[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 100 (Wednesday, July 18, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H4130-H4141]
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, 2002

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 192 and rule 
XVIII, 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. 2500.

                              {time}  1252


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2500) making appropriations for the Departments of 
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 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 House rose on Tuesday, 
July 17, 2001, the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Colorado 
(Ms. DeGette) had been disposed of and the bill was open for amendment 
from page 39, line 18, through page 39, line 24.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of that day, no further amendments 
to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered by the 
chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
or their designees for the purpose of debate, and amendments printed in 
the Congressional Record on that day or before, each of which may be 
offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed or his designee, 
shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, except 
pro forma amendments for the purposes of debate, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Sec. 104. None of the funds appropriated under this title 
     shall be used to require any person to perform, or facilitate 
     in any way the performance of, any abortion.
       Sec. 105. Nothing in the preceding section shall remove the 
     obligation of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons to 
     provide escort services necessary for a female inmate to 
     receive such service outside the Federal facility: Provided, 
     That nothing in this section in any way diminishes the effect 
     of section 104 intended to address the philosophical beliefs 
     of individual employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
       Sec. 106. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not 
     to exceed $10,000,000 of the funds made available in this Act 
     may be used to establish and publicize a program under which 
     publicly advertised, extraordinary rewards may be paid, which 
     shall not be subject to spending limitations contained in 
     sections 3059 and 3072 of title 18, United States Code: 
     Provided, That any reward of $100,000 or more, up to a 
     maximum of $2,000,000, may not be made without the personal 
     approval of the President or the Attorney General and such 
     approval may not be delegated.
       Sec. 107. Not to exceed 5 percent of any appropriation made 
     available for the current fiscal year for the Department of 
     Justice in this Act may be transferred between such 
     appropriations, but no such appropriation, except as 
     otherwise specifically provided, shall be increased by more 
     than 10 percent by any such transfers: Provided, That any 
     transfer

[[Page H4131]]

     pursuant to this section shall be treated as a reprogramming 
     of funds under section 605 of this Act and shall not be 
     available for obligation except in compliance with the 
     procedures set forth in that section.
       Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
     $1,000,000 shall be available for technical assistance from 
     the funds appropriated for part G of title II of the Juvenile 
     Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended.
       Sec. 109. Section 286 of the Immigration and Nationality 
     Act (8 U.S.C. 1356), as amended, is further amended as 
     follows:
       (1) by striking in subsection (d) ``$6'', and inserting 
     ``$7'';
       (2) by amending subsection (e)(1), by replacing ``No'' with 
     ``Except as provided in paragraph (3), no''; and
       (3) by adding a new paragraph (e)(3) as follows:
       ``(3) The Attorney General is authorized to charge and 
     collect $3 per individual for the immigration inspection or 
     pre-inspection of each commercial vessel passenger whose 
     journey originated in the United States or in any place set 
     forth in paragraph (1): Provided, That this authorization 
     shall not apply to immigration inspection at designated ports 
     of entry of passengers arriving by the following vessels, 
     when operating on a regular schedule: Great Lakes 
     international ferries, or Great Lakes Vessels on the Great 
     Lakes and connecting waterways.''.
       This title may be cited as the ``Department of Justice 
     Appropriations Act, 2002''.

         TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND RELATED AGENCIES

                  Trade and Infrastructure Development

                            RELATED AGENCIES

            Office of the United States Trade Representative


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the United States 
     Trade Representative, including the hire of passenger motor 
     vehicles and the employment of experts and consultants as 
     authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, $30,097,000, of which $1,000,000 
     shall remain available until expended: Provided, That not to 
     exceed $98,000 shall be available for official reception and 
     representation expenses.

                     International Trade Commission


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the International Trade 
     Commission, including hire of passenger motor vehicles, and 
     services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, and not to exceed 
     $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses, 
     $51,440,000, to remain available until expended.

                         DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                   International Trade Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for international trade activities 
     of the Department of Commerce provided for by law, and for 
     engaging in trade promotional activities abroad, including 
     expenses of grants and cooperative agreements for the purpose 
     of promoting exports of United States firms, without regard 
     to 44 U.S.C. 3702 and 3703; full medical coverage for 
     dependent members of immediate families of employees 
     stationed overseas and employees temporarily posted overseas; 
     travel and transportation of employees of the United States 
     and Foreign Commercial Service between two points abroad, 
     without regard to 49 U.S.C. 1517; employment of Americans and 
     aliens by contract for services; rental of space abroad for 
     periods not exceeding 10 years, and expenses of alteration, 
     repair, or improvement; purchase or construction of temporary 
     demountable exhibition structures for use abroad; payment of 
     tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first paragraph 
     of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $327,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use abroad, not to exceed $30,000 per vehicle; 
     obtaining insurance on official motor vehicles; and rental of 
     tie lines, $347,654,000, to remain available until expended, 
     of which $3,000,000 is to be derived from fees to be retained 
     and used by the International Trade Administration, 
     notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302: Provided, That $66,919,000 
     shall be for Trade Development, $27,741,000 shall be for 
     Market Access and Compliance, $43,346,000 shall be for the 
     Import Administration, $196,791,000 shall be for the United 
     States and Foreign Commercial Service, and $12,857,000 shall 
     be for Executive Direction and Administration: Provided 
     further, That the provisions of the first sentence of section 
     105(f) and all of section 108(c) of the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 
     2458(c)) shall apply in carrying out these activities without 
     regard to section 5412 of the Omnibus Trade and 
     Competitiveness Act of 1988 (15 U.S.C. 4912); and that for 
     the purpose of this Act, contributions under the provisions 
     of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act shall 
     include payment for assessments for services provided as part 
     of these activities.

                         Export Administration


                     Operations and Administration

       For necessary expenses for export administration and 
     national security activities of the Department of Commerce, 
     including costs associated with the performance of export 
     administration field activities both domestically and abroad; 
     full medical coverage for dependent members of immediate 
     families of employees stationed overseas; employment of 
     Americans and aliens by contract for services abroad; payment 
     of tort claims, in the manner authorized in the first 
     paragraph of 28 U.S.C. 2672 when such claims arise in foreign 
     countries; not to exceed $15,000 for official representation 
     expenses abroad; awards of compensation to informers under 
     the Export Administration Act of 1979, and as authorized by 
     22 U.S.C. 401(b); purchase of passenger motor vehicles for 
     official use and motor vehicles for law enforcement use with 
     special requirement vehicles eligible for purchase without 
     regard to any price limitation otherwise established by law, 
     $68,893,000, to remain available until expended, of which 
     $7,250,000 shall be for inspections and other activities 
     related to national security: Provided, That the provisions 
     of the first sentence of section 105(f) and all of section 
     108(c) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)) shall apply in carrying 
     out these activities: Provided further, That payments and 
     contributions collected and accepted for materials or 
     services provided as part of such activities may be retained 
     for use in covering the cost of such activities, and for 
     providing information to the public with respect to the 
     export administration and national security activities of the 
     Department of Commerce and other export control programs of 
     the United States and other governments.

                  Economic Development Administration


                Economic Development Assistance Programs

       For grants for economic development assistance as provided 
     by the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, as 
     amended, and for trade adjustment assistance, $335,000,000, 
     to remain available until expended.


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of administering the economic 
     development assistance programs as provided for by law, 
     $30,557,000: Provided, That these funds may be used to 
     monitor projects approved pursuant to title I of the Public 
     Works Employment Act of 1976, as amended, title II of the 
     Trade Act of 1974, as amended, and the Community Emergency 
     Drought Relief Act of 1977.

                  Minority Business Development Agency


                     Minority Business Development

       For necessary expenses of the Department of Commerce in 
     fostering, promoting, and developing minority business 
     enterprise, including expenses of grants, contracts, and 
     other agreements with public or private organizations, 
     $28,381,000.

                Economic and Information Infrastructure

                   Economic and Statistical Analysis


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses, as authorized by law, of economic 
     and statistical analysis programs of the Department of 
     Commerce, $62,515,000, to remain available until September 
     30, 2003.

