delete millions of people who 
turn in their census forms on time. These people will be removed at 
random because population polling indicates that their demographic 
group is overrepresented.
  Americans have the right to participate in the census and have their 
completed census form included in the count. The Clinton administration 
cannot arbitrarily decide to delete millions of people from the counts 
based on population guesstimates.
  The Clinton administration wants to play politics with the census. I 
urge you to oppose the Mollohan amendment and support an accurate and 
honest census.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), chairman of the Committee on the Census.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of 
exaggeration on the other side about what has been done with the 
census. Let us make sure we understand.
  First of all, the plan proposed by the President does not count 26 to 
27 million people; does not count 26 to 27 million people. These are 
going to be computer-generated people, that they have some smart 
computers and these smart scientists over at the National Academy of 
Sciences. The National Academy of Sciences has a theory. The plan 
requires hundreds of thousands of people to implement.
  We need a General Schwarzkopf to run this issue, not a bunch of 
academics. That is what our goal is, to have an accurate census, to 
count everybody.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), distinguished Speaker of the 
House.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) is recognized 
for 4\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from Kentucky for 
yielding time to me, and I commend him for the very hard work he has 
done working with the gentleman from Florida to develop an honest and a 
direct approach to a very serious problem.
  Let me say to my colleagues in the Democratic Party, I am really 
puzzled by what has happened on the issue of the census, because I 
think it comes from a complete misunderstanding of what we are trying 
to accomplish.
  The census is at the center of the American political system. It is 
the device which came out of the Constitutional Convention by which the 
Founding Fathers said the House of Representatives would represent 
people. And they then faced the challenge in 1787, but how do you 
represent people unless you know where they are? And they then faced 
the challenge in a very primitive country of how do you find all these 
people who are scattered, without telephones, without e-mail, without 
faxes, without a U.S. Postal Service as of 1787. They said, well, once 
every 10 years we will organize a mass effort and we will count every 
person. The term in the Constitution was ``actual enumeration.''
  Now, they went through actual enumerations in 1790, 1800, 1810, 1820. 
This went up every decade. It was required. It is actually written in 
the Constitution that we shall have an actual enumeration. And somehow 
in the most primitive of circumstances, without Xeroxes, without fax 
machines, they managed to count people.
  Then in the modern era several things happened. One is, big 
government became so incompetent, so bureaucratic, that in fact it 
broke down. The census of 1990 was the first time in many years that we 
actually did an inadequate job of counting.
  The second thing happened. We developed much higher standards of 
accuracy.
  A third thing happened, which is that some neighborhoods became 
harder to count, largely for two reasons: one, because some 
neighborhoods seemed dangerous and people were reluctant to go back in 
them on a regular basis; and, second, because some neighborhoods had 
substantial numbers of people who were illegally here and it was tricky 
to go and knock on the door and say, ``Hi, I am from the government,'' 
because people then tended to not answer the door.
  So there were undercounts to some degree. We are also now 
dramatically more mobile, although the truth is, if you went back to 
1790 or 1830, this has always been a remarkably mobile country, but we 
are now even more mobile. People move around a lot. You see this, for 
example, in school registrations where kids will come and go in three 
month cycles rather than year long cycles.
  Having said all that, I want to make clear what our position is. We 
are prepared to work with the Democratic Caucus to provide the 
resources to count accurately every person in America. We are prepared, 
if necessary,

[[Page H7211]]

to hire the Post Office, which has the highest level of accuracy in 
knowing neighborhoods. We are prepared to start by counting the poorest 
neighborhoods first so we have the highest level of controlled, managed 
accuracy. We want to ensure that every single American is counted, 
every American.
  But here is the danger. There is a theory. The theory is you could 
take polls. First of all, if you look at the accuracy of the polls 
taken last year in the Presidential campaign, they were often off by as 
much as 10 points. Most of you have been elected in races where you 
know from your own polling you were often off, up or down, by 5 or 10 
points in the poll. You can take polls theoretically.
  But there are two dangers with taking polls. The first is, what works 
in aggregate at a national level is absurd at a local level. The 
mathematician at the National Academy of Sciences could say, gee, on 
aggregate if you are trying to measure 262 million people, artificially 
do not count people, so you create an artificial universe to get an 
accurate count of 262 million. That sounds theoretically fine.
  The flaw is, if you are trying to count Cambodians, Serbians, and El 
Salvadorans in Los Angeles, polling is the worst possible way to do it 
because you get grotesquely inaccurate numbers. So you do not get an 
actual count. You do not know who is actually there. What you get is 
some mathematical theory that works nationally and is grotesquely 
distorted at the local level.
  There is a second problem. Who is going to be in charge of the 
polling? This is the whole base of the Founding Fathers in the 
Federalist Papers and the Constitution. The current Secretary of 
Commerce, who is a man I admire a great deal and worked with in passing 
the North American Free Trade Agreement, represents a family who for 
many years had held office in Chicago based on a machine. Chicago is a 
city with a great history that you could vote for several lifetimes 
because you could vote long after you passed away. But at least in 
Chicago you had to have lived; that is, you were in the cemetery 
because you had once been alive.
  Now we have this new theory, which is that politicians could simulate 
a virtual reality of virtual citizens who have a virtual existence, 
except they would be translated by law so that you literally would 
undercount real citizens in order to invent virtual citizens. I think 
that transfers to politicians a level of power which none of the 
Founding Fathers would agree with.
  So here is my offer to the President and the Democratic Caucus. You 
work with us and we will meet whatever standard is humanly attainable 
of accurately counting every person of every ethnic background in every 
neighborhood in the entire country.
  We will design it so we use, if necessary, postal employees. We will 
design it so we start with the poorest neighborhoods. We will design it 
so we overachieve and we double, triple and quadruple count, if 
necessary, but we will get it done. But that would be fair. That would 
be accurate. That would ensure we actually had enumerated real people.
  But please do not ask the people of the United States to rely on 
politicians controlling pollsters to invent virtual people to get a 
grossly inaccurate count on behalf of some political party, because 
that undermines the Constitution and that undermines the very political 
process.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the Mollohan amendment.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Mollohan 
amendment to H.R. 4276, the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations for 
FY 1999. The Mollohan amendment removes funding restrictions from the 
Census Bureau so that they may continue with the task at hand--
providing a fair and accurate Census 2000 for the American people.
  The goal is clear. The only way to provide a fair and accurate count 
for the 2000 census is through statistical sampling. The Republican-led 
Congress insists on full enumeration without the use of sampling. In 
addition, they are obstructing the success of the entire 2000 census by 
limiting its funds to only half of the appropriated amount. This in 
turn may cause irreparable damage to the entire census, leaving an 
accurate count beyond the realm of possibility.
  One might wonder why the majority party insists on wasting taxpayer's 
money to hinder such a vital component of the democratic process. 
Understandably, the majority party is afraid of losing control over the 
House of Representatives as we enter a new millennium. Our Founding 
Fathers intended for population enumeration to provide for fair 
representation of the American people in the House of Representatives. 
This did not happen in the 1990 Census and now we must take steps to 
correct the problem.
  In the 1990, the Census numbers were over 10 percent in error. This 
translates to 26 million mistakes. The 1990 Census under-counted 8.4 
million people and 4.4 million people were double-counted in the United 
States. In California alone, 834,516 people were not counted. This was 
the highest under-count in the nation!! The people of California have 
been deprived of fair representation for the past eight years.
  Of the various racial groups, the largest to be under-counted were 
amongst the Hispanic population with 5% of this group undercounted. In 
addition, 4.4% of blacks and 4.5% of Indian Americans were under-
counted due to errors that statistical sampling can adjust for in the 
future. The economically disadvantaged and minorities are being 
excluded from valuable federal programs. Under-counting means millions 
of federal dollars are lost for California's 13th District as well as 
for districts across the nation.
  I am not suggesting we replace direct counting methods with modern 
statistical techniques. We should, however, supplement direct counting 
with sampling to ensure an accurate count. Two very reputable groups 
agree that statistical sampling should be used in the upcoming census. 
The General Accounting Office and the National Academy of Sciences both 
endorse statistical sampling to avoid an inaccurate census. Memos from 
the Department of Justice under both Presidents Bush and Clinton state 
that the use of sampling is both Constitutional and legal. The only 
major organization that opposes statistical methods in the 2000 census 
is the Republican National Committee.
  Partisan politics cannot play a role in Census 2000. We must prevent 
the majority party from attempting to strip the American people from 
their Constitutional right to equal representation. We can start by 
supporting the Mollohan amendment.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman. I urge all my 
colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment. A fair and accurate 
census is necessary if we are to be a country which stands for 
inclusion over exclusion.
  The infamous census of 1990 missed 4.7 million people--1.8 percent of 
the population, compared with 1.2 percent in 1980 and 2.7 percent in 
1970.
  This undercount was not evenly distributed--a disproportionate number 
of minorities, children and renters in urban and rural areas were 
missed.
  In addition, the census cost us an exorbitant amount of money--$2.6 
million dollars--for a faulty, inaccurate count of Americans.
  This is upper income people are overcounted by an unknown number 
because of completing their forms at their second homes as well as 
their primary residences. I support the methodology of statistical 
sampling. The American Statistical Association and the National Academy 
of Sciences has recommended this methodology as the best and cheapest 
way to count 90 percent of U.S. residents.
  In Texas, we need all our residents counted, specially the Latino 
population.
  IN the Latino community, there was a 5% undercount in the 1990 
census. this undercount has had significant negative effects on Latino 
access to resources.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Mollohan amendment so that all 
our residents are counted, and not missed by the blinded eye.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Chairman, the 2000 census must be the most accurate 
census ever taken in American history. Period. I can not understand the 
controversy that surrounds this issue. Everyone seems to agree that the 
most relevant, current scientific methods should be used to count every 
single man, woman, and child in this country.
  So what is the problem? Why can certain members come to the floor and 
make the claim, ``we want to count everyone,'' when in actuality they 
have made no efforts to recommend a method of enumeration that works 
better than the statistical methods supported by the American Academy 
of Sciences, the American Statistical Association, the Population 
Association of America, and the Panel to Evaluate Alternative Census 
Methodologies at the National Research Council.
  The facts surrounding the 2000 census are simple and conclusive. We 
know that the 1990 census resulted in over one million Americans not 
being counted. Most of those individuals were people of African 
American, Latino, and Asian descent. They were urban, poor and rural. 
We know that a large portion of the undercount consisted of children. 
We know

[[Page H7212]]

that the 1990 census was not nearly as accurate or representative as it 
should have been.
  As Members of Congress, it is our responsibility to work with the 
Census Bureau--not against them--to develop a method that will count 
every American in this nation. Holding the 2000 census hostage to 
ridiculous partisan game will do nothing but undermine the legitimate 
efforts being made to accurately enumerate American citizens.
  Personally, I'm less concerned with the partisan tone this debate has 
taken than I am with counting the Mississippians who were missed in the 
1990 census. More than 21,000 of the 55,500 Mississippian who were 
missed in the last Census, 38%, were from Mississippi's Second 
Congressional District, the District I represent. Let's look at who 
they were: 1.3% were White; 3.5% were African American; 3.6% were 
Asian; 7.3% were Native American; 4.8% were Hispanic; and 4.5% were 
children.
  The real, tangible impact of this debate has been glossed over. 
According to the Census Bureau, my District has the third highest 
percentage of people in poverty (37.7%). It has the fifth highest 
percentage of families in poverty (31%), and the third highest 
percentage of households in poverty (35.2%). This year, some of the 
counties in my District have had unemployment rates of 20% and higher. 
What we are really talking about here, is that the 55,500 people in my 
state who were not counted, represent children who were turned away 
form HeadStart, poor families who could not get public housing, and 
other vulnerable constituencies who were turned away from receiving 
forms of invaluable financial aid.
  I know that many Members of Congress have adopted a real ``slash and 
burn'' mentality when it comes to budgetary spending, but I refuse to 
be a hypocrite. I will say right here, right now that if families and 
children in my District will positively benefit from federal spending, 
then show me where to sign up.
  If there is a better method out there to conduct the census, then 
let's see it. Otherwise, let's put an end to the grandstanding and the 
pontificating and count Americans. The time for the Census Bureau to 
determine logistical specifics for the next census is rapidly 
approaching, and in layman's terms, ``it's time to put up or shut up.'' 
If there is another plan that enjoys the wide spread support of the 
scientific community, lt's see it. If there is another way of counting 
Americans at has been endorsed by the Carter, Bush, and Clinton 
Administrations, please bring it forward.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand how anyone could be 
opposed to correcting the undercounts that occurred during the last 
census in minority, poor, urban and rural communities. How can anyone 
be opposed to counting the one-in-ten African-America males who were 
missed in the last census, or support turning poor children away from 
public housing? Therein, Mr. Speaker, lies the real debate.
  Mr. Fazio of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. 
Mollohan's amendment. I am sure all of us can agree that the 2000 
Census should be fair and accurate and include everybody. But, for the 
past two years the majority party has played politics with the Census 
and not allowed the Census Bureau to get on with their plan.
  Tragically, the 1990 Census had the largest undercount in history. It 
is estimated that 10 million citizens were counted incorrectly, with a 
total of 4 million Americans not accounted for at all.
  The Republicans are scared that accounting for all Americans will 
affect their chances at the polls. They would rather deny Federal 
funding to those in our country who need it most--young children and 
the poor, who are the most hard-hit groups in an undercount--than get 
an accurate picture for the next congressional redistricting.
  Now that the majority party has put the sampling debate into the 
jurisdiction of the courts, the political arguments have become all but 
academic. Yet we still have language in this bill that withholds half 
of the funding needed by the Census Bureau to prepare for the 2000 
Census.
  What are the Republicans afraid of? Are they worried that the courts 
won't rule in their favor?
  Join me in putting politics aside and allowing the Census Bureau to 
go forward. I urge you to support Mr. Mollohan's amendment.

                              {time}  1300

  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 noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, the Chair will reduce 
to 5 minutes the minimum time for each electronic vote on the 
amendments that were debated last evening, on which proceedings will 
resume immediately after this 15-minute vote on the Mollohan amendment.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 227, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 388]

                               AYES--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--227

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw

[[Page H7213]]


     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clay
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     McInnis
     Pickering
     Waters
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1320

  Ms. RIVERS and Mr. OWENS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed 
in the following order:
  Amendment No. 44 offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone); the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel); amendment No. 15 offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce); amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett); and amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
(Mr. Talent).


                Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Pallone

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pallone) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 44 offered by Mr. Pallone:
       Page 52, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 52, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 53, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 54 line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $15,000,000)''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 158, 
noes 267, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 389]

                               AYES--158

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Burr
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clement
     Costello
     Cummings
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Graham
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waxman
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Wynn

                               NOES--267

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Fowler
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Cox
     Cunningham
     Fazio
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Maloney (NY)
     Pickering
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1328

  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts and Mr. FOLEY changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Engel:
       Page 47, line 11, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 92, line 25, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,000,000)''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168, 
noes 259, not voting 7, as follows:

[[Page H7214]]

                             [Roll No. 390]

                               AYES--168

     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fawell
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meeks (NY)
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Snowbarger
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--259

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Clay
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Kingston
     McInnis
     Pickering
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1336

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Royce

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Royce) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Royce:
       Page 51, line 9, insert ``(reduced by $180,200,000)'' after 
     ``$180,200,000''.
       Page 51, line 10, insert ``(reduced by $43,000,000)'' after 
     ``$43,000,000''.
       Page 51, line 12, insert ``(reduced by $500,000)'' after 
     ``$500,000''.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 137, 
noes 291, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 391]

                               AYES--137

     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Boehner
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gibbons
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Leach
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Riggs
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     White
     Whitfield

                               NOES--291

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graham
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)

[[Page H7215]]


     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Clay
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Pickering
     Skaggs
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1344

  Mr. SESSIONS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


            Amendment No. 3 Offered by Bartlett of Maryland

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Bartlett of Maryland:
       Page 78, strike line 15, and all that follows through line 
     6 on page 79.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 151, 
noes 279, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 392]

                               AYES--151

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Foley
     Fossella
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kingston
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Redmond
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--279

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Northup
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Clay
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Pickering

                              {time}  1354

  Mr. KINGSTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Talent

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the Amendment No. 8 offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Talent) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Talent:
       Page 102, line 15 insert ``(increased by $7,090,000)'' 
     after the dollar amount.
       Page 103, line 7 insert ``(decreased by $7,090,000)'' after 
     the dollar amount.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5 minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 312, 
noes, 114, not voting 8, as follows:

[[Page H7216]]

                             [Roll No. 393]

                               AYES--312

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--114

     Abercrombie
     Andrews
     Becerra
     Berman
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Clay
     Clement
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     Lewis (GA)
     Myrick
     Pickering

                              {time}  1401

  Ms. LEE changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Ms. BROWN of Florida changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Are there further amendments?


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns:
       Page 78, line 19, strike ``$475,000,000,'' and insert 
     ``$365,800,000,''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, August 4, 1998, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) and a 
Member opposed will each control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike $109.2 million in the bill 
for United States arrears to the United Nations. Now, earlier we had an 
amendment from the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) which struck 
all the money. I am striking less than 25 percent. So this is a modest 
proposal, and I hope my colleagues will take that into consideration, 
because I saw that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) lost on 
his amendment.
  According to the GAO study released in June of 1998, the United 
Nations itself recognizes that the UN owes the United States about 
$109.2 million for reimbursement for U.S. contributions for 
peacekeeping. The chart I have here on my left from the GAO study shows 
that the United States is owed the second highest amount of 
reimbursement for peacekeeping operations, second, of course, only to 
France, at $151.2 million.
  Of course, the $109.2 million that I propose in my amendment the UN 
does recognize does not take into account the multimillions we have 
spent in various peacekeeping operations, as my good friend from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) has already pointed out.
  Mr. Chairman, I personally applaud the Committee on Appropriations 
for what they are doing, trying to pare down the U.S. arrears amount, 
specifically in regard to the peacekeeping effort. The appropriators 
have provided a reduced amount of $475 million from what the 
accounting-impaired United Nations claims is owed, and the 
appropriators are appropriating this appropriation to actual 
authorization legislation that is intended to push reform at the United 
Nations.
  The GAO report indicates that the UN even calculates peacekeeping 
arrears amounts that we are intentionally withholding for legislative 
and policy reasons. For instance, Congress placed a cap on the 
peacekeeping assessment charged by the UN. The UN at that time assessed 
a peacekeeping charge to the U.S. at an exaggerated 31.7 percent rate 
that was set by the General Assembly to cover peacekeeping contribution 
shortfalls following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
  Congress thought that the assessment rate was too high and 
implemented a policy cap for the peacekeeping at 30.4 percent, which 
was still too high, in my opinion. But even this reduction reduced our 
financial obligation to the UN for peacekeeping by $123 million.
  After the UN peacekeeping fiasco in Somalia, in which 19 heroic 
American service members lost their lives, Congress in 1995 further 
pursued a legislative cap on peacekeeping assessments at 25 percent 
after October 1, 1995. This lower assessment pursued by Congress has 
led to an additional $128 million in American taxpayer savings. But 
instead of recognizing that the U.S. has chosen for valid policy and 
legislative reasons to permanently withhold $251 million from the UN 
for peacekeeping assessments, the UN is still maintaining, is still 
maintaining, Mr. Chairman, we owe them an additional $251 million.

[[Page H7217]]

  I strongly believe that we need to further reduce this funding for 
peacekeeping arrears, to continue sending to the Secretary General and 
the rest of the United Nations a message that dramatic, widespread 
reform has to be implemented, including significant bureaucratic staff 
cuts and budget reductions.
  My continued problem with the United Nations is its refusal to 
implement such reforms, although the U.S. has been breathing down its 
neck for some time.
  Mr. Chairman, the Washington Post quoted the former UN Secretary 
General Boutros Boutros-Ghali as saying that, ``Perhaps half the United 
Nations staff does nothing useful.''
  Congress has consistently demanded reductions in the UN worldwide 
staff of 53,000 people, not including 10,000 consultants or the 
peacekeeping forces which reached 80,000 in 1993. As you saw in the 
Washington Times yesterday, they have the most generous salary and 
benefits package in public life. In fact, the United Nations donates 16 
percent of your salary in your thrift savings accounts, in addition to 
your 7.5, and you are almost up to 24 percent of your salary. Plus, as 
you saw, the Secretary General makes $300,000, and there are roughly 
3,622 of these people who range from almost $50,000 to $300,000 in 
salary.
  Most UN salaries are tax-free. Many employees have rent subsidies up 
to $3,800 a month and also have annual education grants of $12,675 per 
child. We could perhaps argue on the floor today about these perks, and 
colleagues on this side or that side that defend the UN will say 
``Well, Cliff, you are exaggerating.'' I would just like to say that if 
you read the Washington Times article, it is pretty clear that all of 
us would agree it is pretty generous.
  What is the solution? Well, the Secretary General says we are going 
to do reform. He plans to consolidate 12 secretarial departments into 
five. Remember now, he is just taking these 12 departments and making 
five of them, but he is not reducing, not cutting, any employee in 
these 12 departments. He has a 9,000-strong secretarial staff.
  The Secretary General also proposes three economic development 
departments representing $122 million of the Secretary's budget and 
employing 700 people be reduced to one department. Again, he is talking 
about reform but there is no reduction in employees or expenditures. No 
reduction in people, no reduction in expenditures, and he calls that 
reform. Any of the Fortune 500 companies who did that would be laughed 
out of the convention center by their stockholders.
  Also two human rights offices in Geneva are merged into one. That 
sounds good. But, again, no reduction in employees.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think there has been any reform by the 
Secretary General, and I would be glad to hear if my opponents 
disagree. But I say we must continue in Congress to limit any 
appropriations for alleged U.S. arrears until a comprehensive reform 
plan is in place at the United Nations. As a responsible representative 
of these great American people, we can do nothing less this afternoon.
  So I urge my colleagues to support my modest amendment, modest 
amendment, to reduce the money from the appropriators, roughly $475 
million, just reduce it by $109.2 million.
  Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by saying that regardless of what side 
you are on in this debate, you have to understand that any bureaucratic 
institution can reform itself and reduce its staff, but this body is 
not doing it. I urge Members to support my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member seek time in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, the notion of reducing arrearages at the United Nations 
is a good idea. The only problem is that in the Gilman-Helms 
authorization conference report which we refer to, this credit has 
already been used to reduce the amount of arrearages that will be paid, 
so these funds have already been used up.
  Agreeing to this amendment will do nothing more than undermine the 
authorization bill that is currently pending. So it puts at risk the 
entire scheme to obtain reforms, reduce the U.S. assessment rate, write 
off remaining arrears, and cap appropriations to international 
organizations, which this subcommittee has been trying to do for many 
years.
  So the gentleman's idea is a good idea. In fact, it is such a good 
idea, we have already done it. It assures that the U.N. makes good on 
what it owes the U.S., but it has already been done. So, consequently, 
I oppose the amendment and urge Members to vote ``no''.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia 
(Mr. Mollohan.)
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I guess I, in a way, am repeating some of 
the sentiments the chairman expressed. I do not understand the theory 
of this amendment. As I understood it, we have used these strong 
negotiations and the leverage of the Committee on Appropriations to 
effect significant reforms at the United Nations. And while the 
gentleman, as I understood his statement, represented that we have not 
effected reforms, that is not my understanding.
  We have a budget cap at the UN. We have reduced employment by 1,000. 
I am advised at the United Nations we have a Secretary General function 
operating and we have new financial management, and we have combined 
departments.
  Now, one might draw a bottom line on all that and say it equals zero. 
I would draw a bottom line on it and say we have been pretty darn 
successful in moving a large organization in the right direction. I 
think this effort to cut the appropriation, which is the very incentive 
to effect these reforms, is the exact wrong thing to do.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). I believe the 
adoption of this Stearns amendment would undercut our efforts to 
achieve meaningful permanent reforms at the UN, and would actually 
prevent the U.S. from reducing our annual assessments to the UN.
  The UN has already instituted a series of so-called Track-2 reforms 
that will streamline their departments, reduce staffing and improve the 
efficiency of their operations based upon our initial discussions with 
them about the amount due from the United States. For a largely token 
reduction in our arrearage payments to the UN of $109 million, we would 
be jeopardizing our efforts to lower our assessments from 25 to 22 and 
actually 20 percent, and, in the process, would prevent us from 
realizing taxpayer savings of up to $1 billion over a 10-year time 
frame.
  Moreover, on March 26 of this year, by voice vote, the House passed 
an authorization measure authorizing the payment of UN arrearages in 
exchange for the implementation of a comprehensive package of reforms 
which are already under way.

                              {time}  1415

  We should not be taking any nickel and dime approaches embodied in 
this amendment. As the chairman of the Committee on International 
Relations, I will be working with our colleagues on the Committee on 
Appropriations to assure timely and prompt reimbursement and repayment 
of U.S. costs associated with U.S. peacekeeping operations. Moreover, 
over the past 5 years our overall peacekeeping costs have dropped by 
over 60 percent.
  My colleagues should be aware that the adoption of this amendment 
would prevent our Nation from, one, putting a cap on our contribution 
to all international organizations at $900 million per year; secondly, 
assuring that we will retain our voting rights at the U.N. General 
Assembly; and third, mandating that the U.N. has instituted a 
procurement system prohibiting punitive actions against contractors 
that challenge contract awards and complain about delayed payments.
  Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is counterproductive. I

[[Page H7218]]

urge my colleagues to vote no on the Stearns amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), ranking member of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) for yielding time to me.
  To my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns), I would recommend he go see a movie called The Producers, a 
Mel Brooks film, where two guys are putting together a play they were 
sure would be a flop. It was called Springtime for Hitler. They sold 
1,000 percent of the play, knowing it would fail, but it turned out the 
play was a big hit, and now they have to deal with all the people they 
had promised this.
  As the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, a deal was 
made between the authorizers of both Houses in the majority party and 
the appropriators to deduct $109 million because of the offsets of the 
money that we have paid. We can get into a great debate about whether 
we should have done that, but it was done.
  The authorization plan lays out in tranches, contingent on certain 
reforms, this payment schedule. Last year the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Chairman Rogers) appropriated $100 million as the first tranche. Now 
we are having the second tranche. Next year will be the third tranche. 
The total figure comes to somewhere around $800 and something million. 
I do not remember the exact dollar amount. It already deducts the $109 
million.
  To do this now is to sell the same deal once again, double the amount 
of the offset, over what it legitimately should be. So even on the 
mathematics, even if we accept every premise of everything the 
gentleman has said, and even if we ignore the fact that all this money 
is contingent on, one, the passage of an authorization bill, if I am 
correct, and secondly, the implementation of reforms, which the 
authorization is geared to, even if we accept all of that, this 
amendment should still be voted down because we have already deducted 
the $109 million from the total amount that we are authorizing and 
appropriating, according to this 3-year schedule.
  This amendment should really be withdrawn. If it is not going to be, 
I would urge my colleagues to reject it, because the whole logic of it 
is faulty. The money has been taken. The money will be contingent on 
the reforms the gentleman seeks, and the whole appropriation is 
contingent on the passage of an already-agreed upon authorization 
amount which has been left hanging only because of a dispute about the 
family planning monies and the Mexico City policy. So I urge a no vote.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns 
amendment.
  Congressman Stearns and I agree on one thing: The provisions relating 
to the United Nations in the bill before us are unacceptable. 
Unfortunately, that is where our agreement on this issue ends.
  I believe the funding level this bill includes for the U.N. is 
woefully inadequate. The United States owes more than $1 billion to the 
U.N. in arrears. But this bill provides just $475 million--less than 
half--of our debt. And it makes even that small amount contingent upon 
the enactment of legislation authorizing this funding, which, 
conveniently enough, is lying dead in a dormant conference committee.
  So I too think that we need to change the U.N. provisions included in 
this bill. But Mr. Stearns' amendment goes in exactly the wrong 
direction.
  This amendment hinders the United States from taking even the first, 
paltry step included in this bill toward fulfilling its debt to the 
U.N.
  Mr. Stearns cloaks his amendment in the rhetoric of reform, and 
claims that his amendment will somehow take us down that path.
  But let's be very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is not about 
U.N. reform. This amendment is simply about blocking the United States 
from fulfilling its financial obligations to the U.N.
  I don't think there is anyone in this House who is not supportive of 
further U.N. reform. That is why we worked to elect Secretary General 
Kofi Annan. That is why the U.N. has begun to implement reforms 
developed and demanded by the United States. And that is why we will 
continue to advocate far-reaching reforms throughout the U.N. system.
  The United States has a tremendous amount of influence within the 
U.N., but that level of influence is rapidly decreasing.
  Our debt to the U.N. is draining our power in the organization, 
creating a climate of resistance to U.S. proposals and even endangering 
our vote in the General Assembly.
  The U.N. has historically served U.S. interests, but our debt is 
making it hard for the organization to carry out its activities. The 
Stearns amendment will only make this situation worse.
  In the interest of U.S. national security and in the interest of 
reforming the U.N., I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Stearns 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote, and 
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Stearns) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.


                Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Callahan

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Callahan:
       Page 53, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $29,000,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
Tuesday, August 4, 1998, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have introduced a bill to reduce the 
appropriations to the National Marine Fisheries by $29 million. It is 
my ultimate intention to withdraw this amendment, but it gives me the 
opportunity to bring to the Members' attention something that I think 
is a very serious thing facing this Nation.
  The United States Coast Guard is obligated to enforce all of the 
rules and regulations that are implemented and adopted by the National 
Marine Fisheries. So the scenario is that the National Marine Fisheries 
Service, without a word, without anything else, one bureaucrat, can 
issue a rule or regulation and pick up the telephone and call the 
Commandant of the Coast Guard and say, tomorrow morning send your 
people out and enforce this new rule we have implemented.
  The administration this year has asked for more money, believe it or 
not, to enforce fisheries laws than they have requested for drug 
interdiction activities. That, Mr. Chairman, is misplaced priorities at 
its greatest possible moment.
  Let me just give a scenario of something that conceivably could take 
place. We have a young man who wants to be in the United States Coast 
Guard. He goes to high school, he goes to college. Then he goes to the 
Coast Guard Academy. He gets his commission. He marries his childhood 
sweetheart. They move into a nice little bungalow. Lo and behold, he is 
called on his first tour of duty. He has to leave his wife and his 
bungalow. He has to go do what he is commissioned to do, and that is to 
protect the shores of the United States of America.
  Can we imagine what happens when he comes back 10 days later and 
docks his ship and gets off the ship, runs home, he kisses his wife, 
and says, honey, I am back. She is happy to see him. He says, honey, 
you are not going to believe what happened this week, my first week 
asea in the United States Coast Guard.
  Would you believe, he tells his wife, that I actually caught a fellow 
out in the Gulf of Mexico with a 10-inch snapper; and the violation of 
the law, because it has to be about 15 inches? So I took my multi-
million dollar cutter, after I saw him with my field glasses, and I 
rushed over there with my 15-member crew and we boarded this boat. Not 
only did he violate that one-snapper regulation by it being too small, 
he also found out that the guy had five snappers. Can you imagine that, 
he says? And we arrested that guy and confiscated his boat.

[[Page H7219]]

  His wife said, ``Oh, honey I am so proud of you. But I saw the 
darnedest thing on television today. I saw where 500 children died this 
week because they were using drugs, drugs that probably came through 
the Gulf of Mexico.''
  We have misplaced priorities, Mr. Chairman, with respect to how we 
fund the United States Coast Guard. The Commandant of the Coast Guard 
has told us that he has an insufficient amount of money to even 
implement the activities that they did this year, much less increase 
the activities that need to be done to eliminate the drug infusion into 
the United States of America.
  The National Marine Fisheries Service is out of control. We need to 
send them a message. I would not be able to successfully cut their 
appropriation. I never thought that I could. I just wanted to use this 
opportunity to bring to Members' attention, to bring to light, to the 
light of day, something that explains that the United States Fisheries 
Association, the National Marine Fisheries, is a bureaucratic, 
overzealous agency that is out of control, and that we ought not to be 
spending the hundreds of millions of dollars that we are spending to 
fund this agency, only to let the Coast Guard go wanting.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, a landlocked 
State, I might add, who recognizes the importance of the United States 
Coast Guard.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for 
bringing this matter before the House. He did so in the Subcommittee on 
Transportation of the Committee on Appropriations, on which he and I 
are both members. He did so before the full committee and now before 
the full House, so I want to commend the gentleman for pointing out 
that this administration has cut the number of hours that they are 
allowing the Coast Guard to patrol for drugs coming through the 
Caribbean, and are increasing the number of hours that they require the 
Coast Guard to patrol for violations of the fisheries laws.
  We all want the fisheries laws enforced, but which is more important 
to us, keeping our kids from dying, or catching somebody with a fish an 
inch too long? I commend the gentleman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. The gentleman is absolutely right, they have turned the 
Coast Guard into the meter maids of the Gulf of Mexico.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The amendment is withdrawn.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Callahan

  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment printed in House Report 105-641 offered by Mr. 
     Callahan:
       Page 62, beginning at line 15, strike section 210 and 
     insert the following:
       Sec. 210. (a) In General.--Each of the States of Alabama, 
     Louisiana, and Mississippi has exclusive fishery management 
     authority over all fish in the Gulf of Mexico within 3 
     leagues of the coast of that State, effective July 1, 1999.
       (b) Fish Defined.--In this section, the term ``fish'' means 
     finfish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of marine 
     animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and a Member opposed will each 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the language included in my amendment is an effort to 
provide jurisdictional parity for fisheries enforcement for the States 
of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, with the States of Florida and 
Texas. These jurisdictions were originally agreed to as part of the 
treaty agreements which brought each State into the Federal union.
  The amendment which I am proposing today would clarify some technical 
concerns, and allow that date certain implementation of July 1, 1999, 
which would allow the States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi an 
appropriate amount of time, timetable for the execution of this 
jurisdictional provision.
  It would replace the nine mile provision contained in the bill as 
passed by the full Committee on Appropriations with three marine 
leagues. It is a technical amendment amending language that is in the 
bill. It simply amends the language to make absolutely certain that we 
are only talking about fisheries, and it changes three miles, or nine 
miles, to three leagues, which is a term we need to do that.
  So it is a very simple, clarifying amendment to an amendment that was 
unanimously adopted by the Committee on Appropriations, and also was 
agreed upon by the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) 
is recognized for 10 minutes in opposition.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition, because I think the 
motivations on the part of the people that want to extend the State 
jurisdiction for Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana are of the 
highest, and I think they want to do their best for people that they 
represent in this particular area.
  My opposition comes in three areas. One is an area that we always 
discuss here on the House floor, the difference between an 
appropriation jurisdiction and an authorization jurisdiction.
  There were no hearings held in this particular legislation. We do not 
know its impact on the States. We do not know its impact on the 
commercial fishery. We do not know its impact on the charter boat 
fishery. We do not know its impact on the shrimp fishery. There is a 
whole range of questions that are still out there that we do not have 
any real answers for that could be resolved through hearings.
  Let me discuss briefly some of the volatile debates we have had 
around here that have been resolved during the course of hearings. We 
have always had problems with logging issues. Through the course of 
hearings, we came up with, in northern California, the Quincy Library 
solution, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Wally Herger).
  We have seen solutions with the Committee on Agriculture on logging 
and grazing. A couple of years ago this Congress, in a bipartisan way, 
came together to deal with the Magnuson Act, which was to have a plan 
across State boundaries, across the wide oceans of the jurisdiction 
that the United States has in its coastal areas, to understand the need 
for good, science-based management plans on a resource that can be 
overfished.
  So, number one, it is really important, it is vital, not only for 
this Congress but for the very fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico, for us 
to understand the full ramifications of what this amendment will do, 
what this rider will do, without any hearings.
  Number two, this, I guess, could be stated as an unfunded mandate. I 
want to read two short paragraphs, one from the Governor of Louisiana 
and one from the Department of Marine Resources in Mississippi. The 
Governor of Louisiana says: ``I am also advised that the bill is an 
unfunded mandate, and provides no funds for Louisiana's Department of 
Wildlife and Fisheries to perform the functions required,'' and that 
the bill may be effective as early as, and we now know it would not be 
effective until July 1, 1999.

                              {time}  1430

  We are looking into the issue of an unfunded mandate. Basically Mr. 
Woods from Mississippi says the same thing. How will they develop their 
management plan? What will that cost? What are the costs of 
enforcement?
  I would like to make a quick comment about the Coast Guard in 
response to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).

[[Page H7220]]

 While the Coast Guard is out there monitoring the fisheries, they are 
also monitoring illegal immigrants to our country. They are also 
checking out drug interdiction. They are also looking into 
environmental pollution.
  There is a whole range of things that the Coast Guard does with 
fisheries enforcement, not to mention the fact it is a huge, many 
multibillion dollar industry, that the Coast Guard is out there 
preventing many other countries from illegally fishing in our waters.
  The last comment I want to make is about conservation. I want to 
focus on the red snapper in particular. The red snapper, mature red 
snapper fish are for the most part caught outside State waters. That is 
outside of 9 miles if this passes. That is fine. But the immature red 
snapper, 80 percent of the immature red snapper fish are within State 
waters. Many of those red snappers, without bycatch reduction devices, 
are lost to bycatch. That means they never grow up and they can never 
be caught by the commercial fishermen outside these territorial waters 
who, by the way, the commercial fishing communities, the red snapper 
commercial fishermen are opposed to this amendment.
  If we do not have some sense of where the waters flow, about how to 
consistently manage and sustain these resources, we are going to lose 
these resources. So for a conservation effort to increase the stock of 
red snapper, to find the way to manage the shrimp trawling industry, we 
need to defeat this particular amendment by the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, in deference to the arguments advanced 
by my former shipmate, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), an 
outstanding Congressman, an ex-marine and a great American hero, I 
would simply say that I respectfully disagree with him on this point.
  We are always hearing about federalism, restoring the power to the 
States. I think that means equal power to the States and that all 
Americans stand equally under the eyes of the law. That is not the case 
when it comes to limits for fisheries or for any other purposes of the 
Outer Continental Shelf.
  The fact is, as my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
will say, red snapper are doing fine. There are plenty of red snapper. 
And the unfunded mandates, I do not think that is a problem because the 
Federal Government did not worry about that when they made the 
shrimpers carry BRDs or TEDs or any of the other excluder devices that 
they mandated from here in Washington, so the unfunded mandates really 
is not an issue.
  What is an issue is federalism, equal opportunity for States. In 
Alaska, they have a 12-mile limit, extending their jurisdiction out 12 
miles for the supervision of some of their fisheries. In the States of 
California and Oregon and Washington, for the purpose of supervising 
the development of a particular species of crab they are talking about 
200 miles, 200 miles reaching out beyond the borders of their 
shorelines.
  In Texas and in Florida, which the last time I looked at my map 
bounded the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, the outreach 
is 9 to 10 miles. But for whatever reason, and I did inquire of my 
friend from Maryland the other day what the reason was, he says, you 
guys came into the country under different circumstances, almost 200 
years ago, whatever reason it is, we have got a 3-mile limit in 
Louisiana. Mississippi and Alabama have a 3-mile limit.
  If Texas and Florida are on either sides of us on the Gulf of Mexico 
and if they have to live by certain fisheries rules, I think the fish 
swim in the same water. They do not stop at the border and check, am I 
in a Texas border or am I in a Florida border, and then I can swim out 
10 miles, but I am in the Louisiana border, I can only swim out 3 
miles. That is ridiculous.
  We ought to have the same rules, the same laws for the fish and the 
people. The outreach ought to be the same number of miles, whether it 
is 3 miles or 10 miles, it ought to be the same. Texas and Florida do 
not want to go to 3 miles. They want to stay at 10 miles. So it seems 
only proper that Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana ought to be 10 
miles as well.
  The opponents of this amendment do not want this extension of fishery 
rights for our states but, just the past Monday under suspension vote 
as part of H.R. 3460, they granted the states of California, Oregon, 
and Washington state jurisdiction for a major crab fishery out to 200 
miles!
  Opponents are trying to claim in the ``Dear Colleagues'' that the 
states of LA and Mississippi are opposed to these extensions, that they 
are an un-funded mandate.
  But, if you read the letters from these two states you will see that 
they support extending jurisdiction out to 9 miles if the extension is 
delayed and if we provide Federal funds to implement state 
jurisdiction.
  The revised Callahan amendment provides this extension by not 
implementing an extension of the state boundary for fisheries until 
July, 1999.
  And, while direct funding to the states is not provided in this 
amendment--the Federal government already has grant programs, 
enforcement dollars and mechanisms in place through the Dingell-Johnson 
act and this very bill to provide states assistance in managing their 
fishery resources.
  Opponents claim that the Callahan amendment will mean that some 
fishermen, particularly shrimp fishermen, will have an easier time in 
Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama because their state laws or 
regulations do not yet require that Fish Excluder Devices (FEDs) or 
Bycatch Reduction Devices (BRDs) be put in their nets.
  Again, the Callahan amendment is not effective until July 10 1999, so 
it will give the states plenty of time to require BRDs or FEDs, if they 
desire.
  The Callahan amendment would leave management of red snapper and 
other resources to the states where it will be more consistent and 
fair.
  The Commerce Department's National Marine and Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) and NOAA have consistently failed to develop fair and practical 
regulations based on all the available scientific data and economic 
impacts to fishermen.
  NMFS consistently has used ``selectively'' chosen data to mandate new 
regulations like BRDs or FEDs that are advocated by so many here today.
  Remember, this (BRD) or Bycatch Reduction Device is really a fancy 
name coined by the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) so they 
would not have to call these devices FEDs, Fish Excluder Devices.
  These BRDs or FEDs are an un-funded mandate implemented by the Dept. 
of Commerce and NMFS last April and May for well over 3,000 shrimp 
fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to put in his or her shrimp nets 
because NMFS ``claims'' its ``scientific data'' proved that these 
devices will help prevent what they termed was significant red snapper 
bycatch.
  When these FEDs or BRDs were mandated by the Federal Government in 
April of this year, there was no Federal funding that came with this 
mandate for the over 3,000 shrimp fishermen throughout the Gulf of 
Mexico.
  Between the equipment you have to buy, the number of nets you have to 
modify, and the labor, these FEDs cost each shrimp fishermen an average 
of nearly $200--and this does not take into account the extra fuel and 
other expenses they have to consume to make up for the shrimp lost 
because the shrimp fishermen now have a TED and a FED in their nets.
  And, when the FED/BRD mandate came out earlier this year, there was 
only one NMFS or Government approved device that the fishermen were 
allowed to use. It was not until opening day of shrimp season that NMFS 
approved a second version.
  At the same time NMFS was mandating a FED/BRD requirement they said 
in the same rulemaking that they would conduct a ``four month, 
intensive research effort * * * at sea to test the effectiveness of 
BRDs at reducing the mortality of juvenile red snapper. The research 
will conclusively determine the effectiveness of BRDs under actual 
operating conditions.''
  If they did not have the data and proof, under actual working 
conditions, why didn't NMFS implement a voluntary program with 
fishermen as opposed to a Federal un-funded mandate?
  Also, talk about selective use of data, just 5 months earlier (in 
December, 1997) NMFS officials, based on the ``science they 
developed'', mandated that shrimp fishermen could no longer use certain 
types of NMFS previously approved ``soft'' TEDs, turtle excluder 
devices.
  NMFS mandated this because they had new ``science'' that indicated 
that soft TEDs were

[[Page H7221]]

not as effective as ``hard'' TEDs in releasing endangered sea turtles.
  For the uninitiated, ``soft'' TEDs use rope or flexible rigging as 
opposed to ``hard'' TEDs that use metal or firm rigging.
  NMFS went ahead with the mandate to eliminate previously approved 
NMFS soft TEDs despite the fact: (1) Most Gulf shrimpers used soft TEDs 
and would have to replace those TEDs with new ones (In fact shrimper 
compliance with all TEDs was over 97%); (2) That NMFS was already 
planning to require BRDs or FEDs; (3) And, that NMFS' own 
``scientific'' data and other science strongly indicated that most of 
the soft TEDs used by shrimpers also happened to be excellent Bycatch 
Reduction or Fish Excluder Devices; and (4) And, that NMFS' ``science'' 
and ``data'' justifying the elimination of soft TEDs was only based on 
2 small tests.
  NMFS takes away one device, soft TEDs, they mandated years ago and 
that shrimpers were complying with at a 97% compliance rate, even 
though they had enough science to show that they helped reduce 
bycatch--something they several months later fishermen must use totally 
different devices for.
  All these inconsistent and irrational Federal policies and 
regulations in the name of protecting the red snapper.
  A species, despite what many claim, is not declining.
  The same Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, that opponents 
say oppose the Callahan amendment, said last February, when it approved 
a 9.12 million pound catch for red snapper for this year, that the 
``red snapper is in a recovery phase. . . .
  ``(and) positive growth indicators include 5 years of increasing 
recruitment, increasing numbers of older fish, increasing size of fish 
harvested, increasing catch rates in the fishery, and expanding 
juvenile distribution. . . .''
  An independent red snapper stock assessment sanctioned by NMFS, and 
that was conducted by a Dr. Rothschild and the University of 
Massachusetts, concluded that the red snapper stock appears to be 
``healthy'' and that ``recruitment'' is increasing.
  NMFS chose not to use this stock assessment. They used their ``own 
developed science'' to conclude that the red snapper stock was still 
threatened enough to require the mandatory use of BRDs or FEDs.
  Again, extending this fish boundary for our states does not make it 
easier on fishermen.
  Louisiana has as tough or comparable fisheries enforcement laws in 
almost every area that the Feds do.
  In cases where someone catches beyond their limit or is a consistent 
violator, Louisiana, like the Feds, requires criminal fines, allows for 
confiscation of property and other penalties.
  But, Louisiana goes further--they allow, unlike the Feds in most 
cases, for additional fines to be paid to the state to help towards 
restoration of the impacted fishery.
  And, Louisiana, I am told, has tougher laws on gill nets. Unlike 
Federal waters, there is a total ban on gill nets in LA waters except 
for allowing a special type of strike net, that cannot be left 
unattended, for only 2 limited species.
  Louisiana is properly managing their fisheries and has been for 
years--if that were not the case Louisiana would not annually be ranked 
as the top 1, 2, or 3 nationwide producer of blue crabs, oysters and 
shrimp in the U.S.
  According to the Commerce Dept's own figures Louisiana has had 4 of 
the top 10 port cities with the highest volume of fish and shellfish 
landings from 1994 through 1996 (the latest figures available).
  This is despite the fact that Louisiana is responsible for over 75% 
of our entire nation's OCS oil and gas production.
  I can tell you that we are environmentally sensitive--our state 
leadership is known for its track record for helping our fisheries, 
especially recreational fisheries.
  If it is good enough for Alaska, Texas, Florida, Oregon, California 
and Washington--it should be good enough for LA, Alabama and 
Mississippi.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, Alaska has a 3-mile jurisdiction, not a 
12-mile jurisdiction, and there is only one other situation, that is 
the State of California, where we have had hearings, and they are 
managing the Dungeness crab.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Farr).
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this 
amendment. I think I represent a sense of some fishermen who I 
represent, and knowledge of the California coastline and essentially 
West Coast coastlines. This is not good law. This is not good 
precedent.
  As has been stated, the fish stocks do not respect political 
boundaries, whether they are near shore waters, offshore waters, State 
waters or exclusive economic zone.
  One of the things that we have been trying to do with our management 
councils is to develop that kind of uniform practice of how you can 
best fish a fishery without catching in the process what they call the 
bycatch, which are also, and when you are fishing for shrimp, you are 
catching three times as much bycatch as you are fish. That bycatch has 
an economic value. If you are going to wipe out a species by it as a 
bycatch, you are going to be wiping out somebody else's business.
  So in the best economic interest, it does not make sense to 
essentially give States this exclusive jurisdiction at the expense of 
other fishermen in the ocean. That is why the council of this 
jurisdiction is opposed to this. The States indicate they do not have 
the resources to manage it, have the patrol boats and so on.
  It really does makes sense to keep these jurisdictions as they have. 
These States have coastal Zone Management Plans. They have exclusive 
authority that has been granted them to regulate in certain instances 
activities in these zones. So there is essentially a local, State, 
Federal cooperation that has been working well all these years.
  The only reason you want to extend this jurisdiction is to take away 
Federal Government authority and give it to the States, and that might 
be in the best interest of some commercial interests in that State, but 
it will not be in the best interest of all the commercial fisheries 
interests. It will certainly not be in the best interest of sustaining.
  Our most important issue in respect here in making laws is to sustain 
so future generations can have access to these fisheries.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, let me first tell you that as far as this 
unfunded mandate argument goes, we have discussed personally this issue 
with our governor, the head of our natural resources in Louisiana. They 
tell us it is certainly right and fitting that Louisiana and 
Mississippi and Alabama should have the same jurisdictional enforcement 
capacities that Texas and Florida have, and they would be very willing 
to accept that responsibility if the State was accorded that 
responsibility in this bill. They are prepared for it.
  Of course, our fisheries and wildlife department would love to have 
more money. That is the reason he mentioned that in his letter. But the 
truth of the matter is that they want parity of jurisdiction, just as 
much as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) and I, who 
represent Louisiana, would love our State to have parity of 
jurisdiction.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Maryland about the fiscal state of 
affairs in Louisiana. I assure you, our State officials are one with us 
in this request.
  Secondly, let me point out that the Callahan amendment makes no 
change substantively in the fisheries laws. The laws are going to be 
enforced, whether by the Federal authorities or the State authorities, 
the same.
  Thirdly, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston) made the 
point, the fact that in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama there is a 
3-mile fisheries limit enforcement for State authorities, and in Texas 
and Florida, 3 leagues enforcement authority. Literally, it sets up a 
crazy boundary line for enforcement.
  It does not mean the Coast Guard is not going to be out there. The 
Coast Guard will still enforce the laws outside the 3 leagues. It will 
still be there to protect against drug induction into our country. It 
will still be there protecting the fisheries laws on its side of that 3 
leagues.
  This amendment simply means that Louisiana and Mississippi and 
Alabama would enjoy the same enforcement jurisdictional authority that 
Texas and Florida have in the same Gulf waters.
  Finally, let me point out that the Gulf Fisheries Council finds 
itself in great problems with our own NMFS authority here in 
Washington. National Marine Fisheries consistently overrules the Gulf 
Council. The Gulf Council has great problems with our own authority 
here in Washington, D.C. But let me assure you of one thing, we in 
Louisiana are as sincerely interested in

[[Page H7222]]

maintaining a red snapper population as any of you, believe me, from 
California or Maryland may be.
  Red snapper are important to our commercial industry. It is also 
important to our sports fisheries industry. If the commercial red 
snapper industry is at all worried, it is not worried about who 
enforces the laws 3 miles or 9 miles or 12 miles outside of our 
boundaries. They are more concerned that the sports fishermen do not 
get a bigger share of the quota.
  That is the real battle. Right now the few boats who fish 
commercially take 51 percent of the red snapper quotas right now. 
Sports fishermen would love to have a bigger share of that. That is a 
battle they fight at the council level. It has nothing to do with what 
authority enforces the law.
  I can assure you, red snapper is critical to the sportsmen and to the 
commercial interests in our State and those of us who want to see that 
wonderful species of fish preserved. We do our job in Louisiana and 
Mississippi and Alabama to preserve them. We simply want the same 
authority that is accorded Florida and Texas in that regard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has 
2\1/2\ minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, let me point out to my colleagues that 
this is not a new issue. In 1995 the Republican-controlled Congress 
spoke loud and clear on the need for bycatch devices. By a vote of 294 
to 129 during reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, the House voted to 
allow the bycatch devices regulations to move forward.
  I suggest that Members go back and check their vote in the 104th 
Congress and be consistent, because absolutely nothing has changed 
since that time. The red snapper and other fish are just as vulnerable 
to poor shrimping practices, the bycatch devices are just as effective 
in reducing the problem.
  I urge my colleagues not to be fooled. This is not an amendment to 
protect States' rights. This is an amendment to undermine environmental 
protection. This is not an amendment that will correct language in the 
bill. This is an attempt to block efforts to strike the very damaging 
language in the bill.
  The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Gulf charter boat 
fishermen and red snapper fishermen, as well as environmental groups 
and the governor of Louisiana, are all adamantly opposed.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).
  Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Callahan 
amendment. It is my opinion that this amendment would have a 
devastating effect on many Gulf of Mexico fisheries.
  Let me just say, Mr. Chairman, that I have the utmost regard for the 
gentleman from Alabama and for his constituents. I would like to point 
out that we have heard from some of them who oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. For example, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council 
voted 9 to 2 to oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  I also have a communication here from the Clark Seafood Company from 
Pascagoula, Mississippi. Let me quote from their letter:
  ``I think Congressman Callahan was probably trying to do something 
helpful for commercial and recreational fishing when he wrote'' his 
proposal, ``but his proposal, a rider on the appropriations bill, 
leaves an awful lot of questions unanswered and could cause some big 
problems for Gulf fishermen.''
  I also have a letter from the Orange County Fishing Association from 
Orange County, Alabama: ``We fully support the Gulf of Mexico Fishery 
Management Council's position'' in opposition to the Callahan 
amendment, they say. ``The National Marine Fisheries Service states 
that if they lose the valuable miles for bycatch reduction, their only 
alternative would be to lower the allowable catch for red snapper and 
thereby extend the closure considerably.''
  We have a letter from the Destin Charter Boats Association to the 
same effect. We have a letter from the Galveston Party Boats, Inc. to 
the same effect. We have a letter from the Panama Boatman Association 
and they say, ``This rider will be devastating to the hook and line 
fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.''
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the following correspondence:


                                  Clark Seafood Company, Inc.,

                                    Pascagoula, MS, July 29, 1998.
     Hon. Trent Lott,
     Russell Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Lott: I apologize for waiting this late to 
     contact your office about Sonny Callahan's bill to extend the 
     state waters of Mississippi, Alabama and Louisiana out to 
     nine miles.
       I think Congressman Callahan was probably trying to do 
     something helpful for commercial and recreational fishing 
     when he wrote his proposed law extending the fisheries 
     jurisdiction in the Gulf out to nine miles. But his proposal, 
     a rider on the appropriations bill, leaves an awful lot of 
     questions unanswered and could cause some big problems for 
     Gulf fishermen and for people like me in the commercial 
     fishing business.
       I don't think a law that makes such big changes in the way 
     we operate and that could cost a lot of fishermen a large 
     amount of money should be passed without giving all of us a 
     chance to ask questions about it and at least try to make 
     changes where we see problems. Congressman Goss has tried to 
     make changes to minimize the problems but his efforts raise 
     other questions for us.
       I would appreciate it if you would ask Congressman Callahan 
     to remove his rider on the appropriations bill and bring his 
     proposal back to Congress next year as a regular bill. That 
     way we in the fishing industry can study and comment on the 
     bill. If he is unwilling to do that, I would ask you to vote 
     against Congressman Callahan's rider on the appropriations 
     bill.
       Thank you for your consideration of my comments on this 
     issue and for your work supporting our seafood businesses.
           Sincerely,
     Phil Horn.
                                  ____



                             Orange Beach Fishing Association,

                                  Orange Beach, AL, July 27, 1998.
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman, We fully support the Gulf of Mexico 
     Fishery Management Council's position to oppose the rider 
     attached to H.R. 4276 by Congressman Sonny Callahan. It would 
     extend state waters for Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana 
     from 3 to 9 miles out. Although we believe the primary reason 
     for introducing this rider was intended to support the 
     fishery, ramifications have since been identified that would 
     make the adoption of this rider extremely detrimental to the 
     fishery.
       Ten million dollars in studies, funded by Congress, show 
     that reducing shrimp trawl bycatch is the single most 
     important element in the recovery of the red snapper fishery. 
     Studies indicate that the stock could not recover in the 
     allotted time allowed under the Magnuson Act even with a 
     complete closure of the directed red snapper fishery 
     (charter/recreational and commercial) without bycatch 
     reduction. Without 50% reduction in bycatch the fishery 
     cannot recover.
       The state of Louisiana has a law that prohibits enforcing 
     bycatch reduction devices or turtle excluder devices in state 
     waters. Last week at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management 
     Council Meeting the state of Mississippi's representative 
     stated that they have no intention of requiring bycatch 
     reduction devices in state waters, as did the representative 
     from the State of Alabama.
       The National Marine Fisheries Service states that if they 
     lose these valuable miles for bycatch reduction their only 
     alternative would be to lower the total allowable catch for 
     red snapper and thereby extend the closure considerably. 
     Recreational saltwater fishing contributes a $7 billion 
     dollar impact annually to these five states. The consequences 
     of adoption of this rider would destroy the ability to 
     preserve this industry and the impacts associated with it. 
     When you include the economic impact of the commercial 
     fishery as well, the impact of closures is staggering.
       Numerous delays (since 1990) on implementing bycatch 
     reduction devices (BRD's) have been granted to the shrimping 
     industry to accommodate design and minimize shrimp loss. 
     During this same period, the directed recreational/charter 
     red snapper fishery has given up 60% of their bag limit and 
     suffered through a 5 week closure. We urge you to oppose this 
     rider so that ALL industries contribute to saving this 
     valuable resource.
           Best Regards,
                                                  Bobbi M. Walker,
     President.
                                  ____



                              Destin Charter Boat Association,

                                        Destin, FL, July 27, 1998.
       The 100 members and families of the Destin Charter Boat 
     Association stand adamantly opposed to the Callahan rider 
     that has been attached to the appropriations bill H.R. 4276. 
     This bill will be a disaster for the red snappers fisheries 
     and the lives that depend on the recreational and commercial 
     catch of red snappers. The red snapper fisheries will soon

[[Page H7223]]

     close because the shrimping industry is catching and killing 
     millions of pounds of juvenile red snappers as by-catch to 
     their shrimp catch. These juvenile red snappers are 
     inadvertently caught in the shrimp net and are discarded back 
     into the water dead.
       The N.M.F.S. has recognized that the killing of juvenile 
     red snappers as by-catch is one of the leading major causes 
     of the decline of red snapper stocks. N.M.F.S. has recently 
     ordered all shrimp boats in federal waters to utilize a 
     proven and well tested by-catch reduction device (BRD).
       The problem is, the shrimping industry is being allowed to 
     kill a large portion of the snapper population as a useless 
     by-catch that they discard and has no value to them 
     whatsoever, while the red snapper fisheries is having their 
     limits and quota's reduced to compensate for the juvenile red 
     snappers that the shrimp industry kills.
       The Callahan rider will change the state water boundary 
     lines to 9 miles from 3 miles for all Gulf coast states 
     (except FL where it already is 9 miles). This change will 
     allow the shrimping industry to fish in what was once 
     protected federal waters without the required use of the BRD. 
     Not only will this accelerate the catch of juvenile red 
     snappers, these inshore waters are the main breeding groung 
     for the red snappers stocks. This rider is the worst case 
     scenario for the red snapper fisheries, we are currently 
     facing a Sept. 1st closure because of the large number of red 
     snappers killed as a result of shrimp trawl by-catch.
       Everything possible must be done to defeat the Callahan 
     rider to H.R. 4276. The future of our multi million dollar 
     recreational, commercial and charter fishing industry is 
     depended on it. The red snappers that are being killed and 
     discarded as trash, are the life blood of the red snapper 
     fisheries as well as the commercial and recreational fishing 
     industry.
       Your help is needed now.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Mike Eller,
     President, D.C.B.A.
                                  ____



                                  Galveston Party Boats, Inc.,

                                     Galveston, TX, July 31, 1998.
     Hon. Nicholas V. Lampson,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Lampson: I am writing to ask your help 
     in defeating a rider attached to H.R. 4276. This rider, 
     sponsored by Rep. Callahan will extend the state waters of 
     Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama out to nine miles. Newly 
     mandated by-catch reduction devices designed to save juvenile 
     red snapper are not required in state waters, including new 
     areas added as a result of this bill. As such, the National 
     Marine Fisheries Service has stated that extending state 
     waters would require a severe reduction or complete closure 
     of the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. As I am 
     sure you already know, our industry is already fighting an 
     up-hill battle for survival. The last thing we need is for 
     NMFS to be provided with more ammunition to use as 
     justification for reducing our bag limit and season. Please 
     note in the attached letter from Dr. Kemmerer to Mr. Swingle 
     of the Gulf Council, that NMFS is already pressuring the Gulf 
     Council to reduce our bag limit.
       Our information indicates this bill will be voted on this 
     Tuesday, (August 4). Thank you for your time and 
     consideration in this urgent matter.
           Sincerely,
     Ed Schroeder.
                                  ____



                              Panama City Boatman Association,

                                   Panama City, FL, July 27, 1998.
       Dear Congressman: The Panama City Boatman Association is 
     extremely concerned about a rider to the Appropriations Bill 
     which has been attached by Congressman Callahan from Alabama. 
     This rider will be devastating to the hook and line fishermen 
     in the Gulf of Mexico. If the Appropriations Bill is passed 
     with this rider, we will be faced with the very real 
     possibility of a recreational red snapper fishery closure 
     this year and a possible continued closure for the next 
     several years. Any recreational fishery closure has severe 
     detrimental social and economic consequences to the local 
     fishing communities and the citizens in general along the 
     Gulf Coast. In fact, this closure and its impact might be 
     something from which many residents of those coastal areas 
     might never fully recover. We implore you to act now to 
     prevent this disaster! The problem is confusing and complex, 
     but perhaps the following explanation of the status of 
     mandatory bycatch reduction in some of the Gulf Coast states 
     will help you see the urgent need for quick action to kill 
     this rider.
       Currently the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana 
     have state water jurisdiction up to three miles offshore. The 
     states of Florida and Texas have state water jurisdiction up 
     to nine miles offshore. Florida and Texas have state 
     requirements regulating the commercial and recreational red 
     snapper fishery, and Florida requires bycatch reduction 
     devices (BRDs) to be installed in shrimp nets. The National 
     Marine Fisheries Service has required BRDs in federal waters 
     of the Gulf of Mexico since May 14, 1998. The states of 
     Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana do not require BRDs in 
     their state waters. Presently, with Alabama, Mississippi and 
     Louisiana extending their state waters to nine miles 
     offshore, the area off their coasts between three and nine 
     miles would not be subjected to the BRD requirement. Thus, 
     those states would not be participating in required bycatch 
     mortality reduction, and consequently, they would sustain the 
     massive killing of juvenile red snapper. Since the hook and 
     line fishery is directly dependent on the percentage of 
     bycatch mortality reduction, it is very clear that the 
     elimination of required bycatch mortality reduction in such a 
     vast area would be deadly to the hook and line red snapper 
     fishery. Something must be done to save these fish.
       We plead with you to kill this rider. We are very concerned 
     and conscientious about our fisheries and how they are 
     managed; this rider will cause severe problems and greatly 
     hamper current management efforts to rebuild the currently 
     overfished red snapper fishery. Please insist this rider be 
     removed from the Appropriations Bill!
           Thank You,
                                                    R.F. Zales II,
                                                        President.

