Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We cannot agree to a time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we cannot.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, there is no time agreement being offered, proposed, on this amendment?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I guess I, in a way, am repeating some of the sentiments the chairman expressed. I do not understand the theory of this amendment. As I understood it, we have used these strong negotiations and the leverage of the Committee on Appropriations to effect significant reforms at the United Nations. And while the gentleman, as I understood his statement, represented that we have not effected reforms, that is not my understanding. We have a budget cap at the UN. We have reduced employment by 1,000. I am advised at the United Nations we have a Secretary General function operating and we have new financial management, and we have combined departments. Now, one might draw a bottom line on all that and say it equals zero. I would draw a bottom line on it and say we have been pretty darn successful in moving a large organization in the right direction. I think this effort to cut the appropriation, which is the very incentive to effect these reforms, is the exact wrong thing to do.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Blagojevich).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), who has worked so hard on this issue.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer) to speak to this horse and buggy versus modern transportation debate that we have going on here today.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek), who I am sure will speak to the issues in this debate. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. The gentleman is absolutely correct with regard to the important pertinent part of this bill, and that is the Census Bureau. Indeed the Republican leadership in the House and the administration were, previous to our marking up the bill, talking about not funding the whole bill but only half the year. Well, that was nonsense. We did not do that. We funded the whole bill for half the year, except we carried on the nonsense with regard to the census, so in this bill only the census is not funded for the whole year. It stops at half a year, and it creates the same kind of malarkey and nonsense and instability in the census that we would have created with the whole bill if we had done the same thing. It is a bad thing to do. We just did it with the census and not the rest of the bill, which is horrible, and that is the reason the census is threatened, the very point the gentleman makes, that we are only funding the census for half a year, and that is why the 2000 Census is at risk. I thank the gentleman for making the point.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield so I can straighten this out?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way in 2000 years. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we all agree on that. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I am not a statistician. It just amazes me that some Members in this debate would kind of hold themselves out to making final conclusions about methods of conducting the census and disparaging statistical sampling when they are not experts, I do not think they have been qualified as experts, and they are really going up against the major statistical professional associations in the country, and they are opposing their view that sampling is valid and the best technique to get a real count of the number of people in our country. Let me just list them again. Recommending the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 census to get an accurate count of the number of people in this country are none less than the American Statistical Association, the Population Association of America, American Sociological Association, the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, the Consortium of Social Science Associations, and the National Academy of Sciences rounds out that very distinguished group, just so folks understand what they are coming up against. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez). (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on some of the language being used by the opposition. Tony Coehlo. I do not know how Tony Coehlo gets in this debate. I guess if on the merits they do not have anything more to say that they start ad hominem discourse or even attack somebody who is not even here. So I hope we do not continue doing that. Also, I would like to comment about the use of words like ``polling'' and ``cloning'' techniques. These are very unscientific terms. They are disparaging terms. It just makes me have to ask, why does every statistical association, professional association line up in favor of statistical sampling, they do not use words like ``polling'' and ``cloning.'' These words are not a part of the vernacular of these professionals who recommend statistical sampling in this context. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would simply comment on the repeated references to the unconstitutionality of sampling or the court's ruling that sampling is not valid. That is absolutely the opposite. Every Federal district court, circuit court that has looked at this has said that sampling is constitutional and lawful.