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, I rise for the purpose of an exchange with the chairman.
  As the chairman knows, last night we had made an effort to make sure 
we had informed all Members to be here when their amendment came up. 
However, as the gentleman knows, we anticipated coming to the floor at 
sometime around 3 or 3:30, and we are ahead of schedule, which is the 
good news.
  The bad news is that there are some Members whose amendments are 
coming up pretty soon who are on their way to the Chamber now, so we 
are trying to find out first of all how the gentleman is doing, how the 
chairman is feeling this morning, and at the same time give them an 
opportunity to come.
  I am sure that the gentleman could join me in this repartee, and as 
soon as I find out what that means, I will use it more often.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, out of consideration, if somebody comes 
within the next 5 minutes, even if they miss it, I would not be so 
strict. I think if they come in 2 hours, it would be a little bit 
different.
  Mr. SERRANO. I understand.
  Mr. WOLF. Is this the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) that the 
gentleman from New York is speaking of?
  Mr. SERRANO. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  So it is my understanding that in these two cases, as soon as they 
come, we can go back and deal with those amendments, within reason?
  Mr. WOLF. If the gentleman will yield further, that is right, yes. We 
are not trying to hurt anybody, obviously, and I would want to be 
protected, since we did get here earlier for certain reasons, maybe.

[[Page H4132]]

  It would be helpful, though, if maybe anyone is listening, if they 
are listening to the House debate and they had an amendment that was 
up, it would be helpful if the gentleman found the Member and told them 
that we had moved a little faster. We are hoping to get home earlier 
than normally we would have been able to get home, so the longer we 
delay, the harder it will be.
  We did accord two Members last night that opportunity.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should rest assured it is 
not our intent to hold up the process. As I said, it is just that we 
are 2 hours and 15 minutes ahead of schedule, which is the good news, 
but we are trying to get just two folks over here, so we appreciate the 
gentleman's understanding.
  Mr. WOLF. Yes.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                          Bureau of the Census


                         Salaries and Expenses

       For expenses necessary for collecting, compiling, 
     analyzing, preparing, and publishing statistics, provided for 
     by law, $169,424,000.


                     Periodic Censuses and Programs

       For necessary expenses related to the 2000 decennial 
     census, $114,238,000 to remain available until expended: 
     Provided, That, of the total amount available related to the 
     2000 decennial census ($114,238,000 in new appropriations and 
     $25,000,000 in deobligated balances from prior years), 
     $8,606,000 is for Program Development and Management; 
     $68,330,000 is for Data Content and Products; $9,455,000 is 
     for Field Data Collection and Support Systems; $24,462,000 is 
     for Automated Data Processing and Telecommunications Support; 
     $22,844,000 is for Testing and Evaluation; $3,105,000 is for 
     activities related to Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and 
     Pacific Areas; and $2,436,000 is for Marketing, 
     Communications and Partnership activities.


          Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

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

       Amendment No. 27 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 47, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 48, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,500,000)''.

                              {time}  1300

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment for which there is strong bipartisan support with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), on the other side 
of the aisle.
  This amendment would provide funding to begin planning to ensure that 
all Americans, including those living and working abroad are counted. 
Last year's census workers fanned out across the Nation to count every 
single American. Millions of Americans came together to complete their 
census forms and provide us with a snapshot of America. Unfortunately, 
during the 2000 census, we were unable to include a critical group of 
Americans: Americans, private citizens, living abroad.
  Americans abroad make huge contributions to our economy each year. 
They encourage overseas expansion of American companies, improve 
exports, help us to expand our trade opportunities, and act as 
ambassadors to what we as Americans are all about, our American values. 
Unfortunately, although these hardworking Americans contribute so much 
to our Nation, although they vote, although they pay taxes, these 
Americans were not included in the 2000 census.
  I strongly believe that these Americans deserve to be counted. I have 
met with them from around the world, from the Arabian peninsula, to 
France, to Latin America. I have gotten their e-mails, letters, and 
faxes. And what has impressed me the most is that, even though some 
have been living abroad for years, or even decades, they are still 
proud to be Americans living abroad. It is very important that they are 
part of the great civic experience of being part of our national 
census.
  If we truly want to embrace the global economy, then we should keep 
better track of these critically important citizens. This legislation 
will provide $2.5 million for the Census Bureau to use to begin 
planning a census for Americans abroad by 2010. This is a necessary 
shift for this purpose. I believe this effort is long overdue and that 
these Americans who offer so much to our Nation deserve to be counted.
  I want to remind all of the Members that while they may be living in 
France or Canada or Italy, they all come from Michigan, Texas, and 
California; and many do in fact vote and pay taxes in their home 
States, in all our districts.
  Finally, I would like to compliment the patriotism that many 
Americans abroad have shown in their quest to be included in the 
census. Their love for our Nation has been an inspiration, and I am 
proud to offer this amendment on their behalf. I hope all of my 
colleagues will support this commonsense amendment which will begin the 
process to ensure that all Americans are included in the census.
  Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Census of the Committee on Government Reform, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), conducted numerous very important hearings on the 
need to include Americans abroad. Last year, because of his efforts, 
there was report language that included a demand that the Census Bureau 
come forward with a plan. The problem is that the whole time that I 
have been in Congress we have been asking for this plan. Like Moses, we 
could be in the desert for 40 years if we do not have a plan.
  They are supposed to come back with a plan in September. Yet I fear 
that it will be like the other plans, a statement, a dwindling of time, 
and not a concrete plan to go out and count these Americans abroad. 
This $2.5 million would allow them to have a trial run at counting them 
so that we could study the proper and best way to make sure that it is 
fairly and legally done.
  I want to compliment the fine work of my colleague, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller), on this particular effort. We have worked 
together in a bipartisan way. And I hope that the distinguished Chair 
of this appropriations subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Wolf), and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Serrano), will accept this amendment.
  We called the Census Bureau yesterday because the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) had mentioned to me that this report was coming; 
and just last month the acting director of the Census Bureau said that 
the September report on counting Americans abroad, and I quote, ``will 
raise serious concerns about the feasibility of counting them.'' It 
sounds to me like the Census Bureau is not asking how this can be done, 
but instead is once again looking at the negative.
  This allocation will show that we are serious that 10 years from now 
we want these citizens counted and we want trial runs in between. We 
want this to happen for the American citizens. It is important to our 
country, it is important to our global economy, and it is the fair and 
right thing to do.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), has done an 
outstanding job with regard to this issue. He probably knows more about 
the issue of the census than most Members will ever ever know.
  There will be a report, the gentleman from Florida has been on top of 
it; but in the interest of time we will deal with this issue, and we 
will accept the amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  My colleague from New York is correct, this has been a nonpartisan 
issue and we have been working together for the past several years to 
try to figure out how to include overseas Americans in the census.
  In 1990, they included Federal employees, military, and people 
working for the State Department or Agriculture Department, because we 
had administrative records. The question is how do we count the others. 
And so we tried to do it in the 2000 census. Director Pruitt, who was 
the director under President Clinton, felt it was impossible at that 
late stage to include it. Our goal is to have them counted in the 2010 
census.
  Last year, in this appropriation bill, we included language to 
require a report by the end of September. I met with the bureau again 
this morning, and I am assured we are going to have a report how we 
come out doing it. It is

