Denny Hastert

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2610) to amend the National Narcotics Leadership Act of 1988 to extend the authorization for the Office of National Drug Control Policy until September 30, 1999, to expand the responsibilities and powers of the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HASTERT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde]. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Miller]

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Latham], a member of the subcommittee, who is well familiar with bean counters.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds just to inform the gentlewoman from Maryland that the Census Bureau gets all of the money that they asked for, it is not fenced off, and so she is misinformed. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I believe that every Member of this House can agree that we need to conduct the census that includes all Americans and is free of any partisan manipulation. There are those who say that this no longer can be accomplished by actually counting Americans. They want to restore the statistical methods in order to estimate or guess how many people are in this country. They have thrown up their hands and said an accurate census cannot be done by counting. Mr. Chairman, it can be done, and in fact it has been done. Once again Washington bureaucrats need to listen and learn from folks outside the beltway. In testimony before my subcommittee, communities like Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Indianapolis, and Cincinnati describe how they conducted an actual count at accuracy levels higher than those the Census Bureau proposes to achieve with their risky statistical scheme. Census Bureau Director Riche may not trust her ability to count, but Michael Morgan in Milwaukee proved he knew how to do it. Mr. Chairman, census sampling is a bad idea, but there is a more fundamental question: Is it legal and constitutional to use sampling and statistical adjustment to apportion this House among the States? I believe it is clear that census sampling and statistical adjustments are both illegal and unconstitutional. In that light, to blindly move forward with a $5 million census that could well be thrown out by the Supreme Court would be very foolish. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution states that actual enumeration of the population be conducted every 10 years. To enumerate means to count, one-by-one. It does not mean that we should use sampling as a shortcut just because counting might be hard. Nor does it mean that we should use statistical adjustment to manipulate the count so that the results are more to someone else's liking. The 14th amendment to the Constitution States that ``Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State.'' The 14th amendment does not tell us to use statistics; it tells us to count. Title 13 of the United States Code, section 195, states that ``Except for the determination of population for purposes of apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, the Secretary shall, if he considers it feasible, authorize the use of the statistical method known as sampling.'' Mr. Chairman, the statute is crystal clear. While allowing statistical methods for nonconstitutionally required purposes, the 1957 statute explicitly maintained an absolute firewall against the use of statistical methods for reapportionment. This was a wise, bipartisan precaution designed to prevent the census from deteriorating into a partisan power grab. Mr. Chairman, the Congress reaffirmed this firewall once again in 1976 when it passed into law Title 13, section 141 of the United States Code. This section allows the Secretary broad discretion in the use of statistical methods for nonapportionment purposes. Let me repeat: for nonapportionment purposes. The supporters of census sampling would have us believe that section 141 allows that sampling be used for reapportionment. That is simply not true. Congress specifically left intact the absolute prohibition on their use of apportionment purposes established in section 195. If Congress had intended that sampling be used for reapportionment, they would have repealed section 195 at that time. They did not. Mr. Chairman, the law is clear, and I believe that the Justices will confirm that. The Justices know that actual enumeration means to count. Listen to what Justice Scalia said during the last census case, and I quote: The text of the Constitution, as I read it, does not say that there will be an estimate of the number of citizens. It talks about actual enumeration. It doesn't even use the word ``census''. It says actual enumeration. He added, and I quote, Adjustment techniques ultimately involve kinds of value choices and are therefore politically manipulable. Mr. Chairman, the Justices also know that they will ultimately be called on to rule on the legality of sampling. In the case that I just mentioned the city of New York tried to force a statistical adjustment of the census. The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Commerce could not be forced to do so. During the oral arguments, Justice Scalia said that this case will decide whether you must use statistical estimates and the next one will decide whether you may use it. Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court will answer that fundamental question sooner or later. My language in this bill is designed to make it sooner. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle should not be afraid to let the Supreme Court rule. It is our duty as the people's representatives to see their tax money is spent wisely, not wasted. The wisest course for Congress today is to take the politics out of the census and let the Supreme Court decide before billions of tax dollars are wasted. Mr. Chairman, the Mollohan-Shays amendment does not protect the census from political mischief or the taxpayers from fiscal disaster. The Mollohan-Shays amendment will leave taxpayers wide open to multibillion dollar boondoggles. Protect the integrity of our census and the tax dollars of hard-working Americans. Reject the Mollohan- Shays amendment and allow the Supreme Court to rule. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTERT. I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 7\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas]. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Brady].

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I have only two speakers left.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Wicker]. (Mr. WICKER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. When we cannot find those folks in the apartment houses and the homeless shelters, we do like people in Milwaukee did, we hire the homeless folks to go and seek them out. We also go out and work and hire postal employees to deliver the mail on weekends to find out where these people are. It can be done, and has been done, and should be done. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr].

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this resolution.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on International Relations be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 217) recognizing the important contributions made by Americans of Austrian heritage, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to present this resolution on behalf of its author, the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. Mr. Speaker, September 26 will mark the 52d anniversary of the conference that established the post-war Austrian government. House Resolution 217 recognizes the pivotal role played by the United States in the establishment of a free and democratic Austria. It is particularly fitting that the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter] be the author of this resolution as the only Austrian American currently serving in the House.

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 413, I was unavoidably detained at a committee hearing. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Any time we sit down and deal with trade, we have to sit down honestly and hope that the parties on the other side of the table sit down honestly and try to bargain. Each side will always try to get their best deal. Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to yield to the gentleman from Peoria, Illinois [Mr. LaHood].

Mr. HASTERT

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Chicago, my colleague and good friend from the other side of the aisle, in joining with this effort tonight. I think the message is strong and clear, strong and clear to our negotiators that are going to Japan next week and to those negotiators in Japan. It is time that we see eye to eye. It is time that we start to let competition into the process. It is time to let U.S. air carriers have the rights to carry passengers beyond Tokyo. It is time to have the right of U.S. carriers to be able to move from cities in the Midwest to other cities, such as Osaka. Those decisions should be forthcoming. They should be made next week. There are many, many people here in this Congress that are urging that to happen. Again I thank the gentleman from Chicago.