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Callahan amendment. This 
amendment would have a devastating effect on Gulf of Mexico fisheries. 
It would effectively eliminate the requirement to reduce shrimp trawl 
bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico. It would undermine the ability of the 
National Marine Fisheries Service to manage Gulf fisheries. It would 
set a disastrous precedent for changing jurisdictional boundaries as a 
means for avoiding necessary marine fisheries conservation and 
management measures. This amendment would overturn a significant 
fisheries management decision, made based on science for the benefit of 
the Gulf's fisheries. Finally, it will place an unfunded mandate on the 
states, which will presumably be charged with enforcement in the state 
waters which will be increased threefold.
  In addition to the conservation arguments against this amendment, it 
is the simple truth that not one hearing has been held on the effects 
of this change. Mr. Callahan's amendment was granted a waiver for 
authorizing on an appropriations bill, and neither the Committee on 
Resources or its Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and 
Oceans, which have authorizing jurisdiction over fisheries issues, have 
had the opportunity to examine this issue. It would be ill-advised to 
give this amendment the force of law without knowing its effects.
  I have letters here from recreational and commercial fishermen from 
the Gulf of Mexico, most of which implore Congress to reject this 
amendment until a hearing is held, so that their concerns can be 
addressed. Also, here is the roll call vote taken by the Gulf of Mexico 
Fishery Management Council opposing the Callahan amendment. This 
council was established by the direction of Congress to help conserve 
fish stocks, so it would be ill-advised to ignore their advice. 
Finally, I have a copy of the Statement of Administration Policy which 
clearly states the strong opposition to this measure.
  Until the effects of this amendment can be examined, I must strongly 
oppose the Callahan amendment. I urge all Members concerned about 
conservation to do the same.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. Chairman, I ask all my colleagues to oppose the Callahan 
amendment.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
just to respond to some of the speakers.
  First of all, to the gentleman from New York. This has zero, nothing, 
to do with the bycatch device. Zero. Period. That is a myth, and I 
think Members should be aware of that.
  Number two, the gentleman from Maryland. I doubt if he has even seen 
the Gulf of Mexico. I know he has not been shrimping there. I know he 
has not been fishing there. But I do know that they spend more money in 
the Chesapeake Bay, in his district, than they do for all of the Gulf 
of Mexico for research.
  Maybe it is time for some parity in that appropriation process. Maybe 
we ought to take half of the $21 million a year they spend in the 
Chesapeake and spend it in the Gulf of Mexico. That is an issue we will 
have to face later.
  The gentleman from New Jersey read all of those letters. Now, he read 
a letter from Orange County, Alabama. Mr. Chairman, there is no Orange 
County, Alabama. They are fabricating a lot of these things simply to 
mislead my colleagues.
  My amendment does two very simple things: Number one, the National 
Marine Fisheries is implementing rules and regulations over the 
objections of the State of Alabama and the States of Louisiana and 
Mississippi. But, nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, most important, my 
amendment says that the law that is in the appropriation bill will not 
be effective until July 1999.
  I ask Members to read the amendment. It simply defines fisheries. We 
wanted to limit it to fisheries only because they were passing out 
rumors

[[Page H7224]]

that it had something to do with oil, which it has nothing to do with 
oil. So the correcting amendment just delays the effective date until 
July 1, 1999, and it defines fisheries.
  The gentleman from California was very eloquent. But they have a bill 
in that will be on the floor, probably next week, to extend the 
boundaries of California. So it is all right for California but it is 
not all right for Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that the Members read the amendment and to keep 
in mind that it simply says that the effective date of the language in 
the appropriation bill is delayed until July 1, 1999, and it defines 
fish, meaning fin fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and all other forms of 
marine animal and plant life other than marine mammals and birds. So 
read the amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to vote for the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed, 
in the following order: The amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns) and the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Stearns

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 261, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 394]

                               AYES--165

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kingston
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (KY)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Pappas
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Upton
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--261

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Callahan
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hyde
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ackerman
     Blagojevich
     Clay
     Cunningham
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     McHale
     Pickering

                              {time}  1513

  Mr. KLINK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mesers. BAKER, ROEMER, GALLEGLY and Mrs. CUBIN changed their votes 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall 394, the amendment by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), I was inadvertently detained. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Callahan

  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) 
on which further proceedings were postponed on which the noes prevailed 
by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5 minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 141, 
noes 283, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 395]

                               AYES--141

     Aderholt
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Berry
     Bishop
     Bliley

[[Page H7225]]


     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (CA)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     Everett
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Manton
     McCrery
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stump
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     White
     Wicker
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--283

     Abercrombie
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Ackerman
     Buyer
     Clay
     Coburn
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez
     McDade
     McHale
     Pickering
     Stupak

                              {time}  1520

  Mr. CAMP and Mr. FROST changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SKELTON changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Gilchrest

  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Gilchrest:
       Page 62, beginning at line 15, strike section 210.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, August 
4, 1998, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) and a Member 
opposed will each control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. The issue that we are dealing with right now, this motion to 
strike, is to take the language out of the appropriations bill dealing 
with extending the State jurisdiction in the Gulf of Mexico of 
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama from 3 miles to 3 leagues, or 9.2 
miles.
  I have grave reservations about this language in the appropriations 
bill. Number one, mainly because it has not gone through a process, it 
has not gone through the authorizing committees. We do not know the 
kinds of management plans that we will deal with in these that are now 
presently Federal waters. There are a whole host of other problems that 
I think the authorizing committees could deal with and in the next 
session of Congress we may, and I feel fairly confident could come up 
with a way to find a compromise or a solution to this particular 
problem.
  The other issue here is an issue, and I recognize this is an issue in 
dispute, but it deals with unfunded mandates. If these State waters are 
extended out to three leagues, the Governor of Louisiana has told us 
that he does not have the money to create a fisheries management plan 
and he does not have the money for enforcement. The Secretary of Marine 
Resources in the State of Mississippi has said basically the same 
thing. So this is going to cost those States a little money.
  The other issue is conservation. The conservation issues which deal 
with these are Federal waters. The Gulf of Mexico, these waters, do not 
recognize any kind of boundaries. It is inherent in the marine 
ecosystem that these fish swim from one place to another. There are no 
barriers. There are no political boundary lines. There is just a 
fishery. So to ensure a sustainable fishery, we have created basically 
through the Magnuson-Stevens Act a method by which the Federal 
Government works with the States to sustain these fisheries. If we 
carve up these waters, especially the waters in these particular 
sensitive areas, that fisheries management plan to sustain the 
fisheries will not work and will basically collapse in my judgment.
  I feel that we should hold hearings on this issue. I know it is 
important to the people in the region, many people depend on jobs in 
this particular area, but the process is to go through the committee, 
the questions will be answered about conservation, unfunded mandates, 
the State synchronizing their management plans, and I feel the process 
will work a lot better.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to strike.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is recognized 
for 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. In 1861, the State of Alabama joined with a bunch of other 
States and we tried to move our boundaries a little north. The people 
in New Jersey and California and New York fought us and pushed us back, 
so we lost that battle to expand our boundaries north.
  This year we decided to expand our boundaries south, thinking no one 
would be opposed to Alabama extending its boundaries out into the Gulf 
of Mexico like the State of California is going to do next week, 
extending their

[[Page H7226]]

boundaries out into the Pacific Ocean. But once again, we were beat 2-
1.
  There is no sense in taking this body through another debate on the 
same issue. At the time of the vote, I am not going to ask for a 
recorded vote and will accept defeat with humility.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to say also with great humility that the gentleman from 
Alabama has expressed himself extremely well. This is an issue that we 
will revisit. I would look forward to working with him and the other 
gentleman on this amendment in the future very closely.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GILCHREST. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I just might remind him that while New 
York and New Jersey and California were not on our side in the battle 
that took place in the last century, most of the people from Maryland 
were. But this year things have changed. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. GILCHREST. The gentleman from Alabama's words are well spoken. 
Maryland was a border State. We stayed with the union. But this is not 
about a fight between the North and the South. This is about a battle 
that all of us take together to sustain the resources of this great 
country for future generations.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder 
of the bill, through page 124, line 2, be considered as read, printed 
in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                         TITLE VII--RESCISSIONS

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                         General Administration


                          working capital fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available under this heading on 
     September 30, 1998, $45,326,000 are rescinded.

                            Legal Activities


                   united states trustee system fund

                              (rescission)

       Of the unobligated balances available from offsetting 
     collections derived from fees collected pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 
     589a(b), $17,000,000 are rescinded.

                    TITLE VIII--CITIZENS PROTECTION


                              short title

       Sec. 801. This title may be cited as the ``Citizens 
     Protection Act of 1998''.


               Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Hutchinson

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. Hutchinson: Strike title 
     VIII.

                              {time}  1550

  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) ask 
unanimous consent to have the amendment considered now?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that this 
amendment be considered.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas?
  Mr. McDADE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and I shall 
not object; I just want to assure that I get the time. There is 20 
minutes, I believe, on each side, we have an agreement, and I rise in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment and request the opportunity to 
control the 20 minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the amendment to strike title 
VIII at this time?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves the right to 
object and will state his reservation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, where are we? What are we doing right 
now?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has just read section 801.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
was standing and was not recognized.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I believe my amendment was pending at the 
desk and was preferential, and with the cooperation of my colleague on 
the Committee on the Judiciary I ask that it be called up.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. The parliamentary inquiry is that I have an amendment 
at the desk, I was recognized, there was a unanimous-consent request 
that I be allowed to proceed with my amendment, and I ask the Chair to 
rule on that.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentleman did ask for unanimous consent to consider an amendment 
striking all of title VIII that has not been granted at this time. 
There has been reservations against that at this time.
  So the question is:
  Is there objection to the gentleman considering his amendment at this 
time?
  Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, all I ask 
my colleague:
  I have a preferential motion, and his is one to strike, that it go at 
the proper time. I mean what is the problem?
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I say to my colleagues that when the 
gentleman from Arkansas made his request, I reserved to claim the 20 
minutes time in opposition that has been agreed to as the original 
drafter of the amendment that is in the bill.
  I would suggest the gentleman from Arkansas be permitted to go 
forward. It is a straight up-or-down motion on whether or not we should 
strike the title.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair just reminds the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
that the Committee is not at that point yet. At the appropriate time 
there may be a time limitation.
  The Chair might make the recommendation that the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) wait until the title is considered as read, 
and he can offer his amendment so that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), whose amendment would be in order when section 802 is read, 
can make it. That way we would follow order.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask what paragraph we are on at this 
moment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk has read section 801.
  Mr. ROGERS. And, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) moves to strike section 801----
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike section 801.
  Mr. ROGERS. Would that be in order, and would that supersede the 
Conyers amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman could withdraw his request and offer 
another amendment to section 801, in which case it would be in order.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, may I 
explain to the distinguished chairman and my friend from Pennsylvania 
that this is a preferential motion? It is a motion, a perfecting motion 
that takes precedence over a motion to strike, and it is not 
inconsistent with anything that any of my colleagues are trying to do.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROGERS. If the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) would 
listen, I think if the gentleman from Arkansas' motion is related to 
section 801, the Conyers amendment, I think, relates to section 802, if 
I am not mistaken.
  If that is correct, Mr. Chairman, would it not be that the Hutchinson 
motion would come first?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. CONYERS. Continuing to reserve the right to object, Mr. Chairman, 
this is not about this bill or anything else.

[[Page H7227]]

 This is the rules of the House. A preferential, a perfecting, 
amendment has preference over a motion to strike. This is not just for 
my colleague's bill or this moment. That is the way the House runs. And 
to my good friend from Pennsylvania, his right to control time is in no 
way impeded or blocked by what I am doing. When it comes up, that will 
still be in order.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I think it works both ways.
  Mr. CONYERS. No, it is not both ways. This is the rules of the House, 
and I ask the Chair to give me a little assistance here.
  I was on my feet, and we have not approved of the right of my dear 
friend from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) to go forward.
  I reserve the right to object, and it looks like I am not going to 
have much alternative.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to try to straighten this out.
  The Chair is advised that a motion to strike the title which is what 
the gentleman from Arkansas is preparing to do, and a preferential 
motion to amend section 802, which the gentleman from Michigan has, 
could both be pending at the same time, which then would lead the Chair 
to make a decision.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Arkansas to strike title VIII?
  There was no objection.
  Without objection, title VIII is considered read.
  There was no objection.
  The text of title VIII is as follows:


                             INTERPRETATION

       Sec. 802. As used in this title and the amendments made by 
     this title, the term ``employee'' includes an attorney, 
     investigator, or other employee of the Department of Justice 
     as well as an attorney, investigator, or accountant, acting 
     under the authority of the Department of Justice.

         Subtitle A--Ethical Standards for Federal Prosecutors


               ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

       Sec. 811. (a) In General.--Chapter 31 of title 28, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:


          ``Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government

       ``Sec. 530B. (a) An attorney for the Government shall be 
     subject to State laws and rules, and local Federal court 
     rules, governing attorneys in each State where such attorney 
     engages in that attorney's duties, to the same extent and in 
     the same manner as other attorneys in that State.
       ``(b) The Attorney General shall make and amend rules of 
     the Department of Justice to assure compliance with this 
     section.
       ``(c) As used in this section, the term `attorney for the 
     Government' includes any attorney described in section 
     77.2(a) of part 77 of title 28 of the Code of Federal 
     Regulations.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``530B. Ethical standards for attorneys for the Government.''.

                     Subtitle B--Punishable Conduct


                           PUNISHABLE CONDUCT

       Sec. 821. (a) Violations.--The Attorney General shall 
     establish, by plain rule, that it shall be punishable conduct 
     for any Department of Justice employee to--
       (1) in the absence of probable cause seek the indictment of 
     any person;
       (2) fail promptly to release information that would 
     exonerate a person under indictment;
       (3) intentionally mislead a court as to the guilt of any 
     person;
       (4) intentionally or knowingly misstate evidence;
       (5) intentionally or knowingly alter evidence;
       (6) attempt to influence or color a witness' testimony;
       (7) act to frustrate or impede a defendant's right to 
     discovery;
       (8) offer or provide sexual activities to any government 
     witness or potential witness;
       (9) leak or otherwise improperly disseminate information to 
     any person during an investigation; or
       (10) engage in conduct that discredits the Department.
       (b) Penalties.--The Attorney General shall establish 
     penalties for engaging in conduct described in subsection (a) 
     that shall include--
       (1) probation;
       (2) demotion;
       (3) dismissal;
       (4) referral of ethical charges to the bar;
       (5) loss of pension or other retirement benefits;
       (6) suspension from employment; and
       (7) referral of the allegations, if appropriate, to a grand 
     jury for possible criminal prosecution.


                               COMPLAINTS

       Sec. 822. (a) Written Statement.--A person who believes 
     that an employee of the Department of Justice has engaged in 
     conduct described in section 821(a) may submit a written 
     statement, in such form as the Attorney General may require, 
     describing the alleged conduct.
       (b) Preliminary Investigation.--Not later than 30 days 
     after receipt of a written statement submitted under 
     subsection (a), the Attorney General shall conduct a 
     preliminary investigation and determine whether the 
     allegations contained in such written statement warrant 
     further investigation.
       (c) Investigation and Penalty.--If the Attorney General 
     determines after conducting a preliminary investigation under 
     subsection (a) that further investigation is warranted, the 
     Attorney General shall within 90 days further investigate the 
     allegations and, if the Attorney General determines that a 
     preponderance of the evidence supports the allegations, 
     impose an appropriate penalty.


                        MISCONDUCT REVIEW BOARD

       Sec. 823. (a) Establishment.--There is established as an 
     independent establishment a board to be known as the 
     ``Misconduct Review Board'' (hereinafter in this title 
     referred to as the ``Board'').
       (b) Membership.--The Board shall consist of--
       (1) three voting members appointed by the President, one of 
     whom the President shall designate as Chairperson;
       (2) two non-voting members appointed by the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives, one of whom shall be a Republican 
     and one of whom shall be a Democrat; and
       (3) two non-voting members appointed by the Majority Leader 
     of the Senate, one of whom shall be a Republican and one of 
     whom shall be a Democrat.
       (c) Non-Voting Members Serve Advisory Role Only.--The non-
     voting members shall serve on the Board in an advisory 
     capacity only and shall not take part in any decisions of the 
     Board.
       (d) Submission of Written Statement to Board.--If the 
     Attorney General makes no determination pursuant to section 
     822(b) or imposes no penalty under section 822(c), a person 
     who submitted a written statement under section 822(a) may 
     submit such written statement to the Board.
       (e) Review of Attorney General Determination.--The Board 
     shall review all determinations made by the Attorney General 
     under sections 822(b) or 822(c).
       (f) Board Investigation.--In reviewing a determination with 
     respect to a written statement under subsection (e), or a 
     written statement submitted under subsection (d), the Board 
     may investigate the allegations made in the written statement 
     as the Board considers appropriate.
       (g) Subpoena Power.--
       (1) In general.--The Board may issue subpoenas requiring 
     the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production 
     of any evidence relating to any matter under investigation by 
     the Board. The attendance of witnesses and the production of 
     evidence may be required from any place within the United 
     States.
       (2) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Board may 
     apply to a United States district court for an order 
     requiring that person to appear before the Board to give 
     testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter 
     under investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (3) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Board shall 
     be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued by a 
     United States district court under the Federal Rules of Civil 
     Procedure for the United States district courts.
       (4) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application is made under paragraph (2) may be served in the 
     judicial district in which the person required to be served 
     resides or may be found.
       (h) Meetings.--The Board shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairperson or a majority of its voting members. All meetings 
     shall be open to the public. The Board is authorized to sit 
     where the Board considers most convenient given the facts of 
     a particular complaint, but shall give due consideration to 
     conducting its activities in the judicial district where the 
     complainant resides.
       (i) Decisions.--Decisions of the Board shall be made by 
     majority vote of the voting members.
       (j) Authority To Impose Penalty.--After conducting such 
     independent review and investigation as it deems appropriate, 
     the Board by a majority vote of its voting members may impose 
     a penalty, including dismissal, as provided in section 821(b) 
     as it considers appropriate.
       (k) Compensation.--
       (1) Prohibition of compensation of federal employees.--
     Members of the Board who are full-time officers or employees 
     of the United States, including Members of Congress, may not 
     receive additional pay, allowances, or benefits by reason of 
     their service on the Board.
       (2) Travel expenses.--Each member shall receive travel 
     expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in 
     accordance with

[[Page H7228]]

     sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, United States Code.
       (l) Experts and Consultants.--The Board may procure 
     temporary and intermittent services under section 3109(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, but at rates for individuals not 
     to exceed $200 per day.
       (m) Staff of Federal Agencies.--Upon request of the 
     Chairperson, the head of any Federal department or agency may 
     detail, on a reimbursable basis, any of the personnel of that 
     department or agency to the Board to assist it in carrying 
     out its duties under this title.
       (n) Obtaining Official Data.--The Board may secure directly 
     from any department or agency of the United States 
     information necessary to enable it to carry out this title. 
     Upon request of the Chairperson of the Board, the head of 
     that department or agency shall furnish that information to 
     the Board.
       (o) Mails.--The Board may use the United States mails in 
     the same manner and under the same conditions as other 
     departments and agencies of the United States.
       (p) Administrative Support Services.--Upon the request of 
     the Board, the Administrator of General Services shall 
     provide to the Board, on a reimbursable basis, the 
     administrative support services necessary for the Board to 
     carry out its responsibilities under this title.
       (q) Contract Authority.--The Board may contract with and 
     compensate government and private agencies or persons for 
     services, without regard to section 3709 of the Revised 
     Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5).
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
recognized for 5 minutes. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) 
has requested time in opposition and, therefore, will be recognized for 
a like time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his reservation.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, there is 
no time agreement being offered, proposed, on this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct. There is no time agreement at 
this point.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, this gentleman would be amenable to such a 
request.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we cannot.
  Mr. ROGERS. The gentleman from West Virginia cannot agree to a time?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We cannot agree to a time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the title is considereed read and 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is recognized for 5 
minutes on his motion.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDADE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDADE. I just need to be clear, Mr. Chairman.
  I believe the Chair said to the gentleman from Arkansas that he gets 
5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair advises the gentleman the Committee is under 
the 5-minute rule, so the gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes on his 
amendment.
  Mr. McDADE. And how much time am I allowed, may I ask the Chair?
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman stand in opposition?
  Mr. McDADE. I did.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) will be 
recognized for 5 minutes at the end of Mr. Hutchinson's debate.
  Mr. McDADE. Everybody gets 5 minutes?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct, the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hutchinson-
Barr-Bryant amendment.
  The distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) has done a 
masterful job in developing this appropriations bill. The title VIII, 
which our amendment would strike, goes far afield from the ordinary 
requirements of the spending bill. It includes almost verbatim the well 
intentioned, but ill advised, Citizen Protection Act. Including this 
legislative title in the bill violates the normal process in this House 
by bypassing committee hearings and markups, but even more importantly, 
it is wrong on substance. The proposed title VIII, which is the subject 
of our amendment, would cut to the heart of our Federal system of 
justice and would cripple the war on drugs, and for that reason it is 
understandable that the National Director of Drug Control Policy, Barry 
McCaffrey, opposes this provision as well as the DEA, the FBI and the 
National Sheriffs Association. Even though the authors of title VIII 
are sincere in their efforts, the effect would be devastating and 
demoralizing to our agents and officers risking their lives each day to 
fight crime. I know that is why all former United States Attorneys now 
serving in Congress are cosponsors of this amendment and are leading 
this effort.
  Now we all agree on one thing, and that is that our Federal 
prosecutors should live up to the highest ethical standards. The 
proponents of title VIII say that they just want government attorneys 
to be subject to States ethics laws. The fact is they already are. 
Every government attorney is required to abide by the rules and ethical 
guidelines in the State they are licensed to practice law. This means 
the ethical conduct of Federal prosecutors are reviewed by the State in 
which they are licensed, at the federal level by the Office of 
Professional Responsibility within the Department of Justice, the 
Inspector General of the Department of Justice and the federal courts.
  In addition, we just passed a law that said that if any prosecution 
is brought in a frivolous fashion, then the acquitted defendant could 
recover attorney fees from the government. But the proposed legislation 
goes way too far. It would subject all attorneys, Federal attorneys and 
the State and local attorneys with whom they work, to conflicting State 
conduct rules.
  For example, if a federal prosecutor licensed in Virginia had to 
interview a cooperating witness in a drug case in Florida and then 
oversee the use of a confidential informant in California, then he 
would have to worry about the rules of each State because he is 
engaging in his duties in those States. And multiply this by the number 
of investigations during the course of the year, we can have the 
attorneys for the government spending all their time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to be able to complete my statement, and I will 
be happy to yield at the conclusion.
  The second problem is that the proposed legislation would allow 
criminal defense attorneys to bring frivolous ethics complaints against 
Federal, State and local prosecutors, creates a new federal bureaucracy 
called the Misconduct Review Board to try ethics complaints under vague 
standards like, quote, bringing discredit to the department, end quote. 
This board, the Misconduct Review Board, will have access, they will 
have subpoena power, and they will have access to pending criminal 
investigations. All their hearings will be public and open to review. 
They can subpoena the names of witnesses and informants, the identities 
of under cover law enforcement officials who have infiltrated the 
operations of the criminal subjects.
  If Congress passes this legislation, then the public will suffer. The 
winners would be the drug cartels, fraudulent telemarketing operations 
that prey on the sick and elderly and Internet pornographers who prey 
on children. Why do I say that? Because all of these crimes involve 
multi-State investigations that would be hampered by the newly created 
ethics bureaucracy.
  For example, in the days following the Oklahoma City bombing Federal 
prosecutors' agents conducted simultaneous investigations in several 
States. Under the proposal the laws and rules of each State would have 
governed the conduct of department prosecutors no matter how 
inconsistent those rules might have been. What was permitted in one 
State might not have been permitted in another State, and because of 
the far-reaching and crushing impact of this proposal in law 
enforcement, it is understandable that so many in the law enforcement 
community have opposed this bill, from the National Sheriffs 
Association to the National District Attorneys Associations, State 
prosecutors, FBI, the National Association of Attorney Generals, the 
National Black Prosecutors Association, the New York State District 
Attorneys Association, the FBI, the DEA, the Fraternal Order of Police.
  But what was significant, that six former attorney generals of the 
United States from Benjamin Civiletti to Edmond Meese, from Democrats 
to Republicans, all six have urged this House to reject this proposal 
and to support this amendment.

[[Page H7229]]

  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and not give way to the 
drug dealers and the defense attorneys, another weapon to use against 
law enforcement in our vital efforts on the War on Drugs.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that, because the 
gentleman refers to the National Sheriffs Association, the FBI and the 
DEA, I think it is important for the Members to understand that the 
code of ethics that the gentleman is referring to does not apply to 
investigatory agents.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming the time, the gentleman is correct that 
these ethical standards apply to government attorneys, but if we have a 
State prosecutor who is cross designated to be a special Assistant 
United States Attorney, then that State prosecutor would be subject to 
these rules and the Misconduct Review Board bureaucracy that is 
established under this rule.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. Chairman, I just want the Members of this House to know that I 
sat beside the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), a Member 
of Congress for 8 years, while he was investigated for 6 years; the 
most insidious tactics that could possibly have been against him.
  The appeals process, which is supposed to make sure that the Federal 
prosecutors do not get out of control, the Federal appeal process ruled 
two to one. He went 2 years under indictment. The Federal jury, which 
came from an area that said 70 percent of the politicians are crooks, 
ruled in 3 hours. He was acquitted.