[[Page H4133]]

not an easy job, and that is how Director Pruitt explained the problem 
to us. We are going to have a hearing again next week.
  This gets to the question of who do we count. Just because someone 
has a U.S. passport, but has not been to the United States in 20 years 
and does not intend to, do they get counted? Those are the type of 
questions we will have to get resolved.
  So we are raising a lot of questions. The goal is to having it done 
in 2010. I do not object to putting this amount in this particular 
appropriation bill. I do not know what the right amount is. I think the 
$2.5 million was an arbitrary number. The Bureau has given me 
assurances in September they will have a more accurate number, whether 
it is $500,000, $1.5 million, or $2 million; and so in conference we 
can get the right amount in there.
  But I agree with the gentlewoman that we need to count them. I am 
glad we are actually putting something in the appropriation bill to 
specifically say we need to get them counted. And when we get the 
report in September, and I hope it is more accurate or more 
representative than the gentlewoman thinks, that we can move forward 
with it. This is something we are going to work together on, and I feel 
confident that in conference we will get the right dollar amount. 
However, as I say, I have no objection to including this amendment.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first of all 
thank the distinguished chairman for accepting this amendment; and to 
my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), I 
wish to thank him for all of his hard work on this. And from the bottom 
of my heart, and sincerely, I sincerely wish he were not retiring at 
the end of the term. The gentleman has been a distinguished leader on 
many, many issues, particularly the census.
  But I know that 10 years from now I will probably still be here, and 
they are going to be yelling their heads off at me saying, You and Dan 
Miller said you would take care of it. So I am glad the gentleman is 
taking a continued leadership role to be sure that by 2010 we have a 
viable plan that will work, that will have strong standards that 
everyone understands, that are fair, and really represent the interests 
of our country and the interests of our citizens.
  I thank the gentleman so much, and congratulations on accepting it.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, as the 
gentlewoman knows, we have had our differences on other issues with 
regard to the census, but this is certainly one we have had agreement 
on.
  It is a frustration that we share with the real professionals of the 
bureau who really have a challenge on their hands. But we are going to 
do it because we have to do it.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered 
by the gentlelady from New York, Representative Maloney, to allocate 
$2.5 million for the Census Bureau to begin planning the portion of the 
2010 Decennial Census that will count Americans living abroad.
  Private sector Americans abroad won the opportunity to vote by 
absentee ballot over two decades ago, but they are still battling for 
the right to participate in the Decennial Census.
  Somewhere between three and ten million private sector Americans live 
overseas. Traditionally, they vote, they pay taxes, and own homes in 
the USA. It stands to reason, then, that they should be included in the 
Decennial Census. As one American abroad put it, ``by excluding us from 
Census 2000, the U.S. government is telling us that our taxes count and 
our votes count, but that we as U.S. citizens do not.''
  Regrettably, the Census Bureau has maintained an ``out of sight, out 
of mind'' attitude. In an era of increasing globalization this 
perspective makes no sense. Americans abroad, as informal 
`'ambassadors'' of the U.S., play a vital role in exporting U.S. goods, 
services, expertise, and culture.
  Americans abroad have begun to fight back at the polls and in 
Washington, and they are finding some very receptive ears. Led by the 
House Committee on the census, a strong bipartisan consensus has 
emerged on Capitol Hill to enumerate U.S. citizens overseas.
  In fact, I have introduced legislation ensuring that all Americans 
living abroad are included in the Decennial Censuses. The U.S. 
government has done U.S. citizens overseas a great disservice by 
treating them as ``invisible,'' and it's high time that we recognize 
that Americans abroad do count.
  Accordingly, I look forward to working with Congresswoman Maloney on 
this important issue throughout this Congress, and I urge all of our 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 29 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 48, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $500,000)''.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to amend the fiscal 
year 2002 appropriations of the U.S. Census Bureau.
  On Monday night, I appeared before the Committee on Rules on behalf 
of myself and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) to ask that this 
amendment be protected from a point of order. That committee did not 
grant my request.
  My intent, Mr. Chairman, was to make sure that the Census Bureau have 
adequate funds to produce a special report on the data from the 
service-based enumeration from the 2000 census. While those data are 
included in the tables that are currently being released, they are not 
in a form that is easily accessible so that local governments can 
access this information.
  In the 2000 census, the Census Bureau made a major effort to count 
people with no usual residence. They counted people at shelters, they 
counted people at food kitchens, they counted people at mobile food 
vans, and they counted people on the streets. This effort is similar to 
past censuses. What was different in 2000 was the Census Bureau's very 
important partnership program, which the chairman and I worked very 
hard to implement.
  As a result of the emphasis in 2000 on partnering with local 
governments and community groups, the service-based enumeration was 
qualitatively different than in the past. Local communities devoted 
considerable time and resources to assisting the Census Bureau in this 
count. In some cities the local government provided blankets as 
inducements to get people to cooperate with the census. In other 
cities, local citizens who knew the city were sworn in and went with 
the census takers to facilitate the interviews. In nearly all cities, 
local governments were active partners in this operation. And, in fact, 
one night the chairman and I went out to count the homeless together 
with the bureau.
  Consequently, those local governments are interested in seeing the 
results of their efforts. The data provided in the first census data 
released do not allow governments that opportunity. Instead, it is 
nearly impossible to sort out the results of this operation from the 
current data. At one point I was told that the Census Bureau had 
decided not to release these data because of the poor quality of the 
data. I am pleased to report that these data will be released in a 
special report this fall. This amendment is to ensure that sufficient 
funds are available to produce that report.
  I would like to make two other comments about these data: first, 
there has been some confusion about what these data represent. It is 
often convenient to call these data ``the data on the homeless.'' Those 
who advocate on behalf of those who find themselves without adequate 
shelter bristle at this suggestion, and they are correct in doing so. 
In the 2000 census, the Census Bureau counted a little more than 
280,000 people in shelters and at soup kitchens and on the streets. No 
one should delude themselves that this is an accurate count of the 
homeless.
  In fact, it was the release of these data in 1990 at the track level 
that showed just how clearly the count did not represent reality. Here 
in Washington, D.C., the track that includes the White House and the 
Capitol, and the stretch of Constitution Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue 
in between,

[[Page H4134]]

showed a street population of 41. The track adjacent to the White 
House, which includes McPherson Square, showed a street population of 
zero. One only has to walk through these areas to understand the 
inadequacies of these counts.
  This is not a good reason to suppress these data. I am pleased that 
the Census Bureau is issuing a special report on the service-based 
enumeration. That report can clearly describe just what these data do 
and do not represent.
  Our country is founded on the principle of free and open access to 
information. We have a long history of struggling against totalitarian 
regimes that would rather keep their citizens in the dark. It would be 
a tragic turn of events if our census, which is at the constitutional 
center of our Federal information system, were not open to the public. 
Suppressing information should never be a substitute for educating the 
public.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment reduces the appropriations for other 
periodic censuses and programs by $500,000 and increases the 
appropriations for data content and products by the same amount. I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Let me read a letter signed by the National Alliance to End 
Homelessness, the National Coalition for the Homeless, and the National 
Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. They say: ``We write to 
expression support for the U.S. Census Bureau's decision not to release 
a separate homeless count in this 2000 census.''

