Alan Mollohan

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). (Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Can we limit time on the Conyers amendment and not on the underlying amendment?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. We have several. Does the gentleman have a time proposal?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Could the gentleman outline his proposal?

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are not in a position to make any agreements on time at this time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to again focus the census debate on the issues of science and accuracy and remove, to the extent possible, the political influences which have become so overbearing with regard to this issue. The bill before us today would seriously jeopardize the 2000 census. The good news is that the bill provides $107 million more for census preparation than the President requested. The bad news is that what the bill gives with one hand, it takes away with the other. How? First, it cuts off funding for the preparation of the 2000 census in the middle of the fiscal year, and any expenditure thereafter would be dependent upon passage of additional legislation. This language could cause a sudden shutdown of census preparations with irreversible consequences, in the not unlikely event that Congress and the President are unable to agree on the terms of that subsequent legislation. Second, the reason this bill takes away from the census is it only allows for half of the funds to be spent till the cutoff period. By dividing the appropriation in half, the majority withholds funds which must be obligated during the first 6 months of the fiscal year. In fact, the Census Bureau needs to obligate about $644 million of the $952 million appropriation during that first half time period. This creates a shortfall of about $169 million. Why has the Republican majority proposed such a disruptive funding scheme? At the heart of this matter is a major dispute over the use of a population counting technique commonly referred to as ``scientific statistical sampling'' which is a method recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. It has been adopted by the Census Bureau because it would guarantee that the 4 million people who were not counted in the 1990 Census, of which 50 percent were children, would be counted in the 2000 Census. It is opposed by the Republican majority because of their belief that including these undercounted groups will somehow disadvantage Republican majority control of the United States House of Representatives. We cannot allow this political debate over scientific sampling to kill the 2000 Census. The on-again-off-again census funding in this bill would be fatally destabilizing, and it is for this reason that I feel compelled to offer an alternative solution. In summary, my amendment does the following: First, it provides uninterrupted full funding for the 2000 Census, removing the language that threatens a shutdown of the Census. Second, it provides that the Bureau proceed to prepare for the 2000 Census on a dual track, preparing for both a sampling and a nonsampling census until the Supreme Court disposes of the sampling cases currently pending, whereupon the Census Bureau would be allowed to move forward with a census incorporating sampling unless sampling has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Finally, and I think most importantly in some ways, this amendment enlists experts rather than politicians to help resolve the technical and statistical issues involved by asking the National Academy of Sciences to become involved. It is important to note, and let me emphasize, that as we stand here today scientific sampling is both legal and authorized by Congress. Therefore, my amendment does provide that the current Census Bureau sampling plan will move forward unless the Supreme Court specifically rules that sampling is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court finds that sampling is allowable under the Constitution or does not make a clear determination, then sampling will be allowed to proceed and funding will be cut off for the dual track. Mr. Chairman, I feel that my amendment represents a compromise that all parties should be able to support. There are three main arguments used in opposition to scientific sampling in the Census. My amendment sincerely attempts to adequately address all three. In their first argument opponents of sampling cite the Constitution. They assert that the Constitution requires an actual head count of the population. I disagree. In fact, separate opinions issued by the Department of Justice under President Carter, President Bush and President Clinton all concluded that the Constitution permits the use of scientific sampling and statistical methods as a part of the Census. But whatever my opinion, whatever the opinion of Justice Department officials, and whatever the opinion of my Republican colleagues, this issue is now before the courts, and my amendment provides for the courts to decide whether we can go forward with sampling in the Census. We should all be able to agree on that. In the second argument opponents of sampling say that it is bad science. I simply defer to the experts on this matter: The National Academy of Sciences, the American Statistical Association, the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, the National Association of Business Economists, just to name a few professional organizations that have all endorsed the use of scientific sampling in the 2000 Census. To ensure that the scientific community stays involved in this process my amendment asks the National Academy of Sciences to take yet another look at the Census Bureau's plans and to recertify that they are indeed the best way to achieve an accurate 2000 Census. In the third argument, Mr. Chairman, opponents of sampling say that the Commerce Department will politicize the results of the Census. Well, I do not share this view. Its nature makes it impossible to refute through fact or expert opinion. But this concern was addressed last year with the creation of the Census Monitoring Board. This entity is already in place and will be the eyes and ears of Congress as plans for the Census move forward. In addition, I do not know of any better way to create confidence in the methodology that we are going to use to conduct the 2000 Census than by an active involvement of the National Academy of Sciences which is provided for in my amendment. Certainly we can all agree that the reputation of the National Academy of Sciences is such that the great majority of fair minded people would accept their opinion on a matter such as this. Mr. Chairman, having addressed the three most expressed concerns against sampling, only one remains: fear, fear that using sampling will affect the political makeup of the United States House of Representatives. Well, we must be careful in ascribing motives to people for their actions. In this case, the Republican concern about the consequences of an accurate census is well understood. As an example, be sure to read any one of the following editorials: The Christian Science Monitor dated April 28, 1998; the Buffalo News, June 15, 1998; Newsday, June 16, 1997, or the Houston Chronicle, June 4, 1998, and these are just a few examples of a long list of editorials that all endorse the use of scientific sampling as the way to count that 1.6 percent of our population, those 4 million people who were not counted in 1990, and each editorial in its own way criticizes the Republican majority for its political motives for opposing sampling. To the extent that anyone is opposing sampling because of potential political consequences I would only say that such motives are truly unworthy and misplaced in the world's greatest democracy which absolutely requires fair representation for all of its constituent groups. Well, Mr. Chairman, that can only be achieved through the most accurate census possible, a principle clearly understood by the framers of the Constitution and a goal which every nonbiased expert who has spoken on the matter says can best be achieved in the modern era through the use of scientific sampling. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), ranking Democrat on the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, who has worked incredibly hard on this issue. She has been at the forefront of ensuring that we have a fair 2000 Census.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that points of order will still lie against these amendments?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate that, but I am having expressions of concern by Members who are interested in this amendment. I think we can resolve it and agree to it when we get down to it. I just cannot include that in the UC right now.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, as we move forward on this or at the time we get to it, perhaps we can make an agreement.

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, we have just had an opportunity to look at this. It is considerably different than previous versions. We would like an opportunity to reserve judgment on this amendment and this UC, pending a review. If the gentleman wants to move forward quickly on the UC, maybe we can pull this out, look at it and deal with this in a few minutes. We can come back to it as soon as we have a chance to review it, which we have not had a chance to do.

Mr. MOLLOHAN

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MOLLOHAN

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

Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Millender-McDonald amendment, and I compliment her for her efforts in support of the National Women's Business Council. Her increase is especially responsible because it raises the amount of money appropriated to this organization to the authorized and to that amount requested by the administration, and she did it in a way that did not require an offset. And I compliment her for her amendment and her support of the council and rise in strong support of her amendment.

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