                              {time}  1545

  In the indictment they said campaign contributions are bribes. The 
rules of the House are clear about the legality of campaign 
contributions, that honorariums are legal gratuities. That is what they 
charged him with. They were trying to intimidate a Member of the House 
of Representatives.
  In addition to that, in addition to trying to intimidate the House of 
Representatives and ignore the rules of the House, which the public saw 
immediately, he was reelected three times during this period, when they 
leaked everything that could possibly be leaked, using those unethical 
tactics we are talking about during this period of time. Then, after 
this is all over, they tried to promote the prosecutor to judge.
  Now, this is a Member of Congress who was able to raise $1 million to 
defend himself. The ordinary citizen, the ordinary person, cannot raise 
$1 million. The ordinary citizen cannot even raise money to defend 
himself. The public at one time used to think that a person was 
innocent until guilty. Now they get the impression, because of the 
leaks, the unethical leaks that come from the prosecutor, that the 
individual is guilty.
  I cannot tell you the physical and mental distress that the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) went through. Now, I see what you are 
talking about, and maybe we have to look in conference at some 
exemptions in drug cartels and things like that, but I think this is a 
ploy by the prosecutors to continue their unethical conduct without any 
kind of regard to the ordinary citizen.
  We call this the Citizens Protection Act because we feel so strongly 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) is just an example. 
What he did for the House of Representatives is absolutely essential to 
our independence. But what we are trying to do for the ordinary citizen 
is absolutely important to their individual protection. We believe we 
need an independent body to watch over them, to give them some sort of 
controls so that they do not go off without control and then be 
promoted, as somebody was after Waco, and the terrible, terrible 
injustice they did to the individual in Atlanta with the leaks that 
came out of the Justice Department.
  So I feel very strongly that we have to get some kind of control. The 
legislation that we drew we hoped would come through the authorizing 
committee. We could not work it out at this late date.
  I just hope that the Members, and we have almost 200 cosponsors of 
this legislation, we have said to the Justice Department, if you have 
individual situations that you would like us to look at, we would be 
glad to look at that. They have not come back with anything. They just 
want to take this out. They want no kind of controls from the outside.
  So we believe that it is important to put some kind of controls over 
the unethical conduct of the Justice Department. As a matter of fact, 
we have 50 chief justices of the United States that have said that they 
believe that the Justice Department of the United States should fall 
under the ethical rules of each of the States.
  I feel very strongly about this, and I would urge Members to vote 
against this amendment. If there is something that has to be adjusted, 
we are glad to work with them in trying to adjust this when we get to 
conference.


              Perfecting Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS.  Mr. Chairman, I offer a perfecting amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
  Perfecting amendment offered by Mr. Conyers:
       Page 116, line 5, after ``Justice'' insert ``(including any 
     independent counsel appointed under title 28 of the United 
     States Code and any employees of such independent counsel 
     acting under the authority of the Attorney General),''.
       Page 116, line 6, strike the period and insert ``(including 
     any independent counsel appointed under title 28 of the 
     United States Code and any employees of such independent 
     counsel acting under the authority of the Attorney 
     General).''.

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas reserves a point of order.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because it goes to 
the heart of what the McDade provision is designed to do. I want all my 
friends on the other side of the aisle to understand that this just is 
an important part of fleshing out the concept that has been brought 
forward here. In fact, for those who support the McDade amendment, 
there should not be any trouble supporting this provision that really 
perfects it.
  Now, as we have seen, the present independent counsel, perhaps more 
than anyone else, should be subject to each and every stringent 
provision that is included in this measure. As a matter of fact, I 
presume that it is an accident that the measure was drafted so that 
this was left out. If anybody has any information to the contrary, I 
would sure like to know about it.
  Not only has the present independent counsel demonstrated a number of 
conflicts of interest in carrying out his duties, the person that he is 
investigating has been under investigation for almost 5 years, with 
hundreds of lawyers and investigators, with 17 congressional 
committees.
  Now, there have also been questions about the independent counsel 
having violated the First Amendment protections, the principles of 
fairness, and engaged in the use of coercive investigative techniques. 
Familiar, Mr. McDade? Sound familiar with your case? And trampled over 
important privileges between attorneys and their client. As a matter of 
fact, going into court saying the attorney-client does not even involve 
or affect the President of the United States, as well as between the 
Secret Service.
  A great idea. Let us have the President decide whether he wants to 
have his life protected, or talk about the issues in his job.
  For example, the independent counsel to whom I refer has chosen to 
continue representing clients, the tobacco interests; at one time, if 
not presently, the National Republican Party. How about knocking out 
the class action representation in the tobacco suits? He went into the 
Federal Circuit Court in person to knock out their certification of a 
class action suit, and guess what? He succeeded. I wonder why?

[[Page H7230]]

  So he has issued subpoenas to book stores, ``What is she reading?'' 
He subpoenaed a former staffer of mine who now works in the Drug Policy 
Office, who suggested that maybe Linda Tripp was violating the wiretap 
laws. He subpoenaed him. Remember that, Bob Wiener?
  Well, it goes on and on. The whole problem is that this provision, 
whether it is struck or kept, should not be examined without us 
including the independent counsel.
  Does anybody have any reasonable objection to that? We want to 
include all these prosecutors, all these Department of Justice types, 
but not the independent counsel, the one who is maybe doing more of 
this than anybody else that we know. He is under four investigations; 
the court, the Department of Justice, the D.C. Bar, and even he 
promised to have his own independent counsel office investigate the 
leaks.
  So, in all appropriateness, we ask that this perfecting amendment to 
my friend from Arkansas's amendment be included in their consideration.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson-Barr-
Bryant amendment and rise in strong support of including the Conyers 
amendment, the Conyers perfecting amendment.
  I would say that I bring a bit of personal experience to this as 
well. I am saddened to have heard what happened to my new friend and my 
father's friend over the years, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McDade).
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Conyers was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. As a matter of fact, my father was indicted some several 
years back by one of the prosecutors working with counsel Starr, 
Hickman Ewing. After 5 years of investigating, several years, one 
trial, a second trial, abuse by the Justice Department, simply 
trampling the rights of an individual, another Member of Congress, I 
cannot tell you the pain that it exacted on my family and my father 
personally.
  Fortunately and blessedly, we were able to survive. But plentiful and 
often times it seemed exhaustless resources of the Federal Government, 
for prosecutors not to be reined in, not to have to comply with some 
sense of ethical conduct, Mr. Chairman, I submit to you it is un-
American. I submit to my friends on the other side, no matter how noble 
their wanting to strike this provision might be, we have American 
rights, we have American liberties. And whether or not they choose to 
agree with the person's politics, whether it is on President Clinton's 
part with Ken Starr, whether it is a Republican that disagrees with a 
Republican or a Democrat with a Republican, it is unfair to trample 
people's lives.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I hope the sponsors of 
this amendment will not object to this provision.


                             Point of Order

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is 
recognized on his point of order.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, my point of order goes to the fact that 
the gentleman's perfecting amendment that he is offering is not a 
proper perfecting amendment because it expands the scope of the 
provision in question to add legislative language not covered in title 
VIII of the bill before us. It is not a perfecting amendment, a proper 
perfecting amendment, because it opens up new legislative language 
amending 28 U.S.C. Section 591, which is the independent counsel law, 
and that is not covered under title VIII of the existing bill. 
Therefore, it is not a proper perfecting amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Do other Members wish to speak on the point of order?
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this should not be too difficult. The 
amendment should be made in order because it reiterates that the 
independent counsel is included in the group of individuals covered 
under the McDade amendment, specifying that the definition of employee 
or other attorney acting under the authority of the Attorney General 
shall include the independent counsel.
  House rule XXI(2)(c) provides that, ``No amendment to a general 
appropriation shall be in order changing the existing law.'' This 
amendment does not change existing law; it is a perfecting amendment.
  My amendment does not create additional legislation nor does it 
extend the range of the term ``employee'' in the amendment. It simply 
reiterates the fact that under the current law, the independent counsel 
under Section 28 of the U.S. Code is appropriate.
  There are several supporting sources in current law supporting the 
clarification, 28 U.S.C. 594(a), 28 U.S.C. 596(a), and the Supreme 
Court decision in Morrison v. Olsen. We have all kinds of cases that I 
presume that the distinguished chairman and his able Parliamentarian 
have found.
  I urge that this perfecting amendment be considered in order.

                              {time}  1600

  The CHAIRMAN. Do the other Members wish to speak on the point of 
order?
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) is recognized.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this is almost as bizarre as the 
words we heard earlier in opposition to the Hutchinson-Barr-Bryant 
amendment.
  What we are witnessing here, under the guise of the usual flowery 
language emanating forth from proponents of this latest foray, is 
really precisely what they purport to be against; and that is, a back 
door effort to do something that they do not often have the----
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not addressing a point of 
order, Mr. Chairman. I demand regular order.
  The CHAIRMAN. In the opinion of the Chair, the gentleman is 
addressing the point of order.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment purports to do 
is to amend the independent counsel statute to make a political point 
about the independent counsel statute not allowable under the rules of 
the House as an amendment to an appropriations bill. It purports, 
therefore, to legislate substantively, and the words of the gentleman 
from Illinois make this very clear. He is launching a political attack 
on the statutory authority of the independent counsel, something which 
is not the subject matter of this appropriations bill, and certainly is 
not the subject matter of this amendment, the Hutchinson-Barr-Bryant 
amendment.
  Therefore, I would urge the Chair to sustain the point of order, as 
this is an effort by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to 
legislate, and not only to legislate on an appropriations bill, but in 
a way that goes far beyond the language and subject matter of the 
underlying amendment itself.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Tennessee will suspend.
  Do other Members wish to be heard on the point of order?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of information.
  Under the 5-minute rule, Mr. Chairman, do we have 5 minutes that we 
can talk on this situation, as well as on the underlying bill or 
underlying amendment that is before us?
  We have an amendment to an amendment, now. The 5-minute rule, does 
that mean that we can ask for 5 minutes on the Conyers proposal to 
Hutchinson, and then go on as well to speak 5 minutes on Hutchinson?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gentleman that we are 
discussing the pending point of order by the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Hutchinson). As soon as that is disposed of, we will be under the 
5-minute rule, in which any Member can stand and debate the underlying 
issue.
  The Chair will inquire further, is there any Member who wishes to 
speak on the point of order?
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the 
point of order.

[[Page H7231]]

  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think that the underlying 
legislation legislating on an appropriations bill is inappropriate. I 
am opposed to the underlying legislation. But if the underlying 
legislation on an appropriations bill is appropriate, then so would the 
amendment be appropriate. We cannot say we are going to waive the rule 
and allow legislation on an appropriations bill, and then say or make a 
point of order that an amendment to that legislation is nongermane. 
That is the perspective I bring.
  Mr. Chairman, I would join other Members who would say that the 
underlying legislation itself should not be on this bill. But if the 
underlying legislation should be on the bill, then this amendment ought 
to be allowed to be on the bill, and ought to be found to be germane.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there other Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is 
recognized to speak on the point of order.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill applies to all Department of 
Justice employees, or those who are acting under the Department of 
Justice authority. In this instance, the independent counsel is both.
  We all know when the independent counsel seeks to expand his 
jurisdiction, who does he go to see? He goes in to see the Attorney 
General and he expands his jurisdiction. When he needs to get his 
budget squared away, when he needs additional resources, who did he go 
to see? He goes in to see the Department of Justice and talks to the 
employees. That is why this amendment is in order.
  Let me just, for the purposes of people on the other side of the 
aisle, provide some supporting sources in current law to support this 
clarification.
  Mr. Chairman, 28 U.S.C. 594(a) provides that an independent counsel 
appointed under this chapter shall have full power and independent 
authority to exercise all investigative and prosecutorial functions and 
powers of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General, or any other 
officer or employee of the Department of Justice.
  Or let us take 28 U.S. 596, Section A. It provides that an 
independent counsel appointed under this chapter may be removed from 
office, other than by impeachment and conviction, by who? By only the 
personal action of the Attorney General of the United States.
  Or let us look at Section 3, the Supreme Court, in Morrison versus 
Olson, at 487 U.S.C. 654. It held that an independent counsel is 
subject to removal by the Attorney General.
  Or let us look at the appeals court in the D.C. Circuit, a case 
holding that the independent counsel is generally covered by rule 
XVI(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  So under the independent counsel statute there is little doubt, Mr. 
Chairman, that this is covered under the statute, and is wholly 
appropriate to be offered at this time and at this place.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members who wish to be heard on the 
point of order?
  Ms. WATERS. I wish to speak on the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to the point of order. I would like 
to reiterate the point that was made by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt). We cannot in fact have an underlying piece of 
legislation that is in order that is legislating on an appropriation, 
and then even discuss the possibility that an amendment to that is out 
of order because it is legislating on an appropriation and it does not 
fit, for any reason.
  I think it is important that this debate not be stymied by any 
attempt to manipulate the rules. This may be one of the most important 
debates we will have in this House. It is not just about the basic 
questions that are being raised in the underlying legislation. The 
amendment that is being offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) fits so well in this discussion.
  We are watching unfold before our very eyes a violation of the 
Constitution of the United States of America. If there is one thing I 
cherish, it is my privacy. We cannot have a special prosecutor who will 
go to a bookstore and demand to know what books someone purchased in 
America. That is unacceptable.
  But there are other questions that are being raised as it relates to 
the special prosecutor that deal with the violation of the Constitution 
of the United States, not only the violation of privacy that I just 
alluded to. We have questions of wiretap and wiretapping. We are 
looking at a whole new debate about attorney-client privileges. This is 
too important to be sidelined by someone who does not want to hear it 
because they have got another agenda.
  Mr. Chairman, there should be no question that this is in order. I 
hope we do not have to get to the point that the chairman will even 
have to rule on this. I do not want this body divided on a partisan 
basis on this issue.
  This is not about partisan politics at this moment. This is about the 
Constitution of the United States of America, and whether or not 
citizens are going to have basic protections that we thought were 
guaranteed to us by the Constitution.
  So whether we are talking about the special prosecutor or whether we 
are talking about the underlying legislation, what we are talking about 
is individuals who have run wild, who are tramping on our rights, who 
have gone absolutely too far. It does not matter whether they are from 
the right or they are from the left, or where they live in this 
country, what color they are.
  The fact of the matter is that we have violations of the Constitution 
being perpetrated on us by those who work in the Justice Department, 
and it is off the scale when we look at this special prosecutor. He has 
gone too far. This should be ruled in order.
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further Members who wish to be heard on this?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is 
recognized.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, and I understand the 
passion, I have a little passion myself when I get up and have these 
discussions, but I think the underlying arguments that the gentlewoman 
just made are correct. If this is in the appropriations bill, there 
should be an amendment that is permitted. If we are concerned about the 
abuse of power of prosecutors, we have to be concerned about the abuse 
of power of special prosecutors.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) makes a point of order 
that the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) 
is legislation in violation of clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The gentleman from Michigan seeks to amend certain legislative 
language permitted to remain in the bill. The relevant provision 
defines the term ``employee'' as used in title 8 of the bill. The 
provision would denote the term ``employee'' to include an attorney, 
investigator, or other employee of the Department of Justice, and an 
attorney, investigator, or accountant acting under the authority of the 
Department of Justice.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan seeks to 
particularize that the term ``employee'' also includes any independent 
counsel appointed under title 28 of the United States Code and any 
employees of such independent counsel who is under the authority of the 
Department of Justice.
  The amendment does not propose a change in title 28. Rather, it 
identifies one particular category of official as included in the 
classes of officials covered by the legislative language already in the 
bill.
  As recorded on page 663 of the House Rules and Manual, where 
legislative language is permitted to remain in a general appropriation 
bill, a germane amendment merely perfecting that language and not 
adding further legislation is in order, but an amendment effecting 
further legislation is not in order.
  In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment offered by the gentleman

[[Page H7232]]

from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) merely perfects the legislative language 
permitted to remain in the bill, and refrains from adding further 
legislation.
  Accordingly, the point of order is overruled.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment my two colleagues, the gentlemen 
from Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade and Mr. Murtha, for coming before the 
Congress in a timely fashion and raising a question that is very 
important. I want to say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, 
this is not a political issue. This is an issue of fundamental 
fairness.
  I occupy the District immediately south of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). Members cannot imagine what this 
government and those prosecutors did to that Member of Congress. I do 
not know of any other Member of Congress who could have withstood the 
leaks and the poisonous spirit in which the public persecution, not 
prosecution, occurred. Yes, it was lucky that Joe McDade had $1 
million, or could raise $1 million, but how many more Americans could 
raise that amount? That is the substantive question, here.
  On the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), does anyone in their right mind not understand that at some 
point, and certainly next year, this Congress is going to have to 
decide what conduct we are going to allow prosecutors or special 
counsels to engage in? How far afield can they go from their 
assignment? What can they do?
  I am sort of embarrassed to bring up another issue, but we had a 
prosecution in Pennsylvania, and the gentlemen from Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Joe McDade and Mr. Jack Murtha, will remember this. There was a 
treasurer of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, where a prosecutor was 
prosecuting the improper award of a contract and brought a criminal 
action. The witnesses in that case testified against the contractor and 
the contractor was convicted of bribery.
  Within one month, the prosecutors in that case had those very same 
witnesses change their story 180 degrees to now testify against the 
treasurer of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and threatened those 
witnesses with prosecution of their wives and their children. It is a 
famous story across this country. It was witnessed on television.
  The only way that treasurer could protect the future of his family 
and maintain his pension was to commit suicide before sentencing, and 
he did.
  Mr. Chairman, if that is not extreme, extraordinary prosecutorial 
activity, I do not know what is. I have witnessed it in the case of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). I am witnessing it with 
this special counsel.
  There are statistics now available that, in the White House alone, 
the individuals working there have had to spend more than $12 million 
in hiring lawyers to appear in depositions and before grand juries who 
are not in any way substantively involved. We are going on and on.
  What this ends up doing, and the American people know this, is 
destroying respect for the American judicial system, all with the idea 
that every now and then some prosecutor who wears a pearl handled 45 
revolver can find somebody who has a grudge against an elected 
official, Republican or Democrat, who can make a point to bring a 
charge, and substantiate that charge by just marginal testimony, 
sufficient to get an indictment, but not sufficient to convict.

                              {time}  1615

  But you can take that public official down the road to ruination, 
that family down the road to ruination, our system down the road to 
ruination. Why? Why do we sit here? Why are we so innocent? Why have we 
not recognized that this has been happening over and over and over 
again? Why are we asking for the McDade-Murtha language?
  It was an understanding in the bar and in the prosecutorial field and 
in the defense field that there were certain standards of ethics and 
honor, certain things you did not do, an unwritten code. Well, the 
prosecutors in the United States today, whether they be special 
counsels or regular prosecutors, have shown us that they are going to 
push it to the end of the envelope and beyond. They are going to write 
their own definition of what standards are.
  So it is incumbent upon this House, the people's House, to determine 
that if you are going to push it to the edge of the envelope and you 
are going to destroy lives and you are going to prosecute people 
unreasonably at high expense and at a detriment to both, the family and 
this democracy, then this public House should take action.
  We are saying we want to codify the code of standards. We want to say 
what they have to do and what they do not have to do, and we want to 
make them subject to a review board. Why should not public officials 
and all Americans know that when they get taken by their government for 
hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of prosecutors, thousands of 
FBI agents, that they have a right not to be ruined. That is what the 
McDade-Murtha language and the perfecting amendment of the gentleman 
from Michigan is going to accomplish.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for justice.
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McDade) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the cause 
that they are out here about today.
  I happen to have counseled the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McDade) back when he had the problems that I know he did, which I think 
were wrong. I believe he was taken through hell, and I think it was a 
very improper methodology being used by that prosecutor from all I knew 
about it at the time, and I knew a great deal.
  But, unfortunately, I cannot agree with the proposal that is in the 
bill today and that is being amended or attempting to be amended by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). I cannot agree with that. I have 
to support the Hutchinson amendment to strike all of this and urge that 
all of it be taken out of this bill, because I do not think we can 
simply go to conference and perfect something that is as bad, 
unfortunately, as the way this is crafted.
  I would hope that we could come back at some point as a body, through 
the Committee on the Judiciary or otherwise, and craft something that 
would address the problems that I think are genuine, that the Members 
from Pennsylvania, in particular, of both parties have brought to our 
attention today and so forcefully and rightfully.
  But what the underlying provision that we are talking about striking 
would do would be in essence to permit anybody who has some prosecutor 
who goes after them to complain to the Attorney General, and the 
Attorney General is going to have to respond with as vague a standard 
as bringing discredit on the department within 30 days. That could 
cause untold delays in hundreds and thousands of prosecutions across 
the country.
  It is an enormous cost in bureaucracy that we would be setting up in 
the process of doing this. Then if you did not agree, of course, with 
the result of what the Attorney General decided in 30 days, you would 
have a 7-member board that has been created, that sits in essence 
outside of the body politic of the Justice Department, to review the 
questions that may be raised by somebody who might be the subject of 
indictment or prosecution.
  It is not that you may be should not have some review in very limited 
circumstances, but they are not defined well in the proposal, 
unfortunately, not very narrow at all. The most dangerous provision, 
from my perspective as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime in the 
House, is the fact that information could be obtained by this board 
from anywhere in the government, including criminal investigation 
files, information about informants and potential witnesses, classified 
documents, or information covered by the Privacy Act. And things that 
are required, all of these things that would be required could be 
revealed in public, since apparently the board operates in public. 
There is nothing in this provision that would prohibit the information 
that I just described from becoming public.
  Indeed the difficulties that exist with this provision are myriad. I 
hope that today this debate on the amendment of

[[Page H7233]]

the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) does not deteriorate into a 
debate over a question about a special prosecutor. We can debate that 
until the cows come home. That is a highly political debate.
  Obviously, if you are going to cover prosecutors, you should be 
covering probably all prosecutors, but we should not be debating the 
merits or the pros and cons of the independent counsel out here today. 
We should be debating the merits and the pros and cons of the 
underlying premise that everything would be covered by this, all 
prosecutors, in essence, in a fashion that is unworkable and 
unmanageable and impossible to cope with as a practical matter.
  So I strongly urge the Members, however passionate you may be, and I 
am passionate about my good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. McDade) and about the improprieties that do go on from time to 
time with overzealous prosecutors who are out of control in our system, 
I do not believe that the underlying matter here today, the part that 
is in the bill today that we are trying to strike, is the solution. It 
is not the solution. Unfortunately, it makes things more difficult than 
it cures.
  In the strongest of terms, I urge Members' deliberate consideration 
of this, and I would urge Members ultimately, after dispensing with the 
Conyers amendment, to vote to strike, to support the efforts of the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) to do that.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
presentation. Right now we are debating this small provision, not the 
whole thrust of the measure. Do you not agree with me that there have 
been more than sufficient leaks under the independent counsel to 
include him in this measure?
  Mr. McCOLLUM. I do not believe the debate should be on the question 
of what is going on with the special prosecutor or with what is going 
on with the Clinton investigation or any of that. The focus of this 
debate today, you are distracting by your amendment and debate on it to 
try to get at Ken Starr. I think that is wrong.
  The issue underlying this today is not that question, however 
volatile that is. That will be dealt with in due course by the 
Committee on the Judiciary, if Ken Starr sends anything up here or when 
we debate independent counsel. But what we are debating today, and 
should be, is that the underlying premise you are trying to amend is 
fatally flawed.
  The board structure that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) 
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) have worked into this 
bill unfortunately will not work, even though we want to have 
oversight. It will not operate correctly. It cannot operate, and I urge 
in the end that it be stricken.
  Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Hutchinson 
amendment and in strong support of the Citizens Protection Act of my 
good friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade).
  I think it is time to put a human face on the abuses that are carried 
out by prosecutors in this country, prosecutors who consistently 
violate the rights of innocent human beings, innocent citizens and 
their families, friends and relatives.
  By putting a human face on it, I would like to refer to a predecessor 
that I had here in the Congress, Angelo Roncallo, a man who a number of 
years ago sat in the very seat that I occupy today. And what went on in 
his case has happened in so many other cases over the years.
  He was a man who was brought in by the United States Attorney and 
told he had to deliver a political leader. When he refused to do that, 
he was called before the grand jury. His family was harassed. He was 
indicted. His friends were indicted. Everything was leaked to the 
newspapers. This man's career was destroyed. He was defeated here in 
the United States Congress.
  Finally his case went to trial. The jury was out 30 minutes and he 
was acquitted. It came out during that case that all throughout, from 
day one, the prosecutors had evidence that would have completely 
exonerated this defendant. They knew it from day one. Throughout the 
trial, they had U.S. Marshals stand around the U.S. Attorney's office 
because they had convinced the judge that this Congressman, Angelo 
Roncallo, was somehow going to have them killed during the trial. The 
jury had to witness this, marshals in the courtroom day in and day out.
  When the trial was over the judge said it was a disgrace. He referred 
it to the Justice Department to have it investigated. What was done? 
Nothing. That is what always happens. Nothing.
  The gentleman from Georgia said it is bizarre. He said that 
opposition to the Hutchinson amendment is bizarre. He said the comments 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) were bizarre. I would 
say to the gentleman from Georgia, if he were targeted by a prosecutor, 
if they tried to destroy his reputation, he would find that bizarre.
  I think it is important for all of us in this Chamber, those of us 
who are self-righteous, those of us who say it could never happen to 
us, let you be the target of an unscrupulous prosecutor, and you will 
see how fast you will change your tune when you see your wife harassed 
and your children. And I can go on and on with case after case. I 
remember I was once negotiating with the United States Attorney in a 
case and he ended the discussion, ended the negotiation by telling me 
that he was the United States of America, it was time that I realized 
it.
  The fact is, no prosecutor in this country is the United States of 
America. The United States of America is the people. We represent the 
people. It is time for us to stand up and say no to these prosecutors, 
no matter where they are coming from.
  Prosecutors are out of control. They are ruining the civil liberties 
of people in this country. I am a Republican. I cannot understand how 
Members in my party who say they support individual rights could ever 
allow a prosecutor to trample upon the rights of innocent people, the 
abuses that they are guilty of.
  And I just want to concur in what the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Murtha) said. I do not know how the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. McDade) went through what he went through over the years and stood 
tall and survived it. He is a man of courage. He is a man who had the 
guts to stand up. But you think of the average citizen in your home 
town, if they went after him, would he have that same guts? Would he 
have that stamina? Would his family be able to resist it?
  I again urge and implore all of my colleagues to defeat the 
Hutchinson amendment, stand with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
McDade), stand with the Constitution and say no to this untrammeled 
abuse of power by the prosecutors and our Justice Department today.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to respond to my dear friend, 
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. McCollum).
  My amendment is not about Kenneth Starr and his investigations. It is 
about whether or not the office of special prosecutor, who is employed 
by the Department of Justice, is considered to be an employee. The 
answer is perfectly obvious. I can only gather that it may have been a 
mistake that it was not included in here.
  Starr is going to be investigated. There is plenty of time for him. 
But this is to include this in the provision of the McDade measure.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, the 
Conyers amendment. Whether we agree or not with the underlying 
provision of the bill, the Murtha amendment, I do believe and I do not 
see any reason why we should exclude any branch of the Justice 
Department or any employee. What the Murtha-McDade language establishes 
is an ethical standard for Federal prosecutors.

[[Page H7234]]

  If we take a look at the independent prosecutor right now, we have 
given the individual unfettered subpoena power and about $40 million.
  What does the Murtha-McDade language say? It says prosecutors and 
employees of the Justice Department shall not seek indictment of any 
person without probable cause. It says that they shall not fail to 
promptly release information that would exonerate a person under 
indictment, intentionally mislead a court regarding the guilt of a 
person, intentionally or knowingly misstate or alter evidence, I know 
that has never happened in the current investigation, attempt to 
influence a witness' testimony, frustrate or impede the defendant's 
right to discover evidence, offer or provide sexual activities to any 
government witness, leak or improperly disseminate information during 
an investigation, or engage in conduct that discredits the Justice 
Department. If that does not sound like what has been happening with 
this special investigation, this special prosecutor, and what has 
happened on the McDade case and some of these other cases, that is why 
we need this provision.
  This is not a political debate. This is what happens in prosecutions. 
That is why the McDade and Murtha language has come before us. So what 
the Conyers amendment says is that the independent counsels exercise 
their authority on behalf of the Attorney General and the Department of 
Justice, and that we must ensure that all prosecutors are held to the 
same standard no matter who they are investigating, whether it is the 
President or the person on the street.
  We cannot create a special class of Federal prosecutors. That is what 
we do if we defeat this amendment. This perfecting amendment needs to 
be passed. We cannot create a special class of Federal prosecutors that 
is not subject to Justice Department ethical standards.
  I urge all Members to support the Conyers amendment and rein in the 
prosecutors across the United States and especially the independent, 
so-called special prosecutors.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, let us just kind of sit back for just a moment here, 
now that we have at least gotten some of the other Members that think 
that if you talk loud enough and bang on the lectern and talk fast 
enough you will get applause and that really means something. Let us 
alternatively focus on exactly what is going on here.
  All of the points that the gentleman just made, and he has extensive 
background in law enforcement and I respect that, all of those things 
are already encompassed in both the internal rules and procedures of 
the Department of Justice. They are already encompassed indirectly and 
directly in those rules that pertain to every lawyer in the U.S. 
Attorney's office who has to be a member of the bar of the jurisdiction 
in which that office is located.