                              {time}  1315

  National advocates worked closely with the Census Bureau during the 
planning and implementation of the 2000 Census to help ensure that 
people without housing would be counted.
  We believe that people without housing should be counted by the 
Census for the same reason that people with housing should be counted.
  They also go on to say, however, advocates also urge the Census not 
to release a separate count. They go on to say, in addition, a separate 
homeless count would be highly misleading because in most cases 
homelessness is not a permanent condition but a state of extreme 
poverty marked by temporary lack of housing. People move in and out of 
homelessness throughout time such that more people will experience 
homelessness over the course of time than any other point of time.
  So for that reason, the people who know more about this than anybody 
else, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, the National Coalition 
for the Homelessness and the National Law Center on Homelessness, 
oppose it. We urge the rejection of the Maloney amendment.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the Maloney-Kucinich amendment to ensure 
that the Census Bureau has sufficient funds to produce a special report 
on the data collected for the 2000 Census from the service because of 
the enumeration and targeted nonshelter outdoor location programs.
  As the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) explained, for the 
2000 census local governments and homeless advocacy groups across the 
country in a unique partnership with the Census Bureau invested 
resources in counting Americans sleeping in shelters, eating at soup 
kitchens and living on the street. The Census Bureau has decided not to 
show the count of people living in shelters and people living on the 
streets separately. People counted on the street will be lumped in with 
people living in other noninstitutional group quarters, which are 
dormitories or other places that people live that are not operated by 
the government.
  Local governments and community groups expected to learn the results 
of this collection. However, the data currently provided by the Census 
Bureau is not in a format useful to local governments. It is 
encouraging to learn that the Census Bureau would be releasing a 
special report this fall showing some data collected through the 
serviced-based enumeration.
  Our amendment will provide adequate funding for the production of the 
report. I strongly urge the Census Bureau to include in the report all 
tracked level data collected by the Census Bureau through the targeted 
nonshelter outdoor locations and other service-based enumeration 
programs. Only data provided at the local geographic level will enable 
communities to determine what services are needed by residents of their 
community.
  I would like to clarify that the data gathered on people staying in 
shelters and living on streets is not intended to be interpreted as an 
official government count of the homeless. I can understand the concern 
of some of the national groups who would believe that it would be 
interpreted as an official count of the homeless. But due to the great 
difficulty in locating people living on the street, under bridges and 
in cars, we understand that these figures will not be an accurate count 
of the homeless. But I think it is important to get some sense of what 
the Census Bureau was able to find in their surveys.
  We owe it to local government and community groups which spent days 
assisting census takers in this effort to make the information public.
  I have been contacted by local homeless advocacy groups in my 
congressional district in Cleveland, Ohio, urging the release of this 
data. One group, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, 
assisted the Census Bureau by holding a service fair to increase the 
number of homeless people counted. As a publisher of a street 
newspaper, they support the release of the information collected by the 
government. They also believe that the staff hours that went into this 
count would be an utter waste of time and resources if the results were 
not published in a forum useful to local communities.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and provide your local 
governments access to the information collected on people living in 
shelters and on the street.
  Homelessness is a serious problem in this country. All of us know 
that it has many manifestations: people living on the street, people 
living in cars, people living under bridges, people assigned to 
homeless shelters, people living in government-sponsored shelter. But 
for all of the work that the Census Bureau did in its last enumeration, 
I think it is important and essential that this Congress and the people 
of the United States have the ability to have the exact data that was 
gathered by the Census Bureau, to have that information made public.
  We actually paid for it. There ought to be freedom of information for 
the public. Then it is up to us to determine how to interpret that 
information. But to withhold the information or to say it might be 
misinterpreted really is to lose an opportunity to get a broader 
assessment of the picture of homelessness in this country.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on this.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I place in the Record statements by local homeless 
advocates who want to see the numbers. I could read it, but I will 
place it in the Record.

      Census: Local Homeless Advocates Who Want To See the Numbers

       ``Who are they safeguarding?'' asked Ron Reinhart, director 
     of the Salvation Army's PASS Program in Cleveland. ``They 
     don't want people to know what a poor job they did.'' (Census 
     Keeps Lid on Homeless Numbers, Cleveland, the Plain Dealer, 
     6-21-01.)
       Brian Davis, head of the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the 
     Homeless, helped count the homeless in 1990, when Census 
     officials tried to do it all in one day. He said the 2000 
     count was much improved, but not without major problems. 
     ``It's important to have these numbers,'' Davis said. ``There 
     are 1,600 [shelter] beds in Cleveland. And all the beds are 
     usually full. You should get at least 1,600 homeless 
     people.'' (Census Keeps Lid on Homeless Numbers, Cleveland, 
     the Plain Dealer, 6-21-01.)
       ``It really doesn't make any difference to us when the 
     census numbers come out. But it does strike me as being 
     extremely weird,'' said John Suggs, executive director of the 
     Presbyterian Night Shelter of Tarrant County, near downtown 
     Fort Worth. ``They had a lot of people here counting the 
     homeless people inside and outside the shelter. Why do all of 
     that work and not share it with the public?'' (After Costly 
     Count, Census Skips Homeless; Report to Reflect Only People 
     in

[[Page H4135]]

     Shelters, News Section, page 1 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 6-
     23-01.)
       Tillie Burgin, director of Mission Arlington, also 
     questioned the decision to withhold the numbers. ``We don't 
     depend on stats,'' she said. ``However, the folks are 
     expecting whole truths from the census.'' (After Costly 
     Count, Census Skips Homeless; Report to Reflect Only People 
     in Shelters, News Section, page 1 Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 
     6-23-01.)
       ``I'd rather have [the numbers] now. It's almost been a 
     year since we've done it,'' said Candis Brady, communications 
     director for the 700-bed Shelter for the Homeless in Midway 
     City, Calif. ``It could help in getting funding for 
     programs.'' (Census Policy on Homeless Draws Criticism, 
     Midway City, CA, Associated Press, 6-27-01.)
       Leslie Leitch, director of Baltimore's Office of Homeless 
     Services, said she also thought the census was going to 
     release more detailed figures. Now, she said, her city may 
     have to go out and do their own survey of people in soup 
     kitchens and living on the streets. (Census Policy on 
     Homeless Draws Criticism, Baltimore, Associated Press, 6-27-
     01.)
       ``Here in Seattle, we worked hard to get people to 
     cooperate with the census, and we would support releasing 
     more information,'' said D'Anne Mount, spokeswoman for the 
     Seattle strategic planning office. (Numbering the Homeless, 
     Associated Press, 6-29-01.)
       Still Tavares [Columbus City Councilwoman] says there has 
     to be a better way. ``By not having the numbers, we're 
     missing out on dollars that would come back . . . for 
     homeless programs, child care, funding for education, 
     emergency food services, transportation and many more,'' 
     Tavares said. ``These are living, breathing citizens in our 
     community.'' (City Won't Get True Homeless Count: Census 
     Numbers to Include Only Those at Shelters, Dispatch.com, 7-
     17-01.)

  Mr. KUCINICH. Reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman is correct. I have 
a letter here from the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless which 
supports the release and the number of people counted during the census 
as stated in the Maloney-Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2500.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the Maloney-Kucinich amendment to provide the 
funds necessary for a special report on the counts from a Census 2000 
program called the Service Based Enumeration.
  One of the significant improvements in the 2000 census was the way 
the Census Bureau reached out to local governments to improve the 
census count. This was good for the census and good for the 
communities.
  Nowhere was that partnership more evident than in the effort to count 
people who during the census had no usual place to live. Some of those 
people were sleeping in shelters. Some were sleeping on the street. 
Some were sleeping in cars or in buildings that the Census Bureau 
considered vacant, and the census counted those people at soup kitchens 
and mobile food vans.
  To make this count of a special population happen, local governments 
and community groups donated time, energy and money to the census. In 
some communities, counting this special population was a major 
undertaking. In others, it was a modest effort. Most communities worked 
with the Census Bureau to make this count happen.
  In 1990, Congress worked with the Census Bureau to assure that any 
time the street and shelter counts were published they were accompanied 
with the appropriate caution that these numbers should not be taken as 
a count of the homeless. That was a successful cooperative effort, and 
to my knowledge those numbers have not been misused.
  Nonetheless, some of the groups who advocate on behalf of the 
homeless worry that the publication of the 2000 census numbers from the 
street and shelter count will be misused. Consequently, the Census 
Bureau included those counts with other categories in a way so they 
could not be separated out.
  The acting director of the Census Bureau told me that these numbers 
would be published in a separate report this fall. This amendment will 
provide the resources necessary for that special report, and I applaud 
the Census Bureau for taking this approach. I am sure that this report 
will contain the same cautions as 1990. These data should not be used 
as a count of the homeless.
  At the same time, the special report will give local governments and 
community groups a way of evaluating their efforts. We all realize that 
the 2000 census count is seriously flawed, but the only way to improve 
on that count is to make it public and to enlist the efforts of all 
involved in improving those data in the next census.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment so we can 
continue to improve uncounted persons with no usual place to live. We 
cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend this problem does not 
exist.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his support of 
the Maloney-Kucinich amendment and to point out that all across the 
Nation we have had homeless advocates who have stated concern about 
this issue that we have raised.
  A Columbus city councilwoman stated, ``By not having the numbers, we 
are missing out on dollars that would come back for homeless programs, 
child care, funding for education, emergency food services, 
transportation and many more. These are living, breathing citizens in 
our community.'' That was reported on the Columbus Dispatch.com.
  Mr. Chairman, D'Anne Mount, spokeswoman for the Seattle Strategic 
Planning Office, said, ``Here in Seattle, we worked hard to get people 
to cooperate with the census, and we would support releasing more 
information.''
  In Baltimore, from the Associated Press, Leslie Leitch, director of 
Baltimore's Office of Homeless Services, said that she thought that the 
census was going to release more detailed figures. Now she says her 
city may have to go out and do their own survey of people in soup 
kitchens and living on the street.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a need for this, and I appreciate the 
assistance of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Reclaiming my time, that is what the census is about, how 
we actually count those in the different communities. As the gentleman 
said, local governments and community groups want to know how many 
people actually exist in their communities.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, in Midway City, California, a 
communications director for a 700-bed shelter for the homeless said it 
could help in getting funding for the programs. She stated, ``I would 
rather have the numbers now. It has been a year since we have done 
it.''
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I commend the 
gentleman from Ohio for his concern on this issue, because we are 
concerned about getting the most accurate count on the homeless.
  Mr. Chairman, the 2000 census is the most accurate census in the 
history of this country. We counted almost 99 percent. It is very 
successful.
  On this particular issue, the professionals at the Bureau and the 
leading advocates on homeless in Washington here are opposed to this 
amendment. I find it ironic in a way that during the past years of 
debate with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) on issues with 
respect to the census, she said trust the professionals of the Bureau. 
Well, let us trust the professionals of the Bureau.
  This is not accurate information to release, and that is why the 
Bureau is opposed to it. Our experience with the 1990 census was that 
when the numbers are presented in the way that the amendment would 
require, the homeless population and their service providers are hurt 
more than they are helped. The people counted during these operations 
are already included in the population counts for all areas, but it 
would be misleading to say this is an accurate representation of the 
homeless population.
  In fact, Mr. Chairman, contrary to popular belief, the Census Bureau 
did not intend to have a, quote, ``homeless'' count in 1990. However, 
because of the way the numbers were released in 1990, people thought 
that the Bureau was releasing a homeless count. Homeless groups were up 
in arms over the release of this information in 1990. That is why three 
of the most prominent homeless organizations in the Nation agree with 
the Census Bureau professionals and would like to see this amendment 
defeated.
  These homeless advocates do not want to see the mistake of 1990 
repeated again, a mistake that they believe hurt the homeless cause in 
our

[[Page H4136]]

Nation. These groups, the National Coalition for the Homeless, the 
National Alliance to End Homelessness and the National Law Center for 
the Homeless, have written a letter which is available on their website 
pleading that this information not be released.
  They note that we cannot take a snapshot of the homeless population 
and report it as an accurate number, as is the way that the census 
enumeration works. That is not to say that these people were widely 
missed, rather than enumerated in categories that may not lead 
themselves to be identified as homeless.
  In 1990, the Census Bureau released these numbers in the manner 
described in this amendment. The result was a storm of concerns over 
the decades from homeless advocates that saw their funding disappear 
because of what they felt, and the Bureau agreed, was a low estimate of 
the population making use of these their services.

                              {time}  1330

  The Bureau decided to revise their reporting for the 2000 census 
during the final days of the Clinton administration. They did this in 
consultation with homeless advocates; and, in fact, the Commerce 
Secretary's 2000 Census Advisory Committee reported in 1999 that the 
homeless numbers should not be released in the same manner as 1990 for 
the reasons mentioned above.
  The Bureau currently plans to produce a more informative report on 
the results of the service-based enumeration and release that report in 
the fall.
  This report will be ready by the fall of 2001 and will provide data 
on this population at the national level and at a subnational level. 
This report will also note the limitations of the census in measuring 
this highly transient population.
  We should respect the judgment of the professionals at the Census 
Bureau and the homeless advocates and not mandate the release of 
unreliable, inaccurate numbers.
  We should defeat this amendment and support the National Alliance to 
End Homelessness, the National Coalition for the Homeless, and the 
National Law Census on Homelessness and Poverty. We need to support the 
homeless. That is the reason this amendment is not appropriate and we 
should defeat it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I do rely on the Census 
Bureau to give us the information. I know that last year as the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Census, the gentleman from Florida was 
very concerned about political manipulation of the census data. I 
wonder if he would comment on whether or not this situation is an 
example of political manipulation. The Census Bureau consulted with a 
special interest group and then decided not to publish the numbers. 
This is one homeless group. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and 
I have a list of other groups that would like this information. What if 
it had been the NRA? What if it had been NOW? What is the difference?
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Reclaiming my time, since January 20, the 
election, there is no political appointees at the Census Bureau. They 
are all professionals. The acting director of the Census Bureau is a 
career person with the Federal Government. There are no political 
people at the Census Bureau. This is not a political issue. These are 
the professionals at the Bureau that say, ``Don't release these numbers 
because they are not accurate numbers.'' And the professionals say, 
``We don't have a homeless count.''
  And so the homeless people do not want to have numbers 
misinterpreted. They are inaccurate. I trust the professionals in this 
case. The gentlewoman has always been a big supporter of the 
professionals. In this case I think we should accept what the 
professionals are saying. It is not political because there are no 
political people at the Bureau.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) will be postponed.


          Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:
       Amendment No. 18 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
       Page 45, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $250,000)''.
       Page 46, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $250,000, for a grant to the City 
     of Pahokee, Florida to assist in the dredging on the City 
     Marina)''.

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia reserves a point of order.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to concede the 
point of order and withdraw my amendment, but first I would like to 
engage in a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the committee, 
the gentleman from Virginia; and the distinguished ranking member the 
gentleman, from New York; and my good friend, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley). I thank particularly the chairman and the ranking 
member for their consideration, mindful of the time constraints that 
are involved.
  For the past year, the entire South Florida community has fallen 
victim to an ongoing drought. While larger, wealthier communities have 
been able to survive, smaller, poorer cities and towns have merely 
scraped by on savings that no longer exist. Without the immediate 
assistance of the Federal Government, these communities will find 
themselves facing extinction. Small towns located on the shores of Lake 
Okeechobee, that my good friend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley) 
and I represent, such as the city of Pahokee, depend on a tourist 
industry that attracts thousands of recreational boaters, who travel 
inland from the coasts to enjoy the lake as well as the local 
restaurants and shops.
  In addition, the city's growing commercial fishing industry has come 
to a standstill. In fact, fishermen's boats are unable to even make it 
to the water which has evaporated so much that its nearest point of 
entry is 1\1/2\ miles inland. Both recreational and fishing boats 
docked at Pahokee's city marina now lie on their sides against what 
used to be the floor of the city's marina.
  The City of Pahokee is in dire need of $250,000 in Federal assistance 
to dredge the city marina. This project will provide immediate 
assistance to the businesses that depend on the marina as a deeper 
marina will be able to recover from the drought at a quicker pace than 
a shallower one. The State of Florida has agreed to pay for half of the 
project, but Pahokee is unable to recover the remainder of the costs.
  Just this morning, I received a copy of a letter from Florida 
Governor Jeb Bush urging the Small Business Administration to declare 
the counties surrounding the gentleman's from Florida (Mr. Foley) and 
my district's area a disaster area. I am confident with the leadership 
of the gentleman from Virginia and the gentleman from New York I can go 
home and tell the people of Pahokee that help is on the way.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman bringing this 
issue to our attention. We would want to work with both of the 
gentlemen from Florida to find the most appropriate way to assist this 
community.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his kindness and look forward to working with him.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I also appreciate and applaud the good 
work that the gentleman from Florida has been doing to assist the small 
communities in his district. I assure him that

[[Page H4137]]