                              {time}  1630

  If there are, in fact, problems from time to time with prosecutors, 
as there will be with any profession, then there are already very 
clear, very well time-tested mechanisms, including prosecution of a 
prosecutor for violation of civil rights or other violations of Federal 
law, ethical proceedings, disbarment proceedings that can be brought 
against that assistant U.S. attorney or that government attorney or 
that United States attorney, if need be.
  The problem with this language, the underlying language, and I am not 
even going to bother talking about the amendment to the amendment so 
much. We know what that is. That is an anti-Ken Starr amendment. The 
problem is the mechanism that the underlying language in title VIII, 
which we seek to remove, purports to do. It will, make no mistake about 
it, wreak havoc on very important prosecutions.
  I am somewhat amused. We sit in the Committee on the Judiciary 
frequently and, if we come up with an example of how a law has been 
abused or why a law is necessary, many of those same folks, including 
the distinguished gentleman who offers the amendment to the amendment, 
immediately say, oh, we are trying to legislate by example; oh, what we 
are talking about are just examples of something; show us the law. 
Well, of course, now what they are doing is they are raising one 
example and they are saying we have to throw the baby out with the bath 
water.
  There are mechanisms already in place to address prosecutorial abuse 
and prosecutorial misconduct. Those mechanisms are used day in and day 
out whenever there is substantial evidence of abuse. Defense attorneys 
file motions constantly. There are ethical proceedings brought. The 
problem with the mechanism set up under this, is this review panel 
would have access to the whole range of the prosecution's case, 
including names of witnesses, theories of prosecution, undercover 
material. It would be, in effect, Mr. Chairman, a defense attorney's 
dream, which is why the defense attorneys like it.
  We have an oath of office that is taken by prosecutors, Federal 
prosecutors. They do represent the people of this country. I know my 
friend from New York sort of denigrated that, but prosecutors do speak 
for and they protect the rights of the people of this country. And if 
we allowed the language, as amended, or even without the amendment by 
the gentleman from Michigan, of title VIII to remain, then we will be 
severely hampering the ability of Federal prosecutors to represent 
properly and to protect the people of this country.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. King) apparently paid close 
attention to my words, because earlier, on my point of order, I used 
the word bizarre. It brings to mind something else. It brings to mind 
the Bizarro World. There used to be a comic book called the Bizarro 
World. And I suppose in the Bizarro World we can have people taking the 
well of the House, while they are seeking to dismantle the 
prosecutorial mechanisms of this country seeking to uphold the laws of 
this country, and say that an effort made to sustain and protect those 
mechanisms is somehow un-American.
  The most appropriate legal theory here is let us not throw the baby 
out with the bath water. There are mechanisms to protect against abuse. 
Let us use them and let us do away with this sham amendment to the 
amendment, which is an attack on the independent counsel and has 
nothing to do with the underlying amendment.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson 
amendment. I see this as an issue of accountability. Department of 
Justice attorneys should be required to abide by the same ethics rules 
as all other attorneys. These attorneys should be held accountable to 
the same standards set by the State Supreme Court that granted each 
lawyer his or her license to practice law in that State.
  As most of my colleagues know, I have always been a supporter of 
congressional accountability. And in 1995, when the Republicans took 
control of Congress, one of our first orders of business was to make 
this institution abide by the same laws we make for everybody else. 
Well, my colleagues, we are facing the same issue of accountability 
here.
  Our Founding Fathers wisely rejected the notion of kings and 
dictators and, instead, they formed this experimental government called 
a democracy. Well, in our system of government no one is above the law. 
No civil servant, no law enforcement official, no Congressman, not even 
the President of the United States is above the law in our country. But 
over the past decade, the Department of Justice has made every attempt 
to exempt its own attorneys from the ethical rules of the States 
granting them their licenses. Should the Department of Justice be above 
the State laws of ethics? I do not see any reason why they should.
  Time and time again it has come to my attention that Department of 
Justice lawyers have conducted themselves in a questionable manner 
while representing the Federal Government without any penalty or 
oversight. What happened to our good friend and colleague, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), could happen to any 
citizen in this country, and they would not have possibly the courage 
or the resources that the gentleman from Pennsylvania did to fight it 
and win.

[[Page H7235]]

  U.S. District Court Judge George Dunn, Jr., summed it up best when he 
said,

       Congress intended Federal lawyers to be subject to 
     regulation by the State boards of which they are members and 
     to comply with the appropriate ethical standards.

  I urge my fellow Members to oppose this amendment and to oppose the 
Justice Department's attempt to create one set of standards for their 
attorneys and another set for the other attorneys in this country.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  My colleagues, we want to keep this in order and proportional. This 
is not a referendum on Kenneth Starr or the investigation he is 
conducting or the leaks, real or alleged, that are being investigated. 
This is an amendment that makes it clear to all to whom it had not 
previously been clear that all independent counsel, whatever their 
names, are employees of the Department of Justice. No more, no less. 
Does not implicate Kenneth Starr as a malefactor. It does not praise 
him. It does not say anything about where we come down on the 
investigation. We can be for or against the President or anything in 
between.
  All we are making clear to everybody that has brought this measure, 
and it would be nice for some of the sponsors of this amendment, well, 
some of them already have agreed with this amendment, but we cannot 
have an amendment that covers the Department of Justice U.S. attorneys 
and leave out the independent counsel, who is a U.S. attorney. All the 
laws that govern the U.S. prosecutors apply to the independent counsel. 
It should be obvious without the amendment that he is included. But 
since a few do not have this clear, I introduced the perfecting 
amendment. That is all this is about.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, 
who serves with me on the Committee on the Judiciary, for allowing me 
this time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I was not present, 
nor did I serve in this body when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Joe McDade) went through the troubles that have been related to during 
the course of this particular debate.
  Just let me say this, as a former prosecutor and as an elected 
representative of the people of the 10th District of Massachusetts, I 
have got to know the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), I know 
him well, and I know of no one who has such unimpeachable integrity as 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and I just simply want to make that 
statement for the Record.
  I listened to the debate, and I think we have got to step back and 
reflect. This is really rather simple. It is about ethics. That is what 
it is about. It is about ethics, and the existing code of ethics that 
every single state prosecutor subscribes to ought to be applied to 
Department of Justice attorneys.
  I do not think that is asking too much. We have heard a lot about law 
enforcement concerns, but that should not justify the creation of a 
lesser standard of ethics for Federal prosecutors. It just does not 
work.
  We should pause and think about the power of the prosecutor, and I 
know that power. I was an elected prosecutor for more than 20 years. I 
understand that power. I know what it can do to individuals. I know 
what it can do to families, and it should be exercised judiciously. I 
submit that most prosecutors, Federal and State, do that.
  The single admonition that I would instruct each and every assistant 
district attorney was to never abuse the power of that office, never 
abuse the power of that office, because it is an enormous power.
  There is no power greater in a democracy where you have the capacity 
to take the individual liberties away from an individual. That is the 
ultimate power, and if that power is abused, it begins the process of 
the erosion of a healthy democracy.
  I dare say the prosecutor should be held to the highest possible 
standards, the highest code of ethics, because the American people have 
given them an extraordinary power, whether they are independent 
counsels, whether they are State prosecutors, whether they are United 
States Attorneys.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, all of the legal arguments have been stated quite 
coherently and cogently by members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
and even have been challenged by Members on the other side of the 
aisle.
  I would side with those who support the McDade-Murtha provision and 
certainly even side with the ranking member on the Committee on the 
Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), in his efforts to 
perfect the provision.
  I would say in addition to all that has been said, and not to be 
redundant, not to repeat what has been said by those who spoke so 
eloquently, including my dear friends the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
King) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), that we are 
also faced with a public relations challenge as well.
  One of the reasons that so many around this Nation distrust and 
mistrust politicians, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
spoke about the district in which the jurors were pooled from in the 
trial of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), where 70 percent 
of those in that area thought that we were all crooks or thought that 
politicians were crooks, when you look at a Justice Department that is 
allowed to really run amuck, to trample the rights of individuals, to 
trample the civil liberties of individuals all in the quest for a 
conviction, all in the quest for fulfilling an agenda that they may 
have personally set and that they personally believe that this person 
or group of persons might be guilty of a crime, which sometimes might 
be the case, all we are asking for, Mr. Chairman, and I say to my 
friends who are sponsoring this amendment and those who I have a 
personal relationship with who are sponsoring the striking of this 
provision, is that our prosecutors have to behave and have to follow a 
certain set of ethical standards.
  There is nothing unusual, nothing bizarre, nothing un-American, about 
what is being asked, for all that we are asking for prosecutors, 
Federal and State, around this Nation to do is follow a set of 
standards, the highest set of standards.
  My dear friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a 
former prosecutor and a dear freshman colleague, I think stated it 
perhaps best. There is no greater power in this democracy than the 
power that our prosecutors in this great America have; for they deserve 
it but they should also be checked and it also should be tempered.

                              {time}  1645

  For the individual cases and examples, we have heard the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and my father and others here in this 
body. But let us protect every American, not just those in this House 
of Representatives. And certainly this provision allows us to do that.
  Mr. COX of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague from California (Ms. Waters) will 
be recognized immediately because we are going back and forth, and in 
fact, having spoken with her about this, I know that we agree on our 
conclusion on the merits of this legislation.
  Reform of our justice system, civil and criminal, is a top priority 
of this Congress. The low reputation of the legal profession is of 
greatest concern to ethical lawyers. I rise in support of America's 
prosecutors, the overwhelming percentage of whom already follow the 
rules written out in this legislation. In fact, I dare say virtually 
all of them do every day.
  Citizens need to understand that they have a legal right to have 
these rules followed, and that is the purpose of this today.
  Reputable lawyers know better than anyone else that all too often the 
courts today are too slow; that all too often justice is delayed or, 
because of delay, denied; all too often the justice system does not 
ultimately deliver what all of us intend it to deliver.
  Because I have so much faith in America's prosecutors, because I want

[[Page H7236]]

to support our criminal justice system, I want the American people to 
support that justice system as well. I want everybody to understand 
that when they go to court and they are accused of a crime or their 
family member is accused of a crime or when they are a victim and the 
perpetrator of that crime is accused that justice will be done and that 
it will be fair and on the level.
  There are 10 commandments in this bill. The 10 commandments are 
already observed by good prosecutors everywhere and certainly by good 
prosecutors in our Department of Justice and those who work in the 
Offices of Independent Counsels appointed pursuant to statute.
  Let me just read these 10 commandments, because it is so self-evident 
we must stand in support of them.
  Commandment number one, just reading from the 10 provisions of the 
McDade-Murtha bill, says: Thou shalt not indict without probable cause. 
Who here today says it should be otherwise? Of course, this is a rule 
that must bind prosecutors throughout the Government.
  Number two: Prosecutors cannot hide information that would exonerate 
a person who has been indicted. They cannot hide information that would 
exonerate someone who might not be guilty of the crime with which they 
have been charged. That is a rule that good prosecutors already live 
by.
  A prosecutor must not intentionally mislead a court as to the guilt 
of the accused. Of course he or she must not do that.
  A prosecutor must not intentionally or knowingly alter evidence or 
intentionally or knowingly misstate evidence.
  Number six: A prosecutor must not try to color a witness' testimony.
  Number seven: A prosecutor must not prevent a defendant from 
obtaining evidence that he or she is entitled to.
  Number eight: A prosecutor must not offer or provide sex as an 
inducement to any government witness or potential witness.
  Number nine: The prosecutor should not leak information improperly 
during the course of an investigation.
  We all know about the importance of grand jury secrecy to the 
ultimate successful prosecution, because if witnesses are tipped off in 
advance they cannot convict the guilty.
  And number 10: Prosecutors should not engage in conduct that 
discredits the Department of Justice.
  These 10 commandments in this legislation are not controversial. They 
are not controversial if applied to any prosecutor within the 
Department of Justice or within the office of any independent counsel. 
Every lawyer, certainly every Government lawyer should follow these 
rules.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on McDade-Murtha and yes on the 
perfecting amendment offered by the former chairman the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is long overdue. It is about time we dealt 
with what is wrong with the Justice Department and with unethical 
prosecutors in this Nation.
  Legislators at the state level, at the federal level have been 
absolutely supportive of the criminal justice system. They have done 
everything to give law enforcement the ability to apprehend criminals. 
They have done everything to be supportive of the Justice Department.
  When we look at the generosity of public policy makers on wire 
tapping, no-knock, search and seizure, all of that, when we look at 
mandatory minimums, three-strikes-and-you-are-out conspiracy laws, we 
have been very generous, sending a message to the people of this 
Nation, we want criminals locked up.
  We never knew that they would take the generosity of good public 
policy makers and turn it on its head. We never knew that they would 
take out after innocent people in so many different ways.
  I cannot even get into telling my colleagues how they use conspiracy 
laws. No evidence, no documentation. These conspiracy laws are filling 
up the prisons.
  I do not know all of the details of the case of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). I have heard about it. But I want to tell my 
colleagues, I know thousands of Mr. McDades who do not have any money, 
who do not have any attorneys, whose grandmothers and mothers come 
crying to my office for me to help them and I cannot do anything 
because my powerful government, prosecutors, have run amuck.
  Let me tell my colleagues, my hat is off, my hat is off to the 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, my friend from 
Detroit, Michigan, for this amendment.
  But I want to tell my colleagues, I want to make it very clear, he is 
talking about a generic prosecutor. I am talking about generic 
prosecutors, but I am talking about Ken Starr also. I want to tell my 
colleagues, he is under investigation. He is the poster boy for 
unethical prosecutors. I want to tell my colleagues he is under 
investigation because he has leaks about Hillary Clinton getting 
indicted, leaks about Bruce Lindsey getting indicted, leaks about 
Monica Lewinsky meeting with Ken Starr in New York City, leaks about 
Betty Currie's testimony, leaks about FBI wire conversations at the 
Ritz Carlton hotel. Even the Republicans have said he should be 
investigated.

  So let me make it clear. We would not be in this debate today, we 
would not have this amendment today if this poster boy for unethical 
prosecutors had not violated all of us in the way he has done.
  I am so glad this debate is taking place. I wish we had this in our 
committee. It should have been in subcommittee. It should be in full 
committee. We should bring people in here to tell their stories about 
what has happened to them.
  I should be able to tell my colleagues about a young woman named 
Kimber Smith, who is 19 years old who is sitting in a federal 
penitentiary today.
  And so I do not know all of the details about the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). I have heard some. But I want to tell my 
colleagues, indeed, I know many because I have heard the stories and I 
have seen the devastation of unethical prosecutors.
  It is time for America to believe that even though we want criminals 
prosecuted, indicted and locked up, we do not intend for them to be 
violated and run over and disrespected by anybody's prosecutor.
  I want to tell my colleagues something. No matter what they think 
about the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) on the left or 
somebody on the right, there is one thing that I hold dear that was 
drummed in my head as a student, and that was the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  I was made to believe that I would be protected. Even when things 
were going wrong, there would be some hope because we had a system of 
justice that would make sure that the average person, in the final 
analysis, would have an opportunity for redress. And I believed in this 
Constitution. They taught it to me too well. And that is why I can 
stand here and fight for it and feel very comfortable with it.
  I do not care about some other prosecutor who is a prosecutor in a 
state somewhere in Georgia who gets up and defends all prosecutors. I 
know the reputation of some prosecutors. I know the lives that have 
been ruined by some state prosecutors. They are no better than these 
federal ones that we are talking about.
  I want criminals to be apprehended, to be investigated, to be locked 
up. But I want people to have a chance to have their voices heard and 
to have a chance to be innocent until proven guilty, and that is why we 
have got to go after this special prosecutor.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Conyers perfecting 
amendment, and I also rise in opposition to the motion to strike the 
McDade language that is in this bill.
  Quite simply, the issue before us is whether the Government attorneys 
at the Department of Justice should abide by ethical rules that all 
other attorneys have to abide by, or can they make up their own 
standards of conduct.
  Title VIII of the bill before us requires that federal prosecutors 
comply with the same state laws and the rules of ethics as other 
attorneys. In 1980,

[[Page H7237]]

Congress passed legislation that has required that each Department of 
Justice lawyer to be ``duly licensed and authorized to practice as an 
attorney under the laws of a state, territory, or the District of 
Columbia.''
  The courts have held that the statute requires the Federal Government 
lawyers to comply with the ethics rules of their respective states of 
admission. I believe this is very reasonable. This is not a burdensome 
nor onerous requirement. The attorneys for the Federal Government 
should comply with the ethics standards in the states in which they are 
duly licensed.
  The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) in his arguments 
presented an example whereby an assistant United States attorney might 
find himself litigating in one state and through the discovery process 
find himself in two other states. And it says that if in fact that 
assistant U.S. Attorney is faced then with inconsistent rules on 
ethics, what should he do? We seek the higher standard. That is an easy 
one. We should always be for the higher standard.
  So when ethics conflict, do not go to the floor and figure out how we 
can maneuver through it. Seek the higher standard. So I do not see the 
inconsistency. If in fact you set your life to live by the higher 
standard, it is an easy question.
  I also want to comment, the Department of Justice, I think 
unfortunately, has repeatedly attempted to thwart I think this bill and 
those who believe that Government attorneys should be held accountable 
and be held to the highest standard.
  Government prosecutors, they hold tremendous power over life and 
liberty of our citizens. I have been one, so I understand the power out 
of the U.S. Attorney's Office.
  Title VIII of the bill will hold these Government attorneys, paid for 
by the tax dollars, to the same standards of those attorneys and create 
a system whereby they will be held accountable to the regulations and 
in fact to the highest standard.
  Under title VIII, the Department of Justice employees, they are held 
to such actions. And I sat down here as I was listening to the debate 
and thought I would make a list of all types of things: Whether their 
statements and actions by these prosecutors in due process; whether it 
is through the process of filing criminal information, grand jury, the 
discovery process, the jury alone, the judge alone; whether their 
actions are misleading in evidence or by the witness or by the law; 
whether their statements are inaccurate or they use inflammatory 
actions or use disparaging statements; or whether their actions are 
meant to harass or use threats or verbal abuse of a witness or of a 
defense counsel; if their actions are inflammatory or they use false 
accusations, they use threatening language or they ridicule a defendant 
or witness or the defense counsel; or if in fact that their actions are 
arbitrary or capricious, held without any forms of standards; if in 
fact they are faced with a conflict of interest; whether their actions 
are based on a vindication; whether they operate in bad faith; whether 
they have abusive or overzealous misconduct; whether in fact they are 
leaking information or unauthorized disclosure of grand jury testimony 
or materials; or in fact they are abusing the legal process to harass 
or threaten another; or if they begin to withhold exculpatory evidence, 
whether it is in favor of a defendant or to impeach a particular 
witness; in fact, where there are issues of conflict of interest, 
whether they are personal, pecuniary, or in fact political.
  So the list goes on and on, and I think that, in fact, these 
attorneys should be held to the same standards whatever jurisdiction 
for which they are in.
  When we look at the symbol of lady justice, lady justice is blind. 
Lady justice is blind. And what it means to the prosecutors are that 
they are not to litigate a case based on an unjustified standard, 
whether it is picking on an individual because of their age, race, 
gender, national origin, or the station of life. The process is meant 
to be fair.
  But lady justice is neither blind, nor does she give a wink to 
unethical or abusive behavior or conduct.

                              {time}  1700

  What I would ask Members to do is to oppose the motion to strike and 
to support the gentleman from Pennsylvania's legislation. With regard 
to the first vote that will come up, the Conyers amendment, this one is 
really simple. When you have about eight or so or now maybe approaching 
nine independent counsels investigating the President, whether this 
move to go to the higher standard is good, what is obvious about this 
amendment as I listen to some of my colleagues speak, this is more 
about politics than substance. You should stop and ask yourself here, 
does good politics make good law? No, it does not.
  So you are having fun. What fun are you having is attacking Ken 
Starr. What makes me most disappointed is to hear members on the 
Committee on the Judiciary who must sit in judgment and receive this 
report already prejudging their decisions to attack the independent 
counsel. I am extraordinarily disappointed in my colleagues.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. I say to my dear colleague on the Committee on the 
Judiciary from Indiana, we just want to make clear that the U.S. 
attorneys have one standard and the Conyers amendment wants that 
standard to include the independent counsel, whatever they may be 
named, right?
  Mr. BUYER. I understand your amendment, yes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Right, okay. But you do not support it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me respond to many of the 
issues that have been expressed on this floor. I would say to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) that it is my view that no one 
deserves to be put on the trash heap of life. That sounds like a very 
harsh statement, harsh in that that is not your destiny. But I do 
believe that we have an opportunity today to maybe speak for many 
across this country who unfortunately were caught in the web of 
someone's misdirections and someone's abuse of power. I think it is 
appropriate for those of us who are members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary to say first of all that prosecutors across this Nation have 
done good by the people of the United States of America. They have 
prosecuted those well deserving of being prosecuted. They are by and 
large officers of the court who have upheld the highest standards.
  But why are we arguing against prosecutors being subject to the same 
State laws and rules and local court rules and State bar rules of 
ethics of any other series of lawyers? Why are we suggesting to our 
constituents that there is something wrong with requiring prosecutors, 
Federal prosecutors, to not seek an indictment against you with no 
probable cause, to fail to promptly release information that may 
exonerate you, to attempt to alter or misstate evidence, to attempt to 
influence or color a witness's testimony, to act to frustrate or impede 
a defendant's right to discovery. Yes, the scale of justice is balanced 
and blind, and that is what we are speaking of, to be able to equalize 
you in a court of law against a Federal prosecutor representing the 
United States of America.
  Let me thank the prosecutors for going into the deep South in the 
1960s and raising up issues of civil rights that other local attorneys 
could not raise up. Let me thank them, The Department of Justice did an 
amazing job in dealing with those issues. So we realize the uniqueness 
of the Federal prosecutor system. But does that mean that we throw 
people to the trash heap of life? Do you lose all of your rights 
because you go into a Federal courtroom and a prosecutor says, ``I have 
all of the rights''? I believe that we are doing nothing here that is 
against the boundaries of respect for our Federal system.

  Let me say as a member again of the Committee on the Judiciary, yes, 
I think our job might have been better if we had had hearings. In fact, 
I do not think we are finished. I think we must proceed and investigate 
even more whether there are abuses across the country. But today we are 
where we are. We have an opportunity not to attack but to make better.

[[Page H7238]]

  This underlying amendment and, of course, the amendment by the 
gentleman from Michigan that includes the independent counsel, which is 
very clear, an employee of the Department of Justice is the independent 
counsel, will protect you the citizen against the kinds of abuses which 
we face every day.
  There is something that is scripturally based. When the woman touched 
the hem of the garment of Jesus in Christian doctrine, it was said she 
was healed. It is difficult, of course, to perceive prosecutors along 
those lines. But they say touch their garment and get no justice. That 
is the tragedy of what we face.
  There is no disgrace for those of us who are members of the Committee 
on the Judiciary to be able to say that Ken Starr has abused the 
process, for I am glad the President is going to the grand jury. I am 
glad Monica Lewinsky. We have no quarrel with the process of justice. 
But we do have a quarrel with an independent counsel who leaks and 
leaks and leaks. These amendments will make it better for all 
Americans. For that reason I think that we should support the 
perfecting amendment and support the Martha-McDade amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDADE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, we have been on the amendment for quite 
some time. I was going to see at 5:05 if we could get some kind of 
agreement on a time limit. Members have social engagements, most of 
them, beginning about 6 o'clock. I do not think we would take much time 
on the next amendment. I wanted to see if it was possible to get an 
agreement on time on the Conyers amendment and any amendment thereto.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are not in a position to make any 
agreements on time at this time.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and in further 
support of the underlying amendment that I cosponsored in opposition to 
the provision in the base bill which would unduly, in my opinion, 
hamper our prosecutors.
  I stand today to support our prosecutors. I guess I am somewhat 
surprised as I sit and listen to all the bashing that is going on about 
our prosecutors, our Federal prosecutors, the people who are 
presidentially appointed and confirmed by the Senate who serve in our 
93 positions as U.S. attorneys as well as our assistant U.S. attorneys, 
the people who prosecute day in and day out throughout this country the 
people that need to be prosecuted, not in a perfect way and as we hear 
anecdotal stories of perhaps cases that should not have been 
prosecuted, and I have great respect for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, I know very little about his case, and mistakes have been 
made, I am sure, throughout the history of prosecution.
  But, as has been said, by and large these are good prosecutors trying 
to do the right thing in many cases and in very dangerous, very tough 
situations. What I want to guard against here today is an overreaction 
to these anecdotal cases. What I want to prevent is the handcuffing of 
our prosecutors by requiring them as the underlying bill does to submit 
to the rules and regulations and disciplinary proceedings of the 
various States in which they prosecute. These 50 States have enacted 
individually their own rules and regulations for disciplinary 
procedures for their attorneys and rightfully so, because they practice 
in their State courts.
  The U.S. attorney, and let me be clear on this, the U.S. attorney and 
the assistants practice at the Federal courts. They already are 
obligated to stand behind Federal guidelines in terms of their 
disciplinary behavior, their ethical conduct as established by the 
Attorney General of the United States. But what you do in this bill, 
and I believe in overreaction fashion, is make those U.S. attorneys, 
those Federal prosecutors, submit to various State regulations on their 
conduct.
  Let us take, for example, the Oklahoma situation. Because so many 
times, the Federal prosecutor, not the State prosecutor like my 
colleague from Massachusetts was, but the Federal prosecutors that we 
talk about in this bill work in multistate litigation, pornography, 
interstate theft of automobiles, drug cases, where you are working with 
folks all over the country. In Oklahoma City, you had a tragic bombing, 
an instance where in that investigation they gathered evidence in 
Michigan and in New York and other States and brought that together in 
Oklahoma City for coordination. They would have had to track every 
piece of evidence in that case, where it came from, to ensure that it 
did not violate that particular State ethics and disciplinary law. That 
is an impossible burden for prosecutors who prosecute multistate 
litigation to have to do.
  Let us take another State, I believe, I could be corrected, but I 
think Massachusetts. In that State, if you arrest a low level drug 
dealer and you want to, as so often happens in drug cases, you start at 
the bottom and work your way up to the kingpin. If you arrest a low 
level drug dealer in that State, the kingpin can hire a lawyer for that 
low level drug dealer and as a prosecutor, you cannot talk to that low 
level drug dealer without that lawyer being present who is actually 
hired by the kingpin. You know what plays out in that situation. If 
that person talks to you, he may well be dead the next day.
  Those are examples of how in reality this bill will play out. It will 
hamstring Federal prosecutors in a very inappropriate way and it will 
affect the administration of justice in our Federal courts and the 
victims of these crimes over and over.
  Again, I have great respect for the people who are on the other side 
of this issue and who have been involved in the system. But yet I 
cannot help but believe we are literally throwing out the baby with the 
bath water here. This is totally, totally unnecessary. For instance, it 
creates a misconduct board which is constituted by appointments from 
the President and from the House. That in and of itself violates the 
very sacred separation of powers doctrine.
  I would encourage people to stand back from the emotion and look at 
the overall interest of justice here, not just a few very bad cases, 
and stand behind our prosecutors who already subscribe to these ethical 
laws and oppose this amendment.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there may be some 
accommodation with respect to the limitation on time if it is limited 
to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), 
the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would eagerly await that.
  Mr. McDADE. Am I accurate in that? I understand that is acceptable.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Could the gentleman outline his proposal?
  Mr. McDADE. Yes. May I say to my friend from West Virginia that my 
understanding is that if we limit the limitation on time, if we can get 
one, to the Conyers amendment, that that is an acceptable proposal to 
be made. And if that is the case, I would inquire how many speakers 
there are that remain that would like to be heard on the Conyers 
amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have several. Does the gentleman have a time 
proposal?
  Mr. McDADE. My understanding on this side is that we have but two, 
each five minutes. I would suggest 20 minutes, 10 per side, and then 
vote on the Conyers amendment.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can we limit time on the Conyers amendment and not on 
the underlying amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes, that would be the understanding of the chair.
  Mr. McDADE. May I say to my friend, I find that there are some others 
on my side who also wish to speak on the Conyers amendment. Four 
members, five minutes apiece is 20, and you have two. Twenty and 20. Is 
that acceptable to the gentleman?