I want to help him find the appropriate way to assist this community. I 
will join the gentleman from Virginia and him in accomplishing this.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank 
the gentleman. This issue is a bipartisan issue. It is one that affects 
the lives of thousands in South Florida.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to my good friend and neighbor, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Foley), who has worked so hard with me to restore the 
livelihood of those living in the communities around Lake Okeechobee.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings) and, of course, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) for their participation 
today. When people think of Palm Beach County, they immediately think 
of polo fields in Palm Beach and Worth Avenue; but the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I well know that the people living in the 
Glades area are struggling. Lake Okeechobee, the largest lake on the 
Eastern Seaboard, is in fact experiencing its worst drought in memory.
  We are not just talking about Pahokee. We are talking about 
Okeechobee, Buckhead Ridge, Canal Point, Clewiston, Moore Haven, 
Harlem, Lakeport, Belle Glade, all people who derive the livelihood and 
the ability to feed their families from this precious resource, Lake 
Okeechobee and its tributaries. I salute the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) for coming to the floor today and making this dramatic 
point of how much we need help. Governor Jeb Bush, as he mentioned, has 
sent a letter urging our colleagues to join with us in this very 
important pledge to help these small communities around the lake.
  Again I thank both the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their attention to this. And, of 
course, I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for 
bringing this to Congress' immediate attention.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
just like to once again thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman 
from Virginia, and the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from 
New York, for all their help on this important issue to the people of 
South Florida. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Foley) for joining me on the floor today in support of this 
project. I look forward to working with the gentleman in the coming 
weeks on this and many other issues affecting the people of South 
Florida and this Nation.
  Finally, I would like to say to the people of Pahokee, help is on the 
way.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  There was no objection.


          Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York

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

       Amendment No. 28 offered by Mrs. Maloney of New York:
       Page 48, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $2,000,000)''.

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of myself 
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) to amend the fiscal year 
2002 appropriations for the U.S. Census Bureau.
  The Census Bureau changed the question on Hispanic origin in the 2000 
census; and as a result, our ability to measure changes in subgroups of 
Hispanics has been severely hindered. This amendment is to provide the 
funds necessary for the Census Bureau to create accurate counts of 
subgroups of Hispanics from the 2000 census.
  In the 2000 census, the question on Hispanic origin had a subtle 
change from 1990 that produced a profound result. In 1990, the category 
``other Hispanic'' was followed by a line that said, ``Print one group, 
for example, Argentinian, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, 
Salvadorian, Spaniard, and so on.'' In 2000, these groups were given 
only the instruction, ``Print group.'' As a result, the number of 
persons who marked ``other'' and did not write in a particular group 
went up and the counts for these other Hispanic groups do not reflect 
the actual increase in population that occurred between 1990 and 2000.
  Let me give my colleagues a few examples of the confusion this change 
caused. The Census Bureau has reported that the population of Hispanics 
grew by 58 percent between 1990 and 2000. That may be, but the number 
of Nicaraguans declined almost 15 percent. The number of Panamanians 
declined from 92,000 in 1990 to 91,000 in 2000. At the same time these 
groups supposedly declined, the number of ``other'' Hispanics of which 
Panamanians and Nicaraguans are a subgroup, grew threefold from 2 
million to 6 million.
  In short, there are problems with comparing the 1990 and 2000 census 
data on Hispanics. This problem can be taken care of, to a large 
extent, by using data on the long form to revise the counts of Hispanic 
subgroups. This was done in 1990 and could be done again in 2000. The 
long form collects data on place of birth and ancestry which can be 
used to augment the Hispanic origin data to provide a more accurate 
count of Hispanic subgroups. The funds transferred in this amendment 
should provide ample resources for correcting these data.
  Some have suggested that this is an issue that is of interest only to 
New York. That is in part because New York's data has been released, 
and detailed data for other States with large Hispanic population have 
not yet been released. California, for instance, contains a third of 
the U.S. Hispanic population and is itself almost a third Hispanic. It 
is quite likely that when the data for California is released, we will 
see similar problems there. The data for Texas, which contains almost 7 
million Hispanics, have not yet been released. And so we have not yet 
seen the detail on Hispanic subgroups.
  Mr. Chairman, we owe it to the Hispanic groups that worked so hard to 
make sure that the 2000 census was a good census to provide the best 
possible data on Hispanic subgroups. I hope that my colleagues will 
join me in making sure that this happens by supporting the amendment 
that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and I are putting 
forward.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do is to get support 
of not having a recount but in having a more specific classification of 
the communities that have just been lumped together. As we all know, 
the Hispanic community is showing the greatest population growth than 
any other group. A part of our responsibility is not just to count 
people by a label, no more than we would be comfortable in counting 
Europeans, not taking into consideration whether they are French or 
German or Irish; but the most important thing, it would seem to me, is 
that we should be trying to find some way to get the information that 
we can more properly allow this group to assimilate into our community, 
into our country, and to be as productive as they can be.
  As we all know, the census data is used not only to designate the 
type of programs that we want but are used to define what type of 
school districts we should have, what political subdivisions there 
should be for those who want to run for city office or State office or 
indeed the reapportionment for the United States Congress, and should 
take into consideration the background, culture, and languages of the 
people that come from that community. So what we are asking is to 
rearrange it so the resources will be there for the Census Bureau to 
give us a clearer understanding of who we call Hispanic.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It is also, I 
can tell Members, a flawed amendment because it does not do anything. 
It just kind of moves money around without having any kind of stream of 
thought to it. The amendment would again move funding from various 
census appropriation accounts to other accounts in a very, very 
confusing way.

[[Page H4138]]

  I understand what the gentlewoman and the gentleman are trying to do, 
but the professionals have made a decision and many believe that this 
would be the camel's nose under the tent, the slippery slope. Although 
the 2000 census is considered to be the most accurate in history, it is 
understandable that some have had some concern. But the professionals 
would be opposed to this. We really cannot go back. It does not really 
do anything other than flip money around and back and forth in a very, 
very confusing way.

                              {time}  1345

  So we would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the chairman to respond to the 
question as to whether or not he can see his way clear to at least have 
in a conference report language as to how beneficial it could be to a 
community to be identified by who they are, rather than by just some 
Spanish-speaking Hispanic label.
  It just seems to me that the professionals would think that that 
could be a great addition as we attempt to use the data we have in the 
best way we can.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, what we have at issue is the 
short-form versus the long-form data. The short form, as has been 
pointed out, was changed slightly from 1990; and when they gave 
examples, they did not mention Dominican. So it may possibly have 
affected the number.
  There is a question on the long form that asks ``place of birth.'' 
That data will not be available until 2003. So the problem on the short 
form is when they filled out the form, if they did not put Dominican, 
they do not get counted as Dominican. On the long form, if they put 
Dominican, they will get counted. 2003 will have a new report, but we 
cannot go back and change what people put down on the short form now.
  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, they never really got 
an opportunity to ask newcomers into the country, that if you are not 
of Mexican extraction, if you are not Cuban, and if you are not Puerto 
Rican, then you just have to be considered as ``other.''
  We have a half a million Dominicans in the United States, almost half 
in my congressional district, and this is one of the most exciting, 
vibrant communities that we have. The question has to be, that as proud 
as they are of being Hispanic, they are more proud of being Dominican.
  This is the way we have to conduct the Federal Government. They 
cannot send out a Spanish-speaking hand. They have to take advantage of 
their culture, their background, their experiences, and to bring them 
into society and bring them into politics. If one thinks that makes 
some sense and has to be worked out, I would appreciate it if the 
gentleman would consider putting that into some type of report that 
does not go into conflict with the decision that has been made.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RANGEL. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the gentleman for 
his statements and would like to point out that the long-form 
information is available in 2002, not 2003, but 2002; and the 
professionals in this case made a mistake. They changed the question. 
They changed the question, and they did not know the effect it would 
have. Now that we know the effect and the problem that it has caused, 
we have a chance to go and correct it. That is what this amendment 
seeks to do.
  Let us correct this data so it more properly reflects, in the case 
that my colleague so eloquently made, the Dominican population in New 
York and other places in the country.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I understand the 
goal that we want to make sure we have all the subgroups counted; but 
let us first of all remember we have the most accurate census in 
history, and for the Hispanic population, we had a very, very 
successful census.
  I think the Hispanic population deserves a lot of credit for actively 
participating in working out the census for 2000. The total increase in 
Hispanic population is 58 percent. We should be very pleased at the 
success of that. That was the primary goal of the Census Bureau, is to 
get the best, most accurate number of the Hispanic population, and we 
did that.
  When it gets down to subgroups within that, you are right, there were 
three groups, Mexican, Puerto Rican or Cuban, listed. But then there 
was a blank to fill in if one wanted to identify as somebody else. 
Ninety-five percent of the people filled in something.
  The problem is, we cannot retroactively go back and change what 95 
percent of the people wrote in. What we will be able to do when this 
number comes out, whether it is late 2002, or I was told early 2003, 
there will be a report from the Census Bureau reporting on the long-
form data, which only went to one out of every six people. On the long-
form data there is a question of birthplace. So we will have a more 
accurate number for the long-form data.
  So this amendment may be well intended, but it sets a dangerous 
precedent. That is the reason, again, the professionals at the bureau, 
let us trust the professionals. Do not manipulate the numbers. It would 
force the Census Bureau to rewrite people's answers in a way that they 
self-identify themselves on the short form. This would be unprecedented 
and change a basic Census Bureau policy.
  The overall count on Hispanics is not in question. In fact, it is the 
best count in history, with a 58 percent increase. The 2000 census is 
considered the most accurate there is, and especially the Hispanic 
count. In New York City, the number of Dominicans and other Hispanic 
subgroups may have been changed as a result of the change in the 
wording, where ``Dominican'' was not used as an example, because they 
wanted to simplify the questionnaire to get the best response for 
Hispanics overall, so there were no examples shown.
  There was a lot of research put into this questionnaire. They did 
focus groups, they did sample testing of the questionnaire, and the 
bottom line goal was the best total count for Hispanics.
  Now, when we get to the subgroups, that is where this 2002-2003 
report will be based on the long form, and that is where I think the 
most informative information can come on the Dominicans. But we cannot 
retroactively try to change what people said. Ninety-five percent of 
the people filled in something there, and you cannot say just because 
they wrote ``Hispanic,'' they are Dominican. We need to wait for the 
2002-2003 report and trust the professionals at the bureau on this 
issue.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  (Mr. CLAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Chairman, I stand in support of the Maloney-Rangel 
amendment to improve the count of Hispanics in the 2000 census. This 
issue is a very simple one: the Census Bureau changed the question on 
Hispanic origin from the 1990 questionnaire to a different format on 
the 2000 questionnaire. As a result, it is difficult to compare the 
count from some of the subgroups of Hispanics.
  The Census Bureau can go a long way towards fixing this problem using 
data from the long form. This amendment makes sure the money to fix 
this problem is in the right place.
  I am a bit puzzled by those who oppose this amendment. I am, frankly, 
a bit puzzled about why the Census Bureau has not come up with a plan 
to fix this problem. Do these people not care about an accurate count 
on Hispanic groups?
  Mr. Chairman, the Census Bureau director, Ken Pruitt, went around the 
country talking to the American people about how the census was an 
American celebration. He called it a celebration of our country and our 
democracy. The census, he told us, is what makes our democracy uniquely 
American. The American people listened to the director and responded in 
an unprecedented fashion.
  I do not know of a single person in this House or professional census 
taker

[[Page H4139]]

or statistician who predicted that the 2000 census would have the kind 
of response we witnessed.
  Now it is the Government's turn to respond to the people. The numbers 
for some of the Hispanic groups do not make sense because the Census 
Bureau changed the question, and the new question changed the way 
people answered. What is more, the problem can be fixed.
  Now is the time for the Census Bureau to show its thanks to the 
American people for their part in making this one of the best censuses 
ever by producing the best data ever. The Census Bureau can do the 
work, and we here in this House can provide the funds to make that 
happen, or we can turn our backs on the American people and take their 
cooperation for granted.
  If we defeat this amendment, we will be telling the American people 
that they were taken, once again, by their government and this House of 
Representatives, for granted.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CLAY. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
excellent statement, and I would like to just underscore what the 
change in the question meant. In 1990, 1.9 million Hispanics were 
classified as ``other.'' In 2000, 6 million Hispanics were classified 
as ``other.'' That is 17 percent. Why? Because, as my colleague has 
pointed out and as we well know, the bureau changed the question.
  In 2000, according to the Census Bureau, Hispanic population, 17.6 
percent of the Hispanic population was classified as ``other.'' That 
makes ``other'' the second largest group of Hispanics. Now, only the 
bureau can tell us how much of this change is a result of changing the 
question. And why will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not 
support our efforts to answer this question? We are merely asking to be 
able to get this question answered and to direct the resources to make 
that happen.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, let us me first open my comments by saying that I do 
not have to repeat, the record will show I have been totally supportive 
of full funding the Census Bureau for the last few years; that I have 
gotten as the ranking member up on this floor and supported not only 
full funding, but supported the professionals who work at the Census 
Bureau. So I am clear on that, that this amendment and this 
conversation and this debate should in no way be seen as an attack. 
There is no need to defend the professionals at the bureau, because we 
all respect the work that they do.
  However, the point here is that in trying to do the best job possible 
and in taking into consideration what they had to do, there were a 
couple of mistakes made this year. One of them is this issue that the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel) so aptly bring up in this amendment that I support, 
and that is the whole issue that in areas throughout the country, but 
you take especially an area like New York City, of not giving an 
opportunity for a Hispanic subgroup to identify themselves, is in fact 
not gathering the proper information.
  I want to make that point clear. This is not about who is pleased 
with this information. This is not about who we make happy by providing 
this information. This is about the fact that we funded the census, 
full force, in the hope that they would get out the best accurate 
information.
  Well, you cannot get the best accurate information if people who 
would like to identify themselves, again, if you will, a second time, 
do not get an opportunity to do so. There is the discussion in New York 
City that there might be up to 150,000 missing Dominican Americans. 
They are not missing from the Hispanic count as much, although there is 
an undercount, we know. They are not missing from the New York City or 
New York State or the national count; but they are missing for purposes 
of identifying who they are.
  While it is true that on this House floor there are many Members who 
always speak about we are one Nation and should not divide ourselves 
along certain lines, and we can all agree on that, the census happens 
to be the one constitutional institution that is supposed to do exactly 
what some people may not like, which is to go identify you at the 
national level, at the block level, ethnically, racially, to try to 
find out who it is living in this country and how we provide services 
and how we celebrate who we are as a country.
  So I support this amendment, in the hope that the Census Bureau, 
within their large massive funding operation, within the support that 
they receive from us, they can understand that there was a slight error 
made here and that they have to be able to deal with that.
  I will give you an example: when the first numbers came in, some of 
the articles in New York said ``Puerto Rican community losing ground as 
other Hispanic community grows in leaps and bounds.'' I looked at it 
and said, who is this ``other'' that is growing so much? Then it dawned 
on me that ``other'' was everybody else, and perhaps it may be that 
those articles were not accurate, because when you break the ``others'' 
up, none of them reach the amount that the Puerto Ricans have in New 
York City. Yet the information given out is that ``others'' has become 
this incredible new number that, one, we do not know how to service; 
two, we do not know where they come from; and, three, we do not know 
how best to deal with all of their needs.
  So if you look at this, you are really not asking for anything that 
should not have been put forth in the first instance. I would hope that 
we would realize that in supporting the Maloney-Rangel amendment, we in 
fact get to the full truth, and that is what the census was supposed to 
give us in the first place.
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Let us clarify what the situation is.
  On the short form, the question is, is the person Spanish, Hispanic, 
Latino, and they check. In 1990, most people either checked Mexican, 
Puerto Rican or Cuban. Seventy percent of the people filled out the 
other category. But of that, only 5 percent left are blank. In the 
``other'' category, only 5 percent said ``other.'' Others wrote in, 7 
percent of the people wrote in Hispanic. Well, maybe they meant 
Dominican, but it was not a mistake, by the way, when they removed 
Dominican, because there are so many different subgroups within the 
Hispanic population. We have Costa Rican. We have Guatemalan. We have 
Honduran. We have Nicaraguan, Panamanian, Salvadoran, Ecuadorian, 
Colombian, Chilean, Bolivian. So we cannot list them all or the form 
gets too long and then we affect the total response.
  We really wanted to get the best response we could. So the Bureau 
took the three largest subgroups, which are Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto 
Rican, and then left a blank space: fill it in. But we cannot go back 
and change what someone put in. If someone wrote in the word 
``Hispanic,'' we cannot go back and figure out what the intent is. That 
is the reason why the long form data, which will be forthcoming in the 
next year or so, will have more details; and we look forward to that 
detail, which will have a breakdown for Dominican.
  But we cannot change short form data. We cannot read the intent. If 
someone wrote the word ``Spanish'' in there, did they mean to say 
Dominican? Did they mean to say Peruvian? Did they mean to say Chilean? 
How do we interpret that? We cannot. So the Bureau very intentionally 
felt that the number one goal was to get the best Hispanic count 
possible.
  I see my colleague from Texas. We had a very successful Hispanic 
count, and the differential was tremendously improved. So we should 
rejoice at the success of the census. Part of the reason I think is we 
kept the simpler form. They pretested this form. They pretested it. 
They focus-grouped it. They came up with the best form they can to get 
the best response rate.