                              {time}  1715

  May I inquire of the gentleman, how about 15 and 15 per side? I am 
advised that Members over here do not intend

[[Page H7239]]

to take the full time, that they can get their remarks in the Record, 
and then the amendment would be ripe.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. I think we can agree to that on the Conyers amendment, 
15 on each side.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent the debate on the 
Conyers amendment and the amendments thereto cease in 30 minutes, 
equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. And all amendments thereto? Equally divided?
  Mr. McDADE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Pennsylvania?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Are there any amendments to the Conyers amendment in 
order?
  The CHAIRMAN. In theory there would be, but if the request is 
granted, of course they would be debatable within that time.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we would not want to make the agreement 
if it were to include time limit on any potential amendments on the 
Conyers amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is the understanding of the Chair.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. That we would not have any amendments on the Conyers 
amendment that would become a part of the time agreement?
  The CHAIRMAN. The request would only impact the Conyers amendment 
itself.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I renew my unanimous-consent request.
  The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman restate his unanimous-consent 
request?
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that all debate on the Conyers 
amendment cease in 30 minutes, equally divided on each side, that I 
control time here and the gentleman from Michigan control the time on 
that side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it 
appears to me that the request has two people controlling time that are 
both in favor of the Conyers amendment. I would like to claim time in 
opposition.
  Mr. Chairman, I trust the gentleman from Pennsylvania to control it. 
I just would like to make sure that it is controlled.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the unanimous-consent request is 
granted whereby debate will cease in 30 minutes, 15 minutes controlled 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and 15 minutes controlled 
by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade).
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, I think the Conyers amendment is 
inappropriate, but I do not disagree with the underlying thought, which 
is that independent counsels ought to be accountable.
  I go back to the Iran-Contra days when Elliot Abrams was destroyed by 
an independent counsel, I thought very unjustly, when Caspar Weinberger 
was indicted three days before an election, and there is just no 
accountability; so there ought to be. This is not the time to do it. 
The time to do it is when we reauthorize the bill next year.
  In 1994, when we reauthorized the independent counsel, I had some 
suggestions for accountability. They were shot down by the chairman of 
the House Committee on the Judiciary then, they were shot down by the 
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They were perfectly happy 
with the language of the bill as it then existed.
  Now, of course, experience has changed their mind. So I agree, but 
never forget the ultimate discipline is with the Attorney General. She 
can dismiss the independent counsel, and if he is half as bad as people 
say, I wonder why she has not dismissed him. But that is a question for 
another day.
  But any lesser sanction would erode the independence of the 
independent counsel, and we must keep the independent counsel 
independent.
  So I think the gentleman's amendment is mis-timed, overshoots the 
mark and ought to be defeated.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman I yield such time as she may consume to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I especially thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his leadership in bringing this amendment to 
the floor, which I wholeheartedly support and consider a breath of 
fresh air. I also rise in support of the underlying McDade-Murtha bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
Conyers amendment as well as in opposition to the Hutchinson amendment, 
which would then strike the McDade-Murtha provision of this bill. In 
essence, McDade-Murtha codifies the long-recognized, but recently-
ignored principles that U.S. Attorneys must abide by the same rules of 
ethics as all other practicing lawyers. The Conyers amendment says that 
this includes special counsel as well, not just the people who are 
currently employed by the Department of Justice, and that makes all the 
sense in the world.
  Limited government is the prerequisite for liberty and justice. That 
is what we are talking about today, limiting government power to what 
is a reasonable power to maintain order in our society.
  Well, however, over the last three decades, because of the fear of 
crime we have ended up granting enormous power with very few checks and 
balances to prosecutors. We have just been expanding their power, and 
yours truly is just as guilty as anybody else out of fear of crime to 
give prosecutors power without having any checks and balances. Now we 
are surprised to see that big government with lots of power, people in 
that government tend to abuse that power.
  Our Founding Fathers would not be surprised at that. The fact is 
every time we expand power we have to put checks in place or there will 
be abuses of power. For far too many times we have seen out-of-control 
prosecutors who now have all this more power to attack the bad guys, 
not seeking truth or not trying to protect the innocent but instead 
engaging themselves in self-aggrandizing, targeted attacks, often 
pushing relentlessly for some kind of prosecutorial victory regardless 
of the cost and, at times, regardless of the cost and, at times, 
regardless of the actual guilt or innocence of the target.
  I and other supporters of the McDade-Murtha provision, and we are 
advocates of law and order, take this stand today to protect freedom 
and liberty threatened by prosecutors who are not being held to the 
same standards as other people in the legal profession. The gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) answered these charges, that there is going to 
be confusion, that we have different standards at the local level. The 
fact is that we expect our prosecutors to be at the highest level 
because we are protecting the rights of our citizens, the freedom of 
the people of the United States of America.
  Far too often we have seen cases like the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. McDade) where prosecutors are out of control and politically 
motivated. They go out and destroy public officials and public people. 
But what about the little guys? The little guys who have no money to 
defend themselves and are faced by these same abusive prosecutors?
  No, putting down a code of conduct, if my colleagues will, a standard 
of ethics for the prosecutors, is something good. It is totally 
consistent with freedom in our country, with what our Founding Fathers 
wanted, with the concepts of limited government. Why should prosecutors 
be exempt from the ethics standards that the rest of us have?
  Vote yes on the Conyers amendment to make sure all of the people who 
are

[[Page H7240]]

involved in prosecution in our country have these standards and no on 
Hutchinson.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan).
  (Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, and I do not apologize 
for that, I am just not. But I do have a legal question that I would 
like for some of the legalese Members who are so educated in the law to 
inform me.
  The Mobile Press Register, my hometown newspaper, recently published 
a story where it says a former Internal Revenue informant in a Mobile 
diesel fraud case claims the IRS paid him to skip town during the May 
trial where his testimony could have helped the defense.
  When we questioned, or when the press questioned, the IRS and the 
Defense Department as to whether or not it took place, they admitted 
that they gave the man $2,500 to leave town during the trial so he 
could not testify against the defense or for the defense.
  The FBI then said, well, this guy is a liar and that he cannot be 
trusted. Well, if he is a liar and he cannot be trusted, why did they 
give him $2,500?
  Does the Federal Government have the authority, any of the legalese 
Members can tell me, to pay a defense witness to leave town if he 
agrees not to be there during the trial and testify, and, if that is 
the case, does the underlying amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Murtha), does it help correct a situation taking place like that in the 
future?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. The answer is absolutely not. That is obstruction of 
justice and was a crime.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Then in the gentleman's opinion, as a prosecutor and as 
a man learned in the law, should the Justice Department in that 
district indict the IRS individual who gave him this money?
  Mr. HYDE. If the version that the gentleman read is accurate, there 
is a lot of work for the Justice Department to do right down there 
where that happened.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Chairman, I assume everything we read in the 
newspaper is factual, but giving the benefit of the doubt that it might 
not be factual, I think that the investigator, the defense attorney in 
Mobile, who incidentally has called me because Janet Reno told him to 
and asked me to vote against the underlying bill, which I intend to do 
anyway.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 
yielding this time to me.
  I listened with great interest to the comments of the very 
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of our 
Committee on the Judiciary, and I would say every argument he gave 
against the Conyers amendment applies just as forcefully in support of 
the Hutchinson amendment and for striking the underlying provision, and 
that is going through the regular order either in the context of an 
independent counsel law or in the context of a Justice Department 
reauthorization we could look at this proposal, look at the question of 
improper prosecutorial tactics and fashion an appropriate remedy.
  But if there is going to be the McDade-Murtha language in this bill, 
then I cannot think of a reason in the world why those same 
restrictions should not apply to staff and to an independent counsel or 
to the independent counsel himself.
  Independent counsel working in a State, if the Justice Department 
lawyer should be complying with the local bar rules, then the 
independent counsel lawyer should be complying with the local bar 
rules. If improper overzealous prosecution tactics, the kinds of 
stories that the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) told us about, 
are going on, then an independent review board should be reviewing 
those tactics as well as the tactics of Justice Department lawyers.
  I have some concerns about the base proposal, and I will speak to 
that when the Hutchinson amendment comes up, but we should support the 
Conyers amendment and then treat everybody in the similar situation the 
same way.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge an aye vote on the Conyers amendment.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), a distinguished Member.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for the courtesies that he has extended 
to me. He has been in this body some time longer than I have, and he 
has taught me a few things. I have the utmost regard and high respect 
for the gentleman.
  There has been some mention today about unfairness in prosecution, 
and I do not dispute that it happens, that it has happened in this 
body. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) has referred to a 
case; others have.
  I have made mention of the fact I am a former Federal prosecutor, and 
that is true. I was a prosecutor in the mid-80's, but after I left 
that, I became a defense attorney. So I have sat in that courtroom and 
I have heard a jury come back with an acquittal, and I realized an 
acquittal does not remedy everything because an individual defendant 
who has been through an enormous Federal criminal trial still suffers 
consequences.
  But I believe that we took a big step in this Congress in remedying 
and curtailing and striking a better balance, and that was when we 
passed and it was signed into law the provision that said that if there 
is a frivolous prosecution, then the acquitted defendant can recover 
attorney's fees from the government.
  I think we need to have time for that to work. I think it strikes a 
better balance. I think that prosecutors were concerned about that, 
that that is a chilling effect. Well, I hope it is a remedial effect. I 
hope that it strikes a better balance. So I am very pleased with that.
  But I do want to say also that a number of Members have said, why in 
the world should we have Federal prosecutors who should be exempt from 
the State ethics law? And that is just not the case that we have 
presently.
  Presently, as a Federal prosecutor, every Federal prosecutor has to 
be licensed to practice law, are subject to the state licensure laws of 
their state, whether it is Virginia, whether it is Arkansas. They have 
to abide by those ethics laws. That is the current law.
  What the present proposal is, whether it is the independent counsel 
under the Conyers amendment or whether it is the underlying bill, it 
would bring all Federal prosecutors subject not to the ethics laws of 
their State, but to every State in which they engage in their duties, 
and that is the point that my good friend the gentleman from Tennessee 
(Mr. Bryant) was making.
  In the multistate investigations we have, when you are traveling down 
to Florida to interview a witness, when you are going to Louisiana, 
when you have multistates involved, you have conflicting laws with 
different States. My good friend from Massachusetts has some very 
stringent bar rules that are in conflict with the ethics laws in our 
State and hamstring what a prosecutor might be trying to do and what 
could be perceived as unfair.
  In addition to the reviews of the State ethics laws, you presently 
have the Office of Professional Responsibility. You have the inspector 
general that will have review over these Federal prosecutors, in 
addition to the Federal courts.
  But let me say in reference to the Conyers amendment on the 
independent counsel, the essence of the Conyers amendment brings the 
independent counsel under the Misconduct Review Board of title VIII. 
The Misconduct Review Board is, first of all, a board composed of three 
members. Those three members are appointed by the President of the 
United States.
  The whole idea of the independent counsel law, and I agree with the 
gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that we need to reevaluate this 
in the reauthorization next year, but do we

[[Page H7241]]

want to bring somebody who is supposed to be independent of the 
administration under the review of the Misconduct Review Board of three 
people appointed by the President? It makes no sense.
  The Misconduct Review Board, if there is any complaint made by any 
citizen, can subpoena evidence, can subpoena records, can subpoena 
witnesses and bring them before them with a public show that would 
compromise confidential informants, whether it is a drug case or 
something the independent counsel is doing. So the Misconduct Review 
Board is a bureaucracy that is duplicative of what we have now. It is 
not needed; it takes us in the wrong direction.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) says we have 10 rules that 
ought to be obeyed by Federal prosecutors. We already have ethical 
rules for our Federal prosecutors and State prosecutors. But those 10 
rules have to be interpreted by a Misconduct Review Board. So when it 
says you cannot bring charges without probable cause, that is what a 
grand jury determines.
  Now we are going to have a Misconduct Review Board determine whether 
there is probable cause or not. That is second guessing, that is an 
impossible burden put on prosecutors, and it is a chilling effect. I 
believe we should have a higher standard, but that is a higher standard 
that is imposed by our State ethics laws, that is applied by the 
present system.
  Let me end with two points: First of all is a letter that was signed 
by Democrat and Republican former Attorneys General. They said in their 
letter in opposition to the proposal that the department's policy 
already requires its attorneys comply with the ethical rules of the 
States in which they are licensed and practice. So it is already the 
rule. Across the board they have opposition to this.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does the gentleman believe if a prosecutor, for 
example, encourages a witness to commit perjury or breaks the law in 
some other way, that that prosecutor should himself or herself be 
prosecuted for violating the law for doing something like that?
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Reclaiming my time, absolutely. That is obstruction 
of justice.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. How many prosecutors have been prosecuted? Almost 
none, is that right? Instead, like in the case of the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), they get promotions.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, under the present 
situation, that is misconduct that is subject to prosecution as well as 
ethical investigation. When I talk to people who are in hearings that 
are involved with the drug cartel, I ask them the question, do those in 
law enforcement have greater resources, or those in the drug business? 
And whether it is the DEA or those in the cartels, they say the other 
side have more weapons.
  What we are trying to do by this proposal in this bill is to give 
more weapons and more tools to those on the other side. We need to 
strengthen law enforcement, not strengthen the drug cartels.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) is a great member of the Committee on the Judiciary and he 
is a great lawyer and was a good prosecutor, a good defense man, but 
what he needs to understand is that we are not revising or dealing with 
the independent counsel statute. That comes up next year, and, brother, 
we have plenty to say about that.
  All we are doing now is making the very elementary, simple, nonlegal 
assertion that the independent counsel is an employee of the U.S. 
Department of Justice and is subject to the same rules, 6(e) and 
everything else, that U.S. Attorneys are. That. Nothing more.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for making that point. It seems to me that in the context of this 
debate, which is an extraordinarily important one, that there is one 
basic point that we need to focus on, and that is a very simple one: 
The underlying principles of this Republic, the founding and sustaining 
principle, is that government draws its just authority from the consent 
of the governed. We all know that. We all learned that in grammar 
school.
  You cannot have the consent of the governed unless you have their 
confidence. The governed cannot give their consent unless they have 
confidence in that which they are giving consent to.
  Nowhere in the government is that more stringently important than 
with regard to the activities of the Department of Justice. And the 
reason for that is obvious, because the Department of Justice has 
extraordinary power over individual Americans, over life, liberty and 
property of every single citizen of every State.
  Therefore, particularly the Department of Justice must be held under 
strict constraint. Nowhere else in the government is it as important as 
in the Department of Justice. That is why the McDade language in the 
Commerce-Justice bill is so important, and we owe the gentlemen a debt 
of gratitude, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for bringing this language to 
us in the context of this bill.
  However, it is also clearly just as important that every employee of 
the Justice Department ought to be covered by this language, without 
exception. There should be no exception because every employee of the 
Justice Department has this prosecutorial power, the right, the ability 
to deprive Americans of life, liberty and property. Therefore, we need 
this perfecting amendment to make more powerful, more straightforward, 
more direct the underlying principles of the McDade language.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
both for his clarification and his passion. I think we would be doing a 
great disservice to this debate if we did not clarify that this is not 
a pointed and singular attack on anyone. It is simply to provide the 
cover of ethics and of certain legal standards that all lawyers across 
the Nation have to abide by to all lawyers that are under the 
Constitution and governing laws of the United States of America.
  What I hear the gentleman saying is ethics for you, ethics for me, 
ethics for everyone, and that includes, as the Conyers amendment has so 
aptly indicated, an independent counsel that is an employee of the 
Department of Justice, so that no one's rights are violated.
  I ask the gentleman, are we simply engaging in a discussion of 
fairness, that ethics is the creed, if you will, the oath, if you will, 
the guiding force that should guide all of us as we relate to those 
Americans who come under the system of justice?
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say absolutely 
right. Every citizen of this Republic has the right to expect ethical 
behavior from every other citizen, but particularly every citizen of 
this Republic has the right to expect ethical behavior from everyone 
who is placed in a position of prosecutorial responsibility. Nowhere 
else in the system of government is the requirement to adhere to a 
strict, clear specified code of ethics more important than those who 
have been entrusted with prosecutorial responsibilities.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HINCHEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, given the 
statements by my friend from Arkansas, whom I have great respect for, 
that if somehow you support McDade and Murtha you are somehow assisting 
or abetting drug cartels in the United States. That simply is not the 
case.
  State prosecutors historically have conducted investigations that are 
multistate in nature, whether it be organized crime, whether it be drug 
trafficking, whether it be white collar

[[Page H7242]]

crime. They adjust. As the gentleman from Arkansas indicated, 
Massachusetts has a very stringent standard in terms of prosecutorial 
ethics, but it has not caused a problem.
  It is reminiscent of when the Warren Court issued the landmark cases 
in Mapp and Miranda. It was going to impede and be the end in terms of 
law enforcement. I dare say now we have better and more professional 
law enforcement that is more ethical than ever before.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield 1 minute to the 
able gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  (Mr. HUNTER asked and was given permission to speak out of order and 
to revise and extend his remarks.)


    Honorable Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham Doing Well Following Surgery

  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I wish to announce to my colleagues that 
our good friend, our Top Gun ``Duke'' Cunningham, who underwent surgery 
today, has come through that surgery successfully. He is doing great. 
He has already made one attempt to sneak past a corpsman and get back 
to work, but they apprehended him and he is back in bed to rest for a 
little bit. He just wishes all of you well.
  It would be great, if anybody would like, we would love to have you 
come to the Republican cloakroom, Democrats and Republicans, and sign 
the get-well card that we put together for Duke. He is doing well and 
he is going to be back shortly.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances, I think the 
gentleman has been extremely gracious.
  I certainly I want to, I am sure, speak for my colleagues who oppose 
this bill, this portion of the bill, that we have obviously nothing 
personal against the gentleman and his situation. It is just that we 
have, we believe, legitimate differences in this particular bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I would stand up tonight and argue against the issue at 
hand, and that is, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
which would bring into this bill the independent counsel.
  As my colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has so 
well pointed out, it is almost ludicrous when we envision the aspects 
of this bill as it might be applicable to the special prosecutor, 
especially when we consider the Conduct Review Board, which is made up 
of three members appointed by the White House, and also members 
appointed in an advisory fashion by the Members of Congress.
  It certainly would thwart not only any color of independence, but any 
independence, or any ability of the independent counsel to exercise 
independence. It would do that, as well as impede, very clearly, the 
investigation by being able to come forward at any point and make 
objections to unfair prosecutions in very vague, very broad terms, that 
would draw to a halt that independent investigation while this 
disciplinary action against the independent prosecutor would have to be 
investigated.
  I would point out to my colleagues on both sides that the Attorney 
General, Janet Reno, opposes this bill in total, and states, in regard 
to the disruptions that would occur in the U.S. Attorney General's 
office, as well as, we would speculate, in the independent prosecutor's 
office, that that would devastate their ability to do the job.
  She says, for example, and this is Janet Reno talking, ``For example, 
a grand jury target could allege the prosecutor was `bringing discredit 
on the Department.' '' That is an allegation that could stop the 
prosecution, they are bringing discredit on the department. ``The 
Attorney General would then be required to complete a preliminary 
investigation within thirty days.'' They have to stop and do this 
within 30 days. ``The prosecutor would be forced to devote his or her 
attention to the misconduct claim rather than . . .'' the underlying 
criminal investigation.
  It is just amazing, if one sits down and thinks about, I believe, the 
unintended, very sincerely, consequences of this bill in terms of how 
it will disrupt our very good prosecutors and their effort to stand in 
that gap between the law-abiding citizens of America and the criminals 
of America.
  I point out that there are mistakes made. In those cases, the system 
does work. There is a system out there for the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade). It must work. I know he would quarrel 
with that, but it should work.
  I urge Members to oppose the Conyers amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank all the Members on both sides of the 
aisle for a very constructive debate. I think this is very important, 
and I appreciate the fair discussion under which this amendment has 
been considered.
  I would point out to the last speaker, an able member on the 
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant), 
that he is arguing the underlying bill, but the vote that is now coming 
up is merely whether or not independent counsel are included in the 
provisions that apply to U.S. attorneys.
  If we do not do that we have made an incredibly large error, and I 
think it was inadvertent when this bill was drafted sometime ago. I am 
pleased that many of the authors of the bill are supporting this 
amendment.
  I urge its support, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, let me say to my colleagues, I had not 
intended to speak on this aspect of the bill, but in view of the 
comments that were made a few moments ago, I am compelled to.
  Under the current system that we heard described by my colleagues, 
the gentlemen from Tennessee and from Arkansas, there is a remedy for a 
citizen, once convicted. They can appeal to another court, a higher 
court. They can make a recommendation or an argument at OPM, the Office 
of Professional Responsibility in the Department of Justice, after they 
have been convicted; lives ruined, bankrupt. If they can prove 
something, they might get a reversal of their case.
  Let me be specific. In the case of United States versus Taylor about 
a year ago, the Department of Justice twisted the testimony of an 
individual and convicted him on perjurous testimony. If we read the 
case, we will read that the judge that tried it found the employees of 
the Department guilty of obstruction of justice. What a charge, 
corrupting the system that they are are supposed to be defending.
  What did the Office of Professional Responsibility do after the judge 
made that finding? Mr. Chairman, they gave the people who corrupted 
that system a 5-day suspension from their jobs, a 5-day suspension for 
corrupting the system of justice in this country. No better example 
exists as to why we need to empower a citizen to have the right to have 
his case heard in front of the conviction and away from the OPM by an 
independent body.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249, 
noes 182, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 396]

                               AYES--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Dreier

[[Page H7243]]


     Duncan
     Edwards
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--182

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Livingston
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Pease
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Roukema
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Clay
     Cunningham
     Gonzalez

                              {time}  1811

  Messrs. DAVIS of Florida, BAKER, WAMP, BURTON of Indiana, WELDON of 
Pennsylvania, and LAZIO of New York changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Messrs. RAMSTAD, FRANKS of New Jersey, KASICH, GALLEGLY, FOX of 
Pennsylvania, PORTER, and UPTON changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the perfecting amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there further discussion on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson)?
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  For the purpose of trying to inform the Members of the evening's 
schedule so they may plan their activities accordingly, I am hoping 
that in a few minutes we can get a unanimous consent request to end the 
debate on the Hutchinson amendment with 5 minutes per side and then a 
vote on that amendment, which we would request be rolled until a later 
time so that Members would be able to attend the evening activities 
during the dinner hour.
  I would hope in due course of time, which we are now working with the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and others on, to obtain a 
time limit on all remaining amendments, in which case votes could be 
postponed until around 8:00 at the earliest and give Members a chance 
to be with their families during the dinner hour.

                              {time}  1815

  With that in mind, I would propose a unanimous consent request that 
all debate on the Hutchinson amendment be concluded in 10 minutes, 5 
minutes per side, after which the vote would be taken on the Hutchinson 
amendment, but postponed if a recorded vote is requested, to a later 
time.
  And then I would hope that I would be able to discuss with the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and others limitations on 
the other amendments that are attached to the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, just to 
clarify with the chairman that he is proposing that we do a unanimous 
consent request on the Hutchinson amendment now; roll that vote until 
after 8 p.m., giving Members a chance to go to this event; and then, in 
the meantime, do a unanimous consent with regard to as many other 
amendments as we can, and I know we have some concern about maybe one 
amendment on our side maybe not being included in that; and roll all 
those votes likewise until after 8 p.m. and then consider all votes. So 
Members could actually leave right now and not be concerned about votes 
until after 8 p.m.
  Mr. ROGERS. That is correct.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. We have 
a lot of Members right here, right now. We have already debated this 
issue, it is in everybody's mind, and I do not see any reason why we 
should not vote on this and then go forward with the rest of the 
evening with time with our families. We have just debated this, we are 
right here, let us vote on it now.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, there are Members who wish the 5-minute 
discussion time. I would again request unanimous consent for 5 minutes 
per side, after which we vote, and then roll the vote until after 8 
p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman. I have 
been advised on my side that we would probably agree with that proposal 
and do not have any requests for time, at least if it were agreed upon 
by the other side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I simply want to state on behalf of my 
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and myself, 
who worked this originally, and the 200 of our colleagues who have 
cosponsored this bill, that we are ready to vote right now. It has been 
debated and I think we ought to vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Kentucky?
  Hearing no objection, the unanimous consent request is granted. The 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) will each control 5 minutes.

[[Page H7244]]

  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to simply say that the amendment that is before this body, the 
Hutchinson-Barr-Bryant amendment, would delete title VIII of the 
appropriations bill, which is called the Citizen Protection Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Barr).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, Members are asking about whether or not we 
will postpone this vote. The answer is we will recommend the vote be 
postponed until at least 8 p.m.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has that discretion when the request for a 
recorded vote is made we will take that under advisement.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, as with most pieces of 
legislation, it is as important to raise what a proposal does not do as 
it is what it does do, and I urge all of my colleagues to listen very 
carefully to these final minutes of debate.
  This is a very emotional issue because people who are well-known to 
us are in favor of it. But this bill should not go forward. This 
amendment that we have should go forward, and the underlying title VIII 
stricken, because it will do tremendous injustice to the fabric of how 
United States attorneys conduct very sophisticated, very complex, very 
far-reaching multi-state investigations.
  There is plenty of mechanisms already in place to address the 
occasional bad apple, if there is a prosecutor that practices 
misconduct. Notwithstanding that, if we have a problem with a 
particular U.S. attorney, then we should take action against that U.S. 
attorney. We can do that under current law and procedures. If we do not 
like the standards set by an Attorney General, then we should take 
action against that Attorney General, but we should not throw out the 
ability, as title VIII would do, of United States attorneys to conduct 
multi-state investigations, such as RICO, public corruption, drug cases 
or fraud cases.
  If, in fact, the law in one particular State is different from the 
law in another particular State, both involved in that multi-State 
investigation, action could be brought against that United States 
attorney for doing something that is perfectly legal under Federal law 
and under the law of a State in which they are operating just because 
it might happen that part of a case falls over into another State where 
that sort of action, such as consulting with a defendant's attorney, 
such as conducting electronic eavesdropping, might be against the law 
in that one State.
  Also, title VIII would allow an outside panel, not composed of 
prosecutors, to have full access to every bit of the prosecutor's case. 
That would be outrageous and it would, in effect, stop important 
prosecutions.
  Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water. If there have been 
abuses, then let us address those particular abuses, but not change and 
take away the ability of Federal prosecutors to conduct multi-State 
investigations.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the coauthor of the bill.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Chairman, if the Members think I am excited about 
this, they are right. If they think I am sincere and focused on this 
issue, I am.
  I sat beside the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 8 years, 8 years 
while he was under persecution by the Justice Department: 6 years 
investigation, 2 years intimidation, under indictment. I watched the 
gentleman decline physically, mentally and emotionally from the strain 
of the Justice Department.
  We were able to raise $1 million to defend the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania. The Justice Department system leaked information that was 
erroneous, leaked continually, did everything that could be unethical; 
charged him with campaign contributions being bribes, completely within 
the rules of the House; charged him with honoraria being illegal 
gratuities; tried to intimidate the House of Representatives which 
furnishes the money for the Justice Department.
  Now, what chance would an individual have against the Justice 
Department if they would go after one of the most prominent Members in 
the House of Representatives? A jury, which came from an area that the 
public opinion said 70 percent of the public in that area thought that 
all politicians were crooks, he was acquitted in 3 hours by a jury 
picked at random from that area.
  I feel strongly about this because it would protect the individual 
citizen from prosecution by not every prosecutor; I have no question 
that most prosecutors are above board and most prosecutors abide by the 
ethics rules. What we are saying in this legislation, when we defeat 
the Hutchinson amendment, is that they must abide by the ethics rules 
of the State involved.
  The chief justices of the entire United States, fifty of them, all 
agree with us and say they ought to abide by the rules. They do not 
abide not only by their own ethics, they do not abide by the ethics of 
the States they are practicing in, and we say a special citizens 
commission should do just exactly that as they are doing for the IRS.
  So I would hope that the House would rise up and show the prosecutors 
who are out of control, not all of them, just the ones out of control, 
that they need some sort of oversight and that this House will send a 
clear signal to the rest of the country that we will not stand by 
citizens to be persecuted by a prosecution.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) said it probably 
better than anybody else. They have a tremendous power, the prosecutors 
in this country, to withhold the liberty of individual citizens. We 
want to make sure that prosecution is done ethically, and I would ask 
all of the Members of the House to vote against the Hutchinson 
amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Chairman, it is a difficult task to stand up here and 
follow the fine gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), and I can in no way empathize 
with what he has gone through because I have not done that.
  The three former U.S. attorneys in this body have stood up and told 
my colleagues, as I tell you today, being one of those, let us not 
overreact. As the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) said, the 
United States attorneys have tremendous power.
  We, as Members of Congress, have tremendous power beyond that and let 
us do not abuse this situation. It was a terrible situation with the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade). I wish it could be corrected. 
It is not a perfect situation, but the U.S. attorneys are under the 
ethics rules of their States.
  Fortunately, they do many multistate prosecutions, and as the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr) said, these prosecutions will be 
literally handcuffed if we pass this bill and make them comply with 
every local ethics disciplinary board proceeding which they go into, 
whether it is Florida, Louisiana or wherever.
  I know it is tough, but let us do the right thing and vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, what is the time balance for each side?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) has 1\1/2\ 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) has 
2 minutes remaining and the right to close as a member of the 
committee.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 1\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a short amount of time but let 
me just say that I do believe this is a law enforcement issue. You look 
at the groups that are concerned about this, that support the 
Hutchinson-Bryant-Barr amendment: The National Sheriffs Association 
have endorsed this; the Fraternal Order of Police; the FBI Agents 
Association. None of these are attorneys.
  These are not attorneys. These are people who work with prosecutors 
who know what is needed in the war against drugs. The Federal Criminal 
Investigators Association, the National District Attorneys Association, 
who are state

[[Page H7245]]

prosecutors, the DEA Administrator Tom Constantine, the Office of Drug 
Control Policy Director Barry McCaffrey, each one of these have written 
letters supporting this amendment that we are asking the Members to 
vote on because it is a law enforcement issue, and even though we have 
a great deal of sympathy and compassion for bad cases, bad cases can 
give us a bad precedent here.
  We have to be careful not to adopt bad policy because we are sorry 
for what has happened in the past. We have to adopt good policy, and 
the amendment that is being offered here my colleagues need to vote for 
because it will preserve a balance in our system.
  Six former attorneys general of the United States, both Democrat and 
Republican, have come out in opposition to the underlying bill that we 
are trying to strike. They have done that because this would jeopardize 
our fight in the war against drugs. When you are talking about a battle 
of saving our streets, we cannot take weapons away, we cannot give 
weapons to the defense attorneys that are subject to the abuse in the 
middle of a prosecution, but we have to help law enforcement.

                              {time}  1830

  A misconduct review board appoints 3 people who are going to be 
reviewing what decisions a prosecutor makes in the heat of a court room 
whether it is reasonable or not.
  I ask my colleagues to support the Hutchinson-Barr-Bryant amendment.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  (Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I do not have much time, but I just want to 
say I spent 7\1/2\ years as a criminal court judge in Tennessee prior 
to coming to Congress, trying primarily felony criminal cases, and I 
rise in strong opposition to the Hutchinson amendment and in strong 
support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade).
  Our Government has become far too big and far too powerful, and too 
many individual citizens are being run roughshod by prosecutors that 
are totally out of control. We need to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think I am the only Member of this Congress who has 
ever sentenced anyone to the electric chair.
  I believe in being very tough on crime, and I especially have been a 
strong supporter of local law enforcement--the people on the front 
lines who are fighting the real crime, the violent crime that everyone 
is so concerned about.
  But I remember in late 1993 reading an article in Forbes magazine, 
one of the most conservative magazines in the Nation.
  This article said that we had quadrupled the Justice Department just 
since 1980 and that Federal prosecutors were falling all over 
themselves trying to find cases to prosecute.
  We have had far too many cases where overzealous prosecutors have 
presented high profile defendants just so that prosecutor could make a 
name for himself. I remember the totally unjustified case against 
President Reagan's Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, in which, after he 
was acquitted, made the famous statement, ``Where do I go to get my 
reputation back?''