[[Page H4140]]

  So I think right now we should be commending them and await this 
report in another year, a year-and-a-half and see what the information 
is. We should not try to tell the professionals and micromanage here on 
the floor of the House what they should be doing.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Rangel-Maloney amendment. I 
think, as someone who represents a community which has a substantial 
Hispanic population, I can say that I understand the concerns that have 
been expressed here by my colleagues.
  It is a matter of record that in both 1990 and 2000 those who marked 
that category ``other'' were asked to write in a particular group; and 
in 1990, after ``other,'' the questionnaire listed, print one group, 
for example, Argentinian, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, El 
Salvadoran, Spaniard and so on. In 2000, those who marked ``other'' 
were only given the instruction: ``print group.'' So, as a result, 
there were far fewer people who marked that category ``other'' and, as 
a result, there were groups that were understated in the 2000 Census.
  I think it is really important that we remember that, in addition to 
the enumerative aspects of this census, there is a matter of pride 
which is involved. Any time any of us have ever gone to a citizenship 
ceremony, we see people so proud to be Americans, but at the same time 
they reserve something deep in terms of an expression of where they 
came from. We are all Americans. We take pride in that. But we have a 
right to be able to keep those deeper connections, those cultural 
connections which also express who we are.
  So when the census is designed in such a way that it stops that 
expression from happening, it really is an offense to so many of the 
groups that are now part of this wonderful cultural mosaic which is the 
United States of America. So I think that we need to ask the census to 
have greater sensitivity in making sure that we have an opportunity to 
correct this miscounting of Hispanic Americans in the 2000 Census.
  So I wanted to express my support for this, but also I think we need 
to reflect on the underlying cause which animates the concern of all of 
us expressing our positions here on this amendment. That is, people are 
celebrating that they are part of this great country, but they deserve 
to be identified as to the various lands that they have come from.
  Mr. GONZALEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Hispanic Caucus's Task Force on the 
Census and Civil Rights, I rise in favor and in support of the Maloney-
Rangel amendment. Let me explain why, because I believe that I actually 
bring the truth of all perspectives, in light of the responsibility and 
duties that the Caucus has to the Hispanic community in the United 
States.
  The first thing to recognize is that the Hispanic community, in and 
of itself, reflects tremendous diversity. We are unlike any other 
community. Therein lies our strength but also some problems, and this 
is what we are attempting to address.
  Let me explain why. It is important to identify the different groups 
within the Latino and Hispanic communities. Did the census succeed in 
doing so? The answer is no. Was it intentional? Was it negligence? It 
does not matter. The result is that we do not have an accurate result.
  When we do not have an accurate result, we do not have usable 
information. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) knows exactly what 
I am talking about because I think we see eye to eye on 90 percent of 
the issues when it comes to the census. One of the issues is accuracy, 
but the other was the utilitarian part of it, and that is how we use 
this information.
  It is not just the United States Government and every level of 
government under the Federal Government that uses it, but it is the 
private sector, trying to identify the needs of certain communities 
within the big, all-encompassing Hispanic community in the United 
States. Therefore, it is important to make sure that the subcategories, 
the subgroups are identified, because the needs are truly different.
  No one understands that, when I try to tell individuals, we are not 
just Latinos. If you take someone of Mexican dissent, it is totally 
different than someone from Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic or 
from Colombia. That is just the way it is. But this is America today, 
and that is the reality.
  So what does this amendment really seek to do? I do not believe, as 
has been characterized in the debate today, that it attempts to change 
any of the information. What we are asking is to take existing 
information and, from that, glean and analyze and come up with a better 
result. This is not a major overhaul, a wholesale overhaul of 
information, and no one should misinterpret it that way.
  The amendment requires the Bureau of the Census to report to Congress 
on possible adjustments to the data and a diagnosis of how many people 
may have been misclassified by the rewriting of the census form. With 
these reports, we can determine how best to use the data we have and 
how we can avoid such confusion in the future.
  What I am afraid of, and it has been mischaracterized and, again, I 
do not think intentionally, I think everyone questions everybody's 
motives when we come up and want to do something with this information. 
We are looking at accuracy. We are looking at the usefulness of the 
information. Otherwise, we may have the numbers, we may have succeeded 
in identifying more people and having more people respond to the 
census, but it will be of no use. We will not be able to use that 
information. We must identify those contributions that certain 
individuals can make within the Hispanic community but, more 
importantly, what are the needs of these individuals that reside in 
this great Nation of ours.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Maloney-
Rangel amendment to improve the accuracy of the Hispanic census count.
  Compared to the 1990 census, the 2000 census changed the way it asked 
Hispanics to identify their country of origin. In both censuses, 
individuals were asked to identify their Hispanic origin as Mexican, 
Puerto Rican, Cuban, or other. The way the ``other'' category was 
treated is what changed. In both 1990 and 2000, those who marked other 
were asked to write in a particular group. In 1990, after ``other,'' 
the questionnaire listed ``Print one group, for example: Argentinian, 
Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadorian, Spaniard, and so on.'' 
In 2000, those who marked other were only given the instruction ``Print 
group.'' The result of this was that far fewer people who marked 
``other'' wrote in a group, and the count of groups like Colombians and 
Dominicans is understated in the 2000 census.
  The Moloney-Rangel amendment will enable the Census Bureau to conduct 
a report on what the census results would have likely been, had the 
question been phrased the same way it was in 1990. This will provide us 
with useful, supplemental information about the Hispanic population.
  The Hispanic community is becoming increasingly diverse. Having 
accurate information about the diversity of the Hispanic population 
will enable us to better target resources that are culturally sensitive 
to these communities. It is important to remember that the Hispanic 
community is not homogeneous. For example, the best way to communicate 
and reach out to Mexican-Americans is not the same as the best, most 
effective way to reach out to Dominican-Americans. This is why we 
should enable the Census Bureau to conduct a study and provide the 
public with information that gives us a better understanding of the 
true diversity within the Hispanic community.
  Hispanics deserve to be accurately counted. As Chairman of the 
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, I therefore support the Maloney-Rangel 
amendment and urge all my colleagues to do the same.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) will be postponed.
  Mr. WOLF. 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. 
Miller of Florida) having assumed the

[[Page H4141]]

Chair, Mr. Hastings of Washington, Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, 
having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2500) making 
appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the 
Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 2002, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________