  Our Federal Government has become far too big--it is far too 
powerful. We all have heard how, particularly the IRS is running 
roughshod over individual citizens.
  Newsweek magazine recently had on its cover--the IRS Lawless, 
Abusive; Out of Control.
  Unfortunately while there are good federal prosecutors, there are far 
too many who are, like the IRS, lawless, abusive, and out-of-control.
  Almost no one, except extremely wealthy people, can take on the 
Federal Government.
  To require Federal prosecutors to have to follow the same ethical 
rules as other lawyers is a very minimal step in the right direction 
and toward helping to preserve at least a semblance of freedom in this 
Nation.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  (Mr. McDADE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I rise of course in unequivocal opposition 
to the amendment of the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Sometimes in this House we forget the watersheds that come our way 
and the moments of history that arrive here sometimes not of our own 
making. That is the kind of a night we face tonight because the 
question we are about to vote on involves the liberty of every citizen 
of this country.
  The bill is simple. Title I simply says be ethical. Who supports it? 
All the chief justices of all the 50 states, the American Bar 
Association, every legal organization besides that who has taken a 
position of course supports the proposition, abide by the ethics rules.
  Title II. My Lord, my colleagues, what clarity. Listen to all it 
says. It is not hostile to a prosecutor or to the effort to 
prosecution. It simply says, and listen to this, if my colleagues 
consider this hostile, tell me, do not lie to the court. Oh, that is 
hostile to prosecution. Do not intimidate a witness or attempt to color 
their testimony. Hostile to the court. Hostile to the prosecutors. Do 
not leak information. Do not withhold exculpatory evidence on the 
person you are trying that may exonerate him or her. Hostile. Do not 
bring an indictment against a citizen of this country unless you have 
probable cause to prove that they have committed a crime.
  Those are the guidelines we set down for every citizen in this 
Nation. I hope we will all vote against the Hutchinson amendment.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the 
McDade/Murtha amendment to the Commerce-State-Justice appropriations 
bill, a provision also known as the Citizens Protection Act.
  Mr. Chairman, very alarming information concerning alleged abuses and 
misconduct on the part of career prosecutors employed by the U.S. 
Department of Justice, has been brought to my attention by State 
Representative Harold James, who is Chairman of the Pennsylvania 
Legislative Black Caucus, and Representative Leanna Washington, 
Secretary of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus.
  Both Representative James and Representative Washington requested my 
support for the Citizens Protection Act, which I have subsequently co-
sponsored.
  They informed me of the results of independent hearings, endorsed by 
the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, which raised grave 
questions about misconduct by prosecutors. The Caucus, the Nation's 
largest organization of African-American elected officials, in 1995 
called for Congressional Hearings To Investigate Misconduct by the U.S. 
Department of Justice.
  Mr. Chairman, the McDade/Murtha amendment addresses every area of 
concern expressed by my constituents. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by 
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The amendment seeks to strike title VIII of the bill, which consists 
of the legislation known as the Citizens Protection Act, authorized by 
my colleagues form Pennsylvania, Mr. McDade and Mr. Murtha.
  Let me say at the outset that I have reservations about a number of 
aspects of this legislation. I am also uncomfortable with the process 
by which it has come before the House. Matters of this complexity and 
importance ought to be addressed through the normal process of 
committee deliberation, so that the legislation can be fully examined 
and perfected before being brought to the floor.
  Among the aspects of this legislation which I find problematic are 
the provisions establishing an independent ``misconduct review 
board''--an entity which I believe could unnecessarily complicate and 
politicize the law enforcement mission.
  Nevertheless, I support the ethical standards which comprise the core 
of this legislation, and I cannot support an amendment to strip it from 
the bill. Mr. Hutchinson's amendment does not seek to remedy any 
particular shortcomings of the measure; instead, it seeks to delete it 
entirely. Given this ``all-or-nothing'' proposition, I would prefer to 
allow the legislation to go to conference, where those of us who have 
concerns would have an opportunity to have them addressed.
  I oppose the Hutchinson amendment and support the underlying 
legislation for one simple reason: as a former district attorney, I 
understand the truly awesome power that has become concentrated in the 
hands of the prosecutor. When abused, that power can and does destroy 
innocent lives and reputations. And the system provides few checks and 
balances to prevent such abuse.
  When I was a district attorney, I hired many brilliant, ambitious 
young lawyers. I gave them a single admonition: ``understand the power 
of your office, and do not abuse it. Understand that being a prosecutor 
is not about winning and losing. It is about seeing that justice is 
done.''

[[Page H7246]]

  Most of the prosecutors I have known in the course of my career have 
wielded their authority with integrity and restraint. But those who 
fail to do so can be as dangerous to the health of our society as the 
criminals they pursue.
  Given this danger, it is necessary and appropriate that prosecutors 
be held to the standards of professional conduct to which other 
attorneys are subject. I do not accept the assertion of the Department 
of Justice that their attorneys should be immune from these ethical 
rules whenever they find them unduly confining. That is what ethical 
rules are for. And--whatever its other flaws--the Citizens Protection 
Act would ensure that prosecutors follow the rules.
  For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I support the legislation and urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman 
from Arkansas's amendment.
  When we get a letter from the Attorney General of the United States, 
stating that certain legislative language would ``chill law enforcement 
and impede the ability of the [Justice] Department to enforce the laws 
that Congress has mandated it enforce,'' you would think that it would 
give us pause.
  When we get a letter from the National District Attorneys 
Association, calling certain legislative language ``extremely 
counterproductive,'' you would think that we would at least want to 
take the time to analyze the implications of that language carefully 
before proceeding.
  And when we get a letter from the National Association of Assistant 
United States Attorneys, characterizing certain legislative language as 
``ill-conceived and unnecessary,'' you would think that we would want 
the committee with oversight jurisdiction to hold hearings on that 
language and then debate amendments during mark-up, before we passed on 
it.
  But here we are, set to pass a Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations 
bill containing far-reaching language scorned by much of the law 
enforcement community, and the House Judiciary Committee hasn't held a 
hearing or mark-up on it during this Congress!
  That is simply not the way to deal with the complex and controversial 
subject of prosecutorial ethics.
  If we're hearing in letters and phone calls from prosecutors that the 
language struck by the Hutchinson amendment would result in the 
disruption of multi-jurisdictional drug and gang cases and the 
disclosure of confidential information about ongoing investigations, 
then I think that the Judiciary Committee should be hearing from them 
in actual hearings during this Congress before we proceed.
  We owe at least that courtesy to the people whom we charge with 
putting away gang lords, drug dealers, and white-collar scam artists.
  Perhaps no one here has clean hands with respect to legislating in 
appropriations bills. But the language in this bill regarding 
prosecutorial ethics clearly crosses the line between the procedurally 
acceptable and unacceptable.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchinson amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment 
offered by the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) 
to strike the text of H.R. 3396 from the Commerce-Justice-State 
Appropriations bill.
  I do not doubt the proponents' intent to ensure that federal 
prosecutors are held to the highest standards of professional conduct. 
Indeed, as an attorney myself and member of several bars, I fully 
appreciate the importance of ``bright line'' rules governing ethical 
behavior, as well as the difficulty in applying them to the complex 
realities of practicing law.
  But the bill presumes that federal prosecutors are not subject to 
stringent rules of conduct. In fact, they are. They are subject to 
disciplinary investigations and actions brought by the Office of 
Professional Responsibility, the Department's Inspector General and the 
Office of Public Integrity. In addition, it is the Department's policy 
that its attorneys comply with the ethical requirements of the state in 
which they are licensed and where they practice, unless those 
requirements are in conflict with federal duties and responsibilities. 
But, most importantly, in appropriate cases, the matter is referred to 
the state bar disciplinary authorities for further action.
  If there is a problem with prosecutorial misconduct, it should 
certainly be addressed. But is it better to address it by requiring 
federal prosecutors adhere to a single, high standard of conduct, or to 
50 different sets of ethics rules? Indeed, some of the state rules may 
be contrary to the obligations and responsibilities we may require of 
federal prosecutors. And, as importantly, a federal system requires an 
even-handed application of justice--an application that, in my mind, is 
more difficult if appropriate investigative techniques and 
prosecutorial actions are called into question under one state's set of 
rules but permitted by another.
  More troubling, however, is the fact that the provisions have 
serious, and perhaps unintended, consequences which could cripple 
federal enforcement of our laws. In particular, the bill would permit 
defendants and their lawyers to disrupt ongoing investigations of 
illegal activity by raising claims of misconduct which, under the bill, 
would require immediate investigation by the Attorney General. Nora M. 
Manella, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, 
which includes my district, wrote me to say that such allegations 
threatened the disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and 
could jeopardize the safety of witnesses and the integrity of 
investigations. The bill's ``misconduct review board'' would be given 
authority to inject itself into ongoing criminal investigations, 
demanding confidential and privileged material, and interfering with a 
cabinet officer's management of the internal affairs of a department.
  As a result, Manella writes, ``in all but the simplest of cases, 
prosecutors will face the risk of triggering at least some of the 
bill's provisions. Far from protecting the public from misguided 
Department employees, the proposed bill would inhibit vigorous 
investigation and prosecution of criminals, thus crippling the ability 
of federal prosecutors to enforce the very laws Congress has enacted.
  ``Enacting a bill which virtually invites frivolous complaints 
designed to obstruct and impede legitimate law enforcement 
investigations will do nothing to ensure professional conduct of 
Department employees, but will, instead, discourage lawyers from 
carrying out their lawful duties.''
  The bill's provision may also lead to an exodus of experienced and 
qualified federal attorneys. According to Manella, senior managers in 
her office have expressed the view that they would be reluctant to 
continue their federal service if the provision was enacted. If this 
were to happen, our federal criminal justice system would be weakened, 
perhaps permanently, and the vigorous enforcement of our laws both 
Congress and the people expect will be reduced.
  Mr. Chairman, we have to remember that our legal system is dependent 
on both the law enforcement officers who make arrests, and the federal 
prosecutors who try the cases. Let's not hamstring our fight against 
crime by imposing an unnecessary set of rules on prosecutors or 
unintentionally giving criminals a tool with which to stall 
investigations.
  This provision and its full implications have not been fully examined 
and, in my view, it behooves this chamber to approve the amendment to 
strike it until that examination has taken place.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Hutchinson amendment, and insert 
the full text of U.S. Attorney Manella's letter in the Record at this 
point.
                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                              Nora M. Manella,

                    U.S. Attorney, Central District of California.
     Hon. Jane L. Harman,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC, July 24, 1998.
     Re: H.R. 3396: Citizens Protection Act of 1998
       Dear Congresswoman Harman: As United States Attorney for 
     the largest district in the country, encompassing 40,000 
     square miles with a population of 16 million, I write to urge 
     your opposition to H.R. 3396, the ``Citizens Protection Act 
     of 1998.'' I understand H.R. 3396 has been attached to the 
     Commerce, State, Justice Appropriations bill, with a proviso 
     that it be voted upon separately. As you may know, H.R. 3396 
     is strongly opposed by the Department of Justice and by the 
     94 United States Attorneys nationwide whose responsibility it 
     is to enforce federal law. It is also opposed by the National 
     District Attorneys Association, which has written separately 
     to voice its objections. A copy of that letter is enclosed.
       There is no dispute that employees of the Department of 
     Justice should be held to the highest standards of 
     professional conduct. Indeed, the Office of Professional 
     Responsibility and the Inspector General's Office already 
     have broad authority to investigate allegations of 
     professional misconduct and to take appropriate action. In 
     addition, the Department's Public Integrity Section can and 
     does investigate potentially criminal conduct. Thus, there is 
     no need for additional legislation.
       More troubling, however, are the unintended consequences of 
     H.R. 3396. It would, inter alia, subject Department of 
     Justice attorneys to multiple and conflicting rules of 50 
     different state bar associations. (Had the Oklahoma City 
     bombing team been subject to the provisions of this bill, the 
     results could have been a virtual nightmare.) In addition, 
     the bill would permit defendants and their lawyers to disrupt 
     ongoing investigations of illegal activity by raising claims 
     of misconduct which, under the bill, would require immediate 
     investigation by the Attorney General, threatening the 
     disclosure of sensitive and confidential information that 
     could jeopardize the safety of witnesses and the integrity of 
     investigations.
       Finally, the proposed bill would subject Department 
     attorneys and employees to sanctions--including loss of 
     pension--without the procedural safeguards for disciplining 
     other federal employees. A ``Misconduct

[[Page H7247]]

     Review Board'' would be given authority to inject itself into 
     ongoing criminal investigations, demanding confidential and 
     classified material, and interfering with a cabinet officer's 
     management of the internal affairs of a department. In all 
     but the simplest of cases, prosecutors will face the risk of 
     triggering at least some of the bill's provisions. Far from 
     protecting the public from misguided Department employees, 
     the proposed bill would inhibit vigorous investigation and 
     prosecution of criminals, thus crippling the ability of 
     federal prosecutors to enforce the very laws Congress has 
     enacted.
       On a practical level, I can say this proposed bill has 
     created greater concern in my office than any piece of 
     legislation I can recall throughout my more than a dozen 
     years as a federal prosecutor. Senior managers in my office--
     outstanding and experienced prosecutors and civil 
     litigators--have expressed the view that they would be 
     reluctant to continue their federal service were this bill 
     enacted. Similarly, District Attorneys have indicated they 
     would be leery of cross-designating local prosecutors to 
     assist in federal prosecutions, were they subject to the 
     bill's provisions. Should this bill pass, there is a very 
     real prospect of a significant loss of experienced lawyers 
     from this office, leaving the public with talented but less 
     experienced lawyers, willing to run the risk of operating 
     under this bill (when their pension benefits are few), and 
     determined to leave after fulfilling their minimum 
     commitment. I cannot believe this what the bill's sponsors 
     intended.
       As noted above, Department of Justice employees are already 
     subject to multiple disciplinary mechanisms to ensure their 
     adherence to the highest standards of professional conduct. 
     Enacting a bill which virtually invites frivolous complaints 
     designed to obstruct and impede legitimate law enforcement 
     investigations will do nothing to ensure professional conduct 
     of Department employees, but will, instead, discourage 
     lawyers from carrying out their lawful duties. In the end, 
     the unfortunate and unintended result will be a reduction in 
     appropriately vigorous enforcement of Congress' laws, and the 
     weakening of our federal criminal justice system.
       Please feel free to call me, should you have any questions 
     concerning the above.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Nora M. Manella,
                                           United States Attorney.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 508, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) will be postponed.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. McDADE. Mr. Chairman, I simply request that we reconsider the 
rolling of the vote and vote on this amendment right now instead of 
postponing it. The Members are here.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule the Chair has the discretion on this and 
the Chair has exercised that prerogative, and the vote will be 
postponed.
  Are there further amendments to this section?


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  May I inquire as to where we are in terms of amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. Title VIII has been considered read pursuant to the 
earlier unanimous consent request.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, are you then asking if there are further 
amendments to title VIII?
  The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to title VIII?
  Title VIII has been considered read.
  Are there amendments to this part of the bill?
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, my inquiry was has the Chair asked for 
further amendments to title VIII? Is it now appropriate for me to ask 
for other amendments?
  The CHAIRMAN. If the inquiry is, is it appropriate for the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) to offer amendments following title VIII, the 
answer to that is yes.


                 Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kolbe

  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Kolbe:
       At the end of the bill, insert after the last section 
     (preceding the short title) the following:

                 TITLE  --ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec.  . None of the funds made available in this or any 
     other Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce 
     Executive Order 13083 (titled ``Federalism'' and dated May 
     14, 1998).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, quoting from the Constitution of the United 
States: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively or to the people.''
  That is the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
  My amendment today goes to the very heart of that and would say that 
the executive order issued 2 months ago by the President, Executive 
Order No. 13083, could significantly expand the role and power of the 
Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of examples of what this executive order would 
do: It justifies the creation of a national standards ``when there is a 
need'' as determined by the Federal Government.
  Second, it would eliminate language in President Reagan's federalism 
executive order regarding preemption of state law by the Federal 
Government.
  Third, it puts the Federal Government in the position of determining 
when States have not adequately protected individual rights.
  Even though the President has talked about suspending this executive 
order and may have done so today, I have not had it confirmed that the 
order suspending it was signed. I believe that Congress needs to speak 
very effectively to this issue, as the mayors and the governors, and 
county officials have done. We must say that we should kill this 
executive order to make sure that it does not raise its head again.
  Even the President's chief of staff colorfully described the 
administration as having messed up by not consulting with governors, 
mayors, and other state and local government leaders before they issued 
this executive order.
  I applaud the efforts of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), 
who has already begun to hold some hearings on this matter, and I know 
that the Committee on the Judiciary is going to examine what the 
effects of this executive order, if it is reinstituted, would be.
  Hopefully, the administration will consult with them in addition to 
the state and local officials that were left out of the process. But by 
suspending Executive Order 13083, the administration has already 
demonstrated that it was premature and ill-advised. And I say it is 
time to put this House on the record as saying we agree and we do not 
expect you to implement that executive order, Mr. President. We should 
act now because we do not know when he might act to put it back in 
place and we would not have an opportunity then to offer that.
  That brings me to another reason for offering this amendment at this 
time. There is an amendment which will follow this offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) that would prohibit funding both 
for this executive order and the executive order that codifies 
administration policy, does not change Federal law or create any 
affirmative action program, but would codify the current Federal 
practices with respect to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
  Unfortunately, because this amendment is protected by the rule, it 
cannot be divided. There is no way to get a vote separately on these 
two totally different issues that are out there. I think most Members 
in this House want to have a clean vote on these two issues separately.
  Now, let me just take a moment of my time, since only 20 minutes is 
permitted under the rule to debate the Hefley amendment, to say why I 
think that we should vote aye on this, on federalism, and no on the one 
dealing with sexual orientation.
  By passing the Kolbe amendment, it would make it clear in the next 
debate when we get to the Hefley debate that there is one subject and 
one subject only that is under discussion; and that is this simple 
question: Should discrimination be permitted in the Federal workplace 
based on sexual orientation. And that should be and will be the only 
question that is involved.
  The debate on that amendment is not going to be about affirmative 
action. It

[[Page H7248]]

is not going to be about quotas. It should not be about giving the 
right to sue. It is not about giving the access of any individual to 
the EEOC or the Civil Rights Commission, because the executive order 
and the law does none of those things. Individuals have no such right, 
no such access under current law.
  So when my colleagues vote on Hefley, they have to ask themselves the 
very simple question: Do they believe that Federal employment 
supervisors and managers, those who have the responsibility for hiring 
and firing and promoting individuals, should be able to hire, to not 
hire, or to fire, or to fail to promote solely on the basis of sexual 
orientation?
  Members need to ask themselves would they fire someone in their 
office solely because they learned that that individual was a 
homosexual, or conversely, that they were heterosexual?
  Now, many in this body, in fact well over half of this body, have 
signed their own pledge of nondiscrimination within their offices. So I 
would ask this question of all of those who have signed that pledge: Do 
they believe that if a manager in a Federal executive agency in the 
branch of the Federal Government should be held to a lesser standard 
than they are willing to hold themselves to? Think about it.
  An aye vote on Hefley after we have disposed of this amendment, the 
Kolbe amendment, which would say no money shall be spent to implement 
the Federal executive order on federalism, that after we have voted to 
dispose of that, a vote on Hefley would be simply putting this body, 
the House, on record as saying that discrimination on sexual 
orientation solely because of an individual's sexual orientation is 
okay.
  Do we want that? Do my colleagues want that? I do not think so. I 
urge Members to vote aye on Kolbe and no on Hefley.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment and 
in opposition to the Hefley amendment to follow.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak principally to the reasons behind 
the amendment being offered today by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Kolbe).

                              {time}  1845

  The history of America is the story of individual rights. It begins 
with a country founded on principles which had never been manifest in 
any society and which were not comprehensively instituted at the 
founding of the Republic. It has taken two centuries of struggle which 
have included a Civil War, a suffrage and civil rights movement to 
ensure the rights of minorities and women. In the context of our 
history, it is common sense and common decency that no one today be 
allowed to be prejudiced against simply because of their sexual 
orientation.
  The executive order which will shortly be under review has nothing to 
do with the creation of special privileges, special preferences, quotas 
or affirmative action in any form, nor does it endorse any so-called 
life-style.
  What it does is ensure equality and fairness to a group of 
individuals by bringing uniformity to already existing Federal 
nondiscrimination policies. Equal protection under the law is not a 
privilege to be enjoyed by some; it is a basic right to which every 
American is entitled.
  If anyone in this favored land is discriminated against, civil 
society is weakened and we are all diminished. Bigotry has no place in 
America and should have no sanction of even the most covert sort.
  Here let me be clear. If nondiscrimination precepts cannot be 
sanctioned for men and women who are gay and lesbian, does this not 
implicitly legitimize discrimination? And if lawmakers assert that 
equal protection under the law should not be available to one group of 
Americans, could this not result in actions that none of us could 
conceivably endorse, the possibility that some Americans could be 
shunned and perhaps, metaphorically, stoned?
  Executive orders of this nature and civil rights laws in general 
cannot by presidential signature or majority vote change people's 
attitudes, but they can help protect individual rights and remove 
impediments to the exercise of individual aptitudes.
  Political leadership involves more than the crafting and execution of 
laws. An essential role of leadership is to do everything possible to 
bring people together rather than accentuate differences which have the 
effect of rupturing society. That is why it is so important for elected 
officials to appeal to what Abraham Lincoln called ``the better angels 
of our nature.''
  Political debate should thus be measured as to whether it is directed 
to the best or the least in all of us.
  In this context, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that the party to which 
I belong which sprang out of an individual rights tradition, 
preeminently a crusade to end slavery, may be in the process of 
rejecting part of its own heritage. In the American creed, individual 
rights are not selective. They do not apply to some people and not 
others. Equal opportunity and protection under the law cannot be denied 
any law-abiding American no matter how controversial his or her life-
style may be.
  Accordingly, I urge intraparty reconsideration of legislative 
initiatives of the nature of that which will follow this one, a ``yes'' 
vote on the Kolbe amendment and a ``no'' on the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the 10th amendment that our colleague from Arizona 
quoted concluded that the rights not given to the Federal Government or 
to the States are reserved to the people--the people.
  To me, one of the most important of those rights is the right of 
privacy, the right of individual privacy, that unless the government 
has a reason, a very strong reason to find out matters of one's 
personal life, the government has no business inquiring into those 
matters, and certainly no business denying somebody a position in 
government because of what an individual might characterize as his or 
her own private life.
  Mr. Chairman, Federal law already prohibits discriminating in Federal 
employment on any basis other than the conduct of one's actual 
performance on the job. This is in title V of the United States Code, 
section 2302, paragraph 10. Federal law prohibits discrimination ``on 
the basis of conduct which does not adversely affect the performance of 
the employee or applicant or the performance of others.''
  Accordingly, the executive order by President Clinton which added 
sexual orientation to the list of prohibited considerations for 
advancing or inhibiting a person's individual employment prospects in 
Federal Government is a simple application of what is already Federal 
law, namely, conduct that does not adversely affect the performance of 
the employee or applicant or the performance of others cannot be used 
as the basis of discrimination.
  Case law under this existing statutory provision also supports this 
point of view, both from the Fifth Circuit and from the Merit System 
Protection Board, that conduct outside of the workplace may not be the 
basis of discrimination as to an employee in the Federal service. And 
so existing law creates a very solid basis for what President Clinton 
did in his executive order. But so also does personal freedom and 
individual liberty, the provisions of the 10th amendment to which my 
colleague from Arizona's motion speaks.
  The executive order is alleged to lead to quotas or some form of 
affirmative action and the use of numbers. Here I must make a 
substantial point of disagreement. First of all, the origin of 
affirmative action under title VII in discrimination law was as 
follows: People observed a workplace and in observing that workplace 
said, ``Well, we don't see that many African-Americans, or we don't see 
that many women. From that we derive an inference perhaps that there 
might be something wrong with your hiring program, wrong with your 
employment methods.'' But orientation is not observable. It is really 
quite a stretch to make the argument that this prohibition on 
discrimination will lead to affirmative action quotas, set-asides, or 
numerical goals for the very reason that one cannot look at the 
workforce and say an employer does not have the right number of a 
particular group when the issue in question is orientation.
  Secondly, the words of the executive order are that ``an affirmative 
program of equal employment opportunity for

[[Page H7249]]

all civilian employees and applicants for employment'' must be 
followed. I emphasize just that phrase. The executive order speaks of 
an affirmative program. It does not use that catch word ``affirmative 
action.'' The origin of the catch word ``affirmative action'' was a 
1961 executive order by President Kennedy. In 1965 it was applied to 
equal housing. And in 1969 it was applied to Federal employment with 
regard to gender and with regard to discrimination on the basis of 
religion.
  In the order in 1965, there was a careful distinction, in my 
judgment, in using the word ``program,'' as separate from the phrase 
``affirmative action,'' which was well known at that time. But even if 
that phrase were not different (and it is and that is an important 
point), I strongly believe that no one should take a statute which says 
``you shall not discriminate'' and use it as the basis of 
discriminating. It is for that reason that I have always opposed the 
use of race by government. It is for that reason that I supported 
Proposition 209 in my State of California. It is wrong, morally wrong, 
for the government to look at somebody's skin color, to look at 
somebody's gender and to say, ``That is a basis for you getting a job 
or you getting into a university.''
  And so tonight, Mr. Chairman, I will not surrender the argument to 
the other side. I will not say that because this executive order bans 
discrimination, it therefore must lead to quotas. We are right in 
saying that antidiscrimination is not the same thing as an obligation 
to use numbers. We are right in the Fifth Circuit, we are right in the 
Ninth Circuit and in my judgment we will very soon be justified by the 
Supreme Court. To every fellow conservative on this issue, I urge you, 
do not give in to the argument that antidiscrimination means 
affirmative action.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I will only use 30 seconds, and I most appreciate my 
colleague for yielding.
  We need to therefore observe the distinction in the language that 
affirmative action is not in this executive order, that it is absurd to 
consider that this executive order will lead to affirmative action 
because one would have to observe the characteristic. And nobody, 
nobody, including the worst critics of this President, are saying that 
he is ordering the ascertainment of whether one is gay or straight in 
the Federal employment sector.
  Lastly and most importantly, although my good friend from 
Massachusetts and I may part company on this, I appreciate his kindness 
in yielding to me to make this point once again to those of us who 
believe there should never be the use of race or gender to distinguish 
among American citizens by their government, that if you buy the 
argument that this executive order leads to the use of orientation by 
the government and leads to quotas, you are giving up the argument on 
every other aspect that we are fighting so hard to establish in title 
VII law.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. I did take my time 
now because I wanted the gentleman to complete this very important 
statement. And he is right. Some of us do differ on the role of 
affirmative action with regard to race and gender. But I know of no 
advocate of affirmative action with regard to sexual orientation nor, 
by the way, with religion and age, and I cite that because this 
particular executive order, which is going to be the subject of a later 
amendment, deals not just with race and gender but with religion and 
age and it has never given rise to affirmative action. The notion that 
because a category is in this executive order it will lead to 
affirmative action is belied by the fact that over many, many years no 
one has ever seen an affirmative action, an affirmative outreach, an 
affirmative anything program with regard to many of the categories 
covered. The President has specifically disavowed any intention of 
affirmative action with regard to sexual orientation, and as one of the 
drafters of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act dealing with sexual 
orientation, I would alert Members to read that. It again specifically 
disavows affirmative action. We are not arguing for affirmative action 
in that context.
  I think the gentleman from California, and I would be glad to yield 
him again, has made a very important point. Those of us who have a 
disagreement about affirmative action have it with regard to race and 
with gender, but no one is an advocate of it being used here. And in no 
case, let me just close with this, in no case have State laws on this 
subject given rise to affirmative action based on sexual orientation. 
That is a nonissue.

  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. I thank the gentleman for yielding one more time. First 
of all I think his point is very insightful. No one has ever had an 
affirmative action quota, minimum hire for religion or on the basis of 
age. But the phrase in this executive order is ``affirmative program'' 
I quoted, ``an affirmative program of equal employment opportunity for 
all civilian employees and applicants for employment.''
  I note that the phrase ``an affirmative program'' was used in the 
1965 executive order to deal with the obligations of government, 
namely, that the government must adopt a program to root out 
discrimination. The phrase affirmative action was used as to the 
contractor, and that, to my judgment erroneously but nevertheless by 
some, is argued to lead to the hiring or the promoting according to 
numbers. But the word ``program'' is a key phrase here. It means the 
government must root out discrimination, and then affirmative action 
was used to refer, at least by some, to the additional obligations on 
which people of good will have differed.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman. I again want to 
stress that. Because from any angle you look at it, the affirmative 
action issue is not part of this. The President is not seeking it. This 
executive order does not trigger it automatically. Advocates of 
nondiscrimination in the sexual orientation context oppose affirmative 
action, and most tellingly, as the gentleman from California has said, 
it is indeed precisely those who are most critical of affirmative 
action who insist that you can have a nondiscrimination policy without 
affirmative action. That is what this is.
  Those who argue that articulating a nondiscrimination policy 
automatically engender affirmative action are undercutting the anti-
affirmative action argument because they are then saying, and I never 
know what the converse or the reverse or the adverse is, but the 
opposite. They are then saying that if you have one, you have to have 
the other. Those who want to kill affirmative action are bound to argue 
that you may have nondiscrimination without affirmative action.
  The other thing is, I do want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
bringing up this so we can once again vote on the federalism order. The 
gentleman from Florida did it first. So we have already had a unanimous 
House vote to kill the executive order on federalism, then the 
President suspended it, then he withdrew it, now we are going to vote 
against it again. We are killing a dead man that committed suicide 
before he was born. This executive order on federalism if it was a cat 
it would be dead, because it is going to be killed about nine times.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HEFLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, as I understand clause 1 of rule XIV of the 
rules of the House, we are supposed to debate the subject of the 
amendment that is before us. It seems to me most of these gentlemen are 
debating the next amendment and not this amendment. I would like to ask 
the Chair if that is correct and if we should refrain from that.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members must confine their remarks to the pending 
amendment that is before the Committee.
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words. I rise in support of the pending amendment by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. Chairman, so everybody knows and the record is clear, if I refer 
to executive order, I am referring to the President's federalism 
executive order, 13083.

[[Page H7250]]

  Frankly I was outraged when President Clinton issued that executive 
order revoking President Reagan's historic executive order on 
federalism issued in 1987. President Reagan's executive order provided 
many protections for and reflected great deference to State and local 
governments.
  By stark contrast, President Clinton's new executive order, issued 
without prior consultation with State and local governments, betrays 
and repudiates an 11-year tradition of trust and mutual consultation 
between the States and the executive branch. In its place, the order 
laid out the groundwork for an unprecedented Federal power grab in 
virtually every area of policy previously reserved to the States under 
the 10th amendment.
  On June 8, I wrote to President Clinton that ``I could not understand 
how you, as a former governor, could willingly abandon the protections 
accorded the States since 1987 from unwarranted federal regulatory 
burdens.''

                              {time}  1900

  Then on June 10 my subcommittee called the National Governors' 
Association to ascertain their view of this new executive order. 
Shockingly, their Executive Director was totally unaware that this 
order had been issued. They learned about it first from Members of 
Congress, not the White House. Apparently the Clinton-Gore White House 
has neither consulted with any of the principal State and local 
government interest groups prior to issuing this order, nor notified 
them about it after it had been issued.
  Now on July 17 the leadership of the Big 7 requested that the 
President revoke this executive order. As the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) has pointed out, he has done that today. What 
I think is important is that we make it very clear that the trust that 
had been built up is no longer there, that this President, quite 
frankly, does not have that credibility with the State and local 
officials because of that stealthy action to revoke that provision.
  Now I think it is the height of irony, frankly, that the President 
while out of the country issued an order that reversed that 11-year 
commitment with no advanced notice, no opportunity to comment, no voice 
for the States in the decision that will drastically upset the 
constitutional balance of power between the States and the Executive 
Branch.
  On July 28 I chaired a hearing to examine first the potential impacts 
of the new executive order, and second, the need for possible 
legislation to address the concerns of the State and local government. 
This hearing allowed the States and elected officials to voice their 
concern and former and current administration officials to express 
their rationales for the federalism executive orders. Quite frankly, 
the State and local officials were, let us say, at least as perturbed 
with Congress as they were with the Executive Branch for our failure to 
be consistent in respecting federalism.
  Now on July 30 I again wrote the President as a result of that 
hearing and Mr. DeSeve, saying that they wanted to start over from 
ground zero based on the Reagan executive order, asking him to 
definitively withdraw that, and I understand through news reports that 
today he has done so and suspended Executive Order 13083.
  But I think the Kolbe amendment is absolutely necessary to make it 
clear that the agencies cannot spend any funds pursuant to that 
executive order or any executive order that does not fully defer to the 
States. So I want to commend the gentleman for offering this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Bliley), chairman of the Committee on Commerce.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make it clear that I oppose 
affirmative action. I think it divides us rather than brings us 
together. I would oppose any effort to add sexual orientation as a 
protected class under the Federal affirmative action program.
  That being said, I unequivocally oppose discrimination. When I hire 
someone in my office, I do not ask the prospective employee their 
sexual orientation.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman is debating the 
next amendment, not this amendment. My parliamentary inquiry is, Mr. 
Chairman, that I believe the gentleman is debating the next amendment, 
not the federalism amendment. We have federalism in the next amendment, 
but he is debating a part of the amendment that will follow this one.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair asks Members to confine their remarks to the 
amendment at hand.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the gentleman rose to that, but 
it does not alter my feelings whatsoever. I think his amendment is a 
mistake, and I would hope that all Members would oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, this is ill considered. It is a wrong amendment.
  Mr. SCARBOROUGH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for 
bringing up this amendment. I may not agree with all the arguments that 
have been put forward thus far, but we are talking about in the next 
amendment, and I am not going to be going to the actual substance of 
that amendment but rather the procedure under which that amendment is 
going to be debated; we are going to be talking about two 
extraordinarily complex issues: federalism, which is the issue that 
probably more than any other issue got me here back in 1994, and 
outside my door I have a copy of the 10th Amendment written. We could 
talk for hours and hours about a billion different issues relating to 
the Clinton executive order, to the 10th Amendment, to the 
constitutional ramifications of that executive order, and we can spend 
as many hours talking about an issue that will continue to follow 
everybody in this Chamber for as long as we live, and that is the 
rights of homosexuals in American civilization. Those two debates are 
as contentious as any debates that we could bring up, and for a rule to 
be drafted that would require us to speak on the rights of homosexuals 
in the Federal workplace as well as federalism in 20 minutes is 
absolutely not shocking, but it is a joke.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said earlier, was 
talking about how many times this has been killed, and he talked about 
Rasputin, said he did not think that Rasputin had been shot and killed 
as many times as this executive order. I concur, but I would like to 
kick it one more time just for the heck of it. It was put to death 
earlier today.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) had some hearings on the 
issue, we had some fascinating testimony on it, and most of the people 
agreed that reversing Ronald Reagan's Executive Order in 1987, and 
again the President's Executive Order in 1993, was dangerous. The 
Reagan Executive Order stated that the constitutional relationship 
among sovereign States, State and national, is formalized and protected 
by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. But this is what some of the 
State and local officials said about the President's Executive Order:
  Mike Leavitt, the Executive Committee Chairman of the National 
Governors' Association, said, ``Executive Order 13083 repudiates the 
masterful wisdom of our founders and is now inconsistent with the 
United States Constitution. The Governors seek your assistance to halt 
that course.''
  The North Carolina State Representative, Daniel Blue, the President 
of the National Conference of State Legislatures, said Executive Order 
13083 must be revoked.
  Democratic Mayor Edward Rendell from Philadelphia, the Chairman of 
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, said it is essential that federalism 
policy reflect a proper balance of authority be developed in 
cooperation with and supported by the State and local governments.
  The President of the National League of Cities concurred and said we 
join in by requesting the rescinding of the new executive order on 
federalism, and jointly the Conference wrote a letter to the President, 
and said:
  ``We believe it is especially critical for you to consider and act 
upon now our request to withdraw the order as quickly as possible.''
  That came out in our hearing in the McIntosh subcommittee and I thank

[[Page H7251]]

the President today from the House floor for rescinding that order. I 
think it was an important thing to do, and I hope over the next 90 
days, as he talks to State and local officials, that he will pay 
special attention to their concerns and their needs and recognize the 
need for reinstating the Reagan Executive Order in 1987 and also 
reinstating his order in 1993.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for 
bringing this very important amendment to the floor.
  Mr. BARR of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  We have not seen the stroke of the pen yet that Paul Begala spoke 
about, Mr. Chairman. Recently Clinton political adviser, Mr. Paul 
Begala, was quoted as saying, and I quote these immortal words:
  Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kind of cool, close quote.
  Yes, that is really cool.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk over the last few days, 
including right here on the floor, that champagne bottles are being 
cracked open because the President has stroked that pen one more time 
and made a new law of the land. I am going to reserve judgment, Mr. 
Chairman. I ``ain't'' breaking my bottle of champagne open yet, not 
with the track record of this administration.
  The only way that an executive order can be rescinded or altered or 
mended in any way, including its operative date, which in the case of 
Executive Order 13083 is August 12 of this year, is by another 
executive order or by legislation. Now until we see that dried ink on 
the new executive order which rescinds Executive Order 13083, Executive 
Order 13083 remains operative.
  So I think that this amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona 
this evening is very much relevant, very much on point, very much 
apropos and ought to go forward. It sends not only an important 
message, as several of the speakers have already said, to let the White 
House know that at least here in the halls of this Congress the 10th 
Amendment does have some meaning. It also, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is 
very important because it will stop funding for this executive order 
if, in fact, that pen that Mr. Begala loves so much hesitated at the 
last moment. We will see.
  I would also like to urge my colleagues to take a close look at 
Executive Order 13083 and note the nine categories, count them, nine, 
categories of activities of State, Federal, State and local government 
that will be swept away by that stroke of the pen that Mr. Begala 
thinks is just oh so cool.
  The list of activities of which this executive order purports to give 
jurisdiction any Federal agency or department is as vast as any 
activity of which it purports to give a Federal agency or department 
jurisdiction, including if there is some ill-defined or perhaps even 
not defined international obligation. It goes far beyond even the 
expanse of reading of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the 
Constitution which has provided the basis for so much Federal intrusion 
in the lives of our citizens, our schools, our businesses, our local 
governments and our State governments. It simply says as the A-No. 1 
reason why Federal agencies or departments may supersede State or local 
action, quote, when the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs 
interstate as opposed to being contained within one State's boundaries, 
close quote. Do not even have to have the commerce nexus.
  One can go on and see how expansive and indeed how expansive and 
indeed how frightening this executive order is, and it is because of 
that scope, that breathtaking scope of this executive order, why it is 
important this evening to go on record to say that we in the Congress 
continue to believe in the Constitution, we continue to believe in 
separation of powers, we continue to believe in the 10th Amendment, and 
until we see, until we see the actual signature, we will not rest and 
we should not rest. We must be vigilant. It will be kind of cool if 
that happens, but let us wait and see.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), and I want to take this opportunity 
to speak against another version of this amendment that may soon be 
offered to also overturn the executive order regarding discrimination 
in the Federal work force.
  At the heart of the debate over Executive Order 13087 is one of the 
most basic rights in any civil society, to be judged in the workplace 
on the content of one's character, not on one's race, religion, gender 
or sexual orientation.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a question of civil rights, not special rights, 
and the sad truth is that the radical right cannot tolerate a society 
in which all Americans are afforded the same basic rights.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. HEFLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Is it true that we should stick to the subject of the 
amendment we are dealing with and not debate another amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that the debate should 
be on the amendment that is pending in the Committee and confine 
remarks to that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, is it not true that a Member can compare one 
amendment with another when one amendment seeks to deal with one 
executive order and another amendment seeks to deal with that executive 
order in another? And is it not true that we have the ability and right 
as Members of this floor to be able to compare one amendment versus 
another and why we support one amendment versus another?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind Members that if the debate lends 
itself that way, then the debate ought to connect both amendments in 
that regard. But the Chair would ask Members, and the Chair would 
remind Members, that their remarks should be confined to the amendment 
pending before the committee.

                              {time}  1915

  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, further parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this amendment that has to do with 
sexual orientation or carving out special privileges for any group in 
the workforce, and yet that is what the gentlewoman is debating. It 
would seem to me that under the rules cited earlier in Section 14, that 
that is not appropriate, and that the gentlewoman should wait and seek 
time under the following amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask Members to confine their remarks to 
the amendment at hand.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Connecticut for making that point. I am leading up to that argument.
  Frankly, I have been serving in this House for 10 years, and I cannot 
remember a time when someone was arguing an amendment and someone was 
so concerned that speakers were going to challenge their arguments that 
they would silence Members in proceeding and arguing their point. So I 
am leading up to the point made by the gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, it is really sad that the radical 
right cannot tolerate a society in which all Americans are afforded the 
same basic rights, and in this election season, the Republican 
leadership has decided that it is in their political interests to side 
with the ignorance and bigotry of the radical right.
  The fact is it is still legal in this day and age to fire someone 
simply because they are gay or lesbian. That is outrageous, and the 
majority of Americans agree it is an outrage. But an overwhelming 
majority of Americans believe that gays and lesbians in the workplace 
deserve the same basic rights.
  It is terribly ironic, Mr. Chairman, that the very same people who 
tout the virtues of running the Federal Government like a corporation 
are leading the fight against this executive order. The list of 
companies that prohibit job discrimination based on sexual orientation 
is a ``Who's Who'' of corporate

[[Page H7252]]

America: IBM, Microsoft, Xerox, AT&T, Coca-Cola, Home Depot, and the 
list goes on and on. Numerous State and local governments also provide 
these protections for their employees.
  Mr. Chairman, the executive order is very modest, it is long overdue, 
and yet here we are voting whether to deny more than 2 million 
employees this most basic protection. What a sad commentary on this 
institution.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Kolbe amendment, and I 
also urge my colleagues to defeat the Hefley amendment to repeal 
Executive Order 13087.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise strongly to oppose this Kolbe 
amendment and the Hefley amendment. The amendment is an attempt to gut 
the recent executive order issued by President Clinton which added 
sexual orientation to the nondiscrimination policy of the Federal 
Government. That executive order was not about special privileges, it 
was about fairness and equality.
  Many departments in the Federal Civil Service have already 
implemented their own policies against discrimination on the basis of 
sexual orientation. These policies, however, lack uniformity and 
consistency. This executive order is necessary to remedy these 
inconsistencies by promoting uniformity in nondiscrimination policies 
in the Federal Government with respect to sexual orientation.
  It is time for Congress to stand up for the basic American value of a 
worker or anyone else being judged in the workplace on the basis of job 
performance, not on an irrelevant factor, whether that irrelevant 
factor be race or color or creed or religion or national origin or sex 
or gender or sexual orientation.
  Poll after poll has shown overwhelming support in the American public 
for the basic premise that lesbian and gay workers should be treated 
fairly in the workplace. One poll recently indicated that 80 percent of 
the American public believes that homosexuals should have equal rights 
in terms of job opportunities. It is elementary, Mr. Chairman, that 
people should be treated fairly and equally regardless of factors over 
which they have no control, such as race or color or creed or national 
origin or sex or sexual orientation.
  Mr. Chairman, we talk a lot here about American ideals and American 
values, and one of the chief American values was set forth in the 
Declaration of Independence, where it says we hold these truths to be 
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed 
with certain inalienable rights, and so forth.
  The history of the United States is a history of the expansion of the 
definition of that phrase, that all men are created equal. In 1776 that 
did not mean women, did not mean black people, did not mean Native 
Americans, did not mean anyone other than white males. We have spent 
200 years expanding that definition. Before the Civil War we had 100 
years of turmoil and politics and riots to expand that to include 
people of different races. We have now at least professed to include 
women.
  The only group which someone can still stand up and say, without 
being ridiculed off the stage, is not included in the definition of 
equality are people of different sexual orientation, are gays and 
lesbians and transgender individuals.
  Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we begin the process of expanding 
the promise of the Declaration of Independence to include the last 
unincluded group, gays and lesbians and transgender people. I think the 
American people support fairness and equality. It makes sense, if 
someone is qualified to do a job, he or she should not be denied a job 
based on irrelevant factors.
  More than half of the Fortune 500 companies and most Members of 
Congress already have their own policies to prevent discrimination on 
the basis of sexual orientation. It is about time that the Federal 
Government as a whole follows suit.
  That is the bottom line, and after we deal with discrimination in 
employment, then we will deal with discrimination in public 
accommodation, housing and other things. Right now it is elemental that 
this executive order is the least thing to do.
  So I urge that the amendment be defeated. The President should be 
commended for the executive order. I urge my colleagues to reject the 
Hefley amendment.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Arizona for 
offering this amendment. While I cannot support it, I appreciate his 
effort to ensure that Members have the opportunity to vote on the 
federalism issue alone, so that when the debate comes in the next 
amendment, the amendment of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), 
it will not color that particular debate, because it is my 
understanding that the Hefley amendment was rewritten at the last 
moment to also prohibit implementation of the executive order on 
federalism but it really was not about Federalism, it was about denying 
Federal workers protection from discrimination based upon sexual 
orientation. So I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), who 
allows Members who want to express their views on that subject to do so 
without voting for the Hefley amendment.
  The executive order is not about special rights, it is about equal 
rights; and it is not about quotas, it is about fairness. It certainly 
is not about affirmative action. It is about protection from 
discrimination, as both the gentleman from California and my friend and 
colleague from Massachusetts have already gone over.
  In fact, the executive order no more requires affirmative action 
based on sexual orientation than the original executive order that it 
amends, which, by the way, was promulgated by President Nixon back in 
1969, requiring affirmative action based on race, religion, gender, age 
or disability.
  Not once has the gentleman from Massachusetts stated that the 
executive order that was issued in 1969 by President Nixon has ever 
been interpreted to require affirmative action or to confer special 
rights of any kind. These arguments, if they are made, are, at best, 
disingenuous.
  This amendment to the Nixon executive order simply extends protection 
from discrimination when it comes to hiring, firing and promotion to 
gay men and women if you work for the Federal Government. Nothing more, 
nothing else.
  Basically it means that Federal agencies must be fair in their 
employment practices. It is only about fairness, and insisting that the 
Federal Government, the executive branch, treat everyone the same, that 
is, on the merits.
  Some would suggest that amendment to the Nixon executive order is 
unnecessary, that gay men and women do not need to be protected in the 
workplace. I submit that is wrong. Look at this Chamber. Approximately 
190 Members of this body declined to sign a pledge that sexual 
orientation is not and would not be a consideration in the employment 
practices in their congressional offices. Let us start there.
  For many gay Americans, losing a job is the least of it. Some 
statistics to reflect on, if you believe that gay men and women are not 
discriminated against: In 1995, 29 men and women were murder victims 
either because they were gay, or some thug at least thought they were 
gay. In 1996, the FBI reported over 1,000 hate crimes motivated by 
sexual orientation.
  The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming: Discrimination 
against gay men and women exists in our society. Let us remember, when 
a qualified person is denied an opportunity because of discrimination, 
we all lose. We lose the benefits that we might have gained from that 
individual's services. And, even more importantly, when we tolerate 
discrimination against anyone or any group, we are diminished as a 
society and as a Nation, and this Chamber ought not to be about 
division and discrimination.
  So I would submit we are simply better than that. Let us prove it 
tonight. Let us defeat the Kolbe amendment and the Hefley amendment.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment and all amendments

[[Page H7253]]

thereto close in 15 minutes, and that the time be equally divided.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Kentucky?
  There was no objection.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, does this relate solely to Kolbe 
amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. KUCINICH. And not the Hefley amendment or any other amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. This relates to just the Kolbe amendment at hand.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) will control 7\1/2\ minutes 
and a Member in opposition will control 7\1/2\ minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment, 
which prohibits funds from being spent to implement the President's 
Executive Order 13083 on federalism.
  I rise to support this amendment because I believe that this 
President's Executive Order should be repealed. This amendment also 
gives us the option to oppose the Hefley amendment, which repeals both 
Executive Order 13083 on federalism and the Executive Order on 
nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation, 13087.
  Therefore, I support the Kolbe amendment and I oppose the Hefley 
amendment, because the Hefley amendment does more than the Kolbe 
amendment. It repeals the Executive Order on nondiscrimination based on 
sexual orientation.
  I do not believe we should discriminate. I do not believe we should 
discriminate based on someone's sexual preference. I think it is 
irrelevant, I think it is wrong, and I speak strongly in my outrage 
that some on my side of the aisle, my leaders in particular, have 
sought to make this a political issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
seek time in opposition to this amendment?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is 
recognized for 7 and a half minutes.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kolbe amendment and in 
opposition to the Hefley amendment which follows, which contains the 
material of the Kolbe amendment but also goes beyond that material.
  In the difference between the two, the Hefley amendment is an attack 
upon all our friends in the gay and lesbian community. The Hefley 
amendment is one more example of unabashed homophobia on the part of 
some Members of this body.
  Nondiscrimination in the workplace for gays and lesbians is 
fundamental. Yet, under current Federal law it is perfectly legal to 
fire a person from their job in 40 States because of their sexual 
orientation, and that alone. No person should have their work judged or 
their opportunity to work denied on the basis of anything but their 
ability to successfully perform their job.
  We should not be misled that nondiscrimination in civilian Federal 
employment for gays and lesbians is somehow granting special or unique 
rights. Nondiscrimination in employment is already assured to 
Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, ethnicity, gender, 
handicap, age. Those are not special or unique rights, they are 
fundamental. Job performance and job performance alone should be the 
measure of success in the civil service.
  By adopting the Hefley amendment, which would deny gays and lesbians 
the nondiscrimination policy afforded to everyone else, this House 
would deliberately encourage job discrimination against gays and 
lesbians.
  History has been unkind, Mr. Chairman, to those who have tried to 
stop the march towards equality. All of us have family, friends, or 
acquaintances who are gay. They are Republicans or Democrats, doctors 
and lawyers, teachers and corporate CEOs, our brothers and sisters, our 
daughters and sons.
  To those who insist on continuing job discrimination against the gay 
community, I urge them, do not be on the wrong side of history. Let us 
defeat the Hefley amendment. Vote no on the Hefley amendment and for 
the Kolbe amendment.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Arizona for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of his 
amendment to prohibit the implementation of federalism order 13083, 
which is an extraordinary extension of Federal authority, and an order 
developed without any collaboration with the States for the purposes of 
governing Federal-State relations. There is certainly a better way to 
do it, a better process and a better outcome, and I rise in strong 
support of the Kolbe amendment.
  I also appreciate the fact that the Kolbe amendment is focused on 
federalism order 13083 and does not include federalism order 13087. As 
the chief executive of the Federal civilian work force, it is 
absolutely within the President's responsibility to make clear that the 
Federal Government does not discriminate on the basis of sexual 
orientation.
  I voted for welfare reform because I believe work is a healthy, 
responsible, fulfilling, and necessary commitment in life. Why should 
Republicans, who fought so hard to open up work for welfare recipients, 
now vote to deny work to a dedicated, capable, high quality person 
because of that person's personal, private choice regarding friends and 
partners?
  Have Members ever sat and visited with the parents of a gay and 
lesbian young person? They will tell you, they loved their baby. They 
cared for their child. They have saved their money and educated their 
daughter or son, and they are proud that their child is a good, 
effective worker. All they are asking of government is that we not 
allow an employer to arbitrarily fire or arbitrarily deny a promotion 
to someone who is working hard and doing a good job.
  We certainly owe at least that much, equal opportunity, to every 
American.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I have accepted the responsibility to 
manage this time technically in opposition to the Kolbe amendment. I am 
not in opposition to the Kolbe amendment, and if there is somebody now 
who would like to manage the time who is against the Kolbe amendment, I 
would certainly yield this time to them.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) 
ask unanimous consent to control the time in opposition?
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 
time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
Kolbe and Hefley amendment. The United States is an inclusive country. 
It is built upon the thoughts, beliefs, practices, of many countries. I 
am almost embarrassed that any Member of Congress would attempt such a 
slap in the face against any one segment of the American population.
  Do gay people not pay taxes? Do gay people not participate in this 
Nation's economic growth? Do gay people not make creative, intelligent, 
thoughtful, and important contributions to America as a whole? Why 
would we then single them out as a particular group not worthy of 
common courtesy, decency, and fairness?
  Two hundred and forty-five Members of this House and 65 Senators have 
in place proper nondiscrimination policies. More than half of the 
Fortune 500 companies have similar policies in place. The Federal 
Government should not be the exception. In fact, it should be setting 
the right example.

[[Page H7254]]

  No one is asking for any special privileges, quotas, or preferences. 
The President's Executive Order asks only for basic human rights for 
everyone. It simply clarifies existing nondiscrimination policies of 
Federal agencies and offices. I urge a no vote against both amendments.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, on September 18, 1996, President Clinton sat on the 
South Side of the Grand Canyon in Arizona, where he commandeered 1.7 
million acres in Utah. The citizens and elected officials of Utah were 
shocked, without any advance notice and without asking for input, that 
the President took away a whole chunk of land the size of Delaware and 
Rhode Island.
  Frankly, Mr. Chairman, the White House is busy expanding its powers 
throughout the Nation at the expense of State and local governments. So 
I think what the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) is trying to do is 
prohibit, through his amendment, the execution of the Executive Order 
13083.
  For those who keep talking about the Hefley amendment, this has 
nothing to do with the Hefley amendment. I appreciate what they are 
trying to do. Frankly, I support the Hefley amendment, but I also 
support the Kolbe amendment, and also believe that the President has to 
realize that all the Governors do not support what he is doing, either 
through his Executive Orders. We will have to wait to see if he is 
actually going to rescind these Executive Orders or not.
  I stand up in support of the Kolbe amendment and in support of the 
Hefley amendment.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding me the time.
  I rise to oppose both amendments pending here on the floor of the 
House. I ask my friend, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), does 
he discriminate, and would he be willing to acknowledge under oath or 
on the floor of the United States Congress that he willingly and openly 
discriminates? Would he ask the President of the United States to 
openly and willingly discriminate against people within the boundaries 
of this Nation?
  This is a ludicrous and outrageous discussion that we are having 
today. Flying in the face of equality and opportunity, we want to deny 
those who are gays and lesbians the rights to a simple job. I would 
like the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) to travel with me and 
meet with the organization P-FLAG, Parents of Gays and Lesbians; 
parents who work every day, who simply want for their children the 
dreams and aspirations of the Declaration of Independence, that says we 
are all created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
  Seventy-two percent of our Nation's citizens that were polled in the 
Wall Street Journal support President Clinton's anti-gay bias in 
Federal agencies, which simply means, you cannot be fired.
  In 1997 the American Psychological Association report found that many 
employers openly admit they would discriminate against a homosexual 
employee. Just a couple of weeks ago I held in my district a hearing on 
the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The outpouring of tears and hurt that 
was evidenced by those who experienced in the gay and lesbian community 
outright hatred and discrimination, outright violence; the actual pain 
of a man who was not gay, who was perceived to be gay, who was beaten 
brutally; the absolute violence against someone in my district who went 
into a bar to have a simple, friendly drink, and he was beaten to 
death. So we are not talking, Mr. Chairman, about giving away the 
store.
  I imagine it is equal to the debate we had on the 13th and 14th 
Amendment in the 1800's. I wonder if I had been a simple fly on the 
wall, what someone would have said about African-Americans not being 
freed in this country. This is a disgrace on America, it is a disgrace 
on this flag, and both of these amendments should be defeated.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to 
any amendment which would pave the way for continued discrimination 
against gay and lesbian Federal employees.
  When President Clinton passed Executive Order 13087, he did so with 
the support of the vast majority of Americans who believe, as I do, 
that an employer should not be allowed to fire gay and lesbian 
employees simply because of their sexual orientation. Nonetheless, some 
in America have worked hard to prevent gays and lesbians from receiving 
the same basic protections that most Americans enjoy and take for 
granted.
  As a black woman who was forbidden from enrolling in public schools 
because of the color of my skin, I am especially troubled to witness 
this divisive, unfair, and un-American attack on the civil rights of 
our fellow citizens and our constituents.
  In a very high profile case in 1991 Cracker Barrel Restaurants fired 
several gay employees simply because they were gay. The employees had 
no legal recourse, because, according to the laws at that point and 
now, discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans is totally legal. 
Right now it is legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in 40 
of our States.
  Mr. Chairman, I encourage all of my fair-minded colleagues to stand 
on the right side of history.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to an issue of individual 
liberty, an issue at the heart of the amendment offered by my friend, 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe). Specifically, I want to talk 
about the liberty to pursue any field of employment at which one 
excels.
  Some people around here seem to believe that this liberty should not 
exist with respect to gays, lesbians and bisexuals. This belief is so 
misguided, so contrary to our Nation's ideals, and so outside the 
mainstream, that its proponents have felt the need to justify it with 
untruth after red herring after misrepresentation.
  We hear that forbidding discrimination against Federal civilian 
workers on the basis of their sexual orientation grants special rights 
to homosexuals. We hear that forbidding such discrimination protects 
misconduct on the job. I half expect to soon hear that protecting gays 
and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace is responsible for 
global warming and ethnic conflict in the Middle East. All of these 
claims are designed to distract us from the key question at hand.

                              {time}  1945

  Do Members believe it is acceptable for gays and lesbians and 
bisexuals who perform their jobs well to be fired from their jobs 
solely on the basis of their sexual orientation? I say absolutely not.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, a couple of things that I want to clarify. Earlier the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) referred to the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough). That amendment 
was offered last week on VA-HUD dealing with the Federalism issue. That 
was absolutely correct.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts went on to say how this is a stake 
through the heart, that we are going to drive it through again and 
again and again.
  There is a difference between what was offered last week and this 
one. My amendment makes it clear that no funds in this or any other 
act; while the amendment last week applied only to the single bill 
under consideration--VA-HUD--this applies to any funds that are 
appropriated in any act. So this really does cover the whole issue of 
Federalism. It puts it to rest once and for all.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KOLBE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for

[[Page H7255]]

making that correction. I want to acknowledge that the gentleman does 
stand as the superior executioner of this particular dragon.
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing my 
skills in that area.
  I also want to correct one comment that was made, I think 
erroneously, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) when he was 
speaking not about this amendment in particular but about the amendment 
which is going to be offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Hefley) and which includes this provision on Federalism. The gentleman 
from New York made reference to the fact that defeat of this amendment 
could be a step towards expanding rights for individuals who are 
homosexual.
  This act, this executive order has nothing, nothing to do with that. 
It has only to do with the hiring practices of Federal employment 
managers. It does not give anybody a right to sue. It does not give 
anybody a right to go to the EEOC or the Civil Rights Commission. It 
does not grant any right which is not in law now. It does not create 
any protected class. It in no way expands any rights whatsoever. This 
only codifies what are currently the employment practices now in the 
Federal agencies and codifies them in a single place. It does nothing 
to change the law as it exists today.
  Let me come back to the Federalism issue here. I mentioned earlier 
that the chief of staff of the White House said it was a mistake. ``We 
screwed up,'' that was his quote there. And good reason that he said 
that, because indeed, when President Reagan issued his executive order 
on affirmative action in 1987, he took several specific steps, steps 
that placed the onus on Federal agencies to consult the Constitution to 
make certain that ``an action does not encroach upon the authority 
reserved for the States.''
  He made sure that it said that they must adhere to the notion that 
Federal actions are not superior to State actions and that exemptions 
to Federal regulations should be granted on that basis.
  That same Reagan Executive Order also said that ``Federal regulations 
should not preempt State law unless the statute contains an express 
preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence 
that the Congress intended preemption of State law.''
  Let me just conclude by saying this executive order from President 
Clinton is quite different than that previously issued. It 
fundamentally alters the Federal relationship that has been developed 
through the years. These changes were made without consultation with 
governors, mayors, or county commissioners. We should make it clear 
that this revision should not be the law of the land.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pease). The question is on the 
amendment offered by gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  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. 
Gilchrest) having assumed the chair, Mr. Pease, Chairman pro tempore 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.

                          ____________________